the Ecclesiastical Concerning the first 1. In the Civil Controversie I closed with the one party in the civil contest for these causes whereof the one is General and Privative the other Positive and Particular The former was the grieving or resisting the Spirit of God from whom I received no small concussion about this matter especially at the coming forth of * The resolving of conscience c. Edit Cambr. 1642. Dr. Fearn's first book in opposition to the Lords and Commons in their taking up Arms against the King The authority of Scripture there urged unto which God had given me ever to bear an awful reverence the Spirit setting it on exercised me more than all his arguments But 1 being in heart enclined unto the good things the other side proposed to be contended for and 2 judging his reasons might all be answered and 3 apprehending it much concerned the cause of God and of his servants and 4 my own reputation also being pre-engaged 5 and lastly my place seeming to call for it I holding then the publick Lecture in Cambridge I took all the former reluctancy of spirit to be onely a temptation and accordingly resolved to reply On Judg. 5.23 on which Mr. St. M. had preached before of whose notions that I know of I made no use Mr. J. B. which I did the next Lords day after the publishing of that Book wherein I answered all that seemed material in that Book and so answered it That some who were of the other judgment were pleased to say that so bad a cause could not be better pleaded Upon this I was sollicited to the publishing of my Answer But coming to London and finding another had done it before but especially my spirit working too and fro betwixt resolution and fear I did suppress it But that of Zachary hath been fulfilled in me since In that day the Prophets shall be ashamed Zach. 13.5 every one of his vision when he hath prophesied And blessed be God who hath verified another also towards me viz. Thou shalt hear a voice behind thee saying Isa 30.21 This is the way walk in it when thou turnest to the right-hand and when thou turnest to the left And blessed be his Name that although I have been a rebellious child as it is in the first verse of that chapter that would not take counsel of him nor cover with the covering of his spirit yet he hath not cast me away from his presence Psal 51.11 nor taken his holy Spirit from me Deliver me from bloods O Lord thou God of my salvation A Prayer and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit a broken and contrite heart O God thou wilt not despise And Vphold me O Lord with thy spirit then will I teach sinners thy ways and transgressors shall be converted unto thee Lastly Do good in thy good pleasure unto Sion build thou the walls of Jerusalem then shall they offer young bullocks upon thine altar Amen Sed irrideant nos fortes potentes Aug. confess l. 4. c. 1. nos autem infirmi inopes confiteamur tibi But let great and oveâ—-grown spirits laugh at this let us that are infirm and poor in heart confess to thee Tota palea areae ipsius irridet eum Aug. in Ps 21. in Prefat in Expos 2. gemit triticum irrideri dominum All the chaff of Christs own floor laughs at him and the good corn laments its Lords derision Thus of the general and privative cause SECT II. Particular Motives 2. THe particular follow and they were such as these 1. 1. Propounded The excellency and necessity of the things held forth to be contended for the Laws namely and the Liberties of the Nation and that which made them both most precious Religion Protestant by them established and secured 2. Next the credit that I gave unto the persons that did propound them both for their ability and for their faithfulness 3. A third was the awful opinion that I conceived of the power and authority of that place from which they seem'd to issue to wit the Parliament 4. That the exigences being such there was a virtual bond by all Laws to use remedies that were not usual 5. and lastly That examples of the like had been in Scripture among the Jews in the Primitive Church the former against Antiochus by the Maccabees the latter of the Christians against Maximinus Also in the Reformed Churches as the French Holland Scottish and owned by our former Princes and then present King defended also by our own Divines and Bishops as Jewel Abbot Bilson c. 2. Replies unto them But all these and such like as applyed to our case being put into the ballance of the Sanctuary in my eye seem much too light As touching the first my opinion and veneration of the Protestant Religion 1. Religion the Laws and Liberties of the Nation I hope is greater now than it was as I know them somewhat better But touching Religion to be defended by Arms especially of Subjects well spake the Dantzikers A notable speech of the Dantzikeâ—s in their material Letter to the Duke of Croy exhorting them to the like May 27. 1656. Evidently it doth appear say they how much the Roman-Catholicks are incensed through this war and that from thence no small persecutions yea the greatest danger may befall the Reformed Churches Vid. Mercurius Politicus Jul. 3. 1656. if God do not prevent it in his mercy We do confidently believe that no body can think or impute it to us as if God took pleasure in Apostates and Hypocrites and as if he would have Religion promoted in casting off the lawful Magistrate Note and in the slender esteem of a well grounded government Call to mind how at all times by Warrs the spirits of men grow more barbarous and inhumane Note and how the wars for Religion use commonly to extinguish Religion Thus they Note Now I call God to witness upon my soul that the sense of the dishonor done unto the Protestant Religion 2 Cor. 1. working upon my heart hath been one main occasion of further examining the grounds of those transactions and of altering my thoughts Homil. of disobedience part 4. pag. 300. And particularly one passage in the doctrine of this Protestant Church expressed in the Homily of disobedience did much affect me of which anon This for Religion 2. Then for the Laws and Liberties seeing first 2. Laws and Liberties that both Houses of Lords and Commons in all their solemn addresses to the King and that in Parliament and as such a Parliamentary body 1. Style of the H. H. do usually style themselves thus Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled In that Remonstrance which the King saith Kings Declaration Aug. 12. 1642. Remonstr of the State of
they were the judgment of the Kingdom He replyed Shew me such a body of people in the Nation as the Army is that have not forfeited their liberties and so implying that they might assume unto themselves the judgment of the Kingdom though in that case the Kingdom it self could not judge as was shewed above out of Mr. St. Johns speech because the Royal Person is exempt from vindicative justice So here in this speech all Government being as he said dissolved the Army were a considerable part of the Nation Nay by what follows that there was left nothing to keep things in order but the sword he might have said as before That they were the onely judgment of the Nation But this by the way though not out of it Again in the former speech The Judges saith he thinking pag. 21. that there was a dissolution of the Government did declare one to another Note The Judges that they could not administer justice to the satisfaction of their consciences untill they had received Commissions from me pag. 33. The Parliam And as touching the Parliament and the Militia the great Helena of our Trojan War The Militia whether to be in Parliament whether it should remain in the King or the Parliament have power of it he saith Whether the Parliament have not liberty to alter the form of Government to Aristocracy to Democracy to Anarchy to any thing if this THE MILITIA be fully in them Note yea unto all CONFVSION and that without remedy Lastly The Kings Negative voice pag. 34. as touching the Supreme Magistrate whose Person then he had usurped he saith I shall be willing to be bound more then I am in any thing that I may be CONVINCED of may be for the good of the people which point was like the Armour of Hector betwixt Ajax and Vlysses at the beginning of the War Corollaries from the former speech Now from these expressions we may observe 1. That the ends of the War Religion and Law were not attained but perverted 2. That the government of the Nation was dissolved in their judgment and not setled 3. Note That we were under an absolute arbitrary power 4. That in his judgment the Parliament ought not to have the Militia in them 5. And lastly That the Supreme Magistrate must be convinced in his own judgment before he yield to alter what by right he is possessed of in reference unto all which the War was undertaken But to close this point 4. Testimony of the Parl. grounds of the war declar Aug. 3. 1642. of the grounds of the war and to leave it with some further authentick demonstration and evidence The two Houses of Parliament in their Declaration setting forth the grounds of their takiâ—g up Arms published August 3. 1642. do represent onely three sorts of them viz. 1. either some former miscarriages of the Kings Government or 2. some preparations on his part to War with the incidents thereunto or lastly his refusal to grant their petitions especially that of July 16. 1642. containing their desire of the Militia the leaving Delinquents to their tryal the Kings return and concurrence with the Houses Together with the result of all these the danger to the Kingdom in Laws Liberty and Religion Now for the first of these the King had not onely acknowledged some of them as the dissolution of the Parliament before of the unhappy dissolution of the last Former errors in Government saith the King by the uninformation and advice of some persons looked upon now under another character Where they should remember that some miscarriages in government is incident unto all Princes yea all Governors whereof Dioclesian maketh a very serious complaint Vopiscus in vitâ Aurelian cit à Bucholc Chronol ad Anx. d. 304. Nihil est inquit difficilius quà m benè imperare Nam quatuor vel quinque viri se colligunt atque unum consilium c piunt ad Imperatorem decipiendum dicunt quod probandum sit Imperator qui domi clausus est vera non novit Cogitur hoc tantum scire quod illi loquuntur Facit judices quos fieri non oportebat amovet à Republicâ quos retinere debebat Quid multa Bonus cautus optimus venditur imperator There is nothing more difficult saith he than to rule well Four or five men associate themselves and take counsel together to delude the King they advise what is to be done A Note for Princes The Prince who is shut up at home knows nothing of the certainty of things but is constrained to know onely that which they acquaint him with He makes hereupon those Judges whom he ought not and removes those from government that he should not To be short a good provident and excellent Prince is bought and sold Thus he And the Parliament themselves were not a little abused by their informers Again the King acknowledges his failing in coming in person to the house of Commons to seize the five Members Kings answer to the Declation of May 19. 1642. p. 10. Edit Cambr. and saith As if by that single casual mistake of ours in form onely we had forfeited all duty credit and allegiance from our people We must without endeavouring to excuse that which in truth was an error our going to the House of Commons But besides these acknowledgments the King made real both amends and security for the future not onely by solemn promise but by passing such Acts of Parliament that did not onely remove the former grievances but also secure the subject for the time to come as we saw above both by the acknowledgment of the Commons in the Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdom among other things these The Monopolies are all supprest That which is more beneficial than all this is pag. 22 23 24. that the root of those evils is taken away which was the arbitrary power pretended to be in his Majesty of taxing the subject or charging their estates without consent in Parliament which is now declared to be against Law by the judgment of both Houses and likewise by an Act of Parliament now the Kings consent was there The evil Counsellors so quelled the Star-chamber the High-commission the Coâ—rts of the President and Council in the North are all taken away The immoderate power of the Council-Table is ordered and restrained we may well hope that no such things will appear in future times but onely stories Note to give us and our posterity more occasion to praise God for his Majesties goodness and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament The Canons and power of Canon-making are blasted by the vote of both Houses the exorbitant power of Bishops and their Courts are much abated the Authors or many Innovations in Doctrine and Ceremonies terrified the Forrests are by a good Law reduced to their right bounds the oppressions of the Stannary Courts the extortions of
lost the Revenues of a good part of a Bishoprick as 't is said which he had purchased And it may be others of these Brethren are ejected as they had ejected others For these times are like those Ruffin Hist eccl l. 1. c. 21. Ea tempestate foeda facies ecclesiae admodum turpis erat non enim sicut prius ab externis sed à propriis vastabatur Fugabat alius alius fugabatur uterque de ecclesia erat praevaricatio erat lapsus ruina multorum Similis poena sed impar victoria similiter cruciabantur sed non similiter gloriabantur quia dolebat ecclesia etiam illius casum qui impellebat ad lapsum At that time the face of the Church was foul and uncomely indeed for not now as formerly the Church was destroyed by enemies but by her own One is driven the other drives him away and both of them of the Church Offences and falls and ruines there were of many All were like sufferers but not all like conquerors All were tortured alike but all could not glory alike for the Church did lament even his fall that forced another to miscarrry saith the Historian But to leave the men and to come unto the matter 3. Their matter The premises are not established they say because there is Addition Detraction and Alterations made in them since the Originals and first establishment For Answer Object 1 Addit Substract Alterat Answ we may note here a twofold distinction 1. Of persons private or publick 2. Of things lighter or more material to apply these If the Alterations Additions or Detractions alledged be done by private hands and in things of lesser moment Misprisions in lesser things by private hands the main continuing unviolate It would be better thought on whether such a misprision be it casu or consilio unwittingly or willingly ought to invalid a publick act For then perhaps neither the Brethren have an authentick Bible nor any Lawyer a true Statute-Book because there are many faults do happen by the pen and by the press which may have happened in the things we speak of But secondly if such alterations In more material ones and by publick persons c. be made by publick persons or in things material it must be considered what powers the Laws do give unto them in these affairs now it is certain and the Brethren acknowledge it that until 17 Carol. 11. The King had freedome by Law to appoint under his Broad Seal Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical Reasons for Reform p. 51. to amend whatsoever might be reformable in the Church And in the Act for uniformity of Common-Prayer Act for uniformity of Com. Prayer at the end of it it is granted unto the Queen that if there shall happen any irreverence in the service of God by the mis-using the orders appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book she may by her Commissioners or by the advice of the Metropolitan ordain further rites or ceremonies for the advancement of the glory of God c. Several Acts in K. Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Q Eliz particulaâ—ly that of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Necessit of Reform p. 50. Now by this and other particular Acts that restored all Ecclesiastical power from the Pope unto the Crown And particularly by the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. wherein having first united and annexed all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom they are the words of the Brethren it addeth what power shall be given by commission under the Great Seal to exercise the same in this following clause viz. And that your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings or Queens of this Realm shall have full power and authority by vertue of this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England to assign name and authorise when and as often as your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall think meet and convenient and for such and so long time as shall please your Highness your Heirs or Successors such person or persons being natural born Subjects to your Highness your Heirs or Successors as your Majesty your Heirs or Successors shall think meet to exercise and use occupy and execute under your Highness your Heirs and Successors all manner of jurisdictions priviledges and preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within these your Realms of England and Ireland or any other your Highness Dominions and Countries And to visit reform redress order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoever which by any manner spiritual or ecclesiastical power authority or jurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of vertue and the conservation of peace and unity of this Realm Now howsoever the Brethren would make this Act void after the Act of 17 Car. 1. of which anon yet the things we speak of being transacted before remain in force by vertue of that Act. And certain it is that not only the Kings themselves but the Parliaments also the Judges the Ministry have always thought that by the King some alterations might be made by vertue of these Acts without violation of Law provided nothing were done contrary to any thing in the Book contained Preface to the Com. Prayeâ— Book especially when the King shall be supplicated by his people thereunto Hence the King in his Proclamation for the Authorizing of the Book of Common-Prayer by occasion of the Conference at Hampton Court which having reflected on saith Kings Proclamat for establishing the Book of Com. Prayer And for that purpose namely to satisfie the scruples of some tender consciences gave forth Our Commission under Our Great Seal of England to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others according to the form which the LAWS of this Realm in like case prescribe to be used to make the said EXPLANATION c. And it is also certain that the same not only Kings successively but also Parliaments and Judges with all the other Magistracy have taken all the premises viz. The Doctrine or Articles of Religion the Worship or Common-Prayer-Book The Discipline and Government to be established by Law Or else how will the Brethren or how can any other free the Kings from Arbitrary Government the Parliaments from betraying the publick liberties the Judges from perjury and perverting Law and other Magistrates from oppressing of the people if men have been punished for disobedience to these if not established by Law But surely we may more safely confide in the judgment of so many Acts of Parliament and Laws of so many Princes By divers Ministers of sundry Counties so in the title K. Ja. Instructions to Preachers 1622. Artic. 4. Parliaments Judges Magistrates then in the conjectures of certain Country or County Ministers what is Law The rather because this being a Prerogative Ecclesiastical
of Worship in the nerves and sinews of Discipline and in the bones and strength of Government which no true Son of the Church of England can without indignation reflect on Thirdly it striketh at the very beeing and safety of it For first this will both nourish and breed Papists and Separatists when they shall consider that by this Oath we have acknowledged that there is no one part Isa 1. wholly sound in this Church but that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot there are wounds sores and putrifying corruptions And being the expressions are indefinite they cannot tell what in any part is sound nor know what to cleave unto and so are prepared for apostacy from it 4. Schismaticall illegal oppressive to to the Government of the Church or confirmed therein 4. This Covenant sweareth a Schisme and is an unjust Oath as it is injurious and oppressive to the Government of this Church and the express Law whereby it is established to wit Episcopacy not to insist on the ranking of it with Popery and Superstition The Church of England is founded in Prelacy saith the Luws Of which before And the King in his Oath swears to defend the Rights of this Church Yea this order is by the Laws in force before 17 Car. 11. the very next the King himself in Parliam for so the style runneth the Lords Spiritual and Temporall The right of Episcopacy out of Scripture Antiquity and the late Reformers hath been shewed before and out of the Law of England also Now to swear against a main point of the Law of the Land wherein we have the suffrage of the whole Church and against that order of men both under which Bishops as Cranmer and others special instruments of the Reformation and by influence whereof we first received the Gospel and several whereof sealed it in opposition to Popery and Superstition with their blood Five Bishops being burned viz. Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Cant. Ridley Bishop of London Hooper and Latimer Bishops of Gloucester and Wortester and Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids is such a piece of unchristianity injustice and ingratitude yea and perjury also in those that have subscribed the three Articles and taken the Oath of Canonical obedience that I should wish mine eyes a fountain of tears to bewail it and my quill the pen of a more ready Writer to describe it Pudet haec opprobria nobis c. What shame is it that this should spoken be And nothing to be said to th' contray 5. It is of most dangerous insinuation 5. Of most dangerous insinuation against the dignity person and authority of the King in respect of the Kings Authority Dignity and Person First To his Dignity in putting him after the Parliaments and Kingdoms and yet put the Parliaments before the Kingdoms as if he were inferiour unto both whereas by our Oath of Supremacy we do acknowledge him to be over all persons within these his Realms and Dominions Supreme Governour And have in that and in the Oath of Allegiance and in the Protestation sworn and engaged to maintain his honour and priviledges Secondly It insinuates most imminent danger unto the Kings Person and Authority whilest it engageth to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms Openly implying that both the one and the other may be deserted in case he do not or seems to some not to defend true Religion and the Liberties Thirdly And for his Authority we swear obedience thereunto in the former Oaths indefinitely without such limitations as these are whence these appears to be no less then a treasonable limitation 6. It swears to betray and oppress contrary to Law 6. Is oppressive of the K. faithful subjects and true members of the Church 7. It bettaies the Liberty of the Subject in setting up an Arbitrary power against Law the Kings faithful Subjects and the true sons of the Church because they would keep faith with the one and unity with the other Artic. 4. under the names of Malignants and Hinderers of Reformation 7. It owneth the Houses of Parliament in opposition to the King to be the Supreme Judicatories and acknowledgeth a power in them of punishment to life and estate which is a betraying the Subjects Liberty as also that they may punish as they judge convenient or a Committee from them What is this but to pluck up Magna Charta by the roots which gives this priviledge that no free-born English man shall be punishable in life liberty or estate but by a Jury of his equals c. So that this is an erecting of an Arbitrary Government and destructive to the Fundamental Laws of the Land The same error is committed in the fift Article against those that should any way oppose this kind of union between the two Nations 8. In the sixt and last Article 8. Obliges to a blind a betting of all attempts in the pursuance of it 9. Engages against Repentance it obliges to defend all those that enter into this Covenant in the pursuance thereof which what it infers cannot be foreseen nor how far that clause may be extended 9. It engageth against Repentance which in an Oath of that nature and newness ought not to have been done but that juvat impiis as well as miseris socios habuisse It pleaseth them that have the plague to see That others as themselves infected bee 10. 10. Hypocritical blasphemous towards God scandalous and dangerous to other Churches and Nations Prov. 24. Eccles 10. Matth. 22. Prov. 13. 1 Pet. 2. Lastly In the Epilogue and close of it It is Horridly Hypocritical Blasphemous towards God Scandalous and Dangerous to other Churches and Nations First It is Horridly Hypocritical in acknowledging that we profess before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our sins and the sins of these Kingdoms against God and Christ his Son c. And yet at the same time swear to dishonour both and transgress the Gospel which commands obedience of Subjects to their Princes especially in doubtful cases the King holding forth not force but law as well as they and as I am perswaded with better evidence Ezek. 20.27 Secondly It is most blasphemous and a high temptation of Almighty God to pray most humbly unto him to strengthen us by his holy Spirit to live and dye in opposition to the just Laws of the Land in sedition against our natural Prince in schism against the Church and in oppression and violence against our innocent brethren Thirdly It is Scandalous to other Nations and Churches whereby through us the name of God as called upon and professed by the Reformed was blasphemed even among the very Turks Ezek. 36.20 yea our Nation the members of it in peril wheresoever they came as Merchants and Travellers know Lastly Dangerous unto the same Churches First
there may be some kind of amicable or forcible resistance made to the person of a King in some private affairs and in some particular occasions as David might have held Saul's hands if he had in the like manner fall'n upon him as he did cast his Javelin at him And Bathsheba no doubt might have resisted David if he would have forced what he did perswade yet these no way infer a publick and armed contest against him 2. Keilah Secondly David if by temptation he would have resisted at Keilah yet God by letting his friends become treacherous kept him from giving of such a precedent As he did also keep him from fighting against his own Prince 1 Sam. 29. or else becoming perfidious and ingrateful to his benefactor Achish one of which he must have done by turning the spirit of the Lords of the Philistâ—ms against him 3. Cave of Adullam 1. Sam. 24. and chap. 26. But thirdly when David was out of temptation and himself when power was in his hand once and again and he exhorted by some as called by God to do it yet refused and that with this reason because he was the Lords Annointed Lords Annointed which is no more but that he was Legitimate King yea his heart smote him for but cutting off the lap what would it have done if by war he had occasioned the cutting off the life and head of the King For the Revolt of the ten Tribes from Solomon under Jeroboam First when others can produce so set 3. Ten Tribes See 1 King 11.29 chap. 12.24 formal and solemn a call thereunto as then was and such an express approbation afterward In loc we may indulge them the opinion of Abulensis who on these and other grounds defendeth them But secondly 2 Chron. 13.5 6. they are expresly charged with Rebellion by Ahijah who saith Ought ye not to to know that the Lord God of Israel hath given the Kingdom over Israel to David for ever even to him and to his sons by a Covenant of salt And Jeroboam the son of Nebat the servant of Solomon the son of David is risen up and hath REBELLED against his Lord. And thirdly of this judgment are the very weighty and I think the most Expositors Jews and Christians Kimchi in 2 Reg. 11. Pet. Mart. in loc Sanater in 2 Chron. 13.4 Calv. Instit lib. 1. cap. c. ult § ult Hos 8.4 Jure damnatur populi decem Tribuum rebellio quòd velut invito Deo à Davidis posteris desciverit Justly are the people of the ten Tribes condemned because they would as it were in spight of God revolt from the posterity of David saith Mr. Calvin Lastly of this judgment the Lord himself declares he was both by word and action by word when he saith They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not By action in that by this means he took both peace and true Religion from them and withal sent them into captivity long before the other but never vouchsafed them any publick visible and particular return that we read of Kimchi in 1 Reg. 11.39 it being denied by their own that the ten Tribes came back when the other two did I have done with that instance The fourth is Libnah 4. Libnah 2 Chron. 25. a City of the Priests which revolted from Joram because of his idolatry but this as that of Edom who revolted at the same time Answ are no encouragements they both being recorded as a punishment only of Joram for his revolting from the Lord God of his Fathers but no more commended then was Absolom's insurrection which also was by way of punishment or Jeroboam's Apostacy which was for the idolatry of Solomon Again it was not lawful for either Edom or Libnah so to do especially the latter being a City of Priests who should both have known and taught that defection from the house of David upon whom the Kingdom was setled Bils part 3 p. 106. and separation fâ—om the Temple to which the worship was annexed was rebellion both against God and man But 't is true too often omne malum à Sanctuario that from the Priests the ill example of sedition and schism is derived unto the people 5. Maccabees 5. Next for the Maccabees 1. Antiochus against whom they managed the war and others were invaders not inheritors of the Kingdome Aliens not natural Princes to whom they owed no allegiance by birth by laws by oath by conquest by succession by protection 2. Besides there are of their own that think the issue of that war proved bad because the Maccabees went beyond their calling 3. Lastly if Exitus acta probat this must not be alledged by them that would finally thrive in such an enterprise for this at the length miscarried and ended in the Roman servitude 6. The Primitive Christians 6. Touching the Primitive Christians under Maximinus We are first to note that they were not subjects to him but confederates and friends Moreover a war saith the Historian Euseb Hist li. 9. cap. 7. did arise to the Tyrant Maximinus against the Armenians who even from the beginning were the friends and confederates of the Romans These who alâ—o were Christians and studious of Religion the hateful Tyrant endeavouring to force unto idolatry and sacrificing to Devils of friends made them enemies and of confederates adversaries Whence it is apparent they were not subjects Secondly for other Christians that might resist in those times they might be as some of them were abetted by a coordinate power for each of the Emperours of the East and West had their dominion a part and the one did not ordinarily middle with the other yet the Empire was but one whereof the Emperours that were had the general protection and might and did succour the oppressed within the Dominions of their Colleague Euseb l. 9. c. c. 9 10. as Constantine did the Romans against Maxentius and Licinius against Maximinus or if it were not so yet were they co-ordinate Princes not subjects This for particular cases But for the general spirit and practice of Christians of those times all Writings and Apologies are full of the solemn protestations of the Christians that though for number and strength they could yet that it was not lawful for them to resist As may be seen by that of Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. God only saith he we worship but in other things we are cheerfully obedient unto you whom we acknowledge to be Kings and Princes of men And Irenaeus Lib. 5. Adv. Haeres Valentin Cujus jussu homines nascuntur hujus jussu Reges constituuntur apti iis qui in illo tempore ab ipsis Regantur Quidam enim illorum ad correctionem utilitati subditorum dantur conservationem justitiae quidam autem ad tumorem ad poenam increpationem Quidam autem ad illusionem contumeliam
ten Tribes may infer that though their Princes were both Vsurpers and Tyrants ruling by will and not by Law yet it was not lawful for their subjects to resist them Which I extend not further here than to shew their first mistake viz. That Law may be not the municipal Laws of any particular place but the Supreme Law of God touching the subjection and non-resistance of subjects toward their Princes So in the Roman Emperors whose will was Law for they permitted what they would onely to be in force and over-awed the Senate whom they were obliged to act by and for form-sake did and yet even to Nero one of the worst of them Rom. 13. the Apostle enjoyns absolute subjection to all inferiors And this Supreme Law of subjects not-resistance is signified by the Author of all government in his own word by rule and by example By rule Prov 24.21 Fear God and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change Where the word of a King is Eccles 8.2 there is power and who may say What dost thou Prov. 8. By me Kings reign c. And Eccles 8.4 I counsel thee to keep the Kings commandment and that because of the Oath of God These in the Old In the New Testament Matth. 22.21 Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars says our Saviour And Let every soul be subject he that resists Rom. 13. resists the Ordinance of God says the Apostle And Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 whether to the King as supreme c. saith the Apostle Peter Tit. 3.1 And Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers c. 2. By Examples of all we read of that were godly in the Old Testament And in the New of Christ our Lord who though free yet lest he should offend Matth. 17.27 paid where none was due Of the Apostles and of all the primitive Christians as we saw above This therefore is their first mistake not minding a more superior Law of subjection then that of particular Nations SEECT 2. Tyranny THeir second is about the nature of Tyranny They say it is not Gods Ordinance and therefore not ' commanded to be obeyed by the Apostle Rom. 13. nor by reason because there is no rational tye by Law they are a terror to the good and tend to the subversion and overthrow of Religion Laws and Liberty But first they should remember that although a moral evil in any kind be not Gods Ordinance yet the application of it may and often is Gods Ordinance As the setting of Satan to exercise his malice upon men and upon his own elect sometimes for their trial and humiliation as he did upon Job and the setting up a King in his wrath Job 1. as we saw above and the setting of Pharaoh over the Israelites to whom he gave no power of resistance though they were not properly subjects Secondly though Tyranny be not Gods Ordinance yet the Subjection to it is his Ordinance Was not the invasion of Cesar and reign of Caligula Nero and others a Tyranny and yet the Apostle saith Obedience to it was Gods Ordinance and for their good Thirdly Though Tyranny be not Gods Ordinance yet Government is though tyrannically exercised which good there is almost in all Tyrannies Yea and as was said before Government Tyrannical is Gods Ordinance by way of punishment and animadversion he being Gods Minister to execute wrath even Gods wrath Rom. 13. not onely upon them that do but those that have done evil as also for the tryal of the faith and patience of his Saints for well-doing That the Trial of their faith 1 Pet. 1. which is much more precious than of gold may be found glorious This was the saying of Tamerlane Tamerlane that most horrid Tyrant but yet a truth Interrogatus aliquando ab hâ—mine Genuensi cur tanta crudelitate uteretur Commotus ac veluti furens d storta facie ac spirantibus ignem oculis Aeneas Silv. in descript Asiae Refer Bucholcer Chronol An. 1398. respondit Tu me hominem esse arbitraris falleris Ira Dei ego sum orbis vastitas Who being asked by a friend why he would be so cruel He being moved with the question and in a rage his countenance distorted and hâ—s eyes flashing fire answered Dost thou think me a man thou art deceived I am the wrath of God and the vastation and destruction of the world Tyranny therefore in this sense explain'd is oftentimes Gods Ordinance This is their second error SECT 3. Ground of Non-resistance THe third fundamental one is their mistake of the ground of Non-resistance or patience which they make to be onely lawful power and legal commands taking still lawful and legal in their former sense also according to particular and municipal Laws But this as it is a dangerous so it is a false position For the true ground of Non-resistance of subjects is first the the nature of order and secondly the prohibition of Gods Ordinance First Order requires that each keep his place unless extraordinarily called by the Author of order which is God himself as Ehud Barak Jahel and others were Judg. 3. chap. 4. in which case they were not subjects as neither were the Israelites thieves Exod. 12. when they borrowed the goods of the Egyptians and restored them not nor invaders of other mens inheritances in seizing upon the Land of Canaan Josh 4. because in these cases they had the order of the God of order Neither had Abraham been guilty if he had slain his son as he was not guilty in intending it for the same reason but these are not for imitation Now then order natural is Rom. 13. That every soul be subject and do not resist the higher powers that is those that are higher than he in his own rank and place for that tends to the reproach of the God of order and to the confusion of the whole body if the members will not be ruled by the head whilst a head As when an Army will not be commanded by their superior Officers or the inferior Orbs oppose themselves to the motion of the higher ones The second ground of non-resistance in subjects is Gods Ordinance who hath so enjoyned that every soul should be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. so long as they are higher and in possession of power by right either from man or God by special dispensation those that by such dispensation are under them are to be subject So the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as Supreme c. And Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and Powers Tit. 3.1 And this not onely to the good and gentle or to those that command just things and maintain Religion Laws and Liberties
jurisdiction belonging to Soveraign Princes is expresly forbidden Ministers to meddle with further then they are presidented in the Homily of Obedience and in the rest of the Homilies and Articles of Religion And besides that the declaring of Law in general is proper to the Judges for to you saith our * Kings Speech at the Dissolution of the Parl. after his assents unto the Petition of Rights late Soveraign speaking to the Judges in Parliament only under me belongs the interpretation of Law But Thirdly should we grant that according to the punctilio's and formalities of Law they should not be established by that of the Land yet the Church hath its Law also that whatsoever is imposed by the Governors thereof for edification Note agreeable or not repugnant to the Scriptures especially if God and experience have set their seal thereunto as the premises have had and that custome and tract of time have given them prescription which the Apostle after all reasoning flies unto if such things should be excepted against by others 1 Cor. 11.16 yet doubtless very improperly by those 1 Cor. 9.1 2. whose seed of generation and milk of infancy and strong meat of riper age they have been in the Lord. Yea I add and who by their profession and subscripsion have been particularly obliged to them But oftentimes it cometh to pass that the watchmen themselves who were appointed for the Safeguarding of the Church Serm. before the Hâ— Com. Feb. 18. 1620. prove in this kind to be the smiters and wounders of her saith the Primate of Ireland And no marvel for veteres scrutans historias invenire non possum scidisse ecclesiam de domo Dei populos seduxisse praeter eos qui Sacerdotes à Deo positi fuerant prophetae id est speculatores Searching the antient Records Hier. in Hos 9.8 Tom. 6. I cannot find that any other have rent the Church and have seduced the people from the house of God but they who have been appointed Priests by God and Prophets thar is Watchmen saith St. Jerome I have done with the first Exception against the premises viz. their non-establishment in general Subsect 1. Articles not established COme we now to the particular proofs of their non-establishment with replies unto them And first 2. Partic. Except against the establishment of the premises the Doctrine or the Articles of Religion they are not say the Brethren established because neither doth the Act 13 Eliz. name them in particular nor so much as their number but only the title page nor is it known where the original is enrolled Answ Omitting what several others may have more pertinently answered in their replies to the Brethren none of which I have read my conceptions are First Necessity of Reform p. 1 2 That this reflects gross negligence upon the then Parliament if they laid that foundation weak upon which the whole fabrick of Religion in this Church was to be raised But Secondly Do the Brethren imagine that the Parliament intended to establish titulum sine re the title and leave the matter uncertain Surely not only that Parliament but all since The Princes also and Judges ever since have taken the Articles as now they are to be confirmed then K. Declarat bâ—fore the Articles 4 Car. 3.1 and to contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England who surely had good assurance that they did accord with the original Thirdly Again if all Acts of State be void whereof the originals are not extant although confirmed by Act of Parliament what the inference may be I leave to the Learned in the Laws to judge for my self I take it to be a suggestion of a very dangerous consequence This for the Articles Subsect II. Common-Prayer-Book NExt for the Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book That they say is not established First because it is not the same that was established by the Parliament 1 Eliz. 2. And secondly because if it were yet it is not established by Law because that of 1 Eliz. 2. it self doth not appear to be established neither because it is not agreeable to the Act nor annexed to it nor the original to be found 1. Com. Prayer Book of Q. Eliz. To begin with the Book of Queen Elizabeth and then to come to that now in use Touching the former the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. touching uniformity of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments enjoyneth the use of that Book with the allowance of one alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used every Sunday in the year Except And the form of the Letany altered and corrected and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacraments to the Communicants and none other or otherwise from the Common-Prayer Book confirmed by Parliament in the fifth and sixth years of Edw. 6. Now because the Book of Q. Elizabeth referreth to that and that the alterations mentioned in that of Q. Eliz. from that of Edw. 6. are not particularly named in the Act for conformity of Common-Prayer And because the original Book of Edw. 6. is lost and this of Q. Eliz. printed differs from that of Edw. 6. the Brethren infer that the Book of Q. Eliz. is not established or not evident that Answ 1 it is established by the Act. I might answer That these being niceties of Law and the alterations insisted on either in Q. Eliz. Book or in the present one from that Answ 2 not being many or much material And being generally Answ 3 received as established the matter being godly Answ 4 and presence of God in the comfort and edification of Answ 5 his people thereby evidently approving of it I might as I said answer viderint alii let men of skill in Law look to that point But seeing I take their objections from Law to be easily answerable go to let us try their strength The Parliament of the 1 Eliz. 2. Q. Eliz. Liturgy established did know that the former Book of 5 6 Edw. 6. was abolished by an Act 1 Mar. 2. and mention it in the Act. And that the Original was taken off the Parliament Roll and so lost They did not think it necessary notwithstanding this either to name particularly the alterations made or to annex the Book unto their Act. Now the Q. and Parl. did judge that they had done enough to establish the Book the Brethren affirm not Wherein if they were right in their matter yet not in their modesty But they are amiss there also For the Parl. knowing the Book of Edw. 6. to have been in all Churches and in every mans hand and themselves allowing not the original which was lost but the printed ones with the alterations they mention it was most easie for any man to find by comparing the Books printed by this Act with those of Edw. 6. which were the alterations the Parl. having named where they were and concerning what But because by this it appears according
House of Peers carried for them by far the major part of Lords Yet after five repulses contrary to all order and custom it was by tumultuary instigation obtruded again and by a few carried when most of the Peers were forced to absent themselves In like manner was the Bill against root and branch brought on by tumultuary clamours and schismatical terrors Bill against Episcopacy which could never pass till both Houses were sufficiently thinned and over-awed To which partiality while in all reason justice and religion my conscience forbids me by consenting to make up their Votes to Acts of Parliament I must now be urged with an Army and constrained either to hazard my own A cause of the War defence of Episcopacy and my Kingdoms ruine by my defence or prostrate my conscience to the blind obedience of those men whose zealous superstition thinks or pretends they cannot do God and the Church a greater service than utterly to destroy that Primitive Apostolical and antiently Vniversal government of the Church by Bishops And the King hath the like complaint * Kings declaration to all his loving subjects Aug. 12. 1642. p. 8. print Cambr. else-where So that we see what was the mind and affection the scope and intent of the King and the two Houses as then when that Act passed touching Episcopacy Whence it will follow that as they had no intention nor ever consented to the Bill for it to destroy the office so neither did the Commons think that it was so by that Act of taking away their votes or by recalling of the former clause of 1 Eliz. 1. touching Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for then they would not have prepared another Act for it which never passed the Houses whilst full nor the Kings assent afterward and so is no Law It remaineth therefore that the intention of the Parliament in the repealing of that clause was onely in reference unto the High-commission Court or other excentrical from the legal jurisdiction of Bishops and raised onely by the Kings prerogative yet of use whilst established but removed not for its unprofitableness as to prevent some greater inconvenience It was their jurisdiction in those cases and upon such special commission from the King that there ceased not their ordinary legal and per se Episcopal power of government in this Church * By Act of this present Parliament for restoring Episcopal jurisdiction As hath been of late more authentically evidenced Answ 4 even before this was printed As for the Ordinance that especially at that time as it could at no time cannot countervene a setled Law Neither have the Houses power to declare any thing against Law as we heard above Lord Cant. speech ubi suprà For close therefore I repeat that suit of his and do humbly in the Churches name desire of his Majesty that it may be resolved not onely by all the Reverend Judges of England A supplication to his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament but by his Majejesty and both Houses of Parliament and then published by them that the Doctrine and Articles of Religion the Liturgy and Worship the Discipline and Government are not against or besides the Laws of this Realm That so the Church-Governors may go on cheerfully in their duty and the peoples minds be quieted by this assurance that neither the Laws nor their Liberties are infringed as Subjects thereby SECT VII Of the Obligation of the League and Covenant AGain it is objected that there is an engagement for the Reformation of the Doctrine Worship Assemblies Discipline and Government in the solemn League and Covenant therefore they are not to be adhered unto Subsect 1. That the Covenant obligeth not OMitting the elaborate and excellent pains of the University of Oxford in this argument Reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the Covenant 1647. Duplies of the professors of Aberdeen to the Brethr. concerning the Covenant 1638. Dr. Lesly Bish of Down in his Visitation speech Lond. 1638. 1. Argument Because it is opposite to after other Oaths c. Gal. 3.14 18. as also that of the Professors of Aberdeen in Scotland And of the Bishop of Down in Ireland the testimony of the three Kingdoms against it I shall propound only four Arguments to evince first the nullity of its obligation and then from thence collect what it binds yet unto The Arguments touching the former are First from the nature and order of this Oath The second from the power imposing of it The third from the matter of the oath it self The last from the scope and end of its framing and imposing First from the nature and order of this Oath When there are two oaths touching the same things and they contradictory one to another if the former be lawful and obliging the latter cannot be so too but void and null ipso facto Hence it is that our Apostle proveth the invalidity of the Ceremonial Law and Covenant being different from and in some sort opposite to the Covenant of Grace because it was made four hundred years after and so could not make the other void So this Oath and Covenant whereof we now speak being contradictory as shall be seen and is evident of it self to former lawful Oaths and Engagements confirmed by the Laws of the Kingdome as the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy Canonical Obedience Subscriptions to the three Articles and Protestations cannot make those former of none effect and is therefore void being taken as it was unlawful to take it unless the Obligation of the former Oaths and Engagements had been by the same or superiour power relaxed As was done by Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen to his subjects Sleid. Com. l. 18 Ad Ann. 1547. when he was no longer able to protect them Which was not our case Our former Oaths and Engagements were agreeable to Law and Equity both in their matter and authority injoyning them This contradictory to them and by an inferiour power yea by such a power as had not authority to do it which brings me to the second Argument 2. Arg. Because it was in posed by unsufficient power in opposition to the lawful authority namely taken from the power or rather the impotency of the imposers as to this act It is proved above that in the Government the King is Supreme by the Laws But if he were but equal yet in a coordinate power if when one desires to do his duty and is well able thereunto the other shall exclude him and act in opposition not only to him but also to the Laws established by all and impose upon the Subjects who are not obliged but as it proceeds from all to submit and to accept of such impositions if voluntarily is a threefold iniquity and injustice First Unto the person excluded against his will and right Secondly Against the liberty of the Subject who is not liable to injunctions proceeding from some but all Thirdly Against the priviledge