TRACTS OF MR. THOMAS HOBBS OF Malmsbury.

CONTAINING

  • I. Behemoth, the History of the Causes of the Civil Wars of England, from 1640. to 1660. printed from the Author's own Copy: Never printed (but with a thou­sand faults) before.
  • II. An Answer to Arch-Bishop Bramhall's Book, called the Catching of the Levia­than: Never printed before.
  • III. An Historical Narration of Heresie, and the Punishment thereof: Corrected by the true Copy.
  • IV. Philosophical Problems, dedicated to the King in 1662. but never printed before.

LONDON, Printed for W. Crooke at the Green-Dragon without Temple-Bar. MDCLXXXII.

Behemoth, THE HISTORY Of the Causes of the Civil-Wars OF ENGLAND, And of the Councels and Artifices by which they were carried on, from the year 1640. to the year 1660.

Written by THOMAS HOBBS of Malmsbury.

Printed from the Author's true Copy.

Bella per Angliacos plusquam civilia campos,
Jusque datum sceleri loquimur —

LONDON, Printed for W. Crooke at the Green-Dragon without Temple-Bar. MDCLXXXII.

THE BOOKSELLER TO THE READER.

MY Duty, as well to the Publick as to the Memory of Mr. Hobbs, has obliged me to procure, with my utmost diligence, that these Tracts should come forth with the most correct exactness.

I am compell'd by the force of Truth to declare, how much both the World, and the Name of Mr. Hobbs have been abus'd by the several spurious Editions of the History of the Civil Wars; wherein, by various and unskilful Transcriptions, are committed above a thousand faults, and in above a hundred places whole Lines left out, as I can make appear.

I must confess Mr. Hobbs, upon some con­siderations, was averse to the publishing thereof; but since it is impossible to suppress [Page] it; no Book being more commonly sold by all Booksellers, I hope I need not fear the Offence of any Man, by doing Right to the World and this Work. Which I now Publish from the Original Manuscript, done by his own Amanuensis, and given me by himself above twelve years since.

To this I have joyn'd the Treatise against Arch-Bishop Bramhall, to prevent the like prejudice, which must certainly have faln on it, (there being so many false Copies abroad) if not thus prevented; as also the Discourse of Heresie from a more correct Copy; and have likewise annex'd his Physical Problems, as they were translated by himself, and presented to His Majesty, with the Epistle prefix'd, in the Year 1662. at the same time they came forth in Latin.

These things premis'd, there remains no­thing but to wish for my self good sale, to the Buyer much pleasure and satisfaction.

Your Humble Servant, William Crooke.
Behemoth, OR THE EPI …

Behemoth, OR THE EPITOME OF THE Civil Wars OF ENGLAND. PART I.

A.

IF in time, as in place there were de­grees of high and low, I verily be­lieve that the highest of time, would be that which passed between 1640. and 1660. for he that thence, as from the Devils Mountain, should have looked upon the World, and observ'd the Actions of [Page 2] Men, especially in England, might have had a Prospect of all kinds of Injustice, and of all kinds of Folly that the World could afford, and how they were produced by their Hypocrisie and self-conceit, whereof the one is double Iniquity, and the other double Folly.

B.

I should be glad to behold that Pro­spect. You that have liv'd in that time, and in that part of your Age, wherein Men use to see best into good and evil; I pray you set me (that could not see so well) up­on the same Mountain by the Relation of the Actions you then saw, and of their Cau­ses, Pretensions, Justice, Order, Artifice, and Event.

A.

In the Year 1640. the Government of England was Monarchical, and the King that reigned, Charles the first of that name, holding the Sovereignty, by right of a de­scent continued above 600 years, and from a much longer descent, King of Scotland, and from the time of his Ancestors Henry the second, King of Ireland, a Man that want­ed no vertue, either of Body or Mind; nor endeavour'd any thing more, than to discharge his Duty towards God, in the well governing of his Subjects.

B.

How could he then miscarry, having in every County so many Trained Soldiers as would (put together) have made an [Page 3] Army of 60000 Men, and divers Maga­zines of Ammunition in places fortified?

A.

If those Soldiers had been (as they and all other of his Subjects ought to have been) at his Majesties command, the Peace and Happiness of the three Kingdoms had continued, as it was left by King James; but the People were corrupted generally, and disobedient persons esteemed the best Pa­triots.

B.

But sure there were Men enough be­sides those, that were ill-affected, to have made an Army sufficient to have kept the People from uniting into a Body able to op­pose him.

A.

Truly I think, if the King had had Money, he might have had Soldiers enough in England; for there were very few of the Common People that cared much for either of the Causes, but would have taken any side for pay and plunder; but the Kings Treasure was very low, and his Enemies that pretended the Peoples ease from Taxes, and other specious things, had the com­mand of the Purses of the City of London, and of most Cities and Corporate Towns in England, and of many particular persons besides.

B.

But how came the People to be so cor­rupted? and what kind of People were they that did so seduce them?

A.
[Page 4]

The Seducers were of divers sorts. One sort were Ministers, Ministers (as they call'd themselves) of Christ; and some­times in their Sermons to the People, God's Ambassadors, pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his Parish, and their Assembly the whole Nation.

Secondly, there were a very great num­ber, though not comparable to the other, which notwithstanding that the Popes pow­er in England, both Temporal and Ecclesia­stical had been by Act of Parliament abolish­ed, did still retain a belief, that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the Vicar of Christ, and in the Right of Christ to be the Governour of all Christian People; and these were known by the Name of Papists, as the Ministers I mentioned before were commonly called Presbyterians.

Thirdly, There were not a few, who in the beginning of the Troubles were not dis­covered, but shortly after declared them­selves for a Liberty in Religion, and those of different Opinions one from another; some of them (because they would have all Congregations free and independent up­on one another) were called Independents: Others that held Baptism to Infants, and such as understood not into what they are baptized to be ineffectual, were called there­fore [Page 5] Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ's Kingdom was at this time to begin upon the Earth, were called Fifth-monar­chy-men; besides divers other Sects, as Quakers, Adamites, &c. whose Names and peculiar Doctrines I do not well remember; and these were the Enemies which arose a­gainst his Majesty from the private Inter­pretation of the Scripture, exposed to e­very Man's scanning in his Mother-Tongue.

Fourthly, There were an exceeding great number of Men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their Youth, having read the Books written by famous Men of the ancient Grecian and Roman Common-wealths, concerning their Politie, and great Actions; in which Books the Po­pular Government was extoll'd by that glo­rious Name of Liberty, and Monarchy dis­graced by the Name of Tyranny, they be­came thereby in love with their Forms of Government; and out of these Men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons; or if they were not the greatest part, yet by advantage of their Eloquence, were always able to sway the rest.

Fifthly, The City of London, and other great Towns of Trade, having in admira­tion the prosperity of the Low-Countries, after they had revolted from their Monarch [Page 6] the King of Spain, were inclin'd to think, that the like change of Government here, would to them produce the like prosperity.

Sixthly, There were a very great number that had either wasted their Fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good Parts they thought were in themselves, and more there were that had able Bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their Bread: These long'd for a War, and hoped to main­tain themselves hereafter by the lucky choo­sing of a Party to side with, and conse­quently did, for the most part, serve under them that had greatest plenty of Money.

Lastly, The People in general were so ig­norant of their duty, as that not one per­haps of 10000 knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Common-wealth, for which he was to part with his Money a­gainst his will, but thought himself to be so much Master of whatsoever he possess'd, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King they thought was but a Title of the highest Honour which Gen­tleman, Knight, Baron, Earl, Duke were but steps to ascend to, with the help of Riches, and had no Rule of Equity, but Presidents and Custom, and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parlia­ment [Page 7] that was most averse to the granting of Subsidies, or other publick Payments.

B.

In such a constitution of People, me­thinks the King is already outed of his Go­vernment, so as they need not have taken Arms for it; for I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.

A.

There was indeed very great difficul­ty in the business; but of that Point you will be better inform'd in the pursuit of this Narration.

B.

But I desire to know first the several Grounds of the Pretences, both of the Pope, and of the Presbyterians, by which they claim a Right to govern us, as they do, in chief, and after that from whence, and when crept in the Pretences of that long Parlia­ment for a Democracy.

A.

As for the Papists, they challenge this Right from a Text in Deut. 17. and other like Texts, according to the old Latin Translation in these words. And he that out of pride shall refuse to obey the Com­mandment of that Priest, which shall at that time minister before the Lord thy God; that Man shall, by the Sentence of the Judge, be put to death. And because, as the Jews were the People of God then, so is all Christendome the People of God now; they infer from thence, that the Pope, [Page 8] whom they pretend to be the High-Priest of all Christian People, ought also to be obeyed in all his Decrees, by all Christians, upon pain of death. Again; whereas in the New Testament Christ saith, All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth; go therefore and teach all Nations, and baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teach them to observe all these things that I have commanded you. From thence they infer, that the Command of the Apostles was to be obeyed, and by consequence the Na­tions were bound to be govern'd by them, and especially by the Prince of the Apo­stles St. Peter, and by his Successors the Popes of Rome.

B.

For the Text in the Old Testament, I do not see how the Commandment of God to the Jews to obey their Priests, can be interpreted to have the like force in the Case of other Nations Christian, more than upon Nations Unchristian; for all the World are Gods People; unless we also grant, that a King cannot of an Infidel be made Chri­stian, without making himself subject to the Laws of that Apostle, or Priest, or Mi­nister that shall convert him. The Jews were a peculiar People of God, a Sacerdo­tal Kingdom, and bound to no other Law, but what first Moses, and afterwards every [Page 9] High-Priest did go and receive immediately from the mouth of God in Mount Sinai, in the Tabernacle of the Ark, and in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple. And for the Text in St. Mathew, I know the Words in the Gospel are not Go teach, but Go and make Disciples; and that there is a great difference between a Subject and a Di­sciple, and between Teaching and Com­manding. And if such Texts as these must be so interpreted, why do not Christian Kings lay down their Titles of Majesty and Sovereignty, and call themselves the Popes Lieutenants? But the Doctors of the Ro­mish Church seem to decline that Title of Absolute Power, in their distinction of Power Spiritual and Temporal; but this distinction I do not very well understand.

A.

By Spiritual Power they mean the Power to determine Points of Faith, and to be Judges in the Inner Court of Con­science, of Moral Duties, and of a Power to punish those Men that obey not their Precepts by Ecclesiastical Censure, that is, by Excommunication: and this Power, they say, the Pope hath immediately from Christ, without dependence upon any King, or So­vereign Assembly, whose Subjects they be that stand Excommunicate. But for the Power Temporal, which consists in judging and punishing those Actions that are done [Page 10] against the Civil Laws, they say, they do not pretend to it directly, but only indirect­ly, that is to say, so far forth as such A­ctions tend to the hindrance or advance­ment of Religion and good Manners, which they mean when they say, in ordine ad spi­ritualia.

B.

What Power then is left to Kings, and other Civil Sovereigns, which the Pope may not pretend to be his in ordine ad spi­ritualia?

A.

None, or very little: and this Power the Pope pretends to in all Christendome, but some of his Bishops also in their several Diocesses, Jure Divino, that is, immedi­ately from Christ, without deriving it from the Pope.

B.

But what if a Man refuse obedience to this pretended Power of the Pope and his Bishops? What harm can Excommuni­cation do him, especially if he be the Sub­ject of another Sovereign?

A.

Very great harm; for by the Pope's or Bishop's signification of it, to the Civil Power, he shall be punish'd sufficiently.

B.

He were in an ill Case then, that ad­ventured to write, or speak in defence of the Civil Power, that must be punish'd by him, whose Rights he defended; like Vzza that was slain, because he would needs, un­bidden, put forth his Hand to keep the [Page 11] Ark from falling. But what if a whole Na­tion should revolt from the Pope at once? what effect could Excommunication have upon the Nation?

A.

Why, they should have no more Mass said, at least by any of the Popes Priests: Besides, the Pope would have no more to do with them, but cast them off, and so they would be in the same Case, as if a Na­tion should be cast off by their King, and left to be governed by themselves, or whom they would.

B.

This would not be taken so much for a punishment to the People, as to the King; and therefore when a Pope Excommuni­cates a whole Nation, methinks he rather Excommunicates himself, than them. But I pray you tell me, what were the Rights that the Pope pretended to in the Kingdoms of other Princes?

A.

First, An Exemption of all Priests, Friars and Monks in Criminal Causes from the Cognizance of Civil Judges. Second­ly, Collation of Benefices, on whom he pleased, Native or Stranger, and exaction of Tenths, First Fruits, and other Payments. Thirdly, Appeals to Rome in all Causes where the Church could pretend to be con­cern'd. Fourthly, To be the Supream Judge, concerning Lawfulness of Marriage, (i. e. concerning the Hereditary Succession of [Page 12] Kings) and to have the Cognisance of all Causes concerning Adultery and Fornica­tion.

B.

Good! A Monopoly of Women.

A.

Fifthly, A Power of absolving Sub­jects of their Duties, and of their Oaths of Fidelity to their lawful Sovereigns, when the Pope should think fit, for the extirpati­on of Heresie.

B.

This Power of absolving Subjects of their Obedience, as also that other of being Judge of Manners and Doctrine, is as ab­solute a Sovereignty as is possible to be, and consequently there must be two Kingdoms in one and the same Nation, and no Man be able to know which of his Masters he must obey.

A.

For my part I should rather obey that Master that had the Right of making Laws, and of inflicting Punishments, than him that pretendeth only to a Right of making Canons, that is to say, Rules, and no Right of Co-action, or otherwise punishing, but by Excommunication.

B.

But the Pope pretends also that his Canons are Laws; and for punishing, can there be greater than Excommunication; supposing it true (as the Pope saith it is) that he that dies Excommunicate is damn'd? Which supposition, it seems, you believe not, else you would rather have chosen to [Page 13] obey the Pope, that would cast you Body and Soul into Hell, than the King that can only kill the Body.

A.

You say true; for it were very un­charitable in me to believe, that all English men (except a few Papists) that have been born and called Hereticks, ever since the Reformation of Religion in England should be damn'd.

B.

But for those that die Excommunicate in the Church of England, at this day, do you not think them also damn'd?

A.

Doubtless he that dies in sin without repentance, is damn'd, and he that is Ex­communicate for disobedience to the Kings Laws, either Spiritual or Temporal, is Ex­communicate for sin; and therefore, if he die Excommunicate, and without desire of reconciliation, he dies impenitent. You see what follows; but to die in disobedience to the Precepts and Doctrines of those Men that have no Authority or Jurisdiction over us is quite another Case, and bringeth no such danger with it.

B.

But what is this Heresie which the Church of Rome so cruelly persecutes, as to depose Kings that do not, when they are bidden, turn all Hereticks out of their Do­minions?

A.

Heresie is a word, which when it is used without passion, signifies a private O­pinion: [Page 14] So the different Sects of the old Philosophers, Academians, Peripateticks, E­picureans, Stoicks, &c. were called Heresies: but in the Christian Church there was in the signification of that word comprehend­ed a sinful opposition to him that was chief Judge of Doctrines, in order to the salva­tion of Mens Souls; and consequently He­resie may be said to bear the same relation to the Power Spiritual, that Rebellion doth to the Power Temporal, and is suitably to be persecuted by him that will preserve a Power Spiritual and Dominion over Mens Consciences.

B.

It would be very well (because we are all of us permitted to read the Holy Scriptures, and bound to make them the Rule of our Actions, both publick and pri­vate) that Heresie were by some Law de­fined, and the particular Opinions set forth, for which a man were to be condemned and punished as a Heretick; for else, not only Men of mean capacity, but even the wisest and devoutest Christian may fall into Here­sie without any will to oppose the Church; for the Scriptures are hard, and the Inter­pretations different of different men.

A.

The meaning of the word Heresie is by Law declared in an Act of Parliament in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, wherein it is ordain'd, That the persons who had by [Page 15] the Queens Letters Patents the Authority Spiritual (meaning the High Commission) shall not have Authority to adjudge any Matter or Cause to be Heresie, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be Heresie by the Authority of the Cano­nical Scriptures, or by the first four Gene­ral Councils, or by any other General Council, where the same was declared He­resie by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures, or such as here­after shall be adjudged Heresie by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm, with the Assent of the Clergy in their Convo­cation.

B.

It seems therefore if there arise any new error that hath not yet been declared Heresie, (and many such may arise) it cannot be judged Heresie without a Par­liament; for how foul soever the error be, it cannot have been declar'd Heresie, nei­ther in the Scriptures, nor in the Councils, because it was never before heard of, and consequently there can be no error (unless it fall within the compass of Blasphemy a­gainst God, or Treason against the King) for which a man can in Equity be punished. Besides, who can tell what is declared by the Scripture, which every man is allowed to read and interpret to himself? Nay more, what Protestant, either of the Laity [Page 16] or Clergy, (if every General Council can be a competent Judge of Heresie) is not already condemned? for divers Councils have declared a great many of our Do­ctrines to be Heresie, and that (as they pretend) upon the Authority of the Scri­ptures.

A.

What are those Points that the first four General Councils have declared He­resie?

B.

The first General Council held at Ni­caea declared all to be Heresie, which was contrary to the Nicene Creed, upon occasi­on of the Heresie of Arrius, which was the denying the Divinity of Christ. The second General Council held at Constantinople de­clared Heresie the Doctrine of Macedonius; which was, that the Holy Ghost was crea­ted. The third Council assembled at Ephe­sus condemned the Doctrine of Nestorius, that there were two Persons in Christ. The fourth held at Chalcedon, condemned the error of Eutyches, that there was but one Nature in Christ. I know of no other Points condemned in these four Councils, but such as concern Church-Government, or the same Doctrines taught by other Men in other words: and these Councils were all called by the Emperors, and by them their Decrees confirmed, at the Petition of the Councils themselves.

A.
[Page 17]

I see by this, that both the calling of the Council, and the Confirmation of their Doctrine and Church-Government had no obligatory force, but from the Authority of the Emperor. How comes it then to pass, that they take upon them now a Le­gislative Power, and say their Canons are Laws? That Text, All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth, had the same force then as it hath now, and conferred a Legisla­tive Power on the Councils, not only over Christian Men, but over all Nations in the World,

B.

They say no; for the Power they pretend to is derived from this, that when a King was converted from Gentilisme to Christianity, he did by that very submission to the Bishop that converted him, submit to the Bishops Government, and became one of his Sheep; which Right therefore he could not have over any Nation that was not Christian.

A.

Did Sylvester (which was Pope of Rome in the time of Constantine the great converted by him) tell the Emperor his new Disciple before hand, that if he be­came a Christian he must be the Popes Subject?

B.

I believe not; for it is likely enough, if he had told him so plainly, or but made him suspect it, he would either have been [Page 18] no Christian at all, or but a counterfeit one.

A.

But, if he did not tell him so, and that plainly, it was foul play, not only in a Priest, but in any Christian; and for this derivation of their Right from the Empe­rors consent, it proceeds only from this, that they dare not challenge a Legislative Power, nor call their Canons Laws in any Kingdom in Christendome, farther than the Kings make them so. But in Peru, when Ataba­lipa was King, the Frier told him, that Christ being King of all the World, had gi­ven the disposing of all the Kingdoms there­in to the Pope, and that the Pope had gi­ven Peru to the Roman Emperor Charles the 5th, and requir'd Atabalipa to resign it; and for refusing it, seized upon his person by the Spanish Army there present, and murdered him; you see by this how much they claim, when they have power to make it good.

B.

When began the Popes to take this Authority upon them first?

A.

After the Inundation of Northern People had overflowed the Western parts of the Empire, and possessed themselves of Italy, the People of the City of Rome sub­mitted themselves, as well in Temporals as Spirituals to their Bishop; and then first was the Pope a Temporal Prince, and stood [Page 19] no more in so great fear of the Emperors which lived far off at Constantinople. In this time it was that the Pope began, by pre­tence of his Power Spiritual, to encroach upon the Temporal Rights of all other Princes of the West, and so continued gain­ing upon them, till his Power was at the highest in that 300 years or thereabout, which passed between the 8th and 11th Cen­tury, that is, between the time of Pope Leo the third, and Pope Innocent the third. For in this time Pope Zachary the first de­posed Chilperic then King of France, and gave the Kingdom to one of his Subjects, Pepin, and Pepin took from the Lombards a great part of their Territory, and gave it to the Church. Shortly after, the Lom­bards having recover'd their Estate, Charles the Great retook it, and gave it to the Church again, and Pope Leo the third made Charles Emperor.

B.

But what Right did the Pope then pretend for the creating of an Emperor?

A.

He pretended the Right of being Christ's Vicar, and what Christ could give, his Vicar might give; and you know that Christ was King of all the World.

B.

Yes, as God; and so he gives all the Kingdoms of the World, which neverthe­less proceed from the consent of People, ei­ther for fear or hope.

A.
[Page 20]

But this Gift of the Empire was in a more special manner, in such a manner as Moses had the Government of Israel given him, or rather as Joshuah had it given him, to go in and out before the People, as the High-Priest should direct him; and so the Empire was understood to be given him, on condition to be directed by the Pope; for when the Pope invested him with the Re­gal Ornaments, the People all cried out, Deus dat, that is to say, 'tis God that gives it; and the Emperor was contented so to take it. And from that time all, or most of the Christian Kings, do put into their Titles the words Dei gratia, that is, by the Gift of God, and their Successors use still to receive the Crown and Scepter from a Bishop.

B.

'Tis certainly a very good Custom for Kings to be put in mind, by whose Gift they Reign; but it cannot from that Cu­stom be inferr'd, that they receive the King­dom by mediation of the Pope, or by any other Clergy: for the Popes themselves re­ceiv'd the Papacy from the Emperor. The first that ever was elected Bishop of Rome after Emperors were Christians, and with­out the Emperors consent, excused himself by Letters to the Emperor with this; That the People and Clergy of Rome forced him to take it upon him, and prayed the Empe­ror [Page 21] to confirm it; which the Emperor did; but with reprehension of their proceedings, and prohibition of the like for the time to come: The Emperor was Lotharius, and the Pope Calixtus the first.

A.

You see by this the Emperor never acknowledged this Gift of God was the Gift of the Pope, but maintained, the Popedom was the Gift of the Emperor, but in process of time, by the negligence of the Empe­rors, (for the greatness of Kings makes them that they cannot easily descend into the obscure and narrow Mines of an ambitious Clergy) they found means to make the People believe, there was a Power in the Pope and Clergy, which they ought to sub­mit unto, rather than to the Commands of their own Kings, whensoever it should come into controversie. And to that end devised and decreed many new Articles of Faith, to the diminution of the Authority of Kings, and to the disjunction of them and their Subjects, and to a closer adherence of their Subjects to the Church of Rome. Articles either not at all found in, or not well foun­ded upon the Scriptures. As first; that it should not be lawful for a Priest to marry.

B.

What influence could that have upon the Power of Kings?

A.

Do you not see, that by this the King must of necessity either want the Priesthood, [Page 22] and therewith a great part of the Reverence due to him from the most religious part of his Subjects, or else want lawful Heirs to succeed him: by which means, being not taken for the Head of the Church, he was sure in any Controversie between him and the Pope, that his Subjects would be against him.

B.

Is not a Christian King as much a Bi­shop now, as the Heathen Kings were of old; for among them Episcopus was a Name com­mon to all Kings? Is not he a Bishop now, to whom God hath committed the charge of all the Souls of his Subjects, both of the Laity and the Clergy? And though he be in relation to our Saviour, who is the chief Pa­stor, but a Sheep, yet compared to his own Subjects, they are all Sheep, both Laique and Clerique, and he only Shepherd. And seeing a Christian Bishop is but a Christian endued with power to govern the Clergy, it follows, that every Christian King is not only a Bishop, but an Arch-bishop, and his whole Dominion his Diocess. And though it were granted, that Imposition of Hands is necessary from a Priest, yet seeing Kings have the Government of the Clergy, that are his Subjects, even before Baptism; the Baptism it self wherein he is receiv'd as a Christian, is a sufficient Imposition of Hands, so that whereas before he was a Bishop, now he is a Christian Bishop.

A.
[Page 23]

For my part I agree with you: This Prohibition of Marriage to Priests came in about the time of Pope Gregory the 7th, and William the first King of England; by which means the Pope had in England, what with Secular, and what with Regular Priests, a great many lusty Batchelors at his service. Secondly, That Auricular Confession to a Priest was necessary to Salvation. 'Tis true, that before that time, Confession to a Priest was usual, and performed for the most part (by him that confessed) in writing, but that use was taken away about the time of King Edward the third, and Priests com­manded to take Confessions from the Mouth of the Confitent: and Men did generally believe, that without Confession and Ab­solution before their departure out of the World, they could not be saved; and ha­ving Absolution from a Priest, that they could not be damn'd. You understand by this, how much every Man would stand in awe of the Pope and Clergy, more than they would of the King; and what Incon­venience it is to a State for their Subjects to confess their secret Thoughts to Spies.

B.

Yes, as much as Eternal Torture is more terrible than Death; so much they would fear the Clergy more than the King.

A.

And though perhaps the Roman Cler­gy will not maintain, that a Priest hath [Page 24] power to remit sins absolutely, but only with a condition of repentance, yet the People were never so instructed by them; but were left to believe, that whensoever they had Absolution, their precedent sins were all discharged, when their Penance, which they took for Repentance, was per­form'd. Within the same time began the Article of Transubstantiation; for it had been disputed a long time before in what manner a Man did eat the Body of our Sa­viour Jesus Christ, as being a Point very difficult for a Man to conceive and imagine clearly; but now it was made very clear, that the Bread was transubstantiated into Christs Body, and so was become no more Bread but Flesh.

B.

It seems then that Christ had many Bodies, and was in as many places at once, as there were Communicants. I think the Priests then were so wanton, as to insult upon the dulness, not only of Common People, but also of Kings and their Coun­cellors.

A.

I am now in a Narration, not in a Disputation, and therefore I would have you at this time to consider nothing else, but what effect this Doctrine would work upon Kings and their Subjects, in relation to the Clergy, who only were able of a piece of Bread to make our Saviour's Body, [Page 25] and thereby at the hour of death to save their Souls.

B.

For my part, it would have an effect on me to make me think them Gods, and to stand in awe of them, as of God himself, if he were visibly present.

A.

Besides these and other Articles tend­ing to the upholding of the Popes Authori­ty, they had many fine Points in their Ec­clesiastical Politie, conducing to the same end; of which I will mention only such as were established within the same time. For then it was the Order came up of Preach­ing Friars, that wandred up and down with power to preach in what Congregation they pleased, and were sure enough to instil into the People nothing that might lessen the O­bedience to the Church of Rome; but on the contrary, whatsoever might give advantage to it against the Civil Power. Besides, they privately insinuated themselves with Wo­men and Men of weak Judgment, confirm­ing their adherence to the Pope, and urging them in the time of their sickness, to be be­neficial to it by contribution of Money, or building Religious Houses, or Pious Works, and necessary for the remission of their sins.

B.

I do not remember that I have read of any Kingdom or State in the World, where liberty was given to any private Man to call the People together, and make Orations [Page 26] frequently to them, or at all, without first making the State acquainted, except only in Christendome. I believe the Heathen Kings foresaw, that a few such Orators would be able to make a great Sedition. Moses did indeed command to read the Scriptures, and expound them in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day; but the Scriptures then were nothing else but the Laws of the Nation de­livered unto them by Moses himself; and I believe it would do no hurt, if the Laws of England also were often read and expound­ed in the several Congregations of English-men, at times appointed, that they may know what to do; for they know already what to believe.

A.

I think that neither the preaching of Friers nor Monks, nor of Parochial Priests, tended to teach Men what, but whom to believe: for the Power of the Mighty hath no foundation, but in the opinion and be­lief of the People; and the end which the Pope had in multiplying Sermons, was no other, but to prop and enlarge his own Au­thority over all Christian Kings and States.

Within the same time, that is, between the time of the Emperor Charles the Great, and of King Edward the third of England, began their second Politie, which was to bring Religion into an Art, and thereby to maintain all the Decrees of the Roman [Page 27] Church by disputation; not only from the Scriptures, but also from the Philosophy of Aristotle, both Moral and Natural; and to that end the Pope exhorted the said Empe­ror by Letter to erect Schools of all kinds of Literature, and from thence began the Institution of Universities; for not long af­ter the Universities began in Paris and in Oxford. It is true, that there were Schools in England before that time, in several pla­ces, for the instruction of Children in the Latin Tongue, that is to say, in the Tongue of the Church; but for an University of Learning, there was none erected till that time; thoogh it be not unlikely there might be then some that taught Philosophy, Lo­gick, and other Arts in divers Monasteries, the Monks having little else to do, but to stu­dy. After some Colledges were built to that purpose, it was not long time before many more were added to them, by the devotion of Princes and Bishops, and other wealthy Men: and the Discipline therein was confirmed by the Popes that then were, and abundance of Scholars sent thither by their Friends to study, as to a place, from whence the way was open and easie to Pre­ferment both in Church and Common-wealth. The profit the Church of Rome expected from them, and in effect receiv'd, was the maintenance of the Popes Doctrine, [Page 28] and of his Authority over Kings, and their Subjects, by School-Divines, who striving to make good many Points of Faith incom­prehensible, and calling in the Philosophy of Aristotle to their assistance, wrote great Books of School-Divinity, which no man else, nor they themselves were able to un­derstand; as any man may perceive that shall consider the Writings of Peter Lom­bard, or Scotus, or of him that wrote Com­mentaries upon him, or of Suarez, or any other School-Divine of later times; which kind of Learning nevertheless hath been much admir'd by two sorts of Men, other­wise prudent enough; the one of which sorts were of those that were already devo­ted, and really affectionate to the Roman Church: for they believed the Doctrine be­fore, but admir'd the Arguments because they understood them not, and yet found the Conclusions to their mind. The other sort were negligent Men, that had rather admire with others, than take the pains to examine. So that all sorts of People were fully resolv'd, that both the Doctrine was true, and the Pope's Authority, no more than what was due to him.

B.

I see that a Christian King, or State, how well soever provided he be of Money and Arms, (where the Church of Rome hath such Authority) will have but a hard [Page 29] match of it, for want of Men: for their Subjects will hardly be drawn into the Field, and fight with courage against their Consciences.

A.

It is true, that great Rebellions have been raised by Church-men in the Popes quarrel against Kings, as in England against King John, and in France against King Hen­ry the 4th, wherein the Kings had a more considerable part on their sides, than the Pope had on his, and shall always have so, if they have Money; for there are but few whose Consciences are so tender as to refuse Money when they want it: But the great mischief done to Kings upon pretence of Religion is, when the Pope gives power to one King to invade another.

B.

I wonder how King Henry the 8th could then so utterly extinguish the Autho­rity of the Pope in England, and that with­out any Rebellion at home, or any Invasi­on from abroad.

A.

First, the Priests, Monks and Friars being in the heighth of their power, were now for the most part grown insolent and licentious, and thereby the force of their Arguments was now taken away by the scandal of their Lives, which the Gentry and Men of good Education easily perceiv­ed; and the Parliament consisting of such persons, were therefore willing to take away [Page 30] their Power; and generally the Common People, which from a long Custom had been in love with Parliaments, were not displeas­ed therewith. Secondly, the Doctrine of Luther beginning a little before, was now by a great many men of the greatest Judg­ments so well received; as that there was no hope to restore the Pope to his Power by Rebellion. Thirdly, the Revenue of Ab­bies, and all other Religious Houses falling hereby into the Kings Hands, and by him being disposed of to the most Eminent Gen­tlemen in every County, could not but make them do their best to confirm them­selves in the possession of them. Fourthly, King Henry was of a Nature quick and se­vere in the punishing of such as should be the first to oppose his Designs. Lastly, (as to Invasion from abroad) in case the Pope had given the Kingdom to another Prince, it had been in vain; for England is another manner of Kingdom than Navarre. Besides, the French and Spanish Forces were employed at that time one against another: and though they had been at leisure, they would have found perhaps no better success, than the Spaniards found afterwards in 1588. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the Insolence, Avarice and Hypocrisie of the then Clergy, and notwithstanding the Doctrine of Lu­ther, if the Pope had not provoked the [Page 31] King by endeavouring to cross his Mar­riage with his second Wife, his Authority might have remained in England, till there had risen some other quarrel.

B.

Did not the Bishops that then were, and had taken an Oath, wherein was, a­mongst other things, that they should de­fend and maintain the Regal Rights of St. Peter; the words are, Regalia Sancti Petri, which nevertheless some have said are Regu­las Sancti Petri, that is to say, St. Peter's Rules or Doctrine; and that the Clergy af­terward did read it (being perhaps written in Short-hand) by a mistake to the Pope's ad­vantage Regalia: Did not I say the Bishops oppose that Act of Parliament against the Pope, and against the taking of the Oath of Supremacy?

A.

No, I do not find the Bishops did ma­ny of them oppose the King; for having no power without him, it had been great imprudence to provoke his anger. There was besides a Controversie in those times between the Pope and the Bishops, most of which did maintain, that they exercised their Jurisdiction Episcopal in the Right of God, as immediately as the Pope himself did exercise the same over the whole Church. And because they saw that by this Act of the King in Parliament they were to hold their Power no more of the Pope, and never [Page 32] thought of holding it of the King, they were perhaps better content to let that Act of Parliament pass. In the Reign of King Edward the 6th the Doctrine of Luther had taken so great root in England, that they threw out also a great many of the Popes new Articles of Faith; which Queen Mary succeeding him restored again, together with all that had been abolished by Henry the 8th, saving (that which could not be re­stored) the Religious Houses; and the Bi­shops and Clergy of King Edward were partly burnt for Hereticks, partly fled, and partly recanted: and they that fled betook themselves to those places beyond Sea, where the Reformed Religion was either protect­ed, or not persecuted; who after the decease of Queen Mary returned again to favour and preferment under Queen Elizabeth, that re­stored the Religion of her Brother King Ed­ward: And so it hath continued till this day, excepting the Interruption made in this late Rebellion of the Presbyterians and other Democratical Men. But though the Romish Religion were now cast out by the Law, yet there were abundance of people, and many of them of the Nobility, that still retained the Religion of their Ancestors, who as they were not much molested in Points of Conscience, so they were not by their own Inclination very troublesome to [Page 33] the Civil Government; but by the secret practice of the Jesuites and other Emissaries of the Roman Church, they were made less quiet, than they ought to have been; and some of them to venture upon the most horrid Act that ever had been heard of be­fore: I mean the Gunpowder-Treason. And upon that account, the Papists of England have been looked upon as Men that would not be sorry for any disorders here, that might possibly make way to the restoring of the Popes Authority; and therefore I named them for one of the distempers of the State of England, in the time of our late King Charles.

B.

I see that Monsieur du Plessis, and Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham, writing of the progress of the Popes Power, and intitu­ling their Books, one of them, The Myste­ry of Iniquity, the other, The Grand Impo­sture, were both in the right: for I believe there was never such another cheat in the World; and I wonder that the Kings and States of Christendome never perceiv'd it.

A.

It is manifest they did perceive it. How else durst they make War against the Pope, and some of them take him out of Rome it self, and carry him away Prisoner? But if they would have freed themselves from his Tyranny, they should have agreed together, and made themselves every one [Page 34] (as Henry the 8th did) Head of the Church within their own respective Dominions; but not agreeing, they let his power con­tinue, every one hoping to make use of it (when there should be cause) against his Neighbour.

B.

Now, as to that other distemper by Presbyterians, how came their power to be so great, being of themselves, for the most part, but so many poor Scholars?

A.

This Controversie between the Papist and the Reformed Churches, could not choose but make every man, to the best of his power, examine by the Scriptures which of them was in the right; and to that end they were translated into Vulgar Tongues, where­as before the Translation of them was not allowed, nor any Man to read them, but such as had express licence so to do: for the Pope did concerning the Scriptures the same that Moses did concerning Mount Sinai: Moses suffered no man to go up to it to hear God speak, or gaze upon him, but such as he himself took with him; and the Pope suffered none to speak with God in the Scriptures, that had not some part of the Pope's Spirit in him, for which he might be trusted.

B.

Certainly Moses did therein very wisely, and according to God's own Com­mandment.

A.
[Page 35]

No doubt of it, and the event it self hath made it since appear so: for after the Bible was translated into English, every Man, nay every Boy and Wench, that could read English, thought they spoke with God Al­mighty, and understood what he said, when by a certain number of Chapters a day, they had read the Scriptures once or twice over, the Reverence and Obedience due to the Reformed Church here, and to the Bi­shops and Pastors therein, was cast off, and every Man became a Judge of Religion, and an Interpreter of the Scriptures to him­self.

B.

Did not the Church of England in­tend it should be so? What other end could they have in recommending the Bible to me, if they did not mean I should make it the Rule of my Actions? Else they might have kept it, though open to themselves, to me seal'd up in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and fed me out of it in such measure as had been requisite for the salvation of my Soul, and the Churches Peace.

A.

I confess this Licence of Interpreting the Scripture was the cause of so many se­veral Sects as have lain hid, till the begin­ning of the late Kings Reign, and did then appear to the disturbance of the Common­wealth. But to return to the Story; those persons that fled for Religion in the time of [Page 36] Queen Mary, resided, for the most part, in places where the Reformed Religion was profess'd, and governed by an Assembly of Ministers, who also were not a little made use of (for want of better States-men) in Points of Civil Government, which pleased so much the English and Scotch Protestants that lived amongst them, that at their return they wished there were the same Honour and Reverence given to the Ministry in their own Countries; in Scotland, (King James being then young) soon (with the help of some of the powerful Nobility) they brought it to pass. Also they that returned into England, in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, endeavoured the same here; but could never effect it, till this last Rebellion, nor without the help of the Scots: and it was no sooner effected, but they were defeated again by the other Sects, which, by the preaching of the Presbyte­rians, and private Interpretation of Scri­pture, were grown numerous.

B.

I know indeed, that in the beginning of the late War, the Power of the Presby­terians was so very great, that, not only the Citizens of London were, almost all of them, at their devotion, but also the grea­test part of all other Cities and Market-Towns of England. But you have not yet told me by what Art and what Degrees they became so strong.

A.
[Page 37]

It was not their own Art alone that did it, but they had the concurrence of a great many Gentlemen that did no less de­sire a Popular Government in the Civil State, than these Ministers did in the Church: and as these did in the Pulpit draw the Peo­ple to their Opinions, and to a dislike of the Church-Government, Canons, and Com­mon-Prayer-Book, so did the other make them in love with Democracy by their Ha­rangues in the Parliament, and by their Discourses and Communication with Peo­ple in the Country, continually extolling of Liberty, and inveighing against Tyran­ny, leaving the People to collect of them­selves, that this Tyranny was the present Government of the State; and as the Pres­byterians brought with them into their Churches their Divinity from the Univer­sities, so did many of the Gentlemen bring their Politicks from thence into the Parlia­ment, but neither of them did this very boldly in the time of Queen Elizabeth. And though it be not likely that all of them did it out of malice, but many of them out of error; yet certainly the Chief Leaders were ambitious Ministers and ambitious Gentlemen; the Ministers envying the Au­thority of Bishops, whom they thought less learned; and the Gentlemen envying the Privy-Council, whom they thought less [Page 38] wise than themselves. For 'tis a hard mat­ter for Men who do all think highly of their own Wits (when they have also acquired the Learning of the University) to be per­swaded, that they want any ability requi­site for the Government of a Common-wealth, especially having read the glorious Histories, and the sententious Politiques of the ancient popular Governments of the Greeks and Romans, amongst whom Kings were hated, and branded with the name of Tyrants, and Popular Government (though no Tyrant was ever so cruel as a Popular Assembly) passed by the Name of Liber­ty. The Presbyterian Ministers, in the be­ginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, did not (because they durst not) publick­ly preach against the Discipline of the Church; but not long after (by the favour perhaps of some great Courtier) they went abroad preaching into most of the Market-Towns of England, as the preaching Friars had formerly done, upon working days in the Morning: in which Sermons these, and others of the same Tenets, that had charge of Souls, both by the manner and matter of their preaching, applyed themselves wholly to the winning of the People to a liking of their Doctrines, and good opini­on of their persons.

[Page 39]And first for the manner of their preach­ing, they so framed their countenance and gesture at the entrance into the Pulpit, and their pronuntiation, both in their Prayer and Sermon, and used the Scripture phrase, whether understood by the People or not, as that no Tragoedian in the World could have acted the part of a right godly Man better than these did; in so much as a Man unacquainted with such Art, could never suspect any ambitious plot in them, to raise Sedition against the State, (as they then had design'd) or doubt that the vehemence of their Voice, (for the same words with the usual pronuntiation had been of little force) and forcedness of their Gesture and Looks, could arise from any thing else, but zeal to the Service of God. And by this Art they came into such credit, that num­bers of Men used to go forth of their own Parishes and Towns, on working-days, leav­ing their Calling, and on Sundays, leaving their own Churches to hear them preach in other places, and to despise their own, and all other Preachers that acted not so well as they: and as for those Ministers that did not usually preach, but in stead of Sermons did read to the People such Homilies as the Church had appointed, they esteemed and called them Dumb Dogs.

[Page 40]Secondly, For the matter of their Ser­mons, because the anger of the People in the late Roman Usurpation, was then fresh, they saw there could be nothing more gra­tious with them, than to preach against such other Points of the Romish Religion, as the Bishops had not yet condemned; that so receding farther from Popery than they did, they might with glory to themselves leave a suspicion on the Bishops, as Men not yet well purged from Idolatry▪

Thirdly, Before their S [...]ons, their Prayer was, or seem'd to be extempore, which they pretended to be dictated by the Spirit of God within them, and many of the People believed, or seemed to believe it: for any man might see, that had judg­ment, that they did not take care before­hand what they should say in their Prayers. And from hence came a dislike of the Com­mon Prayer-Book, which is a set form pre­meditated, that Men might see to what they were to say Amen.

Fourthly, They did never in their Ser­mons, or but lightly inveigh against the Lucrative vices of Men of Trade or Handi­craft; such as are Feigning, Lying, Cozen­ing, Hypocrisie, or other uncharitableness, except want of Charity to their Pastors and to the Faithful; which was a great ease to the generality of Citizens, and the Inhabi­tants [Page 41] of Market Towns, and no little profit to themselves.

Fifthly, By preaching up an Opinion, that Men were to be assured of their Salva­tion by the Testimony of their own private Spirit, meaning the Holy Ghost dwelling within them. And from this Opinion the People that found in themselves a sufficient hatred towards the Papists, and an ability to repeat the Sermons of these Men at their coming home, made no doubt but that they had all that was necessary, how fraudu­lently and spightfully soever they behaved themselves to their Neighbours that were not reckoned amongst the Saints, and some­times to those also.

Sixthly, They did indeed with great ear­nestness and severity inveigh often against two sins, Carnal Lusts, and Vain Swearing, which without question was very well done: but the common People were there­by inclin'd to believe, that nothing else was sin, but that which was forbidden in the Third and Seventh Commandment: for few Men do understand by the name of Lust any other concupiscence, than that which is forbidden in that Seventh Commandment; for Men are not ordinarily said to lust after another Man's Cattle, or other Goods, or Possessions, and therefore never made much scruple of the Acts of fraud and malice, [Page 42] but endeavoured to keep themselves from uncleanness only, or at least from the scan­dal of it. And whereas they did, both in their Sermons and Writings, maintain and inculcate, that the very first motions of the mind, that is to say, the delight Men and Women took in the sight of one another's Form, though they checked the proceeding thereof, so that it never grew up to be a de­sign, was nevertheless a sin, they brought young men into desperation, and to think themselves damn'd, because they could not (which no Man can, and is contrary to the constitution of Nature) behold a delight­ful Object without delight: and by this means they became Confessors to such as were thus troubled in Conscience, and were obeyed by them as their Spiritual Doctors in all Cases of Conscience.

B.

Yes, divers of them did preach fre­quently against oppression.

A.

'Tis true, I had forgot that: but it was before such as were free enough from it, I mean the common People, who would easily believe themselves oppressed, but ne­ver Oppressors. And therefore you may reckon this amongst their Artifices to make the People believe they were oppressed by the King, or perhaps by the Bishops, or both; and incline the meaner sort to their Party afterward, when there should be occa­sion. [Page 43] But this was but sparingly done in the time of Queen Elizabeth, whose fear and jealousie they were afraid of. Nor had they as yet any great power in the Parlia­ment House, whereby to call in question her Prerogative by Petitions of Right, and other Devices, as they did afterwards, when Democratical Gentlemen had receiv'd them into their Councels, for the design of changing the Government from Monarchi­cal to Popular, which they called Liberty.

B.

Who would think that such horrible designs as these could so easily and so long remain covered with the Cloak of Godli­ness: for that they were most impious Hy­pocrites is manifest enough by the War these proceedings ended in, and by the impious Acts in that War committed. But when began first to appear in Parliament the At­tempt of Popular Government, and by whom?

A.

As to the time of attempting the change of Government from Monarchical to Democratical, we must distinguish. They did not challenge the Sovereignty in plain terms, and by that Name, till they had slain the King, nor the Rights thereof alto­gether by particular Heads, till the King was driven from London by Tumults, raised in that City against him, and retir'd for the security of his Person to York, where he [Page 44] bad not been many days, when they sent unto him 19 Propositions, whereof above a do­zen were Demands of several Powers, es­sential parts of the Power Sovereign. But before that time they had demanded some of them (in a Petition which they called a Petition of Right) which nevertheless the King had granted them in a former Par­liament, though he deprived himself there­by, not only of the Power to levy Money without their consent, but also of his ordi­nary Revenue by Custom of Tonnage and Poundage, and of the Liberty to put into Custody such Men as he thought likely to disturb the Peace, and raise Sedition in the Kingdom. As for the Men that did this, 'tis enough to say they were the Members of the last Parliament, and of some other Parliaments in the beginning of King Charles, and the end of King James his Reign; to name them all is not necessary, farther than the Story shall require. Most of them were Members of the House of Commons; some few also of the Lords; but all such as had a great opinion of their sufficiency in Politicks, which they thought was not sufficiently taken notice of by the King.

B.

How could the Parliament when the King had a great Navy, and a great number of Train'd Soldiers, and all the Magazines [Page 45] of Ammunition in his power, be able to be­gin the War?

A.

The King had these things indeed in his right, but that signifies little; when they that had the Custody of the Navy and Magazines, and with them all the Train'd Soldiers, and in a manner all his Subjects, were by the preaching of Presbyterian Mi­nisters, and the seditious whisperings of false and ignorant Politicians, made his Ene­mies: And when the King could have no Money but what the Parliament should give him, which you may be sure should not be enough to maintain his Regal Power, which they intended to take from him.

And yet I think they would never have adventured into the Field, but for that un­lucky business of imposing upon the Scots (who were all Presbyterians) our Book of Common-Prayer; for I believe the English would never have taken well that the Par­liament should make War upon the King upon any provocation, unless it were in their own defence, in case the King should first make War upon them; and therefore it behooved them to provoke the King, that he might do something that might look like Hostility. It happened in the Year 1637. that the King by the Advice, as it is thought, of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, sent down a Book [Page 46] of Common-Prayer into Scotland, not dif­fering in substance from ours, nor much in words, besides the putting of the word Presbyter for that of Minister, command­ing it to be used (for conformity to this Kingdom) by the Ministers there, for an ordinary Form of Divine Service: This being read in the Church at Edenburgh, cau­sed such a Tumult there, that he that read it had much ado to escape with his life, and gave occasion to the greatest part of the Nobility and others to enter by their own Authority, into a Covenant amongst them­selves, which impudently they called a Co­venant with God, to put down Episcopacy, without consulting with the King; which they presently did, animated thereto by their own confidence, or by assurance from some of the Democratical English-men, that in former Parliaments had been the greatest opposers of the King's Interest, that the King would not be able to raise an Army to chastise them without calling a Parlia­ment, which would be sure to favour them: For the thing which those Domocraticals chiefly then aimed at, was to force the King to call a Parliament, which he had not done of ten years before, as having found no help, but hinderance to his Designs in the Parliaments he had formerly called. Howsoever contrary to their expectation, [Page 47] by the help of his better affected Subjects of the Nobility and Gentry, he made a shift to raise a sufficient Army to have reduced the Scots to their former obedience, if it had proceeded to battle: and with this Army he marched himself into Scotland, where the Scotch Army was also brought into the Field against him, as if they meant to fight: but then the Scoth sent to the King for leave to treat by Commissioners on both sides; and the King willing to avoid the destructi­on of his own Subjects, condescended to it. The Issue was peace, and the King there­upon went to Edenburgh, and passed an Act of Parliament there to their satisfa­ction.

B.

Did he not then confirm Episcopacy?

A.

No, but yielded to the abolishing of it: but by this means the English were cross'd in their hope of a Parliament, but the said Democraticals, formerly opposers of the King's Interest, ceased not to endea­vour still to put the two Nations into a War; to the end the King might buy the Parliaments help at no less a price than So­vereignty it self.

B.

But what was the cause that the Gen­try and Nobility of Scotland were so averse from the Episcopacy? for I can hardly be­lieve that their Consciences were extraordi­narily tender, nor that they were so very [Page 48] great Divines, as to know what was the true Church-discipline established by our Saviour and his Apostles; nor yet so much in love with their Ministers as to be over­rul'd by them in the Government either Ecclesiastical or Civil; for in their lives they were just as other Men are, pursuers of their own Interests and Preferments, wherein they were not more opposed by the Bishops than by their Presbyterian Mi­nisters.

A.

Truly I do not know; I cannot en­ter into other Mens thoughts farther than I am led by the consideration of Humane Nature in general: But upon this considera­tion I see first, that Men of ancient Wealth and Nobility are not apt to brook, that poor Scholars should (as they must when they are made Bishops) be their fellows. Se­condly, That from the Emulation of Glory between the Nations they might be willing to see this Nation afflicted by Civil War, and might hope by aiding the Rebels here, to acquire some power over the English, at least so far as to establish here the Presbyte­rian Discipline; which was also one of the Points they afterwards openly demanded. Lastly, They might hope for, in the War, some great Sum of Money, as a reward of their assistance, besides great booty, which they afterwards obtained. But whatsoever [Page 49] was the cause of their hatred to Bishops, the pulling of them down was not all they aimed at: If it had, (now that Episcopa­cy was abolished by Act of Parliament) they would have rested satisfied, which they did not: for after the King was re­turned to London, the English Presbyte­rians and Democraticals, by whose favour they had put down Bishops in Scotland, thought it reason to have the assistance of the Scotch, for the pulling down of Bishops in England. And in order thereunto, they might perhaps deal with the Scots secretly, to rest unsatisfied with that Pacification, which they were before contented with. Howsoever it was, not long after the King was returned to London, they sent up to some of their Friends at Court a certain Pa­per containing (as they pretended) the Articles of the said Pacification, a false and scandalous Paper, which was by the King's Command burnt (as I have heard) pub­lickly; and so both parts returned to the same condition they were in, when the King went down with his Army.

B.

And so there was a great deal of Mo­ney cast away to no purpose: But you have not told me who was General of that Army.

A.

I told you the King was there in Per­son: He that commanded under him was [Page 50] the Earl of Arundel, a Man that wanted not either Valour or Judgment. But to pro­ceed to Battle, or to Treaty, was not in his power, but in the King's.

B.

He was a Man of a most Noble and Loyal Family, and whose Ancestors had for­merly given a great overthrow to the Scots, in their own Country, and in all likelihood he might have given them the like now, if they had fought.

A.

He might indeed: but it had been but a kind of superstition to have made him General upon that account, though many Generals heretofore have been chosen for the good luck of their Ancestors in like oc­casions. In the long War between Athens and Sparta, a General of the Athenians by Sea won many Victories against the Spar­tans; for which cause, after his death, they chose his Son for General with ill success. The Romans that conquered Carthage by the Valour and Conduct of Scipio, when they were to make War again in Africk against Caesar, chose another Scipio for General, a Man valiant and wise enough, but he pe­rished in the Employment. And to come home to our own Nation, the Earl of Essex made a fortunate Expedition to Ca­diz, but his Son, sent afterwards to the same place, could do nothing. 'Tis but a foolish superstition to hope that God has [Page 51] entail'd success in War upon a Name or Fa­mily.

B.

After the Pacification broken, what succeeded next?

A.

The King sent Duke Hamilton with Commission and Instructions into Scotland, to call a Parliament there, and to use all the means he could otherwise; but all was to no purpose: for the Scotch were now re­solv'd to raise an Army, and to enter into England, to deliver (as they pretended) their Grievances to his Majesty in a Petiti­on, because the King (they said) being in the hands of evil Councellors, they could not otherwise obtain their Right: but the truth is, they were animated to it by the Democratical, and Presbyterian English, with a promise of reward, and hope of plunder. Some have said, that Duke Ha­milton also did rather encourage them to, than deter them from the Expedition, as hoping by the disorder of the two King­doms, to bring to pass that which he had formerly been accus'd to endeavour, to make himself King of Scotland. But I take this to have been a very uncharitable cen­sure upon so little ground, to judge so hard­ly of a Man that afterwards lost his life in seeking to procure the Liberty of the King his Master.

[Page 52]This resolution of the Scots to enter Eng­land being known, the King wanting Mo­ney to raise an Army against them, was now (as his Enemies here wished) con­strained to call a Parliament to meet at West­minster the 13th day of April 1640.

B.

Methinks a Parliament of England, if upon any occasion, should furnish the King with Money now in a War against the Scots, out of an inveterate dissaffection to that Nation that had always anciently taken part with their Enemies the French, and which always esteemed the Glory of England for an abatement of their own.

A.

'Tis indeed commonly seen, that neighbour Nations envy one anothers Ho­nour, and that the less potent bears the greater malice; but that hinders them not from agreeing in those things, which their common ambition leads them to. And therefore the King found not the more, but the less help from this Parliament, and most of the Members thereof, in their ordinary Discourses, seemed to wonder why the King should make a War upon Scotland: and in that Parliament sometimes called them Their Brethren the Scots. But in stead of taking the Kings business, which was the raising of Money, into their Consideration, they fell upon the redressing of Grievances, and especially such ways of levying Money as [Page 53] in the late Intermission of Parliaments the King had been forced to use, such as were Ship-Money, for Knighthood, and such o­ther Vails (as one may call them) of the Regal Office, which Lawyers had found justifiable by the Ancient Records of the Kingdom. Besides, they fell upon the A­ctions of divers Ministers of State, though done by the King's own Command and Warrant; in so much, that before they were to come to the business for which they were called, the Money which was necessa­ry for this War (if they had given any, as they never meant to do) had come too late. It is true, there was mention of a Sum of Money to be given the King, by way of bargain, for the relinquishing of his Right to Ship-Money, and some other of his Prerogatives, but so seldom, and with­out determining any Sum, that it was in vain for the King to hope for any success; and therefore upon the 5th of May follow­ing he dissolved it.

B.

Where then had the King Money to raise and pay his Army?

A.

He was forced the second time to make use of the Nobility and Gentry, who contributed some more, some less, accor­ding to the greatness of their Estates; but amongst them all they made up a very suffi­cient Army.

B.
[Page 54]

It seems then that the same Men that crossed his business in the Parliament, now out of Parliament advanced it all they could. What was the reason of that?

A.

The greatest part of the Lords in Parliament, and of the Gentry throughout England, were more affected to Monarchy than to a Popular Government, but so, as not to endure to hear of the King's Absolute Power, which made them in time of Parlia­ment easily to condescend to abridge it, and bring the Government to a mixt Monarchy, as they call'd it, wherein the absolute So­vereignty should be divided between the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

B.

But how if they cannot agree?

A.

I think they never thought of that; but I am sure they never meant the Sove­reignty should be wholly, either in one, or both Houses. Besides, they were loth to desert the King, when he was invaded by Forreigners; for the Scots were esteemed by them as a Forreign Nation.

B.

It is strange to me, that England and Scotland being but one Island, and their Language almost the same, and being go­verned by one King, should be thought For­reigners to one another. The Romans were Masters of many Nations, and to oblige them the more to obey, the Edicts and Laws [Page 55] sent unto them from the City of Rome, they thought fit to make them all Romans; and out of divers Nations, as Spain, Ger­many, Italy and France, to advance some that they thought worthy, even to be Sena­tors of Rome, and to give every one of the Common People the Priviledges of the City of Rome, by which they were prote­cted from the Contumelies of other Nati­ons, where they resided. Why were not the Scotch and English in like manner uni­ted into one People?

A.

King James, at his first coming to the Crown of England, did endeavour it, but could not prevail. But for all that, I believe the Scotch have now as many Privi­ledges in England, as any Nation had in Rome, of those which were so as you say made Romans; for they are all naturaliz'd, and have right to buy Land in England to themselves and their Heirs.

B.

It's true of them that were born in Scotland after the time that King James was in possession of the Kingdom of England.

A.

There be very few now that were born before. But why have they a better Right that were born after, than they that were born before?

B.

Because they were born Subjects to the King of England, and the rest not.

A.
[Page 56]

Were not the rest born Subjects to King James? And was not he King of Eng­land?

B.

Yes, but not then.

A.

I understand not the subtilty of that distinction. But upon what Law is that di­stinction grounded? Is there any Statute to that purpose?

B.

I cannot tell; I think not: but it is grounded upon Equity.

A.

I see little Equity in this; that those Nations that are bound to equal obedience to the same King, should not have equal priviledges. And now seeing there be so very few born before King James's coming in; what greater priviledge had those in­grafted Romans by their Naturalization in the State of Rome, or in the State of Eng­land the English themselves, more than the Scotch.

B.

Those Romans, when any of them were in Rome, had their Voice in the ma­king of Laws.

A.

And the Scotch have their Parliaments, wherein their assent is requir'd to the Laws there made, which is as good. Have not many of the Provinces of France their seve­ral Parliaments and several Constitutions? and yet they are all equally natural Subjects to the King of France: and therefore for my part, I think they were mistaken, both [Page 57] English and Scotch, in calling one another Forreigners. Howsoever that be, the King had a very sufficient Army, wherewith he marched towards Scotland, and by that time he was come to York, the Scotch Army was drawn up to the Frontiers, and ready to march into England; which also they pre­sently did, giving out all the way, that their March should be without damage to the Countrey, and that their Errand was only to deliver a Petition to the King, for the redress of many pretended Injuries they had receiv'd from such of the Court, whose Counsel the King most followed; so they passed through Northumberland quiet­ly, till they came to a Ford in the River of Tine, a little above New-Castle, where they found some little opposition from a Party of the King's Army sent thither to stop them, whom the Scotch easily master'd, and as soon as they were over, seiz'd upon New-Castle, and coming farther on, upon the Ci­ty of Duresme, and sent to the King to desire a Treaty, which was granted, and the Com­missioners on both sides met at Rippon. The Conclusion was, that all should be referr'd to the Parliament, which the King should call to meet at Westminster on the third of November following, being in the same Year 1640. and thereupon the King return­ed to London.

B.
[Page 58]

So the Armies were disbanded.

A.

No; the Scotch Army was to be defrayed by the Counties of Northumberland and Duresme, and the King was to pay his own, till the disbanding of both should be agreed upon in Parliament.

B.

So in effect both the Armies were maintain'd at the King's charge, and the whole Controversie to be decided by a Par­liament almost wholly Presbyterian, and as partial to the Scotch as themselves could have wished.

A.

And yet for all this they durst not presently make War upon the King, there was so much yet left of reverence to him in the Hearts of the People, as to have made them odious, if they had declared what they intended: they must have some colour or other to make it believ'd, that the King made War first upon the Parliament, and besides they had not yet sufficiently disgra­ced him in Sermons and Pamphlets, nor re­moved from about him those they thought could best counsel him. Therefore they re­solv'd to proceed with him like skilful Hun­ters; first to single him out by Men dispo­sed in all parts to drive him into the open Field, and then in case he should but seem to turn head, to call that a making of War against the Parliament.

[Page 59]And first they call'd in question such as had either preached or written in defence of any of those Rights, which belonging to the Crown, they meant to usurp, and take from the King to themselves: Where­upon some few Preachers and Writers were imprisoned, or forced to fly. The King not protecting these, they proceeded to call in question some of the King's own Actions in his Ministers, whereof they imprisoned some, and some went beyond Sea. And whereas certain persons having endeavoured by Books and Sermons to raise Sedition, and committed other crimes of high nature, had therefore been censured by the King's Coun­cil in the Star-Chamber, and imprisoned; the Parliament by their own Authority, to try, it seems, how the King and the People would take it, (for their persons were incon­siderable) ordered their setting at liberty; which was accordingly done, with great ap­plause of the People that flocked about them in London, in manner of a Triumph. This being done without resistance, the King's Right to Ship-Money —

B.

Ship-Money! what's that?

A.

The Kings of England, for the de­fence of the Sea, had power to tax all the Counties of England whether they were Maritime or not, for the building and fur­nishing of Ships; which Tax the King had [Page 60] then lately found cause to impose, and the Parliament exclaim'd against it as an oppres­sion: and one of their Members that had been taxed but 20 s. (mark the oppression; a Parliament-man of 500 l. a year Land taxed at 20 s.) they were forced to bring it to a Tryal at Law, he refusing payment, and he was cast. Again, when all the Judges of Westminster were demanded their Opi­nions concerning the Legality of it, of Twelve that there are, it was judged legal by Ten; for which though they were not punished, yet they were afrighted by the Parliament.

B.

What did the Parliament mean, when they did exclaim against it as illegal? Did they mean it was against Statute-Law, or against the Judgments of Lawyers given heretofore, which are commonly called Re­ports; or did they mean it was against E­quity, which I take to be the same with the Law of Nature?

A.

It is a hard matter, or rather impos­sible, to know what other Men mean, espe­cially if they be crafty: but sure I am Equi­ty was not their ground for this pretence of immunity from contributing to the King, but at their own pleasure: for when they have laid the burthen of defending the whole Kingdom, and governing it, upon any person whatsoever, there is very little [Page 61] equity he should depend on others for the means of performing it, or if he do, they are his Sovereign, not he theirs. And as for the Common Law contained in Reports, they have no force, but what the King gives them. Besides, it were more unreasonable, that a corrupt or foolish Judge his unjust Sentence, should by any time, how long soever, obtain the Authority and Force of a Law. But amongst the Statute Laws there is one called Magna Charta, or the Great Charter of the Liberties of English-men, in which there is one Article, wherein a King heretofore hath granted, That no Man shall be distrained, that is, have his Goods taken from him, otherwise than by the Law of the Land.

B.

Is not that a sufficient ground for their purpose?

A.

No, that leaves us in the same doubt, which you think it clears: for where was that Law of the Land then? Did they mean another Magna Charta, that was made by some King more ancient yet? No, that Sta­tute was made, not to exempt any Man from payments to the Publick, but for secu­ring of every Man from such as abused the King's Power by surreptitious obtaining the King's Warrants, to the oppressing of those against whom he had any Suit in Law: but it was conducing to the ends of some rebel­lious [Page 62] Spirits in this Parliament to have it in­terpreted in the wrong sense, and suitable enough to the understanding of the rest, or most part of them to let it pass?

B.

You make the Members of that Par­liament very simple Men, and yet the Peo­ple chose them for the wisest of the Land.

A.

If Craft be wisdom, they were wise enough; but wise, as I define it, is he that knows how to bring his business to pass (without the assistance of knavery and ig­noble shifts) by the sole strength of his good contrivance: A Fool may win from a better Gamester by the advantage of false Dice, and packing of Cards.

B.

According to your definition there be few wise Men now adays; such Wisdom is a kind of Gallantry that few are brought up to, and most think folly. Fine Cloaths, Great Feathers, Civility towards Men that will not swallow Injuries, and Injury to­wards them that will, is the present Gallan­try: but when the Parliament afterwards, having gotten the power into their hands, levied Money for their own use; what said the People to that?

A.

What else, but that it was legal, and to be paid, as being imposed by consent of Parliaments?

B.

I have heard often that they ought to pay what was imposed by consent of Par­liaments [Page 63] to the use of the King; but to their own use never before. I see by this it is ea­sier to gull the Multitude, than any one man amongst them: for what one man that has not his natural Judgment deprav'd by acci­dent, could be so easily cozened in a mat­ter that concerns his purse, had he not been passionately carried away by the rest to change of Government, or rather to a Li­berty of every one to govern himself?

A.

Judge then what kind of men such a multitude of ignorant People were like to elect for their Burgesses and Knights of Shires.

B.

I can make no other Judgment, but that they, who were then elected, were just such as had been elected for former Parlia­ments, and as are like to be elected for Par­liaments to come: for the Common People have been, and always will be ignorant of their duty to the Publick, as never medita­ting any thing but their particular Interest, in other things following their immediate Leaders, which are either the Preachers, or the most potent of the Gentlemen that dwell amongst them; as common Soldiers for the most part follow their immediate Captains, if they like them; if you think the late mi­series have made them wiser, that will quick­ly be forgot, and then we shall be no wiser than we were.

A.
[Page 64]

Why may not men be taught their duty, that is, the Science of just and unjust, as divers other Sciences have been taught from true Principles and evident Demonstra­tion? and much more easily than any of those Preachers and Democratical Gentle­men could teach Rebellion and Treason.

B.

But who can teach what none have learn'd? Or if any man hath been so singu­lar, as to have studied the Science of Ju­stice and Equity; how can he teach it safely, when it is against the Interest of those, that are in possession of the Power to hurt him?

A.

The Rules of Just and Unjust suffici­ently demonstrated, and from Principles e­vident to the meanest capacity, have not been wanting, and notwithstanding the ob­scurity of their Author, have shined, not only in this, but also in Forreign Countries to men of good education; but they are few in respect of the rest of men, whereof many cannot read; many, though they can, have no leisure, and of them that have leisure, the greatest part have their minds wholly employed and taken up by their private businesses, or pleasures: So that it is impossible, that the Multitude should e­ver learn their duty, but from the Pulpit and upon Holy-days: but then, and from thence it is, that they learned their diso­bedience. [Page 65] And therefore the Light of that Doctrine has been hitherto covered, and kept under here by a cloud of Adversaries, which no private man's Reputation can break through, without the Authority of the U­niversities; but out of the Universities came all those Preachers that taught the con­trary. The Universities have been to this Nation, as the Wooden Horse was to the Trojans.

B.

Can you tell me why, and when the Universities here and in other places first began?

A.

It seems, for the time, they began in the Reign of the Emperor Charles the Great; before which time, I doubt not but that there were many Grammar Schools for the Latin Tongue, which was the natural Lan­guage of the Roman Church; but for Uni­versities, that is to say, Schools for the Sci­ences in general, and especially for Divini­ty; it is manifest, that the Institution of them was recommended by the Pope's Let­ter to the Emperor Charles the Great, and recommended farther by a Council held in his time, I think, at Chalon sur Saone; and not long after was erected an University at Paris; and the Colledge call'd Vniversity-Colledge at Oxford: And so by degrees seve­ral Bishops, Noble-men and Rich-men, and some Kings and Queens contributing there­unto, [Page 66] the Universities obtained at last their present splendor.

B.

But what was the Pope's design in it?

A.

What other design was he like to have, but what you heard before, the advancement of his own Authority in the Countries where the Universities were erected? There they learned to dispute for him, and with unintelligible distinctions to blind mens Eyes, whilst they incroached upon the Right of Kings; and it was an evident Argument of that Design, that they fell in hand with the work so quickly. For the first Rector of the University of Paris, as I have read somewhere, was Peter Lombard, who first brought in them the Learning called School-Divinity; and was seconded by John Scot of Duns, who lived in, or near the same time, whom any ingenious Reader, not knowing what was the Design, would judge to have been two the most egregious Block­heads in the World, so obscure and senseless are their Writings. And from these the School-men that succeeded, learnt the trick of imposing what they list upon their Rea­ders, and declining the force of true Reason by Verbal Forkes, I mean Distinctions that signifie nothing, but serve only to astonish the multitude of ignorant Men. As for the understanding Readers, they were so few, that these new sublime Doctors cared [Page 67] not what they thought. These School men were to make good all the Articles of Faith, which the Popes from time to time should command to be believ'd: amongst which there were very many inconsistent with the Rights of Kings, and other Civil Sovereigns, as asserting to the Pope all Authority what­soever they should declare to be necessary, in ordine ad spiritualia, that is to say, in order to Religion.

From the Universities also it was, That all Preachers proceeded, and were poured out into City and Country to terrifie the People into an absolute obedience to the Pope's Canons and Commands, which for fear of wakening Kings and Princes too much, they durst not yet call Laws.

From the Universities it was, That the Philosophy of Aristotle was made an Ingre­dient to Religion, as serving for a Salve to a great many of absurd Articles, concern­ing the Nature of Christ's Body, and the Estate of Angels and Saints in Heaven; which Articles they thought fit to have be­lieved, because they bring some of them profit, and others reverence to the Clergy, even to the meanest of them: for when they shall have made the People believe that the meanest of them can make the Body of Christ, who is there that will not both shew them reverence, and be liberal to them, [Page 68] or to the Church, especially in the time of their sickness, when they think they make and bring unto them their Saviour?

B.

But, what advantage to them in these Impostures was the Doctrine of Aristotle?

A.

They have made more use of his ob­scurity than of his Doctrine: for none of the Ancient Philosophers Writings are com­parable to those of Aristotle for their apt­ness to puzzle, and entangle men with words, and to breed Disputation, which must at last be ended in the Determination of the Church of Rome; and yet in the Do­ctrine of Aristotle they made use of many Points; as first the Doctrine of seperated Essences.

B.

What are seperated Essences?

A.

Seperated Beings.

B.

Seperated from what?

A.

From every thing that is.

B.

I cannot understand the Being of any thing, which I understand not to be: but what can they make of that?

A.

Very much in questions concerning the Nature of God, and concerning the E­state of Man's Soul after death, in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory; by which you, and every man knows, how great obedience, and how much Money they gain from the Common People. Whereas Aristotle hold­eth the Soul of Man to be the first giver of [Page 69] motion to the Body, and consequently to it self; they make use of that in the Doctrine of Free-will; what, and how they gain by that, I will not say.

He holdeth forth, that there be many things that come to pass in this World from no necessity of Causes, but meer Contingen­cy, Casualty and Fortune.

B.

Methinks, in this they make God stand idle, and to be a meer Spectator of the Games of Fortune; for what God is the cause of must needs come to pass, and in my opinion, nothing else. But because there must be some ground for the Justice of the Eternal Torment of the damned; perhaps it is this, that mens Wills and Pro­pensions are not (they think) in the Hands of God, but of themselves; and in this also I see somewhat conducing to the Autho­rity of the Church.

A.

This is not much, nor was Aristotle of such credit with them, but that when his Opinion was against theirs, they could slight him. Whatsoever he says is impossi­ble in nature, they can prove well enough to be possible, from the Almighty Power of God, who can make many Bodies to be in one and the self-same place, and one Body to be in many places at the same time, if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation require it, though Aristotle deny it. I like not the [Page 70] Design of drawing Religion into an Art, whereas it ought to be a Law; and though not the same in all Countries, yet in every Country undisputable; nor that they teach it not as Arts ought to be taught, by shew­ing first the meaning of their Terms, and then deriving from them the truth they would have us believe; nor that their Terms are, for the most part, unintelligible, though to make it seem rather want of Learning in the Reader, than want of fair dealing in themselves: They are, for the most part, Latin and Greek words, wryed a little at the point, towards the Native Language of the several Countries, where they are used: But that which is most intolerable is, that all Clerks are forced to make as if they be­lieved them, if they mean to have any Church-preferment, the Keys whereof are in the Pope's Hands; and the Common People, whatsoever they believe of those subtile Doctrines, are never esteemed bet­ter Sons of the Church for their Learning. There is but one way there to Salvation, that is, extraordinary Devotion and Libera­lity to the Church, and readiness for the Churches sake, if it be requir'd, to fight against their Natural and Lawful Sove­reigns.

B.

I see what use they make of Aristotle's Logick, Physicks, and Metaphysicks; but [Page 71] I see not yet how his Politicks can serve their turn.

A.

Nor I. It has (I think) done them no good, though it has done us here much hurt by accident: for men grown weary at last of the Insolence of the Priests, and examining the truth of these Doctrines that were put upon them, began to search the sense of the Scriptures, as they are in the learned Languages, and consequently stu­dying Greek and Latin, became acquaint­ed with the Democratical Principles of Ari­stotle and Cicero, and from the love of their Eloquence, fell in love with their Politicks, and that more and more, till it grew into the Rebellion we now talk of, without any other advantage to the Roman Church, but that it was a weakening to us, whom since we broke out of their Net, in the time of Henry the 8th, they have continually endea­voured to recover.

B.

What have they gotten by the teach­ing of Aristotle's Ethicks.

A.

It is some advantage to them, that neither the Morals of Aristotle, nor of any other, have done them any harm, nor us any good. Their Doctrines have caused a great deal of dispute concerning Vertue and Vice, but no knowledge of what they are, nor any method of obtaining Vertue, nor of avoiding Vice.

[Page 72]The end of Moral Philosophy is to teach men of all sorts their duty, both to the Pub­lick and to one another. They estimate Vertue, partly by a Mediocrity of the Pas­sions of men, and partly by that that they are praised; whereas it is not the Much, or Little Praise that makes an Action vertuous, but the Cause; nor much or little blame that makes an Action vitious, but its being unconformable to the Laws, in such men as are subject to the Law, or its being un­conformable to Equity or Charity in all men whatsoever.

B.

It seems you make a difference be­tween the Ethicks of Subjects, and the Ethicks of Sovereigns.

A.

So I do. The Vertue of a Subject is comprehended wholly in obedience to the Laws of the Common-wealth. To obey the Laws is Justice and Equity, which is the Law of Nature, and consequently is Ci­vil Law in all Nations of the World: and nothing is Injustice or Iniquity otherwise than it is against the Law. Likewise to o­bey the Laws is the Prudence of a Subject; for without such obedience the Common-wealth (which is every Subject's safety and protection) cannot subsist. And though it be prudence also in private men, justly and moderately to enrich themselves, yet crafti­ly to with-hold from the Publick, or defraud [Page 73] it of such part of their wealth, as is by Law requir'd, is no sign of prudence, but of want of knowledge of what is necessary for their own defence.

The Vertues of Sovereigns are such as tend to the maintenance of peace at home, and to the resistance of Forreign Enemies. Fortitude is a Royal Vertue, and though it be necessary in such private men as shall be Soldiers, yet for other men, the less they dare, the better it is, both for the Common-wealth, and for themselves. Frugality (though perhaps you will think it strange) is also a Royal Vertue: for it increases the Publick Stock, which cannot be too great for the Publick Use, nor any man too spa­ring of what he has in trust for the good of others. Liberality also is a Royal Vertue: for the Common-wealth cannot be well ser­ved without extraordinary diligence and service of Ministers, and great fidelity to their Sovereigns, who ought therefore to be encouraged, and especially those that do him service in the Wars. In sum, all Acti­ons and Habits are to be esteemed good or evil by their causes and usefulness, in refe­rence to the Common-wealth, and not by their Mediocrity, nor by their being com­mended: for several men praise several Cu­stoms, and that which is Vertue with one is blamed by others, and contrarily what [Page 74] one calls Vice, another calls Vertue, as their present affections lead them.

B.

Methinks you should have placed a­mong the Vertues that, which in my opini­on is the greatest of all Vertues, Religion.

A.

So I have, though, it seems, you did not observe it. But whither do we digress from the way we were in?

B.

I think you have not digressed at all: for I suppose your purpose was, to acquaint me with the History, not so much of those Actions that pass'd in the time of the late Troubles, as of their Causes, and of the Councels and Artifice by which they were brought to pass. There be divers men that have written the History, out of whom I might have learned what they did, and somewhat also of the Contrivance; but I find little in them of what I would ask. Therefore since you were pleas'd to enter into this discourse at my request, be pleased also to inform me after my own method: and for the danger of confusion that may a­rise from that, I will take care to bring you back to the place from whence I drew you; for I well remember where it was.

A.

Well then: To your question con­cerning Religion; in as much as I told you, that all Vertue is comprehended in Obedi­ence to the Laws of the Common-wealth, whereof Religion is one, I have placed Re­ligion amongst the Vertues.

B.
[Page 75]

Is Religion then the Law of a Com­mon-wealth?

A.

There is no Nation in the World, whose Religion is not established, and re­ceives not its Authority from the Laws of that Nation. It is true, that the Law of God receives no evidence from the Laws of Men; but because Men can never by their own wisdom come to the knowledge of what God hath spoken and commanded to be observ'd, nor be obliged to obey the Laws, whose Author they know not, they are to acquiesce in some Humane Authority or o­ther. So that the Question will be, whe­ther a Man ought in matter of Religion, that is to say, when there is question of his duty to God and the King, to rely upon the preaching of their Fellow-Subjects, or of a Stranger, or upon the Voice of the Law?

B.

There is no great difficulty in that Point: for there is none that preach here, or any where else, at least ought to preach, but such as have Authority so to do from him, or them that have the Sovereign Power; so that if the King gives us leave, you or I may as lawfully preach as them that do; and I believe we should perform that Office a great deal better than they that preached us into the Rebellion.

A.

The Church Morals are in many Points very different from these that I have [Page 76] here set down, for the Doctrine of Vertue and Vice; and yet without any conformity with that of Aristotle. For in the Church of Rome the principal Vertues are to obey their Doctrine, though it be Treason, and that is to be Religious: To be beneficial to the Clergy, that is their Piety and Libera­lity, and to believe upon their word that which a man knows in his Conscience to be false, which is the Faith they require. I could name a great many more such Points of their Morals, but that I know you know them already, being so well versed in the Cases of Conscience written by their School-men, who measure the goodness and wick­edness of all Actions, by their congruity with the Doctrine of the Roman Clergy.

B.

But what is the Moral Philosophy of the Protestant Clergy in England?

A.

So much as they shew of it in their Life and Conversation is for the most part very good, and of very good example, much better than their Writings.

B.

It happens many times that men live honestly for fear, who, if they had power, would live according to their own Opini­ons; that is, if their Opinions be not right, unrighteously.

A.

Do the Clergy in England pretend as the Pope does, or as the Presbyterians do, to have a Right from God immediately to [Page 77] govern the King and his Subjects in all Points of Religion and Manners; if they do, you cannot doubt but that if they had number and strength, which they are never like to have, they would attempt to obtain that Power, as the others have done.

B.

I would be glad to see a Systeme of the present Morals written by some Divine of good Reputation and Learning, and of the late King's Party.

A.

I think I can recommend unto you the best that is extant, and such a one as (ex­cept a few passages that I mislike) is very well worth your reading. The Title of it is, The whole Duty of Man laid down in a plain and familiar way; and yet I dare say, that if the Presbyterian Ministers, even those of them which were the most diligent Prea­chers of the late Sedition, were to be tryed by it, they would go near to be found Not Guilty. He has divided the Duty of Man into three great Branches, which are his Duty to God, to Himself, and to his Neigh­bour. In his Duty to God he puts the ac­knowledgement of him in his Essence and his Attributes, and in the believing of his Word: His Attributes are Omnipotence, Omniscience, Infiniteness, Justice, Truth, Mercy, and all the rest that are found in Scripture. Which of these did not those seditious Preachers acknowledge equally [Page 78] with the best of Christians? The Word of God are the Books of Holy Scripture re­ceiv'd for Canonical in England.

B.

They receive the Word of God, but 'tis according to their own Interpretation.

A.

According to whose Interpretation was it receiv'd, by the Bishops, and the rest of the Loyal Party, but their own? He puts for another Duty Obedience and Sub­mission to Gods Will. Did any of them, nay did any man living, do any thing at any time against God's Will?

B.

By God's Will I suppose he means there his revealed Will, that is to say, his Commandements, which I am sure they did most horribly break, both by their preaching and otherwise.

A.

As for their Actions, there is no doubt but all men are guilty enough (if God deal severely with them) to be damn'd. And for their preaching, they will say they thought it agreeable to Gods revealed Will in the Scriptures; if they thought it so, it was not disobedience, but error; and how can any man prove they thought other­wise?

B.

Hypocrisie hath this great Preroga­tive above other sins, that it cannot be ac­cus'd,

A.

Another Duty he sets down is, to Ho­nour him in his House, that is, the Church, [Page 79] in his Possessions, in his Day, in his Word and Sacraments.

B.

They perform this Duty as well (I think) as any other Ministers, I mean the Loyal Party, and the Presbyterians have al­ways had an equal care to have God's House free from Profanation; To have Tithes du­ly paid, and Offerings accepted; To have the Sabbath-day kept holy, the Word preach­ed, and the Lords Supper and Baptism duly administred. But is not keeping of the Feasts and of the Fasts one of those Duties that belong to the Honour of God? If it be, the Presbyterians fail in that.

A.

Why so? They kept some Holy-days, and they had Fasts amongst them­selves, though not upon the same days that the Church ordains, but when they thought fit; as when it pleased God to give the King any notable Victory; and they govern'd themselves in this Point by the Holy Scri­pture, as they pretend to believe; and who can prove they do not believe so?

B.

Let us pass over all other Duties, and come to that Duty which we owe to the King, and consider whether the Doctrine taught by those Divines which adhered to the King be such, in that Point, as may ju­stifie the Presbyterians, that incited the People to Rebellion: for that's the thing you call in question.

[Page 80]Concerning our Duty to our Rulers, he hath these words: An Obedience we must pay, either active or passive; the active, in the case of all lawful Commands, that is, whenever the Magistrate commands some­thing which is not contrary to some Com­mand of God, we are then bound to act according to that Command of the Magi­strate, to do the things he requires: but when he enjoyns any thing contrary to what God hath commanded, we are not then to pay him this Active Obedience; we may, nay we must refuse thus to act, (yet here we must be very well assur'd, that the thing is so contrary, and not pre­tend Conscience for a Cloak of stubborn­ness) we are in that Case to obey God, rather than Men: but even this is a season for the Passive Obedience, we must patient­ly suffer what he inflicts on us for such refu­sal, and not, to secure our selves, rise up against him.

B.

What is there in this to give colour to the late Rebellion.

A.

They will say they did it in obedience to God, in as much as they did believe it was according to the Scripture: out of which they will bring Examples perhaps of David and his adherents, that resisted King Saul, and of the Prophets afterward, that vehemently from time to time preached [Page 81] against the Idolatrous Kings of Israel and Judah. Saul was their lawful King, and yet they paid him neither Active nor Passive O­bedience; for they did put themselves into a posture of defence against him, though David himself spared his Person; and so did the Presbyterians put into their Commissi­ons to their General, that they should spare the King's Person. Besides, you cannot doubt but that they who in the Pulpit did animate the People to take Arms in defence of the then Parliament, alleadged Scripture▪ that is, the Word of God for it. If it be lawful then for Subjects to resist the King, when he commands any thing that is against the Scripture, that is contrary to the Com­mand of God, and to be Judge of the mean­ing of the Scripture, it is impossible that the Life of any King, or the Peace of any Chri­stian Kingdom can be long secure. It is this Doctrine that divides a Kingdom within it self, whatsoever the Men be, Loyal, or Rebels, that write or preach it publickly. And thus you see, that if those seditious Mi­nisters be tryed by this Doctrine, they will come off well enough.

B.

I see it; and wonder at People that having never spoken with God Almighty, nor knowing one more than another what he hath said, when the Laws and the Prea­cher disagree, should so keenly follow the [Page 82] Minister, for the most part an Ignorant, though a ready Tongu'd Scholar, rather than the Laws that were made by the King, with the consent of the Peers and the Com­mons of the Land.

A.

Let us examine his words a little nea­rer: First, Concerning Passive Obedience. When a Thief hath broken the Laws, and according to the Law is therefore executed, can any man understand, that this suffering of his is an obedience to the Law? Every Law is a Command to do, or to forbear, neither of these is fulfilled by suffering. If any Suffering can be called Obedience, it must be such as is voluntary; for no invo­luntary Action can be counted a submission to the Law. He that means that his suffer­ing should be taken for obedience, must not only not resist, but also not fly, nor hide himself to avoid his punishment; and who is there amongst them that discourses of Pas­sive Obedience, when his Life is in extream danger, that will voluntarily present himself to the Officers of Justice? Do not we see that all men when they are led to Execution are both bound and guarded, and would break loose, if they could, and get away? Such is their Passive Obedience. Christ saith, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, Mat 23.3. [Page 83] which is a doing an Active Obedience: and yet the Scribes and Pharisees appear not by the Scripture to have been such godly men, as never to command any thing against the revealed Will of God.

B.

Must Tyrants also be obeyed in every thing actively? Or is there nothing where­in a lawful King's Command may be diso­beyed? What if he should command me with my own hands to execute my Father, in case he should be condemn'd to die by the Law?

A.

This is a Case that need not be put. We never have read, nor heard of any King, or Tyrant so inhumane as to command it. If any did, we are to consider whether that Command were one of his Laws: for by disobeying Kings, we mean the disobeying of his Laws, those his Laws that were made before they were applyed to any particular person: for the King, though as a Father of Children, and a Master of Domestick Ser­vants, yet he commands the People in ge­neral never but by a precedent Law, and as a Politick, not a Natural Person. And if such a Command as you speak of were con­triv'd into a general Law, (which never was, nor never will be) you were bound to obey it, unless you depart the Kingdom after the Publication of the Law, and before the Condemnation of your Father.

B.
[Page 84]

Your Author says farther, in refusing Active Obedience to the King that com­manded any thing contrary to God's Law, we must be very well assur'd that the thing is so contrary. I would fain know how it is possible to be assur'd?

A.

I think you do not believe that any of those Refusers do, immediately from God's own mouth, receive any command contrary to the Command of the King, who is God's Lieutenant, nor any other way than you and I do, that is to say, than by the Scriptures. And because men do, for the most part, rather draw the Scripture to their own sense, than follow the true sense of the Scripture, there is no other way to know certainly, and in all Cases, what God com­mands, or forbids us to do, but by the Sen­tence of him or them that are constituted by the King to determine the sense of the Scripture upon hearing of the particular Case of Conscience, which is in question. And they that are so constituted are easily known in all Christian Common-wealths, whether they be Bishops, or Ministers, or Assemblies that govern the Church under him, or them that have the Sovereign Power.

B.

Some doubts may be rais'd from this that you now say: for if Men be to learn their Duty from the Sentence which other [Page 85] Men shall give, concerning the meaning of the Scriptures, and not from their own In­terpretation, I understand not to what end they were translated into English, and eve­ry man, not only permitted, but also ex­horted to read them. For what could that produce but diversity of opinion, and con­sequently (as Man's Nature is) Disputati­on, breach of Charity, Disobedience, and at last Rebellion? Again, since the Scripture was allowed to be read in English, why were not the Translations such as might make all that's read understood even by mean Capacities? Did not the Jews, such as could read, understand their Law in the Jewish Language, as well as we do our Sta­tute Laws in English? And as for such pla­ces of the Scripture, as had nothing of the Nature of a Law, it was nothing to the Du­ty of the Jews, whether they were under­stood or not, seeing nothing is punishable, but the Transgression of some Law.

The same Question I may ask concerning the New Testament: for I believe, that those Men to whom the Original Language was natural, did understand sufficiently what Commands and Counsels were given them by our Saviour and his Apostles, and his im­mediate Disciples. Again; how will you answer that Question which was put by St. Peter and St. John, Acts 4.19. when by [Page 86] Annas the High Priest, and others of the Councel of Jerusalem, they were forbidden to teach any more in the Name of Jesus? Whether is it right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God?

A.

The Case is not the same. Peter and John had seen, and daily conversed with our Saviour, and by the Miracles he wrought, did know he was God, and consequently knew certainly, that their disobedience to the High-Priests present Command was just. Can any Minister now say, that he hath immediately, from God's own Mouth, receiv'd a Command to disobey the King, or know otherwise, than by the Scripture, that any Command of the King, that hath the Form and Nature of a Law, is against the Law of God; which in divers places di­rectly and evidently commandeth to obey him in all things. The Text you cite does not tell us, that a Minister's Authority, ra­ther than a Christian King's, shall decide the Questions that arise from the different Interpretations of the Scripture. And there­fore, where the King is Head of the Church, and by consequence (to omit, that the Scripture it self was not received, but by the Authority of Kings and States) Chief Judge of the rectitude of all Interpretations of the Scripture. To obey the Kings Laws and publick Edicts is not to disobey, but to [Page 87] obey God. A Minister ought not to think, that his skill in the Latin, Greek or Hebrew Tongues, if he have any, gives him a Pri­viledge to impose upon all his Fellow-Sub­jects his own sense, or what he pretends to be his sense of every obscure place of Scri­pture; nor ought he, as oft as he hath found out some fine Interpretation, not before thought on by others, to think he had it by Inspiration: for he cannot be assur'd of that; no, nor that his Interpretation, as fine as he thinks it, is not false; and then all his stubbornness and contumacy toward the King, and his Laws, is nothing but Pride of Heart and Ambition, or else Imposture. And whereas you think it needless, or per­haps hurtful to have the Scriptures in Eng­lish, I am of another mind. There are so many places of Scripture easie to be under­stood, that teach both true Faith, and good Morality, and that as fully as is necessary to salvation; of which no Seducer is able to dispossess the mind of any ordinary Readers, that the reading of them is so profitable, as not to be forbidden without great damage to them and the Common-wealth.

B.

All that is requir'd, both in Faith and Manners, for Man's Salvation, is (I confess) set down in Scripture, as plainly as can be. Chil­dren obey your Parents in all things. Servants obey your Masters. Let all Men be subject to the [Page 88] Higher Powers, whether it be the King, or those that are sent by him. Love God with all your Soul, and your Neighbour as your self, are words of the Scripture, which are well enough un­derstood: but neither Children, nor the greatest part of Men do understand why it is their Duty to do so. They see not that the safety of the Common-wealth, and conse­quently their own, depends upon their do­ing it. Every man by nature, without dis­cipline, does in all his Actions look upon, as far as he can see, the benefit that shall re­dound to himself from his obedience. He reads that Covetousness is the root of all evil, but he thinks, and sometimes finds it is the root of his Estate. And so in other Cases the Scripture says one thing, and they think another, weighing the Commodities or Incommodities of this present life only, which are in their sight, never putting into the Scales the Good and Evil of the Life to come, which they see not.

A.

All this is no more than happens where the Scripture is seal'd up in Greek and Latin, and the People taught the same things out of them by Preachers.

But they that are of a Condition and Age fit to examine the sense of what they read, and that take a delight in searching out the Grounds of their Duty, certainly cannot choose but by their reading of the [Page 89] Scriptures, come to such a sense of their Duty, as not only to obey the Laws them­selves, but also to induce others to do the same: for commonly Men of Age and Qua­lity, are followed by their inferior Neigh­bours, that look more upon the Example of those Men whom they reverence, and whom they are unwilling to displease, than upon Precepts and Laws.

B.

These Men of the Condition and Age you speak of are, in my opinion, the unfit­test of all others to be trusted with the read­ing of the Scriptures. I know you mean such as have studied the Greek or Latin, or both Tongues, and that are withal such as love knowledge, and consequently take de­light in finding out the meaning of the most hard Texts, or in thinking they have found it, in case it be new, and not found out by others. These are therefore they, that pre­termitting the easie places, which teach them their Duty, fall to scanning only of the My­steries of Religion; such as are, How it may be made out with wit, that there be three that bear Rule in Heaven, and those three but One? How the Deity could be made Flesh? How that Flesh could be really pre­sent in many places at once? Where's the Place, and what the Torments of Hell, and other Metaphysical Doctrines? Whether the Will of Man be free, or governed by the [Page 90] Will of God? Whether Sanctity comes by Inspiration or Education? By whom Christ now speaks to us? Whether by the King, or by the Clergy, or by the Bible to every man that reads it and interprets it to him­self, or by a private Spirit to every private Man? These and the like Points are the stu­dy of the Curious, and the cause of all our late mischief, and the cause that makes the plainer sort of Men, whom the Scripture had taught belief in Christ, Love towards God, Obedience to the King, and sobriety of behaviour, forget it all, and place their Religion in the disputable Doctrines of these your wise Men.

A.

I do not think these men fit to inter­pret the Scripture to the rest, nor do I say that the rest ought to take their Interpreta­tion for the Word of God. Whatsoever is necessary for them to know is so easie, as not to need Interpretation. Whatsoever is more does them no good. But in case any of those unnecessary Doctrines shall be authorized by the Laws of the King, or o­ther State, I say it is the Duty of every Subject not to speak against them, in as much as it is every man's Duty to obey Him or Them that have the Sovereign Power; and the Wisdom of all such Powers to pu­nish such as shall publish, or teach their pri­vate Interpretations, when they are contrary [Page 91] to the Law, and likely to incline men to Sedition or Disputing against the Law.

B.

They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities: for such curious Questions in Divinity are first started in the Universities, and so are all those Politick Questions con­cerning the Rights of Civil and Ecclesia­stick Government, and there they are fur­nished with Arguments for Liberty out of the Works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Se­neca, and out of the Histories of Rome and Greece, for their Disputation against the ne­cessary Power of their Sovereigns. There­fore I despair of any lasting Peace amongst our selves, till the Universities here shall bend and direct their Studies to the setling of it, that is, to the teaching of absolute Obedience to the Laws of the King, and to his Publick Edicts under the Great Seal of England: for I make no doubt, but that so­lid Reason back'd with the Authority of so many Learned Men, will more prevail for the keeping of us in peace within our selves, than any Victory can do over the Rebels: but I am afraid that 'tis impossible to bring the Universities to such a compli­ance with the Actions of State, as is necessa­ry for the business.

A.

Seeing the Universities have hereto­fore from time to time maintain'd the Au­thority [Page 92] of the Pope, contrary to all Laws Divine, Civil and Natural, against the Right of our Kings, why can they not as well, when they have all manner of Laws and Equity on their side, maintain the Rights of him that is both Sovereign of the King­dom, and Head of the Church?

B.

Why then were they not in all Points for the King's Power presently after that King Henry the 8th was in Parliament declared Head of the Church, as much as they were before for the Authority of the Pope?

A.

Because the Clergy in the Universi­ties, by whom all things there are govern­ed, and the Clergy without the Universi­ties, as well Bishops as inferior Clerks did think, that the pulling down of the Pope was the setting up of them (as to England) in his place, and made no question the grea­test part of them, but that their Spiritual Power did depend, not upon the Authority of the King, but of Christ himself, derived to them by a successive Imposition of Hands from Bishop to Bishop, notwithstanding they knew that this derivation passed through the Hands of Popes and Bishops, whose Authority they had cast off. For though they were content that the Divine Right, which the Pope pretended to in Eng­land, should be denied him; yet they thought [Page 93] it not so fit to be taken from the Church of England, whom they now supposed them­selves to represent.

It seems they did not think it reasonable that a Woman, or a Child, or a Man that could not construe the Hebrew, Greek or Latin Bible, nor know perhaps the Declen­sions and Conjugations of Greek or Latin Nouns and Verbs, should take upon him to govern so many learned Doctors in matters of Religion, meaning matters of Divinity; for Religion has been for a long time, and is now by most People taken for the same thing with Divinity, to the great advantage of the Clergy.

B.

And especially now amongst the Presbyterians; for I see few that are by them esteemed very good Christians, besides such as can repeat their Sermons, and wran­gle for them about the Interpretation of the Scripture, and fight for them also with their Bodies or Purses, when they shall be requir'd. To believe in Christ is nothing with them, unless you believe as they bid you: Charity is nothing with them, unless it be Charity and Liberality to them, and partaking with them in faction. How we can have peace while this is our Religion, I cannot tell. Haeret lateri lethalis arundo. The seditious Doctrine of the Presbyterians has been stuck so hard in the Peoples Heads and Memories, [Page 94] (I cannot say into their Hearts; for they understand nothing in it, but that they may lawfully rebel) that I fear the Common-wealth will never be cured.

A.

The two great Vertues that were se­verally in Henry the 7th and Henry the 8th, when they shall be joyntly in one King, will easily cure it. That of Henry the 7th was, without much noise of the People to fill his Coffers; that of Henry the 8th was an ear­ly severity; but this without the former cannot be exercised.

B.

This that you say looks (methinks) like an Advice to the King, to let them a­lone till he have gotten ready Money e­nough to levy and maintain a sufficient Ar­my, and then to fall upon them, and destroy them.

A.

God forbid that so horrible, unchri­stian and inhumane a design should ever en­ter into the King's Heart. I would have him have Money enough, readily to raise an Army able to suppress any Rebellion, and to take from his Enemies all hope of success, that they may not dare to trouble him in the Reformation of the Universities, but to put none to death without the actual committing such crimes, as are already made Capital by the Laws. The Core of Rebel­lion, as you have seen by this, and read of other Rebellions, are the Universities, which [Page 95] nevertheless are not to be cast away, but to be better disciplin'd; that is to say, that the Politicks there taught be made to be (as true Politicks should be) such as are fit to make men know, that it is their Duty to o­bey all Laws whatsoever that shall by the Authority of the King be enacted, till by the same Authority they shall be repealed; such as are fit to make men understand, that the Civil Laws are God's Laws, as they that make them are by God appointed to make them; and to make men know, that the People and the Church are one thing, and have but one Head, the King; and that no man has Title to govern under him, that has it not from him. That the King owes his Crown to God only, and to no Man, Ecclesiastick, or other; and that the Religi­on they teach there be a quiet waiting for the coming again of our Blessed Saviour; and in the mean time a resolution to obey the King's Laws, which also are God's Laws, To injure no man, to be in charity with all men, to cherish the Poor and Sick, and to live soberly and free from scandal. Without mingling our Religion with Points of Natu­ral Philosophy, as freedom of Will, Incor­poreal Substance, everlasting Nows, Ubi­quities, Hypostases, which the People un­derstand not, nor will ever care for. When the Universities shall be thus disciplin'd, [Page 96] there will come out of them, from time to time, well principled Preachers, and they that are now ill principled from time to time fall away.

B.

I think it a very good course, and per­haps the only one, that can make our peace amongst our selves constant. For if men know not their Duty, what is there that can force them to obey the Laws? An Army you'l say; but what shall force the Army? Were not the Train'd-Bands an Army? Were they not the Janisaries, that not very long ago slew Osman in his own Palace at Constan­tinople? I am therefore of your opinion, both that men may be brought to a love of obedience by Preachers and Gentlemen that imbibe good Principles in their Youth at the Universities, and also, that we never shall have a lasting Peace, till the Universities themselves be in such manner (as you have said) reformed; and the Ministers know they have no Authority but what the Su­preme Civil Power gives them; and the Nobility and Gentry know, that the Liber­ty of a State is not an exemption from the Laws of their own Country, whether made by an Assembly, or by a Monarch; but an exemption from the constraint and insolence of their Neighbours.

And now I am satisfied in this Point, I will bring you back to the place, from [Page 97] whence my curiosity drew you to this long digression.

We were upon the Point of Ship-Money, one of those grievances which the Parlia­ment exclaimed against as Tyrannical and Arbitrary Government, thereby to single out (as you call'd it) the King from his Subjects, and to make a Party against him, when they should need it. And now you may proceed, if it please you, to such other Artifices as they used to the same purpose.

A.

I think it were better to give over here our Discourse of this business, and re­fer it to some other day that you shall think fit.

B.

Content, That day, I believe, is not far off.

Behemoth. PART II.

A.

YOU are welcome; yet if you had stayed somewhat longer, my me­mory would have been so much the better provided for you.

B.

Nay, I pray you give me now what you have about you; for the rest I am con­tent you take what time you please.

A.

After the Parliament had made the People believe, that the exacting of Ship-Money was unlawful, and the People there­by inclined to think it Tyrannical; in the next place, to increase their disaffection to his Majesty, they accused him of a pur­pose, to introduce and authorize the Roman Religion in this Kingdom, than which no­thing was more hateful to the People; not because it was erroneous, (which they had neither Learning nor Judgment enough to examine) but because they had been used to hear it inveighed against in the Sermons [Page 100] and Discourses of the Preachers, whom they trusted to: and this was indeed the most effectual calumny to alienate the People's af­fections from him, that could possibly be in­vented. The colour they had for this slan­der was first, that there was one Rosetti Re­sident (at and a little before that time) from the Pope, with the Queen, and one Mr. George Con Secretary to the Cardinal Francisco Barbarini, Nephew to Pope Vrban the 8th, sent over under favour and prote­ction of the Queen (as was conceiv'd) to draw as many Persons of Quality about the Court, as he should be able, to reconcile themselves to the Church of Rome; with what success I cannot tell; but it is likely he gained some, especially of the weaker Sex, if I may say they were gained by him, when, not his Arguments, but hope of fa­vour from the Queen in all probability pre­vailed upon them.

B.

In such a conjuncture as that was it had perhaps been better they had not been sent.

A.

There was exception also taken at a Covent of Friers Capucins in Somerset-house, though allowed by the Articles of Marriage: and it was reported, that the Jesuits also were shortly after to be allowed a Covent in Clerkenwel: and in the mean time, the principal Secretary, Sir Francis Windebank, [Page 101] was accused for having by his Warrant set at liberty some English Jesuits, that had been taken and imprison'd, for returning in­to England after banishment, contrary to the Statute which had made it Capital. Also the resort of English Catholicks to the Queens Chappel gave them colour to blame the Queen her self, not only for that, but also for all the favours that had been shewn to the Cotholicks; in so much that some of them did not stick to say openly, that the King was govern'd by her.

B.

Strange injustice! The Queen was a Catholick by profession, and therefore could not but endeavour to do the Catholicks all the good she could, she had not else been truly that which she professed to be: but it seems they meant to force her to Hypocri­sie, being Hypocrites themselves. Can any man think it a crime in a devout Lady, of what Sect soever, to seek the favour and benediction of that Church whereof she is a Member?

A.

To give the Parliament another co­lour for their Accusation on foot of the King, as to introducing of Popery, there was a great Controversie between the Epis­copal and Presbyterian Clergy about Free-will. The Dispute began first in the Low Countries, between Gomar and Armin, in the time of King James, who foreseeing it [Page 102] might trouble the Church of England, did what he could to compose the difference: and an Assembly of Divines was thereupon got together at Dort, to which also King James sent a Divine or two, but it came to nothing; the Question was left undecided, and became a Subject to be disputed of in the Universities here. All the Presbyteri­ans were of the same mind with Gomar, but a very great many others not, and those were called here Arminians, who because the Doctrine of Free-will had been explo­ded as a Papistical Doctrine, and because the Presbyterians were far the greater num­ber, and already in favour with the People, were generally hated; it was easie therefore for the Parliament to make that calumny pass currently with the People, when the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Dr. Laud, was for Arminius, and had a little before, by his Power Ecclesiastical, forbidden all Ministers to preach to the People of Predestination: and when all Ministers that were gratious with him, and hoped for any Church-pre­ferment fell to preaching, and writing for Free-will, to the uttermost of their power, as a proof of their ability and merit. Be­sides, they gave out some of them, that the Arch-bishop was in heart a Papist; and in Case he could effect a Toleration here of the Roman Religion, was to have a Cardi­nals [Page 103] Hat, which was, not only false, but also without any ground at all for a sus­pition.

B.

It is a strang thing, that Scholars, ob­scure men, that could receive no clarity but from the flame of the State, should be suffered to bring their unnecessary Disputes, and together with them their quarrels, out of the Universities into the Common-wealth; and more strange, that the State should en­gage in their Parties, and not rather put them both to silence. A State can constrain obedience, but convince no error, nor al­ter the mind of them that believe they have the better reason. Suppression of Doctrines does but unite and exasperate; that is, in­crease both the malice and power of them that have already believed them. But what are the Points they disagree in? Is there any Controversie between Bishop and Pres­byterian concerning the Divinity or Huma­nity of Christ? Do either of them deny the Trinity, or any Article of the Creed? Does either Party preach openly, or write directly against Justice, Charity, Sobriety, or any other Duty necessary to Salvation; except only the Duty to the King, and not that neither, but when they have a mind, either to rule, or destroy the King? Lord have mercy upon us! Can no body be saved that understands not their Disputations? [Page 104] Or is there more requisite, either of Faith, or Honesty, for the Salvation of one man than another? What needs so much preach­ing of Faith to us that are no Heathens, and that believe already all that Christ and his Apostles have told us is necessary to sal­vation, and more too? Why is there so lit­tle preaching of Justice? I have indeed heard Righteousness often recommended to the People, but I have seldom heard the word Justice in their Sermons; nay, though in the Latin and Greek Bible the word Ju­stice occur exceeding often; yet in the English, (though it be a word that every man understands) the word Righteousness (which few understand to signifie the same, but take it rather for Rightness of Opinion than of Action or Intention) is put in the place of it.

A.

I confess I know very few Contro­versies amongst Christians of Points neces­sary to salvation. They are the Questions of Authority and Power over the Church, or of Profit, or of Honour to Church men, that for the most part raise all the Contro­versies. For what man is he, that will trouble himself, and fall-out with his Neigh­bours for the saving of my Soul, or the Soul of any other than himself? When the Presbyterian Ministers and others did so fu­riously preach Sedition, and animate Men [Page 105] to Rebellion in these late Wars; who was there that had not a Benefice, or having one, feared not to lose it, or some other part of his maintenance by the alteration of the Government, that did voluntarily, without any eye to reward, preach so ear­nestly against Sedition, as the other Party preached for it? I confess, that for ought I have observed in History, and other Wri­tings of the Heathens, Greek and Latin, that those Heathens were not at all behind us in Point of Vertue and Moral Duties, notwithstanding that we have had much preaching, and they none at all. I confess also, that considering what harm may pro­ceed from a liberty that men have upon eve­ry Sunday, and oftner, to Harangue all the People of a Nation at one time, whilst the State is ignorant of what they will say, and that there is no such thing permitted in all the World out of Christendome, nor there­fore any Civil Wars about Religion, I have thought much preaching an inconvenience, nevertheless I cannot think that preaching to the People the Points of their Duty, both to God and Man, can be too frequent; so it be done by grave, discreet and ancient Men that are reverenced by the People; and not by light quibling young men, whom no Congregation is so simple, as to look to be taught by, (as being a thing contrary to [Page 106] nature) or to pay them any reverence, or to care what they say, except some few that may be delighted with their jingling: I wish with all my heart there were enough of such discreet and ancient men, as might suffice for all the Parishes of England, and that they would undertake it. But this is but a wish; I leave it to the Wisdom of the State to do what it pleaseth.

B.

What did they next?

A.

Whereas the King had sent Prisoners into places remote from London, three Per­sons that had been condemn'd for publishing seditious Doctrine, some in writing, some in publick Sermons, the Parliament (whe­ther with his Majesties consent or no, I have forgotten) caused them to be released, and to return to London; meaning (I think) to try how the People would be pleas'd therewith, and by consequence, how their endeavours to draw the Peoples affections from the King had already prospered. When these three came through London, it was a kind of Triumph, the People flocking toge­ther to behold them, and receiving them with such Acclamations, and almost Ado­ration, as if they had been let down from Heaven. In so much as the Parliament was now sufficiently assur'd of a great and tu­multuous Party, whensoever they should have occasion to use it. On confidence [Page 107] whereof they proceeded to their next Plot, which was to deprive the King of such Mini­sters as by their Wisdom, Courage and Au­thority they thought most able to prevent, or oppose their farther Designs against the King.

And first the House of Commons resolv'd to impeach the Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieu­tenant of Ireland of High Treason.

B.

What was that Earl of Strafford be­fore he had that place? And how had he offended the Parliament, or given them cause to think he would be their Enemy? for I have heard that in former Parliaments he had been as Parliamentary as any other.

A.

His name was Sir Thomas Wentworth, a Gentleman, both for Birth and Estate very considerable in his own Countrey, which was York-shire, but more considerable for his Judgment in the publick Affairs, not only of that Countrey, but generally of the Kingdom, and was therefore often cho­sen for the Parliament, either as Burgess for some Burrough, or Knight of the Shire. For his Principles of Politicks, they were the same that were generally proceeded up­on by all men else that were thought fit to be chosen for the Parliament, which are commonly these. To take for the Rule of Justice and Government the Judgments and Acts of former Parliaments, which are com­monly [Page 108] called Presidents. To endeavour to keep the People from being subject to Extra-parliamentary Taxes of Money, and from being with Parliamentary Taxes too much oppressed. To preserve to the People their Liberty of body from the Arbitrary Power of the King out of Parliament. To seek redress of Grievances.

B.

What Grievances?

A.

The Grievances commonly were such as these. The King's too much Liberality to some Favorite. The too much power of some Minister or Officer of the Common-wealth. The misdemeanour of Judges Ci­vil or Spiritual, but especially all unparlia­mentary raising of Money upon the Sub­jects. And commonly of late, till such Grievances be redressed, they refuse, or at least make great difficulty to furnish the King with Money necessary for the most urgent occasions of the Common-wealth.

B.

How then can a King discharge his Duty as he ought to do, or the Subject know which of his Masters he is to obey; for here are manifestly two Powers, which, when they chance to differ, cannot both be obeyed?

A.

'Tis true; but they have not often differed so much to the danger of the Com­mon-wealth, as they have done in this Par­liament 1640. In all the Parliaments of [Page 109] the late King Charles, before the Year 1640. my Lord of Strafford did appear in opposi­tion to the King's demands, as much as any man, and was, for that cause, very much esteem'd and cried up by the People as a good Patriot, and one that couragiously stood up in defence of their Liberties; and for the same cause was so much the more hated, when afterwards he endeavoured to maintain the Royal and just Authority of his Majesty.

B.

How came he to change his mind so much, as it seems he did?

A.

After the dissolution of the Parlia­ment holden in the Year 1627. and 1628. the King finding no Money to be gotten from Parliaments, which he was not to buy with the Blood of such Servants and Mini­sters as he loved best, abstained a long time from calling any more, and had abstained longer, if the Rebellion of the Scotch had not forced him to it. During that Parlia­ment the King made Sir Thomas Wentworth a Baron, recommended to him for his great ability, which was generally taken notice of by the disservice he had done the King in former Parliaments, but which might be useful also for him in the times that came on; and not long after he made him of the Council, and after that again Lieutenant of Ireland, which Place he discharged with [Page 110] great satisfaction and benefit to his Majesty, and continued in that Office, till by the Envy and Violence of the Lords and Com­mons of that unlucky Parliament of 1640. he dyed. In which Year he was made Ge­neral of the King's Forces against the Scots that then entred into England, and the Year before Earl of Strafford. The Pacification being made, and the Forces on both sides disbanded, and the Parliament at Westmin­ster now sitting, it was not long before the House of Commons accused him to the House of Lords for High-Treason.

B.

There was no great probability of his being a Traitor to the King, from whose favour he had received his Greatness, and from whose Protection he was to expect his safety. What was the Treason they laid to his charge?

A.

Many Articles were drawn up against him, but the sum of them was contained in these two. First, That he had traiterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental Laws and Government of the Realm; and in stead thereof to introduce an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law. Secondly, That he had laboured to subvert the Rights of Parliaments, and the ancient course of Parliamentary Proceedings.

B.

Was this done by him without the knowledge of the King?

A.
[Page 111]

No.

B.

Why then, if it were Treason, did not the King himself call him in question by his Attorney? What had the House of Com­mons to do, without his Command, to ac­cuse him to the House of Lords? They might have complained to the King, if he had not known it before. I understand not this Law.

A.

Nor I.

B.

Had this been by any former Statutes made Treason?

A.

Not that I ever heard of; nor do I understand how any thing can be Treason against the King, that the King hearing and knowing does not think Treason. But it was a piece of that Parliaments Artifice to put the word Traiterously to any Article ex­hibited against any Man, whose Life they meant to take away.

B.

Was there no particular instance of action, or words out of which they argued that endeavour of his to subvert the funda­mental Laws of Parliament whereof they accused him?

A,

Yes; they said he gave the King counsel to reduce the Parliament to their Duty by the Irish Army, which not long before my Lord of Strafford himself had caused to be Levied there for the King's Ser­vice; but it was never proved against him, [Page 112] that he advised the King to use it against the Parliament.

B.

What are those Laws that are called fundamental? for I understand not how one Law can be more fundamental than ano­ther, except only that Law of Nature that binds us all to obey him, whosoever he be, whom lawfully, and for our own safety we have promised to obey; nor any other fun­damental Law to a King, but Salus Populi, the safety and well-being of his People.

A.

This Parliament in the use of their words, when they accused any man, never regarded the signification of them, but the weight they had to aggravate their accusa­tion to the ignorant multitude, which think all faults hainous, that are express'd in hai­nous terms, if they hate the Person accus'd, as they did this man; not only for being of the King's Party, but also for deserting the Parliaments Party as an Apostate.

B.

I pray you tell me also what they meant by Arbitrary Government, which they seemed so much to hate? Is there any Governour of a People in the World that is forced to govern them, or forced to make this and that Law, whether he will or no? I think not; or if any be, he that forces him does certainly make Laws, and govern arbitrarily.

A.
[Page 113]

That's true; and the true meaning of the Parliament was, that not the King, but they themselves should have the Arbitrary Government, not only of England, but of Ireland, and (as it appeared by the event) of Scotland also.

B.

How the King came by the Govern­ment of Scotland and Ireland by descent from his Ancestors, every body can tell; but if the King of England and his Heirs should chance (which God forbid) to fail, I cannot imagine what Title the Parlia­ment of England can acquire thereby to ei­ther of those Nations.

A.

Yes; they'l say they had been con­quer'd anciently by the English Subjects Money.

B.

Like enough, and suitable to the rest of their impudence.

A.

Impudence in Democratical Assem­blies does almost all that's done; 'tis the Goddess of Rhetorick, and carries proof with it: for what ordinary man will not from so great boldness of affirmation con­clude, there is great probability in the thing affirmed. Upon this Accusation he was brought to his Tryal in Westminster-Hall, be­fore the House of Lords, and found guilty, and presently after declared Traitor by a Bill of Attainder, that is, by Act of Parlia­ment.

B.
[Page 114]

It is a strange thing that the Lords should be induced, upon so light grounds, to give a Sentence, or give their Assent to a Bill so prejudicial to themselves and their Posterity.

A.

'Twas not well done, and yet (as it seems) not ignorantly; for there is a Clause in the Bill, that it should not be taken here­after for an example, that is, for a prejudice in the like Case hereafter.

B.

That's worse than the Bill it self, and is a plain Confession that their Sentence was unjust: for what harm is there in the Ex­amples of just Sentences? Besides, if here­after the like Case should happen, the Sen­tence is not at all made weaker by such a Provision.

A.

Indeed I believe that the Lords, most of them, were not of themselves willing to condemn him of Treason, they were awed to it by the clamor of Common People that came to Westminster, crying out Justice, Ju­stice against the Earl of Strafford; the which were caused to flock thither by some of the House of Commons that were well assur'd, after the triumphant welcome of Prin, Bur­ton and Bastwick, to put the People into tu­mult, upon any occasion they desir'd. They were awed unto it partly also by the House of Commons it self, which if it desir'd to undo a Lord, had no more to do, but to vote him a Delinquent.

B.
[Page 115]

A Delinquent; what's that? A Sin­ner is't not? Did they mean to undo all Sinners?

A.

By Delinquent they meant only a Man to whom they would do all the hurt they could: but the Lords did not yet, I think, suspect they meant to cashiere their whole House.

B.

It's a strange thing the whole House of Lords should not perceive, that the ruin of the King's Power, and the weakening of it was the ruin, or weakening of themselves: for they could not think it likely, that the People ever meant to take the Sovereignty from the King to give it to them, who were few in number, and less in power than so many Commoners, because less beloved by the People.

A.

But it seems not so strange to me; for the Lords for their personal abilities, as they were no less, so also they were no more skil­ful in the Publick Affairs, than the Knights and Burgesses: for there is no reason to think, that if one that is to day a Knight of the Shire in the Lower House, be to morrow made a Lord, and a Member of the Higher House, is therefore wiser than he was be­fore. They are all of both Houses prudent and able Men as any in the Land, in the business of their private Estates, which re­quire nothing but diligence and natural Wit [Page 116] to govern them; but for the Government of a Common-wealth, neither wit, nor pru­dence, nor diligence is enough without in­fallible Rules, and the true Science of Equi­ty and Justice.

B.

If this be true, it is impossible any Common-wealth in the World, whether Monarchy, Aristocratie or Democratie should continue long without change, or Sedition tending to change, either of the Govern­ment or of the Governors.

A.

'Tis true; nor have any the greatest Common-wealths in the World been long free from Sedition. The Greeks had for a while their petty Kings, and then by Sediti­on came to be petty Common-wealths, and then growing to be greater Common-wealths, by Sedition again became Monar­chies, and all for want of Rules of Justice for the Common People to take notice of, which if the People had known in the be­ginning of every of these Seditions, the Ambitious Persons could never had the hope to disturb their Government, after it had been once setled; for Ambition can do little without hands, and few hands it would have, if the Common People were as diligently instructed in the true Princi­ples of their Duty, as they are terrified and amazed by Preachers with fruitless and dan­gerous Doctrines concerning the Nature of [Page 117] Man's Will, and many other Philosophical Points that tend not at all to the salvation of the Soul in the World to come, nor to their ease in this life, but only to the direction to­wards the Clergy of that Duty which they ought to perform to the King.

B.

For ought I see all the States of Chri­stendome will be subject to these fits of Re­bellion, as long as the World lasteth.

A.

Like enough, and yet the fault (as I have said) may be easily mended, by mending the Universities.

B.

How long had the Parliament now sitten?

A.

It began November the third 1640. My Lord of Strafford was impeached of Treason before the Lords November the 12th, sent to the Tower November the 22d, his Tryal began March the 22d, and ended April the 13th. After his Tryal he was voted guilty of High Treason in the House of Commons, and after that in the House of Lords May the 6th, and on the 12th of May beheaded.

B.

Great Expedition; but could not the King for all that have saved him by a Par­don?

A.

The King had heard all that passed at his Tryal, and had declared he was unsatis­fied concerning the Justice of their Sen­tence, and (I think) notwithstanding the [Page 118] danger of his own Person from the fury of the People, and that he was counsel'd to give way to his Execution, not only by such as he most relied on, but also by the Earl of Strafford himself, he would have pardoned him, if that could have preserved him a­gainst the Tumult raised and countenanced by the Parliament it self, for the terrifying of those they thought might favour him: and yet the King himself did not stick to confess afterwards, that he had done amiss in that he did not rescue him.

B.

'Twas an Argument of good Disposi­tion in the King; but I never read that Augustus Caesar acknowledged that he had done a fault in abandoning Cicero to the fury of his Enemy Antonius. Perhaps because Cicero having been of the contrary Faction to his Father, had done Augustus no service at all out of favour to him, but only out of enmity to Antonius, and out of love to the Senate, that is indeed out of love to himself that swayed the Senate; as it is very likely the Earl of Strafford came over to the King's Party for his own ends, having been so much against the King in former Parlia­ments.

A.

We cannot safely judge of mens In­tentions; but I have observed often, that such as seek preferment by their stubborn­ness, have miss'd of their aim; and on the [Page 119] other side, that those Princes, that with preferment are forced to buy the obedience of their Subjects, are already, or must be soon after in a very weak condition: for in a Market where Honour and Power is to be bought with stubbornness, there will be a great many as able to buy, as my Lord Straf­ford was.

B.

You have read, that when Hercules fighting with the Hydra had cut off any one of his many heads, there still arose two other heads in its place, and yet at last he cut them off all.

A.

The Story is told false: for Hercules at first did not cut off those heads, but bought them off, and afterwards, when he saw it did him no good, then he cut them off, and got the Victory.

B.

What did they next?

A.

After the first Impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, the House of Commons upon December the 18th accused the Arch-bishop of Canterbury also of High Treason, that is, of Design to introduce Arbitrary Government, &c. for which he was Februa­ry the 18th sent to the Tower, but his Trial and Execution were deferr'd a long time till January the 10th 1643. for the Entertain­ment of the Scots, that were come into England to aid the Parliament.

B.
[Page 120]

Why did the Scots think there was so much danger in the Arch-bishop of Canter­bury? He was not a Man of War, nor a Man able to bring an Army into the Field; but he was perhaps a very great Politician.

A.

That did not appear by any remarka­ble event of his Counsels. I never heard but he was a very honest man for his Mo­rals, and a very zealous promoter of the Church-Government by Bishops, and that desired to have the Service of God perform­ed, and the House of God adorned, as sui­tably as was possible to the Honour we ought to do to the Divine Majesty. But to bring, as he did, into the State his former Controversies, I mean his squablings in the University about Free-will, and his stand­ing upon Punctilio's, concerning the Ser­vice-Book and its Rubricks, was not (in my opinion) an Argument of his sufficien­cy in Affairs of State. About the same time they passed an Act (which the King con­sented to) for a Triennial Parliament, where­in was Enacted, That after the present Par­liament there should be a Parliament called by the King within the space of three years, and so from three years to three years, to meet at Westminster upon a certain day na­med in the Act.

B.

But what if the King did not call it, finding it perhaps inconvenient, or hurtful [Page 121] to the safety or peace of his People, which God hath put into his charge? For I do not well comprehend how any Sovereign can well keep a People in order when his Hands are tied, or when he hath any other obliga­tion upon him, than the benefit of those he governs; and at this time, for any thing you have told me, they acknowledged the King for their Sovereign.

A.

I know not; but such was the Act. And it was farther Enacted, That if the King did it not by his own Command, then the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper for the time being, should send out the Writs of Summons; and if the Chancellor refused, then the Sheriffs of the several Counties should, of themselves, in their next County-Courts, before the day set down for the Parliaments meeting, proceed to the Election of the Members for the said Parliament.

B.

But what if the Sheriffs refus'd?

A.

I think they were to be sworn to it: but for that, and other particulars, I refer you to the Act.

B.

To whom should they be sworn, when there is no Parliament?

A.

No doubt but to the King, whether there be a Parliament sitting or no.

B.

Then the King may release them of their Oath.

A.
[Page 122]

Besides, they obtained of the King the putting down the Star-Chamber, and the High-Commission-Courts.

B.

Besides, if the King upon the refusal should fall upon them in anger; who shall (the Parliament not sitting) protect either the Chancellor or the Sheriffs in their diso­bedience.

A.

I pray you do not ask me any reason of such things I understand no better than you. I tell you only an Act passed to that purpose, and was signed by the King in the middle of February, a little before the Arch-bishop was sent to the Tower. Besides this Bill, the two Houses of Parliament agreed upon another, wherein it was Enacted, That the present Parliament should continue till both the Houses did consent to the Dissolu­tion of it; which Bill also the King signed the same day he signed the Warrant for the Execution of the Earl of Strafford.

B.

What a great Progress made the Par­liament towards the ends of the most sedi­tious Members of both Houses in so little time? They sate down in November, and now it was May, in this space of time, which is but half a year, they won from the King the adherence which was due to him from his People; they drave his faithfulest Ser­vants from him; beheaded the Earl of Straf­ford; imprison'd the Arch-bishop of Canter­bury; [Page 123] obtain'd a Triennial Parliament after their own Dissolution, and a continuance of their own sitting, as long as they listed; which last amounted to a total Extinction of the King's Right, in case that such a Grant were valid, which I think it is not, unless the Sovereignty it self be in plain terms re­nounced, which it was not. But what Mo­ney by way of Subsidy, or otherwise, did they grant the King in recompence of all these his large Concessions?

A.

None at all; but often promised they would make him the most glorious King that ever was in England ▪ which were words that passed well enough for well meaning with the Common People.

B.

But the Parliament was contented now: for I cannot imagine what they should desire more from the King, than he had now granted them.

A.

Yes; they desir'd the whole and ab­solute Sovereignty, and to change the Mo­narchical Government into an Oligarchie, that is to say, to make the Parliament, con­sisting of a few Lords, and about 400 Com­moners, absolute in the Sovereignty, for the present, and shortly after to lay the House of Lords aside: for this was the De­sign of the Presbyterian Ministers, who taking themselves to be by Divine Right the only lawful Governors of the Church, [Page 124] endeavoured to bring the same form of Go­vernment into the Civil State. And as the Spiritual Laws were to be made by their Sy­nods, so the Civil Laws should be made by the House of Commons, who as they thought would no less be ruled by them afterwards, than they formerly had been, wherein they were deceived, and found themselves out-gone by their own Disciples, though not in Malice, yet in Wit.

B.

What followed after this?

A.

In August following, the King sup­posing he had now sufficiently obliged the Parliament to proceed no farther against him, took a Journey into Scotland to satisfie his Subjects there, as he had done here, in­tending perhaps so to gain their good Wills, that in case the Parliament here should Levy Arms against him, they should not be aided by the Scots; wherein he also was deceiv'd; for though they seemed satisfied with what he did, (whereof one thing was his giving way to the abolition of Episcopacy) yet af­terwards they made a League with the Par­liament, and for Money (when the King began to have the better of the Parliament) invaded England in the Parliaments quarrel, but this was a year or two after.

B.

Before you go any farther, I desire to know the Ground and Original of that Right, which either the House of Lords, [Page 125] or House of Commons, or both together, now pretend to.

A.

It is a Question of things so long past, that they are now forgotten. Nor have we any thing to conjecture by, but the Records of our own Nation, and some small and ob­scure fragments of Roman Histories: And for the Records, seeing they are of things done only, sometimes justly, sometimes un­justly, you can never by them know what Right they had, but only what Right they pretended.

B.

Howsoever let me know what light we have in this matter from the Roman Hi­stories.

A.

It would be too long, and an useless digression to cite all the Ancient Authors that speak of the forms of those Common-wealths, which were amongst our first An­cestors the Saxons, and other Germans, and of other Nations, from whom we derive the Titles of Honour now in use in England; nor will it be possible to derive from them any Argument of Right, but only Exam­ples of Fact, which by the Ambition of po­tent Subjects have been oftner unjust, than otherwise. And for those Saxons or Angles, that in Ancient times by several Invasions made themselves Masters of this Nation; they were not in themselves one Body of a Common-wealth, but only a League of di­vers [Page 126] petty German Lords and States, such as was the Grecian Army in the Trojan War, without other obligation, than that which proceeded from their own fear and weakness. Nor were those Lords, for the most part the Sovereigns at home in their own Coun­try, but chosen by the People for the Cap­tains of the Forces they brought with them. And therefore it was not without Equity, when they had conquered any part of the Land. and made some one of them King thereof, that the rest should have greater priviledges than the Common People and Soldiers, amongst which priviledges a man may easily conjecture this to be one; That they should be made acquainted, and be of Councel with him that hath the Sovereignty in matter of Government, and have the greatest and most honourable Offices, both in Peace and War. But because there can be no Government where there is more than one Sovereign, it cannot be inferr'd, that they had a Right to oppose the King's Resolutions by force, nor to enjoy those Ho­nours and Places longer than they should continue good Subjects. And we find that the Kings of England did, upon every great occasion, call them together, by the name of discreet and wise Men of the Kingdom, and hear their Counsel, and make them Judges of all Causes that, during their sit­ting, [Page 127] were brought before them. But as he summon'd them at his own pleasure, so had he also ever the power at his pleasure to dissolve them. The Normans also that descended from the Germans, as we did, had the same Customs in this particular; and by this means this priviledge of the Lords to be of the King's Great Councel, and when they were assembled to be the Highest of the King's Courts of Justice, continued still after the Conquest to this day. But though there be amongst the Lords divers Names or Titles of Honour, yet they have their Pri­viledge by the only Name of Baron, a Name receiv'd from the Ancient Gaules, amongst whom that Name signified the King's Man, or rather one of his Great Men: By which it seems to me, that though they gave him Counsel, when he requir'd it, yet they had no Right to make War upon him, if he did not follow it.

B.

When began first the House of Com­mons to be part of the King's Great Coun­cel?

A.

I do not doubt but that before the Conquest some discreet Men, and known to be so by the King, were called by special Writ to be of the same Councel, though they were not Lords; but that is nothing to the House of Commons: The Knights of Shires and Burgesses were never called to [Page 128] Parliament for ought that I know, till the beginning of the Reign of Edward the first, or the latter end of the Reign of Henry the third, immediately after the misbehaviour of the Barons; and for ought any man knows were called on purpose to weaken that Power of the Lords, which they had so freshly abused. Before the time of Hen­ry the third the Lords were descended most of them from such as in the Invasions and Conquests of the Germans were Peers and Fellow-Kings, till one was made King of them all; and their Tenants were their Sub­jects, as it is at this day with the Lords of France: but after the time of Henry the third, the Kings began to make Lords in the place of them whose Issue failed, Titulary only, without the Lands belonging to their Title; and by that means their Tenants be­ing no longer bound to serve them in the Wars, they grew every day less and less a­ble to make a Party against the King, though they continued still to be his Great Coun­cel. And as their Power decreased, so the Power of the House of Commons increased; but I do not find they were part of the King's Councel at all, nor Judges over other men; though it cannot be denied, but a King may ask their advice, as well as the advice of any other; but I do not find that the end of their summoning was to give ad­vice, [Page 129] but only in case they had any Petiti­ons for redress of Grievances, to be ready there with them, whilst the King had his Great Councel about him.

But neither they nor the Lords could present to the King as a Grievance; That the King took upon him to make the Laws; To choose his own Privy-Councellors; To raise Money and Soldiers; To defend the Peace and Honour of the Kingdom; To make Captains in his Army; To make Go­vernours of his Castles, whom he pleased; for this had been to tell the King, that it was one of their Grievances that he was King.

B.

What did the Parliament do whilst the King was in Scotland?

A.

The King went in August, after which the Parliament September the 8th adjourn­ed, till the 20th of October, and the King re­turn'd about the end of November following, in which time the most seditious of both Houses, and which had design'd the change of Government, and to cast off Monarchy, (but yet had not wit enough to set up any other Government in its place, and conse­quently left it to the chance of War) made a Cabal amongst themselves, in which they projected how by seconding one another to govern the House of Commons, and in­vented how to put the Kingdom, by the [Page 130] power of that House, into a Rebellion, which they then called a posture of Defence against such dangers from abroad as they themselves should feign and publish. Be­sides, whilst the King was in Scotland, the Irish Papists got together a great Party, with an intention to Massacre the Protestants there, and had laid a Design for the seizing of Dublin Castle in October the 20th, where the King's Officers of the Government of that Countrey made their Residence, and had effected it, had it not been discovered the night before. The manner of the Dis­covery, and the Murders they committed in the Country afterwards, I need not tell you, since the whole Story of it is ex­tant.

B.

I wonder they did not expect and pro­vide for a Rebellion in Ireland, as soon as they began to quarrel with the King in Eng­land: for was there any body so ignorant, as not to know, that the Irish Papists did long for a change of Religion there, as well as the Presbyterians in England? Or that in general the Irish Nation did hate the name of Subjection to England? Or would longer be quiet than they feared an Army out of England to chastise them? What bet­ter time then could they take for their Re­bellion than this, wherein they were encou­raged, not only by our weakness, caused [Page 131] by this division between the King and his Parliament, but also by the Example of the Presbyterians, both of the Scotch and Eng­lish Nation? But what did the Parliament do upon this occasion in the King's ab­sence?

A.

Nothing but consider what use they might make of it to their own ends, partly by imputing it to the King's evil Counsel­lors, and partly by occasion thereof to de­mand of the King the power of pressing and ordering of Soldiers; which power whoso­ever has, has also, without doubt, the whole Sovereignty.

B.

When came the King back?

A.

He came back the 25th of November, and was welcomed with the Acclamations of the Common People, as much, as if he had been the most beloved of all the Kings that were before him, but found not a Re­ception by the Parliament answerable to it. They presently began to pick new quarrels against him out of every thing he said to them. December the second the King called together both Houses of Parliament, and then did only recommend unto them the raising of Succors for Ireland.

B.

What quarrel could they pick out of that?

A.

None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a Bill in agitation to [Page 132] assert the Power of Levying and Pressing Soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the Power of the Militia, which is in effect the whole Sovereign Power: for he that hath the power of Le­vying and Commanding of the Soldiers, has all other Rights of Sovereignty, which he shall please to claim. The King hearing of it called the Houses of Parliament toge­ther again, on December the 14th, and then pressed again the business of Ireland, (as there was need; for all this while the Irish were murdering of the English in Ireland, and strengthening themselves against the Forces they expected to come out of Eng­land) and withal told them, he took notice of the Bill in agitation for pressing of Sol­diers, and that he was contented it should pass with a Salvo Jure both for him and them, because the present time was unseaso­nable to dispute it in.

B.

What was there unreasonable in this?

A.

Nothing. What's unreasonable is one question, what they quarrel'd at is another. They quarrel'd at this; That his Majesty took notice of the Bill, while it was in de­bate in the House of Lords, before it was presented to him in the course of Parlia­ment, and also that he shewed himself dis­pleas'd with those that propounded the said [Page 133] Bill: both which they declared to be against the Priviledges of Parliament, and petitio­ned the King to give them reparation against those by whose evil Counsel he was induced to it, that they might receive condign pu­nishment.

B.

This was cruel proceeding. Do not the Kings of England use to sit in the Lords House when they please? And was not this Bill in debate then in the House of Lords? It is a strange thing that a Man should be lawfully in the company of Men, where he must needs hear and see what they say and do; and yet must not take notice of it, so much as to the same company: for though the King was not present at the Debate it self, yet it was lawful for any of the Lords to make him acquainted with it. Any one of the House of Commons, though not present at a Proposition, or Debate in the House, nevertheless hearing of it from some of his Fellow-Members, may certainly, not only take notice of it, but also speak to it in the House of Commons: but to make the King give up his Friends and Councellors to them, to be put to death, banishment or imprisonment for their good will to him, was such a Tyranny over a King, no King ever exercised over any Subject, but in Cases of Treason or Murder, and seldom then.

A.
[Page 134]

Presently hereupon began a kind of War between the Pens of the Parliament and those of the Secretaries, and other able men that were with the King: For upon the 15th of December they sent to the King a Paper called A Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom, and with it a Petition, both which they caused to be published. In the Remonstrance they complained of certain mischievous Designs of a Malignant Party then, before the beginning of the Parlia­ment, grown ripe; and did set forth what means had been used for the preventing of it by the wisdom of the Parliament, what rubs they had found therein, what course was fit to be taken for restoring and esta­blishing the Ancient Honour, Greatness and Safety of the Crown and Nation.

1st. And of these Designs the Promoters and Actors were, they said, Jesuited Pa­pists.

2ly. The Bishops and that part of the Clergy that cherish formality as a support of their own Ecclesiastical Tyranny and U­surpation.

3ly. Councellors and Courtiers, that for private ends (they said) had engaged them­selves to farther the Interests of some For­reign Princes.

B.

It may very well be that some of the Bishops, and also some of the Court, may [Page 135] have, in pursuit of their private Interest, done something indiscreetly, and perhaps wickedly; therefore I pray you tell me in particular what their crimes were: for me­thinks the King should not have conniv'd at any thing against his own Supream Au­thority.

A.

The Parliament were not very keen against them that were against the King; they made no doubt but all they did was by the King's Command, but accus'd there­of the Bishops, Councellors and Courtiers, as being a more mannerly way of accusing the King himself, and defaming him to his Subjects: For the truth is, the Charge they brought against them was so general as not to be called an Accusation, but Railing. As first, they said they nourished Questi­ons of Prerogative and Liberty between the King and his People, to the end that seeming much addicted to his Majesties Ser­vice, they might get themselves into Pla­ces of greatest Trust and Power in the Kingdom.

B.

How could this be called an Accusati­on in which there is no Fact for any Accusers to apply their Proofs to, or their Witnesses: for granting that these Questions of Prero­gative had been moved by them, who can prove that their end was to gain to them­selves and Friends the Places of Trust and Power in the Kingdom?

A.
[Page 136]

A second Accusation was, That they endeavoured to suppress the purity and pow­er of Religion.

B.

That's Canting; it is not in man's power to suppress the power of Religion.

A.

They meant that they suppress the Doctrine of the Presbyterians, that is to say, the very foundation of the then Par­liaments treacherous pretensions.

A third; That they cherished Arminians, Papists, and Libertines, (by which they meant the common Protestants, which med­dle not with Disputes) to the end they might compose a Body fit to act according to their Counsels and Resolutions.

A Fourth; That they endeavoured to put the King upon other courses of raising Money, than by the ordinary way of Par­liaments: Judge whether these may be pro­perly called Accusations, or not rather spite­ful Reproaches of the King's Government.

B.

Methinks this last was a very great fault; for what good could there be in put­ting the King upon an odd course of getting Money, when the Parliament was willing to supply him as far as to the security of the Kingdom, or to the Honour of the King should be necessary?

A.

But I told you before they would give him none, but with a condition he should cut off the Heads of whom they pleas'd, how [Page 137] faithfully soever they had serv'd him: and if he would have sacrificed all his Friends to their Ambition, yet they would have found other excuses for denying him Subsidies: for they were resolv'd to take from him the Sovereign Power to themselves, which they could never do without taking great care that he should have no Money at all. In the next place they put into the Remonstrance as faults of them whose Counsel the King fol­lowed, all those things which since the be­ginning of the King's Reign were by them misliked, whether faults or not, and where­of they were not able to judge for want of knowledge of the Causes and Motives that induced the King to do them, and were known only to the King himself, and such of his Privy-Council as he revealed them to.

B.

But what were those particular pre­tended faults?

A.

1. The Dissolution of his first Par­liament at Oxford. 2. The Dissolution of his second Parliament, being in the second year of his Reign. 3. The Dissolution of his Parliament in the fourth year of his Reign. 4. The fruitless Expedition against Cales. 5. The Peace made with Spain, whereby the Palatines Cause was deserted, and left to chargeable and hopeless Treaties. 6. The sending of Commissions to raise [Page 138] Money by way of Loan. 7. Raising of Ship-Money. 8. Enlargement of Forrests contrary to Magna Charta. 9. The Design of engrossing all the Gunpowder into one hand, and keeping it in the Tower of Lon­don. 10. A Design to bring in the use of Brass Money. 11. The Fines, Imprison­ments, Stigmatizings, Mutilations, Whip­pings, Pillories, Gags, Confinements and Banishments by Sentence in the Court of Star-Chamber. 12. The displacing of Judges. 13. Illegal Acts of the Council-Table. 14. The Arbitrary and Illegal Power of the Earl Marshal's Court. 15. The abuses in Chancery, Exchequer Chamber, and Court of Wards. 16. The selling of Titles of Ho­nour of Judges and Serjeants Places, and o­ther Offices. 17. The Insolence of Bishops and other Clerks in Suspensions, Excommu­nications, Deprivations and Degradations of divers painful, and learned, and pious Ministers.

B.

Were there any such Ministers degra­ded, deprived, or excommunicated?

A.

I cannot tell; but I remember I have heard threatned divers painful, unlearned and seditious Ministers. 18. The Excess of severity of the High-Commission Court. 19. The Preaching before the King against the Property of the Subject, and for the Prerogative of the King above the Law, and [Page 139] divers other petty quarrels they had to the Government, which though they were laid upon this Faction, yet they knew they would fall upon the King himself in the Judgment of the People, to whom by printing it was communicated.

Again, after the Dissolution of the Par­liament May the 5th 1640. they find other faults, as the Dissolution it self; The Im­prisoning some Members of both Houses; A forced Loan of Money attempted in Lon­don; The Continuance of the Convocation, when the Parliament was ended, and the fa­vour shewed to Papists by Secretary Winde­bank, and others.

B.

All this will go current with common People for misgovernment, and for faults of the King's, though some of them were misfortunes, and both the misfortunes and the misgovernment (if any were) were the faults of the Parliament, who by deny­ing to give him Money, did both frustrate his Attempts abroad, and put him upon those extraordinary ways (which they call Illegal) of raising Money at home.

A.

You see what a heap of evils they have raised to make a shew of ill govern­ment to the People, which they second with an enumeration of the many Services they have done the King in overcoming a great many of them, though not all, and in di­vers [Page 140] other things; and say, that though they had contracted a Debt to the Scots of 2200 l. and granted six Subsidies, and a Bill of Pole-Money worth six Subsidies more, yet that God had so blessed the endea­vours of this Parliament, that the Kingdom was a gainer by it: and then follows the Catalogue of those good things they had done for the King and Kingdom. For the Kingdom they had done (they said) these things. They had abolished Ship-Money; They had taken away Coat and Conduct-Money, and other Military Charges, which they said amounted to little less than the Ship-Money. That they suppress'd all Mo­nopolies, which they reckoned above a Mil­lion yearly saved by the Subject. That they had quelled living Grievances, meaning e­vil Counsellors and Actors, by the death of my Lord of Strafford, by the flight of the Chancellor Finch, and of Secretary Winde­bank, by the Imprisonment of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and of Judge Bartlet, and the Impeachment of other Bishops and Judges. That they had pass'd a Bill for a Triennial Parliament, and another for the Continuance of the present Parliament, till they should think fit to dissolve them­selves.

B.

That is to say for ever if they be suf­fered. But the sum of all these things which [Page 141] they had done for the Kingdom is, that they had left it without Government, without Strength, without Money, without Law, and without good Councel.

A.

They reckoned also putting down of the High-Commission, and the abating of the power of the Council-Table, and of the Bishops and their Courts; The taking away of unnecessary Ceremonies in Religi­on; Removing of Ministers from their Liv­ings, that were not of their Faction, and putting in such as were.

B.

All this was but their own, and not the Kingdoms Business.

A.

The good they had done the King was first (they said) The giving of 25000 l. a month for the relief of the Northern Counties.

B.

What need of relief had the Northern more than the rest of the Counties of England?

A,

Yes; in the Northern Counties were quartered the Scotch Army, which the Par­liament called in to oppose the King, and consequently their Quarter was to be dis­charged.

B.

True; but by the Parliament that call'd them in.

A.

But they say no; and that this Mo­ney was given to the King, because he is bound to protect his Subjects.

B.
[Page 142]

He is no farther bound to that, than they to give him Money wherewithal to do it. This is very great impudence to raise an Army against the King, and with that Army to oppress their Fellow-Subjects, and then require that the King should relieve them; that is to say, be at the charge of paying the Army that was raised to fight a­gainst him.

A.

Nay farther; They put to the King's Account the 300000 l. given to the Scots, without which they would not have inva­ded England; besides many other things that I now remember not.

B.

I did not think there had been so great impudence and villany in mankind.

A.

You have not observ'd the World long enough to see all that's ill. Such was their Remonstrance, as I have told you: With it they sent a Petition containing three Points. 1. That his Majesty would deprive the Bishops of their Votes in Parliament, and remove such Oppressions in Religion, Church Government and Discipline, as they had brought in. 2. That he would remove from his Council all such as should promote the Peoples Grievances, and employ in his Great and Publick Affairs such as the Par­liament should confide in. 3. That he would not give away the Lands Escheated to the Crown by the Rebellion in Ireland.

B.
[Page 143]

This last Point, methinks, was not wisely put in at this time, it should have been reserv'd, till they had subdued the Rebels, against whom there were yet no Forces sent over. 'Tis like selling the Ly­ons Skin before they had kill'd him. But what answer was made to the other two Propositions?

A.

What answer should be made but a Denial? About the same time the King him­self exhibited Articles against six Persons of the Parliament, five whereof were of the House of Commons, and one of the House of Lords, accusing them of High Treason, and upon the 4th of January went himself to the House of Commons to demand those five of them: but private notice having been given by some Treacherous Person a­bout the King, they had absented themselves; and by that means frustrated his Majesties Intentions; and after he was gone, the House making a hainous matter of it, and a high breach of their Priviledges, adjourn­ed themselves into London, there to sit as a General Committee, pretending they were not safe at Westminster, for the King, when he went to the House to demand those Persons, had somewhat more attendance with him (but not otherwise armed than his Servants used to be) than he ordinarily had: and would not be pacified, though the King did [Page 144] afterward wave the prosecution of those per­sons, unless he would also discover to them those that gave him Counsel to go in that manner to the Parliament House, to the end they might receive condign punishment, which was the word they used in stead of cruelty.

B.

This was a harsh demand. Was it not enough that the King should forbear his Enemies, but also that he must betray his Friends? If they thus tyrannize over the King, before they have gotten the Sovereign Power into their hands; how will they ty­rannize over their Fellow-Subjects, when they have gotten it?

A.

So as they did.

B.

How long staid that Committee in London?

A.

Not above two or three days, and then were brought from London to the Par­liament House by Water, in great triumph, guarded with a tumultuous number of Ar­med Men, there to sit in security in despite of the King, and make traiterous Acts a­gainst him, such, and as many as they list­ed, and under favour of these tumults to frighten away from the House of Peers all such as were not of their own Faction. For at this time the Rabble was so insolent, that scarce any of the Bishops durst go to the House, for fear of violence upon their per­sons: [Page 145] in so much as twelve of them excused themselves of coming thither; and by way of Petition to the King remonstrated, That they were not permitted to go quietly to the performance of that Duty, and protesting against all Determinations, as of none effect, that should pass in the House of Lords du­ring their forced absence; which the House of Commons taking hold of, sent up to the Peers one of their Members to accuse them of High Treason; whereupon ten of them were sent to the Tower, after which time there were no more words of their High Treason; but there passed a Bill by which they were deprived of their Votes in Par­liament, and to this Bill they got the Kings Assent: and in the beginning of September after, they voted that the Bishops should have no more to do in the Government of the Church, but to this they had not the King's Assent, the War being now begun.

B.

What made the Parliament so averse to Episcopacy, and especially the House of Lords, whereof the Bishops were Members? for I see no reason why they should do it to gratifie a number of poor Parish Priests, that were Presbyterians, and that were ne­ver likely any way to serve the Lords, but on the contrary to do their best to pull down their power, and subject them to their Synods and Classes.

A.
[Page 146]

For the Lords very few of them did perceive the intention of the Presbyterians, and besides that, they durst not (I believe) oppose the Lower House.

B.

But why were the Lower House so earnest against them?

A.

Because they meant to make use of their Tenents, and with pretended Sanctity to make the King and his Party odious to the People, by whose help they were to set up Democracy, and depose the King, or to let him have the Title only so long as he should act for their purposes: but not only the Parliament, but in a manner all the Peo­ple of England were their Enemies upon the account of their behaviour, as being (they said) too imperious. This was all that was colourably laid to their charge; the main cause of pulling them down was the envy of the Presbyterians that incensed the Peo­ple against them, and against Episcopacy it self.

B.

How would the Presbyterians have the Church to be governed?

A.

By National and Provincial Synods.

B.

Is not this to make the National As­sembly an Arch-bishop, and the Provincial Assemblies so many Bishops?

A.

Yes; but every Minister shall have the delight of sharing the Government, and consequently of being able to be revenged [Page 147] on them that do not admire their Learning, and help to fill their Purses, and win to their Service them that do.

B.

'Tis a hard Case, that there should be two Factions to trouble the Common-wealth, without any Interest in it of their own, other than every particular man may have, and that their quarrels should be only about Opinions, that is, about who has the most Learning, as if their Learning ought to be the Rule of governing all the World. What is it they are learned in? Is it Poli­ticks and Rules of State? I know it is cal­led Divinity, but I hear almost nothing preach'd but matter of Philosophy. For Religion in it self admits no controversie. 'Tis a Law of the Kingdom, and ought not to be disputed. I do not think they pretend to speak with God and know his Will by any other way than reading the Scriptures, which we also do.

A.

Yes; some of them do, and give themselves out for Prophets by extraordina­ry Inspiration; but the rest pretend only (for their Advancement to Benefices and Charge of Souls) a greater skill in the Scriptures than other men have, by reason of their breeding in the Universities, and knowledge there gotten of the Latin Tongue, and some also of the Greek and Hebrew Tongues, wherein the Scripture was writ­ten; [Page 148] besides their knowledge of Natural Phi­losophy, which is there publickly taught.

B.

As for the Latin, Greek and Hebrew Tongues, it was once (to the Detection of Roman fraud, and to the ejection of the Ro­mish Power) very profitable, or rather ne­cessary; but now that's done, and we have the Scripture in English, and preaching in English, I see no great need of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. I should think my self better qualified by understanding well the Lan­guages of our Neighbours, French, Dutch and Italian. I think it was never seen in the World before the power of Popes was set up, that Philosophy was much conducing to Power in a Common-wealth.

A.

But Philosophy, together with Divi­nity, have very much conduced to the ad­vancement of the Professors thereof to Pla­ces of the greatest Authority, next to the Authority of Kings themselves, in most of the ancient Kingdoms of the World, as is manifestly to be seen in the History of those times.

B.

I pray you cite me some of the Au­thors and Places.

A.

First, what were the Druids of old time in Britany and France? What Autho­rity these had you may see in Caesar, Strabo and others, and especially in Diodorus Si­culus, the greatest Antiquary perhaps that [Page 149] ever was, who speaking of the Druids ▪ (which he calls Sarovides) in France, says thus. There be also amongst them certain Philosophers and Theologians, that are ex­ceedingly honoured, whom they also use as Prophets; these Men by their skill in Augu­ry, and Inspection into the Bowels of Beasts sacrificed, foretel what is to come, and have the Multitude obedient to them. And a lit­tle after; It is a Custom amongst them, that no man may sacrifice without a Philo­sopher; because (say they) men ought not to present their thanks to the Gods, but by them that know the Divine Nature, and are as it were of the same Language with them, and that all good things ought by such as these to be prayed for.

B.

I can hardly believe that those Druids were very skilful, either in Natural Philo­sophy or Moral.

A.

Nor I; for they held and taught the Transmigration of Souls from one Body to another, as did Pythagoras; which Opini­on, whether they took from him, or he from them, I cannot tell.

What were the Magi in Persia, but Phi­losophers and Astrologers? You know how they came to find our Saviour by the con­duct of a Star, either from Persia it self, or from some Countrey more Eastward than Judea. Were not these in great Authority [Page 150] in their Countrey? And are they not in most part of Christendome thought to have been Kings?

Aegypt hath been thought by many the most ancient Kingdom and Nation of the World, and their Priests had the greatest power in Civil Affairs, that any Subjects ever had in any Nation. And what were they but Philosophers and Divines? con­cerning whom the same Diodorus Siculus says thus. The whole Countrey (of Aegypt) being divided into three parts, the Body of the Priests have one, as being of most cre­dit with the People, both for their Devoti­on towards the Gods, and also for their un­derstanding gotten by Education; and pre­sently after: for generally these men in the greatest Affairs of all▪ are the King's Coun­cellors, partly executing, and partly infor­ming and advising; foretelling him also (by their skill in Astrology, and Art in the In­spection of Sacrifices) the things that are to come, and reading to him out of their Holy Books, such of the Actions there re­corded, as are profitable for him to know. 'Tis not there as in Greece, one man or one woman that has the Priesthood, but they are many that attend the Honours and Sa­crifices of the Gods, and leave the same em­ployment to their posterity, which next to the King hath the greatest Power and Au­thority.

[Page 151]Concerning the Judicature amongst the Aegyptians, he saith thus: from out of the most eminent Cities Hieropolis, Thebes and Memphis they choose Judges, which are a Councel not inferior to that of Areopagus in Athens, or that of the Senate in Lacedae­mon. When they are met, being in num­ber 30, they choose one from amongst themselves to be Chief Justice, and the City, whereof he is, sendeth another in his place. This Chief Justice wore about his Neck hung in a Gold Chain, a Jewel of pretious Stones, the name of which Jewel was Truth, which when the Chief Justice had put on, then began the Pleading, &c. and when the Judges had agreed on the Sentence, then did the Chief Justice put this Jewel of Truth to one of the Pleas. You see now what power was acquir'd in Civil matters by the Conjuncture of Philosophy and Divinity.

Let us come now to the Common-wealth of the Jews. Was not the Priesthood in a Family (namely the Levites) as well as the Priesthood of Aegypt? Did not the High Priest give Judgment by the Breast­plate of Urim and Thummim? Look upon the Kingdom of Assyria, and the Philoso­phers and Chaldaeans. Had they not Lands and Cities belonging to their Family, even in Abraham's time, who dwelt (you know) in Vr of the Chaldaeans; of these the same [Page 152] Author says thus: The Chaldaeans are a Sect in Politicks like to that of the Aegyptian Priests; for being ordained for the Service of the Gods, they spend the whole time of their life in Philosophy, being of exceeding great reputation in Astrology, and pretend­ing much also to Prophecy, foretelling things to come by Purifications and Sacrifices, and to find out by certain Incantations the pre­venting of harm, and the bringing to pass of good. They have also skill in Augury, and in the Interpretation of Dreams and Wonders, nor are unskilful in the Art of foretelling by the Inwards of Beasts sacrifi­ced, and have their Learning, not as the Greeks: for the Philosophy of the Chaldae­ons goes to their Family by Tradition, and the Son receives it from his Father.

From Assyria let us pass into India, and see what esteem the Philosophers had there. The whole Multitude (says Diodorus) of the Indians is divided into seven parts; whereof the first is the Body of Philoso­phers, for number the least, but for eminence the first; for they are free from Taxes, and as they are not Masters of others, so are no others Masters of them. By private men they are called to the Sacrifices, and to the care of burials of the dead, as being thought most beloved of the Gods, and skilful in the Doctrine concerning Hell, [Page 153] and for this Employment receive Gifts and Honours very considerable. They are also of great use to the People of India; for be­ing taken at the beginning of the year into the Great Assembly, they foretell them of great Drouths, great Rains, also of Winds and of Sicknesses, and of whatsoever is profitable for them to know before-hand.

The same Author concerning the Laws of the Aethiopians saith thus: The Laws of the Aethiopians seem very different from those of other Nations, and especially about the Election of their Kings: for the Priests propound some of the Chief Men amongst them, named in a Catalogue, and whom the God (which according to a certain Cu­stom is carried about to Feastings) does ac­cept of, him the Multitude elect for their King, and presently adore and honour him as a God, put into the Government by Di­vine Providence. The King being chosen, he has the manner of his life limited to him by the Laws, and does all other things ac­cording to the Custom of the Countrey, neither rewarding, nor punishing any man, otherwise than from the beginning is esta­blished amongst them by Law; nor use they to put any man to death, though he be condemned to it, but to send some Officer to him with a Token of death; who seeing the Token, goes presently to his House, and [Page 154] kills himself presently after: But the strang­est thing of all is, that which they do con­cerning the death of their Kings: for the Priests that live in Meröe, and spend their time about the Worship and Honour of the Gods, and are in greatest Authority; when they have a mind to it, send a Messenger to the King, to bid him die, for that the Gods have given such order, and that the Com­mandments of the Immortals are not by any means to be neglected by those that are by Nature Mortal; using also other Speeches to him, which men of simple Judgment, and that have not reason enough to dispute against those unnecessary Commands, as be­ing educated in an old and undelible Cu­stom, are content to admit of. Therefore in former times the Kings did obey the Priests, not as mastered by Force and Arms, but as having their reason mastered by Su­perstition. But in the time of Ptolomy the second, Ergamenes, King of the Aethiopi­ans, having had his breeding in Philosophy after the manner of the Greeks, being the first that durst dispute their power, took heart as befitted a King, came with Soldiers to a place called Abaton, where was then the Golden Temple of the Aethiopians, killed all the Priests, abolished the Custom, and rectified the Kingdom according to his will.

B.
[Page 155]

Though they that were killed were most damnable Impostors, yet the Act was cruel.

A.

It was so: but were not the Priests cruel to cause their Kings, whom a little be­fore they adored as Gods, to make away themselves? The King killed them for the safety of his Person; they him out of Am­bition or love of Change. The King's Act may be coloured with the good of his Peo­ple; The Priests had no pretence against their Kings, who were certainly very god­ly, or else would never have obeyed the Command of the Priests by a Messenger unarmed, to kill themselves. Our late King, the best King perhaps that ever was, you know, was murdered, having been first persecuted by War, at the incitement of Presbyterian Ministers, who are therefore guilty of the death of all that fell in that War, which were, I believe, in England, Scotland and Ireland near 100000 persons. Had it not been much better that those se­ditious Ministers, which were not perhaps 1000, had been all killed, before they had preached. It had been (I confess) a great Massacre, but the killing of 100000 is a greater.

B.

I am glad the Bishops were out at this business; as ambitious as some say they are, it did not appear in that business, for [Page 156] they were Enemies to them that were in it.

A.

But I intend not by these Quotations to commend either the Divinity, or the Phi­losophy of those Heathen People; but to shew only what the reputation of those Sci­ences can effect among the People. For their Divinity was nothing but Idolatry, and their Philosophy (excepting the know­ledge which the Aegyptian Priests, and from them the Chaldaeans, had gotten by long observation and study in Astronomy, Geo­metry and Arithmetick) very little; and that in great part abused in Astrology and Fortune-telling. Whereas the Divinity of the Clergy in this Nation, considered apart from the mixture (that has been introdu­ced by the Church of Rome, and in part retained here) of the babling Philosophy of Aristotle, and other Greeks, that has no affinity with Religion, and serves only to breed disaffection, dissention, and finally Sedition and Civil War (as we have lately found by dear experience, in the differences between the Presbyterians and Episcopals) is the true Religion: but for these differen­ces both Parties as they came in power, not only suppressed the Tenets of one another; but also whatsoever Doctrine look'd with an ill aspect upon their Interest, and consequent­ly all true Philosophy, especially Civil and [Page 157] Moral, which can never appear propitious to ambition, or to an exemption from their o­bedience due to the Sovereign Power.

After the King had accused the Lord Kim­bolton, a Member of the Lords House, and Hollis, Haslerigg, Hampden, Pim and Stroud, five Members of the Lower House, of High Treason; and after the Parliament had vo­ted out the Bishops from the House of Peers; they pursued especially two things in their Petitions to his Majesty: The one was, That the King would declare who were the per­sons that advised him to go, as he did, to the Parliament House, to apprehend them, and that he would leave them to the Parlia­ment to receive condign punishment; and this they did to stick upon his Majesty the dishonour of deserting his Friends, and be­traying them to his Enemies. The other was, That he would allow them a Guard out of the City of London, to be command­ed by the Earl of Essex; for which they pretended they could not else sit in safety: which pretence was nothing but an upbraid­ing of his Majesty for coming to Parliament better accompanied than ordinary, to seize the said five seditious Members.

B.

I see no reason in petitioning for a Guard, they should determine it to the City of London in particular, and the Command by name to the Earl of Essex; unless they [Page 158] meant the King should understand it for a Guard against himself.

A.

Their meaning was, that the King should understand it so, and (as I verily believe) they meant he should take it for an affront: and the King himself under­standing it so, denied to grant it; though he were willing, if they could not other­wise be satisfied, to Command such a Guard to wait upon them, as he would be respon­sible for to God Almighty. Besides this, the City of London petitioned the King (put upon it, no doubt, by some Members of the Lower House) to put the Tower of London into the Hands of persons of Trust, meaning such as the Parliament should ap­prove of, and to appoint a Guard for the safety of his Majesty and the Parliament. This Method of bringing Petitions in a Tu­multuary manner by great multitudes of clamorous people, was ordinary with the House of Commons, whose Ambition could never have been served by way of prayer and request, without extraordinary terror.

After the King had waved the prosecuti­on of the five Members, but denied to make known who had advised him to come in person to the House of Commons, they question'd the Attorney-General, who by the King's Command had exhibited the Ar­ticles against them, and voted him a breaker [Page 159] of the Priviledge of Parliament, and no doubt had made him feel their cruelty, if he had not speedily fled the Land.

About the end of January, they made an Order of both Houses of Parliament to pre­vent the going over of Popish Comman­ders into Ireland; not so much fearing that, as that by this the King himself choosing his Commanders for that Service, might aid himself out of Ireland against the Parlia­ment. But this was no great matter in re­spect of a Petition they sent his Majesty a­bout the same time, that is to say, about the 27th or 28th of January 1641. wherein they desir'd in effect the absolute Sovereignty of England, though by the name of Sovereign­ty they challenged it not, whilst the King was living: For to the end that the fears and dangers of this Kingdom might be re­mov'd, and the mischievous designs of those who are Enemies to the peace of it, might be prevented, they pray; That his Majesty would be pleased to put forthwith, first, The Tower of London; 2. All other Forts; 3. The whole Militia of the Kingdom, into the Hands of such persons as should be re­commended to him by both the Houses of Parliament. And this they stile a necessary Petition.

B.

Were there really any such fears and dangers generally conceiv'd here? or did [Page 160] there appear any Enemies at that time with such Designs as are mentioned in the Petition?

A.

Yes: But no other fear of danger, but such as any discreet and honest man might justly have of the Designs of the Parliament it self, who were the greatest Enemies to the peace of the Kingdom that could possibly be. 'Tis also worth observing, that this Petition began with these words: Most Gra­tious Sovereign: So stupid they were as not to know, that he that is Master of the Militia, is Master of the Kingdom, and con­sequently is in possession of a most absolute Sovereignty. The King was now at Wind­sor, to avoid the Tumults of the Common People before the Gates of White-hall, to­gether with their clamors and affronts there. The 9th of February after he came to Ham­pton-Court, and thence he went to Dover with the Queen and the Princess of Orange, his Daughter, where the Queen with the Princess of Orange embarqued for Holland; but the King returned to Greenwich, whence he sent for the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, and so went with them to­wards York.

B.

Did the Lords joyn with the Com­mons in this Petition for the Militia?

A.

It appears so by the Title: but I be­lieve they durst not but do it. The House [Page 161] of Commons took them but for a Cypher; Men of Title only without real Power. Perhaps also the most of them thought, that the taking of the Militia from the King would be an addition to their own power; but they were very much mistaken, for the House of Commons never intended they should be sharers in it.

B.

What answer made the King to this Petition?

A.

That when he shall know the extent of Power, which is intended to be establish­ed in those persons, whom they desire to be the Commanders of the Militia in the seve­ral Counties, and likewise to what time it shall be limited; That no Power shall be executed by his Majesty alone without the advice of Parliament, then he will declare, that (for the securing them from all Dan­gers or Jealousies of any) his Majesty will be content to put into all the places, both Forts and Militia in the several Counties, such persons as both the Houses of Parlia­ment shall either approve, or recommend unto him; so that they declare before un­to his Majesty the Names of the persons whom they approve or recommend; unless such persons shall be named, against whom he shall have just and unquestionable ex­ceptions.

B.
[Page 162]

What power, for what time, and to whom did the Parliament grant, concerning the Militia?

A.

The same power which the King had before planted in his Lieutenants and De­puty-Lieutenants in the several Counties, and without other limitation of time but their own pleasure.

B.

Who were the men that had this power?

A.

There is a Catalogue of them printed. They are very many; and most of them Lords; nor is it necessary to have them na­med: for to name them is, in my opinion, to brand them with the mark of Disloyalty, or of Folly. When they had made a Ca­talogue of them, they sent it to the King, with a new Petition for the Militia. Also presently after they sent a Message to his Majesty, praying him to leave the Prince at Hampton Court, but the King granted neither.

B.

Howsoever it was well done of them to get Hostages (if they could) of the King before he went from them.

A.

In the mean time, to raise Money for the reducing of Ireland, the Parliament in­vited men to bring in Money by way of Adventure, according to these Propositions. 1. That two millions and five hundred thou­sand Acres of Land in Ireland should be [Page 163] assigned to the Adventurers in this pro­portion.

 l. 
For an Ad­venture of200—1000 Acres in Vlster.
300—1000 Acres in Conaught.
450—1000 Acres in Munster.
600—1000 Acres in Lemster.

All according to English measure, and con­sisting of Meadow, Arable and profitable Pasture; Bogs, Woods and barren Moun­tains being cast in over and above. 2. A Revenue was reserved to the Crown from 1 d. to 3 d. on every Acre. 3. That Com­missions should be sent by the Parliament to erect Mannors, settle Wasts and Commons, maintain preaching Ministers, to create Cor­porations, and to regulate Plantations. The rest of the Propositions concern only the times and manner of payment of the Sums subscribed by the Adventurers. And to these Propositions his Majesty assented; but to the Petition of the Militia his Majesty de­nied his Assent.

B.

If he had not I should have thought it a great wonder. What did the Parliament after this?

A.

They sent him another Petition, which was presented to him when he was at Theobalds in his way to York; wherein they tell him plainly, That unless he be [Page 164] pleased to assure them by those Messengers then sent, that he would speedily apply his Royal Assent to the satisfaction of their for­mer desires, they shall be enforced, for the safety of his Majesty and his Kingdoms, to dispose of the Militia by the Authority of both Houses, &c. They petition his Ma­jesty also to let the Prince stay at St. James's, or some other of his Majesties Houses near London. They tell him also, that the power of raising, ordering and disposing of the Militia cannot be granted to any Corpora­tion without the Authority and Consent of Parliament, and that those parts of the King­dom, which have put themselves into a po­sture of defence, have done nothing there­in, but by direction of both Houses, and what is justifiable by the Laws of this King­dom.

B.

What answer made the King to this?

A.

It was a putting of themselves into Arms, and under Officers such as the Par­liament should approve of. 4. They Vo­ted, That his Majesty should be again de­sired, that the Prince might continue about London. Lastly, They Voted a Declarati­on to be sent to his Majesty by both the Houses; wherein they accuse his Majesty of a Design of altering Religion, though not directly him, but them that counsel'd him; whom they also accused of being the [Page 165] Inviters and Fomenters of the Scotch War, and Framers of the Rebellion in Ireland; and upbraid the King again for accusing the Lord Kimbolton, and the five Members, and of being privy to the purpose of bringing up his Army, which was raised against the Scots, to be employed against the Parlia­ment. To which his Majesty sent his An­swer from Newmarket. Whereupon it was resolved by both Houses, that in this Case of extream Danger, and of his Majesties refusal, the Ordinance agreed upon by both Houses for the Militia, doth oblige the Peo­ple by the fundamental Laws of this King­dom; and also, that whosoever shall exe­cute any power over the Militia, by colour of any Commission of Lieutenancy, with­out consent of both Houses of Parliament, shall be accounted a Disturber of the peace of the Kingdom. Whereupon his Majesty sent a Message to both Houses from Hun­tington, requiring obedience to the Laws e­stablished, and prohibiting all Subjects, up­on pretence of their Ordinance, to execute any thing concerning the Militia, which is not by those Laws warranted. Upon this the Parliament vote a standing to their for­mer Votes; as also, that when the Lords and Commons in Parliament, which is the Supream Court of Judicature in the King­dom, shall declare what the Law of the [Page 166] Land is; to have this not only question'd, but contradicted, is a high breach of the Pri­viledge of Parliament.

B.

I thought that he that makes the Law, ought to declare what the Law is; for what is it else to make a Law, but to declare what it is? So that they have taken from the King, not only the Militia, but also the Legislative Power.

A.

They have so; but I make account that the Legislative Power (and indeed all power possible) is contained in the power of the Militia. After this they seize such Money as was due to his Majesty upon the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage, and upon the Bill of Subsidies, that they might disa­ble him every way they possibly could. They sent him also many other contumelious Mes­sages and Petitions, after his coming to York; amongst which one was; That whereas the Lord Admiral, by indisposition of Body, could not command the Fleet in person, he would be pleased to give Authority to the Earl of Warwick to supply his place; when they knew the King had put Sir John Pennington in it before.

B.

To what end did the King entertain so many Petitions, Messages, Declarations and Remonstrances, and vouchsafe his Answers to them, when he could not choose but clear­ly see, they were resolv'd to take from him [Page 167] his Royal Power, and consequently his Life? For it could not stand with their safety to let either him or his Issue live, after they had done him so great Injuries.

A.

Besides this, the Parliament had at the same time a Committee residing at York, to spy what his Majesty did, and to inform the Parliament thereof, and also to hinder the King from gaining the People of that County to his Party: So that when his Ma­jesty was courting the Gentlemen there, the Committee was instigating of the Yeoman­ry against him. To which also the Mini­sters did very much contribute: So that the King lost his opportunity at York,

B.

Why did not the King seize the Com­mittee into his Hands, or drive them out of Town?

A.

I know not: but I believe he knew the Parliament had a greater Party than he, not only in York-shire, but also in York.

Towards the end of April, the King, up­on Petition of the People of York-shire, to have the Magazine of Hull to remain still there, for the greater security of the Nor­thern parts, thought fit to take it into his own Hands. He had a little before appoint­ed Governour of that Town the Earl of New-Castle; but the Towns-men having been already corrupted by the Parliament, refused to receive him, but refused not to [Page 168] receive Sir John Hotham, appointed to be Governour by the Parliament. The King therefore coming before the Town, guarded only by his own Servants, and a few Gen­tlemen of the Countrey thereabouts, was denied entrance by Sir John Hotham that stood upon the Wall: for which Act he presently caused Sir John Hotham to be pro­claimed Traitor, and sent a Message to the Parliament, requiring Justice to be done up­on the said Hotham, and that the Town and Magazine might be delivered into his hands. To which the Parliament made no answer, but in stead thereof published another De­claration, in which they omitted nothing of their former slanders against his Majesties Government, but inserted certain Proposi­tions declarative of their own pretended Right, viz. 1. That whatsoever they de­clare to be Law, ought not to be question'd by the King. 2. That no Precedents can be limits to bound their proceedings. 3. That a Parliament for the publick good may di­spose of any thing, wherein the King or Subject hath a Right; and that they, with­out the King, are this Parliament, and the Judge of this publick good, and that the King's Consent is not necessary. 4. That no Member of either House ought to be troubled for Treason, Felony, or any other Crime, unless the Cause be first brought [Page 169] before the Parliament that they may judge of the Fact, and give leave to proceed, if they see cause. 5. That the Sovereign Power resides in both Houses, and that the King ought to have no Negative Voice. 6, That the Levying of Forces against the personal Commands of the King, (though accompanied with his presence) is not Le­vying War against the King; but the Levy­ing of War against his Politick Person, viz. his Laws, &c. 7. That Treason cannot be committed against his Person, otherwise than as he is entrusted with the Kingdom, and discharges that Trust; and that they have a power to judge whether he have discharged this Trust or not. 8. That they may dispose of the King when they will.

B.

This is plain dealing, and without Hypocrisie. Could the City of London swallow this?

A.

Yes; and more too, if need be. Lon­don, you know, has a great Belly, but no Pallat, nor Tast of Right and Wrong. In the Parliament Roll of Hen. 4. amongst the Articles of the Oath the King at his Coro­nation took, there is one runs thus: Con­cedes just as Leges & Consuetudines esse tenen­das; & promittes per te eas esse protegendas, & ad honorem Dei corroborandas, quas vul­gus elegerit. Which the Parliament urged for their Legislative Authority, and there­fore [Page 170] interpret quas vulgus elegerit, which the People shall choose; as if the King should swear to protect and corroborate Laws, be­fore they were made, whether they be good or bad; whereas the words signifie no more, but that he shall protect and corroborate such Laws as they have chosen, that is to say, the Acts of Parliament then in being. And in the Records of the Exchequer it is thus: Will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful Customs which the Commo­nalty of this your Kingdom have, and will you defend and uphold them? &c. And this was the Answer his Majesty made to that Point.

B.

And I think this Answer very full and clear: but if the words were to be inter­preted in the other sense, yet I see no reason why the King should be bound to swear to them: for Hen. 4. came to the Crown by the Votes of a Parliament, not much infe­rior in wickedness to this Long Parliament, that deposed and murdered their Lawful King; saving that it was not the Parliament it self, but the Usurper that murdered King Richard the second.

A.

About a week after, in the begin­ning of May, the Parliament sent the King another Paper, which they stiled the hum­ble Petition and Advice of both Houses, con­taining 19 Propositions; which when you [Page 171] shall hear, you shall be able to judge what power they meant to leave to the King, more than to any one of his Subjects. The first of them is this.

1. That the Lords, and others of his Ma­jesties Privy-Council, and all great Officers of State, both at home and abroad, be put from their Employments, and from his Coun­cil; save only such as should be approved of by both Houses of Parliament, and none put into their places, but by approbation of the said Houses. And that all Privy-Coun­cellors take an Oath for the due execution of their places, in such form as shall be agreed upon by the said Houses.

2. That the great Affairs of the Kingdom be debated, resolved and transacted only in Parliament, and such as shall presume to do any thing to the contrary, be reserved to the censure of the Parliament, and such o­ther matters of State, as are proper for his Majesties Privy-Council, shall be debated, and concluded by such as shall from time to time be chosen for that place by both Hou­ses of Parliament, and that no publick Act concerning the Affairs of the Kingdom, which are proper for his Privy-Council, be esteemed valid, as proceeding from the Royal Authority; unless it be done by the Advice and Consent of the Major part of the Councel, attested under their Hands: [Page 172] and that the Council be not more than 25, nor less than 15; and that when a Coun­cellors place falls void in the Interval of Parliament, it shall not be supplied without the Assent of the Major part of the Coun­cil; and that such choice also shall be void, if the next Parliament after confirm it not.

3. That the Lord High Steward of Eng­land, Lord High Constable, Lord Chancel­lor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privy-Seal, Earl Mar­shal, Lord Admiral, Warden of the Cinque Ports, Chief Governour of Ireland, Chan­cellor of the Exchequer, Master of the Wards, Secretaries of State, two Chief Justices and Chief Baron be always cho­sen with the Approbation of both Houses of Parliament, and in the Intervals of Par­liament, by the Major part of the Privy-Council.

4. That the Government of the King's Children shall be committed to such as both Houses shall approve of, and in the Inter­vals of Parliament, such as the Privy-Coun­cil shall approve of; that the Servants then about them, against whom the Houses have just exception, should be removed.

5. That no Marriage be concluded or treated of for any of the King's Children, without consent of Parliament.

[Page 173]6. That the Laws in force against Jesuits, Priests and Popish Recusants be strictly put in execution.

7. That the Votes of Popish Lords in the House of Peers be taken away, and that a Bill be passed for the education of the Children of Papists in the Protestant Religion.

8. That the King will be pleased to re­form the Church-Government and Lyturgy in such manner as both Houses of Parliament shall advise.

9. That he would be pleased to rest sa­tisfied with that Course that the Lords and Commons have appointed for ordering the Militia, and recall his Declarations and Pro­clamations against it.

10. That such Members as have been put out of any Place, or Office, since this Par­liament began, may be restored, or have satisfaction.

11. That all Privy-Councellors and Judges take an Oath, the form whereof shall be agreed on, and setled by Act of Par­liament for the maintaining the Petition of Right, and of certain Statutes made by the Parliament.

12. That all the Judges and Officers pla­ced by Approbation of both Houses of Par­liament, may hold their places quam diu bene se gesserint.

[Page 174]13. That the Justice of Parliament may pass upon all Delinquents, whether they be within the Kingdom, or fled out of it; and that all persons cited by either House of Par­liament may appear and abide the Censure of Parliament.

14. That the General Pardon offered by his Majesty be granted with such Excepti­ons, as shall be advised by both Houses of Parliament.

B.

What a spiteful Article was this! All the rest proceeded from Ambition, which many times well-natur'd men are subject to; but this proceeded from an inhumane and devilish cruelty.

A.

15. That the Forts and Castles be put under the Command of such persons as, with the Approbation of the Parliament, the King shall appoint.

16. That the extraordinary Guards about the King be discharged; and for the future none raised, but according to the Law in case of actual Rebellion, or Invasion.

B.

Methinks these very Propositions sent to the King are an actual Rebellion.

A.

17. That his Majesty enter into a more strict Alliance with the United Pro­vinces, and other Neighbour Protestant Princes and States.

18. That his Majesty be pleased by Act of Parliament to clear the Lord Kimbolton, and [Page 175] the five Members of the House of Com­mons, in such manner as that future Parlia­ments may be secur'd from the consequence of that evil President.

19. That his Majesty be pleased to pass a Bill for restraining Peers made hereafter, from sitting, or voting in Parliament, unless they be admitted with consent of both Hou­ses of Parliament.

These Propositions granted; they pro­mise to apply themselves to regulate his Majesties Revenue to his best advantage, and to settle it to the support of his Royal Dignity in Honour and Plenty; and also to put the Town of Hull into such Hands, as his Majesty shall appoint, with consent of Parliament.

B.

Is not that to put it into such hands as his Majesty shall appoint by the consent of the Petitioners, which is no more than to keep it in their hands as it is? Did they want, or think the King wanted common sense, so as not to perceive that their promise herein was worth nothing?

A.

After the sending of these Proposi­tions to the King, and his Majesties refu­sal to grant them, they began, on both sides, to prepare for War. The King rai­sing a Guard for his Person in York-shire, and the Parliament thereupon having Vo­ted, that the King intended to make War [Page 176] upon his Parliament, gave order for the mustering and exercising the People in Arms, and published Propositions to invite and in­courage them to bring in either ready Mo­ney or Plate, or to promise under their hands to furnish and maintain certain num­bers of Horse, Horse-men and Arms for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King as they had formerly declar'd, not his Person, but his Laws) promising to repay their Money with In­terest of 8 l. in the 100 l. and the value of their Plate with 12 d. the Ounce for the fashion. On the other side the King came to Nottingham, and there did set up his Standard Royal, and sent out Commissions of Array to call those to him, which by the Ancient Laws of England were bound to serve him in the Wars. Upon this occa­sion there passed divers Declarations between the King and Parliament concerning the Le­gality of this Array, which are too long to tell you at this time.

B.

Nor do I desire to hear any Mooting about this Question: for I think that gene­ral Law of Salus Populi, and the Right of defending himself, against those that had ta­ken from him the Sovereign Power, are suf­ficient to make legal whatsoever he should do, in order to the recovery of his Kingdom, or to the punishing of the Rebels.

A.
[Page 177]

In the mean time the Parliament rais­ed an Army, and made the Earl of Essex General thereof; by which Act they decla­red what they meant formerly, when they petition'd the King for a Guard to be com­manded by the said Earl of Essex; and now the King sends out his Proclamations forbid­ding obedience to the Orders of the Parlia­ment concerning the Militia; and the Parlia­ment send out Orders against the Execution of the Commissions of Array. Hitherto, (though it were a War before) yet there was no Blood shed; they shot at one ano­ther nothing but paper.

B.

I understand now how the Parliament destroyed the Peace of the Kingdom; and how easily by the help of seditious Presbyte­rian Ministers, and of Ambitious Ignorant Orators, they reduced this Government in­to Anarchy: but I believe it will be a har­der Task for them to bring in Peace again, and settle the Government either in them­selves, or any other Governor or form of Government. For granting that they ob­tained the Victory in this War, they must be beholding for it to the Valor, good Con­duct, or Felicity of those to whom they give the Command of their Armies; espe­cially to the General, whose good success will, without doubt, draw with it the Love and Admiration of the Soldiers; so that it [Page 178] will be in his power, either to take the Government upon himself, or to place it where himself thinks good. In which case, if he take it not to himself, he will be thought a Fool; and if he do, he shall be sure to have the envy of his subordinate Commanders who look for a share, either in the present Government, or in the Suc­cession to it: for they will say, has he ob­tain'd this power by his own, without our Danger, Valor and Counsel? and must we be his Slaves whom we have thus raised? Or is not there as much Justice on our side against him, as was on his side against the King?

A,

They will, and did; in so much that the reason why Cromwel, after he had gotten into his own hands the absolute power of England, Scotland and Ireland by the Name of Protector, did never dare to take upon him the Title of King, nor was ever able to settle it upon his Children. His Officers would not suffer it, as pretending after his death to succeed him; nor would the Army consent to it, because he had ever declared to them, against the Government of a sin­gle person.

B.

But to return to the King. What Means had he to pay? What Provision had he to Arm, nay Means to Levy an Army able to resist the Army of the Parliament, [Page 179] maintained by the great Purse of the City of London, and Contributions of almost all the Towns Corporate in England, and fur­nished with Arms as fully as they could re­quire?

A.

'Tis true, the King had great disad­vantages, and yet by little and little he got a considerable Army, with which he so pro­spered, as to grow stronger every day, and the Parliament weaker, till they had gotten the Scotch with an Army of 21000 Men to come into England to their Assistance. But to enter into the particular Narration of what was done in the War, I have not now time.

B.

Well then, we will talk of that at next meeting.

Behemoth. PART III.

B.

WE left at the Preparations on both sides for War: which when I consider­ed by my self, I was mightily puzled to find out what possibility there was for the King to equal the Parlia­ment in such a course, and what hopes he had of Money, Men, Arms, Fortified pla­ces, Shipping, Councel and Military Offi­cers sufficient for such an Enterprize against the Parliament, that had Men and Money as much at command, as the City of London, and other Corporation Towns were able to furnish, which was more than they needed. And for the Men they should set forth for Soldiers, they were almost all of them spightfully bent against the King and his whole Party, whom they took to be either Papists, or Flatterers of the King, or that had designed to raise their Fortunes by the [Page 182] plunder of the City, and other Corporation Towns. And though I believe, not that they were more valiant than other Men, nor that they had so much experience in the War, as to be accounted good Soldiers; yet they had that in them, which in time of Battle is more conducing to Victory than Valor and Experience both together, and that was spight.

And for Arms, they had in their hands the Chief Magazines, the Tower of London, and the Town of Kingston upon Hull, be­sides most of the Powder and Shot that lay in several Towns, for the use of the Train'd Bands.

Fortified places there were not many then in England, and most of them in the hands of the Parliament.

The King's Fleet was wholly in their Command under the Earl of Warwick.

Councellors they needed no more than such as were of their own Body; so that the King was every way inferior to them, ex­cept it were perhaps in Officers.

A.

I cannot compare their Chief Offi­cers, for the Parliament the Earl of Essex (after the Parliament had voted the War) was made General of all their Forces, both in England and Ireland, from whom all o­ther Commanders were to receive their Commissions.

B.
[Page 183]

What moved them to make General the Earl of Essex? And for what cause was the Earl of Essex so displeased with the King, as to accept that Office?

A.

I do not certainly know what to an­swer to either of those Questions: but the Earl of Essex had been in the Wars abroad, and wanted neither Experience, Judgment nor Courage to perform such an underta­king. And besides that, you have heard, I believe, how great a Darling of the Peo­ple his Father had been before him, and what Honour he had gotten by the Success of his Enterprize upon Cales, and in some other Military Actions. To which I may add, that this Earl himself was not held by the people to be so great a Favorite at Court, as that they might not trust him with their Army against the King. And by this you may perhaps conjecture the Cause for which the Parliament made choice of him for Ge­neral.

B.

But why did they think him discon­tented with the Court?

A.

I know not that; nor indeed that he was so. He came to the Court as other Noble-men did, when occasion was, to wait upon the King, but had no Office, till a lit­tle before this time, to oblige him to be there continually: but I believe verily, that the unfortunateness of his Marriages had so [Page 184] discountenanced his Conversation with La­dies, that the Court could not be his proper Element, unless he had had some extraordi­nary favour there to ballance that Calamity: but for particular discontent from the King, or intention of revenge for any supposed dis­grace, I think he had none, nor that he was any ways addicted to Presbyterian Do­ctrines, or other Fanatick Tenets in Church or State; saving only, that he was carried away with the Stream (in a manner) of the whole Nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixt Monarchy; not considering that the Supream Power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King, or in the Parliament.

B.

Who was General of the King's Army?

A.

None yet, but himself; nor indeed had he yet any Army; but there coming to him at that time his two Nephews, the Princes Rupert and Maurice, he put the Com­mand of his Horse into the Hands of Prince Rupert, a Man than whom no man living has a better Courage, nor was more active and diligent in prosecuting his Commissions; and though but a young man then, was not without experience in the conducting of Sol­diers; as having been an Actor in part of his Fathers Wars in Germany.

B.
[Page 185]

But how could the King find Money to pay such an Army as was necessary for him against the Parliament?

A.

Neither the King nor Parliament had much Money at that time, in their own Hands, but were fain to rely upon the Be­nevolence of those that took their parts. Wherein (I confess) the Parliament had a mighty great advantage. Those that help­ed the King in that kind were only Lords and Gentlemen, which not approving the proceedings of the Parliament, were willing to undertake the payment every one of a certain number of Horse, which cannot be thought any very great assistance, the per­sons that payed them being so few: For o­ther Moneys that the King then had, I have not heard of any, but what he borrow­ed upon Jewels in the Low Countries. Whereas the Parliament had a very plenti­ful Contribution, not only from London, but generally from their Faction in all other places of England, upon certain Propositi­ons (published by the Lords and Commons in June 1642. at what time they had newly voted, that the King intended to make War upon them) for bringing in of Money or Plate to maintain Horse and Horse-men, and to buy Arms for the preservation of the pub­lick Peace, and for the defence of the King, and both Houses of Parliament: For the [Page 186] re-payment of which Money and Plate they were to have the Publick Faith.

B.

What Publick Faith is there, when there is no Publick? What is it that can be called Publick in a Civil War without the King?

A.

The Truth is, the Security was no­thing worth, but served well enough to gull those seditious Blockheads, that were more fond of Change, than either of their Peace or Profit.

Having by this means gotten Contribu­tions from those that were the well-affected to their Cause, they made use of it after­wards to force the like Contribution from others: For in November following they made an Ordinance for Assessing also of those, that had not contributed then, or had contributed, but not proportionably to their Estates. And yet this was contrary to what the Parliament promised and declar'd in the Propositions themselves; for they declar'd in the first Proposition, That no man's affection should be measured by the proportion of his Offer, so that he expressed his good will to the Service in any propor­tion whatsoever.

Besides this, in the beginning of March following, they made an Ordinance to Le­vy weekly a great Sum of Money upon eve­ry County, City, Town, Place and Person [Page 187] of any Estate almost in England; which weekly Sum (as may appear by the Ordi­nance it self printed and published in March 1642. by Order of both Houses) comes to almost 33000 l. and consequently to above 1700000 l. for the year. They had besides all this the profits of the Kings Lands and Woods, and whatsoever was remaining un­paid of any Subsidy formerly granted him, and the Tonnage and Poundage usually re­ceived by the King; besides the profit of the Sequestrations of great Persons, whom they pleased to vote Delinquents, and the profits of the Bishops Lands, which they took to themselves a year or a little more after.

B.

Seeing then the Parliament had such advantage of the King in Money, and Arms, and Multitude of Men, and had in their Hands the King's Fleet; I cannot imagine what hope the King could have, either of Victory, (unless he resigned into their Hands the Sovereignty) or subsisting: for I cannot well believe he had any advantage of them, either in Councellors, Conductors, or in the Resolutions of his Soldiers.

A.

On the contrary, I think he had also some disadvantage in that: for though he had as good Officers at least, as any then served the Parliament, yet I doubt he had not so useful Councel as was necessary; and [Page 188] for his Soldiers, though they were men as stout as theirs, yet because their Valor was not sharpned so with malice, as theirs was of the other side, they fought not so keen­ly as their Enemies did: amongst whom there were a great many London Apprenti­ces, who for want of Experience in the War, would have been fearful enough of Death and Wounds approaching visibly in glistering Swords; but for want of Judg­ment scarce thought of such death as comes invisibly in a Bullet, and therefore were very hardly to be driven out of the Field.

B.

But what fault do you find in the King's Councellors, Lords, and other Per­sons of Quality and Experience?

A.

Only that fault, which was general­ly in the whole Nation, which was, that they thought the Government of England was not an absolute, but a mixt Monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his Power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased, which they counted Tyranny. This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the Victory for the King in a Battle, when a Battle could not be avoid­ed, yet it weakned their endeavour to pro­cure him an absolute Victory in the War. And for this Cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly [Page 189] resolv'd to take all Kingly Power whatsoe­ver out of his Hands; yet their Counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer Propositions to them of Treaty and Accom­modation, and to make and publish Decla­rations, which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great disadvantage to those Actions by which the King was to recover his Crown, and preserve his Life: for it took off the Courage of the best and for­wardest of his Soldiers, that looked for great benefit by their Service out of the E­states of the Rebels, in case they could sub­due them; but none at all if the business should be ended by a Treaty.

B.

And they had reason: for a Civil War never ends by Treaty without the Sa­crifice of those, who were on both sides the sharpest. You know well enough how things pass'd at the Reconciliation of Augu­stus and Antonius in Rome: but I thought, that after they once began to Levy Soldiers one against another, that they would not any more have return'd of either side to Declarations, or other Paper War, which if it could have done any good, would have done it long before this.

A.

But seeing the Parliament continued writing, and set forth their Declarations to the People against the Lawfulness of the [Page 190] King's Commission of Array, and sent Pe­titions to the King as fierce and rebellious as ever they had done before, demanding of him, That he would disband his Sol­diers, and come up to the Parliament, and leave those whom the Parliament called De­linquents (which were none but the King's best Subjects) to their Mercy, and pass such Bills, as they should advise him; would you not have the King set forth Declarations and Proclamations against the Illegality of their Ordinances, by which they Levied Sol­diers against him, and answer those insolent Petitions of theirs?

B.

No; it had done him no good before, and therefore was not likely to do him any afterwards: for the common people, whose hands were to decide the Controversie, un­derstood not the Reasons of either Party; and for those, that by Ambition were once set upon the Enterprize of changing the Government, they cared not much what was Reason and Justice in the Cause, but what strength they might procure by redu­cing the Multitude with Remonstrances from the Parliament House, or by Sermons in the Churches. And to their Petitions I would not have had any Answer made at all, more than this; that if they would dis­band their Army, and put themselves upon his Mercy, they should find him more Gra­tious than they expected.

A.
[Page 191]

That had been a gallant Answer in­deed, if it had proceeded from him, after some extraordinary great Victory in Battle, or some extraordinary assurance of a Victo­ry at last in the whole War.

B.

Why? What could have hap'ned to him worse than at length he suffered, not­withstanding his gentle Answers, and all his reasonable Declarations?

A.

Nothing; but who knew that?

B.

Any man might see, that he was ne­ver like to be restored to his Right without Victory; and such his stoutness being known to the People, would have brought to his assistance many more hands than all the Ar­guments of Law, or force of Eloquence couched in Declarations, and other Writings could have done by far: and I wonder what kind of Men they were that hindered the King from taking this Resolution?

A.

You may know by the Declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of Records, and of Cases for­merly Reported; that the Penners of them were either Lawyers by profession, or such Gentlemen as had the Ambition to be thought so. Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their Counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute Monarchy, as also to ab­solute Democracy or Aristocracy; all which [Page 192] Governments they esteemed Tyranny, and were in love with Monarchy, which they used to praise by the Name of mixt Monar­chy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure Anarchy. And those Men, whose Pens the King most used in these Controver­sies of Law and Politicks, were such (if I have not been misinformed) as having been Members of this Parliament, had declaimed against Ship-Money, and other Extraparlia­mentary Taxes, as much as any; but when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their Demands, than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's Party.

B.

Who were those?

A.

It is not necessary to name any man, seeing I have undertaken only a short Nar­ration of the follies and other faults of men, during this trouble; but not (by naming the persons) to give you, or any man else occasion to esteem them the less, now that the faults on all sides have been forgiven.

B.

When the business was brought to this height by Levying of Soldiers and seizing of the Navy, and Arms, and other Provi­sions on both sides, that no man was so blind as not to see, they were in an estate of War one against another; why did not the King (by Proclamation or Message) according to his undoubted Right, dissolve the Parliament, [Page 193] and thereby diminish, in some part, the Au­thority of their Levies, and of other their unjust Ordinances?

A.

You have forgotten that I told you, that the King himself by a Bill that he pas­sed at the same time, when he passed the Bill for the Execution of the Earl of Strafford, had given them Authority to hold the Par­liament till they should, by consent of both Houses, dissolve themselves. If therefore he had by any Proclamation, or Message to the Houses, dissolved them, they would, to their former defamations of his Majesties Actions, have added this, that he was a breaker of his word; and not only in con­tempt of him have continued their Session, but also have made advantage of it, to the increase and strengthening of their own Party.

B.

Would not the King's raising of an Army against them be interpreted, as a purpose to dissolve them by force? And was it not as great a breach of promise to scatter them by force, as to dissolve them by Pro­clamation? Besides, I cannot conceive, that the passing of that Act was otherwise in­tended than conditionally; so long as they should not ordain any thing contrary to the Sovereign Right of the King; which Con­dition they had already by many of their Ordinances broken. And I think, that even [Page 194] by the Law of Equity, which is the unal­terable Law of Nature, a man that has the Sovereign Power, cannot, if he would, give away the Right of any thing which is neces­sary for him to retain for the good Govern­ment of his Subjects, unless he do it in ex­press words, saying, That he will have the Sovereign Power no longer. For the giving away that, which by consequence only draws the Sovereignty along with it, is not (I think) a giving away of the Sovereign­ty; but an error, such as works nothing but an invalidity in the Grant it self. And such was the King's passing of this Bill for the continuing of the Parliament as long as the two Houses pleased. But now that the War was resolved on, on both sides; what needed any more dispute in writing?

A.

I know not what need they had, but on both sides they thought it needful to hinder one another, as much as they could, from Levying of Soldiers? and therefore the King did set forth Declarations in print to make the People know, that they ought not to obey the Officers of the new Militia, set up by Ordinance of Parliament, and also to let them see the Legality of his own Com­missions of Array. And the Parliament on their part did the like to justifie to the Peo­ple the said Ordinance, and to make the Commission of Array appear unlawful.

B.
[Page 195]

When the Parliament were Levying of Soldiers, was it not lawful for the King to Levy Soldiers to defend himself and his Right, though there had been no other Ti­tle for it, but his own Preservation, and that the Name of Commission of Array had ne­ver before been heard of?

A.

For my part (I think) there cannot be a better Title for War, than the defence of a man's own Right; but the People, at that time, thought nothing lawful for the King to do, for which there was not some Statute made by Parliament. For the Law­yers, I mean the Judges of the Courts at Westminster, and some few others, though but Advocates, yet of great reputation for their skill in the Common Laws and Sta­tutes of England, had infected most of the Gentry of England with their Maxims and Cases prejudged, which they call Presidents; and made them think so well of their own knowledge in the Law, that they were very glad of this occasion to shew it against the King, and thereby to gain a Reputation with the Parliament of being good Patriots, and wise States-men.

B.

What was this Commission of Ar­ray?

A.

King William the Conqueror had gotten into his hands by Victory all the Land in England, of which he disposed some [Page 196] part, as Forests and Chases for his Recreati­on, and some part to Lords and Gentlemen that had assisted him, or were to assist him in the Wars: upon which he laid a charge of Service in his Wars, some with more men, and some with less, according to the Lands he had given them, whereby, when the King sent men unto them with Commission, to make use of their Service, they were ob­liged to appear with Arms, and to accom­pany the King to the Wars for a certain time, at their own charges: and such were the Commissions by which this King did then make his Levies.

B.

Why then was it not legal?

A.

No doubt but it was legal: but what did that amount to with men that were al­ready resolv'd to acknowledge for Law no­thing that was against their Design of abo­lishing Monarchy, and placing a Sovereign and absolute arbitrary Power in the House of Commons.

B.

To destroy Monarchy, and set up the House of Commons are two businesses,

A.

They found it so at last, but did not think it so then.

B.

Let us now come to the Military part.

A.

I intended only the Story of their In­justice, Impudence and Hypocrisie; there­fore for the proceeding of the War, I refer [Page 197] you to the History thereof written at large in English. I shall only make use of such a thread as is necessary for the filling up of such knavery and folly also, as I shall observe in their several Actions.

From York the King went to Hull, where was his Magazine of Arms for the Northern parts of England, to try if they would ad­mit him. The Parliament had made Sir John Hotham Governour of the Town, who caused the Gates to be shut, and pre­senting himself upon the Walls, flatly de­nied him entrance; for which the King cau­sed him to be proclaimed Traitor; and sent a Message to the Parliament to know if they owned the Action.

B.

Upon what Grounds?

A.

Their pretence was this, that neither this, nor any other Town in England was otherwise the King's, than in trust for the People of England.

B.

But what was that to the Parlia­ment?

B.

Yes, say they; for we are the Repre­sentatives of the People of England.

B.

I cannot see the force of this Argu­ment. We represent the People, ergo all that the People has is ours. The Major of Hull did represent the King; is therefore all that the King had in Hull the Major's? The People of England may be represented [Page 198] with Limitations, as to deliver a Petition or the like: Does it follow, that they who deliver the Petition have right to all the Towns in England? When began this Par­liament to be a Representative of England? Was it not November 3. 1640.? Who was it the day before, that is November 2. that had the Right to keep the King out of Hull, and possess it for themselves? for there was then no Parliament. Whose was Hull then?

A.

I think it was the King's, not only because it was called the King's Town upon Hull; but because the King himself did then and ever represent the Person of the People of England. If he did not, who then did, the Parliament having no being?

B.

They might perhaps say, the People had then no Representative.

A.

Then there was no Common-wealth; and consequently all the Towns of England being the Peoples, you and I, and any man else might have put in for his share. You may see by this what weak People they were, that were carried into the Rebellion by such reasoning as the Parliament used, and how impudent they were that did put such fallacies upon them.

B.

Surely they were such as were esteem­ed the wisest Men in England, being upon that account chosen to be of the Parliament.

A.
[Page 199]

And were they also esteemed the wi­sest Men of England that chose them?

B.

I cannot tell that: for I know it is u­sual with the Free-holders in the Counties, and the Trades-men in the Cities and Bur­roughs, to choose, as near as they can, such as are most repugnant to the giving of Sub­sidies.

A.

The King in the beginning of August, after he had summoned Hull, and tried some of the Counties thereabout, what they would do for him, sets up his Standard at Nottingham; but there came not in thither men enough to make an Army sufficient to give battle to the Earl of Essex. From thence he went to Shrewsbury, where he was quickly furnished; and appointing the Earl of Lindsey to be General, he resolved to march towards London. The Earl of Essex was now at Worcester with the Parliaments Army, making no offer to stop him in his passage; but as soon as he was gone by, marched close after him.

The King therefore, to avoid being inclo­sed between the Army of the Earl of Essex and the City of London, turned upon him, and gave him battle at Edgehill; where though he got not an entire Victory, yet he had the better, if either had the better, and had certainly the fruit of a Victory, which was to march on in his intended way [Page 200] towards London; in which, the next morn­ing he took Banbury Castle, and from thence went to Oxford, and thence to Brain­ford, where he gave a great defeat to three Regiments of the Parliaments Forces, and so returned to Oxford.

B.

Why did not the King go on from Brainford?

A.

The Parliament upon the first notice of the King's marching from Shrewsbury, caused all the Train'd-Bands, and the Auxi­liaries of the City of London, (which was so frighted as to shut up all their Shops) to be drawn forth; so that there was a most compleat and numerous Army ready for the Earl of Essex that was crept into London just at the time to head it; and this was it that made the King retire to Oxford. In the beginning of February after, Prince Ru­pert took Cirencester from the Parliament with many Prisoners and many Arms: for it was newly made a Magazine. And thus stood the business between the King's and the Parliaments greatest Forces. The Par­liament in the mean time caused a Line of Communication to be made about London and the Suburbs, of twelve miles in com­pass, and constituted a Committee for the Association, and the putting into a posture of defence of the Counties of Essex, Cam­bridge, Suffolk, and some others, and one [Page 201] of these Commissioners was Oliver Cromwel, from which Employment he came to his following greatness.

B.

What was done, during this time, in other parts of the Country?

A.

In the West the Earl of Stamford had the Employment of putting in execution the Ordinance of Parliament for the Militia; and Sir Ralph Hopton for the King executed the Commission of Array. Between these two was fought a Battle at Liscard in Corn­wal, wherein Sir Ralph Hopton had the Vi­ctory, and presently took a Town called Saltash with many Arms, and much Ord­nance, and many Prisoners. Sir William Waller in the mean time seized Winchester and Chichester for the Parliament.

In the North, for the Commission of Ar­ray my Lord of New-Castle, and for the Mi­litia of the Parliament was my Lord Fair­fax. My Lord of New-Castle took from the Parliament Tadcaster, in which were a great part of the Parliaments Forces for that Country, and had made himself in a man­ner Master of all the North. About this time, that is to say, in February, the Queen landed at Barlington, and was conducted by my Lord of New-Castle, and the Marquess of Montrosse, to York, and not long after to the King. Divers other little advantages, besides these, the King's Party had of the Parliaments in the North.

[Page 202]There happened also between the Militia of the Parliament, and the Commission of Array in Stafford-shire, under my Lord Brook for the Parliament, and my Lord of Northampton for the King, great contention, wherein both these Commanders were slain; for my Lord Brook besieging Litch­field-Close, was killed with a Shot; not­withstanding which they gave not over the Siege till they were Masters of the Close; but presently after my Lord of Northam­pton besieged it again for the King; which to relieve Sir William Brereton and Sir John Gell, advanced towards Litchfield, and were met at Hopton Heath by the Earl of Nor­thampton, and routed; the Earl himself was slain; but his Forces [...] Victory, re­turned to the Siege again, and shortly after seconded by Prince Rupert, who was then abroad in that Countrey, carried the Place. These were the chief Actions of this year 1642. wherein the King's Party had not much the worse.

B.

But the Parliament had now a better Army; in so much, that if the Earl of Essex had immediately followed the King to Oxford, (not yet well fortified) he might, in all likelihood, have taken it: for he could not want either Men, or Ammunition, whereof the City of London (which was wholly at the Parliaments Devotion) had store enough.

A.
[Page 203]

I cannot judge of that; but this is manifest, considering the estate the King was in at his first marching from York, when he had neither Money, nor Men, nor Arms enough to put them in hope of Victory; that this year (take it all together) was very prosperous.

B.

But what great folly or wickedness do you observe in the Parliaments Actions for this first year?

A.

All that can be said against them in that Point, will be excused with the pretext of War, and come under one name of Re­bellion; saving, that when they summon­ed any Town, it was always in the name of King and Parliament, the King being in the contrary Army, and many times beating them from the Siege. I do not see how the right of War can justifie such Im­pudence as that. But they pretended that the King was always virtually in the two Houses of Parliament, making a distinction between his Person Natural and Politick, which made the Impudence the greater, be­sides the folly of it: for this was but an University quibble, such as Boys make use of in maintaining (in the Schools) such Tenents, as they cannot otherwise de­fend.

In the end of this year they solicited also the Scots to enter England with an Army, [Page 204] to suppress the Power of the Earl of New-Ca­stle in the North: which was a plain Confes­sion, that the Parliaments Forces were at this time inferior to the King's; and most men thought, that if the Earl of New-Castle had then marched Southward, and joyned his Forces with the King's, that most of the Members of Parliament would have fled out of England.

In the beginning of 1643. the Parliament seeing the Earl of New Castle's Power in the North grown so formidable, sent to the Scots to hire them to an Invasion of Eng­land, and (to complement them in the mean time) made a Covenant amongst themselves, such as the Scots had before ta­ken against Episcopacy, and demolished Crosses and Church windows (such as had in them any Images of Saints) throughout all England. Also in the middle of the year they made a solemn League with the Nati­on, which was called the Solemn League and Covenant.

B.

Are not the Scots as properly to be called Forreigners as the Irish? Seeing then they persecuted the Earl of Strafford even to death, for advising the King to make use of Irish Forces against the Parliament, with what face could they call in a Scoth Army against the King?

A.
[Page 205]

The King's Party might easily here have discerned their Design to make them­selves absolute Masters of the Kingdom, and to dethrone the King. Another great Im­pudence, or rather a bestial incivility it was of theirs, that they voted the Queen a Trai­tor, for helping the King with some Ammu­nition and English Forces from Holland.

B.

Was it possible that all this could be done, and men not see that Papers and De­clarations must be useless; and that nothing could satisfie them but the deposing of the King, and setting up of themselves in his place?

A.

Yes; very possible. For who was there of them, though knowing that the King had the Sovereign Power, that knew the Essential Rights of Sovereignty? They dreamt of a mixt Power of the King and the two Houses. That it was a divided Power, in which there could be no peace, was above their understanding. Therefore they were always urging the King to Decla­rations and Treaties, (for fear of subjecting themselves to the King in an absolute obe­dience) which increased the hope and cou­rage of the Rebels, but did the King little good: for the People either understand not, or will not trouble themselves with Contro­versies in writing, but rather by his Com­pliance and Messages go away with an opi­nion, [Page 206] that the Parliament was likely to have the Victory in the War. Besides, seeing the Penners and Contrivers of these Papers were formerly Members of the Parliament, and of another mind, and now revolted from the Parliament, because they could not bear that sway in the House, which they expected, men were apt to think they be­lieved not what they writ.

As for Military Actions (to begin at the Head Quarters) Prince Rupert took Bri­mingiam, a Garrison of the Parliaments. In July after the King's Forces had a great Victory over the Parliaments near Devizes on Roundway-down, where they took 2000 Prisoners, four Brass Pieces of Ordnance, 28 Colours, and all their Baggage; and shortly after Bristol was surrendred to Prince Rupert for the King: and the King himself marching into the West, took from the Par­liament many other considerable places.

But this good fortune was not a little al­layed by his besieging of Glocester, which after it was reduced to the last gasp, was re­lieved by the Earl of Essex, whose Army was before greatly wasted, but now sudden­ly recruited with the Train'd-Bands and Ap­prentices of London.

B.

It seems, not only by this, but also by many Examples in History, that there can hardly arise a long or dangerous Re­bellion, [Page 207] that has not some such overgrown City, with an Army or two in its belly to foment it.

A.

Nay more; those great Capital Cities, when Rebellion is upon pretence of Grie­vances, must needs be of the Rebel-party, because the Grievances are but Taxes, to which Citizens, that is, Merchants, whose profession is their private gain, are naturally mortal Enemies; their only glory being to grow excessively rich by the wisdom of buying and selling.

B.

But they are said to be of all Cal­lings the most beneficial to the Common-wealth, by setting the poorer sort of Peo­ple on work.

A.

That is to say, by making poor Peo­ple sell their labour to them, at their own prizes; so that poor People, for the most part, might get a better Living by working in Bridewel, than by spinning, weaving, and other such labour, as they can do; sa­ving that by working slightly they may help themselves a little, to the disgrace of our Manufacture. And as most common­ly they are the first Encouragers of Rebel­lion, presuming of their strength; so also are they, for the most part, the first to re­pent, deceived by them that command their strength.

[Page 208]But to return to the War; though the King withdrew from Glocester, yet it was not to fly from, but to fight with the Earl of Essex, which presently after he did at Newbury, where the Battle was bloody, and the King had not the worst, unless Cirence­ster be put into the Scale, which the Earl of Essex had in his way a few days before sur­prized.

But in the North and the West the King had much the better of the Parliament, for in the North, at the very beginning of the year March 29th the Earls of New-Castle and Cumberland defeated the Lord Fairfax (who commanded in those parts for the Par­liament) at Bramham-Moore, which made the Parliament to hasten the assistance of the Scots.

In June following, the Earl of New-Castle routed Sir Thomas Fairfax (Son to the Lord Fairfax) upon Adderton-Heath, and in pursuit of them to Bradford, took and kill'd 2000 Men, and the next day took the Town and 2000 Prisoners more, (Sir Thomas himself hardly escaping) with all their Arms and Ammunition. And besides this, made the Lord Fairfax quit Halifax and Beverly. Lastly, Prince Rupert reliev­ed Newark, besieged by Sir John Meldrun, for the Parliament, with 7000 Men, where­of 1000 were slain; the rest upon Articles [Page 209] departed, leaving behind them their Arms, Bag and Baggage.

To ballance in part this success, the Earl of Manchester, whose Lieutenant-General was Oliver Cromwel, got a Victory over the Royalists near Horncastle, of whom he slew 400, took 800 Prisoners, and 1000 Arms, and presently after took and plun­dred the City of Lincoln.

In the West May 16th, Sir Ralph Hopton at Stratton in Devonshire, had a Victory over the Parliamentarians, wherein he took 1700 Prisoners, 13 Brass Pieces of Ord­nance, and all their Ammunition, which was 70 Barrels of Powder, and their Ma­gazine of their other Provisions in the Town.

Again at Landsdown, between Sir Ralph Hopton and the Parliamentarians, under Sir William Waller, was fought a fierce Battle, wherein the Victory was not very clear on either side; saving that the Parliamentarians might seem to have the better, because pre­sently after Sir William Waller followed Sir Ralph Hopton to Devizes in Wiltshire, though to his Cost; for there he was overthrown, as I have already told you.

After this the King in Person marched into the West, and took Exeter, Dorcester, Barnstable, and divers other places, and had he not at his return besieged Glocester, and [Page 210] thereby given the Parliament time for new Levies, 'twas thought by many he might have routed the House of Commons. But the end of this year was more favourable to the Parliament; for in January the Scots en­tred England, and March the first crossed the Tyne, and whilst the Earl of New-Castle was marching to them, Sir Thomas Fairfax gathered together a considerable Party in York-shire, and the Earl of Manchester from Lyn advanced towards York; so that the Earl of New-Castle having two Armies of the Rebels behind him, and another before him, was forced to retreat to York, which those three Armies joyning presently be­sieged; and these are all the considerable Military Actions of the Year 1643.

In the same Year the Parliament caused to be made a new Great Seal. The Lord Kee­per had carried the former Seal to Oxford. Hereupon the King sent a Messenger to the Judges at Westminster, to forbid them to make use of it. This Messenger was taken, and condemn'd at a Councel of War, and hang'd for a Spy.

B.

Is that the Law of War?

A.

I know not: but it seems, when a Sol­dier comes into the Enemies Quarters with­out address, or notice given to the Chief Commander, that it is presumed he comes as a Spy. The same Year, when certain [Page 211] Gentlemen at London receiv'd a Commission of Array from the King, to Levy Men for his Service in that City, being discovered, they were condemn'd, and some of them executed. This Case is not much unlike the former.

B.

Was not the making of a new Great Seal a sufficient proof that the War was raised, not to remove evil Councellors from the King, but to remove the King himself from the Government? What hope then could there be had in Messages and Trea­ties?

A.

The Entrance of the Scots was a thing unexpected to the King, who was made to believe, by continual Letters from his Com­missioner in Scotland, Duke Hamilton, that the Scotch never intended any Invasion. The Duke being then at Oxford, the King (assur'd that the Scotch were now entred) sent him Prisoner to Pendennis Castle in Cornwal.

In the beginning of the Year 1644. the Earl of New-Castle being (as I told you) besieged by the joynt Forces of the Scots, the Earl of Manchester, and Sir Thomas Fair­fax, the King sent Prince Rupert to relieve the Town, and as soon as he could to give the Enemy battle. Prince Rupert passing through Lancashire, and by the way having stormed that seditious Town of Bolton, and [Page 212] taken in Stockford and Leverpool, came to York, July the first, and relieved it; the E­nemy being risen thence to a place called Marston-Moor, about four Miles off; and there was fought that unfortunate Battle, which lost the King in a manner all the North. Prince Rupert returned by the way he came, and the Earl of New-Castle to York, and thence with some of his Officers over the Sea to Hamburgh.

The Honour of this Victory was attri­buted chiefly to Oliver Cromwel (the Earl of Manchester Lieutenant-General.) The Parliamentarians returned from the Field to the Siege of York, which not long after, upon honourable Articles, was surrendred; not that they were favoured, but because the Parliament employed not much time, nor many Men in Sieges.

B.

This was a great and sudden abate­ment of the King's prosperity.

A.

It wat so: but amends was made him for it within five or six weeks after. For Sir William Waller (after the loss of his Army at Roundway-down) had another raised for him by the City of London; who for the payment thereof, imposed a weekly Tax of the value of one meals meat upon every Ci­tizen. This Army, with that of the Earl of Essex, intended to besiege Oxford; which the King understanding, sent the Queen into [Page 213] the West, and marched himself towards Wor­cester. This made them to divide again, and the Earl to go into the West, and Waller to pursue the King. By this means (as it fell out) both their Armies were defeated; for the King turned upon Waller, routed him at Copredy-Bridge, took his Train of Artillery and many Officers; and then pre­sently followed the Earl of Essex into Corn­wal, where he had him at such advantage, that the Earl himself was fain to escape in a small Boat to Plimouth; his Horse brake through the King's Quarters by night; but the Infantry were all forced to lay down their Arms, and upon condition never more to bear Arms against the King, were per­mitted to depart.

In October following was fought a second and sharp Battle at Newbury: for this Infan­try, making no Conscience of the Condi­tions made with the King, being now come towards London, as far as Basingstoke, had Arms put again into their hands; to whom some of the Train'd-Bands being added, the Earl of Essex had suddenly so great an Ar­my, that he attempted the King again at Newbury. And certainly had the better of the day, but the night parting them, had not a compleat Victory. And it was ob­serv'd here, that no part of the Earl's Army fought so keenly, as they who had laid down [Page 214] their Arms in Cornwal. These were the most important Fights in the Year 1644. and the King was yet (as both himself and others thought) in as good condition as the Parliament, which despair'd of Victory by the Commanders they then used.

Therefore they voted a new modeling of the Army, suspecting the Earl of Essex, though I think wrongfully, to be too much a Royalist; for not having done so much as they looked for in this second Battle at New­bury. The Earls of Essex and Manchester perceiving what they went about, volun­tarily laid down their Commissions; and the House of Commons made an Ordinance, That no Member of either House should en­joy any Office, or Command Military or Civil; with which oblique blow they shook off those that had hitherto served them too well: and yet out of this Ordinance they excepted Oliver Cromwel, in whose Conduct and Valor they had very great confidence, (which they would not have done, if they had known him as well then as they did af­terwards) and made him Lieutenant-Ge­neral to Sir Thomas Fairfax, their new made General. In the Commission to the Earl of Essex there was a Clause for preservation of his Majesties Person, which in this new Commission was left out; though the Par­liament (as well as the General) were as yet Presbyterian.

B.
[Page 215]

It seems the Presbyterians also (in order to their ends) would fain have had the King murdered.

A.

For my part I doubt it not. For a Rightful King living, an usurping Power can never be sufficiently secur'd.

In this same Year the Parliament put to death Sir John Hotham and his Son, for tam­pering with the Earl of New-Castle about the Rendition of Hull; and Sir Alexander Carew, for endeavouring to deliver up Pli­mouth, where he was Governour for the Parliament; and the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury for nothing, but to please the Scots: For the general Article of going about to subvert the fundamental Laws of the Land, was no Accusation, but only foul words. They then also voted down the Book of Common-Prayer, and ordered the use of a Directory, which had been newly compo­sed by an Assembly of Presbyterian Mini­sters. They were also then, with much ado, prevailed with for a Treaty with the King at Vxbridge, where they remitted nothing of their former Demands. The King had also at this time a Parliament at Oxford, consisting of such discontented Members as had left the Houses at West­minster, but few of them had changed their old Principles, and therefore that Parliament was not much worth. Nay rather, because [Page 216] they endeavour'd nothing but Messages and Treaties, that is to say, defeating of the Soldiers hope of benefit by the War, they were thought by most men to do the King more hurt than good.

The Year 1645. was to the King very un­fortunate; for by the loss of one great Bat­tle he lost all he had formerly gotten, and at length his life.

The new model'd Army, after Consulta­tion whether they should lay Siege to Ox­ford, or march Westward to the relief of Taunton, (then besieged by the Lord Go­ring, and defended by Blake, famous after­ward for his Actions at Sea) resolved for Taunton, leaving Cromwel to attend the mo­tions of the King, though not strong enough to hinder him. The King, upon this ad­vantage, drew his Forces and Artillery out of Oxford. This made the Parliament to call back their General Fairfax, and order him to besiege Oxford. The King, in the mean time, relieved Chester, which was be­sieged by Sir William Brereton, and coming back took Leicester by force; a Place of great Importance, and well provided of Ar­tillery and Provision.

Upon this Success it was generally thought, that the King's Party was the stronger. The King himself thought so, and the Parliament in a manner confess'd the [Page 217] same, by commanding Fairfax to rise from the Siege, and endeavour to give the King battle: for the Successes of the King, and the Divisions and Treacheries growing now amongst themselves, had driven them to rely upon the fortune of one day; in which at Naseby the Kings Army was utterly over­thrown, and no hope left him to raise ano­ther. Therefore, after the Battle, he went up and down, doing the Parliament here and there some shrewd turns, but never much encreasing his number.

Fairfax, in the mean time, first recover­ed Leicester, and then marching into the West subdued it all, except only a few Pla­ces; forcing, with much ado, my Lord Hopton (upon Honourable Conditions) to disband his Army, and with the Prince of Wales to pass over to Scilly, whence, not long after, they went to Paris.

In April 1646. General Fairfax began to march back to Oxford. In the mean time Rainsborough, who besieged Woodstock, had it surrendered. The King therefore, who was now also returned to Oxford, from whence Woodstock is but six Miles, not doubting, but that he should there by Fair­fax be besieged, and having no Army to re­lieve him, resolved to get away disguis'd to the Scotch Army about Newark; and thi­ther he came the fourth of May; and the [Page 218] Scotch Army being upon remove home­wards, carried him with them to New-Ca­stle, whither he came May 13th.

B.

Why did the King trust himself with the Scots? They were the first that rebell'd. They were Presbyterians, i. e. cruel; besides they were indigent, and consequently might be suspected, would sell him to his Enemies for Money. And lastly, they were too weak to defend him, or keep him in their Countrey.

A.

What could he have done better? for he had in the Winter before sent to the Par­liament to get a Pass for the Duke of Rich­mond and others, to bring them Propositi­ons of Peace: It was denied. He sent a­gain; it was denied again. Then he de­sir'd he might come to them in Person: This also was denied. He sent again and again to the same purpose; but in stead of granting it, they made an Ordinance, That the Commanders of the Militia of London, in case the King should attempt to come within the Line of Communication, should raise what force they thought fit to suppress Tumults, to apprehend such as came with him, and to secure (i. e. to imprison) his Person from danger. If the King had ad­ventured to come, and had been imprison­ed; What could the Parliament have done with him? They had dethron'd him by [Page 219] their Votes; and therefore could have no security, whilst he liv'd, though in prison. It may be they would not have put him to death by a High Court of Justice publick­ly, but secretly some other way.

B.

He should have attempted to get be­yond Sea.

A.

That had been from Oxford very dif­ficult. Besides it was generally believ'd, that the Scotch Army had promised him, that not only his Majesty, but also his Friends that should come with him, should be in their Army safe; not only for their Persons, but also for their Honours and Consciences. 'Tis a pretty trick, when the Army, and the particular Soldiers of the Army are different things, to make the Sol­diers promise what the Army means not to perform.

July the 11th the Parliament sent their Propositions to the King at New-Castle; which Propositions they pretended to be the only way to a setled and well grounded Peace. They were brought by the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Suffolk, Sir Walter Earle, Sir John Hyppesly, Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Robinson; whom the King asked if they had power to Treat? and when they said no, why they might not as well have been sent by a Trumpeter? The Propositions were the same dethroning ones, which they used [Page 220] to send, and therefore the King would not assent to them. Nor did the Scots swallow them at first, but made some exceptions a­gainst them; only, it seems, to make the Parliament perceive, they meant not to put the King into their hands gratis. And so at last the bargain was made between them; and upon the payment of 200000 l. the King was put into the hands of the Commis­sioners, which the English Parliament sent down to receive him.

B.

What a vile Complexion has this A­ction compounded of feigned Religion and very Covetousness, Cowardice, Perjury and Treachery?

A.

Now the War, that seemed to justi­fie many unseemly things, is ended; you will see almost nothing else in these Re­bels, but baseness and falseness, besides their folly.

By this time the Parliament had taken in all the rest of the Kings Garrisons, where­of the last was Pendennis Castle, whither Duke Hamilton had been sent Prisoner by the King.

B.

What was done during this time in Ireland and Scotland?

A.

In Ireland there had been a Peace made by order from his Majesty for a time, which by Divisions amongst the Irish was ill kept; the Popish Party (the Pope's Nuntio [Page 221] being then there) took this to be the time for delivering themselves from their subje­ction to the English. Besides the time of the Peace was now expir'd.

B.

How were they subject to the English more than the English to the Irish? They were subject to the King of England; but so also were the English to the King of Ireland.

A.

This Distinction is somewhat too sub­til for common Understandings. In Scot­land the Marquess of Montrosse for the King, with a very few Men, and miraculous Vi­ctories, had over-run all Scotland, where many of his Forces (out of too much secu­rity) were permitted to be absent for a while; of which the Enemy having Intel­ligence, suddenly came upon them, and for­ced them to fly back into the Highlands to recruit; where he began to recover strength, when he was commanded by the King (then in the hands of the Scots at New-Castle) to disband; and he departed from Scotland by Sea.

In the end of the same year 1646. the Parliament caused the Kings Great Seal to be broken; also the King was brought to Holmeby, and there kept by the Parlia­ments Commissioners; and here was an end of that War, as to England and Scotland, but not to Ireland. About this time also [Page 222] died the Earl of Essex, whom the Parlia­ment had discarded.

B.

Now that there was peace in England, and the King in prison, in whom was the Sovereign Power?

A.

The Right was certainly in the King, but the Exercise was yet in no body; but contended for, as in a Game at Cards, with­out fighting all the years 1647. and 1648. between the Parliament and Oliver Crom­wel, Lieutenant-General to Sir Thomas Fairfax.

You must know, that when King Henry the 8th abolished the Popes Authority here, and took upon him to be the Head of the Church, the Bishops, as they could not resist him, so neither were they discontented with it. For whereas before, the Pope allowed not the Bishops to claim Jurisdiction in their Diocesses Jure Divino, that is of Right im­mediately from God, but by the Gift and Authority of the Pope, now that the Pope was outed, they made no doubt but the Di­vine Right was in themselves. After this the City of Geneva, and divers other places beyond Sea, having revolted from the Pa­pacy, set up Presbyteries for the Govern­ment of their several Churches; and divers English Scholars that went beyond Sea, du­ring the persecution in the time of Queen Mary, were much taken with this Govern­ment, [Page 223] and at their return, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and ever since have en­deavour'd, to the great trouble of the Church and Nation, to set up that Government here, wherein they might domineer, and applaud their own Wit and Learning: and these took upon them, not only a Di­vine Right, but also a Divine Inspiration: and having been connived at and countenan­ced sometimes in their frequent preaching, they introduced many strange and many pernicious Doctrines, out-doing the Refor­mation, (as they pretended, both of Lu­ther and Calvin) receding from the former Divinity or Church-Philosophy, (for Reli­gion is another thing) as much as Luther and Calvin had receded from the Pope, and distracted their Auditors into a great num­ber of Sects, as Brownists, Anabaptists, Independents, Fifth-monarchy-men, Qua­kers, and divers others, all commonly cal­led by the name of Fanaticks: in so much as there was no so dangerous an Enemy to the Presbyterians as this brood of their own hatching.

These were Cromwel's best Cards, where­of he had a very great number in the Ar­my, and some in the House, whereof he himself was thought one, though he were nothing certain, but applying himself al­ways to the Faction that was strongest, was of a colour like it.

[Page 224]There were in the Army a great number (if not the greatest part) that aimed only at rapine, and sharing the Lands and Goods of their Enemies; and these also, upon the opinion they had of Cromwel's Valor and Conduct, thought they could not any way better arrive at their ends, than by adhe­ring to him. Lastly, in the Parliament it self, though not the Major part, yet a con­siderable number were Fanaticks, enough to put in doubts, and cause delay in the re­solutions of the House, and sometimes also by advantage of a thin House, to carry a Vote in favour of Cromwel, as they did up­on the 26th of July. For whereas on the fourth of May precedent the Parliament had voted that the Militia of London should be in the hands of a Committee of Citi­zens, whereof the Lord Major for the time being should be one; shortly after, the In­dependents chancing to be the major, made an Ordinance, by which it was put into hands more favourable to the Army.

The best Cards the Parliament had were the City of London, and the Person of the King. The General, Sir Tho. Fairfax, was right Presbyterian, but in the hands of the Army, and the Army in the hands of Cromwel, but which Party should prevail depended on the playing of the Game. Cromwel protested still obedience and fidelity [Page 225] to the Parliament, but meaning nothing less, bethought him, and resolv'd on a way to excuse himself of all that he should do to the contrary upon the Army. Therefore he and his Son-in-law Commissary-General Ireton, as good at contriving as himself, and at speaking and writing better, contrive how to mutiny the Army against the Parliament. To this end they spread a whisper through the Army, that the Parliament, now they had the King, intended to disband them, to cheat them of their Arrears, and to send them into Ireland to be destroyed by the Irish. The Army being herewith enraged, were taught by Ireton to erect a Councel a­mongst themselves, of two Soldiers out of every Troop, and every Company, to Con­sult for the good of the Army, and to assist at the Councel of War, and to advise for the Peace and safety of the Kingdom. These were called Adjutators, so that whatsoever Cromwel would have to be done, he needed nothing to make them do it; but secretly to put it into the head of these Adjutators. The effect of the first Consultation was, to take the King from Holmeby, and to bring him to the Army.

The General hereupon, by Letter to the Parliament, excuses himself, and Cromwel, and the Body of the Army, as ignorant of the Fact; and that the King came away wil­lingly [Page 226] with those Soldiers that brought him: assuring them withal, that the whole Army intended nothing but Peace, nor opposed Presbytery, nor affected Independency, nor did hold any licentious freedom in Reli­gion.

B.

'Tis strange that Sir Thomas Fairfax could be so abused by Cromwel, as to believe this which he himself here writes.

A.

I cannot believe that Cornet Joyce could go out of the Army with 1000 Sol­diers to fetch the King, and neither the Ge­neral, nor the Lieutenant General, nor the Body of the Army take notice of it. And that the King went willingly appears to be false by a Message sent on purpose from his Majesty to the Parliament.

B.

Here is Perfidie upon Perfidie: first, the Perfidie of the Parliament against the King, and then the Perfidie of the Army a­gainst the Parliament.

A.

This was the first trick Cromwel plaid, whereby he thought himself to have gotten so great an advantage, that he said open­ly, That he had the Parliament in his Poc­ket, (as indeed he had) and the City too: for upon the news of it they were, both the one and the other, in very great disorder, and the more, because there came with it a Rumor, that the Army was marching up to London.

[Page 227]The King in the mean time, till his Resi­dence was setled at Hampton-Court, was carried from place to place, not without some ostentation; but with much more liberty, and with more respect shewn him by far, than when he was in the Hands of the Parlia­ments Commissioners; for his own Chap­lains were allowed him, and his Children, and some Friends permitted to see him. Be­sides that, he was much complemented by Cromwel, who promised him, in a serious and seeming passionate manner, to restore him to his Right against the Parliament.

B.

How was he sure he could do that?

A.

He was not sure; but he was resolv­ed to march up to the City and Parliament to set up the King again, (and be the second Man) unless in the attempt he found bet­ter hope, than yet he had, to make him­self the first Man by dispossessing the King.

B.

What assistance against the Parliament and the City could Cromwel expect from the King.

A.

By declaring directly for him, he might have had all the King's Party, which were many more now since his misfortune, than ever they were before: For in the Par­liament it self there were many that had dis­covered the Hypocrisie and private Aims of their Fellows. Many were converted to [Page 228] their Duty by their own Natural Reason; and their Compassion for the King's Suf­ferings had begot generally an Indignation against the Parliament; so that if they had been by the Protection of the present Ar­my brought together, and embodied, Crom­wel might have done what he had pleas'd in the first place for the King, and in the se­cond for himself: but it seems he meant first to try what he could do without the King, and if that proved enough to rid his hands of him.

B.

What did the Parliament and City do to oppose the Army?

A.

First, the Parliament sent to the Ge­neral to re-deliver the King to their Com­missioners. In stead of an Answer to this, the Army sent Articles to the Parliament, and with them a charge against eleven of their Members, all of them active Presby­terians: of which Articles these are some. 1. That the House may be purged of those, who by the self-denying Ordinance ought not to be there. 2. That such as abu­sed and endangered the Kingdom might be disabled to do the like hereafter. 3. That a day might be appointed to determine this Parliament. 4. That they would make an Accompt to the Kingdom of the vast Sums of Money they had received. 5. That the eleven Members might presently be suspen­ded [Page 229] sitting in the House. These were the Articles that put them to their Trumps, and they answered none of them, but that of the suspension of the eleven Members, which they said they could not do by Law, till the Particulars of the Charge were produced: but this was soon answer'd with their own proceeding against the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury, and the Earl of Strafford.

The Parliament being thus somewhat awed, and the King made somewhat confi­dent; he undertakes the City, requiring the Parliament to put the Militia of London into other hands.

B.

What other hands? I do not well un­derstand you.

A.

I told you that the Militia of London was, on the fourth of May, put into the hands of the Lord-Major and other Citizens, and soon after put into the hands of other men more favourable to the Army; and now I am to tell you, that on July the 26th the violence of certain Apprentices and dis­banded Soldiers forced the Parliament to re-settle it as it was in the Citizens; and hereupon the two Speakers and divers of the Members ran away to the Army where they were invited, and contented to sit and vote in the Councel of War, in nature of a Par­liament; and out of these Citizens hands they would have the Militia taken away, [Page 230] and put again into those hands, out of which it was taken the 26th of July.

B.

What said the City to this?

A.

The Londoners manned their Works, viz. the Line of Communication, raised an Army of valiant Men within the Line, chose good Officers, all being desirous to go out and fight, whensoever the City should give them Order, and in that posture stood ex­pecting the Enemy.

The Soldiers in the mean time enter into an Engagement to live and die with Sir Tho. Fairfax, and the Parliament, and the Army.

B.

That's very fine. They imitate that which the Parliament did, when they first took up Arms against the King, stiling them­selves the King and Parliament, maintain­ing that the King was always virtually in his Parliament: So the Army now making War against the Parliament, called them­selves the Parliament and the Army: but they might with more reason say, that the Parliament (since it was in Cromwel's Pocket) was virtually in the Army.

A.

Withal they send out a Declaration of the Grounds of their March towards London; wherein they take upon them to be Judges of the Parliament, and of who are fit to be trusted with the business of the Kingdom, giving them the name, not of [Page 231] the Parliament, but of the Gentlemen at Westminster. For since the violence they were under July the 26th, the Army denied them to be a Lawful Parliament. At the same time they sent a Letter to the Major and Aldermen of London, reproaching them with those late Tumults, telling them they were Enemies to the Peace, Treacherous to the Parliament, unable to defend either the Parliament or themselves, and demanded to have the City delivered into their hands, to which purpose they said they were now coming to them. The General also sent out his Warrants to the Counties adjacent, sum­moning their Trained Soldiers to joyn with them.

B.

Were the Trained Soldiers part of the General's Army?

A.

No, nor at all in pay, nor could be without an Order of Parliament. But what might an Army do after it had mastered all the Laws of the Land? The Army being come to Hounsloe-Heath, distant from Lon­don but ten Miles, the Court of Aldermen was called to consider what to do. The Captains and Soldiers of the City were wil­ling and well provided to go forth and give them battle: but a Treacherous Officer, that had charge of a Work on Southwerk side, had let in within the Line a small Party of the Enemies, who marched as far as to [Page 232] the Gate of London Bridge, and then the Court of Aldermen (their hearts failing them) submitted on these conditions: To relinquish their Militia: To desert the ele­ven Members: To deliver up the Forts and Line of Communication, together with the Tower of London, and all Magazines and Arms therein to the Army: To disband their Forces, and turn out all the Reforma­does, i. e. all Essex's old Soldiers: To draw off their Guards from the Parliament; all which was done, and the Army marched triumphantly through the principal Streets of the City.

B.

'Tis strange that the Major and Alder­men having such an Army, should so quick­ly yield. Might they not have resisted the Party of the Enemy at the Bridge with a Party of their own; and the rest of the E­nemies with the rest of their own?

A.

I cannot judge of that: but to me it would have been strange, if they had done otherwise: for I consider the most part of rich Subjects, that have made themselves so by Craft and Trade, as Men that never look upon any thing but their present profit, and who to every thing not lying in that way are in a manner blind, being amazed at the very thought of plundering. If they had understood what vertue there is to preserve their Wealth in obedience to their Lawful [Page 233] Sovereign, they would never have sided with the Parliament, and so we had had no need of arming. The Major and Aldermen therefore being assured by this submission to save their Goods, and not sure of the same by resisting, seem to me to have taken the wisest course; nor was the Parliament less tame than the City; for presently, Au­gust the sixth, the General brought the fu­gitive Speakers and Members to the House with a strong Guard of Soldiers, and re­placed the Speakers in their Chairs; and for this they gave the General thanks, not only there in the House, but appointed also a day for a Holy Thanksgiving, and not long af­ter made him Generalissimo of all the Forces of England, and Constable of the Tower: but in effect all this was the advancement of Cromwel; for he was the usufructuary, though the property were in Sir Thomas Fairfax. For the Independents immedi­ately cast down the whole Line of Commu­nication, divide the Militia of London, West­minster and Southwark, which were before united; displaced such Governours of Towns and Forts as were not for their turn, though placed there by Ordinance of Parliament, in stead of whom they put in Men of their own Party. They also made the Parliament to declare null all that had passed in the Houses from July the 26th to August the [Page 234] sixth, and clapt in prison some of the Lords, and some of the most eminent Citizens, whereof the Lord Major was one.

B.

Cromwel had power enough now to restore the King: Why did he not?

A.

His main end was to set himself in his place. The Restoring of the King was but a Reserve against the Parliament, which being in his Pocket, he had no more need of the King, who was now an Impediment to him. To keep him in the Army was a trou­ble; To let him fall into the hands of the Presbyterians had been a stop to his hopes; To murder him privately, (besides the hor­ror of the Act) now whilst he was no more than Lieutenant-General, would have made him odious without farthering his Design. There was nothing better for his purpose, than to let him escape from Hampton-Court (where he was too near the Parliament) whither he pleased beyond Sea; for though Cromwel had a great Party in the Parliament House, whilst they saw not his ambition to be their Master, yet they would have been his Enemies, as soon as that had appear­ed. To make the King attempt an escape, some of those that had him in custody, by Cromwel's direction, told him that the Adjutators meant to murder him; and withal caused a Rumor of the same to be generally spread, to the end it might [Page 235] that way also come to the King's Ear, as it did.

The King therefore in a dark and rainy night (his Guards being retir'd, as it was thought on purpose) left Hampton-Court, and went to the Sea-side about Southampton, where a Vessel had been bespoken to tran­sport him, but failed; so that the King was forced to trust himself with Collonel Ham­mond, then Governour of the Isle of Wight; expecting perhaps some kindness from him for Dr. Hammond's sake, Brother to the Col­lonel, and his Majesties much favour'd Chap­lain: but it prov'd otherwise; for the Col­lonel sent to his Masters of the Parliament to receive their Orders concerning him. This going into the Isle of Wight was not likely to be any part of Cromwel's Design, who neither knew whither, nor which way he would go, nor had Hammond known any more than other men, if the Ship had come to the appointed place in due time.

B.

If the King had escap'd into France, might not the French have assisted him with Forces to recover his Kingdom, and so fru­strated their Designs, both of Cromwel, and all the King's other Enemies?

A.

Yes much; just as they assisted his Son our present most Gracious Sovereign, who two years before fled thither out of Cornwal.

B.
[Page 236]

'Tis methinks no great Politie in Neighbouring Princes to favour so often as they do one anothers Rebels, especially when they rebel against Monarchy it self. They should rather first make a League a­gainst Rebellion, and afterwards (if there be no remedy) fight one against another. Nor will that serve the turn amongst Chri­stian Sovereigns, till preaching be better look'd to, whereby the Interpretation of a Verse in the Hebrew, Greek or Latin Bible, is oftentimes the cause of Civil War, and the Deposing and Assassinating of God's Anointed: and yet converse with those Di­vinity Disputers as long as you will, you will hardly find one in a hundred discreet enough to be employed in any great affair either of War or Peace. It is not the Right of the Sovereign, though granted to him by every man's express consent, that can en­able him to do his Office; it is the Obedi­ence of the Subject that must do that. For what good is it to promise Allegiance, and then by and by to cry out, (as some Mini­sters did in the Pulpit) To your Tents, O Israel! Common People know nothing of Right or Wrong by their own Meditation; they must therefore be taught the Grounds of their Duty, and the Reasons why Cala­mities ever follow Disobedience to their Law­ful Sovereigns. But to the contrary our [Page 237] Rebels were publickly taught Rebellion in the Pulpits; and that there was no sin, but the doing of what the Preachers forbad, or the omission of what they advis'd. But now the King was the Parliaments Prisoner, why did not the Presbyterians advance their own Interest by restoring him?

A.

The Parliament, in which there were more Presbyterians yet than Independents, might have gotten what they would of the King, during his Life, if they had not by an unconscionable and sottish Ambition ob­structed the way to their Ends. They sent him four Propositions to be signed and pass'd by him, as Acts of Parliament, telling him when these were granted, they would send Commissioners to treat with him of any o­ther Articles.

The Propositions were these. First: That the Parliament should have the Militia, and the Power of Levying Money to maintain it for 20 years, and after that Term, the exercise thereof to return to the King, in case the Parliament think the safety of the Kingdom concern'd in it.

B,

The first Article takes from the King the Militia, and consequently the whole So­vereignty for ever.

A.

The Second was: That the King should justifie the Proceedings of the Par­liament against himself; and declare void all [Page 238] Oaths and Declarations made by him against the Parliament.

B.

This was to make him guilty of the War, and of all the Blood spilt therein.

A.

The Third was: To take away all Titles of Honour conferred by the King, since the Great Seal was carried to him in May 1642.

The Fourth was: That the Parliament should adjourn themselves when and to what place, and for what time they pleas'd.

These Propositions the King refused to grant, as he had reason; but sent others of his own, not much less advantagious to the Parliament, and desir'd a Personal Treaty with the Parliament for the setling of the Peace of the Kingdom; but the Parliament denying them to be sufficient for that pur­pose, voted; That there should be no more Addresses made to him, nor Messages re­ceiv'd from him; but that they would set­tle the Kingdom without him. And this they voted partly upon the Speeches and Menaces of the Army-Faction then present in the House of Commons: whereof one advised these Three Points.

1. To secure the King in some Inland Ca­stle with Guards. 2. To draw up Articles of Impeachment against him. 3. To lay him by, and settle the Kingdom without him.

[Page 239]Another said; That his denying of the four Bills was the denying Protection to his Subjects; and that therefore they might deny him subjection: and added, that till the Parliament forsook the Army, the Army would never forsake the Parliament. This was threatning.

Last of all, Cromwel himself told them, It was now expected that the Parliament should govern and defend the Kingdom, and not any longer let the People expect their safety from a Man, whose Heart God had hardned; nor let those that had so well de­fended the Parliament be left hereafter to the rage of an irreconcilable Enemy, lest they seek their safety some other way. This again was threatning; as also the laying his hand upon his Sword, when he spake it.

And hereupon the Vote of Non-Addres­ses was made an Ordinance; which the House would afterwards have recalled, but was forced by Cromwel to keep their word.

The Scotch were displeased with it, part­ly because their Brethren the Presbyterians had lost a great deal of their power in Eng­land, and partly also because they had sold the King into their hands.

The King now published a passionate Complaint to his People of this hard dealing [Page 240] with him, which made them pity him: but not yet rise in his behalf.

B.

Was not this, think you, the true time for Cromwel to take possession?

A.

By no means. There were yet many obstacles to be removed. He was not Ge­neral of the Army. The Army was still for a Parliament. The City of London discontented about their Militia. The Scots expected with an Army to rescue the King. His Adjutators were Leavelers, and against Monarchy, who though they had helped him to bring under the Parliament, yet like Dogs that are easily taught to fetch, and not easily taught to render, would not make him King. So that Cromwel had these busi­nesses following to overcome, before he could formally make himself a Sovereign Prince.

1. To be Generalissimo. 2. To remove the King. 3. To suppress all Insurrections here. 4. To oppose the Scots; and lastly, To dissolve the present Parliament. Migh­ty businesses, which he could never pro­mise himself to overcome; therefore I can­not believe he then thought to be King, but only by well serving the strongest Par­ty, (which was always his main Politie) to proceed as far as that and fortune would carry him.

B.
[Page 241]

The Parliament were certainly no less foolish than wicked in deserting thus the King, before they had the Army at a better Command than they had.

A.

In the beginning of 1648. the Parlia­ment gave Commission to Philip Earl of Pembroke (then made Chancellor of Oxford, together with some of the Doctors there, as good Divines as he) to purge the Uni­versity, by vertue whereof they turned out all such as were not of their Faction, and all such as had approved the use of the Com­mon-Prayer-Book; as also divers scandalous Ministers and Scholars, (that is such as customarily and without need took the Name of God into their Mouths, or used to speak wantonly, or use the company of lewd Women:) And for this last I cannot but commend them.

B.

So shall not I; for it is just such ano­ther piece of piety, as to turn men out of an Hospital because they are lame. Where can a man probably learn godliness, and how to correct his vices better than in the Universities erected for that purpose?

A.

It may be the Parliament thought otherwise: for I have often heard the Com­plaints of Parents, that their Children were debauched there to drunkenness, wanton­ness, gaming, and other vices consequent to these: nor is it a wonder amongst so [Page 242] many Youths, if they did not corrupt one another in despite of their Tutors, who of­tentimes were little elder than themselves. And therefore▪ I think the Parliament did not much reverence that Institution of Uni­versities, as to the bringing up of young men to vertue, though many of them learn­ed there to preach, and became thereby ca­pable of preferment and maintenance; and some others were sent thither by their Pa­rents, to save themselves the trouble of go­verning them at home, during that time wherein Children are least governable. Nor do I think the Parliament cared more for the Clergy than other men did: but certain­ly an University is an excellent Servant to the Clergy; and the Clergy, if it be not carefully look'd to, (by their Dissentions in Doctrines, and by the advantage to pub­lish their Dissentions) is an excellent means to divide a Kingdom into Factions.

B.

But seeing there is no place in this part of the World, where Philosophy, and other humane Sciences are not highly valued; where can they be learned better than in the Universities?

A.

What other Sciences? Do not Divines comprehend all Civil and Moral Philosophy within their Divinity? And as for Natural Philosophy; is it not remov'd from Oxford and Cambridge to Gresham-Colledge in Lon­don, [Page 243] and to be learned out of their Gazets? But we are gone from our subject.

B.

No; we are indeed gone from the greater businesses of the Kingdom; to which, if you please, let us return.

A.

The first Insurrection, or rather Tu­mult, was that of the Apprentices, on the ninth of April; but this was not upon the King's account, but arose from a Customa­ry Assembly of them for Recreation in Moor­fields, whence some zealous Officers of the Trained Soldiers would needs drive them away by force; but were themselves routed with Stones; and had their Ensign taken away by the Apprentices, which they car­ried about in the Streets, and frighted the Lord-Major into his House, where they took a Gun called a Drake, and then they set Guards at some of the Gates, and all the rest of the day childishly swaggered up and down: but the next day the General him­self marching into the City quickly disper­sed them. This was but a small business, but enough to let them see that the Parlia­ment was ill belov'd of the People.

Next the Welch took Arms against them. There were three Collonels in Wales, Lang­horne, Poyer and Powel, who had former­ly done the Parliament good service, but now were commanded to disband; which they refused to do; and the better to strengthen [Page 244] themselves, declared for the King, and were about 8000.

About the same time, in Wales also, was another Insurrection headed by Sir Nicholas Keymish, and another under Sir John Owen; so that now all Wales was in Rebellion against the Parliament, and yet all these were over­come in a months time by Cromwel and his Officers; but not without store of Blood­shed on both sides.

B.

I do not much pity the loss of those men that impute to the King that which they do upon their own quarrel.

A.

Presently after this, some of the Peo­ple of Surrey sent a Petition to the Parlia­ment, for a personal Treaty between the King and Parliament; but their Messengers were beaten home again by the Soldiers that quartered about Westminster and the Mews. And then the Kentish Men having a like Petition to deliver, and seeing how ill it was like to be receiv'd, threw it away, and took up Arms. They had many gallant Officers, and for General the Earl of Nor­wich, and encreased daily by Apprentices and old disbanded Soldiers. In so much as the Parliament was glad to restore to the City their Militia, and to keep Guards up­on the Thames side: and then Fairfax march­ed towards the Enemy.

B.
[Page 245]

And then the Londoners, I think, might easily and suddenly have mastered, first the Parliament, and next Fairfax his 8000, and lastly Cromwel's Army; or at least have gi­ven the Scots Army opportunity to march unfoughten to London.

A.

'Tis true: but the City was never good at venturing; nor were they or the Scots principled to have a King over them, but under them. Fairfax marching with his 8000 against the Royalists, routed a part of them at Maidstone; another part were taking in of places in Kent farther off; and the Earl of Norwich, with the rest, came to Black-heath, and thence sent to the City to get passage through it, to joyn with those which were risen in Essex under Sir Charles Lucas, and Sir George Lisle; which being denied, the greatest part of his Kentish Men deserted him. With the rest, not above 500, he crossed the Thames into the isle of Dogs, and so to Bow, and thence to Colchester. Fairfax having no­tice of this, crossed the Thames at Gravesend; and overtaking them, besieged them in Col­chester. The Town had no defence, but a Breast-work, and yet held out upon hope of the Scotch Army to relieve them, the space of two months. Upon the news of the defeat of the Scots, they were forced to yield. The Earl of Norwich was sent Pri­soner [Page 246] to London. Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle, two Loyal and Gallant Persons, were shot to death. There was also another little Insurrection headed by the Earl of Holland, about Kingston; but quickly sup­pressed, and he himself taken Prisoner.

B.

How came the Scots to be so soon dispatch'd?

A.

Meerly, as it is said, for want of Con­duct. Their Army was led by Duke Ha­milton, who was then set at liberty, when Pendennis Castle, where he was Prisoner, was taken by the Parliamentarians. He entred England with Horse and Foot 15000, to which came above 3000 English Royalists. Against these Cromwel marched out of Wales with Horse and Foot 11000, and near to Preston in Lancashire, in less than two hours defeated them: and the Cause of it is said to be, that the Scotch Army was so order­ed, as they could not all come to the Fight, nor relieve their Fellows. After the defeat, they had no way to fly, but farther into England; so that in the pursuit they were almost all taken, and lost all that an Army can lose; for the few that got home, did not all bring home their Swords. Duke Hamilton was taken, and not long after sent to London: But Cromwel marched on to Edenburgh, and there by the help of the Faction, which was contrary to Hamil­ton's, [Page 247] he made sure not to be hindred in his designs; the first whereof was to take away the King's Life by the Hand of the Par­liament.

Whilst these things passed in the North, the Parliament (Cromwel being away) came to it self, and recalling their Vote of Non-Addresses, sent to the King new Propositi­ons, somewhat, but not much easier than formerly; and upon the King's Answer to them, they sent Commissioners to treat with him, at Newport in the Isle of Wight, where they so long dodged with him about trifles, that Cromwel was come to London, before they had done, to the King's destruction. For the Army was now wholly at the devo­tion of Cromwel, who set the Adjutators on work again to make a Remonstrance to the House of Commons, wherein they require first; That the King be brought to Justice. 2. That the Prince and Duke of York be summoned to appear at a day appointed, and proceeded with, according as they should give satisfaction. 3. That the Parliament settle the Peace and future Government, and set a reasonable period to their own sit­ting, and make certain future Parliaments Annual, or Biennial. 4. That a competent number of the King's Chief Instruments be executed. And this to be done, both by the House of Commons, and by a general A­greement [Page 248] of the People testified by their Subscriptions. Nor did they stay for an Answer, but presently set a Guard of Sol­diers at the Parliament-house-door, and o­ther Soldiers in Westminster-Hall, suffering none to go into the House, but such as would serve their turns. All others were frighted away, or made Prisoners, and some upon divers quarrels suspended. Above 90 of them, because they had refused to vote against the Scots; and others, because they had voted against the Vote of Non-Addresses; and the rest were an House for Cromwel. The Fanaticks also in the City, being countenanced by the Army, pack a new Common Councel, whereof any forty was to be above the Major; and their first work was to frame a Petition for Justice against the King, which Tichborne the Major (involving the City in the Regicide) deli­vered to the Parliament.

At the same time, with the like violence, they took the King from Newport in the Isle of Wight, to Hurst Castle, till things were ready for his Trial. The Parliament in the mean time, to avoid perjury, by an Ordinance declared void the Oaths of Su­premacy and Allegiance, and presently after made another to bring the King to his Trial.

B.

This is a piece of Law that I under­stood not before, that when many Men [Page 249] swear singly, they may, when they are assembled (if they please) absolve them­selves.

A.

The Ordinance being drawn up was brought into the House, where after three several Readings, it was voted; That the Lords and Commons of England, assembled in Parliament, do declare; That by the fun­damental Laws of the Realm, it is Treason in the King of England to Levy War against the Parliament. And this Vote was sent up to the Lords; and they denying their consent, the Commons in anger made ano­ther Vote; That all Members of Commit­tees should proceed and act in any Ordi­nance, whether the Lords concurred or no; and that the People, under God, are the o­riginal of all just Power; and that the House of Commons have the Supream Power of the Nation; and that whatsoever the House of Commons enacteth is Law. All this passed nemine contradicente.

B.

These Propositions fight, not only a­gainst a King of England; but against all the Kings of the World. It were good they thought on't: but yet (I believe) un­der God the original of all Laws was in the People.

A.

But the People, for them and their Heirs, by consent and Oaths, have long ago put the Supream Power of the Nation [Page 250] into the hands of their Kings, for them and their Heirs; and consequently into the hands of this King their known and lawful Heir.

B.

But does not the Parliament represent the People?

A.

Yes to some purposes; as to put up Petitions to the King, when they have leave, and are grieved; but not to make a Grie­vance of the King's Power. Besides, the Parliament never represents the People, but when the King calls them; nor is it to be imagin'd that he calls a Parliament to depose himself. Put the Case every County and Burrough should have given this Parliament for a Benevolence, a Sum of Money; and that every County, meeting in their Coun­ty-Court, or elsewhere, and every Bur­rough in their Town-Hall should have cho­sen certain men to carry their several Sums respectively to the Parliament. Had not these men represented the whole Nation?

B.

Yes, no doubt.

A.

Do you think the Parliament would have thought it reasonable to be called to account by this Representative?

B.

No sure; and yet I must confess the Case is the same.

A.

This Ordinance contained first, a Summary of the Charge against the King, in substance this; That not content with the [Page 251] Encroachments of his Predecessors upon the freedom of the People, he had designed to set up a Tyrannical Government, and to that end had raised and maintained in the Land a Civil War against the Parliament, whereby the Country hath been miserably wasted, the publick Treasure exhausted, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other mischiefs committed.

Secondly, A Constitution passed of a High Court of Justice, that is, of a certain number of Commissioners, of whom any 20 had Power to try the King, and to proceed to Sentence according to the merit of the Cause, and see it speedily executed. The Commissioners met on Saturday Jan. 20th in Westminster-Hall, and the King was brought before them; where sitting in a Chair, he heard the Charge read, but de­nied to plead to it either Guilty or Not Guilty, till he should know by what Law­ful Authority he was brought thither. The President told him; That the Parliament affirmed their own Authority, and the King persevered in his refusal to plead; though many words passed between him and the President, yet this was the substance of it all.

On Monday January 22, the Court met again, and the Solicitor moved, that if the King persisted in denying the Authority of [Page 252] the Court, the Charge might be taken pro confesso: but the King still denied their Au­thority.

They met again January 23, and then the Solicitor moved the Court for Judg­ment; whereupon the King was requir'd to give his final Answer, which was again a denial of their Authority.

Lastly, They met again January 27, where the King desir'd to be heard before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber, and promising after that to abide the Judgment of the Court. The Commissioners retir'd for half an hour to consider of it, and then returning, caused the King to be brought again to the Bar, and told him, that what he proposed was but another denial of the Courts Jurisdiction; and that if he had no more to say, they would proceed. Then the King answering, that he had no more to say; the President began a long Speech in Justification of the Parliaments Proceedings, producing the Examples of many Kings kil­led, or deposed by wicked Parliaments An­cient and Modern, in England, Scotland, and other parts of the World: All which he endeavoured to justifie from this only Principle; That the People have the Su­pream Power, and the Parliament is the People. This Speech ended, the Sentence of death was read; and the same upon Tuesday [Page 253] after January 30 executed at the Gate of his own Palace of White-hall. He that can delight in reading how villainously he was used by the Soldiers between the Sentence and Execution, may go to the Chronicle it self; in which he shall see what Courage, Patience, Wisdom and Goodness was in this Prince, whom, in their Charge, the Mem­bers of that wicked Parliament stiled Tyrant, Traitor and Murderer.

The King being dead, the same day they made an Act of Parliament, that whereas several pretences might be made to the Crown, &c. It is Enacted by this present Parliament, and Authority of the same; That no person presume to declare, proclaim or publish, or any way promote Charles Stuart Son of Charles late King of England, commonly called Prince of Wales, or any o­ther person to be King of England or Ire­land, &c.

B.

Seeing the King was dead, and his Suc­cessor barred; by what declar'd Authority was the Peace maintain'd?

A.

They had in their anger against the Lords formerly declar'd, the Supream Power of the Nation to be in the House of Com­mons; and now on February 5th they vote the House of Lords to be useless and dange­rous. And thus the Kingdom is turned into a Democracie, or rather an Oligarchie: for [Page 254] presently they made an Act; That none of those Members, who were secluded for op­posing the Vote of Non-Addresses, should ever be re-admitted. And these were com­monly called the secluded Members, and the rest were by some stiled a Parliament, and by others the Rump.

I think you need not now have a Cata­logue, either of the Vices, or of the Crimes, or of the Follies of the greatest part of them that composed the Long Parliament, than which greater cannot be in the World. What greater Vices than Irreligion, Hypocrisie, Avarice and Cruelty; which have appear'd so eminently in the Actions of Presbyterian Members, and Presbyterian Ministers? What greater Crimes than Blaspheming and Killing God's Anointed? which was done by the hands of the Independents; but by the folly and first Treason of the Presbyterians, who betrayed and sold him to his Murderers. Nor was it a little folly in the Lords, not to see that by the taking away of the King's Power, they lost withal their own Priviledges; or to think themselves either for number or judgment any way a considerable assistance to the House of Commons. And for those men who had skill in the Laws, it was no great sign of understanding, not to perceive that the Laws of the Land were made by the King, to oblige his Subjects to Peace and [Page 255] Justice, and not to oblige himself that made them. And lastly and generally, all men are fools which pull down any thing which does them good, before they have set up something better in its place. He that would set up Democracie with an Army, should have an Army to maintain it; but these men did it, when those men had the Army, that were resolv'd to pull it down. To these Follies I might add the folly of those fine men, which out of their reading of Tully, Seneca, or other Antimonarchiques, think themselves sufficient Politiques, and shew their discontents, when they are not called to the management of the State, and turn from one side to another upon every neglect they fancy from the King, or his Enemies.

Behemoth, PART IV.

A.

YOU have seen the Rump in pos­session (as they believ'd) of the Supream Power over the two Nations of England and Ireland, and the Army their Servant, though Cromwel thought otherwise, serving them diligently for the advancement of his own purposes. I am now therefore to shew you their Proceedings.

B.

Tell me first, how this kind of Go­vernment under the Rump or Relique of a House of Commons is to be called?

A.

'Tis doubtless an Oligarchy; for the Supream Authority must needs be in one man, or in more. If in one, it is Monar­chy, the Rump therefore was no Monarchy. If the Authority were in more than one; it was in all, or in fewer than all. When in all, it is Democracy; for every man may enter into the Assembly, which makes the [Page 258] Sovereign Court; which they could not do here. It is therefore manifest, that the Au­thority was in a few, and consequently the State was an Oligarchy.

B.

Is it not impossible for a People to be well govern'd, that are to obey more Ma­sters than one?

A.

Both the Rump, and all other Sove­reign Assemblies, if they have but one Voice, though they be many Men, yet are they but one Person: for contrary Commands cannot consist in one and the same Voice, which is the Voice of the greatest part, and therefore they might govern well enough, if they had Honesty and Wit enough.

The first Act of the Rump was the Ex­clusion of those Members of the House of Commons, which had been formerly kept out by violence, for the procuring of an Ordinance for the King's Tryal: for these men had appear'd against the Ordinance of Non-Addresses, and therefore to be exclu­ded, because they might else be an Impedi­ment to their future Designs.

B.

Was it not rather, because in the Au­thority of few, they thought the fewer the better, both in respect of their shares, and also of a nearer approach in every one of them to the Dignity of a King?

A.

Yes certainly, that was their princi­pal end.

B.
[Page 259]

When these were put out; why did not the Counties and Burroughs choose o­thers in their places?

A.

They could not do that without order from the House. After this they constitu­ted a Councel of 40 persons, which they termed a Councel of State, whose Office was to execute what the Rump should com­mand.

B.

When there was neither King, nor House of Lords, they could not call them­selves a Parliament; for a Parliament is a Meeting of the King, Lords and Commons, to confer together about the businesses of the Common-wealth. With whom did the Rump confer?

A.

Men may give to their Assembly what name they please, what signification soever such Name might formerly have had; and the Rump took the Name of Parliament as most suitable to their purpose; and such a Name as being venerable amongst the people for many hundred years, had countenanced and sweetned Subsidies and other Levies of Money, otherwise very unpleasant to the Subject. They took also afterwards another name, which was Custo­des Libertatis Angliae, which Titles they used only in their Writs issuing out of the Courts of Justice.

B.
[Page 260]

I do not see how a Subject that is tied to the Laws can have more liberty in one form of Government than another.

A.

Howsoever to the people that under­stand by liberty nothing but leave to do what they list, it was a Title not ingrateful.

Their next work was to set forth a pub­lick Declaration; That they were fully re­solv'd to maintain the fundamental Laws of the Nation, as to the Preservation of the Lives, Liberties and Proprieties of the People.

B.

What did they mean by the fundamen­tal Laws of the Nation?

A.

Nothing but to abuse the people: for the only fundamental Law in every Com­mon-wealth is, To obey the Laws from time to time, which he shall make, to whom the People have given the Supream Power. How likely then are they to uphold the fun­damental Laws, that had murder'd him, who was by themselves so often acknowledg­ed for their Lawful Sovereign? Besides, at the same time that this Declaration came forth, they were erecting that High Court of Justice, which took away the Lives of Duke Hamilton, the Earl of Holland, and the Lord Capel. Whatsoever they meant by a fundamental Law, the erecting of this Court was a breach of it, as being warrant­ed by no former Law or Example in Eng­land.

[Page 261]At the same time also they Levied Taxes by Soldiers, and to Soldiers permitted Free quarter, and did many other Actions, which if the King had done, they would have said had been done against the Liberty and Pro­priety of the Subject.

B.

What silly things are the common sort of people, to be cozened as they were so grosly?

A.

What sort of people, as to this mat­ter, are not of the common sort? The craftiest Knaves of all the Rump were no wiser than the rest whom they cozened: for the most of them did believe, that the same things which they imposed upon the generality, were just and reasonable; and especially the great Haranguers, and such as pretended to Learning: for who can be a good Subject in a Monarchy, whose Princi­ples are taken from the Enemies of Monar­chy, such as were Cicero, Seneca, Cato, and other Politicians of Rome, and Aristotle of Athens, who seldom spake of Kings, but as of Wolves, and other ravenous Beasts? You may perhaps think a man has need of nothing else to know the Duty he owes to his Governour, and what Right he has to order him, but a good Natural Wit: but it is otherwise: for it is a Science, and built upon sure and clear Principles, and to be learned by deep and careful study, or from [Page 262] Masters that have deeply studied it; and who was there in the Parliament, or in the Nation, that could find out those evident Principles, and derive from them the ne­cessary Rules of Justice, and the necessary Connexion of Justice and Peace? The Peo­ple have one day in seven the leisure to hear Instruction, and there are Ministers appoin­ted to teach them their Duty: but how have those Ministers performed their Office? A great part of them, namely, the Presby­terian Ministers throughout the whole War, instigated the People against the King; so did also Independents, and other Fanatick Ministers. The rest, contented with their Livings, preached in their Parishes Points of Controversie, to Religion impertinent; but to the breach of Charity, among them▪ selves very effectual, or else eloquent things, which the People either understood not, or thought themselves not concerned in. But this sort of Preachers, as they did little good, so they did little hurt. The mis­chief proceeded wholly from the Presby­terian Preachers, who by a long practiced Histrionique faculty preached up the Rebel­lion powerfully.

B.

To what end?

A.

To the end that the State becoming popular the Church might be so too, and governed by an Assembly, and by conse­quence, [Page 263] (as they thought) seeing Politicks are subservient to Religion, they might go­vern, and thereby satisfie, not only their covetous humour with Riches, but also their malice with power to undo all men that admir'd not their wisdom. Your cal­ling the People silly things, obliged me by this Digression to shew you, that it is not want of Wit, but want of the Science of Justice that brought them into these trou­bles. Perswade, if you can, that man that has made his fortune, or made it greater, or an Eloquent Orator, or a Ravishing Poet, or a subtil Lawyer, or but a good Hunter, or a cunning Gamester, that he has not a good Wit; and yet there were of all these a great many so silly as to be deceiv'd by the Rump, and Members of the same Rump. They wanted not Wit, but the knowledge of the Causes and Grounds upon which one Person has a Right to govern, and the rest an Obligation to obey, which Grounds are necessary to be taught the People, who without them cannot live long in peace a­mongst themselves.

B.

Let us return, if you please, to the Proceedings of the Rump.

A.

In the rest of this year they voted a new Stamp for the Coyn of this Nation. They considered also of Agents to be sent to Forreign States; and having lately re­ceiv'd [Page 264] applause from the Army for their work done by the High Court of Justice, and encouragement to extend the same far­ther, they perfected the said High Court of Justice, in which were tryed Duke Ha­milton, the Earl of Holland, Lord Capel, the Earl of Norwich, and Sir John Owen, whereof, as I mentioned before the three first were beheaded. This affrighted di­vers of the King's Party out of the Land: for not only they but all that had born Arms for the King were at that time in very great danger of their Lives. For it was put to the question by the Army at a Councel of War, whether they should be all Massacred or no, where the Noes car­ried it, but by two Voices. Lastly, March the 24th, they put the Major of London out of his Office, fined him 2000 l. dis­franchised him, and condemned him to two months Imprisonment in the Tower, for refusing to proclaim the Act for abolishing the Kingly Power. And thus ended the year 1648. and the Monthly Fast; God having granted that which they fasted for, the Death of the King, and the Possession of his Inheritance. By these their Procee­dings they had already lost the Hearts of the generality of the People, and had no­thing to trust to but the Army, which was not in their power, but in Cromwel's, who [Page 265] never failed, when there was occasion, to put them upon all Exploits that might make them odious to the people, in order to his future dissolving them, whensoever it should conduce to his ends.

In the beginning of 1649. the Scots dis­contented with the Proceedings of the Rump against the late King, began to Levy Sol­diers, in order to a new Invasion of Eng­land. The Irish Rebels, for want of time­ly resistance from England, were grown terrible; and the English Army at home infected by the Adjutators, were casting how to share the Land amongst the Godly, meaning themselves; and such others as they pleased, who were therefore called Levellers. Also the Rump for the present were not very well provided of Money, and therefore the first thing they did was, the laying of a Tax upon the People of 90000 l. a month, for the maintenance of the Army.

B.

Was it not one of their quarrels with the King; That he had Levied Money without the consent of the People in Parlia­ment.

A.

You may see by this what reason the Rump had to call it self a Parliament; for the Taxes imposed by Parliament, were always understood to be by the Peoples con­sent, and consequently Legal.

[Page 266]To appease the Scots, they sent Messen­gers with flattering Letters to keep them from engaging for the present King; but in vain; for they would hear nothing from a House of Commons (as they called it) at Westminster without a King and Lords. But they sent Commissioners to the King, to let him know what they were doing for him: for they were resolv'd to raise an Army of 17000 Foot and 6000 Horse, for them­selves.

To relieve Ireland the Rump had resolv­ed to send eleven Regiments thither out of the Army in England. This hap'ned well for Cromwel: for the Levelling Soldiers, which were in every Regiment many, and in some the major part, finding that in stead of dividing the Land at home, they were to venture their Lives in Ireland, flat­ly denied to go; and one Regiment having cashier'd their Collonel about Salisbury, was marching to joyn with three Regi­ments more of the same Resolution; but both the General and Cromwel falling upon them at Burford, utterly defeated them, and soon after reduced the whole Army to their obedience. And thus another of the Impediments to Cromwel's Advancement was soon removed. This done they came to Oxford, and thence to London: and at Oxford, both the General and Cromwel were [Page 267] made Doctors of the Civil Law; and at Lon­don feasted and presented by the City.

B.

Were they not first made Masters, and then Doctors?

A.

They had made themselves already Masters both of the Laws and Parliament. The Army being now obedient, the Rump sent over those eleven Regiments into Ire­land under the Command of Dr. Cromwel, intituled Governour of that Kingdom, the Lord Fairfax being still General of all the Forces, both here and there.

The Marquess (now Duke) of Or­mond was the King's Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Rebels had made a Confederacy a­mongst themselves, and these Confederates had made a kind of League with the Lieute­nant, wherein they agreed upon liberty given them in the exercise of their Religi­on, to be faithful to, and assist the King. To these also were joyned some Forces rais­ed by the Earls of Castlehaven, and Clanri­card, and my Lord Inchiquin; so that they were the greatest united strength in the Island: but there were amongst them a great many other Papists, that would by no means subject themselves to Protestants, and these were called the Nuntio's Party, as the other were called the Confederate Party. These Parties not agreeing, and the Confederate Party having broken their Ar­ticles, [Page 268] the Lord-Lieutenant seeing them ready to besiege him in Dublin, and not a­ble to defend it, did, to preserve the Place for the Protestants, surrender it to the Par­liament of England, and came over to the King at that time, when he was carried from place to place by the Army. From Eng­land he went over to the Prince, now King, residing then at Paris.

But the Confederates affrighted with the News that the Rump was sending over an Army thither, desir'd the Prince by Letters to send back my Lord of Ormond, engag­ing themselves to submit absolutely to the King's Authority, and to obey my Lord of Ormond as his Lieutenant. And hereupon he was sent back, this was about a year be­fore the going over of Cromwel.

In which time by the Dissentions in Ire­land between the Confederate Party, and the Nuntio's Party, and discontents about Command, this, otherwise sufficient power, effected nothing, and was at last defeated, August the second, by a Sally out of Dub­lin, which they were besieging. Within a few days after arrived Cromwel, who with extraordinary diligence, and horrid execu­tions, in less than a twelvemonth that he stayed there, subdued in a manner the whole Nation, having killed, or extermi­nated a great part of them, and leaving his [Page 269] Son-in-law Ireton to subdue the rest. But Ireton dyed there (before the business was quite done) of the Plague. This was one step more towards Cromwel's exaltation to the Throne.

B.

What a miserable condition was Ire­land reduced to by the Learning of the Ro­man, as well as England was by the Learning of the Presbyterian Clergy.

A.

In the latter end of the preceding year, the King was come from Paris to the Hague: and shortly after came thither from the Rump their Agent Dorislaus Doctor of the Civil Law, who had been employed in the drawing up of the Charge against the late King: but the first night he came, as he was at Supper, a Company of Cava­liers, near a dozen, entred his Chamber, killed him, and got away. Not long after also their Agent at Madrid, one Ascham, one that had written in defence of his Ma­sters, was killed in the same manner. A­bout this time came out two Books, one written by Salmasius a Presbyterian, a­gainst the Murder of the King, another written by Milton, an English Independent, in answer to it.

B.

I have seen them both. They are very good Latin both, and hardly to be judged which is better, and both very ill reasoning, hardly to be judged which is [Page 270] worse; like two Declamations Pro and Con, made for exercise only in a Rhetorick School by one and the same Man. So like is a Pres­byterian to an Independent.

A.

In this year the Rump did not much at home; save that in the beginning they made England a Free State by an Act which runs thus. Be it enacted and declar'd by this present Parliament, and by the Au­thority thereof; That the People of Eng­land, and all the Dominions and Territo­ries thereunto belonging, are, and shall be, and are hereby constituted, made and declared a Common-wealth and Free State, &c.

B.

What did they mean by a Free State and Common-wealth? Were the People no longer to be subject to Laws? They could not mean that: for the Parliament meant to govern them by their own Laws, and punish such as broke them. Did they mean that England should not be subject to any Forreign Kingdom or Common-wealth? That needed not be enacted, seeing there was no King nor People pretended to be their Masters. What did they mean then?

A.

They meant that neither this King, nor any King, nor any single person, but only that they themselves would be the Peoples Masters, and would have set it [Page 271] down in those plain words, if the Peo­ple could have been cozned with words intelligible, as easily as with words not in­telligible.

After this they gave one another Mo­ney and Estates out of the Lands and Goods of the Loyal Party. They enacted also an Engagement to be taken by every man, in these words: You shall promise to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth of England, as it is now established, without King, or House of Lords.

They banished also from within 20 Miles of London all the Royal Party, forbidding also every one of them to depart more than five Miles from his Dwelling house.

B.

They meant perhaps to have them ready, if need were, for a Massacre. But what did the Scots in this time?

A.

They were considering of the Officers of the Army, which they were Levying for the King, how they might exclude from Command all such as had loyally serv'd his Father, and all Independents, and all such as commanded in Duke Hamilton's Army; and these were the main things that passed this year.

The Marquess of Montrosse, that in the year 1645. had, with a few men, and in little time, done things almost incredible against the late King's Enemies in Scotland, [Page 272] landed now again in the beginning of the year 1650. in the North of Scotland, with Commission from the present King, hoping to do him as good Service, as he had for­merly done his Father: but the Case was altered; for the Scotch Forces were then in England in the Service of the Parliament; whereas now they were in Scotland, and many more (for their intended Invasion) newly raised. Besides the Soldiers which the Marquess brought over were few, and Forreigners, nor did the Highlanders come in to him as he expected; in so much as he was soon defeated, and shortly after taken, and (with more spightful usage than re­venge requir'd) executed by the Covenan­ters at Edenburgh May 2.

B.

What good could the King expect from joyning with these men, who during the Treaty, discovered so much malice to him in one of his best Servants?

A.

No doubt (their Church-men being then prevalent) they would have done as much to this King, as the English Parlia­ment had done to his Father, if they could have gotten by it that which they foolishly aspir'd to, the Government of the Nation. I do not believe that the Independents were worse than the Presbyterians: both the one and the other were resolv'd to destroy whatsoever should stand in the way to [Page 273] their Ambition: but necessity made the King pass over both this, and many other Indignities from them, rather than suf­fer the pursuit of his Right in England to cool, and be little better than extin­guished.

B.

Indeed I believe a Kingdom, if suf­fered to become an old Debt, will hardly ever be recover'd. Besides the King was sure, wheresoever the Victory lighted, he could lose nothing in the War, but Ene­mies.

A.

About the time of Montrosse his death, which was in May, Cromwel was yet in Ire­land, and his work unfinished: but finding, or by his Friends advertised, that his pre­sence in the Expedition now preparing a­gainst the Scots would be necessary to his design, sent to the Rump to know their pleasure concerning his return: but for all that, he knew, or thought it was not necessary to stay for their Answer, but came away, and arriv'd at London the sixth of June following, and was welcomed by the Rump. Now had General Fairfax (who was truly what he pretended to be, a Presbyterian) been so catechis'd by the Presbyterian Ministers here, that he refus'd to fight against the Brethren in Scotland; nor did the Rump, nor Cromwel go about to rectifie his Conscience in that Point; and [Page 274] thus Fairfax laying down his Commission, Cromwel was now made General of all the Forces in England and Ireland; which was another Step to the Sovereign Power.

B.

Where was the King?

A.

In Scotland newly come over. He landed in the North, and was honourably conducted to Edenburgh, though all things were not yet well agreed on between the Scots and him: for though he had yielded to as hard Conditions, as the late King had yielded to in the Isle of Wight, yet they had still somewhat to add, till the King endu­ring no more, departed from them to­wards the North again. But they sent Messengers after him to pray him to re­turn, but they furnished these Messengers with strength enough to bring him back, if he should have refused. In fine, they agreed, but would not suffer either the King, or any Royalist, to have Command in the Army.

B.

The sum of all is, the King was there a Prisoner.

A.

Cromwel from Barwick sends a Decla­ration to the Scots, telling them he had no quarrel against the People of Scotland; but against the Malignant Party, that had brought in the King, to the disturbance of the Peace between the two Nations; and that he was willing, either by Conference [Page 275] to give and receive satisfaction, or to de­cide the Justice of the Cause by Battle. To which the Scots answering, declare; That they will not prosecute the King's Interest before, and without his acknowledgment of the sins of his House, and his former ways, and satisfaction given to God's Peo­ple in both Kingdoms. Judge by this, whether the present King were not in as bad a condition here, as his Father was in the hands of the Presbyterians of Eng­land.

B.

Presbyterians are every where the same: they would fain be absolute Gover­nours of all they converse with, and have nothing to plead for it, but that where they Reign 'tis God that Reigns, and no where else: but I observe one strange De­mand, that the King should acknowledge the sins of his House; for I thought it had been certainly held by all Divines, that no man was bound to acknowledge any man's sins, but his own.

A.

The King having yielded to all that the Church requir'd, the Scots proceeded in their intended War. Cromwel marched on to Edenburgh, provoking them all he could to Battle, which they declining, and Provisions growing scarce in the English Army, Cromwel retir'd to Dunbar, de­spairing of success; and intending by Sea [Page 276] or Land to get back into England. And such was the Condition, which this General Cromwel so much magnified for Conduct, had brought his Army to; that all his Glories had ended in Shame and Punish­ment, if Fortune, and the faults of his E­nemies had not relieved him▪ For as he retir'd the Scots followed him close all the way, till within a Mile of Dunbar. There is a ridge of Hills, that from beyond Eden­burgh goes winding to the Sea, and crosses the High-way between Dunbar and Bar­wick, at a Village called Copperspeith, where the passage is so difficult, that had the Scots sent timely thither a very few men to guard it, the English could never have got­ten home. For the Scots kept the Hills, and needed not have fought, but upon great advantage, and were almost two to one. Cromwell's Army was at the foot▪ of those Hills, on the North side; and there was a great Ditch or Channel of a Torrent be­tween the Hills and it; so that he could never have got home by Land, nor with­out utter ruine of the Army attempted to Ship it▪ nor have stayed where he was for want of Provisions. Now Cromwel know­ing the Pass was free, and commanding a good Party of Horse and foot to possess it; it was necessary for the Scots to let them go, whom they bragged they had impound­ed, [Page 277] or else to fight; and therefore with the best of their Horse charged the English, and made them at first to shrink a little: but the English Foot coming on, the Scots were put to flight; and the flight of the Horse hin­dered the Foot from engaging, who there­fore fled, as did also the rest of their Horse. Thus the folly of the Scottish Commanders brought all their odds to an even Lay, between two small and equal Parties; wherein Fortune gave the Victory to the English, who were not many more in number than those that were killed and taken Prisoners of the Scots, and the Church lost their Canon, Bag and Baggage, with 10000 Arms, and almost their whole Ar­my. The rest were got together by Lesly to Sterling.

B.

This Victory happened well for the King; for had the Scots been Victors, the Presbyterians both here and there would have domineer'd again, and the King been in the same condition his Father was in at New-Castle, in the hands of the Scottish, Army. For in pursuit of this Victory, the English at last brought the Scots to a pretty good habit of obedience for the King, whensoever he should recover his Right.

A.

In pursuit of this Victory the English marched to Edenburgh, quitted by the Scots, [Page 278] fortified Leith, and took in all the Strength and Castles they thought fit, on this side the Frith, which now was become the Bound betwixt the two Nations: and the Scotch Ecclesiasticks began to know them­selves better, and resolv'd in their new Army, which they meant to raise, to ad­mit some of the Royalists into Command, Cromwel from Edenburgh marched towards Sterling, to provoke the Enemy to fight; but finding danger in it, return'd to Eden­burgh, and besieged the Castle. In the mean time he sent a Party into the West of Scotland to suppress Straughan and Kerr, two great Presbyterians, that were there Levying of Forces for their new Army. And in the same time the Scots Crowned the King at Schone.

The rest of this year was spent in Scot­land, on Cromwel's part, in taking of E­denburgh Castle, and in attempts to pass the Frith, or any other ways to get over to the Scottish Forces; and on the Scots part in hastening their Levies for the North.

B.

What did the Rump at home during this time?

A.

They voted Liberty of Conscience to the Sectaries; that is, they pluckt out the Sting of the Presbytery, which consisted in a severe imposing of odd Opinions upon [Page 279] the People, impertinent to Religion, but conducing to the advancement of the power of the Presbyterian Ministers. Also they Levied more Soldiers, and gave the Com­mand of them to Harrison, now made Ma­jor-General, a Fifth monarchy-man; and of these Soldiers two Regiments of Horse and one of Foot were raised by the Fifth-monarchy-men, and other Sectaries, in thankfulness for this their Liberty from the Presbyterian Tyranny. Also they pul­led down the late King's Statue in the Ex­change; and in the Nick where it stood, caused to be written these words.

Exit Tyrannus Regum ultimus, &c.
B.

What good did that do them, and why did they not pull down the Statues of all the rest of the Kings?

A.

What account can be given of Acti­ons that proceed not from reason, but spight, and such like passions? Besides this, they receiv'd Ambassadors from Portugal and from Spain, acknowledging their Power. And in the very end of the year they pre­pared Ambassadors to the Netherlands to offer them friendship. All they did be­sides was persecuting and executing of Roy­alists.

In the beginning of the year 1651. Ge­neral Dean arrived in Scotland; and on the 11th of April the Scottish Parliament assem­bled, [Page 280] and made certain Acts, in order to a better uniting of themselves, and better o­bedience to the King, who was now at Sterling, with the Scottish Forces he had, expecting more now in Levying. Crom­wel from Edenburgh went divers times to­wards Sterling to provoke the Scots to fight. There was no Ford there to pass over his Men; at last Boats being come from London and New-Castle, Collonel O­verton (though it were long first, for it was now July) transported 1400 Foot of his own, besides another Regiment of Foot, and four Troops of Horse, and intrencht himself at North-ferry on the other side, and before any help could come from Sterling, Major-General Lambert also was got over with as many more. By this time Sir John Browne was come to oppose them with 4500 Men, whom the English there defeat­ed, killing about 2000, and taking Priso­ners 1600. This done, and as much more of the Army transported, as was thought fit, Cromwel comes before St. Johnstons, (from whence the Scttuish Parliament, up­on the news of his passing the Frith, was removed to Dundee) and summons it; and the same day had news brought him that the King was marching from Sterling to­wards England, which was true; but not­withstanding the King was three days [Page 281] march before him, he resolved to have the Town, before he followed him; and accordingly had it the next day, by Sur­render.

B.

What hopes had the King in coming into England, having before and behind him none, at least none Armed, but his E­nemies?

A.

Yes; there was before him the City of London, which generally hated the Rump, and might easily be reckoned for 20000 well Armed Soldiers; and most men be­liev'd they would take his part, had he come near the City.

B.

What probability was there of that? Do you think the Rump was not sure of the Service of the Major, and those that had command of the City Militia? And if they had been really the King's Friends, what need had they to stay for his coming up to London? They might have seized the Rump, if they had pleas'd, which had no possibility of defending themselves; at least they might have turned them out of the House.

A.

This they did not; but on the con­trary permitted the recruiting of Cromwel's Army, and the raising of Men to keep the Country from coming in to the King. The King began his March from Sterling the last of July, and August the 22d came to Wor­cester [Page 282] by the way of Carlisle, with a weary Army of about 13000, whom Cromwel followed, and joyning with the new Le­vies, environ'd Worcester with 40000, and on the third of September utterly defeat­ed the King's Army. Here Duke Hamil­ton, Brother of him that was beheaded, was slain.

B.

What became of the King?

A.

Night coming on, before the City was quite taken, he left it, it being dark, and none of the Enemies Horse within the Town to follow him, the plundering Foot having kept the Gates shut, lest the Horse should enter and have a share of the Boo­ty. The King before morning got into Warwick-shire 25 Miles from Worcester, and there lay disguis'd a while, and afterwards went up and down in great danger of be­ing discover'd, till at last he got over into France from Brighthemsted in Sussex.

B.

When Cromwel was gone, what was farther done in Scotland?

A.

Lieutenant-General Monk, whom Cromwel left there with 7000, took Ster­ling August 14th, by Surrender, and Dundee the third of September, by Storm, because it resisted; this the Soldiers plundered, and had good Booty, because the Scots for safe­ty had sent thither their most precious Goods from Edenburgh and St. Johnstons. [Page 283] He took likewise by Surrender Aberdeen, and (the place where the Scottish Ministers first learned to play the fools) St. Andrews. Also in the Highlands Collonel Alured took a knot of Lords and Gentlemen, viz. four Earls, and four Lords, and above twen­ty Knights and Gentlemen, whom he sent Prisoners into England. So that there was nothing more to be fear'd from Scotland; all the trouble of the Rump, being to re­solve what they should do with it. At last they resolv'd to unite and incorporate it into one Common-wealth with England and Ireland. And to that end sent thither St. Johns, Vane, and other Commissioners to offer them this Union by publick De­claration, and to warn them to choose their Deputies of Shires, and Burgesses of Towns, and send them to Westminster.

B.

This was a very great favour.

A.

I think so: and yet it was by many of the Scots, especially by the Ministers, and other Presbyterians, refus'd. The Mi­nisters had given way to the Levying of Money for the payment of the English Sol­diers; but to comply with the Declaration of the English Commissioners they absolute­ly forbad.

B.

Methinks this contributing to the pay of their Conquerors was some mark of servi­tude; whereas entring into the Union made [Page 284] them free, and gave them equal priviledge with the English.

A.

The Cause why they refus'd the Uni­on, rendred by the Presbyterians them­selves, was this; That it drew with it a Sub­ordination of the Church to the Civil State in the things of Christ.

B.

This is a downright Declaration to all Kings and Common-wealths in general, that a Presbyterian Minister will be a true Subject to none of them in the things of Christ, which things what they are, they will be Judges themselves. What have we then gotten by our deliverance from the Pope's Tyranny, if these petty men suc­ceed in the place of it, that have nothing in them that can be beneficial to the Pub­lick, except their silence? For their Learn­ing, it amounts to no more than an imper­fect knowledge of Greek and Latin, and an acquir'd readiness in the Scripture-Lan­guage, with a Gesture and Tone suitable thereunto; but of Justice and Charity (the Manners of Religion) they have nei­ther knowledge, nor practice, as is mani­fest by the Stories I have already told you: Nor do they distinguish between the Godly and the Ungodly, but by conformity of De­sign in Men of Judgment, or by repetition of their Sermons in the common sort of People.

B.
[Page 285]

But this sullenness of the Scots was to no purpose: for they at Westminster enacted the Union of the two Nations, and the abo­lition of Monarchy in Scotland, and ordain­ed punishment for those that should trans­gress that Act.

B.

What other business did the Rump this year?

A.

They sent St. Johns and Strickland Ambassadors to the Hague, to offer League to the United Provinces, who had Audience March the third. St. Johns in a Speech shew­ed those States what advantage they might have by this League in their Trade and Na­vigations, by the use of the English Ports and Harbors. The Dutch, though they shewed no great forwardness in the business, yet appointed Commissioners to treat with them about it. But the People were gene­rally against it, calling the Ambassadors and their Followers (as they were) Traitors and Murderers, and made such Tumults a­bout their House, that their Followers durst not go abroad, till the States had quieted them. The Rump advertis'd hereof, pre­sently recall'd them. The Compliment which St. Johns gave to the Commissioners at their taking leave is worth your hearing. You have, said he, an Eye upon the event of the Affairs of Scotland, and therefore do re­fuse the friendship we have offered. Now I [Page 286] can assure you, many in the Parliament were of opinion, that we should not have sent any Ambassadors to you, till we had superated those matters between them and that King, and then expected your Ambassadors to us. I now perceive our error, and that those Gen­tlemen were in the Right. In a short time you shall see that business ended; and then you will come and seek what we have freely of­fered, when it shall perplex you that you have refused our proffer.

B.

St. Johns was not sure that the Scot­tish business would end as it did. For though the Scots were beaten at Dunbar, he could not be sure of the event of their entring England, which happened after­ward.

A.

But he guess'd well: for within a Month after the Battle at Worcester an Act passed, forbidding the Importing of Mer­chandise in other than English Ships. The English also molested their Fishing upon our Coast. They also many times searched their Ships, (upon occasion of our War with France) and made some of them Prize. And then the Dutch sent their Ambassadors hither to desire what they before refused; but partly also to inform themselves what Naval Forces the English had ready, and how the People here were contented with the Government.

B.
[Page 287]

How sped they?

A.

The Rump shewed now as little de­sire of Agreement as the Dutch did then; standing upon Terms never likely to be granted. First; for the fishing on the Eng­lish Coast, that they should not have it without paying for it. Secondly, that the English should have free Trade from Mid­dleburgh to Antwerp, as they had before their Rebellion against the King of Spain. Thirdly, they demanded amends for the old (but never to be forgotten) business of Amboyna: So that the War was already certain, though the Season kept them from Action till the Spring following. The true Quarrel on the English part was, that their profer'd friendship was scorn'd, and their Ambassadors affronted: On the Dutch part was, their greediness to engross all Traffique, and a false estimate of our and their own strength.

Whilst these things were doing, the Re­liques of the War, both in Ireland and Scotland, were not neglected, though those Nations were not fully pacified till two years after, The persecution also of Roya­lists still continued, amongst whom was be­headed one Mr. Love, for holding corre­spondence with the King.

B.

I had thought a Presbyterian Mini­ster, whilst he was such, could not be a [Page 288] Royalist, because they think their Assem­bly have the Supream Power in the things of Christ; and by consequence they are in England (by a Statute) Traitors.

A.

You may think so still: for though I call'd Mr. Love a Royalist, I meant it only for that one Act, for which he was condemn'd. It was he, who during the Treaty at Vxbridge, preaching before the Commissioners there, said, it was as possi­ble for Heaven and Hell, as for the King and Parliament to agree. Both he and the rest of the Presbyterians are and were Ene­mies to the King's Enemies, Cromwel and his Fanaticks, for their own, not for the King's sake. Their Loyalty was like that of Sir John Hotham's, that kept the King out of Hull, and afterwards would have betrayed the same to the Marquess of New-Castle. These Presbyterians therefore can­not be rightly called Loyal, but rather dou­bly perfidious, unless you think, that as two Negatives make an Affirmative, so two Trea­sons make Loyalty.

This year also were reduced to the obedi­ence of the Rump the Islands of Scilly and Man, and the Barbadoes, and St. Christophers. One thing fell out that they liked not, which was, that Cromwel gave them warning to determine their sitting, according to the Bill for Triennial Parliaments.

B.
[Page 289]

That I think indeed was harsh.

A.

In the year 1652. May the 14th be­gan the Dutch War in this manner. Three Dutch Men of War, with divers Mer­chants from the Straights being discover­ed by one Captain Young, who command­ed some English Frigats, the said Young sent to their Admiral to bid him strike his Flag, (a thing usually done in acknowledg­ment of the English Dominion in the nar­row Seas) which accordingly he did. Then came up the Vice-Admiral, and being cal­led to as the other was, to take down his Flag; he answered plainly, he would not: but after the exchange of four or five Broad­sides, and mischief done, on either part, he took it down: but Captain Young de­manded also, either the Vice-Admiral him­self, or his Ship, to make good the damage already sustained; to which the Vice-Ad­miral answer'd, that he had taken in his Flag, but would defend himself and his Ship. Whereupon Captain Young consult­ing with the Captains of his other Ships, lest the beginning of the War, in this time of Treaty, should be charged upon himself, and night also coming on, thought fit to pro­ceed no farther.

B.

The War certainly began at this time; but who began it?

A.
[Page 290]

The Dominion of the Seas belong­ing to the English, there can be no questi­on but the Dutch began it: and that the said Dominion belonged to the English, it was confessed at first by the Admiral him­self peaceably, and at last by the Vice-Ad­miral, taking in their Flags.

About a fortnight after, there happened another Fight upon the like occasion. Van Tromp with 42 Men of Mar came to the back of Goodwin-Sands, (Major Bourne be­ing then with a few of the Parliaments Ships in the Downs, and Blake with the rest far­ther Westward) and sent two Captains of his to Bourne, to excuse his coming thither. To whom Bourne return'd this Answer, That the Message was civil, but that it might appear real he ought to depart. So Tromp departed, meaning (now Bourne was satisfied) to sail towards Blake, and he did so; but so did also Bourne, for fear of the worst. When Tromp and Blake were near one another, Blake made a Shot over Tromp's Ship, as a warning to him to take in his Flag. This he did thrice, and then Tromp gave him a Broad-side, and so began the Fight, (at the beginning whereof Bourne came in) and lasted from two a Clock till night, the English having the better, and the Flag, as before making the Quarrel.

B.
[Page 291]

What needs there, when both Na­tions were heartily resolv'd to fight, to stand so much upon this Compliment of who should begin? For as to the gaining of Friends and Confederates thereby, I think it was in vain; seeing Princes and States in such occasions look not much upon the Ju­stice of their Neighbours, but upon their own Concernment in the Event.

A.

It is commonly so; but in this Case the Dutch knowing the Dominion of the narrow Seas to be a gallant Title, and en­vyed by all the Nations that reach the Shore, and consequently that they were likely to oppose it, did wisely enough in making this Point the state of the Quar­rel. After this Fight, the Dutch Ambas­sadors residing in England, sent a Paper to the Councel of State, wherein they sti­led this last Encounter a rash Action, and affirmed it was done without the know­ledge, and against the Will of their Lords the States-General, and desir'd them that nothing might be done upon it in heat, which might become irreparable. The Par­liament hereupon voted; first, That the States-General should pay the Charges they were at, and for the damages they sustain­ed upon this occasion. 2. That this being paid, there should be a Cessation of all Acts of Hostility, and a mutual Restitution of [Page 292] all Ships and Goods taken. 3. And both these agreed to, that there should be made a League between the two Common-wealths. These Votes were sent to the Dutch Ambassadors in answer of the said Paper; but with a Preamble setting forth the former kindnesses of England to the Ne­therlands, and taking notice of their new Fleet of 150 Men of War, without any o­ther apparent Design than the destruction of the English Fleet.

B.

What answer made the Dutch to this?

A.

None. Tromp sailed presently into Zealand, and Blake with 70 Men of War to the Orkney Islands, to seize their Busses, and to wait for five Dutch Ships from the East-Indies. And Sir George Ascue newly returned from the Barbadoes, came into the Downs with 15 Men of War, where he was commanded to stay for a Recruit out of the Thames.

Tromp being recruited now to 120 Sail, made account to get in between Sir George Ascue and the mouth of the River, but was hindered so long by contrary Winds, that the Merchants calling for his Convoy, he could stay no longer, and so he went back into Holland, and thence to Orkney, where he met with the said five East-India Ships, and sent them home. And then he endea­voured [Page 293] to engage with Blake, but a sud­den Storm forced him to Sea, and so dis­sipated his Fleet, that only 42 came home in Body, the rest singly, as well as they could. Blake also came home, but went first to the Coast of Holland with 900 Pri­soners, and six Men of War taken, which were part of twelve which he found and took guarding their Busses. This was the first bout after the War declar'd.

In August following there happened a Fight between de Ruitter the Admiral of Zealand, with 50 Men of War, and Sir George Ascue, near Plimouth, with 40, wherein Sir George had the better, and might have got an intire Victory, had the whole Fleet engaged. Whatsoever was the matter, the Rump (though they reward­ed him) never more employed him after his return, in their Service at Sea: but vo­ted, for the year to come, three Generals, Blake that was one already, and Dean, and Monk.

About this time the Arch-Duke Leopold besieging Dunkirk, and the French sending a Fleet to relieve it, General Blake light­ing on the French at Calais, and taking seven of their Ships, was cause of the Towns Sur­render.

In September they fought again, De Wit and Ruitter commanding the Dutch, and [Page 294] Blake the English, and the Dutch were again worsted.

Again in the end of November Van Tromp with 80 Men of War, shewed him­self at the back of Goodwin-Sands; where Blake, though he had with him but 40, adventured to fight with him, and had much the worst, and (night parting the Fray) retir'd into the River of Thames; whilst Van Tromp keeping the Sea, took some inconsiderable Vessels from the Eng­lish, and thereupon (as it was said) with a Childish vanity, hung out a Broom from the Main-top mast, signifying he meant to sweep the Seas of all English Ship­ping.

After this, in February, the Dutch with Van Tromp were encountered by the Eng­lish under Blake and Dean, near Portsmouth, and had the worst. And these were all the Encounters between them in this year, in the narrow Seas. They fought also once at Legorne, where the Dutch had the better.

B.

I see no great odds yet on either side, if there were any the English had it.

A.

Nor did either of them e're the more incline to Peace. For the Hollanders, af­ter they had sent Ambassadors into Den­mark, Sweden, Poland, and the Hans-Towns, (whence Tar and Cordage are u­sually [Page 295] had) to signifie the Declaration of the War, and to get them to their Party, recalled their Ambassadors from England; and the Rump, without delay, gave them their parting Audience; without abating a Syllable of their former severe Propositions. And presently to maintain the War for the next year, laid a Tax upon the People of 120000 l. per Mensem.

B.

What was done in the mean time at home?

A.

Cromwel was now quarreling (the last and greatest obstacle to his Design) the Rump. And to that end there came out daily from the Army Petitions, Ad­dresses, Remonstrances, and other such Pa­pers: some of them urging the Rump to dissolve themselves, and make way for ano­ther Parliament. To which the Rump un­willing to yield, and not daring to refuse, determined for the end of their sitting the fifth of November 1654. But Cromwel meant not to stay so long. In the mean time the Army in Ireland was taking Sub­missions, and granting Transportations of the Irish, and condemning whom they pleas'd in a High Court of Justice erected there for that purpose. Amongst those that were executed was hang'd Sir Phelim O­neale, who first began the Rebellion.

[Page 296]In Scotland the English built some Cita­dels for the bridling of that stubborn Na­tion: and thus ended the year 1652.

B.

Come we then to the year 1653.

A.

Cromwel wanted now but one step to the end of his Ambition, and that was to set his Foot upon the Neck of this Long Parliament, which he did April the 23d of this present year 1653. a time very seaso­nable. For though the Dutch were not mastered, yet they were much weakned; and what with Prizes from the Enemy, and squeezing the Royal Party, the Treasury was pretty full, and the Tax of 120000 l. a month began to come in; all which was his own in right of the Army.

Therefore without more ado, attended by the Major-Generals Lambert and Harri­son, and some other Officers, and as many Soldiers, as he thought fit, he went to the Parliament-house, and dissolv'd them, turn­ed them out and locked up the doors. And for this Action he was more applauded by the People, than for any of his Victories in the War, and the Parliament-men as much scorned and derided.

B.

Now that there was no Parliament, who had the Supream Power?

A.

If by Power you mean the Right to govern, no body had it: if you mean the Supream Strength it was clearly in Crom­wel, [Page 297] who was obeyed as General of all the Forces in England, Scotland and Ire­land.

B.

Did he pretend that for Title?

A.

No: but presently after he invented a Title, which was this; That he was ne­cessitated for the defence of the Cause, for which at first the Parliament had taken up Arms (that is to say rebelled) to have re­course to extraordinary Actions. You know the pretence of the Long Parlia­ments Rebellion was Salus Populi, The safety of the Nation against a dangerous Conspiracy of Papists, and a Malignant Party at home, and that every man is bound, as far as his Power extends, to pro­cure the safety of the whole Nation, (which none but the Army were able to do; and the Parliament had hitherto neglected) was it not then the General's Duty to do it? Had he not therefore Right? For that Law of Salus Populi is directed only to those that have Power enough to defend the Peo­ple; that is, to them that have the Supream Power.

B.

Yes certainly, he had as good a Title as the Long Parliament, But the Long Par­liament did represent the People; and it seems to me, that the Sovereign Power is essentially annexed to the Representative of the People.

A.
[Page 298]

Yes, if he that makes a Representa­tive, that is, (in the present Case) the King do call them together to receive the Sovereign Power, and he divest himself thereof; otherwise not. Nor was ever the Lower House of Parliament the Represen­tative of the whole Nation, but of the Commons only; nor had that House the power to oblige, by their Acts, or Ordinan­ces, any Lord, or any Priest.

B.

Did Cromwel come in upon the only Title of Salus Populi?

A.

This is a Title that very few men understand. His way was to get the Su­pream Power confer'd upon him by Parlia­ment. Therefore he call'd a Parliament, and gave it the Supream Power, to the end that they should give it to him again. Was not this witty? First therefore he published a Declaration of the Causes why he dissolv'd the Parliament. The sum whereof was, that in stead of endeavour­ing to promote the good of God's People, they endeavour'd (by a Bill then ready to pass) to recruit the House, and perpe­tuate their own Power. Next he consti­tuted a Councel of State of his own Crea­tures, to be the Supream Authority of England; but no longer than till the next Parliament should be called, and met. Thirdly, he summoned 142 Persons, such [Page 299] as he himself, or his Trusty Officers made choice of: the greatest part of whom were instructed what to do, obscure Persons, and most of them Fanaticks, though stiled by Cromwel men of approved fidelity and ho­nesty. To these the Councel of State sur­rendred the Supream Authority, and not long after these men surrendred it to Crom­wel. July the fourth this Parliament met, and chose for the Speaker one Mr. Rous, and called themselves from that time for­ward the Parliament of England: but Cromwel, for the more surety, constituted also a Councel of State, not of such petty fellows as most of these were, but of him­self, and his principal Officers. These did all the business, both publick and private, making Ordinances, and giving Audience to Forreign Ambassadors. But he had now more Enemies than before, Harrison, who was the Head of the Fifth-monarchy-men, laying down his Commission, did nothing but animate his Party against him; for which afterwards he was imprison'd. This little Parliament in the mean time were making of Acts so ridiculous, and displea­sing to the People, that it was thought he chose them on purpose to bring all Ruling Parliaments into contempt, and Monarchy again into credit.

B.

What Acts were these?

A.
[Page 300]

One of them was; That all Marria­ges should be made by a Justice of Peace, and the Banes asked three several days in the next Market: None were forbidden to be married by a Minister, but without a Justice of Peace the Marriage was to be void: So that divers wary Couples (to be sure of one another, howsoever they might repent it afterwards) were marri­ed both ways. Also they abrogated the Engagement, whereby no man was admit­ted to sue in any Court of Law, that had not taken it, that is, that had not acknowledg­ed the late Rump.

B.

Neither of these did any hurt to Cromwel.

A.

They were also in hand with an Act to cancel all the present Laws and Law-Books, and to make a new Code more sui­table to the humor of the Fifth-monarchy-men; of whom there were many in this Parliament. Their Tenent being, that there ought none to be Sovereign, but King Jesus, nor any to govern under him, but the Saints. But their Authority ended before this Act passed.

B.

What is this to Cromwel?

A.

Nothing yet. But they were likewise upon an Act, now almost ready for the Que­stion; That Parliaments henceforward, one upon the end of another, should be perpe­tual.

B.
[Page 301]

I understand not this, unless Parlia­ments can beget one another like Animals, or like the Phoenix.

A.

Why not like the Phoenix? Cannot a Parliament at the day of their expira­tion send out Writs for a new one?

B.

Do you think they would not rather summon themselves anew, and to save the labour of coming again to Westminster sit still where they were? Or if they summon the Country to make new Elections, and then dissolve themselves, by what Autho­rity shall the People meet in their Country-Courts, there being no Supream Authority standing?

A.

All they did was absurd, though they knew not that, no nor this, whose Design was upon the Sovereignty, the Contriver of this Act, it seems, perceived not, but Cromwel's Party in the House saw it well enough. And therefore, as soon as it was laid, there stood up one of the Members, and made a Motion, that since the Common-wealth was like to receive little benefit by their fitting, they should dissolve themselves. Harrison, and they of his Sect, were troubled hereat, and made Speeches against it: but Cromwel's Party, of whom the Speaker was one, left the House, and with the Mace before them went to White-hall, and surrendred [Page 302] their Power to Cromwel that had given it them. And so he got the Sovereignty by an Act of Parliament, and within four days after, viz. December the 16th, was in­stalled Protector of the three Nations, and took his Oath to observe certain Rules of governing, ingrossed in Parchment, and read before him: The Writing was called the Instrument.

B.

What were the Rules he swore to?

A.

One was to call a Parliament every third year, of which the first was to begin September the third following.

B.

I believe he was a little superstiti­ous in the choice of September the third, because it was lucky to him in 1650. and 1651. at Dunbar, and Worcester; but he knew not how lucky the same would be to the whole Nation in 1658. at White­hall.

A.

Another was; That no Parliament should be dissolved, till it had sitten five Months; and those Bills that they present­ed to him, should be passed by him within twenty days, or else they should pass with­out him.

A Third; That he should have a Coun­cel of State of not above 21, nor under 13; and that upon the Protectors death this Councel should meet, and before they parted choose a new Protector. There [Page 303] were many more besides, but not necessary to be inserted.

B.

How went on the War against the Dutch?

A.

The Generals for the English were Blake, and Dean, and Monk, and Van Tromp for the Dutch, between whom was a Bat­tle fought the second of June, (which was a month before the beginning of this little Parliament) wherein the English had the Victory, and drove the Enemies into their Harbors, but with the loss of General Dean, slain by a Canon-shot. This Vi­ctory was great enough to make the Dutch send over Ambassadors into England in or­der to a Treaty; but in the mean time they prepared and put to Sea another Fleet, which likewise in the end of July was defeated by General Monk, who got now a greater Victory than before: and this made the Dutch descend so far as to buy their Peace with the payment of the charge of the War, and with the acknow­ledgment amongst other Articles, that the English had the Right of the Flag. This Peace was concluded in March, being the end of this year: but not proclaimed till April; the Money (it seems) being not paid till then.

The Dutch War being now ended, the Protector sent his youngest Son Henry [Page 304] into Ireland, whom also some time after he made Lieutenant there; and sent Monk Lieutenant-General into Scotland, to keep those Nations in obedience. Nothing else worth remembring was done this year at home; saving the discovery of a Plot of Royalists (as was said) upon the Life of the Protector, who all this while had In­telligence of the King's Designs from a Trai­tor in his Court, who afterwards was taken in the manner and killed.

B.

How came he into so much trust with with the King?

A.

He was the Son of a Collonel that was slain in the Wars on the late King's side. Besides, he pretended Employment from the King's Loyal and Loving Subjects here, to convey to his Majesty Money, as they from time to time should send him; and to make this credible, Cromwel him­self caused Money to be sent to him.

The following year 1654. had nothing of War, but was spent in Civil Ordinan­ces, in appointing of Judges, preventing of Plots, (for Usurpers are jealous) and in Executing the King's Friends, and sel­ling their Lands. The third of September, according to the Instrument, the Parlia­ment met, in which there was no House of Lords; and the House of Commons was made as formerly, of Knights and Bur­gesses, [Page 305] but not as formerly of two Bur­gesses for a Burrough, and two Knights for a County: for Burroughs for the most part had but one Burgess, and some Coun­ties six or seven Knights: Besides, there were twenty Members for Scotland, and as many for Ireland. So that now Crom­wel had nothing else to do, but to shew his Art of Government upon six Coach-Horses newly presented him, which be­ing as Rebellious as himself, threw him out of the Coach-box, and almost killed him.

B.

This Parliament which had seen how Cromwel had handled the two former, the Long one and the Short one, had surely learnt the wit to behave themselves better to him, than those had done.

A.

Yes, especially now that Cromwel in his Speech at their first Meeting had ex­presly forbidden them to meddle, either with the Government by a single Person and Parliament, or with the Militia, or with perpetuating of Parliaments, or ta­king away Liberty of Conscience: and told them also, that every Member of the House, before they sate, must take a Re­cognition of his Power in divers Points. Whereupon of above 400 there appeared not above 200 at first; though afterwards some relenting, there sate about 300. A­gain, [Page 306] just at their sitting down he publish­ed some Ordinances of his own, bearing date before their meeting; that they might see he took his own Acts to be as valid as theirs. But all this could not make them know themselves. They proceeded to the Debate of every Article of the Re­cognition.

B.

They should have debated that before they had taken it.

A.

But then they had never been suffer­ed to sit.

Cromwel being informed of their stubborn proceedings, and out of hope of any sup­ply from them, dissolved them.

All that passed besides in this year was the exercise of the High Court of Justice upon some Royalists for Plots.

In the year 1655. the English, to the number of near 10000, landed in Hispa­niola in hope of the plunder of the Gold and Silver, whereof they thought there was great abundance in the Town of San­to Domingo; but were well beaten by a few Spaniards; and with the loss of near 1000 men, went off to Jamaica and posses­sed it.

This year also the Royal Party made ano­ther attempt in the West; and proclaimed there King Charles the Second: but few joyning with them, and some falling off, [Page 307] they were soon suppressed, and many of the principal Persons executed.

B.

In these many Insurrections the Roy­alists, though they meant well, yet they did but disservice to the King by their Im­patience. What hope had they to prevail against so great an Army as the Protector had ready? What cause was there to de­spair of seeing the King's business done bet­ter by the Dissention and Ambition of the great Commanders in that Army; whereof many had the favour to be as well esteemed amongst them as Cromwel himself?

A.

That was somewhat uncertain. The Protector being frustrated of his hope of Money at Santo Domingo, resolved to take from the Royalists the tenth part yearly of their Estates. And to this end chiefly he divided England into eleven Major-Ge­neralships, with Commission to every Ma­jor-General to make a Roll of the Names of all suspected Persons of the King's Party, and to receive the tenth part of their E­states within his Precinct; as also to take Caution from them not to act against the State; and to reveal all Plots that should come to their knowledge, and to make them engage the like for their Servants. They had Commission also to forbid Horse-races and Concourse of People, and to re­ceive and account for this Decimation.

B.
[Page 308]

By this the Usurper might easily in­form himself of the value of all the E­states in England, and of the behaviour and affection of every Person of Quality; which has heretofore been taken for very great Tyranny.

A.

The year 1656. was a Parliament year by the Instrument, between the be­ginning of this year, and the day of the Parliaments sitting, which was September the 17th, these Major-Generals resided in several Provinces, behaving themselves most tyrannically. Amongst other of their Ty­rannies was the awing of Elections, and making themselves, and whom they pleas'd, to be return'd Members for the Parliament, which was also thought a part of Crom­wel's Design in their Constitution: for he had need of a giving Parliament, hav­ing lately upon a Peace made with the French, drawn upon himself a War with Spain.

This year it was that Captain Stainer set upon the Spanish Plate-Fleet, being eight in number, near Cadiz, whereof he funk two and took two, there being in one of them two Millions of Pieces of Eight, which amounts to 400000 l. Ster­ling.

This year also it was that James Naylor appeared at Bristol, and would be taken [Page 309] for Jesus Christ. He wore his Beard fork­ed, and his Hair composed to the likeness of that in the Volto Santo; and being que­stion'd, would sometimes answer, Thou sayest it. He had also his Disciples that would go by his Horse side, to the mid­leg in dirt. Being sent for by the Parlia­ment, he was sentenced to stand on the Pillory, to have his Tongue bored through, and to be marked in the Forehead with the Letter B. for Blasphemy, and to remain in Bridewel. Lambert, a great Favorite of the Army, endeavour'd to save him, partly, because he had been his Soldier, and partly to curry favour with the Se­ctaries of the Army; for he was now no more in the Protector's favour, but meditating how he might succeed him in his Power.

About two years before this there ap­peared in Cornwal a Prophetess much fam'd for her Dreams and Visions, and hearkned to by many, whereof some were eminent Officers; but she and some of her Com­plices being imprison'd, we heard no more of her.

B.

I have heard of another, one Lilly, that prophecied all the time of the Long Parliament. What did they to him?

A.

His Prophecies were of another kind; he was a writer of Almanacks, and a pre­tender [Page 310] to a pretended Art of Judicial A­strology, a meer Cozener to get mainte­nance from a multitude of ignorant Peo­ple, and no doubt had been called in question, if his Prophecies had been any way disadvantageous to that Parliament.

B.

I understand not how the Dreams and Prognostications of Mad-men (for such I take to be all those that foretel future Con­tingencies) can be of any great disadvantage to the Common-wealth.

A.

Yes, yes: know there is nothing that renders Humane Counsels difficult, but the incertainty of future time, nor that so well directs men in their Deliberations, as the fore-sight of the Sequels of their Actions; Prophecie being many times the principal Cause of the Event foretold. If upon some prediction the People should have been made confident, that Oliver Cromwel and his Army should be upon a day to come utterly defeated; would not every one have endeavoured to assist, and to deserve well of the Party that should give him that Defeat? Upon this account it was, that Fortune tellers and Astrologers were so often banished out of Rome.

The last memorable thing of this year was a Motion made by a Member of the House, an Alderman of London, that the [Page 311] Protector might be petition'd and ad­vis'd by the House, to leave the Title of Protector, and take upon him that of King.

B.

That was indeed a bold Motion, and which would, if prosperous, have put an end to many mens ambition, and to the licentiousness of the whole Army. I think the Motion was made on purpose to ruine both the Protector himself, and his Ambitious Officers.

A.

It may be so. In the year 1657. the first thing the Parliament did was the drawing up of this Petition to the Prote­ctor, to take upon him the Government of the three Nations, with the Title of King. As of other Parliaments, so of this, the greatest part had been either kept out of the House by force; or else themselves had forborn to sit, and became guilty of setting up this King Oliver. But those few that sate presented their Petition to the Protector April the ninth in the Ban­queting-house at White-hall, where Sir Tho­mas Widdrington the Speaker used the first Arguments, and the Protector desir'd some time to seek God, the business being weigh­ty. The next day they sent a Committee to him to receive his Answer, which An­swer being not very clear, they pressed him again for a Resolution; to which [Page 312] he made answer in a long Speech, that ended in a peremptory refusal: and so retaining still the Title of Protector, he took upon him the Government accor­ding to certain Articles contained in the said Petition.

B.

What made him refuse the Title of King?

A.

Because he durst not take it at that time; the Army being addicted to their great Officers, and amongst their great Officers many hoping to succeed him; and the Succession having been promised to Major-General Lambert, would have mu­tinied against him. He was therefore for­ced to stay for a more propitious Conjun­cture.

B.

What were those Articles?

A.

The most Important of them were; First, That he would exercise the Office of Chief Magistrate of England, Scotland and Ireland, under the Title of Protector, and govern the same according to the said Petition and Advice: and that he would in his life-time name his Suc­cessor.

B.

I believe the Scots, when they first rebell'd, never thought of being govern­ed absolutely as they were by Oliver Cromwel.

A.
[Page 313]

Secondly; That he should call a Parliament every three years at farthest. Thirdly; That those Persons which were Legally chosen Members should not be secluded without consent of the House. (In allowing this Clause the Protector observ'd not, that the Secluded Members of this same Parliament are thereby re­admitted.) Fourthly, the Members were qualified. Fifthly, The Power of the o­ther House was defin'd. Sixthly, That no Law should be made but by Act of Parliament. Seventhly; That a constant yearly Revenue of a Million of Pounds should be setled for the maintenance of the Army and Navy; and 300000 l. for the support of the Government, besides other Temporary Supplies, as the House of Commons should think fit. Eighthly; That all the Officers of State should be chosen by the Parliament. Ninthly; That the Protector should encourage the Mini­stry. Lastly; That he should cause a Pro­fession of Religion to be agreed on, and published. There are divers others of less Importance.

Having signed the Articles he was pre­sently with great Ceremony installed a­new.

B.

What needed that, seeing he was still but Protector?

A.
[Page 314]

But the Articles of this Petition were not all the same with those of his former Instrument. For now there was to be another House; and whereas before his Councel was to name his Successor, he had power now to do it himself; so that he was an absolute Monarch, and might leave the Succession to his Son, if he would, and so successively, or transfer it to whom he pleas'd.

The Ceremony being ended, the Parlia­ment adjourned to the 20th of January fol­lowing; and then the other House also sate with their Fellows.

The House of Commons being now full, took little notice of the other House; wherein there were not of sixty Persons, above nine Lords, but fell a questioning all that their Fellows had done, during the time of their Seclusion, whence had fol­lowed the avoidance of the Power newly placed in the Protector. Therefore going to the House, he made a Speech to them ending in these words; By the Living God I must, and do dissolve you.

In this year the English gave the Spa­niard another great Blow at Santa Cruz, not much less than that they had given him the year before at Cadiz.

About the time of the Dissolution of this Parliament the Royalists had another [Page 315] Design against the Protector, which was to make an Insurrection in England, the King being in Flanders ready to second them with an Army thence. But this also was discover'd by Treachery, and came to nothing, but the ruine of those that were engaged in it; whereof many in the beginning of the next year were by a High Court of Justice imprison'd, and some executed.

This year also was Major General Lam­bert put out of all Employment, a man second to none but Oliver in the favour of the Army; but because he expected by that favour, or by promise from the Prote­ctor, to be his Successor in the Supream Power, it would have been dangerous to let him have Command in the Army; the Protector having design'd for his Succes­sor his eldest Son Richard.

In the year 1658. September the third, the Protector died at White-hall; having ever since his last Establishment been per­plexed with fear of being kill'd by some desperate attempt of the Royalists.

Being importun'd in his sickness by his Privy-Council to name his Successor, he nam'd his Son Richard, who encouraged thereunto, not by his own Ambition, but by Fleetwood, Desbrough, Thurloe, and o­ther of his Council, was content to take [Page 316] it upon him, and presently Addresses were made to him from the Armies in England, Scotland and Ireland. His first business was the chargeable and splendid Funeral of his Father.

Thus was Richard Cromwel seated in the Imperial Throne of England, Scotland and Ireland, Successor to his Father, lift­ed up to it by the Officers of the Army then in Town, and congratulated by all the parts of the Army throughout the three Nations; scarce any Garrison omit­ting their particular flattering Addresses to him.

B.

Seeing the Army approved of him, how came he so soon cast off?

A.

The Army was inconstant, he him­self irresolute, and without any Military Glory. And though the two principal Officers had a near relation to him; yet neither of them, but Lambert, was the great Favorite of the Army; and by court­ing Fleetwood to take upon him the Prote­ctorship, and by tampering with the Sol­diers, had gotten again to be a Collonel. He and the rest of the Officers had a Councel at Wallingford-house, (where Fleet­wood dwelt) for the dispossessing of Ri­chard, though they had not yet consider­ed how the Nations should be govern'd afterwards; for from the beginning of [Page 317] the Rebellion the Method of Ambition was constantly this; first to destroy, and then to consider what they should set up.

B.

Could not the Protector, who kept his Court at White-hall, discover what the business of the Officers was at Wallingford-house so near him?

A.

Yes; he was by divers of his Friends inform'd of it, and councel'd by some of them, who would have done it, to kill the Chief of them; but he had not cou­rage enough to give them such a Com­mission. He took therefore the Counsel of some milder Persons, which was to call a Parliament. Whereupon Writs were presently sent to those that were in the last Parliament of the other House, and other Writs to the Sheriffs for the Electi­on of Knights and Burgesses, to assem­ble on the 27th of January following. E­lections were made according to the An­cient manner, and a House of Commons now of the right English temper, and about 400 in number, including twenty for Scot­land, and as many for Ireland. Being met, they take themselves, without the Protector and other House, to be a Parlia­ment, and to have the Supream Power of the three Nations.

[Page 318]For the first business, they intended the Power of that other House: but because the Protector had recommended to them, for their first business, an Act (already drawn up) for the Recognition of his Pro­tectoral Power; they began with that; and voted, (after a fortnights Deliberati­on) that an Act should be made, where­of this Act of Recognition should be part, and that another part should be for the bounding of the Protector's Power, and for the securing the Priviledges of Parlia­ment, and Liberties of the Subject; and that all should pass together.

B.

Why did these Men obey the Prote­ctor at first, in meeting upon his only Sum­mons? Was not that as full a Recognition of his Power as was needful? Why by this Example did they teach the People that he was to be obeyed, and then by putting Laws upon him, teach them the contrary? Was it not the Protector that made the Par­liament? Why did they not acknowledge their Maker?

A.

I believe it is the desire of most men to bear Rule, but few of them know what Title one has to it more than another, be­sides the Right of the Sword.

B.

If they acknowledged the Right of the Sword, they were neither just, nor wise to oppose the present Government, [Page 319] set up and approved by all the Forces of the three Kingdoms. The Principles of this House of Commons were, no doubt, the very same with theirs who began the Rebellion; and would (if they could have raised a sufficient Army) have done the same against the Protector; and the Ge­neral of their Army would, in like man­ner, have reduced them to a Rump: for they that keep an Army, and cannot ma­ster it, must be subject to it as much as he that keeps a Lion in his House. The temper of all the Parliaments, since the time of Queen Elizabeth, has been the same with the temper of this Parliament, and shall always be such as long as the Presbyterians and men of Democratical Principles have the like Influence upon the Elections.

A.

After they resolv'd concerning the other House; that during this Parliament they would transact with it, but without intrenching upon the Right of the Peers, to have Writs sent to them in all future Parliaments. These Votes being passed, they proceed to another, wherein they as­sume to themselves the Power of the Mi­litia. Also to shew their Supream Power, they deliver'd out of prison some of those that had been (they said) illegally com­mitted by the former Protector. Other [Page 320] Points concerning Civil Rights, and con­cerning Religion, very pleasing to the Peo­ple, were now also under their Considera­tion. So that in the end of this year the Protector was no less jealous of the Parlia­ment than of the Councel of Officers at Wallingford-house.

B.

Thus 'tis when ignorant men will undertake Reformation. Here are three Parties, the Protector, the Parliament, and the Army. The Protector against Parlia­ment and Army, the Parliament against Army and Protector, and the Army against Protector and Parliament.

A.

In the beginning of 1659. the Par­liament passed divers other Acts; one was to forbid the Meetings in Councel of the Army-Officers without order from the Pro­tector, and both Houses. Another, That no man shall have any Command or Trust in the Army, who did not first under his hand engage himself, never to interrupt any of the Members, but that they might freely meet and debate in the House. And to please the Soldiers, they voted to take presently into their Consideration the means of paying them their Arrears. But whilst they were considering this, the Protector (according to the first of those Acts) forbad the meeting of Officers at Wallingford-house. This made the Govern­ment, [Page 321] which by the disagreement of the Protector and Army was already loose, to fall in pieces. For the Officers from Wallingford-house, with Soldiers enough, came over to White-hall, and brought with them a Commission ready drawn (giving power to Desborough to dissolve the Parliament) for the Protector to sign; which also his Heart and his Party sailing him, he signed. The Parliament never­theless continued sitting, but at the end of the Week, the House adjourned till the Monday after, being April the 25th. At their coming on Monday morning, they found the door of the House shut up, and the passages to it filled with Soldiers, who plainly told them they must sit no longer. Richard's Authority, and business in Town, being thus at an end, he retir'd into the Country, where within a few days (up­on promise of the payment of his Debts, which his Father's Funeral had made great) he signed a Resignation of his Protector­ship.

B.

To whom?

A.

To no body. But after ten days Cessation of the Sovereign Power, some of the Rumpers that were in Town toge­ther with the old Speaker Mr. William Lenthal, resolv'd amongst themselves, and with Lambert, Heslerig, and other Offi­cers, [Page 322] who were also Rumpers, in all 42, to go into the House, which they did, and were by the Army declared to be the Par­liament.

There were also in Westminster-hall at that time, about their private business, some few of those whom the Army had se­cluded in 1648. and were called the Seclu­ded Members. These knowing themselves to have been elected by the same Authority, and to have the same Right to sit, attempt­ed to get into the House, but were kept out by the Soldiers. The first Vote of the Rump re-seated was; That such per­sons as heretofore Members of this Parlia­ment have not sitten in this Parliament since the year 1648. shall not sit in this House, till farther order of the Parliament; and thus the Rump recovered their Autho­rity May the seventh 1659. which they lost in April 1653.

B.

Seeing there have been so many Shiftings of the Supream Authority, I pray you for memories sake, repeat them briefly in times and order.

A.

First; from 1640. to 1648. when the King was murdered, the Sovereignty was disputed between King Charles the first, and the Presbyterian-Parliament. Se­condly, from 1648. to 1653. the Power was in that part of the Parliament which [Page 323] voted the Tryal of the King, and declar'd themselves, without King or House of Lords, to have the Supream Authority of England and Ireland. For there were in the Long Parliament two Factions, the Presbyterian and Independent, the former whereof sought only the subjection of the King, not his destruction directly, the lat­ter sought directly his destruction, and this part is it which was called the Rump. Thirdly, from April the 20th to July the fourth the Supream Power was in the hands of a Councel of State constituted by Cromwel. Fourthly, from July the 4th to December the 12th of the same year, it was in the hands of men called unto it by Cromwel, whom he termed Men of Fide­lity and Integrity, and made them a Par­liament, which was called in contempt of one of the Members Barebone's Parliament. Fifthly, from December the 12th 1653. to September the third 1658. it was in the hands of Oliver Cromwel with the Title of Protector. Sixthly, from September the third 1658. to April the 25th 1659. Ri­chard Cromwel had it as Successor to his Father. Seventhly, from April the 25th 1659. to May the seventh of the same year, it was no where. Eighthly, from May the seventh 1659. the Rump which was turn­ed out of doors in 1653. recover'd it again, [Page 324] and shall lose it again to a Committee of Safety, and again recover it, and again lose it to the Right Owner.

B.

By whom, and by what Art came the Rump to be turned out the second time?

A.

One would think them safe enough; the Army in Scotland, which when it was in London, had helped Oliver to put down the Rump, submitted now, begg'd par­don, and promised obedience. The Sol­diers in Town had their pay mended, and the Commanders every where took the old Engagement, whereby they had ac­knowledged their Authority heretofore. They also receiv'd their Commissions in the House it self from the Speaker, who was Generalissimo. Fleetwood was made Lieutenant General with such, and so ma­ny Limitations, as were thought necessa­ry by the Rump, that remembred how they had been served by the General O­liver. Also Henry Cromwel, Lord-Lieute­nant of Ireland, having resigned his Com­mission by Command, returned into Eng­land.

But Lambert, to whom (as was said) Oliver had promised the Succession, and as well as the Rump knew the way to the Protectorship, by Oliver's own foot-steps, was resolv'd to proceed in it, upon the first [Page 325] opportunity, which presented it self pre­sently after.

Besides some Plots of Royalists, whom after the old fashion they again persecu­ted, there was an Insurrection made a­gainst them by Presbyterians in Cheshire, headed by Sir George Booth, one of the Secluded Members, they were in number about 3000, and their pretence was for a Free Parliament; there was a great talk of another Rising, or endeavour to rise in Devonshire and Cornwal, at the same time. To suppress Sir George Booth, the Rump sent down more than a sufficient Army under Lambert, which quickly de­feated the Cheshire Party, and recovered Chester, Leverpool, and all the other pla­ces they had seized. Divers also of their Commanders in and after the Battle were taken Prisoners, whereof Sir George Booth himself was one.

This Exploit done, Lambert before his return, Caressed his Soldiers with an En­tertainment at his own House in York-shire, and got their consent to a Petition to be made to the House, that a General might be set up in the Army, as being unfit that the Army should be judged by any power extrinsick to it self.

B.

I do not see that unfitness.

A.
[Page 326]

Nor I. But it was (as I have heard) an Axiom of Sir Henry Vane's: but it so much displeased the Rump, that they voted, That the having of more Generals in the Army than were already setled, was unnecessary, burthensome, and dangerous to the Common wealth.

B.

This was not Oliver's method: for though this Cheshire-Victory had been as glorious as that of Oliver at Dunbar, yet it was not the Victory that made Oliver General, but the Resignation of Fairfax, and the profer of it to Cromwel by the Par­liament.

A.

But Lambert thought so well of himself, as to expect it: therefore, at his return to London, he and other Officers Assembling at Wallingford-house, drew their Petition into form, and call'd it a Repre­sentation, wherein the Chief Point was to have a General; but many other of less Importance were added; and this they represented to the House October the fourth by Major-General Desborough: and this so far forth awed them, as to teach them so much good manners as to promise to take it presently into debate. Which they did; and October the 12th, having reco­vered their Spirits, voted; That the Com­missions of Lambert, Desborough, and o­thers of the Councel at Wallingford-house, [Page 327] should be void. Item, That the Army should be govern'd by a Commission to Fleetwood, Monk, Haslerig, Walton, Morley and Overton, till February the 12th follow­ing. And to make this good against the force they expected from Lambert, they ordered Haslerig and Morley to issue War­rants to such Officers as they could trust, to bring their Soldiers next morning into Westminster, which was done somewhat too late; for Lambert had first brought his Soldiers thither, and beset the House, and turned back the Speaker, which was then coming to it: but Haslerig's Forces marching about St. James's Park-wall, came into St. Margaret's Church-yard; and so both Parties looked all day one upon ano­ther, like Enemies, but offered not to fight, whereby the Rump was put out of possession of the House; and the Officers continued their Meeting, as before, at Wal­lingford-house.

There they chose from among them­selves, with some few of the City, a Com­mittee, which they called the Committee of Safety; whereof the Chief were Lam­bert and Vane, who with the advice of a General Councel of Officers, had power to call Delinquents to Trial. To suppress Rebellions; To treat with Forreign States, &c. You see now the Rump cut off, and [Page 328] the Supream Power (which is charged with Salus Populi) transfer'd to a Coun­cel of Officers. And yet Lambert hopes for it in the end. But one of their Li­mitations was; That they should within six weeks present to the Army a new Model of the Government; if they had done so, do you think they would have prefer'd Lambert or any other to the Su­pream Authority therein, rather than them­selves?

B.

I think not. When the Rump had put into Commission (amongst a few o­thers) for the Government of the Ar­my, that is to say, for the Government of the three Nations, General Monk, al­ready Commander in Chief of the Army in Scotland, and that had done much grea­ter things in this War, than Lambert; how durst they leave him out of this Committee of Safety? Or how could Lam­bert think that General Monk would for­give it, and not endeavour to fasten the Rump again?

A.

They thought not of him; his Gal­lantry had been shewn on remote Sta­ges, Ireland and Scotland. His Ambition had not appear'd here in their Contenti­ons for the Government, but he had com­plied both with Richard and the Rump. After General Monk had signified by Let­ter [Page 329] his dislike of the Proceedings of Lam­bert and his Fellows, they were much sur­priz'd, and began to think him more con­siderable than they had done; but it was too late.

B.

Why? His Army was too small for so great an Enterprize.

A.

The General knew very well his own, and their Forces; both what they were then, and how they might be aug­mented, and what generally City and Country wished for, which was the Resti­tution of the King: which to bring about there needed no more, but to come with his Army (though not very great) to London: To the doing whereof there was no obstacle but the Army with Lambert. What could he do in this Case? If he had declar'd presently for the King, or for a Free-Parliament, all the Armies in England would have joyned against him, and assuming the Title of a Parliament, would have furnished themselves with Money.

General Monk, after he had thus quar­relled by his Letter with the Councel-Of­ficers, secur'd first those Officers of his own Army, which were Anabaptists, and therefore not to be trusted, and put o­thers into their places; then drawing his Forces together, marched to Barwick. [Page 330] Being there he indicted a Convention of the Scots, of whom he desir'd that they would take order for the security of that Nation in his absence, and raise some main­tenance for his Army in their March. The Convention promised for the securi­ty of the Nation their best endeavour, and raised him a Sum of Money, not great, but enough for this purpose, excusing themselves upon their present wants. On the other side, the Committee of Safety, with the greatest and best part of their Army, sent Lambert to oppose him; but at the same time by divers Messages and Mediators, urged him to a Treaty; which he consented to, and sent three Officers to London to Treat with as many of theirs. These six suddenly concluded (without power from the General) upon these Articles; That the King be exclu­ded; a Free State setled; the Ministry and Universities encouraged, with divers others. Which the General liked not, and imprisoned one of his Commissioners for exceeding his Commission. Where­upon another Treaty was agreed on of five to five. But whilst these Treaties were in hand, Haslerig, a Member of the Rump, seized on Portsmouth, and the Sol­diers sent by the Committee of Safety to reduce it, instead of that, entred into [Page 331] the Town, and joyned with Haslerig. Secondly, the City renewed their Tu­mults for a Free-Parliament. Thirdly, the Lord Fairfax, a Member also of the Rump, and greatly favour'd in York-shire, was raising Forces there behind Lambert, who being now between two Armies, his Enemies, would gladly have fought with the General. Fourthly, there came news that Devonshire and Cornwal were List­ing of Soldiers. Lastly, Lambert's Ar­my wanting Money, and sure they should not be furnished from the Councel of Officers, which had neither Authority, nor Strength to Levy Money, grew dis­contented, and (for their free Quarter) were odious to the Northern Coun­tries.

B.

I wonder why the Scots were so ready to furnish General Monk with Mo­ney; for they were no Friends to the Rump?

A.

I know not; but I believe the Scots would have parted with a greater Sum, rather than the English should not have gone together by the ears amongst them­selves. The Councel of Officers being now beset with so many Enemies, pro­duced speedily their Model of Govern­ment, which was to have a Free-Parlia­ment, which should meet December the [Page 332] 15th, but with such qualifications of no King, no House of Lords, as made the City more angry than before. To send Soldiers into the West, to suppress those that were rising there, they durst not, for fear of the City; nor could they raise any other for want of Money. There remained nothing but to break, and quit­ting Wallingford-house, to shift for them­selves.

This coming to the knowledge of their Army in the North, they deserted Lam­bert; and the Rump the 26th of December repossessed the House.

B.

Seeing the Rump was now re-seat­ed, the business pretended by General Monk for his marching to London was at an end.

A.

The Rump, though seated, was not well setled, but (in the midst of so ma­ny Tumults for a Free-Parliament) had as much need of the General's coming up now, as before. He therefore sent them word, that because he thought them not yet secure enough, he would come up to London with his Army; which they not only accepted, but also intreated him to do, and voted him for his Services 1000 l. a year.

The General marching towards London, the Country every where petition'd him [Page 333] for a Free-Parliament. The Rump, to make room in London for his Army, dislodged their own. The General for all that, had not let fall a word in all this time, that could be taken for a Declaration of his final Design.

B.

How did the Rump revenge them­selves on Lambert?

A.

They never troubled him; nor do I know any cause of so gentle dealing with him: but certainly Lambert was the ablest of any Officer they had to do them service, when they should have means, and need to employ him. After the Ge­neral was come to London, the Rump sent to the City for their part of a Tax of 100000 l. a month, for six months, according to an Act, which the Rump had made formerly, before their disseizin by the Committee of Safety. But the City, who were adverse to the Rump, and keen upon a Free-Parliament, could not be brought to give their Money to their Enemies, and to purposes repugnant to their own. Hereupon the Rump sent order to the General to break down the City Gates and their Portcullices, and to imprison certain obstinate Citizens. This he performed, and it was the last service he did them.

[Page 334]About this time the Commission, by which General Monk, with others, had the Government of the Army put into their hands by the Rump, before the usurpation of the Councel of Officers, came to expire, which the present Rump renewed.

B.

He was thereby the sixth part of the General of the whole Forces of the Com­mon-wealth. If I had been as the Rump, he should have been sole General. In such Cases as this, there cannot be a grea­ter Vice than pinching. Ambition should be liberal.

A.

After the pulling down of the City Gates, the General sent a Letter to the Rump to let them know, that that Ser­vice was much against his Nature, and to put them in mind how well the City had serv'd the Parliament throughout the whole War.

B.

Yes. But for the City the Parlia­ment could never have made the War, nor the Rump ever have murdered the King.

A.

The Rump considered not the me­rit of the City, nor the good Nature of the General. They were busie. They were giving out Commissions; making of Acts for Abjuration of the King and his Line, and for the Old Engagement and [Page 335] conferring with the City to get Money. The General also desir'd to hear Conference between some of the Rump, and some of the Secluded Members, concerning the Justice of their Seclusion, and of the hurt that could follow from their re-admissi­on. And it was granted, after long Confe­rence, the General finding the Rump's pretences unreasonable and ambitious, de­clared himself, with the City, for a Free-Parliament, and came to Westminster with the Secluded Members, (whom he had appointed to meet and stay for him at White-hall) and replaced them in the House amongst the Rumpers; so that now the same Cattle that were in the House of Commons in 1640. (except those that were dead, and those that went from them to the late King at Oxford) are all there again.

B.

But this (methinks) was no good Service to the King, unless they had learnt better Principles.

A.

They had learnt nothing. The Ma­jor part was now again Presbyterian. 'Tis true they were so grateful to General Monk, as to make him General of all the Forces in the three Nations. They did well also to make void the Engagement; but it was because those Acts were made to the prejudice of their Party; but re­called [Page 336] none of their own Rebellious Or­dinances, nor did any thing in order to the good of the present King: but on the contrary they declared by a Vote, that the late King began the War against his two Houses.

B.

The two Houses considered as two Persons, were they not two of the King's Subjects? If a King raise an Army against his Subject, is it lawful for that Subject to resist with force, when (as in this Case) he might have had peace upon his sub­mission?

A.

They knew they had acted vilely and sottishly; but because they had al­ways pretended to greater than ordina­ry wisdom and godliness, they were loth to confess it. The Presbyterians now saw their time to make a Confession of their Faith, and presented it to the House of Commons, to shew they had not chang­ed their Principles, which (after six read­ings in the House) was voted to be print­ed, and once a year to be read publickly in every Church.

B.

I say again, this re-establishing of the Long Parliament was no good service to the King.

A.

Have a little patience. They were re-established with two Conditions. One to determine their sitting before the end [Page 337] of March; another to send out Writs be­fore their rising for new Elections.

B.

That qualifies.

A.

That brought in the King: for few of this Long Parliament (the Country having felt the smart of their former Ser­vice) could get themselves chosen again. This New Parliament began to sit April the 25th 1660. How soon these called in the King; with what Joy and Triumph he was receiv'd; how earnestly his Ma­jesty pressed the Parliament for the Act of Oblivion, and how few were ex­cepted out of it, you know as well as I.

B.

But I have not yet observed in the Presbyterians any oblivion of their for­mer Principles. We are but returned to the state we were in at the beginning of the Sedition.

A.

Not so: for before that time, though the Kings of England had the Right of the Militia in vertue of the Sovereignty, and without dispute, and without any par­ticular Act of Parliament directly to that purpose; yet now, after this bloody di­spute, the next (which is the present) Parliament in proper and express terms hath declar'd the same to be the Right of the King only, without either of his Houses of Parliament; which Act is more [Page 338] instructive to the People, than any Argu­ments drawn from the Title of Sovereign, and consequently fitter to disarm the Am­bition of all seditious Haranguers for the time to come.

B.

I pray God it prove so. Howsoe­ver I must confess, that this Parliament has done all that a Parliament can do for the security of our Peace: which I think also would be enough, if Preachers would take heed of instilling evil Principles in­to their Auditory. I have seen in this Revolution a circular motion, of the So­vereign Power through two Usurpers, from the late King to this his Son: for (leaving out the Power of the Councel of Officers, which was but temporary, and no otherwise owned by them, but in trust) it moved from King Charles the First to the Long Parliament, from thence to the Rump, from the Rump to Oliver Cromwel, and then back again from Ri­chard Cromwel to the Rump, thence to the Long Parliament, and thence to King Charles the Second, where long may it remain.

A.

Amen. And may he have as of­ten as there shall be need such a Ge­neral.

B.
[Page 339]

You have told me little of the General till now in the end: but truly, I think, the bringing of his little Army intirely out of Scotland, up to London, was the greatest Stratagem that is extant in History.

FINIS.

Books lately printed for William Crooke at the Green Dragon without Temple-Bar. 1682.

DIVINITY.
  • SIxty one Sermons preached mostly upon publick occasions, whereof five formerly Printed, by A. Littleton D. D. Folio.
  • Brevis Demonstratio, being the truth of Christian Religion proved by reason, in Twelves p. 10 d.
  • The primitive Institution, shewing the Antiquity and usefulness of Catechizing, by the Author of this Book, price 12 d.
  • A Funeral Sermon for a drown'd Man, Octavo.
  • Mr. Howel's Visitation Sermon, Quarto.
  • Dr. Hascard's two Sermons, Quarto.
  • Mr. Maningham's Sermon, Quarto.
  • A Sermon, preached at the Savoy, accused for Heretical, French and English.
  • A modest Plea for the Clergy, wherein is briefly considered the Reasons, why the Clergy are so neglected, by the Author of this Book, Octavo.
  • H. Grotius's Catechism: Greek, Latin and Eng­lish, Octavo.
  • The Spirit of Prophecy, proving that Christ and his Apostles were Prophets, written by the Dire­ctions of, and recommended to the Press by Dr. P. Gunning, Lord Bishop of Ely, Octavo.
  • The King-killing Doctrine of the Jesuites, in a sin­cere Discourse to the French King; written by a Roman Catholick, in Quarto.
  • The Justifying Faith, or the Faith by which the just do live, Octavo.
  • [Page] Mercy Triumphant, or the Kingdom of Christ in­larged beyond the narrow Bounds which have wont to be set to it, by Ed. Lane Vicar of Sparsholt, Quarto.
  • Responsio Valedictoria ad secundam Sandii Episto­lam, &c. per Samuel Gardiner, S. T. D.
  • Du Moulin's Reflections Reverberated, being a full Answer to his damning Doctrine, also a Con­futation of the railing of Edmond Hickering­gil, by Ed. Lane, in Quarto.
The Three last New. HISTORY.
  • An Institution of general History, or the History of the World; being a Compleat body there­of, in two Volumes, by William Howel LL. D. and Chancellor of Lincoln, Folio, printed 1680.
  • Historical Collection, being an Account of the pro­ceedings of the four last Parliaments of Queen Elizabeth, wherein is contained the compleat Journals both of Lords and Commons of that time; by Heywood Townsend Esquire, Member in those Parliaments, Folio, printed 1680.
  • A Chronicle of the late intestine Wars of the three Kingdoms, of England, Scotland, and Ireland, from 1639. to 1660. written by Mr. Heath, since continued to 1674. by J. P. in Folio.
  • A Voyage into the Levant, being a Relation of a Journey lately performed from England to Grand Cairo, by Sir Henry Blunt, Twelves pr. 1 s.
  • Some years Travel into divers parts of Asia and Africa the great, by Sir Tho. Herbert, the 4th Edition.
  • Parthenissa, written by the Earl of Orrery, in Folio.
  • Clelia, the whole work in five parts, written in French, now put into English compleat, in Folio.
  • A Description of Candia, with an Account of the last [Page] Siege and surrender of it to the Turks, in Octavo.
  • Calliopes Cabinet opened, wherein all Gentlemen may be informed how to order themselves for Feasts, Funerals, and all publick meetings, in Twelves, price bound 8 d.
  • A Discourse of the Dukedom of Modena, contain­ing the Original Antiquity of that Dukedom, in Quarto, price 6 d.
  • The Travels of Vlysses, by Thomas Hobbs, in Twelves bound, price 1 s.
  • The present State of London, containing the Anti­quity, Fame, Walls, River, Bridge, &c. of that City, by J. B. Esquire.
  • Scarron's Comical Romance, being an Historical Account of a Company of Stage-Players, full of Variety of Wit and Pleasure, in Folio.
  • The Wonders of the Peak in Darbyshire, commonly called the Devil's Arse of Peak, by Tho. Hobbs, in Octavo.
  • The Life and Death of Mahumet, the Author of the Turkish Religion, being an Account of his Tribe, Parents, &c. by the Author of this Book, in Octavo.
  • The Historian's Guide, being a Summary Account of all the Actions, Exploits, Sieges, &c. that have happened in England for fourscore years past, in Twelves.
  • The Connection, being Collections of some principal matters in the Reign of King James, being of the time that lyeth betwixt Mr. Townsend's Historical Collections, and Mr. Rushworth's, price 1 s. 6 d.
  • The Moors Baffled, or a Discourse of Tangier, as it was under the Government of the Earl of Tiviot; by the Author of this Book.
  • All Homer's Works translated into English, by Thomas Hobbs.
  • Popish Cruelties, shewed in a Narrative of Parey's [Page] Tryal and Condemnation, in Folio 1 s.
  • An Historical Narration of Heresie, by Tho. Hobbs, in Folio.
  • The Life of Tho. Hobbs, in a Poem in English, in Fol.
  • Consideration on the Loyalty, Religion, Reputation, and Manners of Mr. Hobbs, in Octavo, price bound 1 s.
  • The Memoires and rare Adventures of Silvia Moliere, all the six parts, in Twelves, price 4 s.
  • Tho. Hobbs Angli Malmsbur. Vita, being an Account of Mr. Hobbs, of the Books he wrote, of the times when, and the occasions thereof, of the Books and Authors against him, of his Conversation and Acquaintance, &c. in Octavo, printed 1681.
LAW.
  • The Jurisdiction of the Authority of Court Leets, Court Barons, Court Marshals, &c. by J. Kitchin, in Octavo.
  • Praxis Curiae Admiralitatis Angliae, Author, Francis Clark, in Twelves.
  • Sir Simon Deiggs Parsons-Councellor, in Octavo, third Edition, 1681.
  • Clerks Manual, a Book of Presidents, in Octavo.
  • Officina Brevium, select forms of Writs and other process, &c. Of the Court of Common-Pleas at Westminster, &c. in Folio, price 12 s. printed 1680
  • A Dialogue betwixt a Student and a Philosopher, about the Common Laws of England, in Octavo, by Thomas Hobbs.
Poetry and Plays.
  • Melpomene, or the Muses delight, in Octavo.
  • The Confinement with Annot. in Octavo.
  • The White Devil, in Quarto.
  • Catiline's Conspiracy, in Quarto.
  • Rival Kings, in Quarto.
  • Old Troop, in Quarto.
  • [Page]Amorous Gallant, in Quarto.
  • Mock Duellist, in Quarto.
  • Wrangling Lovers, in Quarto.
  • Tom Essence, in Quarto.
  • French Conjurer, in Quarto.
  • Wits led by the Nose, in Quarto.
  • Counterfeit Bridegroom, in Quarto.
  • Tunbridg-Wells, in Quarto.
  • Man of New-Market, in Quarto.
  • Constant Nymph, in Quarto.
Miscellanies.
  • The Deaf and Dumb Man's Discourse, in Octavo.
  • The compleat Measurer, in Octavo.
  • The American Physitian, in Octavo.
  • Lord Bacon's Apothegms, in Twelves, 6 d. bound.
  • Hobbs's and Lany about Liberty. in Twelves.
  • Reflections of Philosophers, in Octavo.
  • Hobbs Natural Philosophy, in Octavo.
  • Feavers cured by Jesuites Powder, in 12o 1681.
  • Oliver Cromwell's Sermon preached 1649.
  • Filmer of Usury, in Twelves.
  • Saunders's Physicks, in Octavo.
  • The Court of Curiosity, being the Interpretation of Dreams, and a Fortune-Book, in Octavo 1681.
  • Hobbs his defence of his Leviathan, in Octavo.
  • Hobbs his Physical Problems, in Octavo.
  • The Addresses defended, by Dr. J. H.
  • The Remains of the three great Wits, viz. A­braham Cowly, Sir John Berkenhead, and Sa­muel Butler, the Author of Hudibrass, aprint­ing in Quarto.
  • The fifteen Comforts of inconsiderate Marriage, Twelves and price 1 s.
FINIS.
AN ANSWER TO A BOOK …

AN ANSWER TO A BOOK Published by Dr. BRAMHALL, late Bishop of Derry; CALLED The Catching of the Leviathan.

Together With an Historical Narration Concerning HERESIE, And the Punishment thereof.

By THOMAS HOBBES of Malmesbury.

LONDON, Printed for W. Crooke at the Green Dragon without Temple-Barr, 1682.

TO THE READER.

AS in all things which I have written, so also in this Piece, I have endea­voured all I can to be perspicuous; but yet your own attention is always necessary. The late Lord Bishop of Derry published a Book called The Catching of Levia­than, in which he hath put together divers Sentences pickt out of my Leviathan, which stand there plainly and firmly prov­ed, and sets them down without their Proofs, and without the order of their de­pendance one upon another; and calls them Atheism, Blasphemy, Impiety, Subversion of Religion, and by other names of that kind. My request unto you is, That when he cites my words for Erroneous, you [Page] will be pleased to turn to the place it self, and see whether they be well proved, and how to be understood. Which labour his Lordship might have saved you, if he would have vouchsafed, as well to have weighed my Arguments before you, as to have shew­ed you my Conclusions. His Book contain­eth two Chapters, the one concerning Re­ligion, the other concerning Politicks. Be­cause he does not so much as offer any re­futation of any thing in my Leviathan concluded, I needed not to have answered either of them. Yet to the first I here an­swer, because the words Atheism, Impi­ety and the like, are words of the greatest defamation possible. And this I had done sooner, if I had sooner known that such a Book was extant. He wrote it ten years since, and yet I never heard of it till about three Months since; so little talk there was of his Lordship's Writings. If you want leasure or care of the questions be­tween us, I pray you condemn me not upon report. To judge and not examine is not just. Farewell.

T. Hobbes.

CHAP. I. That the Hobbian Principles are de­structive to Christianity and all Reli­gion.

J. D.

THe Image of God is not al­together defaced by the fall of Man, but that there will remain some practical notions of God and Goodness; which, when the mind is free from vagrant de­sires, and violent passions, do shine as clearly in the heart, as other speculative notions do in the head. Hence it is, That there was never any Nation so barbarous or savage throughout the whole world, which had not their God. They who did never wear cloaths upon their backs, who did never know Magistrate but their Father, yet have their God, and their Re­ligious Rites and Devotions to him. Hence it is, That the greatest Atheists in any sudden danger do unwittingly cast their eyes up to Heaven, as craving aid from thence, and in a thunder creep into some hole to hide themselves. And they who are conscious to themselves of any secret Crimes, though they be secure [Page 2] enough from the justice of men, do yet feel the blind blows of a Guilty Conscience, and fear Divine Vengeance. This is ac­knowledged by T. H. himself in his lucid Intervals. That we may know what worship of God natural reason doth assign, let us begin with his attributes, where it is manifest in the first place, That existency is to be attributed to him. To which he addeth Infiniteness, Incomprehensibility, Vnity, Vbiquity. Thus for Attributes, next for Actions. Concern­ing external Actions, wherewith God is to be worshipped, the most general precept of reason is, that they be signs of honour, under which are contained Prayers, Thanksgivings, Ob­lations and Sacrifices.

T. H.

Hitherto his Lordship discharges me of Atheisme. What need he to say that All Nations, how barbarous soever, yet have their Gods and Religious Rites, and A­theists are frighted with thunder, and feel the blind blows of Conscience? It might have been as apt a Preface to any other of his Discourses as this. I expect therefore in the next place to be told that I deny a­gain my afore recited Doctrine.

J. D.

Yet to let us see how inconsistent and irreconcileable he is with himself, else­where reckoning up all the Laws of Na­ture at large, even twenty in number, he hath not one word that concerneth Reli­gion, [Page 3] or that hath the least relation in the world to God. As if a man were like the Colt of a wild Asse in the wilderness, with­out any owner or obligation. Thus in de­scribing the Laws of Nature, this great Clerk forgeteth the God of Nature, and the main and principle Laws of Nature, which contains a mans duty to his God, and the principal end of his Creation.

T. H.

After I had ended the discourse he mentions of the Laws of Nature, I thought it fittest in the last place once for all, to say they were the Laws of God, then when they were delivered in the Word of God; but before being not known by men for any thing but their own natural reason, they were but Theorems, tending to peace, and those uncertain, as being but conclusions of particular men, and therefore not properly Laws. Besides, I had formerly in my Book De Cive, cap. 4. proved them severally one by one out of the Scriptures; which his Lordship had read and knew. 'Twas therefore an unjust charge of his to say, I had not one word in them that concerns Religion, or that hath the least relation in the world to God; and this upon no other ground then that I added not to every article, This Law is in the Scripture. But why he should call me (ironically) a great Clerk, I cannot [Page 4] tell. I suppose he would make men believe I arrogated to my self all the learning of a great Clerk, Bishop, or other inferior Mi­nister. A Learned Bishop, is that Bishop that can interpret all parts of Scripture tru­ly, and congruently to the harmony of the whole; that has learnt the History and Laws of the Church, down from the A­postles time to his own; and knows what is the nature of a Law Civil, Divine, Na­tural, and Positive; and how to govern well the Parochial Ministers of his Diocess, so that they may both by Doctrine and Ex­ample keep the people in the belief of all Ar­ticles of Faith necessary to Salvation, and in obedience to the Laws of their Country. This is a Learned Bishop. A Learned Mi­nister is he that hath learned the way by which men may be drawn from Avarice, Pride, Sensuality, Prophaness, Rebellious Principles, and all other vices by eloquent and powerful disgracing them, both from Scripture and from Reason; and can terri­fy men from vice by discreet uttering of the punishments denounced against wick­ed men, and by deducing rationally the dammage they receive by it in the end. In one word, he is a Learned Minister that can preach such Sermons as St. Chrisostome preached to the Antiochians when he was Presbyter in that City. Could his Lord­ship [Page 5] find in my Book that I arrogated to my self the eloquence or wisdom of St. Chrisostom, or the ability of governing the Church? 'Tis one thing to know what is to be done, another thing to know how to do it. But his Lordship was pleased to use any artifice to disgrace me in any kind whatsoever.

J. D.

Perhaps he will say that he hand­leth the Laws of Nature there, only so far as may serve to the constitution or set­tlement of a Common-wealth. In good time, let it be so. He hath devised us a trim Common-wealth, which is founded neither upon Religion towards God, nor Justice towards Man; but meerly upon self-interest, and self-preservation. Those raies of heavenly Light, those natural seeds of Religion, which God himself hath imprinted in the heart of man, are more efficatious towards preservation of a So­ciety; whether we regard the nature of the thing, or the blessing of God, then all his Pacts, and Surrenders, and Translations of power. He who unteacheth men their du­ty to God, may make them Eye-servants, so long as their interest doth oblige them to obey; but is no fit Master to teach men con­science and fidelity.

T. H.

He has not yet found the place where I contradict either the Existence, [Page 6] or Infiniteness, or Incomprehensibility, or Unity, or Ubiquity of God. I am there­fore yet absolved of Atheism. But I am, he says, inconsistent and irreconcileable with my self, that is, I am, (though he says not so, he thinks) a forgetful blockhead. I cannot help that: But my forgetfulness appears not here. Even his Lordship where he says, Those raies of heavenly Light, those seeds of Religion, which God himself hath imprinted in the heart of man (meaning natural reason) are more efficacious to the preservation of Society, than all the Pacts, Surrenders, and Translat­ing of Power, had forgotten to except the Old Pact of the Jews, and the New Pact of Christians. But pardoning that, did he hope to make any wise man believe, that when this Nation very lately was an Anar­chy, and dissolute multitude of men, do­ing every one what his own reason or im­printed Light suggested, did again out of that same Light call in the King, and piece again, and ask pardon for the faults, which that their illumination had brought them into, rather than out of fear of perpetual danger, and hope of preserva­tion.

J. D.

Without Religion, Societies are like but soapy bubbles, quickly dissolved. It was the judgment of as wise a man [Page 7] as, T. H. himself (though perhaps he will hardly be perswaded to it) that Rome ought more of its grandeur to Religion, than either to strength or stratagems. We have not exceeded the Spaniards in num­ber, nor the Galls in strength, nor the Car­thaginians in craft, nor the Grecians in art, &c. but we have overcome all Nations by our Piety and Religion.

T. H.

Did not his Lordship forget him­self here again, in approving this sentence of Tully, which makes the Idolatry of the Romans, not only better than the Idolatry of other Nations; but also better than the Religion of the Jews, whose Law Christ himself says, he came not to destroy but to fulfil? And that the Romans overcame both them and other Nations, by their Pi­ety, when it is manifest that the Romans overran the world by injustice and cru­elty, and that their Victories ought not to be ascribed to the Piety of the Romans, but to the impiety as well of the Jews as of o­ther Nations? But what meant he by say­ing Tully was as wise a man as T. H. himself, though perhaps he will hardly be perswaded to it? Was that any part of the controversie? No: Then it was out of his way. God promiseth to assist good men in their way, but not out of their way. 'Tis therefore the less wonder that his [Page 8] Lordship was in this place deserted of the Light which God imprints in the hearts of rudest Savages.

J. D.

Among his Laws he incerteth gratitude to men as the third precept of the Law of Nature; but of the gratitude of mankind to their Creator, there is a deep silence. If men had sprung up from the earth in a night like Mushroms or Excre­sences, without all sence of Honour, Ju­stice, Conscience, or Gratitude, he could not have vilified the humane nature more then he doth.

T. H.

My Lord discovers here an igno­rance of such method as is necessary for lawful and strict reasoning and explication of the truth in controversie. And not on­ly that, but also how little able he is to fix his mind upon what he reads in other mens Writings. When I had defined Ingrati­tude universally, he finds fault that I do not mention Ingratitude towards God, as if his Lordship knew not that an universal comprehends all the particulars. When I had defined Equity universally, why did he not as well blame me for not telling what that Equity is in God? He is grate­ful to the man of whom he receives a good turn, that confesseth or maketh appear he is pleased with the benefit he receiveth. So also Gratitude towards God is to confess [Page 9] his benefits. There is also in Gratitude to­wards men a desire to requite their Benefits, so there is in our Gratitude towards God, so far to requite them, as to be kind to Gods Ministers, which I acknowledged in make­ing Sacrifices a part of natural Divine Wor­ship; and the benefit of those Sacrifices is the nourishment of Gods Ministers. It ap­pears therefore that the Bishops attention in reading my Writings was either weak in it self, or weakned by prejudice.

J. D.

From this shameful omission or preterition of the main duty of mankind, a man might easily take the height of T. H. his Religion. But he himself put­teth it past all conjectures. His princi­ples are brim full of prodigious impiety. In these four things, Opinions of Ghosts, Igno­rance of second Causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual, for Prog­nosticks, consisteth the natural seed of Reli­gion; the culture and improvement where­of, he referreth only to Policy. Humane and Divine Politicks, are but Politicks. And again, Mankind hath this from the conscience of their own weakness, and the admi­ration of natural events, that the most part of men believe that there is an invisible God, the maker of all visible things. And a little af­ter he telleth us, That Superstition proceed­eth from fear without right reason, and [Page 10] Atheisme from an opinion of reason without fear; making Atheisme to be more reason­able than Superstition. What is now be­come of that Divine Worship which natu­ral reason did assign unto God, the honour of Existence, Infiniteness, Incomprehensibili­ty, Unity, Ubiquity? What is now become of that Dictate or Precept of reason, con­cerning Prayers, Thanksgivings, Oblations, Sacrifices, if uncertain Opinions, Ignorance, Fear, Mistakes, the conscience of our own weakness, and the admiration of natural Events, be the only seeds of Religion?

He proceedeth further, That Atheisme it self, though it be an erronious opinion, and therefore a sin, yet it ought to be numbred a­mong the sins of imprudence or ignorance. He addeth, that an Atheist is punished not as a Subject is punished by his King, because he did not observe Laws: but as an Enemy, by an Enemy, because he would not accept Laws. His reason is, because the Atheist never sub­mitted his will to the Will of God, whom he never thought to be. And he concludeth that mans obligation to obey God, pro­ceedeth from his weakness. Manifestum est obligationem ad prestandum ipsi (Deo) o­bedientiam, incumbere hominibus propter im­becilitatem. First it is impossible that should be a sin of meer ignorance or imprudence, which is directly contrary to the light [Page 11] of natural reason. The Laws of nature need no new promulgation, being imprint­ed naturally by God in the heart of Man. The Law of nature was written in our hearts by the finger of God, without our assent; or rather the Law of Nature is the assent it self. Then if Nature dictate to us that there is a God, and that this God is to be worshipped in such and such manner, it is not possible that Atheism should be a sin of meer ig­norance.

Secondly, a Rebellious Subject is still a Subject, De Jure, though not, De Facto, by right, though not by deed: and so the most cursed Atheist that is, ought by right to be the Subject of God, and ought to be punished not as a just Enemy, but as a disloyal Traytor. Which is confessed by himself, This fourth Sin, (that is, of those who do not by word and deed confess one God the Supreme King of Kings) in the na­tural Kingdom of God is the Crime of High Treason, for it is a denial of Divine Power, or Atheism. Then an Atheist is a Traytor to God, and punishable as a disloyal Sub­ject, not as an Enemy.

Lastly, it is an absurd and dishonourable assertion, to make our obedience to God to depend upon our weakness, because we can­not help it, and not upon our gratitude, because we owe our being and preservation [Page 12] to him. Who planteth a Vineyard, and eat­eth not of the Fruit thereof? And who feedeth a Flock, and eateth not of the Milk of the Flock? And again, Thou art worthy O Lord to receive Glory, and Honour, and Power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy plea­sure they are and were created. But it were much better or at least not so ill, to be a down right Atheist, than to make God to be such a thing as he doth, and at last thrust him into the Devils Office, to be the cause of all Sin.

T. H.

Though this Bishop, as I said, had but a weak attention in reading, and little skill in examining the force of an Argu­ment, yet he knew men, and the art, with­out troubling their judgments to win their assents by exciting their Passions. One Rule of his art was to give his Reader what he would have him swallow, a part by it self, and in the nature of News, whether true or not. Knowing that the unlearned, that is most men, are content to believe, rather than be troubled with examining, Therefore (a little before) he put these words T. H. no friend to Religion, in the Mar­gent. And in this place, before he offer at any confutation, he says my Principles are brim full of Prodigious Impieties. And at the next Paragraph, in the Margent, he puts that I excuse Atheism. This behaviour [Page 13] becomes neither a Bishop, nor a Christi­an, nor any man that pretends to good education. Fear of invisible powers, what is it else in savage people, but the fear of somewhat they think a God? What invi­sible power does the reason of a savage man suggest unto him, but those Phantasms of his sleep, or his distemper, which we frequently call Ghosts, and the Savages thought Gods; so that the fear of a God (though not of the true one) to them was the beginning of Religion, as the fear of the true God was the beginning of wisdom to the Jews and Christians? Ignorance of se­cond causes made men fly to some first cause, the fear of which bred Devotion and Worship. The ignorance of what that power might do, made them observe the order of what he had done; that they might guess by the like order, what he was to do another time. This was their Prognostication. What Prodigious impie­ty is here? How confutes he it? Must it be taken for Impiety upon his bare calum­ny? I said Superstition was fear without reason. Is not the fear of a false God, or fancied Daemon contrary to right reason? And is not Atheism Boldness grounded on false reasoning, such as is this, the wicked prosper, therefore there is no God? He offers no proof against any of this; but says only [Page 14] I make Atheism to be more reasonable than Superstition; which is not true: For I deny that there is any reason either in the Atheist or in the Superstitious. And be­cause the Atheist thinks he has reason, where he has none, I think him the more irrational of the two. But all this while he argues not against any of this; but en­quires only, what is become of my natural Worship of God, and of his Existency, In­finiteness, Incomprehensibility, Unity, and Ubiquity. As if whatsoever reason can suggest, must be suggested all at once. First, all men by nature had an opinion of Gods Existency, but of his other Attributes not so soon, but by reasoning, and by de­grees. And for the Attributes of the true God, they were never suggested but by the Word of God written. In that I say A­theism is a sin of ignorance, he says I ex­cuse it. The Prophet David says, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Is it not then a sin of folly? 'Tis agreed be­tween us, that right reason dictates, There is a God. Does it not follow, that deny­ing of God is a sin proceeding from mis­reasoning. If it be not a sin of ignorance, it must be a sin of malice. Can a man malice that which he thinks has no being? But may not one think there is a God, and yet maliciously deny him? If he think [Page 15] there is a God, he is no Atheist; and so the question is changed into this, whether any man that thinks there is a God, dares deli­berately deny it? For my part I think not. For upon what confidence dares any man (deliberately I say) oppose the Omnipo­tent? David saith of himself, My feet were ready to slip when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. Therefore it is likely the feet of men less holy slip oftner. But I think no man living is so daring, being out of passi­on, as to hold it as his opinion. Those wicked men that for a long time proceeded so succesfully in the late horrid Rebellion, may perhaps make some think they were constant and resolved Atheists, but I think rather that they forgot God, than believed there was none. He that believes there is such an Atheist, comes a little too near that opinion himself, Nevertheless, if words spoken in passion signifie a denial of a God, no punishment praeordained by Law, can be too great for such an insolence; because there is no living in a Common-wealth with men, to whose oaths we cannot rea­sonably give credit. As to that I say, An Atheist is punished by God not as a Subject by his King, but as an Enemy, and to my argu­ment for it, namely, because he never acknow­ledged himself Gods Subject, He opposeth, That if nature dictate that there is a God, [Page 16] and to be worshiped in such and such man­ner, then Atheism is not a sin of meer ig­norance; as if either I or he did hold that Nature dictates the manner of Gods Wor­ship, or any article of our Creed, or whe­ther to worship with or without a Sur­plice. Secondly, he answers that a Re­bel is still a Subject de Jure, though not de Facto: And 'tis granted. But though the King lose none of his right by the Traytors act, yet the Traytor loseth the priviledg of being punisht by a praecedent Law; and therefore may be punish'd at the Kings will, as Ravillac was for mur­dering Henry the 4th. of France. An open Enemy and a perfidious Traytor are both enemies. Had not his Lordship read in the Roman story how Perseus and other just enemies of that State were wont to be pu­nished? But what is this trifling question to my excusing of Atheism? In the seventh Paragraph of my Book de Cive he found the words (in Latin) which he here citeth. And to the same sense I have said in my Leviathan, That the right of nature whereby God raigneth over men, is to be derived not from his creating them, as if he required obedience, as of Gratitude; but from his irresistable Power. This he says is absurd and dishonourable. Whereas first all power is honourable, and greatest [Page 17] power is most honourable. Is it not a more noble tenure for a King to hold his King­dom, and the right to punish those that transgress his Laws from his Power, than from the gratitude or gift of the Transgres­sor. There is nothing therefore here of dis­honour to God Almighty. But see the sub­tility of his disputing. He saw he could not catch Leviathan in this place, he looks for him in my Book de Cive, which is Latine, to try what he could fish out of that. And says I make our obedience to God, depend upon our weakness, as if these words signified the Dependence, and not the necessity of our submission, or that incumbere and dependere were all one.

J. D.

For T. H. his God is not the God of Christians, nor of any rational men. Our God is every where, and seeing he hath no parts, he must be wholly here, and wholly there, and wholly every where. So Nature it self dictateth. It can­not be said honourably of God that he is in a place; for nothing is in a place, but that which hath proper bounds of its greatness. But T. H. his God is not wholly every where. No man can conceive that any thing is all in this place, and all in another place at the same time, for none of these things ever have or can be incident to sense. So far well, if by conceiving he mean comprehending; but [Page 18] then follows, That these are absurd Speeches taken upon credit, without any signification at all, from deceived Philosophers, and deceived or deceiving School-men. Thus he denieth the Ubiquity of God. A Circumscriptive, a Definitive, and a Repletive being in a place, is some heathen language to him.

T. H.

Though I believe the Omnipo­tence of God, and that he can do what he will, yet I dare not say how every thing is done, because I cannot conceive nor comprehend either the Divine substance, or the way of its operation. And I think it Impiety to speak concerning God any thing of my own head, or upon the Au­thority of Philosophers or School-men, which I understand not, without warrant in the Scripture: And what I say of Om­nipotence, I say also of Ubiquity. But his Lordship is more valiant in this place, telling us that God is wholly here, and wholly there, and wholly every where; because he has no parts. I cannot comprehend nor conceive this. For methinks it implies also that the whole World is also in the whole God, and in every part of God, nor can I conceive how any thing can be called Whole, which has no parts, nor can I find any thing of this in the Scripture. If I could find it there, I could believe it; and if I could find it in the publick Doctrine of [Page 19] the Church, I could easily abstain from contradicting it. The School-men say al­so that the Soul of Man (meaning his up­per Soul, which they call the rational Soul) is also wholly in the whole man, and wholly in every part of the man. What is this but to make the humane Soul the same thing in respect of mans Body, that God is in respect of the World? These his Lordship calls here rational men, and some of them which applaud this Doctrine, would have the High Court of Parliament corroborate such Doctrines with a Law. I said in my Leviathan, that it is no honou­rable attribute to God, to say he is in a place, because, infinite is not confined with­in a place. To which he replies, T. H. his God is not wholly every where. I confess the consequence. For I understand in English, he that says any thing to be all here, means that neither all nor any of the same thing is else where. He says further, I take a Circumscriptive, a Definitive, and a Repletive being in a place to be Heathen Language. Truly, if this Dispute were at the Bar, I should go near to crave the as­sistance of the Court, lest some trick might be put upon me in such obscurity. For though I know what these Latin words singly signifie, yet I understand not how any thing is in a Place Definitively [Page 20] and not Circumscriptively. For Definitively comes from definio which is to set bounds. And therefore to be in a Place Definitively, is when the bounds of the place are every way marked out. But to be in a place Circumscriptively, is when the bounds of the place are described round about. To be in a Place Repletive, is to fill a place. Who does not see that this dictinction is Canting and Fraud? If any man will call it Pious Fraud, he is to prove the Piety as clearly as I have here explained the Fraud. Besides, no Fraud can be Pious in any man, but him that hath a lawful Right to go­vern him whom he beguileth; whom the Bishop pretends to govern, I cannot tell. Besides his Lordship ought to have consi­dered that every Bishop is one of the Great Councel, trusted by the King to give their advice with the Lords Temporal, for the making of good Laws, Civil and Ecclesi­astical, and not to offer them such obscure Doctrines, as if, because they are not versed in School-divinity, therefore they had no Learning at all, nor understood the English Tongue. Why did the Divines of England contend so much heretofore to have the Bible translated into English, if they never meant any but themselves should read it? If a Lay-man be publickly encouraged to search the Scriptures for his [Page 21] own Salvation, what has a Divine to do to impose upon him any strange inter­pretation, unless if he make him err to Damnation, he will be damned in his stead?

J. D.

Our God is immutable without any shadow of turning by change, to whom all things are present, nothing past, nothing to come. But T. H. his God is measured by time, losing somthing that is past, and acquiring somthing that doth come every minute. That is as much as to say, That our God is infinite, and his God is finite, for unto that which is actu­ally infinite, nothing can be added neither time nor parts. Hear himself, Nor do I un­derstand what derogation it can be to the di­vine perfection, to attribute to it Potentiali­ty, that is in English, Power (so little doth he understand what Potentiality is) and successive duration. And he chargeth it up­on us as a fault; that will not have eter­nity to be an endless succession of time. How, successive duration, and an endless succession of time in God? Then God is infinite, then God is elder to day than he was yesterday. Away with Blasphemies. Before he de­stroyed the Ubiquity of God, and now he destroyeth his Eternity.

T. H.

I shall omit both here and hence­forth his preambulatory, impertinent, and [Page 22] uncivil calumnies. The thing he pre­tends to prove is this. That it is a deroga­tion to the Divine Power to attribute to it Potentiality (that is in English Power) and Successive Duration. One of his rea­sons is, God is infinite, and nothing can be added to infinite, neither of time nor of parts: It is true. And therefore I said, God is infinite and eternal, without begin­ning or end, either of Time or Place; which he has not here confuted, but con­firmed. He denies Potentiality and Power to be all one, and says I little understand what Potentiality is. He ought therefore in this place to have defined what Poten­ality is: For I understand it to be the same with Potentia, which is in English Power. There is no such word as Potentiality in the Scriptures, nor in any Author of the Latin Tongue. It is found only in School-Divinity, as a word of Art, or rather as a word of Craft, to amaze and puzzle the Laity. And there­fore I no sooner read than intepreted it. In the next place he says, as wondring, How an endless succession of time in God! Why not? Gods mercy endureth for ever, and surely God endureth as long as his mer­cy, therefore there is duration in God, and consequently endless succession of time. God who in sundry times and divers manners spake in time past, &c. But in a former [Page 23] dispute with me about Free-will, he hath defined Eternity to be Nunc stans, that is an ever standing now, or everlasting instant. This he thinks himself bound in honour to defend. What reasonable soul can digest this? We read in Scripture, that a thou­sand years with God, is but as yesterday. And why? but because he sees as clearly to the end of a thousand years, as to the end of a day. But his Lordship affirms, That both a thousand years and a day are but one instant, the same standing Now, or E­ternity. If he had shewed an holy Text for this Doctrine, or any Text of the Book of Common Prayer (in the Scripture and Book of Common Prayer is contained all our Religion) I had yielded to him, but School-Divinity I value little or nothing at all. Though in this he contradict also the School-men, who say the Soul is eternal only à parte post, but God is eternal both à parte post, and à parte ante. Thus there are parts in eternity, and eternity being, as his Lordship says, the divine substance, the divine substance has parts, and Nunc stans has parts. Is not this darkness? I take it to be the Kingdom of Darkness, and the teachers of it, especially of this Doctrine. That God who is not only Op­timus, but also Maximus is no greater than to be wholly contained in the least Atome [Page 24] of earth, or other body, and that his whole duration is but an instant of time, to be either grosly ignorant or ungodly De­ceivers.

J. D.

Our God is a perfect, pure, simple indivisible, infinite Essence; free from all composition of matter and form, of substance and accidents. All matter is finite, and he who acteth by his infinite Essence, needeth neither Organs, nor Faculties (id est, no pow­er, note that) nor accidents, to render him more compleat. But T. H. his God is a divisible God, a compounded God, that hath matter, or qualities, or accidents. Hear himself. I argue thus, The divine substance is indivisible, but eternity is the di­vine substance. The Major is evident, because God is Actus simplicissimus; the Minor is confessed by all men, that whatsoever is attribu­ted to God, is God. Now listen to his an­swer, The Major is so far from being evident, that Actus simplicissimus signifieth nothing. The Minor is said by some men, thought by no man, whatsoever is thought is understood. The Major was this, The divine substance is indivisible. Is this far from being evi­dent? Either it is indivisible or divisible. If it be not indivisible, then it is divisible, then it is materiate, then it is corporeal, then it hath parts, then it is finite by his own confession. Habere partes, aut esse [Page 25] totum aliquid, sunt attributa finitorum. Up­on this silly conceit he chargeth me for saying, That God is not just, but justice it self; not eternal, but eternity it self; which he calleth unseemly words to be said of God. And he thinketh he doth me a great courtesie in not adding Blasphemous and Atheistical. But his Bolts are so soon shot, and his Reasons are such vain Ima­ginations, and such drowsie Phantasies, that no sad man doth much regard them. Thus he hath already destroyed the U­biquity, the Eternity, and the Simpli­city of God. I wish he had consider­ed better with himself, before he had desperately cast himself upon these Rocks.

But paulo majora canamus, my next charge is, That he destroys the very being of God, and leaves nothing in his place, but an empty name. For by taking away all incorporeal substances, he taketh away God himself. The very name (saith he) of an incorporeal substance, is a Contradicti­on. And to say that an Angel or Spirit, is an incorporeal substance, is to say in effect, that there is no Angel or Spirit at all. By the same reason to say, That God is an in­corporeal substance, is to say there is no God at all. Either God is incorporeal, or he is finite, and consists of parts, and con­sequently is no God. This, That there is [Page 26] no incorporeal spirit, is that main root of Atheism, from which so many lesser branches are daily sprouting up.

T. H.

God is indeed a Perfect, Pure, Simple, Infinite Substance; and his Name incommunicable, that is to say, not di­visible into this and that individual God, in such manner as the name of Man is di­visible into Peter and John. And therefore God is individual; which word amongst the Greeks is expressed by the word Indi­visible. Certain Hereticks in the primitive Church, because special and individual are called Particulars, maintained that Christ was a particular God, differing in number from God the Father. And this was the Doctrine that was condemned for Heresy in the first Councel of Nice, by these words, God hath no parts. And yet many of the Latin Fathers in their explications of the Nicene Creed, have expounded the word Consubstantial, by the community of nature, which different Species have in their Genus, and different individuals in the Species, as if Peter and John were Consub­stantial, because they agree in one humane nature; which is contrary (I confess) to the meaning of the Nice Fathers. But that in a substance infinitely great, it should be impossible to consider any thing as not infinite. I do not see it there condemned. [Page 27] For certainly he that thinks God is in every part of the Church, does not exclude him out of the Church-yard. And is not this a considering of him by parts? For di­viding a thing which we cannot reach nor separate one part thereof from another, is nothing else but considering of the same by parts. So much concerning Indivisibi­lity from Natural Reason; for I will wade no farther, but relie upon the Scriptures. God is no where said in the Scriptures to be indivisible, unless his Lordship meant division, to consist only in separation of parts, which I think he did not. St. Paul indeed saith, 1 Cor. 1.13. Is Christ divid­ed? Not that the followers of Paul, Apollo, and Cephas, followed some one part, some another of Christ; but that thinking diffe­rently of his nature, they made as it were different kinds of him. Secondly, his Lord­ship expounds Simplicity, by not being compounded of Matter and Form, or of Substance and Accidents, Unlearnedly. For nothing can be so compounded. The mat­ter of a Chair is Wood, the form is the figure it hath apt for the intended use. Does his Lordship think the Chair compounded of the Wood and the Figure? A man is Rational, does it therefore follow that Reason is a part of the man? It was A­ristotle deceived him, who had told him [Page 28] that a Rational living Creature, is the de­finition of a man, and that the definition of a man was his Essence; and therefore the Bishop and other School-men, from this that the word Rational is a part of these words Man is a Rational living Crea­ture, concluded that the Essence of man, was a part of the man, and a Rational man, the same thing with a Rational Soul. I should wonder how any man, much more a Doctor of Divinity, should be so grosly deceived, but that I know naturally the generality of men speak the words of their Masters by rote, without having any Idea of the things, which the words signifie. Lastly, he calls God an Essence. If he mean by Essence the same with Ens, ( [...]) I approve it. Otherwise, what is Essence? There is no such word in the Old Testa­ment. The Hebrew Language, which has no word answerable to the copulative est, will not bear it. The New Testament hath [...], but never for Essence, nor for Substance, but only for Riches. I come now to his Argument in Mood and Figure, which is this, The Divine Substance is indivisible. That's the Major. Eternity is the Divine Substance. That's the Minor. Ergo, the Divine Substance is indivisible. The Ma­jor, he says, is evident, because God is Actus simplicissimus. The Minor is confessed, [Page 29] he thinks, by all men, because whatsoever is attributed to God, is God. To this I an­swered, that the Major was so far from be­ing evident, that Actus Simplicissimus signifi­eth nothing, and that the Minor was under­stood by no man. First, what is Actus in the Major? does any man understand Actus for a Substance, that is, for a thing subsisting by it self? Is not Actus in English, either an Act, or an Action, or nothing? or is any of these Substances? If it be evident, why did he not explain Actus by a definition? And as to the Minor, though all men in the world understand that the Eternal is God, yet no man can understand that the Eternity is God. Perhaps he and the School-men mean by Actus, the same that they do by Essentia. What is the Essence of a man, but his Humanity? or of God, but his De­ity; of Great, but Greatness; and so of all other denominating Attributes? And the words God and Deity, are of different sig­nification. Damascene a Father of the Church expounding the Nicene Creed de­nies plainly that the Deity was incarnate, but all true Christians hold that God was incarnate. Therefore God and the Deity, signifie divers things; and therefore Eter­nal and Eternity are not the same, no more than a wise man and his wisdom are the same. Nor God and his justice the same [Page 30] thing, and universally 'tis false, that the Attribute in the Abstract is the same with the Substance, to which it is attributed. Also it is universally true of God, that the Attribute in the Concrete, and the sub­stance to which it is attributed, is not the same thing. I come now to his next Pe­riod or Paragraph, wherein he would fain prove, that by denying Incorporeal Sub­stance, I take away Gods Existence. The words he cites here are mine; To say an Angel or Spirit is an Incorporeal Substance, is to say in effect there is no Angel nor Spirit at all. It is true also, that to say that God is an Incorporeal Substance, is to say in effect there is no God at all. What al­ledges he against it, but the School-Divi­nity which I have already answered? Scripture he can bring none, because the word Incorporeal is not found in Scripture. But the Bishop trusting to his Aristotelean and Scholastick Learning hath hitherto made no use of Scripture, save only of these Texts, Who hath planted a Vineyard, and eat­eth not of the fruit thereof; or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock, and Rev. 4.11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they were created; thereby to prove that the right of God to govern and punish mankind [Page 31] is not derived from his Omnipotence. Let us now see how he proves Incorporeity by his own Reason without Scripture. Either God (he saith) is Incorporeal or Finite. He knows I deny both, and say he is Cor­poreal and Infinite, against which he offers no proof, but only (according to his custom of disputing) calls it the root of Atheism; and interrogates me, what re­al thing is left in the world, if God be In­corporeal, but Body and Accidents? I say there is nothing left but Corporeal Sub­stance. For I have denyed (as he knew) that there is any reality in accidents; and nevertheless maintain Gods Existence, and that he is a most pure, and most simple Corporeal Spirit. Here his Lordship catching nothing, removes to the eternity of the Trinity, which these my grounds (he says) destroy. How so? I say the Trinity, and the Persons thereof are that one pure, simple, and eternal Corporeal Spirit; and why does this destroy the Trinity, more than if I had called it Incor­poreal? He labours here and seeketh some­what to refresh himself in the word Person, by the same grounds (he saith) every King has as many Persons as there be Justices of Peace in his Kingdom, and God Al­mighty hath as many Persons as there be Kings, why not? For I never said that all [Page 32] those Kings were that God; and yet God giveth that name to the Kings of the earth. For the signification of the word Person, I shall expound it by and by in another place. Here ends his Lordships School Argument; now let me come with my Scripture Argument. St. Paul concerning Christ, (Col. 2.9.) saith thus, In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily. This place Athanasius a great and zealous Doctor in the Nicene Councel, and vehement ene­my of Arius the Heretick, who allowed Christ to be no otherwise God, then as men of excellent piety were so called, ex­poundeth thus. The fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in him Bodily (Greek [...]) id est [...], id est, Realiter. So there is one Father for Corporality, and that God was in Christ in such manner as Body is in Body. Again, there were in the primitive Church a sort of Hereticks who maintained that Jesus Christ had not a true real Body, but was onely a Phantasm or Spright, such as the Latins called Spectra. Against the head of this Sect (whose name I think was Apelles) Tertullian wrote a Book, now ex­tant amongst his other Works, intituled De Carne Christi, wherein after he had spo­ken of the nature of Phantasms, and shewed that they had nothing of reality in them, he concludeth with these words, [Page 33] whatsoever is not Body, is Nothing. So here is on my side a plain Text of Scripture, and two ancient and learned Fathers, nor was this Doctrine of Tertullian condemned in the Council of Nice; but the division of the Divine Substance into God the Fa­ther, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost. For these words, God has no parts, were added, for explication of the word Consubstantial, at the request of the dissent­ing Fathers, and are farther explained both in Athanasius his Creed, in these words, not three Gods but one God, and by the constant Attribute ever since of the In­dividual Trinity. The same words never­theless do condemn the Anthropomorphites also: For though there appeared no Chri­stians that professed that God had an Orga­nical Body, and consequently that the Per­sons were three Individuals, yet the Gen­tiles were all Anthropomorphites and there condemned by those words, God has no parts.

And thus I have answered his accusation concerning the Eternity and Existence of the Divine Substance, and made appear that in truth, the question between us, is whether God be a Phantasme (id est, an I­dol of the Fancy, which St. Paul saith is no­thing) or a Corporeal Spirit, that is to say, something that has Magnitude.

[Page 34]In this place I think it not amiss, leaving for a little while this Theological dispute, to examine the signification of those words which have occasioned so much diversity of opinion in this kind of Doctrine.

The word Substance, in Greek Hypostasis, Hypostan, Hypostamenon signifie the same thing, namely, a Ground, a Base, any thing that has Existence or Subsistence in it self, any thing that upholdeth that which else would fall, in which sence God is properly the Hypostasis, Base, and Sub­stance that upholdeth all the world, hav­ing Subsistence not only in himself, but from himself; whereas other Substances have their subsistence only in themselves, not from themselves. But Metaphorically, Faith is called a Substance, Heb. 11.1. be­cause it is the foundation or Base of our Hope; for Faith failing our Hope falls. And 2 Cor. 9.4. St. Paul having boasted of the liberal promise of the Corinthians to­wards the Macedonians, calls that promise the ground, the Hypostasis of that his boasting. And Heb. 1.3. Christ is called the Image of the Substance (the Hyposta­sis) of his Father, and for the proper and adequate signification of the word Hypo­stasis, the Greek Fathers did always oppose it to Apparition or Phantasme; as when a man seeth his face in the water, his real [Page 35] face is called the Hypostasis of the phanta­stick face in the water. So also in speak­ing, the thing understood or named, is called Hypostasis, in respect of the name, so also a Body coloured is the Hypostasis, Substance and Subject of the colour; and in like manner of all its other Accidents. Es­sence and all other abstract names are words artificial belonging to the Art of Logick, and signifies only the manner how we consider the Substance it self. And of this I have spo­ken sufficiently in Pag. 371.372. of my Leviathan. Body [Lat.] Corpus [Grae.] [...], is that Substance which hath Magni­tude indeterminate, and is the same with Corporeal Substance; but A Body is that which hath Magnitude determinate, and consequently is understood to be totum or integrum aliquid. Pure and Simple Body, is Body of one and the same kind, in every part throughout, and if mingled with Bo­dy of another kind, though the total be compounded or mixt, the parts neverthe­less retain their simplicity, as when water and wine are mixt, the parts of both kinds retain their simplicity. For water and wine cannot both be in one and the same place at once.

Matter is the same with Body; But ne­ver without respect to a Body which is made thereof. Form is the aggregate of [Page 36] all Accidents together, for which, we give the Matter a new name; so Albedo, whiteness is the Form of Album, or white Body. So also Humanity is the Essence of man, and Deity the Essence of Deus.

Spirit is Thin, Fluid, Transparent, Invi­sible Body. The word in Latin signifies Breath, Aire, Wind and the like. In Greek [...] from [...], Spiro, Flo.

I have seen, and so have many more two waters, one of the River, the other a Mineral Water, so like, that no man could discern the one from the other by his sight; yet when they have been both put together, the whole substance could not by the eye be distinguished from milk. Yet we know that the one was not mixt with the other, so as every part of the one to be in every part of the other, for that is im­possible, unless two Bodies can be in the the same place. How then could the change be made in every part, but only by the Activity of the Mineral water, chang­ing it every where to the Sense, and yet not being every where and in every part of the water? If then such gross Bodies have so great Activity, what shall we think of Spirits, whose kinds be as many as there be kinds of Liquor, and Activity greater? Can it then be doubted, but that God, who is an infinitely fine Spirit and withall [Page 37] intelligent, can make and change all species and kinds of Body as he pleaseth; but I dare not say, that this is the way by which God Almighty worketh, because it is past my ap­prehension, yet it serves very well to demon­strate, that the Omnipotence of God impli­eth no contradiction; and is better than by pretence of magnifying the fineness of the divine Substance, to reduce it to a Spright or Phantasm, which is Nothing.

A Person, [Lat.] Persona, signifies an in­telligent Substance, that acteth any thing in his own or anothers Name, or by his own or anothers Authority. Of this Definition there can be no other proof than from the use of that word, in such Latin Authors as were esteem'd the most skilful in their own Lan­guage, of which number was Cicero. But Cicero, in an Epistle to Atticus, saith thus, Vnus sustineo tres Personas, Mei, Adversarii, & Judicis: That is, I that am but one man, sustain three Persons; mine own Person, the Person of my Adversary, and the Person of the Judge. Cicero was here the Substance in­telligent, one man; and because he pleaded for himself, he calls himself, his own Person; and again, because he pleaded for his Adver­sary, he says, he sustained the Person of his Adversary; and lastly, because he himself gave the Sentence, he says, he sustained the Person of the Judge. In the same sence we [Page 38] use the word in English vulgarly, calling him that acteth by his own Authority, his own Person, and him that acteth by the Au­thority of another, the Person of that other. And thus we have the exact meaning of the word Person. The Greek Tongue cannot render it; for [...] is properly a Face, and Metaphorically, a Vizard of an Actor upon the Stage. How then did the Greek Fathers render the word Person, as it is in the blessed Trinity? Not well. Instead of the word Person they put Hypostasis, which sig­nifies Substance, from whence it might be inferr'd, that the three Persons in the Trini­ty are three divine Substances, that is, three Gods. The word [...], they could not use, because Face and Vizard are neither of them honourable Attributes of God, nor explicative of the meaning of the Greek Church. Therefore the Latin (and conse­quently the English) Church renders Hypo­stasis every where in Athanasius his Creed by Person. But the word Hypostatical Vnion is rightly retained and used by Divines, as be­ing the Union of two Hypostases, that is, of two Substances or Natures in the Person of Christ. But seeing they also hold the Soul of our Saviour to be a Substance, which though separated from his Body, subsisted neverthe­less in it self, and consequently before it was separated from his Body upon the Cross, [Page 39] was a distinct Nature from his Body, how will they avoid this Objection, That then Christ had three Natures, three Hypostases, without granting, that his Resurrection was a new vivification, and not a return of his Soul out of Heaven into the Grave? The con­trary is not determined by the Church. Thus far in explication of the words that occur in this Controversie. Now I return again to his Lordship's Discourse.

J. D.

When they have taken away all incorporeal Spirits, what do they leave God himself to be? He who is the Fountain of all Being, from whom and in whom all Crea­tures have their Being, must needs have a re­al Being of his own. And what real Being can God have among Bodies and Accidents? for they have left nothing else in the Uni­verse. Then T. H. may move the same Que­stion of God, which he did of Devils. I would gladly know in what Classis of Entities, the Bishop ranketh God? Infinite Being and participated Being are not of the same na­ture. Yet to speak according to humane ap­prehension, (apprehension and comprehensi­on differ much: T. H. confesseth that natu­ral Reason doth dictate to us, that God is In­finite, yet natural Reason cannot compre­hend the Infiniteness of God) I place him among incorporeal Substances or Spirits, be­cause he hath been pleased to place himself in [Page 40] that rank, God is a Spirit. Of which place T. H. giveth his opinion, that it is unintelli­gible, and all others of the same nature, and fall not under humane understanding.

They who deny all incorporeal Substances, can understand nothing by God, but either Nature, (not Naturam naturantem, that is, a real Author of Nature, but Naturam natu­ratam, that is, the orderly concourse of na­tural Causes, as T. H. seemeth to intimate) or a fiction of the Brain, without real Being, cherished for advantage and politick Ends, as a profitable Error, howsoever dignified with the glorious title of the eternal Cause of all things.

T. H.

To his Lordship's Question here, What I leave God to be, I answer, I leave him to be a most pure, simple, invisible Spi­rit Corporeal. By Corporeal I mean a Sub­stance that has Magnitude, and so mean all learned men, Divines and others, though perhaps there be some common people so rude as to call nothing Body, but what they can see and feel. To his second Question, What real Being he can have amongst Bodies and Accidents, I answer, The Being of a Spi­rit, not of a Spright. If I should ask any the most subtil Distinguisher, what middle na­ture there were between an infinitely subtil Substance, and a meer Thought or Phantasm, by what Name could he call it? He might [Page 41] call it perhaps an Incorporeal Substance, and so Incorporeal shall pass for a middle nature between Infinitely subtil and Nothing, and be less subtil than Infinitely subtil, and yet more subtil than a thought. 'Tis granted (he says) that the Nature of God is incomprehensible. Doth it therefore follow, that we may give to the divine Substance what negative Name we please? Because he says, the whole di­vine Substance is here and there and every where throughout the World, and that the Soul of a man is here and there and every where throughout man's Body, must we therefore take it for a Mystery of Christian Religion, upon his or any Schoolman's word, without the Scripture, which calls nothing a Mystery but the Incarnation of the eternal God? Or is Incorporeal a Mystery, when not at all mentioned in the Bible, but to the contrary 'tis written, That the fulness of the Deity was bodily in Christ? When the na­ture of the thing is incomprehensible, I can acquiesce in the Scripture, but when the sig­nification of words are incomprehensible, I cannot acquiesce in the Authority of a School­man.

J. D.

We have seen what his Principles are concerning the Deity, they are full as bad or worse concerning the Trinity. Hear him­self. A person is he that is represented as often as he is represented. And therefore God who [Page 42] has been represented, that is, personated thrice, may properly enough be said to be three Persons, though neither the word Person nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible. And a little af­ter, To conclude, the doctrine of the Trinity as far as can be gathered directly from the Scri­pture, is in substance this, that the God who is always one and the same, was the Person repre­sented by Moses, the Person represented by his Son incarnate, and the Person represented by the Apostles. As represented by the Apostles, the holy Spirit by which they spake is God. As represented by his Son that was God and Man, the Son is that God. As represented by Moses, and the High Priests, the Father, that is to say, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that God. From whence we may gather the reason why those Names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the signification of the Godhead, are never used in the Old Testament. For they are Persons, that is, they have their Names from representing, which could not be, till divers Persons had represented God, in ruling or in directing under him.

Who is so bold as blind Bayard? The Emblem of a little Boy attempting to lade all the Water out of the Sea with a Cockle-shell, doth fit T. H. as exactly as if it had been sha­ped for him, who thinketh to measure the profound and inscrutable Mysteries of Reli­gion, by his own silly, shallow conceits. What [Page 43] is now become of the great adorable Myste­ry of the blessed undivided Trinity? It is shrunk into nothing? Upon his grounds there was a time when there was no Trinity. And we must blot these words out of our Creed, The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And these other words out of our Bibles, Let us make man after our Image. Unless we mean that this was a consultation of God with Moses and the Apostles. What is now become of the eternal generation of the Son of God, if this Sonship did not begin until about 4000 years after the Creation were expired? Upon these grounds every King hath as many Persons, as there be Justices of Peace, and petty Con­stables in his Kingdom. Upon this account God Almighty hath as many Persons, as there have been Soveraign Princes in the World since Adam. According to this reckoning each one of us like so many Geryons, may have as many Persons as we please to make Procurations. Such bold presumption requi­reth another manner of confutation.

T. H.

As for the words recited, I con­fess there is a fault in the Ratiocination, which nevertheless his Lordship hath not discovered, but no Impiety. All that he objecteth is, That it followeth hereupon, that there be as many Persons of a King, as there be petty Constables in his Kingdom. And so there [Page 44] are, or else he cannot be obeyed. But I ne­ver said that a King, and every one of his Persons are the same Substance. The fault I here made, and saw not was this; I was to prove, That it is no contradiction (as Luci­an, and Heathen Scoffers would have it) to say of God, he was One and Three. I saw the true definition of the word Person would serve my turn in this manner; God in his own Person both created the World, and in­stituted a Church in Israel, using therein the Ministry of Moses; the same God in the Per­son of his Son God and Man redeemed the same World, and the same Church; the same God in the Person of the Holy Ghost sancti­fied the same Church, and all the faithful men in the World. Is not this a clear proof, that it is no contradiction to say that God is three Persons and one Substance? And doth not the Church distinguish the Persons in the same manner? See the words of our Cate­chism. Quest. What dost thou chiefly learn in these Articles of thy Belief? Answ. First, I learn to believe in God the Father, that hath made me and all the World; Secondly, In God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all Mankind; Thirdly, In God the Holy Ghost, that hath sanctified me and all the elect people of God▪ But at what time was the Church sanctified? Was it not on the day of Pentecost, in the descending of the Holy [Page 45] Ghost upon the Apostles? His Lordship all this while hath catched nothing. 'Tis I that catched my self, for saying, (instead of, By the Ministry of Moses) in the Person of Mo­ses. But this Error I no sooner saw, then I no less publickly corrected then I had com­mitted it, in my Leviathan converted into Latin, which by this time I think is printed beyond the Seas with this alteration, and also with the omission of some such passages as Strangers are not concerned in. And I had corrected this Error sooner, if I had sooner found it. For though I was told by Dr. Co­sins, now Bishop of Duresme, that the place above-cited was not applicable enough to the Doctrine of the Trinity, yet I could not in reviewing the same espy the defect till of late, when being sollicited from beyond Sea to translate the Book into Latin, and fearing some other man might do it not to my liking, I examined this passage and others of the like sence more narrowly. But how concludes his Lordship out of this, that I put out of the Creed these words, The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal? Or these words, Let us make man after our Image, out of the Bible. Which last words neither I nor Bellarmine put out of the Bible, but we both put them out of the number of good Arguments to prove the Trinity; for it is no unusual thing in the Hebrew, as may be [Page 46] seen by Bellarmine's quotations, to joyn a Noun of the plural Number with a Verb of the singular. And we may say also of many other Texts of Scripture alledged to prove the Trinity, that they are not so firm as that high Article requireth. But mark his Lord­ship's Scholastick charity in the last words of this period, Such bold presumption requireth another manner of confutation. This Bishop, and others of his opinion had been in their Element, if they had been Bishops in Queen Maries time.

J. D.

Concerning God the Son, forget­ting what he had said elsewhere, where he calleth him God and Man, and the Son of God incarnate, he doubteth not to say, that the word Hypostatical is canting. As if the same Person could be both God and Man without a Personal, that is, an Hypostatical Union of the two Natures of God and Man.

T. H.

If Christian Profession be (as cer­tainly it is in England) a Law, and if it be of the nature of a Law to be made known to all men that are to obey it, in such manner as they may have no excuse for disobedience from their ignorance, then without doubt all words unknown to the people, and as to them insignificant, are Canting. The word Substance is understood by the Vulgar well enough, when it is said of a Body, but in [Page 47] other sence not at all, except for their Riches. But the word Hypostatical is understood only by those, and but few of those that are lear­ned in the Greek Tongue, and is properly used, as I have said before, of the Union of the two Natures of Christ in one Person. So likewise Consubstantial in the Nicene Creed, is properly said of the Trinity. But to an English man that understands neither Greek nor Latin, and yet is as much concerned as his Lordship was, the word Hypostatical is no less Canting than Eternal now.

J. D.

He alloweth every man who is commanded by his lawful Soveraign, to deny Christ with his tongue before men.

T. H.

I allow it in some Cases, and to some men, which his Lordship knew well enough, but would not mention. I alled­ged for it, in the place cited, both Reason and Scripture, though his Lordship thought it not expedient to take notice of either. If it be true that I have said, why does he blame it? If false, why offers he no Argu­ment against it, neither from Scripture nor from Reason? Or why does he not show that the Text I cite is not applicable to the Question, or not well interpreted by me. First, He barely cites it, because he thought the words would sound harshly, and make a Reader admire them for Impiety. But I hope I shall so well instruct my Reader ere I leave [Page 48] this place, that this his petty Art will have no effect. Secondly, The Cause why he omitted my Arguments was, That he could not answer them. Lastly, The Cause why he urgeth neither Scripture nor Reason a­gainst it was, That he saw none sufficient. My Argument from Scripture was this, (Le­viathan, pag. 271.) taken out of 2 Kings 5.17. where Naaman the Syrian saith to Elisha the Prophet, Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other Gods, but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my Ma­ster goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow my self in the house of Rimmon: when I bow my self in the house of Rimmon, the Lord par­don thy servant in this thing, and he said unto him, Go in peace. What can be said to this? Did not Elisha say it from God? Or is not this Answer of the Prophet a permission? When St. Paul and St. Peter commanded the Christians of their time to obey their Princes, which then were Heathens and Enemies of Christ, did they mean they should lose their Lives for disobedience? Did they not rather mean they should preserve both their Lives and their Faith, (believing in Christ as they did) by this denial of the tongue, having no command to the contrary? If in this King­dom a Mahometan should be made by terror [Page 49] to deny Mahomet and go to Church with us, would any man condemn this Mahome­tan? A denyal with the mouth may perhaps be prejudicial to the power of the Church, but to retain the Faith of Christ stedfastly in his Heart, cannot be prejudicial to his Soul that hath undertaken no charge to Preach to Wolves, whom they know will destroy them. About the time of the Coun­cil of Nice, there was a Canon made (which is extant in the History of the Nicene Coun­cil) concerning those that being Christians had been seduced, not terrified, to a deny­al of Christ, and again repenting, desired to be readmitted into the Church; in which Canon it was ordain'd that those men should be no otherwise readmitted than to be in the number of the Catechised, and not to be admitted to the Communion till a great many years penitence. Surely the Church then would have been more merciful to them that did the same upon terror of present death and torments.

Let us now see what his Lordship might, though but colourably, have alledged from Scripture against it. There be three Places only that seem to favour his Lordship's opi­nion. The first is where Peter denyed Christ, and Weepeth. The second is, Acts 5.29. Then Peter and the other Apostles an­swered and said, we ought to obey God rather [Page 50] than men. The third is, Luke 12.9. But he that denyeth me, shall be denyed before the Angels of God.

T. H.

For answer to these Texts, I must repeat what I have written, and his Lord­ship read in my Leviathan, pag. 362. For an unlearned man that is in the power of an Ido­latrous King, or State, if commanded on pain of Death to worship before an Idol, do­ing it, he detesteth the Idol in his Heart, he doth well; though if he had the fortitude to suffer Death, rather than worship it, he should do better. But if a Pastor, who as Christ's Messenger has undertaken to teach Christ's Doctrine to all Nations should do the same, it were not only a sinful Scandal in respect of other Christian Mens Consciences, but a perfi­dious forsaking of his Charge. In which words I distinguish between a Pastor and one of the Sheep of his Flock. St. Peter sinned in denying Christ; and so does every Pastor that having undertaken the Charge of Preaching the Gospel in the Kingdom of an Infidel, where he could expect at the undertaking of his Charge no less than Death. And why, but because he violates his Trust in doing contrary to his Commis­sion. St. Peter was an Apostle of Christ, and bound by his voluntary undertaking of that Office, not only to Confess Christ, but also to Preach him before those Infidels whom he [Page 51] knew would (like Wolves) devour him. And therefore when Paul and the rest of the Apostles were forbidden to preach Christ they gave this Answer, We ought to obey God rather than Men. And it was to his Disciples only which had undertaken that Office, that Christ saith, he that denyeth me before Men, shall be denyed before the Angels of God. And so I think I have sufficiently answered this place, and shewed that I do not allow the denying of Christ, upon a­ny colour of Torments, to his Lordship, nor to any other that has undertaken the Office of a Preacher. Which if he think right, he will perhaps in this case put himself into the number of those whom he calls merciful Doctors, whereas now he extends his seve­rity beyond the bounds of common equi­ty. He has read Cicero, and perhaps this Story in him. The Senate of Rome would have sent Cicero to treat of Peace with Mar­cus Antonius, but when Cicero had shewed them the just fear he had of being killed by him, he was excused; and if they had forced him to it, and he by terror turned Enemy to them, he had in equity been ex­cusable. But his Lordship I believe did write this more valiantly than he would have acted it.

J. D.
[Page 52]

He Deposeth Christ from his true Kingly Office, making his Kingdom not to Commence or begin before the day of Judg­ment. And the Regiment wherewith Christ Governeth his Faithful in this Life, is not properly a Kingdom, but a Pastoral Office, or a right to Teach. And a little after, Christ had not Kingly Authority committed to him by his Father in this World, but only Con­siliary and Doctrinal.

T. H.

How do I take away Christs King­ly Office? He neither draws it by Conse­quence from my Words, nor offers any Ar­gument at all against my Doctrine. The words he cites are in the Contents of Chap. 17. de Cive. In the Body of the Chapter it is thus. The time of Christ's being upon the Earth is called in Scripture the Regene­ration often, but the Kingdom never. When the Son of God comes in Majesty, and all the Angels with him, then he shall sit on the seat of Majesty. My Kingdom is not of this World. God sent not his Son that he should Judge the World. I came not to Judge the World, but to save the World. Man, who made me a Judge or Divider amongst you? Let thy King­dom come. And other words to the same purpose; out of which it is clear that Christ took upon him no Regal Power upon Earth before his Assumption. But at his Assum­ption his Apostles asked him if he would [Page 53] then restore the Kingdom to Israel, and he Answered, it was not for them to know. So that hitherto Christ had not taken that Of­fice upon him, unless his Lordship think that the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Christ be two distinct Kingdoms. From the Assumption ever since, all true Christians say daily in their Prayers, Thy Kingdom come. But his Lordship had perhaps forgot that. But when then beginneth Christ to be a King? I say it shall be then when he comes again in Majesty with all the Angels. And even then he shall Reign (as he is Man) un­der his Father. For St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 15.25, 26. He must Raign till he hath put all E­nemies under his feet; the last Enemy that shall be destroyed is Death. But when shall God the Father Raign again? St. Paul saith in the same Chapter verse 28. When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. And verse 24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God even the Father; when he shall have put down all Rule, Authority and Power. This is at the Resurrection. And by this it is manifest, that his Lordship was not so well versed in Scripture, as he ought to have been.

J. D.
[Page 54]

He taketh away his Priestly or Propitiatory Office; And although this Act of our Redemption be not alwayes in Scripture called a Sacrifice and Oblation, but sometimes a Price, yet by Price we are not to under­stand any thing, by the value whereof he could claim right to a Pardon for us from his Of­fended Father, but that Price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand. And again, Not that the Death of one Man, though without sin, can satisfie for the Offences of all Men in the rigour of Justice, but in the mercy of God, that ordained such Sacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in mercy to accept. He knoweth no difference between one who is meer man, and one who was both God and man; between a Levitical Sacri­fice, and the All-sufficient Sacrifice of the Cross; between the Blood of a Calf, and the precious Blood of the Son of God.

T. H.

Yes, I know there is a difference between Blood and Blood, but not any such as can make a difference in the Case here questioned. Our Saviour's Blood was most precious, but still it was Humane Blood; and I hope his Lordship did never think otherwise, or that it was not accepted by his Father for our Redemption.

J. D.

And touching the Prophetical Office of Christ, I do much doubt whether he do believe in earnest, that there is any [Page 55] such thing as Prophecy in the World. He maketh very little difference between a Prophet and a Mad-man, and a Demoniack. And if there were nothing else (says he) that bewrayed their madness, yet that very arroga­ting such inspiration to themselves, is Argu­ment enough. He maketh the pretence of Inspiration in any man to be, and always to have been, on opinion pernicious to Peace, and tending to the dissolution of all Civil Go­vernment. He subjecteth all Prophetical Re­velations from God, to the sole Pleasure and Censure of the Soveraign Prince, ei­ther to Authorize them, or to Exauctorate them. So as two Prophets prophecying the same thing at the same time, in the Do­minions of two different Princes, the one shall be a true Prophet, the other a false. And Christ who had the approbation of no Soveraign Prince, upon his grounds, was to be reputed a false Prophet every where. Every man therefore ought to consi­der who is the Soveraign Prophet, that is to say, who it is that is Gods Vicegerent upon Earth, and hath next under God the Autho­rity of governing Christian Men, and to ob­serve for a Rule that Doctrine which in the Name of God he hath Commanded to be taught, and thereby to examine and try out the truth of those Doctrines which pretended Prophets, with miracle, or without, shall at a­ny [Page 56] time advance, &c. And if he disavow them then no more to obey their Voice; or if he Ap­prove them, then to obey them as Men, to whom God hath given a part of the Spirit of their Soveraign. Upon his Principles the case holdeth as well among Jews and Turks and Heathens, as Christians. Then he that Teacheth Transubstantiation in France, is a true Prophet; he that Teacheth it in Eng­land, a false Prophet. He that Blasphemeth Christ in Constantinople, a true Prophet; he that doth the same in Italy, a false Pro­phet. Then Samuel was a false Prophet to Contest with Saul a Soveraign Prophet: So was the Man of God who submitted not to the more Divine and Prophetick Spirit of Jeroboam. And Elijah for Reproving Ahab. Then Michaiah had but his deserts, to be clapt up in Prison, and fed with Bread of Affliction, and Water of Affliction, for da­ring to Contradict God's Vice-gerent upon Earth. And Jeremiah was justly thrown into a Dungeon, for Prophecying against Zedekiah his Liege Lord. If his Principles were true, it were strange indeed, that none of all these Princes, nor any other that e­ver was in the World, should understand their own Priviledges. And yet more strange, that God Almighty should take the part of such Rebellious Prophets, and justifie their Prophesies by the Event, if it [Page 57] were true that none but the Soveraign in a Christian (the Reason is the same for Jew­ish) Commonwealth can take notice, what is or what is not the Word of God.

T. H.

To remove his Lordships doubt in the first place, I confess there was true Prophesie and true Prophets in the Church of God, from Abraham down to our Savi­our the greatest Prophet of all, and the last of the Old Testament, and first of the New. After our Saviour's time, till the Death of St. John the Apostle, there were true Pro­phets in the Church of Christ, Prophets to whom God spake Supernaturally, and Te­stified the truth of their Mission by Mira­cles. Of those that in the Scripture are cal­led Prophets without Miracles, and for this cause only, that they spake in the Name of God to Men, and in the name of Men to God, there are, have been, and shall be in the Church Innumerable. Such a Prophet was his Lordship, and such are all Pastors in the Christian Church. But the Question here is of those Prophets that from the Mouth of God foretell things Future, or do other Miracle. Of this kind I deny there has been any since the Death of St. John the Evangelist. If any Man find fault with this, he ought to Name some Man or other whom we are bound to acknowledge that they have done a Miracle, cast out a De­vil, [Page 58] or cured any Disease by the sole Invo­cation of the Divine Majesty. We are not bound to trust to the Legend of the Roman Saints, nor to the History written by Sul­pitius of the Life of St. Martin, or to any other Fables of the Roman Clergy, nor to such things as were pretended to be done by some Divines here in the time of King James. Secondly, he says I make little dif­ference between a Prophet and a Mad-man, or Demoniack; To which I say he accuses me falsly. I say only thus much, That I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requi­reth a belief, that Demoniacks were any other thing than Madmen. And this is also made very probable out of Scripture by a worthy Divine Mr. Meade. But concerning Pro­phets, I say only that the Jews both under the Old Testament and under the New, took them to be all one with Mad-men and Demoniacks. And prove it out of Scripture by many places both of the Old and New Testament. Thirdly, that the pretence or arrogating to ones self Divine Inspiration, is argument enough to shew a Man is Mad, is my opinion; but his Lordship understands not Inspiration in the same sence that I do. He understands it properly of God's breath­ing into a Man, or pouring into him the Divine Substance, or Divine Graces, and in that sence, he that arrogateth Inspiration [Page 59] into himself, neither understands what he saith, nor makes others to understand him, which is properly Madness in some degree. But I understand Inspiration in the Scripture Metaphorically, for Gods guidance of our minds to Truth and Piety. Fourthly, where­as he says, I make the pretence of Inspirati­on to be pernicious to Peace. I answer, that I think his Lordship was of my Opini­on, for he called those Men which in the late Civil War pretended the Spirit, and New Light, and to be the only faithful men Phanaticks; for he called them in his Book, and did call them in his Life time Phana­ticks. And what is a Phanatick but a Mad­man, and what can be more pernicious to Peace than the Revelations that were by these Phanaticks pretended? I do not say there were Doctrines of other Men, not called Phanaticks as pernicious to Peace, as theirs were, and in great part a cause of those troubles. Fifthly, from that I make Prophetical Revelations subject to the examination of the Lawful Soveraign, he inferreth, that two Prophets prophecy­ing the same thing at the same time, in the Dominions of two different Princes, the one shall be a true Prophet, the o­ther a false. This consequence is not good, for seeing they teach different Doctrines, they cannot both of them confirm their [Page 60] Doctrine with Miracles. But this I prove (in the page 232 he citeth) that, whether either of their Doctrines shall be Taught Publickly or not, 'tis in the power of the Soveraign of the Place only to determine. Nay, I say now further, if a Prophet come to any private Man in the Name of God, that Man shall be Judge whether he be a true Prophet or not, before he obey him. See 1 John 4.1. Sixthly, whereas he says, that upon my grounds Christ was to be re­puted a false Prophet every where, because his Doctrine was received no where. His Lordship had Read my Book more negli­gently than was fit for one that would con­fute it. My ground is this, that Christ in right of his Father was King of the Jews, and consequently Supream Prophet, and Judge of all Prophets. What other Prin­ces thought of his Prophesies, is nothing to the purpose. I never said that Princes can make Doctrines or Prophesies true or false, but I say every Soveraign Prince has a right to prohibite the publick Teaching of them, whether false or true. But what an over­sight is it in a Divine to say, that Christ had the Approbation of no Soveraign Prince, when he had the Approbation of God, who was King of the Jews, and Christ his Vice-Roy, and the whole Scripture Written (Joh. 20.31.) to prove it? When his Miracles de­clared [Page 61] it; when Pilate confessed it; and when the Apostles Office was to Proclaim it? Seventhly, If we must not consider in points of Christian Faith who is the Soveraign Pro­phet, that is, who is next under Christ our Supream Head and Governor, I wish his Lordship would have cleared, ere he dy­ed, these few Questions, Is there not need of some Judge of Controverted Doctrines? I think no man can deny it, that has seen the Rebellion that followed the Controver­sie here between Gomar and Arminius. There must therefore be a Judge of Doctrines. But (says the Bishop) not the King. Who then? Shall Dr. Bramhall be this Judge? As profitable an Office as it is, he was more mo­dest than to say that. Shall a private Lay­man have it? No man ever thought that. Shall it be given to a Presbyterian Minister? No; 'tis unreasonable. Shall a Synod of Pres­byterians have it? No; For most of the Presbyters in the Primitive Church were undoubtedly subordinate to Bishops, and the rest were Bishops. Who then? A Synod of Bishops? Very well. His Lordship be­ing too Modest to undertake the whole Power, would have been contented with the six and twentieth part. But suppose it in a Synod of Bishops, who shall call them toge­ther? The King. What if he will not? Who should Excommunicate him, or if he [Page 62] despise your Excommunication, who shall send forth a Writ of Significavit? No; all this was far from his Lordships thoughts. The power of the Clergy, unless it be up­held legally by the King, or illegally by the Multitude amounts to nothing. But for the Multitude, Suarez and the School-men will never gain them, because they are not understood. Besides there be very few Bi­shops that can act a Sermon (which is a pu­issant part of Rhetorick) So well as divers Presbyterians, and Phanatick Preachers can do. I conclude therefore, that his Lordship could not possibly believe that the Supream Judicature in matter of Religion could any where be so well placed as in the Head of the Church, which is the King. And so his Lordship and I think the same thing; but because his Lordship knew not how to de­duce it, he was angry with me because I did it. He says further that by my Principles, he that blasphemeth Christ at Constantinople is a true Prophet, as if a man that blasphemeth Christ, to approve his Blasphemy can pro­cure a Miracle; for by my principles no Man is a Prophet whose Prophesie is not confirm­ed by God with a Miracle. In the last place out of this, That the lawful Soveraign is the Judge of Prophesie, he deduces That then Samuel and other Prophets were false Pro­phets that contested with their Soveraigns. [Page 63] As for Samuel he was at that time the Judge, that is to say the Soveraign Prince in Israel, and so acknowledged by Saul. For Saul received the Kingdom (from God himself, who had right to give and take it) by the hands of Samuel. And God gave it him to himself only, and not to his Seed; though if he had obeyed God, he would have setled it also upon his Seed. The Commande­ment of God was, that he should not spare Agag. Saul obeyed not. God therefore sent Samuel to tell him that he was rejected. For all this Samuel went not about to resist Saul. That he caused Agag to be slain, was with Sauls consent. Lastly, Saul confesses his sin. Where is this contesting with Saul? After this God sent Samuel to anoint David, not that he should depose Saul, but succeed him, the Sons of Saul having never had a right of Succession. Nor did ever David make War on Saul, or so much as resist him, but fled from his persecution. But when Saul was dead, then indeed he claim­ed his right against the House of Saul. What Rebellion or Resistance could his Lordship find here, either in Samuel or in David? Be­sides, all these Transactions are supernatural, and oblige not to imitation. Is there any Prophet or Priest now that can set up in England, Scotland or Ireland, another King by pretence of Prophesie or Religion? What [Page 64] did Jeroboam to the man of God 1 Kings 13) that Prophesied against the Altar in Bethel, without first doing a Miracle, but offer to seize him for speaking (as he thought) rashly of the Kings Act; and after the Mira­culous withering of his Hand, desire the Pro­phet to pray for him? The sin of Jeroboam was not his distrust of the Prophet, but his Idolatry. He was the sole Judge of the truth which the man of God uttered against the Altar, and the process agreeable to equi­ty. What is the story of Eliah and Ahab (1 Kings 18.) but a confirmation of the Right, even of Ahab to be the Judge of Prophesie? Eliah told Ahab, he had trans­gressed the Commandement of God. So may any Minister now tell his Soveraign, so he do it with sincerity and discretion. Ahab told Eliah he troubled Israel. Upon this controversie Eliah desired Tryal. Send, saith he, and Assemble all Israel; Assemble also the Prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty. Ahab did so. The Question is stated before the People thus, If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal follow him. Then upon the Altars of God and Baal were laid the Wood and the Bullocks; and the cause was to be Judged by Fire from Heaven, to Burn the Sacrifices; which Eliah procured, the Prophets of Baal could not procure. Was not this cause here Pleaded before A­hab? [Page 65] The Sentence of Ahab is not requi­red; for Eliah from that time forward was no more persecuted by Ahab, but only by his Wife Jezabel. The story of Micaiah (2 Cron. 18.) is this, Ahab King of Israel con­sulted the Prophets, four hundred in num­ber, whether he should prosper or not, in case he went with Jehosaphat King of Ju­dah to fight against the Syrians at Ramoth­gilead. The Prophet Micaiah was also cal­led, and both the Kings Ahab and Jehosa­phat sat together to hear what they should prophecy. There was no Miracle done. The 400 pronounced Victory, Micaiah a­lone the contrary. The King was Judge, and most concern'd in the event; nor had he received any Revelation in the business. What could he do more discreetly than to follow the Counsel of 400 rather than of one Man? But the event was contrary; for he was slain; but not for following the Counsel of the 400, but for his Murder of Naboth and his Idolatry. It was also a sin in him, that he afflicted Micaiah in Prison; but an unjust Judgment does not take away from any King his right of Judicature. Be­sides, what's all this, or that of Jeremiah, which he cites last, to the Question of who is Judge of Christian Doctrine?

J. D.
[Page 66]

Neither doth he use God the Ho­ly Ghost, more favourably than God the Son. Where St. Peter saith, Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; He saith, By the Spirit, is meant the Voice of God in a Dream or Vision Superna­tural, which Dreams or Visions, he maketh to be no more than imaginations which they had in their sleep, or in an extasie, which in every true Prophet were Supernatural, but in false Prophets were either natural or feigned, and more likely to be false than true. To say God hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more than to say, he dreamed that God spake to him, &c. To say he hath seen a Vision or heard a Voice, is to say, That he hath dream­ed between sleeping and waking. So St. Pe­ter's Holy Ghost is come to be their own imaginations, which might be either feigned, or mistaken, or true. As if the Holy Ghost did enter only at their eyes, and at their ears, not into their understandings, nor in­to their minds; Or as if the Holy Ghost did not seal unto their hearts the truth and assurance of their Prophesies. Whether a new light be infused into their understand­ings, or new graces be inspired into their heart, they are wrought, or caused, or crea­ted immediately by the Holy Ghost, And so are his imaginations, if they be Superna­tural.

T. H.
[Page 67]

For the places of my Leviathan he cites, they are all as they stand both true and clearly proved; the setting of them down by Fragments is no Refutation; nor offers he any Argument against them. His conse­quences are not deduced. I never said that the Holy Ghost was an Imagination, or a Dream, or a Vision, but that the Holy Ghost spake most often in the Scripture by Dreams and Visions supernatural. The next words of his, As if the Holy Ghost did enter only at their eyes, and at their ears, not into their un­derstandings, nor into their minds, I let pass, because I cannot understand them. His last words, Whether new light, &c. I understand and approve.

J. D.

But he must needs fall into these absurdities, who maketh but a jest of inspi­ration. They who pretend Divine inspiration to be a supernatural entring of the Holy Ghost into a Man, are (as he thinks) in a very dan­gerous Dilemma; for if they worship not the Men whom they conceive to be inspired, they fall into impiety; and if they worship them, they commit Idolatry. So mistaking the Holy Ghost to be corporeal, some thing that is blown into a Man, and the Graces of the Holy Ghost to be corporeal Graces. And the words, inpoured or infused virtue, and, inblown or inspired virtue, are as absurd and insignifi­cant, as a round Quadrangle. He reckons it [Page 68] as a common error, That faith and sanctity are not attained by study and reason, but by supernatural inspiration or infusion. And lay­eth this for a firm ground; Faith and San­ctity are indeed not very frequent, but yet they are not Miracles, but brought to pass by Education, Discipline, Correction, and other natural wayes. I would see the greatest Pe­lagian of them all fly higher.

T. H.

I make here no jest of Inspirati­on. Seriously, I say, that in the proper signification of the words Inspiration and Infusion, to say virtue is inspired, or infused, is as absurd as to say a Quadrangle is round. But Metaphorically, for Gods bestowing of Faith, Grace, or other Vertue, those words are intelligible enough.

J. D.

Why should he trouble himself a­bout the Holy Spirit, who acknowledgeth no Spirit but either a subtil fluid body, or a Ghost, or other Idol or Phantasm of the imagination; who knoweth no inward Grace or intrinsecal Holyness? Holy is a word which in Gods Kingdom answereth to that which men in their Kingdoms use to call pub­lick, or the Kings. And again, wheresoever the word Holy is taken properly, there is still some thing signified of propriety gotten by con­sent. His Holiness is a Relation, not a Qua­lity; for inward sanctification, or real infu­sed holiness, in respect whereof the third [Page 69] Person is called the Holy Ghost, because he is not only holy in himself, but also maketh us holy, he is so great a stranger to it, that he doth altogether deny it, and disclaim it.

T. H.

The word Holy I had defined in the words which his Lordship here sets down, and by the use thereof in the Scripture made it manifest, That that was the true significa­tion of the word. There is nothing in Learn­ing more difficult than to determine the sig­nification of words. That difficulty excuses him. He says that Holiness (in my sence) is a Relation, not a Quality. All the Learn­ed agree that Quality is an Accident, so that in attributing to God Holiness (as a Quali­ty) he contradicts himself; for he has in the beginning of this his discourse denyed (and rightly) that any Accident is in God, saying whatsoever is in God is the Divine Substance. He affirms also, that to attribute any Accident to God, is to deny the simplicity of the Di­vine Substance. And thus his Lordship makes God, as I do, a Corporeal Spirit. Both here, and throughout, he discovers so much ignorance, as had he charged me with error only, and not with Atheism, I should not have thought it necessary to answer him.

J. D.
[Page 70]

We are taught in our Creed to believe the Catholick or Universal Church. But T. H. teacheth us the contrary, That if there be more Christian Churches than one, all of them together are not one Church personally. And more plainly, Now if the whole number of Christians be not contained in one Common-wealth, they are not one Person, nor is there an Vniversal Church, that hath any Authority over them. And again, The Vniversal Church is not one Person, of which it can be said, that it hath done, or Decreed, or Ordained, or Ex­communicated, or Absolved. This doth quite overthrow all the Authority of General Councils.

All other Men distinguish between the Church and the Common-wealth; only T. H. maketh them to be one and the same thing. The Common-wealth of Christian men, and the Church of the same, are altogether the same thing, called by two names, for two rea­sons. For the matter of the Church and of the Common-wealth is the same, namely the same Christian men; and the Form is the same, which consisteth in the lawful power of convoca­ting them. And hence he concludeth, That every Christian Common-wealth is a Church endowed with all spiritual Authority. And yet more fully, The Church if it be one Per­son, is the same thing with the Common-wealth of Christians, called a Common-wealth, because [Page 71] it consisteth of men united in one Person their Soveraign; And a Church because it consisteth in Christian men united in one Christian So­veraign. Upon which account there was no Christian Church in these Parts of the World, for some hundreds of years after Christ, because there was no Christian So­veraign.

T. A.

For answer to this Period, I say only this, That taking the Church (as I do in all those places) for a company of Christi­an men on Earth incorporated into one Per­son, that can speak, command, or do any act of a Person, all that he citeth out of what I have written is true; and that all private Conventicles, though their belief be right, are not properly called Churches; and that there is not any one Universal Church here on Earth which is a Person indued with Au­thority universal to govern all Christian men on Earth, no more than there is one Uni­versal Soveraign Prince or State on Earth that hath right to govern all Mankind. I deny also that the whole Clergy of a Chri­stian Kingdom or State being assembled, are the representative of that Church further than the Civil Laws permits; or can lawful­ly assemble themselves, unless by the com­mand or by the leave of the Soveraign Ci­vil Power. I say further, that the denyal of this point tendeth in England towards [Page 72] the taking away of the Kings Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical. But his Lordship has not here denyed any thing of mine, because he has done no more but set down my words. He says further, that this Doctrine destroyes the Authority of all General Coun­cils; which I confess. Nor hath any Ge­neral Council at this day in this Kingdom the force of a Law, nor ever had, but by the Authority of the King.

J. D.

Neither is he more Orthodox con­cerning the Holy Scriptures, Hitherto, that is, for the Books of Moses, the power of mak­ing the Scripture Canonical, was in the Civil Soveraign. The like he saith of the Old Te­stament, made Canonical by Esdras. And of the New Testament, That it was not the A­postles which made their own Writings Canoni­cal, but every Convert made them so to him­self. Yet with this restriction, That until the Soveraign Ruler had prescribed them, they were but Counsel and Advice, which whether good or bad, he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the Laws established, could not without injustice observe. He maketh the Primitive Christians to have been in a pretty condition. Certainly the Gospel was contrary to the Laws then establish­ed. But most plainly, The word of the In­terpreter of the Scripture is the word of God. [Page 73] And the same is the Interpreter of the Scri­pture, and the Soveraign Judge of all Doctrines, that is, the Soveraign Magistrate, to whose Authority we must stand no less, than to theirs, who at first did commend the Scripture to us for the Canon of Faith. Thus if Chri­stian Soveraigns, of different Communica­tions, do clash one with another, in their interpretations, or misinterpretation of Scri­pture (as they do daily) then the word of God is contradictory to it self; or that is the word of God in one Common-wealth, which is the word of the Devil in another Common-wealth. And the same thing may be true, and not true at the same time: Which is the peculiar priviledge of T.H. to make Contradictories to be true toge­ther.

T. H.

There is no doubt but by what Authority the Scripture or any other Wri­ting is made a Law, by the same Authority the Scriptures are to be interpreted, or else they are made Law in vain. But to obey is one thing, to believe is another; which di­stinction perhaps his Lordship never heard of. To obey is to do or forbear as one is commanded, and depends on the Will; but to believe depends not on the Will, but on the providence and guidance of our hearts that are in the hands of God Almigh­ty. Laws only required obedience; Belief [Page 74] requires Teachers and Arguments drawn ei­ther from Reason, or from some thing al­ready believed. Where there is no reason for our Belief, there is no reason we should believe. The reason why men believe, is drawn from the Authority of those men whom we have no just cause to mistrust, that is, of such men to whom no profit accrues by their deceiving us, and of such men as never used to lye, or else from the Authori­ty of such men whose Promises, Threats, and Affirmations we have seen confirmed by God with Miracles. If it be not from the Kings Authority that the Scripture is Law, what other Authority makes it Law? Here some man being of his Lordships judgment will perhaps laugh and say, 'tis the Authority of God that makes them Law. I grant that. But my question is, on what Authority they believe that God is the Author of them? Here his Lordship would have been at a Nonplus, and turning round, would have said the Authority of the Scripture makes good that God is their Author. If it be said we are to believe the Scripture upon the Au­thority of the Universal Church, why are not the Books we call Apocrypha the Word of God as well as the rest? If this Authority be in the Church of England, then it is not any other than the Authority of the Head of the Church, which is the King. For with­out [Page 75] the Head the Church is mute, the Au­thority therefore is in the King; which is all that I contended for in this point. As to the Laws of the Gentiles, concerning Reli­gion in the Primitive times of the Church, I confess they were contrary to Christian Faith. But none of their Laws, nor Ter­rors, nor a mans own Will are able to take away Faith, though they can compel to an external obedience; and though I may blame the Ethnick Princes for compelling men to speak what they thought not, yet I absolve not all those that have had the Power in Christian Churches from the same fault. For I believe since the time of the first four Ge­neral Councels, there have been more Chri­stians burnt and killed in the Christian Church by Ecclesiastical Authority, than by the Heathen Emperors Laws for Religion on­ly without Sedition. All that the Bishop does in this Argument is but a heaving at the Kings Supremacy. Oh, but (says he) if two Kings interpret a place of Scripture in contrary sences, it will follow that both sen­ces are true. It does not follow. For the interpretation, though it be made by just Authority, must not therefore always be true. If the Doctrine in the one sence be necessary to Salvation, then they that hold the other must dye in their sins, and be Damned. But if the Doctrine in neither [Page 76] sence be necessary to Salvation, then all is well, except perhaps that they will call one another Atheists, and fight about it.

J. D.

All the power, vertue, use and efficacy, which he ascribeth to the Holy Sa­craments, is to be signs or commemorations. As for any sealing, or confirming, or confer­ring of Grace, he acknowledgeth nothing. The same he saith particularly of Baptism: Upon which grounds a Cardinals red Hat, or a Serjeant at Arms his Mace, may be cal­led Sacraments as well as Baptism, or the holy Eucharist, if they be only signs and commemorations of a benefit. If he ex­cept, that Baptism and the Eucharist, are of Divine institution: But a Cardinals red Hat or a Serjeant at Arms his Mace are not: He saith truly but nothing to his advantage or purpose, seeing he deriveth all the Authori­ty of the Word and Sacraments, in respect of Subjects, and all our obligation to them, from the Authority of the Soveraign Magi­strate, without which these words repent, and be Baptized in the name of Jesus, are but Counsel, no Command. And so a Serjeant at Arms his Mace, and Baptism, proceed both from the same Authority. And this he saith upon this silly ground, That nothing is a Command, the performance whereof tend­eth to our own benefit. He might as well de­ny the Ten Commandments to be Com­mands, [Page 77] because they have an advantagious promise annexed to them, Do this and thou shalt live; And Cursed is every one that con­tinueth not in all the words of this Law to do them.

T. H.

Of the Sacraments I said no more, than that they are Signs or Commemorations. He finds fault that I add not Seals, Confir­mations, and that they confer grace. First, I would have asked him if a Seal be any thing else besides a Sign, whereby to remem­ber somewhat, as that we have promised, accepted, acknowledged, given, underta­ken somewhat. Are not other Signs though without a Seal, of force sufficient to con­vince me or oblige me? A Writing obligato­ry, or Release signed only with a mans name is as Obligatory as a Bond signed and sealed, if it be sufficiently proved, though perad­venture it may require a longer Process to obtain a Sentence, but his Lordship I think knew better than I do the force of Bonds and Bills; yet I know this that in the Court of Heaven there is no such difference be­tween saying, signing, and sealing, as his Lordship seemeth here to pretend. I am Baptized for a Commemoration that I have enrolled my self. I take the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Commemorate that Christ's Body was broken, and his Blood shed for my redemption. What is there [Page 78] more intimated concerning the nature of these Sacraments, either in the Scripture or in the Book of Common-Prayer? Have Bread and Wine and Water in their own Nature, any other Quality than they had be­fore the Consecration? It is true that the Consecration gives these bodies a new Re­lation, as being a giving and dedicating of them to God, that is to say a making of them Holy, not a changing of their Quality. But as some silly young men returning from France affect a broken English, to be thought perfect in the French language; so his Lord­ship (I think) to seem a perfect understand­er of the unintelligible language of the Schoolmen, pretends an ignorance of his Mother Tongue. He talks here of Com­mand and Counsel as if he were no English man, nor knew any difference between their significations. What English man when he commandeth, says more than, Do this; yet he looks to be obeyed, if obedience be due unto him. But when he says, Do this, and thou shalt have such or such a Reward, he encourages him, or advises him, or Bargains with him, but Commands him not. Oh, the understanding of a Schoolman.

J. D.

Sometimes he is for holy Orders, and giveth to the Pastors of the Church the right of Ordination and Absolution, and Infallibility, too much for a particular Pa­stor, [Page 79] or the Pastors of one particular Church. It is manifest, that the consecration of the chiefest Doctors in every Church, and imposi­tion of hands, doth pertain to the Doctors of the same Church. And it cannot be doubted of, but the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the future Pastors, after the same manner as to his present Apostles. And our Saviour hath promised this infallibility in those things which are necessary to Salvation, to his Apostles, until the day of Judgment, that is to say, to the Apostles and Pastors, to be Consecrated by the Apostles successively, by the imposition of hands.

But at other times he casteth all this Meal down with his foot. Christian Sove­raigns are the supream Pastors, and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak from God, except such as God speaketh to in these dayes supernaturally. What is now become of the promised infallibility?

And it is from the Civil Soveraign that all other Pastors derive their right of teaching, preaching, and all other functions pertaining to that Office, and they are but his Ministers in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns, or Judges in Courts of Justice, and Command­ers of Armies. What is now become of their Ordination? Magistrates, Judges, and Generals, need no precedent qualifications. He maketh the Pastoral Authority of Sove­raigns [Page 80] to be Jure divino, of all other Pastors Jure civili: He addeth, neither is there any Judge of Heresie among Subjects, but their own civil Soveraign.

Lastly, the Church Excommunicateth no man but whom she Excommunicateth by the Authority of the Prince. And the effect of Excommunication hath nothing in it, neither of dammage in this World, nor terror upon an Apostate, if the Civil Power did persecute or not assist the Church. And in the World to come, leaves them in no worse estate, than those who never believed. The dammage ra­ther redoundeth to the Church. Neither is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the Laws of his own Soveraign, of a­ny effect. Where is now their power of binding and loosing?

T. H.

Here his Lordship condemneth, first my too much kindness to the Pastors of the Church; as if I ascribed Infallibility to every particular Minister, or at least to the Assembly of the Pastors of a particular Church. But he mistakes me, I never meant to flatter them so much. I say only that the Ceremony of Consecration, and Imposition of hands belongs to them; and that also no otherwise than as given them by the Laws of the Common-wealth. The Bishop Conse­crates, but the King both makes him Bishop and gives him his Authority. The Head of [Page 81] the Church not only gives the power of Consecration, Dedication, and Benedicti­on, but may also exercise the Act himself if he please. Solomon did it, and the Book of Canons says, That the King of England has all the Right that any good King of Is­rael had. It might have added that any other King or soveraign Assembly had in their own Dominions. I deny That any Pastor or any Assembly of Pastors in any particular Church, or all the Churches on earth though united are Infallible. Yet I say the Pastors of a Christian Church assem­bled are in all such points as are necessary to Salvation. But about what points are ne­cessary to Salvation he and I differ. For I in the 43d chapter of my Leviathan have proved that this Article, Jesus is the Christ, is the unum necessarium, the only Article ne­cessary to Salvation; to which his Lordship hath not offered any Objection. And he (it seems) would have necessary to Salvati­on every Doctrine he himself thought so. Doubtless in this Article, Jesus is the Christ, every Church is infallible; for else it were no Church. Then he says, I overthrow this again by saying that Christian Sove­raigns are the Supream Pastors, that is, Heads of their own Churches; That they have their Authority Jure Divino; That all other Pastors have it Jure Civili: How came [Page 82] any Bishop to have Authority over me, but by Letters Patents from the King? I re­member a Parliament wherein a Bishop, who was both a good Preacher and a good Man, was blamed for a Book he had a lit­tle before Published in maintenance of the Jus Divinum of Bishops; a thing which be­fore the Reformation here, was never al­lowed them by the Pope. Two Jus Di­vinums cannot stand together in one King­dom. In the last place he mislikes that the Church should Excommunicate by Autho­rity of the King, that is to say, by Autho­rity of the Head of the Church. But he tells not why. He might as well mislike that the Magistrates of the Realm should execute their Offices by the Authority of the Head of the Realm. His Lordship was in a great error, if he thought such incroach­ments would add any thing to the Wealth, Dignity, Reverence or Continuance of his Order. They are Pastors of Pastors, but yet they are the Sheep of him that is on earth their soveraign Pastor, and he again a Sheep of that supream Pastor which is in Heaven. And if they did their pastoral Of­fice, both by Life and Doctrine, as they ought to do, there could never arise any dangerous Rebellion in the Land. But if the people see once any ambition in their Teachers, they will sooner learn that, than [Page 83] any other Doctrine; and from Ambition proceeds Rebellion.

J. D.

It may be some of T. H. his Dis­ciples desire to know what hopes of Hea­venly joyes they have upon their Masters Principles. They may hear them without any great contentment, There is no mention in Scripture, nor ground in reason, of the Coe­lum Empyraeum, that is, the Heaven of the Blessed, where the Saints shall live eternal­ly with God. And again, I have not found any Text that can probably be drawn to prove any Ascention of the Saints into Heaven, that is to say, into any Coelum Empyraeum. But he concludeth positively, that Salvation shall be upon earth, when God shall Raign at the coming of Christ in Jerusalem. And a­gain, In short, the Kingdom of God is a ci­vil Kingdom, &c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of Glory. All the Hobbians can hope for, is, to be restor­ed to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall. So saith T.H. himself, From whence may be inferred, that the Elect, after the Resurrection, shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned. As for the beatifical vision he defineth it to be a word unintelligible.

T. H.

This Coelum Empyraeum for which he pretendeth so much zeal, where is it in the Scripture, where in the Book of Com­mon [Page 84] Prayer, where in the Canons, where in the Homilies of the Church of England, or in any part of our Religion? What has a Christian to do with such Language? Nor do I remember it in Aristotle. Perhaps it may be in some Schoolman or Commen­tator on Aristotle, and his Lordship makes it in English the Heaven of the Blessed, as if Empyraeum signified That which belongs to the Blessed. St. Austin says better; that af­ter the day of Judgment all that is not Hea­ven shall be Hell. Then for Beatifical visi­on, how can any man understand it that knows from the Scripture that no man e­ver saw or can see God. Perhaps his Lord­ship thinks that the happiness of the Life to come is not real but a Vision. As for that which I say (Lev. pag. 345.) I have answered to it already.

J. D.

But considering his other Princi­ples, I do not marvel much at his extrava­gance in this point. To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum, or Heaven of the Blessed, serve in his judgment, who maketh the blessed Angels that are the In­habitants of that happy Mansion, to be ei­ther Idols of the brain, that is in plain En­glish, nothing, or thin, subtil, fluid bodies, destroying the Angelical nature. The uni­verse being the aggregate of all bodies, there is no real part thereof that is not also body. [Page 85] And elsewhere, Every part of the Vniverse is Body, and that which is not Body, is no part of the Vniverse. And because the Vniverse is all, that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently no where. How? By this Do­ctrine he maketh not only the Angels, but God himself to be nothing. Neither doth he salve it at all, by supposing erroneously Angels to be corporeal Spirits, and by at­tributing the name of incorporeal Spirit to God, as being a name of more honour, in whom we consider not what Attribute best ex­presseth his nature, which is incomprehensi­ble, but what best expresseth our desire to honour him. Though we be not able to comprehend perfectly what God is, yet we are able perfectly to comprehend what God is not, that is, he is not imperfect, and therefore he is not finite, and conse­quently he is not corporeal. This were a trim way to honour God indeed to honour him with a lye. If this that he say here be true, That every part of the Vniverse is a Body; and whatsoever is not a Body is no­thing. Then by this Doctrine, if God be not a Body, God is nothing; not an in­corporeal Spirit, but one of the Idols of the Brain, a meer nothing, though they think they dance under a Net, and have the blind of Gods incomprehensibility, between them and discovery.

T. H.
[Page 86]

This of Incorporeal substance he urged before, and there I answered it. I wonder he so often rolls the same stone. He is like Sysiphus in the Poets Hell, that there rolls a heavy stone up a hill, which no sooner he brings to day-light, then it slips down again to the bottom, and serves him so perpetually. For so his Lordship rolls this and other questions with much a­doe till they come to the light of Scripture; and then they vanish, and he vexing, sweating, and railing goes to't again, to as little purpose as before. From that I say of the Universe he infers, that I make God to be nothing. But infers it absurdly. He might indeed have inferr'd that I make him a Corporeal, but yet a pure Spirit. I mean by the Universe, the Aggregate of all things that have being in themselves, and so do all men else. And because God has a being, it follows that he is either the whole Universe, or part of it. Nor does his Lordship go about to disprove it, but only seems to wonder at it.

J. D.

To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum serve in his Judgment, who de­nyeth the immortality of the Soul? The Doctrine is now, and hath been a long time far otherwise; namely, that every man hath eternity of life by nature, in as much as his Soul is immortal. Who supposeth that when [Page 87] a man dyeth, there remaineth nothing of him but his Carkase; who maketh the word Soul in holy Scripture to signifie always ei­ther the Life, or the Living Creature? And expoundeth the casting of Body and Soul into Hell-fire, to be the casting of Bo­dy and Life into Hell-fire. Who maketh this Orthodox truth, that the Souls of men are Substances distinct from their Bodies, to be an error contracted by the contagion of the Demonology of the Greeks, and a window that gives entrance to the dark Doctrine of eternal torments. Who expoundeth these words of Solomon, [Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God that gave it,] Thus, God only knows what becomes of a mans Spirit, when he ex­spireth. He will not acknowledge that there is a Spirit, or any Substance distinct from the Body. I wonder what they think doth keep their Bodies from stinking.

T. H.

He comes here to that which is a great Paradox in School Divinity. The grounds of my opinion are the Canonical Scripture, and the Texts which I cited I must again recite, to which I shall also add some others. My Doctrine is this, First, That the elect in Christ from the day of Judg­ment forward, by vertue of Christ's Passion and Victory over death, shall enjoy eternal life, that is, they shall be Immortal. Se­condly, [Page 88] that there is no living Soul separa­ted in place from the Body, more than there is a living Body separated from the Soul. Thirdly, That the reprobate shall be revived to Judgment, and shall dye a second death in Torments, which death shall be everlasting. Now let us consider what is said to these points in the Scripture, and what is the harmony therein of the Old and New Te­stament.

And first, because the word Immortal Soul, is not found in the Scriptures, the question is to be decided by evident conse­quences from the Scripture. The Scri­pture saith of God expresly (1 Tim. 6.16.) That He only hath immortality, and dwel­leth in inaccessible light. Hence it follow­eth that the Soul of man is not of its own nature Immortal, but by Grace, that is to say, by the gift of God. And then the question will be whether this grace or gift of God were bestowed on the Soul in the Creation and Conception of the Man, or afterwards by his redemption. Another question will be in what sence immortali­ty of Torments can be called a gift, when all gifts suppose the thing given to be grate­ful to the receiver. To the first of these, Christ himself saith (Luke 14.13, 14.) When thou makest a Feast, call the Poor, the Maimed, the Lame, the Blind, and thou shalt [Page 89] be Blessed, for they cannot recompense thee; For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurre­ction of them that be just. It follows hence that the reward of the Elect is not before the Resurrection. What reward then en­joyes a separated Soul in Heaven, or any where else till that day come, or what has he to do there till the Body rise again? A­gain St. Paul says (Rom. 2.6, 7.) God will render to every man according to his works. To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for Honour, Glory and Immortality, E­ternal Life. But unto them that be conten­tious, and do not obey the truth, but obey un­righteousness, indignation and wrath. Here it is plain that God gives Eternal Life on­ly to well doers, and to them that seek (not to them that have already) Immortality. Again (1 Tim. 1.10.) Christ hath abolished Death, and brought Life and Immortality to light, through the Gospel. Therefore before the Gospel of Christ, nothing was Immor­tal but God. And St. Paul speaking of the day of Judgment (1 Cor. 15.54.) saith that This Mortal shall put on Immortality, and that then Death is swallowed in Victory. There was no Immortality of any thing Mortal till Death was overcome, and that was at the Resurrection. And John 8.52. Verily, Verily, if a man keep my sayings he shall never see Death, that is to say, he shall [Page 90] be Immortal; but it is no where said, that he which keeps not Christ's sayings shall never see Death, nor be Immortal, and yet they that say that the wicked, Body and Soul, shall be tormented everlastingly, do therein say they are Immortal. Mat. 10.28. Fear not them that can kill the Body, but are not able to kill the Soul; but fear him that is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell. Man cannot kill a Soul, for the Man kill'd shall revive again. But God can de­stroy the Soul and Body in Hell, as that it shall never return to life. In the Old Te­stament we read (Gen. 7.4.) I will destroy every living Substance that I have made from off the face of the Earth; therefore, if the Souls of them that perished in the Flood were Substances, they were also de­stroyed in the Flood and were not Immor­tal. (Math. 25.41.) Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting Fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels. These words are to be spoken in the day of Judgment, which Judgment is to be in the Clouds. And there shall stand the men that are reproba­ted alive, where Souls according to his Lordships Doctrine were sent long before to Hell. Therefore at that present day of Judgment they had one Soul by which they were there alive, and another Soul in Hell. How his Lordship could have maintained [Page 91] this, I understand not. But by my Do­ctrine, that the Soul is not a separated Sub­stance, but that the Man at his Resurrecti­on shall be revived by God, and raised to Judgment, and afterwards Body and Soul destroyed in Hell-fire (which is the second death) there is no such consequence or dif­ficulty to be inferred. Besides it avoids the unnecessary disputes about where the Soul of Lazarus was for four dayes he lay dead. And the order of the Divine Process is made good, of not inflicting torments be­fore the Condemnation pronounced.

Now as to the harmony of the two Te­staments, it is said in the old (Gen. 2.17.) In the day that thou eatest of the Tree of Know­ledge, dying thou shalt dye. Moriendo mori­eris, that is, when thou art dead thou shalt not revive; for so hath Athanasius expound­ed it. Therefore Adam and Eve were not Immortal by their Creation. Then (Gen. 3.22.) Behold the man is become as one of us —Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever, &c. Here they had had an Immorta­lity by the gift of God, if they had not sin­ned. It was therefore sin that lost them Eternal-life. He therefore that redeemed them from sin was the Author of their Im­mortality, and consequently began in the day of Judgment when Adam and Eve were [Page 92] again made alive by admission to the new Tree of Life, which was Christ.

Now let us compare this with the New Testament. Where we find these words (1 Cor. 15.21.) since by Man came Death, by Man came also the Resurrection of the dead. Therefore all the Immortality of the Soul, that shall be after the Resurrection, is by Christ, and not by the nature of the Soul. verse 22. As by Adam all dye, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Therefore since we dyed by Adam's sin, so we shall live by Christ's Redemption of us, that is, after the Resurrection. Again verse 23. But every man in his order; Christ the first Fruits, afterwards they that are Christs, at his coming. Therefore none shall be made a­live till the coming of Christ. Lastly, as when God had said, That day that thou eatest of the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil, thou shalt dye, though he con­demned him then, yet he suffered him to live a long time after; so when Christ had said to the Thief on the Cross, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, yet he suffered him to lye dead till the General Resurrection, for no man rose again from the dead before our Saviours coming, and conquering death.

[Page 93]If God bestowed Immortality on every man then when he made him, and he made many to whom he never purposed to give his saving Grace, what did his Lordship think that God gave any man Immortality with purpose only to make him capable of Immortal Torments? 'Tis a hard saying, and I think cannot piously be believed. I am sure it can never be proved by the Ca­nonical Scripture.

But though I have made it clear that it cannot be drawn by lawful consequence from Scripture, that Man was Created with a Soul Immortal, and that the Elect only, by the Grace of God in Christ, shall both Bodies and Souls from the Resurrecti­on forward be Immortal; yet there may be a Consequence well drawn from some words in the Rites of Burial, that prove the contrary, as these. Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy, to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Bro­ther here departed, &c. And these, Almigh­ty God, with whom do live the Spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord. Which are words Authorised by the Church. I won­der his Lordship that had so often pro­nounced them, took no notice of them here. But it often happens that men think of those things least, which they have most perfectly learnt by rote. I am sorry [Page 94] I could not without deserting the sence of Scripture and mine own Conscience say the same. But I see no just cause yet why the Church should be offended at it. For the Church of England pretendeth not (as doth the Church of Rome) to be above the Scripture; nor forbiddeth any man to Read the Scripture; nor was I forbidden when I Wrote my Leviathan to Publish any thing which the Scriptures suggested. For when I Wrote it, I may safely say there was no lawful Church in England, that could have maintained me in, or prohibited me from Writing any thing. There was no Bishop, and though there were Preaching, such as it was, yet no Common-Prayer. For Ex­temporary Prayer, though made in the Pul­pit, is not Common-Prayer. There was then no Church in England that any man living was bound to obey. What I Write here at this present time I am forced to in my defence, not against the Church, but against the accusations and arguments of my Adversaries. For the Church, though it excommunicates for scandalous life, and for teaching false Doctrines, yet it profes­seth to impose nothing to be held as Faith, but what may be warranted by Scripture, and this the Church it self saith in the 20th of the 39 Articles of Religion. And therefore I am permitted to alledge Scri­pture [Page 95] at any time in the defence of my Be­lief.

J. D.

But they that in one case are griev­ed, in another must be relieved. If per­chance T. H. hath given his Disciples any discontent in his Doctrine of Heaven and the holy Angels, and the glorified Souls of the Saints, he will make them amends in his Doctrine of Hell, and the Devils, and the damned Spirits. First of the Devils; He fancieth that all those Devils which our Sa­viour did cast out, were Phrensies, and all Demoniacks (or Persons possessed) no other than Mad-men. And to justifie our Savi­our's speaking to a Disease as to a Person, pro­duceth the example of inchanters. But he declareth himself most clearly upon this Subject, in his Animadversions upon my reply to his defence of fatal destiny. There are in the Scripture two sorts of things which are in English translated Devils. One is that which is called Satan, Diabolus, Abaddon, which signifieth in English an Enemy, an Ac­cuser, and a destroyer of the Church of God, in which sence the Devils are but wicked men. The other sort of Devils are called in the Scri­pture Daemonia, which are the feigned Gods of the Heathen, and are neither Bodies nor spiritual Substances, but meer fancies, and fi­ctions of terrified hearts, feigned by the Greeks, and other Heathen People, which St. Paul [Page 96] calleth Nothings. So T.H. hath killed the great infernal Devil, and all his black An­gels, and left no Devils to be feared, but Devils Incarnate, that is, wicked men.

T. H.

As for the first words cited (Levi. page 38, 39.) I refer the Reader to the place it self; and for the words concerning Sa­tan, I leave them to the judgment of the Learned.

J. D.

And for Hell he describeth the Kingdom of Satan, or the Kingdom of dark­ness, to be a confederacy of deceivers. He telleth us that the places which set forth the torments of Hell in holy Scripture, do design Metaphorically a grief and discontent of mind, from the sight of that eternal felici­ty in others, which they themselves, through their own incredulity and disobedience have lost. As if Metaphorical descriptions did not bear sad truths in them, as well as li­teral, as if final desperation were no more than a little fit of grief or discontent; and a guilty conscience were no more than a transitory passion, as if it were a loss so ea­sily to be born, to be deprived for evermore of the beatifical Vision: and lastly as if the Damned, besides that unspeakable loss, did not likewise suffer actual Torments, pro­portionable in some measure to their own sins, and Gods Justice.

T. H.
[Page 97]

That Metaphors bear sad truths in them, I deny not. It is a sad thing to lose this present life untimely. Is it not therefore much more a sad thing to lose an eternal happy Life? And I believe that he which will venture upon sin, with such danger, will not stick to do the same not­withstanding the Doctrine of eternal tor­ture. Is it not also a sad truth, that the Kingdom of darkness should be a Confe­deracy of deceivers?

J. D.

Lastly, for the damned Spirits, he declareth himself every where, that their sufferings are not eternal. The Fire shall be unquenchable, and the Torments everlasting; but it cannot be thence inferred, that he who shall be cast into that Fire, or be tormented with those Torments, shall endure and resist them, so as to be eternally burnt and tortured, and yet never be destroyed nor dye. And though there be many places, that affirm ever­lasting fire, into which men may be cast suc­cessivily one after another for ever; yet I find none that affirm that there shall be an ever­lasting life therein of any individual Person. If he had said, and said only, that the pains of the Damned may be lessened, as to the degree of them, or that they en­dure not for ever, but that after they are purged by long torments from their dross and Corruptions, as Gold in the fire, both [Page 98] the damned Spirits and the Devils them­selves should be restored to a better condi­tion, he might have found some Ancients (who are therefore called the merciful Do­ctors) to have joyned with him, though still he should have wanted the suffrage of the Catholick Church.

T. H.

Why does not his Lordship cite some place of Scripture here to prove that all the Reprobates which are dead, live e­ternally in torment? We read indeed That everlasting Torments were prepared for the Devil and his Angels, whose na­tures also are everlasting; and that the Beast and the false Prophet shall be torment­ed everlastingly; but not that every Re­probate shall be so. They shall indeed be cast into the same fire, but the Scripture says plainly enough, that they shall be both Body and Soul destroyed there. If I had said that the Devils themselves should be restored to a better condition; his Lord­ship would have been so kind as to have put me into the number of the Merciful Doctors. Truly if I had had any Warrant for the possibility of their being less ene­mies to the Church of God than they have been, I would have been as merciful to them as any Doctor of them all. As it is, I am more merciful than the Bishop.

J. D.
[Page 99]

But his shooting is not at rovers, but altogether at randome, without either President or Partner. All that eternal fire, all those torments which he acknowledg­eth, is but this, That after the Resurre­ction, the Reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his Posterity were in, after the sin committed, saving that God promised a Re­deemer to Adam and not to them. Adding, that they shall live as they did formerly, Mar­ry, and give in Marriage; and consequently engender Children perpetually after the Re­surrection, as they did before, which he cal­leth an immortallity of the kind, but not of the persons of men. It is to be presumed, that in those their second lives, knowing certainly from T. H. that there is no hope of Redemption for them from corporal death upon their well-doing; nor fear of any Torments after death for their ill-doing, they will pass their times here as pleasant­ly as they can. This is all the Damnation which T. H. fancieth.

T. H.

This he has urged once before, and I answered to it, That the whole Pa­ragraph was to prove, that for any Text of Scripture to the contrary, men might, after the Resurrection live as Adam did on earth, and that notwithstanding the Text of St. Luke chap. 20. verse 34, 35, 36. Mar­ry and propagate. But that they shall do so, [Page 100] is no assertion of mine. His Lordship knew I held that after the Resurrection there shall be at all no wicked men; but the E­lect (all that are, have been, and hereaf­ter shall be) shall live on earth. But St. Peter says, there shall then be a new Hea­ven and a new Earth.

J. D.

In summ I leave it to the free judgment of the understanding Reader, by these few instances which follow, to judge what the Hobbian Principles are in point of Religion. Ex ungue leonem.

First, that no man needs to put himself to any hazzard for his Faith, but may safely comply with the times. And for their Faith it is internal and invisible. They have the li­cence that Naaman had, and need not put them­selves into danger for it.

Secondly, he alloweth Subjects, being commanded by their Soveraign, to deny Christ. Profession with the Tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other ge­sture, whereby we signifie our obedience. And wherein a Christian, holding firmly in his heart the Faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman, &c. Who by bowing before the Idol Rimmon, denyed the true God as much in effect, as if he had done it with his Lips. Alas, why did St. Peter Weep so bitterly for denying his Master, out of fear of his Life or Mem­bers? [Page 101] It seems he was not acquainted with these Hobbian Principles. And in the same place he layeth down this general Conclu­sion. This we may say that whatsoever a Subject is compelled to, in obedience to his So­veraign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the Laws of his Coun­try, that action is not his, but his Soveraign's; nor is it he that in this case denyeth Christ be­fore men, but his Governor and the Law of his Country. His instance in a Mahometan commanded by a Christian Prince to be present at Divine Service, is a weak mi­stake, springing from his gross ignorance in Case-Divinity, not knowing to distin­guish between an erroneous Conscience, as the Mahometans is, and a Conscience right­ly informed.

T. H.

In these his two first instances I confess his Lordship does not much be lye me. But neither does he confute me. Also I confess my ignorance in his Case-Divini­ty which is grounded upon the Doctrine of the School-men. Who to decide Cases of Conscience, take in, not only the Scriptures, but also the Decrees of the Popes of Rome, for the advancing of the Dominion of the Roman Church over Consciences; where­as the true decision of Cases of Conscien­ces ought to be grounded only on Scripture, or natural Equity. I never allowed the [Page 102] denying of Christ with the Tongue in all men, but expresly say the contrary (Lev. pag. 362.) in these words, For an unlearn­ed man that is in the power of an Idola­trous King or State, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an Idol, he de­testeth the Idol in his heart; he doth well, though if he had the fortitude to suffer death rather than worship it, he should do better. But if a Pastor who as Christ's mes­senger has undertaken to teach Christ's Do­ctrine to all Nations, should do the same, it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian mens Consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge. There­fore St. Peter in denying Christ sinned, as being an Apostle. And 'tis sin in every man that should now take upon him to preach against the power of the Pope, to leave his Commission unexecuted for fear of the fire; but in a meer Traveller, not so. The three Children and Daniel were worthy Champions of the true Religion. But God requireth not of every man to be a Champion. As for his Lordship's words of complying with the times, they are not mine, but his own spightful Paraphrase.

J. D.

Thirdly, if this be not enough, he giveth licence to a Christian to commit Idolatry, or at least to do an Idolatrous act, for fear of death or corporal danger. To [Page 103] pray unto a King voluntarily for fair weather, or for any thing which God only can do for us, is divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the o­ther side, if a King compel a man to it by the terror of death, or other great corporal punish­ment, it is not Idolatry. His reason is, be­cause it is not a sign, that he doth inwardly honour him as a God, but that he is desirous to save himself from death, or from a miserable life. It seemeth T. H. thinketh there is no divine Worship, but internal. And that it is lawful for a man to value his own life or his limbs more than his God. How much is he wiser than the three Children, or Daniel himself? who were thrown, the first into a fiery Furnace, the last into the Lions Denn, because they refused to com­ply with the Idolatrous Decree of their So­veraign Prince.

T. H.

Here also my words are truly ci­ted. But his Lordship understood not what the word Worship signifies; and yet he knew what I meant by it. To think high­ly of God (as I had defined it) is to honour him. But to think is internal. To Worship, is to signifie that Honour which we in­wardly give, by signs external. This un­derstood (as by his Lordship it was) all he says to it is but a cavil.

J. D.

A fourth Aphorism may be this, That which is said in the Scripture, it is bet­ter [Page 104] to obey God than man, hath place in the Kingdom of God by Pact, and not by Nature. Why? Nature it self doth teach us it is bet­ter to obey God than men. Neither can he say that he intended this only of obedi­ence, in the use of indifferent actions and gestures, in the service of God, command­ed by the Common-wealth, for that is to obey both God and man. But if divine Law and humane Law clash one with another, without doubt it is evermore better to obey God than man.

T. H.

Here again appears his unskilful­ness in reasoning. Who denyes, but it is alwayes, and in all causes better to obey God than Man? But there is no Law, nei­ther divine nor humane that ought to be taken for a Law, till we know what it is, and if a divine Law, till we know that God hath commanded it to be kept. We agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God. But they are a Law by Pact, that is, to us who have been Baptized into the Cove­nant. To all others it is an invitation only to their own benefit. 'Tis true that even nature suggesteth to us that the Law of God is to be obeyed rather than the Law of man. But nature does not suggest to us that the Scripture is the Law of God, much less how every Text of it ought to be interpre­ted. But who then shall suggest this? Dr. [Page 105] Bramhall? I deny it. Who then? The stream of Divines? Why so? Am I that have the Scripture it self before my eyes, obliged to venture my eternal life upon their interpretation, how learned soever they pretend to be, when no counter-secu­rity that they can give me, will save me harmless? If not the stream of Divines, who then? The lawful Assembly of Pastors or of Bishops? But there can be no lawful Assembly in England without the Authori­ty of the King. The Scripture therefore what it is, and how to be interpreted, is made known unto us here, by no other way than the Authority of our Soveraign Lord both in Temporals and Spirituals, The Kings Majesty. And where he has set forth no Interpretation, there I am allowed to follow my own, as well as any other man, Bishop or not Bishop. For my own part, all that know me, know also it is my opinion, That the best government in Religion is by E­piscopacy, but in the King's Right, not in their own. But my Lord of Derry not con­tented with this, would have the utmost resolution of our Faith to be into the Do­ctrine of the Schools. I do not think that all the Bishops be of his mind. If they were, I would wish them to stand in fear of that dreadful Sentence, All covet all lose. I must not let pass these words of his Lord­ship, [Page 106] If divine Law and humane Law clash one with another, without doubt it is better evermore to obey God than man. Where the King is a Christian, believes the Scripture, and hath the Legislative power both in Church and State, and maketh no Laws concerning Christian Faith, or divine Wor­ship, but by the Counsel of his Bishops whom he trusteth in that behalf, if the Bi­shops counsel him aright, what clashing can there be between the divine and hu­mane Laws? For if the Civil Law be against God's Law and the Bishops make it clearly appear to the King that it clasheth with di­vine Law, no doubt he will mend it by him­self or by the advice of his Parliament; for else he is no professor of Christ's Doctrine, and so the clashing is at an end. But if they think that every opinion they hold, though obscure and unnecessary to Salvation, ought presently to be Law, then there will be cla­shings innumerable, not only of Laws, but also of Swords, as we have found it too true by late experience. But his Lordship is still at this, that there ought to be, for the divine Laws that is to say, for the in­terpretation of Scripture, a Legislative pow­er in the Church, distinct from that of the King, which under him they enjoy already. This I deny. Then for clashing between the Civil Laws of Infidels with the Law of [Page 107] God, the Apostles teach that those their Civil Laws are to be obeyed, but so as to keep their Faith in Christ entirely in their hearts; which is an obedience easily per­formed. But I do not believe that Augustus Caesar or Nero was bound to make the holy Scripture Law; and yet unless they did so they could not attain to eternal life.

J. D.

His fifth conclusion may be, that the sharpest and most successful Sword, in any War whatsoever, doth give Soveraign Power and Authority to him that hath it, to approve or reject all sorts of Theological Doctrines, concerning the Kingdom of God, not according to their truth or falshood, but according to that influence which they have upon political affairs. Hear him, But because this Doctrine will appear to most men a novelty, I do but propound it, maintaining nothing in this or any other Paradox of Reli­gion, but attending the end of that dispute of the Sword, concerning the Authority (not yet amongst my Country-men decided) by which all sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or reje­cted, &c. For, the points of Doctrine concern­ing the Kingdom of God, have so great influ­ence upon the Kingdom of Man, as not to be determined, but by them that under God have the Soveraign Power.

—Careat successibus opto,
Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.

[Page 108] Let him evermore want success who think­eth actions are to be judged by their events. This Doctrine may be plausible to those who desire to fish in troubled Waters. But it is justly hated by those which are in Au­thority, and all those who are lovers of peace and tranquillity.

The last part of this conclusion smelleth rankly of Jeroboam, Now shall the Kingdom return to the house of David, if this people go up to do Sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem; whereupon the King took counsel, and made two Calves of Gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusa­lem, behold thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt. But by the just disposition of Almighty God this Policy turned to a sin, and was the utter destruction of Jeroboam and his Family. It is not good jesting with edge-tools, nor playing with holy things: Where men make their greatest fastness, many times they find most danger.

T. H.

His Lordship either had a strange Conscience, or understood not English. Be­ing at Paris when there was no Bishop nor Church in England, and every man writ what he pleased, I resolved (when it should please God to restore the Authority Ecclesi­astical) to submit to that Authority, in whatsoever it should determine. This his [Page 109] Lordship construes for a temporizing and too much indifferency in Religion; and says further that the last part of my words do smell of Jeroboam. To the contrary I say my words were modest, and such as in duty I ought to use. And I profess still that whatsoever the Church of England (the Church, I say, not every Doctor) shall for­bid me to say in matter of Faith, I shall abstain from saying it, excepting this point. That Jesus Christ the Son of God dyed for my sins. As for other Doctrins, I think it unlaw­ful if the Church define them, for any Mem­ber of the Church to contradict them.

J. D.

His sixth Paradox is a rapper, the Civil Laws are the Rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest, and there­fore what the Lawgiver commands that is to be accounted good, what he forbids bad. And a little after, before Empires were, just and unjust were not, as whose nature is Relative to a Command, every action in its own nature is indifferent. That it is just or unjust pro­ceedeth from the right of him that command­eth. Therefore lawful Kings make those things which they command, Just by commanding them, and those things which they forbid Vn­just by forbidding them. To this add his definition of a sin, that which one doth, or omitteth, saith, or willeth contrary to the rea­son of the Common-wealth, that is, the [Civil] [Page 110] Laws. Where by the Laws he doth not understand the Written Laws, elected and approved by the whole Common-wealth, but the verbal Commands or Mandates, of him that hath the Soveraign Power, as we find in many places of his Writings. The Civil Laws are nothing else but the Commands of him, that is endowed with Soveraign Pow­er in the Common-wealth, concerning the future actions of his Subjects. And the Civil Laws are fastned to the Lips of that man who hath the Soveraign Power.

Where are we? In Europe or in Asia? Where they ascribed a Divinity to their Kings, and, to use his own Phrase, made them Mortal Gods. O King live for ever. Flatterers are the common Moths of great Pallaces, where Alexander's friends are more numerous than the King's friends. But such gross palpable pernicious flattery as this is, I did never meet with, so derogatory both to piety and policy. What deserved he who should do his uttermost endeavour to poyson a common Fountain, whereof all the Common-wealth must drink? He doth the same who poisoneth the mind of a So­veraign Prince.

Are the Civil Laws the Rules of good and bad, just and unjust, honest and dishonest? And what I pray your are the Rules of the Civil Law it self? Even the Law of God [Page 111] and Nature. If the Civil Laws swerve from these more authentick Laws, they are Lesbian Rules. What the Lawgiver com­mands is to be accounted good, what he forbids bad. This was just the garb of the Athe­nian Sophisters, as they are described by Plato. Whatsoever pleased the great Beast [the Multitude] they call holy, and just, and good. And whatsoever the great Beast disliked, they called evil, unjust, prophane. But he is not yet arrived at the height of his flattery. Lawful Kings make those things which they command just by commanding them. At other times when he is in his right wits he talketh of sufferings, and expecting their reward in Heaven. And going to Christ by Martyrdome. And if he had the fortitude to suffer death he should do better. But I fear all this was but said in jest. How should they expect their reward in Heaven, if his Doctrine be true, that there is no reward in Heaven? Or how should they be Martyrs, if his Doctrine be true, that none can be Mar­tyrs but those who conversed with Christ upon earth? He addeth, Before Empires were, just and unjust were not. Nothing could be written more false in his sence, more dishonoura­ble to God, more inglorious to the humane nature. That God should create Man and leave him presently without any Rules, to his own ordering of himself, as the Ostridg leaveth her Eggs in the sand. But in truth [Page 112] there have been Empires in the World e­ver since Adam. And Adam had a Law written in his heart by the finger of God, before there was any Civil Law. Thus they do endeavour to make goodness, and justice, and honesty, and conscience, and God him­self, to be empty names, without any re­ality, which signifie nothing, further than they conduce to a man's interest. Otherwise he would not, he could not say, That every action as it is invested with its circumstances, is indifferent in its own nature.

T. H.

My sixth Paradox he calls a Rap­per. A Rapper, a Swapper and such like terms are his Lordships elegancies. But let us see what this Rapper is. 'Tis this, The Civil Laws are the Rules of Good and Evil, Just and Unjust, Honest and Dishon­est. Truly I see no other Rules they have. The Scriptures themselves were made Law to us here, by the Authority of the Com­mon-wealth, and are therefore part of the Law Civil. If they were Laws in their own nature, then were they Laws over all the World, and men were obliged to obey them in America, as soon as they should be shown there (though without a Miracle) by a Frier. What is Injust but the Trans­gression of a Law? Law therefore was be­fore Unjust. And the Law was made known by Soveraign Power before it was a Law. Therefore Soveraign Power was an­tecedent [Page 113] both to Law and Injustice. Who then made Injust but Soveraign Kings or Soveraign Assemblies? Where is now the wonder of this Rapper, That Lawful Kings make those things which they command Just by commanding them, and those things which they forbid Vnjust by forbidding them? Just and Unjust were surely made; if the King made them not, who made them else? For certainly the breach of a Civil Law is a sin against God. Another Calumny which he would fix upon me, is, That I make the King's verbal Commands to be Laws. How so? Because I say the Civil Laws are nothing else but the Commands of him that hath the Soveraign Power, concern­ing the future Actions of his Subjects. What verbal Command of a King can arrive at the ears of all his Subjects (which it must do ere it be a Law) without the Seal of the Person of the Common-wealth (which is here the Great Seal of England?) Who but his Lordship ever denyed that the command of England was a Law to Eng­lish men? Or that any but the King had Authority to affix the Great Seal of Eng­land to any Writing? And who did ever doubt to call our Laws (though made in Parliament) the King's Laws? What was ever called a Law which the King did not assent to? Because the King has granted in [Page 114] divers cases not to make a Law without the advice and assent of the Lords and Com­mons, therefore when there is no Parlia­ment in being, shall the Great Seal of Eng­land stand for nothing? What was more unjustly maintained during the long Par­liament (besides the resisting and Murder­ing of the King) then this Doctrine of his Lordship's? But the Bishop endeavoured here to make the Multitude believe I main­tain, That the King sinneth not though he bid hang a man for making his Apparel o­therwise than he appointed, or his Servant for negligent attendance. And yet he knew I distinguished always between the King's natural and politick capacity. What name should I give to this wilful slander? But here his Lordship enters into passion, and exclaims, Where are we, in Europe or in A­sia? Gross, palpable, pernicious flattery, poi­soning of a Common-wealth, poysoning the King's mind. But where was his Lordship when he wrote this? One would not think he was in France, nor that this Doctrine was Written in the year 1658, but rather in the year 1648, in some Cabal of the King's enemies. But what did put him in­to this fit of Choller? Partly, this very thing, that he could not answer my rea­sons; but chiefly, that he had lost upon me so much School-learning in our contro­versie [Page 115] touching Liberty and Necessity, where­in he was to blame himself, for believing that the obscure and barbarous Language of School Divinity could satisfie an ingenu­ous Reader as well as plain and perspicuous English. Do I flatter the King? Why am I not rich? I confess his Lordship has not flattered him here.

J. D.

Something there is which he hath a confused glimmering of, as the blind man sees men walking like Trees, which he is not able to apprehend and express clearly. We acknowledge, that though the Laws or Commands of a Soveraign Prince be erro­neous, or unjust, or injurious, such as a Subject cannot approve for good in them­selves; yet he is bound to acquiesce, and may not oppose or resist, otherwise than by Prayers and Tears, and at the most by flight. We acknowledge that the Civil Laws have power to bind the Conscience of a Christian, in themselves, but not from themselves, but from him who hath said, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers. Either they bind Christian Subjects to do their Soveraign's Commands, or to suffer for the Testimony of a good Conscience. We acknowledge that in doubtful Cases semper praesumitur pro Rege & Lege, the So­veraign and the Law are always presumed to be in the right. But in plain evident ca­ses [Page 116] which admit no doubt, it is always bet­ter to obey God than man. Blunderers whilst they think to mend one imaginary hole, make two or three real ones. They who derive the Authority of the Scriptures or God's Law from the Civil Laws of men, are like those who seek to underprop the Heavens from falling with a Bullrush. Nay, they derive not only the Authority of the Scripture, but even the Law of nature it self from the Civil Law. The Laws of na­ture (which need no promulgation) in the condition of nature are not properly Laws, but qualities which dispose men to peace and obedience. When a Common-wealth is once setled, then are they actually Laws and not before. God help us, into what times are we fallen, when the immutable Laws of God and Nature are made to depend upon the mutable Laws of mortal men, just as one should go about to controll the Sun by the Authority of the Clock.

T. H.

Hitherto he never offered to mend any of the Doctrines he inveighs against; but here he does. He says I have a glim­mering of something I was not able to ap­prehend and express clearly. Let us see his Lordship's more clear expression. We ac­knowledge, (saith he) that though the Laws or Commands of a Soveraign Prince be erro­neous, or unjust, or injurious, such as a Sub­ject [Page 117] cannot approve for good in themselves, yet he is bound to acquiesce, and may not oppose or resist otherwise than by Prayers and Tears, and at the most by Flight. Hence it follows clearly, that when a Soveraign has made a Law, though erroneous, then if his Subject oppose it, it is a sin. Therefore I would fain know, when a man has broken that Law by doing what it forbad, or by refu­sing to do what it commanded, whether he have opposed this Law or not. If to break the Law be to oppose it, he grant­eth it. Therefore his Lordship has not here expressed himself, so clearly as to make men understand the difference between breaking a Law and opposing it. Though there be some difference between breaking of a Law, and opposing those that are sent with force to see it executed; yet between breaking and opposing the Law it self there is no dif­ference. Also though the Subject think the Law just, as when a Thief is by Law Con­demned to dye, yet he may lawfully op­pose the Execution, not only by Prayers, Tears and Flight, but also (as I think) any way he can. For though his fault were ne­ver so great, yet his endeavour to save his own life is not a fault. For the Law expects it, and for that cause appointeth Felons to be carryed bound and encompassed with Armed men to Execution. Nothing is op­posite [Page 118] to Law but sin. Nothing opposite to the Sheriff but force. So that his Lord­ship's sight was not sharp enough to see the difference between the Law and the Offi­cer. Again, We acknowledge (says he) that the Laws have power to bind the Conscience of a Christian in themselves, but not from themselves. Neither do the Scriptures bind the Conscience because they are Scriptures, but because they were from God. So also the Book of English Statutes bindeth our Consciences in it self, but not from it self, but from the Authority of the King, who only in the right of God has the legislative Powers. Again he saith, We acknowledge that in doubtful cases, the Soveraign and the Law are always presumed to be in the right. If he presume they are in the right, how dare he presume that the cases they determine are doubtful? But saith he, in evident cases which admit no doubt it is always better to o­bey God than man. Yes, and in doubtful cases also say I. But not always better to obey the inferior Pastors than the Supream Pastor, which is the King. But what are those cases that admit no doubt? I know but very few, and those are such as his Lord­ship was not much acquainted with.

J. D.

But it is not worthy of my labour, nor any part of my intention, to pursue every shadow of a Question which he spring­eth. [Page 119] It shall suffice to gather a Posie of Flowers (or rather a bundle of Weeds) out of his Writings, and present them to the Reader, who will easily distinguish them from healthful Plants by the rankness of their smell. Such are these which fol­low.

T. H.

As for the following Posie of Flow­ers, there wants no more to make them sweet, than to wipe off the Venome blown upon some of them by his Lordships breath.

J. D.

1. To be delighted in the imagination only of being possessed of another man's Goods, Servants, or Wife, without any intention to take them from him by force or fraud, is no breach of the Law which saith, Thou shalt not covet.

T. H.

What man was there ever whose imagination of any thing he thought would please him, was not some delight? Or what sin is there, where there is not so much as an intention to do injustice? But his Lordship would not distinguish between delight and purpose, nor between a Wish and a Will. This was venome. I believe, that his Lord­ship himself even before he was Married took some delight in the thought of it, and yet the Woman then was not his own. All love is delight, but all love is not sin. With­out this love of that which is not yet a mans [Page 120] own, the World had not been Peo­pled.

J. D.

2. If a Man by the terror of pre­sent death be compelled to do a Fact against the Law, he is totally excused, because no Law can oblige a Man to abandon his own preser­vation, nature compelleth him to the Fact. The like Doctrine he hath elsewhere. When the Actor doth any thing against the Law of Nature by the Command of the Author, if he be obliged by former Covenants to obey him, not he, but the Author breaketh the Law of Nature.

T. H.

The second Flower is both sweet and wholsom.

J. D.

3. It is a Doctrine repugnant to Ci­vil Society, that whatsoever a man does against his Conscience is sin.

T. H.

'Tis plain, that to do what a man thinks in his own Conscience to be sin, is sin; for it is a contempt of the Law it self; and from thence ignorant men, out of an erroneous Conscience, disobey the Law which is pernicious to all Government.

J. D.

4. The Kingdom of God is not shut but to them that sin, that is, to them who have not performed due obedience to the Laws of God; nor to them, if they believe the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith.

[Page 121]5. We must know that the true acknowledg­ing of sin is Repentance it self.

6. An opinion publickly appointed to be taught cannot be Heresie, nor the Soveraign Princes that Authorised the same Here­ticks.

T. H.

The 4th. 5th. and 6th. smell well. But to say, that the Soveraign Prince in England is a Heretick, or that an Act of Parliament is Heretical, stinks abominably, as 'twas thought Primo Elizabethae.

J. D.

7. Temporal and Spiritual govern­ment are but two words to make men see dou­ble and mistake their lawful Soveraign, &c. There is no other Government in this Life, neither of State, nor Religion but Tempo­ral.

8. It is manifest, that they who permit a contrary Doctrine to that which themselves be­lieve and think necessary [to Salvation] do against their Consciences, and Will, as much as in them lyeth the eternal destruction of their Subjects.

T. H.

The 7th. and 8th. are Roses and Jassamin. But his leaving out the words [to Salvation] was venome.

J. D.

9. Subjects sin if they do not wor­ship God according to the Laws of the Common-wealth.

T. H.
[Page 122]

The 9th. he hath poisoned, and made it, not mine; he quotes my Book de Cive Cap. 15.19. Where I say, Regnante Deo per solam rationem naturalem, that is, Before the Scripture was given, they sinned that refused to worship God, according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Country, which hath no ill scent, but to undutiful Subjects.

J. D.

10. To believe in Jesus [in Jesum] is the same as to believe that Jesus is Christ.

T. H.

And so it is always in the Scri­pture.

J. D.

11. There can be no contradiction between the Laws of God, and the Laws of a Christian Common-wealth. Yet, we see Christian Common-wealths daily contradict one another.

T. H.

The 11th. is also good. But his Lordship's instance, That Christian Common-wealths contradict one another, have nothing to do here. Their Laws do indeed contra­dict one another, but contradict not the Law of God. For God Commands their Subjects to obey them in all things, and his Lordship himself confesseth that their Laws, though erroneous, bind the Conscience. But Christian Common-wealths would sel­dome contradict one another, if they made no Doctrine Law, but such as were necessary to Salvation.

J. D.
[Page 123]

12. No man giveth but with in­tention of some good to himself. Of all vo­luntary Acts, the Object is to every man his own good. Moses, St. Paul, and the Decij were not of his mind.

T. H.

That which his Lordship adds to the 12th. namely, that Moses, St. Paul, and the Decij were not of my mind is false. For the two former did what they did for a good to themselves, which was eternal Life; and the Decij for a good Fame after death. And his Lordship also, if he had believed there is an eternal happiness to come, or thought a good Fame after death to be any thing worth, he would have di­rected all his actions towards them, and have despised the Wealth and Titles of the present World.

J. D.

13. There is no natural knowledge of man's estate after death, much less of re­ward which is then to be given to breach of Faith, but only a belief grounded upon other mens saying, that they know it supernaturally, or that they know those that knew them that knew others that knew it supernaturally.

T. H.

The 13th. is good and fresh.

J. D.

14. David's killing of Uriah was no injury to Uriah, because the right to do what he pleased was given him by Uriah himself.

T. H.
[Page 124]

David himself makes this good, in saying, To thee only have I sinned.

J. D.

15. To whom it belongeth to deter­mine controversies which may arise from the divers interpretations of Scripture, he hath an imperial power over all men which acknow­ledge the Scripture to be the Word of God.

16. What is Theft, what is Murder, what is Adultery, and universally what is an inju­ry, is known by the Civil Law, that is, by the Commands of the Soveraign.

T. H.

For the 15th. he should have dis­puted it with the Head of the Church. And as to the 16th. I would have asked him by what other Law his Lordship would have it determined what is Theft, or what is In­jury, than by the Laws made in Parlia­ment, or by the Laws which distinguish be­tween Meum and Tuum? His Lordships ig­norance smells rankly ('tis his own phrase) in this and many other places (which I have let pass) of his own Interest. The King tells us what is sin, in that he tells us what is Law. He hath authorised the Clergy to dehort the people from sin, and to exhort them, by good motives, (both from Scri­pture and Reason) to obey the Laws; and supposeth them (though under forty years old) by the help they have in the Univer­sity, able in case the Law be not written, to teach the people old and young, what [Page 125] they ought to follow in doubtful cases of Conscience, that is to say, they are autho­rised to expound the Laws of Nature; but not so as to make it a doubtful case whe­ther the King's Laws be to be obeyed or not. All they ought to do is from the King's Authority. And therefore this my Doctrine is no Weed.

J. D.

17. He admitteth incestuous Copu­lations of the Heathens, according to their Heathenish Laws to have been lawful Marri­ages. Though the Scripture teach us ex­presly, that for those abominations the Land of Canaan spued out her Inhabitants, Levit. 18.28.

T. H.

The 17th. he hath corrupted with a false interpretation of the Text. For in that Chapter from the beginning to verse 20, are forbidden Marriages in certain de­grees of kindred. From verse 20, which begins with Moreover (to the 28th.) are for­bidden Sacrificing of Children to Molech, and Prophaning of God's name, and Bug­gery with Man and Beast, with this cause exprest (For all these abominations have the men of the Land done which were before you, and the Land is defiled) That the Land spue not you out also. As for Marriages within the degrees prohibited, they are not refer­red to the abominations of the Heathen. Besides, for some time after Adam, such Mar­riages were necessary.

J. D.
[Page 126]

18. I say that no other Article of Faith besides this, that Jesus is Christ, is ne­cessary to a Christian man for Salvation.

19. Because Christ's Kingdom is not of this World, therefore neither can his Mini­sters, unless they be Kings, require obedience in his name. They have no right of Com­manding, no power to make Laws.

T. H.

These two smell comfortably, and of Scripture. The contrary Doctrine smells of Ambition and encroachment of Jurisdi­ction, or Rump of the Roman Tyran­ny.

J. D.

20. I pass by his errors about Oaths about Vows, about the Resurrection, about the Kingdom of Christ, about the Power of the Keys, Binding, Loosing, Excommu­nication, &c. his ignorant mistakes of me­ritum congrui and condigni, active and pas­sive obedience, and many more, for fear of being tedious to the Reader.

T. H.

The tears of School Divinity, of which number are meritum congrui, meri­tum condigni, and passive obedience, are so obscure as no man living can tell what they mean, so that they that use them may admit or deny their meaning, as it shall serve their turns. I said not that this was their mean­ing, but that I thought it was so. For no man living can tell what a School man means by his words. Therefore I expounded them [Page 127] according to their true signification. Me­rit ex condigno is when a thing is deserved by Pact; as when I say the Labourer is wor­thy of his hire, I mean meritum ex condig­no. But when a man of his own grace throw­eth Money among the people, with an in­tention that what part soever of it any of them could catch, he that catcheth merits it, not by Pact, nor by precedent Merit, as a Labourer, but because it was congruent to the purpose of him that cast it amongst them. In all other meaning these words are but Jargon, which his Lordship had learnt by rote. Also passive obedience signi­fies nothing, except it may be called passive obedience when a man refraineth himself, from doing what the Law hath forbidden. For in his Lordship's sense the Thief that is hang'd for stealing hath fulfilled the Law; which I think is absurd.

J. D.

His whole works are a heap of mishapen Errors, and absurd Paradoxes, vent­ed with the confidence of a Jugler, the brags of a Mountebank, and the Authority of some Pythagoras, or third Cato, lately dropped down from Heaven.

Thus we have seen how the Hobbian Prin­ciples do destroy the Existence, the Simpli­city, the Ubiquity, the Eternity, and In­finiteness of God, the Doctrine of the bles­sed Trinity, the Hypostatical Union, the [Page 128] Kingly Sacerdotal and Prophetical Office of Christ, the Being and Operation of the Ho­ly Ghost, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Devils, the Immortality of the Soul, the Catholick and all National Churches; the holy Scri­ptures, holy Orders, the holy Sacraments, the whole frame of Religion, and the Wor­ship of God; the Laws of Nature, the re­ality of Goodness, Justice, Piety, Honesty, Conscience, and all that is Sacred. If his Disciples have such an implicite Faith, that they can digest all these things, they may feed with Ostriches.

T. H.

He here concludes his first Chapter with bitter Reproaches, to leave in his Rea­der (as he thought) a sting, supposing per­haps that he will Read nothing but the be­ginning and end of his Book, as is the cu­stom of many men. But to make him lose that petty piece of cunning, I must desire of the Reader one of these two things. Ei­ther that he would read with it the places of my Leviathan which he cites, and see not only how he answers my arguments, but also what the arguments are which he pro­duceth against them; or else that, he would forbear to condemn me, so much as in his thought; for otherwise he is unjust. The name of Bishop is of great Authority, but these words are not the words of a Bishop, but of a passionate School-man, too fierce [Page 129] and unseemly in any man whatsoever. Be­sides, they are untrue. Who that knows me will say I have the confidence of a Jug­ler, or that I use to brag of any thing, much less that I play the Mountebank? What my works are, he was no sit Judge. But now he has provoked me, I will say thus much of them, that neither he, if he had lived could, nor I if I would, can extinguish the light which is set up in the World by the greatest part of them; and for these Do­ctrines which he impugneth, I have few op­posers, but such whose Profit, or whose Fame in Learning is concerned in them. He accuses me first of destroying the Existence of God, that is to say, he would make the World believe I were an Atheist. But up­on what ground? Because I say, that God is a Spirit, but Corporeal. But to say that, is allowed me by St. Paul, that says There is a Spiritual Body, and there is an Animal Body. 1 Cor. 15. He that holds that there is a God, and that God is really somewhat (for Body is doubtlesly a real Substance) is as far from being an Atheist, as is possible to be. But he that says God is an Incorpo­real Substance, no man can be sure whether he be an Atheist or not. For no man living can tell whether there be any Substance at all, that is not also Corporeal. For neither [Page 130] the word Incorporeal, nor Immaterial, nor any word equivalent to it is to be found in Scripture, or in Reason. But on the con­trary that the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Christ, is found in Colos. 2.9. and Tertulli­an maintains that God is either a Corporeal Substance or Nothing. Nor was he ever condemned for it by the Church. For why? Not only Tertullian but all the learned call Body, not only that which one can see, but also whatsoever has magnitude, or that is somewhere; for they had greater reverence for the Divine Substance than that they durst think it had no Magnitude or was no where. But they that hold God to be a Phantasm, as did the Exorcists in the Church of Rome, that is, such a thing as were at that time thought to be the Sprights that were said to walk in Church-yards, and to be the Souls of men buried, they do absolutely make God to be nothing at all. But how? Were they Atheists? No. For though by ignorance of the consequence they said that which was equivolent to Atheism, yet in their hearts they thought God a Substance, and would also, if they had known what Sub­stance and what Corporeal meant, have said he was a Corporeal Substance. So that this Atheism by consequence is a very easie thing to be fallen into, even by the most Godly men [Page 131] of the Church. He also that says that God is wholly here, and wholly there, and wholly every where, destroys by consequence the Unity of God, and the Infiniteness of God, and the Simplicity of God. And this the Schoolmen do, and are therefore Atheists by consequence, and yet they do not all say in their hearts that there is no God. So al­so his Lordship by exempting the Will of man from being subject to the necessity of God's Will or Decree, denies by consequence the Divine Praescience, which also will a­mount to Atheism by consequence. But out of this that God is a Spirit corporeal and in­finitely pure, there can no unworthy or di­shonourable consequence be drawn. Thus far to his Lordship's first Chapter in Justifi­cation of my Leviathan, as to matter of Religion; and especially to wipe off that un­just slander cast upon me by the Bishop of Derry. As for the second Chapter which con­cerns my Civil Doctrines, since my errors there, if there be any, will not tend very much to my disgrace, I will not take the pains to answer it.

Whereas his Lordship has talked in his discourse here and there ignorantly of Here­sie, and some others have not doubted to say publickly, that there be many Heresies in my [Page 132] Leviathan; I will add hereunto for a general answer an Historical relation concerning the word Heresie from the first use of it amongst the Graecians, till this present time.

FINIS.
AN Historical Narrat …

AN Historical Narration CONCERNING HERESIE, AND THE Punishment thereof.

BY THOMAS HOBBES OF MALMESBURY.

At veluti Pueri trepidant, at (que) omnia caecis
In tenebris metuunt: Sic nos in luce timemus
Interdum nihilo quae sunt metuenda magis, quàm
Quae Pueri in tenebris pavitant, metuunt (que) futura.
Lucr. lib. 2.3, 6.

LONDON, Printed in the Year 1682.

Haereseωs Larvas, Sectarum im­mania Monstra
Hobbius invicto dispulit in­genio.

AN Historical Narration CONCERNING HERESIE, AND THE Punishment thereof.

THE word Heresie is Greek, and signifies a taking of any thing, and particularly the taking of an Opinion. After the study of Philosophy begun in Greece, and the Philosophers disagreeing amongst them­selves, had started many Questions, not on­ly about things Natural, but also Moral and Civil; because every man took what Opinion he pleased, each several Opinion was called a Heresie; which signified no more than a private Opinion, without re­ference to truth or falshood. The begin­ners [Page 136] of these Heresies were chiefly Pythago­ras, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno; men who as they held many Errors, so also found they out many true and useful Doctrines, in all kinds of Learning: and for that cause were well esteemed of by the greatest Per­sonages of their own times; and so also were some few of their Followers.

But the rest, ignorant men, and very of­ten needy Knaves, having learned by heart the Opinions of these admir'd Philosophers, and pretending to take after them, made use thereof to get their Living by the teaching of Rich mens Children that happened to be in love with those great Names. Tho' by their impertinent Discourse, sordid and ri­diculous Manners, they were generally de­spised, of what Sect or Heresie soever; whe­ther they were Pythagoreans, or Acade­micks (Followers of Plato) or Peripate­ticks (Followers of Aristotle: Epicureans or Stoicks) (Followers of Zeno) For these were the names of Heresies, or (as the Latines call them) Sects, à sequendo, so much talkt of from after the time of Alexander till this present day, and that have perpetually troub­led or deceived the people with whom they lived, and were never more numerous than in the time of the Primitive Church.

[Page 137]The Heresie of Aristotle, by the Revo­lutions of time has had the good fortune to be predominant over the rest. However originally the name of Heresie was no dis­grace, nor the word Heretick at all in use. Tho' the several Sects, especially the Epi­cureans and the Stoicks, hated one another; and the Stoicks being the fiercer men, used to revile those that differed from them with the most despightful words they could in­vent.

It cannot be doubted, but that, by the preaching of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ in Greece and other parts of the Ro­man Empire, full of these Philosophers, ma­ny thousands of men were converted to the Christian Faith, some really, and some feign­edly, for factious ends, or for need; (for Christians lived then in common, and were charitable:) and because most of these Phi­losophers had better skill in Disputing and Oratory than the Common people, and thereby were better qualified both to de­fend and propagate the Gospel, there is no doubt (I say) but most of the Pastors of the Primitive Church were for that reason chosen out of the number of these Philoso­phers; who retaining still many Doctrines which they had taken up on the authority of their former Masters, whom they had in reverence, endeavoured many of them to [Page 138] draw the Scriptures every one to his own Heresie. And thus at first entred Heresie into the Church of Christ. Yet these men were all of them Christians; as they were when they were first baptized: Nor did they deny the Authority of those Writings which were left them by the Apostles and Evangelists, tho' they interpreted them ma­ny times with a bias to their former Philo­sophy. And this Dissention amongst them­selves, was a great scandal to the Unbeliev­ers, and which not only obstructed the way of the Gospel, but also drew scorn and grea­ter Persecution upon the Church.

For remedy whereof, the chief Pastors of Churches did use, at the rising of any new Opinion, to assemble themselves for the ex­amining and determining of the same; wherein, if the Author of the Opinion were convinced of his Error, and subscribed to the Sentence of the Church assembled, then all was well again: but if he still persisted in it, they laid him aside, and considered him but as an Heathen man; which to an un­feigned Christian, was a great Ignominy, and of force to make him consider better of his own Doctrine; and sometimes brought him to the acknowledgment of the Truth. But other punishment they could inflict none, that being a right appropriated to the Ci­vil Power. So that all the punishment the [Page 139] Church could inflict, was only Ignominy; and that among the Faithful, consisting in this, that his company was by all the Godly avoided, and he himself branded with the name of Heretick in opposition to the whole Church, that condemned his Doctrine. So that Catholick and Heretick were terms re­lative; and here it was that Heretick be­came to be a Name, and a name of Disgrace, both together.

The first and most troublesome Heresies in the Primitive Church, were about the Trinity. For (according to the usual cu­riosity of Natural Philosophers) they could not abstain from disputing the very first Principles of Christianity, into which they were baptized, In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Some there were that made them allegorical. Others would make one Creator of Good, and a­nother of Evil; which was in effect to set up two Gods, one contrary to another; supposing that causation of evil could not be attributed to God, without Impiety. From which Doctrine they are not far di­stant, that now make the first cause of sinful actions to be every man as to his own sin. Others there were that would have God to be a body with Parts organical, as Face, Hands, Fore-parts and Back-parts. Others, that Christ had no real body, but was a [Page 140] meer Phantasm: (For Phantasms were taken then, and have been ever since, by unlearn­ed and superstitious men, for things real and subsistent.) Others denyed the Divinity of Christ. Others, that Christ being God and Man, was two Persons. Others confest he was one Person, and withal that he had but one Nature. And a great many other He­resies arose from the too much adherence to the Philosophy of those times, whereof some were supprest for a time by St. John's pub­lishing his Gospel, and some by their own unreasonableness vanished, and some lasted till the time of Constantine the Great, and after.

When Constantine the Great (made so by the assistance and valour of the Christian Souldiers) had attained to be the only Ro­man Emperor, he also himself became a Christian, and caused the Temples of the Heathen Gods to be demolished, and au­thorized Christian Religion only to be pub­lick. But towards the latter end of his time, there arose a Dispute in the City of Alexandria, between Alexander the Bishop, and Arius a Presbyter of the same City; wherein Arius maintained, first, That Christ was inferiour to his Father; and afterwards, That he was no God, alleadging the words of Christ, My Father is greater than I. The Bishop on the contrary alleadging the words [Page 141] of St. John, And the Word was God; and the words of St. Thomas, My Lord and my God. This Controversie presently amongst the Inhabitants and Souldiers of Alexandria became a Quarrel, and was the cause of much Bloodshed in and about the City; and was likely then to spread further, as after­wards it did. This so far concerned the Emperors Civil Government, that he thought it necessary to call a General Council of all the Bishops and other eminent Divines throughout the Roman Empire, to meet at the City of Nice. When they were assem­bled, they presented the Emperor with Li­bels of Accusation one against another. When he had received these Libels into his hands, he made an Oration to the Fathers assembled, exhorting them to agree, and to fall in hand with the settlement of the Arti­cles of Faith, for which cause he had as­sembled them, saying, Whatsoever they should decree therein, he would cause to be observed. This may perhaps seem a greater indifferency than would in these dayes be ap­proved of. But so it is in the History; and the Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation, were not thought then to be so many as afterwards they were defined to be by the Church of Rome.

[Page 142]When Constantine had ended his Oration, he caused the aforesaid Libels to be cast into the fire, as became a wise King and a chari­table Christian. This done, the Fathers fell in hand with their business, and following the method of a former Creed, now com­monly called The Apostles Creed, made a Con­fession of Faith, viz. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisi­ble, (in which is condemned the Polytheism of the Gentiles.) And in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten Son of God, (a­gainst the many sons of the many Gods of the Heathen.) Begotten of his Father be­fore all worlds, God of God, (against the Arians) Uery God of very God, (against the Valentinians, and against the Heresie of A­pelles, and others, who made Christ a meer Phantasm.) Light of Light, [This was put in for explication, and used before to that purpose, by Tertullian.] Begotten, not made, being of one Substance with the Father. In this again they condemn the Doctrine of Arius: for this word Of one substance, in La­tine Consubstantialis, but in Greek [...], that is, Of one Essence, was put as a Touch­stone to discern an Arian from a Catholick: And much ado there was about it. Constan­tine himself, at the passing of this Creed, took notice of it for a hard word; but yet [Page 143] approved of it, saying, That in a divine Mystery it was fit to use divina & arcana Verba; that is, divine words, and hidden from humane understanding; calling that word [...], divine, not because it was in the divine Scripture, (for it is not there) but because it was to him Arcanum, that is, not sufficiently understood. And in this a­gain appeared the indifferency of the Emperor, and that he had for his end, in the calling of the Synod, not so much the Truth, as the Vni­formity of the Doctrine, and peace of his People that depended on it. The cause of the obscurity of this word [...], proceeded chiefly from the difference between the Greek and Roman Dialect, in the Philosophy of the Peripateticks. The first Principle of Religi­on in all Nations, is, That God is, that is to say, that God really is Something, and not a meer fancy; but that which is really some­thing, is considerable alone by it self, as be­ing somewhere. In which sence a man is a thing real: for I can consider him to be, with­out considering any other thing to be besides him. And for the same reason, the Earth, the Air, the Stars, Heaven, and their Parts, are all of them things real. And because whatsoever is real here, or there, or in any place, has Dimensions, that is to say, Mag­nitude; and that which hath Magnitude, whether it be visible or invisible, finite or in­finite [Page 144] is called by all the Learned a Body. It followeth, that all real things, in that they are somewhere, are Corporeal. On the con­trary, Essence, Deity, Humanity, and such­like names, signifie nothing that can be con­sidered, without first considering there is an Ens, a God, a Man, &c. So also if there be any real thing that is white or black, hot or cold, the same may be considered by it self; but whiteness, blackness, heat, coldness, can­not be considered, unless it be first suppos­ed that there is some real thing to which they are attributed. These real things are called by the Latine Philosophers, Entia subjecta, substantiae; and by the Greek Phi­losophers, [...]. The o­ther, which are Incorporeal, are called by the Greek Philosophers, [...]; but most of the Latine Philosophers use to convert [...] into substantia, and so confound real and corporeal things with in­corporeal; which is not well: For Essence and Substance signifie divers things. And this mistake is received, and continues still in these parts, in all Disputes both of Philo­sophy, and Divinity: For in truth Essentia signifies no more, than if we should talk ri­diculously of the Isness of the thing that is. [By whom all things were made.] This is proved out of St. John, cap. 1. vers. 1, 2, 3. and Heb. cap. 1. vers. 3. and that again out [Page 145] of Gen. 1. where God is said to create eve­ry thing by his sole Word, as when he said, Let there be Light, and there was Light. And then, that Christ was that Word, and in the beginning with God, may be gathered out of divers places of Moses, David, and o­ther of the Prophets. Nor was it ever questioned amongst Christians (except by the Arians) but that Christ was God Eter­nal, and his Incarnation eternally decreed. But the Fathers, all that write Expositions on this Creed, could not forbear to philo­sophize upon it, and most of them out of the Principles of Aristotle: Which are the same the School-men now use; as may part­ly appear by this, that many of them, a­mongst their Treatises of Religion, have affected to publish Logick and Physick Prin­ciples according to the sense of Aristotle; as Athanasius, and Damascene. And so some later Divines of Note, still confound the Concreet with the Abstract, Deus with Dei­tas, Ens with Essentia, Sapiens with Sapien­tia, Aeternus with Aeternitas. If it be for exact and rigid Truth sake, why do they not say also, that Holiness is a Holy man, Covetousness a Covetous man, Hypocrisie an Hypocrite, and Drunkenness a Drunk­ard, and the like, but that it is an Error? The Fathers agree that the Wisdom of God is the eternal Son of God, by whom all [Page 146] things were made, and that he was incar­nate by the Holy Ghost, if they meant it in the Abstract: For if Deitas abstracted be Deus, we make two Gods of one. This was well understood by Damascene, in his Treatise De Fide Orthodoxâ, (which is an Exposition of the Nicene Creed) where he denies absolutely that Deitas is Deus, lest (seeing God was made man) it should fol­low, the Deity was made man; which is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nicene Fathers. The Attributes therefore of God in the Abstract, when they are put for God, are put Metonymically; which is a common thing in Scripture; for Example, Prov. 8.28. where it is said, Before the mountains were setled, before the Hills was I brought forth; the Wisdom there spoken of being the Wisdom of God, signifies the same with the wise God. This kind of speaking is al­so ordinary in all Languages. This consi­dered, such abstracted words ought not to be used in Arguing, and especially in the deducing the Articles of our Faith; though in the Language of God's eternal Worship, and in all Godly Discourses, they cannot be avoided: And the Creed it self is less diffi­cult to be assented to in its own words, than in all such Expositions of the Fathers. Who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the [Page 147] Holy Ghost of the Uirgin Mary, and was made Man. I have not read of any ex­ception to this: For where Athanasius in his Creed says of the Son, He was not made, but begotten, it is to be understood of the Son as he was God Eternal; whereas here it is spoken of the Son as he is man. And of the Son also as he was man, it may be said he was begotten of the Holy Ghost; for a Woman conceiveth not but of him that begetteth; which is also confirmed, Mat. 1.20. That which is begotten in her ( [...]) is of the Holy Ghost. And was also Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate: He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scri­ptures, and ascended into Heaven: and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; And he shall come again with Glory to judge both the Quick and the Dead. Whose Kingdom shall have no end. [Of this part of the Creed I have not met with any doubt made by any Christian.] Hither the Coun­cil of Nice proceedeth in their general Con­fession of Faith, and no further.

This finished, some of the Bishops pre­sent at the Council (seventeen or eighteen, whereof Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea was one) not sufficiently satisfied, refused to subscribe till this Doctrine of [...] should be bet­ter explained. Thereupon the Council De­creed, [Page 148] that whosoever shall say that God hath parts, shall be Anathematized; to which the said Bishops subscribed. And Eusebius by Order of the Council wrote a Letter, the Copies whereof were sent to every absent Bishop, that being satisfied with the reason of their subscribing, they also should subscribe. The reason they gave of their Subscription was this, That they had now a form of words prescribed, by which, as a Rule, they might guide themselves so, as not to violate the Peace of the Church. By this it is manifest, that no man was an Heretick, but he that in plain and direct words contradicted that Form by the Church prescribed, and that no man could be made an Heretick by Consequence. And because the said Form was not put into the body of the Creed, but directed only to the Bishops, there was no reason to punish any Lay-per­son that should speak to the contrary.

But what was the meaning of this Do­ctrine, That God has no Parts? Was it made Heresie to say, that God, who is a real sub­stance, cannot be considered or spoken of as here or there, or any where, which are parts of places? Or that there is any real thing without length every way, that is to say, which hath no Magnitude at all, finite nor infinite? Or is there any whole substance, whose two halves or three thirds are not [Page 149] the same with that whole? Or did they mean to condemn the Argument of Ter­tullian, by which he confuted Apolles and other Hereticks of his time; namely, What­soever was not Corporeal, was nothing but Fantasm, and not Corporeal, for Heretical? No certainly, no Divines say that. They went to establish the Doctrine of One indi­vidual God in Trinity; to abolish the di­versity of species in God, not the distinction of here and there in substance. When St. Paul asked the Corinthians, Is Christ divi­ded? He did not think they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet, but that they might think him (according to the manner of the Gentiles) one of the Sons of God, as Arius did; but not the only begotten Son of God. And thus also it is expounded in the Creed of A­thanasius, who was present in that Council, by these words, Not confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substances; that is to say, that God is not divided into three Persons, as man is divided into Peter, James, and John; nor are the three persons one and the same person. But Aristotle, and from him all the Greek Fathers, and other Learned Men, when they distinguish the general La­titude of a word, they call it Division; as when they divide Animal into Man and Beast, they call these [...], Species; and when [Page 150] they again divide the Species Man into Pe­ter and John, they call these [...], partes in­dividuae. And by this confounding the di­vision of the substance with the distinction of words, divers men have been led into the Error of attributing to God a Name, which is not the name of any substance at all, viz. Incorporeal.

By these words, God has no parts, thus explained, together with the part of the Creed which was at that time agreed on, ma­ny of those Heresies which were antecedent to that first General Council, were con­demned; as that of Manes, who appeared about thirty years before the Reign of Con­stantine, by the first Article, I believe in one God; though in other words it seems to me to remain still in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which so ascribeth a Li­berty of the Will to Men, as that their Will and Purpose to commit sin, should not pro­ceed from the Cause of all things, God; but originally from themselves, or from the Devil. It may seem perhaps to some, that by the same words the Anthropomorphites also were then Condemned: And certainly, if by Parts were meant not persons Indivi­dual, but Pieces, they were Condemned: For Face, Arms, Feet, and the like, are pieces. But this cannot be, for the Anthro­pomorphites appeared not till the time of Va­lens [Page 151] the Emperor, which was after the Coun­cil of Nice between forty and fifty years; and was not condemned till the second Ge­neral Council at Constantinople.

Now for the Punishment of Hereticks ordained by Constantine, we read of none; but that Ecclesiastical Officers, Bishops and other Preachers, if they refused to subscribe to this Faith, or taught the contrary Do­ctrine, were for the first Fault Deprived of their Offices, and for the second Banished. And thus did Heresie, which at first was the name of private Opinion, and no Crime, by vertue of a Law of the Emperor, made only for the Peace of the Church, become a Crime in a Pastor, and punishable with Deprivati­on first, and next with Banishment.

After this part of the Creed was thus e­stablished, there arose presently many new Heresies, partly about the Interpretation of it, and partly about the Holy Ghost, of which the Nicene Council had not determined. Concerning the part established, there arose Disputes about the Nature of Christ, and the word Hypostasis, id est, Substance; for of Persons there was yet no mention made, the Creed being written in Greek, in which Language there is no word that answereth to the Latine word Persona. And the U­nion, as the Fathers called it, of the Hu­mane and Divine Nature in Christ, Hyposta­tical, [Page 152] caused Eutyches, and after him Dio­scorus, to affirm, there was but one Nature in Christ; thinking that whensoever two things are united, they are one: And this was condemned as Arianism in the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus. Others, be­cause they thought two living and rational Substances, such as are God and Man, must needs be also two Hypostases, maintained that Christ had two Hypostases: But these were two Heresies condemned together. Then concerning the Holy Ghost, Nestori­us Bishop of Constantinople, and some o­thers, denied the Divinity thereof. And whereas about seventy years before the Ni­cene Council, there had been holden a Pro­vincial Council at Carthage, wherein it was Decreed, that those Christians which in the Persecutions had denyed the Faith of Christ, should not be received again into the Church unless they were again baptized: This also was condemned, though the President in that Council were that most sincere and pi­ous Christian, Cyprian. And at last the Creed was made up entire as we have it, in the Cal­cedonian Council, by addition of these words, And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son. Who with the Fa­ther & the Son together is Worshipped and Glorified. Who spake by the Prophets. [Page 153] And I believe one Catholick & Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the Remission of Sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Life of the World to come. In this addition are condemned, first the Nestorians and o­thers, in these words, Who with the Fa­ther and the Son together is worshipped and glorified: And secondly the Doctrine of the Council of Carthage, in these words, I believe one Baptism for the Remission of Sins: For one Baptism is not there put as opposite to several sorts or manners of Baptism, but to the iteration of it: St. Cy­prian was a better Christian than to allow any Baptism that was not in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the General Confession of Faith contained in the Creed called the Nicene Creed, there is no mention of Hypostasis, nor of Hyposta­tical Union, nor of Corporeal, nor of In­corporeal, nor of Parts; the understanding of which words being not required of the Vulgar, but only of the Pastors, whose dis­agreement else might trouble the Church; nor were such Points necessary to Salvation, but set abroach for ostentation of Learning, or else to dazle men, with design to lead them towards some ends of their own. The Changes of prevalence in the Empire be­tween the Catholicks and the Arians, and [Page 154] how the great Athanasius, the most fierce of the Catholicks, was banished by Constantine, and afterwards restored, and again banished, I let pass; only it is to be remembred, that Athanasius is suppos'd to have made his Creed then, when (banished) he was in Rome, Liberi­us being Pope; by whom, as is most likely, the word Hypostasis, as it was in Athanasius's Creed, was disliked: For the Roman Church could never be brought to receive it▪ but in­stead thereof used their own word Persona. But the first and last words of that Creed the Church of Rome refused not: For they make every Article, not only those of the body of the Creed, but all the Definitions of the Ni­cene Fathers to be such, as a man cannot be saved, unless he believe them all stedfastly; though made only for Peace sake, and to u­nite the minds of the Clergy, whose Disputes were like to trouble the Peace of the Em­pire. After these four first General Coun­cils, the Power of the Roman Church grew up a pace; and either by the negligence or weakness of the succeeding Emperors, the Pope did what he pleased in Religion. There was no Doctrine which tended to the Power Ecclesiastical, or to the Reverence of the Cler­gy, the contradiction whereof was not by one Council or another made Heresie, and punished arbitrarily by the Emperors with Banishment or Death. And at last Kings themselves, and [Page 155] Commonwealths, unless they purged their Dominions of Hereticks, were Excommuni­cated, Interdicted, and their Subjects let loose upon them by the Pope; insomuch as to an ingenuous and serious Christian, there was nothing so dangerous as to enquire con­cerning his own Salvation, of the Holy Scri­pture; the careless cold Christian was safe, and the skilful Hypocrite a Saint. But this is a Story so well known, as I need not insist upon it any longer, but proceed to the He­reticks here in England, and what Punish­ments were ordained for them by Acts of Parliament. All this while the Penal Laws a­gainst Hereticks were such, as the several Princes and States, in their own Dominions, thought fit to enact. The Edicts of the Empe­rors made their Punishments Capital, but for the manner of the Execution, left it to the Prefects of Provinces: And when other Kings and States intended (according to the Laws of the Roman Church) to extirpate Here­ticks, they ordained such Punishment as they pleased. The first Law that was here made for the punishments of Hereticks called Lol­lards, and mentioned in the Statutes, was in the fifth year of the Reign of Richard the Second, occasioned by the Doctrine of John Wickliff and his Followers; which Wickliff, because no Law was yet ordained for his punishment in Parliament, by the favour of [Page 156] John of Gaunt, the King's Son, during the Reign of Edward the third, had escaped. But in the fifth year of the next King, which was Richard the Second, there passed an Act of Parliament to this effect; That Sheriffs and some others should have Commissions to apprehend such as were certified by the Pre­lates to be Preachers of Heresie, their Fautors, Maintainers and Abettors, and to hold them in strong Prison, till they should justifie them­selves, according to the Law of Holy Church. So that hitherto there was no Law in Eng­land, by which a Heretick could be put to Death, or otherways punished, than by impri­soning him till he was reconciled to the Church. After this, in the next King's Reign, which was Henry the Fourth, Son of John of Gaunt by whom Wickliffe had been favour­ed, and who in his aspiring to the Crown had needed the good Will of the Bishops, was made a Law, in the second Year of his Reign, wherein it was Enacted, That every Ordi­nary may convene before him, and imprison any person suspected of Heresie; and that an obstinate Heretick shall be burnt before the People.

In the next King's Reign, which was Hen­ry the Fifth, in his Second year, was made an Act of Parliament, wherein it is declared, that the intent of Hereticks, called Lollards, was to subvert the Christian Faith, the Law of God, the Church and the Realm: And that [Page 157] an Heretick convict should forfeit all his Fee-simple Lands, Goods and Chattels, besides the Punishment of Burning. Again, in the Five and Twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth, it was Enacted, That an Heretick convict shall abjure his Heresies, and refusing so to do, or relapsing, shall be burnt in open place, for example of others. This Act was made after the putting down of the Pope's Authority: And by this it appears, that King Henry the Eighth intended no farther alte­ration in Religion, than the recovering of his own Right Ecclesiastical. But in the first year of his Son King Edward the sixth was made an Act, by which were repealed not only this Act, but also all former Acts con­cerning Doctrines, or matters of Religion; So that at this time there was no Law at all for the punishment of Hereticks.

Again, in the Parliament of the first and second year of Queen Mary, this Act of 1 Ed. 6. was not repealed, but made useless, by re­viving the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. and freely put it in execution; insomuch as it was De­bated, Whether or no they should proceed upon that Statute against the Lady Eliza­beth, the Queens Sister.

The Lady Elizabeth not long after by the Death of Queen Mary coming to the Crown in the fifth year of her Reign, by Act of Par­liament repealed in the first place all the Laws Ecclesiastical of Queen Mary, with all other [Page 158] former Laws concerning the punishments of Hereticks, nor did she enact any other punish­ments in their place. In the second place it was Enacted, That the Queen by her Letters Patents should give a Commission to the Bi­shops, with certain other persons, in her Ma­jesties Name, to execute the Power Ecclesia­stical; in which Commission the Commissi­oners were forbidden to adjudge any thing to be Heresie, which was not declared to be Heresie by some of the first four General Councels: But there was no mention made of General Councels, but only in that branch of the Act which Authorised that Commissi­on, commonly called The High Commission; nor was there in that Commission any thing concerning how Hereticks were to be puni­shed, but it was granted to them, that they might declare or not declare, as they pleased, to be Heresie or not Heresie, any of those Do­ctrines which had been Condemned for He­resie in the first four General Councels. So that during the time that the said High Com­mission was in being, there was no Statute by which a Heretick could be punished other­ways, than by the ordinary Censures of the Church; nor Doctrine accounted Heresie, unless the Commissioners had actually de­clared and published, That all that which was made Heresie by those Four Councels, should be Heresie also now: But I never heard that any such Declaration was made either by [Page 159] Proclamation, or by Recording it in Church­es, or by publick Printing, as in penal Laws is necessary; the breaches of it are excused by ignorance: Besides, if Heresie had been made Capital, or otherwise civilly punishable, ei­ther the Four General Councels themselves, or at least the Points condemned in them, ought to have been Printed or put into Pa­rish Churches in English, because without it, no man could know how to beware of of­fending against them.

Some men may perhaps ask, whether no body were Condemned and Burnt for Here­sie, during the time of the High Commission.

I have heard there were: But they which approve such executions, may peradventure know better grounds for them than I do; but those grounds are very well worthy to be enquired after.

Lastly, in the seventeenth year of the Reign of King Charles the First, shortly after that the Scots had Rebelliously put down the E­piscopal Government in Scotland, the Presby­terians of England endeavoured the same here. The King, though he saw the Rebels ready to take the Field, would not conde­scend to that; but yet in hope to appease them, was content to pass an Act of Parlia­ment for the abolishing the High Com­mission. But though the High Commis­sion were taken away, yet the Parlia­ment having other ends besides the setting [Page 160] up of the Presbyterate, pursued the Rebellion, and put down both Episcopacy and Monarchy, erecting a power by them called The Common-wealth, by o­thers the Rump, which men obeyed not out of Du­ty, but for fear, nor was there any humane Laws left in force to restrain any man from Preaching or Writing any Doctrine concerning Religion that he pleased; and in this heat of the War, it was im­possible to disturb the Peace of the State, which then was none.

And in this time it was, that a Book called Levi­athan, was written in defence of the King's Power, Temporal and Spiritual, without any word against Episcopacy, or against any Bishop, or against the publick Doctrine of the Church. It pleas'd God a­bout Twelve years after the Usurpation of this Rump, to restore His most Gracious Majesty that now is, to his Fathers Throne, and presently His Majesty restored the Bishops, and pardoned the Pres­byterians; but then both the one and the other ac­cused in Parliament this Book of Heresie, when nei­ther the Bishops before the War had declared what was Heresie, when if they had, it had been made void by the putting down of the High Commission at the importunity of the Presbyterians: So fierce are men, for the most part, in dispute, where either their Learning or Power is debated, that they ne­ver think of the Laws, but as soon as they are offend­ed, they cry out, Crucifige; forgetting what St. Paul saith, even in case of obstinate holding of an Error, 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. The Servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, pati­ent, in meekness instructing those that oppose, if God peradventure may give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth: Of which counsel, such fierceness as hath appeared in the Disputation of Divines, down from before the Council of Nice to this present time, is a Violation.

FINIS.
SEVEN Philosophical …

SEVEN Philosophical Problems, AND TWO PROPOSITIONS OF GEOMETRY.

By Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury.

With an Apology for Himself, and his WRITINGS.

Dedicated to the KING, in the year 1662.

LONDON: Printed for William Crook at the Green-Dragon without Temple-Bar, 1682.

TO THE KING.

THat which I do here most humbly present to Your Sacred Majesty, is the best Part of my Medi­tations upon the Natural Causes of Events, both of such as are commonly known, and of such as have been of late artificially exhi­bited by the Curious.

They are ranged under seven Heads. 1. Problems of Gravity. 2. Problems of Tides. 3. Problems of Vacuum. 4. Problems of Heat. 5. Problems of Hard and Soft. 6. Problems of Wind and Weather. 7. Problems of Motion Perpendicular, and Ob­lique, [Page] &c. To which I have added, Two Propositions of Geometry; One is, The Duplication of the Cube, hitherto sought in vain; The other, A Detection of the absurd Use of Arithmetick, as it is now applied to Geometry.

The Doctrine of Natural Causes hath not infallible and evident Principles. For there is no Effect which the Power of God cannot produce by many several ways.

But seeing all Effects are produced by Motion, he that supposing some one or more Motions can derive from them the necessity of that Effect whose Cause is re­quired, has done all that is to be expected from Natural Reason. And though he prove not that the thing was thus produ­ced, yet he proves that thus it may be pro­duced, when the Materials, and the power of Moving is in our hands; which is as useful as if the Causes themselves were known. And notwithstanding the absence [Page] of rigorous Demonstration, this Contem­plation of Nature (if not rendred obscure by empty terms) is the most Noble Im­ployment of the Mind that can be, to such as are at leisure from their necessary Bu­siness.

This that I have done I know is an un­worthy Present to be offered to a KING, though considered (as God considers Offe­rings) together with the Mind and For­tune of the Offerer, I hope will not be to Your Majesty unacceptable.

But that which I chiefly consider in it is, that my Writing should be tryed by Your Majesties Excellent Reason untain­ted with the Language that has been in­vented or made use of by Men when they were puzzled; and who is acquainted with all the Experiments of the time; and whose approbation (if I have the good Fortune to obtain it) will protect my reasoning from the Contempt of my Ad­versaries.

[Page]I will not break the custom of joyning to my Offering a Prayer; And it is, That Your Majesty will be pleased to pardon this following short Apo­logy for my Leviathan. Not that I rely upon Apologies, but upon Your Maje­sties most Gracious General Pardon.

That which is in it of Theology, con­trary to the general Current of Divines, is not put there as my Opinion, but pro­pounded with submission to those that have the Power Ecclesiastical.

I did never after, either in Writing or Discourse, maintain it.

There is nothing in it against Episco­pacy; I cannot therefore imagine what reason any Episcopal-man can have to speak of me (as I hear some of them do) as of an Atheist, or man of no Religion, unless it be for making the Authority of the Church wholly upon the Regal Power; which I hope Your Majesty will think is neither Atheism nor Heresie.

[Page]But what had I to do to meddle with matters of that nature, seeing Religion is not Philosophy, but Law?

It was written in a time when the pre­tence of Christ's Kingdom was made use of for the most horrid Actions that can be imagined; And it was in just Indignation of that, that I desired to see the bottom of that Doctrine of the Kingdom of Christ, which divers Ministers then Preached for a Pretence to their Rebellion; which may reasonably extenuate, though not ex­cuse the writing of it.

There is therefore no ground for so great a Calamny in my writing. There is no sign of it in my Life; and for my Re­ligion, when I was at the point of Death at St. Germains, the Bishop of Durham can bear witness of it, if he be asked. Therefore, I most humbly beseech Your Sacred Majesty not to believe so ill of me upon reports, that proceed often (and may do so now) from the displeasure which commonly ariseth from difference in Opi­nion; [Page] nor to think the worse of me, if snatching up all the Weapons to fight against Your Enemies, I lighted upon one that had a double edge.

Your Majesties Poor and most Loyal Subject, THOMAS HOBBES.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS·

CHAP. I. Problems of Gravity.

A.

WHat may be the cause, think you, that stones, and other bo­dies, thrown upward, or carried up and left to their liberty, fall down again (for ought a man can see) of their own accord? I do not think (with the old Philosophers) that they have any love to the Earth, or are sullen, that they will neither go nor stay. And yet I cannot imagine what body there is above that should drive them back.

B.

For my part, I believe the cause of their descending is not in any natural ap­petite of the bodies that descend, but rather that the Globe of the Earth hath some special motion, by the which it more easily casteth off the Air, than it doth other bo­dies. And then this descent of those we [Page 2] call heavy bodies, must of necessity follow; unless there be some empty spaces in the world to receive them. For when the Air is thrown off from the Earth, somewhat must come into the place of it, (in case the world be full) and it must be those things which are hardliest cast off, that is those things which we say are heavy.

A.

But suppose there be no place empty (for I will defer the Question till anon) how can the Earth cast off either the Air, or any thing else?

B.

I shall shew you how, and that by a familiar Example. If you lay both your hands upon a Basen with water in it, how little soever, and move it circularly, and continue that motion for a while, and you shall see the water rise upon the sides, and fly over; by which you may be assured that there is a kind of circulating motion, which would cast off such bodies as are contiguous to the body so moved.

A.

I know very well there is; and it is the same motion which Country people use to purge their Corn; For the Chaff and Straws, by casting the Grain to the side of the Seive, will come towards the middle. But I would see the Figure.

B.

Here it is. There is a Circle pricked out, whose Center is A, and three less Circles, whose Centers are B, C, D; let [Page 3] every one of them represent the Earth, as it goeth from B to C, and from C to D, always touching the uttermost Circle, and throwing off the Air, as is marked at E and F. And if the world were not full, there would follow by this scattering of the Air, a great deal of space left empty. But sup­posing the world full, there must be a per­petual shifting of the Air, one part into the place of another.

A.

But what makes a stone come down, suppose from G?

B.

If the Air be thrown up beyond G, it will follow, that at the last, if the moti­on be continued, all the Air will be above G, that is, above the stone; which cannot be, till the stone be at the Earth.

A.

But why comes it down still with en­creasing swiftness?

B.

Because as it descends, and is already in motion, it receiveth a new impression from the same cause, which is the Air, whereof as part mounteth, part also must descend, supposing as we have done the plenitude of the world. For, as you may observe by the Figure, the motion of the Earth, according to the Dia­meter of the uttermost Circle, is progres­sive; and so the whole motion is compoun­ded of two motions, one circular, and the other progressive; and consequently the [Page 4] Air ascends and circulates at once. And because the stone descending receiveth a new pressure in every point of its way, the motion thereof must needs be accelerated.

A.

'Tis true; For it will be accelerated equally in equal times; and the way it makes will encrease in a double proportion to the times, as hath heretofore been demonstra­ted by Galileo. I see the solution now of an Experiment, which before did not a little puzzle me. You know that if two plummets hang by two strings of equal length, and you remove them from the perpendicular equally, I mean in equal angles, and then let them go, they will make their turns and returns toge­ther, and in equal times; And though the arches they describe grow continually less and less, yet the times they spend in the greater arches, will still be equal to the time they spend in the lesser.

B.

'Tis true. Do you find any Experi­ment to the contrary?

A.

Yes; For if you remove one of the plum­mets from the perpendicular, so as (for ex­ample) to make an angle with the perpendi­cular of 80 degrees, and the other so as to make an angle of 60 degrees, they will not make their turns and returns in equal times.

B.

And what say you is the cause of this?

A.
[Page 5]

Because the arches are the spaces which these two motions describe, they must be in double proportion to their own times; which cannot be, unless they be let go from equal altitudes, that is, from equal angles.

B.

'Tis right; and the Experiment does not cross, but confirm the equality of the times in all the arches they describe, even from 90 degrees to the least part of one degree.

A.

But is it not too bold, if not extrava­gant, an assertion, to say the Earth is moved as a man shakes a Basen or a Seive? Does not the Earth move from West to East every day once, upon his own Center, and in the Ecliptick Circle once a year? And now you give it another odd motion; How can all these consist in one and the same body?

B.

Well enough. If you be a Shipboard under sail, do not you go with the Ship? Cannot you also walk upon the Deck? Cannot every drop of bloud move at the same time in your veins? How many mo­tions now do you assign to one and the same drop of bloud? Nor is it so extrava­gant a thing to attribute to the Earth this kind of motion; but that I believe if we certainly knew what motion it is that cau­seth the descent of bodies, we should find it either the same, or more extravagant. But seeing it can be nothing above that [Page 6] worketh this effect, it must be the Earth it self that does it; and if the Earth, then you can imagine no other motion to do it withal, but this; And you will wonder more, when by the same motion I shall give you a probable account of the causes of very many other works of Na­ture.

A.

But what part of the Heaven do you suppose the Poles of your pricked Circle point to?

B.

I suppose them to be the same with the Poles of the Ecliptick. For, seeing the Axis of the Earth in this Nation, and in the annual motion keeps parallel to it self, the Axis must in both motions be parallel as to sense. For, the Circle which the Earth describes, is not of visible magni­tude at the distance it is from the Sun.

A.

Though I understand well enough how the Earth may make a stone descend very swiftly under the Ecliptick, or not far from it, where it throws off the Air perpendicularly; yet about the Poles of the Circle methinks it should cast off the Air very weakly. I hope you will not say that bodies descend faster in places remote from the Poles, than nearer to them.

B.

No; but I ascribe it to the like mo­tion in the Sun and Moon. For such moti­ons meeting, must needs cast the stream [Page 7] of the Air towards the Poles; And then there will be the same necessity for the descent there, that there is in other places, though perhaps a little more slowly. For you may have observed that when it snows in the South Parts, the flakes of Snow are not so great as in the North; which is a probable sign they fall in the South from a greater height, and consequently disperse themselves more, as water does that falls down from a high and steep Rock.

A.

'Tis not improbable.

B.

In natural causes all you are to expect is but probability; which is better yet then making Gravity the cause, when the cause of Gravity is that you desire to know; and better then saying the Earth draws it, when the Question is, how it draws?

A.

Why does the Earth cast off Air more easily than it does Water, or any other heavy bodies?

B.

It is indeed the Earth that ca­steth off that Air which is next unto it. But it is that Air which casteth off the next Air; and so continually Air moveth Air; which it can more easily do then any other thing, because like bo­dies are more susceptible of one anothers motions; as you may see in two Lute-strings equally strained, what motion one [Page 8] string being stricken communicates to the Air, the same will the other receive from the Air; but strained to a differing note, will be less, or not at all moved. For there is no body but Air that hath not some in­ternal, though invisible motion of its parts. And it is that internal motion which di­stinguisheth all natural bodies one from another.

A.

What is the cause why certain Squibs, though their substance be either Wood or other heavy matter, made hollow and filled with Gunpowder, which is also heavy, do ne­vertheless when the Gunpowder is kindled, fly upwards?

B.

The same that keeps a man that swims from sinking, though he be heavier then so much water; He keeps himself up, and goes forward by beating back the water with his Feet; and so does a Squib, by beating down the Air with the stream of the fired Gunpowder, that proceeding from its Tail makes it recoil.

A.

Why does any Brass or Iron Vessel, if it be hollow, flote upon the water, being so very heavy?

B.

Because the Vessel and the Air in it, taken as one body, is more easily cast off than a body of water equal to it.

A.

How comes it to pass, that a Fish (especially such a broad Fish as a Turbut or [Page 9] a Plaice, which are broad and thin) in the bottom of the Sea, perhaps a mile deep, is not press'd to death with the weight of water that lies upon the back of it?

B.

Because all heavy bodies descend towards one point, which is the Center of the Earth, and consequently the whole Sea descending at once does arch it self so, as that the upper parts cannot press the parts next below them.

A.

It is evident; Nor can there be possi­bly any weight, as some suppose there is, of a Cylinder of Air, or Water, or of any other li­quid thing, while it remains in its own Ele­ment, or is sustained and inclosed in a Vessel, by which one part cannot press the other.

CHAP. II. Problems of Tides.

A.

WHat makes the Flux and Re­flux of the Sea twice in a natu­ral day?

B.

We must come again to our Basen of water; wherein you have seen, whilst it was moved, how the water mounteth up by the sides, and withal goes circling round about. Now if you should fasten to the inside of the Basen some bar from the bot­tom to the top, you would see the water, instead of going on, go back again from that bar, ebbing, and the water on the other side of the bar to do the same, but in counter-time; and consequently to be highest where the contrary streams meet together, and then return again, marking out four quarters of the Vessel, two by their meeting, which are the high waters, and two by their retiring, which are the low waters.

A.

What bar is that you find in the Ocean, that stops the current of the water, like that you make in the Basen?

B.

You know that the main Ocean lies East and West, between India and the [Page 11] Coast of America; and again, on the other side, between America and India. If there­fore the Earth have such a motion as I have supposed, it must needs carry the current of the Sea East and West; In which course, the bar that stoppeth it is the South part of America, which leaves no passage for the water, but the narrow Streight of Magellan. The Tide rises there­fore upon the Coast of America; And the rising of the same in this part of the world proceedeth from the swelling chiefly of the water there; and partly also from the North Sea, which lieth also East and West, and has a passage out of the South Sea by the Streight of Anian, between America and Asia.

A.

Does not the Mediterranean-Sea lie also East and West? why are there not the like Tides there?

B.

So there are, proportionable to their lengths, and quantity of water.

A.

At Genoa, at Ancona there are none at all, or not sensible.

B.

At Venice there are, and in the bot­tom of the Streights; and a current all along both the Mediterranean-Sea, and the Gulf of Venice; And it is the current that makes the Tides unsensible at the sides, but the check makes them visible at the bottom.

A.
[Page 12]

How comes it about that the Moon hath such a stroke in the business, as so sensibly to encrease the Tides at Full and Change?

B.

The motion I have hitherto supposed but in the Earth, I suppose also in the Moon, and in all those great Bodies that hang in the Air constantly, I mean the Stars, both fixed and errant. And for the Sun and Moon, I suppose the Poles of their motion to be the Poles of the Aequinoctial; which supposed, it will follow, (because the Sun, the Earth and the Moon at every Full and Change are almost in one streight line) that this motion of the Earth will be made swifter than in the Quarters. For this motion of the Sun and Moon being communicated to the Earth, that hath al­ready the like motion, maketh the same greater; and much greater when they are all three in one streight line, which is only at the Full and Change, whose Tides are therefore called Spring Tides.

A.

But what then is the cause that the Spring-Tides themselves are twice a year, namely when the Sun is in the Equinoctial, greater than at any other times?

B.

At other times of the year, the Earth being out of the Aequinoctial, the motion thereof, by which the Tides are made, will be less augmented, by so much as a motion in the obliquity of 23 degrees [Page 13] or thereabout (which is the distance be­tween the Aequinoctial and Ecliptick Cir­cles) is weaker then the motion which is without obliquity.

A.

All this is reasonable enough, if it be possible that such motions as you suppose in these bodies, be really there. But that is a thing I have some reason to doubt of; For, the throwing off of Air, consequent to these motions, is the cause, you say, that other things come to the Earth; And therefore the like motions in the Sun, and Moon, and Stars, casting off the Air, should also cause all other things to come to every one of them. From whence it will follow, that the Sun, Moon, and Earth, and all other bodies but Air, should presently come together into one heap.

B.

That does not follow: For if two bodies cast off the Air, the motion of that Air will be repress'd both ways, and diver­ted into a course towards the Poles on both sides; and then the two bodies can­not possibly come together.

A.

'Tis true. And besides, this driving off the Air on both sides, North and South, makes the like motion of Air there also. And this may answer to the Question, How a stone could fall to the Earth under the Poles of the Ecliptick, by the only casting off of Air?

B.
[Page 14]

It follows from hence, that there is a certain and determinate distance of one of these bodies (the Stars) from another, without any very sensible variation.

A.

All this is probable enough, if it be true that there is no Vacuum, no place empty in all the World. And supposing this motion of the Sun and Moon to be in the plain of the Aequinoctial, methinks that this should be the cause of the Diurnal motion of the Earth; And because this motion of the Earth is (you say) in the plain of the Aequinoctial, the same should cause also a motion in the Moon on her own Center, answerable to the Diurnal motion of the Earth.

B.

Why not? what else can you think makes the Diurnal motion of the Earth, but the Sun? And for the Moon, if it did not turn upon its own Center, we should see sometimes one, sometimes another face of the Moon, which we do not.

CHAP. III. Problems of Vacuum.

WHat convincing Argument is there to prove, that in all the world there is no empty place?

B.

Many; but I will name but one; and that is, the difficulty of separating two bodies hard and flat laid one upon another; I say, the difficulty, not the impossibility. It is possible, without introducing Vacu­um, to pull assunder any two bodies, how hard and flat soever they be, if the force used be greater than the resistance of the hardness. And in case there be any greater difficulty to part them, (besides what proceeds from their hardness) then there is to pull them further assunder when they are parted, that difficulty is Argument enough to prove there is no Vacuum.

A.

These Assertions need demonstration. And first, how does the difficulty of separa­tion argue the Plenitude of all the rest of the world?

B.

If two flat polish'd Marbles lie one upon another, you see they are hardly se­parated in all points at one and the same instant; and yet the weight of either of [Page 16] them it is enough to make them slide off one from the other. Is not the cause of this, that the Air succeeds the Marble that so slides, and fills up the place it leaves.

A.

Yes certainly. What then?

B.

But when you pull the whole Superficies assunder, not without great difficulty, what is the cause of that dif­ficulty?

A.

I think as most men do, that the Air cannot fill up the space between in an instant; For the parting is in an instant.

B.

Suppose there be Vacuum in that Air into which the Marble you pull off is to succeed, shall there be no Vacuum in the Air that was round about the two Marbles when they touched? Why cannot that Vacuum come into the place between? Air cannot succeed in an instant, because a body; and consequently cannot be mo­ved through the least space in an instant. But emptiness is not a body, nor is moved, but made by the act it self of separation. There is therefore (if you admit Vacuum) no necessity at all for the Air to fill the space left, in an instant. And therefore, with what ease the Marble coming off presseth out the Vacuum of the Air behind it, with the same ease will the Marbles be pulled assunder. Seeing then, if there were [Page 17] Vacuum, there would be no difficulty of Separation; it follows, because there is difficulty of separation, that there is no Vacuum.

A.

Well now, supposing the world full, how do you prove it possible to pull those Marbles assunder?

B.

Take a piece of soft wax; Do not you think the one half touches the other half as close as the smoothest Marbles? yet you can pull them assunder. But how? still as you pull, the wax grows continu­ally more and more slender; there being a perpetual parting or discession of the ou­termost part of the wax one from another; which the Air presently fills, and so there is a continual lessening of the wax, till it be no bigger than a hair, and at last sepa­ration. If you can do the same to a Pillar of Marble, till the outside give way, the effect will be the same, but much quicker, after it once begins to break in the Super­ficies; because the force that can master the first resistance of the hardness, will quickly dispatch the rest.

A.

It seems so by the brittleness of some hard bodies. But I shall afterward put some Questions to you, touching the nature of hard­ness. But now to return to our subject.

What reason can you render (without sup­posing Vacuum) of the effects produced in [Page 18] the Engine they use at Gresham Colledge?

B.

That Engine produceth the same effects, that a strong wind would pro­duce in a narrow room.

A.

How comes the wind in? You know the Engine is a hollow round pipe of brass; into which is thrust a Cylinder of wood co­vered with Leather, and fitted to the Cy­linder so exactly as no Air can possibly pass between the leather and the brass?

B.

I know it; and that they may thrust it up, there is a hole left in the Cylinder to let the Air out before it; which they can stop when they please. There is also in the bottom of the Cy­linder a passage into a hollow Globe of Glass; which passage they can also open and shut at pleasure. And at the top of that Globe there is a wide mouth to put in what they please to try conclusions on; and that also to be opened and shut as shall be needful. 'Tis of the nature of a Pop-gun which Children use, but great, costly, and more ingenious. They thrust forward, and pull back the wooden Cy­linder (because it requires much strength) with an Iron screw. What is there in all this to prove the possibility of Vacuum.

A.

When this wooden Cylinder covered with leather, fit and close is thrust home to the bottom, and the holes in the hollow Cy­linder [Page 19] of Brass close stopped, how can it be drawn back, as with the screw they draw it, but that the space it leaves must needs be empty. For it is impossible that any Air can pass into the place to fill it?

B.

Truly I think it close enough to keep out Straw and Feathers, but not to keep out Air, nor yet matter. For suppose they were not so exactly close but that there were round about a dis­tance for a small hair to lye between, Then will the pulling back of the Cylin­der of wood force so much Air in, as in retiring it forces back, and that without any sensible difficulty. And the Air will so much more swiftly enter as the passage is left more narrow. Or if they touch, and the contract be in some points, and not in all, the Air will enter as before in case the force be augmented accordingly. Lastly, though they touch exactly, if either the Leather yield, or the Brass (which it may do to the force of a strong screw) the Air will again enter. Do you think it possible to make two superficies so exquisitly touch in all points as you sup­pose, or Leather so hard as not to yield to the force of a screw? The Body of Leather will give passage both to Air and Water, as you will confess when you ride in Rainy and Windy weather. You [Page 20] may therefore be assured that in drawing out their wooden-leather Cylinder they force in as much Air as will fill the place it leaves, and that with as much swiftness as is answerable to the strength that drives it in. The effect therefore of their pump­ing is nothing else but a vehement Wind, a very vehement Wind coming in on all sides of the Cylinder at once into the hollow of the Brass Pipe, and into the hollow of the Glass Globe joyned to it.

A.

I see the reason already of one of their wonders, which is, that the Cylinder they pump with, if it be left to it self, af­ter it is pulled back will swiftly go up again. You will say the Air comes out again with the same violence by reflection; and I be­lieve it?

B.

This is argument enough that the place was not empty. For what can fetch or drive up the Sucker, as they call it, if the place within were empty; for that there is any weight in the Air to do it, I have already demonstrated to be im­possible.

Besides, you know, when they have sucked out (as they think) all the Air from the Glass Globe, they can neverthe­less both see through it what is done, and hear a sound from within when there is any made. Which (if there were no [Page 21] other, but there are many other,) is ar­gument enough that the place is still full of Air.

A.

What say you to the swelling of a Bladder even to bursting, if it be a little blown when it is put into the Receiver, (for so they call the Globe of Glass?)

B.

The stream of Air that from eve­ry side meeting together, and turning in an infinite number of small points, do pierce the Bladder in innumerable places with great violence at once, like so ma­ny invisible small wimbles; especially if the Bladder be a little blown before it be put in, that it may make a little resist­ance. And when the Air has once pierced it, it is easie to conceive, that it must af­terward by the same violent motion be extended till it break. If before it break you let in fresh Air upon it, the violence of the motion will thereby be tempered, and the Bladder be less extended. For that also they have observed. Can you imagine how a Bladder should be exten­ded, and broken, by being too full of Emptiness.

A.

How come living creatures to be killed in this Receiver, in so little a time as 3 or 4 minutes of an hour?

B.

If they suck into their lungs so vi­olent a wind thus made, you must needs [Page 22] think it will presently stop the passage of their bloud; and that is death; though they may recover if taken out before they be too cold. And so likewise will it put out fire; but the Coals taken out whilst they are hot, will revive again. 'Tis an ordinary thing in many Coal-pits, (whereof I have seen the experience,) that a wind proceeding from the sides of the Pit every way, will extinguish any fire let down into it, and kill the work­men, unless they be quickly taken out.

A.

If you put a vessel of water into the Receiver, and then suck out the Air, the water will boil. What say you to that?

B.

It is like enough it will dance in so great a bustling of the Air; but I never heard it would be hot. Nor can I imagine how Vacuum should make any thing dance. I hope you are by this time satis­fied, that no experiment made with the Engine at Gresham Colledge, is sufficient to prove that there is, or that there may be Vacuum.

A.

The World you know is finite, and consequently, all that infinite space with­out it, is empty. Why may not some of that Vacuum be brought in, and mingled with the Air here?

B.

I know nothing in matters without the World.

A.
[Page 23]

What say you to Torricellioes Ex­periment in Quick-silver, which is this. There is a Bason at A filled with Quick-sil­ver, suppose to B, And CD a hollow glass pipe filled with the same. Which if you stop with your finger at B, and so set it upright, and then if you take away your finger, the Quick-silver will fall from C downwards, but not to the bottom. For it will stop by the way, suppose at D. Is it not therefore ne­cessary that that space between C and D be left empty? Or will you say the Quick sil­ver does not exactly touch the sides of the glass pipe?

B.

I'le say neither. If a man thrust down into a vessel of Quick-silver a blown Bladder, will not that Bladder come up to the top?

A.

Yes certanly, or a Bladder of Iron, or of any thing else but Gold.

B.

You see then that Air can pierce Quick silver.

A.

Yes, with so much force as the weight of Quick-silver comes to.

B.

When the Quick-silver is fallen to D, there is so much the more in the ba­son. And that takes up the place which so much Air took up before. Whither can this Air go if all the World without that glass pipe B C were full? There must needs be the same or as much Air come [Page 24] to that space (which only is empty) be­tween C and D. By what force? By the weight of the Quick-silver between D and B. Which Quick-silver weigheth now upward; or else it could never have raised that part higher, which was at first in the Bason. So you see the weight of Quick-silver can press the Air through Quick-silver up into the pipe, till it come to an equality of force as in D. Where the weight of the Quick-silver is equal to the force which is required in Air to go through it.

A.

If a man suck a Vial that has no­thing in it but Air, and presently dip the mouth of it into water, the water will as­cend into the Vial. Is not that an argument that part of the Air had been sucked out, and part of the room within the Vial left empty?

B.

No. If there were empty space in the World, why should not there be also some empty space in the Vial before it was sucked? And then why does not the water rise to fill that, when a man sucks the Vial he draws nothing out neither in­to his Belly nor into his Lungs, nor into his Mouth; only he sets the Air within the glass into a circular motion, giving it at once an endeavour to go forth by the sucking, and an endeavour to go back [Page 25] by not receiving it into his mouth. And so with a great deal of labour glues his lips to the neck of the Vial. Then taking it off, and dipping the neck of the Vial into the water before the circulation cease, the Air with the endeavour it hath now gotten, pierces the water and goes out. And so much Air as goes out, so much matter comes up into the room of it.

CHAP. IIII. Problems of Heat and Light.

A.

WHat is the cause of Heat?

B.

How know you, that any thing is Hot but your self?

A.

Because I perceive by sense it Heats me.

B.

It is no good argument, The thing Heats me; therefore it is Hot. But what alteration do you find in your body at any time by being Hot?

A.

I find my skin more extended in Summer than in Winter; and am some­times fainter and weaker then ordinary, as if my Spirits were exhaled; and I sweat.

B.

Then that is it you would know the cause of. I have told you before that [Page 26] by the motion I suppose both in the Sun, and in the Earth, the Air is dissipated, and consequently that there would be an infinite number of small empty places but that the World being full, there comes from the next parts other Air into the spaces, they would else make empty. When therefore this motion of the Sun is excercised upon the Superficies of the Earth, if there do not come out of the Earth it self some corporal substance to supply that tearing of the Air, we must return again to the admission of Vacuum. If there do, then you see how by this motion fluid bodies are made to exhale out of the Earth. The like happens to a mans body or hand, which when he perceives, he says he is Hot. And so of the Earth when it sendeth forth Water and Earth together in Plants, we say it does it by Heat from the Sun.

A.

'Tis very probable, and no less pro­bable, that the same action of the Sun, is that which from the Sea and moist places of the Earth, but especially from the Sea fetcheth up the water into the Clouds. But there be many ways of Heating besides the action of the Sun or of Fire. Two pieces of Wood will take Fire if in Torning they be prest together.

B.

Here again you have a manifest la­ceration [Page 27] of the Air by the reciprocal and contrary motions of the two pieces of wood, which necessarily causeth a com­ing forth of whatsoever is Aereal or fluid within them, and (the motion pursued) a dissipation also of the other more solid parts into Ashes.

A.

How comes it to pass that a man is warmed even to sweating almost with every extraordinary labour of his body?

B.

It is easie to understand, how by that labour all that is liquid in his body is tossed up and down, and thereby part of it also cast forth.

A.

There be some things that make a man Hot without sweat or other evaporation, as Caustiques, Nettles and other things.

B.

No doubt. But they touch the part they so Heat, and cannot work that effect at any distance.

A.

How does Heat cause light, and that partially in some bodies more, in some less, though the Heat be equal?

B.

Heat does not cause Light at all. But in many Bodies, the same cause, that is to say, the same motion causeth both together; so that they are not to one a­nother as cause and effect, but are con­comitant Effects, sometimes of one and the same motion.

A.

How?

B.
[Page 28]

You know the rubbing or heard pressing of the Eye, or a stroke upon it makes an apparition of Light without and before it, which way soever you look. This can proceed from nothing else but from the restitution of the Organ pressed or stricken, unto its former ordi­nary situation of parts. Does not the Sun by his thrusting back the Air upon your eyes press them? Or does not those bo­dies whereon the Sun shines (though by reflection) do the same, though not so strongly? And do not the Organs of Sight, the Eye, the Heart, and Brains resist that pressure by an endeavour of restitution outwards? Why then should there not be without and before the Eye, an apparition of Light in this case as well as in the other?

A.

I grant there must. But what is that which appears after the pressing of the eye? For there is nothing without, that was not there before; or if there were, methinks another should see it better, or as well as he; or if in the dark, methinks it should en­lighten the place.

B.

It is a fancy, such as is the appear­ance of your face in a Looking-glass; such as is a Dream; such as is a Ghost; such as is a spot before the Eye that hath stared upon the Son or Fire. For all these [Page 29] are of the Regiment of Fancy, without any body concealed under them, or be­hind them, by which they are pro­duced.

A.

And when you look towards the Sun or Moon, why is not that also which ap­pears before your Eyes at that time a fancy?

B.

So it is. Though the Sun it self be a real Body, yet that bright Circle of a­bout a foot Diameter cannot be the Sun, unless there be two Suns, a greater and a lesser. And because you may see that which you call the Sun, both above you in the Skie, and before you in the Water, and two Suns (by distorting your Eye) in two places of the Skie, one of them must needs be Fancy. And if one, both. All sense is Fancy though the cause be al­ways in a real Body.

A.

I see by this that those things which the Learned call the Accidents of Bodies, are indeed nothing else but diversity of Fancy; and are inherent in the Sentient, and not in the Objects, except Motion and Quan­tity. And I perceive by your Doctrine you have been tampering with Leviathan. But how comes Wood with a certain degree of Heat to shine, and Iron also with a greater degree; but no Heat at all to be able to make water shine?

B.

That which shineth hath the same [Page 30] Motion in its parts that I have all this while supposed in the Sun and Earth. In which Motion there must needs be a competent degree of swiftness, to move the sense, that is, to make it visible. All Bodies that are not fluid will shine with Heat, if the Heat be very great. Iron will shine and Gold will shine; but wa­ter will not, because the parts are carried away before they attain to that degree of swiftness; which is requisite.

A.

There are many fluid Bodies, whose parts evaporate, and yet they make a flame, as Oyl, and Wine, and other strong drinks.

B.

As for Oyl I never saw any infla­med by it self, how much soever Heated, therefore I do not think they are the parts of the Oyl, but of the combustible bo­dy oyled that shine, but the parts of Wine and strong Drinks have partly a strong Motion of themselves, and may be made to shine, but not with boiling, but by adding to them as they rise the flame of some other body.

A.

How can it be known that the par­ticles of Wine have such a Motion as you suppose?

B.

Have you ever been so much dis­tempered with drinking Wine, as to think the Windows and Table move?

A.

I confess (though you be not my Con­fessor,) [Page 31] I have, but very seldom, and I remember the window seemed to go and come in a kind of circling Motion, such as you have described. But what of that?

B.

Nothing, but that it was the Wine that caused it; which having a good de­gree of that Motion before, did when it was Heated in the Veins, give that con­cussion (which you thought was in the window,) to the Veins themselves, and (by the continuation of the parts of mans Body) to the Brain; and that was it which made the window seem to move.

A.

What is Flame? For I have often thought the Flame that comes out of a small heap of Straw, to be more (before it hath done Flaming,) then a hundred times the Straw it self.

B.

It was but your Fancy. If you take a stick in your hand by one end, the other end burning, and move it swiftly, the burning end, if the Motion be circu­lar, shall seem a circle; if streight, a streight line of Fire, longer or shorter, according to the swiftness of the Motion, or to the space it moves in. You know the cause of that.

A.

I think it is, because the impression of that visible Object, which was made at the first instant of the Motion did last till it was ended. For then it will follow that it [Page 32] must be visible all the way, the impressions in all points of the time being equal.

B.

The cause can be no other. The smallest spark of Fire flying up seems a line drawn upward; and again by that swift circular Motion which we have supposed for the cause of Light, seems also broader then it is. And consequently the Flame of every thing must needs seem much greater then it is.

A.

What are those sparks that flie out of the Fire?

B.

They are small pieces of the wood or Coals, or other Fuel loosened and car­ried away with the Air that cometh up with them. And being extiguished be­fore their parts be quite dissipated into others, are so much Soot, and black, and may be fired again.

A.

A Spark of Fire may be stricken out of a cold stone. It is not therefore Heat that makes this shining.

B.

No 'Tis the Motion that makes both the Heat and shining; and the stroke makes the Motion. For every of those Sparks, is a little parcel of the stone, which swiftly moved, imprinteth the same Motion into the matter prepared, or fit to receive it.

A.

How comes the Light of the Sun to burn almost any combustible matter by re­refraction [Page 33] through a convex glass, and by re­flection from a concave?

B.

The Air moved by the Sun presseth the convex glass in such manner as the action continued through it, proceedeth not in the same streight line by which it proceeded from the Sun, but tendeth more toward the center of the body it enters. Also when the action is con­tinued through the convex body it bend­eth again the same way. By which means the whole action of the Sun-beams are enclosed within a very small compass; in which place therefore there must be a very vehement Motion; and conse­quently if there be in that place com­bustible matter, such as is not very hard kindle, the parts of it will be dissipated, and receive that Motion which worketh on the Eye as other Fire does.

The same reason is to be given for burning by Reflection. For there also the Beams are collected into almost a point.

A.

Why may not the Sun-beams be such a Body as we call Fire, and pass through the pores of the glass so disposed as to ca­ry them to a point, or very near?

B.

Can there be a glass that is all pores; If there cannot, then cannot this effect be produced by the passing of Fire through the pores. You have seen men [Page 34] llght their Tobacco at the Sun with a burning glass, or with a ball of Cristal, held which way they will indifferently. Which must be impossible, unless the ball were all pores. Again, neither you nor I can conceive any other Fire then we have seen, nor then such as water will put out. But not only a solid Globe of Glass or Cristal will serve for a burning Glass, but also a hollow one filled with water. How then does the Fire from the Sun pass through the glass of water with­out being put out before it come to the matter they would have it burn?

A.

I know not. There comes nothing from the Sun. If there did, there is come so much from it already, that at this day we had had no Sun,

CHAP. V. Problems of Hard and Soft.

A.

WHat call you Hard, and what Soft.

B.

That body whereof no one part is easily put out of its place, without removing the whole, is that which I and all men call Hard; and the contrary Soft. So that they, are but degrees one of another.

A.

What is the cause that makes one bo­dy Harder then another, or (seeing you say they are but degrees of one another) what makes one body Softer then another, and the same body sometimes Harder, sometimes Softer?

B.

The same Motion which we have supposed from the beginning for the cause of so many other effects. Which Motion not being upon the center of the part moved, but the part it self going in a­nother circle to and again, it is not neces­sary that the Motion be perfectly circular. For it is not circulation, but the recipro­cation, I mean the to and again that does cast off, and lacerrate the Air, and con­sequently produce the fore-mentioned effects.

[Page 93]For the cause therefore of Hardness, I suppose the reciprocation of Motion in those things which are Hard, to be very swift, and in very small circles.

A.

This is somewhat hard to believe. I would you could supply it with some visible experience.

B.

When you see (for example) a Cross-bow bent, do you think the parts of it stir?

A.

No. I am sure they do not.

B.

How are you sure? You have no argument for it, but that you do not see the Motion. When I see you sitting still, must I believe there is no Motion in your parts within, when there are so many ar­guments to convince me there is.

A.

What argument have you to convince me that there is Motion in a Cross-bow when it stands bent?

B.

If you cut the string, or any way set the Bow at liberty it will have then a very visible Motion. What can be the cause of that?

A.

Why the setting of the Bow at liberty.

B.

If the Bow had been crooked be­fore it was bent, and a string tied to both ends, and then cut asunder, the Bow would not have stir'd. Where lies the difference?

A.

The Bow bent has a Spring; unbent it has none, how crooked soever.

B.
[Page 37]

What mean you by Spring?

A.

An endeavour of restitution to it's former posture.

B.

I understand Spring as well as I do endeavour.

A.

I mean a Prnciple or beginning of Motion in a contrary way to that of the force which bent it.

B.

But the beginning of Motion is al­so Motion, how insensible soever it be. And you know that nothing can give a beginning of Motion to it self. What is it therefore that gives the Bow (which you say you are sure was at rest when it stood bent) its first endeavour to return to its former posture?

A.

It was he that bent it.

B.

That cannot be. For he gave it an endeavour to come forward, and the Bow endeavours to go backward.

A.

Well, grant that endeavour be Mo­tion, and Motion in the Bow unbent, how do you derive from thence, that being set at liberty it must return to its former posture?

B.

Thus There being within the Bow a swift (though invisible) Motion of all the parts, and consequently of the whole; the bending causeth that Motion, which was along the Bow (that was beaten out when it was hot into that length) to o­perate [Page 38] a cross the length in every part of it, and the more by how much it is more bent; and consequently endeavours to unbend it all the while it stands bent. And therefore when the force which kept it bent is removed, it must of necessity re­turn to the posture it had before.

A.

But has that endeavour no effect at all before the impediment be removed? For if endeavour be Motion, and every Motion have some effect more or less, methinks this endavour should in time produce some­thing.

B.

So it does. For in time (in a long time) the course of this internal Motion will lie along the Bow, not according to the former, but to the new acquired posture. And then it will be as uneasie to return it to its former posture, as it was before to bend it.

A.

That's true. For Bows long bent lose their appetite to restitution, long custom be­coming nature. But from this internal re­ciprocation of the parts, how do you infer the Hardness of the whole Body.

B.

If you apply force to any single part of such a body, you must needs disorder the Motion of the next parts to it before it yield, and there disordered, the Motion of the next again must also be disordered; and consequently no one part can yield [Page 39] without force sufficient to disorder all. But then the whole body must also yield. Now when a body is of such a nature as no single part can be removed without removing the whole, men say that body is Hard.

A.

Why does the Fire melt divers Hard bodies, and yet not all?

B.

The hardest bodies are those wherein the Motion of the parts are the most swift, and yet in the least circles.

Wherefore if the Fire, the Motion of whose parts are swift, and in greater cir­ciles, he made so swift, as to be strong enough to master the Motion of the parts of the Hard body, it will make those parts to move in a greater compass, and there­by weaken their resistance, that is to say, Soften them, which is a degree of liquefaction. And when the Moton is so weakened, as that the parts lose their co­herence by the force of their own weight, then we count the body melted.

A.

Why are the Hardest things the most brittle, insomuch that what force soever is enough to bend them, is enough also to break them?

B.

In bending a Hard body, as (for example) a Rod of Iron, you do not inlarge the space of the internal Motion of the parts of Iron, as the Fire does; [Page 40] but you master and interrupt the Motion, and that chiefly in one place. In which place the Motion that makes the Iron Hard being once overcome, the prosecu­tion of that bending must needs suddenly master the Motions of the parts next unto it, being almost mastered before.

A.

I have seen a small piece of glass, the figure whereof is this AABC. Which piece of glass if you bend toward the top, as in C, the whole body will shatter asunder into a Million of pieces, and be like to so much dust. I would fain see you give a pro­bable reason of that.

B.

I have seen the Experiment. The making of the glass, is thus, They dip an Iron Rod into the molten glass that stands in a Vessel within the Furnace. Upon which Iron Rod taken out, there will hang a drop of molten but tough Mettal of the figure you have described, which they let fall into the water. So that the main drop comes first to the water, and after it the tail, which though streight whilst it hung on the end of the Rod, yet by falling into the water becomes croo­ked Now you know the making of it, you may consider what must be the conse­quence of it. Because the main drop A comes first to the water, it is therefore first quenched, and consequently that the Mo­tion [Page 41] of the parts of that drop, which by the Fire were made to be moved in a lar­ger compass, is by the water made to shrink into lesser circles towards the o­ther end B, but with the same or not much less swiftness.

A.

Why so?

B.

If you take any long piece of Iron, Glass, or other uniform and continued body; and having Heated one end there­of, you hold the other end in your hand, and so quench it suddenly, though be­fore, you held it easily enough, yet now it will burn your fingers.

A.

It will so.

B.

You see then how the Motion of the parts from A toward C is made more violent and in less compass by quenching the other parts first. Besides, the whole Motion that was in all the parts of the main drop A, is now united in the small end BC. And this I take to be the cause why that small part BC is so exceeding stiff. Seeing also this Motion in every small part of the glass, is not only circular, but proceeds also all along the glass from A to B, the whole Motion compounded will be such as the Motion of Spinning any Soft matter unto Thread, and will dispose the whole body of the glass in Threads, which in other Hard bodies are called the grain.

[Page 42]Therefore if you bend this body (for example) in C (which to do will require more force then a man would think that has not tryed) those threads of Glass must needs be all bent at the same time, and stand so, till by the breaking of the Glass at C, they be all at once set at li­berty. And then all at once being sud­denly unbent, like so many brittle, and over-bent Bows, their Strings breaking, be shivered in pieces.

A.

'Tis like enough to be so. And if nature have betrayed her self in any thing, I think it is in this, and in that other ex­perience of the Cross-bow; which strongly and evidently demonstrates the internal reciprocation of the Motion, which you sup­pose to be in the internal parts of every Hard body. And I have observed somewhat in Looking-glasses which much confirms that there is some such Motion in the internal parts of Glass, as you have supposed for the cause of Hardness. For let the Glass be AB, and let the Object at C be a Candle, and the Eye at D. Now by divers Refle­ctions and Refractions in the two superficies of the Glass, if the Lines of Vision be ve­ry oblique, you shall see many images of the Candle, as E, F, G, in such order and position as is here described. But if you re­move your Eye to C, and the Candle to D, [Page 43] they will appear in a situation manifestly different from this. Which you will yet more plainly perceive if the Looking-Glass be coloured, as I have observed in Red and Blew Glasses; and could never conceive any probable cause of it, till now you tell me of this secret Motion of the parts a­cross the grain of the Glass, acquired by cooling it this or that way.

B.

There be very many kinds of Hard bodies, Metals, Stones, and other kinds in the bowels of the Earth, that have been there ever sence the beginning of the World; and I believe also many dif­ferent sorts of Juices that may be made Hard▪ But for one general cause of Hard­ness it can be no other then such an in­ternal Motion of parts as I have already described, whatsoever may be the cause of the several concomitant qualities of their Hardness in particular.

A.

We see water Hardened every Frosty day. It's likely therefore you may give a pribable cause of Ice. What is the cause of Freezing of the Ocean towards the Poles of the Earth?

B.

You know the Sun being always between the Tropicks, and (as we have supposed) always casting off the Air; and the Earth likewise casting it off from it's self, there must needs on both [Page 44] sides be a great Stream of Air towards the Poles, shaving the superficies of the Earth and Sea, in the Northern and Sou­thern Climates. This shaving of the Earth and Sea by the Stream of Air must needs contract and make to shrink those little Circles of the internal parts of Earth and Water, and consequently Harden them, first at the superficies, into a thin skin, which is the first Ice; and after­wards the same Motion continuing, and the first Ice co-operating, the Ice be­comes thicker. And this I conceive to be the cause of the Freezing of the Ocean.

A.

If that be the cause, I need not ask how a Bottle of water is made to Freeze in warm weather with Snow, or Ice mingled with Salt. For when the Bottle is in the midst of it, the Wind that goeth out both of the Salt and of the Ice as they dissolve, must needs shave the superficies of the Bottle, and the Bottle work accordingly on the water without it, and so give it first a thin skin, and at last thicken it into a so­lid piece of Ice. But how comes it to pass that water does not use to Freeze in a deep Pit?

B.

A deep Pit is a very thick Bottle, and such as the Air cannot come at but only at the top, or where the Earth is very loose and spungy.

A.
[Page 45]

Why will not Wine Freeze as well as Water?

B.

So it will when the Frost is great enough. But the internal Motion of the parts of Wine and other Heating Li­quors is in greater Circles and stronger then the Motion of the parts of water; and therefore less easily to be Frozen, e­specally quite through, because those parts that have the strongest Motion retire to the center of the Vessel.

CHAP. VI. Problems of Rain, Wind, and other WEATHER.

A.

WHat is the original cause of Rain? and how is it gene­rated?

B.

The motion of the Air (such as I have described to you already) tending to the dis-union of the parts of the Air, must needs cause a continual endeavour (there being no possibility of Vacuum) of whatsoever fluid parts there are upon the face of the Earth and Sea, to supply the place which would else be empty.

This makes the water, and also very small and loose parts of the Earth and Sea [Page 46] to rise, and mingle themselves with the Air, and to become mist and Clouds. Of which the greatest quantity arise there, where there is most water, namely, from the large parts of the Ocean; which are the South Sea, the Indian Sea, and the Sea that divideth Europe and Africa from America; over which the Sun, for the greatest part of the year is perpendicular, and consequently raiseth a greater quan­tity of water. Which afterwards gathe­red into Clouds, falls down in Rain.

A.

If the Sun can thus draw up the wa­ter; though but in small drops, why can it not as easily hold it up?

B.

It is likely it would also hold them up, if they did not grow greater by meeting together, nor were carried away by the Air towards the Poles.

A.

What makes them gather together?

B.

It is not improbable that they are carried against Hills, and there stopt till more overtake them. And when they are carried towards the North or South where the force of the Sun is more obli­que and thereby weaker, they descend gently by their own weight. And be­cause they tend all to the center of the Earth, they must needs be united in their way for want of room, and so grow big­ger. And then it Rains.

A.
[Page 47]

What is the reason it Rains so seldom, but Snows so often upon very high Moun­tains?

B.

Because perhaps when the water is drawn up higher then the highest Mountains, where the course of the Air between the Aequator and the Poles is free from stopping, the Stream of the Air Freezeth it into Snow. And 'tis in those places only where the Hills shelter it from that Stream, that it falls in Rain.

A.

Why is there so little Rain in Egypt, and yet so much in other parts nearer the Aequinoctial, as to make the Nile over­flow the Countrey?

B.

The cause of the falling of Rain, I told you was the the stopping, and con­sequently the collection of Clouds about great Mountains, especially when the Sun is near the Aequinoctial, and there­by draws up the water more potently, and from greater Seas. If you consider therefore that the Mountains in which are the springs of Nile, lye near the Aequinoctial and are exceeding great, and near the Indian Sea, you will not think it strange there should be great store of Snow. This as it melts makes the Rain of Nile to rise, which in April and May going on toward Egypt arri­ved there about the time of the Solstice, and overflow the Countrey.

A.
[Page 48]

Why should not the Nile then over­flow that Countrey twice a year? For it comes twice a year to the Aequinoctial.

B.

From the Autumnal Aequinox, the Sun goeth on toward the Southern Tro­pique. And therefore cannot dissolve the Snow on that side of the Hills that look towards Egypt.

A.

But then there ought to be such ano­ther Innundation Southward.

B.

No doubt but there is a greater descent of water there in their Summer then at other times; as there must be wheresoever there is much Snow melted. But what should that innundate, unless it should overflow the Sea that comes close to the foot of those Mountains? And for the cause why it seldom Rains in Egypt, it may be this, That there are no very high Hills near it to collect the Clouds. The Mountains whence Nile riseth being near 2000 Miles off. The nearest on one side are the Mountains of Nubia, and on the other side Sina, and the Mountains of Arrabia.

A.

Whence think you proceed the Winds?

B.

From the Motion (I think) espe­cially of the Clouds, partly also from whatsoever is moved in the Air.

A.

It is manifest, that the Clouds are [Page 49] moved by the Winds; so that there were Winds before any clouds could be moved. Therefore I think you make the Effect before the Cause.

B.

If nothing could move a Cloud but Wind, your objection were good. But you allow a Cloud to descend by it's own weight. But when it so descends, it must needs move the Air before it, even to the Earth, and the Earth again repel it, and so make lateral Winds every way. Which will carry forwards other Clouds if there be any in their way, but not the Cloud that made them The Vapour of the water rising into Clouds, must needs also as they rise, raise a Wind?

A.

I grant it. But how can the slow motion of a Cloud make so swift a Wind as it does?

B.

It is not one or two little Clouds, but many and great ones that do it. Be­sides, when the Air is driven into places already covered; it cannot but be much the swifter for the narrowness of the passage.

A.

Why does the South Wind more often then any other bring Rain with it?

B.

Where the Sun hath most power, and where the Seas are greatest, that is in the South, there is most water in the Air; which a South wind can only bring [Page 50] to us. But I have seen great showers of Rain sometimes also when the wind hath been North, but it was in Summer, and came first, I think, from the South or West, and was but brought back from the North.

A.

I have seen at Sea very great Waves when there was no Wind at all. What was it then that troubled the Water?

B.

But had you not Wind enough pre­sently after?

A.

We had a Storm within a little more then a quarter of an hour after.

B.

That Storm was then coming and had moved the Water before it. But the Wind you could not perceive, for it came downwards with the descending of the Clouds, and pressing the Water bounded above your Sail till it came very near. And that was it that made you think there was no Wind at all.

A.

How comes it to pass that a Ship should go against the Wind which moves it, even almost point blank, as if it were not driven but drawn?

B.

You are to know first, that what Body soever is carryed against another Body, whether perpendicularly, or ob­liquely, it drives it in a perpendicular to the superficies it lighteth on. As for Ex­ample, a Bullet shot against a flat wall, [Page 51] maketh the Stone (or other matter it hits) to retire in a perpendicular to that flat; or, if the Wall be round, towards the center, that is to say, per­pendicularly. For if the way of the motion be oblique to the Wall, the mo­tion is compounded of two motions, one parrallel to the Wall, and the other perpendicular. By the former whereof the Bullet is carried along the Wall side, by the other it approacheth to it. Now the former of these motions can have no effect upon it; all the battery is from the motion perpendicular, in which it approacheth. And therefore the part it hits must also retire perpendicularly. If it were not so, a Bullet with the same swiftness would execute as much oblique­ly shot, as perpendicularly; which you know it does not.

A.

How do you apply this to a Ship?

B.

Let A. B. be the Ship, the head of it A. If the Wind blow just from A. to­wards B. 'tis true, the Ship cannot go forward howsoever the sail be set. Let C. D. be perpendicular to the Ship, and let the Sail E. C. be never so little oblique to it, and F. C. perpendicular to E. C. and then you see the Ship will gain the space D. F. to the headward.

A.

It will so, but when it is very near [Page 52] to the Wind it will go forward very slowly, and make more way with her side to the Lee­ward.

A.

It will indeed go slower in the pro­portion of the Line A, E. to the Line C. E. But the Ship will not go so fast as you think sideward: One is the force of that Wind which lights on the side of the Ship it self; the other is, the bellying of the Sail; for the former, it is not much because the Ship does not easily put from her the Water with her side; and belly­ing of the Sail, gives some little hold for the Wind to drive the Ship a stern.

A.

For the motion sideward I agree with you; but I had thought the bellying of the Sail, had made the Ship go faster.

B.

But it does not; only in a fore-wind it hinders least.

A.

By this reason a broad thin Board should make the best Sail.

B.

You may easily foresee the great in­commodities of such a Sail. But I have seen tryed in little what such a Wind can do in such a case. For I have seen a Board set upon four truckles, with a staff set up in the midst of it for a Mast, and another very thin and broad Board fastned to that staff in the stead of a Sail; and so set as to receive the Wind very obliquely, I mean so as to be within a point of the [Page 53] Compass directly opposite to it; and so placed upon a reasonable smooth pave­ment where the Wind blew somewhat strongly. The event was first, that it stood doubting whether it should stir at all or no, but that was not long; and then it ran a head extream swiftly, till it was overthrown by a Rub.

A.

Before you leave the Ship tell me how it comes about that so small a thing as a Rudder, can so easily turn the greatest Ship?

B.

'Tis not the Rudder only, there must also be a stream to do it; you shall never turn a Ship with a Rudder in a standing pooll, nor in a natural current.

You must make a stream from head to stern, either with Oares or with Sails: when you have made such a stream, the turning of the Rudder obliquely holds the Water from passing freely; and the Ship or Boat cannot go on directly, but as the Rudder inclines to the stern, so will the Ship turn. But this is too well known to insist upon: you have observed, that the Rudders of the greatest Ships are not very broad, but go deep into the Water, whereas Western Barges, though but small Vessels, have their Rudders much broader, which argues that the holding of Water from passing is the [Page 54] office of a Rudder: and therefore to a Ship that draws much Water the Rud­der is made deep accordingly, and in Barges that draw little Water, the Rud­ders as less deep, must so much the more be extended in breadth.

A.

What makes Snow?

B.

The same cause which (speaking of Hardness) I supposed for the cause of Ice. For the Stream of Air proceeding from. That both the Earth and the Sun cast off the Air, and consequently maketh a stream of Air from the Aequinoctial to­wards the Poles, passing amongst the Clouds, shaving those small drops of Water whereof the Clouds consist, and congeals them as they do the Water of the Sea, or of a River. And these small frozen drops are that which we call Snow.

A.

But then how are great drops frozen in­to Hailstones, and that especially (as we see they are) in Summer?

B.

It is especially in Summer; and hot weather, that the drops of Water which make the Clouds, are great enough; but it is then also that Clouds are sooner and more plentifully carryed up. And there­fore the current of the Air strengthned between the Earth and the Clouds, be­comes more swift; and thereby freezeth [Page 55] the drops of Water, not in the Cloud it self, but as they are falling. Nor does it freeze them throughly, the time of their falling not permitting it, but gives them only a thin coat of Ice; as is mani­fest by their suddain dissolving.

A.

Why are not somteimes also whole Clouds when pregnant and ready to drop, frozen into one piece of Ice?

B.

I belive they are so whensoever it Thunders.

A.

But upon what ground do you believe it?

B.

From the manner or kind of noise they make, namely a crack; which I see not how it can possibly be made by Wa­ter or any other soft Bodies whatsoever.

A.

Yes, the Powder they call Aurum Fulminans, when throughly warm, gives just such another crack as Thunder.

B.

But why may not every small grain of that Aurum Fulminans by it self be heard, though a heap of them together be soft, as is any heap of Sand. Salts of all sorts are of the nature of Ice. But Gold is dissolved into Aurum Fulminans by Nitre and other Salts. And the least grain of it gives a little crack in the fire by it self. And therefore when they are so warmed by degrees, the crack can­not chuse but be very great.

A.
[Page 56]

But before it be Aurum Fulminans they use to wash away the Salt (which they call dulcifying it,) and then they dry it gently by degrees.

B.

That is, they exhale the pure Wa­ter that is left in the Powder, and leave the Salt behind to Harden with drying. Other Powder made of Salts without a­ny Gold in them will give a crack as great as Aurum Fulminans. A very great Chymist of our times hath written, that Salt of Tarter, Salt-peter, and a little Brimstone ground together into a Pow­der, and dryed, a few grains of that Powder will be made by the fire to give as great a Clap as a Musquet.

A.

Me thinks it were worth your tryal to see what effect a Quart or a Pint of Au­rum Fulminans would produce, being put into a great Gun made strong enough on purpose, and the Breech of the Gun set in hot Cinders, so as to heat by degrees, till the Powder fly.

B.

I pray you try it your self; I can­not spare so much Money.

A.

What is it that breaketh the Clouds when they are frozen?

B.

In very hot weather the Sun raiseth from the Sea and all moist places abun­dance of Water, and to a great height. And whilst this Water hangs over us in [Page 57] Clouds, or is again descending, it raiseth other Clouds, and it hapens very often that they press the Air between them, and squeeze it through the Clouds themselves very violently; which as it passes shaves and hardens them in the manner decla­red.

A.

That has already been granted, my question is what breaks them?

B.

I must here take in one supposition more.

A.

Then your Basen (it seems) holds not all you have need of.

B.

It may for all this, for the suppositi­on I add is no more but this; that what internal motion I ascribe to the Earth, and other the Concrete parts of the World, is to be supposed also in every of their parts how small soever; for what reason is there to think, in case the whole Earth have in truth the motion I have ascribed to it, that one part of it taken away, the remaining part should love that moti­on. If you break a Load-stone both parts will retain their vertue, though weakened according to the diminution of their quantity; I suppose therefore in every small part of the Earth, the same kind of motion, which I have supposed in the whole: and so I recede not yet from my Basen.

A.
[Page 58]

Let it be supposed, and withall, that abundance of Earth (which I see you aim at,) be drawn up together with the Water. What then?

B.

Then if many pregnant Clouds, some ascending and some descending meet together, and make concavities between, and by the pressing out of the Air, as I have said before, become Ice; those Atomes (as I may call them) of Earth will be by the straining of the Air through the water of the Clouds, be left behind, and remain in the Cavities of the Clouds, and be more in number then for the proportion of the Air therein. There­fore for want of liberty they must needs justle one another, and become (as they are more and more streightened of room) more and more swift, and consequently at last break the Ice suddenly and violent­ly, now in one place, and by and by in another; and make thereby so many claps of Thunder, and so many Flashes of Lightning. For the Air Recoiling up­on our Eyes, is that which maketh those Flashes to our Fancy.

A.

But I have seen Lightning in a very clear Evening, when there has been neither Thunder nor Clouds.

B.

Yes in a clear evening; because the Clouds and the Rain were below the [Page 59] Horison, perhaps 40 or 50 Miles off; so that you could not see the Clouds nor hear the Thunder.

A.

If the Clouds be indeed Frozen into Ice, I shall not wonder if they be sometimes also so scituated, as (like Looking-Glasses) to make us see sometimes three or more Suns by Refraction and Reflection.

CHAP. VII. Problems of Motion Perpendicular, Ob­lique; of Pression and Percussion; Re­flection and Refraction; Attraction and Repulsion.

IF a Bullet from a certain point given▪ be shot against a wall Perpendicularly and again from the same Point Oblique, What will be the proportion of the Forces wherewith they urge the wall?

For Example, let the wall be AB, a point given E, a Gun CE that carries the Bullet Perpendicularly to F, and another Gun DE that carries the like Bullet with the same swiftness Oblique to G; In what proportion will their Forces be upon the Wall?

B.

The force of the stroke Perpendi­cular from E to F will be greater then [Page 60] the Oblique force from E to G, in the proportion of the line EG to the line EF.

A.

How can the difference be so much? Can the Bullet lose so much of its force in the way from E to G?

B.

No we will suppose it loseth no­thing of its swiftness. But the cause is, That their swiftness being equal, the one is longer in coming to the wall then the other, in Proportion of Time, as EG to EF. For though their swiftness be the same, considered in themselves, yet the swiftness of their approach to the wall is greater in EF then in EG, in proportion of the lines themselves.

A.

When a Bullet enters not, but re­bounds from the wall, does it make the same Angle going off, which it did falling on, as the Sun-beams do?

B.

If you measure the Angles close by the wall there difference will not be ensible; otherwise it will be great e­nough, For the Motion of the Bullet grows continually weaker. But it is not so with the Sun-beams which press con­tinually and equally.

A.

What is the cause of Reflection? When a body can go no further on, it has lost its Motion. Whence then comes the Motion by which it reboundeth?

B.
[Page 91]

This Motion of rebounding or re­flecting proceedeth from the resistance. There is a difference to be considered between the Reflection of Light, and of a Bullet, answerable to their different Motions, pressing and striking. For the action which makes Reflection of Light, is the Pressure of the Air upon the Re­flecting Body, caused by the Sun, or o­ther shining body, and is but a contra­ry endeavour; as if two men should press with their breasts upon the two ends of a Staff, though they did not remove one another, yet they would find in themselves a great disposition to press backward upon whatsoever is behind them, though not a total going out of their places. Such is the way of Reflect­ing Light. Now, when the falling on of the Sun-beams is Oblique, the action of them is nevertheless Perpendicular to the Superficies it falls on. And therefore the Reflecting Body, by resisting, turneth back that Motion Perpendicularly, as from F to E, but taketh nothing from the force that goes on parallel in the line of EH; because the Motion never presses. And thus of the two Motions from F to E, and from E to H is a com­pounded Motion in the line FH, which maketh an Angle in BG, equal to the Angle FGE.

[Page 42]But in Percussion (which is the Mo­tion of the Bullet against a wall,) the Bullet no sooner goeth off then it loseth of its swiftness, and inclineth to the Earth by its weight. So that the Angles made in falling on and going off, cannot be equal, unless they be measured close to the point where the stroke is made.

A.

If a man set a Board upright upon its edge, though it may very easily be cast down with a little Pressure of ones finger, yet a Bullet from a Musquet shall not throw it down but go through it. What is the cause of that?

B.

In pressing with your finger you spend time to throw it down. For the Motion you give to the part you touch is communicated to every other part before it fall. For the whole cannot fall till every part be moved. But the stroke of a Bullet is so swift, as it breaks through before the Motion of the part it hits can be communicated to all the other parts that must fall with it.

A.

The stroke of a Hammer will drive a Nail a great way into a piece of Wood on a sudden. What weight laid upon the head of a Nail, and in how much time will do the same? It is a question I have heard propounded amonst Naturalists,

B.

The different manner of the ope­ration [Page 43] of weight from the operation of a stroke, makes it uncalculable. The suddenness of the stroke upon one point of the wood takes away the time of re­sistance from the rest. Therefore the Nail enters so far as it does. But the weight not only gives them time, but also aug­ments the resistance; but how much, and in how much time, is (I think) im­possible to determine.

A.

What is the difference between Re­flection and Recoiling?

B.

Any Reflection may (and not un­properly) be called recoiling; but not contrariwise every Recoiling Reflection. Reflection is always made by the Re-acti­on of a Body prest or stricken; but Re­coiling not always. The Recoiling of a Gun is not caused by its own pressing up­on the Gun-powder, but by the force of the Powder it self, inflamed and moved every way alike.

A.

I had thought it had been by the sudden re-entring of the Air after the flame and Bullet were gone out. For it is impossible that so much room as is left empty by the discharging of the Gun, should be so sud­denly filled with the Air that entereth at the Touch-hole.

B.

The flame is nothing but the Pow­der it self, which scattered into its smal­lest [Page 64] parts seems, of greater bulk by much, then in truth it is, because they shine. And as the parts scatter more and more, so still more Air gets between them, en­tring not only at the Touch-hole, but al­so at the mouh of the Gun. which two ways being opposite, it will be much too weak to make the Gun Recoil.

A.

I have heard that a great Gun char­ged too much or too little, will Shoot (not above, nor below but) besides the mark; and charged with one certain charge be­tween both will hit it.

B.

How that should be I cannot ima­gine. For when all things in the cause are equal, the effects cannot be unnequal. As soon as Fire is given, and before the Bul­let be out, the Gun begins to Recoil. If then there be any unevenness or rub in the ground more on one side then on the other, it shall shoot besides the mark, whether too much, or too little, or justly charged; because if the line wherein the Gun Recoileth decline, the way of the Bullet will also decline to the contrary side of the mark. Therefore I can ima­gine no cause of this event, but either in the ground it Recoils on, or in the une­qual weight of the parts of the Breech.

A.

How comes Refractin?

B.

When the action is in a line Per­pendicular [Page 65] to the superficies of the Body wrought upon, there will be no Refracti­on at all. The action will proceed still in the same straight Line, whether it be Pres­sion as in Light, or in Percussion as in the shooting of a Bullet. But when the Pression is Oblique, then will the Refraction be that way which the Na­ture of the Bodies through which the Action proceeds shall determin.

H.

How is light Refracted?

B.

If it pass through a Body of less, into a Body of greater resistance, and to the Point of the Superficies it falleth on, you draw a Line Perpen­dicular to the same superficies, the Action will proceed not in the same Line by which it fell on, but in another Line bending toward that Perpen­diculare.

A.

What is the reason of that?

B.

I told you before, that the falling on worketh only in the Perpendicular; But as soon as the Action proceedeth fur­ther inward then a meer touch, it worketh partly in the Perpendicular, and partly forward, and would proceed in the same line in which it fell on, but for for the greater resistance which now weakneth the Motion forward, and makes it to incline towards the Perpen­dicular.

A.
[Page 66]

In transparent Bodies it may be so; but there be Bodies through which the Light cannot pass at all.

B.

But the Action by which Light is made, passeth through all Bodies. For this Action is Pression; and whatsoever is prest, presseth that which is next be­hind, and so continually. But the cause why there is no Light seen through it, is the uneveness of the parts within, whereby the Action is by an infinite number of Reflections so diverted and weakned, that before it hath proceeded through, it hath not strength left to work upon the Eye strongly enough to produce sight.

A.

If the Body being transparent the Acti­on proceed quite through, into a Body again of less resistance, as out of Glass into the Air, which way shall it then proceed in the Air?

B.

From the Point where it goeth forth, draw a Perpendicular to the su­perficies of the Glass, the Action now freed from the resistance it suffered, will go from that Perpendicular, as much as it did before come towards it.

A.

When a Bullet from out of the Air entreth into a Wall of Earth, will that al­so be Refracted towards the Perpendicu­lar?

B.
[Page 67]

If the Earth be all of one kind, it will. For the parallel Motion, will there also at the first entrance be resisted, which it was not before it entred.

A.

How then comes a Bullet, when shot very Obliquely into any broad Water, and having entred, yet to rise, again into the Air?

B.

When a Bullet is shot very Ob­liquely, though the Motion be never so swift, yet approach downwards to the Water is very slow, and when it cometh to it, it casteth up much Wa­ter before it, which with its weight presseth downwards again, and maketh the Water to rise under the Bullet with force enough to master the weak Moti­on of the Bullet downwards, and to make it rise in such manner as Bodies use to rise by Reflection.

A.

By what Motion (seeing you ascribe all Effects to Motion) can a Load-stone draw Iron to it?

B.

By the same Motion hitherto sup­posed. But though all the smallest parts of the Earth have this Motion, yet it is not supposed that their Motions are in equal Circles; nor that they keep just time with one another; nor that they have all the same Poles. If they had, all Bodies would draw one another [Page 68] alike. For such an agreement of Moti­on, of Way, of Swiftness, of Poles, cannot be maintained without the con­junction of the Bodies themselves in the Center of their common Motion, but by violence.

If therefore the Iron have but so much of the Nature of the Load-stone as re­dily to receive from it the like Motion, as one String of a Lute doth from another String strained to the same Note (as it is like enough it hath, the Load-stone being but one kind of Iron Ore) it must needs after that Motion received from it, (unless the greatness of the weight hinder) come nearer to it, be­cause at distance their Motions will differ in time, and oppose each other where­by they will be forced to a common Cen­ter. If the Iron be lifted up from the Earth, the Motion of the Load-stone must be stronger, or the Body of it near­er, to overcome the Weight; and then the Iron will leap up to the Load-stone as as Swiftly as from the same distance, it would fall down to the Earth; but if both the Stone and the Iron be set float­ing upon the Water, the attraction will begin to be manifest at a greater distance, because the hindrance of the weight is in part removed.

A.
[Page 69]

But why does the Load-stone if it float on a Calm Water, never fail to place it self at last in the Meridian just North and South.

B.

Not so, just in the Meridian, but almost in all places with some variations. But the cause I think is, that the Axis of this Magnetical Motion is parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptique, which is the Ax­is of the like Motion in the Earth, and consequently that it cannot freely exercise its Natural Motion in any other Scituation.

A.

Whence may this consent of Motion in the Load-stone and the Earth proceed? Do you think (as some have written) that the Earth is a great Load-stone?

B.

Dr. Gilbert that was the first that wrote any thing of this Subject ration­ally, inclines to that opinion. Decartes thought the Earth (excepting this upper crust of a few Miles depth) to be of the same Nature with all other Stars, and bright. For my part I am content to be ignorant; but I believe the Load-stone hath given its virtue by a long habitude in the Mine, the Vein of it lying in the plain of some of the Meridians, or ra­ther of some of the great Circles that pass through the Poles of the Ecliptique, which are the same with the Poles of [Page 70] the like Motion supposed in the Earth.

A.

If that be true, I need not ask why the filings of Iron laid on a Load-stone equally distant from its Poles will lie paral­lel to the Axis, but one each side incline to the Pole that is next it. Nor why by drawing a Load-stone all a long a Needle of Iron, the Needle will receive the same Poles. Nor why when the Load-stone and Iron (or two Load-stones) are put together floating upon Water, will fall one of them a Stern of the other, that their like parts may look the same way, and their unlike touch, in which Action they are commonly said to Repel one another. For all this may be deriv'd from the union of their Motions. One thing more I desire to know, and that is; What are those things they call Spirits? I mean Ghosts, Fairies, Hobgoblins, and the like Apparitions.

B.

They are no part of the Subject of Natural Philosophy.

A.

That which in all Ages, and all places is commonly seen (as those have been, un­less a great part of Mankind by Lyers) cannot, I think, be supernatural.

B.

All this that I have hitherto said, though upon better ground than can be had for a discourse of Ghosts, you ought to take but for a Dream.

A.
[Page 71]

I do so. But there be some Dreams more like sense then others. And that which is like sense pleases me as well (in natural Philosophy) as if it were the very truth.

B.

I was Dreaming also once of these things; but was weakened by their noise. And they never came into any Dream of mine since, unless Apparitionrs in Dreams and Ghoasts be all one.

CHAP. VIII. The Delphique Problem or Duplica­tion of the Cube.

A.

HAve you seen a Printed Paper sent from Paris, containing the Duplication of the Cube, written in French?

B.

Yes. It was I that Writ it, and sent it thither to be Printed, on purpose to see what objections would be made to it by our Professors of Algebra here.

A.

Then you have also seen the confuta­tions of it by Algebra.

B.

I have seen some of them; and have one by me. For there was but one that was rightly Calculated, and that is it which I have kept.

A.
[Page 72]

Your Demonstration then is confuted though but by one.

B.

That does not follow. For though an Arithmetical Calculation be true in Numbers, yet the same may be, or rather must be false, if the Units be not con­stantly the same.

A.

Is their Calculation so inconstant, or rather so foolish as you make it?

B.

Yes. For the same number is some­times so many Lines, sometimes so many Plains, and sometimes so many Solids; as you shall plainly see, if you will take the pains to examine first a Demonstra­tion I have to prove the said Duplication, and after that, the Algebrique Calculation which is pretended to confute it. And not only that this one is false, but also any other Arithmetical account used in Geometry, unless the numbers be always so many Lines, or always so many super­ficies, or always many solids.

A.

Let me see the Geometrical Demon­stration.

B.

There it is. Read it.

To find a Cube double to a Cube given.

LEt the side of the Cube given be VD. Produce VD to A, till AD be double to DV. Then make [Page 73] the square of AD, namely ABCD. Divide AB and CD in the middle at E and F. Draw EF. Draw also AC cutting EF in I. Then in the sides BC and AD take BR and AS each of them equal to AI or IC.

Lastly, divide SD in the middle at T, and upon the Center T, with the distance TV, describe a semi-circle cuting AD in Y, and DC in X.

I say the Cube of DX is double to the Cube of DV. For the three lines DY, DX, DV are in continual pro­portion. And Cntinuing the semi-cir­cle VXY till it cut the line RS drawn and produced in Z, the line SZ, will be equal to DX. And drawing XZ it will pass through T. And the four lines TV, TX, TY and TZ will be equal. And therefore joyning YX and YZ, the Figure VXYZ will be a Rectan­gle.

Produce CD to P so as DP be equal to AD. Now if YZ produced fall on P, there will be three Rectangle equi-angled Triangles, DPY, DYX, and DXV; and consequently four con­tinual proportionals, DP, DY, DX. and DV, whereof DX is the least of the means. And therefore the Cube of DX will be double to the Cube of DV.

A.
[Page 74]

That's true; and the Cube of D Y will be double to the Cube of DX; and the Cube of DP double to the Cube of DY. But that YZ produced, falls upon P, is the thing they deny, and which you ought to demonstrate.

B.

If YZ produced fall not on P, then draw PY, and from V let fall a perpendicular upon PY, suppose at u. Divide PV in the midst at a, and joyn au; which done au will be equal to aV or aP. For because VuP is a right Angle, the point u will be in the semi-circle whereof PV is the Dia­meter.

Therefore drawing VR, the Angle uVR will be a right Angle.

A.

Why so?

B.

Because TV and TY are equal; and TD, TS equal; SV will also be equal to DV. And because DP and RS are equal and parallel, RY will be equal and parallel to PV. And there­fore VR and PY that joyn them will be equal and parallel. And the Angles PuV, RVu will be alternate, and consequently equal. But PuV is a right Angle; therefore also RVu will be a right Angle.

A.

Hitherto all is evident. Proceed.

B.

From the point Y raise a perpen­dicular [Page 75] cutting VR wheresoever in t, and then (because PY and VR are parallel) the Angle YtV will be a right Angle. And the figure uYtV a Rectangle, and ut equal to YV. But YV is equal to ZX; and therefore ZX is equal to ut. And ut must pass through the point T (For the Diame­ters of any Rectangle, divide each o­ther in the middle) therefore Z and u are the same point, and X and t the same point. Therefore YZ produced falls upon P. And DX is the lesser of the two means between AD and DV. And the Cube of DX double to the Cube of DV which was to be de­mostraten.

A

I cannot imagine what fault there can be in this Demonstration, and yet there is one thing which seems a little strange to me. And 'tis this. You take BR, which is half the Diagonal, and which is the sine of 45 degrees, and which is also the mean proportional between the two Extreams. And yet you bring none of these proprieties into your Demonstration. So that though you argue from the Construction, yet you do not argue from the Cause. And this per­haps your adversaries will object (at least) against the Art of your Demonstratieon, or [Page 76] enqure by what luck you pitched upon half the Diagonal for your Foundation.

B.

I see you let nothing pass. But for answer you must know, That if a man argue from the negative of the truth, though he know not that it is the truth which is denyed, yet he will fall at last, after many consequences, into one absur­dity or another. For though false do of­ten produce Truth, yet it produces also absurdity, as it hath done here. But Truth produceth nothing but Truth. Therefore in Demonstrations that tend to absurdity, it is no good Logick to require all along the operation of the cause.

A.

Have you drawn from hence no Corollaries?

B.

No. I leave that for others that will; unless you take this for a Corollary, That, what Arithmetical Calculation so­ever contradicts it, is false.

A.

Let me see now the Algebrical De­monstration against it.

B.

Here it is.

Let AB or AD be equal to
2
Then DF or DV is equal to
1
And BR or AS is equal to the square root of
2
And AV equal to
3
want the square root of
2.
The Cube of AB is equal to
8
[Page 77]The Cube of DY is equal to
45
want the Square Root of 1682 that is almost equal to
4
For 45 want the Square Root of 6681 is equal to
4

Therefore DY is a little less then the greater of the two Means between AD and DV.

A.

There is I see some little difference between this Arithmetical and your Geo­metrical Demonstration. And though it be insensible, yet if his Calculation be true, yours must needs be false, which I am sure cannot be.

B.

His Calculation is so true, that there is never a Proposition in it false, till he come to the conclusion, that the Cube of DY. is equal to 45, want the square Root of 1682. But that, and the rest, is false.

A.

I shall easily see that AD. is certain­ly 2, whereof DV. is 1, and AV. is cer­tainly 3, whereof DV. is 1.

B.

Right.

A.

And BR. is without doubt the square Root of 2.

B.

Why, what is 2?

A.

2, is the Line AD. as being dou­ble to DV. which is 1.

B.

And so, the Line BR. is the square Root of the Line AD.

A.
[Page 78]

Out upon it it, it's absurd. Why do you grant it to be true in Arithme­tick?

B.

In Arithmetick the numbers consist of so many Units; and are never consi­dered there as nothings. And therefore every one Line has some Latitude, and if you allow to BI. the Semi-diagonal the same Latitude you do to AB. or to BR. you will quickly see the Square of half the Diagonal to be equal to twice the Square of half AB.

A.

Well, but then your Demonstration is not confuted; for the Point Y, will have Latitude enough to take in that little dif­ference which is between the Root of 1681 and the Root of 1682. This putting off an Vnit sometimes for one Line, sometimes for one Square, must needs marr the reckon­ing. Again he says the Cube of AB. is e­qual to 8. but seeing AB. is 2, the Cube of AB. must be just equal to four of its own sides; so that the Vnit which was be­fore sometimes a Line, sometimes a Square, is now a Cube.

B.

It can be no otherwise when you so apply Arithmetick to Geometry, as to mumber the Lines of a Plain, or the Plains of a Cube.

A.

In the next place, I find that the Cube of DY. is equal to 45, want the [Page 79] Square Root of 1622. What is that 45? Lines, or Squares, or Cubes?

B.

Cubes, Cubes of DV.

A.

Then if you add to 45 Cubes of DV. the Square Root of 1682, the sum will be 45 Cubes of DV. And if you add to the Cube of DY. the same Root of 1682, the sum will be the Cube of DY. plus the Square Root of 1682. And these two sums must be equal.

B.

They must so.

A.

But the Square Root of 1682, being a Line, adds nothing to a Cube; therefore the Cube alone of DY. which he says is e­qual almost to 4. Cubes of DV. is equal to 45 Cubes of the same DV.

B.

All these impossibilities do neces­sarily follow the confounding of Arith­metick and Geometry.

A.

I pray you let me see the Operation by which the Cube of DY. (that is the Cube of 3, want the Root of 2,) is found equal to 45, want the Square Root of 1682.

[Page 80]A detection of the absurd use of Arith­metick as it is now applyed to Geo­metry.

B.

Here it is.

[...]

A.

Why for two Roots of 18 do you put the Root of 72.

B.

Because 2 Roots of 18 is equal to one Root of 4 times 18, which is 72.

A.

Next we have, That the Root of 2 Multiplyed into 2, makes the Root of 8. How is that true?

B.

Does it not make 2 Roots of 2? And is not BR. the Root of 2, and 2 BR equal to the Diagonal? And is not [Page 81] the diagonal the root of a square equal to 8 squares of DV?

A.

'Tis true. But here the root of 8 is put for the Cube of the root of 2. Can a line be equal to a Cube?

B.

No. But here we are in Arith­metick again, and 8 is a Cubique num­ber.

A.

How does the root of 2 multiplyed into the root of 72 make 12?

B.

Because it makes the root of 2 times 72, that is to say the root of 144 which is 12.

A.

How does 9 roots of 2 make the root of 162?

B.

Because it makes the root of 2 squares of 9, that is the root of 162.

A.

How does 3 roots of 72 make the root of 648?

B.

Because it makes the root of 9 times 72, that is of 648.

A.

For the total Sum I see 27 and 18 which make 45. Therefore the root of 648 together with the root of 162 and of 8, which are to be deducted from 45, ought to be equal to the root of 1682.

B.
So they are. For 648 multiplyed by 162 makes 104976 of which the dou­ble root is
648
and 648 and 162 added together make
810.
[Page 82]Therefore the root of 948, added to the root of 162 makes the root of
1459
Again 1458 into 8 is 11664. The dou­ble root whereof is
216.
The Sum of 1458 and 8 added toge­ther is
1466.
The Sum of 1466 and 216 is 1682, and the root, the root of
1682.
A.

I see the the Calculation in numbers is right, though false in lines. The reason whereof can be no other then some difference between multiplying numbers into lines or plains, and multiplying lines into the same lines or plains.

B.

The difference is manifest. For when you multiply a number into lines, the product is lines; as the number 2 mul­tiplyed into 3 lines is no more then 3 lines 2 times told. But if you multiply lines in­to lines you make plains, and if you multi­ply lines into plains you make solid bo­dies. In Geometry there are but three dimensions, Length, Superficies, and Body. In Arithmetick there is but one, and that is Number or Length which you will. And though there be some Numbers cal­led Plain, others Solid, others Plano-solid, others Square, others Cubique, others Square-square, others Quadrato-cubique, others Cubi-cubique &c. yet are all these but one dimension, namely Num­ber, [Page 83] or a file of things Numbered.

A.

But seeing this way of Calculation by Numbers is so apparently false, what is the reason this Calculation came so near the truth.

B.

It is because in Arithmetick Units are not Nothings, and therefore have breadth. And therefore many Lines set together make a superficies though their breadth be insensible. And the greater the number is into which you divide your Line, the less sensible will be your errour.

A.

Archimedes, to find a streight Line equal to the circumferrence of a Circle, used this may of extracting Roots. And 'tis the way also by which the Table of Sines, Se­cants and Tangents have been calculated, Are they all Cut?

B.

As for Archimedes, there is no man that does more admire him then I do. But there is no man that cannot Err▪ His reasoning is good. But he ads all other Geometricans before and after him have had two Principles that cross one another when they are applyed to one and the same Science. One is, that a Point is no part of a Line which is true in Geometry, where a part of a Line when it is called a Point, is not reckon­ed; another is, that a Unit is part of a [Page 84] Number which is also true; but when they reckon by Arithmetick in Geome­try, there a Unit is somtimes part of a Line, sometimes a part of a Square, and sometimes part of a Cube.

As for the Table of Sines, Secants and Tangents, I am not the first that find fault with them. Yet I deny not but they are true enough for the reckoning of Acres in a Map of Land.

A.

What a deal of Labour has been lost by them that being Professors of Geometry have read nothing else to their Auditors but such stuff as this you have here seen. And some of them have written great Books of it in strange characters, such as in troublesome times, a man would suspect to be a Cypher.

B.

I think you have seen enough to satisfie you, that what I have written heretofore concerning the Quadrature of the Circle, and of other Figures made in imitation of the Parabola, has not been yet confuted.

A.

I see you have wrested out of the hands of our Antagonists this weapon of Algebra, so as they can never make use of it again. Which I consider as a thing of much more consequence to the science of Geometry, then either of the Duplication of the Cube, or the finding of two mean Proportionals, or the Quadrature of a Circle, or all these Problems put together.

FINIS.

Books Written by this Author, and Printed for William Crooke.

  • 1 DE Mirabilibus Pecci, in Quarto Latin, in Octavo in English and Lantin.
  • 2 Three Papers to the Royal Society a­gainst Dr. Wallis.
  • 3 Lumathematica.
  • 4 Prima partis Doctrinae Wallisianae de Motu Censura Brevis.
  • 5 Resetum Geometricum, sive propositio­nes aliquot frustra antehac tentatae.
  • 6 Principia & Poblemata aliquot Geo­metrica, ante desperata, nunc brevi­ter explicata & demonstrata.
  • 7 Quadratura Circuli Cubatio Sphaere du­plicatio Cubi Breviter demonstrata.
  • 8 Consideration on his Loyalty, Reputati­on, Religion and Manners; by himself.
  • 9 De Principio & Ratione Geometri
  • 20 The Travels of Vlises Translated from Homer.
  • 11 Epistol. ad Dr. Wood.
  • 12 The Translation of all Homers Works into English.
  • 13 The Epitome of the Civil Wars of En­land from 1640 to 1660.
  • 14 Aristotles Rhetorick Translated into English by him, with his own Rhetorick to it.
  • [Page]15 A Dialogue betwixt a Student in the Common-Laws of England, and a Phi­losopher in which is set forth the Er­rors in some Practise.
  • 16 A Narration of Heresie and the Pun­nishment thereof.
  • 17 Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy.
  • 18 A Poem in Latin of his Life.
  • 19—idem the same in English.
  • 20 His Life written in Latin, part by himself and the rest by Dr. R. B. wherein is contained the most mate­rial parts of his Life.
  • 21 Seven Philosophical Problems, and two Propositions of Geometry. With an Apology for Himself, and his Writtings. Dedicated to the King, in the year 1662.

[Page]

[figure]

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.