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 't is 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 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd and 't will 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 't will 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
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 quà m 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 't is 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 't is 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
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 't is 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 't is 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 't is 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
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 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 't is 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 't is 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
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 't is 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 't is owned also as a sacred religious Act of worship 't was 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 't is no wonder the Covenant was so contrary that 't is 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 'T is 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
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. 't is 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
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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preached and 't will 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 't is 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
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 't was 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 't is 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 't is 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 't is 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
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
Fundamental Laws to impose unlawful Taxes or new Oaths to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King 'T is 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 't is 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 't is 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
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 Vxbridge-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 't is a discourse so abounding with strong and rational Arguments ad homines that I doubt 't is 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 Vxbridge-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 't was 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
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 't is 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 't was 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
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 't was 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 't were 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 't is 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 't is 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 't will 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