HEre's my Sermon, now where's my sin? What's my Charge with which I have been so (I cannot say whether more) igno­rantly or maliciously traduced: why its three-fold; I have preacht against the King, and the coming in of the King: So some, My whole Sermon drives at this; The coming in of the King would bring in prophanenesse; so others. A third sort say, I am angry. Now to answer to these distinctly. And first, I have preacht against the King, and his coming in, I ask wherein? how doth that appear? I will come as close and as speedily as I can to my Charge, I mean to that part of my Sermon from whence they might suppose me crimi­nous. I shall therefore passe over almost one halfe of it, for that was but by way of Explication: And it concern'd others, Israel. That troubles not, no preaching at a distance, and speaking of o­ther mens faults, and reproving them, that bites not, as much as you will of that: But this home-preaching, and treading too close upon our heels, This gauls, this vexes this troubles us. Why, what's the matter? what's the matter? Did not you say. That because by our sins we had left God, therefore God had left us? And did you not say, That our Kings and our Princes heretofore, and our [Page 15] Princely Priests and Bishops had been as snares upon Mizpah, and as nots upon Tabor (their high places and great offices). And how have they not rag'd and tyranniz'd, &c. And did you not beseech us, that we should not let the apprehensions of our present greater sufferings, cause us altogether to forget our former iniquities? And did you not advise us, that upon that day of our solemn Humilia­tion, wherein we sought to God for settlement, that we should not forget the cause and ground of our unsettlement? Here's enough to answer at once and together, and I think this is my greatest charge. And now what of all this? Let me ask you by your cavilling a­gainst this, Don't you discover your ignorance? Is it not plain you are not acquainted with the Scripture? Or that you take no notice, or understand not what you read, or hear? That you are meer stran­gers to the nature and manner of a true Fast? Is not a fasting day (especially publique, generall, and such solemn Fast dayes) a day wherein to humble our soules before the Lord by a hearty, sincere, and impartiall confession and acknowledgement of all our sinnes? And being a generall day of Humiliation through the whole Land, to confesse and be humbled for the sins of the whole Land in general. And in such a day are not the sins both of Princes and People both past and present to be remembred and acknowledged? And that not onely in generall termes (which is mostly slight and overly) but punctually and particularly, of those sins they were guilty of, and lay under. This is (if you know not, as it seems you do not) for your better information and (as I desire) Reformation; Do but read the instances of the Solemn Fasts recorded in Scripture, and you will be wiser hereafter. I reser you for this more particularly to those three most Solemn Fasts which are there recorded, Ezra 9. Nehem. 9. and Dan. 9. And see and observe the manner of the ce­lebration, and whether their particular sins were not enumerated, confessed and bewailed. And had we of this Land and Nation no sins to be remembred? to be confessed? Are you so forgetfull? or were you ignorant of them? Are we not unsetled? Are not our foundations of government overturned? Do not the pillars of the Nation tremble? Is it not a Judgement? Do I not say so much? And what were there no sins that are the causes of it? Do such great, and heavy, and generall judgements befall a Nation (both King, Princes, Priests and People) without sin procuring them? you dare not say so? And were there no sins in England but the sins of the people? What was the Popish Match? and the building of Houses [Page 16] and Chappels thereupon for Idolatrous and superstitious worship? What was the countenancing and exercise of that false worship, e­ven in the Kings own dwelling? And were not our Communion-Tables turn'd into Altars, with superstitious cringings and bow­ings towards them? and in some places wax Tapers set upon those Altars? and second Service (which the people could not [...]) there performed? How was the zealous profession of Religion (un­der the nickname of Puritanisme) discountenanced and disgraced? How did the Court-Bishops (especially the Bishop of Canterbury, Dr. Laud) vex, perplex, and ruine men in their High Commis­sion Court, and Star-Chamber? How would drunken and prophane Ministers (if but zealous for Ceremonies) give the checke to (and up­on the least occasion) trouble and sue the best Knights and Gentle­men in the Country even for trifles, and be therein upheld and coun­tenanced by those Court-Bishops; Insomuch, that when the Knights and Gentlemen were assembled in Parliament, and had op­portunity to be revenged upon them, they ding'd them quite down without mercy or consideration.

I need not tell you what courses were taken that the King might be maintained without Parliaments, and so with out the love of his Subjects, and rednesse of their grievances, I could name much, more; you that liv'd in those times, and were able make obser­vation know it. If you don't, others do. And are not these grounds of unsettlement? And upon a special solemn Fast (such a one as this especially) wherein we sought to God for establishment and settle­ment) would it not be proper, that these things and such the like might and should have been remembred and mentioned, the more to consternate our spirits, and promote our humiliation: But you see I did not, I lightly past it over in Generals.

Oh! But you said, since those three eminent persons, professors of those three most noble Professions, Divinity, Law, and Phy­sicke suffered upon the Pillory like Rogues and Cutpurses in such an opprobrious and disgraceful manner. That the K. and his party never prospered, did I say so? and did I not say true? Did not their Cause go every day backward? I say, their Cause, the King and Bishops, for they I meant, I put them both together. There is a saying, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum: And every man that was acquainted with the Transactions of those Times, cannot but acknowledge, that that was the source of all our miseries: So dangerous a thing is it for Clergy-men to leave their Calling, and [Page 17] turn Courtiers. Men whose riches lie in their heads, will be al­wayes tampering. 'Tis good therefore they be kept to their proper businesse.

For say, was it not a pretence of conformity and uniformity in Religion that began all our quarrell? Not that I think an Ʋnifor­mity an evil (what ever others say) but rather a good, and by all good wayes to be endeavoured, and I suppose till then we shall not be well setled: And sure the quarrell began there, I could wish the settlement began there; For upon true judgement I speak it, though it be a shame and a matter of sadnesse: Most of the troubles and combustions in Civil States have been either begun or fomented by men of our profession, I mean of the Clergy, and was it not so with us? Our first War intended, was it not against the Scots? and wherefore was it? who began it? Was it not called generally Bellum Episcopale, the Bishops War, I put the King and Bishops together, with respect to this: The Bishop could not begin a War (I mean arm the people) without a King. And the Bishop having so great a power and influence upon the King, prevail'd with him to raise Armes against them (the Scots.) And the immediate Prodromus and forerunner of this War, was it not the most horrid and reproachful standing of these eminent persons upon the Pillory? I do professe (the persons, and every thing considered) it was the saddest sight (next to the Kings beheading) that ever (especially for many gene­rations) was seen in England. I saw not the latter, but I did the for­mer. And I well remember Mr. Burtons words when upon the Pil­lory; Marke it (says he) little do we know what this dry tree (point­ing to the Pillory) may bring forth. And speedily after, the next news from Scotland was; If the Englishman loose his lugg, the Scot would lose his cragg, meaning against the rage and tyranny of the Bishop: For having dealt thus barbarously with these three so emi­nent persons, he then thought the terrour thereof would have daun­ted and cowed the Scottish Nation, when as this did but heighten their indignation, and raise greater opposition against him.

Yea, but were not the Scots too blame in this matter? It may be so, but I know it not, for I am not acquainted with the Laws, Rights, and Constitutions of their Kingdom, and therfore I say no more to it. But I ask this question; Was their not entertaining Episcopal Go­vernment, and the Service-book a sufficient ground to embroil two Nations, two Christian Nations in War, to shed the blood one of another? And if (for conformities sake with England) Scotland [Page 18] must have a Service-Book, why could not our own English Service-Book serve the turn? but there must be divers alterations, more conform to Romes language, then in our own Liturgie; of which Mr. Prins Book to that purpose can give you information. But the Scots abhorrid it as Swines flesh, and it would not down with them. And no doubt, could they have been beaten into it, to have dined on it, we should have been forced to have supt on it with them. But hereupon, on goes the War against them. And how well this Holy War was like to succeed, you may guess by the beginning; for even those rude and ignorant Souldiers, who were led against the Scots, to kill them into conformity, in our own Countrey (as they past along towards Scotland (in despight of their Commanders) broke into divers Churches, pull'd down and burnt the rails about the Communion Table, and tore the Surplices, and the Common-Prayer Books: These things were notorious, & not done in a corner. It would be too much beyond my de sign to men­tion all that followed: Plain it was, nothing prospered after. And is this now such a hainous offence to say so? Or was it not rather a matter to be acknowledged as a sin, to be confest, and for which deeply to be humbled, and to repent of? I might have mentioned the cruel usage of Dr. Layfield, who at the instigation of the Bi­shop, after a long imprisonment in the Fleet, was whipt from thence to Westminister, where raw (as he was) he stood upon the Pillory, his nostrils slit, and burnt in the cheeks or forehead. But did I charge this evil, or any other, upon the King, as the cause either of his or our suffering? Nay, did I not disclaim that bold presum­ption, in the words even immediately foregoing, saying, Whe­ther's sins were greater (ours, or our Princes) God the Judge best knows: For what am I, that I should step into his chair. This I concluded on, and I think none can deny it, If our sins had not been universal, the judgement would not have been so general? And I do profess, I dare not judge the Kings sins to be greater then the peoples, because he drank deeper in the judgement: But if I had charged the sin of the King upon himself, or his Father, why should these men pretend to be so angry? it would not have been to reproach him, or triumph over him, but to have been humbled with him, and for him (as well as for our selves) for our pardon, re­formation and amendment: So that I hope this is not to speak against the King, or his coming in.

And I suppose, they will not shew themselves (my Reproachers, [Page 19] I mean) so ignorant or sottish as to say, That I spake against the King (or his coming in) by telling them, that their Wickedness might be a means to destroy both him and them: For which I quoted that place, 1 Sam. 12.19. and so on: Much less, did I speak against the King, in advising them to be more careful to bring King Jesus into their hearts, then King Charls to the Throne; and telling them, That they may be undone with him, yea, and by him, both temporally and eternally: But that King Jesus will assuredly save them, if he rule over them. I hope you will not say this is a crime? if you do, the Lord make you wiser. And this I think is all you have to charge me with in this matter; and how wisely, justly, cha­ritably, Christianly, let all wise men judge. Confident I am, what I delivered, might have been spoken even in the Kings presence, and he would not have been offended: What would these captious hearers have said, had I used such plain language as was spo­ken unto him at his Coronation, in the Coronation Sermon? Coronation Sermō preacht at Scoon, Ian. 1651. by Mr. Rob. Douglas. Printed at A­berdeen, 1660. That his Father set himself in a hostile way, to overthrow Religion, Parliaments, Laws, and Liberties; and in page 27. of the same Sermon, they charge his Grandfather King James with foul defecti­on; and that he peresecuted faithful Ministers, and that he laid the foundation whereupon his Son (our late King (says he) did build much mischief to Religion, all the days of his life. And he tells him, that the guiltiness of the transgression lies upon the Throne and Family; and that is one of the sins for which he had professed humiliation very lately, and advises him to take warning. And in his Exhortation to the King, page 32. he tells him, There is too much iniquity upon the Throne by his Predecessors, who framed mischief by a Law: such Laws as have been destructive to Re­ligion, grievous to Gods people. and page 36. he may say it freely, That chief cause of the judgement upon the Kings House, hath been his Grandfathers breach of Covenant with God; and his Fathers following his steps, in opposing the work of God, and his Kirk, within these Kingdoms. He says, They have broken the Covenant with God, and men have broken Covenant with them. Most cruelly and perfi­diously (says he) they have invaded the Royal Family, and trod­den upon all Princely Dignity: And therefore charges him in Christs name, not to break Covenant; if he do, he assures him, The Controversie is not ended between God and his Family, but it will be carried on to further weakning if not to the utter overthrow of it. Here's plain dealing, now what would our men have said to this [Page 20] matter? Surely never a villain in England would have preached such a Sermon: and yet such foolish sots have we in England, to say so of a Sermon that hath none of all this (nor any thing like) in it.

But now Sirs, to convince you of your perverseness, and to let you see, how like you are to those noxious creatures (the Flies) that flie-blow wholsome meat, so are you. It is usuall with them, if there be any bruised place, they are sure to light upon that first, and there to sucke and feed themselves: But if there be none, they flie-blow so long, till they have made it fit for their purpose: So do you flie-blow discourses. For whereas you charge me to be a­gainst the King, and his coming in, did I not say, It was a judge­ment that we were removed from our ancient foundations? And what could I mean, or did I mean? But the changing our government. And did I not quote that place, Isay 3. to the end of vers. 8. as a dreadfull judgement most sadly fallen upon us? And did I not af­terwards say; That as we had been under that curse and judgement, so we might see that blessed morning promised to Gods people, in the same Prophet, Chap. 1. ver. 25, 26, 27. Do but read the pla­ces, and let any man say what could be thence intended? And did I not pray for the hastning of that happy morning? And when I quoted that place in 1 Sam. 12.19. to the end, did I not in express words say, That that place in all things did not run parallel with our condition? But that in something it was pertinent to my pur­pose; which was in the later part onely, in that the peoples wicked­ness would destroy themselves, the King, and Kingdome? And did I not in plain words say, That that portion of Scripture held not pa­rallell in that very particular, in that it was said they sin'd in desi­ring a King? with more to that purpose, as you may see in the Sermon. And did I not say, That if it were the late Kings own sins, (which I did not, nor dare I determine) that brought that judgment upon him, it was not just in them who did it. And when I advised you to be more careful to bring King Jesus into your hearts; then King Charles into the Throne, did I not expresly, and in these sig­nificant words say; That the one was not opposite, contradictory, or destructive to the other? But onely that King Jesus was to be pre­fer'd before him? And that if he (King Charles) be minded to rule for him, and under him; did I not say, If God and the great Council see it fit, let him come and welcome? Well, the Lord forgive you, and make you wiser, and more discreet and bonest. And I cannot [Page 21] passe by, but must reprove you for one most abominable lie of some of you; That I should pray in my Prayer, That as the Lord had de­livered us from one Devill, so he would deliver us from another; and that hereby I did mean the King. Good Lord! what a lying malicious Devill hath possest these people. No, these and such like prophane and ungodly wretches in an humane shape are the Devils I prayed against. I prayd, That as the Lord had graciously in a good measure delivered us from the devil of Hersie and blasphemie, so that he would also keep us and deliver us from the Devil of prophanenesse: And the God to whom I prayed knows, that these ungodly wretches are all the Devils I prayed against, and no other; not having any thought, apprehension, or imagination of the King in this particular. And so much to my first charge.

2 Now for my second, in which I shall be brief. My Sermon, say some, drove all at this, The bringing in of the King would bring in all prophanesse; But did I any where say so? Truly I needed not, Prophanesse is in already in the Nation; nor did I thinke the King would bring it in, and I hope he never will. But this I think, all the ungodly and prophane people in the Nation have a very great and strong desire of the Kings coming in, as hoping to have as much liberty to be prophane, and to exercise it, as they had before. Oh! how hath the Parliament Acts and Ordinances hampered and chained, and fettered these beasts; They cannot swear, or be drunk but they must pay for't. Taverns, Innes, and Ale-house must be shut on the Lords day, all day long, that they cannot tipple, & be drunk. They must not walke in the streets nor in the fields on that day under a penalty, and many of them have been sued and indicted for it, and the like. And oh! How like wilde Buls in a net, have they fretted, and vext, and raved at it? Oh! that blessed book (think they) that most excellent book for sports on the Sabboth; That was a good, a blessed, a merry time with us. These people are like those, Jer. 44.16,17,18. As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee: But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the Queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our Kings and our princes in the Cities of Iudah, and streets of Ierusalem: For then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evill. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, &c. we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword, and by the famine. [Page 22] Well sirs, think as you will; For my part I thinke that accursed book was none of the least provocations that drew down the judge­ments of God upon the Nation. And yet how glad would many be of this licentious liberty re-introduced: And oh! for some good Court Bishops to help us in this particular against the Round-heads, and these puritanical Presbyterians.

Beloved Reader, I charge this upon the Court Bishops onely; For confident I am, there were many good and godly Bishops in the Nation who abhorred that execrable thing, and yet this is the thing these miserable wretches look for. And here let me not be mistaken, or mis-reported, as if I thought that none but prophane and god­lesse persons look and long for the Kings coming. No, far be it from my soul; For I am assured there are many godly and honest hearts, sober and discreet persons who earnestly desire it, and would be glad to see it, But as for prophane and ungodly persons, (drunkards swearers, whoremongers, Sabboth-breakers, despisers of Religion and godlinesse in the power of it) upon what good account can they de­sire him, I leave it to any reasonable man to judge. Do they desire it either for the Kings good, or their own good, certainly no? But they are sure, if one party (whom they how hate) should pre­vail, they shall still walke in their chains and fetters; but from an­other they hope (at least) for freedome. And should they be ham­pered and restrained by that other, they would hate both alike. For 'tis not this person or that person, this party or that, which is the quarrel or offence. But the old enmity of opposition and hatred between the two seeds of godly and ungodly. And if the King be, as by some he is reported, (which God grant) godly, and shall shew it by his curbing their wickednesse, they will not like him long, but would be weary of him. And clearly the observati­on and information of their prophanesse the last Fast day, is to me (yea, and to any considering person) a sufficient argument of their ungodlinesse: and these onely are the men I spoke of, and desired to consider the vanity of their expectations. That (if it had been the will of God) I might have been instrumental to undeceive but some one of them, and see how they requite me for my labour! But I shall not lose it.

And truly, although these be the persons I chiefly aym at (as most worthy of reprehension: Yet since I am now discharging my conscience in this way (of writing) which I think not to do again. I would beg leave to advise some of our more civill and moderate op­ponents [Page 23] in one particular. 'Tis too easie and familiar with many of you (upon the least provocation, sometimes without it) to return upon us, with the word Presbyterian by way of reproach as a Nick­name, and to inveigh against Presbytery: But Sirs, do you under­stand what you do? It's true, the Bishops have a long time kept the name (and thing) in a kind of silence under hatches. But will you (without passion and partiality, and as in the presence of God (for so I desire to deale with you) be informed in the truth? Then I must tell you this one thing, the Scripture speaks more of, and for Presbyters then Bishops Not that I bring this as an argument to prove Presbytery to be more sacred then Episcopacy; For I thinke them both so alike, and I intend not to handle that controversie. My designe is, to let you know (if the Scripture may rule you) you may as well speak scornfully of Bishops as Presbyters; and of Epis­copacy, as of Presbytery; For I tell you again, the Scripture makes oftner mention of Presbyters then Bishops. Now for your informa­tion, and to clear this to you, you must know, that the word pres­byter (though we by use make it English) is a Greek word, which we in our English Bibles have always translated by the word Elder. It comes from [...], Senex, one that's old. And [...], is Se­nior, one that's Elder. And this word is used in Scripture sometimes in a naturall sense, to signifie one elder in age: and sometimes in an ecclesiastical sense, for an Officer in the Church of Christ. Now it was my purpose to have examined all the places in the Greek Testament where the word Presbyter is used, and to have observed how ma­ny times it was used in an ecclesiastical sence, signifying a Church-Officer: But the day before the writing hereof, there came very happily to my hand a Book lately published by one, whose other workes praise him in the gate, and this not a little, scil. Mr. George Lawson, Politica Sacra, which saves me some labour, which I am willing to embrace at this time for hast-sake, especially from such an Author. And he tells me page 139. of that Book, that he finds the word Presbyter in an ecclesiastical sence and notion about six­teen times in the New Testament. And now as for the word [...], which is sometimes translated an Overseer (as Acts 20.28.) and sometimes a Bishop, I could quickly number them, for 'tis but five times used: and one of them is spoken not of an ordinary Church-officer, but of our Lord Christ Jesus, 1 Pet. 2.25.

So that I say the Scripture makes more use, and more often men­tion of the word Presbyter then Bishop, and therefore not so to be [Page 24] slighted and reproached, or to be used as a terme of disgrace to any man, unlesse you have a mind to disgrace the Scripture which thus honours Presbyters and Presbyterians above Bishoips. Yea, but Bi­shops are above them; How know you that? They were so, and so have a long time; that's true. But did the Scripture put them there? Good sirs let no man be angry with me, if I express my mind freely. I mean not to make a quarrel of it, nor contend with any man about it, for I have better work to do; then nodum in scirpo quaerere. But where doth the Scripture put a Bishop above a Presbyter? Let any man in the world shew me the place, Shall I ask you one thing? According to the usuall apprehension, and among us in England, what was the office and businesse of a Bishop? And what is the office and business of a Presbyter? You'l say, the office of a Bishop was to rule and govern, for so they did. And the office of a Presbyter or El­der is to teach and feed the Flock. But now, doth the Scripture thus distinguish and put a difference? No, but if there be any to be found there, 'tis on the other side the leaf, That puts the honour of ruling upon the Presbyters (the Elders) and the businesse of tea­ching and feeding upon the Overseers, the Bishops. 1 Tim. 5.17. The Elders ( [...], the Presbyters) that rule well are worthy of double honour. And the Apostle in Acts 20. puts the businesse of feeding (one part whereof is teaching) upon Bishops. For vers. 28. Take heed (sayes he) unto your selves, and to all the flocke over which the holy Ghost hath made you ( [...]) Bishops (so in the Greek) to feed the Church of God. See here, you are made Bishops to feed. El­ders to rule, and Bishops to feed. So that by this it seems in the Apo­stles times the Bishop was not the better man. But beloved, are you willing to know the truth? and wil you not kick against it, when 'tis laid plainly before you? Why then know, that then (in the A­postles time) Presbyter and Bishop were all one. And that (as the before-commended Mr. Lawson hath it) whatsoever some of late have said to the contrary, Presbyter and Bishop were onely two different words, signifying the same Officer. And for evidence undenyable, do but read the 17. verse of that Chapter (Acts 20.) and there you shall finde who those persons are whom he calls Bishops or Over­seers, even the Presbyters (the Elders) of the Church of Ephesus, put both together, and it runs clearly thus. St. Paul said to the pres­byters (or Elders) of the Church of Ephesus, Feed the flocke of God, over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. I wonder why our last Translators of the Bible did not render it (Bishop) here, but [Page 25] [Overseer] which they have not done in any other place where this word is used. But I know the mysterie, and I could give you some account, as I have been credibly informed.

But to be short, compare 1 Tim. 3.1,2,3, &c. with Titus 1.5,6,7, &c. and you shall finde the qualifications of a Bishop, and of an Elder (or Presbyter) to be the same. And in that place to Titus, if you compare in 5. verse and the 7th. you shall finde the Apostle using Elder and Bishop as synonimous, signifying the same. This is plain, the Apostles themselves were not the onely Bishops even in the Apostles times.

And to close all in this particular, let that place 1 Pet. 5. begin­ning be considered, where St. Peter writing to the severall Chur­ches (as appears Chap. 1.1.) in that 5th. Chap. he exhorts the Pres­byters (or Eldrs) to a faithfull discharge of their duty (which is a diligent feeding their Flock, without lording it over them) much lesse over their fellow Elders, vers. 2, 3. of which he professes him­selfe to be one in vers. 1. The Elders (or Presbyters, [...]) which are among you, I exhort, who am ( [...] also a Pres­byter (or Elder) a fellow-Presbyter, or a Presbyter together with you Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, so we read it; but in the Greek it is [...], playing the Bishops, or doing the work or businesse of Bishops. So that then, Bishop and Presbyter, both name and thing, Title and employment was all one, without any domination according to the rule and Canon of their Lord and Master, Mar. 10.42. where a request having been made in the behalf of some of his Disciples for domination, he calls them to him, and sayes, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over Gentiles (or Heathens) exercise Lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them: But so it shall not be among you, &c.

Much more might be said, and is said by others in this matter. And if any desire further information & satisfaction herein, let them (without prejudice) read Mr. Baxters five Disputations of Church-government and worship, and there they shall finde these things plain­ly and truly stated and discussed.

What then (will some say) you would have all leveld and equal. And you would have every Minister (every Presbyter) a Pope, to domineer and Lord it in his own Parish? Friends, be not too hasty, I do not say so, nor would I have it so. I would not have all equall, all are not fit for every thing. I am not of their opinion who say, all [Page 26] things requisite to government and discipline in the Church are fully contained (I mean punctually and particularly) in Scripture. Nor do those who say so, make it good in their practice, nor can they. And I say further; That opinion hath been the mother and nurse of much schisme and faction, I grant that much here must be left to prudence, and that not of single or particular Pastors, Presbyters, or Bishops; but to the consideration and determination of the most godly, learned, grave, and able in the Nation, to which I would have all to conform. If any like it not, they are at their liberty. Ʋnity and order is more precious, then to be destroyed for the satis­faction of such as will never be satisfied, as not well knowing their owne mindes. And as for Lordly dominion, and Poping it in our Parishes, I do professe I do abhor it under every form. I as much adhominate a lording Presbyter, as a lording Bishop; no name, ti­tle, or pretext whatsoever gives us any such authority: And I would begge (as I do desire) that we might be kept to that which shall appear to be our proper businesse; which if those of our pro­fession had been, England had not been in so sad a condition as it is this day. I like not the Scotch Stool of Repentance, nor would I have excommunicate persons driven into the Church again by the secular power: As by Writs de excommunicato capiendo, or the like. It may force men to an hypocritical acknowledgment of some kinde of penitence, but it cannot produce true repentance. I would have Church-censures, reach no further, nor cut any deep­er then their spiritual sword will penetrate. I approve not rigid compulsions by the arme of flesh, in such things which are the onely work of the spirit; as is true and unfeigned repentance. Of which, if people by constraint make a feigned profession, it doth but harden them in their sin, and make them impudent; which (as I have been credibly informed) is too manifest in some places of the world, not­withstanding the strictnesse of their discipline. I would have Church affairs (in this respect) so managed, as if the Civil Magistrate were no friend to Religion, farther then that those who professe it, and live peaceably, may be protected by him from outward violence.

No, let the beauty, excellency, benefit and necessity of the com­munion of the Church, with the priviledges thereof be clearly layd open to the people. Let the hazard, danger, and mischief of just excommunication be declared and urged upon them. And let all Christians with draw all countenance and unnecessary lessowship and society from them, according to the Scriptures. And if the [Page 27] sense, shame, and grief thereof (with other such considerations, (set on by the spirit of God) will not humble them: Let them alone till the Lord cometh.

But then, I would not have those who are by just excommuni­cation cast out of one Church or Congregation, received in into another, for this were the way to make Conventicles of Hereticks, Schismaticks, blasphemers, and all manner of prophane and ungod­ly ones: And in this I conceive the Civill Magistrate is much con­cern'd (especially being a Christian) For 'tis found too true by sad experience, that factions in the Church beget fractions in the State. And therefore my soul longs for such a happy day, wherein by the favourable aspect of Christian Magistrates, all wayes of faction, se­paration and division may be fore-cluded: And if men be otherwise minded, let them sit still and be quiet. Or if they will be doing, it were good if they would go and gather Churches among the hea­then, and not intrude themselves into other mens labours.

This which I have now declared, was and is onely to allay the heat of those mens stomacks, who (being altogether ignorant of what the Scripture hath and saith in the behalf of Presbyters and Presbyteri­ans) do so slight and vilifie them, as to make the name and thing a reproach unto them. You may as well call a man prick-eard Chri­stian, as prick-ear'd Presbyterian: And I have done this to give you timely warning, and to prevent your prophanesse. If you will not leave it, know, however you scorn them, the Scripture honours them; and take heed of kicking against the pricks: Your prophanesse is that I complain of, and if you will go on, Dominus venit.

And now I have one thing more to speak to, and then manum de tabula; and it is to fore-warn (or rather after-warn you (for it hath been too long practised) of another evill: and that is, reproaching zealous, home and plain, down-right preaching, with the odious names of passion, anger, and railing. And let me tell you, this is no other then Sathans subtlety to render our preaching unto you unpro­fitable, and ineffectual. We confess we are men subject to passion (yea and sinfull passion) as others are.Iam. 5.17. Instances might be given from Scripture of the Lords most precious Saints and servants in this sad particular. But what then? Is plain and home, and down-right preaching passion and railing? Take heed of that. Nay, is it not lawful sometimes to be angry and in passion? Eph. 4.26. Be angry and sin not. A man may be angry, and not sin. Nay, 'tis a sin not to be angry sometimes. Is not the Lord himselfe said sometimes to be [Page 28] angry? And can he sin? It's true, St. Paul would not have a Bishop (or Presbyter) soon angry; Tit. 1.7. not suddenly, lightly, hastily. But doth that infer he should not be angry at all? Nay rather, doth it not infer the contrary? He may, he must be sometimes angry? Would you be drunke, and swear, and curse, and prophane Gods Sabboths, and hate and scorn strict profession of Religion, and openly declare your enmity, and shall not (must not) we be angry? Must we not re­prove you sharply, cuttingly? So the word properly signifies ( [...]) I'le tell you sirs, That which you call anger, and passion, and railing, is in Scripture call'd zeale. Tit. 1.13.

I could be large in this particular: but there is so much in this kind done to my hand already by a worthy and reverend brother, and that in print, in a little book, called Elias Abatement, or Corruption in the Saints; Being a Sermon preached by Mr. Thomas Case at the Funerals of a godly Minister, (one Mr. Gualter Roswel) I say this be­ing so excellently and fully done to my hand, I shall forbear the fur­ther prosecution from my own thoughts. Onely because every one hath not that Book; and some may meet with this, who possibly may never meet with that: And for that prejudice against Ministers upon this account, is so great a mischief to them, especially to their people (being as I said) a device of Sathan to hinder the entertain­ment of their Doctrine) I shall take so much pains as to lay before you some of that which that Reverend Author hath to this purpose, and which he did in vindication of that deceased brother, who it seems was changed to be a man passionate and cholerick.

In the first place he confesses; he was a man in whom the black a­dust humour of choler had predominance in his natural constitution, (and who can help that?) And he sayes, that many times gave a tin­cture to his discourse and actions; which standers by, more censori­ous then candid, interpreted to his unjust prejudice. Then he gives him a high commendation for his eminent gifts, parts, and abilities, comparing him (in his measure) to Elias, and John the Baptist, in many things. Amongst others he says his Ministery was a thundring Ministery: and I would to God (sayes he) we had more of them, there is need of them. And because tis so good and pertinent, take more. Thunder (says he) purgeth the air: And if so, we have need of more such sons of Thunder amongst us, and not such as will sing Placentia unto people: Sow pillows under their elbows, and sing men to Hell with sweet Lullabies of peace, peace, when there is no peace. Our air is pestilentiously infectious in the sense of our spiri­tuall [Page 29] Physitians, and our Climate is mortally infected with the pests of heresies and blasphemies, and with the putrid stench of all manner of poysonous lusts, which is the fatall source of all our plagues both in Church and State: and this our precious brother (saith he) was deeply sensible of: And hence it was that his spirit was warmed with­in him to a more then ordinary degree of zeal in his Ministery.

And he says his courage was rival with his zeal, he feared not the face of any man, but would boldly reprove (as Elias) even the high­est. In all the Changes that went over his head, in all the Contro­versies of the times, wherein he exercised his Ministry, he was a most strenuous assertor of the Truth, and a most couragious opposer of errour and innoviation: and that even, while some higher then others by head and shoulders (in their own eyes) did basely and unworthily betray their cause, he feared not the face of man, in the cause of Je­sus Christ: He durst tell the greatest person he had to do with of their faults, upon just occasion in the worst of Times. He was a hammer to beat down error and blasphemy, where-ever it met him. He could not bear with them that preacht down Paedobaptisme, the Christian Sabboth, Universities, Schools of Learning, Ordination, and other ordinances and institutions of Jesus Christ; 2 Tim. 4.3. as it was pro­phesied, that some would not endure sound Doctrine, so he would not endure unsound Doctrine. He sayes, he could not bear with se­ducers, nor they with him, so that by this means he became a man of contention. And yet he commends him for a man of a tender spirit, mortified to the world, free and liberall, much in fasting and prayer.

And yet he sayes, he had his share in the persecution of the Times wherein he lived, from his very first entrance upon his Ministery, according to the prophesie of our Saviour, Mat. 5.11,12. And tru­ly says he, It had been a wonder if he should have escap't it. For (as our Lord subjoyns the reason to his prediction of the Apostles suf­ferings, ver. 13.) his Ministry was salt. He was salt in his life, and salt in his doctrine: Not onely savoury, but quicke and corroding, smart and searching, which corrupt times, and ulcer'd consciences could not bear, 2 Tim. 4.3.

And this says he inrag'd & inflam'd the spirits of unsound men, and raised much trouble and persecution against him, wheresoever he came, which occasioned him often to flit from one place to another, to avoid the fury of unreasonable men. And he sayes, other of Gods saithful Ministers have had their share with him in this kind of perse­cution, [Page 30] Matth. 10.23. The world cannot bear the plain-dealing of Gospel-Ministers. None so hated as the reprover in the gate, Amos 5.10. They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.

And now, as to the thing it self (which some call anger and passi­on, but indeed is zeal and faithfulness) I cannot leave till I give you in, what this Reverend man hath to that purpose, and it's hugely con­siderable and advantagious. He asserts, That the affection of anger rightely qualified, and managed, is of singular use and advantage in the life and worke of a Christian, especially of a Minister of the Gospel; which ought in no wise to be branded with the usual scandal of cho­ler and passion. They are his words all.

I make no question (sayes he) the false prophets, and their sedu­ced proselytes, stuck not to blast the holy Prophet (he means Elias) in my Text, with the same reproach, a furious man, a man of an in­temperate and unbridled spirit, that valued not mens lives, but in his anger would not stick to call downe fire from heaven to destroy an hundred men at a time, &c.

But saith he, let me mind you of this in the general. The passion of anger, with other affections in nature, at what time the person in whom they are is regenerate, they do change their nature, & become regenerate too. And being baptized with the blood and spirit of Je­sus Christ, they receive divine impressions, and so passe into the cata­logue of gracious affections and dispositions, and become instruments of exceeding honour and service in the hand of Jesus Christ, who is pleased to make use of them in his own work.

And then instances in divers; and among the rest, Passion (saith he) born again of water and the spirit, becometh the grace of zeale, and holy jealousie for God, and for the interest of Jesus Christ.

Anger sanctified is that to the affections, which edge is to the in­strument, which varnish is to colours, which winde is to the sails of a Ship. Judgement is the ballast, but zeal is the full gale. It is as met­tle to the horse. It is the activity of every grace, every affection red hot for Jesus Christ, which much water cannot quench, neither can the floods drown it. Cant. 8.7.

In a word, Passion refined and spiritualiz'd, is every faculty of the soul, acting to its height for the glory of God.Psal. 69.9. The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up. To be short; Sanctified anger in the Saints of God, is not that which the world takes it to be, a short madness, but a grace of the spirit of God. Yea, it is a compound and [Page 31] temperament of all graces, acting in summo gradu, in the height of intention for the promoting of the concernments of Christs King­dome.

I told you before, that Elias was a useful man, though he was sub­ject to passion. I shall tell you more now: He was therefore so usefull, BECAUSE he was subject to passion. His anger and passion being san­ctified, made him so abundantly active for God, and the reformation of the publique worship, doctrine, and Ordinances in his generation. Had he wanted his passion, he had wanted some of his zeal for God.

And so was it (says he) with our worthy brother deceased; That which an idle, wanton, loose, luke-warm generation of Professors, as well as prophane persons (for the palliating of their own hypocrisie, and Gallio-like indifferency in matters of Religion) called passion and choler in him, was indeed and in truth nothing but his zeal and courage, and activity for Jesus Christ, which truly did even consume him.

Alas! In this apostate generation, all things have lost their proper names. The Devil appears in Samuels mantle, Satan in the form of an Angel of light: And sin puts on the habit of vertue, that it may deceive the more safely.

Thus lukewarmness and cursed neutrality in Religion passeth a­broad for meekness and sweetness of spirit. Carnal policy for Christi­an prudence. Cursed compliance with the lusts of men, for moderati­on, and command of a mans spirit, &c.

While zeal and fidelity to the Truth, ordinances and government of Jesus Christ, hear ill in the world, and suffer all the odium and scandal that a reviling world, and the venemous wit of malice can heap upon it. Truly the earth is not able to bear their words.

Thus this reverend and worthy man, for whose pains herein I thank him, and thank God for him, and for his providence that brought this piece to my hand, at a time so seasonable; as I do also for the work of that worthy and ingenuous Dr. to whom I owe so much for my Preface. In matters of this nature, which are of proper concernment, it is better to deal by others words, then our own. For by this it will appear we are not alone in our judgement and manner of procedure, in discharge of our duty, nor in suffering for it.

There is one exception more which some make against my dis­course, which is, It was unseasonable. And to this I briefly answer: It's plain, these persons who urge this, are not acquainted with the Topicks, and proper seats of arguments, deliberative, or perswasive. [Page 32] I did, and do conceive that if I might be so free as to make use of the respects of the people to the King at any time, and from thence to dehort them from sin, and to perswade them to turn to the Lord, that so both King and people may be (by Gods blessing) setled and esta­blished upon sure foundations; That now was the onely time I will not say, but surely in all good reason it was a very seasonable time: When people are high, and full, & earnest, and that generally, and it being almost the onely talk of bringing in the King; was it not seaso­nable upon a solemn Fasting day, to minde people of being more carefull of bringing King Jesus into their hearts, then any mortal King unto the Throne? And inasmuch as sin (the sins of the people, (for that way I carried it) had destroyd our former King, that therefore they should beware, lest by their sinnes they destroy the latter. Had I said any thing by way of opposition, or had I not very frequent­ly upon all occasions (and that not in corners onely, but openly) de­clar'd my judgement for the coming in of the King, it had been something: But surely these men have some prejudice against my person: But whether they have or no, thus much I tell them (in the fore quoted words of the reverend Dr. in the Preface, and where this exception is in part answered) I will no more learn of them how to preach, then they will learn of me to buy and sell. And so I leave them.

And now upon the whole matter, I will draw towards a close with this request to those who may be Auditors hereafter, that they would not, by ignorant or wilfull mistakes, or if reports, make the re­proach of Ministers a means to repair their decayd and broken for­tunes, in taking up, or carrying on, and telling lies to those whom they have a mind to ingratiate themselves withal, and may (as they hope) lift them up out of their low condition.

I must tell you sirs in few words (for I have gone beyond what I intended already) in thus doing (belying and reproaching the Mini­sters of the Gospel) you do but the Devils business. Satans greatest design is to hinder the progress of the Gospel: And he well knows, contempt of the Minister brings neglict of his Doctrine It is a truth so clear in your own experiences, that I need not say more to it: And consider you are hereby injurious not onely unto us (weakning our hands that we cannot reap the desired fruit of our labours) But you injure both your selves and others of our people, who by your evill practice and example in this kind are drawn into the prejudice, sin and mischief with you. I shut up all with this: If it be an honour, [Page 33] which brings a great reward with it, to be instrumentall in the work of mens salvation; what can they expect who in any kind hinder it? Consider it betimes, and be wise for the future.