IF the Authour of the Interest of Eng­land, &c. had meant fairly to the Question, he would as well have told us the Good of Bishops, and the Ill of Presbyters, as he hath done the con­trary, and never have concluded For, or Against Either, from the Best Actions of the One, and the Worst of the Other. At least, a man would think this partiality of Method, might content him without the further service [Page 2] of those little Arts he uses, to aid, and recom­mend his Undertaking.

The Present state of things, he represents quite other then it is: and raises thence a Po­litical expedience of doing This, or That,— of Linking Interests, — never considering, that he Himself Creates that Interest, and gives Affairs the Face of that expedience. Page the 16. he laies his ground-work, In these fol­lowing words.

J. C. Among the various dis-agreeing Parties within this Kingdom, which seem to render it an indigested Mass of People; two main ones appear above the rest, of so large an interest, that if by any means they might become no more twain, but one; they would take in, and carry along the whole stream and strength of the Nation. And these two are the Episcopal and Presbyterian Parties, each of them highly laying claim to the Protestant Religion. And undoubtedly whilst these two remain divided, the Kingdom of England, and the Protestant Religion is divided against it self. This dis-union is removed, either by the Abolition of one Party, or by the Coalition of both into one. The former, if supposed possible, cannot be accomplished, but by violent & perillous ways and means. The latter is brought to pass by Accom­modation, or mutual yielding. Moreover, there is a third way imaginable, Toleration indulged to the weaker side. In which of these ways lies the true Interest of the King and Kingdom, is the greatCase of the time, and the Subject of this [Page 3] Discourse, which presumes not to inform his Majesty, but in subordination unto his declared Moderation and Condescention, endeavours, by shewing things as they are, to convince and per­swade Interessed persons, that the Pacification begun for this Interim may be entire and per­fect, and fully setled for perpetual unity.

Observation Let it be here observed, First, what the Difference is; Next, betwixt whom; In the Third place, the Danger of it; And Lastly, the Expedient to remove it.

It seems, the Episcopal, and Presbyterian Parties, United in Religion, cannot Agree yet about Discipline: and while These Two remain Divided, the Publick is in Danger. From hence results the Interest of Mutual Yield­ing— (his Coalition of both Parties into One) Upon which Hinge moves the whole frame of his Design; and in two Pages, he gives the Presbyter possession of his Claim, Deciding with exceeding ease, the Case of King and Kingdom.

Opinion is a great Mistress: for that which He so Magisterially Lays down and Chal­lenges, appears to me mis-stated, and worse Managed. I must confess, his Reduction of all other Interests under Episcopal and Pres­byterian, is, in some sense, no ill Dichotomy, that is, intended of the two main Parties, whereof, the One's against the Law, the Other for it: But why the single Presbyterian should be Esteemed the Ballance of the Nation, I cannot Comprehend. If they are so, they [Page 4] should do well to cast their Cause upon a Po­pular Vote, and try the Issue by the Poll.

For Quiet sake, no matter, Many or Few, there may be Equity where there wants Num­ber. We'l rather see in point of Right what 'tis they insist upon: Which, if exemption from Episcopal Authority, in things Indifferent, and of Humane Institution. We must plead judgment of Discretion too, as well as They: A Freedom, and Capacity to distinguish be­twixt a Scandal Given and Taken; betwixt a Dis-conformity proceeding from Conscience, and from Passion; Where the Dissent pro­ceeds from Conscience, a Toleration clears That Scruple: but our good peoples Liberty consists in Burthening Others, as well as Free­ing Themselves, and that's Intolerable.

How many strange Indecencies are here, one upon the neck of another I First, here's the Minor part imposing upon the Major: Se­condly, a Novel, and Vulgar Imagination, bearing down an Apostolical Institution: Thirdly, a Private Opinion, contesting with a Solemn, and Publike Sanction: and Finally, the Subject of all this Earnestnesse, in their own phrase, is but a very Accommodable difference. From what I have said, I am perswaded that Severity to the Pertinacious Presbyter, is the true interest of this Nation, allowing yet Indulgence to the Conscientious.

Well, but our Authour tells us, that Abolition if possible, is perillous, and Toleration only an Imaginary Remedy. Is not this to intimate that the Party makes less Conscience of a [Page 5] Tumult, than of a Ceremony: and to argue the necessity of Complying, from the danger of Refusing? What would these people do if they had Power, that are so Bold without it! And yet our Politician makes it the Kings Interest to Close with them. He means per­chance, According to the Covenant: The Coalition, There, of all Schisms, and Heresies into One Interest, was of great Reason, and Important Service to the Commune work: but we are now advising how to Settle not to Disjoynt a Government, and to Incorporate Dis-agreements, were to begin upon a Prin­ciple of Confusion. As the Case stands with us, in my weak Judgement, Persons should rather be Indulg'd, than Parties. My Reason is this, Some Individuals of that Perswasion, have done His Majesty some Service, but (to the best of my Remembrance) the Entire Party, never any.

Yet one Reflexion more. Allow these Peo­ple all their Askings, in what concerns their Discipline, will they rest Quiet There, with­out a further Hankering after more? (the Le­gislative Power perhaps; the Militia; — or some such Trifle) I am the more suspitious, because I do not well remember, where ever That Party was satisfied with less than All. Nor need I look far back for Instances to ju­stifie my Fears; But having in some measure hitherto Discovered his Foundation, we'l forward now, and see what work he makes upon this Sandy Bottom, taking his Title-page in my way, for, to my thinking, he [Page 6] stumbles at the Threshold. — It runs thus.

Observation I would fain know what is meant by, The Matter of Religion, as it stands here related to [Page 7] Civil Interest? Doctrine it cannot be, for That were to advise a yielding upon a Principle of Policy, in Opposition to a Rule of Con­science: subjecting Interest of Religion, which is Eternal Happiness, to Reason of State, which regards but Temporal Convenience. If it be Discipline, What's that to the Interest of England? Our Settlement depends upon a due Obedience to the Establish'd Law; not the Encouraging of froward Humors, by an Au­dacious and Mis-govern'd Zeal, under pretext of Conscience to Affront it. Let Authority Reform, and Private Persons either Obey, or Suffer; we are to Answer for our own faults, not those of the Government. And in fine, If the Hill will not come to Mahomet, let Mahomet go to the Hill.

After a pleasant Breviate of the Story of our late Troubles, handsomely Penn'd indeed) in his tenth Page he takes his Biass.

Page 10. At length (says he) a full Tide of Concur­ring Accidents carries him (the Duke of Al­bemarle, then General) to a closure with the sober part of the Parliamentary Party, who from first to last intended onely a Reformation, and due Regulation of things in Church and State, but abhorred the thought of destroying the King, or changing the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom.

Observation I thought the Act of Pardon and Oblivion had quieted all Animosities, and silenc'd all Discourses of this Quality; but 'tis, it seems, [Page 8] The Interest of England in the matter of Re­ligion, to keep the Quarrel waking; and by Asserting the proceedings of the two Houses in the late War, to engage this King within the danger of his Fathers President. To be as free with the Authour, as he is with his Majesty, I'le put his meaning in a little plain­er English.

Beside the Grand Division of the Nation into a Royal and a Popular Party; that Party which he here calls Parliamentary, is again Split; and under this Subdivision are Com­prised, those which did Actually destroy the King; and those which by good Fortune, did it not. ( Presbyterians, and Independents.) The Sober part, (meaning the Presbyterian) He ju­stifies from first to last, even to their very In­tentions. (I must tread warily, for I am here up­on a narrow and a slippery path.)

Not to Dispute the Gentlemans Intuitive Knowledge; we'l rather modestly believe that They mistook their way, then He, their mean­ing: for certainly, the Murther of the King, was not the onely Unlawful violence Acted upon that Sacred Person, and he that stops there, does as much as nothing. I would not touch upon this Subject, were I not bound by Oath, and Duty, to discharge my Soul, in what concerns the Honor, and the Safety of my Prince.

Can the first Cause asserted by both Houses, in opposition to his late Majesty, be justifi'd, and not the King condemn'd? And is not the Honor and Safety of his Majesty that now [Page 9] is, concern'd in these Indignities upon his Murther'd Father? What was Then lawful, is so still: and he that but implicitly charges the Last King, strikes at This. The Text will bear no other sense without a Torture. But I shall by-and-by, compare him with himself. In the mean while we may explain one Presbyterian by another. Douglas, in 1651. preach'd the Kings Coronation-Sermon. Which since his Majesties Return, is over and over again Re­printed.

Douglas. A King (says he) abusing his Power, to the overthrow of Religion, Laws, and Liberties, which are the very fundamentals of this Con­tract and Covenant, may be controlled and oppo­sed; and if he set himself to overthrow all these by Arms, then they who have power, as the Estates of a Land, may and ought to resist by Arms; Because he doth, by that opposition, break the very Bonds, and overthroweth all the Essen­tials of this Contract and Covenant. This may☜ serve to Justifie the proceedings of this Kingdom against the late King, who in an hostile way set himself to overthrow Religi­on, Parliaments, Laws and Liberties.

I think this needs no Comment,—About the same time, Smectymnuus was revived by Mr. Manton, (a most auspicious welcome doubtless to his Majesty) wherein five Cham­pions of the Cause take up the Cudgels against one Bishop, on the behalf of scandalous Pamphlets, and Tumultuary Petitions against Episcopacy. This is the naked Truth, what [Page 10] ever the Jolly Priest may tell the Reader, of the Epistle to the Reader. Faction against which they dealt. Five Orthodox Divines, he says, were the Authors. Four of the Five I shall not mention, the Fifth was Marshal, of whose Divinity, a Taste; that by the sweet Agreement, we may the better judge of Mr. Manton's. In a Letter printed 1643. arguing for the Authority of the two Houses, page 14. Thus.

Marshall. Let every soul in England be subject to King and Parliament, for they are the higher Powers ordained unto you of God; whosoever therefore resisteth King and Parliament, re­sisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that re­sist shall receive to themselves damnation.

The man was no Conjurer, yet he had wit enough, when Presbytery went down, to Court the rising Interest; and 'though the Com­mon-prayer was an Abomination, to marry his Daughter by it, for fear of After-claps. But I suppose 'twas huddl'd up, as 'tis in Mr. Man­ton's Church, that no man might be able to make Oath 'twas not the Directory. If the Case had been concerning Epistle to the Reader. the Allowance of Christian Burial to a Gentleman that was Quartered for his Loyalty. Or to determine in the great Point of the late Kings Death, (upon an Anniversary Fast) whether or no 'twas Murther: Truly considering the potent Ar­guments brought on both sides, 'tis possible that Mr. Marshal would have contented himself (as well as his Neighbours) barely to put the Case, and leave the point at last undecided to his Auditory.

[Page 11]Not to spend time, and paper needlesly, The whole stream of the Disciplinarians runs this way: onely perhaps more or less Bold, and Open, according to the present strength, or weakness of the Faction.

But to return: Can any thing be more gen­tle, then A Reformation, and due Regulation of things in Church and State? (words smoother than Oyle, yet are they very Swords.)

First, To Reform, and Regulate, belongs to the Supreme Magistrate; if they intended That, they were to blame. Now to take it in a Qualifi'd and softer sense; 'twas a Due Regu­lation they intended. To put this General notion in more Intelligible terms; upon this point depends no less then all that's dear to every honest man. The Dignity of the King, the Liberty of the Subject, the Freedome of Parliaments, and the Honor of the Nation. God knows my thoughts, I do not envy any man, either the Benefit of his Majesty's Mercy, or the Blessing of his Favour, that hath the Grace at last not to Abuse it. I look upon his Royal Act of Pardon with Reverence; and upon every Soul within that pale as in a San­ctuary. But yet I do not understand a Pardon for one Rebellion, to be a Dispensation for another; nor how the Argument lies from Fact to Right. Under these two words, Due Regulation; Thus much is comprehended, (waiving less Differences and Greater.)

[Page 12] Presbyte­rian Re­gulation.1. The transferring of the Power of chusing Great Officers, and Ministers of State; from the King to the Two Houses.

2. All matters of State in the Interval of Parliaments must be Debated, and Con­cluded by a Counsel so chosen, and in num­ber not above twenty five, nor under fif­teen; and no Publick Act esteemed of any Validity, as proceeding from the Royal Authority, unless it be done by the Ad­vice and Consent of the Major part of that Counsel; Attested under their Hands. And These too sworn to the sense of Both Houses.

3. The Lords and Commons must be in­trusted with the Militia.

4. His Majesty may appoint, but the Two Houses, or the Counsel (in such man­ner as aforesaid) must Approve of All Go­vernors of Forts, and Castles.

Lastly, No Peers hereafter made, must Sit, or Vote in Parliament, unless Ad­mitted thereunto by the Consent of Both Houses.

Exact Collecti­ons, pag. 310.Upon these Terms; his Majesty shall be sup­ported, in Honor, and plenty; by his most Hum­ble and Faithful Subjects, who have in their Thoughts and Desires nothing more precious, (next to the Honor and immediate Service of [Page 13] God) than their just, and faithful performance of their Duty to the King, and Kingdom.

This is the Due Regulation they Intended: (for sure they Meant what they Proposed, to our Late Soveraign. I speak not this, of Per­sons, but of the Gross of the Party; nor to re­proach That neither, but to remove a Scandal from the Ashes of that Blessed Martyr, and to direct a Reverence towards his Successor. What provocation have these restless People, now to revive This Question: but an unruly Impotency of Passion against the Govern­ment? This is their way. In Generals, they justifie from first to last, the Presbyterians Cause. The multitude, they look into Parti­culars: and from those Injuries which the late King suffered, draw Inferences Dis-honoura­ble, and Dangerous to this.

In the next Periode, me-thinks he falls upon a Non-sequitur.

Page 10. The Re-admission of the Secluded Members, (he says) did necessarily draw after it, the Re­storing of King, Lords, and Commons, accord­ing to the antient Constitution.

Not Necessarily (under favour) according to the antient Constitution: Observa­tion. (I will not say nor probably: but) there were two shrewd Blocks cast in the way. The First, in the Militia; where no Commissionated Officer was to Act, that should not first acknowledge in these words, viz.

[Page 14] I do Acknowledge and Declare, that the Warre undertaken by both Houses of Parlia­ment in their defence against the Forces raised in the Name of the late King, was Just and Lawful; and that Magistracy and Ministery, are the Ordinances of God.

The Second, was in the Exclusion of the Royal Party from the next Choice, as fol­loweth.

Resolved, that all and every Person who have advised, or voluntarily aided, abeited, or assisted, in any War against the Parliament (since the first day of January 1641.) his or their sons, unless he or they have since Manifested their good affections to this Parliament, shall be un­capable to be elected to serve as members of the next Parliament.

Now how a Choice thus limited in the House, and Principled in the Field, should Necessarily set us right, does not to me appear?

Perhaps it was the most the Time would bear: but God forbid, That Declaration charging the Guilt, and Blood of the late War upon the King, should stand upon Record to future Generations. Who ever affirms That War was lawful, does beyond Question me­ditate Another; not to say more than needs, It blasts the Memory of the late King, and up­on the King that now is, it reflects many Mis­chiefs, subjecting both his Dignity and Per­son, to his Fathers hazards. It administers Ar­gument for a New War; and shakes the ve­ry Foundation of Royalty. Grant That, the Act of Oblivion is on the wrong side; If the [Page 15] King was in Fault, the Presbyterians must Grant the Pardon. From the clear reason of the matter in it self, and from the obvious Consequences; beside that Justice which both King and People owe to the Ashes of a Father and a Soveraign, It seems to me of high Con­cern, to Counter-State that Declaration, and place the Militia of this Nation now in such hands, as will acknowledge the late Kings Quarrel was Defensive. I am the bolder in this Particular, because I find the Faction pressing beyond both Modesty and Reason, upon this Bottom.

Where Majesty it self is Affronted, it were a second Injury to allow the Servant better Quarter than the Master. But they are very Exact and Careful in this Particular: as will appear in what follows.

After a dreadful Earthquake, Page 12. shaking all the Powers of the Kingdom, and over-turning the very Foundations, and after a new frame of things erected standing for divers years, and seemingly stated for perpetuity, the Regal Fa­mily and Government is raised up again, not by the power or policy of that Party, who fought under the Banner of his late Majesty in the Wars, between him and both Houses of Parlia­ment; But by the restless desire of the Nation, and the vigorous actings of the City of London, with the concurrence of the Secluded Members of the long Parliament, in conjunction with that Renowned Person, who then held the power of the Sword.

[Page 16] Observa­tion.Let it be noted here, that (by His Con­fession) the War was between the King and Both Houses of Parliament. Now to that Par­ty who fought under the Banner of His late Majesty. (Whom he might have spared for the General's sake.)

Truly, considering what havock hath been made of them, by Slaughters, Extrajudicial Sentences, Plunders, Sequestrations, Imprison­ments, Banishments; shipping them away into Plantations, &c. — And this for twenty years continuance. 'Tis no great wonder to find some Abatement of their Power. But to Affirm that they contributed nothing to his Majesties Restauration, is very unkind, and something Rash. The Nation did, (he says) the City of London, and the Secluded Members of the Long Parliament; but not That Party. (A pleasant and phantastical Dis-junction.) This way of barely Affirming, and Denying; Crying One Party Up, and the Other Down, and proving nothing, is neither Mannerly, nor Prudent. How comes this man of Metaphy­sical Inspection, that reads the very Thoughts of the Presbyterians, and seems so well en­formed in all the Actings of the Royal Party: How comes he by this wondrous Insight and Intelligence? Does he not find that all he says is nothing, unless he can see things Invisible, and prove Negatives? Is This the Work of the Spirit of Pacification? or will he tell us, in the holy Dialect, that 'tis the Enmity betwixt the Seed of the Woman, and the Seed of the Serpent?

So far were We, (for I write my self of that [Page 17] Party) from this Unfriendly and Unchristian Temper of Dis-uniting, that we Declared unanimously against it, binding our selves by all that's Sacred, to an Eternal Union with all Parties, in order to the Restauration of His Majesty, all Differences apart; of what De­gree or Quality soever. In This, we had an eye to the King's Interest, and to the Nation's; for it Referred both to his Majesty's Return, and to a Lasting Peace; the Former being Fa­cilitated by that Conjunction of Interests; and the Latter, provided for by a Conciliation of Affections, to be wrought by suppressing all Motions toward Revenge in the one Party, and the Fears of it in the Other. It had been good Manners to have met us half way; but truly high Discretion, as well as Common Equity, to Close with us, and entertain the Offer. But far from this, we do not onely get not one Good word, but many a Bad one: Such, as those People that will never Leave the King, are to expect from such as do not love Him. Our Adversary talks much of the Gospel. Is it a Gospel-precept, to render Evil for Good ▪ What I have shewed already, that the Kings Party did, amounts to somewhat more than nothing. We'l see a little further, allow­ing yet to all that Acted in that work their share of Glory.

The Duke of Albemarle was the Leading Card, then in the head of an Army, better dis­pos'd to his Command, than Design: and to him the Honest part of the City and Nation were no ill Seconds. But till he had tasted and [Page 18] tri'd them, he did well to walk warily: and ra­ther take the middle and safer way, of Gra­tifying all Interests then on foot, than the more Positive, and Hazardous, of Disobliging any Two Parties, in favour of the Third.

For there were then Three several Interests in Play: the King's, the Presbyterian's, and the Phanatique's: The Royal party press'd for a Free Choice and Convention, without Prelimination. The Presbyterians urg'd a Re­admission of the Secluded Members. The Pha­natiques, they were for filling up the House, according to such Qualifications as the Rump should resolve upon. The course the General steer'd was this; — the Rump Conti­nued; the Secluded Members Returned; and the Royallists were satisfied with the Assurance of a new Choice soon after. His Excellence acting in this Affair rather as a Conciliator, than a Party, and in order to a Settlement, giving things the best Consistency they would then bear.

But had the antient Stock of Royallists no hand at all in this procurement? It never came to blows, so that the matter Rests upon the Effects of Policy and Counsel; whereof our undertaker cannot give any absolute account; nor shall we in our just Apology, exalt our selves, and cry, We brought the King in. That's Presbyterian Language. We did not drive him out, we'l say; and that we joyn'd with many Thousands, as honest as our selves, in Duty to Restore him. Whether there was place for Action, and to do the King a Service [Page 19] that way, we never Articled for Offices or Rewards, but without further care of Interest, persu'd our Duties. In fine the Loyal part of the Nation was animated by the same Soul, joyn'd Stocks, and Counsels: and many Thou­sands of brave Fellows that never saw the King, were forward and Ambitious to Die for him. I could say what was undertaken by the old Royal Party, particularly, in Hewson's scuffle, (and indeed where not) but that it casts a Slur upon some of his Majesty's new Friends. This however, those Lads of the City, that would have done the work without more ado, had they not been Muzzl'd by some of their Mungrel Magistrates, that Din'd with the Mayor, and Supp'd with the Committee of Safety: those honest people will, if need be, bear witness for us, and in like manner the whole Nation, that by Action, Counsel, Writing, we did all that was possible in the Business. Neither does what I have delivered in defence of the Royal Party, disagree with his Majesty's testimony of the Other, in His Gracious Speech to the House of Peers for hastning the Act of Indempnity: which yet our Author cites against us.

My Lords, His Ma­jesty's Speech for hast­ning the Act of Indemp­nity. If you do not joyn with Me in ex­tinguishing those fears, which keep mens hearts awake, and apprehensive of safety and security, you keep Me from performing My promise, which if I had not made, I am perswaded that neither I nor you had been now here: I pray you let Vs not deceive those who brought Vs, [Page 20] or permitted Vs to come together.

Observation The King does not There say so much who Brought Him in, as who Permitted His Re­storing; implying, that He was fain to Con­dition for that too; but withal, a great Earnest­ness to perform His promise.

Had but this Gentleman considered as well what the King said at the Passing of the In­dempnity, as at the Hastning of it, this wrangle would have been saved; I'l do him the service to mind him of it.

His Ma­jesty's Speech at the passing the Act of In­dempni­ty. I do very willingly pardon all that is pardoned by this Act of Indempnity, to that time which is mentioned in the Bill. Nay, I will tell you, That from that time to this day, I will not use great severity, ex­cept in such Cases where the Malice is No­torious, and the Publick Peace exceed­ingly concern'd. But for the time to come, the same Discretion and Conscience which disposed me to the Clemency I have ex­press'd, which is most agreeable to My Nature, will oblige me to all Rigour and Severity, how contrary soever it be to My Nature, towards those who shall not now Acquiesce, but continue to manifest their Sedition and Dislike of the Government, either in Actions or Words. And I must conjure you all (My Lords and Gentlemen) [Page 21] to concur with me in this just and necessary Severity; and that you will in your several Stations, be so jealous of the publick Peace, and of My particular Honor, that you will cause Exemplary Justice to be done upon those who are guilty of Seditious Speeches or Writings, as well as those☜ who break out into Seditious Actions: And that you will believe those who delight in reproaching and traducing My Person, not to be well affected to you and the pub­lick Peace. Never King valued himself more upon the Affections of his People, than I do; Nor do I know a better way to make My Self sure of your Affections, than by being Just and Kind to you all; and whilst I am so, I pray let the World see, that I am possessed of your Affections.

Thus far the Ground-work, now the goodly Structure.

His Majesty thus brought back to a willing and free-spirited people, Page 14. by their own Act, beholds his undoubted Interest set forth to his hand, and made plain before him; which is no other, than a well-tempered and composed state of Affairs, both Religious and Civil, in all his Dominions, by the abolishing of former Differences, and the reconciling of all recon­cileable [Page 22] Parties; and especially of those grand Parties, which (if made one) do upon the mat­ter carry the whole Nation. And this His Majesties Wisdom hath already observed, in that excellent Proclamation against vitious, debauched, and prophane persons, in these words, [That the Reconciliation and Union of hearts and affections, can onely, with God's bles­sing, make Us rejoyce in each other, and keep Our Enemies from rejoycing.] And this is the earnest expectation and hope of the Reli­gious, and well affected to the publick Tranquil­lity, that the King, our supreme Head and Go­vernor, whose gracious Disposition doth not suffer him to cleave to any divided part of his Subjects, and to reject others that are alike Loy­al, will, as a common Father, protect and che­rish all those that are found capable and wor­thy, and become our great Moderator by his Authority and Wisdom, to lessen Differences, and allay Animosities, between dissenting Bre­thren, which already agree in the main points of Religion.

Observa­tion.Having hitherto asserted, that those who fought under the late King's Banner, were not his Majesty's Friends; and that those who fought against it, ever were; he proceeds now to a Conclusion suitable to his premises, and states the Interest of the King in favour of that Voluntary Mistake: directing an Accord betwixt all Reconcilable Parties, and an indul­gence toward all those that are found Capable, [Page 23] and Worthy. In Both (and in All) Cases, the Presbyterian himself must be the Judge: and then we know what will become of Royallists and Bishops.

The Kings Friends have ever had the Honor to be Divided (by these People) into persons Popishly affected, Evil Counsellors, and Loose Livers; and it is evident, that they design, un­der these Limitations of Reconcilable, Capable, and Worthy, to cast all such as Conscienti­ously, and frankly adhere to Monarchy, and Episcopacy, out of the terms of their pre­tended Pacification. All those that They find Capable and Worthy, and esteem Reconcilable, shall be admitted. Now to the Question.

1. Quest. Whether in Justice or Reason of State the Presbyterian party should be Re­jected and Depressed, or Protected and En­couraged?

Observation It would be first agreed what's meant by the Presbyterian Party: We'l weigh the Justice and Reason of the Proposition after. His own Remarque upon it is not amiss.

As concerning their true Character, Page 19. the Notation of the name whereby they are called, is both too shallow, and too narrow for it. The word Presbyterian hath not sufficient depth to go to the root of the Matter, nor breadth suf­ficient to comprehend this sort of men. That Form of Ecclesiastical Government by Paro­chial [Page 24] and Classical Presbyteries, Provincial and National Assemblies, is remote enough from their main Cause, and those firm Bonds that make them eternally one, in respect whereof ma­ny that approve a regulated Episcopacy, will be found of their number.

Observation 'Tis truly and well said. Their Cause is not the Form, but the Exercise of Government: for they like well enough to have that Power Themselves, which they condemn in Others. Nor do I doubt but that many of them approve a regulated Episcopacy; that is, a Presbyter in a Bishop's seat, where the Office appears Re­gulated by the Person, as 'tis in a Regulated Monarchy; Where the King's subject to the Law, and the Law to the two Houses. But I condemn not All, that wear that Character. The Wise, and Honest Few of that Denomination, who keep themselves within the terms of Du­ty, and the Question; such as can talk of the Church, without disturbing the State; and de­bate their private Opinions, without giving publick Scandal: For these, I have much Cha­rity, and Reverence, and wish as great a ten­derness toward them, as they themselves de­sire. But where I see a Bold seditious Faction, bidding defiance to the Civil Magistrate un­der the Churches Colours: I find not any thing so Sacred in the Name of Presbyterian, as to protect a Turbulent Party assuming that Appellation. It will be urg'd, that they do as little Justifie the Seditious, as I condemn the [Page 25] Sober Presbyterian. But to agree that point, I'l prove, that the same Party, for whom they plead, and against whom I engage, are no less Enemies to the King, and People, than to Bishops: and, which is more, from their own practises and positions, I'l make it good. Yet one would hardly guess this from their follow­ing Character.

As concerning their main and rooted prin­ciples, Page 20. they admire and magnifie the holy Scrip­tures, and take them for the absolute perfect rule of Faith and Life, without the supple­ment of Ecclesiastical Tradition; yet they deny not due respect and reverence to venerable Anti­quity. They assert the study and knowledge of the Scriptures, to be the duty and priviledge of all Christians, that according to their seve­ral capacities, being skilful in the Word of Righteousness, they may discern between good and evil, and being filled with all goodness, may be able to exhort and admonish one another: Yet they acknowledge the necessity of a standing Gospel-Ministery, and receive the directive authority of the Church, not with implicite Faith, but the Judgment of discretion: They hold the teaching of the Spirit necessary, to the saving knowledge of Christ: Yet they do not hold that the Spirit bringeth new Revelations, but that he opens the eyes of the understanding to discern what is of old revealed in the written Word: They exalt divine Ordinances, but de­base humane Inventions in Gods Worship, parti­cularly [Page 26] Ceremonies properly Religious, and of Instituted Mystical signification: Yet they allow the natural expressions of Reverence and De­votion, as kneeling, and lifting up of the hands and eyes in prayer; as also of those meer Cir­cumstances of decency and order, the omission whereof would make the service of God either undecent, or less decent. As they worship God in the spirit, according to the simplicity of Gospel Institutions, so they rejoyce in Christ Je­sus, having no confidence in a legal Righte­ousness, but desire to be found in him, who is made unto us Rigteousness by gracious Impu­tation: Yet withal they affirm constantly, that good works of piety towards God, and of justice and charity towards men, are necessary to sal­vation. Their Doctrine bears full conformity with that of the Reformed Churches, held forth in their publick Confessions, and particu­larly with that of the Church of England, in the nine and thirty Articles, onely one or two passages peradventure excepted, so far as they may import the asserting of Prelacy, and human Mystical Ceremonies. They insist much on the necessity of Regeneration, and therein lay the ground-work for the practise of godliness. They press upon themselves and others the severe exercise, not of a Popish, outside, formal, but a spiritual and real mortification, and self-de­nyal, according to the power of Christianity. They are strict observers of the Lords Day, and constant in Family prayer. They abstain from oathes, yea, petty oathes, and the irreverent [Page 27] usage of Gods Name in common discourse; and, in a word, they are sober, just, and circum­spect in their whole behaviour. Such is the temper and constitution of this party, which in its full latitude lies in the middle between those that affect a Ceremonial Worship, and the heighth of Hierarchical Government on the one hand, and those that reject an ordained Mini­stery, and setled Church-order, and regular Vnity on the other hand.

Observation Here is much said, and little proved; onely a Pharisaical Story, of what they are not, and what they are; that they are not as other men are, and their bare word for all. The Tale is well enough told to catch the silly vulgar, that look no further then Appearances: But to a serious person, how gross, and palpable is the Imposture! In the main points of Doctrine they fully agree with the nine and thirty Articles: and 'tis but peradventure, that they differ, in one or two passages, so far as they may import the asserting of Prelacy, and humane Mystical Ceremonies.]

Behold the mighty Subject of an Holy War; the goodly Idol, to which we have sacrific'd so much Christian blood. Can any man imagine this the true and conscientious reason of the Quarrel? Or that the middle way our Pres­byter steers, betwixt Phanaticism and Popery, is the just measure of the Case: But hear him on, and he'l tell ye, the Party is Numerous as well as Godly.

[Page 28] Page 23. VVithin these extensive limits the Presby­terian Party contains several thousands of learned, godly, orthodox Ministers, being dili­gent and profitable Preachers of the Word, and exemplary in their Conversation; among whom there are not a few that excel in Polimical and Practical Divinity, also of the judicious, sober, serious part of the people, (in whose affections his Majesty is most concern'd) they are not the lesser number. By means of a practical Mini­stery, this way, like the Leaven in the Gospel-parable, hath spread and season'd the more con­siderate and teachable sort in all parts of the Kingdom, and especially in the more civiliz'd places, as Cities and Towns.

Observation It had been well our Undertaker had put his Orthodox, and Learned Thousands upon the List▪ for that Party is a little given to false Musters.

How many forg'd Petitions and Remon­strances; what Out-eries from the Press and Pulpit, in the name of the People, when yet the forti'th part of them were never privy to their own Askings! Of English and Scotch Presbytery, pag. 316. ninety and seven Mi­nisters within the walls of London, fourscore and five were driven from their Churches, and Houses, at the beginning of our Troubles. And notwithstanding the monstrous Clamours, which occasion'd the Conference at Hampton-Court in 1603. Hist. of the Ch. of Scotl. p. 479. Arch-bishop Spotswood tells us, that [ of above nine thousand Ministers, but forty nine appeared upon the Roll, that stood out, and were deposed for disconformity. Such a noise [Page 29] will a few Disturbers cause in any Society, where they are tollerated.]

Touching his Practical Ministery; I'l grant, The Pres­byterians practical Ministery. the Cause is much beholden to the Pulpit, and that, without the aid of Seditious Lectures, I do believe the strife had never come to Blood: But yet these Preachments did not the whole Business. Do not we know what Craft and Violence hath been used to Cheat and Force the People; what Protestations, Covenants, and Negative Oathes have been imposed, up­on pain of Imprisonment, Banishment, Seque­stration? Have not all Schools, and Nurceries of Piety and Learning, been subjected to the Presbyterian mode, and many thousands of Godly, and Reverend Divines, reduced to beg their Bread, because they would not Covenant: yet all too little to procure either a General Kindess, or submission to their Principles?

For the Reasons afore-going, the infringe­ment of due Liberties in these matters, Pag. 25. would perpetuate most unhappy Controversies in the Church from Age to Age. Let the former times come in, and give good Evidence. As touching Ceremonies, the Contest began early, even in King Edward's Reign, between Hooper and other Bishops. The Consecration of Hooper, Elect Bishop of Glocester being stayed, because he refused to wear certain Garments used by Popish Bishops, he obtained Letters from the King and from the Earl of Warwick, to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and others, that he might not be burthened with certain Rites and [Page 30] Ceremonies, and an Oath common [...]y used in the Consecration of Bishops, which were offensive to his Conscience. Nevertheless he found but harsh dealing from his fellow-Bishops, whereof some were afterwards his fellow-Martyrs, and Ridley among others, who afterwards thus wrote unto him, when they were both Prisoners for the Gospel. [However in time past in certain Circumstances and By-matters of Religion, your wisdom, and my simplicity (I grant) hath a little jarred, each of us following the abundance of his own sense and judgment: Now be assured, that even with my whole heart, in the Bowels of Christ, I love you in the truth, and for the truth's sake which abideth in us.] Some godly Martyrs in Queen Mary's days disliked the Ceremonies, and none of them died in the defence of Ceremonies, Liturgy, and Prelacy, in opposition to all other Ecclesiastical Government and Order. It was the Protestant verity which they witnessed, and sealed in blood, in opposition to Popery; especially the prodigious Opinion of Transubstantiation, and the Abomi­nation of the Romish Mass or Sacrifice. In the same bloody days, certain English Protestants being fled for refuge into Germany, and setled at Frankford, were divided amongst themselves about the Service-book, even with scandalous breach of Charity and in the issue, the Congre­gation was sadly broken and dissipated.

What is intended by Due Liberty, might be a Doubt, Observa­tion. Presbyteri­an Liberty. did not the Coherence explain it to be a Freedom of Acting to all intents and [Page 31] purposes at pleasure, (whether without Law, or against it, no matter) according to such presi­dents of Former times, as our Resolver refers unto, and justifies. He tells us, The contest about Ceremonies began early; and so in truth it did: For in the time of King Edward, there was a wambling toward the Geneva Discipline; but neither very earnest, nor very popular: and That (so far as I can learn) procured even by the Author of that Platform, Calvin himself. Concerning Godly Martyrs in Queen Mary's days; Some suffered that disliked the Ceremo­nies, Others, that liked them. That none died in defence of them, is a Remarque might have been spared; For the Question was matter of Faith, not Discipline.

The Frankford Breach indeed was a sad Story, but yet, considering the Dividers, of no great Honor, or Authority to our Friends purpose. Knox and Whittingham were the prime Ring-leaders in this Disorder, who up­on some Disputes started about the Service-book, joyning with others of the Consistorian stamp, drew such an extract of it, as they thought fit, and sent it to Calvin, requesting his Opinion of it. Such was the Answer they received, as blew the whole Congregation into a flame; from whence arose that scan­dalous breach ensuing. viz. The English Ser­vice being established, Whitingham, Gilby, Goodman, with some others, Divided, and went to Geneva, whence, both by Letters and Discourses, they tampered the Ministers and People of England and Scotland into a revolt, encou­raging [Page 32] them to set up their new Discipline, in despite of all Opposers whatsoever.

The Gospel returning under Queen Eliza­beth, page 27. these differences were revived and held up by Disputes, Writings, and Addresses to seve­ral Parliaments; and there were great thoughts of heart for these Divisions.

Observation Why this is English yet: it is but turning now to Queen Elizabeth's Reign to under­stand these people, and unriddle the Due Li­berty they plead for. (But of This, in its pro­per place) Having drawn down the Quarrel from Edward the Sixth, to the blessed Restau­ration of Charls the Second, (whom God protect) he proceeds to descant upon the Present.

The greatest part of the Ministers named Puritans, page 28. yielded conformity to those contro­verted Rites and Forms, that were by Law or Canons established, as to things burdensome not desirable, in their nature supposed indifferent, but in their use many ways offensive; and groan­ing more and more under the yoke of bondage, (as they conceived) they waited for deliverance, and were in the main, of one soul and spirit with the Nonconformists. And even then the way called Puritanism, did not give, but get ground. But now the Tenents of this way are rooted more than ever; and those things formerly imposed, are no [...] by many, if not by the most of this way, accounted not onely burdensome, but unlawful.

[Page 33] Observation But is it so, that Matters by Law established, in themselves Indifferent, and onely Burthen­some to day, ( rebu [...]sic stantibus) may become Vnlawful to morrow? By the same Rule, The conse­quents of Presbyte­rian Liber­ty. Kings may be taken away as well as Bishops; all Dignities and Powers being alike submit­ted to a Popular Level: For if the People shall think fit to say, the Magistrate is un­lawful, as well as the Ceremony, by the same reason he may destroy One with the Other; and Virtually he does it. We know, the Rites and Forms of Worshipping, are not of the Essence of Religion, and the huge bustle about Disci­pline, is onely an Appeal to Ignorance and Tumult. The Church must be Reformed. By whom? Not by the Rabble. What means this application then of so many factious Sermons, and Libels to the People? They are not Judges of the Controversie. But in a Cause more capable of Force than Argument, they do well to Negotiate, where Clamour, and Pretence, weigh more than Modesty and Rea­son. If a man asks, by what Commission Act these Zelots? They answer readily: 'Tis God's Cause, and better obey God than Man. He that said, Give not Credit to every Spirit; I sup­pose knew as much of Gods mind, as our Illu­minates. Is not mistaken, or perverted Scrip­ture, the ground of all Schism and Heresie? Counsels may erre, they say, and cannot Pres­byterians? How comes this Party to be more infallible than their Neighbours? If they are not, let but all other people of Different Judgments take the same Freedom they do, [Page 34] of out-cries against any thing, under pretext of Conscience; let any man imagine the con­fusion. For, where every man is his own Judge, All men shall dispute, till each Particular con­demns himself; so that the Strife is Endless, and the Event Restlesness, and Confusion.

This comes of not submitting to some Fi­nal, and over-ruling Decision. Upon this pinch at a dead lift, they fly to their Judgment of Discretion: which leaves them still at Li­berty to shape their Duty to their Profit. They tell us; They'l be tryed by the Word of God: not heeding, how That is again to be tri'd by Them: so that in Issue, their private Interpre­tation of the Scriptures must pass for the Law Paramount, to which both King and Peo­ple are equally, and indispensably subjected. Undoubtedly, what God commands, we ought to do, and not to do what he forbids. This, in few words, comprises the Duty of Reasonable Nature, without distinction either of Offices or Persons. But these inviolable Fundamen­tals apart, the Accidents of Worship, the Modes of doing this or that; The How, When, Where, &c. are left various, and variable, according to the several Requiries of Man­ners, Times, and Places, at the Discretion of those Rulers whom God sets over us. Where we find matters of this middle nature orderly setled, and dispos'd, we are commanded to submit to these Humane Ordinances for the Lords sake; and not to Obtrude upon the Word for Conscience, such Disagreements, as effectually arise from Peevishness, or want of [Page 35] due Enquiry. But why do I talk to those that stop their Ears?

Their minds are fix'd in this Opinion, Page 29. after a long time of search and practice, and are not like to be reduc'd to the practice of former times.

This is but Martin Junior Revived, Observa­tion. who says, That it will be very dangerous to our State, to maintain two contrary Factions; That the Magistrates are then bound, even for the quieting of our State, to put down the one; That those that stand for the Discipline, neither can nor will give it over, (so as they will not be put down) and that the said Magistrates cannot maintain the corruption of our Church, namely, Arch-bishops and Bishops, without the discon­tentment of their Subjects.

Me-thinks the man of peace grows perem­ptory. Will not this Argument from Search and Practice, absolve them from Obedience to the King, as well as to the Church? Has not the Regal Power been scann'd and sifted, as well as the Ecclesiastick? or have their pra­ctises been more favourable to his Majesty, than to the Clergy? But ( their minds are fix'd, and not to be reduc'd.) This is to say, that if the Law and they cannot agree, they'l tug for't, upon this supposition, thus he concludes. That (in all reason, Page 29. the imposing of such matters of Controversie, as by so many are held unlawful, and by those that have a Zeal [Page 36] for them judged indifferent, not necessary, can­not procure the peace of Church and King­dom.)

Observation I say on the Contrary, That the peace of Church and Kingdom cannot be preserved, where every private and Licentious spirit shall dare to Question the Authority of either. In fine, admit the Scruple truly conscientious. It would be well yet, that such as fault the present Government, would Frame another, that should be liable to no exceptions, be­fore they alter This. If that cannot be done, let us Rest Here; for if we are bound to change till all are pleas'd, never must we expect to be at quiet. Some Consciences will have no Magistrates at all; Others will Govern those they have, or Quarrel with them. To Reconcile these Two in any end of Settlement, is as Impossible, as 'tis Unsafe to put much power into the Hands of People, so dange­rously principled; (But to Destroy a Govern­ment none agree better, and this we speak up­on Experience.)

From hence to his 40th. page, I find little but Rapture, in commendation of the Pres­byterians, with now and then a snap at the late Prelates, which is beside my purpose. See now his Complement to the King.

Page 40. Blessed be God for our gracious Soveraign, who makes it his care and study to allay di­stempers, and compose differences by his just and gracious Concessions already published concern­ing Ecclesiastical Affairs.

[Page 37] Observation For fear his Majesty's Concessions should be taken for a pure Act of Grace, they are epi­theted, Just, as well as Gracious, to lessen the Favour, by intimating the Duty; what Re­turn gives the Presbyterian Party for this In­dulgence? Are they not troublesome as ever both in their Writings and Contrivements?

That Declaration was no sooner publique, but a Petition was exhibited from divers Mi­nisters in and about London, for more Liber­ty, with some formalities indeed of Gratitude for That. How many bold and scandalous In­vectives since that time, both from the Press and Pulpit, against the Rites of the Church, and the Episcopal Clergy: Nay, and against the Sacred Majesty of That very Person, to whose Incomparable Clemency they owe their Heads and Fortunes? One observation here, to shew, that onely severity can work upon this Faction; Note. The single imprisonment of Crofton hath qui­eted that Party more, than all the multiply'd, and transcendent Mercies of His Majesty.

That worthy Gentleman, in his Epistle De­dicatory to the Liturgical Considerator, tells us, Crofton. that [ The Common-prayer-book hath been expell'd by a lawful Authority,] (referring to an Ordinance of January 3. 1644.) If this be not Treason, then Scot and Peters were no Traitors. The Considerator further assures us, Page 34. [ That very few Christians that know the Power of Godliness, care for medling with the Liturgy.] I hope his Majesty may pass for one of those Few.

A great Assertor of his Principles is the [Page 38] Authour of the Covenanters Plea, although in some Respects more plausibly couch'd; in others Bolder; treating His Majesty with a most unpardonable Insolence, and with a Suitable regard all his Episcopal Friends as they fall in his way. I should exceedingly wonder how he scap'd a lash from the last Conven­tion, especially Dedicating that reverend piece to the Commons then Assembled, did I not consider, that Those very Pamphlets, whereof His Majesty complains in His Decla­ration, touching Ecclesiastical Affairs, were by my self, at their first comming forth, deli­vered to several Members of that Session, which notwithstanding, they were still sold in the Hall; all the Interest I had being too little to get them suppressed. But now return we to our Author, who complains, that

Page 41. The Presbyterians are loaded with many Ca­lumnies; as, that they are against the Interest of Civil Magistracy, especially of Monarchy; That they are giddy, factious, schismatical, do­mineering, and what not?

Page 42.But no such matter he assures us; for, They yield unto the Supreme Magistrate a Supreme political Power in all Spiritual Matters; but they do not yield that he is the Fountain of spi­ritual power, there being a spiritual Power be­longing to the Church, if there were no Christi­an Magistrate in the world. They assert onely a spiritual power over the Conscience, as in­trinsecally belonging to the Church; and ac­knowledge, [Page 39] that no Decree nor Canon of the Church, can be a binding Law to the Subjects of any Kingdom under temporal penalties, till it be ratified by the Legislative power of that Kingdom. And they do not claim for the Con­vocation, or any other Ecclesiastical Conven­tion, an Independency on Parliaments; if they did, surely the Parliament of England would re­sent such a Claim.

Neither are they Antimonarchical. Did the English or Scotish Presbyters ever go about to dissolve Monarchy, and to erect some other kind of Government? In no wise: for in the Solemn League and Covenant, they bound themselves to endeavour the preservation of the King's Person and Authority, and declared they had no intent to diminish his Majesty's just Power and Greatness.

Observation How far their Principles comport with the Interest of Civil Magistracy or Monarchy, shall have a place by it self: yet I might very well content my self with what arises from his own words, as they lie here before us; to Prove what he Denies; for in the same Breath he both Starts the Question and Resolves it. Did not the English and Scotch Presbyters go about to dissolve Monarchy?

What is the Analysis of Monarchy, Presbytery Antimo­narchical. but a Government by a Single Person? (and, as I take it, the Injur'd Father of our present So­veraign was That Person, to whom of Right the Regal Dignity belonged.) Did not these Presbyters he talks of, place the Supreme Power [Page 40] in the Two Houses, and under Their Com­mission, seize the King's Towns, and Forts; Levy Arms; Tax the People; Plunder, and Kill their Fellow-Subjects; Impose Oathes; Share His Majesty's Revenues; Persue, and Jewishly sell and betray His Sacred Person?

If to do all this, not onely Without, but expresly Against the King's Commission, be not to go about to dissolve Monarchy, I know not what is. Or if the Gentleman had rather dispute the Royal Prerogative, than confess his own Mistake in this Particular, we'l look a little that way too: but I doubt the Prospect will be none of the pleasantest.

Upon the Trial of Cook and Peters, This was Delivered for Law. See the Narrative, Page 182 and 183.

The two Houses have no Coercive Power over the King. It is the Law of this Nation, That no One House, nor Both Houses of Parliament, have any Coercive power over the King: — That the Imprisoning of the King is Treason. And a little further, Thus, The King of England is one of those Prin­ces who hath an Imperial Crown: What's That? It is not to do what he will; No, but it is, that he shall not be punished in his own Person, if he doth That which is in it selfe Unlawful.

This is a short and clear decision of the Case: nor will it serve the good man's turn [Page 41] to argue their Integrity, from what they were bound to by their Covenant and Declarations. It matters not what they Profess'd, but what they Did. If this be all they have to say; some Heads are now upon the City-Gates that said as much.

What was the Covenant, The Cove­nant an Oath of Confedera­cy. but a Popular Sa­crament of Religious Disobedience, a Mark of Discrimination, who were against the King, and who were for him? And this the Marquis of Montross soon found, who being at first un­warily engaged in it, with the Kirk-party, quickly perceived his error, and retired; Liv­ing and dying the Honor of his Nation, and of the Royal Cause. Mark this, Note. His Loyalty was charged upon him at his Death, for Breach of Covenant.

The Presbyterian Casuists would fain per­swade the Nation, to think themselves ob­liged by that Engagement. Who Vnderstands it first? (And certainly we cannot be bound to do we know not what) Next, 'tis impossible either to Keep, or Break it: 'tis made up of so many Contradictions. But once for All; there is a Nullity in the Institution.

No man can oblige himself in things where­in he is subject, The Co­venant neither lawful nor binding. without leave from his Supe­rior. And again; The Oath of One who is un­der the power of Another, without the others consent, is neither Lawful nor Obligatory. Thus the Reverend, and Learned Bishop Sanderson. Now to my Presbyterian again.

After the violent change of Government, Pag. 44. [Page 42] they came slowest, and entred latest into those new Engagements imposed by the Vsurped Powers, and some utterly refused, even to the forfeiture of their preferments, and the haz­zard of their livelyhoods, when the Nation in general submitted to the yoke; and many of those who thus object against them, did in tem­porizing run with the foremost. The truth is, the generality of Conscientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of those times. Some more eminent among them, Ministers and others, hazzarded their lives, and others lost their lives, in combining to bring our Sove­raign that now is to the rightful possession of this his Kingdom. And those in Scotland adventured no more then all to uphold him; and when he lost the Day, they lost their Liberty; and when he fell, it was said by the Adversary, Presbytery was fallen.

Where I must either leave the Story foul on the Kings side, Observa­tion. or prove it so on the Other, my choice is pardonable: but otherwise I shall be very tender of engaging the Honest Pres­byterians, Some ho­nest Pres­byterians. with the Guilty. That many of them lov'd His Majesty, and suffer'd for him, I will not question; and that they all submitted most unwillingly, to that Violent Change here men­tion'd, I do as little doubt. But I must needs say, the Action had been Nobler, and the Loyalty much Clearer, had they consulted the Kings Security, before they lost their own.

This does not yet oblige me to the same Charity for the Scotish Party; who first, [Page 43] during a Treaty with His Majesty, basely and brutishly murthered Montrose, and after that, Treated the King himself, liker a Prisoner, than a Prince.

He urges, Page 45. that [ the Presbyterians first divid­ed, and then dissipated the Sectarian Party, and so made way for his Majesties return in Peace.] Lambert, and his Nine Worthies did as much. I do believe him too, Page 46. [ that the sense of the Covenant quickned many men's Consciences in their allegiance to the King.] So did the Cock-crowing mind St. Peter of the denial of his Master. But he went out, and wept bitterly; So does not every body. Alas, alas, the Saints have no faults; what should they weep for? It may be peradventure said, the Presbyterians would enervate Monarchy; but surely (says our Discourser)

I cannot find the rise of this Objection, Ibid. unless from hence, that they were not willing to come under any yoke, but that of the Law of the Realm, or to pay Arbitrary Taxes, levied with­out consent of Parliament.

Observation From hence these two Deductions; First, That the Subjects free from that which binds the King, namely, the Yoke of Law. Suppose He breaks that Law, by what Law can we question him? At best, 'tis but to pu­nish One Transgression by Another. The Second Hint is Dis-ingenuous: as if Arbi­trary Taxes had been the subject of the Difference. All the world knows, before a [Page 44] blow was strook, the King had stript himself to his Honour, and his Conscience, to gratifie his People. But 'twas the Government they aim'd at, and that they fought for. Here is yet another gentle slip: What are Taxes to Presbytery? But this is a Devil that will hard­ly be kept within his Circle.

Just so in their Practices do they reduce all Civil Actions, under the Cognizance of their Courts of Conscience, as he brings here by head and shoulders, Arbitrary Taxes to Mat­ter of Religion.

I confess (says he) there are none that more reverence their Liberties, page 46. and value the native-happiness of the free-born Subjects of England. And verily their true knowledge and sense of the nature of Christian Religion, makes a due freedom exceeding precious: For this Religion is not variable, according to the will of man, but grounded upon an unchange­able and eternal truth, and doth indispensably bind every soul, high and low, to one divine Law and Rule, perpetual and unalterable. And there­fore doth strongly plead the expedience of a due civil Liberty on the behalf of its Professors; yet such a liberty as will not enfeeble Monar­chy, nor the Legal power of the Kings of England.

Observation Truly I think I have not seen words so well put together, that signifie so little. Because Religion is not variable, but grounded upon an unchangeable and eternal Truth, &c. — [Page 45] Therefore the Professors of it must have a due civil Liberty, &c. Is not a Due Liberty, Due to all people? Again, What is civil Liberty to matter of salvation? And yet again. Why should the Presbyterians challenge that liberty to themselves, which they refuse to others, upon the very same Plea: and not rather sub­mit their Discipline to the Law, then stoop the Law to their Discipline? There is a Li­berty which is a cloak for Maliciousness: and I am afraid, Theirs and That are much a-kinn. One thing is very notable; they never state what they would have, their terms are general, and indefinite, hard to be understood, because they are resolv'd not to be satisfi'd. A Due Freedom, a Due Civil Liberty, The Legal Power;— What means all this, but any thing they shall be pleased to make of it?

A King ruling a free People, Page 47. hath a Power much more noble and more free, than he that ruleth over perfect Vassals, that have no Pro­priety. The power is more noble, because it hath a more noble subject of Government; it is more honorable to rule Men than Beasts, and Free­men than slaves. Likewise the power is more free: For whatsoever Prince hath not his power limited by his people's legal freedom, he will be bound up some other way, either by the potency of subordinate Princes and great Lords within the Realm, or by a veterane Army, as the Tur­kish Emperor by his Janizaries, and the Ro­man Caesars by the Pretorian Bands and the Le­gions. Vpon which account, to be a powerful [Page 46] Monarch over a free people, is the freedome and glory of our Soveraign Lord, above all the Po­tentates on earth.

Observation A King ruling a free people, is a kind of Presbyterianism, and sounds better in the mouth of a Lawyer, than of a Divine. The Correlate to Rule, is Subjection: nor will their Title to a Propriety, yet justifie the common usage of the Term. 'Tis of a dangerous Inti­mation, and seems to give the people more than comes to their share. (I speak with re­verence to the benignity of our English Laws, and the Indubitable right which every Subject hath to the Benefits thereof.)

That it is more honorable to Rule Free-men than Slaves, is but a Complement For I can make those Slaves, Free, when I please, where­as the other way of my power's confin'd; that is, in Equity, a Prince is bound to observe the Law, as his own Act: and if he fails, the people may compel him to it, if they can shew a Law for't. To end this point; What Prince soever shall suffer every bubling brain to controvert the bounds of King and Sub­ject; the Royal Authority, and the Peoples Freedom; that Prince, I say, runs a great haz­zard of his Soveraignty. The very moving of the Question, is to prophane the Sacredness of Majesty; and by degrees begets irreverend and sawcy habits in the people.

But Rebellion (he tells us) and Disobedience, is the loud out-cry of some against this Party. Page 48. [Page 47] And this were a crying sin indeed. But let not sober minds be hurried into prejudice by such ex­clamations and out-cries. It were to be wished, for common peace and amity, that the late pub­lick Discords were eternally forgotten. But seeing some in these times of expected Reconci­liation, will not cease to implead and condemn the honest minded, and render them odious to the higher Powers, a necessity is laid upon us to speak something Apologetical, at least to miti­gate the business, and remove prejudice.

Observation Sure this loud out-cry of Rebellion aad Dis­obedience, comes from within himself; for truly I have a little watch'd the Press, and since his Majesty's Return, (nay, a good while before) upon my conscience I have not met with one syllable of bitterness against that Party, but Defensive: Yet I dare undertake to produce forty Presbyterian Pamplets, and Discourses, of fresh date, exceeding foul against the King, and his Adherents. It really makes me blush and tremble, to consider how great a mercy they abuse, how sad a vengeance they provoke. Presbyte­rians sedi­tious and impeni­tent. Had but these people the least spark of natural affection and remorse, the ve­nerable ruines of a glorious Chuch and State would work upon them; Or now and then a thought how matters stand betwixt God and their Souls: But their great care of others make them neglect themselves, and become true Anathemaes for a pretended publick good. However they do well to cry Whore first; and call that a Necessitated Apology, [Page 48] which seems to me a palpable and causeless Slander.

We have heard much and often of the Pres­byterians Loyalty and Religion; we'l look a little now into their Law, which very fairly gives us to understand, that the Vnbishopping of Timothy and Titus, will not do their trick. They are at work already upon the two main props of Royalty; the King's Negative Voice, and the Power of the Sword. A blessed Age the while, when the Pulpit shall pretend to dis­pose of the Crown; Kerve out the Government; and every scribling Priest vent his seditious and crude Politiques to the People. But now it works.

page 49. The Presbyterian Party in England never engaged under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament. I have read, that the Parliament of England hath several capa­cities, and among the rest, these two; First, that it represents the People as Subjects, and so it can do nothing but manifest their grievances, and petition for relief. Secondly, That by the constitution it hath part in the Soveraignty, and so it hath part in the Legislative power, and in the final Judgment. Now when as a part of the Legislative Power resides in the Two Houses, as also a Power to redress grievances, and to call into question all Ministers of State and Justice, and all Subjects of whatsoever degree in case of Delinquency, it might be thought, that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in them, though they have not the honorary Title.

[Page 49] Observation Me-thinks we should do well to leave cal­ling the Two Houses, the Parliament of Eng­land, The Two Houses, not the Parlia­ment. having already paid so dear for that mi­stake. Concerning the Power of the Parlia­ment of England. 'Tis beyond doubt, onely inferiour to the Fountain of all Power, even God Himself. But then an Agreement is im­ply'd; neither King, Lords, nor Commons, nor any Two of them, can pretend to a Par­liamentary Authority, without the Third. This is not to suppose Co-ordination neither. The Two Houses are still Subjects: Their Of­fice being onely Consultive, or Preparatory ▪ The Character of Power rests in the final San­ction, and that's the King's: So that effectually, the passing of a Bill, is but the granting of a Request.

So much for Parliaments, in propriety of speaking. Now to the Power of the Two Houses, by my Antagonist mis-call'd, The Parliament of England, upon which Bottom stands the Presbyterian Fabrick.

He tell us, They Act in Two Capacities. As Subjects, or Petitioners, first: and Then, as Sharers of the Soveraignty: As if he said, They are sent to Ask what they List, and Take what they Please. The Petitioning Capacity is not for the Presbyterians purpose; where­fore he waves That, and sticks to the Other. What their Power is, will best appear from the King's Writ of Summons, which both Com­mands and Limits them, Pro QUIBUSDAM arduis, & urgentibus negotiis, &c. — OR­DINAVIMUS, &c.— He states it other­wise, [Page 50] and places a part of the Legislative Power in the Two Houses, which is not Doctor-like. For the Legislative Power is totally the King's. The Legi­slative power in the King. They do but make the Bill, He makes the Law; 'Tis the Stamp, not the Matter, makes it current. Nor do I comprehend what he can mean by Part of the Legislative Power: to my thinking, he might as well have said, Part of an Indivisible Point. This will come to a pretty Fraction, Two Thirds of a Parlia­ment, shall make Two Thirds of a Law. Is it not enough that the King can do nothing without the Two Houses, unless they may do every thing without the King? Grant this, and of all people living we are the greatest Slaves, as of all Constitutions ours is the most Ridiculous.

Touching the power of the two Houses, to Redress Grievances, and Question all Mini­sters of State and Justice,] The Power they have is either from Prescription or Commissi­on. To the Former, I think, Few will pretend; and to the Latter, None.

Never was the House of Commons, at any hand reputed a Court of Justice. The Two Houses no Court of Judica­ture. They cannot give an Oath, impose a Fine: not indeed ex­ercise any Empire but over their own Mem­bers. 'Tis true, the Lords House hath in some Cases a Right of Judicature; but Claiming by Prescription, they are likewise Limited by Custom. Further, Both Houses are no Court of Judicature, and (with due Reverence to his Majesty) the King himself in Parliament, joyn'd with the Three Estates, claim not a [Page 51] right of Judication, but very rarely, and with great Tenderness. It is the proper business of a Parliament to Make Laws, Alter, or Re­peal them, not to Interpret them, unless in matters of very great Importance. That's left to the Judges; and to determine of their Va­lidity. For Acts of Parliament, either Re­pugnant in themselves, or of impossible Suppo­sition, or against Common Right, are deem'd not Binding.

The Common, and most specious shift of all the rest, is, that the Government of this Na­tion is in King, Lords, and Commons. This must be swallowed with great wariness, or 'twill choak half the Nation. By the KING, Architectonicè; and by the other TWO, Or­ganicè, (as Walker distinguishes it) the King, as the Architect; and the Two Houses, as his Instruments. If there were neither Practice, Law, nor Interest in the Case, me-thinks the very odds of Honor in the Deputation, should be Enough to carry it. The King is God's Re­presentative, They are but the Peoples.

Say I should now admit them all they challenge, (as Delegated by the People) so tickle is the point yet, that if any one single Person of the number, should be illegally de­barr'd the Freedom of his Vote; that nicety avoids, and nulls the whole Proceeding. I can hardly think any thing clearer, than the error of placing part of the Supreme Power in the two Houses. It implies a Contradiction: A part of a Thing (with leave) Impartible. (But Drowning men will catch at Straws) [Page 52] However, I perceive, that his Majesty's best Friends, and the Church's (as they style them­selves) are resolved to serve both King and Bishops alike. Presbyters serve King and Bishops alike. That is; just as the Bishop is to rule in Consociation with his Presbyters, so shall his Majesty with his Fellow-Princes, the Presbyterian Members. It cannot but exceed­ingly dispose the King, to grant these people all DUE LIBERTY, that will give him so much. Crowns are but Troublesome; and Go­vernment sits heavy upon the shoulders of a Single Person; They'l ease him of that Care and Weight: and for the honor of their Prince, and their Country's good, divide the Glorious load among themselves.

Exact Col. 316. This being past, (which heaven avert) We may (says the late King) be waited on bare­headed, we may have our Hand kiss'd, the style of Majesty continued to us, and the King's Authority, declared by both Houses of Parlia­ment, may be still the style of your Commands; we may have Swords and Maces carried be­fore us, and please our Self with Sight of a Crown and Scepter.] — But soft, the Man relents, and tells us, (though the Law says, the King can do no wrong) [ That This part of the Supreme power, page 49. is indeed capable of doing wrong, yet how it might be Guilty of Re­bellion, is more difficult to conceive.]

Observation Put case the two Houses should take up Arms against the King, because he will not Banish the one half of his Friends, and hang up the rest: would not that be Rebellion? I [Page 53] could start twenty Suppo [...]itions more; but I'll stop here, and the rather, because our Author professes, that [ in this high and tender point, it belongs not to him to Determine.] Yet he goes on, and certainly believes, that the world is divided into Fools and Presbyterians: he would not otherwise have thrust upon us so gross a Juggle, as that which I am now about to examine.

Touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers, page 50. without passing any judg­ment in the great Case of England, I shall onely 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 censeo, etiamfi dictum sit, belli pote­statem penes Regem fore. Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est, cum alioqui quis­quis Imperii summi partem habeat, non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi.) lib. 1. c. 4. s. 13.

Observation Here we find Grotius cited, to justifie, that the Lords and Commons may make war against the King, Presbyteri­an Loyalty. to defend their Title to the Supreme Power. ( Pythagoras his opinion con­cerning Wild-foul, had been as much to the [Page 54] purpose) For the English Reader's sake I'l turn it; and in this point desire a more than or­dinary attention.

Where the Supremacy is in the King, in some Cases; in Others, in the People, or Senate. That King invading the others Right, may be lawfully resisted; for his power reaches not so far. And this I think will stand good, although I have already placed the right of making War, in the King; for that must be understood of a forreign War: Since whosoever hath a part of the Supreme Power, hath consequently a right of maintaining such part as he hath.] There is one line yet remaining, which our Author hath very prudently kept for a Reserve, till the Presbyterians shall have gotten the better of the King. Quod ubi fit, potest Rex etiam suam Imperii partem belli jure amittere; That is, Where thus it happens, the King's encroach­ment upon the Peoples Right, may fairly amount to a forfeiture of his own.

Is it not pity that people of these milde, and complying Principles, should be charg'd with Disobedience? If this be the case of England, the Question is no longer, the Presbyterians Liberty, but the King's Title to his Crown.

That Chapter of Grotius, whence he takes his Quotation, treats De Bello subitorum, in Superiores; Where, and where not, Subjects may take up Arms against their Superiors. This learned man, among other Cases, tells us, in this they may, and the Reason is evi­dent;: For where the Soveraignty is thus dis­pos'd; [Page 55] half to the King, half to the People, that Prince is but a Subject to some purposes, a King to others. So that in any point of Soveraignty, formally vested in the People; He is not their Superior, but they his. How finely he hath match'd the Case of England, where Kings have no Restraint, but what they put upon them­selves, for the Laws are their proper Acts! But mark the process of his Reasonings: and how (in his own phrase) he feels his way step by step. The Presbyterians were ever in the right; he says. Why, if he would be quiet, who says the contrary? But then the King was in the wrong.

To bring the Case up to Grotius his de­termination: we must admit First, that by the constitution of England, the Soveraignty is shared betwixt the King and the two Houses: and Next, that the late King did actually in­vade the Popular Prerogative: from whence arises the lawfulness of resistance; and after that, Potest Rex etiam suam Imperii partem Belli jure amittere. They have at last the same right to the Crown, they had at first to the Quarrel. He that peruses the first eight Secti­ons of the fore-mentioned Chapter, will find Grotius no favourer of his Opinions that quotes him. Be the Prince what he will, he tells us, Bodin. de Rep. lib. 2. cap. 5. De Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. lib. 3. cap. 1. Ibid. Summum Imperium tenentibus resisti jure non posse. Bodin yet more expresly, that England and Scotland are absolute Monarchies: That the Supreme Power is onely in the King; (Iura Majestatis, ac Imper [...]i summam, in unius Prinoipis Arbitria versari. Further, [Page 56] In Senatu nullum est Imperium; Nor onely so, but whoever urges the contrary, meditates a Commotion, Isti qui Imperium Senatui tri­buunt, Reipublicae interitum, ac status eversio­nem moliuntur.

As to the point of Loyalty now in question, the subversion of the Fundamental Govern­ment of this Kingdom could not be effected, Pag. 51. 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.

Observation Then it seems till that violence by the Ar­my, upon the Presbyterians, there was none acted by the Presbyterians upon the King. To seize his Towns and Magazines; Hunt, and Assault his Royal Person; Part his Revenues; Hang up his Friends: All this is Justifi'd, in Case his Majesty refuses to be rul'd by his Two Houses. Alas, the Fundamental Govern­ment was safe, (I warrant ye) so long as the Rights of Soveraignty were exercis'd, first by the Assembly in Scotland, and then by a pack'd Party, in a close Committee: And the Presbyterians never the less honest men for selling the King first; Then voting him a Pri­soner; and after that, for Pinching him even upon the very Point of Presbytery. Surely they are much to blame that charge these In­nocents with disloyalty.

If the Presbyterian Members had not been [Page 57] Forced, (they say) all had been well. Truly it may be so; yet if I mistake not, there was a time when the Episcopal Members were Forced too; and had that Violence been spar­ed, it had never come to This. But I suppose, the City-Tumults against BISHOPS: the Out­cries of the Rabble at White-hall: the Mul­titudes that Baul'd for Reformation: Posting up such and such for Straffordians, as honest­ly opposed the Torrent of the People. This in the VVell-affected, passes for Christian Li­berty.

But our Author follows his Opinion with a Proof.

For they (says he, Page 51. meaning the Presbyteri­ans) had voted the King's Concessions a Ground sufficient for the Houses to proceed to settle the Nation, and were willing to cast, whatever they Contended for, upon a Legal Security.

Observation Waving their Former Vote of Non-Ad­dresses, and that foul Declaration of their Rea­sons for it: We will in Charity believe, they were over-aw'd, and that it was extorted by the Army. But what excuse for the Matter of the Propositions? That they were actuated by a Presbyterian Spirit, appears in This, that they demanded a Settlement of a Presbyterian Government. It remains now onely from Hence, to gather the Fair Equivalence, of this Gentleman's Doctrine, and to discover what 'tis the Presbyterian Faction calls a Legal Se­curity.

[Page 58] Presbyteri­an Positi­ons.They hold, That if the King of England will not comply with the Two Houses, the People may Chase, Sequester, and Imprison Him: And when they have him in Distress, they may without Disloyalty press Him to these, or the like Conditions for His Li­berty.

• 1. By a Publick Act to justifie that Vio­lence, and condemn himself.
• 2 ly. To Renounce and Abolish Episco­pacy, although bound by Oath and Judg­ment to defend it.
• 3 ly. To Transfer the Right of Levying Men and Monies, to the Two Houses; by them to be raised and disposed of at plea­sure, without rendring any Accompt to his Majesty.
• 4 ly. To deliver up the Lives, Liber­ties, and Fortunes of all that served him, to the Mercy of that Party.
• 5 ly. To grant, that all Offices of Trust may be disposed of by the Appointment of Both Houses.

This is a short, and modest Accompt of Presbyterian Loyalty, the Due Liberty they contend for: which being setled upon a Le­gal Security, with such further Concessions, as their Modesty shall vouchsafe to require, puts an end to the Dispute. His late Majesty ob­serves [Page 59] (upon Uxbridge- Treaty) That it was a grand Maxim with them, always to ask some­thing, which in Reason and Honor must be denyed, that they might have some colour to re­fuse all that was in other things granted.] And so we find it. But what's the Reason of this peevishness?

Is there any thing in the Nature of Prelacy that frames the mind to Obedience and Loyalty? Page 52. Or is there any thing in Presbytery, that inclines to Rebellion and Disobedience?

Observation Truly I think there is. Prelacy holds a better proportion in the Scale of Order, as a more regular Subordination of Duties and Re­lations. Prelacy a more or­derly Con­stitution than Pres­bytery. Nature and Providence do not move by Leaps, but by Insensible and Soft De­grees, which give Stability and Beauty to the Universe. Is not the World compos'd of Disagreements, Hot and Cold, Heavy and Light? — And yet we see those Oppo­sitions are by the means of middle, and Con­ciliating mixtures wrought into a Compli­ance? 'Tis the same case in Subject and Su­perior: Higher and Lower, betwixt Top and Bottom, are but as several Links of one pro­vidential Chain, where every Individual, by vertue of this mutual Dependency, Contri­butes to the Peace and Benefit of the Whole. Some are below me; and This sweetens the Thought that I am below Others: By which Libration are prevented those Distempers which arise either from the Affectation of [Page 60] more Power, or the Shame of having none at all.

As these Degrees of Mean and Noble, are beyond doubt of Absolute Necessity to Po­litical Concord; so possibly the Closer the Remove, the better yet, as to the point of Social expedience; provided, that the Di­stances be such as to avoid Confusion, and preserve Distinct Offices, and Powers from enterfering. Nor is this Gradual method one­ly suited to Humane Interest, as being most accommodate to publick Quiet, and to de­fend the Sacredness of Majesty from popu­lar Distempers: But 'tis the very Rule which God himself Imposes upon the whole Crea­tion: Rom. 9.21. Making of the same Lump, one Vessel to Honor, and another to Dishonor. Subjecting by the Law of his own Will, This to That: That to what's next above it: Both to a Fur­ther Power, all to Himself. And here we rest: as at the Fountain of Authority. From God, Kings Reign; They appoint their Sub­stitutes, and so on to inferior Delegations; All Powers derive from a Divine Original.

This Orderly Gradation, which we find in Prelacy, must needs beget a Reverence to Authority; the Hierarchy it self depending upon a Principle of Obedience; whereas our Utopian Presbytery advances it self upon a Level of Confusion. It is a kind of Negative Faction, united to dissolve a laudable and setled frame of Government, that they may afterward set up they know not what. We may have learn'd thus much from late and [Page 61] sad experience. Let him that would know more of it, read the Survey of pretended Holy Discipline.

I think it would be hard to shew one emi­nent Presbyterian, that stickles not for an Aristocracy in the State, as well as in the Church: and he that said, No Bishop, No King, gave a shrewd judgment; not as im­plying a Princes absolute dependance upon Bishops, but in effect the King's Authority is wounded through the Church; the Reforma­tion of what is amiss, belonging to the Ruler, not to the People. I do not yet condemn all Presbyters, nor justifie all Prelates.

We are told, That in antient times, Page 53. and for a series of many Ages, the Kings of England have had tedious conflicts with Prelates, in their Dominions.] 'Tis Right, and the same cause is now espoused by our more than or­dinary Papal Presbyterians; to wit, Ecclesi­astical Jurisdiction over the Civil Power. But we are further Question'd.

If Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural, how comes it to pass, Page 53. that those States or King­doms where it hath been established or tollerated, have for any time been free from broils and commotions.

Observation It is as true, that those places have been quietest, where Presbytery hath gain'd foot­ing, as 'tis, that Presbyterians have never dis­claimed or abandoned their lawful Prince: Ibid. that [Page 62] they have never ceased to solicite, and supplicate his Regards and Favours, even when their power hath been at the highest, and his sunk lowest.

This is something which in good manners wants a name. Observa­tion. How far the Presbyterians have Abandon'd their Prince, I shall not press, but rather refer the Reader to examine how far, and in what manner they have Solicited him. (Cujus contrarium.)

His late Majesty, after forty messages for Peace, and a Personal Treaty, finding himself most barbarously laid aside; in a Declaration from Carisbrook Castle, Dated Janu. 18. 1647. Expostulates the matter in these Termes.

Rellquiae sacrae Co­rolinae. Page 158. Now would I know, what it is that is desired: Is it Peace? I have shewed the way (being both willing and desirous to perform my part in it) which is, a just Compliance with all chief Interests. Is it Plenty and Happiness? They are the inseparable effects of Peace. Is it Securi­ty? I, who wish that all men would for­give and forget like Me, have offered the Militia for My time. Is it Liberty of Conscience? He who wants it, is most ready to give it. Is it the right Admini­stration of Justice? Officers of trust are [Page 63] committed to the Choice of My two Houses of Parliament. Is it frequent Parlia­ments? I have legally, fully concurr'd therewith. Is it the Arriers of the Army? Upon settlement, they will certainly be paid, with much ease; but before, there will be found much difficulty, if not impossibi­lity in it.

Thus all the world cannot but see My real, and unwearied endeavours for Peace, the which (by the grace of God) I shall neither repent me of, nor ever be slack­ned in: Notwithstanding My past, pre­sent, or future sufferings. But, If I may not be heard, let every one judge, who it is that obstructs, the Good I would do, or might do.

Where the right lies, a Presbyterian may better Determine, than a Royallist Question.

Here's the Testimony of a Pedant, in Bal­lance against the Authority of a Prince.

He tells us by and by, that Prophaneness, Intemperance, Revellings, Out-rages, Page 55. and filthy lewdness were not at any time in the memory of the present age, held under more. Restraint, than in the late distracted times, by means of a Practical Ministery.

[Page 64] Observation These Generals spell nothing, and to name Particulars were not so candid; I could else make up Scot and Peters, at least a score, even out of the select Tribe of the Reformers, (and these I think are not as yet Canoniz'd for Saints.)

'Tis no prophaneness (is it?) to play the Hocus Pocus in a Pulpit, with Rings and Bod­kins; to talk Treason by Inspiration; and entitle the holy Ghost to Murther and Rebellion. To appoint Mock-Fasts, and thank God for Vi­ctories he never gave them. To swear for, and against the King, in the same breath. To convert Churches into Stables, and for fear of Superstition to commit Sacrilege.

Nor is it Out-rage sure, or Intemperance to seize the Patrimony of the Church, the King's Revenues; pillage and kill their fellow-Subjects. To set up Ordinances against setled Laws, and subject the Ten Commandements to the superior Vote of a Committee. To justifie Tu­mults against Authority, and suffer the most damnable Heresies to scape without reproof. But what if there were Disorders; by whom were they caused?

It is most unreasonable to object, that the late wild postures, Page 59. extravagancies, and incongruities in Government, were the works of Presbytery, or Presbyterians. The Nation had never proof of Presbytery, for it was never setled, but ra­ther decry'd, and expos'd to prejudice by those that were in sway, and that in the more early times of the late Wars.

[Page 65] Observation I must confess indeed, that Presbytery was never setled, nor ever likely to be, so much did the whole Nation stomach it; But yet how this agrees with his former Reasoning, pag. 29. I do not understand. There he pre­tends, that by Note. long practise mens minds are fix'd in this opinion: and that the Party is nu­merous. Here he contents himself to acknow­ledge, that the Presbyterians lost their power early, and that they never recovered it since. This will not serve his turn, to acquit the Fa­ction (so denominated) of our late Miseries. Our Soveraign (of blessed memory) brings the contest down, to his surprisal at Holmby, and the Distractions in the two Houses, the Army, and the City, ensuing upon it. These (says that excellent Prince) are but the struglings of those Twins, which lately one Womb enclosed, the Younger striving to prevail against the Elder. Note. What the Presbyterians have hunted after, the In­dependents now seek to catch for them­selves.] In fine; One finish'd what the other began; for the King died at last, but of those wounds which he at first received in his Authority.

His Majesty, upon his leaving Oxford, and going to the Scots, clears this yet further: where he calls it, Adventuring upon their Loyalty, who first began his troubles.

The truth of this matter (says he) is cleared Page 58. [Page 66] by a passage of our late Soveraign, in a Let-to his Majesty that now is. [All the lesser Factions were at first officious Servants to Presbytery their great Master, till time and Military success discovering to each other their particular advantages, invited them to part stakes, and leaving the joynt stock of uniform Religion, pretended each to drive for their party the trade of profits and preferments, to the breaking and un­doing not onely of the Church and State, but of Presbytery it self.— (It fol­lows) which seem'd and hop'd at first to have engross'd all. Note.

Observation The last line is as true as any of the rest; but all truths are not to be spoken. Indeed this Slip is somewhat with the grossest. Not to trouble my self with their formal Foppe­ries, of Deacons, Elders, and their Parish­meetings; Those are but popular amusements: We'll pass to what's more pertinent, and see how he acquits his friends of joyning with the Independents.

Page 60. The truth is, Sectarianism grew up in a My­stery of Iniquity and State-policy, and it was not well discerned, till it became almost triumphant by Military successes.

Observation 'Tis a strange thing the Presbyterians should not see what they themselves contri­ved; [Page 67] what all others took notice of; and what the late King offered to prove, Exact Col­lections. [ In his De­claration of August the 12th 1642.] The In­solence of Sectaries being not onely wink'd at, but publickly avow'd; Pag. 531. and the Law thwart­ed to protect them. See what one says (no stranger to their practises) to prove, and evi­dence the Combination.

The Leading-men, or Grandees, History of Indepen­dency. first di­vided themselves into two Factions or Juncto's, Presbyterians and Independents: seeming to look onely at the Church, page 1. but they involv'd the Interests of the Common-wealth.— These having seemingly divided themselves, page 2. and having really divided the Houses, and capti­vated their respective Parties judgments.— Teaching them by an implicite Faith, Jurare in verba Magistri, to pin their opinions upon their sleeves: They begin to advance their pro­jects of monopolizing the profits, preferments, and power of the Kingdom in themselves. To which purpose, though the Leaders of each par­ty seem to maintain a hot opposition, yet when any profit or preferment is to be reach'd at, it is observ'd, that a powerful Independent espe­cially, moves for a leading Presbyterian, or a leading Presbyterian for an Independent: And seldom doth one oppose or speak against another, in such Cases, unless somewhat of particular Spleene or Competition come between: which causeth them to break the Common-rule. By this means, the Grandees of each Faction, sel­dom miss their mark, since an Independent moving for a Presbyterian, his Reputation car­ries [Page 68] the business clear with the Independent par­ty: and the Presbyterians will not oppose a Lead­ing man of their own side.

I find we are not like to Agree, for these people cannot see their own Faults, nor we their Virtues. I would take a good Jour­ney to meet any man stiff in that way, that would but Confess he was ever in any error.

Of all the prejudices and scandals taken against this way, Page 63. there is none greater than this, that it is represented as tyrannical and domineering, and that those who live under it, must (like Issachar) crouch under the burdens.

Observa­tion.We do indeed account the Presbyterian Discipline very Tyrannical, and by and by we'l give our reasons for it. Not because this Discipline censures Scandalous Disorders] (as he insinuates) but for that it subjects all Civil matters to a Consistorian cognisance, and rapt by an Impulse of Passion, calls ma­ny things Scandalous, which measured by the rule of Piety and Reason, are found Praise-worthy, and of laudable Example. The usage of the Common-prayer book is to Them, Scandalous, though setled by the Law: but to eject a Minister for reading it, though both without Law, and against it, That, They esteem no scandal; We, the contrary.

[Page 69]I Have now brought the Gentleman to his first Stage, where I might very fairly leave him, for having already done my business; what I do more, is but for Company. So far as I can judge, I have not scap'd one syllable material to his purpose: nor have I either broken his Periods, or unlink'd his Reason­ings, to puzzle, or avoid his meaning. How fairly I have dealt with what I have expos'd: whether in matter of Fact, Deduction, or good Manners, (the Subject of the Dif­ference duely weighed) That I submit to the Reader, and where the reason lies be­twixt us.

I have indeed omitted a great part of the Debate, as not at all related to my Design, nor (to speak freely) much to the point in Question. His frequent and Rhetorical Rap­tures, extolling to the Heavens, the Wisdom and Sanctity of the Presbyterians; (but above all, the Legions of the Saints) what does this florid vanity [...]ignifie more than the putting of his own Name to a fair Picture, when yet, for ought he proves, and for ought we discern, there's not one line betwixt them of Agree­ment.

The contrary course he takes with the Pre­latick party. They (forsooth) are Not so and so: and from his Generals, There he is pleased to enter into prohibited particulars, taxing in special manner the excesses of some of our late Prelates: but without any instances of [Page 70] good in the Other Party, which does but spitefully and weakly imply, that Bishops have more Faults, than Presbyterians have Virtues. It will not be now expected, that we that differ in the Premises, should agree in the Conclusion. But for that we'll take our Fortunes.

Page 65. Vpen the whole matter aforegoing, we firmly build this Position:

That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State, to be rejected and depressed, but ought to be protected and encouraged.

(This is but one Doctor's opinion; we think otherwise.) Nevertheless (says he) there being a seeming complication in this business, Page 66. and an other ample Party appearing in competition, a difficulty remains, and the matter falls into a further deliberation. And thereupon we are fallen upon the second Main Enquiry.

II. Quest. Whether the Presbyterian Party may be protected and encou­raged, and the Episcopal not deserted nor disobliged.

Observation 'Tis a particular Grace, that the Bishops Party may yet be admitted into the Com­petition, and that the man of the short Robe will vouchsafe to enquire into the Consistence [Page 71] of Episcopacy and Presbytery: yet it was bold­ly ventur'd to Determine what Ought to be done before he had examin'd, whether the Thing was Fesible or no.

I shall not spend my Time to Controvert Idea's, and wrangle about Governments in the Air: we are for Plain and Practicable Contrivements, such as Authority, Good Or­der, and Long Experience have recommended to us.

I suppose the agreeing of Both Parties in such Middle terms as he proposes, a thing not utterly Impossible. Many things may be fair enough in Notion, yet of exceeding hazzard to be put in Practice; especially 'tis dangerous to try Tricks with Politick Constitutions. Great alterations are scarce safe, even where they are Lawful, and wrought with good In­tention: Much less are those so, which are promoted by a Disorderly, and Popular Ear­nestness, and with seditious meaning. For this I dare lay down as a Position: Never did any Private Party band against a Publick Settle­ment, with an intent to mend it.

But what have we to do with the Imagina­ry Coalition of the two Church-Parties; when the Kirk-Discipline affronts the Civil San­ction, and Actually invades the Kings Au­thority? Let them first bring their Princi­ples to their Duties, Treating like Subjects, and Submitting as Christians. Can any man believe those People Friends to the Church, that are Enemies to the State▪ or that the God of Order can be pleased with [Page 72] the Promoters of Confusion?

Were there no other reason to deny the thing they ask, than their bare manner of Asking; it ought not to be Granted. What signifies their talk of Number, Power, Reso­lution, but a false Muster of the Faction, to make a party with the Rabble? when yet, God knows, they're Inconsiderable: let every man but over-look his Neighbour, and Count, he'l find the Disproportion. Undoubtedly the most Insufferable of all their Argu­ments is that of Danger; there's but one step between that Word and Violence. First, it implies a Seditious Complication. They move for such as they believe will Tumult: if not, where lies the Hazzard? Besides, those Subjects that dare tell their Prince, 'tis dangerous to deny their Askings, do by that insolence render his Concessions much more hazzardous. Persons of that audacious temper, will hardly make a sober use of an ex­torted Bounty.

So far as Presbyterian, and Episcopal, purely refer to the Church, I shall not much concern my self in Our Resolvers Second main En­quiry: (Equal to all the World is the Incom­parable Hooker, upon that Subject) but where these terms are in a greater Latitude, applyed to Civil matters, I shall be bold to pass some further Observations.

Page 70. The Dissenting side oppose not all Liturgy, but desire that the present onm may be Changd, or reformed.

[Page 73] Observation That's but a modest Motion. But now sup­pose his Majesty, the Law, and Forty for One of the Nation, should desire the Conti­nuance of it as it is: what Equity have the Dissenters to the Change; or what would be the Benefit if Granted? Not the Tenth part even of the Presbyterians, would be content­ed with it. Some of them are against all set-Forms of Common-prayer whatever; Others (more moderate forsooth) do not oppose a prescript Form, so it be not enjoyn'd. A third sort, will vouchsafe to permit the English Li­turgy, provided they may have the purgeing of it themselves. And when all's done, the Sectaries may claim as much right to abolish That, as they to alter This. And now for Ceremonies.

They oppose not any Circumstance of Decen­cy and Order, but desire, Page 70. that mystical Cere­monies of humane Institution, may be abolished or not enjoyned.

First, the Dissenters are not the Judges of Decency and Order; Observa­tion. and for Mystical Cere­monies of humane Institution; (as Scaliger says of the Sepia) Caliginem effundit, & eva­dit; He troubles the Water, and escapes in the Dark.

Multiformity in Religion (says our Recon­ciler, Page 73. pleading for Accommodation) publickly profess'd, doth not well comport with the spirit of this Nation, which is free, eager, jealous, [Page 74] apt to animosities and jealousies, besides that it hath ever had a strong propension to Vni­formity.

Observation Had this fallen from a Common pen, I could have better born the Disproportion of his Character of the English Temper, — Free, Eager, Jealous, and yet propense to Vnifor­formity. This seems to me a mixture incom­possible. But the good man means well, and writes so, when he lists. His drift is, to per­swade us, that to comply with the Presbytery, is to comport with the spirit of this Nation: which being Free and Eager, seems to Cry, Beware. How blessedly would these Free-spirited Worthies order their Subjects, if they were once in power, that thus presume from their own Level, to Menace and Control Au­thority.

If Toleration might compose the Difference, there were some hope; but That, alas, is more than they can afford the Government, and much less will they accept it for themselves. The temper of this Kingdom (says he) does not well accord with extremes on either hand; Page 47.] and to see the fortune of it, the Presbyterians are just in the Middle.

Toleration being not the Daughter of Ami­ty, Ibid. but of Enmity, (at least) in some degree supposeth the party tolerated to be a burden, especially if conceived dangerous to the way established, and commonly holds no longer than meer necessity compels; and consequently nei­ther [Page 75] party take themselves to be safe, the one always fearing to lose its Authority, and the other its Liberty.

Observation Behold a learned Expostulation, and a duti­ful. [ Where the party toelrated appears dange­rous to the way established: the one fears to lose its Authority, and the other its Liberty.] There's no great depth in the discovery, that from an Opinion of mutual Danger, arises mutual Jealousie. But what's this case to the Subject of our Debate?

By Toleration is not meant an Impruden­tial Yielding to an Untractable, Toleration. and Chur­lish Faction: but a discreet and pious Ap­plication of Tenderness toward such as by their Fair Comportment in the Main of Or­der, and good Manners, appear to merit it. True it is, God himself is the onely Searcher of Hearts, who sees our Thoughts, even in the bed of their Conception. Yet where we find an inconformity of practise to profession: people that strein at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel, We may without offence to Charity, rank those incongruous Christians amongst Hypocrites: and with great Justice hold them to the Law, that strive to bring the Law down to their humors. By the same rule ought we to judge in favour of their Scruples, whose Lives are squar'd by a conform severity and strictness.

It is most true, Page 76. that such Proposals may suffice for Peace, which will not satisfie Humor and Faction, and Carnal Interest.] Why do we [Page 76] not apply our selves then to the onely Umpire of the Controversie, the setled Law, which without either passion or Design, lays down our Duty, and our Interest? These wrang­lings about Trifles do but enflame the Diffe­rence, and start new Animosities, instead of quieting the Old. The great pretence of Scan­dal (forsooth) is This.

Page 84. The Presbyterians stick at Ceremonies pro­perly Sacred, and significant by humane insti­tution, which they conceive to be more than meer Circumstances, even parts of Worship; and what­soever instituted Worship is not ordained of God, they hold unlawful.

Observa­tion.This passage lies a little out of my Rode, but however, I'le make it my way. It is much easier to call our Ceremonies Sacred, and parts of Worship, than to prove them such; or that we understand them so. Is the manner of doing any thing, part of the thing done? And for significant by humane Institution] the Exception is as frivolous. Because that in some Cases even of External Discipline, the Church is limited, does it therefore follow that it is free in none? or ty'd up onely to such Rites and Ceremonies, as hold no signal proportion with the reason of their Institution? This Ar­gument cuts their own Throats, since by the significancy of the Sitting posture at the Com­munion, they ma [...]ntain the Use of it; for (say their Admonitioners) It BETOKENS Rest, and full Accomplishment of Legal Ceremonies in Christ.

[Page 77] They that scruple our mystical significant Ceremonies, Page 86. conceive that they are properly and meerly sacred, as having the honor of God for their direct and immediate end.

These Reasons are but Snares for Woodcocks. Observ. Significant Ceremo­nies not sacred. That the ultimate end of all our Actions is, or at least ought to be) the Honor of God, ad­mits no Question; but 'tis not therefore the Immediate end of every thing we do, nor in particular of Ceremonies. The Outward Forms and Rites of publick Worship, direct partly to Uniformity and Order; and partly to excite due Reverence and Affection in the discharge of holy Duties, by sensible Actions, and re­markable Circumstances. But he persues his Error; and Instances,

That the Surplice is not for gravity, nor meerly for decent distinction, Ibid. but a religious mystical Habit, the character or badge of a Sa­cred Office, or Service conformable to the linnen Ephod under the Law.

The grand Exception against the Surplice is matter of Scandal, Observa­tion. and that amounts to no­thing, where people will be peevish, and carp at every thing. Allow it what Original he pleases: If it be neither Unlawful in it self: nor wickedly applyed; and by Authority thought fit to be Imposed; why should it not be used? What says the Incomparable Hooker, Ecclesiast. polit. lib. 5. Sect. 29. in this point? [ To solemn Actions of Royalty, [Page 78] and State, Ecclesiast. polity lib. their suitable Ornaments are a Beauty; are they onely in Religion a steyn?] And in another Place.

The names of our Months, and of our Days, we are not ignorant from whence they came, 4. Sect. 12. and with what dishonor unto God they are said to have been devised at the first. What could be spoken against any thing more effectual to stir hatred, then that which sometimes the antient Fathers in this case spake? Yet those very names are at this day in use throughout Christendom, without hurt or scandal to any. Clear and ma­nifest it is, that things devised by Hereticks, yea, devised of a very Herétical purpose, even against Religion, and at their first devising worthy to have been withstood, may in time grow meet to be kept; as that custome, the In­venters whereof were the The Eu­nomian Hereticks in dishonor of the blessed Trinity, brought in the lay­ing on of water but once, to cross the custom of the Chur. which in Baptism did it thrice. Eunomian Hereticks. So that Customs once established, and confirmed by use, being presently without harm, are not in regard of their Corrupt original, to be held scandalous. But concerning those Ceremonies, which they reckon for most Popish, they are not able to avouch, that any of them was otherwise instituted, than unto good; yea, so used at the first.]

The signing with the sign of the Cross (they conceive) is more evidently sacred than the former. Page 87. As Baptism consecrates the child, so doth the Cross. It is used as a sealing sign of our Obligation to Christ, as the words used in the Application thereof do manifest, and the Book of Canons doth declare expresly, which [Page 79] saith, [That it is an honorable badge, where­by the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died on the Cross, as by the words used in the Book of Common-prayer it may ap­pear.] And therefore it is in that respect Sa­cramental.

Observation 'Tis a well nurtur'd child that gives his Mother the Lye: and it is little better, to charge this sense upon the Church of England, when by the very letter of the Canon, an ex­press care is taken to prevent all possibility of exception, by a clear explication of the Churches judgment in that particular. The Juggle is so gross, I need but cite the Canon to confute it.

First, The Church of England, Can. 30. since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and so doth hold and teach still, that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism, is no part of the substance of that Sacrament; for when the Mi­nister dipping the Infant in water, or laying water upon the face of it (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, the Infant is fully and perfectly Baptized. So as the sign of the Cross being afterwards used, doth neither add any thing to the vertue or perfection of Baptism; nor being omitted doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it.

Secondly, It is apparent in the Communion Book, that the Infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptism, before it be signed with the sign of [Page 80] the Cross, received into the Congregation of Christs Flock, as a perfect Member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the Cross; so that for the very remembrance of the Cross, which is very precious to all them that rightly believe in Jesus Christ, and in the other respect mentioned: The Church of Eng­land hath retained still the sign in Baptism, following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches, and accounting it a lawful outward Ceremony, and honorable Badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross, as by the words used in the Book of Common-prayer it may appear.]

If this will not suffice to prove, that nothing Sacramental is intended by it, let it be noted, that in private Baptism the Cross is totally omitted.

Eccles. po­lit. lib. 5. Sect. 71.His next exception is at Holy-days: But I shall pass my bounds too far. I'll borrow one Maxim of the judicious Hooker, (upon th [...]t subject) which shall serve for all. Those things which the Law of God leaveth Arbitrary, and at liberty, are all subject unto positive Laws of men: which Laws, for the common benefit, abridge particular mens libertie in such things, as far as the rules of equity will suffer.

After the Quality of our Ceremonies, the holy man will have one fling at the number of them.

Page 88. If the English Ceremonies be warrantably [Page 81] used, what hinders the use of divers other Ce­remonies used in the Roman Church? Is it said, their multitude will become burthensome and inconvenient? But who can determine the con­venient number? And however, an exchange of one Ceremony for another were not unlawful. For what reason may not some other Romish Rites in Baptism be used as well as the Cross, seeing they are nothing less significant or in­offensive; nay, peradventure much more inof­fensive, because the Papists by giving divine worship to the Cross, have abused it to gross Idolatry.

Observation Beggars must be no choosers: Must we use all, or none? The English Church hath made election of the English Ceremonies; what, and how many: being the proper Judge both in the point of Number and Convenience. 'Tis not for us to Question the Authority, but to Obey it. What if the Cross hath been abused? So hath the Knee been bent; the Hands and Eyes ad­dressed to an Idol. Are we, because of this mis-application, prohibited to worship the true God, in the same manner, and posture? Now to the Liturgy again.

The Presbyterians are not satisfied in the pre­sent Liturgy, but desire it may be laid aside, Page 90. or much reformed. And what solid reason with­stands the Equity of this desire?

This solid reason does withstand it. They beg like sturdy Cripples, for Christ's sake, Observati­on. with a [Page 82] Cudgel. And 'tis not safe for Authority to give ground to a Faction.

Whosoever observes impartially, shall find, that political prudence was joyn'd with Chri­stian Piety, Page 91. in composing the English Service-Book.]

And the same Prudence is now joyn'd with the same Piety, Observa­tion. both in the Right, and In­terest of preserving it. His next grief is a heavy one.

Canonical Subscription lately impos'd, is a yoke of bondage, Page 94. (Now mark him) to be con­sidered by all those that have a true regard to such Liberty in Religion, as Equity and Ne­cessity pleads for.

Observation Either this passage is seditious, and to en­flame the people against Authority, or I am no Englishman.

The Canon (says he) requires a subscribing to the thirty nine Articles; to the Common-Prayer-Book; Page 95. to the Book of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; that all these contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God. Can. 36. This is unreasonable, unprofitable, and unnecessa­ry. Nay, let us take in the third Article too, — To wit, [ That the nine and thirty Articles are agreeable to the Word of God.] And now the form of Subscription, viz. [ I do willingly, and ex animo, subscribe to these three [Page 83] Articles above mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them.

This is the Yoke of Bondage, which our Re­verend Libertine complains of. First, Observ. to the unreasonableness of this subscription.

Touching the King's Supremacy, asserted in the first Article, he is silent; and I suppose he would be thought consenting. As to the rest, what Reason is there that any man should be admitted into the Ministery, without subscri­bing to the Constitution of that Church, into which he seeks admitance?

If he cannot subscribe in Conscience, Canonical subscripti­on defend­ed. he can­not be admitted in Prudence: and if he refuses in point of stomach, that man is not of a Gos­pel-temper. In fine, he that holds a fair opi­nion of the Doctrine, and Discipline of the Church of England, may very reasonably set his hand to his opinion: and he that does not, may as reasonably be rejected because of such disagreement. So much for unreasonable; Neither is it unprofitable: for such as have any spark, either of Honor, or Shame, will in re­gard to such a Testimony, be tender of giving themselves the Lye, whatever they would do otherwise.

His third Cavil is, that it is unnecessary; (so are his Exceptions.) Let any man consi­der; when all these Bars and Limits are too little to restrain turbulent and sacrilegious spirits from dangerous and irreverent at­tempts: what Seas of Schism and Heresie would break in upon us, were but these Banks [Page 84] demolish'd. Page 97. But he hath found out an expe­dient, how [ Unity in Doctrine, and Uniformity in practise, may be as well attain'd, and far more kindly, without this enforced Subscription: (that is) If no Minister be suffered to Preach, or Write, any thing contrary to the esta­blish'd Doctrine, Worship, or Discipline, nor ordinarily for the main to neglect the establish'd Rule.]

Observation This last passage appears to me most spite­fully pleasant. Not ordinarily for the main, that is; Always sometimes he would neglect the esta­blish'd Rule.

If the Laws already in force against Revolt­ers, had been duly executed, 'tis likely the Interest of England, in the matter of Religion, had not been now the Question. But still this supposition does not imply an absolute suffi­ciency of that strictness to all intents and purposes of Order and Agreement. 'Tis what we Think, not what we Say; the harmony of Souls, more then of Forms, which God re­gards: without that sacred, and entire consent of Judgment, and Affections, the rest is but a flat, and cold formality.

Not to act contrary to prescribed Rules, (where we are bound up by a Penalty) is but a Negative and Passive Obedience; a com­pliance rather with Convenience, than Du­ty, unless joyn'd with a prone, and full assent, [Page 85] both to the truth and equity of those deter­minations. For these and many reasons more, Canonical subscription seems to me exceeding necessary. But for those people to decline it, (upon pretence forsooth of Conscience) that upon pain of Freedom, and Estates, nay, and of Hell it self, enforced the Covenant, is most unequal.

A Presbyterian Preacher, The late Kings De­claration concerning Scotland, Page 403. refused to pray for Sir William Nesbett, late Provost of Eden­burgh, when he was lying upon his Death-bed, onely because he had not subscribed the Covenant. Let me be pardoned, if I understand not this incongruous Holiness.

As for the Decrees and Canons of the Church, Page 101. what rightful Authority doth make them, as the Law of the Medes and Persians that alter­eth not?

Observation Surely his Reverence over-shoots himself. What rightful Authority? The Kings: and by a less Authority they cannot be discharged. By that Authority, that Licenses Can. 6. the Ex­communication of the Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies established in the Church of England: — the Opposers also of the Can. 7. Government, by Arch-bishops, Bishops, &c. — By that Authority, to which this Gentleman hath forfeited the Head he wears. Well, but he tells us,

The publick state of these differences is such, that the Prelatists may, Page 97. and ought to descend [Page 86] to the Presbyterians, in the proposed moderate way; but the Presbyterians cannot come up to the Prelatists in the height of their way.

With the King's leave, had been good Man­ners yet. Observa­tion. By what Authority, does Presbyte­ry pretend to unseat the Hierarchy? All the world knows, (as much as they know any thing of that Antiquity) that Bishops are of Apostolical Extraction: and we are not to Imagine, that They died intestate, and their Commission with them. But Bishops have de­scended already, and what was the event of it? Truly it was as moderate an Episcopacy as heart could wish: But, as I remember, their Revenues were not employed to maintain a practical Ministery. The Rule is, — Si vis scire an velim, effice ut possim nolle. But see the moderation of the Man.

Page 103. Some change (he says) in the outward Form, and Ceremonies, which are but a Garb, or Dress, is no Real Change of the Worship.

Observa­tion.I thought we had differ'd upon point of Conscience, about Pa. 84.[ Ceremonies properly sacred, —and parts of Worship.] But now it seems 'tis but the Garb, or Dress we stick at. The good-man has forgot himself; And yet we had best be wary, for 'tis but an untoward hint he gives us.

Page 103. Oftentimes (says he) moderate Reformations do prevent Abolitions, and Extirpations.]

[Page 87] Observation They do so, often, and sometimes they cause them: that is, Be the State never so distemper'd, where Subjects turn Reformers, the Remedy is worse than the Disease. In fine, when I look back, I find the very same de­sires of Reformation originally pretended; which (after such descensions as never any Prince before the blessed Father of our Gra­cious Soveraign, made to his Subjects) pro­ceeded yet to utter extirpation, Root, and Branch.

The present face of things looks so like Twenty years ago, I cannot choose but fear the same Design from the same Method; the same Effects from the same Causes. Is not that likely to be a blessed Reformation, where Faction dictates, and Tumults execute? But our Paci­fick Moderator is of another Temper sure; he onely advises a Yielding, for fear of worse: especially considering,

That the Party called Presbyterian may be Protected, and Encouraged, Page 111. and the Episcopal not Deserted nor Disoblig'd. which is his Resolution upon the Second Quaere

Presbyterian Improvements are common­ly a little Sinister; (or, as a man may say, Observa­tion. over the left shoulder) They have something an odd way of making a glorious King, and a [Page 88] happy People. But we shall not dispute the possibility of doing many things which may be yet of dangerous Experiment. I do believe it possible for a man to flie; yet set him upon Pauls, and Lure him down, upon the Trial, 'tis at least Six to Four he breaks his Neck. Truly in my Opinion, this Proposal is all out as Impracticable. But 'tis all one to Me. What if the Two Church-parties, can Agree, or what if they Cannot? My business is to keep the Presbyterian from laying Violent hands upon the Civil Power, and to convince a Party so denominated, of Sedition, not of Schism.

His third Enquiry follows.

Page 111.Qu. III. Whether the upholding of both Parties by a just and equal Accommoda­tion, be not in it self more desirable, and more agreeable to the State of England, than the absolute exalting of one Party, and the total subver­sion of the other? (And thus he Rea­sons.

That state of Prelacy which cannot stand without the subversion of the Presbyterians, and that stands in opposition to regulated Episcopacy, will become a mystery of a meer carnal and worldly state, under a sacred title, and venera­ble name of our mother the Church. For in such opposition, of what will it be made up, but of [Page 89] Lordly revenue, dignity, splendor, and juris­diction, with outward ease and pleasure! What will its design be from age to age, but to uphold and advance his own pomp and potency? Read the Ecclesiastical Histories, and you shall find the great business of the Hierarchy hath been to contest with Princes and Nobles, and all ranks and degrees, about their Immunities, Privi­leges, preheminences, to multiply Constitutions and Ceremonies for props to their own Greatness, but not to promote the spiritual Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the hearts of People, ac­cording to the life and power of Christianity.

Observation Let this serve for a taste of his Pedantique boldness. Whether the Scandal, or the Danger of these Liberties is the Greater, may be One Question: and whether the Usurper of this Freedom is the better Subject, or Christian, may be another. If we respect the holy Order of Bishops, together with the sacred Authority of Law, by which they are here established, how scandalous and irreverend is this Inve­ctive! Or if the unsetled humor of the People, how Dangerous! If we reflect either upon Christian unity, or Political Obedience: how inconsistent is this manner of proceeding, with what we owe to God, and the King!

That State of Prelacy, which cannot stand without the subversion of the Presbyterians, &c. — 'Tis very well; — And why the subversion of the Presbyterians? How those that never were Vp, should be thrown down, I cannot imagine. By what Law, or by what [Page 90] Equity, do these people pretend to any Interest of Establishment in England? Those of the Presbyterian judgment, that out of a real ten­derness cannot comply in all particulars, will beyond doubt receive from his Majesty such Favour and Indulgence, as may abundantly suffice to their relief. But that pretence doth not one jot entitle them to challenge a further influence upon the Government. These wayward Appetites and Cravings, are but the sickly longings of a peevish Woman: A kind of voluntary and privileged Consci­ence they have, A volunta­ry Consci­ence. which if it happens to take a fancy even to the Crown, Monarchy it self must rather perish, than these poor Wretches lose their longings. Soberly I would advise them by any means, to waive these trouble­some and groundless pretences. It starts a scurvy Question, and makes men ask, how these people came by the right they challenge? For the rest; Episcopacy is like to be well or­dered, when the Presbyterians have the Re­gulation of it.

There have been great contests (no questi­on) mov'd by the Hierarchy; but I suppose this Gentleman will not instance in many, [...]ince the Reformation, derogatory to the Juris­diction Royal: Whereas the whole course of the Presbyterian Discipline hath been Tumul­tuous; and their avowed Principles are more destructive to Royalty, than even the Rankest of the Jesuites themselves.

Having at length Talk'd his Fill against the Pomp of Prelacy; and Charg'd the arro­gance [Page 91] of Presbyters upon the Bishops: Thus he Concludes,

In very deed, the State here described, Pa. 114. will never stand safely among a people that are Free, Serious, Searching, and Discerning in matters of Religion.] Which to the Many, sounds thus much.

This is the pride and Tyranny of Bishops: Observ. and none but a Slavish and Besotted people will endure it. He that makes other of it, forces it. Having by the spirit of natural Divination foretold the Effects which he himself intends to Cause; he gives this Hint to the Vulgar, that [ a Hierarchy of this Nature hath a strong bias toward Popery. Ibid.]

No doubt, and so had Monarchy. Observ. Was not this Imputation, by the same Party, cast upon the late King, and with the same measure of Confidence and Bitterness? when yet we know, that those that charged him with it, did not believe themselves; it was so rank, and evident a Calumny. Nor to insist upon the Dying Testimony of that Incomparable Prince; (which was but suitable to the Pious Practise and Profession of his whole Life) That early Protestation of his Majesties, before his receiving of the holy Eucharist at Christ-Church in Oxon, 1643. will be more pertinent to my purpose.

His Majesty being to receive the Sacrament from the hands of the Lord Arch-bishop of Bibliothe­ca Regia, p. 58. [Page 92] Armagh, used these publick Expressions imme­diately before his receiving the blessed Ele­ments, he rose up from his Knees, and beckning to the Arch-bishop for a short forbearance, made this Protestation.

This was not yet enough to allay the cla­mour, till with his Royal Blood he had seal'd this Protestation.

If the Objector can produce a fouler Inju­ry, either to Religion, Duty, Truth, Honor, or Humanity, let it be done, to save the credit of the Faction, unless they reckon the Super­lative [Page 93] perfection of their wickedness, a point of Glory.

His next remark is not amiss. [ Let it be well observ'd, page 115. that the designs of suppressing Pu­ritans, and complying with Papists, had their beginning both at once, and proceeded in equal paces.

Observation Let it be here as well observ'd, that if by Pu­ritans be meant those of the Separation, by Pa­pists is intended such as kept their Stations: These Squires of the Revolt, esteeming as Anti-christian, whatever stands in opposition to their heady purposes. We have this both from Story and Experience, that it hath been the constant practise of these unmannerly Apostates, to speak evil of Dignities; & being fall'n off themselves, it is but carnal prudence, by damning of the Authority to justifie the Schism. No wonder then, if the designs of suppressing Puritans, and complying with Papists, had (in his sense) the same beginning, and proceeded in equal paces.

To bring himself off, he shifts it thus. [ Ac­cording to a vulgar sense, Page 116. we take Popery in the heighth thereof, for the Heresies and Idolatries; and in the lower degree thereof, for the gross Er­rors and Superstitions of the Church of Rome.] And 'tis against English Popery in the lower de­gree, that he plants his battery: arguing so for­mally against our going over to Rome, that any Stranger to the Story would swear,—The Pre­lates and the Pope were more then half agreed already.

[Page 94]Having at length with great good-will advi­sed the Church of England as to the Main, Pag. 120. he concludes, that [ All approaches and motions towards Rome are dangerous.]

Observa­tion.But are not all recesses from Truth, more dangerous: Because in every thing we cannot agree with them, must we in nothing? To me this appears rather petulancy, then pious rea­son. We are to hold fast the Truth, where­ever it lyes: and to embrace what's good, and laudable in any Church, without adhe­ring to the contrary. Did not St. Paul be­come all things to all men, that by all means he might gain some?

Pag. 120.But if we walk upon the Brink (he tells us) we may soon fall into the Pit.) These wary men forget, that there's a Gulf on the one hand, as well as a Pit on the other: and that the narrow way is that which leads to eternal happiness.

Ibid. But as to Reason of State (he says that) en­mity with Rome, hath been reputed the Stabi­lity of England; concerning which the Duke of Rhoan hath delivered this Maxime; [That besides the Interest which the King of England hath common with all Princes, he hath yet one particular, which is, that he ought throughly to acquire the advancement of the Protestant Relig [...]n, even with as much zeal as the King of Spain appears Protector of the Catholick.

[Page 95]Allow this Maxime good in State, Observa­tion. he hath but found a Rod to whip himself. The King of England ought to advance the Protestant Religion.] Content. English & Scotch Presbyte­rians no Prote­stants. What now if these Disciplinarians prove no Protestants? but ra­ther a Schismatical, and dividing Party, dri­ving an Interest of their own, under that spe­cious name, and with great shew of Holiness, opposing not only the practises and Rules of the Reformed Churches, but even the funda­mentals of Christianity it self? By whom will they be tryed, or on what Judgement, and Authority will they rest? They quarrel with the Order of Bishops; the Common-Prayer; the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church; the Law of the Land, with Customes, and Antiquity: In short, with every thing but the Geneva Discipline. They do by That too, as our Gal­lants do by French-fashions. The Court of France being the Standard of queint Mode and Dress, to the one, as is Geneva of Church order to the other: What is there used, though in it self extravagant enough, our humour is to over-do; and if the French wear but wide Breeches, we forsooth must wear Petticoats. Consult the learned and most eminent Asser­tors of their Discipline; ask the grand Archi­tect himself, or indeed, any of his Sectators, (of fair and honourable credit) concerning the Subject of our present Controversie. And

• 1. Whether it be a Protestant Opinion, that the Hierarchy is Antich [...]istian?
• [Page 96]II. Whether such Laws of Humane Insti­tution, as neither contradict the general Laws of Nature, nor any Positive Law in Scripture, be binding or no?
• III. In case of Male-Administration, ei­ther in Church, or State: Whether the People may take upon them to Reform?

But this they are not so stiff in, as to main­tain it, but by blind inferences not worth re­gard.

This is the State of our dispute; and if in these particulars our Anti-prelatists oppose the current of Reformed Divines: to advance their Interest, is to undermine the common Interest of the King, Nation, and the Pro­testant Cause. Needs must it move many Re­volts, and keep off many Proselytes, to see such principles declared of the Essence of Christian Religion, as a good honest Pagan would be ashamed of. Nor less repugnant are they to Rules of Society, than of Conscience; No Tyranny so cruel and Imperious; no Slavery so reprochful. Set up their Discipline, and we're at School again. Methinks I see a Pres­byter with his Rod over every Parish; and the whole Nation turning up their Tails to a pack of Pedants. Yet hateful as it is, even that it self, establish'd by Authority, might chal­lenge our Obedience.

I have digress'd too far; yet in convenient place, I must say something further upon this Subject.

[Page 97]If our new fangled Polititian had consider'd, that the Kings Interest leads him to support, that which the Presbyterians strive to over­throw, (the Protestant Religion) I am per­swaded he would have spared the Duke of Rhoan in this particular. The Maxime even as it lies before us, affording matter of dan­gerous Deduction to his disadvantage: but ta­ken in Coherence, nothing can be more sharp and positive against him.

That great and wise Captain the Duke of Rhoan, discoursing upon what reasons of State, Q. Elizabeth acted toward Spain, France, and the United Provinces; tells us particularly, how much she favoured the Protestants in France, L' Inte­rest des Princes Discours. 7. & Germany. [Par toutes ces maximes, (dit il) cette sage Princesse a bien fait comprendre, a ses successeurs, que outre l' interest que l' Angle­terre a commun avec tous les Princes, &c. — By all these Maximes (says he) this wise Prin­cess hath given her Successors to understand, that besides the Interest which England hath common with other Princes, yet one particular it hath, which is to advance the Protestant Religion with the same zeal, the King of Spain does the Catholick.

Be it here noted, that when the Queen was most concern'd, and busie to promote the Protestant Cause, Puritan-Prote­stants. even at that very time was She as much employ'd to crush the Presbyte­rian Faction, viz. Cartwright, Coppinger, Arthington, Hacket, and their Confederates. The First of these was imprison'd, and fined for Seditious and Schismatical practises against [Page 98] the Church and State. The Second starved himself in a Gaol; The Third repented, and publickly recanted: The Fourth was put to Death for horrid Blasphemies. (These people talk'd of a practical Ministery too. — (The Men are gone, but their positions are still in being, and only attend a blessed opportunity to be put in execution. This may appear from divers late discourses, which are effectually no other then Cartwrights Principles, and Model, couch'd in warier terms, and other Authority than these, or such as these, I think the very Authors of them will scarce pretend to.

One Observation more. Our Paraphrast renders the advancement of the Protestant Reli­gion, —Enmity with Rome, to the great scandal of the Reform'd Profession. We have no Enmity but with Errour, which in a rigid Puritan, to us, is the same thing as in a Papist.

But Popery (he tells us) hath been ever infa­mous for excommunicating, Page 121. murthering, and deposing Princes.

Observa­tion.I am no advocate for the Roman Cause, but upon this account, I think betwixt the Jesuite, and the Puritan, Page 121. it may be a drawn Battel. And yet he follows, with an assurance that the Protestant Religion aims at nothing, but that the Kings Prerogative, and popular Liberty, may be even Ballanced. (That is, the Puritan,— the Presbyterian Religion, as he explains him­self a little lower.

Observa­tion.I cannot call to mind one single passage in [Page 99] this whole Discourse, concerning the Kings Power, or the Peoples Liberty; which is not either worded Doubtfully or with some popu­lar Limitation upon the Royal Authority. What does he mean by even Ballancing? Cheek by Joul? Or by what Warrant from the word of God, does a Presbyters Religion inter­meddle with Popular Liberty? Unless the ho­ly man intends to bring Homage to Kings, within the compass of Ceremonies of Hu­mane, and Mystical Institution. Yet once again.

The Presbyterian Principle (he sayes) is for subjection to Princes, Pag. 122. though they were Here­ticks, or Infidels; and if they differ herein from the Prelatical Protestant, (I was afraid we had been all Papists) it is only that they plead for Liberty, setled by known Laws, and fundamental Constitutiont.]

Still ad Populum? Observa­tion. these are the Incantations which have bewitch'd this Nation. This Charm of qualify'd Disloyalty, and Conditional Obedi­ence. Behold the very Soul of the Faction in these five lines; a fair profession first to his Ma­jesty, and with the same breath a seditious hint to the People. What is that Liberty he talks of, but a more colourable title to a Tumult? That Legal Freedome, to which both by the Royal Bounty, and our own Birth-right we stand entituled, we ought not to contest for with our Soveraign, and (God be prays'd) we need not, Now for another fit of kindnesse.

[Page 100] His Majesty our Native King, may govern as he pleases, Page 403. without fear of Hazards, by continuing to shew himself a Common Fa­ther.

Observation What's this cause a kin to the third Article of the Covenant? To preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms,] (as who should say, if, he does otherwise, let him look to him­self.

Ibid. The excessive Dominion of the Hierarchy, with the rigorous imposition of humane Cere­monies was accounted much of the malady of former times, which ended in those deadly Con­vulsions of Church and State.

Observation Since this pragmatical Levite will provoke a Controversie, I am content to entertain it.

If the Bishops excesses were the Cause of War, how came the Kings ruine to be the effect of it? But 'tis no new thing for a Pres­byterian to saddle the wrong Horse. Just in this manner did the Covenanters treat his late Majesty: and by those very Troops that cryed down Bishops was the King murther'd. Ridicu­lous Brutes, to boggle at a Surplice, and yet run headlong into a Rebellion.

The grand source of our Miseries was the Covenant, by which, as by a Spell (in the [Page 101] Name of the blessed Trinity) the people were insensibly bewitched into an aptnesse to work any wickednesse which the Interpreters of that Oracle should say was the Intendment of it.

The first notorious Rupture was in Scotland, in 1637. attended with a COVENANT, which without Question was formerly agreed upon by the confederate Faction of both King­doms, as the most proper and least hazardous way of tasting the Kings patience, and the Peoples humours. That their design was laid and carried on by Counsels, and Intelligence as aforesaid, may be collected from the Con­sequent, and brotherly Agreements: and truly the Retrospect of the Act of Indemnity seems to hint no lesse, for it commences from the first Scottish Broyls, tho' four or five years be­fore the War brake out in England; what was begun by Covenant, was so prosecuted.

By virtue of the Covenant the Kirk-party supply'd themselves with Men and Monies: Armies were brought into the Field; and beyond doubt, many that truly loved the King, not knowing what they did, ingaged against him. To keep up this delusion, the Press and Pulpit did their parts, and to deal freely after this advance, I should as much have wondred if they had stop'd short of his death, as I find o­thers wondering how they durst accomplish it. Death with a Bullet or an Axe, is the same Mischief to him that suffers it: and the same Crime, wilfully done, in those that Act it. No man can rationally allow one, and condemn [Page 102] the other: For if the Violence be Lawful; why not as well in the Field, as upon a Scaf­fold?

In this particular, the Doctor is beside his Cushion. He makes me think of the Mar­quiss of Newcastle, upon a sawcy Clergy­man. Why should I remember that he's a Priest (says my Lord) if he forgets it himself? His next argument against Prelacy is a Modest, and (as I take it,) a queint One.

Can the self same State (sayes he) and Frame of Ecclesiasticks be now revived after so great and long continued alterations, page 124. by which the Anti-prelatical party is exceedingly increa­sed and strengthned?

Observa­tion.Surely this Gentleman has a mind to give his Brother Crofton a visit. Cannot Prelacy be better restored after a Discontinuance, then Presbytery erected, where it never had a Being? The very Laws are yet to make, for the One, and still in force for the Other. But the great Obstacle is, the Anti-prelatical party is excee­dingly increased, and strengthned.] Truly I think, if his Majesty should lessen the Num­ber of them, by two or three of the Promo­ters of that Doctrine, the Precedent might do some good upon the rest. Can any thing be more feditious? These hints upon fair grounds and given in private, might very well become the gravity of a Churchman, or the profession of a Loyal Subject. But to the People, these Calculations are Dictates of Sedition; and [Page 103] only meant to engage the credulous and heady multitude in false opinions both of the Tyran­ny of Prelates, and their own Power.

Thus far in Observation upon the first Part of The Interest of England, in the matter of Religion, &c.— The whole Structure whereof (in his own words) rests upon these Positions, as its adequate foundation.

1. That whilest the two forenamed Parties remain divided, both the Protestant Re­ligion, and the Kingdome of England is divided against it self.

2. That the Presbyterians cannot be roo­ted out, nor their Interest swallowed up, whilest the State of England remaineth Protestant.

3. That their subversion if it be possible to be accomplished, will be very pernicious to the Protestant Religion, and the King­dome of England.

4. That the Coalition of both Parties into one may be effected by an equal accommo­dation, without repugnancy to their con­scientions Principles on either side, in so much that nothing justifiable by Religion or sound Reason can put a Bar to this de­sirable Union.

[Page 104]The whole matter (in Debate he tells us) rests upon three main Enquiries.

Page 17. part. 1.I. Qu. Whether in Justice or Reason of State the Presbyterian Party should be Rejected and Depressed, or Protected and Incouraged.

II. Qu. Whether the Presbyterian Party may be protected and incouraged, and the Episcopal not Deserted nor Dis-obliged.

III. Qu. Whether the Upholding of both parties by a just and equal accommoda­tion be not in it self more desireable and more agreeable to the State of England, than the absolute exalting of the one party and the total subversion of the other.

Observation I shall now offer some further Reasonings of my Own; upon this Subject; therein pro­posing such Brevity and Clearnesse; that both the Lazy, and the Busie may find time to read it, and the Weakest not want Capacity to understand it.

His first Position holds no further good, then as the Presbyterians are first Protestants in the matter of the difference, and then Considera­ble in the ballance of the Nation. Religion led the Quarrel, so let it the Dispute. In using the word Protestant, I follow Custome, [Page 105] for I had rather call it Catholick: but Prote­stant let it be.

I suppose by the Protestant Religion, we un­derstand That of the Reformed Churches: to whose Decision we shall willingly submit the sum of our Disagreements: which may be stated under a Reduction to these Two Que­stions.

I. Qu. Whether or no the Government of the Church by Archbishops & Bishops — be Antichristian, or Unlawful?

II. Whether such Laws of Humane and Significant Institution, as are orderly made, and neither contradict the Gene­ral Laws of Nature, nor any positive Law in Scripture, — be Binding or not?

First, concerning the Prelacy: Apol. Con­fess: per Pap. Pag. 137. Luther himself distinguishes betwixt Popish Tyrants, and True Bishops: professing his Quarrel to them as Popish not as Bishops.

The Authors of the Augustane Confession, leave it upon Record, De re­form. ad­ver. Ec­cles. pag. 95. That they would willing­ly preserve the Ecclesiastical and Canonical Po­lity, if the Bishops would cease to Tyrannize over their Churches.]

Bucer advises by all means the restoring of such Ecclesiastical Governments as the Canons prescribe, (Episcopis & Metropolitanis) to [Page 106] Bishops and Metropolitans. Melancthon to Luther, — You would not imagine (says he) how some people are netled to see Church-policy restored: as if it were the Romish Sove­raignty again.] Ita de Regno suo, non de Evangelio, dimicant socii nostri.

Calvin himself recommends the Hierarchy to the King of Poland: and treating concern­ing the Primitive Church, says, That the An­tient Government by Arch-bishops and Bishops, and the Nicene constitution of Patriarchs, was for Orders sake, and good Government. [Ad Disciplinae conservationem pertinebat.]

The same person being called to accompt by Cardinal Sadolet, concerning the Geneva defection, and for subscribing the Augustane Confession, renders this Answer. Cursed be such as oppose that Hierarchy, which submits it self to Christ Jesus. [Nullo non Ana­themate dignos censeo, quotquot illi Hierar­chiae, qui se Domino Jesu submittit, subjici nolunt.

Zanchi (the Compiler of the Gallican Confession) observes a Change of Name, ra­ther than of Office, throughout most of the German Churches. Bishops and Arch-bishops being onely disguised under the notion of Super-intendents, and General-Superintendents: acknowledging, That by the consent of Histories, Counsels, and the antient Fathers, those Orders have been generally Allow'd by all Christian Societies.

Beza, (the rigid Successor of Calvin) be­ing check'd by the Arch-bishop of Canter­bury, [Page 107] for intermedling beyond his Spheare, — We do not charge (says he) all Arch­bishops and Bishops with Tyranny.— The Church of England hath afforded many learned Men, and many glorious Martyrs of that Function. If that Authority be there still in Beeing, may a perpetual Blessing go along with it. [Fruatur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficen­tiâ, quae utinam illi sit perpetua.] This with all Ceremony was addressed, — Totius Angliae Primati: To the Primate of all Eng­land, and in the name of the whole Church of Geneva.

Saravia makes him him speak yet plainer; who arguing for the Hierarchy out of the Apo­stles Canons, receives from Beza this Re­ply. Bez. cont. Sarav. p. 116. This is no more then what we wish might be restored to all Churches. [Quid aliud hic statuitur, quam quod in omnibus locis, Ecclesiis restitutum cupimus?]

Zanchi comes up to the very Case of Eng­land; (nay, and a little further too) not onely affirming Episcopacy to be agreeable to the Word of God: But where it is in exercise, that it ought to continue, and where by violence it hath been abolish'd, that it ought to be re­stor'd. [ Note. Vbi vigent (Isti ordines scil.) non esse Abolendos, & ubicunque Iniquitas tempo­rum eos abolevit Restituendos.]

With what Face now shall the Enemies of Bishops call themselves Protestants, in this par­ticular at least, wherein they evidently cross the whole stream of Protestant Divines? Now to the second Quae [...]e.

[Page 108] Whether such Laws of Humane, and sig­nificant Institution, as are orderly made, and neither contradict the general Laws of Nature, nor any positive Law in Scripture, be binding or not?

Calvin Epist. Pag. 341.Hear Calvin first, [ Quamvis quod oberudi­tur scandalum afferat, quia tamen verbo Dei per se non repugnat concedi potest.] Scandals Taken, without repugnancy to the Word of God, are not sufficient to invalidate the obli­gation of a Ceremony imposed by the Church. Beza himself, nay, Mr. Cartwright, the Cap­tain of our blessed Legions, will allow, rather than quit a Benefice, to wear a Surplice.

Scripta Anglicana, p. 455. Bucer thanks God with all his soul to see the English Ceremonies so pure, and conform to the Word of God, or at least, (rightly understood) not contrary to it.

Not to hunt further for particular Authori­ties, I shall be bold with my own Brother, and make use of some general Collections which he hath gathered ready to my hand. H. L. S. His affini­ty of sa­cred Li­turgies. pag. 27.

Nothing assuredly can be more demonstrative of the Protestant Tenets, than the Confession of their several Churches.

That of Helvetia first, [Churches have al­ways used their Liberty in Rites, Cap. 27. as being things indifferent, which we also do at this day.] That of Bohemia; [ Humane Traditions and Ceremonies brought in by a good custom, Cap. 15. are with an uniform consent to be retained in the [Page 109] Ecclesiastical Assemblies of Christian People, at the common Service of God.] The Gallican; Act. 32. [ Every place may have their peculiar consti­tutions, as it shall seem convenient for them.] The Belgick; Act. 32. [ We receive those Laws as are fit, either to cherish or maintain concord, or to keep us in the obedience of God. Act. 15.] That of Aus­burg; [ Ecclesiastical Rites which are ordained by mans Authority, and tend to quietness and good order in the Church, are to be observed.] That of Saxony; [ For order sake, there must be some decent and seemly Ceremonies. Act. 20.] That of Swethland; [ Such Traditions of men as agree with the Scriptures, Cap. 14. and were ordained for good manners, and the profit of men, are worthily to be accounted rather of God than of Man.] These were the Tenents they publickly owned, nor did they act different from what they taught, ordaining Churches, Pulpits, Prayers before and after Sermon, administring the Sa­craments in Churches, delivering the Commu­nion in the forenoon to Women, Baptizing In­fants, and several other things, not one whereof were directly commanded by either Christ, or his Apostles.

From hence 'tis manifest, we may divide from Presbyterians, and yet the Protestant Re­ligion not be divided against it self.

A Schism there is, but whether in the Church, or in the Faction, is onely a dispute for those that plead the Authority of Tu­mults.

As their opinions are not one jot Protestant, where they divide from Bishops; so neither are [Page 110] their Morals any more warrantable, where­in they act as Men. Which shall we credit, Words, or Deeds? Will they not Bite; where they pretend to Kiss? A famous Martyr of that Party, (Hacket) served a fellow so. Some difference there had been, and they were to be made friends. Hacket pretends a Re­concilement; takes the man in his Arms, bites off his Nose, and swallows it. This is that Hacket that was joyn'd with Coppinger, and Archington, in a plot to murder the Lords in the Star-chamber, because they had com­mitted Cartwright, (the great Rabbi of the Party) whose Crime was onely the erecting of the Presbytery without, and against the Queens Authority. Thus we see, That in Queen Eli­zabeth 's days too, the Protestant Religion was divided against it self. Briefly, that it is not Religion which moves these people, is most apparent, from their unquiet and distempered Actings. Proceed we now to enquire what it is, or in plain terms, to unmasque the Holy Cheat, and shew it bare-fac'd to the people.

Of all Impressions, those of Religion are the deepests; and of all Errors, the most to be lamented and indulged, are those of tender and mis-guided Consciences. The clearness of this Principle considered, it is no wonder that the foulest designs, put on the greatest shews of Holiness, as the onely way to gain and rule affections, without which, no great matters can be accomplish'd. This is a truth well known to the Presbyterians, and of ex­periment [Page 111] as antient as their Discipline.

We do not undertake to read their Hearts, but their VVritings we may venture upon; enquire a little into their practises, and by comparing both, give some tolerable guess at their Intentions. The readiest way is to look back, and match them; for the best prospect of the future is behind us.

Some grumblings toward the Consistorian discipline, The rise of Presbytery. there were in the days of Edw. 6. but the first notorious Separation was that of Frankford, (in the Reign of Queen Mary) when Gilby, Goodman, and Whitingham, with their Companions, flew off, and went to Ge­neva, from whence they returned into Eng­land, soon after Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown. These led the Dance in England; Knox in Scotland: and at this day our Presby­terians do but write after their Copy: profes­sing the same Principles, pretending the same Scruples, and beyond doubt proposing the same End; which was to get the same Domi­nion here, which Calvin and Beza exercised at Geneva: to whom they still repair'd for Coun­sel as they needed.

Cartwright and Travers came in the breech of these, but not without consulting Beza first, to learn the Knack of the Geneva Model. These were the men that first brought into England that horrible Position, that the Gene­va Discipline was as essential a Note of the Church, as either the true preaching of the Word, or the due Administration of the Sacra­ments. This is the Principle which supports the Presbyterian Interest.

[Page 112] The Pro­cess of Presbytery.For the first thirteen years of the Queen's Reign, they contented themselves to throw about their Libels against Ceremonies, and di­vide into Conventicles.

In the fourteenth of her Majesty, they ad­dressed two Admonitions to the Parliament; the former in the quality of a Remonstrance, with a Platform; the other, bolder, and more peremptory. This Parliament was no sooner Dissolved, but they fell presently to work upon their Discipline; the Progress whereof is with great exactness set down in the Third Book of Bancroft's dangerous Positions.

Dange­rous Posi­tions, pag. 43. In 1572. a Presbytery was erected at Wandesworth in Surrey, at which time they had also their Conventicles in London, where little was debated, but against Subscription, the At­tire, and Book of Common-prayer.

Dange­rous Pos. pag. 44. In 82. A meeting was appointed of 60 Mi­nisters, out of Essex, Cambridge-shire, and Norfolk, at Cockfield; to confer about the Common-prayer, — what might be to­lerated.]

Dange­rous Pos. pag. 45. In 83. The form of Discipline was compiled, and Decrees made touching the practise of it, which soon after were put in execution.]

Dange­rous Pos. pag. 75. pag. 86. pag. 89. In 87. The Discipline was received, and put in practise in Northampton-shire.]

In 88. A Classical Assembly at Coventry.]

In 89. A general Meeting in Cambridge, and another at Ipswitch.]

In 1590. Vpon the detection of the Premises, they refused to answer upon Oath. pag. 91.

[Page 113] Being thus Associated, Dange­rous Pos. pag. 120. they appropriate to their Meetings the name of the Church, and use the style.

The Offices of the Lord Arch-bishops, and Bishops, &c. (says Martin Junior) are con­demn'd by the Doctrin of the Church of Eng­land. pag. 125.]

By these degrees, the Schismaticks advanced to a dangerous heighth, and Boldness; and of this temper and extraction are our Presbyte­rians.

After the aforemention'd discovery, a stricter eye and hand was kept upon them; di­vers of the Ring-leaders were imprison'd, and the Covy broken.

Upon the coming in of King James, they be­gan to stir again; but he knew them too well, either to Trust, or Suffer them.

How they behaved themselves towards the late King, is to the eternal Infamy, not onely of the Faction, but of the Nation, too noto­rious: What they design toward the present Government, That's the Question: And now I come to enquire.—

Whether in Justice or Reason of State the Presbyterian Party should be Re­jected and Depressed, or Protected and Incouraged.

Before I fall upon the Question, once again I explain my self. By PRESBYTERI­AN, I intend a Faction, that under colour of [Page 114] setling a Reform'd DISCIPLINE, seeks to dissolve the frame of an establish'd Govern­ment. And first, I am to prove that Party so distinguish'd, such a Faction, which both from their own Practises, Positions, and from Com­mon Observation, and Authority, I think I shall make good; and that their last aim is to exercise that Tyranny themselves, which they pretend to punish.

We'l first examine how they treat the Civil Power.

If Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth, Presbyters Doctr. con­cerning Kings. their Subjects are freed from their Oaths of Obedience.

Kings, Princes, and Governors, have their Authority of the People, Knox to Engl. and Scotl. fol. 78. Gilby Obedi­ence, p. 25. and upon Occasion, the People may take it away again.

Ministers ought not to obey the Prince, when he prescribes Ceremonies, and a Fashion of Apparel.

Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be deposed. Register, p. 48.

Good­man, p. 144.Andrew Melvil being cited to answer for Treason delivered in a Sermon, declined the judgment of the King, affirming, That what was spoken in Pulpit, Spots­woods Hi­story of the Chur. of Scotl. p. 330. ought first to be tried and judged by the Presbytery; and that neither the King nor Counsel might in primâ instantiâ, meddle therewith, although the speeches were Treasonable.]

Scots Plea p. 262. Strike the Basilique vein; nothing but this will cure the Plurisie of our State. Kings De­claration concern­ing Scot­land, p. 404. Ibid. p. 409.

Let us never give over, till we have the King [Page 115] in our power, and then he shall see how good Sub­jects we are. (Delivered in a Sermon.)

It is lawful for Subjects to make a Covenant, and Combination without the King.

But to come nearer Home, to shew that the whole Gang is of the same Leaven. Worse than all this was daily printed against the late King, even by those Persons that were in pay to the Presbyterian Faction: and yet at last, those outrages are justifi'd against the Father, by such as would be thought Loyal to the Son.

If Parliaments think to scape better, they are deceived.

If the Brethren cannot obtain their will by suit, nor dispute, Bancroft, p. 169. the Multitude and People must do the Feat.

One preached, King's de­claration, 404. That though there were never so many Acts of Parliament against the Co­venant, yet it ought to be maintain'd against them all.

The Parliament can make no Law at all concerning the Church, Ibid. 408. but onely ratifie what the Church decrees: and after it hath ratifi'd it, yet if the Assembly of the Church shall pro­hibite it, and repeal that Decree of the Church, all the Subjects are discharged from yielding obedience to that Act of Par­liament.

An Assembly may abrogate Acts of Parlia­ment, Ibid. 411 if they any way reflect upon business of the Church.

[Page 116] Knox. Reformation of Religion belongs to the Com­monalty.

Of the Parliament in the 24 year of the Queen, (says the Supplication) if the de­sired Reformation be not granted.] There shall not be a man of their seed that shall pros­per, be a Parliament man, or bear Rule in England any more.

Concerning Laws established; They Fall in Consequence with the Power that makes them.