THE Author having told us, Page 16. (26. 2. Edit.) that among the various diſagreeing Parties within this Kingdom, two main ones appear above the reſt, viz. the Epiſcopal, and Presbyterian: and that the diſunion between theſe Parties muſt be removed either by the abolition of one Party, or by the coalition of both into one, or by a toleration indulg'd to the weaker ſide, he proceeds p. 17. (27.) (without ſtaying to inform us how diſunion of Parties may be ſaid to be remov'd either by the abolition, or toleration of one Party) to that which he preſumes the great caſe of the time, and therefore propoſes it as the ſubject of his diſcourſe, viz. in which of theſe three ways, Abolition, Coalition, or Toleration the true Intereſt of the King and Kingdom lies. And the firſt thing that he enquires into is,

[Whether in Juſtice or reaſon of State the Presbyterian Party ſhould be rejected and depreſſed, or protected and encouraged?]

Which Party he diſtinguiſhes from Prelatiſts by theſe Characters (which p. 20. (30.) he calls their main and rooted Principles.) 1. They admire and magnify the holy Scriptures, and take them for the abſolute perfect Rule of Faith and life without the ſupplement of Eccleſiaſtical Tradition—yet they deny not due reſpect and reverence to venerable Antiquity. 2. They aſſert the ſtudy and knowledge of the Scriptures to be the duty and priviledge of all Chriſtians—yet they acknowledge the neceſſity of a ſtanding Goſpel-miniſtery, and receive the directive Authority of the Church, not with implicit Faith, but the Judgment of Diſcretion. 3. They hold the teaching of the Spirit neceſſary to the ſaving knowledge of Chriſt—yet they hold not that the ſpirit brings new Revelations. 4. They exalt divine ordinances, but debaſe humane inventions in Gods worſhip, particularly Ceremonies, properly religious, and of inſtituted, myſtical ſignification—yet they allow the natural expreſſions of reverence and devotion, as kneeling, and lifting up of the hands and eyes in prayer: as alſo thoſe meer circumſtances of decency and order, the omiſſion whereof would make the ſervice of God either undecent or leſs decent. 5. They rejoyce in Chriſt Jeſus having no confidence in a legal righteouſneſs, but deſire to be found in him who is made unto us righteouſneſs by gracious imputation: yet withal they affirm conſtantly that good works of piety towards God, and of juſtice and charity towards men are neceſſary to ſalvation. 6. Their Doctrine bears full conformity with that of the Reformed Churches held forth in their publick confeſſions, and particularly with that of the Church of England in the 39 Articles; only one or two paſſages peradventure excepted ſo far as they may import the aſſerting of Prelacy, and humane myſtical Ceremonies. 7. They inſiſt much on the neceſſity of Regeneration, and therein lay the ground-work for the practice of Godlineſs. 8. They preſs upon themſelves and others the ſevere exerciſe not of a Popiſh outſide, formal, but a ſpiritual and real mortification, and ſelf denial according to the power of Chriſtianity. 9. They are ſtrict obſervers of the Lords day, and conſtant in Family-Prayer. 10. They abſtain from Oaths, yea petty Oaths, and the irreverent uſage of Gods name in common diſcourſe. 11. They are ſober, juſt and circumſpect in their whole converſation. Such, ſays he, is the temper and conſtitution of this Party, which in its full latitude lies in the middle between thoſe that affect a ceremonial worſhip and the height of Hierarchical Government on the one hand, and thoſe that reject an ordained miniſtery and ſettled Church-Order and regular Ʋnity on the other hand.

Now either the man would have all theſe particularly look'd upon as truly diſcriminating characters of the Presbyterians, from the Prelatical party, or he would not; if he would not, to what end does he here mention them? and that as middle Principles in reference to the two extremes, viz. Prelatiſts and rejecters of an Ordain'd miniſtery and ſettled Church-order, and regular unity? if he would, with what face, juſtice or honeſty, does he imply that the Prelatiſts magnify not the holy Scriptures as the abſolute, perfect, rule of Faith and life? that they deny the ſtudy and knowledge of the Scriptures to be the duty and priviledge of all Chriſtians, or the teaching of the Spirit to be neceſſary to the ſaving knowledge of Chriſt? that they exalt not divine ordinances? that they worſhip not God in the ſpirit according to the ſimplicity of Goſpel Inſtitutions? that they affirm not conſtantly good works towards God and men neceſſary to ſalvation, &c. Let him evince if he can, that the Prelatiſts are thus culpable; if he cannot, he deſerves to be reckon'd, not in the number of ſuch Presbyterians as are [juſt and circumſpect in their whole behaviour] but of ſuch as practically deny juſtice and charity towards men to be neceſſary to ſalvation. And if he can with truth affirm (as I ſuppoſe he may) that the Presbyterian party believe S. James his Epiſtle (and the ſecond chapter of it) to be Canonical Scripture, and that (according to his doctrine verſe 10.) he that offends in one point of the Law of liberty is guilty of all, they are little beholding to him for exhibiting ſuch a Character of them to the world, wherein ſo very few of thoſe excellent vertues taught by our Saviour in his Sermon on the mount, and inculcated as Eſſential to Chriſtianity and abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, are mentioned as practiſed by that Party.

I am ſure Prelatiſts have great reaſon to complain of his fraudulent, diſingenuous dealing, in endeavouring to cheat the world with ſuch an imperfect pourtraicture of the Presbyterian party: wherein his behaviour is no more commendable than his would be who had either ignorance or confidence enough to give this as an adequate deſcription of the Sect of the Phariſees, viz. They were perſons that diſdain'd not to hear John the Baptiſt's Sermons, and to come to his Baptiſm, Matth. 3. 5, 7. They gathered together alſo to hear Chriſt himſelf, Luk. 5. 17. Mark 2. 6. They kept him company at Feaſts, as appears from Mark 2. 16. and abroad, Matth. 12. 2. One of them invited him to his houſe to Dinner, Luk. 7. 36. They made long Prayers, Matth. 23. 14. They gave Alms, Matth. 6. 2. They faſted twice a week, and gave Tythes of all they had, Luk. 18. 12. They outwardly appear'd righteous, Matth. 23. 27, 28. They avoided the Society of ſuch as were reputed ſinners and offenſive in their lives; and therefore accuſed Chriſt (though wrongfully) for eating with them, Matth. 9. 11. They were the moſt exact and ſtricteſt Sect of the Jewiſh Religion (their Doctrine was, ſay ſome, leaſt corrupt,) of which Sect Paul was, Act. 26. 5. Their Diſciples as well as S. John's were exerciſed in faſting and prayer, Luk. 5. 33. Would our Author account it candid and ſincere dealing if one of the Phariſees friends ſhould preſent him with ſuch a partial character of them? would he not look upon it as too groſly paraſitical, and ſcandalouſly favourable? eſpecially if exhibited in order to the re • olution of ſuch a queſtion as this, [Whether the Phariſaical Party ought in Juſtice to be rejected and depreſſed, or protected and encouraged by our Saviour?] or whether they ought to be called Hypocrites, Serpents and a Generation of Vipers, and to have Woe denounced againſt them eight times in one Sermon? would he think it fairly done to conceal their devouring widows houſes? their ſtraining at Gnats, and ſwallowing Camels? their covetouſneſs? their neglecting the weightier matters of the Law, Judgment, mercy, and Fidelity? Or ſuppoſe the queſtion were put [Whether in juſtice or reaſon of State the Jeſuits ſhould be rejected and depreſſed, or protected and encouraged here in England?] Would he (in order to the deciſion of this queſtion) reſt content with this character of that Society, viz. they believe all the books of the Old and New Teſtament, (which the Engliſh Proteſtants own) to be the word of God.—They aſſent to all the Articles of the Creed commonly called the Apoſtles Creed.—They acknowledge the neceſſity of a ſtanding Goſpel-miniſtry.—They allow the natural expreſſions of reverence and devotion, and thoſe circumſtances of decency and order, the omiſſion whereof would make the Service of God either undecent or leſs decent.—They affirm works of piety towards God and of charity towards men, to be neceſſary to ſalvation.—I ſay, would this man judge this character of that Society ſo entire and comprehenſive, as that a more full and impartial decyphering of them would be needleſs in reference to a right determination of that queſtion? I trow not. Would he not judge this alſo fit to be conſidered, viz. whether they deny that Faith is to be kept with Proteſtants?—Whether they own the Kings Supremacy in all matters, over all perſons, Eccleſiaſtical and Civil, within his own Dominions? Whether they will take the Oath of Allegiance and fidelity to Him, his Heirs and Succeſſors?—Whether they approve Subjects taking up Arms againſt their Soveraign? whether they are perſons reſolved to yield all due obedience to the Laws of the Land and conſtitutions of our lawful Governours both Eccleſiaſtical and Civil, ſupreme and ſubordinate? Surely Reaſon of State (if by that be meant State-Policy in order to ſelf-preſervation) will prompt all Kings and Princes diligently and deliberately to enquire and conſider, whether thoſe who would be protected and encouraged by them deſerve to have ſuch a black character affixt upon them or no, and conſequently they might juſtly treat that Writer with ſeverity who ſhould dare to move Kings to protect and encourage ſuch perſons, by giving in a liſt of a few wholſome opinions of theirs, and trecherouſly (or rather traiterouſly) concealing their damnable and pernicious tenents.

That this mans Character of the Engliſh Presbyterians is of this nature may be evident to any perſon that reflects upon and ſeriouſly conſiders their ſolemn League and Covenant, fram'd and impoſed in the time of the Long Parliament, in the firſt Article whereof they ſwear that they will ſincerely and conſtantly endeavour in their places and callings the preſervation of the Reformed Religion, [in the Church of Scotland,] in Doctrine, Worſhip, [Diſcipline and Government.] Now the Scotch Author or [Ladenſium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in his Poſtſcript againſt Lyſimachus Nicanor, tells us, p. 35. that Epiſcopacy is no way ſo oppoſite to the Diſcipline of [any reformed Church] as to that Diſcipline which many Aſſemblies and Parliaments have ſettled in Scotland: and therefore he concludes thus, p. 36. 37. [we cannot diſſemble any longer our hearty wiſhes,—that England would after the example of all the reformed Churches ridd themſelves at laſt of their Biſhops trouble, as they did of old, without any repentance to this day, of their Abbots and Monks. This, ſays he, we conceive would much increaſe the joy and proſperity of all the three Dominions. Accordingly thoſe Covenanters ſware alſo to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government, according to the word of God, and [the example] of the beſt reformed Churches. Now all the reformed Churches, as the ſame Author affirms, p. 35. caſt out at firſt, and to this day have carefully holden at the door even that kind of Epiſcopacy which their chief Divines ſeem'd not much to oppoſe. Suitable whereunto is that which Presbyterians ſware in the ſecond Article of the Covenant, viz. to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government by Biſhops (as well as by Archbiſhops, Chancellors, Commiſſaries, &c.) With what face therefore can this Author preſume to tell us, p. 19. (29.) that the Form of Eccleſiaſtical Government by Parochial and Claſſical Presbyteries, Provincial and National Aſſemblies, is remote enough from the main cauſe of Presbytery? eſpecially ſince he affirms, p. 24. (34.) that one of his Majeſties Kingdoms (Scotland) is Presbyterian, by which ſure he means not [moderately Epiſcopal:] for p. 59. (69.) that he may prove the Presbyterian Form of Government a. Fence againſt Hereſies and Errors, he inſtances in the Form of Eccleſiaſtical Policy and method of Diſcipline in the Church of Scotland, which (as there deſcribed) is no otherwiſe than by Parochial and Claſſical Presbyteries, Provincial and National Aſſemblies. Now how injurious the Scotch Diſcipline (which Engliſh Presbyterians have thus covenanted to introduce) is to the civil magiſtrate, how oppreſſive to the ſubject, and pernicious to both, Biſhop Bramhall, (ſince Primate of Ireland) hath abundantly manifeſted in his [Fair warning for England to take heed of the Scotch Diſcipline; or as 'tis lately Printed, of the Presbyterian Government.] In which treatiſe he endeavours to prove that their Diſcipline doth utterly overthrow the rights of Magiſtrates to convocate Synods, to confirm their Acts, to order Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, and reform the Church within their Dominions; that it robs the Magiſtrate of the laſt Appeal of his Subjects; that it exempts the Miniſters from due puniſhment; that it ſubjects the ſupreme magiſtrate to their Cenſures; that it robs him of his pardoning power (as to ſome crimes) of his civil power in order to Religion; that it makes a monſter of the Commonwealth, is moſt prejudicial to the Parliament, is oppreſſive to particular perſons, and hurtful to all orders of men; that the Diſciplinarians challenge this exorbitant power by Divine right. The truth of theſe propoſitions he hath evinc'd out of their Books of Diſcipline, and publick Records of their practice. Since therefore the Engliſh Presbyterians have ſworn to endeavour the preſervation of this Diſcipline and Government in the Church of Scotland, and to reform the Diſcipline and Government here in England, according to—the Example of the reformed Church in Scotland, 'tis but a piece of juſtice and reaſon that the King's Majeſty ſhould look upon them as perſons owning thoſe ſeditious Principles, upon which ſuch enormous Diſciplinarian practices are grounded. Some of which Principles are theſe: 1. That their National Aſſemblies ought always to be retain'd in their own liberties (of convening lawfully together, p. 7.) with power to the Kirk to appoint times and places. 2. That they have power to aboliſh and abrogate all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Eccleſiaſtical matters, that are found noyſome and unprofitable, and agree not with the time, or are abuſed by the people; and to make Rules and Conſtitutions for keeping good order in the Kirk, (p. 8.) 3. That Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline ought to be exerciſed, whether it be ratified by the civil magiſtrate or no, p. 9, 12. 4. That from the Kirk there is no reclamation nor appellation to any judge Civil or Eccleſiaſtical within the Realm, p. 13. 5. That to their Diſcipline all the Eſtates within the Realm muſt be ſubject, as well Rulers as they who are ruled, p. 16. 6. That the Civil Magiſtrate cannot pardon any crime that was made capital by the judicial Law, p. 12. 7. That matters of the Pulpit ought to be exempted from the judgment and correction of Princes, p. 14. In proportion to which principles, the Kirk p. 5. by their own Authority decreed the abolition of Biſhops, requiring them to reſign their offices (as not having any call from Gods word) under pain of Excommunication, and to deſiſt from preaching till they had a new admiſſion from the general Aſſembly.—They reſolv'd alſo to diſpoſe of their poſſeſſions as the Kings Patrimony in the next Aſſembly.—When they could not prevail to have their Book of Diſcipline ratifyed by the Civil Authority, they obtruded it on the Church themſelves, p. 6. ordaining that all thoſe who had born or did then bear any office in the Church ſhould ſubſcribe it under pain of excommunication.—By their own authority alſo, p. 7. under the specious title of Jeſus Chriſt, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, the only Monarch of this Church, and under pretence of his prerogative Royal they erected their own Courts and Presbyteries in the moſt part of Scotland, long before they were legally approv'd or receiv'd.—In their Aſſembly at Edenburgh, 1647. they determined, that nothing ſhould be paſs'd in the next Parliament till the Church was fully reſtored to its Patrimony; yea, (ſays the Lord Primate p. 5.) they arrived to that degree of ſaucineſs, Anno 1600. and reduced the Soveraign power to ſuch contempt that 20 Presbyters (no more at the higheſt, ſometimes but 13, ſometimes but 7 or 8) dar'd to hold and maintain a general Aſſembly (as they miſcalled it) after it was diſcharged by the King, againſt his Authority; an Inſolence which never any Parliament durſt attempt. Anno 1582. they rejected Mongomery's appeal from themſelves to King James, as made to an incompetent Judge, and proceeded violently againſt him notwithſtanding the Kings prohibition, p. 13. They who have a mind to ſee more inſtances of the like nature may read that Book of the Archbiſhop.

Now the Queſtion muſt be, 1. whether thoſe Engliſh Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the Preſervation of the Diſcipline and Government of the Church of Scotland, ought not to be look'd upon as perſons approving thoſe Principles and practices upon which that Diſcipline and Government is founded and exerciſed? 2. Whether thoſe Engliſh Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England in Diſcipline and Government according to the example of the beſt reformed Churches, in the number of which Churches they may well be ſuppoſed to reckon the Kirk of Scotland, ought not to be look'd upon as perſons engaging themſelves to imitate that Kirk by endeavouring the Introduction of the like practices here in England, grounded on the like principles? 3. Whether therefore ſuch an approbation of thoſe Principles and Practices ought not in juſtice to have been mentioned as part of their Character? and 4. Whether perſons that may juſtly have ſuch a character affixt upon them, ought in juſtice or reaſon of State to be protected and encouraged, or rejected and depreſſed?

Whereas this Author tells us, p. 24. (34.) [that the men of the Presbyterian perſwaſion are not lukewarm, but true zelots.] I anſwer, They are ſo much the more dangerous and more likely to be Inſtruments of miſchief, unleſs their zeal be ballaſted with knowledge and diſcretion, and exerted in lawful ways. Indeed if they are like the Scotch Diſciplinarian zelots before mentioned, they are ſo far from being lukewarm, that they are rather Seditious Incendiaries, and prone to nothing more than the kindling of devouring Fires in that Nation where they are encourag'd.

Nevertheleſs, ſays he, they have no fellowſhip with the ſpirit of Enthuſiaſtical and Anabaptiſtical fancy and frenzy.] What! not in their main and rooted Principles? By which he characterizes them, p. 20, 21. (30, 31.) which I intimate chiefly as another Argument of the lameneſs and imperfection of that character. We have reaſon to believe that our modern Presbyterians are ſomewhat better than their Forefathers, if they do not agree with them and the Anabaptiſts: 1. In diſturbing the Church under pretence of reforming it. 2. In labouring both by conferences in private, and by Sermons in publick to draw the common people from their liking the preſent State. 3. In publiſhing factious Books to the view of the world. 4. In diſdaining and reproaching Magiſtrates for endeavouring to bring them to conformity by compulſion. 5. In ſlandering and reviling thoſe Miniſters that withſtand their factious proceedings, attributing much good to themſelves, and pouring contempt and diſcredit upon their oppoſites. 6. In impugning the preſcript Form of Prayer. 7. In holding that the word of God muſt of neceſſity be preach'd before the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments. 8. In proteſting that they go not about to take any authority from Magiſtrates, even while they ſeek to overthrow the Government of the State. That the Anabaptiſts in Germany were thus guilty, and the Preſbyterians in England in Q. Elizabeth's days, I refer the Reader for proof to Oliver Ormerod's picture of a Puritan, (written about thoſe times, and reprinted 1605.) wherein he endeavours to prove, that the Puritans then reſembled the Anabaptiſts in above fourſcore Points. See alſo Archbiſhop Whitgift's defence of his Anſwer to the Admonition, p. 33, 34. (in Fol.)

And I wiſh it were not eaſie to manifeſt, that our late Covenanting Presbyterians have had too much fellowſhip with the ſpirit of theſe Anabaptiſtical Frenzies now mention'd,—who, ſays this Author, are no Fanaticks, although they begin to be by ſome abus'd under that name. But he might have known that turbulent Presbyterians have been ſo call'd long ſince, by one that had skill enough to give perſons ſuch names as were ſuitable to their Natures, even King James himſelf in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , B. 2. where ſpeaking of ſome Scotch Puritans, ſuch fiery-ſpirited-Presbyterians as endeavoured to introduce a parity in the Church; you ſhall never find, ſays he, with any High-land or Border Thieves more lies and vile perjuries, than with thoſe Fanatick Spirits, &c.

But, ſays this Author, they are perſons of known learning, prudence, piety, and gravity in great numbers.] Here it may be queſtion'd, 1. How he can prove this Encomium of them to be true? 2. Whether the Quakers do not excel them in gravity, the Anabaptiſts in piety, the Independents in prudence, the Prelatiſts in learning, and ſome Jeſuits in all four? and yet this Author ſeems willing enough to have all theſe parties rejected and depreſſed.

[Beſides of inferior rank a vaſt multitude of knowing, ſerious, honeſt people.] 1. This alſo wants proof. 2. The more learning, prudence, piety, and gravity, thoſe of the ſuperior rank have, the more peaceably and quietly they will live under lawful Governours, and the more obediently they will ſubmit to their Laws; which therefore if either they or thoſe of inferior rank refuſe to do, they are either leſs knowing or leſs ſerious and honeſt than in conſcience it concerns thoſe to be, who expect to be protected and encouraged by Governors.

[None of all which are led blindfold by Tradition or implicit Faith.]

This man ſure is a very knowing perſon himſelf, if he be ſo well acquainted with all the Presbyterians, as to be able to aver this of them all, or of a vaſt multitude of them upon good grounds. But is he indeed certain that none of them are ſo lazy, ignorant, and ſottiſh, as to be led blind • old by the Tradition and dictates of their Presbyterian Parſons? Did none of them by an implicit Faith believe it lawful to take the Covenant? Do none of them by an implicit Faith believe the Rites and Forms by Law and Canons eſtabliſht among us unlawful? p. 29. (39.) Was it not an implicit Faith (in the ſeditious Doctrines of the Society of Jeſus) whereby they believed it lawful to take up Arms againſt their lawful Soveraign?

[Or do run headlong into Fanatick deluſions.] Are any turn'd Fanaticks at laſt but thoſe that were firſt ſuch Presbyterians as himſelf deſcribes, p. 21, 22?

[But they give up themſelves to the ſole direction and authority of the holy Scriptures.]

He hath told us before, that they deny not due respect and reverence to venerable Antiquity, p. 20. (30.) Let him ſhew if he can, how they reſpect and reverence venerable Antiquity, if they afford it not [ſome directive] Authority. 2. Why may not Independents and Anabaptiſts as well be ſaid to give up themſelves to the ſole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures, as Presbyterians?

[Wherefore impartial Reaſon will conclude, that they choſe this way as with ſincerity of affection, ſo with gravity of judgment; and that the things themſelves, even the more diſputable part of them (as that againſt the Hierarchy and Ceremonies) are ſuch as may frequently prevail with good and wiſe men.]

Which inference ſignifies nothing till the truth of the premiſes be clear'd, except the Authors confidence that the Prelatiſts have reaſon to believe whatſoever he ſays in the praiſe of Presbyterians, merely becauſe he is bold enough to ſay it.

[Inaſmuch as they appear to thoſe that have embrac'd them, to have the Impreſs of Divine Authority, and the Character of Evangelical Purity.]

Dares this Author deny that the Principles of other Sectaries appear to thoſe that have embrac'd them to have the Impreſs of Divine Authority, and the Character of Evangelical Purity? If not, does it follow that thoſe men alſo choſe their way with ſincerity of affection and gravity of judgment? or that their opinions may frequently prevail with good and wiſe men? if it does not follow, why does he argue ſo weakly and injudiciouſly?

[For the reaſons aforegoing, the infringment of due liberty in theſe matters would perpetuate moſt unhappy controverſies in the Church from age to age.]

It ſeems the man is of opinion, that all parties ought to be tolerated, yea encouraged, who chuſe their way with ſincerity of affection and gravity of judgment, and upon ſuch grounds as may frequently prevail with good and wiſe men, inaſmuch as they appear to them to have the Impreſs of Divine Authority, and the Character of Evangelical Purity. If he be not of this opinion, let him ſhew why Presbyterians ought to be encouraged, and not others that have the ſame qualifications. If he be, let him produce convincing Arguments that other Sects have not all theſe qualifications, that is, that the Independents, Anabaptiſts, and Quakers were for the generality either Fools or Knaves, when they choſe thoſe ways. Beſides, does he imagine that the Independents, Anabaptiſts, and Quakers are not as deſirous of due liberty in their way as the Presbyterians are in theirs? or that the men of thoſe perſwaſions are ſo lukewarm in their affections, or ſo inconſiderable for their number, as that the infringment of their liberty will not perpetuate moſt unhappy Controverſies in this Church? Ergò, by this Authors (Presbyterian) Logick, they ought in reaſon of State to be protected and encouraged as well as Presbyterians.

If the three next Pages prove any thing, they evince that the Presbyterian Leaven will from time to time ſowre the lump of this Church and State, if ſuch literally-Polemical, and unchriſtianly-practical Teachers, as too many of them are, be protected and encouraged. 'Tis no wonder that Tares ſhould grow where they are ſuffered to be ſown; and that they ſhould ſpoil the Wheat where they are nouriſhed. I find it obſerved by a late writer,See the Apologie for Biſhops ſitting and voting in Parliament, P. 73. out of Biſhop Bancroft, that he long ſince plainly foretold, that the Puritans would never give over their clamour for Reformation, till they had utterly ruined the whole Kingdom and Church: and yet, ſaid he, there are divers (meaning men in great places) that would gladly have theſe things ſmothered up, being willing to think that the Puritans were no ſuch dangerous men as he and others did take them to be; only ſcrupulous and peeviſh perhaps about Ceremonies, and therefore were willing to forbear them, and not to cenſure them ſharply. But that Prelate did wiſely tell them, That if any ſuch miſchiefs (which God forbid) ſhall happen hereafter, they were ſufficiently warned, that both ſhould and might (in good time) have prevented them; and withall it would then be found true which Livy ſays, Urgentibus Rempublicam fatis, Dei & hominum ſalutares admonitiones ſpernuntur.—When the Lord for the ſins of a people is purpoſed to puniſh any Country, he blindeth the eye: of the wiſe ſo as they ſhall either neglect or not perceive the ordinary means for the ſafety thereof, &c.

This Author would perſwade us, p. 29. (39.) that the numerous Presbyterian party will not vary from it ſelf, or vaniſh upon changes in Government or new Accidents; for it reſts not upon any private, temporary, variable occaſion, but upon a cauſe perpetual and everlaſting. Thoſe forementioned principles of ſcience and practice which give it its proper being, are of that firm and fixt nature, that new contingencies will not al • er them, nor length of time wear them out.] To which I anſwer: 1. If this Party is ſo invariable, how comes it to paſs that thoſe Rites and Ceremonies which himſelf tells us, p. 28. (38.) were heretofore by the greateſt part of the Miniſters nam'd Puritans, look'd upon, and yielded to as things in their own nature [Indifferent,] are now accounted (p. 29. (39) by moſt of this way [Unlawful?] Does not this argue a variation in this Party from it ſelf? Hath not length of time worn out thoſe their former Principles of ſcience and practice? Dr. John Burges (in his Preface to his anſwer in Vindication of Biſhop Morton touching Ceremonies) tells us, p. 11. that the State (in K. James his Reign) would never ſuffer theſe Ceremonies to be queſtioned of [unlawfulneſs] which Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Chaderton, Dr. Spark, and the reſt of the moſt eminent men of this Nation, who ſeem'd to favour that Party, would neither affirm to be unlawful, nor be known that any of that ſide were ſo [weak] as to think ſo. But now it ſeems the men fam'd ſo much by this Author for their Learning and Orthodoxy, their excelling in Polemical and Practical Divinity, p. 23. (33.) theſe Judicious and Prudent men that have no Fellowſhip with Anabaptiſtical Fancy and Frenzy, p. 24. (34.) theſe knowing and wiſe men, (p. 24, 25.) theſe fixt and unalterable men, p. 29. (39.) are grown ſo weak and feeble in their Intellectuals, ſo Feminine in their reſolves, as to deem them unlawful. Again, if they are ſuch an invariable Party in their Principles of ſcience and practice, what's the reaſon that in theſe days they have Covenanted to endeavour the extirpation of that Engliſh Hierarchy which in the days of yore their Presbyterian Anceſtors were far from condemning as wicked and intolerable? Witneſs this paſſage which Crakanthorp in his Deſenſ. Eccleſ. Anglicanae contra Archiepiſc. Spalat. p. 243. quotes out of Henry Jacob, one of that Party, who is his Tract de Veritate Vocat. Miniſter. p. 88. againſt Johnſon the Browniſt, ſpeaks thus; Quiſquis quicquam de Eccleſiae Anglicanae Statu intelligit, non poteſt non videre multos eoſque doctos in Eccleſiâ Anglicanâ ſentire & docere Hierarchicum quod nunc eſt in eâ Regimen unicum eſſe verum ac legitimum Regiminis genus; ferè omnes (etiam Puritanos) idem ut indifferens & legitimum agnoſcere, perpaucos verò & vix uſquam quenquam invenies qui ut malum, impium aut non ferendum judicant. He that underſtands any thing of the State of the Engliſh Church, cannot but ſee that many learned men in the Church of England believe and teach, that the Hierarchical Government by which 'tis ruled, is the only true and legitimate Form of Government: and that almoſt all men acknowledge it indifferent and lawful: and that there are very few, ſcarce any men any where to be found who judge it evil, wicked, or intolerable. Thus he, who in the ſame P. is quoted by that Doctor as expreſſing himſelf to this purpoſe in behalf of the Engliſh Church-Government and Diſcipline. Haec verò Chriſti eſſe dicuntur, licet non à Chriſto ſed ab Eccleſiâ mandata & praeſcripta ſint, cùm Eccleſiae Authoritatem Chriſtus dedit ea quae commoda ipſi viſa erant inſtituendi & praeſcribendi. Ex hoc genere & regimen Eccleſiaſticum & Ceremonias dicimus, quia non ſimpliciter in Fundamento aut Verbo Dei ut perpetuò obſervanda traduntur, ſed arbitrio Eccleſiae & Magiſtratuum relinquuntur. Sic nos de his docemus, tenemus, & perſuaſi ſumus nihil uſquam in ſacris literis repugnans, ſed potius his conſona reperiri.—Quòd ſi objicias multos inter nos ſocus ſentire, reſpondeo, Generale hoc eſſe & Miniſtrorum & Eccleſiarum Anglicanarum de his Judicium, etiamſi unus fortè aut duo ex centenis aut millenis ſecus opinentur. Theſe things, viz. the Hierarchical Government and Diſcipline are truly ſaid to be of Chriſt, though they are not commanded and preſcribed by Chriſt but the Church, foraſmuch as Chriſt hath given the Church Authority to inſtitute and preſcribe thoſe things which to her ſeem expedient; of this kind we affirm Eccleſiaſtical Government and Ceremonies to be, becauſe they are not ſimply and immediately founded on the Word of God, or delivered there as immutable Conſtitutions, but are left to the pleaſure of the Church and Magiſtrates. This is our Doctrine and opinion touching theſe things; and we are perſwaded that nothing can be found in ſacred Writ repugnant, but ſeveral paſſages agreeable to theſe ſentiments: And if it be objected that many among us are of another mind; I anſwer, That this is the Judgment of the generality, both of the Miniſters and Churches in England, though perhaps one or two among a hundred or a thouſand opine otherwiſe.

But now it ſeems the Presbyterian party is ſo variable and alterable from theſe its quondamopinions and principles, as to imagine thoſe Rites and Forms which the Church hath preſcribed, unlawful, and that the Hierarchical Form of Church-Government ought to be extirpated. And if they are now changed (in their ſcience and practice) though to the worſe from what they were heretofore, why may we not hope that (if not meerly length of time, yet) ſome afflicting contingencies may make them change hereafter for the better from what they are now? I doubt I ſhould rather enquire whether there be any thing beſides this Authors bare word to ſecure us that they will not ſtill grow worſe and worſe, deceiving and being deceived. Certain I am, the more unalterable they are in theſe their Fancies, the more miſchief they are like to do in that State that encourages them. But what kind of Argument is this,—The Presbyterians will not vary from themſelves, therefore they ought in juſtice and reaſon of State to be protected and encouraged by his Majeſty? Is not this as good? The Jeſuits will not vary from themſelves; thoſe Principles of Science and practice which they own and are actuated by, are of that firm and fixt nature, that new contingencies will not alter them, nor length of time wear them out: Ergo, Jeſuits ought not in juſtice or reaſon of State to be rejected and depreſſed, but protected and encouraged by our King and Kingdome. One may ſuſpect by this manner of arguing in the behalf of the Presbyterian party, that the Author of it was either a Jeſuit, ſince his reaſoning is ſo favourable to that ſociety; or an half-witted Presbyterian, ſo dull as not to diſcern, that ſeveral of his arguments conclude as forcibly for the encouragement of Jeſuits among us as Presbyterians.

But in this P. 29. (39.) 'tis ſuggeſted that the Presbyterians are [a numerous] Party—and that the impoſing of ſuch matters of Controverſie as by [ſo many] are held unlawful,—cannot procure the peace of the Kingdom.] I might here ask whether the Anabaptiſts or Quakers are not altogether as numerous as that Presbyterian party which holds our Church-Ceremonies unlawful. Nay, are not the Independents themſelves as numerous? for I confeſs I am in good hopes that there are comparatively but very few Presbyterians given up to ſuch blindneſs of mind, ſuch ſtrong deluſions, as to believe our Ceremonies unlawful. But my anſwer is this.

If that Party be indeed ſo numerous that the endeavouring to reject and depreſs them will probably prove pernicious to the King and Kingdom, perhaps State-policy will dictate that it ſhould not be endeavoured. But I affirm withal that though they were twice as numerous, yet (unleſs their Practice contradict their Doctrine) there is no ſuch danger will accrue to the King or Kingdom by their rejection. For if this Author does not groſly abuſe and impoſe upon his Readers, p. 54, 55. The Presbyterians are ſuch learned knowing creatures, as to teach faith and holineſs, as alſo obedience active in all lawful things, and paſſive in things unlawful, injoyn'd by the higher power. Now they that are reſolv'd to be paſſively obedient, will not be inſtruments of miſchief in a Kingdome, (though they are never ſo numerous) they will live peaceably, neither railing with the Tongue nor ſmiting with the Firſt of wickedneſs; and therefore if the Presbyterians are indeed ſuch good men and ſuch good Chriſtians (in this particular) they may (notwithſtanding their number) be rejected and depreſſed (in State-Policy) becauſe of their other perſwaſions repugnant to the publick profeſſion of the Nation, ſince their ſuppreſſion will not prejudice the peace of the Church or Kingdome.

In p. 30. (40.) (after ſome non ſenſicalcontradictious canting in praiſe of Presbyterians, for how can the inward ſpirit of Presbytery be ſaid to actuate their whole body, to knit them each to other, and to remain in full ſtrength and vigour, if ſome principal members of that body fall off and turn praevaricators?) Our Author enquires what thoſe great things are for which this ſort of men contend? Surely, ſays he, p. 31. (41.) they are no other than the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Goſpel, the upholding of all Divine Inſtitutions; particularly the ſtrict obſervation of the Lord's day, a laborious and efficacious miniſtry, taking hold of the conſcience and reaching to the heart, a Godly Diſcipline correcting true and real Scandals and diſobedience; in a word, all the neceſſary and effectual means of unfeigned Faith, and holy life, that the Kingdome of God may come in power. And for theſe things ſake they are alienated from the height of Prelacy, and the Pomp of Ceremonious worſhip.] Say you ſo? It ſeems theſe godly Diſciplinarians do not look upon diſobedience to the Laws eſtabliſhing Prelacy and Ceremonious worſhip as true and real diſobedience; nor the ſcandal ariſing from that diſobedience as true and real Scandal; or elſe they implicitely confeſs that the Presbyterians thus ſcandalouſly diſobedient, were not chaſtis'd by the Biſhops ſo ſeverely as they deſerv'd. It ſeems they fancy that Prelatiſts are enemies to the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Goſpel, to ſome divine Inſtitutions, to a laborious and efficacious miniſtery, to Scripture-Diſcipline, to ſome neceſſary and effectual means of unfeigned Faith and holy life; whereas the only proof he offers of this Prelatical guilt is, 1. Their ſuppreſſing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons: which is nothing to the purpoſe, unleſs he had proved alſo that theſe are of Divine Inſtitution, or are neceſſary means of unfeigned Faith, and holy Life. 2. A book for ſports and paſtimes on Sundays enjoyn'd to be read by Miniſters in their Pariſh Churches, under penalty of deprivation. What? ſo as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning, or Divine Service and Catechizing in the Afternoon? or ſo as to licence the abſence of any Pariſhioner from that ſervice either part of the day? 3. Superſtitious Innovations introduc'd; Si accuſâſſe ſuffecerit, quis erit innocens? 4. A new Book of Canons compoſed, and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy inforc'd. By whom? were not this Oath and thoſe Canons compoſed in Convocation, by our Church-Governours? were they not confirmed and impoſed by the Royal Aſſent? And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy eſtabliſh'd by Law more ſuperſtitious than the newer Oath for deſtroying that Hierarchy ſo eſtabliſhed? Far be it from me, ſays he, p. 32. (42.) to impute theſe things to all that were in judgment Epiſcopal; for I am perſwaded, a great if not the greater part of them diſallowed theſe Innovations. Theſe Innovations? what Innovations? The word muſt in reaſon refer to the particulars juſt now enumerated. viz. The new Book of Canons, the new Oath, the Book for ſports and paſtimes on Sundays. But are theſe men in juſtice and Reaſon of State to be protected and encouraged, who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church, or both (occaſioned by new emergencies) Innovations? or new practices, ſuperſtitious, meerly becauſe not commanded in Gods word? Now theſe things are ſo far from being a proof of the inconſiſtency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Goſpel, with the upholding of all Divine Inſtitutions, a laborious and efficacious Miniſtry, &c. that the contrary is evident from the inſtance of the Right Reverend Biſhop Morton (whom this very Author, I believe, hath ſcarce confidence enough to accuſe as a Delinquent in thoſe particulars; ſince p. 67. (77.) he reckons Biſhop Morton in the number of thoſe Epiſcopal Divines, whoſe Doctrine is entirely embrac'd by the Presbyterians.) Who yet did not only approve of, but had the chief hand in contriving and publiſhing that Declaration which allowed ſome Sports and Paſtimes as that which was then the moſt probable courſe to ſtop the current of Popery and profaneneſs, as appears from the ſtory of that Biſhop's life, publiſh'd by Dr. Barwick, p. 80, 81. So 'tis evident alſo from the Auguſtan Confeſſion, c. 7. De Poteſt. Eccleſiaſticâ, and Mr. Calvin's Inſtitutions, that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Inſtitution, who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Goſpel and a laborious efficacious miniſtry.

In ſome following Pages the Author pretends to manifeſt, that the Presbyterian Intereſt will never be extinguiſhed while the State of England continues Proteſtant. For, ſays he, p. 34. (44.) let but the Proteſtant Doctrine, as 'tis by Law eſtabliſht in the Church of England, be upheld and preach'd, and 'twill raiſe up a genuine off-spring of this people, whoſe way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine.

But I as confidently affirm on the other ſide, that if the Proteſtant Doctrine by Law eſtabliſht in the Church of England, be upheld and preach'd, 'twill raiſe up ſuch a genuine off-ſpring of true Engliſh Proteſtants, as ſhall own Prelacy and the Churches Authority in appointing Ceremonies, both which are eſtabliſht by that Doctrine, but rejected by Presbyterians. If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine, they act ſuitably to theſe Principles, viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies; and authority in Controverſies of Faith: (Artic. 20.) That whoſoever through his private Judgment willingly and purpoſely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common Authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offends againſt the Common Order of the Church, and hurteth the Authority of the Magiſtrate, and woundeth the conſciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain, change, and aboliſh Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by mans authority, ſo that all things be done to edifying. (Artic. 34.) They practically own the Kings power within his Realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other his Dominions and Countries, as the higheſt power under God, to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the ſame, do by Gods Laws owe moſt loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth. They act as if they believed his Majeſty to have the ſame Authority in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Chriſtian Emperors in the Primitive Church. They uſe the Form of Gods worſhip in the Church of England eſtabliſht by Law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, without ſurmiſing it to be either corrupt, ſuperſtitious or unlawful, or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures. They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England, by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Archdeacons, and the reſt that bear office in the ſame; not fancying it to be either Antichriſtian or repugnant to the word of God. They do not combine themſelves together in a new brotherhood, accounting the Chriſtians who are conformable to the Doctrine, Government, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Chriſtian Profeſſion. They imagine not, 1. that any of the 39. Articles are in any part ſuperſtitious or erroneous; or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law eſtabliſht are wicked, Antichriſtian, or ſuperſtitious, or ſuch as being commanded by lawful Authority, men who are zealouſly and godly affected may not with any good conſcience approve them, uſe them, or as occaſion requires, ſubſcribe to them; or 3. that the ſign of the Croſs uſed in Baptiſm is any part of the ſubſtance of that Sacrament. They hold that things of themſelves indifferent do in ſome ſort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magiſtrate, and may not be omitted at every mans pleaſure, contrary to the Law when they be commanded, nor uſed when they are prohibited. Theſe are parts of the Doctrine eſtabliſht by Law in the Church of England, as is evident from the 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 5, 6, 30. Canons legally framed and ratified: But where are thoſe Engliſh Presbyterians to be found, whoſe way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine? Have not their practiſes too loudly proclaimed to the world, that they have robbed the King of his Supremacy in Eccleſiaſtical affairs, and traiterouſly placed it in ſome Lords Temporal and Commons? Is the metamorphoſing of our venerable Church-Liturgy into a thing called a Directory; the extirpating of our Church-government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, &c. the caſting off of the Rites and Ceremonies eſtabliſht by Law, and fancying them unlawful; is this, I ſay, the life and power of that Doctrine before mentioned? Is Covenanting and combining againſt the loyal Aſſerters of the Kings Supremacy and our Liturgy, of our Prelacy and Ceremonies, as Incendiaries, Malignants and evil Inſtruments, the life and power of that Doctrine? Durſt this J. C. have canted at this rate, unleſs he had before-hand braz'd his Forehead with Impudence? For what beſides was it that made him talk thus? and further to ſay and teſtifie, that [Let but the Free uſe of the Holy Bible be permitted to the common people, and this [Presbyterian] Generation of men will ſpring up afreſh by the immortal ſeed of the word.] Let him prove, if he can, that they will ſpring up any otherwiſe than Independents, Anabaptiſts and Quakers do, viz. by a miſunderſtanding of ſome places in the holy Bible, and perverting them to unholy practiſes: which 'tis no great wonder if unlearned and unſtable perſons (ſuch as too many of the common people are) be guilty of. Grotius in his notes on Caſſander's conſultation, would have the reading of the Scripture permitted to all men, but, Hauriant, ſays he, quantum neceſſe actutum eſt; minimè verò de locis omnibus jus ſibi ſumant interpretandi, ſed conſulant eruditos: He would not have them aſſume to themſelves a right of Interpreting all places of Scripture, but to adviſe with learned men, and ask their judgment: Which counſel (as Rivet approved of in his Animadverſions, p. 203. ſo) it behooves common people to follow, leſt otherwiſe that permiſſion occaſion their deſtruction, 2 Pet. 3. 16. He goes on,

For that pure ſpiritual and heavenly Doctrine preſſing internal renovation, or the new birth, and the way of holy ſingularity and circumſpection, and being written with ſuch Authority and majeſty muſt needs beget though not in the moſt yet in many a diſpoſition and practice in ſome ſort thereunto conformable.

Which words, by the way, unleſs underſtood cum grano ſalis, will ſmell of Socinianiſm; but come out of the clouds, O thou Presbyterian, and tell us whether thou thinkeſt this to be pure ſpiritual heavenly Doctrine? Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher powers: Whoſoever reſiſteth the power, reſiſts the Ordinance of God: And they that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. Be ſubject not for wrath only but for Conſcience ſake. Where the word of a King is, there is power; and who may ſay unto him, What doſt thou? Mark them which cauſe diviſions among you contrary to the Doctrine which you have been taught, and avoid them. The works of the Fleſh are manifeſt, which are theſe:—Hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, ſeditions, hereſies, envyings, Murders.—They that do theſe thing; ſhall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Put them in mind that they be ſubject to Principalities and Powers, that they obey Magiſtrates, be ready to every good work: that they speak evil of no man: that they be no brawlers, (fighters) but gentle (ſoft) ſhewing all meekneſs to all men: Obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves. Where envying and ſtrife is, there is confuſion and every evil work. Submit your ſelves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords ſake, whether unto the King as Supreme, or to Governours as to thoſe that are ſent by him for the puniſhment of evil doers. Honour all men: Love the brotherhood. Fear God: Honour the King. Servants be ſubject to your Maſters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but alſo to the froward. Let none of you ſuffer as a murderer, or as a Thief, or an evil-doer, or as a buſie-body in other mens matters, &c. What thinkeſt thou J. C. Do theſe and the like Scriptures preſs any point of internal renovation, and the new birth, and the power of Chriſtianity, or no? Is the Presbyterian party perſwaded of the heavenlineſs and ſpirituality of this Doctrine? or do they account it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to love their enemies, to bleſs ſuch as curſe them, to do good to thoſe that hate them, to pray for ſuch as deſpitefully uſe them and perſecute them? Hath their practice manifeſted that they eſteem this imitation of the divine goodneſs a piece of holy ſingularity? Hath their way here in England been none other than the life and power of that part of the Law of Chriſt? Have they accounted it a part of holy circumſpection to redeem time in evil days? to purchaſe to themſelves a longer time to do good in by all juſt complyances, by honeſt actions, by a fair civil carriage, a peaceable converſation, by bending in all thoſe flexures of fortune and condition which they cannot help? (See Dr. Taylor's Sermon on Mat. 10. 16.) Or have they acted as if they believed theſe other paſſages of Scripture to be divinely inſpired? If any man will come after me let him deny himſelf and take up his Croſs and follow me: Except you be converted and become as little children (in all humility and ſubjection) ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: Take my yoke upon you: Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart: If when you do well and ſuffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. Chriſt hath ſuffered for us leaving us an example that we ſhould follow his steps; who when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he ſuffered he threatned not.—In the laſt days perilous times ſhall come, for men ſhall be lovers of themſelves, covetous, boaſters, proud, curſed ſpeakers, falſe accuſers, intemperate, fierce, deſpiſers of them that are good, traytors, heady, high-minded,—having a Form of Godlineſs, but denying the power thereof, from ſuch turn away. We beſeech you brethren that you ſtudy to be quiet and to meddle with your own buſineſs.—If any man love life, and would ſee good days, let him refrain his Tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile, let him ſeek peace and enſue it. Follow peace with all men, and holineſs, without which no man ſhall ever ſee the Lord. The fruit of the ſpirit is love, peace, long-ſuffering, meekneſs, gentleneſs. Now ſpeak out man, is this pure ſpiritual heavenly Doctrine or no? Is the practiſing of it a duty incumbent upon all that would teſtifie themſelves internally renewed, or is it not? Is the contrary neglect an argument of an unregenerate perſon? were theſe things written by the Pen-men of Scripture with ſuch Authority and Majeſty, as to beget in Presbyterians a diſpoſition and practice in any tolerable meaſure thereunto conformable? If this Author has the confidence to anſwer in favour of Presbyterians, let him evince or at leaſt endeavour to evince that their Covenanting to overthrow things legally eſtabliſhed, their reproaching thoſe that would have upheld them as Malignants, Incendiaries, and Evil Inſtruments, their chooſing to take up Swords into their hands rather than the Croſs: their being ſo far from ſubmitting to the King as ſupreme, and the Governours ſent by him, that they reſiſted and maintained a long War againſt both. Let him, I ſay, evince that ſuch ways as theſe are the life and power of that pure ſpiritual and heavenly Doctrine taught in Scripture, and owned by all true Engliſh Proteſtants. Nor let him be angry that I handle him in this manner, and reply thus particularly to his ambiguous generalities; ſince the queſtion now being Whether Presbyterians are the beſt Engliſh Proteſtants, and whether on that account they ought in juſtice or reaſon of State to be encouraged; It concerned him, if he meant to diſcourſe pertinently and clearly, to manifeſt that they practically own thoſe pure ſpiritual and heavenly Aphoriſms in particular which ſo much conduce to the peace of the State, and the preſervation of the Order and Government by Law eſtabliſhed; and that they heartily acknowledge and embrace all that Engliſh Proteſtant Doctrine which is ſubſervient to that end; for otherwiſe the encouraging, yea tolerating of them will probably prove pernicious to the State.

To affirm that the Presbyterian Intereſt is one chief ſtrength of the true Reformed Proteſtant Religion, p. 35. (45.) is much eaſier than to prove it.

Let thoſe well known Principles, ſays he, which strike to the heart of Popery, be brought forth for evidence: viz. 1. The perfection of holy Scripture, in oppoſition to unwritten Tradition. 2. The Authority of Canonical Books in oppoſition to the encroachments of the Apocrypha. 3. The diſtinct Knowledge of the Doctrine of Salvation according to every mans capacity in oppoſition to implicit Faith. 4. The reaſonable ſerving of God according to the Word in oppoſition to blind devotion. 5. Spiritual Goſpel-worſhip in oppoſition to a pompous train of Ceremonies. 6. The efficacious edifying uſe of Religious exerciſes in oppoſition to the Popiſh Opus operatum, or work done. 7. The power of Godlineſs in oppoſition to ſplendid formality.

A. 1. I deny this Argument; The Presbyterians acknowledge the Truth of theſe Principles; therefore that Party is one chief ſtrength of the true reformed Proteſtant Religion; for either, 1. they may own other Principles alſo which contradict theſe, and conſequently weaken that Religion: or 2. they may own together with theſe ſuch principles as are inconſiſtent with other parts of the Proteſtant Faith (grounded on and actuated by thoſe Scriptures before mentioned) and with the Engliſh Proteſtant Doctrine by Law eſtabliſht conform to them. 2. Perhaps thoſe ſeven Principles, as thoſe many Presbyterians underſtand them, who are ſaid to account our Ceremonies unlawful, are no part of the Engliſh Proteſtant Doctrine; but ſuppoſing they are rightly underſtood, with due limitations and explications, they are not all the parts of the Proteſtant Doctrine, nor the chief parts of it, as it refers to Government and Obedience, which yet ſhould have been moſt of all conſidered in the diſcuſſion of this Queſtion. 3. Independents, Anabaptiſts, yea, Socinians do as heartily embrace all thoſe Principles as Presbyterians, therefore he may as rationally conclude, that thoſe alſo are chief ſupporters of the true reformed Proteſtant Religion, and conſequently to be protected and encouraged in this Kingdom. 4. Presbytery may be extinguiſht, and yet theſe ſeven Principles (underſtood in ſano ſenſu) may be aſſerted by Prelatiſts, and conſequently the State of England may continue Proteſtant without Presbyterian aids. That Prelatical men aſſert them as well as Presbyterians, this Author denies not; only he ſeems willing, p. 36. (46.) to have it believed that the Presbyterian Party is [more] rooted and grounded in thoſe principles, which for my part I am ready to believe when I ſee it proved. But 1. This implies that Prelatiſts alſo are rooted and grounded in thoſe Principles. Whence it follows, that England may keep her ſelf pure from Romiſh abominations, though Prelatiſts only be protected and encouraged by her. 2. Till I ſee the contrary proved, I believe that Prelatiſts are more deeply rooted and grounded than Presbyterians in thoſe and other Proteſtant Principles, ſo far as they are by Law eſtabliſht among us; in which ſence they ſufficiently strike at the heart of Popery, even by this Authors own confeſſion, p. 34. (44.) where he aſſures us (if we may rely on his bare word) that, Let but the Proteſtant Doctrine [as 'tis by Law eſtabliſht] in the Church of England, be upheld and preached, and 'twill raiſe up a genuine off-ſpring of [ſound Proteſtants;] and therefore England may continue Proteſtant, though Prelatiſts only are encouraged, and Presbyterians rooted out; which therefore may be done in Juſtice and Reaſon of State, notwithſtanding this Argument to the contrary.

As for his ſtory, p. 37. (47.) I obſerve, 1. that the Engliſh Roman Catholicks are called a Faction in Religion, which is ſtrange language from the pen of a Venetian Agent. 2. That the Agent look'd not upon Puritans as Proteſtants, which as this Author tells us, p. 38. the Presbyterians complain of as a palpable injury, and give evident proof, that they of right have as much Intereſt in that venerable Name as Engliſh Prelatiſts. Now really I am much of his mind in this particular, if by Proteſtants he mean ſuch as approve of Subjects proteſting againſt the will the pleaſure of their Soveraign; and ſuch as deny obedience to the Edicts and commands of Kings and Emperors, or lawful Superiors: and if Romanizing ſpirits call this Puritaniſm, perhaps he well obſerves, p. 39. (49.) that the more primitive times of proteſtantiſm were more leaning to it: (I add, than they ſhould have been) and I hope puritans have a greater portion of thoſe venerable qualities than prelatiſts: But if he mean by proteſtants ſuch as practically own the truth of the Engliſh proteſtant Doctrine, by Law eſtabliſht in the Church of England, (in which ſence I ſuppoſe the Venetian Agent implicitly denied puritans to be proteſtants) I acknowledge the name of proteſtant in that notion venerable, (ſince in that notion 'tis a part of Chriſtianity) and ſhall be very glad if this Author can produce any evident proofs, that the presbyterians have any right to and intereſt in that name; which till he do, he muſt pardon me if I ſuſpend my aſſent, ſince himſelf has given another character of them, p. 22. and 29. (32. and 39.) and if he had not, their practiſes, eſpecially of late years, too evidently prove them to be creatures hugely differing from true Engliſh proteſtants; foraſmuch as the Diſcipline of the Church of England excludes ſuch Animals from its Communion.

Watſon in his ſecond Quodlibet and firſt Article, propoſes this Queſtion. [Whether the Jeſuits or Puritans be more dangerous, pernicious and noiſom to the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, or any other Realm where both or either of them live, together or apart.] He anſwers thus: [The Jeſuits without all queſtion are more dangerous; not that their Doctrine is as yet ſo abſurd as the Puritans—in matters pertaining to Manners, Government and Order of Life, nor that their Intent is manifeſted as yet to be more malicious againſt both Church, Commonwealth, Prince and Peer than the Puritans are; but becauſe the means and their manner of proceeding is more covert, more ſeeming ſubſtantial, more formal and orderly in it ſelf, and therefore are the more dangerous, becauſe of the two they are more like to prevail, by managing of whatſoever they take in hand; and the rather, for that their grounds are more firm, their perſwaſions more plauſible, their performance more certain, as having many ſingular fine wits among them; whereas the Puritans have none but Groſſum Caputs—ſo that if matters come to hearing and handling between Jeſuits and Puritans, the latter are ſure to be ridden like Fools, and come to wrack.

In the ſecond Article the ſame Author propoſes this Queſtion: [Whether the Jeſuits Doctrine abſtracted from matters of Faith and Religion come nearer in matters of life and manners to the Proteſtants or to the Puritans.] His Anſwer whereunto is: [That Jeſuits are in this reſpect all wholly Puritans, and therefore, ſays he, do ſome for diſtinctions-ſake call the one Puritan-Papiſts, and the other Puritan-Proteſtants.] Then he lays down a parallel between the Jeſuits and the puritans in twenty five particulars: Some whereof are, That they agree in calling themſelves the Saintlybrotherhood, in ſcoffing, ſcolding, and ignominious diſgracing ſpeeches, (Puritans againſt the Biſhops and Engliſh Clergie, Jeſuits againſt the Biſhops and Prelates of Rome) in refuſing to have any Superiors, —in acknowledging no obedience (due, I ſuppoſe he means) to any Eccleſiaſtical dignity, though diſſemblingly they will yield it. The Puritans labour to pull all Biſhops down, and to have none but Superintendents in England, and have already made havock of all ſuch in Scotland; and the Jeſuits will let no Biſhops be in either Realm, if they can keep them from the ſuperiority over them. The Jeſuits check and controul both Pope and Prince, as at leaſt their equals; and the Puritans controul both Princes and Prelates, as if they were their ſuperiors, &c.] At laſt he concludes, that the Jeſuits and Puritans do come neareſt together in platforms, though both oppoſite one to another in intention as far as may be.

The uſe that may be made of theſe paſſages is this: ſince the Puritans of former times were (if theſe pictures of them be rightly drawn) of ſuch an ugly complexion, 'tis no great wonder, 1. That the hatred of Prelatical Proteſtants againſt Puritans was (as that Venetian Agent obſerves) greater than againſt Catholicks, (thoſe Catholicks, I preſume he means, who were of the Widdringtonian perſwaſion, in reference to the obedience due from ſubjects to Kings and Princes;) for the Widdringtonian Catholicks were more oppoſite to thoſe Jeſuitical principles and practices which are ſo prejudicial to the Authority of Kings and Princes, than ſuch Puritans were. Nor is't a wonder, 2. That the hatred of ſuch Catholicks was greater againſt Puritans than againſt (Prelatical) Proteſtants: for ſuch Proteſtants differed from ſuch Catholicks, not ſo much about matters of Government and obedience, as matters of Faith; but ſuch Puritans were oppoſite to them in both, in a very high degree. Nor 3. was it wonderful that the hatred of Puritans was greater againſt ſuch Catholicks than ſuch Proteſtants. Becauſe ſuch Catholicks are more oppoſite to ſuch Puritans than Prelatical Proteſtants are; for theſe Proteſtants differ not ſo much from thoſe Puritans about matters of Faith, as of Order, Diſcipline and Government; but thoſe Catholicks differ from them in both. Nor is it ſtrange, 4. That both ſuch Catholicks and ſuch Proteſtants did eaſily combine together for the ruine and rooting out of Puritans: for thoſe Puritans entertained ſuch principles as were inconſiſtent with that obedience, which both ſuch Catholicks, and ſuch Proteſtants (Widdringtonian Catholicks, and prelatical Proteſtants) acknowledged to be due from ſubjects to their Soveraign; upon which ſcore alſo both thoſe parties were eagerly bent againſt Jeſuits.

And now much good may theſe [notable obſervations] (out of the Venetian Agent's ſtory) do this Author, who, p. 39. (49.) thus argues: Papiſts impoſe the name of Puritans on ſuch as retain the old Proteſtant ſpirit of antipathy to Rome; therefore in the Puritan party lies the heart and strength of averſeneſs and enmity to the Hereſies and Idolatries of the Roman Church. Which is ſo far from being (what he is pleaſed to term it) a good Argument, that 'tis a mere ſophiſm, unleſs he can prove that Papiſts [therefore] call ſome men Puritans, viz. merely becauſe of their averſeneſs to the Hereſies and Idolatries of the Roman Church; but that they do not call any ſo on that ground, is evident from this, that they do not call all by that Name, who are reſolute enemies to the Hereſies and Idolatries of the Roman Church. The Venetian Agent by this mans own confeſſion, p. 38. (48.) called that Faction in the Church of England [Puritans,] becauſe being ſeaſoned and initiated with the Doctrine of Calvin, they judged the Engliſh Reformation imperfect, and ſo refuſed ſubmiſſion to that Form of Policy,] endeavouring to introduce a purer and more perfect Form of their own. This is Puritaniſm in oppoſition to that old Proteſtant ſpirit which animated our 39. Articles, and the Canons Eccleſiaſtical ratified by Q. Elizabeth and K. James.

Beſides, ſuppoſe there were any Truth in this aſſertion, that the heart and ſtrength of averſeneſs and enmity to the Hereſies and Idolatries of the Roman Church lies in the Puritan party, yet unleſs they are enemies alſo to thoſe ſeditious and rebellious principles maintained by ſome Papiſts, they are not true Engliſh Proteſtants, and conſequently they deſerve not to be protected and encouraged by England's King.—If mere averſeneſs from Popiſh Idolatries and Innovations were a good Argument of a good Proteſtant, 'twould prove Socinians the beſt in the world.

[Thoſe Biſhops, ſaid he, in the Church of England, who were heartily averſe from Popiſh Innovations, were more benign and favourable to Puritans.]

Which ſignifies little, unleſs he could prove it true of [all] ſuch Biſhops; but it may be he underſtands by [Popiſh Innovations] either the old Ceremonies enjoyned by Law, or ſome new Ceremony permitted and allowed, perhaps recommended, by Law; and it had been ſtrange, if ſuch kind of Biſhops as were heartily averſe from ſuch Ceremonies, becauſe they fancied them Popiſh Innovations, ſhould not favour Puritans. And again, If ſome Biſhops in the Church of England were more benign and favourable to Puritans, 'tis no great wonder, ſince the ſame Biſhops were (it ſeems) counted Puritan by the adverſe party. Indeed both King and Biſhops were more benign and favourable to many of them than they deſerved; which gave them leiſure and opportunity to grow numerous; to increaſe and ſtrengthen their party, till at laſt they were too ſtrong both for King and Biſhops; for the loyal Nobility, Gentry and Commonalty; and when they had got the power in their hands, O what grateful and ingenuous returns they made them for that benignity and favour! They ruin'd the Biſhops, (not ſparing even thoſe moſt heartily Proteſtant Biſhops, who had been ſo benign and favourable to them,) they raiſed a War againſt the King; plundered, ſequeſtred, murthered thoſe that adhered to him, and by degrees extorted from himſelf ſuch grand diminutions of his Royal Prerogative, as that they left him little more than the Title of a King: And are ſuch men as theſe ſuch true Engliſh Proteſtants, ſo good Chriſtians, as that they ought in juſtice and reaſon of State to be ſtill treated benignly and favourably? Nay rather, ſhould not King, Nobles and Commons (p. 40. (50.) remember their darling Proteſtantiſm? I mean, that good Engliſh Proteſtantiſm contained in the 39. Articles; by Law eſtabliſht in the Church of England; that true mean between Fanatick and Jeſuitical Proteſtantiſm. Should not, I ſay, King, Nobles and Commons remember this their darling, and in reaſon of State abandon that ſort of perſons, who have contributed ſo much to the deſtruction of it? Let them not ſleep ſecurely, while the ſeeds-men of the envious one ſow the Tares of Diviſion in our Field, not only to weaken and hinder, but to choak and eat out our Engliſh Proteſtant Faith, Order and Government: And let our gracious Soveraign ſtill ſhew himſelf gracious where his undeſerved clemency is like to produce happy (permanent) effects; but on the other ſide, let the miſchiefs that befel his Royal Father, through the ſtubborn Inſolency of ingrateful and diſloyal Presbyterians, make him wary in time, and circumſpectly provident for his own and the Kingdoms ſafety, leſt himſelf alſo know and feel by ſad experience what it is to protect and encourage presbyterians.

P. 41. (51.) The Author takes upon him to vindicate Presbyterians from the many Calumnies with which he tells us they are loaded. The firſt that he mentions is, [their plucking from the Civil Magiſtrate his power in Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, and erecting Imperium in Imperio.] Which, ſays he, is a groundleſs and groſs miſtake, and to prove it ſo he urges the declared judgment of the Higheſt of that way according to their own words, which are theſe.

[To the Political Magiſtrate is allowed a Diatactick ordering regulating power about Eccleſiaſtical affairs in a Political way; ſo that he reforms the Church when corrupted in Divine Worſhip, Diſcipline or Government.]

But notwithſtanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may aſſume to themſelves the power of judging whether there are ſuch corruptions or no; and whether the Civil Magiſtrate reforms thoſe corruptions in a warrantable manner or no; and conſequently of checking him in both reſpects if he chance to judge otherwiſe than they do, witneſs the next.

[He convenes and convocates Synods and Councils made up of Eccleſiaſtical Perſons to adviſe and conclude determinatively according to the word of God, how the Church is to be reformed and refined from corruption, how to be guided and governed when reformed.]

But notwithſtanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may challenge to themſelves a power of convening without, yea againſt the Civil Magiſtrate's command, and here they actually challenge the power of concluſively determining how the Church is to be reformed and governed.

[He ratifies and eſtabliſhes within his Dominions the juſt and neceſſary Decrees of the Church in Synods and Councils by his Civil Sanction.]

But notwithſtanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may claim the power of determining whether its own Decrees be juſt and neceſſary or no; and of puting them in execution, though the Civil Magiſtrate deny to ratify them by his Civil Sanction.

[He judges and determines definitively with ae conſequent and political judgment, or judgment of Diſcretion, concerning things judged and determined antecedently by the Church in reference to his own Act.]

But notwithſtanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may take upon them to controul the King (as well as private perſons) if his difinitive Judgment of diſcretion (which they allow to every [private] perſon, p. 20. (30.) in reference to his own act) ſhould chance to contradict their antecedent determinations.

[He takes care politically that even matters and Ordinances merely and formally Eccleſiaſtical be duly managed by Eccleſiaſtical Perſons orderly called thereunto]

But notwithſtanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may imagine that in caſe the King refuſe to take this Political care, themſelves may appoint Eccleſiaſtical Perſons to manage them, and that their ſo doing is an orderly call to thoſe Perſons to act accordingly.

[He hath a compulſive, punitive or corrective power formally Political in matters of Religion in reference to all ſorts of Perſons and things under his Juriſdiction]

But notwithſtanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For holy Kirk may deny her ſelf to be, in matters of Religion, under his Juriſdiction.

[He may Politically compel the outward man of all Perſons, Church-Officers, or others under his Dominion unto External performance of their reſpective duties and offices in matters of Religion, puniſhing them if either they neglect to do their duty at all, or do it corruptly.]

But notwithſtanding this alſo there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may fancy themſelves the only or chief Judges of what are the duties and offices belonging to ſuch and ſuch Perſons, and whether they neglect or corruptly perform them.

So that if Presbyterians grant no more power to belong to the King of England in Eccleſiaſtical matters, they deny his Supremacy and conſequently erect Imperium in Imperio.

How they who give up themſelves to the ſole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures, p. 24. (34.) can (in reaſon) acknowledge a ſpiritual power over the Conſcience as intrinſecally belonging to the Church, I leave him to inform us; who would have us believe, p. 43. (53) that [Presbyterians do not claim for the Convocation or any other Eccleſiaſtical Convention an Independency on Parliaments.]

That they do not claim it for a Convocation of Biſhops and Epiſcopal men I am apt enough to believe. But I cannot entertain any reaſonable hope that they who have Covenanted ſo deeply in the behalf of the Scotch Diſcipline and Form of Government, as to ſwear an endeavour of reforming things in England according to the example of the Kirk of Scotland, (as one of the beſt reformed Churches) will acknowledge the ratification of the decrees of all Eccleſiaſtical conventions to depend on Parliaments. For, if Biſhop Bramhall deceive us not, (Fair Warning p. 9.) 'Tis a Scotch maxime, that Parliamentary ratifications can no way alter Church-Canons concerning the worſhip of God; for Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline ought to be exerciſed whether it be ratified by the Civil Magiſtrate or not. The want of a Civil Sanction to the Church is but like lucrum ceſſans, not damnum emergens, as it adds nothing to it, ſo it takes nothing away from it: If there be any claſhing of Juriſdictions, or defect in this kind; they lay the fault at the Magiſtrates door, accounting it a great ſin or wickedneſs for the Magiſtrate to hinder the exerciſe or execution of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline. But we, ſay they, do give Chriſtian Magiſtrates a Political power to convocate Synods, to preſide in Synods, to ratify the Acts of Synods, to reform the Church; we make him the keeper of both Tables. Take nothing, ſays the diſcerning Biſhop, and hold it fuſt; Here are good words but they ſignify nothing, for they teach that this power of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate is not privative and deſtructive to the power of the Church, but cumulative and only auxiliary or aſſiſting: Which very Doctrine is taught by [the higheſt of the Presbyterian way] here in England in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici; where their conceſſions juſt now mentioned by this Author are to be found, but p. 77. with this reſtriction, All the former power, ſay they, that is granted or may be granted circa ſacra to the Magiſtrate, is only [cumulative] not [privative,] he may help her in Reformation, not hinder her in reforming her ſelf, convening Synods her ſelf, as in Act. 15. otherwiſe her condition were better without than with a Magiſtrate: The Chriſtian Magiſtrate much leſs ought to prejudice her herein; otherwiſe her ſtate were worſe under the Chriſtian than under the Pagan Magiſtrate. Thus the Presbyterian Authors (or Author) of that Book. Beſides the power (as the Biſhop goes on) which they abuſively call authoritative, but is indeed miniſterial of executing their Decrees, and contributing to their ſettlement; they aſcribe to the Magiſtrate concerning the Acts of Synods (that which every private man hath) a judgment of diſcretion, but they retain to themſelves the judgment of Juriſdiction, and if he judge not as they would have him, but ſuſpend out of conſcience the influence of his Political power where they would have him exerciſe it, they will either teach him another part of Popery, that is, an implicit Faith, or he may perchance feel the weight of their Church-cenſures, and find quickly what manner of men they be, as our late gracious King Charles, and before him his Father, his Grandmother and his great-Grandmother did all to their coſt. See more p. 11, 12.

Mr. Parker in his diſcourſe concerning Puritans (printed 1641) though he talk ſometimes extravagantly enough in their favour, yet now and then he has his Lucida intervalla wherein he ſpeaks more agreeably to Truth and Reaſon. Having mentioned ſome Tenents concerning Spiritual and Temporal Juriſdiction maintained by that great Arch-Prelate Mr. Calvin, p. 28. according to the Popiſh Grounds, p. 29. he tells us that that method of Mr. Calvin's is the way to crect Regnum in Regno, and to maintain ſuch concurrent Juriſdictions as cannot poſſibly ſtand together, p. 31. for all being ſubject to ſin and offence as well the Spiritual as Temporal, either the one or other muſt go unqueſtioned, and this may produce diviſion, or elſe both, and that will cauſe moſt certain conf •• ſion. Both ſides here ſeem, ſays he, ſ • rangely puzzled, (of which aſſertion he ſubjoyns not ſo much as a ſeeming reaſon as to the Epiſcopal ſide, but proceeds thus) The rigideſt of the Epiſcopal Faction allow Princes a coercive power over Prieſts and Prelates where they perform not what their duty is in their Functions or Juriſdictions, and this power requires an higher power of ſummoning, arraigning, and legally trying them; and yet the moderateſt of the Presbyterian Faction would have Princes queſtionable, tryable, and puniſhable by the Spiritualty. Which ſufficiently implyes that he thought not any Epiſcopal men guilty of that crime.

From which premiſſes I conclude, that notwithſtanding any thing produc'd here by this Author to the contrary, this firſt charge againſt Presbyterians is a true accuſation, not a calumny.

He proceeds to a ſecond, and tells us, p. 43. (53.) There goes a voice that Presbyterians are Antimonarchical, (as if 'twere vox & praeterea nihil.)

[But are their Principles inconſiſtent with Monarchy, or any impeachment to the ſame? Theſe are contained in the character above written.]

But what if that Character of them be traiterouſly partial, and in reference to the Queſtion here treated of ridiculouſly impertinent and abominably deceitful? whereof if this Author or any of his Brethren deſire farther proof, I may chance to ſatisfy their deſires before I conclude theſe Animadverſions.

In the mean time let's liſten to his fine Apologies.

[Peradventure, ſays he, p. 44. (54.) the exact Presbytery, that is, the parity of degree and Authority in all Miniſters is that againſt which this charge is directed.] Judge then whether that forementioned character, where that which is exact Presbytery is altogether concealed, be an exact deſcription of Presbytery. [Although this parity is not inſiſted on] Was it not inſiſted on at the Iſle of Wight Treaty? [or urged to the breach of peace.] He did [but think] p. 20. that moſt Presbyterians here in England allowed in order to peace Epiſcopum Praeſidem: but here he's more peremptory, and withal (it ſeems) ſo ſcandalouſly ignorant, as to believe that Tumults, Riots, Covenanting, and fighting in the behalf of Scotch-Presbytery is no breach of peace. [Neither is it eſſential to Presbytery,] whence I gather, that exact Presbytery is not eſſential to Presbytery: but was it not eſſential to the Presbytery contended for at the Iſle of Wight? was it not eſſential to that Form of Government which they had before Covenanted to introduce?

[Yet what reaſon can be rendred why this may not comport with Kingly Government?] A. Even the ſelf-ſame reaſon which ſome of his own party have (as I take it) made uſe of, to prove that Epiſcopacy cannot comport with Kingly Government, viz. that it pretends (as ſome men diſcourſe of it) to be Jure Divino: which ſince presbyterian parity alſo pretends to, 'tis upon that ſcore inconſiſtent with Monarchical Government, as much as Epiſcopacy: the argument is as good againſt both Forms as againſt either. But 2. Since this Author is guilty, either of ſuch groſs ignorance, or ſuch Treaſonable diſhoneſty, as to make us believe, either that there is, or that he knows not any ground of this Accuſation, but what is fetcht from the presbyterian parity: I ſhall for his and other ſuch mens better information, take the pains to tranſcribe part of the Anſwer to a Letter written at Oxford, and ſuperſcribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof. Examine, ſays the Anſwerer, p. 15. the Presbyterian principles, and you will clearly find Kings and they cannot stand together; for either you conſider that new Government in the Scottiſh ſence, which allows no appeal to any other power; and then it's plain, that where men admit this they admit of a Supremacy, which doth not reſide in the King, and by conſequence of two ſeveral ſupremacies within the bounds of the ſelf-ſame Kingdom, which can no more stand with Monarchy, than it can with Monogamy, to be married to two ſeveral Wives; and though 'tis ſaid, that this Presbyterian Government meddles only with spiritual things, which concern the good of the Soul, and ſo it cannot hurt Regal power, yet this is but only ſaid and no more; for 'tis well known, that in ordine ad ſpiritualia (and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank, as they have been by the Church of Rome) this Government intrudes upon what things it pleaſeth: and where a ſupremacy is once acknowledged, no wiſe man can think that it will carry it ſelf otherwiſe; ſo that King James his maxim was undoubtedly moſt true, No Biſhop, no King. For that moſt prudent Prince did ſoon diſcern, that if a power were once ſet up, which (at leaſt in the legal execution of it) did not derive it ſelf from the King, there was no doubt to be made that it would ere long deſtroy the very King himſelf.—Or conſider the Presbyterian Government in the Engliſh ſence, as it's now ſet up by the two Houſes at Weſtminſter, which is a Government limited by an Appeal to the Parliament; for either by Parliament here they mean the two Houſes, excluding the King, and then 'tis as plain as before, they ſet up two ſupremacies, his Majeſties and their own; or elſe by Parliament they mean the King with both Houſes; and then 'twill follow, that either there muſt be a perpetual Parliament (which ſure the King nor Kingdom can't have cauſe to like) or elſe the ſupremacy will be for the moſt part in the Presbytery; becauſe whenever a Parliament ſits not, there will be no Judge to appeal to; or if it be ſaid, the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive Appeals in ſuch Eccleſiaſtical cauſes, then either in this Committee the King hath no Negative; and in that caſe 'tis clear, that the Eccleſiaſtical ſupremacy will be not at all in the King; or elſe the King hath a Negative, but yet is joyned with perſons whom he himſelf chuſeth not, and ſo moſt probably will be chek'd and affronted in any ſentence he intends to give; and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament to be a right in the King, as inherent in his Crown, that Eccleſiaſtical Appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery, (for the Statute names no other) and that his Majeſty alone may appoint what Commiſſioners he pleaſes for their final deciſion: I ſay conſider the Presbyterian Government in the Engliſh Parliament ſence, and in the ſence of the Engliſh Aſſembly, (for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scottiſh Form, as appears by their quarrels at what the Houſes have already done in their Ordinances,) and 'twill appear that their aim is not only to ſet up a new Government, but in plain terms, a new Supremacy: and hence, to ſay truth, he muſt ſee very little, who diſcerns not, that though the Presbyterian party ſeems to ſtrike at the Biſhops, yet their main aim is at the King, whoſe ſupremacy they endure not, as being a flower which they intend for their own Garland; and ſo though they hypocritically cry out (that they may abuſe the people) againſt the pride of the Lordly Biſhops, yet in the mean time the wiſer ſort muſt needs ſee that they intend to make themſelves no leſs than indeed Kingly Presbyters. Thus he: And if this Author thinks this reaſoning inſufficient to prove Presbytery Antimonarchical, let him tell us why.

In the mean time it follows, p. 44. (54.) [Or would his ſort of men [Presbyterians] have no King to reign over them?] A. None, if he will not comply with their humours. [Doth a Republick better pleaſe them?] A. Not an Independent or Anabaptiſtical Republick; but time hath been when a Presbyterian Republick (ſome parcels of the two Houſes) did pleaſe them far better than an Epiſcopal King.

[Did the Engliſh or Scottiſh Presbyters ever go about to diſſolve Monarchy, and to erect ſome other kind of Government? In no wiſe, quoth he; for in the Solemn League and Covenant they bound themſelves to endeavour the preſervation of the Kings perſon and Authority; and declared they had no intent to diminiſh his Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs.] (Of the juſtneſs of which power themſelves would be judges: But) did not all Covenanters do ſo as well as Presbyterians? The man ſure would make us believe, either that our Monarchy was not diſſolved (and another kind of Government exected) or elſe that 'twas done by ſome that were not Covenanters. For why is not this Argument as good? Independents Covenanted to preſerve the Kings perſon and Authority: Therefore they never went about to diſſolve Monarchy? This is a much better conſequence: Neither the Engliſh nor Scottiſh Presbyterians endeavoured to preſerve the Kings Authority, juſt power and greatneſs, (the Juſtneſs whereof muſt be judged of by Law, not by the dictates of inſolent minds puft up with proſperity) therefore either they never bound themſelves and intended to preſerve it, or elſe they practiſed contrary to thoſe obligations and intentions. If he has the confidence to deny the Antecedent, I may chance to evince it to him before we part. Indeed his next words ſuggeſt a very conſiderable proof of it.

[After the violent change of Government, they (the Presbyterians) came ſloweſt, and entred lateſt into thoſe new Engagements impoſed by the Ʋſurpt powers.] Which is an implicit confeſſion: 1. That thoſe Engagements were inconſiſtent with fidelity to Monarchical Goyernment, and the Kings Authority. 2. That yet at laſt the Presbyterians did enter into them; whence I gather, 1. That whereas the third Article of the Covenant obliged them to endeavour (not only ſincerely, but alſo) conſtantly (with their Eſtates and Lives) to preſerve and defend the Kings Majeſties Authority, juſt power, and greatneſs; they ceaſed to do ſo at laſt, when they entred upon thoſe new Engagements, and conſequently did then break their Covenant. And 2. That the Presbyterians are not ſuch fixt and unalterable Creatures (as he would needs have perſwaded us, p. 29. (39.) they are) ſince they did upon changes in Government vary by degrees from themſelves, and either deſerted thoſe principles which kept them from engaging with the foremoſt, or elſe contradicted them by engaging at laſt though ſlowly. And truly that they did ſo is tacitly acknowledged by this Author, p. 45. (55.) where he tells us, that [the generality of conſcientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of thoſe times;] which ſadly implies, either that the generality of Presbyterians were not conſcientious, ſince they generally ran with the current at laſt, or that ſome conſcientious Presbyterians did, notwithſtanding the dictates of their conſcience, run with the current: For either he muſt mean, that the generality of Presbyterians [otherwiſe conſcientious] did [in that particular] by an error of Conſcience run with the current; but this ſeems not to have been this Authors meaning, for then it follows (by his own confeſſion) that the generality of them were deluded by an erroneous Conſcience into a breach of Covenant, which yet this paſſage is brought to abſolve them from; or elſe they muſt mean that ſome Presbyterians conſcientious in this particular alſo, did run with the current, and then it follows that though they were conſcious of their duty to the contrary, yet they did engage notwithſtanding that practical dictate.

His following Apologeticks are theſe, 1. That the Scotch Presbyterians adventured no more than all to uphold our Soveraign that now is.] Did they adventure ſo much as all? 2. [That when he fell, it was ſaid by the adverſary, Presbytery was fallen.] No wonder if Scots adventured much to uphold that King whom they believed willing to uphold their Presbytery. 3. [That keeping company with the chief Presbyterian Miniſters, was objected by the Republican Council of State, as a crime cauſing (meritoriouſly I ſuppoſe he means) impriſonment.] It may be they were ſome ſuch Presbyterian Miniſters as had quite forgotten the obligation that was upon them (by their entring into the Engagements aforeſaid) to be true and faithful to a Common-wealth-Form. And when they ſaw themſelves like enough to be dealt with by other Sectaries, as themſelves had dealt with the Epiſcopal party, began to bethink themſelves whether they had not in the days of Yore entred into a Covenant to preſerve and defend the King's Majeſties Perſon and Authority in this Nation, and to act as if they thought themſelves obliged thereby againſt a Republican Form. 4. [That the Presbyterians by their influence firſt divided and then diſſipated the Sectarian party, and ſo made way for his Majeſties return in peace.] That Presbyterians have, where they are protected and encouraged, a faculty of dividing firſt and then diſſipating, I am not ſo envious as to deny: But 1. Either they had loſt this faculty in Oliver's time, or elſe they were very loth to exert it in the behalf of his Majeſty; the viſible reaſon whereof was becauſe Cromwell tolerated them in their Form of worſhip, and did ſo far protect and encourage them, as to continue them in thoſe places of profit and preferment out of which they would very probably have been ejected by thoſe Sectarians, who afterwards domineered. 2. That 'twas the Presbyterian influence which wrought thoſe bleſſed effects among them whom he calls the Sectarian party, I would fain ſee him prove, and when he has done that, he would do me another favour if he would tell me why he calls that party (which he ſpeaks of as divided and diſſipated) Sectarian, but let him take heed leſt he do it upon ſuch grounds as being applyed to Presbyterians will prove them alſo Sectarians. 5. [That 'tis acknowledged by ſome eminent on the Epiſcopal ſide, that the ſenſe of the Covenant hath lately quickned many mens Conſciences in their Allegiance to the King, ſo as to bring him with David home in infinite Joy and Triumph.] Their conſciences it ſeems were a long time dead and callous; why did not the ſenſe of their Covenant animate them when our Soveraign was at Worcoſter to preſerve and defend with their Eſtates and Lives his Majeſties Perſon and Authority? From theſe premiſes he concludes that [They are not averſe from Regal Government or the Royal Family; but they deſire to dwell under the ſhadow of our dread Soveraign, (but mark the following words) hoping to revive as the Corn, and to grow as the Vine under his gracious Influence] I doubt the man hath unawares diſcovered the chief ground of Presbyterians Loyalty (at leaſt if inſtead of the Corn and Vine he had ſaid the Ivy, and expreſſed himſelf thus, hoping to grow as the Ivy under the gracious influence of the Oak. (which at laſt kills the Oak that protected and nouriſhed it.) For my part I never thought Presbyterians averſe from any Regal Government that would advance their Party; or from the Royal Family, if they believed that that family would ſecure their deſigns: they were willing enough that Monarchy ſhould revive and flouriſh, and that in the Royal Line, on ſuppoſition and in hopes that Presbytery would revive and flouriſh together with it; otherwiſe our experience ſufficiently informs us, that two Houſes (as I intimated before) pleas'd them better than a King, and Richard Cromwell than Charles the Second. Poſſibly if theſe Vines meet with a dread Soveraign whoſe Influence is ſo gracious to them as to ſet up Presbytery by a Law, they will afford ſome pleaſing Juice; but if they Imagine not his Influence gracious, they will degenerate into the Plant of a ſtrange Vine; and he ſhall receive no fruit from them but ſour Grapes and the bitter Cluſters of Gomorrha. They deſire, 'tis true, to dwell under the ſhadow of this Royal Tree, if ſo be they may confidently promiſe themſelves that under his ſhadow they ſhall live and thrive among the Chriſtian Sectaries and Heathen Conſider, O Lord, that they are a faction principally of ſome few Perſons, as the Prelates, that have caus'd ſuch confuſions in the Land; and wilt thou deſtroy the righteous with the wicked? Far be it from thee, and even now do not thy people lift up ſtrong cries unto thee againſt their [Egyptian] Taskmaſters and [Babylonian] Lords? So Brother Burton's Holy Breathings, in the Conſultation prefixt to his Reply to Archbiſhop Laud's book againſt Fiſher. Prelatiſts. But if not, 'tis to be feared that Fire will come out of theſe Brambles and devour the Cedar of Lebanon; that they will again pray and preach, and when they have opportunity fight againſt him till the breath of our noſtrils, the Anointed of the Lord, Charles the Second be alſo taken in their Pits. If his ſhadow prove as offenſive to them as that of ſome Trees in Aſia, which Doves delight in, is ſaid to be to Serpents, they will lop off all its diſpleaſing branches, and ſo make way for others to lay the Ax to the root of the Tree.

[Peradventure, p. 46. (56.) They would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent; ſurely I cannot find the riſe of this objection, unleſs from hence, that they are not willing to come under any yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm, or to pay arbitrary Taxes levyed without conſent of Parliament.]

Certes this man talks ſometimes as if he were newly come out of his mothers womb; as if he were of yeſterday and knew nothing, or elſe as if he hoped to meet with no Readers but ſuch as would be either ſo credulous as to believe every thing he is audacious enough to ſay, or ſo ignorant as to be altogether unacquainted with the Principles and practices of Presbyterians. But ſince he ſometimes ſeems to have heard of a thing called [The Solemn League and Covenant] and beſides that, hath probably ſeen and read it, yea and poſſibly hath been ſo unhappy as to take it; I deſire to know why he could not there find ground enough for that objection. Let him tell us, 1. Why they who ſwear to endeavour the preſervation of the Scotch Diſcipline and Government, which ſo manifeſtly erects Imperium in Imperio, may not juſtly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent, in Scotland? 2. Why they who ſwear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England, Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Diſcipline and Church-Government, and conſequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England, may not juſtly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England alſo, and render it too impotent by ſetting up there alſo Imperium in Imperio? 3. Why they who ſwear the extirpation of Prelacy, that is, Church-Government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops &c. may not juſtly be look'd upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which eſteems that Form of Church-Government as a very conſiderable ſupport and ſtrengthening to it: Witneſs the Aphoriſm of that wiſe Monarch King James, No Biſhop no King, the truth whereof King Charles found by ſad experience. Dum Epiſcoporum Juriſdictionem invadunt (Anarchae) caveant Principes. Scitè admodum monet Poeta, Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet; ubi enim Epiſcoporum ditio expugnanda obſidetur, ibidem proximè imo potiſſimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur. S. Clara Apolog. Epiſc. p. 20. 4. Why they who when they had power in their hands conſtrained our former Soveraign to grant ſuch Propoſitions as left him only a titular Kingſhip, may not juſtly be look'd upon as perſons that would whenſoever 'tis in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent? When he hath given a ſatisfactory anſwer to theſe Queries I may poſſibly trouble him with ſome more of the like import; for I believe there are ſo many grounds of making this objection that (in probability) the only reaſon why this Author could find no other riſe of it than what he mentions, was becauſe he would not ſeek it.

That which he is pleaſed to mention (as the riſe) is, [That the Presbyterians were not willing, 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm: Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without conſent of Parliament.]

To the 1. (hoping that (whatſoever this Authors words imply to the contrary) they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God alſo (at leaſt ſuch of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks) I anſwer, 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm, they would long ago have ceaſed to be Presbyterians; that is, ſhakers off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies eſtabliſht by thoſe Laws. 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke, they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant, ſince it was not injoyned by any Law of the Realm. 3. They have not ſhewed themſelves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy, (impoſed by Law) ſince they have been far from a practical acknowledgment, that the King of England is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm, and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Eccleſiaſtical things or Cauſes; and that the reforming, ordering, corrrecting of them, is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; but on the contrary themſelves uſurpt the power of reforming, ordering, correcting them without, yea, againſt his conſent; and in ſo doing they enervated our Monarchy, and rendred it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative; nay, too many of them are ſo far from acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in their actions, that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgment of it in their prayers; for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of thoſe words [Defender of the Faith,] as if the confeſſing him Supreme Head in all Eccleſiaſtical cauſes, and over all Eccleſiaſtical perſons, were either Error, Hereſie, or a piece of Treaſon.

To the 2. I anſwer, by demanding, 1. Whether there be not as much (if not more) Law for the Kings impoſing Taxes (in ſome caſes) without the conſent of Lords Temporal and Commons, than there is for [their] impoſing them without the Kings conſent. 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and caſes (in reference to ſuch impoſitions) than Presbyterian ſubjects? 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes impoſed by the King, without conſent of the three Eſtates, (viz. Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons?) 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes impoſed by the three Eſtates (and much more by two only) without the King? 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons, though levied without the Kings conſent, and therefore without conſent of Parliament? and conſequently, whether that be not falſe which this Author tells us, that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without conſent of Parliament? 6. Whether in ſo doing they did not abundantly manifeſt, that 'twas not the arbitrarineſs of the Taxes, but either their being impoſed by the King, or elſe their being impoſed to ſuch ends as did not ſerve the Presbyterian Intereſt; that was the main reaſon of their quarrelling with, and contending againſt thoſe Impoſition. 'Tis therefore too evident, that the Presbyterians had a deſign to enervate our Engliſh Monarchy; ſince, though they refuſed not to pay arbitrary Taxes to ſome Lords Temporal and Commons, levied without the Kings conſent, and on purpoſe to carry on a War againſt him, yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King, though levied for the defence of his perſon and Authority, becauſe levied without conſent of Parliament.

Upon which pretence alſo their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have perſwaded them to deny the payment of the Aſſeſſments impoſed by thoſe powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons. That Author in his Reaſons why he would not pay Taxes, (viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons) tells us, p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm, no Tax, Tallage, Aid, Impoſition, Contribution, Loan or Aſſeſſment whatſoever may, or ought to be impoſed or levied on the Free-men and people of this Realm of England, but by the will and common aſſent of the Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgeſſes, Commons and whole Realm, in a free and full Parliament, by Act of Parliament, all Taxes not ſo impoſed and levied, though for the common defence and profit of the Realm, being unjuſt, oppreſſive, &c. This is ſound Doctrine, it ſeems, when Independents domineer, but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be impoſed and levied by ſome Lords Temporal and Commons only, without Act of Parliament, and yet not be accounted either unjuſt, or oppreſſive, or inconſiſtent with the Liberty of the Subject. The reaſon was, becauſe Presbyterian ambition was cheriſh'd and gratified by thoſe Taxes, which it ceaſed to be when Independents had the chief power of impoſing them.

And yet we are told in the next lines, that [none more reverence their Liberties, and value the native happineſs of the Free-born Subjects of England (than Presbyterians.)] But what, I pray Sir, was in point of State-affairs the native happineſs of Engliſh men, (that had ſo much happineſs as to be born before Presbyterians began to domineer) was it not that they were born ſubjects to a Soveraign to whom belonged the ordering of the Militia at all times, a negative Voice in Parliament, the Supreme power in Eccleſiaſticals as well as Civils? and members of that Nation where the only legal Form of Church-Government was by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Archdeacons, Chancellors, Commiſſaries, &c. Where an excellent Liturgy was commanded to be uſed, and no other Form of Divine Service permitted by Law? Where the Ceremonies of the Surplice, Croſs in Baptiſm, Kneeling at the Sacrament, were (for order and decencies-ſake) appointed by the Church-Governors, and the uſe of them enjoyned by Law? Is this the native happineſs that Presbyterians valued? Or does the man mean by [native happineſs] their receiving the temper of their bodies from predominant choler, phlegm or black melancholy? and the complexion of their Souls (from Heaven ſhall I ſay? 'twould puzzle S. Austin himſelf to determine; I confeſs I am ſomewhat apt to believe that presbyterians Souls are rather) ex traduce; from the prolifical, aſſimilating vertue of the Parents ſpirit, which being immerſed in Hyle, and over-charged with ugly humors, is ſo far from generating a Platonical Soul, made up of Harmony, that its off-ſpring does more reſemble Galen's dull conceit of the eſſence of all Souls, and is of ſo baſe an alloy, that it little differs from a vicious, malign temperament of body: I confeſs, I think none do more value [this] native happineſs than [theſe] Free-born ſubjects of England, but whether there are none that more reverence their Liberties, let the world judge, by their frequent meriting ſevere reſtraints for their ſeditious and ſchiſmatical breaches of the Laws of England; by their paying arbitrary Taxes levied without conſent of King, Lords and Commons, ('tis an Argument good enough ad hominem) by their ſwearing to ſubmit their necks to the yoke of Scotch Diſcipline and Government, not allowed of by any Law of this Realm; was this to revere their Liberties? or rather to proſtitute them to the luſts of thoſe men, whoſe ſpirit breathed nothing more than contradiction both to mans Law and Chriſts Goſpel; to Civil conſtitutions and to the maxims of Chriſtian Religion.

For whereas this Author, p. 47. (57.) talks of their true knowledge and ſence of the nature of Chriſtian Religion, and that this makes a due civil Freedom exceeding precious to them, 1. As I intimated before, 'tis not a due freedom from illegal Impoſitions, that the Religion of theſe profeſſing Chriſtians makes ſo precious to them; for to be inſlaved to Presbyterian Impoſitions, though illegal, is very grateful to them; but 'tis a liberty from Epiſcopal Impoſitions and Royal Sanctions, and ſuch Taxations (whether legal or illegal) as are not deſigned for the advancement of their intereſt, which they ſo highly value; and therefore 'tis manifeſt enough, they plead for ſuch a liberty as will enfeeble our Engliſh Monarchy. 2. I much queſtion, whether their high valuation of freedom from illegal Taxes, and their unwillingneſs to pay them, can (in reaſon) proceed from any true knowledge and ſence of the nature of Chriſtian Religion. For I deſire to know of them, whether (at leaſt in caſe our Laws do not expreſly ſorbid our payment of Taxes, impoſed by the King out of Parliament) our Saviours precept, Matth. 5. 42. Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not away: and his own practice, Matth. 17. 27. paying tribute for himſelf and S. Peter, merely leſt he ſhould offend the exactors, who ought not to have demanded it of the children, v. 26. that were all free, but only of strangers: I deſire, I ſay, to know of them, whether that precept and this practice do not oblige all Engliſh men that profeſs Chriſtianity, to pay Taxes quietly and patiently, though levied by the King alone without Law? 3. On this occaſion I ſhall take leave to queſtion, whether theſe Free-born ſubjects had indeed a true knowledge and ſenſe of the Nature of Chriſtian Religion in other particulars, as well as this; for if they had, would not their practice have been more conformable to it? (if at leaſt that Axiom be true, Voluntas neceſſario ſequitur dictamen Intellectus practicum, which thoſe among them that do not Arminianize hold for a truth.) But whether their practiſes have been conform to the dictates of that Religion, let any one who knows thoſe dictates, conſider and judge impartially. They ſpeak ſuch language as this; Bleſſed are the meek, Matth. 5. 5. (who rather would ſuffer all injuries than revenge themſelves) Bleſſed are the peace-makers, v. 9. Reſiſt not evil. Whoſoever ſhall ſmite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other alſo, v. 39. (rather receive double wrong than revenge thine own griefs) Love your enemies; bleſs them that curſe you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that deſpitefully uſe you and perſecute you, v. 44. Judge not that you be not judged, Chap. 7. 1. (be not curious or malicious to try out and condemn your neighbours faults—for Hypocrites hide their own faults, and ſeek not to amend them, but are curious to reprove other mens.) Whatſoever you would that men ſhould do unto you, do you alſo unto them, v. 12. Beware of falſe Prophets, which come to you in ſheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening Wolves, v. 15. Be you wiſe as Serpents, and innocent as Doves, Chap. 10. 16. (not revenging, much leſs doing wrong) Render unto Caeſar the things that are Caeſars, and unto God the things that are Gods, Chap. 22. 21. The Scribes and Phariſees ſit in Moſes's ſeat. All therefore whatſoever they bid you obſerve, that obſerve and do, Chap. 23. 2, 3. Put up thy ſword into his place, (the exerciſe of the ſword is forbid to private perſons) for all that take the ſword ſhall periſh by the ſword, Chap. 26. 52. When you ſtand and pray, forgive, if you have any thing againſt any man, that your Father alſo which is in Heaven may forgive your treſpaſſes, Mark 11. 25. Condemn not and you ſhall not be condemned. Forgive and you ſhall be forgiven, Luke 6. 37, &c. If Presbyterian actions had been conformable to theſe and other Chriſtian principles, their Pamphlets would have been freer from railing and reviling; their Sermons from inflaming mens ſpirits, and kindling in them the fires of diſloyal Jealouſie; their diſcourſe from cenſorious judging and condemning their brethren; and their underſtandings freer from pernicious errors, than for ought appears by their pernicious actions, they were: They had neither run themſelves into danger raſhly and unneceſſarily at firſt, nor afterwards by unlawful means preſerved themſelves from a legal Trial, and the ſtroke of Juſtice for thoſe miſdemeanors. But when reſiſting evil, and thoſe that offer it, can be reconciled with not reſiſting it or them, and with the ſuffering of real and much more pretended injuries: When raiſing War againſt our Royal Soveraign, and continuing it for ſeveral years, can juſtly be interpreted making peace: When the applying, Curſe ye Meroz, yea curſe ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof, Judg. 5. 23. to thoſe that came not forth to fight againſt the King and his loyal ſubjects, can conſiſt with bleſſing and praying for thoſe that are ſuppoſed deſpitefully to uſe and perſecute us: when Dove-like harmleſneſs and Wolfiſh cruelty ceaſe to be contradictories: when to wreſt the power of the Militia out of the Kings hands, and to deny him his Negative voice, is to render to Caeſar the things that are Caeſar's: when Covenanting againſt Prelacy and our Church-Diſcipline, and Orders, is all one with the obſerving and doing what our lawful Governours require: when putting up our ſwords into their ſheaths, and loving, doing good to, and forgiving our enemies, is compatible with reproaching their perſons, with ruining themſelves and their Families, with turning them out of their legal poſſeſſions, with plundering their Goods, ſheathing ſwords into their bowels, and ſpilling their innocent and loyal bloud; then, and not till then will Presbyterian practiſes be reconcileable with Chriſt's precepts, and agreeable to that Religion which he taught the world, and which (as this Author well obſerves) is not variable according to the will of man, but indiſpenſably binds every Soul, and is grounded upon an unchangeable, eternal Truth; (which if the Engliſh Independent J. Goodwin, or Bucanan the Scotch Presbyterian had believed heretofore, they had not made ſuch an ugly Fanatick Apology as they did, for ſubjects taking up Arms againſt and murdering their Soveraign;)De jure Regni, P. 50, 55. and if the Presbyterian profeſſors of this Religion, and of their own true knowledge and ſenſe of the Nature of it, had acted ſuitably to ſuch a profeſſion, they had never thought it expedient to reduce his late Majeſty to ſuch diſmal ſtraits at the Iſle of Wight, where they conſtrained him to grant them ſo much liberty, as miſerably enfeebled the Monarchical and Legal power of the Kings of England; whereby (whatſoever he cants in the following lines of a King's ruling over a free people) Presbyterians have ſufficiently taught us, that they take more delight in making good Kings their ſlaves, than in manifeſting themſelves to be good ſubjects. [To be a powerful Monarch, ſays he, p. 48. ever a free people, is the freedom and glory of our Soveraign Lord, above all the Potentates of the Earth.] The more diſloyal creatures were thoſe presbyterians, who in that fatal Iſle treated with ſuch a Soveraign Lord, and once powerful Monarch, to ſuch bad purpoſes; as to deſpoil him of his Royal Freedom and Glory; and by their imperious demands to dwindle this potent and glorious Monarchy into a ſlaviſh, ignoble, titular Kingſhip; whence we may conjecture what a licentious, treaſonable liberty it is, that ſuch Free-born ſubjects breath after, and how inſolently they'l again exerciſe it (over our Soveraign Lord the King) if by his Majeſties connivence and indulgence they meet with the like opportune advantages of winding themſelves by degrees into the like power.

From which premiſes I conclude, that notwithſtanding any thing produced here by this Author to the contrary, this ſecond Charge againſt the Presbyterians [that they are Anti-Monarchical] is a true accuſation, not a calumny.

The third Calumny (as he calls it) with which Presbyterians are loaded, is the charge of Diſobedience and Rebellion: [and this, ſays our Author, were a crying ſin indeed] But yet he thinks it neceſſary to ſpeak ſomething Apologetical, at leaſt to mitigate the buſineſs, and remove prejudice; and therefore, p. 49. he tells us, [The Presbyterian party in England never engaged under a leſs Authority, than that of both Houſes of Parliament.] A. The word [engaged] is of dubious ſignification. 1. Did they never engage, that is, ſubſcribe the Engagement (to be faithful to the Commonwealth, as eſtabliſht, without King or Houſe of Lords) under a leſs Authority, than that of both Houſes of Parliament? 2. Did they never engage, that is, raiſe and foment jealouſies againſt the King, reproaches againſt the Biſhops, or preach Diviſion, Sedition and Schiſm, inſtead of Union, Loyalty and Obedience, under a leſs Authority than that of both Houſes of Parliament? Nay, 3. Did they never engage in fighting againſt the King under a leſs Authority than that of both Houſes of Parliament? Is he ignorant that two thirds and more of the Lords deſerted that houſe becauſe of thoſe frequent Tumults which drave the King from London? and that the major part of the Houſe of Commons left that Houſe alſo for the ſame reaſons? and that new men See Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae. p. 35. were choſen in their places againſt Law by the pretended warrant of a counterfeit Seal? Is he Ignorant that his late Majeſty in a Declaration 1642. (occaſioned by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for the aſſeſſing men a 20th part of their Eſtates) hath theſe words, Our good Subjects will no longer look upon theſe and the like reſults, as upon the Counſels and Concluſions of both our houſes of Parliament (though all the world knows even that authority can never juſtify things unwarrantable by Law) They well know how few of the perſons truſted by them, are preſent at their Conſulations, of above 500 not 80, and of the Houſe of Peers not a fifth part; that they who are preſent enjoy not the Priviledge and Freedome of Parliament, but are beſieged by an Army, and awed by the ſame Tumults which drave us and their Fellow-members from thence, to conſent to what ſome few ſeditious ſchiſmatical perſons among them do propoſe. Is to fight under the banner of ſuch a minor part of both Houſes or of the ſuperinduced major part illegally choſen, to engage under no leſs Authority than that of both Houſes of Parliament? nay, not only illegally but treaſonably choſen? for to counterfeit the great (Seal and by ſuch a Seal they were choſen) is Treaſon by the 25 of Edw. 3. 4. Suppoſe they had engaged, that is fought againſt the King under the Authority of both Houſes legally called, ſitting in their full number and remaining free, yet even then they had fought againſt their Soveraign upon no higher Authority than Subjects could give them (which was none at all to that end) for the two Houſes (though conſiſting of all three Eſtates, Lords Spiritual, Temporal and Commons) are no more than Subjects, whatſoever this Author inſinuates to the contrary in the following Lines. [I have read, ſays he, that the Parliament of England hath ſeveral capacities; and among the reſt theſe two. 1. That it repreſents the people as ſubjects, and ſo it can do nothing but manifeſt their Grievances and petition for relief:] By the way I muſt tell him, that I have read in a Speech of King James's to both Houſes, March 21. 1609. theſe words, [I would wiſh you (of the lower Houſe eſpecially) to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of Grievances. 1. That you do not meddle with the main points of Government. That is my Craft, Tractent fabrilia fabri. To meddle with that were to leſſen me; I muſt not be taught my office. 2. Nor with ſuch ancient Rights of mine as I have received from my Predeceſſors poſſeſſing them more Majorum.—For that were to judge me unworthy of that which my Predeceſſors had, and left me. 3. I pray you beware to exhibit for Grievance any thing that is eſtabliſhed by a ſettled Law—for to be grieved with the Law, is to be grieved with the King, who is ſworn to be the Patron and maintainer thereof:—In general beware that your Grievances ſavour not of particular mens thoughts, but of the general Griefs riſing out of the minds of the people, and not out of the humour of the Propounder.] If theſe Cautions had been carefully obſerved by the thing called the Long-Parliament; it had not been it ſelf the greateſt grievance the Subject ever felt.

[2. I have read, ſays he, that by the Conſtitution it hath part in the Soveraignty, and ſo it hath part in the Legiſlative power and in the final Judgment.] I queſtion whether he hath read this thus expreſſed in any Book but his own: I rather think it a miſtake, and that he had read ſomewhere that the Parliament hath part in the Legiſlative power, and [ſo] it hath part in the Soveraignty, there being a Treatiſe extant wherein the Parliament's part in the Soveraignty, is inferred from its part in the Legiſlative power, but none (that I know of) wherein its part in the Legiſlative power is argued from its part in the Soveraignty.

[Now, ſays he, when as a part of the Legiſlative power reſides in the two Houſes, as alſo a power to redreſs Grievances, and to call into Queſtion all Miniſters of State and Juſtice, and all Subjects of whatſoever degrees in caſe of Delinquency, it might be thought that a part of the Supreme power doth reſide in them though they have not the Honorary Title.]

To which I anſwer. 1. 'Tis denyed that either or both Houſes have any power of themſelves to redreſs the Grievances of the Kingdom, or to call into queſtion any Delinquents. I have read (in his Majeſties forementioned Declaration) that the Houſe of Commons hath never aſſumed, or in the leaſt degree pretended to a power of Judicature; having no more Authority to adminiſter an Oath (the only way to diſcover and find out Facts) to, than to cut off the Heads of any Subjects. And in Judge Jenkins his Lex. Terrae, p. 116. That a Court muſt be either by the Kings Patent, or Statute-Law, or Common-Law, which is common and conſtant uſage: The Houſe of Commons hath neither Patent, Statute-Law, nor Common-Law, enabling them to be a Court or to give an Oath, p. 27. and 140, 141. or to examine a man, p. 65. as alſo that both the Houſes can make no Court without the King, p. 148. 122. that the two Houſes by the Law of this Land have no colour of power either to make or pardon Delinquents the King contradicting, p. 24. and 119. and that though it belong to the Lords to reform erroneous Judgments given in other Courts (for that all the Judges of the Land, the Kings Council, and the twelve Maſters of the Chancery aſſiſt there, by whoſe advice erroneous Judgments are redreſſed) yet when the writ of error is brought to reverſe any Judgment, there is firſt a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof, p. 55. 106. I have read alſo (in the Hiſt. of Independ. p. 1. p. 61, 62.) That the Houſe of Peers is no Court of Judicature without the Kings ſpecial Authority granted to them, either by his Writ or his Commiſſion, and therefore in the trial of the Earl of Strafford, and in all other trials upon Life and Death in the Lord's Houſe, the King grants his Commiſſion to a Lord high Steward to ſit as Judge, and the reſt of the Lords are but in the name of Jurors; and ſays J. Jenkins, p. 103. When the Lords had condemn'd to death by an Ordinance Sir Simon de Beriford, a free Commoner of England, they afterwards better conſidered the matter, and that they might be acquitted of the ſentence, became ſuiters to the King, that what they had ſo done might not in future time be drawn into Preſident, becauſe that which they had done was againſt Law; and the Judge gives this reaſon againſt taking away mens lives by Ordinances, becauſe an Ordinance binds not at all, (but pro tempore, as the two Houſes then affirmed) and a mans life cannot be tri'd by that which is not binding, and to continue for all times, for a life loſt cannot be reſtored.

From which premiſes I conclude, that neither one nor both Houſes, though legally ſummoned and elected, have power to redreſs publick Grievances or try Delinquents without the King's conſent.

And as for that part of the Legiſlative power which is ſaid to reſide in them, and from whence their part in the Supremacy is thought fit to be concluded.] 1. The two Houſes, even when full and free, have ſo conſtantly acknowledged themſelves in Statutes and Acts of Parliament moſt loyal, faithful, and obedient ſubjects to the King their Soveraign Lord, that from this alone 'tis manifeſt enough they did not deem themſelves to have any ſuch part in the Legiſlative power as might entitle them to a part in the Soveraignty. 2. I have read in [the Rebels Plea examined] (p. 12.) theſe words, [Neither is it true that the Legiſlative power is partly in them, (the two Houſes) they are I grant to conſent to the making new and aboliſhing old Laws, but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supreme and Legiſlative power:] for which p. 14. he quotes theſe words of Grotius, c. 3. de jure Belli ſect. 18. who ſays, Multum falluntur qui exiſtimant cum Reges acta quaedam ſua nolunt eſſe rata, niſi à Senatu probentur, partitionem fieri poteſtatis. They are much deceived who think that the Supreme power is divided, if Kings will not account ſome of their Acts valid without the approbation of the Senate. I have read alſo in the Book called [The Kings Supremacy aſſerted] by Mr. Sheringham, p. 96, 97. That the concurrence of one or both the other Eſtates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws is no good colour or pretence, much leſs a ſufficient ground for ſuch a coordination and mixture as is preſſed.—Although their aſſents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch, yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the Rights of Soveraignty. It's the common Aſſertion of Canoniſts, Civilians, Schoolmen, nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any, that the Legiſlative power is delegable; that ſuch a concurrence is no Argument of ſupremacy, or of ſuch a mixture as ſome would infer out of it. Some call it therefore apparens mixtura, becauſe it ſeems to deſtroy a ſimple Form of Government, and to make a mixture in the power it ſelf, but doth not, though otherwiſe they acknowledge it to be ſuch a mixture as doth remit the ſimplicity thereof. Grotius affirms to this purpoſe (de Imperio ſumm. poteſt. circa ſacra, c. 8. N. 11.) Illam legiſlationem quae alii quàm ſummae poteſtati competit nihil imminuere de jure ſummae poreſtatis. He ſpeaks this of Laws made by general Conventions, whoſe concurrence, he ſaith, doth not in the leaſt manner diminiſh the Rights of Majeſty. Such a mixture of the three Eſtates hath been in other Monarchies, which all men acknowledge to have been abſolute in respect of power—as in the Perſian, which appears from Dan. 6, 7, 8, 9. and the Roman Empire—And not only whole repreſentative Bodies, but divers particular free Cities have the ſame priviledge, yet have not ſupreme Authority.—As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of ſome Acts, he affirms, p. 101. That 'tis only a power of aſſenting; for it hath been reſolved by the Judges, that this clauſe [Be it enacted by the Kings moſt excellent Majeſty, and the Authority of the Lords and Commons aſſembled in Parliament] is no more in ſubſtance and effect, than that which was uſed anciently [The King with the aſſent of the Lords and Commons eſtabliſheth:] the words [aſſenteth] and [enacteth] being equivalent in this caſe; and p. 45. he tells us, that though the two Houſes have Authority granted them by the King to aſſent or diſſent, yet the Legiſlative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law: the Authority that animates (a Bill agreed upon by the two Houſes) and makes it differ from a dead letter, being in the King, who is the life and ſoul of the Law:—which was reſolved alſo by divers Earls, and Barons, and by all the Juſtices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controverſie with the King, and deſiring to have it decided in Parliament, a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons, and to all the Juſtices, to conſider of the buſineſs, it was reſolved that the two Houſes were not coordinate with the King in the legiſlative power, but that the King alone made Laws by the aſſent of the two Houſes; that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm, and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons.

From all which it appears, 1. That that part which the two Houſes have by Law in the Legiſlative power is not a ſufficient medium to perſwade us, that they have a part in the ſupremacy: and 2. That they have no ſhare at all in any power which may properly be called Legiſlative, (I mean in that ſence in which the words [Legiſlative power] are now adays commonly taken, viz. for a power of making Laws. (For among the Romans, Legem ferre was no more than Legem ad populum,—in concionem—quaſi in medium afferre & proponere, and Legiſlation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo, the propoſing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens, and asking their aſſent in order to its eſtabliſhment.) I conclude therefore, that the ſupremacy is wholly in the King, notwithſtanding this inſinuation to the contrary. For the proof whereof, if this Author ſtand in need of more Arguments, I refer him to the Rebels Plea examined, p. 11, 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of ſin, Appendix. p. 210, 211, &c. To Mr. Sheringham's [Remonſtrance of the King's Right, or, the King's ſupremacy aſſerted.] To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae, p. 7, 8, 9. Indeed this conſideration alone is ſufficient to evince it, that by the Oath adminiſtred to all that ſit in the lower Houſe the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Cauſes, (then in Parliament-Cauſes, ſays J. Jenkins, Lex Terrae, p. 127.) over all Perſons, (then over the two Houſes, (ibid.) which Oath every Member of the Houſe of Commons is enjoyned by Law to take, or elſe he hath no Voice in that Houſe. (5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae, p. 67.) Therefore the King is by Law the only ſupreme Governor, and conſequently it may not be thought, that a part of the Supreme Power doth reſide in the two Houſes. Our Author goes on, [And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong, but how it might be capable of Rebellion, is more difficult to conceive.] 1. Here he [confidently takes it for granted] that the two Houſes are part of the Supreme Power, whereas in the precedent words he ſpake more modeſtly, and told us only [it might be thought] that a part of the Supreme Power did reſide in them, not peremptorily inferring that it doth reſide in them. And indeed he could not rationally have ſo concluded, unleſs he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that concluſion. 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houſes capable of doing wrong, and tells us (only) that 'tis difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion. 1. Notwithſtanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houſes may have been guilty of Rebellion, ſince the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence. 2. I demand of him, whether, 1. they are capable of doing ſuch wrong (to the King) as the Law makes Treaſon and Rebellion; whether, 2. if they do ſuch wrong it be not eaſie to conceive, that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treaſon. The Law of the Land (25 Edw. 3. ch. 2.) makes it treaſon to levy war againſt our Lord the King in his Realm, or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm, giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elſewhere; and alſo to counterfeit the Kings Great or Privy Seal, or Money. The reſolutions of all the Judges of England upon the ſaid Statute have been, that to ſeize upon the Kings Ports, Forts, Magazines for War, is high Treaſon, Lex Terrae, p. 77. as likewiſe to levy War either to alter the Religion, or any Law eſtabliſht, p. 22. 40. or to remove the Kings Counſellors, p. 22. Yea, theſe things were acknowledged to be Treaſon, not only by Sir Edw. Cooke in his Inſtitutes (printed by an Order of both Houſes dated May 12. 1641.) but alſo by Mr. Solicitor S. John, and Mr. Pym, in their ſpeeches touching the Earl of Strafford. Where, as J. Jenkins quotes them, Lex Terrae, p. 187, 188. they likewiſe affirm it Treaſon to uſurp the Royal power, to raiſe rumors, and give out words to alienate the peoples affections from the King, to ſubvert the Fundamental Laws, to impoſe unlawful Taxes, or new Oaths, to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King. 'Tis confeſſed alſo by Sir Edw. Cooke, that no priviledge of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treaſon, Felony or breach of the Peace, (4. Inſtitut. 25.) If not to any one Member (ſays J. Jenkins, p. 15.) not to two, nor to ten, nor to the major part. Now I ſuppoſe this Author is not either ſo ignorant or ſo perverſe as to deny, that the two Houſes did levy War againſt the King; that they counterfeited the Great Seal; that they ſeized upon the Kings Ports, Forts, Magazines for War; that they uſurpt the Royal power; raiſed rumors, and gave out words to alienate the people from the King: impoſed a new Oath, unlawful Taxes, and levied War without yea againſt the Kings Authority. From which premiſes I diſcern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine (though ſad and diſmal) conſequence, that thoſe two Houſes and the presbyterian party which adhered to them, and gave them aid and comfort, were guilty of Diſobedience, Treaſon and Rebellion. If the major part of a Parliament commit Treaſon, they muſt not be judges of it; for no man or body can be judge in his own cauſe, and as well as ten, or any number may commit Treaſon, the greater number may as well, ſays J. Jenkins, Lex Terrae, P. 15, 16.

[In this high and tender point it belongs not (ſays our Author) to me to determine.]

The main reaſon of which ſcrupuloſity is moſt probably no other than this, that he's ſo much a Presbyterian, that either his blind and deluded underſtanding, or rather his diſloyal and rebellious heart will not ſuffer him to determine the Queſtion on the Kings ſide. For if this Rector of Bramſhot be not miſ-reported, he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houſes-Garriſon, and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garriſon, and at that time I preſume this was not look'd upon by him as a point too, high and tender. But now tempora mutantur—and yet not ſo chang'd, it ſeems, but that this Author ſtill dares to inſinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fighting againſt the King: witneſs theſe following words, p. 50. (60.)

And as touching the much debated point of reſiſting the higher Powers, without paſſing any judgment in the great caſe of England, I ſhall only make rehearſal of the words of Grotius, a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical, which are found in his Book de jure Belli & Pacis, by himſelf dedicated to the French King, [Si Rex partem habeat ſummi imperii, partem alteram populus aut Senatus, Regi in partem non ſuam involanti vis juſta opponi poterit, quia eatenus Imperium non habet. Quod locum habere cenſco etiamſi dictum ſit belli poteſtatem penes Regem fore. Id enim de bello externo intelligendum eſt; cum alioqui quiſquis Imperii ſummam partem habeat, non poſſit non jus habere eam partem tuendi, L. 1. c. 4. ſect. 13.] (which Chapter, by the way, is proved to be dangerouſly Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the [Obſervations on the original of Government] p. 34, &c. but) Here I demand, 1. Whether this Author can reaſonably be imagined to produce theſe words of Grotius to any other end than to juſtifie the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons againſt the King. 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to paſs any judgment in the great caſe of England in not ſillily (and yet ſadly) hypocritical, eſpecially conſidering, 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted, that the two Houſes had a part in the ſupreme power. 2. That the ſame Author, who inſers their having ſuch a part from their having (as he fancies) a part in the Legiſlative power, quotes this very paſſage out of Grotius, to juſtifie the two Houſes and himſelf, in fighting and encouraging others to fight againſt the King; which Author (yet) ingenuouſly promiſes that he will offer his Head (he meant, I ſuppoſe, his Neck) to juſtice as a Rebel, when, 'tis proved that the King was the higheſt power in the time of the diviſions, and that he had power to make that War which he made. He here implicitly confeſſes, ſays Dr. Pierce, (Impartial Enquiry, Poſtſcript, p. 14, 15.) the King was once the higheſt power, and implies he loſt it by the diviſions; but that he never could loſe it, and that demonſtrably he had it, I have made moſt evident in the Appendix of this Book, which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. (at leaſt as far as I have proved the ſupremacy of the King, § 78.) And that the King had power to make that War which he made (in defence of pars ſua, viz. the ordering of the Militia, his Negative voice in Parliament, his right to the poſſeſſion of all Caſtles, Ports, Ports, Magazines, within his Dominions, &c.) is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this paſſage, as 'tis that the two Houſes (in partem non ſuam involantes) had power to make that War which they made (to defend their own violation of the Kings Rights.) The truth is, thoſe words of Grotius are no argument of the juſtneſs of the late War on either ſide, and therefore they are impertinently produced to ſuch a purpoſe, till theſe minors are well and ſoundly proved: 1. That the two Houſes had legally a part in the ſupremacy, which Grotius himſelf denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legiſlation. And 2. that the King did involare in partem ſummi Imperii non ſuam, invade any ſuch prerogative or part in the ſupremacy, (for of that only Grotius ſpeaks) as did by Law belong to the two Houſes. For though it could be proved, that the King did intrench upon ſome priviledge of theirs, yet if that priviledge did not belong to them, quatenus having a ſhare in the Soveraignty, Grotius his words (though they ſhould be granted of infallible truth) will not juſtifie their fighting againſt the King upon that account. But this ſly diſcourſer was perſwaded, it ſeems, that when he had rehearſed this hypothetical major, Si Rex partem habeat ſummi Imperii, partem alteram populus aut Senatus, Regi, in partem non ſuam involanti, vis juſt a opponi poterit: Every Presbyterian that underſtood Latin, and had engaged againſt the King under the Authority of the two Houſes, would willingly take the minor for granted, (Sed Senatus ille (qualis qualis) partem habuit ſummi Imperii, & in eam partem (non ſuam) involavit Rex,) and thence very haſtily and joyfully conclude, Ergò vis à Senatu iſto (vel potius Senatûs quiſquiliis & retrimentis) Regi oppoſita erat juſta: even by the verdict of Grotius, that man of renown. At this Presbyterian rate of diſputing are Arguments hudled up in the Book called [The Covenanters Plea againſt Abſolvers,] the ſophiſtry of ſome parts of which Book is ſcarce exceeded by Knot's Volume againſt Chillingworth. In it ſeveral hypothetical majors are to be met with, but the minors are either not mentioned, or elſe preſumed to be true without any attempt made to prove them ſo. Now Zachary Crofton tells us in his Berith Anti-Baal, p. 62. that [Ifs] are no proofs or demonſtrations—What good, duty, juſtice, morality, or religion may not be ruined, if a mans fancied [If] be reaſon enough againſt it? This way of diſputing as apparently Jeſuitical—irrational, Machiavellian, barbarous.

The Rector of Bramſhot thus proceeds [with reverence to ſoveraign Majeſty, I crave leave to speak this word of truth and ſoberneſs.] Parturiunt Montes—one would think ſome very ſage and important Oracle ſhould forthwith drop from the Pen of this Reverend Dictator. [In a knowing age, quoth he, flattery doth not really exalt or ſecure the Royal Prerogative.] Quid naſcitur? Such a Triobolary Truth as I believe there's ſcarce any Presbyterian ſo ſimple as to be ignorant of it. But there's ſomething ſuggeſted in it that I am afraid will one day be found a notorious and fatal falſhood, viz. that this hath been [a knowing Age] as to thoſe parties who have oppoſed and ſought againſt the Royal intereſt; whereas I doubt 'tis far eaſier to prove, that in that reſpect it hath been either the moſt ignorant, (I mean of moſt grand, concerning Truths) or the moſt maliciouſly wicked, profligated and debauched Age that ever Proteſtant England knew.

[The Authority of Parliaments being depreſſed and undervalued is the more ſearched into and urged.]

By [Parliaments] here 'tis evident enough he means the two Houſes in contradiſtinction, yea oppoſition to the King: But ſays Lex Terrae, p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land, than a Body without a Head makes a man; for a Parliament is a body compoſed of a King their head, Lords and Commons the members, all three together make one body, and that is the Parliament and none other.—The two Houſes are not the Parliament but only parts thereof, and by the abuſe and miſunderſtanding of this word [Parliament] they have miſerably deceived the people. And his late Majeſty in anſwer to their Declaration of May 19. 1642. and to that part of it wherein they complain that the Heads of the Malignant party have with much Art and Induſtry adviſed him to ſuffer divers unjuſt ſcandals and imputations upon the Parliament to be publiſhed in his Name] has theſe words, If we were guilty of that aſperſion, we muſt not only be active in raiſing the ſcandal, but paſſive in the miſchief begotten by that ſcandal: We being an eſſential part of the Parliament. And we hope the juſt defence of our ſelf and our Authority, and the neceſſary Vindication of our innocence, and juſtice from the imputation laid on us by a major part then preſent of either or both Houſes, ſhall no more be called a ſcandal upon the Parliament, than the opinion of ſuch a part be reputed an Act of Parliament. And we hope our good Subjects will not be long miſled by that common expreſſion in all the Declarations wherein they uſurp the word Parliament, and apply it to countenance any reſolution or Vote ſome few have a mind to make, by calling it the reſolution of Parliament, which can never be without our conſent. p. 5. Neither can the vote of either or both Houſes make a greater alteration in the Laws of this Kingdom—either by commanding or inhibiting any thing (beſides the known Rule of the Law) than our ſingle direction or mandate can do to which we do not aſcribe the Authority.—And now let this Author ſearch his Law-Books with the exacteſt diligence and skill he can, and then let him tell us by what Law the two Houſes abſtracted from the King have any Parliamentary Authority. Indeed his own following words do clearly enough imply that they have no ſuch Authority. For p. 51. (61.) he is ſo inconſiderately bold as to aſſert that [Concerning the utmoſt bounds and limits of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary power, the Law in deep wiſdom chooſes to keep ſilence, for it always ſuppoſes union, not diviſion between King and Parliament.] Whence all that I ſhall conclude is, that the power of a Parliament truly ſo called, viz. King, Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons is not limited by Law; and thence I gather either that ſome Acts of Parliament are no Laws; or that that part of ſome Acts wherein 'tis declared that any following ſtatutes contrariant to ſuch and ſuch preceding ſtatutes ſhall be utterly void, is vain and ridiculous. But 2. That the two Houſes when they uſurped the power of a Parliament (as well as the name) and acted in oppoſition to the King, had no Law on their ſide to juſtifie their actings: For if the Law always ſuppoſes union between King and Parliament, it ſpeaks nothing of the Rights and Priviledges of the two Houſes in caſe of their diviſion from and oppoſition to the King. And 3. That the Kings power and prerogative is abſolute, and notwithſtanding all Law of this Nation infinite, for if the Law be ſilent, and that in deep wiſdom too, as to the utmoſt bounds of the Royal Prerogative, it hath very wiſely leſt it unbounded: which latter concluſions (and the firſt alſo) are ſo prejudicial to the Presbyterian Intereſt and Party, that I doubt they will conclude him either the veryeſt Fool (if indeed he knew not that the Kings Prerogative was bounded by Law) or the moſt Malignant Flatterer that this knowing Age hath brought forth.

His next Argument to evince Presbyterian Loyalty is, that [The ſubverſion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom could never be effected till thoſe Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian, were many of them impriſoned; others forcibly ſecluded by the violence of the Army, and the reſt thereupon withdrew from the Houſe of Commons.] An aſſertion ſo notoriouſly falſe, that it puts me in mind of the proverb in the late War, that—ſome men would not ſwear but they would lye baſely. The truth is, the ſubverſion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom both in Church and State was the great work of the Long-Parliament, which they effected in the Church, by overthrowing the Hierarchy and that Prelacy in which the Holy Church of England was founded (Stat. of Carliſle, 25 Edw. 1. recited 25 Edw. 3.) in the State by paſſing and preſſing upon the King that Bill againſt the Biſhops ſitting and voting in Parliament (who were in all Parliaments either perſonally or by Proxy ſince we had any;) who were once of the States of Parliament, and in the Act of Parliament 8 Eliz. c. 1. acknowledged one of the greateſt States of this Realm: all whoſe Liberties and Priviledges, (and conſequently that of ſitting in Parliament, to which they ought to be ſummoned ex debito Juſtitiae, Cookes Inſtitut. 4. c. 9.) are confirmed to them by Magna Charta, which was it ſelf ratified by 32 Acts of Parliament, and that inviolably by the 42 of Edw. 3. enacting that if any statute be made to the contrary it ſhall be holden for none (and conſequently the Act of Parliament ſo called, againſt that Priviledge of the Biſhops, was ipſo facto null and void) by robbing the King of his Negative voice, of his power in the Militia, by making Ordinances without him, yea againſt him, and ſo practically denying what they verbally ſwore, that he was the only ſupreme Governour in all Cauſes and over all Perſons: By their electing new members warranted only by a counterfeit Seal: By their taking upon them to create new Judges, Juſtices, and other Officers without the Kings conſent.—For Laws and Liberties, ſays J. Jenkins, p. 146. have not the prevailing party in the two Houſes deſtroyed above an hundred Acts of Parliament, and in effect Magna Charta, and Charta de Foreſtâ, which are the Common Laws of the Land? And p. 135. The Writ of Summons to this Parliament is the Baſis and Foundation of the Parliament; if the Foundation be deſtroyed, the Parliament falls. The Aſſembly of Parliament is for three purpoſes: [Rex eſt habiturus colloquium & tractatum cum Praelatis, Magnatibus & Proceribus ſuper arduis negotiis concernentibus, 1. Nos. 2. Defenſionem Regni noſtri. 3. Defenſionem Eccleſiae Anglicanae.] The King, ſays the Writ, intends to confer and treat with the Prelates, Earls, Barons, about the arduous affairs relating to 1. our Royal ſelf, 2. the defence of our Realm, 3. the defence of the Church of England. This Parliament, ſays the Judge, hath overthrown this Foundation in all three parts. 1. Nos, Our Royal ſelf; the King they have chaſed away, and impriſoned (at Holmbey) they have voted no Prelates, and that a number of other Lords (about forty in the City) muſt not come to the Houſe, and about forty more are out of Town; the conference and treaty is made void thereby; for the King cannot conſult and treat there with men removed from thence. 2. The defence of our Realm,] that is gone, they have made it [their] Kingdom, not his; for they have uſurp'd all his Soveraignty. 3. The defence of the Church of England,] that is gone. By the Church of England muſt be underſtood neceſſarily that Church that at the Teſte of the Writ was Eccleſia Anglicana; they have deſtroyed that too. So now theſe men would be called a Parliament, having quaſhed and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were ſummoned and aſſembled. If the Writ be made void, the Proceſs muſt be void alſo. The Houſe muſt needs fall where the Foundation is overthrown: thus he. And all this was done before thoſe Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them impriſoned, and others forcibly ſecluded by the violence of the Army: So that 'tis very wonderful how this Rector of Bramſhot could be either ſo ignorant or ſo impudent as to utter ſuch an aſſertion, eſpecially ſince in his own following words (which it ſeems he fancied to be a proof of its Truth) a very conſiderable Argument is ſuggeſted to evince it an egregious Falſhood. For, quoth he,

[They had voted the Kings Conceſſions a ground ſufficient for the Houſes to proceed on to ſettle the Nation, and were willing to caſt whatſoever they contended for upon a legal ſecurity.]

Now in that very Treaty at the Iſle of Wight the Presbyterian party wreſted ſuch Conceſſions from the King, as did (in their own nature) ſubvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom, as is evident from the ſpeech of Mr. Pryn himſelf, concerning thoſe Conceſſions, (3. Edit. p. 38.) wherein he confeſſes, that the Kings of England have [always] held two ſwords in their hands—the ſword of Mars in time of War—the ſword of Juſtice in time of Peace.—And p. 37. he tells us, that in thoſe Conceſſions the King had wholly ſtript himſelf, his Heirs and Succeſſors for ever, of all that power and intereſt which his Predeceſſors [always] enjoyed in the Militia, Forces, Forts, Navy, (Magazines, p. 36.) not only of England, but Ireland, Wales, Jerſey, Guernſey and Barwick too, ſo as he and they can neither raiſe nor arm one man, nor introduce any foreign Forces into any of them, by vertue of any Commiſſion, Deputation, or Authority, without conſent of both Houſes of Parliament; and that he had veſted the ſole power and diſpoſition of the Militia, Forts and Navy, of all theſe, in both Houſes, in ſuch ample manner, that they ſhould never part with it to any King of England, unleſs they pleaſed themſelves.—A ſecurity, ſays Mr. Pryn, ſo grand and firm, that [none of] our Anceſtors [ever] demanded, or enjoyed the like—nor any other Kingdom whatſoever, ſince the Creation, (for ought that I can find) and ſuch a ſelf-denying condeſcenſion in the King to his people in this particular as no Age can Precedent. Thus the ſword of Mars (which themſelves confeſs the former Kings of England always held) was inſolently wreſted out of the late Kings hands, and conſequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation ſubverted in this particular. Beſides, ſome Parliaments, ſays he, p. 40. in former times have had the nomination of the Lord Chancellor, ſome of the Lord Treaſurer, ſome of the great Juſticiary, or ſome few Judges of England only; but never any Parliament of England claim'd or enjoy'd the nomination and appointment of any the great Officers, Barons, Judges or Treaſurers places in Ireland; nor yet of the Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports, Chancellors of the Exchequer, and Dutchy, Secretaries of State, Maſter of the Rolls, or Barons of the Exchequer of England, yet all theſe the King for peace-ſake hath parted with to us: And p. 41. we have the diſpoſal (he might have added, Horreſco referens) of all theſe Officers in England and Ireland, both Military and Civil; of his ſword of War and Peace, his Juſtice, his Conſcience, his Purſe, his Treaſury, his Papers, his publick Records, his Cabinet, his Great Seal, more than ever we at firſt expected or deſired. Thus horridly was the ſword of Juſtice alſo wreſted out of his Majeſties hands, and conſequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation ſubverted in that particular likewiſe. Another Conceſſion was, that no Peer, who ſhould be (after that Treaty) made by the King, his Heirs and Succeſſors, ſhould ſit or vote in the Parliament of England, without conſent of both Houſes of Parliament, which, ſays Mr. Pryn, p. 43. gives ſuch an extraordinary new power to the Houſe of Commons as they never formerly enjoyed nor pretended to. By which proviſion, p. 44. the Commons are made not only in ſome ſence the Judges of Peers themſelves, (which they could not try or judge before, by the expreſs letter of Magna Charta, cap. 29. and the Common Law) but even their very Creators too. And (if the Houſe of Commons might juſtly be term'd any part of the Fundamental conſtitution of our Nation) what was this but to ſubvert the Fundamental Government? By other Conceſſions the Houſes were enabled, p. 45. to make an Act of Parliament (for raiſing of moneys and ordering the Militia) though the King denied his Royal Aſſent, which power was never challenged by, nor granted to both Houſes in any Kings reign before, and takes away the Kings Negative voice as to thoſe particulars. To paſs by other inſtances (for I am quite weary of raking in ſuch a ſtinking Dunghil) theſe are enough to manifeſt, what kind of creatures Presbyterians were in point of loyalty, when they had power in their hands to be (impunè) diſloyal; and how willing to ſubvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom, ſince by vertue of theſe propoſitions, which they had the imperious confidence to tender to his ſacred Majeſty in that deplorable condition to which they had reduced him; they denuded him of his Royal power, and veſted themſelves with all the conſiderable parts of Soveraignty: and when they had thus ſubverted the Fundamental Conſtitution of the Engliſh Monarchy, and had paſs'd that Vote (which this Author mentions) touching the Kings Conceſſions, and were thereupon deprived by the Army of that power of impoſing on his Majeſty and the Kingdom, which they had ſo Tyrannically abuſed; theſe ſecluded and impriſoned Members wrote a Vindication of themſelves from the Aſperſions caſt upon them by the Army; in one paſſage of which Vindication (p. 8, 9.) they give us reaſon enough to ſuſpect, that if their own proſperity had continued, they would yet more unworthily have inſulted over his Majeſty, and have taken ſuch a cruel advantage of thoſe great infelicities (into which themſelves had caſt him) as to tender and extort from him ſome more diminutions (if poſſible) of that little power, and no greatneſs which the former had left him; for, ſay they, by this Vote (viz. that the Kings Conceſſions were a ground ſufficient for the Houſe to proceed upon to ſettle the Nation) the Houſe did not determine, as we conceive, the having no farther Treaty with his Majeſty, before a concluding and declaring of peace; nor were the Houſes ſo bound up thereby, that they could not propoſe any thing farther, wherein the Kings Anſwers were defective, or from making any new Propoſitions for the better healing our breaches, or more ſafe binding up a juſt and righteous peace.] It ſeems then thoſe Lords and Commons had ſome more ſuch ſignal teſtimonies in pickle of their Presbyterian loyalty, ſome more demonſtrations, that when they took and impoſed the Covenant, they had no thoughts and intentions to diminiſh his Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs. It ſeems they had ſome clearer explications in their Budget of their meaning in thoſe words in the preface to the Covenant. [Having before our eyes the honour and happineſs of the Kings Majeſties perſon and his poſterity:] which words interpreted by their actions, muſt ſignifie, that they had it before their eyes, only as a mark to ſhoot at. But God deliver us for the time to come from the Presbyterian reſerves of ſuch a diſloyal and corrupt majority; wherein they abundantly manifeſted how tractable Scholars they were to Scotch Teachers, and how able and willing to imitate, yea, tranſcend that ungodly pattern which they had ſet them, who, when the King had before granted them more than was fit for ſuch perſons to receive, had the inſolent confidence to ask moreover ſuch things as 'twas not fit for the King to give. And thus the Engliſh Presbyterians by enlarging their deſires as Hell, fill'd up the meaſure of that Scorch iniquity, which he that runs may read in his late Majeſties large Declaration of the Tumults in Scotland, printed Ann. 1638.

Our Author proceeds thus;

[In thoſe times the Presbyterian Miniſters of London, in their publick Vindication thus declare themſelves: [We profeſs before God, Angels and Men, that we verily believe, that that which is ſo much feared to be now in agitation, the taking away the life of the King in this preſent way of Trial, is not only not agreeable to the word of God, the principles of the Proteſtant Religion, (never yet ſtain'd with the leaſt drop of the bloud of a King) or the Fundamental Conſtitution and Government of this Kingdom, but contrary to them, as alſo to the Oath of Allegiance, the Proteſtation of May 5. 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant; from all which, or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to abſolve us or others.] To which I anſwer:

1. Though the Presbyterian Miniſters of London were granted not guilty of [the death] of the King, yet they might be guilty of [diſobedience and rebellion] againſt him, which was the objection, p. 48. 58. to which objection therefore this Apology is impertinent. 2. Nor is the Apology at all ſatisfactory as to the taking away of the Kings life in [ſome other way of Trial] it being deſigned only againſt that preſent way of Trial; for 'tis only with that limiting ſpecification that they vindicate themſelves; for they ſay, that [the taking away the Kings life in this preſent way of Trial is not agreeable to the word of God, &c.] Whence all that I can conclude in reaſon is, that they did not imagine it agreeable to the word of God, or the principles of the Proteſtant Religion, or the Fundamental Conſtitution of this Kingdom, or the Oath of Allegiance, Proteſtation, Covenant, to take away his life in that way of Trial, viz. by that High Court of Juſtice ſet up by the Independent party; but notwithſtanding this they might deem it conſiſtent with the word of God and the principles of the Proteſtant Religion, &c. to take away his life in a way of Trial appointed and modelled by the corrupt majority of the two Houſes, the Presbyterian Lords and Commons: And if the Author of Clerico-Claſſicum deceive us not, (p. 35. of his Anſwer to the London-Miniſters letter to the General and Council of War, Jan. 18. 1648.) Mr. Pryn allows of a capital proceeding againſt Emperors, Kings and Princes, in his Appendix to the fourth part of his Soveraign power of Parliaments, p. 190. ad 194. It I am not deceived alſo, a man called Mr. Chriſtopher Love, who I think deem'd himſelf a Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt, I am ſure he was a Presbyterian Miniſter of London, did in a thing called a Sermon at Ʋxbridge Treaty, juſtifie, yea, urge the taking away of the Kings life in as bad a way of Tryal; for in that Sermon having ſpoken of the bloud-guiltineſs of the King, yea intimated unnaturalhorrible-bloud-guiltineſs in him, and thereby made him the troubler of England, as Achan was of Iſrael, he hath theſe words, p. 32. 'Twas the Lord that troubled Achan becauſe he troubled Iſrael; Oh that in this, our State-Phyſicians would reſemble God, to cut off thoſe from the Land who have diſtempered it! melius eſt ut pereat unus quàm unitas, Immedicabile vulnus Enſe recidendum eſt.—but yet more plain p. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet perſons to be at peace with, till all the guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged, either by the ſword of the Law, or by the Law of the ſword. Mr. Love, ſays that Author, will not ſay that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud, left he ſhould contradict himſelf; neither will he ſay that bloud-guiltineſs can be expiated but by bloud, leſt he ſhould contradict the Scriptures; neither can he ſay but the King was cut off either by the ſword of the Law or by the Law of the ſword—Whence I conclude that according to thoſe Principles of Mr. Love, the King's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God, nor the Principles of the Proteſtant Religion, &c. but a work fit and expedient to be done: and 'twill be well for Engliſh Presbyterians, if when the ſecrets of all hearts ſhall be laid open, it be not revealed to the world that the main reaſon why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal, was becauſe he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians, nor for their advantage; but by thoſe men who hated Presbytery and would not ſuffer it to domineer any longer. For theſe very men could notwithſtanding both the word of God and the principles of the Engliſh Proteſtant Religion, notwithſtanding the proteſtation and Solemn League and Covenant, yea notwithſtanding the Fundamental Conſtitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance, I ſay maugre all theſe obligations to the contrary (if at leaſt, one of them be ſuch an obligation) theſe very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War againſt the King, and ſend an Army to ſhed his bloud in the high places of the Field; and therefore if Preſbyterians be Proteſtants, and their Religion the Proteſtant Religion, 'twas not their Loyalty but the divine goodneſs and providence wonderfully interpoſing for the Kings ſafety, that in ſo many battels kept the Proteſtant Religion from being ſtained with the bloud of a King; eſpecially as to Edge-Hill-fight, if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcuſſa, p. 79. that Blague, a villain in the Kings Army, had a great penſion allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King ſtood, that they might the better know how to ſhoot at him: who accordingly gave notice of it, and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences, that Bullet from the Earl of Eſſex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the ſide of a bank had taken away his life; and the Presbyterian Religion, (ſuch as it is) had been ſtained with the bloud of a King. And though the Presbyterians (as the Apology for Biſhops ſitting and voting in Parliament tells us, p. 69.) would excuſe themſelves that they never intended the Kings deſtruction, yet that is a frivolous and fooliſh excuſe: For as Sir Walter Rawleigh ſays truly, Our Law doth conſtrue all levying War without the Kings Commiſſion, and all force raiſed, to be intended for the death and deſtruction of the King, not attending the ſequel, and ſo 'tis judged upon good reaſon; for every unlawful and ill action is ſuppoſed to be accompanied with an ill intent. The Lord Cook (as the Apologizer goes on, p. 70. ſpeaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treaſon, 3 Inſtitut. p. 12. ſaith,) Preparation by ſome overt act to depoſe the King, or take the King by force and ſtrong hand, and to impriſon him until he hath yielded to certain demands, is a ſufficient overt Act to prove the compaſſing and imagination of the death of the King: For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject, and to deſpoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government, and ſo it was reſolved by all the Judges of England, Hill. 1 Jac. Regis, in the caſe of the Lord Cobham, Lord Grey, and Watſon and Clark Seminary Prieſts; and ſo it had been reſolved by the Juſtices, Hill. 43 Eliz. in the caſe of the Earls of Eſſex and Southampton, who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was, and to have taken her into their power, and to have removed divers of her Council; and for that end did aſſemble a multitude of people, which being raiſed to the end aforeſaid, was a ſufficient overt Act for compaſſing the death of the Queen.—The Presbyterians, ſays he, did offend in this kind notoriouſly, and therefore committed Treaſon manifeſtly; for they impriſoned the King in divers places, and at length in a remote place in the Iſle of Wight—and all this done by them who were for the moſt part Presbyterians, out of their deſign to compel the King to yield to their projects, to overthrow the Biſhops and to take their Lands and their revenues.—From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Conſtitution and Law of this Kingdom; and how manifeſt it is that they muſt in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army; and if the Law of the Nation damn them to ſuch a guilt and puniſhment on earth, there is no Goſpel that I know of will ſave them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes, which (for ought I ſee) they are hitherto ſo far from thinking a duty, that they rather go about to juſtifie their former actings by returning again (as far as they dare) to the ſame follies that uſhered in their former war and at firſt embrued the Nation in bloud. Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treaſonable and rebellious Principles, than are owned and taught by ſome Presbyterian writers of the firſt magnitude, both French, Scotch and Engliſh. The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruſe theſe Presbyterian Scripts. Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos. Knox's Appellation.—Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (by Junius Brutus, ſuppoſed to be either Beza or Hottoman.) David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. (burnt at London and Oxford, in King James his reign for its ſeditious Maxims. Goodman (an intimate Friend as 'tis ſaid of John Knox's) his book of the ſame nature and tendency. Rutherford's Lex Rex. I find in Biſhop Bancroft's Dangerous Poſitions, B. 1. Ch. 2. (ſpeaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva) theſe words: Since which time, as I ſuppoſe it hath been a principle with ſome of the chief Miniſters of Geneva (but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches (for ought I know) which have not addicted themſelves to follow Geneva) that if Kings and Princes refuſe to reform Religion, the inferiour Magiſtrates or people by direction of the Miniſtry might lawfully, and ought if need required, even by force and Arms to reform it themſelves. And Ch. 4. This Poſition is quoted out of Knox, that the puniſhment of ſuch crimes as touch the Majeſty of God doth not appertain to Kings and chief Rulers only, but alſo to the whole body of the people, and to every member of the ſame as occaſion, vocation, and ability ſhall ſerve to revenge the injury done againſt God. That the people are bound by Oath to God to revenge to the utmoſt of their power the injury done againſt his Majeſty—That if Princes be Tyrants againſt God and his Truth, their Subjects are freed from their Oath of obedience. And out of Bucanan theſe, That the people may arraign the Prince; beſtow the Crown at their pleaſure—that the Miniſtery may excommunicate him—that an excommunicate perſon is not worthy to enjoy any life on earth—that it were good that rewards were appointed by the people for ſuch as ſhould kill Tyrants—And Ch. 5. To this objection [God places Tyrants ſometimes for the puniſhment of his people] this anſwer (given by the Reverend Bucanan) ſo doth he private men ſometimes to Kill them. And this new Divinity, ſays the Biſhop, of dealing thus with Kings and Princes, is not held only by Knox and Bucanan, but generally for ought I can learn by moſt of the Conſiſtorians of chief name beyond the Seas, who being of the Geneva humour, do endeavour by moſt unjuſt and diſloyal means to ſubject to their forged Presbyteries the Scepters and Swords of Kings and Princes, as Calvin, Beza, Hottoman, Urſin (as he cometh out from Newſtadt) vindiciae contra Tyrannos. Euſebius, Philadelphus, &c. Theſe alſo B. 2. Ch. 1. I find out of Goodman. Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be depoſed; and inferiour Magiſtrates ought chiefly to do it—It is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants—when Magiſtrates ceaſe to do their duties, (in thus depoſing or killing Princes) the people are as it were without officers, and then God gives the ſword into their hands, and he himſelf is become immediately their Head, for to the multitude a portion of the Sword of Juſtice is committed. And out of him and a Book of Obedience, theſe: If neither the inferiour Magiſtrates nor the greateſt part of the people will do their Offices (in puniſhing, depoſing, or killing of Princes) then the Miniſter muſt excommunicate ſuch a King; any Miniſter may do it againſt the greateſt Prince. God will ſend to the reſt of the people who are willing to do their duty but not able, ſome Moſes or Othoniel.—by the word of God a private man having ſome ſpecial inward motion may kill a Tyrant—Or otherwiſe a private man may do ſo if he be commanded or permitted by the Commonwealth. Now if ſome inferiour Magiſtrate, a handful of the people, yea one man may kill a Tyrant, an evil Prince, one that refuſes to reform Religion, this implyes that the ſame perſon or perſons may be a Judge or Judges, whether ſuch or ſuch a King be a Tyrant, an evil Prince, a refuſer to reform, and conſequently one that deſerves death or no.

Upon ſuch wicked principles as theſe (dictated and taught by Presbyterian Oracles) in conjunction with this minor, that the late King was a perſon ſo criminal as to deſerve death, which they that ordered his Trial took upon them to be Judges of, as they might well by theſe now mentioned principles, horrid Regicide was pathetically recommended (to his Auditors at Ʋxbridge-Treaty) by Mr. Chriſtopher Love, a Presbyterian Miniſter of London; and long after that perpetrated by Order of a part of the people, ſome Commons and the High Court of Juſtice, who adjudged the King to be thus criminous; and apologiz'd for by John Price, Citizen of London, in his Clerico-Claſſicum, as an Act agreeable enough to the declared judgment of many proteſtant (he means Presbyterian) Divines, in teſtimony whereof he quotes ſeveral paſſages out of Presbyterian Authors, p. 32. to 35. which pamphlet, if the Title-page deceive us not, may ſerve as a brief anſwer to that Vindication of the London Miniſters here ſpoken of. And indeed 'tis a diſcourſe ſo abounding with ſtrong and rational Arguments ad homines, that I doubt 'tis beyond the skill of a Presbyterian to give a ſolid and ſatisfactory reply to it. From all which it follows, that either the presbyterian Miniſters of London muſt damn the now mentioned Principles and Tenents of thoſe their presbyterian Anceſtors, and their own opinions alſo at the Ʋxbridge-Treaty, if they were the ſame with Mr. Love's, one of their Tribe, or elſe they muſt juſtifie this inference, That the taking away the life of the King in that (then) preſent way of Trial, was rather a duty than a crime: Which though it be a wretched and Traiterous concluſion, yet is very regularly deducible from thoſe principles.

And I appeal to any intelligent and ingenuous perſons, and deſire them to tell me, whether the murderers of the late King did infer that bloudy Corollary from any more treaſonable and rebellious Theorems and Conſectaries, than theſe which I have now produced; and whether Independents did not in juſtifying that horrid Fact, write exactly after thoſe Copies, which Presbyterians both ancient and modern had ſet them. And hence I think I may reaſonably affirm, that thoſe principles of the Proteſtant Religion, which are contrary to King-killing, are no otherwiſe owned by ſuch Presbyterians, as I have now ſpoken of, than as moſt Presbyterians ſay, that Papiſts own ſome Articles of our Faith, viz. damnably, becauſe they hold together with them other principles which conſequentially overthrow thoſe Articles. And therefore 'twas but a vanity in the London Miniſters to vindicate themſelves, by ſpeaking of thoſe principles as oppoſite to that way of Trial: a greater folly was it to produce the ſolemn League and Covenant, which in the third Article talks ſo looſely and crudely of defending the Kings perſon and Authority, that Presbyterians might without offering any violence to the words, plunder him of all his Authority; and both they and the Independents take away his life, notwithſtanding that Article, whenſoever they ſhould think fit to determine, that the true Religion and Libertie of the Kingdoms could not be defended and preſerved, unleſs the Kings perſon and Authority were deſtroyed: But in the fourth Article there's as clear and ſmooth a way opened to the commiſſion of that heinous ſin, as the moſt forward Actors in it needed to deſire; for there the Covenanters are bound with all faithfulneſs to endeavour the diſcovery of all ſuch as have been or ſhall be Incendiaries, Malignants, evil Inſtruments, that they may be brought to publick Trial, and receive condign puniſhment, not only as the degree of their offences required or deſerved, but alſo as the Supreme Judicatories (whether de facto or de jure, we are not certified) of both Kingdoms reſpectively, or others having power from them for that effect ſhould judge convenient: So that ſince the men who ordered the Trial of the King were at that time de facto the ſupreme Judicatory of England; and ſince they look'd upon him as an Incendiary and evil Inſtrument, and therefore to be brought to publick Trial, and the men impowred by them judged it to be (at leaſt) convenient to take away his life in that way of Trial; their murdering of Him in that way was not contrary, but agreeable enough to the Solemn League and Covenant: Yea, to imagine that by that League Scotland was bound to reſcue the Kings perſon from the Parliament of England, becauſe of their Voting, that no farther application or Addreſſes ſhould be made to his Majeſty, under pain of High Treaſon, is called a ſlandering of the Covenant in that humble Edenburgh-Remonſtrance, p. 45. Nor is either the Proteſtation of May 5. 1641. or the Oath of Allegiance, or the word of God, more wiſely or pertinently urged by thoſe London Miniſters againſt thoſe murderers, ſince all thoſe obligations do as much forbid and condemn fighting againſt the King, and diſhonouring; and dethroning him, which Presbyterians were abundantly guilty of, as they do putting him to death, which the Independents did, ('tis true) but after the Presbyterians had firſt ſtript him of his honour, and Royal State, and ſo politically killed him.

All which conſidered, 'tis very admirable to me, that thoſe Presbyterian Miniſters of London (eſpecially Mr. Love) could ſo confidently talk thus in vindication of their own Innocency, and in oppoſition to thoſe Independent malefactors, as alſo with what face they could (as our Author tells us they did, p. 52-62.) warn and exhort men to pray for the King, that God would reſtrain the violence of men, that they might not dare to draw upon themſelves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign.] To uſe his own words, [Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of reaſon,] and tell us whether it were not a piece of practical Non-ſence and contradictious hypocriſie, for thoſe Prieſts who had imployed themſelves ſo many years together in curſing thoſe that fought not againſt the King, and bleſſing thoſe that did, to warn and exhort men (at laſt) to pray that God would reſtrain the violence of men, and not ſuffer them to draw upon themſelves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign. If they had exhorted men to put up ſuch a petition in the time of the Wars, would they not thereby have expoſed themſelves to the ſcorn and deriſion of their Auditors? Yea, would not their own Lords and Commons have treated them as Incendiaries, Malignants, evil Inſtruments; or were they ſo ſottiſh as to imagine that there's ſo great difference between a Camp and a Scaffold, between an Army of Rebels, and a ſingle Executioner, that 'twas a duty to pray to God to protect the King from the danger of the one, but no duty to pray for his ſafeguard from the aſſaults of the other? Or did they indeed believe if the King had been mortally wounded in the Field (at Edgehill, Newbery, or Naſeby, by one or more of the Presbyterian Souldiers) that this had not been violence, or that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had not thereby drawn upon themſelves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign? I ſeriouſly profeſs, that the more narrowly I ſearch into theſe things, the more reaſon I have to fear (what indeed this very Vindication ſuggeſts) that had the Kings life been taken away, either by Presbyterian Armies in the Field (the law of the Sword) or by order of Presbyterian Judges on a Scaffold (the Sword of their Law) for the advancement of the Presbyterian Intereſt, they would eaſily have believed ſuch a manner of death, or way of Trial agreeable enough to, and conſiſtent with all the obligations here ſpoken of, even the Covenant it ſelf: as to which, ſays Price in his Clerico-Claſſicum, p. 27, 28. We were bound to preſerve and defend the Kings perſon, when we firſt took this Covenant, and at that time you (Presbyterian Miniſters of London) know very well you ſtirred up the people to fight againſt his Army, though his perſon was the leader thereof; which preſumes either, 1. That you perſwaded the people againſt the dictates of your own Conſciences; or, 2. That you conceived, that though his Perſon ſhould be ſmitten into the chambers of Death, by thoſe that aid fight againſt his Army, yet they did not break the Covenant. If ſo, then there is a caſe wherein the King's Perſon may be cut off without breach of Covenant.] Thus he, and appoſitely enough, and therefore I ſay again, Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of Reaſon.

Our Author goes on and asks, Is there any thing in the nature of Prelacy that frames the mind to obedience and loyalty? or is there any thing in the nature of Presbytery that enclines to rebellion and diſobedience—? A. If he means by the nature of Prelacy the principles of Prelatical Proteſtants, and by the nature of Presbytery the principles of Presbyterians, I maintain the affirmative in both Queſtions, and ſuppoſe I have already abundantly evinc'd it, as to Presbyterians both Scotch and Engliſh; and as for Prelatical Proteſtants, if this Author or any body elſe can produce any ſuch enormous and ſeditious principles out of their Writings, as I have here quoted out of Presbyterian Authors, let thoſe writings, by my conſent, and together with them Mr. Pryn's Soveraign Power of Parliaments, (by which word [Parliaments] he means the two Houſes, without and againſt the King) undergo the ſame Fate with David Pareus his Commentary, and the Presbyterian League and Covenant; and if any of their practiſes have been ſuitable, let thoſe mens perſons alſo have the odious character of Rebellion and Diſobedience affixt unto them. But that any ſuch Prelatical Proteſtant can be produced, is more than I know or have any reaſon to believe. Certain I am, that Engliſh proteſtant Prelatiſts profeſs their aſſent to, and practically own thoſe principles mentioned, p. 24, 25. Which Principles do in their own nature, and where they are cordially enbraced, frame the minds of Engliſh Subjects to obedience and loyalty; and therefore let this Author prove, if he can, that ſince a Proteſtant Prelacy was erected among us, our Kings have had any ſuch tedious conflicts with Prelates, as he ſays they had in ancient times, and for a ſeries of many Ages. As for the Popes Prelates, they are ſo near of kin to Presbyterians, that 'tis no great wonder if they create trouble to Princes.

If, ſays he, Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural, how comes it to paſs that thoſe States or Kingdoms where it hath been eſtabliſht or tolerated, have for any time been free from broils and commotions?] One would think there were a ſufficient anſwer comprehended in the words of the Queſtion. For thoſe Presbyterians are rebellious with a witneſs, that will embroil even thoſe States and Kingdoms where their Form of Worſhip and Polity is either eſtabliſht or tolerated; and yet the French Proteſtants are abuſed by a late Reflecter on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, if notwithſtanding this they are not too prone to Rebellion, and that on account of their Principles. What an exception, ſays he (p. 42. of his Reflexions) terrible to Princes, the French Calviniſtical Church hath made in their Confeſſion of Faith, speaking of obedience due to the Supreme Magiſtrate, appears at leaſt every Sunday in all their hands in Print, where they acknowledge ſuch Obedience due to them, except the Law of God and Religion be intereſſed (on condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminiſh'd;) which clauſe, ſays he, what it means, their ſo many and ſo long continued Rebellions do expound.] What turbulent things Scotch and Engliſh presbyterians have been, thoſe very practiſes of theirs, which theſe ſheets have mentioned (to which many more might be added) are a competent Teſtimony. But this Quaere ſhall not ſcape ſo, let's view it again. [If Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural, how comes it to paſs that thoſe States or Kingdoms where it hath been eſtabliſht or tolerated, have for any time been free from broils and commotions?] A. 1. It may be 'twas becauſe though their minds were always enclined (by their principles) to rebellion, yet they had not power and opportunity to act ſuitably to thoſe inclinations, with hopes of ſucceſs. 'Twere a ſad thing indeed, if Rebels ſhould be able at all times to put their traiterous Deſigns in execution. 2. It ſuffices (in reference to the grand Queſtion now diſputed) if Presbyterian ſpirits are prone to Rebellion, in caſe their way of Worſhip be not either eſt abliſht or tolerated. For they deſerve not to be ſo much as tolerated in any Kingdom, that will, when they have power, rebel againſt Kings, if they be not tolerated. 3. If this Quaere implies any good proof, that Presbytery and Rebellion is not connatural (by which he means, I ſuppoſe, not uſually conjoyn'd) it does as ſtrongly imply, that Jeſuitiſm and Rebellion are not connatural, ſince thoſe States and Kingdoms where Jeſuits have been tolerated, have for ſome time been free from broils and commotions. It follows:

[Or how comes it to paſs that Presbyterians have never diſclaimed or abandoned their lawful Prince?] As if (to let paſs other Inſtances) Engliſh Presbyterians did not diſclaim and abandon the late King, when they denied him to be in a condition to Govern, (H. of Comm. Decl. 28. Nov. 1646.) when they denied him the exerciſe of that power in the Militia, which themſelves acknowledged did belong unto him: (Veritas inconcuſſa, p. 147. 168.) When they affirmed that the Soveraign power reſided in both Houſes of Parliament; that the King had no Negative voice; that whatſoever the two Houſes ſhould Vote, was not by Law to be queſtioned, either by the King or Subjects; that it belonged to them only to judge of the Law. (Declar. of May 26. 1642.) as if likewiſe they did not make others to diſclaim and abandon him, by making them ſwear that they would neither directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly aſſiſt the King in his War and Cauſe. But he proceeds.

[How comes it to paſs that they have never ceaſed to ſolicit and ſupplicate his regards and favour? even when their power hath been at the higheſt, and his ſunk loweſt?] Whereas I read in Philips his Veritas inconcuſſa (his Book that proves K. Charles 1. no man of bloud) theſe words, p. 124. Indſtead of offering any thing which was like to bring peace, they (the Presbyterian Lords and Commons) cauſed men and women in the firſt year of their war to be killed, becauſe they did but petition them to accept of a peace: And in the third and fourth year of their war plundered and robbed them that petitioned them but to hearken to it: And put out of Office and made all as Delinquents in the ſeventh year of their war that did but petition them for a Treaty with the King, and refuſed all the Kings many, very many meſſages for peace, not only when he was at the higheſt of his ſucceſs in the war, but when he was at the loweſt, and a priſoner to them, and conjured them as they would anſwer it at the dreadful day of judgment to pity the bleeding condition of his Kingdomes and People, and ſend propoſitions of peace unto him; and years and half-years, and more than a whole year together after the battel at Naſeby (inſomuch as their fellow-Rebels the Scotch Commiſſioners did heavily complain of it) were at ſeveral times trifled away and spent before any propoſitions could be made ready. Was this perpetually to ſupplicate their lawful Princes regards and favour? And p. 126. We are told they were ſo unwilling to have any peace at all, as that 6 or 7 Meſſengers or Trumpeters could come from the King before they could be at leiſure, or ſo mannerly as to anſwer one of them: but this or that meſſage from the King was received and read, and laid by till a week or when they would after. And p. 128, 129. When they did treat they deſired the granting of ſuch propoſitions as were purpoſely contrived and ſtood upon to hinder a peace; and were not to be asked or granted by any that could but entitle themſelves to the leaſt part of reaſon or humanity, &c. And p. 68. The King complains that although he had uſed all ways and means to prevent the diſtractions and dangers of the Kingdom, all his labours had been fruitleſs, that not ſo much as a Treaty earneſtly deſired by him, could be obtained (though he diſclaimed all his Proclamations and Declarations, and the Erecting of his Standard as againſt his Parliament) unleſs he ſhould denude himſelf of all force to defend him from a viſible ſtrength marching againſt him. And when the buſineſs of the Treaty (1647 as I ſuppoſe) came into diſcourſe, the Aſſembly of Divines quickly reſolved (all of them but four) to be againſt it. (See conſiderations touching the preſent Factions in the King's Dominions, p. 6.) And yet this Brazen-face would perſwade us that Presbyterians never ceaſed to ſolicit and ſupplicate the Kings regards and favour. It ſeems their voting (1647) that they would receive no more meſſages from the King, and that no man ſhould preſume to bring any from him, and that they would make no farther applications and addreſſes to him, was ſo far from being a diſclaiming and abandoning him, that 'twas not ſo much as a ceaſing to ſupplicate his regards and favour (statuimus i. e. abrogamus) what ſhall be done unto thee, O thou falſe Tongue and ridiculous Flatterer? The other part of his Quaere is, [How comes it to paſs that the Preſbyterians ſuffered themſelves rather to be trodden under foot, than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government?] A. 1. 'Twas becauſe they were unable to make their parts good againſt thoſe men of violence (here intended.) Independents had cheated them out of that power which before they had. 2. Themſelves were the men of violence that did firſt of all really change the Government by acting without and fighting againſt the Kings Perſon and Authority. Independents took away the name [King] but Presbyterians had long before deſtroyed the [thing.] 3. 'Twere no great wonder if Preſbyterians ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot (when they could not help it) rather than comply with thoſe that would not advance the Presbyterian Intereſt; but what's this to the objection of Rebellion and Diſobedience? Does it follow that they did not rebel againſt the King becauſe they ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot by Independents? but 4. 'Tis ſomewhat hard to underſtand what Presbyterians mean when they ſay they ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot. None can properly be ſaid to ſuffer themſelves to be ill uſed, but thoſe that are able to repel that ill uſage if they pleaſe, which Presbyterians being not able to do when Independents had the power of the ſword, they are very fond ſelf-flatterers thus to apologize for themſelves, which I ſpeak only on ſuppoſition that they were ill uſed and trodden under foot, but that there is any Truth in that ſuppoſition (thus indefinitely expreſt) is more than I believe, unleſs they imagined themſelves trodden under foot and ill uſed becauſe they were not ſuffered to domineer over and ſtill to rule the whole Nation as they liſted; as if all men were trodden under foot or caſt out on the Dunghill (like unſavoury ſalt) that are not ſuffered to ſit in the Throne and uſurp the Scepter of Majeſty. For what elſe were Presbyterians deprived of when the Government was changed? Did they not ſtill enjoy their lives and (in a far higher degree than Loyal Subjects) their Liberties? their Lands alſo and livings, and their Sacrilegious Purchaſes? and beſides all this were not Lay-Presbyterians continued in and advanced to Civil offices and places of Truſt: and were not other Presbyterians Maſters of Colledges and Halls in the Univerſities, and continued in their Fellowſhips there? as likewiſe Presbyterian Parſons in their fat Benefices in City and Countrey? and had they not the liberty to exerciſe whatſoever ſpiritual power they pleaſed to claim and vindicate to themſelves over their Pariſhioners? Whence I conclude, that the meaning of thoſe words muſt (as to the generality of Presbyterians) be this: They ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot, that is, to live, to be kept out of priſon, to reap the profits of the Lands in their poſſeſſions, whether well or ill gotten, whether by the robbing of God and his Church of their ſacred Revenues, or others of that which legally belonged unto them; to be Mayors, Bailiffs, Sheriffs, Juſtices of the Peace, Conſtables, &c. And the Presbyterian Miniſters in the Univerſity, City, and Countrey ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot, that is, to be continued in thoſe Headſhips, Fellowſhips, Parſonages, Rectories, Cures, which by Law belonged unto, and were illegally, unrighteouſly plundered from other men; and to enjoy the liberty of excommunicating (in their reſpective Pariſhes) whom they pleaſed, and excluding as many as they pleaſed from the priviledge of both Sacraments. But ſure if Royaliſts had been ſo favourably uſed by Presbyterians as Presbyterians were by Independents, they would never have been ſo ingratefully and nonſenſically querulous, as to ſay they were trodden under foot.] In a Pamphlet printed 1648. called [The Pulpit-Incendiary] and directed againſt Mr. Calamy,—Caſe,—Cawton,—Cranford,—and other Sion-Colledge-Preachers, there are theſe words, p. 45. You complain of your miſery, bondage and ſlavery, of oppreſſions, ſorrows and troubles of the Church, that is doubtleſs of the Church Presbyterian, and no other. What doth ail you? what troubles you? who doth oppreſs you? Have you not Authority on your ſide? have you not all the Church-livings in the Kingdom? have you not Declaration upon Declaration, Ordinance upon Ordinance, Order upon Order, for to back you? Is there the leaſt ſhew of oppreſſion, ſorrow or cauſe of complaint adminiſtred unto you, except it be becauſe you are not ſuffered to oppreſs, vex and gall your Brethren that joyn not with you? Can you feed upon nothing but bloud? yea the bloud of your Brethren? that though you have every thing elſe, (that only prohibited) you complain of ſorrow, ſlavery, oppreſſion? Is this your ſlavery and captivity, that you cannot enſlave and lead into captivity? Is this to kill you with the ſword, that you cannot kill your Brethren with the ſword? I add, Is this for Presbyterians to be trodden under foot, that they cannot tread others under foot? Beſides, this Author hath before intimated (p. 45, 55.) that the generality of Presbyterians did at laſt comply with the men of violence in their changing the Government; for they ſubſcribed that Engagement which was deſigned for the defending and maintaining of that change: The great, if not only motive whereunto in all probability was, that they might ſtill keep poſſeſſion of their Livings and livelihoods, and not be outlawed: and yet here he would perſwade us, that Presbyterians (indefinitely) ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot, rather than they would comply with thoſe men of violence. So true is that ſaying, Oportet mend—eſſe mem—Some (as he tells us in that p. if we may believe him) utterly refuſed even to the forfeiture of their Preferments, and the hazard of their Livelihoods.—Notwithſtanding which words, 1. There were but ſome only that ſo refuſed.—2. Thoſe very ſome might afterwards engage, rather than the forfeiture (occaſioned by their refuſal at firſt) ſhould be taken, or their livelihoods loſt as well as hazarded. I have heard indeed of one Presbyterian Doctor, who rather than he would ſubſcribe the Engagement publickly at Oxford, parted with a Headſhip of about 80. l. per Annum; but yet the ſame man was ſo providently politick, as to ſubſcribe in the Countrey rather than ſuffer himſelf to be trodden under foot, that is, to have a Living of ſix or ſeven hundred a year taken from him: and it may be there were a few more Presbyterians (that had Pluralities) who acted in like manner. But this is no Apology for the generality of Presbyterians, who did not ſo much as hazard their livelihoods, or render themſelves liable to be trodden under foot, by refuſing to comply. And as for thoſe eminent Presbyterian Miniſters and others, (ſpoken of in the ſame p.) who either hazarded or loſt their lives in combining to bring our Soveraign, that now is, to the rightful poſſeſſion of this Kingdom; it cannot reaſouably be ſaid, that ſuch men ſuffered themſelves to be trodden under foot, ſince by thoſe combining attempts they oppoſed and endeavoured to ruine and deſtroy thoſe men of violence that trod them under foot. Nor can they properly or juſtly be ſaid to ſuffer themſelves to be trodden under foot, who do not ſuffer it meekly and patiently, without railing at or reviling thoſe that tread them under. Whereas if the carriage of Presbyterian Miniſters generally was like that which is reported of the Miniſters of London in 1648. (when they ſuppoſed that the men of violence were about to change the Government) they made it their buſineſs to inveigh againſt thoſe men of violence in ſharp and bitter language. For the Author of the Pulpit-Incendiary tells us, that [the London-Miniſters (were ſo far from ſuffering themſelves humbly, peaceably, and patiently to be trodden under foot, that their) Tongues were ſharpned like Serpents, Adders poyſon was under their Lips, ſtinging and poyſoning the name and repute of the Army, p. 16. calling them a Rebellious Army, a generation of Vipers, a Viperous brood, &c. And that on Sabbath-days and Faſt-days in Preaching and Praying they ſtill girded at the Parliament (viz. the Independent majority) as men that declined their Solemn League and Covenant, hindred reformation, minded nothing but their own Intereſt. He tells us alſo, p. 14. That the morning Lectures which they called the Ark of God in their frequent removals moneth after moneth, from place to place, were ſo modelled and conſtituted, that in them a lamentable ſlaughter was made of the ſweet affections of love, kindneſs, gentleneſs, goodneſs, patience each toward other, p. 2. That that Ark of theirs ſeems frequently to be drawn—by Bulls of Baſan,—toſſing and goring the Parliament, and Army, and their diſſenting Brethren, from day to day, maliciouſly fomenting contentions, ſtrifes and diviſions, p. 3. That the London-Miniſters did by conjunction of Counſels, and debates in Sion-Colledge (London's, nay, England's diſtemper) conceive ſinful reſolution to engage and tamper privately with chief Citizens in publick places, as Common-Council-men, &c. and publickly in Pulpit and Preſs ſtirring up the people by all poſſible means, under the pretence of the glory of God, a bleſſed Reformation, the keeping of the Covenant, &c. to ſet all together by the ears—and raiſe a new War, p. 18, 19.

From which premiſes, I may, for ought I ſee, well enough conclude, that this Author inſtead of pretending that Presbyterians ſuffered themſelves rather to be trodden under foot, than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government, ſhould (in Truth and Juſtice) have thus repreſented them—That rather than they would comply with the men of violence, when they preſumed they were about to change the Government, they endeavoured to prevent the being trodden under foot by them, by imbittering mens ſpirits againſt them in their preachments and direful Prayers, by ſowing the ſeeds of contention and diviſion, and by inflaming mens minds to take Arms, reſiſt and deſtroy them—and when notwithſtanding all ſuch Engliſh and Scotch endeavours, Independents had effected the change of thoſe ſmall remains and parcels of the Engliſh Government, which Presbyterian violence had left unchanged, that Party generally did by degrees ſo far comply, even with that change alſo, that rather than they would be trodden under foot, outlawed and ſequeſtred, they engaged to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as then eſtabliſht by the men of violence, without King or Houſe of Lords; it ſeems they who thus act are ſaid (in the Presbyterian dialect) to ſuffer themſelves to be trodden under foot. And now judge whether statuimus muſt not here again ſignifie abrogamus.

Let us (as our Author proceeds) further examine. Are the perſons that adhere to Prelacy more conſcientious in duty to God and Man, than thoſe that affect Presbytery? Are the former only ſober, juſt, and godly, and the latter vicious, unrighteous, profane?] A. Though I could ſpeak ſomething to theſe Queſtions from my own experience, having lived both in Epiſcopal and Presbyterian Families and places, and being acquainted with divers Perſons, Miniſters, and others of both perſwaſions, yet becauſe compariſons of this kind are odious, I ſhall anſwer only in reference to the main thing in Queſtion, that [there's more reaſon of State] for the pro ecting a drunken Royaliſt than a ſober Rebel, and yet I am fully perſwaded, that neither of them ſo remaining have holineſs enough in this world to render them capable of happineſs in the next. Nor do I doubt, but it may be as much the lot of ſome Traiterous ſpirits to be ſober, as 'tis (if this Author tell truth in the following lines) of ſome that adhere to Prelacy to be loyal; but whether I have not already ſaid enough to prove, that Presbyterian principles encline to Rebellion, and the principles of Engliſh prelatiſts to Loyalty, let all impartial Readers judge. If this be not anſwer ſufficient to thoſe Quaeries, I ſhall ſupply the defects of it with tranſcribing (for this Authors ſake) a paſſage or two out of the writings of his fellow-Rebels. The firſt ſhall be out of William Sedgwick's [Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations, p. 36.] Of the two 'tis more ſtrange to ſee that the Presbyterian, who the other day was oppreſt by the Biſhop for his conſcience in point of the Sabbath, &c. who could not (long ſince) live without the favour of the Biſhop, ſhould now thruſt out thoſe under whom he lived for not taking the Covenant, which is contrary to their conſcience; and ſhew leſs favour to them than he received from them, and do that which he condemned in others; and this upon weak and fleſhly grounds, admiring his own way, which is to pray and preach longer and more than another, to be ſtrict in repetition on Sabbath-days, and ſome ſuch poor formal things; to ſet up this as the power of Godlineſs and Reformation, to the ruine of another, who it may be is a man of more juſtice, ability and wiſdom, more ſobriety, more ſtability, more patience and conſtancy in ſuffering, &c.

The other ſhall be out of J. Price's Clerico-Claſſicum, p. 40. Have we not cauſe to judge better of many of the Prelatical party (who being men of learning and conſcience, and never ſo violent againſt their oppoſers in Church and State as your ſelves (you Presbyterian Miniſters of London) making no diſtunbances, rents, diviſions, Factions by Pulpit and Preſs as you do, from day to day, (as all men obſerve) that being conſcious to themſelves of the many Oaths, Vows, Covenants that they have made of ſubjection and obedience unto Biſhops, the then eſtabliſht Church Government, Book of Common Prayer, Homilies, Canons, &c. cannot take the Solemn League and Covenant, and rather chuſe to loſe their Livings and Livelihoods, committing themſelves, Wives and Children to the mercy of God, having no viſible means of ſubſiſting, than to break the peace of their Conſciences, by taking an Oath, Vow or Covenant contrary to all their former Oaths before ſatisfaction received) than of you or ſome of you that preſently turn'd Presbyterians, caſt away Epiſcopacy, took the Covenant, and having taken it, turn it and wind it, wring it and wreſt it, making it to look Eaſt and Weſt, North and South, as your Intereſt works with King, Parliament or Army, or againſt them all? And this, ſays he, is not my ſaying only, but it is vox Populi, the late King, the Lords, the Commons, the City, the Countrey, the whole Kingdom obſerved it.

To theſe I ſhall add ſome paſſages of the like import out of Dr. Owen, in his [Mortification of Sin in Believers] p. 29. There is indeed, ſays he, a broad light fallen upon the men of this generation, and together therewith many ſpiritual gifts communicated, which with ſome other conſiderations have wonderfully enlarged the bounds of Profeſſors and Profeſſion—Hence there is a noiſe of Religion and Religious duties in every Corner preaching in abundance; and that not in an empty, light, trivial, and vain manner as formerly, but to a good proportion of a ſpiritual Gift; ſo that if you will meaſure the number of Believers by light, gifts and profeſſion, the Church may have cauſe to ſay, who hath born me all theſe? But now if you will take the meaſure of them by this great diſcriminating Grace of Chriſtians, perhaps you will find their number not ſo multiplyed: Where almoſt is that Profeſſor who ows his converſion to theſe days of Light, and ſo talks and profeſſes at ſuch a rate of ſpirituality as few in former days were in any meaſure acquainted with—that doth not give evidence of a miſerably unmortified heart? If vain ſpending of time, talents, unprofitableneſs in mens places, envy, ſtrife, variance, emulations, wrath, pride, worldlineſs, ſelfiſhneſs be badges of Chriſtians, we have them on us and among us in abundance. The ſame Dr. in his Book of Temptations, p. 64. asks this Queſtion, would any one have thought it poſſible that ſuch and ſuch profeſſors in our days ſhould have fallen into ways of ſelf, of fleſh, of the World; to play at cards, Dice, revel, dance, to neglect family, cloſet duties, to be proud, haughty, ambitious, worldly, covetous, oppreſſive? or that they ſhould be turned away after fooliſh, vain, ridiculous opinions, deſerting the Goſpel of Chriſt? in which two lies the great temptation that is come on us the inhabitants of this world to try us. But doth not every man ſee that this is come to paſs? and may we not ſee how it is come to paſs? Some looſe empty Profeſſors that had never more than a Form of Godlineſs when they had ſerved their turn of that began the way to them; then others began a little to comply, and to pleaſe the fleſh in ſo doing; this by little and little hath reached even the Topboughs and branches of our profeſſion, until almoſt all fleſh hath corrupted its ways, and he that departs from theſe iniquities makes his name a prey if not his perſon. And p. 55, 56. How full is the world of ſpecious pretences and pleadings? as—the liberty and freedom of Chriſtians delivered from a bondage-frame—This is a door that in my own obſervation I have ſeen ſundry go out at into ſenſuality and Apoſtaſie, beginning at a light converſation, proceeding to a neglect of the Sabbath, publick and private duties, ending in diſſoluteneſs and profaneneſs, and then there is leaving off publick things to providence—Theſe and the like conſiderations joyned with the eaſe and plenty, the greatneſs and promotion of profeſſors have ſo brought things about, that whereas we have by providence ſhifted places with the men of the world, we have by ſin ſhifted ſpirits with them alſo; we are like a plantation of men carried into a forreign Countrey, in a ſhort ſpace they degenerate from the manners of the people from whence they came, and fall into thoſe of the countrey whereinto they are brought; as if there were ſomething in the Soil and the Air that transformed them. Give me leave a little to follow my ſimilitude: He that ſhould ſee the prevailing Party of theſe Nations, many of thoſe in rule, power, favour, with all their adherents, and remember that they were a Colony of Puritans, whoſe habitation was in a low place, as the Prophet ſpeaks of the City of God, tranſlated by an high hand to the mountains they now poſſeſs; cannot but wonder how ſoon they have forgot the cuſtomes, manners, ways of their own old people, and are caſt into the mould of them that went before them in the places whereunto they are tranſlated. I speak of us all, eſpecially of us who are among the loweſt of the people, where perhaps this iniquity doth moſt abound, what were thoſe before us that we are not? what did they which we do not? Proſperity hath ſlain the fooliſh and wounded the wiſe. Thus the (then) Dean of Chriſt-Church.

Let's now return to the Rector of Bramſhot.

[Their principles, ſays he, p. 54. 64. whoſe cauſe is now pleaded, if faithfully received and kept, will make good men and good Chriſtians, and therefore cannot but make good Subjects; when men have learnt to fear God they will honour the King indeed, and none are more obſervant of Righteous Laws than they that are moſt a Law to themſelves; yea, their pattern and practice will be a Law to many others, and conſequently a main help to Civil Government in a Chriſtian Nation.]

If all this be true, then Engliſh Presbyterians have not faithfully received and kept Presbyterian Principles; for I am ſure they have not been good Subjects becauſe Traytors and Rebels againſt their Soveraign Lord: and therefore I ſhall make bold to conclude from this Author's premiſſes, that they have been neither good Chriſtians nor good men: I am ſure they diſhonoured the King, for as his Majeſty complained in his Declaration concerning Levyes, his Authority was deſpiſed by them and as much as in them lay taken from him; and reviled in Pulpits and Preſſes by Perſons immediately under their protection, and of their recommendation. And the London-Pulpitmen (if John Price ſpeak truth in his Clerico-Claſſicum, p. 53.) told the people that the King was a man of bloud; and took hold of all whiſpering, hearſays and probabilities of his wickedneſs to make him odious to the people: And therefore by this John Corbet's good leave, I ſhall conclude that they had not then learn'd to fear God. That they were a Law to themſelves I eaſily grant, but 'twas juſt as Traytors and other Malefactors uſe to be, who trample under foot the righteous Laws of a Nation, becauſe inconſiſtent with their rebellious, ambitious, and ungodly deſigns; and are reſolved to follow the Law of their own wills; and in this Presbyterians were patterns to many others, and conſequently a main help to the Independents in their deſtroying thoſe remnants of the Civil Government of this Nation which themſelves had (for want of time to finiſh their miſchievous enterprizes) left undemoliſhed. But this Egregious Paraſite has not done yet; for he would fain delude his Reader with another Apologetick in behalf of his Party. [Whoſoever they be that teach blind obedience, Presbyterians teach Faith and Holineſs; as alſo Obedience active in all lawful things, and paſſive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher Power.]

A. I do not underſtand or believe that there is any ſuch diametral oppoſition between blind obedience on one hand and faith and holineſs on the other, but that the ſame Perſons, Presbyterians as well as Jeſuits may teach both. I rather believe that blind obedience in matters preſcribed by and agreeable to the word of God, will ſooner bring a man to heaven than all that Faith and Holineſs which too many Modern presbyterian Boutefeaus have taught either by their Doctrine or Practice. But the latter clauſe [that they teach obedience active in all lawful things, and paſſive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher power] may juſtly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for ſeveral years together to wonder what this man means by [the higher power] by [things unlawful] by [obedience active and paſſive.] If in the days of the Long Parliament, Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were ſuitable and correſpondent, the words muſt be thus paraphraſad: Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoyned by the two Houſes (whom Mr. Herle's (as 'tis reported) ſeditious invention made (only) coordinate with the King) and diſobedience active even to bloudy Rebellion in things lawful enjoyned by the King, whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governour of this Kingdom. I have read in Philips his Veritas inconcuſſa, p. 23. that (in 1642) Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with ſeditious invectives againſt the King, and incitements to Rebellion, and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement, but thoſe Miniſters that preacht obedience and ſought to prevent Rebellion, were ſure to be impriſoned and put out of their places for it.] Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holineſs, or Obedience active to the King? or were thoſe men ſo good Subjects, ſo good Chriſtians, as either actively or paſſively to obey his Majeſty, or preach ſuch obedience, when they took themſelves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant, which the King in his Proclamation againſt it calls a Traiterous and Seditious combination againſt himſelf and the eſtabliſht Religion and Laws of the Kingdom? [We do therefore, ſays his Majeſty, ſtrictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality ſoever, upon their Allegiance, that they preſume not to take the ſaid ſeditious and traiterous Covenant. And we do likewiſe hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impoſe, adminiſter or tender the ſaid Covenant, as they and every of them will anſwer the contrary at their utmoſt and extremeſt peril.] What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others? was it obedience? either active, or paſſive, to the King? No, but on the contrary, 'twas active diſobedience to his Majeſties command; and the taking up Arms againſt the King in proſecution of this Covenant thus taken, and curſing thoſe that did not, was Treaſon and Rebellion by the Lawes of the Land, and damnable reſiſtance by the Law of Chriſt. And theſe and other Presbyterian practices were ſuch a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, that in ſome late reflexions on thoſe Oaths, 'tis admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them. It's a wonderful myſtery, p. 41. how it ſhould come to paſs, that our Engliſh Presbyterians, &c. ſhould (eſpecially now of late) with ſo much willingneſs and greedineſs themſelves ſwallow theſe Oaths, and ſo clamorouſly urge them on others. Is it becauſe the Oath of Supremacy has ſo peculiar a conformity to their principles, and that of Allegiance to their practices? or that they are ſo ready and preſſing to diſclaim and condemn all, that themſelves have done theſe laſt twenty years?—And a little after: Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue, or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian, ſo Chriſtian a Poſition as is ſincerely avouched both by Engliſh Proteſtants and the general body of Roman Catholicks, viz. that even in caſe a Chriſtian or Heathen Prince ſhould make uſe of his Civil Power to perſecute Truth, that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively reſiſted by violence or force of Arms, but though they cannot approve, they muſt at leaſt patiently ſuffer the effects of his miſ-uſed Authority, leaving the judgment to God only? If this Rector can anſwer this Queſtion in the affirmative, and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian, Scotch or Engliſh, within the compaſs of this laſt twenty years, let him, I ſhall be glad to ſee it. Whether he can do ſo much or no I doubt, (as I do likewiſe, whether that Reflecter can prove that that Poſition, as he has worded it, is owned by the general body of Roman Catholicks;) but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally, or any conſiderable number of them, I am pretty well aſſured: if he can, 'twill follow that the generality of Presbyterians, or a conſiderable number of them moſt wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteouſneſs, and for ſeveral years together acted moſt horrid things contrary to their Light, Knowledge and Conſcience. But 'tis obſervable, that this crafty Impoſtor inſtead of [proving] that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful, and paſſive in things unlawful enjoyned by [the King's Majeſty] [affirms only] that they teach ſuch obedience in things enjoyned by the [Higher power] not telling us, whether they mean the higher power de jure, or de facto only; nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto, though themſelves acknowledge it no power de jure, if ſo be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Intereſt. What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late diviſions, was too evident by their practiſes, viz. that parcel minor, part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery, which oppoſed the King and made War againſt him, which elected a multitude of new Members, by vertue of a counterfeit (treaſonable) Seal. Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Diviſions, ſays Mr. Baxter, (Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth, p. 23.) They declared May 26. 1642. that the Soveraign power reſides in both Houſes of Parliament; as the Author of Veritas Inconcuſſa quotes them, p. 29. who alſo p. 91. informs us, That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament, when they had driven away the King, who is the Head and Life of it; nor they be ſaid to be two Houſes of Parliament, when there was not at that time when they firſt raiſed a War above a third part of the Houſe of Peers, nor the half part of the Houſe of Commons remaining in them; and what thoſe few did in their abſence, was either forced by a Faction of their own, or a party of Seditious Londoners; for indeed the War rightly conſidered, was not betwixt the Parliament and the King, but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament againſt the King, and the major part of the Parliament.] So that a factious, ſeditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as [the Higher power.] Nay, the chief Presbyterian Advocate was ſuch a learned man, ſuch a good Subject and Chriſtian, he did ſo fear God and honour the King, as to be able and willing to diſtinguiſh between the ſupreme Governour and the ſupreme Power of this Nation, (Sover. power of Parl. p. 104.) and to teach, that the King was indeed the Supreme Governour, but the Parliament (by which he underſtood thoſe two Houſes) was the Supreme Power: (which is very strange, ſays Judge Jenkins, for who can govern without power? p. 57.) Whence all that I ſhall conclude is, 1. That this part of the Authors Apology is rather an implicit confeſſion and proof of the crime objected than an Argument of Presbyterian Innocence. And 2. That it concerns his Majeſty, before he reſolve to protect and encourage Presbyterians, to catechize them very particularly and ſtrictly, touching thoſe Loyal principles which this J. C. pretends to be embraced by them, that ſo it may appear, whether when they take the Oath of Supremacy, they do it not with that Jeſuitical, or more than Jeſuitical Equivocation juſt now mentioned, or with ſuch a mental reſervation, as will infer their approving (now as well as in the late Wars) of that Treaſonable diſtinction between the King's perſonal and politick capacity, and that damnable and damned opinion (as it ſeems Cook's Reports call it, B. 7. in Calvin's Caſe) that Homage and the Oath of Allegiance, was more by reaſon of the Kings Crown, his Politick capacity, than by reaſon of the Perſon of the King: whence they inferred theſe deteſtable conſequences: 1. If the King demean not himſelf by reaſon, his Leiges are bound by Oath to remove him. 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by Suit at Law, that it ought to be done per aſpertè, by force. 3. That his Leiges are bound to govern in aid of him: all which were condemned by two Parliaments, one in the reign of Edw. 2. and the other 1 Edw. 3. ch. 1. (See Sheringham's Remonſtrance of the King's right, p. 75.) And yet all theſe three damnable, deteſtable and execrable conſequences are the grounds whereupon the preſent time (of the late Wars) relies, and the principles whereupon the two Houſes found their cauſe, ſays J. Jenkins, p. 10. For ought I know Presbyterians own theſe principles to this day, and ſo are prepared in mind again to teach men actively to diſobey the King, yea, and to dethrone his Majeſty, by acknowledging two ſuch Houſes (and obeying them as) the Higher power, whenſoever they can by their diſturbing Arts and Influences (in raiſing and countenancing barbarous, and ſeditious Tumults) divide the King from the Houſes, the Loyal part of the Houſes from the Diſloyal, and then patch them up again by Treaſonable Elections, and ſo pack together a company of men, whom they will be bold enough to call a Parliament. If all Presbyterians are of the ſame belief with Zachary Crofton (in his Berith Anti-Baal) they are ſtill of opinion, That the Covenant-impoſing and taking Lords and Commons were a moſt lawful, rightly called, and conſtituted Aſſembly, the Princes and principal Rulers of the people, (though themſelves ſwear that the King is the only ſupreme Governour) (p. 7.) that they were the Princes, [yea more] the body of the people, p. 30. That their Oath (Covenant) was the moſt poſitive authentick repeal of any Laws obliging to the contrary, p. 31. 51. This, ſays he, Mr. Crofton and all rational men do believe, That ſucceeding Parliaments are bound to repeal thoſe Laws which eſtabliſh the thing which thoſe Lords and Commons had ſworn to extirpate, p. 31. That their ſwearing thoſe things as the collective body of the Nation, binds all poſterity, who ſhall any way ſucceed into that national capacity. 'Tis no reaſon of State for the King (when he is able to ſuppreſs and reject them,) to protect and encourage any Party of men thus principl'd and diſpos'd: and therefore reaſon of State will put his Majeſty upon a curious and diligent enquiry, whether Presbyterians and others retain theſe and the like principles, (as that the Long Parliament is yet in being, which is favour'd alſo, p. 52.) and will oblige him to deny them protection and encouragement, till they renounce and abjure all ſuch damnable and pernicious maxims.

In the following Lines, p. 55-65. this Author would fain perſwade us that Presbyterians muſt needs be good Subjects to a Chriſtian King, becauſe [Profaneneſs, intemperance, revellings, outrages, and filthy lewdneſs were not at any time in the memory of the preſent Age held under more reſtraint than in the late diſtracted times; the ſpecial reaſon whereof was becauſe a practical Miniſtry was more thick ſet throughout the Nation, and the places where Presbyterian Miniſters had the greateſt influence were moſt reformed and civilized, and the orderly walking of Religious Perſons did keep others more within compaſs.]

Which is no better than non cauſa pro cauſâ, for 'tis evident enough that that (ſuppoſed) effect muſt be attributed to Presbyterian Ordinances not Sermons, and (the Executors of them) Presbyterian Magiſtrates, (I mean Mayors, Bayliffs, Juſtices of the peace, Conſtables, illegally choſen) as the ſpecial principal cauſe, without whoſe coercive power presbyterian Miniſters might have preacht their hearts out before they had wrought the Reformation here talkt of, eſpecially conſidering 1. That himſelf p. 65. pleads for the annexing of ſome temporal damage and penalty to Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction; becauſe ſpiritual cenſures (and then ſay I much more Sermons) pertaining only to the Conſcience may be too little regarded. And 2. That 'twas eaſy enough for many filthy, prophane, intemperate perſons thus to beſpeak many of thoſe practical Miniſters, (as S. Paul did the Phariſaical Jew:) Behold thou art called a Presbyterian, and reſteſt in the Bible, and makeſt thy boaſt of God, and knoweſt his will, and approveſt the things that are excellent, being inſtructed out of the Law, and art confident that thou thy ſelf art a guide of the Blind, a light of them who are in darkneſs, an inſtructer of the fooliſh, a teacher of Babes, who haſt the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law: Thou therefore who teacheſt another teacheſt thou not thy ſelf? Thou that preacheſt a man ſhould not ſteal, doſt thou year after year reap the profits of that Living which by Law belongs to another, who was plundered of it by illegal violence? and that becauſe he was a more loyal Subject than thy ſelf? Thou that abhorreſt Idols, doſt thou juſtifie and approve of the committing Sacriledge? the robbing of God as well as man? Thou that gloryeſt in the Law (of the firſt Table at leaſt,) by breaking the Law (of the ſecond Table) diſhonoureſt thou God? Knoweſt thou not that he that ſaid, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, ſaid alſo, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, Thou ſhalt not Kill nor Steal, nor bear falſe witneſs, nor covet other mens goods? Thou thundereſt out rebukes and threatneſt damnation againſt us that are Adulterers, Fornicators, Unclean, Drunkards, Revellers, and yet thou thy ſelf art notoriouſly guilty of thoſe (other) crimes which (together with theſe) are uſually and equally forbidden and condemned in the ſame or the next verſe, and the doers of them ſentenc'd to Hell. When we lewd, prophane, and intemperate perſons read in the Old Teſtament that Rebellion is as the ſin of Witchcraft, and ſtubbornneſs is as iniquity and Idolatry: And in the New Teſtament, that covetous Perſons, revilers, extortioners are in the number of thoſe unrighteous men that ſhall not inherit the kingdom of God: that they alſo who are guilty of idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, ſtrife, fedition, murder, ſhall be excluded the kingdom of Heaven, as well as adulterers, fornicators, drunkards: and when 'tis evident to us from your practiſes, that you presbyterian Miniſters have for many years been (in a Scripture account) Wizards and Idolaters, becauſe you have behaved your ſelves stubbornly and rebelliouſly againſt the command and Authority of God and the King, contentiouſly, wrathfully and ſeditiouſly againſt the inferiour Governours ſent by him as the ſupreme, that you have born falſe witneſs againſt thoſe that were loyal and obedient Subjects as Traytors, Incendiaries, &c. And then have manifeſted your ſelves ſo inſatiably covetous of their goods and legal poſſeſſions, that ſome of your party have enjoyed plundered goods, and ſequeſtred livings, legally belonging to honeſt Royaliſts; and beſides all this you have prayed for the proſperity of Presbyterian Armies, and encouraged them to fight againſt the King, and curſed thoſe that did not, and the more of the Kings Friends your forces killed, the more heartily you gave thanks to God, and by ſuch approving compliances are guilty of the bloud of thouſands of the Kings Loyal Subjects, and conſequently of ſo many murders. To kill any man in war without Authority derived from him or them that have legal power to make war, being murder; and that your Presbyterian Lords and Commons had no ſuch power (as to that war which they made and you abetted) is evident enough from this, that a Law of the Land, 25 Edw. 3. c. 2. makes it Treaſon to levy war againſt the King in his Realm, or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm, giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elſewhere: Since alſo 'tis no better than murder to kill or put thoſe men to death, whoſe lives (as well as goods, lands, &c.) the Law hath taken ſpecial care to preſerve, you are by your approbation partakers of their ſin who murdered ſuch men. That you approved the taking away their lives who adhered to the King in the late wars, we preſume you will not deny (yea you covenanted to do them miſchief under the Notion of Malignants, Incendiaries, and Evil Inſtruments.) That the Law of the Land ſaves them harmleſs, is evident from 11 Henry 7. c. 1. Wherein 'tis declared to be againſt all Laws, Reaſon and good conſcience, that Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars, attending upon him in his perſon, or being in other places by his commandment within this land or without, ſhould loſe or forfeit any thing for doing their duty or Service of Allegiance. Wherein likewiſe 'twas enacted, that no manner of perſon or perſons whatſoever—that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land, for the time being, in his perſon, and do him true and faithful ſervice of Allegiance in the ſame, or be in other places by his commandment in his wars within this land or without, that for the ſaid deed and true duty of Allegiance, he or or they be in no wiſe convict or attaint of high Treaſon, nor of other offences for that cauſe by Act of Parliament; or otherwiſe by any Proceſs of Law, whereby he or any of them ſhall loſe or forfeit life, lands, tenements, rents, poſſeſſions, hereditaments, goods, chattels or any other things, but to be for that deed and ſervice utterly diſcharged of any vexation, trouble or loſs: And if any Act or Acts, or other Proceſs of the Law hereafter thereupon for the ſame happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance, that then that Act or Acts or other Proceſs of Law whatſoever they ſhall be, ſtand and be utterly void. Now you Presbyterian Preachers being thus guilty, with what face can you reprove our prophaneneſs, or judge us to Hell for thoſe vices which are but motes in compariſon of thoſe beams which an ordinary ſight may diſcern in your own eyes? and tell us if you can why theſe practices of yours do not give us juſt cauſe to ſuſpect that either you are very ſcandalouſly ignorant of the moſt material and concerning portions of holy Scripture, or that you do not give any credit to them (and then why do you ſeek to affright us from our intemperateneſs and lewdneſs with ſuch mormo's as your ſelves are too ſturdy to be ſcar'd with?) or elſe that you have ſome Salvoes and comfortable reſerves which might keep us from deſpair, and make us preſume (upon Heaven) as well as your ſelves, if you would pleaſe to acquaint us with them? And therefore till your ſelves are more reformed and civilized, and walk more orderly towards God and the King, towards the Laws of Nature and Scripture, and this Nation, you cannot (in modeſty) expect that your Sermons ſhould prevail upon us to reſtrain our debauchery, or convert us from diſſoluteneſs and diſorder. And now let this Author prove if he can (as ſtrongly as he boldly affirms) that the men whom he pleads for (who are ſuch bad Chriſtians) muſt needs be good Subjects.

But p. 56. The man goes on to prevaricate and abuſe his Readers into a good opinion of Presbyterians.

[Neither are they wandring ſtarrs, a people given to Change, fit to overturn and pull down but not to build up; they do not hang in the air, but build upon a firm ground; they have ſettled principles conſiſtent with the Rules of Stable Policy. Contrariwiſe Fanaticks (truly, and not abuſively ſo called) do build Caſtles in the Air, and are fit Inſtruments to diſturb and destroy and root out, but never to compoſe and plant and ſettle, for which cauſe their Kingdom could never hold long in any time or place of the World. Ʋpon this ground Presbytery, not Sectarian Anarchy hath been aſſaulted with greateſt violence by the more obſerving Prelatiſts; againſt this they have raiſed their main batteries: This appeared formidable, for 'tis stable and uniform and like to hold if once ſettled in good earneſt.]

From which heap of words I gather, 1. That the Presbyterian Lords and Commons were Fanaticks truly ſo called, ſince they manifeſted themſelves (for ſeveral years together) fit inſtruments to diſturb and deſtroy, and root out the Order, Governours, and Government eſtabliſht by Law; but when they had ſo far diſturbed things, as to deſtroy by Force and Arms, that Form of Policy in Church and State; when they had done fighting againſt the King, and had gotten him into their clutches, inſtead of ſhewing their skill in compoſing, planting and ſetling, they employed their time in building Caſtles in the Air, till the Independent Fanaticks out-witted them, and cunningly jugled that power out of their hands which they had by force and violence wreſted from the hands of his Majeſty and the Laws.—2. I gather that the principles of the Anarchical ſectarians are more conſiſtent with the Rules of Stable-policy than thoſe of presbyterians, becauſe their Kingdom and Tyranny laſted much longer than that of Presbytery. 3. I gather that Prelatiſts had more reaſon to oppoſe Presbytery than ſectarian Anarchy, becauſe (if this Author be in this particular a tell-troth) presbytery was like to produce a more firm and rooted Schiſm againſt the Biſhops, and a more formidable, becauſe more durable rebellion againſt the King, than ſectarian Anarchy. 4. I conclude, that therefore we have great reaſon to bleſs God, that the Fanaticks routed the Presbyterians, and put a period to the dominion of Presbytery, ſince, if it had once been ſetled in good earneſt, it would either have kept out his Majeſty much longer than ſectarian Anarchy did, or elſe have introduced him upon ſuch uncivil, inſolent, and imperious terms, as the Scotch Presbytery brought him into that Nation, and would (in probability) have forced him to reſt content with an Iſle-of-Wight-titular-Kingſhip. But 5. I gather that Reaſon of State forbids the protecting and encouraging of Presbyterians, ſince they are not fit to overturn only, and pull down, but alſo to build up a ſtable and uniform Tower of Babel, in defiance to the Laws of God and the King; ſuch an one as 'twill concern Heaven it ſelf to take cognizance of, and to ſecure its own Soveraignty and Supremacy by exerting its wiſdom, power, and goodneſs, in defeating their Counſels, controlling and confounding their ambitious deſigns. It follows:

[This Party doth not run ſo faſt, but they know where to stop: they are a number of men ſo fixt and conſtant as none more; and a Prince or State ſhall know where to find them.]

Whereas, 1. The Presbyterian Lords and Commons declared April 9. 1642. that they intended to take away nothing in the Government and Liturgie of the Church, but what ſhall be evil and juſtly offenſive, or at leaſt unneceſſary and burthenſom; and yet afterwards they wholly extirpated the Government of our Church, and aboliſht its Liturgy: (things burdenſom, it ſeems, to them at laſt, though not juſtly offenſive:) and yet theſe men are ſo fixt and conſtant as none more. 2. His late Majeſty, in his Declaration occaſioned by the Presbyterian Ordinance, for aſſeſſing the Twentieth part of mens Eſtates, hath left on record ſome notable examples of that Parties fixedneſs and conſiſtency with themſelves. We have not, ſays the King, lately heard of the old Fundamental Laws, which uſed to warrant the Innovations. This Ordinance needs a refuge even below thoſe Foundations. They will ſay they cannot manage their undertakings without ſuch extraordinary ways; we think ſo too; but that proves only that they have undertaken ſomewhat, which they ought not to undertake; not that it's lawful for them to do any thing that is convenient for thoſe ends. We remembred them long ago, and we cannot do it too often, of that excellent ſpeech of Mr. Pym's, [The Law is that which puts a difference between good and evil; between juſt and unjuſt; if you take away the Law, all things will fall into a confuſion; every man will become a Law to himſelf: which in the depraved condition of humane Nature muſt needs produce many great enormities; Luſt will become a Law; and Envy will become a Law; Covetouſneſs and Ambition will become Laws; and what Dictates, what Deciſions ſuch Laws will produce may eaſily be diſcerned.] It may indeed, ſays his Majeſty, by the ſad inſtances over the whole Kingdom. But will poſterity believe, that in the ſame Parliament this Doctrine was avow'd with that Acclamation, and theſe Inſtances after produced? that in the ſame Parliament ſuch care was taken, that no man ſhould be committed in what caſe ſoever, without the cauſe of his Impriſonment expreſſed; and that all men ſhould be immediately bailed in all caſes bailable; and during the ſame Parliament that Alderman Pennington, or indeed any body elſe but the ſworn Miniſters of Juſtice, ſhould impriſon whom they would, and for what they would, and for as long time as they would? That the King ſhould be reproach'd for breach of Priviledge for accuſing of Sir John Hotham of High Treaſon, when with force of Arms he kept him out of Hull, and deſpiſed him to his Face, becauſe in no caſe a Member of either Houſe might be committed or accuſed without leave of that Houſe of which he is a Member; and yet that during the ſame Parliament the ſame Alderman ſhould commit the Earl of Middleſex (a Peer of the Realm) the Lord Buckhurſt (a Member of the Houſe of Commons) to the Counter without reprehenſion: That to be a Traitor, which is defin'd, and every man underſtands, ſhould be no crime; and to be call'd Malignant, which no body knows the meaning of, ſhould be ground enough for cloſe Impriſonment: That a Law ſhould be made, that whoſoever ſhould preſume to take Tonnage and Poundage, without an Act of Parliament, ſhould incur the penalty of a Praemunire; and in the ſame Parliament, that the ſame Impoſition ſhould be laid upon our Subjects, and taken, by an Order of both Houſes, without and againſt our Conſent? Laſtly, That in the ſame Parliament, a Law ſhould be made to declare the proceedings and judgment upon Ship-money to be illegal and void, and during that Parliament, that an Order of both Houſes ſhall, upon pretence of Neceſſity, enable four men to take away from all their Neighbours the Twentieth part of their Eſtates, according to their diſcretion? Thus his Majeſty. And yet theſe are the men whom a Prince or State ſhall know where to find. I might inſtance in more particulars of the ſame or worſe complexion, as to Lay-Presbyterians; but I muſt not paſs over in ſilence ſome of the Presbyterian Miniſters of London, to whom Price in his Clerico-Claſſ. p. 53. ſpeaks thus: If doubts ariſe concerning reſiſting Kings and Rulers, especially in caſe of Oaths, Vows or Covenants, touching preſervation of the perſon of the King, (as there did from the Solemn League and Covenant) then you are ready to give ſatisfaction, and to tell the people, that that clauſe in the Covenant is to be underſtood not ſimply, but relatively, that is, is not a ſingle, but a complex engagement, not an abſolute, but a conditional clauſe (with many ſuch diſtinctions.) It is for the Kings perſon in the preſervation of our Religion and Liberties; and though the King ſhould be deſtroyed by you, you have notwithſtanding kept your Covenant. But, p. 54. when the War is ended, the Enemy vanquiſh'd, the Liberties of the people recovered, &c. if they bring not the ſpoil of their victories, and lay them down at your Feet; and if they that ſit at the stern do not lay aſide all other buſineſs, and do nothing elſe but build your Palaces—then, p. 55. you temper your Sermons, and turn your Tongues, your Lines, your Language for the Royal Intereſt—and, p. 27. fly to that part and Article of the Covenant, engaging for the preſervation and defence of the King's Majeſties perſon and Authority: and, p. 35. plead it againſt the Parliament and Army for purpoſing to bring the King to Trial:—when, p. 55. nothing ſerves but the Army prevails, the King is brought to—Prelatical Presbytery ſhall not be ſuffered, what pathetick cries and moans, ſighs and groans are heard in your Pulpits, wringing your hands in bitter complaints, that the Land is ſtained with the bloud of our Prince, &c. when alas! the Royal party, and many judicious men with them, cannot believe, but that the root of all this bitterneſs is, that your Crown of Claſſical Juriſdiction is fallen to the ground. And, p. 17, 18. where as you ſpeak ſo much of reſiſting Authority, and fill the ears of your Auditors from day to day, with rebellizing the Army for their late proceedings againſt the Members, muſtering up the ſame Scriptures, teaching and preſſing duty to Authority, which the Prelatical party did formerly urge againſt you, as that of Solomon, Fear thou the Lord and the King; put them in mind to be ſubject to principalities and powers. Let every Soul be ſubject to the Higher powers, &c. Yet we heard not of theſe things from you, when the mutinous Apprentices and others offered violence upon the Houſes, 1647. No noiſe then of ſuch Scriptures; no putting men in mind to be ſubject to principalities and powers,—as if thoſe Scriptures were added ſince that time. Can you preſume that men are ſo blind, dull and ſottiſh, as not to obſerve ſuch partial and crafty handling of the Scriptures, Word and will of God? Do not theſe practices of yours ſettle and eſtabliſh Atheiſm, irreligion and profaneneſs among men? making them to look upon Religion, the Gospel, the Word of God, as upon a mere piece of jugling, cheating and deceiving the World; and ſhould we take your counſel which you give us from the words of Solomon, Meddle not with them that are given to change, we ſhould all turn Separatiſts from you and your ways, who have been as full of changes as the Vanes of your Steeples, one while ſtirring up the people againſt the King, and for the Parliament; writing Books, anſwering objections, and uſing all manner of endeavours that way (that ſo the Biſhops may be dethroned and you advanced;) witneſs many of your Sermons preach'd before the Houſes and elſewhere; another while ſtirring up the people againſt the Parliament and for the King (leſt the Independents ſhould hinder your advance) as you did of late in your prayers and preaching, expreſſing greater malignity againſt the Parliament and their party, and greater zeal for the King and his Intereſt, than thoſe very Miniſters whoſe places you poſſeſs, they being ſequeſtred and caſt out for the Tenths of that Anti-Parliamentary malignancy, which you have vented—Have you not been for Biſhops and againſt Biſhops? for Common Prayer, for Ceremonies and againſt them? Have you not ſworn and ſubſcribed? and ſubſcribed and ſworn over and over again and again conformity and ſubjection hereunto, and yet caſt away all, and entred into Vows and Covenants againſt all?—p. 24. Making your viciſſitudes and turnings up and down the ſubject matter of ſcorn and contempt and deriſion both of your perſons and function; and yet theſe are the men that a Prince or State may know where to find. In the Pulpit Incendiary, p. 7. I meet with this ſtory touching one Mr. Edmond Calamy of Aldermanbury London: That in the times when the Biſhops did bear rule he obeyed their Laws, Canons, Injunctions, Orders and Ceremonies, (we ſay not wearing the Surplice, reading the Service-Book, and Croſſing in Baptiſm, &c. which many honeſt and Godly Miniſters in thoſe dark days did likewiſe perform, but) reading the ſecond Service at the High Altar, preaching in a Surplice and Tippet, bowing at the Name of Jeſus, and ſo zealous an obſerver of times and ſeaſons, that being ſick and weak upon Chriſtmaſs Day, yet with much difficulty he got into the Pulpit, declaring himſelf there to this purpoſe, that he thought himſelf bound in conſcience to ſtrive to preach on that day, leſt the ſtones in the ſtreet ſhould riſe up againſt him: And yet upon the wonderful turn of the times, Ejection of Epiſcopacy and advance of Presbytery, did preſently and without delay not only aſſert the ſame, but inſtructed the people in Presbyterian Principles after ſuch a rate of confidence and skill, as if his Education had been ſome Superintendent among the Presbyterian Provinces of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, and not ſuch a notorious conformitant unto and notable ſtickler for the Prelates Fooleries (as the Author of that Pamphlet is pleaſed to ſpeak) in the County of Suffolk, in the Kingdome of England. The ſame man gives us this obſervation, p. 7. That as the Conſtitution of publick Affairs varies among us, ſo the conſtitutions of theſe mens Sermons do alter and change; one while we find them all for moderation and Chriſtian accommodation, and forbearance one of another; another while all for Reformation again, that is, Presbytery in the rigid ſence thereof, that is, that all power may be in the Miniſters hands, and the Magiſtrates engaged to put their Orders, and Edicts, wills and pleaſures into execution; one while pleading for and preſſing the ſetting up the Government of Chriſt in the hearts of men, minding them to be zealous for the great things of the Goſpel, Faith, Repentance, and love among Brethren, and not to contend ſo ſtrenuouſly for the Mint and Cummin, Diſcipline and Government, &c. Anotherwhile calling with might and main for Reformation, Reformation, putting the Crown upon the Head of Chriſt, and the Scepter into his hand, pleading for the Government of Jeſus Chriſt, that is, the exalting themſelves above their Brethren; and yet theſe are the men ſo fixt and conſtant as none more. The truth is, theſe and other Teſtimonies which might be produced, do abundantly evince that Presbyterian Principles alter according to the variation of the Presbyterian Intereſt. And that the ſame Principles which men of that temper exclaim againſt and condemn, when made uſe of to the prejudice of their Party, or in defence of Prelatical Government, have notwithſtanding been approved of, and reduced into practice by them, when the doing ſo tended to the promotion and advancement of their Intereſt. Biſhop Bancroft hath long ſince manifeſted to the world by the ſeveral inſtances produced in his Survey of the pretended Holy Diſcipline, c. 26. There is nothing, ſays he, more uſually objected againſt the preſent State, Superiority and Authority of Biſhops, than that of S. Peter, 1. Pet. 5. Not as though you were Lords over the Clergy. And Luk. 22. 26. But you ſhall not be ſo. And 'twill not be admitted in any wiſe that we ſhould expound thoſe places of ambitious affectation, of Tyrannous practice, or of the abuſe of ſuch ſuperiority, or Juriſdiction: But if you will ſpeak of the Right, Authority, and Juriſdiction of their Elderſhips, the caſe is altered. There are ſome as it ſeemeth beyond the Seas, who ſeeing the Pride of the Conſiſtorian Government do affirm that the Power of the Church is only Spiritual, and not any External Exerciſe, Practice, and right of any Authority, Power and Government: With this oppoſition ſo much derogating from the dignity of their Elderſhips, Danaeus is moved and anſwering that conceit, ſaith, that although the power of the Church ad animarum ſalutem ſit comparata, be inſtituted for the health of Souls, yet notwithſtanding it hath neceſſarily annext unto it, an indiſſoluble band, an external exerciſe, practice and uſe, Juris & Gubernationis, of Law and Government, De Poteſt. Eccleſ. c. 3. Againſt this anſwer reply as it ſeemeth is made with the ſame places mentioned that are urged againſt our Biſhops; whereupon Danaeus to make all things clear, adds theſe words to his former Anſwer and publiſhes the ſame from Geneva [whereas it may be objected out of Peter, Not bearing Rule, &c. 'Tis eaſily anſwered, Damnatur enim partim abuſus, non uſus illius poteſtatis; partim illius cum civili confuſio; for partly the abuſe is condemned, not the uſe of that power, and partly the confounding of it with the civil power.] Which is the very anſwer that we make and approve (being extorted from them by Gods good providence) for the ſtopping of our mens mouths, who upon pretence of thoſe places, have opened them ſo wide againſt the lawful authority of our Biſhops. Another example of the like nature we have in the ſame Chapter: It is a thing too manifeſt, ſaith he, with what libelling and railing the Form of our Service, of our Ceremonies, of our Ornaments, of our Apparel, &c. hath been depraved and ſhamefully ſlandered; as that our Communion Book was culied out of the Popes Portuiſe—this was abuſed in Popery—that is papiſtical.—Whatſoever cometh from the Pope comes firſt from the Devil.—If of the Eggs of a Cockatrice can be made wholſome meat to feed with—then may alſo the things that come from the Pope and the Devil be good, profitable and neceſſary to the Church. Againſt theſe ſpeeches anſwer hath been made, that 'tis lawful to try all things and to hold faſt that which is good; that we muſt diſtinguiſh between the abuſe of a thing and its lawful uſe.—that as good men ſometimes deviſe that which is Evil, ſo Evil men may ſometimes deviſe that which is profitable: But all theſe anſwers are miſliked, denied and condemned by theſe our Factioners. Howbeit upon occaſion the ſtream is turned, and they themſelves are driven to make the very ſame Anſwers for the juſtifying of their own proceedings, and for the maintenance of certain particular matters which they do urge and allow of. It hath been laid to their charge, that for all their goodly pretences of Reformation, yet indeed the courſe they held did ſmell moſt rankly of Anabaptiſm, Donatiſm, and of a new kind of Papiſm; as where they diſquiet the peace of the Churches already reformed, rail upon our Miniſters and their Calling, affirm that our Sacraments are not ſincerely miniſtred; that there is no Church as it ſhould be but thoſe that they like of; that our Ceremonies and Orders are all unlawful; that we have no lawful Miniſters or Biſhops;—that Princes may not deal in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, &c. Theſe and many ſuch like points being laid to their charge, Cartwright (as though he had never dream'd of any thing to the contrary) frames this general anſwer in the name of all his fraternity. (T. C. B. 2. Ep.) If among the filth of their Hereſies (viz. of Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, and Donatiſts,) there may be found any good thing (as it were a grain of good Corn in a great deal of darnel) that we willingly receive not as theirs, but as the Jews did the holy Ark from the Philiſtines, whereof they were unjuſt owners: For herein 'tis true that is ſaid, the Sheep muſt not lay down her fell, becauſe ſhe ſees the Wolf ſometimes clothed with it; yea it may come to paſs that the Synagogue of Satan may have ſome one thing at ſome time with more convenience than the true and Catholick Church of Chriſt: Such was the Ceremony of pouring Water once only upon the Child in Baptiſm uſed with us and in the moſt reformed Churches, which in ſome Ages was uſed by thoſe of the Eunomian Hereſy.] Much more of the ſame ſtrain is legible in that chapter touching the mutability of the ancient Presbyterians, when the changing of their Opinions would render their Intereſt more conſiderable. And is there no example think you, to be met with of the like mutability in our Modern Preſbyterians? Judge by what follows whether they have not contradicted their own Principles, yea and thoſe of their Presbyterian Anceſtors. For the proof of the latter, I refer the Reader to a little Book called, [Beams of former Light] written (by Mr. Nye as 'tis reported) on occaſion of that Ordinance made by the Secluded Members at their Re-admiſſion into the Houſe of Commons (1660.) impoſing on all Miniſters the Aſſemblie's leſſer Catechiſm under the penalty of their being ejected as ſcandalous p. 101. if they neglected to uſe it though but 10 Sundays in a year (unleſs on a cauſe approved of by two Juſtices) againſt which impoſitions thoſe Beams of Light, (diſcovering how evil 'tis to impoſe doubtful and diſputable Forms on Miniſters under penalty of Ejection) were darted. In which Book the Author heaps up the Arguments of the old Preſbyterian Nonconformiſts againſt the new ones, and that injunction of theirs, and endeavours to manifeſt it more harſh and ſevere than the former Epiſcopal Impoſitions (p. 104, 105. 77.) and yet that there was more reaſon and neceſſity for thoſe than this, p. 107. he throngs together the ſame Scripture-proofs againſt this, that were formerly urged againſt thoſe, and ſpeaks as ſuperſtitiouſly againſt a Catechiſm-Book, p. 37, 38. as the men of the Presbyterian ſtrain were wont to ſpeak againſt a Prayer-Book, and an Homily-Book. From which diſcourſe it appears that thoſe men did for the advancement of their Intereſt contradict the Principles [of their Nonconforming predeceſſors.] And that they have upon the ſame ſcore contradicted their own Principles, I ſhall evidence partly from this John Corbet's affirmations concerning them, partly from their late Book called [The Covenanters Plea againſt Abſolvers.] In which laſt piece I obſerve that though they did not well underſtand, p. 6. what good thing can be aſſigned which falls under no divine Precept, (and conſequently they did not underſtand how any good thing can be indifferent and uncommanded) yet p. 10. they grant that the matter of a Promiſe, Vow, Oath or Covenant, may be ſomething (not neceſſary or previouſly required of us by ſome divine Law, but) free and indifferent, not determined by the divine Law; And that rational and religious Acts (for ſuch they affirm Oaths, Vows and Covenants to be (Ch. 2. Sect. 3.—Ch. 3. p. 11.) yea ſacred Invocations of the name of God, preces of divine Worſhip, Ch. 2. Sect. 3. p. 5. and p. 6. S. 3.) may be exerciſed about matters left indifferent (not enjoyned by the Divine Law:) and moreover that by an Oath (impoſed by a Lawful Magiſtrate) that which before was free and indifferent, is made neceſſary to the takers, p. 65. S. 19. and that the obligation of an Oath thus impoſed reſults from Divine Inſtitution, p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law, p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Conceſſions they do not only condemn all thoſe Nonconformiſts, who refuſed compliance with Epiſcopal Impoſitions, becauſe (forſooth) their Chriſtian Liberty in things left indifferent by God, ought not to be prejudiced and reſtrained by man; but alſo they overthrow, 1. that principle, That nothing is a duty, eſpecially in Gods worſhip, which is not commanded by God; and 2. that principle, that no part of worſhip is lawful which is not commanded of God; and yet both theſe principles are owned by Presbyterians, if this Author deceive us not, p. 88. 98. where he tells us they hold, that Scripture only is the Rule of inſtituted worſhip, wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden; and p. 84, 85. that whatſoever inſtituted worſhip is not ordained of God is unlawful; whence it ſollows, that men ought not to ſwear or Covenant for or againſt any thing that's left indifferent in the Divine Law; not for any thing which God's word commands not, nor againſt any thing which it does not forbid. For ſo to do is to worſhip God, by taking ſuch an Oath, and entring into ſuch a Covenant as is not ordained by him, but is only of humane Inſtitution and determination. Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either inſtituted or impoſed by God in his Law, either of Nature or Scripture, (even by their own confeſſion, who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the Houſe of Commons, that the Covenant it ſelf was not jure Divino, though the keeping of it being taken was, Hiſt. of Independ. 1 Part p. 125, 126.) but only by men; and 'tis acknowledged by thoſe pleaders to have been a Vow only (freely and voluntarily entred into, and not by vertue of any Divine command) in the firſt takers and impoſers; and therefore (ſince 'tis owned alſo as a ſacred, religious Act of worſhip) 'twas in them and others, not only a piece of Schiſm againſt the Church of England, and of Sedition againſt the King and Laws of England, but alſo a ſolemn piece of ſuperſtition & will-worſhip (as that ſignifies, in their own dialect, a worſhipping God in ſuch a manner as himſelf hath not preſcribed in his Word,) and therefore (on the ſcore of Presbyterian principles) an Act of high and hainous diſobedience to the Law of God; and therefore their taking an Oath thus impoſed, was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Intereſt: and yet theſe are the men that are ſo fixt and conſtant as none more. Beſides, this Author tells us, p. 85. that Presbyterians hold, that that Ceremony which is inſtituted by men, (not by God) which is of myſtical ſignification, and (though it may naturally, yet) does not actually ſignifie without humane inſtitution, and is by men appropriate to Divine worſhip, is (upon that account) a part of Divine worſhip: and p. 88. 98. they hold, that all ſuch ſacred Ceremonies (not commanded by God) are neither good nor lawful. But ſay I, this was the very caſe in the taking of the Covenant; for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it, viz. lifting up the hand, was appropriate to that Oath, (which they deemed a piece of religious worſhip.) It did not actually ſignifie that the Takers did ſwear, either by Divine, or Natural, but by Humane Inſtitution, and that novel too: the uſual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation, (before) being tactis ſacroſanctis Chriſti Evangeliis, laying the hand upon, and afterwards kiſſing the holy Evangels; to which indeed that Covenant was ſo contrary, that 'tis no wonder the Covenant was ſo contrary, that 'tis no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand, which is not of Divine Inſtitution, or preſcribed by God the Father in the Old Teſtament, and much leſs by God the Son in the New, whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Maſter of ordaining Ceremonies for the Chriſtian Worſhip; and ſome of them, it ſeems, are yet to learn, that any examples oblige them, but thoſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, (and conſequently no Old Teſtament examples,) Diſcourſe of Liturgies, p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of myſtical ſignification I prove by that medium which this Author himſelf makes uſe of, p. 87. 97. to prove the Croſs in Baptiſm ſuch a Ceremony, viz. It is uſed as a ſealing ſign of our obligation to Chriſt, and therefore it's in that reſpect Sacramental: ſo ſay I was the lifting up of the hand (in the ſwearing the Covenant) uſed as a ſealing ſign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Chriſt—Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant ſealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themſelves to the diſſervice of him that died on the Croſs, to a real and practical defiance of Chriſt the King of his Church, and his Vicegerent in this Nation, King Charles. Thus a Ceremony of humane (Presbyterian) inſtitution for the ratification of a ſeditious Covenant, ordained and impoſed againſt Law by an illegal power, for the ſatisfying of the Scotch appetite, and promoting the Presbyterian Intereſt, is a Camel eaſily and greedily ſwallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter, who yet at the ſame time can either blindly or perverſly ſtrain at the Gnat of a Ceremony inſtituted by lawful Authority, eſtabliſht and enjoyned by the Laws of the Land and Conſtitutions of the Church. If I had ſome Books about me (fit for ſuch a purpoſe) I believe I could add ſome ſheets of pertinent inſtances (to Biſhop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch. of his Survey) of Presbyterian Levity in opinion, and inconſiſtency with themſelves, and with others of their own Faction, when ſelf-intereſt prompted them to ſuch variations. I ſhall at this time mention only one proof more. 'Tis a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea, and their diſcourſe of Liturgies, that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven, can diſcharge them from the obligation of an Oath. This is good Doctrine it ſeems, when applied to the Covenant, and underſtood in a ſence advantageous to Presbytery: but when the Queſtion was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance (wherein they ſwore, that they would defend his Majeſty, his Heirs and Succeſſors, to the uttermoſt of their power, againſt all conſpiracies and attempts whatſoever, which ſhould be made againſt his or their Perſons, Crown and Dignity, by reaſon or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope, [or otherwiſe;] and that they are in conſcience reſolved, that neither the Pope nor any perſon whatſoever hath power to abſolve them of that Oath, or any part of it;) I ſay, when this was the Queſtion, then Presbyterian practiſes maniſeſted, that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine, viz. that thoſe two Houſes (who were far enough from either deſerving or being capable of the Title of the Parliament of England) might diſcharge men from the obligation of this Oath; for they impoſed the Negative Oath, and made men ſwear, that they would not directly or indirectly adhere to, or willingly aſſiſt the King in his War againſt the Forces of the two Houſes; which Negative Oath being contrary to that of Allegiance, could not with any colour of reaſon or conſcience be impoſed or taken, unleſs the impoſers and takers were perſwaded of the truth of that principle, viz. that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had authority to diſcharge men from the obligation of that Oath; and yet theſe are the men that are ſo fixt and conſtant as none more: and ſo ſetled in their principles, that a Prince or State may know where to find them; words that, for ought I ſee, have no Truth in them at all, unleſs underſtood in this ſence, that a Prince may be ſure to find Presbyterians conſtant to their ſelf-Intereſt, though not to their Principles, and fixt and diligent in deſigning methods, and carrying on contrivances in oppoſition to legal eſtabliſhments, for the thruſting up Presbytery into the Throne, and the forcing of Majeſty and Prelacy to embrace a Dunghil.

It follow, p. 57. 67. [They do not ſtrain ſo high, but they conſider withal, what the Kingdoms of the world will bear, and are willing to bring things to the capacity of Political Government.] I ſuppoſe the mans meaning is this: That Presbyterians are ſomewhat cautious and circumſpect for their own ſafety. They'l venture their Ears before they hazard their Necks; and contenting themſelves with deſerving a Dungeon only at firſt, will take heed of meriting the Gallows, till they are able to ſafeguard themſelves from the ſword of Juſtice by unſheathing that of Rebellion. They'l conſider whether the Kings of the world have indeed the power of their (reſpective) Nations in their hands or no; and whether (if they have it) 'tis probable they will bear the ſword in vain, or execute vengeance with it on them that do evil: In order whereunto they'l feel their way, it may be, ſtep by ſtep, firſt by talking ſeditiouſly in private Conventicles; then by railing and reviling Loyal ſubjects in the Pulpit; then by ſlandering inferiour Governours, and rendring them contemptible and odious unto the people; and afterwards by raiſing jealouſies and envious malicious paſſions in mens minds againſt the Supreme: and if he let the ſword of Juſtice ruſt in the ſcabbard, till by the predominancy of a tumultuous rabble, aided and abetted by ſome ſeditious, malignant ſpirits among the Nobility and Gentry, he's diſenabled from drawing it, either at all, or to any purpoſe; then thoſe pawns and Rooks will ſtrain ſo high, as to give checkmate to Majeſty, and demonſtrate to the world how imprudently thoſe Pearls of Royal patience, lenity, and condeſcenſion were caſt before ſuch Swine, whoſe brutiſh temper inclines them to turn upon and rent their Benefactors; like traiterous Judas's, to reward them evil for good, and hatred for their good will. [Mr. Martin (ſays the Hiſt. of Independ. p. 97.) was expelled the Houſe for words ſpoken againſt the King—becauſe ſpoken unſeaſonably, when the King was in good ſtrength; and the words, whether true or falſe, were, in ſtrictneſs of Law, Treaſon; leſt the whole Houſe might be drawn within compaſs of High Treaſon for conniving at them—but afterward the King growing weaker, and the Parliament ſtronger; the Houſe reſtored Mr. Martin, and thought fit to ſet every mans Tongue at liberty.] It ſeems the Political Government was then brought to a capacity of bearing ſuch crimes. Biſhop Bancroft in his Book of Dangerous Poſitions, p. 98. tells us of a Book of Diſcipline ſubſcribed to by ſome presbyterian Brethren in thoſe days, which they promiſed, as God ſhould offer opportunity, and give them to diſcern it ſo expedient, by humble ſuit to her Majeſtie's honourable Council and the Parliament, and by all other lawful and convenient means to further and advance, ſo far as the Laws, and peace, and the preſent ſtate of the Church would ſuffer it, and not enforce to the contrary. One Mr. Littleton being examined upon his Oath, what the laſt words ſhould mean, anſwered, That he himſelf, Mr. Snape, Mr. Proudloe and others, did agree to put that Diſcipline in execution and practice, ſo far as the peace and the preſent ſtate of the Church would ſuffer, and not enforce to the contrary, that is, till the Magiſtrate did enjoyn them or enforce them to leave the practice of the ſaid Diſcipline—Now, ſays the Biſhop, what if by the ſecret practices (to draw away the peoples hearts from the preſent Government of the Church) they could have procured ſuch ſtrength and number to have followed them, as that no reaſonable reſtraint or force of the Magiſtrate had been able to have encountered and ſuppreſſed them? I do but ask the Queſtion, ſays he, p. 101. and I anſwer it thus: If they had been of the ſame Rebellious humour with our modern Presbyterians, they would, when they had brought things to that paſs, have appeared in Arms, and raiſed a bloudy War, and by force have ſet up their holy Diſcipline, and ſtrained ſo high in contradiction to all legal Authority, as to have ſubverted the conſtitution of our Engliſh Monarchy, and turned our Government in Church and State Topſiturvy.

He goes on: [They can have no pleaſure in commotions, for Order and regular Unity is their Way, and therefore ſtability of Government and publick Tranquillity is their Intereſt:] Which has ſomething of Truth in it, if underſtood of Presbyterians, when they are got into the Saddle themſelves, and are well ſetled in an uſurp'd Dominion, but till then (for ought I ſee) they take as much pleaſure in commotions and alteraons as Jeſuits do, and will diſturb the publick Tranquillity, and ſubvert all legal Order and regular Unity, rather than ſuffer their own Intereſt to be rejected and depreſſed; witneſs their late Wars, and their Solemn League and Covenant, and a ſeries of other actions, whoſe direct tendency was to the deſtruction of our Engliſh Polity, both Eccleſiaſtical and Civil, as is before manifeſted.

[It's moſt unreaſonable, ſays he, to object that the late wild poſtures, extravagancies, and incongruities in Government were the work of Preſbytery or Presbyterians; his reaſon is, becauſe the Nation had never proof of Presbytery, for 'twas never ſettled.]

A. If it ſhould be granted that the Nation had never proof of Presbytery, what's this to Presbyterians (whom the objection ſpeaks of as well as Presbytery?) Had the Nation never any proof of ſuch kind of Creatures? nay had we not ſuch proof of them for ſeveral years together, as we have great reaſon to lament even to this day? And I much fear that the ſatal Influence of thoſe wild poſtures and extravagancies which Presbyterians, (ſuch perſons as himſelf deſcribed, p. 20. 30. by their main and rooted Principles) were the Authors of, is not yet exhauſted; but will work us more miſchief, and be very prejudicial to thoſe initials of Order and Tranquillity, which at preſent we (through mercy) enjoy. The words of our late Soveraign quoted p. 58. 68. are no proof of that which this Author aſſerts and would prove by them, viz. that Presbytery was decried and expoſed to prejudice by thoſe that were in ſway [in the more early times of the late Wars] for thoſe words ſpeak rather of the concluſion of the Wars; for 'twas then and not in the more early times that [Military ſucceſs diſcovered to ſeveral Factions their particular advantages and invited them to part ſtakes;] but they are a conſiderable proof that 'tis no ſuch unreaſonable thing (as this Author pretends) to object that the late wild poſtures and extravagances were the work of Presbytery: For they inform us that [Presbytery was the great Maſter of the leſſer Factions, Independents, Anabaptiſts, &c.] Which Factions were ſo well diſciplin'd and documentized by that Arch-Faction, that (being ſome of them alſo men of quick apprehenſions) they ſpeedily and throughly learnt the Presbyterian Arts of dividing and diſſipating; yea thoſe Factious Scholars made ſuch zealous, diligent, and ſagacious Improvements of thoſe Factious Principles which the great Presbyterian Faction had inculcated into them both by Doctrine and Practice, that they became two-fold more the children of Hell than their Teachers, and ſo extravagant and unruly at laſt as to whip their great Maſter out of that ſeditious and Tyrannical School with Rods of his own making, and to rout Presbytery in the ſtrength of thoſe very principles by which [Presbyterians] had before routed Prelacy firſt and then Majeſty.

[Neither, ſays he, can Sects or Schiſms with any Truth or Juſtice be reckoned the Off-ſpring of Presbytery] If he mean by Presbytery [exact Presbytery] (p. 44. 54.) and that Scotch Form of Eccleſiaſtical Polity (59. 69.) where there is no preſiding Biſhop, he contradicts Father Hierome, who (though Presbyterians account him their great Friend) teſtifies in ſeveral places, that Epiſcopacy was inſtituted (unus caeteri praepoſitus—ſuperpoſitus—) for the preventing of thoſe Schiſms which were begotten by Presbytery: In Schiſmatis remedium factum eſt, nè unuſquiſque ad ſe trahens Chriſti Eccleſiam rumperit, (Ep. ad Evagrium.) ut Schiſmatum ſemina tolerentur.—and thoſe studia in Religione which happened when the Churches were governed communi Presbyterorum conſilio, (in Ep. ad Titum. c. 1.) ut diſſentionum plantaria evellerentur (ibid.) Nay in his Dialogue againſt the Luciferians, he tells us that Eccleſiae ſalus in ſummi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet; cui ſi non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur poteſtas, tot in Eccleſiis efficientur Schiſmata quot Sacerdotes. The welfare of the Church depends upon the dignity of the chief Prieſt, to whom if ſome extraordinary and ſupereminent power be not granted, there will be as many Schiſms in the Churches as Prieſts: Yea he contradicts Mr. Calvin who acknowledges alſo that Epiſcopacy was agreed upon, Nè ex aequalitate ut fieri ſolet, diſſidia naſcerentur, leſt equality among Miniſters ſhould, as 'tis wont to do, produce diviſion. I may conclude therefore with a late writer; that if any Presbyterian Churches do keep themſelves entire from the Gangrene of Sects and Schiſms, that Ʋnity ſprings from ſome other Fountain and is the effect of ſome collateral cauſe which has Antidote enough in it to preſerve thoſe Churches from the venemous contagion of [Exact Preſbytery.]

[A wide breach (if he ſpeak truth) was once made in the Netherlands by Arminius and his followers, but after ſome years conflict 'twas healed by the Synod of Dort.] I diſcern not why this Author ſhould produce this inſtance to prove that Schiſms cannot truly or juſtly be reckoned the off-ſpring of Presbytery, unleſs 'twere becauſe he was either ignorant or had forgot that the men who, as he ſays, made that breach (viz. Arminius and his Followers) were Presbyterians (as vehement and reſolute maintainers of the Miniſterial parity, as any that concluded or accepted the Judgment of that Synod) ſay the Brittiſh Divines there preſent in their [Joint atteſtation, &c.] men that though they were not ſo preſumptuous as to condemn our Engliſh Hierarchy as unlawful, or ſo contentious as to fancy with our Puritans, See their Exam. Conſure Leyd. Fol. 232. Browniſts and others, that they ought to divide and ſeparate themſelves from our Church becauſe governed by Prelacy (if ſo be Prelates did not degenerate into Tyrants) yet they (not only deny that the ſuperiority of one Miniſter above another is by divine right, but alſo) ſeem unwilling that that form of Government ſhould be introduced into the Netherlands; and yet they produce a pregnant Teſtimony from Biſhop Carleton's book againſt Biſhop Mountague's Appeal, that the chief of their Belgick adverſaries at that Synod were deſirous of enjoying a Form of Church-Government modelled according to the Engliſh pattern: And when that Biſhop of Chicheſter had openly in that Synod declared againſt that parity of Miniſters ſpoken of in the Belgick-Dort confeſſion as inſtituted by Chriſt, and manifeſted that imparity among Miniſters, and ſuperiority was ordained by our Saviour, and challenged any there preſent to prove the contrary, he was anſwered only with ſilence: And when afterwards he did in private conference with ſeveral of the beſt learned in that Synod maintain, that the cauſe of all their troubles was the want of Biſhops, by whoſe Authority turbulent and contentious Noveliſts might be checked, cenſured and ſuppreſſed; they did not deny it, but anſwered that they did very much revere and honour the good Order and Diſcipline of the Church of England, and would heartily and gladly receive the ſame into their own Churches if the ſtate of Affairs among them would permit it; but that could not be expected, and therefore they hoped that God would be merciful to them if they did what they could, ſince they could not do what they would: Which anſwer of theirs the Biſhop lookt on as a ſufficient Apology, in that they did not openly defend that Anarchy and popular confuſion which Presbyterian parity tends to.

Well, it ſeems that wide breach was after ſome years conflict [healed] by the Synod of Dort.

Set certes if this Rector had a wide breach made in his body, and if his Phyſicians ſhould in order to his cure handle him in ſuch an inhumane and imperious manner as thoſe Synodiſts treated the Remonſtrants, (yea and ſome moderate men of their own Party) he would be loth to call it [Healing.] His moſt virulent enemy could not eaſily wiſh him a greater torment on earth than to have a Bogerman for his Doctor, a Sibrandus or Gomarus for his Chirurgion. Let him read the brief account of the Synod of Dort, annext by Tilenus to his [Reſult of falſe Principles] (lately publiſht) or thoſe letters from Mr. Hales and Mr. Balcanqual out of which 'tis extracted, or the Acta & Scripta Synodalia Remonſtrantium; and then tells us how he likes thoſe methods of Cure, or (if he thinks theſe too partial Relators) let him peruſe the Acta Synodalia contra-Remonſtrantium with an attentive and impartial ſpirit, and if that Book does not ſufficiently prejudice him againſt thoſe Phyſicians, 'twill not have ſo good an influence upon him as to my knowledge it has had upon one who was no friend to Arminian Tenents. Though ſome moderate men were againſt the Remonſtrants in all five Articles in ſubſtance, yet if they differed but in manner of ſpeaking from the rigid Synodiſts (who were the major part) they would not hold him ſound; Does he call this Healing? There was a plot laid ex compoſito by the fierce Party for the diſgracing of the Breme Divines who were more temperate, and the Brittiſh Divines drew the indignation of the Provincials upon themſelves, by ſweetly interpoſing to allay their contentions; Does he call this Healing? When the Remonſtrants ſeemed to yield, the forrein Divines could not be heard for the continuing them in the Synod; their voices indeed were ask'd hoping they would have been anſwerable to the Provincials deſign, but finding it was otherwiſe, without ſo much as laying their heads together for conſultation, they publiſht a Decree of diſmiſſion which was written before they came into the Synod; (The trick was a little too palpable, ſays Mr. Balcanqual) Does he call this Healing? The Canons were drawn up in private, and as 'twere dictated by the Preſident, juſt as thoſe of the Council of Trent are ſaid to have been by the Pope, (which occaſioned that reflection, that the Holy Ghoſt (to whoſe aids the Tridentine Synodiſts pretended ſo much in their Decrees) was ſent from Rome to Trent in a Portmantue;) Does he call this Healing? And ſays Mr. Balcanqual, they would have their Canons ſo full charged with Catechetical Speculations as they will be ready to burſt.—and methinks 'tis hard that every man ſhould be depoſed from his Miniſtry who will not hold every particular Canon; never did any Church of old, nor any Reformed Church propoſe ſo many Articles to be held ſub poena excommunicationis; Does he call this Healing? If the preſent Convocation at Weſtminſter ſhould apply ſuch remedies to the wounds and breaches made by Presbyterians in Churchaffairs, I doubt he would not call it an healing Synod. But ſince he ſeems to approve and take pleaſure in the exerciſe of ſuch ſeverities as degradation, ſequeſtration, excommunication, &c. towards theſe that could not in conſcience ſubſcribe to the dictates of that Synod; I wiſh him and his Party ſo much happineſs as to be treated with the like ſeverity by our Governours, Civil, and Eccleſiaſtical, in caſe they will not ſubſcribe to the Articles and Canons of the Church of England, that ſo after many Conflicts thoſe wide breaches which theſe State-Arminians have made among us may be healed, and which in all probability had never proceeded to that degree of malignity, if ſuch gangren'd members had been cut off according to Canon, depriv'd of the profits of their Benefices, and the privilege of Church-Communion. I wiſh alſo that our Engliſh Biſhops may make them & others feel the ſmart of that method of Diſcipline, which (it ſeems) is very effectual to prevent the broaching of error, viz. cenſuring every aberration in Doctrine and practice; impoſing ſilence upon Miniſters as to doubtful and diſputed opinions, till a Synod ſhall determine; which cenſures and impoſitions, if impugned and diſobeyed, I preſume are back'd with the Excommunication of ſuch refractory perſons. Theſe courſes are eſteemed good and laudable in Dutchland and Scotland, and may be called Healing, when made uſe of by Presbyterians: but if our Biſhops and their presbyters ſhould deal thus with the diſobedient presbyterians here in England, Excommunication would be called perſecution, and the impoſing of Canonical ſubſcription a yoke of bondage, an unneaſonable thing, and what not? Witneſs this Authors language and diſcourſe in this very Book, where (forgetting what 'twas he had called Healing in this p.) he affirms, p. 94, 95. (104, 105.) that Canonical ſubſcription lately impoſed is a yoke of Bondage, which he ſuppoſes to be removed by the Kings Declaration, and therefore (though his Brethren in their Diſcourſe of Liturgies, p. 60. ingenuouſly confeſs, that that Declaration cannot diſſolve the obligation of a Law,) would not have that yoke laid on mens necks any more; ſince 'tis in his opinion both unneceſſary, unprofitable; and unreaſonable; which laſt he proves againſt Prelatiſts by as weak an Argument as White (as 'tis ſuſpected) brings, in the latter end of Ruſhworth's firſt Dialogue, to prove (againſt proteſtants in general) that 'tis unreaſonable for them to hold any point certainly true, and conſequently to require any ſubſcription to Articles, viz. becauſe they profeſs themſelves fallible; as if they who confeſs they might have been deceived, may not yet be confident (upon good grounds) that they are not actually deceived; and upon that account require ſubſcription to them. The other two he proves alſo by ſuch Arguments as will render all Synods, Presbyterian as well as Epiſcopal, uſeleſs things; and which will prove the Dutch, French or Scotch impoſition of Articles, and Canons as unneceſſary, unprofitable, and unreaſonable as the Engliſh; and yet Biſhop Bancroft aſſures us in his Survey, p. 311. that if the beſt and the learnedſt man in Chriſtendom were in Geneva, and ſhould oppoſe himſelf to any thing that the Church there holdeth, if he eſcaped with his life he might thank God, but he ſhould be ſure not to continue a Miniſter there—No man ſhall ever perſwade me, ſays the Biſhop, but that the word of God doth give as free liberty to the Church of England for the repreſſing of ſuch Schiſmaticks, as either to Geneva or any Church whatſoever: Thus he. And if Prelatiſts had been as diligent and ſevere in enquiring out, and puniſhing; diſſenters from the publickly receiv'd Doctrine, and oppugners of the Laws of our Church, a greater unity might have been procured, and our ſad diviſions and breaches, in all likelihood, prevented: I mean, on ſuppoſition that the Civil Magiſtrates had in their ſeveral places reſpectively, firmly adhered to the Eccleſiaſtical, and proſecuted their Canonical Cenſures, if contemn'd, with the addition of Civil penalties upon the refractory and contumacious: without which 'tis not probable that the Dort Aſſembly would have proved an [Healing Synod,] nor the Scotch-Diſcipline a ſufficient preſervative againſt Sects and Schiſms: which I am apt enough to believe ſeverity will ſuppreſs, though exerciſed by Presbyteries, if the Civil Governours act their part in abetting and promoting the juſt ſeverity of Eccleſiaſticks.

[Whence therefore, ſays he, p. 60. ſhould this charge of Presbyteries begetting Sects and Schiſms ariſe? Peradventure ſome Presbyterians have turned Sectaries. Surely it would be taken for a weak arguing, to ſay that Prelacy is the way to Popery, becauſe ſome Prelatiſts have turned Papiſts.]

A. I acknowledge that arguing weak; but what if they that make the objection be found to frame their Argument (in reference to our modern Presbyterians) in this manner? Multitudes that embraced thoſe Principles, which Presbyterians owned in the days of their calamity and depreſſion, turned Sectaries and Schiſmaticks afterward, and yet ſtill retained thoſe Principles, and by rational deductions pleaded them, in order to the juſtification of their Schiſm; therefore thoſe principles do in their own nature produce Sects and Schiſms. If the caſe be indeed thus, the objection is ſtrong; and for the proof of the Argument and Antecedent, I'le undertake, if this Author ſhall deny either, or evince that the like objection may, upon the like ground, be urged againſt the Engliſh prelacy. In the mean time we'le content our ſelves with the affirmation of Charles the Firſt, that Presbytery was (in the late times) the great Maſter of leſſer Factions in Religion.

The truth is, ſays this J. C. Sectarianiſm (both Presbyterian and Independent, ſay I) grew up in a Myſtery of Iniquity (good, for 'twas by oppoſing and exalting it ſelf above all that was called God in this Nation) and State-policy, (good again; claw me and I'le claw thee, was the politick Dialect of Presbyterians at firſt towards Independents,) and it was not well diſcerned (by the Presbyterians, whom intereſt and reaſon of State perſwaded to ſhut their eyes and wink at the Independents, Anabaptiſts, and other Sectaries,) till it became almoſt triumphant by Military ſucceſſes; but after that its growth did manifeſtly appear (prejudicial to Presbyterian ambition) Presbytery began to ſtruggle with it, (to frown upon and oppoſe thoſe whom it before countenanced and careſſed,) and ſo continued, until by the power of the Army it was enforced to ſit down, but never to comply, (unleſs 'twere by taking the Engagement at laſt,) whereupon the Tongues and Pens of Sectaries were employed againſt none more than Presbyterians, (viz. becauſe they thought the prelatiſts more conſcientious adherers to Prelatical Principles than Presbyterians were to their dividing and diſſipating maxims.) And I ſhould be glad to hear of ſuch bitter Invectives of the Papiſts againſt the Prelatiſts. It ſeems the man hath neither ſeen nor heard of S. W's. Scripts againſt the Right Reverend Biſhop Bramhall, and the Reverend Dr. Hammond, or elſe he does not judge them bitter Invectives: but it had been too palpable hypocriſie (as well as a piece of high Ingratitude) for Jeſuits to have inveighed bitterly againſt our modern Presbyterians, who were ſo zealouſly imployed for ſeveral years together about Jeſuitical work, and who had ſo induſtriouſly acted the Powder-Traitors part, that they very effectually blew up both King and Parliament: and at the Iſle of Wight-Treaty were very buſie in deſtroying Kingly power, and in accompliſhing the deſign of Campanella and other Papiſts, viz. of changing our Monarchical Government into a Commonwealth-Form, by placing all the conſiderable Authority and prerogative, which before belonged to our Kings, in ſome Lords Temporal and Commons.

[And verily there's no greater bar againſt Fanaticiſm, than the right Presbyterian principles, as 1. not to ſever but joyn the written Word and Spirit for direction. 2. The Spirit and uſe of Ordinances for edification. 3. To erect a Stated Church-Order and Diſcipline. 4. To allow to the Church a directive, and to every Chriſtian a diſcretive judgment. 5. To inſiſt only upon Divine Scripture-warrant, and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion.] To which I anſwer briefly, That the four firſt of theſe (as he hath worded them in very general terms) are as much Prelatical as Presbyterian; nay, they are owned by Independents and Anabaptiſts as well as Presbyterians; and therefore if theſe Sects are Fanaticks, there muſt be ſome greater bar againſt Fanaticiſm than thoſe Principles. But the Fifth [To inſiſt only on Divine Scripture-warrant, and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion] is ſo looſely and crudely delivered, that 'tis rather the main Original of all Fanaticiſm than a bar againſt it; foraſmuch as the Religion of the moſt ſober Independents and Anabaptiſts, as alſo of Enthuſiaſts and Quakers, is founded upon this principle, all of them waving humane Authority, and inſiſting only on Scripture-dictates, and that Divine warrant which thence they plead for their modes, forms and opinions, for their walking according to the light connate with them, ſpringing up within them, or darted into them from above.

[But of all the prejudices and ſcandals (ſays this Author, p. 63. 73.) taken againſt this way, (Presbytery) there's none greater than this, that 'tis repreſented as Tyrannical and domineering, and that thoſe that live under it, muſt, like Iſſachar, crouch under the burden.]

A. It ſeems he thinks Tyrannical domineering over Inferiors to be a greater crime than diſobedience and rebellion againſt Superiors, or elſe he would have accounted their being repreſented as Rebels, a greater prejudice againſt presbyterians, than their being repreſented as domineering perſons: but he Apologizes for them, by retorting the charge on Prelatiſts, and telling us, that Presbytery is not more ſevere in cenſuring the breach of God's Commandments, than the Hierarchy in cenſuring the breach of their own Conſtitutions, which paſſage looks as if the man had a mind to inſinuate, that Presbyterian ſeverity is exerciſed only on the Tranſgreſſors of God's Commands, and Hierarchical ſeverity only on the offenders againſt Epiſcopal Conſtitutions. Whether he had ſuch an ugly meaning in thoſe words or no, I am not certain, though to him that conſiders the egregious partiality of this diſcourſe hitherto in favour of Presbyterians, 'twill be very probable he had. If he had (leaving him to prove the truth of them as to the Hierarchy,) I ſhall by and by make bold to diſprove them as to Presbytery.

In the mean time we'le paſs on to the next words. [Or is the offence taken upon pretence, that Presbyterians affect and arrogate an arbitrary power, would rule by Faction, and exerciſe a rigour to the ſtirring up of animoſities and unquiet humours?]

A. No; the offence is not taken upon pretence, as that's contradiſtinct to proof, but upon ſufficient evidence, that they are arrogant, factious perſons, and very prone to ſtir up and foment unquiet humours by their diſciplinarian rigour; and though the Nation generally hath not (through the mercy of Divine over-ruling providence) experimented that diſcipline, yet they ſay the Londoners had ſuch proof of it in a little time, as made them quite weary of Claſſical-lay-Elder-Tyranny. If the goodneſs of an Almighty power had not prevented it, we may well ſuppoſe that Presbytery would have proved as imperious and domineering here in England, as Biſhop Bramhall tells us, it was in Scotland. Towards particular perſons, ſays he, (Fair warning, chap. 11.) this Diſcipline is too full of rigour, like Draco's Laws, that were written in Bloud; in leſſer faults inflicting Church-cenſures upon ſlight grounds, as for an uncomely geſture, for avain word, for ſuſpicion of covetouſneſs or pride, for ſuperfluity in raiment, either for coſt or faſhion; for dancing at a wedding, or of ſervants in the streets; for wearing a man's hair a la mode—for uſing the leaſt recreation on the Sabbath, though void of ſcandal, and conſiſtent with the duties of the Day.—What digladiations have there been among ſome of their Sect about Starch and Cuffs? &c. juſt like thoſe grave debates which were ſometimes among the Franciſcans, about the colour and faſhion of their Gowns; they do not allow men a latitude of diſcretion in any thing. All men, even their Superiors, muſt be their Slaves or Pupils. It's true, they begin their cenſures with admonition; and if a man will confeſs himſelf a Delinquent, be ſorry for giving the Presbyters any offence, and conform himſelf in his hair, apparel, diet, every thing, to what theſe rough-hewn Cato's ſhall preſcribe, he may eſcape the Stool of Repentance, otherwiſe they will proceed againſt him for contumacy to excommunication. By this let the Reader judge, whether Presbyterians cenſure the breach of God's Commandments only; nay, whether they are not more ſevere than Prelacy, in cenſuring the breach of their own Conſtitutions. Where has God commanded men to abſtain from dancing? and yet Biſhop Bancroft (in his Survey, c. 26.) informs us, that Mr. Calvin hearing of that horrible ſin (forſooth) committed by certain perſons at Widow Balthaſar's houſe in Geneva, procured them all, both dancers and beholders, to be called before him and his Elders in the Conſiſtory. They denied the matter at firſt, whereupon Calvin judg'd it meet, that they ſhould be put to their Oaths, and ſo compelled to confeſs the Truth. (An Oath ex officio, it ſeems, is allowable at Geneva.) They excepted againſt that way of proceeding; and one Henriche a Minister, who did by way of ſuppoſition (if any ſuch dancing had been) take upon him to defend it, as not being a matter to keep ſuch a stir about, alledged the very ſame place that Cartwright did in the Conſiſtory of S. Paul's, and that which all the reſt of that brotherhood do commonly alledge, viz. Againſt an Elder receive not an accuſation, but under two or three witneſſes. Calvin laughs at this exception, and termed it a pleaſant jeſt, and for all this, ſworn they were, and ſo confeſſed the Fact, whereupon they were all caſt into priſon, Henriche was deprived of his Miniſtry, and one of the four Syndick • (or chief Magiſtrates) of the City (who had the ill luck, it ſeems, to be in the company) was removed from his office, till he had given ſome teſtimony of his Repentance. Other pretty circumſtances there are of this ſtory in that Chapter, to which I refer the Reader, and return to Biſhop Bramhall, who tells us, That the Scotch Diſciplinarians will by hook or crook bring all crimes whatever, both great and ſmall, within their Juriſdiction: that in greater crimes, trial for life is no ſufficient ſatisfaction to theſe third Cato's, that to ſatisfie their own humour they care not how they blemiſh publickly the reputation of the Magiſtrate upon frivolous conjectures. Add to this the ſeverity and extreme rigour of their Excommunication: after which ſentence no perſon (his Wife and Family only excepted) may have any kind of converſation with him that's Excommunicated: They may not eat, nor drink, nor buy, nor ſell with him: They may not ſalute him, nor speak to him, except by the licence of the Presbytery: His children begotten and born after that ſentence, and before his reconciliation to the Church, may not be admitted to Baptiſm, untill they be of Age to require it, or the Mother, or ſome ſpecial Friend, being a member of the Church, preſent the Child, abhorring and damning the iniquity and obſtinate contempt of the Father.—Ʋpon this Sentence Letters of Horning, as they uſe to call them in Scotland, do follow of courſe; that is, an out-lawing of the Party, a confiſcation of his goods, a putting him out of the Kings protection, ſo as any man may kill him and be unpuniſhed.—When a man is proſecuted for his life (perhaps juſtly, perhaps unjuſtly) ſo as appearing and hanging are to him in effect the ſame thing; yet if he appear not, this pitiful Church will Excommunicate him for contumacy; as if the juſt and evident fear of death did not purge away contumacy. And Chap. 12. he certifies us, That if their Diſcipline be admitted in England, the Nobility and Gentry ſhall not be exempted from theſe rigours,—but ſubjected to the Cenſures of a raw, heady Novice, and a few ignorant Artificers.—They ſhall be bearded and mated by every ordinary Presbyter.—It's nothing with them for a Pedant to put himſelf into the balance with one of the prime and moſt powerful Peers of the Realm.—Parents ſhall loſe the free diſpoſition of their own children in marriage, if the Child deſire an Husband or Wife, and the Parent refuſe to conſent, either for lack of goods, or if the other party is not of birth high enough.—Yea, Presbyteries will compel the wrong'd Parent to give that child as great a portion as any of his other children.—The common people ſhall have an high Commiſſion in every Pariſh, and groan under the arbitrary Decrees of ignorant, unexperienced Governours; who know no Law but their own wills; who obſerve no Order but what they liſt; from whom lies no appeal but to a Synod, which for the ſhortneſs of its continuance can afford, which for the condition of the Perſons will afford them little relief: Thus he. Whence 'tis evident enough that they who live under Scotch-Presbyterian-Diſcipline, (and that Diſcipline the Engliſh Covenanters ſwore to endeavour the Introduction and advancement of in this Nation; which it concerns us frequently to call to mind, that ſo the ſignal mercy manifeſted in blaſting thoſe endeavours may be the more magnified) muſt like Iſſachar crouch under a grievous burden, and either ſubmit their Necks to ſuch heavy yokes as imperious arrogance ſhall affect to lay upon them, or elſe reſolutely ſhake off thoſe yokes, by giving vent to thoſe animoſities and unquiet humours which will be ſtirred up in them by Presbyterian rigour: as the Scotch Shoomakers did who were moſt intereſſed in the Munday Markets at Edenburgh, which were upon a time aboliſht by a Kirk-Enactment, but they by their tumults and threatnings compelled the Miniſters to retract, whereupon it became a Jeſt in the City, that the Souters could obtain more at the Miniſters hands than the King. (Fair warning, Ch. 7.)

But there are remedies at hand, ſays our Author, to prevent the Abuſe of any Government that is of it ſelf lawful and laudable. Certainly the wiſdom of the King and Parliament, with the advice of grave Divines, may preſcribe ſure and certain Rules of Diſcipline.] A. Very true, But if I am not miſtaken, Presbyterians have a faculty of controlling and diſobeying the moſt certain Rules and commands of their Governours if not ſuitable to their own fancies and determinations. Biſhop Bramhall tells us in his 7. Chap. that the Kirk in Scotland aſſume a power to abrogate and invalidate Laws and Acts of Parliament, if they ſeem diſadvantagious to the Church. Church Aſſemblies (ſays one of their Books of Diſcipline) have power to abrogate and aboliſh all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Eccleſiaſtical matters that are found noyſome and unprofitable, and agree not with the times, or are abuſed by the people. The Acts of Parliament 1584. at the very ſame time that they were proclaimed, were proteſted againſt at the Market Croſs of Edenburgh by the Miniſters in the name of the Kirk of Scotland. The general Aſſembly of Glaſcow 1638. impugned Epiſcopacy, and Perth Articles although ratified by Acts of Parliament and ſtanding Laws then unrepealed. And if Presbytery ſhould chance to be eſtabliſhed in England by a Law, what ſhall aſſure us that Engliſh presbyterians alſo would not prove unruly and diſobedient Subjects againſt both King and Parliament that ſhall preſcribe any Rule to them in order to the preventing of their arrogant Tyranny? Not their Oaths, unleſs they had kept thoſe of Supremacy, Allegiance, and Canonical obedience better. But this Author has another remedy.

[Moreover, quoth he, to cut off all occaſions and prevent all appearance of domineering, all political coercive juriſdiction in matters of Religion may be withheld (if need require) from Eccleſiaſtical Perſons, and that meer ſpiritual power alone (by which he means Admonition and Excommunication) may be left to their management.] The man ſure would perſwade us that (he thinks) there can be no occaſion of domineering afforded by the granting, nor appearance of it in the exerciſe of power meerly ſpiritual, and then there is ſome hopes that he is not in the number of thoſe who imagine that the Prelates heretofore did Tyrannically abuſe that power. But for all this he is unwilling that Presbyterians ſhould have only ſpiritual power at their command, and be wholly deveſted of political, and therefore what he takes away with one hand, he gives with the other in the following words.

[And becauſe ſpiritual cenſures appertaining only to the Conſcience may be too little regarded when no temporal damage is annext unto them, there may be a collateral, civil power always preſent in Eccleſiaſtical meetings, to take cognizance of all cauſes therein debated and adjudged in order to temporal penalties.] From which words we may gather, 1. That the man is loth that all occaſion of domineering ſhould be cut off from Presbyterians, and all appearance of it prevented. 2. That he can well enough digeſt prelatical power, and as many Eccleſiaſtical Courts in a County as there are Eccleſiaſtical meetings, if ſo be Presbyterian Prieſts and Lay-Elders may have the management of that power and ſit as Judges in thoſe Courts; which is another indication that ambitious affections (rather than an impartial judgment) make presbyterians exclaim ſo much againſt Prelacy; viz. becauſe they are not allowed to exerciſe that dominion themſelves which they condemn in others as Tyrannical.

[ Ʋpon the whole matter, ſays he, aforegoing we firmly build this poſition, That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Juſtice or Reaſon of State to be rejected and depreſſed, but ought to be protected and encouraged.]

And upon the anſwer to that matter contained in theſe Papers, I firmly build this contradictory Poſition, That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Juſtice or Reaſon of State to be protected and (much leſs) encouraged, but to be rejected and depreſſed; unleſs they will renounce the practiſes and principles here objected and laid to their charge; and will diſclaim that Covenant, which otherwiſe will engage them in ſuch turbulent and ſeditious practices, as can never be juſtified but by ſuch rebellious Principles.