BE it Ordained by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament; That all such persons, as being of the Age of one & twenty years or above, shall re­fuse to take the Oath hereafter expressed, which Oath any two or more of the said Committees for Seque­stration in every County, City or place respectively, or any two Iustices of the Peace, or the Major, Baliffs or other head Officer of any City or Town Corporate shall have power to Administer to any such Person or Persons, shall forfeit as Papists within this and the former Ordinances, and Seizure & Sequestration of two third parts of all their Goods and Estates reall and personall, and sale of such pro­portion of their Goods, so Seized and Sequestred, shall be made, and their Rents and Estates disposed of, in such Manner and Proportion, and by such Persons, as by the said Ordinance of Sequestration is ap­pointed for Papists. The Tenor of which Oath followeth.

MY Teares are on my Cheekes, Lam. 1. and mine Eyes run down with Water, Lam. 4. 1 because the Comforter, that should relieve my soule, is far from me: Jer. 14. 19. how is the Gold become dim, and the most fine Gold changed? Lam. 2. 19 How have we looked for the time of healing and behold trouble? Arise, cry out in the night, in the beginning of the Watches, poure fourth thy heart like Water before the face of the Lord, for they have healed the hurt of the Daughter of my people slightly, they have still left a dangerous wound even in the heart of our liberty. Jer. 8. 22. Is there no Balm in Gilead? is there no Phisitian? why then is not the health of the Daughter of my people recovered? Why are these Oathes continued with so sharpe a double edge, that unavoidably they ei­ther cut the purse or kill the Conscience?

I confesse my own weaknesse in the Government of my selfe, I confesse my own ignorance in prescribing to others; yet the de­sires [Page 3] of prosperity to this Nation have taken such strong hold upon my Soule, and I feel my Spirit so powerfully drawn forth to ad­vance the things that belong to its peace, that I cannot refrain my Pen from humbly and earnestly soliciting a more firm and perfect establishment of the two principall Pillers of all flourishing Com­mon-wealths, Mercy to such as suffer for Conscience; and impartiall Justice to all men.

As these considerations have engaged me once more to expose the most secret and retired thoughts of my heart to be seen by others; So I assure the Reader this shall be their last appearance in pub­lique, that he may rest secure from all fear of losing his time upon any thing of mine hereafter: But lest I offend too much in the present trouble I give him; I shall imediatly apply my selfe to my task, and endeavour with a gentle, yet faithfull hand, to open the orifice of the neglected wound, humbly imploring the gratious in­fluence of Heaven to govern our Great Colledge in their grave and charitable consults for the perfect cure of all our sorrowes.

And in searching how mortall a stroake such Oathes, as this of Abjuration, give to the known Rights, and Priviledges of the People of this Land, my Method shall be directed by these Heads.

That they are Fundamentally repugnant to the Common Lawes and ancient Statutes of this Nation. Directly contrary to many Acts even of the last Parliament, and Decla­rations of the present Army. Absolutely prohibited by the Law of God, and inconsistent with the generall judgement of all Reformed Churches.

MAgistrates being originally instituted for this principall end, Thoughts unpunisht because unoffen­sive. to maintain a just order & harmony in the outward Motions of the multitude, it necessarily followes that the generall designe of Government is little concerned, what noat we make in our single selves, if we be in tune with our Companions.

Upon which ground the Common Law of this Land directs all its care to rule and treat us, as we are considered in reference to one another, and therefore neither limits our private expences, nor obliges to any course of Physick; because our particular for­tunes and health are of very little importance to the Publique, and of very much to our selves; And since nothing is more reason­able then to entrust those with the managery of an affair, whom [Page 4] the issue most concernes, it cannot be denyed, but as this freedom (without which we were absolute Slaves,) is allowed us in relati­on to our Bodies and Estates: So our Souls (as far as may con­sist with the publique peace) ought to enjoy a just and proportion­able share in the same liberty.

Much lesse doth the Law either punish or reward our thoughts, because they neither disappoint nor advance its ends; The inten­tion of Murther (though in the highest degree of premeditated malice) is no way subject to any legall account, if the mischievous purpose stay at the fancy, and proceed no farther to any outward attempt: By which necessary distinction betwixt Divine and Hu­man Jurisdiction, the Law religiously preserves its reverence to the great Tribunall of God, before whom only, we are to answer for the private errors and secret vices of our hearts, as we are accoun­table to the Magistrate for the open Crimes and scandalous Acti­ons of our hand [...].

If any conceive it just to enact a Law against Erroneous Thoughts in Religion, with an Oath of Aburation to make the sus­pected accuse himself, why should they not as well impose a penal­ty upon the vicious Thoughts of Hatred, Revenge or Ambition: And then force every one to swear whether he be guilty? Cer­tainly Magistrates may as lawfully put us to our Oathes, whether we have assented to any traiterous thought against our Country, or coveted our Neighbours Goods or Wife, as what we think of such a point of Divinity.

Should it be pretended, that the Oath of Abjuration commits no force upon the mind, but only upon the mouth; gives free leave to think what we will, if we swear as it commands; Such liberty of Conscience (to believe in our hearts contrary to what we profess with our lips) Nero himself allowed; Such liberty of Conscience (that is, damnable hypocrisy) is indeed the proper and naturall effect of compulsion upon the Conscience: Surely by this glori­ous word ( liberty) something more is intended to be left us, then what no Tyrant can take from us; Surely it ought at least to be so curteously interpreted, that by this kind phrase ( Liberty of Con­science) be understood a liberty consistent with Conscience; a condition, wherein every peaceable Christian may follow our Prin­ciples, without renouncing his own honesty: yet I confesse it puz­zels all the reason I am owner of, that they who take this Oath (though very credibly against their Consciences) shall enjoy the [Page 5] full benefit of tender Consciences; And if any refuse it (because against his Conscience) he is wholly excluded from the least mercy provided for tender Consciences.

Besides, Thoughts not punish­ed because incapable of proof. this dispunishableness of thoughts arises as well from the impossibility of lawfull proof, as from their innocency in not of­fending others; And therefore a secret promise (though most seriously and deliberatly resolv'd on) if reserved in the parties own Conscience, creates no legall Obligation of performance; which could not be true, Doctor and Student p. 104. if the Law did allow any proceeding, whereby the party were compellable to accuse himselfe.

And therefore, even in Chancery (though that be a swearing Court) if a Bill of Perjury be sued upon the Statute (5. Dyer 288. 49 Ed 3 [...]1 Challenge 100. Eliz.) the Defendant shall not be forced to make Answer upon Oath either to the Bill or Interrogatories. So if a Juror be challenged for par­tiallity, grounded upon some indifferent and unreproachfull ob­jection (as Kindred to one of the parties, &c.) he shall be ad­mitted to clear such a question by his own Oath; but if the charge be either ignominous or dangerous, as bribery, &c. the challenger must maintain his Assertion by witnesses; Crompton in his Ju­stice of P. 193. It being unreasonable (in the wise and moderate judgement of the Law) that any one be enforced to become his own accuser. With these agree many other Authorities, all unanimously subscribing to this conclusion, as an undeniable Maxime of Law, Dalton 299 Fullers Argument 10. that, None can be lawfully examined upon Oath, concerning any thing that sounds to his own pre­judice.

Nay so great an abhorrence has the Common Law of the par­ties being forced to prosecute and condemn himself, that it em­ploys an extraordinary diligence to prevent so destructive an abuse; And therefore in Fitzherberts Natura Brevium, if any had been cited into the Spirituall Court to accuse himself pro salute Animae, as they call'd it, a Prohibition lay at the Common Law to stop and supersede their proceedings; And it is a case adjudged, that, if in a paenall Law, the jurisdiction of the Ordinary be saved, as in 1 Eliz. Coke mag. circa 657. 2. for hearing of Masse, the party shall not be examined upon Oath before the Ordinary concerning that point, because it might becom an evidence against himselfe, Leighes case. & 18. if questioned after­wards in the temporall Courts, which is a direct Authority in the very point out of a Book licensed and Printed by speciall Order of the last Parliament, Eliz. Dyer 175. cleerly proving, that as the Papists ought to be tryed by witnesses, Hinds case. and not themselves examined upon Oath, [Page 6] concerning their going to Masse; So, much less concerning their inward belief, especially when such ruine attends them in their Estates, if they dare refuse to sweare against their Con­sciences.

It is true by the Common Law in some personall Actions the Defendant is admitted (not compelld) to his Oath, as in Case of wager of Law, 21 Ed. 3. 10. &c. 33. H. 6. 10. of non summons in a Praecipe quod reddat, and of garnishment, upon a Scire Facias, &c. But all these Oathes are either voluntarily offered by the party himself, not en­forced upon him by the Judges, and go in discharge, not condem­nation of him; or else concern only some collaterall passage of little importance to the decision of the main controversie, nor is the least shadow of such practise to be seen in any penall Law, which is the only point we dispute upon, and which we here undertake to prove; a proceeding altogether unknown to our Lawes, that any one should be constrained to inform against himself, and so be­come his own Executioner.

Upon this ground Sir Thomas Moore (a person compleatly learned in the Lawes of this Land, and universally famous for courage and resolution, according to his principles) refused the then new Oath concerning the Kings Supreamacy and Divorce, alleadging for his defence at the Bar, that he never spake or acted any thing against that Statute, and upon this Plea he relyed, as an evident justification in Law, which never (said he) was strained so far as to reach our thoughts; and for his inward judgement, he freely profest that Oath to be against it, offering before the Judges to sweare, that the unsatisfaction of his Conscience therein was the onely cause of his refusall to comply with their Com­mands.

And if we look back upon times behind us, we shall often see the outward words and actions censured by the Magistrate, but never the least attempt upon the Thoughts not pu­nisht by Acts of Parlia­ment be­fore the Refor­mation. inward belief; though the principles heretofore entertained concerning the use of force in Religi­on have generally been far more rigid, then those we now pro­fesse.

Therefore in the Acts of 5. Hen. 2. 5. & 2. Hen. 4. 14. & 2. Hen. 5. 1. (made even in Popish times which we so much condemn for cruelty) those that began new opinions contrary to the received Religion of the Nation, 5 Hen. 2. 5 2 He. 4 14. 2 Hen. 5. 1. are prohibited to Preach publickly any doctrine destructive of the Established Lawes, or by their subtile [Page 7] Sermons to draw the people after them; But not a word of forcing to swear the contrary.

They are forbidden to write Books in defence of their singula­rities, or make unlawfull Conventicles to the endangering of the publique Peace; But not a sillable of renouncing what they belie­ved in their heart.

The Statute of 31. 31 & 34 Hen 8. Nor in the beginning of the Re­formation. Hen. 8. 14. layes a forfeiture upon any that by Word, Writing, Printing, Publishing, Preaching or Teaching, shall maintaine any of the Opinions in six Articles therein prohi­bited: But not a Letter of Abjuring their inward perswa­sion.

And what the Lord Herbert in his History of Henry the 8. Lord Her­berts Hen. 8 fol. 447, 448. saith concerning this Statute is worth consideration, his words are these. The six Articles being now published, gave no little occasion of mur­mur, since to revoke the Conscience not only from its own Court, but from the ordinary wayes of resolving Controversies, to such an ab­rupt decision of the Common Law, as is there set down, was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usuall course; since the Conscience must be taught, not forced; without that it should at any time be handled roughly, as being of so delicate a temper, as though it suffer an edge to be put on, who doth more, diminisheth or breakes it: Besides to make the contravening of Doctrines, to be capitall, before they be fully proved, is prejudiciall to that liberty, without which none can justify himself before God or Man: For if it be death ( and Sequestration is a kind of death) to believe otherwise then wee are commanded; how unsafe will it be to make exact enquiry? and without it, who can say his Religion is best? Besides the Example is dangerous; For if Infidels and Heathens (to retain their People in obedience) should do the like, who would ever turne Christian? There­fore Cranmer for three dayes together in the open Assembly oppos'd these Articles boldly, &c. Thus far this learned Historian.

The Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 1. (in the beginning of the Reforma­tion) continued the same stile of punishing only the outward Act, whilst it declares, if any shall deprave, despise or contemn the Sa­crament of the Altar (so called in the Act, according to the Lan­guage of those times) he should suffer imprisonment and make fine and ransom at the Kings pleasure. Nor since the Refor­mation.

In the Statutes of 1. Eliz. 1. & 8. Eliz. 10. it is Enacted; That if any person shall by Writing, 1 El [...]z. 1. 8 Eliz. 10. Printing, Teaching or Preaching ex­toll, &c. The authority of the Bishop of Rome, or by any Speeches, [Page 8] Deed or open Act attribute any authority here in England to the said Bishop, hee shall incur the penalty mentioned in that Statute.

Agreeable to the former Statutes is (13 Eliz. 13 Eliz. 12 c. 12.) being the Act made for the subscription to the Articles of Religion, then newly modelled into a publique forme of confession of Faith. The words of the Act are these. If any such Ecclesiasticall person shall advisedly maintain or affirme any doctrine directly contrary or repug­nant to the said 39 Articles, and shall persist therein and not revoke his errour, such maintaining or affirming and persisting, shall be just cause to deprive such person of his Ecclesiasticall promotions. Upon which Statute these things are observable.

First, that these subscriptions being concerning matters of Faith are required of Schollers and Divines upon their pretence to Church preferments, not of lay persons, to dispossesse them of their temporall inheritances.

Secondly, they must maintaine or affirm some doctrine opposite to these Articles, to bring them within the penalty of that Law. So that the believing only of the contrary is not sufficient.

Thirdly, such maintaining or affirming is to be voluntary, and not drawn out of them by the rack of an Oath.

Fourthly, it, being made a cause of Deprivation, must be by wit­nesses, and not by the enforced abjuration of the party.

Fifthly, they are to lose only their Ecclesiasticall promotions, and not to be deprived of their temporall Estate. Not one of these so rationall and necessary cautions is at all now considered in the modern proceedings against Papists; but the most unlearned Tradesman and ignorant Woman amongst them are compel'd to accuse themselves, their Judges never asking after witnesses; And this under forfeiture of full two thirds of all their Goods and Lands.

And even in the last Parliament many Ordinances have followed the same way of prohibiting externall disorders, Norby the last Parlia­ment it self. occasioned from difference in opinions, but not precisely for the bare difference in opinion; As that of the 11 Aug. 1645. made by the Lords and Commons. 11 Aug. 1645. Wherein it is Ordained, that what person soever shall endeavour to bring the Directory into contempt, or raise any opposi­tion against it, or shall practise, write or Print, or cause to be writ­ten or Printed any thing in derogation or depraving of the said Di­rectory, shall lose and forfeit for such offence such a sum of money, as shall at the time of his conviction be thought fit to be imposed [Page 9] upon him, by him before whom he shall have his tryall.

Conformable to this was an Order made in Parliament Decemb. 22 Decemb: 1646. 22. 1646. The Parliament taking into consideration, that some Anabaptists and other Sectaries have disturbed the Ministers and Congregations in some Churches of this Realme, in disparagement of the Lawes, Statutes and Governments thereof, do Order that the Constables and Headboroughs within their severall Parishes, &c. shall arrest the bodies of all such persons as shall disturbe any Ministers in holy Orders, whilst he is in place of exercising his pub­lique Calling, by speaking to him, or using irreverent gestures or actions; and that they carry the bodies of such Offenders before some Justice of Peace of the same County to be dealt with, as to Justice shall appertain.

So likewise 9. 9 Aug. 1650. Aug. 1650. It is Enacted, that every person that shall presume avowedly by words to professe, or shall by writing pro­ceed to affirm any Blasphemous, Atheisticall or execrable Opinions de­rogatory to the Honour of God, such persons so avowedly professing, maintaining or publishing the said Opinions or any of them, shall in­curr the penalties of the said Statute. Which shewes plainly that the last Parliament thought it not fit to punish any for erroneous Opinions, (though of the highest nature) If the party shall onely believe them in his heart, and keep them within his own breast.

Lastly, (as a finall decision of this point and full satisfaction of those objections, which some make against the validity of an Or­dinance) it was Enacted (17 Car.) by the King, Lords, and Commons, That no person whatsoever exercizing any Ecclesiasticall (much lesse temporall) jurisdiction shall tender any Oath to any person, either Ex Officio or at the instance of any whosoever, where­by he may be charged to confesse or accuse himself of any crime, and so expose himselfe to punishment: then which no clearer or more de­finitive sentence can be imagined.

And (which is very observable) never in former times was any Abjuration required, but of such, as were first legally convict of Heresy; Never till these times, was the Abjuration it self made the conviction, 2 Hen. 4. 15 and therefore in the Statute of 2 Hen. 4. 15. These two conditions are punctually exprest, That in case of Abjuration the opinion to be abjured be a known heresy, and the party to ab­jure be legally found guilty, before they proceed to exact his Ab­juration.

[Page 10] According to this tenor run many other Statutes both ancient and modern, which my design of brevity enforces me to omit, and the full sufficiency of the Lawes already cited renders altogether unnecessary; only I shall desire leave to extract these few sound and excellent words out of the Petition of Right, 3 Car. That no free men be compelled to take any Oath, not warranted by the Lawes of the Realme.

This being then concluded, that thoughts are free from all hu­mane Lawes, and self accusation contrary to the English Lawes; it is very suitable to our Method, to consider next what provision our Common-wealth has made for discovery and conviction of Offenders; Wherein after I have slightly toucht some of the Argu­ments mentioned in the first part of this Moderator, I shall pass on to those aditionall reasons I have since collected,

And that the way of Indictment and conviction of witnesses and Jury is the only proceeding owned by the fundamentall Lawes of this Land,

IS abundantly proved by the chief Author and surest defen­der of all our Liberties, Magna Carta, so often confirmed in our ancient Parliaments, so reverently upon all occasions cited by the last: where every English man may read with joy these precious words. No free man may be arrested or impri­soned, but by due Proces of Law. No man shall be put out of his freehold by either the King himself, Coke Mag. Carta. 45. & 46. or any Commissioners, but every ones right to be tryed by a Jury of his equalls. Of which happy-freed­om the Papists (who long since procured it for this Nation) enjoy not now the least shadow.

5 Ed. 3. 9. It is enacted that no man from hence forth shall be at­tached upon any occasion, nor his Lands, Tenements, Goods, or Chattells seized against the form of the great Charter or against the Law of the Land. To this regular form of proceeding Thieves and Robbers have a cleer and allowed right, only Papists upon the single account of Religion are altogether excluded.

25. Ed. 3. c. 4. None is to be convicted of any offence, unlesse by in­dictment, or presentment of good, and lawfull men, where such of­fence is supposed to be done. This Justice every Murtherer can claim and no Judge dare deny; only the Papist whom we can accuse of no other crime; then difference of judgement in Religion, is forced to convict himself by his own Oath, without the least colour of any [Page 11] legall Indictment, so expresly contrary to the known Lawes and an­cient liberties of this Nation.

28. Ed. 3. c. 3. No man of what Condition or Estate soever shall be put out of his Lands or Tenements without being brought to answer by due proces of Law. This priviledge the most triviall fellow, that has but a Cottage to hide his head in, may uncontrollably challenge, and God forbid it should be refused him; but then how is it rea­sonable that Recusants (many of them persons of very consider­able, quality) be dispossest of so great Estates, upon their own en­forced Oaths without any due process of Law?

42. Ed. 3. cap. 1. It is enacted that the great Charter shall be held, and kept in all points, and if any Statute be made to the contra­ry it shall be void. Nay so great account have our wisest Ancestors made of this Magna Carta, so carefully provided for its preserva­tion and universall observance, that it has no lesse then 30 times been solemnly confirmed by Authority of Parliament, as is at large declared in Sir Ed. Coke's 5. Report fol. 64. B. and in his 8. Report fol. 19. B.

42. Ed. 3. cap. 3. It is Enacted, That no man shall be put to answer without presentment before Justices or matter of Record, or by due pro­ces, according to the Law of the Land, and if any thing from hence­forth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in Law and holden for error. No Court disallowes this advantage to the worst of Traitours; no Committee allowes it to the quietest of Recu­sants.

All these so excellent Lawes (such as no People under Heaven enjoy) were made when the Legislative power was absolutely in the hands of Papists; all these Priviledge (so high and extraordi­nary that they deserve the name, rather of the Peoples Preroga­tives then their Liberties) the Papists obtain'd and establishd in their times, & carefully transmitted to their posterities: All these wise and prudent Cautions (which so safely fence and preserve our Com­mon Freedom from the encroachment of Arbitrary power) were providently contrived by the Papists, and from them are happily descended upon us. And shall we now, (having reform'd their Faith) forget our own reason so far, as to deprive our Brethren of the benefit of those Lawes, which their Fathers made, only be­cause they resemble them most in Religion? Shall we so far yeild to passion, as utterly deny them the immmunities of their An­cesters? [Page 12] Or can we possibly arrive at this degree of partiality, as not permit the greatest Malefactor to be his own accuser, and yet enforce the most peaceable Recusant to be his own condemner? Nay though the Thief (arraign'd at the Bar) confesse his guilt, our Judges mercifully decline to condemn him, without some Te­stimony of witnesses: But if a Recusant will not voluntarily both arraign and condemn himself, the practise of Haberdashers Hall is, (without thinking of further proof) immediatly to proceed to Execution.

Nor was this tendernes towards the liberty of the subject re­garded only in those old dayes, but we have fresh Examples of a greater zeal and jealousie, then ever those times were acquainted with; For in the great Petition of Right (3. Car.) all these Statutes were particularly recited and earnestly insisted upon by the Par­liament then assembled. And yet a fresher instance is that of the last Parliament, who (in their Act for Regulation of the Privy Councell and abolition of the Star-chamber) did punctually repeat again all those Statutes, and rely upon them as the Fundamentall and unchangeable Law of the Land.

Besides, whereas Copy-hold Estates by the ancient Lawes and Customes of this Nation, were never comprehended within the generall words of any Act of Parliament, which alters the inte­rest of the Land or the Custome of the Mannor, to the prejudice either of Lord or Tennant, as is resolved in Sir Edw. Coke's second Report, fol. 8. Sir Fran. More's Reports 199. 428, &c. Because no stranger can become Tennant of any Copyhold Estate, without the Lords speciall assent and admission; For which cause no Copy­holds were ever lyable to any Execution of Statutes or Recogni­zances in debts or Formdon, nor were within the Statute of 2 Hen. 5. cap. 15. for Heresy, nor were seizable within the Statute 29 Eliz. cap. 6. nor 3. Jac. cap. 4. for Recusancy; Yet (contrary to this ancient fundamentall Law) the Copyhold Estates of every suspected Recusant are seized upon and sequestred, although there be no Ordinance or Act of Parliament expresly warranting any such proceedings.

Thus have we clearly demonstrated, that the onely course allowed by the Law for determination of all Controversies, is the ordinary Proces by Writ in Civill Causes, and by indictment in Criminall and in both by Witnesses and a Jury of the Neigh­bourhood, [Page 13] where the scene of the question lies. And now we shall fully satisfy our undertaking, if we can also prove

That the late Parliament often engaged by solemn Acts and Declarations to maintaine the Lawes of the Land.

WHerein it is impossible for any that can reade English, to retain the least doubt, when he has perused these few Citations.

26 May, Exact col­lections, fol. 267. Ib. fol. 660 1642. The Lords and Commons declare, That they will be very tender of the Lawes, which they acknowledge to be the safe­gard and custody of all publique and private interest.

23 October 1642. They further declare, That they must owne it, as their duty, to use their best endeavours that the meanest of the Common-wealth may enjoy their own Birth-rights, Freedome and Liberty of the Lawes of the Land, being equally entituled thereunto with the greatest Subject.

November 1642. 1642. Ibi [...] fol. 694. They further declare, That slavery must be the Peoples condition, if the two Houses should goe about to over­throw the Lawes of the Land and the property of every Mans Estate.

26. Exact col. fol. 78. May 1642. If such things may be done by Law without due proces, the subject hath a very poor defence, and a very small, if any pro­portion of property thereby.

17 April 1646. Booke of Ordinan­ces fol. 878 The Parliament declared, That they will not, nor any, by colour of any authority derived from them, shall interrupt the ordinary course of Justice.

The Parliament declared, 15 Junii. 1647. That they will preserve unto the People their Lawes, and will Govern by them. And before and after they severall times declared, that the Lawes of the Land are the un­doubted birth-right and inheritance of the meanest Subject.

By a speciall Act, 9 Febr. 1648. the Parliament of England declared, That they are fully resolved to maintaine and preserve the Fundamentall Lawes of this Nation, for and concerning the properties of the people with all things incident thereunto.

Now after all these Ordinances, who could be so undutifull as to entertain the least fear of being ever hereafter forc'd to accuse him­self? Upon these so many so solemn Declarations, who could have excused the presumption and perversness of his heart, if he dared to doubt of their observance; Especially since the Parliament did not [Page 14] proclaim to us its sence by bare words, but advanced farther to severe Executions, and by the Example of the Earle of Strafford strictly prohibited the introducement of any novelty in the practice of the Law. Against whom the Parliament in their third Article brought this charge, That he had proceeded summarily in the mat­ter of the Lord Mont-Norris; And in the sixth Article, his ac­cusation was, that he had dispossest the Lord Mont-Norris of his Lands by a summary proces contrary to Law; And in the seaventh Article the like charge was againe repeated; That hee had depri­ved the Lady Hibbots of her possessions by a summary way of pro­ceeding.

These misdemeanours (though not the only Crimes of which he was accused, yet) added such a weight to his other offences that altogether they sunk him into his Grave. In the whole course of whose tryall I meet with nothing more worthy to be staid upon, then this consideration; That the Parliament did not so much urge against him the illegality, as the unlawfulnesse of his proceedings, nor condemn him barely for want of a Com­mission or authority, but because his Actions were in them­selves tirannicall, and dangerous encroachments upon the Funda­mentall Liberty of this Nation; Yet he examined Witnesses, but after a fashion of his own devising, and left the common road of tryall by the verdict of a Jury.

And can there be a more summary Proces, then to accuse any whom we suspect of a Crime, and (unlesse he immediatly sweare himself unguilty) immediately condemn him, as guilty? Can there be a more quick and cutting dispatch, then in half an houre to turne a just owner out of his ancient possession, because he will not swear against his Conscience? and (which is yet worse) can there be a more compendious (if not preposterous) way, then first to seize upon and secure the Estate, and then hear the party speak for himself? Booke of O [...]dinan­ces for se­questrati­ons fol 40 Yet these are the express Instructi­ons to the Committees for Sequestrations in the Year 1643. That where they find any doubt concerning any person whether hee be comprehended within the said Ordinance (for Sequestra­tion) they are to certify the same to the Committee of Lords and Commons for that service, and in the meane time to secure the Estate of such persons, untill they receive further In­structions.

[Page 15] And now when I consider the Office of a Parliament, which is principally to reform the abuses, that time (conspiring with our corrupted nature) brings into the administration of the Lawes, when I consider the quality of the last Parliament, professing so scrupulous and precise a respect to the preservation of our ancient Liberties: I cannot sufficiently wonder from what cause this un­happy effect should flow, by which a free-born English-man is compell'd to be his own accuser in matters of so tender a nature, as Conscience and Religion, and of so high a concernment, as the utter impoverishment of himselfe and his family; But after a little ranging about I soon discovered the fountain head in a dark hol­low place, where three or four hundred springs of fresh water met together in one channell, of which, some having passed through hot and sulphurous veines, quite changed the tast and colour of the rest, and the stormy weather of that season quickly raised the whole stream into a fierce and violent current, whose fury soon broke the common banks and bore down all before it like a deluge. The truth of which Metaphor, is as easily proved, as the sence of it understood; being no more then that the Introducer of this cruell Oath, was an Ordinance hastily huddled up in the destroying time of Presbytery and War.

For then it was, August 17. 1643. that where the people had thown in their Rings and Jewels, there came forth the golden Covenant, before which all the Nation must fall down and worship. Book of O [...]dinan. 289. 408. Jul 19. 1643

Then it was the Presbyter-Divines petitioned both Houses for a perfect Reformation and settling of the Kirk Discipline and Clas­sicall Government.

Then it was that penalties began to be imposed upon all Refu­sers of the Covenant, G [...]eat Boo. of O [...]din. and none to bear Office but such as had taken the Covenant; fol 240. 30. Nov. 1643. nay all be punisht as spyes, that deny'd to take the Covenant. Ordin. 390. 399. 20 [...]. 1643.

Not long after was published the Directory or new Almanack to pray by, taken out of the Ephemerides of Scotland, and calcula­ted for the Elevation of the new Kirk of England by the Assembly of well wishers to Divinity. Ordi. 404.

Not long after were the Apocriphall Elders brought in, Ordi. 802. and Tyrannicall Classes erected; November 26. 1644. Both the Houses declaring their in­tentions to settle Religion in the purity thereof according to the Covenant, Gr. Booke of Ordin. 809. which surely was a mistake in the Printer, to say Cove­nant instead of the Word of God. Thus plainly it appeares, that [Page 16] the Presbyterian Starres (or Comets rather, by the shortnesse and terrour of their blaze) raigned in the firmament of our State at the birth of this unlucky Oath of Abjuration, and long after.

The second branch of the task I undertook was, That these sud­dain and sharp proceedings of sequestring upon the bare refusall of an Oath, without any legall process, were occasioned by the exigencies of the War; an assertion most fully and evidently pro­ved by the first Ordinance against Delinquents and Papists; 1. Apr. 1643 In the preamble whereof the Lords and Commons (reciting the calami­ties of the War) declare, That all the sequestred Estates should be applyed towards the supportation of the great charges of the Common­wealth; And in the first Instructions to the Committees, they are charged to use their best care and diligence for the speedy executi­on of the Ordinance for Sequestration, as being a matter of great necessity and importance for the subsistence of the Army. Great Book of Ordin. fol. 360. and 511. And observing some slowness in the Committee, the Earl of Manchester (a Commander in chiefe) was empowred to execute that Ordi­nance; and the Sequestrators commanded to pay the money they raised, to the Committee of the Army.

One other argument there is, that inclines me to believe the Parliament intended this Ordinance only as a provision in those distracted times, and not as a standing Law for ever; else surely they would never have put into their Commission so slight a thing as a Bayliff of a Corporation. Were it handsome that the Mayor of Rising should come down from thatching some triviall Ale­house, to tender the Oath of Abjuration to the noble Earle of Arundell? or indeed how should a common tradesman (whom without breach of charity we may presume can neither write nor read) know what he does, when he commands others to forswear such hard long words, as Supremacy, Purgatory, and Transubstan­tiation? what shall we (that accuse the Papists of blind obedi­ence) say to our selves, when our very leaders are so short-sigh­ted?

Tis true, all these fair and just exceptions are fully answered by this one word Necessity, a Heteroclyte that hath no Rule, no Law, and therefore, as it is without Law, to be judged without Law. But then at least it ought to be a Law unto it selfe, that is, confined to circumstances, wherein there is a true and reall necessity, and therefore during the furious violence and careir of war, such sum­mary [Page 17] proceedings (to prove without Witness and condemn with­out Jurors) might easily find excuse, but being restored now to a perfect calm and universall peace, we are certainly obliged to re­turn again to the known English tryall by Indictment and Convi­ction, and not continue still throwing our neighbours goods over­board, so long after the storm is ended.

If any object, though the reason of Necessity remains now no longer, since the gates of Westminster Hall are open, and the old crowd of Suitors march peaceably there under the Scotch Colours; yet the Supream Authority of the Nation is bound to render no other account of their Acts, then the French King of his Edicts, which alwayes close with this Frank and resolute Period, Car tel est nostre plaisir.

1 I reply, first, That such Objection seemes rather to accuse the Government of Tyranny, then faithfully defend its Authority; no sound approaching so nigh Antipathy to an English Eare, as that of being under an absolute and unlimited Master, whether that boundlesse and uncontrollable Power be lodged in the single person of a King or the multiplyed of a Councill.

2 When by the change of circumstances, any Law becomes unfit to be continued, we are not forbidden to represent, even to the highest Powers, our reasons for a Repeale; if we carry our Addres­ses with such regard, that they appeare to intend a Reformation of the Errour, not correction of our Superiors.

In which respect, never did any Parliament give such high hopes of a thorow redress, as that which lately sate, by erecting so careful­ly those two grand Committees for regulating the Law and propa­gating the Gospel, by inviting so solemnly all that would offer their proposalls to come into their assistance. And as the whole Nation remains infinitely bound to the solicitude of the Army, for whose satisfaction both those Committees were establish'd: So are we all no less oblig'd to the Zeal of the Generall, by whose perso­nall presence every day at that of Religion it received so great Countenance and Encouragement. And therefore I shall not enter­tain the least suspition that these few thoughts of mine should be­get any offence, since they aim only to propose the unsuitableness of this new uncharitable Oath of Abjuration to the ancient and best Lawes of the Land.

Even the Pope admits his Subjects (when they apprehend some errour in the proceedings) to appeale from himselfe mis-infor­med, [Page 18] to himself better informed and yet we call his absolute ness, a Tyranny, and their obedience, blindness. How much more then may those true lovers of their Countreys happiness promise themselves security, if not acceptance from the Parliament, who either by humble Petition or other modest and untumultuous way represent to their consideration any mis-practiseor inconvenience, which in time might prove a dangerous precedent to the just liberties of their Country.

3 What ever the Supream Authority of a Nation may by abso­lute prerogative command, yet the Supream Authority of this hath alwayes disclaim'd such Arbitrary Dominion, as Tyrannicall, and often engag'd by most solemn Declarations for the perpetuall continuance to the people of the Lawes they are acquainted with; amongst which as there is none more fundamentall and singular to the Nation▪ then the ancient tryall by Witnesses and Verdict, so we shall still endeavour to make more evident so important a truth, by proposing

A short Paralell betweene this Oath of Abjuration and that Ex Officio.

IN the grand Petition signed by the 9. Sept. 1640. Lords, and presented to the late King at York, we find this recorded as one of the principall grievances; That many innovations in Oathes and Ca­nons had beene lately imposed upon the Clergy and other his Majesties Subjects, &c. In redresse of which mischievous encroachment up­on our just libertyes, In 17. Caroli. the late long Parliament enacted; That no person exercising any Ecclesiasticall Power or Authority shall ex Of­ficio or at the instance or promotion of any person whatsoever urge, enforce, tender, give, or minister to any person whatsoever any Oath, whereby he shall or may be charged to confesse or accuse himselfe of any crime, offence, delinquency, misdemeanour, matter or thing▪ by reason whereof he shall or may be lyable to any penalty or punishment whatsoever.

Before which Statute ( viz. 1607.) the unreasonableness and illegality of that Oath had been clearly convinced by a learned Treatise of Oaths purposely written against it, as also by M. Fuller in his arguments at the then Kings Bench against some branches of the High Commission Court▪ both which pursued their points so efficaciously, that the grievances they opposed were unanimously [Page 19] condemn'd as intollerable abuses. And certainly no Mathemati­call Demonstration can bear a higher and clearer evidence, then that the principall reasons (which I have here collected out of both those Treatises) against that Oath Ex Officio are more strongly ap­piable to this of Abjuration.

Thus then they begin their just charge upon that unjust Oath. 1 First, That contrary to the Law of Nature and the Fundamentall Lawes and Customes of this Nation, the party examined is thereby forced to sweare against himselfe in a criminall cause before he knows his Accuser, and consequently compell'd to be instrumentall to his owne punishment. This was condemned in the beginning of the last Parliament with infinite applause, as a most unsufferable Tyran­ny; but the Oath of Abjuration far exceeds it, even in its two worst qualities, cruelty and illegality. Every Recusant (whose Con­science cannot down with the Oath) being unavoidably necessita­ted either to ruine his Soul by taking it against Conscience, or his Estate by loss of two thirds, if he refuse it: Wherein there is one circumstance practised, that raiseth this Oath to a most exorbitant unconscionableness; For as to those, whose Judgements take any other road, as Antinomians, Socinians, or even Jewes, their course is smooth and free, but if we espy one whom we guess to be a Papist, and whose Conscience we think is not plyant and nimble enough to leap over the block, then presently this break-neck Oath of Abjuration is clapt in his way; against which our own hearts (if we but lay our hands upon them) will tell us, he must necessa­rily either stumble into a desperate poverty, or (which is worse) fall down-right into a damnable perjury.

2 The Oath Ex Officio was aver'd to be a meer Alien, introduc'd by the Prelates, upon pretext of purging their Provinces of seduc'd people; but indeed to maintain their Hierarchy and tyrannize over the Consciences of all dissenters contrary to Law and Equity; This of Abjuration is a greater stranger, never heard of till 1643, when the Presbyterian faction thought it a fit engine to skrew up their intended Kirk-tyranny.

3 By the Oath Ex Officio, men were examined upon captious questi­ons concerning their very Thoughts, to the sifting and ransacking of their Hearts and Consciences, and were therein subjected to a farre greater Tyranny then that of the Spanish Inquisition, which extends to words and actions onely. This of Abjuration compells even women and illiterate persons positively to renounce (by meer ad­venture [Page 20] or implicite Faith) many controversiall Doctrines, a­bout which the greatest Divines of Europe have so long disputed, and are like perhaps never to agree; Nor is this Oath contented with a modest and simple professing, that they do not believe there is a Purgatory: but absolutely exacts of them to swear down right there is none, in the last period of the Oath, where they are en­forced, to abjure and renounce all Doctrines in affirmation of the said points. For my part, as I thinke it a wilde conceit, to hold there is a new World in the Moon; So I am sure it is a desperate pre­sumption positively to swear the contrary.

That Oath Ex Officio (being commonly tendered to such as are suspected guilty of the crimes, whereof they are to cleer themselves by their own Oath, or otherwise to undergo a penalty) must in all pro­bability be an occasion of frequent perjuries, to the losse not only of many Soules, but to the great abuse of the name and majesty of God. This of Abjuration exposes men to the same danger, and God to the same dishonour; And besides hath been so far from ever gai­ning any true convert to the Protestant Religion, that it hath made many swear away that little Religion they had, and ever after pro­fesse none: For such indifferent and luke-warme Papists, as take this Oath, usually say, they will rather trust God with their Soules then the Common-wealth with their estates.

Whence certainly it was that the famous Judge, Cokes fourth Re­port, f. 95. Sir Edward Coke, breaks out into this complaint; Experience now proveth, the Consciences of men are grown so large, that the respect of their private interests and commodities doth for the most part induce them to perjury. According to which he there sets it down for a Rule, that, to swear in a mans owne case is frequently in this Age, the Devills precipice, whereby to throw men headlong into Hell. And yet to these straits (which my heart even bleeds to think) hath this cruell Oath of Abjuration driven all Recusants, live they never so peaceably and unoffensively; This dangerous snare (for it de­serves no milder name, since we never think of endeavouring by any rationall motives to perswade them out of their errours) lyes continually before their feet to entrap them. Where is our charity to Christians, professing the same Saviour, and believing the same Scriptures, with our selves? Where is our Justice to neighbours, equally entitled by their birthright to the same freedom with our selves? Is the extraordinary Liberty, we held forth to all the World, shrunk into this narrownesse, that any peaceable person, [Page 21] who professes the Gospell of Christ (though in some things mista­ken) should by us be compel'd to this sad necessity, either of ab­solute forswearing himself, or utter impoverishing his family, which in plain English signifies (I tremble to utter it) either De­vill take his Soul, or Sequestrator his Estate. I acknowledg this a very harsh expression, but he that reflects upon the generall procee­dings hitherto with Recusants, that we appoint no godly and gifted men to convert them, but only Committeemen to ru­ine them, will I feare finde too much truth in my words.

Upon occasion of the Oath Ex Officio, See Book of Speech­es, pag. 314. a learned Member moved in Parliament, ( December, 1640.) That the Law might punish, not make Offenders; That words and actions might be sub­ject to Law, Master Bagshaw, ibid. p. 347 but thoughts be free. Another of the same learning and dignity (in a speech in Parliament against the Oath Ex Officio) set upon it this publique Brand, Novemb. 7. 1640. That it was grown monstrous, and become indeed no other then Carnificina Conscientiae. Upon the same ground was built the fourth Article of the charge against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, ibid p. 319 that he questioned one Master James a Minister of his Diocesse, not only for matters of outward fact, but like­wise concerning secret thoughts.

All which extream and unsufferable inconveniences I confesse are so evidently appliable to the Oath of Abjuration, that you need but only change names, to make them exactly true of either except that in the one both far more difficult questions are requi­red, and far greater penalties imposed, whereas in the other, the point in doubt was very easie to resolve, whether you had slept with your neighbours wife, and the punishment a little peece of money to repair Pauls.

And certainly it was with reflection upon this Oath of Ab­juration, Master Hobbs in his Chri­stian Common­wealth, p. 378. that the learned Master Hobbs sayes, There is another errour, to extend the power of the Law (which is the Rule of actions only) to the bare thoughts and Consciences of men, by examination and inquisition of what they hold; whereby men are either punished for their very thoughts, or constrained to answer an untruth for fear of punishment; By which meanes they are forced to accuse themselves of their opinions, which is against the Law of Nature.

Nor doth this Oath of Abjuration extort the secret thoughts only, but compells the renouncing of some positions, which (in the opinion of divers venerable writers) are more receivable, then the Doctrine of some avowed Protestants. I instance in the [Page 22] point of Transubstantiation (one of the Articles to be abjured) which In con­sens. de re Sacram. Art. 24. p. 75 [...]. Calvin sayes is more rationall then the Doctrine of Con­substantiation, and yet this the Lutherans (our brethren) unani­mously hold. Part. 2. Histor Sa­cram. fol. 754. Hospinian (another Protestant writer) sayes the like; And De Coena Domini. p. 216. Beza acknowledges Transubstantiation to be an inevitably consequent of the Doctrine of the Reall presence, which all Lutherans maintain, and is not against this Oath.

How then comes it to passe that the Reall presence in the Lords Supper may be lawfully, at least safely maintained, which many Protestants herein England do, and all Lutherans every where; yer under most severe penalties the intrinsick belief of Transub­stantiation must be abjur'd, which (in the judgement of those fa­mous Reformers) is an inevitable consequence of it, and more rationall, then the opinion of Consubstantiation, yet this may be defended without being subject to the least question; Nay more, there is no Oath nor penalty against the publique professing of Con­substantiation, no nor against the publick practise according to that opinion, and yet the very inward belief of Transubstantiation is made so heinous a crime, so severely punishable, that they who are but lookers on, and only see the burthens laid upon refusers of this Oath, feel in their brests a certain instinct by which they pro­test themselves secretly and strangely enforc'd to grieve and sigh at the cruell and rigorous proceedings even of their own Party.

And that this compassion towards sufferers, upon the account of Religion, rises not so much from softnesse of Nature, as from the tendernesse of the Spirit, will certainly finde an easie belief, if, in stead of a flock of tame and weeping women, we can pick out an Army of victorious Soldiers, whose courage neither knows to fear the face of such as threaten war, nor conscience endures to force the heart of those that will live in peace; Of which too evi­dent truths, if any deny the first, let him read their past victo­ries, if doubt of the second, I desire him to peruse their follow­ing

DECLARATIONS.

NOw to the comfort and even amazement of the Spirit, let us contemplat the constant pious intentions held forth by the Army. No sooner had their many victories rendred them the ter­ror [Page 23] of the World, (our own as fearfully as neighbouring Nations expecting what great designe of blood they next would en­terprize) but they threw aside the cruelty and ostentation of Con­quest, and took into themselves the bowells of mercy; They pre­sently look'd round about them on their afflicted Christian Bre­thren: and, knowing nothing more precious, nothing more com­fortable to the godly then liberty of conscience, by their fre­quent Declarations to the World, and zealous addresses to the late Parliament, they manifested how unalterable they were in their holy Principles. No licentious avarice emboldned them to divide the spoile, no wantonnesse provoked them to surfeit with the fruit of the Land they had subdued; So far from growing in­solent with successe, that even their enemies have confest, There was never in any age known so great a modesty in so continued a victory, nor such excellent discipline in a conquering Army. Their own interest never regarded by themselvs, only to improve the qui­et & repose of the Consciencious, was their endeavour, which they pursued with so religious a noble courage, that they took their lives into their hands, and with the greatest hazard to self-preservati­on, removed that Power which grew sloathfull, and halted in the way of Godlinesse, and have moddel'd such a Government, as shall intend chiefly to give balsome to the many wounds of the afflicted. This relief is the expectation and hope of many Consciences now in anguish and tribulation, who cannot but with comfort remember, how the Army ever had that compassion which the Clergy wanted, and the Millitary piety hath beene still eminent above the Civill or Ecclesiastick. What their god­linesse will be, we cheerfully and confidently expect; what hi­therto it hath, these ensuing Expressions will declare.

It was humbly desired by the Army; Armies Declarati­on 14. Iune 1647. p. 12 That ( according to the Declaration of the Parliament, promising a provision for tender Consciences) there might be some effectuall course taken according to the intent thereof, and that such, as upon conscientious grounds differ from the established formes, may not for that be debarred from the common rights, libertie and benifits equally belonging to all, as Members of the Common-wealth, Narration of the Ar­my printed at Oxford. 1647. Pag. 11. whilest they live soberly and in­offensively to others, and peaceably and faithfully to the State.

Likewise, That sufficient care be taken for the liberty and protection of those, who cannot submit to the externall worship of this Nation, though otherwise conformable to the civill power and authority therof.

[Page 24] They desired, Army's Declarati­on 2. Aug 1647. That an Act might be passed to take away all Co­ercive Power extending to any Civill penalties upon any, for matters of Conscience; and expresly, That Papists be subject to punishment, onely for disturbing the State, Page 7. and that men may not be compelled to take any Oath against their judgement and consciences, Their Proposals, 16 September 1647. but that all Orders and Ordinances to that purpose may be repealed.

That none may be compelled by penalties to answer to questions ten­ding to accuse themselves; Page 8. And that consideration might be had of all Statutes and Ordinances, Page 10. imposing any Oaths, and that they might be either repealed or at least so qualified, that they might not extend or be construed to the molestation or punishment of Religious and peaceable people for non-conformity to fixed formes, bounds, and li­mits, thereby to confine Gods holy Spirit; as if Religion consisted more in such outward formes and rites, according to the manner of Moses, then in power and vertue according to the Gospel.

Againe, Procee­dings of the Army, 15 Novem. 1647. That matters of Religion and the wayes of Gods worship are not by them intrusted to any humane power, because therein they cannot remit or exceede a tittle of what their consciences dictate un­to them, to be the word of God, without wilfull sinne: neverthelesse the publique way of instructing the Nation, so it be not compulsive, is referred to the discretion of the Parliament. Page 9.

His Excellency and Council of War declare, That the Covenant be not enforced, Lord Gen. Cromwel's Declarati­on 1647. nor any penalties imposed on the Refusers, whereby men might be constrained to take it against their judgements, but that all Orders & Ordinances to that purpose might be repealed. That con­sideration be had of Statutes, Pag. 10. 13 Laws & Customes of Corporations, impo­sing any Oaths, & that they may be either repealed or so qualified, that they may not extend or be construed to the molestation or ensnaring of Religious & peaceable People, meerly for a non-conformity in Religion.

Again his Excellency thus learnedly and religiously, If outward things may not be contended for, Lord Gen. Declarat. 21. March 1650. much lesse may the doctrines of Faith (which are the works of Grace and the Spirit) be endeavoured by un­suitable meanes: He that bids us contend for the Faith once deli­vered to the Saints, tells us we should doe it by building up our selves in the most holy Faith, Pag. 2. 3. not pinning it upon other mens sleeves, keeping our selves in the love of God, not destroying men, because they will not be of our faith, &c.

As for the people ( speaking of Ireland) what thoughts they have in matters of Religion in their owne breast, I cannot reach, but thinke is my duty, if they walke honestly and peaceably, not to cause them in [Page 25] the least degree to suffer for the same, Pag. 5. but to endeavour to walke pati­ently, and in love towards them; to see if at any time it shall please God to give them another or a better minde.

And in a Letter to the then Governour of Rosse in Ireland, Lord Generals Letter dat. 19. Octob. 1649. his Excellency (speaking of Religion) sayes, He meddles not with any mans private Conscience.

The Army further declare, Narrarive of the Army 30. April 1649. That they doe not impower or intrust their Representatives to continue in Force or make any Lawes, Oaths, or Covenants, whereby to compell by penalties or otherwise, any person to any thing, Page 5. in or about matters of Faith, Religion, or Gods worship, or to restraine any person from the profession of his Faith, or excercise of Religion, according to his Conscience. Or to punish any person for refusing to answer to questions in criminall causes.

These Declarations of the Army were seconded by a Petition from the Cityes of London and Westminster, Petition pre­sented 11. Sept. 1648. & Burrough of South­wark, to the Parliament, in these words, That they would exempt matters of Religion and Gods worship from the compulsive and restri­ctive power of any authority upon earth, and referre them to the su­pream power of Almighty God. And that the Parliament would not proceed in making Ordinances, or Lawes, or in appointing punishments concerning opinions, wherein themselves may easily be mistaken, &c.

On all oportunities, thus hath the Army declared what was the light they walk'd by in the dark thorny wayes of their precedent dangers; And in the endeavour that every Conscience may have a comfortable repose, they continue constant still, and vigorous; Nor can there be the least suspition of straying from these religi­ous Principles, having for their Guide, his Excellency, who hath fought his enemies as much into confusion, by an unexampled re­gularity of manners, and holy encouraging to piety, by frequent exhortations, tears, and prayers, as by the sharpnesse of his sword, and a courage ever invincible.

Our next Progresse shall be to evince the truth and holinesse of these principles of the Army, against the enforcing of Oaths, & coer­tion in Religion, to be clearly establish'd upon that sure foundation

THE LAW OF GOD.

OF which three words, being of greater weight then three thou­sand volumes of mens Discourses, I shall content my selfe, and hope to content my Reader with the citation of these few Texts;

One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any ini­quity, Deut. 19 15. fault, &c. (much lesse shall a man rise up against himself) [Page 26] but in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be establi­shed; which Rule is confirmed in the Gospel, Mat. 18. 16. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, And our Lord Christ himselfe said to the woman accused of Adultery, John. 8 11. Where be thy ac­cusers, if they condemn thee not, neither do I. In the proceedings upon this Oath of Abjuration, there is no accuser, no witnesse; the party himselfe must be both against himself; and what can be more oppo­site to Scripture, then such enforcement?

And that carnall men, and they, who build on the Authority of Academick learning, may see how abhorring to truth all force and violence offered to the Conscience is: let their patience go a little forward and finde what have been

The Opinions of the most eminent Divines in the Reformed Churches.

NOne are to be compelled to professe the true Religion, Ofiander Cent. 7. fol. 94. by imprison­ment or losse of goods; The Magistrate ought to force no man to subscribe Articles concerning Religion, Bucer Com­ment. Evangel. fol. 428. but that is to be left to the grace of God in every one, as the Lord shall direct.

The Magistrate misuses his power, Bucan. in loc. com fol 33. if he impose Lawes upon our Consciences; For Paul did not subject the Consciences of Christians to humane Lawes, Sect. 18. but to the Ordinances of God.

Men are to be perswaded to Religion by reason, Fox. Acts and Mon. fol. 1650. and 1638. not compelled there­unto by punishment: The Gospel allowes not the Law of compulsion to be put upon the Conscience, Beza in his Theologicall Tract. fol. 90. and 118. but only of councell and exhortation.

The Scripture commands, that they who are weake in faith are to be borne withall, untill the Lord shall reveale unto them all such things wherein they are ignorant, and in the meane while they ought to be instructed, not punished. Calvin. Com­ment. in 1 Cor. 8. 7.

All men erring from the true Religion are to be reclaim'd by father­ly exhortations, Polanus Syntag. liber. 10. ca. 65. hearing the Word, and good instructions, not by force & violence. The Lord hath definitively declared, that the Magistrates are not fit Judges in matters of Religion, Jac. Acontius in Strat. Satan. fol. 158. and 161. and therefore hath interdicted them all use of such Jurisdiction, and reserved it to himselfe, who at the last day by his Angels shall separate the Tares from the Wheat. Perkins in 6. Galat. fol. 477.

God alone is Lord of the Conscience, and hath left it free from the Doctrines and Commandements of men, which are in any thing beside his Word in matters of Faith: Assembly of Divines Conf. of Faith, chap. 19. sect. 2. so that to believe such Doctrines, or to obey such Commands out of Conscience, is to betray our liberty of Con­science, and the requiring of an absolute obedience, is to destroy liber­ty of Conscience and Reason also.

[Page 27] Faith hath no relation unto, Mr Hobs in his Christian Common­wealth fo. 270. nor dependency at all upon compulsion and commandement, but onely upon certainty and probability of argu­guments, drawn from reason, or from something which men beleeve already: Therefore the Ministers of Christ in this world have no power to punish any for not beleeving; 1 Corinth. 1. 24 Fol. 271. since Paul himselfe profes­seth, We have no dominion over your faith. Ephes. 2. Faith (both in respect of the Object and of the Assent) being the free gift of God; which Man can neither give nor take away by promise of rewards nor menace of tortures. Fol. 26 [...]. There is no coercive power left by our Saviour upon earth in matters of Religion, but onely a power to proclaim the Kingdome of Christ, and perswade men to submit themselves thereunto, and by pre­cepts & good counsel to teach them that have submitted what to do, that they may be received into the Kingdome of God when it comes, &c.

Q. Camdens El [...]z. Eliz. in her owne private judgement often declared, That she never thought it fit that the Consciences of her Subjects ought to be enforced; Annis 1577. fol. 86. and 1581. fol 11. albeit the Bishops prevailed with her against her own judg­ment to the contrary.

Nothing is more against Religion, M▪ [...]h [...]ll [...]ng­worth. then to force Religion; For as Paul saith, the weapons of Christian warfare are not carnall; Page 167. Humane vio­lence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them beleeve, and is therefore fit for nothing but to breed Form without, and Atheisme within; and infinite prejudice to the Kingdome of Christ, and conse­quently to the propagation of the Gospel doth follow thereby. Such who have their portions in this life, who serve no higher State; then England, nor this neither any farther then they serve themselves, who think of no other happinesse, but the preservation of their owne Fortunes in this world, and of no other meanes to preserve States but human policy, and beleeve no other Creed, but Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti, nihil injustum quod utile, such it may become to maintaine by worldly power, and violence their State-instrument Religion; But they, who are indeed servants and lovers of Christ, know, that to no State any thing can be profitable, which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust, then to force men to the profession of such points of Religion, which they beleeve not.

They who run into extreames in opposition to the Church of Rome, M. Chil. in his Preface, fol. 7. they who put downe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, and set up their owne, they who declaime against the tyranny of that Church, and themselves exercise as great or greater over others, are the men that give the Church of Rome the greatest advantage; whereas men of more moderate spirits, such as require of Christians to beleeve onely [Page 28] in Christ, upon such as these the Church of Rome cannot tell how to fasten. Fol. 100. Nor can it be any way advantageous to the Civill State, that Men, without warrant from God, should usurp a Tyrannie over other mens consciences, and prescribe unto them without reason, and sometimes against reason, Fol. 179. what they should beleeve; We therefore are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they improve it not to a tyrannie over others.

This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God, Fol. 180. and the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God, and laying them upon mens consciences together under severe penalties; the deifying of mens owne interpretations, and tyrannically imposing them upon others, the restraining of the understanding of men, wherein Christ and his Apostles left them free, is and hath been the only Foun­tain of the Schismes of the Church. Take away this persecuting of men for not subscribing to the words of men, as the words of God; require of Christians only to beleeve Christ; In a word, take away Tyrannie (which is the Devills instrument to support Errors) and restore Chri­stians to their just and full liberty, and it may well be hoped by Gods blessing, that universall liberty, thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendome to truth & unity, the contrary effects whereof happen by the tyrannous imposition of opinions upon other mens Consciences, Fol. 198. whereby they are, as it were grievosly exulcerated.

All the power of the world is neither fit to convince, nor able to compell a mans conscience to consent to any thing; indeed worldly terror may prevaile so far, as to make men professe a Religion, which they beleeve not; such men, who know not that there is a Heaven pro­vided for Martyrs, and a Hell for those that dissemble such Truths as are necessary to be professed; But to force any man to beleeve what he knows not, or any honest man to dissemble what he doth believe, if God commands him to professe it, or to professe what he doth not beleeve, all the swords in the world are too weak, with all the powers of Hell to assist them. Fol. 16.

It is a damnable sin for any man to professe an error against his Conscience, though the error in it selfe and to him that beleeves it be not damnable; Nay the profession not only of an error but of a truth, if not beleeved, is a mortall sin, unlesse hypocrisie and dissimulation in Religion be not so.

If a Papist be convinced or perswaded in conscience, Fol. 19. that the Pro­testant Religion is irroneous, the profession of it, though in it selfe most true, would be to him damnable. See his Reasons, fol. 132.

[Page 29] Thus in a full speed I have run over all that I could observe, to satisfy my Spirit concerning the illegality of this Oath in Common Law or Common Reason, in ancient or moderne Acts of Parliament, in the Declarations of the Army (when successe had left them no employment but their piety) in the Opinions of the most Learned Reformed Divines, and above all in the Law of God; And the cha­rity I owe my afflicted Brethren hath forc'd me to communicate this to the Godly and Religious, that they may with compassion reflect on those who eat their Bread moistned with their Teares, and weep over their Houses, become desolate, because they would keep up their Consciences from ruine.

I have collected this for information of such, who have bowels, and disdain a glory or benefit that may rise by treading on their necks, who suffer only for Religion; Who (if they err) err to their own temporall prejudice, and can in their error have no design of flesh and bloud; Whom discover'd to have any conspiracy against Government I would have most severely punished, & whom quiet and inoffensive in practise of their own Consciences, I would have pittied and relieved; And this I seriously desire all religious spirits to weigh in their most godly and most prudent thoughts; That looking back on the last hundred years, they shall finde every sub­version of Government in this Nation (either Papall, Prelaticall, or Presbyterian) to have bin wrought by a too rigorous coerti­on of the Conscience; Religion ever falling down to the dust, when it leanes too much on the weak treacherous Prop of humane Policy, or endeavours to stand only by punishment of their bre­thren, modestly dissenting in some opinions.

And why may not I with an humble boldness lay down these Ob­servations at the door of the supream Autority the Parliament, &c. now sitting at Westminster? Why may I not solicite their mercy (by contemplating, what a series of providences have fettled them in the present Power, and redeemed their Consciences from a design'd slavery) to take into their first consideration the deplorable condition of the most oppress'd people in the world? Why may not the severity of the Eternall Justice, executed on for­mer Governements, instruct them to meekness towards their Bre­thren in such a sad forlorn affliction? and thereby preserve them­selves and their successors to a continued blessing by that Hand, which shakes down the Pallaces of the proud and uncompassionate, and out of their rubbish builds up a Tabernacle of glory for the humble and mercifull.

[Page 30] Nor can I at any distance how remote soever (though we squint on carnall interests) discover whence any the least prejudice can reach the Government, in not offering violence by Oaths to the Conscience; unless we reckon on the loss of that Rent is annually extorted by violence from the Conscience? And how unhandsom and (above that) unchristian will it appear, that we can tenderly maintain every Congregation, but only that, the not protecting which is for our temporall emolument and supplies of the Treasu­ry; In recompence whereof, we may bring in the universall com­fort of the whole Nation, when liberty of Conscience shall be so generall, that in that harmony no one string shall be out of tune; Every spirit charitably embracing each other, and though not fully consenting in every circumstance, yet all agreeing in one belief of one God, and one acknowledging of one Mediator.

And thus in a perfect unity at home, how safe shall we be against the sordidly avaritious, or disorderly ambitious of our enemies a­broad; who as they feare that Sword, which the Almighty hath put into our hands; So will they court that Nations friendship, which is so piously frindly in it selfe. How religious will they be­lieve all leagues? how happy all commerce with a people so con­scientious, that (only on the account of tenderness) throwes away the covetous severity of their Predecessors, and takes into one common liberty every Conscience under their protection. To of­fer the reputation and honour hereby to be gain'd with our most powerfull Neighbours (which notwithstanding the wisest and no­blest Republiques have ever highly valued) may perhaps be reje­cted, as a carnall vanity; But the many blessings which the Eternall Mercy may be humbly hoped, will hereupon plentifully showre down upon the mercifull, is comfortably to be reflected on. Every Conscience thus set at liberty, being obliged in all Chri­stian duty, continually to invoak a happinesse on those Gover­nors, who have broken asunder the fetters in which so many were sadly bound up, and who have enlarg'd them to sing Hymnes of praise for so great, so charitable a Deliverance.