and the Rule of his Faith and Life And repenting unfeignedly of his Sins he did resolve through the Grace of God sincerely to obey him both in Holiness to God and Righteousness to Men and in special Love to the Saints and in Communion with them against all the Temptations of the Devil the World and his own Flesh and this to the Death If therefore these things were Believed and Consented to by him and if these things do essentiate our Saving Christianity and so be sufficient to make us all one in Christ why should some different Modes and Forms of Speech wherewith these great Substantials may and do consist obtain of Men to think him Heterodox because he uses not their Terms And why should such Distances and Discords be kept up amongst us whilst we all of us own all the forementioned Articles and are always ready on all sides to renounce whatever Opinions shall appear to overthrow or shake such Articles of Faith and Covenanting Terms with God and Christ And I cannot but believe that all Christians seriously bound for Heaven and that are fixed upon these Truths are nearer each to other in their Judgments than different Modes of Speech seem to represent them Of such great Consequence is true Charity and Candour amongst Christians 3. The Reverend Prelates and the Ministers and Members of the Church of England may possibly distaste his plainness with them and think him too severe upon them But 1. they are no Strangers to his professed and exemplified Moderation Who valued their Worth and Learning more than he did Who more endeavoured to keep up Church Communion with them by Pen Discourse and Practise though not exclusively Who more sharply handled and more throughly wrote against and reprehended total Separation from them than himself And what Dissenter from them ever made fairer and more noble Overtures or more judicious Proposals for a large and lasting Comprehension with them than they knew he did And who more fairly warned them of the dismal Consequences and calamitous Effects of so narrowing the Church of England by the strict Acts procured and executed against so many peaceable Ministers who thereby were silenced imprisoned discouraged and undone And how many Souls and Families were ruin'd and scandaliz'd by their imposed Terms another and that a solemn and great Day will shew e're long 2. Our Author never yet endeavoured to unChurch them nor to eclipse their Worthies nor did he ever charge their great Severities on them all He ever would acknowledge and he might truly do it that they had great and excellent Men and many such amongst them both of their Laiâ—y and Clergy 3. He thought what I am satisfied is true that many of them little knew who and what was behind the Curtain nor what designed nor great Services were doing to France and Rome hereby 4. And his great Sufferings from them may well even as other things abate their Censuring if not prevent too keen Relentments of these Historical Accounts of them 5. And to leave these things out was more than Mr. Baxter would allow me or admit of Pardon one who acts by Order not of Choice 4. That such copious and prolix Discourses should be here inserted about Things fitter for oblivion than to be remembred may seem liable to Exceptions and Distast from some viz. such Discourses as respect the Solemn League and Covenant the Oxford Act c. Things now abandon'd and repealed by Act of Parliament for Liberty of Conscience But 1. those pressing Acts are yet upon Record and so exposed to the view of Men from Age to Age. 2. They represent Dissenters as an intolerable Seed of Men. 3. All Readers will not readily discern what here is said by way of Apology for those of whom such Acts took hold 4. Hereby Dissenters will appear to all succeeding Generations as a People worthy of nothing but National Severities and Restraints Whence 5. their Enemies will be confirmed in their groundless Thoughts and Censures of them 6. This will not lead to that Love and Concord amongst all Protestants which God's Laws and the Publick Interest and Welfare of Church and State require 7. Those things abode so long in force and to such fatal dreadful purpose as that the Effects thereof are felt by many Families and Persons to this day 8. And all this was but to discharge some of no small Figure in their Day from all Obligations to perform what had been solemnly vowed to God Surely such as never took that Covenant could only disclaim all Obligations on themselves to keep it by virtue of any such Vow upon themselves but to discharge those that had taken it from what therein they had vowed to God to do till God himself discharge them or that it be evident from the intrinsick unalterable Evâ—â— of the Matter vowed that no such Vow shall stand is more than I dare undertake to prove at present or to vindicate in the great Day However a Man 's own Latitude of Perswasion cannot as such absolve another nor eo nomine be another's Rule or Law But 9. if these long Discourses be needful pertinent clear and strong as to the state of that Aâ—â—air their length may be born with 10. The Author thought it needful to have this set in the clear open Light to disabule all that had been imposed on by false or partial and defective History in this Matter and to remove or prevent or allay Scandal and Censure for time to come 11. And if such things be also published to make our selves and others still more sensible of what we owe to God and to our most gracious King and his late Soveraign Consort and our then most gracious Queen Mary not to be parallel'd in any History that I know of by any of her Sex for All truly Royal Excellencies and to his Parliaments who have so much obliged us with freeing us from those so uncomfortable Bonds what Fault can be imputed to the Publisher herein Shall Gratitude be thought a Crime though more copious in the Materials of it than may every way consist with the stricter Bounds of Accuracy 12. I am apt to think and not without cogent ground that very many Readers now and hereafter would with the Author have thought me unfaithful to themselves and him had I not transmitted to Posterity what he left and as he left it for their use And I hope therefore that the Reader will not interpret this Publication as the Product of a Recriminating Spirit God himself knows it to be no such Birth Thirdly The Publication 1. The Author wrote it for this End 2. He left it with me to be published after his Death 3. He left it to the Iudgment of another and my self only by a Writing ordered to be given me after his Death as my Directory about the Publication of his other Manuscripts which are many and of moment And if thâ— rest entrusted with me about their being printed one or
which the People cannot know nor are bound to search after The words of the Vow it self are in our several Places and Callings we shall endeavour And this was the expressed work and end And this was not doing any thing against Law If a discontented Person now should say that the Parliaments End in the Act of Uniformity and that against Conventicles was Persecution and the Suppression of Religion and therefore they are not to be obeyed how would this hold while Uniformity and Peace are the published Ends and the rest are either uncertain or impertinent to us 2. Whether indeed the Imposers Ends were ill is a Controversie fit to be touched by it self They thought such a Change of Church-Government was a good End And for doing it against Law they put not that into the Swearers part in this Clause and proâ—essed the contrary themselves But if they did themselves purpose to do that against to Law which others swear to do in their Places and Calling that is according to Law are those others therefore not obliged to do what they vowed to do according to Law because the Imposers intended to do their part against Law 3. I suppose all the King's Party who took the Oath at their Composition had no ill end in it and are they not then to interpret it by their own Ends as it is their Personal Vow 4. If we reach Men that the bad Ends of the Imposers do disoblige Men from performing Vows materially good take heed left it follow that it will disoblige them much more from obeying Commands and Laws materially good And then every Subject will take himself to be disobliged who is but confident that Persecution Oppression c. were his Rulers Ends. What if a Man for evil Ends command me to obey the King or to worship God or to give to the Poor Or make me swear to do all this Doth not my Vow oblige me because he had evil Ends that drove me to it Nay if I had my self vowed to do all these for some evil end though it is certain that I must not do it to that end yet whether the change of my End does disoblige me also from my Vow as to the Matter is a difficult question which I think Casuists commonly resolve in the Negative But if any Man did mistake their Design and had good Ends himself while theirs were bad yea and the End commanded him were good the Case is much plainer 5. Who can say that the King had an ill End in taking it Or that his Place and Calling did not impower him to do that which in a Subject would have been illegal and that he may not lawfully endeavour accordingly And whereas it is said That the very War it self expounded their meaning who imposed it they being then in Arms against the King It is answered by the Non-Subscribers 1. That they openly professed to take up Arms only against Delinquent Subjects according to Law 2. That their misapplication made not good words to be bad to others 3. That if they make me swear to do it in my Place and Calling I am not obliged to expound this to be out of my Place and Calling because they go out of their Place and Calling And whereas it is said That the Bishops were part of the Parliament and so of the Civil Government â— It is answered 1. That the Parliament declared that they were no Constitutive Essential Unchangeable Part without whom the Acts of both Houses were invalid They were but part of the Lords House where they might be over-voted 2. The Scruple of the Non-Subscribers is not at all whether they are obliged to endeavour to dispossess them of their Baronies or Places in Parliament which is in the power of the King to give them but only about their Ecclesiastical Power and Government as here formed And if it could be proved that the Covenant intended both the Ejection of them from their Church Power and their Places in Parliament it followeth not that it obligeth not to the lawful act because it obligeth not to the unlawfulâ— 3. Nor can it easily be proved unlawful for the King and Parliament either to make a separation of these Powers or to take both from them and so set up the Primitive sort of Bishops either with or without any Civil Authority Abbots had once also a place in Parliament and yet they are now taken down it is supposed not unlawfully The King himself doth lawfully make Members of both Houses by making Earls and Barons and by giving Corporations power to choose Burgesses who before had none And as the new making of these so the excluding of some Members may be without any change in the Form of Civil Government Certainly many Fathers and Canons are against the Civil Government of the Clergy § 372. 2. The second objection is That the Authority of the Imposers was null as to that Act Answ. That is a distinct Controversie which here I shall pass by But granting it to be so no more will follow but that the People were not bound by any Command of theirs to take it But a Vow that is taken in my Closet without any Man's imposition or knowledge may be obligatory or one that a Robber forceth me to by the High-way The nullity of the Obligâ—â—on to take it is all that followeth the nullity of their Authority which will not infer the nullity of the Obligation to keep it for it maketh it but equal to a Vow which is made of a private Will without any Command of Authority at all § 373. 3. The third Reason which most nearly toucheth the Controversie is That the Matter vowed to extirpate Prelacy was unlawful both as against the Laws of God and of the Land Answ. If this be proved no doubt but the Obligation is void and of no effect But 1. It is before proved to be far from being against the Law of God to alter this Prelacy by warrantable means And also that it is not against the Law of the Land for Subjects modeâ—â—y to petition or Parliament Men to speak or the King and Parliament to change which are the Actions which belong to their Places and Callings And if it had been expresly part of the matter of that Vow to do this by unlawful means the question is Whether this can disoblige the Swearer from the lawful part adjoying which is to do it in their Places and Callings Whatever other matter is this matter is not yet proved to be unlawful § 374. Object But Episcopacy is Jure Divino and the Covenant mentioneth the extarpatien of Prelacy which is of the same Species with the other Episcopacy And therefore it is to be understood as to the extirpation of all Episcopacy and so not obligatory Answ. 1. It is before proved that our Prelacy is not of Divine Right but against it 2. And that it differeth even specically from the Primitive Episcopacy 3. But that 's nothing to the
obliged by the Covenant to endeavour any Alteration of Church-Government Let them write or say openly Men are obliged by the Covenant to endeavour it by lawful means but not by unlawful and let them give leave to another to accuse them in a Court of Justice for these words and let it be there tried and judged and then the sence of the Law will be declared If they be in the right the Accuser shall lose his Costs and no danger can befal them If they be not in the right they will be punished by Confiscation And is not the hazard of such a Law Suit cheap enough for a Man to save himself and others from so great a Guilt as the Justification of three Kingdoms in the Sin of Perjury if it so prove And yet I could never hear of the Man that would hazard his Estate thus on the confidence of his Exposition of the Law but multitudes venture their Souls upon it 4. The Parliament who is the Expounder of their own Laws have given us their sence of the Subject of our Controversie in a former Law which puts all out of doubt For in the Corporation Act all Men are put out of Power and Trust who will not declare that absolutely without any limitation There is no Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath called c. so that all Obligation to any thing at all by that Vow is in this most important Act denied and the profession of this denial thus imposed By which it is past doubt that the Law-makers sence is against all Obligation absolutely 5. And that it is so is well know to those that know what was said in the Parliament when among the Commons this Reason carried it viz. That if any Obligation at all be acknowledged even to things lawful every seditious person will be left to think that he is bound to all which he conceiveth lawful which with some will be to resist the King or commit Treason Therefore all Obligation absolutely must be denied I confess such Villains there may be and they should be carefully restrained but as I doubt this Act of Parliament will no whit change their belief of their Obligations for they will think Parliaments cannot dispense with Oaths or with the Laws of God so it is a sad remedy for such villanous Errours to disoblige Men from the lawful part of Vows for fear lest they take the unlawful to be lawful As it is to teach Men to take nothing which God commandeth to be their Duty for fear least they should take ther Sin to be their Duty § 387. Object But what if the Bishop give me liberty to put in the word unlawfully or to Subscribe only in that sence may I not then lawfully do it Answ. This was the only Expedient to draw in Nonconformists heretofore and so it hath proved of late again But I distinguish 1. There is much difference between Subscribing the very words of the Act with the verbal or by-addition of your own Explication and the putting in of your Explicatory words into the Sentence which you Subscribe 2. Between Subscribing this as the imposed Declaration in the Act and Subscribing it only as another thing 3. Between the secret and the open Explication of your Mind For my part if the word unlawfully had been joyned to endeavour by the Law-makers I would not have scrupled to Subscribe that part of the Declaration But 1. the Bishop is not the Law-maker and therefore hath no more power than a private Man to expound the Law Nor is he so much as a Iudge in this business who may expound it in order to the decision of a particular Cause but only a Witness that you Subscribe 2. If you only Subscribe the very words of the Declaration and speak your Explication or write it in a by-paper you do then provide an insufficient Plaister for the Sore you do that which is evil in it self and would cure it by an uneffectual accidental Medicine You harden both the Imposers and Subscribers by your Scandal while you are said to Subscribe the very thing imposed whose sence is so plain that your Exposition is but an apparent ludicrous distortion As if I were commanded to Subscribe this Sentence God hath no knowledge nor no love The Imposer understandeth it vulgarly and blasphemously The words in the most strict and proper sence are true which cannot be said in our Case because knowledge and love are spoken primarily of the Creatures Acts and are not in God formaliter but eminenter that is somewhat more excellent which hath no other name because we have no formal Conceptions of them but must speak of God after the manner of Men while Man is the Glass and Image by which we know him yet would I not Subscribe this imposed Proposition while the Imposer meaneth it blasphemously because it is a heinous Scandal to be said to Subscribe and own such Villany and so to encourage others to it no though I might express my sence 3. Especially I may express it but privately where the Remedy against the Scandal will be ineffectual But if you may Subscribe the whole Sentence with your own words therein and that not as it is the imposed Declaration which is otherwise expounded by the Law-makers themselves but as another and may make this as publick and notorious as your Subscription it self is then I have less to say against it There are no words utterable which a Man may not put a good sence on if he please And yet I durst not so far play with Death and comply with the Spirit of Impiety as to Subscribe that There is no God or God is unjust or unwise or unholy c. though I had liberty to say I mean it in this or that sence which is true and warrantable § 388. 4. Another Motive of the Latitudinarians to Subscribe is That by to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government in the Church is meant only any change of the Species of our Church-Government and not any Reformation of integral or accidental Defects or Depravations Answ. 1. And yet these very Men do profess to believe with Mr. Stillingfleet That no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Appointment or Imposition And if so why is it not lawful for the King and Parliament to change that which God hath not made necessary Or for Subjects to endeavour it by Petition 2. It is agreed on by Casuists and their Bishop of Lincoln Dr. Sanderson with the rest That Oaths are to be taken sensu strictiore and so are Laws and those especially which determine of the Obligation of Oaths But it is an unwarrantable audacious liberty for any Subject unnecessarily thus to turn an Universal Enunciation into a Definite and Particular and when the Law saith any alteration of Government to say that some alteration is not included Their reason is because it is said of and not in Government Answ. There is no Language much
they are doubtful 1. In Case that a Man pretend to have the King's Commission but doth not shew it me what am I then to do 2. In Case he shew it me under the Privy Seal and another shew the Broad Seal to a Commission to resist him 3. In Case he shew the Broad Seal and I know not whether it be counterfeit or surreptitiously procured 4. In Case that by the fault of Officers or forgetfulness or any other cause one Man should have a Commission to defend and command a Ship or Fort or Country and another shew a Commission of the same date to command and defend the same Ship Fort or Country and to resist any that oppose him Is it unlawful for both of them here to obey the King's Command 5. In case that any shall shew or pretend a Commission for any illegal Act as to take Mens Purses by the High-way to break into their Houses and take their Money and Goods and seize their Estates or kill their Families Or to lay a Tax upon the Country without the Consent of Parliament or to ravish Mens Wives or Daughters or to burn the City or if two or three should shew a Commission to come into the House of Lords or Commons and kill them all in the place c. It is certain that a Sword is Arms and that to fight in a Man 's own Defence is to take up Arms Or if any say it must be the fighting of many together only that is called the Taking up of Arms as that is not to be understood by the words which have no such restriction so no Man knoweth how many it must be that by concurrence must make the Act to be a Taking up of Arms. We have put some of these Cases to Parliament Men and they tell us That in any such Case they would use their Arms to defend themselves But these are single Members What the Houses mean we know not but by the words And no words can be more exclusive of any Exception than these That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever Also what if Saul gives Commission to his Armour bearer to kill him Might not a Subject by Arms defend the King and rescue his Life against his Will and Commission And what if a Court of Justice decree a Subject the Possession of his House and Land and require the Sheriff of the Country to put him in possession and to raise the Posse Comitatus to do it if there be resistance And what if the Person to be ejected shew a Commission from the King to keep possession contrary to this Judgment is it unlawful for the Sheriff to obey the Court And the Posse Comitatus of Yorkshire hath been a considerable Army § 394. The Things which increase the Doubt of the Non-subscribers in this Case are these 1. Because if as it is said by some the Laws are the King's Laws and the Acts of his Will as well as his Commissions are Then if his Law and his Commission be contradictory I must need disobey the King which soever I disobey and resist the King's Will which soever I resist We have no Laws but what are Acts of the King's Will and till they are repealed they still express his Will 2. Because that the Laws are made purposely to be the Subjects Rule of Obedience being also the Rule of Judgment in all Courts and being that Act of the King's Will which the Subjects have publick certain Notice of They know that the Laws are indeed the King's Laws and are not counterfeit And they are of universal Obligation But a Seal to a Commission may possibly be counterfeit or the Subject can have no such certifying notice of it 3. And they know that the King is not himself every where present to tell his doubtful Subjects which signification of his Will he owneth and which they should prefer and that he governeth his Kingdom by his Courts and Officers they sit and send forth their Orders in his Name And a known publick Court of Justice seemeth to be a more credible declarer of the King's Will than a Stranger or particular Person who saith that he hath his Commission It is the Form of the Law to be the Act of the Governing Will of the King and the use of his Courts to declare it and expound it and judge by it for his Subjects But a private Commission wanteth these Advantages 4. Because they think that the Law of Nature and the Constitution of the Kingdom must else submit to this Declaration For if two or three or more shew a Commission to kill all the Parliament and fire the City Nature seemeth to allow them Self-defence and Parliaments which are part of the Constitution are vain if they have no better Security for their Lives 5. They find a Statute of King Edward the Third That if any Man bring from the King a Command under the Little Seal or the Great Seal to require any Judge to go against Justice or to contradict it the Judge shall go on as if it signified nothing And the Sheriff's forcible Assistance may be part of his Judgment or the legal Consequent 6. Else no Subject seemeth to have any Security for his Estate or Life nor the Subject any Liberties For if their Estates or Purses be taken away or their Lives assaulted by pretended Commissions or Taxes imposed contrary to Law what remedy have they To say they may question the Instruments at Law is vain and worse as long as that Law whatever it decreeth must submit to a Commission and must never resist it nor use any force of Arms though against a single Man for its own Execution Who will begin a Suit at Law against the King's Will at all if he first know that his Will must not be resisted and that the End will but be his greater ruine 7. They said King Iames asserting in his Writings for Monarchy that a King may not make War against his whole Kingdom In case then that he should do it they are uncertain that the whole Kingdom might not at all resist his commissioned Officers 8. They find the late King Charles the First in his Answer to the Nineteen Propositions of the Parliament asserting a Protecting Power in the Lords and setting up the Laws above his own Will 9. They know that the Laws are made by King and Parliament and Commissions here supposed to be by the King alone And the whole Authority of all parts seemeth more than of one alone 10. They find that it hath been familiar with Lawyers to prefer the Law before the King's Commissions and Parliaments have been of that mind And they are too weak to Condemn them all in their own Faculties 11. They find that the greatest Defenders of Monarchy of all Forreign Lawyers even Barclay and Grotius have instanced in many Cases in which it is as they say lawful by Arms to resist a King And we pretend not to more
Court of Justice declare That the King by his Laws commandeth us to assist the Sheriffs and Justices notwithstanding any Commission to the contrary under the great or little Seal and one shew us a Commission to the contrary which must we take for the King's Authority 8. Whether this extendeth to the Case of King Iohn who delivered the Kingdom to the Pope Or to those Instances of Bilson Barcley Grotius c. of changing the Government putting by the true Heir to whom we are Sworn in the Oath of Allegiance c. if Subjects pretend Commission for such Acts 9. Whether Parliament Judges in Court or private Men may by the King's Authority in his Laws defend their Lives against any that by a pretended Commission invadeth them or their Purses Houses or Companions 10. Whether we must take every Affirmer to have a Commission if he shew it not Or every shewn Commission to be current and not surreptitious though contrary to Law 11. Whether he violateth not this Oath who should endeavour to alter so much of the Legislative Power as is in the Parliament or the Executive in the Established Courts of Justice Or is it meant only of Monarchy as such 12. Doth he not break this Oath who should endeavour to change the Person Governing as well as he that would change the Form of Government 13. If so doth it not also tye us to the Persons of Church-Governours seeing they are equally here twisted and Church-Government preposed 14. Is it the King 's Coercive Government of the Church by the Sword which is here meant according to the Oath of Supremacy Or Spiritual Government by the Keys Or both 15. Is it not the English Form of Church-Government by Diocesans that is here meant and not some other sort of Episcopacy which is not here And doth he not break this Oath who instead of a Bishop over 500 or 1000 Churches without any inferiour Bishop should endeavour to set up a Bishop in every great Church or Market-Town or as many as the Work requireth 16. Seeing Excommunication and Absolution are the notable parts of Spiritual Government and it is not only the Actions but the Actors or Governours that we Swear not to alter and Lay-Chancellors are the common Actors or Governours whether an endeavour to alter Lay-Chancellors Government as some did that procured his Majesty's Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs be not contrary to this Oath and excluded by any alteration 17. Whether petitioning or other peaceable means before allowed by Law be not any endeavour and a violation of this Oath 18. Whether not at any time c. tye us not to disobey the King if he should command us by Consultation or Conference to endeavour it Or if the Law be changed doth not this Oath still bind us Lastly Whether this following Sense in which we could take it be the true sense of the Oath I A B do Swear That a it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever b to take up Arms against the King c And that I do abhor that Traytorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him d in pursuance of such Commission And that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State e a In my Opinion b For the Subjects of his Majesty's Dominions c Either his Authority or his Person the Law forbidding both d Whether it be his Parliament Courts of Justice Legal Officers or any other Persons authorized by his publick Laws or his Commission supposing that no contrariety of Laws and Commissions by over-sight or otherwise do Arm the Subjects against each other e I will not endeavour any alteration of State-Government at all either as to the Person of the King or the Species of Government either as to the Legislative or Executive Power as in the King himself or his Parliament or Established Courts of Justice And therefore I declare That I take all the rest of this Oath only in a Sense consistent with this Clause implying no alteration in the Government And I will endeavour no alteration of the Coercive Government of the Church as it is in the King according to the Oath of Supremacy Nor any alienation of the Spiritual Power of the Keys from the Lawful Bishops and Pastors of the Church Nor will I endeavour to restore the Ancient Discipline by removing the Spiritual Government by the Keys out of the Hands of Lay-Chancellors into the Hands of so many able Pastors as the number of Churches and necessity of the work requireth nor any other Reformation of the Church by any Rebellious Schismatical or other unlawful means whatsoever nor do I believe that any Vow or Covenant obligeth me thereto declaring notwithstanding that it 's none of my meaning to bind my self from any Lawful Means of such Reformation nor to disobey the King if at any time He command me to endeavour the Alteration of any thing justly alterable The General Answer was as followeth UPon Serious Consideration of the Act of Parliament Entitled An Act for Restraining of Nonconformists from Inhabiting in Corporations And of the Oath therein mentioned I am of Opinion That there is nothing contained in that Oath according to the true Sense thereof But that it is not Lawful to take up Arms against the King or any Authorised by his Commission or for a private Person to endeavour the Alteration of the Monarchical Government in the State or the Government by Bishops in the Church And that any Person notwithstanding the taking of such Oath if he apprehend that the Lay-Judges in Bishop's Courts as to Sentence of Excommunication for Matters meerly Ecclesiastical or for any other Cause ought to be Reformed or that Bishopricks are of too large extent may safely Petition or use any lawful Endeavour for Reformation of the same For that such Petition or other Lawful Endeavour doth not tend to the Alteration of the Government but to the amendment of what shall be found amiss in the Government and Reformed by Lawful Authority and thereby the Government better Established And I conceive every Exposition of the said Oath upon Supposition or Presumption of an Obligation thereby to any thing which is contrary to the Law of God or the Kingdom is an illegal and a forced Exposition contrary to the intent and meaning of the said Oath and Act of Parliament for it is a Rule nullum iniquum est in Lege praesumendium And an Exposition tending to enjoyn any thing contrary to the Law of God would make the Act of Parliament void which ought not to be admitted when it bears a fair and plain Sense which is no more Than that Subjects ought not to take up Arms against their Lawful King or such as lawfully Commissionated by him and for private Persons to be unquiet in the place wherein they live to the disturbance of the Government in Church or State Iohn Fountain Feb. 6.
1665. The Particular Answer was as followeth NOT at present to dispute the things presupposed although I may not grant all in the Fourth and some other of the Positions to be warranted by the Law of Nature or Scripture I add as necessary to the Resolving of the Questions upon the Act of Parliament That in the Exposition of Acts of Parliament if there may be a fair and reasonable Construction made of the Words not contrary to the Law of God or Reason that Construction ought to be made thereof and that any Exposition which tends to make it sensless or contrary to the Law of God and Reason or to suppose any wicked thing enjoyned thereby is a forced Construction and contrary to Law being destructive to the very Act of Parliament I hereupon lay aside any Answer to the Fourth and Eighth Questions which may peradventure be thought meer Cavils against the Act though I knowing the Temper of the Propounder have a more charitable Opinion of him But I do apprehend that tho' there may want a Word to make a Logical Position concerning the Trayterous Position mentioned in the Oath yet there is a plain Sense in the Oath viz. That it is unlawful to take up Arms against the King and that if any would make a distinction and affirm That though the unlawfulness were admitted to take up Arms against him yet by his Authority they might take up Arms against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him in pursuance of such Commission such an Affirmation and Position as this is Traytorous and to be abhorred and there is such a plain Sense in it as every one that hath common Reason understands it so and therefore Quod necessario subintelligitur non deest And I do not believe that any who propound the Questions to be resolved do themselves imagine that the Parliament had any thought of what is mentioned in the Eighth Question for nullum iniquum in Lege praesumendum Upon consideration of the Act I apprehend the Makers thereof had an apprehension that there were three sorts of People which might have a dangerous influence upon the King's Subjects if not rightly principled viz. Ministers or Preachers School-Masters and such as did Table and Board Children and therefore did provide to restrain them from doing hurt to the Kingdom in keeping the Ministers out of the populous Places of the Kingdom or where they were best known and most likely to prevail and that no Children might be poisoned with Principles destructive to Government The Principles which they feared were these 1. That in some Cases it might be lawful to take up Arms against the Supreme Magistrate at least by a distinction unwarrantable in taking up Arms against his Authority against his Person or such as he did Commissionate 2. That private Persons might endeavour to alter the Government in the Church or State where they lived For the discovery of such as were of these dangerous Principles I conceive the Oath is framed which is Established by this Act and any who holdeth these Principles may not safely take it but if he hold not these Principles he may And as to the Questions 1. That the Words upon any pretence whatsoever in the Oath refer only to the King himself 2. That Lawful comprehends any Law obligatory 3. That it is only according to the Opinion and Judgment of him that takes it 5. He that hath the Lawful Commission is the only Person that hath Authority by the King's Commission 6. I conceive the Sheriff 7. That Commission which is according to Law 9. I conceive they may 10. I conceive a Commission must be shewn if required and that a surreptitious and void Commission contrary to Law is no Commission at all 11. I understand not the Latitude of this Question but I conceive the Sense of the Oath is not to endeavour the Alteration of Monarchical Government in the State 12. Though I conceive it utterly unlawful to endeavour to change the Person of the Governour yet that being sufficiently provided against by the former Laws I do not conceive that it was intended by the Makers of the Law in this part of the Oath to intend more than the Alteration of the Government 13. Answered before And yet if the Person of the Supreme were included in the State-Government I do not conceive that it would extend to the Governours under him in the Church for they may be justly removed in Case of Crime c. 14. I conceive both 15. I conceive its the English Form of Church-Government and yet that is no breach of the Oath to endeavour in a lawful way to make more Bishops and lesser Bishopricks 16. I do not think the Oath bindeth not to endeavour to alter the Actors or Governours in the Church so it be done by lawful means and that it is lawful notwithstanding the Oath to endeavour to alter Lay-Chancellors in a lawful way 17. I conceive it is not 18. I conceive it doth not There are so many things put in the last Question of the Sense of the Oath as will require more discussion than the present Opportunity admits Iohn Fountain Feb. 13. 1665. Sir Iohn Maymard also told me That an illegal Commission is no Commission though privately being the King's Serjeant §19 But that all these Answers should rather resolve me not to take this Oath than any way satisfie me to take it may thus appear 1. He confesseth that the Principle feared was That in some Cases it is lawful to take up Arms against the Supreme Magistrate or by his Authority against those Commissioned by him And yet implicitly granteth it in the Cases intimated in the Eighth Question 2. He confesseth that another feared Principle was That private Persons may endeavour to alter the Government of the Church And he confesseth That by lawful means we may endeavour it in a great part of it And as to the Particulars 1. He thinketh that the Words on any pretence whatsoever refer to the King only whereas in my Conscience I think that the Authors of the Oath meant it also as to any Commissioned by him otherwise there is nothing in all this Oath against taking Arms against any Commissioned by the King so they do not pretend his own Authority for it And upon my knowledge a great part of those that Fought for the Parliament went on other grounds some thinking Parliaments and People above the King as being singulis Major universis Minor as Hooker speaks Eccles. Pol. Lib. 8. some thinking that the Law of Nature did warrant them and some that the Scripture did require them to do what they did And can I believe that it was none of the Imposers Intention by the Oath to provide against any of these Opinions If really it were not then a Man that taketh this Oath may notwithstanding it believe That though it be not lawful to take Arms against the King nor against his Armies by pretence of his
received as gifts of Bounty from any whosoever since I was silenced till after An. 1672. amount not in the whole to 20 l. besides ten Pouud per Annum which I received from Serjeant Fountain till he died and when I was in Prison twenty pieces from Sir Iohn Bernard ten from the Countess of Exeter and five from Alderman Bard and no more which just paid the Lawyers and my Prison Charge but the expences of removing my Habitation was greater And had the Bishop's Family no more than this In sum I told the Bishop that he that cried out so vehemently against schism had got the Spirit of a Sectary and as those that by Prisons and other sufferings were too much exasperated against the Bishops could hardly think or speak well of them so his cross Interests had so notoriously spoiled him of his Charity that he had plainly the same temper with the bitterest of the Sectaries whom he so much reviled Our Doctrinal Discourse I overpass § 236. This May a Book was Printed and cried about describing the horrid Murther of one 〈◊〉 Baxter in New-England by the Anabaptists and how they tore his Flesh and flead him alive and persons and time and place were named And when Mr. Kiffen sensible of the Injury to the Anabaptists searcht it out it proved all a studied Forgery Printed by a Papist and the Book Licensed by Dr. Sam. Paâ—ker the Arch-bishop's Chaplain there were no such Persons in being as the Book mentioned nor any such thing ever done Mr. â—issen accused Dr. Parker to the Kiug and Council The King made him confess his Fault and so it ended § 237. In Iune was the second great Fight with the Dutch where again many were killed on both sides and to this day it is not known which Paâ—ty had the greater Loss § 238. The Parliament grew into great Jealousies of the prevalency of Popery There was an Army raised which lay upon Black-Heath encamped as for Service against the Dutch They said that so many of the Commanders were Papists as made Men fear the design was worse Men feared not to talk openly that the Papists having no hope of getting the Parliament to set up their Religion by Law did design to take down Parliaments and reduce the Government to the French Model and Religion to their State by a standing Army These Thoughts put Men into dismal Expectations and many wish that the Army at any rate might be disbanded The Duke of York was General The Parliament made an Act that no man should be in any office of Trust who would not take the Oaths of Supremacy aud Allegiance and receive the Sacrament according to Order of the Church of England and renounee Transubstanstiation Many supposed Papists received the Sacrament and renounced Transubstantiation and took the Oaths Some that were known sold or laid down their Places The Duke of York and the new Lord Treasurer Clifford laid down all It was said they did it on supposition that the Act left the King impowered to renew their Commissions when they had laid them down But the Lord Chancellor told the King that it was not so and so they were put out by themselves This settled Men in the full belief that the Duke of York and the Lord Clifford were Papists and the Londoners had before a special hatred against the Duke since the burning of London commonly saying that divers were taken casting Fire-balls and brought to his Guards of Soldiers to be secured and he let them go and both secured and concealed them 239. The great Counsellors that were said to do all with the King in all great matters were the Duke of York the Lord Clifford the Duke of Lauderdaile the Lord Arlington the Duke of Buckingham the Lord Chancellor that is Sr. Anthony Ashley-Cooper Earl of Shaftsbury and after them the Earl of Anglesey lately Mr. Annesley Among all these the Lord Chanchellor declared so much Jealosie of Popery and set himself so openly to secure the Protestant Religion that it was wondered how he kept in as he did but whatever were his Principles or Motives it is certain he did very much plead the Protestant Cause § 240. In Iune Mastricht was taken by the French but with much loss where the Duke of Monmouth with the English had great Honour for their Valour § 241. In August four of the Dutch East-India Ships fell into our Hands and we had the third great Sea-fight with them under the Command of Prince Rupert where we again killed each other with equal Loss But the Dutch said they had the Victory now sand before and kept days of Thanksgiving for it Sir Edward Sprag was killed whose death the Papists much lamented hoping to have got the Sea-power into his Hands But Prince Rupert who declared himself openly against Popery and had got great Interest in the Hearts of the Soldiers complained sharply of the French Admiral as deserting him to say no worse And the success of these Fights was such as hindered the Transportation of the Army against the Dutch and greatly divided the Court-Party and discouraged the Grandees and Commanding Papists c. § 242. In September I being out of Town my House was broken by Thieves who broke open my Study-Doors Closets Locks searcht near 40 Tills and Boxes and found them all full of nothing but Papers and miss'd that little Money I had though very near them They took only three small pieces of Plate and medled not considerably with any of my Papers which I would not have lost for many hundred Pounds Which made me sensible of Divine Protection and what a Convenience it is to have such a kind of Treasure as other men have no mind to rob us of or cannot § 343. The Duke of York was now married to the Duke of Modena's Daughter by Proxy the Earl of Peterborough being sent over to that end § 244. The Lady Clinton having a Kinswoman wife to Edward Wray Esq who was a Protestant aâ—d her Husband a Papist throughly studied in all their Controversies and oft provoking his Wife to bring any one to dispute with him desired me to perform that office of Conference They differed about the Education of their Children he had promised her as she said at Marriage that she should have the Education of them all and now would not let her have the Education of one but would make them Papists I desired that either our Conference might be publick to avoid mis-reports or else utterly secret before no one but his Wife that so we might not seem to strive for the Honour of Victory nor by dishonour be exasperated and made less capable of benefit The latter way was chosen but the Lady Clinton and Mr. Goodwin the Lady Worsep's Chaplain prevailed to be present by his consent He began upon the point of Transubstantion and in Veron's Method would have put me to prove the Words of the Article of the Church of England by express Words of
the People this Protestation which caused some to be offended with me About that time the Parliament sent down an Order for the demolishing of all Statues and Images of any of the three Persons in the blessed Trinity or of the Virgin Mary which should be found in Churches or on the Crosses in Church-yards My Judgment was for the obeying of this Order thinking it came from just Authority but I medled not in it but left the Churchwarden to do what he thought good The Churchwarden an honest sober quiet Man seeing a Crucifix upon the Cross in the Church-yard set up a Ladder to have reacht it but it proved too short whilst he was gone to seek another a Crew of the drunken riotous Party of the Town poor Journey-men and Servants took the Allarm and run altogether with Weapons to defend the Crucifix and the Church Images of which there were divers left since the time of Popery They Report was among them that I was the Actor and it was me they sought but I was walking almost a mile out of Town or else I suppose I had there ended my days when they mist me and the Churchwarden both they went raving about the Streets to seek us Two Neighbours that dwelt in other Parishes hearing that they sought my Life ran in among them to see whether I were there and they knockt them both down in the Streets and both of them are since dead and I think never perfectly recovered that hurt When they had foamed about half an hour and met with none of us and were newly housed I came in from my walk and hearing the People Cursing at me in their Doors I wondered what the matter was but quickly found how fairly I had scaped The next Lord's Day I dealt plainly with them and laid open to them the quality of that Action and told them Seeing they so required me as to seek my Blood I was willing to leave them and save them from that Guilt But the poor Sots were so amazed and ashamed that they took on sorrily and were loth to part with me § 57. About this time the King's Declarations were read in our Market-place and the Reader a violent Country Gentleman seeing me pass the Streets stopt and said There goeth a Traitor without ever giving a syllable of Reason for it And the Commission of Array was set afoot for the Parliament medled not with the Militia of that Country the Lord Howard their Lieutenant not appearing Then the rage of the Rioters grew greater than before And in preparation to the War they had got the word among them Down with the Round-heads Insomuch that if a Stranger past in many places that had short Hair and a Civil Habit the Rabble presently cried Down with the Round-heads and some they knockt down in the open Streets In this Fury of the Rabble I was advised to withdraw a while from home whereupon I went to Glocester As I past but through a corner of the Suburbs of Worcester they that knew me not cried Down with the Round-heads and I was glad to spur on and be gone But when I came to Gloucester among Strangers also that had never known me I found a civil courteous and religious People as different from Worcester as if they had lived under another Government There I stayed a Month and whilst I was there many Pamphlets came out on both sides preparing for a War For the Parliaments Cause the principal Writing which very much prevailed was Observations written by Mr. Parker a Lawyer But I remember some Principles which I think he misapplieth as also doth Mr. Thomas Hooker Ecclis polit lib. 8. viz. That the King is singulis major but universis minor that he receiveth his Power from the People c. For I doubt not to prove that his Power is so immediately from God as that there is no Recipient between God and him to convey it to him Only as the King by his Charter maketh him a Mayor or Baliff whom the Corporation chuseth so God by his Law as an Instrument conveyeth Power to that Person or Family whom the People consent to and their Consent is but a Conditio sine quâ non and not any Proof that they are the Fountain of Power or that ever the governing Power was in them and therefore for my part I am satisfied that all Politicks err which tell us of a Magestas Realis in the People as distinct from the Majestas Personalis in the Governors And though it be true that quo ad naturalem bonitatem in genere Causae finalis the King be universis minor and therefore no War or Action is good which is against the common Good which is the end of all Government yet as to governing Power which is the thing in question the King is as to the People Universis Major as well as Singulis For if the Parliament have any Legislative Power it cannot be as they are the Body or People as Mr. Tho. Hooker ill supposeth who lib. 1. Polit. Eccles. maketh him a Tyrant that maketh Laws himself without the Body but it is as the Constitution twisteth them into the Government For if once Legislation the chief Act of Government be denied to be any part of Government at all and affirmed to belong to the People as such who are no Governors all Government will hereby be overthrown Besides these Observations no Books more advantaged the Parliament's Cause than a Treatise of Monarchy afterwards published and Mr. Prin's large Book of the Soveraign Power of Parliaments wherein he heapeth up Multitudes of Instances of Parliaments that exercised Soveraign Power At this time also they were every where beginning the Contention between the Commission of Array and the Parliaments Militia In Gloucestershire the Country came in for the Parliament In Worcestershire Herefordshire and Shropshire they were wholly for the King and none to any purpose moved for the Parliament § 58. Whilst I was at Gloucester I saw the first Contentions between the Ministers and Anabaptists that ever I was acquainted with For these were the first Anabaptists that ever I had seen in any Country and I heard but of few more in those parts of England About a dozen young Men or more of considerable Parts had received the Opinion against Infant Baptism and were re-baptized and laboured to draw others after them not far from Gloucester And the Minister of the Place Mr. Winnel being hot and impatient with them hardened them the more He wrote a considerable Book against them at that time But England having then no great Experience of the tendency and consequents of Annabaptistry the People that were not of their Opinion did but pity them and think it was a Conceit that had no great harm in it and blamed Mr. Winnel for his Violence and Asperity towards them But this was the beginning of the Miseries of Gloucester for the Anabaptists somewhat increasing on one side before I came away
of the true Religion and the Liberties of the Kingdom otherwise than we did For as they extended the word true Religion further than we did including the Form of Church Government in Scotland so they seem to understand it Conjunctione inseparabili and to prefer the Defence of Religion before the Defence of the King whereas we understood it Conjunctione seperabili and though in meer estimation we preferred Religion before King or Kingdom yet in regard of the Duty of Defence we thought the King must be restored and defended though legally he would have brought in worse than Prelacy Though we did not think that he might do it illegally and therefore that he could not govern Arbitrarily nor take away the Peoples fore-prized Propriety or Liberty nor change the Form of the Government of the Commonwealth But those that thought otherwise said That there is no power but from God and therefore none against him or above him and therefore none against or above his Laws which how true soever seemeth not at all to decide our Case For though it follow never so much that such Acts against God are not Acts of Authority yet the same Person that hath not Authority to do this may have Authority in other matters and may be our rightful Governour and therefore must be obeyed in all things lawful though not in this and his Person defended And therefore how they could refuse to receive the King till he consented to take the Covenant I know not unless the taking of the Covenant had been a Condition on which he was to receive his Crown by the Laws or Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom which none pretendeth Nor know I by what power they can add any thing to the Coronation Oath or Covenant which by his Ancestors was to be taken without his own Consent But in their Zeal for the Church the Scots did cause the King when he was come over to them not only mutat is mutandis to take the Covenant but also to publish a Declaration to the World that he did it voluntarily and heartily and that he lamented the Sins of his Father's House acknowledging the Guilt of the Blood of the late Wars c. In all which it seemed to me and many others that they miscarried divers ways 1. In imposing Laws upon their King for which they had no Authority 2. In forcing him to dishonour the Memory of his Father by such Consessions 3. In tempting him to speak and publish that which they might easily know was contrary to his heart and so to take God's Name in vain 4. And in giving Cromwell occasion to charge them all with dissimulation § 103. What Transactions there were between the King and the Scots for the Expediting of his Coronation and what Preparations were made for an Army to defend him and what Differences among the Parties hereabouts I shall not describe there being enow of them that were upon the place who can do it better But to return to England as soon as they understood what the Scots had done the Sectaries in England reproached them as Fools and Hypocrites that by such a Pageantry mockt themselves and would make the People believe that the King was turned Presbyterian and was a Cordial Covenanter when they had forced him to say and do that which they might well know he did abhor And they presently resolve to invade the Scots to keep them from invading England and not to stay till they came in upon this Land as heretofore So that Cromwell is in Scotland with his Army before they were well setled in their Affairs This much increased the alienation of the Peoples hearts from the Cromwellians for though they might suppose that the Scots intended to bring the King into England yet few believed that he might begin with them by an Invasion it being too much to have resisted them at home § 104. When the Soldiers were going against the King and Scots I wrote Letters to some of them to tell them of their Sin and desired them at last to begin to know themselves it being those same men that have so much boasted of Love to all the Godly and pleaded for tender dealing with them and condemned those that persecuted them or restrained their Liberty who are now ready to imbrue their Swords in the Blood of such as they acknowledge to be Godly and all because they dare not be perjured or disloyal as they are Some of them were startled at these Letters and O blindness thought me an uncharitable Censurer that would say that they could kill the Godly even when they were on their march to do it For how bad soever they spake of the Cavaliers and not without too much desert as to their Morals they confessed that abundance of the Scots were godly Men. And afterward those that I wrote to better understood me § 105. At the same time the Rump or Commonwealth who so much abhorred Persecution and were for Liberty of Conscience made an Order that all Ministers should keep their days of Humiliation to fast and pray for their Success in Scotland and that we should keep their Days of Thanksgiving for their Victories and this upon pain of Sequestration so that we all expected to be turned out but they did not execute it upon any save one in our parts For my part instead of praying and preaching for them when any of the Committee or Soldiers were my hearers I laboured to help them to understand what a Crime it was to force men to pray for the Success of those that were violating their Covenant and Loyalty and going in such a Cause to kill their Brethren And what it was to force Men to give God thanks for all their Bloodshed and to make God's Ministers and Ordinances vile and serviceable to such Crimes by forcing Men to run to God on such Errands of Blood and Ruine And what it is to be such Hypocrites as to persecute and cast out those that preach the Gospel while they pretend the advancement of the Gospel and the liberty of tender Consciences And what a means it was to debauch all Consciences and leave neither tenderness nor honesty in the World when the Guides of the Flocks and Preachers of the Gospel shall be noted to swallow down such heinous Sins My own Hearers were all satisfied with my Doctrine but the Committee Men look sowre but let me alone And the Soldiers said I was so like to Love that I would not be right till I was shorter by the Head Yet none of them ever medled with me farther than by the Tongue nor was I ever by any of them in those times forbidden or hindered to preach one Sermon except only one Assize-Sermon which the High Sheriff had desired me to preach and afterward sent me word to â—orbear as from the Committee saying That by Mr. Moor's means the Independent Preacher at the Colledge the Committee told him that they desired me to forbear and not
their Consciences Why do they not obey the present Secular Powers in all other things It is known the King consented to relax this And however this is little to them that go on the Ground of Divine or Ecclesiastical Right And if we must so plunge our selves into Enquiries after the Rights of Secular Governours before we can know whether to stand or set at the Sacrament we are all uncertain what to do in greater Matters for there are as apparent grounds for our uncertainty of five hundred years old and more which this is no place to dive into And it would be as unlawful on this ground to read any other Psalm or Chapter but what was of old appointed for the Day as to forbear kneeling at the Sacrament And perhaps on the Opponents grounds it would be still as sinful to restrain a Child or Servant from Dancing on the Lord's Day And if it be Ecclesiastical Authority that they stick at that must be derived from Christ and so Originally Divine or it is none And then not to wade so unseasonably into the main Controversie 1. Before they have proved their Legislative Authority 2. And that this Congregation is Iure Divino part of their Charge and under their Jurisdiction 3. And that they had power to contradict the Examples of Christ and his Apostles herein and the constant practice of the Primitive Church and the Canons of Councils even General Councils 4. And that their Canons are yet in force against all these I say before all this be well done we shall find that there must go more than a slight Supposition to the making good of their Cause According to their own Principles a lower Power cannot reverse the Acts of a higher But the General Councils Nice and Constantinople that forbad Kneeling on any Lord's Day was a higher Power than the English Convocation Ergo The English Convocation cannot Repeal its Acts. Though for my own part I think that neither of their Acts do need any Repeal to Null them to us in such Cases 5. Besides this if these Canons bind Conscience yet it is either by the Authority that Enacted them or by the Authority of the present Church-Governours that impose them If old Canons bind without or against the present Power then the same Canon that forbiddeth Kneeling bindeth and many an hundred more a great part of which are now made no Conscience of If it be the present Authority that is above the Ancient then 1. They that pretend to such Authority over this Congregation should produce and exercise it For if we know them not not receive any Commands from them we are capable of no Disobedience to them 2. And in the mean time We that are in the place must take it as our Charge or do the Work or for ought I know it will in most Places be undone For the Authority is for the Work 3. We use to take it for the great partiality at least of the Church of Rome that will be judged by none but the present Church that is themselves when we would be tried by the Scripture or the Ancient Church In a word I do not think that when Circumstances tending to Order and Decency are so mutable that God ever gave power to any Bishops to tie all Congregations and Ages to this or that Sacrament Gesture nor at all to make them so necessary as that Bodily Punishment or Excommunications should be inflicted on the Neglecters of them And I think that Calling which hath no better Work than this to do is not worth the regarding And here I should propound to the contrary-minded one Question Whether if a Bishop should command them to stand or sit they would do it Yea or if a Convocation commanded it If they say Yea then must they lay by all their Arguments from pretended irreverence to prove Sitting evil for I hope they would not be irreverent nor do evil at the command of a Bishop or Convocation And then let our Authority from Scripture Example and the Universal Church and a General Council and the present Secular Power and the late Assembly and Parliaments and the present Pastors or Presbyters of the Congregations I say let all this be set against the present Countermand of I know not who nor for what Reason as being not visible But if they say They would not obey the Bishops if they forbad them Kneeling then let them justifie us that obey them not when they command us to Kneel having so much as is expressed to the contrary Thus Sir I have first given you my Reasons about the Gesture it self And of putting it into each Persons hands I have thus much more to say 1. I know nothing to oblige me to it 2. Christ himself did otherwise as appeareth in Matth. 26. 26 27. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take ye eat ye drink ye all of it doth shew that it was given to them all in general and not to each man singly 3. And in this also Antiquity is on my side the contrary being much later More Reasons I have that I shall not now trouble you with To this I may well add That no Man can have any Rational pretence that I know of against the Receiving of the Sacrament upon such a General Delivery 1. Because the contrary was never yet pleaded necessary Iure Divino that I know of 2. And if it were a Sin it would be the Ministers Sin so to deliver it and not theirs who as they have not the Rule of his Actions so they shall not Answer for them Having thus told you my thoughts of the Matters in doubt I shall next tell you my purpose as to your Motion 1. I did never hitherto to my remembrance refuse to give the Sacrament to any one meerly because they would not take it Sitting or Standing nor did ever forbid or repel any on that account nor ever mean to do If any of my Charge shall take it Standing or Kneeling I shall not forbid them on any such account 2. If they further expect that I should put it into each Man's hands individually I may well expect the liberty of guiding my own Actions according to my own Conscience if I may not guide theirs It is enough that in such Cases they will refuse to be Ruled by me they should not also usurp the ruling of me but let us be equal and let me have my liberty as I am willing to let them have theirs and if I sin they are not guilty of it Nor have they any ground to refuse the Sacrament rather than so take it 3. Yet if any of my Pastoral Charge shall be unsatisfied if they will but hear my Reasons first and if those Reasons convince them not if they will profess that they think it a Sin against God for them to Receive the Sacrament unless it be put into their hands Kneeling and Ergo that they dare not in Conscience take it otherwise I do purpose to
Liturgy and Ceremonies we most humbly represent unto your Majesty 1. First For Church-Government that although upon just Reasons we do dissent from that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or Prelacy disclaimed in the Covenant as it was stated and exercised in these Kingdoms yet we do not nor ever did renounce the true Ancient and Primitive Presidency as it was ballanced and managed by a due Commixtion of Presbyters therewith as a fit means to avoid Corruptions Partiality Tyranny and other Evils which may be incident to the Administration of one single Person Which kind of attempered Pesidency if it shall be your Majesty's grave Wisdom and gracious Moderation be in such a manner constituted as that the forementioned and other like Evils may be certainly prevented we shall humbly submit thereunto And in Order to an happy Accommodation in this weighty Business we desire humbly to offer unto your Majesty some of the Particulars which we conceive were amiss in the Episcopal Government as it was practised before the Year 1640. 1. The great Extent of the Bishops Diocess which was much too large for his own personal Inspection wherein he undertook a Pastoral Charge over the Souls of all those within his Bishoprick which must needs be granted to be too heavy a Burthen for any one Man's Shoulders The Pastoral Office being a Work of Personal Ministration and Trust and that of the highest Concernment to the Souls of the People for which they are to give an Account to Christ. 2. That by Reason of this Disability to discharge their Duty and Trust personally the Bishops did depute the Administration of much of their Trust even in matters of spiritual Cognizance to Commissaries Chancellors and Officials whereof some were Secular Persons and could not administer that Power which originally appertaineth to the Pastors of the Church 3. That those Bishops who affirm the Episcopal Office to be a distinct Order by Divine Right from that of the Presbyter did assume the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves 4. That some of the Bishops exercised an Arbitrary Power as by sending forth their Books of Articles in their Visitations and therein unwarrantably enquiring into several things and swearing the Church-Wardens to present accordingly So also by many Innovations and Ceremonies imposed upon Ministers and People not required by Law and by suspending Ministers at their Pleasure For reforming of which Evils we humbly crave leave to offer unto your Majesty 1. The late most Reverend Primate of Ireland his Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government received in the ancient Church as a Ground-work towards an Accommodation and fraternal Agreement in this Point of Ecclesiastical Government Which we rather do not only in regard of his eminent Piety and singular Ability as in all other Parts of Learning so in that especially of the Antiquities of the Church but also because therein Expedienâ— are offered for healing these Grievances And in order to the same end we further humbly desire that the Suffragans or Corepiscopi mentioned in the Primate's Reduction may be chosen by the respective Synods and by that Election be sufficiently authorized to discharge their Trust. That the Associations may not be so large as to make the Discipline impossible or to take off the Ministers from the rest of their necessary Imployments That no Oaths or Promises of Obedience to the Bishops nor any unnecessary Subscriptions or Engagements be made necessary to Ordination Institution Induction Ministration Communion or Immunities of Ministers they being responsible for any Transgression of the Law And that no Bishops nor any Ecclesiastical Governors may at any time exercise their Government by their own private Will or Pleasure but only by such Rules Canons and Constitutions as shall be hereafter by Act of Parliament ratified and established and that sufficient Provision be made to secure both Ministers and People against the Evils of Arbitrary Government in the Church 2. Concerning the Liturgy 1. We are satisfied in our Judgments concerning the Lawfulness of a Liturgy or Form of publick Worship provided that it be for the matter agreeable unto the Word of God and fitly suited to the Nature of the several Ordinances and the necessity of the Church nether too tedious in the whole nor composed of too short Prayers unmeet Repetitions or Responsals nor too dissonant from the Liturgies of other Reformed Churches nor too rigorously imposed nor the Minister so confined thereunto but that he may also make use of those Gifts for Prayer and Exhortation which Christ hath given him for the Service and Edification of the Church 2. That inasmuch as the Book of Common Prayer hath in it many things that are justly offensive and need amendment hath been long discontinued and very many both Ministers and People Persons of Pious Loyal and Peaceable Minds are therein greatly dissatisfied whereupon if it be again imposed will inevitably follow sad Divisions and widening of the Breaches which your Majesty is now endeavouring to heal We do most humbly offer to your Majesty's Wisdom that for preventing so great Evil and for setling the Church in Unity and Peace some Learned Godly and Moderate Divines of both Perswasions indifferently chosen may be imployed to Compile such a Form as is before described as much as may be in Scripture words or at least to Revise and effectually Reform the old together with an Addition or Insertion of some other varying Forms in Scripture phrase to be used at the Minister's Choice of which Variety and Liberty there be Instances in the Book of Common Prayer 3. Concerning Ceremonies We humbly represent that we hold our selves obliged in every part of Divine Worship to do all things decently in order and to Edification and are willing therein to be determined by Authority in such things as being meerly Circumstantial are common to Humane Actions and Societies and are to be ordered by the Light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the General Rules of the Word which are always to be observed And as to divers Ceremonies formerly retained in the Church of England We do in all Humility offer unto your Majesty these ensuing Considerations That the Worship of God is in it self perfect without having such Ceremonies affixed thereto That the Lord hath declared himself in the Matters that concern his Worship to be a Iealous God and this Worship of his is certainly then most pure and most agreeable to the Simplicity of the Gospel and to his holy and jealous Eyes when it hath least of Humane Admixtures in things of themselves confessedly unnecessary adjoyned and appropriated thereunto upon which account many faithful Servants of the Lord knowing his Word to be the perfect Rule of Faith and Worship by which they must judge of his Acceptance of their Services and must be themselves judged have been exceeding fearful of varying from his Will and of the danger of displeasing him by Additions or Detractions in such Duties wherein they must
necessary Engines for the dividing and persecuting of the Church But judge thou O Lord according to thy righteousness in the day which is comming But the Examples of Corporation and Colledges are brought in who prevent Offences by Subscriptions and Oaths And even so hath Christ whose Spirit would impose nothing on the Churches but things necessary appointed a Vow and Solemn Covenant to be the way of Entrance into his Church And the Apish Spirit which followeth him to counter-work him by the Addition of Humane Churches Sacraments and Ordinances doth also imitate him in making their Oaths and Promises necessary to engage Men to their Service and Institutions as Christ hath made Baptism necessary to engage us to his Service and Institutions And your Arguments for Diocesans are so weak that we wonder not that you think both Oaths Subscriptions Prisons Confiscations and Banishments necessary to enforce them What you add of such Persons as have themselves exacted Conditions of their Communion not warranted by Law we understand not Either the Law warranteth Men to own Christ for their Saviour and to own their own Membership in the particular Church which they demand constant Communion with or it doth not If it do not we have reason to desire more than is warranted by that Law If it do you should have done well to instance what Persons and what Exactions you mean If you speak this of all the Churches of the◠Land that dislike◠your Prelacy it is too gross an untruth to have been uttered in the Light If you speak only of some Persons or Parties that is no reason why others should be deprived of their Liberty and Ministry Nor indeed is it good Arguing that such Oaths and Subscriptions as the Church of old did never know may be imposed by the Laws of Men because some Brethren have lately required such Conditions of their Communion as are imposed by the Laws of God But let us prevail with you to drive this no further than the Persons whoever they be did drive it whom you blame Their utmost Penalty on the Refusers of their Conditions was Non-Communion with them A thing which many of you voluntarily chose Let this be all our Penalty for refusing your Oaths and Subscriptions if we can get no better from you But shall we be Silenced Imprisoned Confiscated Banished for refusing your Oaths and Subscriptions because somebody imposed Things which the Law allowed not in order to their own Communion These are no fit Proportions of Justice § 17. Out of your own Mouths then is your Government condemned What Act of Parliament ratified your Canons What Law imposed Altars Rails and the forcing of Ministers to read the Book for Dancing on the Lord's Days Or what Law did ratifie many Articles of your Visitation Books And did the Laws sufficiently provide for all those poor Ministers that were Silenced or Suspended for not reading the Dancing Book or any such things What the better were all those for the Laws that were Silenced or driven into Forreign Lands But perhaps the Laws will provide for us indeed as you desire Concerning the Liturgy § 18. 1. The Doctrine is sound But the Apocryphal Matter of your Lessons in Tobith Iudith Bell and the Dragon c. is scare agreeable to the Word of God 2. Whether it be fitly suited let our Exceptions and other Papers be heard before your Judgment go for infallible 3. What Mens Prayers you take your Measure or Encouragement from we know not But we are sure that if all the Common Prayers be twice a day read the time for Psalms and Sermons will be short And yet were they free from disorder and desectiveness in Matter we could the better bear with the length though other Prayers and Sermons were partly excluded by them 4. Though we live in the same Countreys we scarce differ any where more than in our very Experiences Our Experience unresistably convinceth us that a continued Prayer doth more to help most of the People and carry on their Desires than turning almost every Petition into a distinct Prayer and making Prefaces and Conclusions to be near half the Prayers And if the way of Prayer recorded in Scripture even in the Jews Church where Infirmity might be pleaded more than now were such as yours we shall say no more in that against it But if it were not be not wise then overmuch 5. We are content that the Liturgy have such Repetitions as the Scriptures have so it may have no other And we are content that all Extemporate Prayer be restrained which is guilty of as much Tautology and vain Repetition as the Liturgy is If this much will satisfie you we are agreed 6. Nor are we against any such Responsals as are fit to the Ends you mention If ours are all such upon impartial Examination let them stand 7. But the Question is 1. Whether the Greek and Latin Churches in the three first Ages or those of later Ages be more imitable 2. And whether the other Reformed Churches have not more imitated the ancientest of those Churches though we have more imitated the latter and more corrupt 3. And whether our first work be to stop the Papists Mouths by pleasing them or coming too near them when we know they that are likest them in all their Corruptions please them best Yet are we not for any unnecessary difference from them or affection of causless singularity As to the Reformed Churches Testimony of our Liturgy shall their very Charity become our Snare If they had liked our Form of Prayers best they would some of them have imitated us And our Martyrs no doubt they honoured as we do not as suffering for the Modes and Ceremonies of that Book as opposite to the Reformed Churches Mode for so they suffered not but as suffering for the Sound Doctrine and True Worship of the Protestants as opposite to Popery and the Mass. § 19. Your Reasons to prove your Impositions not too rigorous are 1. Because they are by Law If we tell you that so is the Spanish Inquisition you 'l say we compare our Law-givers to the Spaniards If we say that your New-mentioned Martyrs were burnt by Law in England you 'l say that we compare them to Papists But all these are Laws And so are those in Reformed Countreys which are against Bishops and Ceremonies Do you therefore think them not too rigorous 2. Your other Reason is that the Rigour is no more then is necessary to make the Imposition effectual You never spake words more agreeable to your hearts as far as by your Practices we can judge of them Either you mean effectual to change Mens Iudgments or effectual to make them go against their Iudgments or effectual to rid them out of the Land or World The first you know they are unfit for If you think otherwise would you that your Judgments should have such kind of helps to have set them right The second way they will be
till it be effectually reformed by Divines of both Perswasions equally deputed thereunto And that your Majesty would procure that Moderation in the Imposition hereafter which we before desired 4. Concerning Ceremonies Returning our humble Thanks for your Majesty's gracious Concessions of which we are assured you will never have cause to repent we further crave 1. That your Majesty would leave out those words concerning us That we do not in our Iudgments believe the practice of those particular Ceremonies which we except against to be in it self unlawful for we have not so declared our Judgments Indeed we have said that treating in order to a happy uniting of our Brethren through the Land our Work is not to say what is our own Opinion or what will satisfie us but what will satisfie so many as may procure the said Union And we have said that some think some of them unlawful in themselves and others but inconvenient And while the Imposers think them but indifferent we conceived they might reasonably be entreated to let them go for the saving of their Brethrens Consciences and the Churches Peace We are sure that a Christian's Conscience should be tender of adding to or diminishing from the Matter of God's Worship in the smallest Point the Laws of God being herein the only perfect Rule Deut. 12. 32. And that a Synod infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost would lay upon the Churches no greater burden then necessary things Acts 15. 28. And that for things indifferent Christians should not despise or judge each other Rom. 14. much less by silencing the able and faithful Ministers of the Gospel to punish the Flocks even in their Souls for the tolerable Differences and supposed Mistakes of Ministers We doubt not but Peter and Paul went to Heaven without the Ceremonies in question And seeing your Majesty well expresseth it That the Universal Church cannot introduce one Ceremony in the Worship of God that is contrary to God's Word expressed in the Scriptures and Multitudes of Protestants at home and abroad do think that all Mystical Sacramental Rites of Humane Institution are contrary to the perfection of God's Law and to Deut. 12. 32. c. though the Determination of meer Circumstances necessary in genere be not so and therefore dare not use them for fear of the Displeasure of God the Universal Sovereign it must needs be a great Expression of your Majesty's wisdom and tenderness of God's Honour and the Safety of your Peoples Souls to refuse in things unnecessary to drive Men upon apprehended Sin and upon the Wrath of God and the Terrours of a Condemning Conscience 2. We beseech your Majesty to understand that it is not our meaning by the Word abolishing to crave a Prohibition against your own or other Mens Liberty in the things in question but it is a full Liberty that we desire such as should be in unnecessary things and such as will tend to the Concord of your People viz. That there be no Law or Canon for or against them commanding recommending or prohibiting them As now there is none for any particular Gesture in singing of Psalms where Liberty preserveth an uninterrupted Unity For the Particular Ceremonies 1. We humbly crave as to kneeling in the Act of Receiving that your Majesty will declare our Liberty therein that none should be troubled for receiving it standing or sitting And your Majesty's Expressions upon Reasons best known if not only to themselves command us to render some of our Reasons 1. We are sure that Christ and his Apostles sinned not by not receiving it kneeling and many are not sure that by kneeling they should not sin and therefore for the better Security though not for absolute Necessity we crave leave to take the safer side 2. We are sure that kneeling in any Adoration at all in any Worship on any Lord's Day in the Year or any Week-day between Ester and Pentcost was not only disused but forbidden by General Councils as Concil Nicen. 1 Can. 20. and Concil Trull c. and disclaimed by ancient Writers and this as a general and uncontroled Tradition And therefore that kneeling in the Act of receiving is a Novelty contrary to the Decrees and Practice of the Church for many hundred Years after the Apostles And if we part with the venerable Examples of all Antiquity where it agrees with Scripture and that for nothing we shall depart from the Terms which most Moderators think necessary for the Reconciling of the Churches And Novelty is a Dishonour to any part of Religion And if Antiquity be Honourable the most ancient or nearest the Legislation and Fountain must be most honourable And it is not safe to intimate a Charge of Unreverence upon all the Apostles and primitive Christians and the Universal Church for so many hundred Years together of its purest Time 3. Though our meaning be good it is not good to shew a needless Countenance of the Papists Practice of Adoring the Bread as God when it is used by them round about us Saith Bishop Hall in his Life pag. 20. I had a dangerous Conflict with a Sarbonist who took occasion by our kneeling at the Receipt of the Echarist to persuade all the Company of our Acknowledgment of a Transubstantiation 4. Some of us that could rather kneel than be deprived of Communion should yet suffer much before we durst put all others from the Communion that durst not take it kneeling which therefore we crave we might not be put upon it 2. We humbly crave also that the religious Observation of Holy-days of human Institution may be declared to be left indifferent that none be troubled for not observing them 3. We humbly tender your Majesty our Thanks for your gracious Concession of Liberty as to the Cross and Surplice and bowing at the Name Iesus rather than Christ or God But we farther humbly beseech your Majesty 1. That this Liberty in forbearing the Surpliâ—â— might extend to the Colledges and Cathedrals also that it drive not thence all those that Scruple it and make not those Places receptive only of a Party and that the Youth of the Nation may have just Liberty as well as the Elder If they be engaged in the Universities and their Liberties there cut off in their beginning they cannot afterwards be free many hopeful Persons will be else diverted from the Service of the Church 2. That your Majesty will endeavour the repealing of all Laws and Canons by which these Ceremonies are imposed that they might be left at full Liberty 4. We also humbly tender our Thanks to your Majesty for your gracious Concession of the Forbearance of the Subscription required by that Canon But 1. we humbly acquaint your Majesty that we do not dissent from the Doctrine of the Church of England expressed in the Articles and Homilies But it is the controverted Passages about Government Liturgy and Ceremonies and some Byâ—passages and Phrases in the doctrinal Part which are scrupled by
Governour of the lower Governours and the Flocks and indeed are all Archbishops though they have the Name of Bishops still Most of the Ministers were satisfied but to me remained unsatisfied to the end § 129. But at the next Meeting those that were satisfied resolved upon Thanksgiving to the King and they drew up this following Writing To the King 's most Excellent Majesty The humble and grateful Acknowledgment of many Ministers of the Gospel in and about the City of London to his Royal Majesty for his gracious Concessions in his Majesty's late Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Most Dread Sovereaign WE your Majesty's most Dutiful and Loyal Subjects Ministers of the Gospel in your City of London having perused your Majesty's late Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs and finding it to the joy of our hearts so full of Indulgence and gracious Condescension we cannot but judge our selves highly obliged in the first place to render our unfelgned Thanks to our good God who hath so mercifully inclined your Majesty's Royal heart to this Moderation and next our most humble and hearty Acknowledgments unto your Sacred Majesty that we may testifie to your Royal Self and all the World our just Resentment of your Majesty's great Goodness and Clemency therein expressed May it please your Majesty The Liberty of our Consciences and the free Exercise of our Ministry in the Work of our Great Lord and Master for the Conversion of Souls ought to be and are more dear to us than all the Profits and Preferments of this World and therefore your Majesty's Tenderness manifested in these so high Concernments doth wonderfully affect us and raise up our Hearts to an high pitch of Gratitude We cannot but adore Divine Goodness for your Majesty's stedfast adherance to the Protestant Religion notwithstanding all Temptations and Provocations to the contrary and your professed Zeal for the Advancement and Propagation thereof declaring that nothing can be proposed to manifest your Zeal and Affection for it to which you will not readily consent Your Majesty has graciously declared That your Resolution is and shall be to promote the Power of Godliness to encourage the Exercises of Religion both publick and private to take care that the Lord's day be applyed to holy Exercises without unnecessary Divertisements and that insufficient negligent and scandalous Ministers be not permitted in the Church Your Majesty hath granted that no Bishop shall Ordain or Exercise any part of Jurisdiction which appertains to the Censures of the Church without the advice and assistance of the Presbyters and neither do nor impose any thing but what is according to the known Laws of the Land Excluded Chancellours Commissaries and Officials from Acts of Jurisdiction so happily restored the Power of the Pastors in their several Congregations and granted a Liberty to all the Ministers to assemble Monthly for the Exercise of the Pastoral perswasive Power to the promoting of Knowledge and Godliness in their Flocks Your Majesty hath graciously promised a Review and effectual Reformation of the Liturgy with additional Forms to be used at Choice And in the mean time that none be punished or troubled for not using it Your Majesty hath graciously freed us from Subscription required by the Canon and the Oath of Canonical Obedience and granted us to receive Ordination Institution and Induction and to exercise our Function and enjoy the profit of our Livings without the same Your Majesty hath gratified the Consciences of many who are grieved with the use of some Ceremonies by indulging to and dispensing with their omitting those Ceremonies viz. Kneeling at the Sacrament the Cross in Baptism bowing at the Name of Jesus and wearing of the Surplice All this your Majesty's Indulgence and tender Compassion which with delight we have taken the boldness thus largely to Commemorate we receive with all humility and thankfulness and as the best Expression thereof shall never cease to pray for your Majesty's long and prosperous Reign and study how in our several Stations we may be most Instrumental in your Majesty's Service And that we may not be defective in Ingenuity we crave leave to profess that though all things in this Frame of Government be not exactly suited to our Judgment yet your Majesty's moderation hath so great an influence upon us that we shall to our utmost endeavour the healing of the Breaches and promoting the Peace and Union of the Church There are some other things that have been propounded by our Reverend Brethren which upon our knees with all humble Importunity we could beg of your Majesty especially that Re-ordination and the Surplice in Colledges may not be imposed and we cannot lay aside our Hopes but that that God who hath thus far drawn out your Majesty's Bowels and Mercy will further incline your Majesty's Heart to gratifie us in these our humble Desires also That we be not further burthensome we humbly beg leave to thank your Majesty for the Liberty and Respect vouchsafed to our Reverend Brethren in this weighty Affair of Accommodation The God of Heaven bless your Majesty and all the Royal Family Your Majesty's most Loyal Subjects Sa. Clark Tho. Case Io. Rawlinson Io. Sheffield Tho. Gouge Gab. Sanger Will. Cooper Will. Whittaker Tho. Iacomb Tho. Lye Io. Iackson Io. Meriton Eli. Pledger Will. Bates Io. Gibbon Mat. Poole With may others This Address was Presented to his Majesty at Whiteball Nov. 16. by some of these Ministers to whom he was pleased to return a very gracious Answer London Printed by his Majesty's Approbation for Ioh. Rothwel at the Sign of the Fountain in Cheapside in Goldsmiths Row 1660. § 130. Whether this came to the King's Ears or what else it was that caused it I know not but presently after the Earl of Lauderdale came to tell me that I must come the next day to the King Who was pleased to tell me that he sent for me only to signifie his Favour to me I told him I feared my plain Speeches Octob. 22. which I thought that Cause in hand commanded me might have been displeasing to him But he told me that he was not offended at the plainness or freedom or earnestness of them but only when he thought I was not in the right and that for my free Speech he took me to be the honester Man I suppose this Favour came from the Bishops who having notice of what last past did think that now I might serve their Interests § 131. The Question now is What we got by procuring this Declaration of the King 's and how it was accepted by the People 1. I thought it no small gain though none of it should be fulfilled that we had got so much from the hand of a King to take off prejudice among the People and abate the violence of cruel Men and to stand on record to Posterity that once so much was granted us by the King for if ever there be any inclinations to Peace and Charity hereafter that which once
fourth sort are the Independents who are for the most part a serious godly People some of them moderate going with Mr. Norton and the New-England Synod and little differing from the moderate Presbyterians and as well ordered as any Party that I know But others of them more raw and self-conceited and addicted to Separations and Divisions their Zeal being greater than their Knowledge who have opened the Door to Anabaptists first and then to all the other Sects These Sects are numerous some tolerable and some intolerable and being never incorporated with the rest are not to be reckoned with them Many of them the Behmâ—nists Fifth-Monarchy-men Quakers and some Anabaptists are proper Fanaticks looking too much to Revelations within instead of the Holy Scriptures And thus I have truly told you of all the Sorts among us except the Papists who are sufficiently known and are no more of us than the other Sects are The Atheists and Infidels I name not because as such they have no Pastors § 286. Next it will not be amiss if I briefly give you the Sum of their several Causes and the Reasons of their several Ways I. The Conformists go several Wâ—ys according to their forementioned Differences 1. Those that are high Prelatists say 1. For Episcopacy it is of Divine Institution and perpetual Usage in the Church and necessary to Order among the Clergy and People and of experienced Benefit to this Land and most congruous to Civil Monarchy and therefore not to be altered by any no not by the King and Parliament if they should swear it Therefore the Oath called the Et caetera Oath was formed before the War to Swear all Men to be true to this Prelacy and not to Change it 2. Those that are called Conforming Presbyterians and Latitudinarians both say that our Prelacy is lawful though not necessary and that Mr. Edward Stillingfleet's Irenicon hath well proved That no Form of Church Government is of Divine Institution And therefore when the Magistrate commandeth any he is to be obeyed But since they grew up to Preferment they grow to be hot for the Prelacy § 287. And therefore as to the Covenant they all say 1. That the End of it was Evil viz. To Change the Government of the Church without Law which was setled by Law 2. That the Efficient Cause was Evil or Null viz. That the Imposers had no Authority to do it 3. That the Matter was Evil viz. to extirpate and change the Government of the Church by Rebellion and Combination against the King 4. That the Swearers Act in taking it was sinful for the foresaid Reasons 5. That the King's Prohibition and disowning it did nullifie all the Subjects Obligations if any were upon them by virtue of Numb 30. 6. That the People being all Subjects cannot endeavour the Change of Church Government without the King 7. That King Charles took not that same Covenant but another 8. That he was forced to it 9. That he was virtually pre-engaged to the contrary Matter in that he was Heir of the Crown and bound to take the Coronation Oath 10. That to cast so many Men as the Bishops out of all their Honours and Possessions is Injustice which none can be obliged to do 11. That if it were lawful before to endeavour an Alteration of the Government of the Church yet now it is not when King and Parliament have made a Law against it These are Mr. Fulwood's and Mr. Stileman's Pleas and the Sum of all that I have heard as to that Point § 288. But further as to the Interpretation of the Words of the Declaration hereabouts the Latitudinarians and Conforming Presbyterians and some of the Prelatists say as followeth 1. That the Declaration includeth not the King when it saith There is no obligation on me or any other person which they prove because that Laws are made only for Subjects and therefore are to be interpreted as speaking only of Subjects 2. Because the King is meant in the Counterpart or Object viz the Government of the State which is not to be altered 2. They say that it is only Rebellions or other unlawful Endeavours that are meant by the words to Endeavour 3. They say that by any Alteration is meant only any Essential Alteration and not any Integral or Accidental Alteration of the Government 4. And the leading Independents have taught them also to say that this Covenant was essentially a League between two Nations upon a certain occasion which therefore if ever it did bind is now like an Almanack out of date Et cessat obligatio cessantibus personis materiâ fine 5. They principally argue that all Mens words are to be taken charitative in the most honest and favourable sence that they will bear much more the King 's and Parliaments Therefore Charity permitteth us not to judge them so inhuman irrational irreligious and cruel as to command Men to be perjured and to change the constituted Government by prohibiting King Parliament or People to do any thing which belonged to them in their places These are the Reasons for the lawfulness of declaring against the Obligation of the Covenant § 289. 3. In the same Declaration it is professed That it is not lawful on any pictente whatsoever to take up Arms against the King or any Commissionated by him c. Concerning this they are also divided among themselves One Party say That this is true universally in the proper sence of the words The other say That it is to be understood of such as are legally Commissioned by him only and that if he should Commission two or three Men or more to kill the Parliament or burn the City or to dispossess Men of their Freeholds it were lawful forcibly to resist Or if the Sheriff be to raise the Posse Comitatus in obedience to a Decree of a Court of Justice to put a Man into possession of his House he may do it forcibly though the Defendant be Commissioned by the King to keep it Because they say that the Law is to be taken sano sensu and not as may lay the Law-givers under so heavy an Accusation as the literal unlimited sence would do § 290. 4. The fourth Matter of Difference being the Oath of Canonical Obedience they here also differ among themselves 1. Some of them think that as the Necessity of Monarchy and our Relation to the King doth make the Oath of Allegiance necessary or very meet so the Necessity of Prelacy and our Relation to the Prelates doth make the Oath of Obedience to them justifiable and meet For that which must be done may be promised and sworn 2. Others of them say That it is only to the Bishops as Magistrates or Officers of the King that we swear to them 3. And others say That as we may be subject to any Man in humility so we may promise or swear it to any Man And it being but in licit 〈◊〉 honestis that what we may
Lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all Opposition and promote the same according to our power against all Lets and Impediments whatsoever And that we are not able our selves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed All which we shall do as in the sight of God And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many Sins and Provocations against God and his Son Iesus Christ as is too manifest by our present Distresses and Dangers the Fruits thereof We profess and declare before God and the World our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own Sins and for the Sins of these Kingdoms especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts nor to walk worthy of him in our lives which are the Causes of other Sins and Transgressions so much abounding amongst us And our true and unfeigned purpose desire and endeavour for our selves and all others under our power and charge both in publick and in private in all Duties we owe to God and Man to amend our Lives and each one to go before another in the Example of a real Reformation That the Lord may turn away his Wrath and heavy Indignation and establish these Churches and Kingdoms in Truth and Peace And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the Searcher of all hearts with a true intention to perform the same as we shall answer at that great Day when the Secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed Most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by his Holy Spirit for this end and to bless our Desires and Proceedings with such Success as may be Deliverance and Safety to his People and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the Yoke of Antichristian Tyranny to ioyn in the same or like Association and Covenant to the Glory of God the Inlargement of the Kingdom of Iesus Christ and the Peace and Tranquility of Christian Kingdoms and Common-wealths The Oath and Declaration imposed upon the Lay-Conformists in the Corporation Act the Vestry Act c. are as followeth The Oath to be taken I. A. B. do declare and believe That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him So help me God The Declaration to be Subscribed I. A. B. do declare That I hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any ot her Person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom All Vestry Men to make and Subscribe the Declaration following I. A. B. do declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him And that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established And I do declare That I do hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other Person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant to indeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The Declaration thus Prefaced in the Act of Uniformity Every Minister after such reading thereof shall openly and publickly before the Congregation there assembled declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I. A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Instituted The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the Forms or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons The Declaration to be Subscribed I. A. B. d◠declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him and that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established And I do declare that I do hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other Person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self a◠unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The Oath of Canonical Obedience EGo A. B. Iuro quod praestabo Veram Canonicam Obedientiam Episcopo Londinens◠ejusque Successoribus in omnibus licitis honestis § 302. II. The Nonconformists who take not this Declaration Oath Subscription c. are of divers sorts some being further distant from Conformity than others some thinking that some of the forementioned things are lawful and some that none of them are lawful and all have not the same Reasons for their dissent But all are agreed that it is not lawful to do all that is required and therefore they are all cast out of the Exercise of the Sacred Ministry and forbidden to preach the Word of God § 303. The Reasons commonly given by them are either 1. Against the Imposing of the things forementioned or 2. Against the Using of them being imposed Those of the former sort were given into the King and Bishops before the Passing of the Act of Uniformity and are laid down in the beginning of this Book and the Opportunity being now past the Nonconformists now meddle not with that part of the Cause it having seemed good to their Superiours to go against their Reasons But this is worthy the noting by the way that all that I can speak with of the Conforming Party do now justifie only the Using and Obeying and not the Imposing of these things with the Penalty by which they are Imposed From whence it is evident that most of their own Party do now justifie our Cause which we maintained at the Savoy which was against this Imposition whilst it might have been prevented and for which such an intemperate Fury hath
against Prelacy in Specie and to let their Places and Honours die with them The Government may be so altered without putting out any Man if none be put in to succeed them when they die 2. And what if the King continue them as Church-Magistrates only to do what his own Officers may do to keep the Churches Peace as Justices and continue their Baronies and their Lands and Places in Parliament and only reform the pretended Spiritual Power of the Keys would not this have been a taking down of Prelacy without the wrong of any 3. Or what if he had taken down all their Power and given them a Writ of Ease and therewith left them durante vita their Estates and Honours Would this have been any injury to them 4. If Prelacy be as sinful as the Non-Subscribers foregoing Arguments would prove can it be injustice to save a Man from Sin and Hell and to save all the Churches from such Calamity for some fleshly abatements that follow to a few Persons 5. Was it injustice to put down the Abbots Or cannot King and Parliament do good by Laws to the Church or Commonwealth whenever a single Person or a few do suffer by it 6. Especially where the Maintenance is Publick and given for the Work and the Work is for the Publick Good Doth any Prince scruple the removing of an intolerable Pilot or Captain from a Ship Or an intolerable Minister from the Church Or an intolerable Officer from the Court though it be to his loss For my part I never accused them for casting out so many Hundred Ministers from their Livings or Benefices upon supposition that it be no wrong to Christ and Mens Souls to cast us out of the Church but should rather justifie it § 383. 11. The last and not the weakest Reason against the Obligation of the Covenant is That if it were lawful before for subjects to petition and Parliament Men to speak and vote against Prelacy yet now it is not because by this Act the Parliament hath made it unlawful Answ. 1. The Parliament doth only declare their sense of a thing past that no Man is bound and not enact by a Law that no Man shall henceforth be bound 2. If it had been otherwise all Protestants confess that neither Pope nor any Earthly Power can dispense with Oaths and Vows 3. They do not so much as prohibit all Men to endeavour an alteration of Government in the Church but only forbid them to say That they are bound to it by the Covenant 4. They have allowed Subjects to petition for the change of Laws so they do it but ten at a time 5. The Parliament is not by any Man to be accused of such a Subversion of Liberties and of Parliaments Priviledges and of the Constitution of the Kingdom as to forbid Subjects petitioning and all Parliament Men speaking and to disable the King and Parliament from changing a Law when they see cause If they should do any of this the Charges now brought against the Long Parliament would teach and allow us to suppose all to be null 6. If the Laws of God be against Prelacy those oblige above all Humane Laws And he that should forbid another to save him or his Neighbour when he is drowning doth not by that prohibition make the saving of them unlawful before God § 384. Now to the Latitudinarians addition of Reasons de modo sensu 1. They say that the Act extendeth not to the King at all when it biddeth us subscribe that there is no Obligation on me or any other person for Laws being made for Subjects are to be interpreted only of Subjects unless when the King is named To this it is easily answered That they distinguish not between the King as the Subject of a Law and the King as the Object of my Assertion or Belief It 's true that the Law speaketh of Subjects only whenever it speaketh of the Duty of Subjects and the King is no Subject But it is as true that the Law speaketh of the King only whenever it speaketh of the Prerogatives of the Crown and Soveraignty and as the Object of the Subjects Acts of Loyalty The question is not here Who is commanded by this Act but who is obliged by the Covenant or Vow And if I be commanded to say that no person is obliged without any limitation I can with no reason except the King whom the Law excepteth not Princes may be obliged by Vows as well as others and their Obligations may be the Subject of our Assertions and Belief § 385. 2. The second Reason is Because the King's Government is part of that whose alteration is declared against therefore be can be none of the any other persons Answ. 1. So the Prelates are the Persons whose Government is here mentioned and yet no doubt they are included in the any other persons as their Chancellors Commissaries Deans c. 2. If the King may be included when it is said That no Man must extirpate Monarchy no not the King much more when it is said That no Man may extirpate Prelacy for there the reason of the Objection faileth § 386. 3. They further say That the Act meaneth only that no Man is bound by the Vow to endeavour against Law as by Rebellion Sedition Treason c. and not that Subjects may not petition Parliament Men speak or King and Parliament alter the Law which they prove because it was taking up Arms and illegal Actions only that the old Parliament was blamed for Answ. This one pretence hath drawn abundance of laudable Persons to Subscribe but how unsatisfactory it is may thus appear 1. Why then could it never be procured to have the word unlawfully put into the Act when it was know that in that sence none of us would have scrupled it 2. All Casuists agree that Universal Terms in or about Oaths and Vows must not be understood any otherwise than Universally without apparent cogent Reason On such Terms as these else a Man may take any Oath in the World or disclaim any The Parliament hath exactly tyed Subscribers to the particular words and they long deliberated to express their own sence And they say neither I nor any other person and now cometh an Expositor and saith The King is not the any other person What! Is he no Person or is he not another Person So they say no Obligation lieth on us to endeavour and the Latitudinarian saith That I may endeavour it and that they mean no Endeavour but unlawful This contradictory Exception and Exposition is against all common Use and Justice and such as will allow a Man to cheat the State by saying or unsaying any thing in the World 3. We have many a time told some Latitudinarians how this matter may be soon decided if they will The Parliament hath past another Act with the self same words in it making it Confiscation for any Man to say That he or any other person is
that Traytorous Positon of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by Him in pursuance of such Commission And that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State The Reasons of Men's refusal to take this Oath were such as these following 1. Because they that were no Lawyers must Swear not only that they think it is unlawful but that it is so indeed 2. Because they think that this setteth a Commission above an Act of Parliament And that if one by a Law be made General or Admiral during Life another by a Commission may cast him out And though the Law say He shall be guilty of Treason if he give up his Trust to any upon pretence of a Commission Yet by this Oath he is a Traytor if he resist any one that hath a Commission 3. Because they fear they are to Swear to a contradiction viz. to set the King 's bare Commission above a Law which is the Act of King and Parliament and yet not to endeavour the Alteration of Government which they fear least they endeavour by taking this Oath 4. Because they think that by this means the Subject shall never come to any certain Knowledge of the Rule of his Duty and consequently of his Duty it self For it is not possible for us to know 1. What is to be called a Commission and what not and whether an illegal Commission be no Commission as the Lawyers some of them tell us and what Commission is illegal and what not and whether it must have the broad Seal on only the little Seal or none 2. Nor can we know when a Commission is counterfeit The King's Commanders in the Wars never shewed their Commissions to them that they fought against at least ordinarily There was a Collonel of the King 's since his coming in that brought a Commission Sealed with the broad Seal to seize on all the Goods of a Gentleman in Bishopsgate-street in 〈◊〉 by which he carried them away But the Commission being proved counterfeit he was hanged for it But a Man that thus Seizeth on any Gentleman's Money on Goods may be gone before they can try his Commission if they may not resist him But the Parliament and Courts of Justice are the Legal publick Notifiers of the King's mind and by them the Subjects can have a regular certain notice of it So that if the Parliament were concluded to have no part in the Legislative Power but the King 's meer will to be our Law yet if the Parliament and Courts of Justice be erected as the publick Declarers of his will to the People they seem more regardable and credible than the words of a private unknown Man that saith he hath a Commission 5. And they think that this is to betray is to the King and give the Chancellour or Lord-Keeper power at his pleasure to depose him from his Crown and dispossess him of his Kingdoms For if the King by Law or Commission shall settle any Trusty Subject in the Government of Navy or Militia or Forts and command them to resist all that would disposseâ—â— them yet if the Lord Chancellor have a design to depose the King and shall Sealâ—â— Commission to any of his own Creatures or Confidents to take possession of the said Forts Garisons Militia and Navy none upon pain of Death must resist them but â—e taken for Traytors if they will not be Traytors yea though it were but whilst they send to the King to know his Will And when Traytors have once got possession of all the Strengths the detecting of their stand will be too late and to Sue them at Law will be in vain And he that remembreth That our Lord Chancellor is now banished who lately was the chief Minister of State will think that this is no needless fear 6. And they think that it is quite against the Law of God in Nature which obligeth â—s to quench a Fire or save the Life of one that is assaulted much more of our selves against one that would kill him and that else we shall be guilty of Murder And according to the preper Sense of this Oath If two Foot-boys get from the Lord Chancellor a Commission to kill all the Lords and Commons in Parliament or to set the City and all the Country on Fire no Man may be Force of Arms resist them Lords and Commons may not save their Lives by force not the City their Houses And by this way no Man shall dwell or travel in safety while any Enemy or Thief may take away his Life or Purse or Goods by a pretended Commission and if we defend our selves but while we send to try them we are Traytors and few have the means of such a Tryall 7. They think by this means no Sheriff may by the Posse Comitatus execute the Decrees of any Court of Justice if 〈◊〉 can but get a Commission for the contrary 8. They think that Taxes and Subsidies may be raised thus without Parliaments and that all Men's Estates and Lives are at the meer will of the King or the Lord Chancellor For if any be Commissioned to take them away we have no remedy For to say that we have our Actions against them in the Courts of Justice is but to say that when all is taken away we may cast away more if we had it For what good will the Sentence of any Court do us if it pass on our side as long as a Commission against the Execution of that Sentence must not be resisted unless a piece of Paper be as good as an Estate 9. And they think that by this Oath we Swear to disobey the King if at any time he command us to endeavour any alteration of the Church-Government as once by this Commission to some of us he did about the Liturgy 10. And they think that it is a serving the Ambition of the Prelates and an altering of the Government to Swear never to endeavour any alteration of Church-Government yea and to put the Church-Government before the State-Government and so to make the Prelacy as unalterable as Monarchy and to twist it by an Oath into the unalterable Constitution of the Government of the Land and so to disable the King and Parliament from ever endeavouring any alteration of it For if the Subjects may not at any time nor by any means endeavour the King will have none to execute his Will if he endeavour it And if Divines who should be the most tender avoiders of Perjury and all Sin shall lead the way in taking such an Oath who can expect that any others after them should scruple it And it was endeavoured to have been put upon the Parliament 11. And they think that there is a great deal in the English Diocesian Frame of Church-Government which is very sinful and which God will have all Men in their places and callings to endeavour to reform
as that the Bishop of the lowest degree instead of ruling one Church with the Presbyters ruleth many hundred Churches by Lay-Chancellors who use the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution c. And they take it for an Act of Rebellion against God if they should Swear never to do the Duty which he commandeth and so great a Duty as Church-Reformation in so great a Matter If it were but never to pray or never to amend a fault in themselves they durst not Swear it 12. This Oath seemeth to be the same in Sence with the Et caetora Oath in the Canons of 1640. That we will never consent to an alteration of the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. And one Parliament voted down that and laid a heavy charge upon it which no Parliament since hath taken off 13. As the National Vow and Covenant seemeth a great Snare to hinder the Union of the Church among us in that it layeth our Union on an exclusion of Prelacy and so excludeth all those learned worthy Men from our Union who cannot consent to that Exclusion so the laying of the Kingdoms and Churches Union upon the English Prelacy and Church-Government so as to exclude all that cannot consent to it doth seem as sure an Engine of Division We think that if our Union be centered but in Christ the King of all and in the King as his Officer and our Soveraign under him it may be easie and sure But if we must all unite in the English Frame of Prelacy we must never Unite § 15. Those that take the Oath do as those that Subscribe resolve that they will understand it in a lawful Sense be it true or false and so to take it in that Sense To which end they say that nullum iniquum est in Lege praesumendum and that all publick Impositions must be taken in the best Sense that the Words will bear And by force and stretching what words may not be well interpreted But the Nonconformists go on other grounds and think that about Oaths Men must deal plainly and sincerely and neither stretch their Consciences nor the Words nor interpret universal Terms particularly but according to the true meaning of the Law-givers as far as they can understand it and where they cannot according to the proper and usual signification of the Words And the Parliament themselves tell us That this is the true Rule of interpreting their Words Beyond which therefore we dare not stretch them § 16. And therefore 14. They dare not take the Oath because if it be not to be taken in the proper or ordinary Sense of the Words then they are sure that they cannot understand it for it doth not please the Parliament to expound it And Oaths must be taken in Truth Judgment and Righteousness and not ignoranatly when we know that we understand them not § 17. The Lawyers even the honestest are commonly for a more stretching Exposition And those that speak out say That an illegal Commission is none at all But we our selves go further than this would leads us for we judge That even an illegally commissioned Person is not to be resisted by Arms except in such Cases as the Law of Nature or the King himself by his Laws or by a contrary Commission alloweth us to resist him But if Commissions should be contradictory to each other or to the Law we know not what to Swear in such a case § 18. But because much of the Case may be seen in these following Questions which upon the coming out of that Act I put to an able worthy and sincere Friend with his Answers to them I will here Insert them viz. Serjeant Fountain Queries upon the Oxford Oath We presuppose it commonly resolved by Casuists in Theology from the Law of Nature and Scripture 1. That Perjury is a Sin and so great a Sin as tendeth to the ruin of the Peace of Kingdoms the Life of Kings and the Safety of Mens Souls and to make Men unfit for Humane Society Trust or Converse till it be repented of 2. That he that Sweareth contrary to his Iudgment is Perjured though the thing prove true 3. That we must take an Oath in the Imposer's Sense as near as we can know it if he be our Lawful Governour 4. That an Oath is to be taken sensu strictiore and in the Sense of the Rulers Imposing it if that be known if not by the Words interpreted according to the common use of Men of that Profession about that subject And Vniversals are not to be interpreted as Particulars nor must we limit them and distinguish without very good proof 5. That where the Sense is doubtful we are first to ask which is the probable Sense before we ask which is is the best and charitablest Sense and must not take them in the best Sense when another is more probable to be the true Sense Because it is the Truth and not the Goodness which the Vnderstanding first considereth Otherwise any Oath almost imaginable might be taken there being few Words so bad which are not so ambiguous as to bear a good Sense by a forced Interpretation And Subjects must not cheat their Rulers by seeming to do what they do not 6. But when both Senses are equally doubtful we ought in Charity to take the best 7. If after all Means faithfully used to know our Rulers Sense our own Vnderstandings much more incline to think one to be their meaning than the other we must not go against our Vnderstandings 8. That we are to suppose our Rulers fallible and that it 's possible their decrees may be contrary to the Law of God but not to suspect them without plain cause These things supposed we humbly crave the Resolution of these Questions about the present Oath and the Law Qu. 1. Whether upon any pretence whatsoever refer not to any Commissionated by him as well as to the King himself 2. Whether not lawful extendeth only to the Law of the Land or also to the Law of God in Nature 3. Whether I Swear that it is not lawful do not express my peremptory certain Determination and be not more than I Swear that in my Opinion it is not lawful 4. What is the Traytorous Position here meant for here is only a Subject without a Praedicate which is no Position at all and is capable of various Praedicates 5. If the King by Act of Parliament commit the Trust of his Navy Garrison or Militia to one durante vita and should Commissionate another by force to eject him whether both have not the King's Authority or which 6. If the Sheriff raise the Posse Commitatus to suppress a Riot or to execute the Decrees of the Courts of Justice and fight with any Commissioned to resist him and shall keep up that Power while the Commissioned Persons keep up theirs which of them is to be judged by the Subjects to have the King's Authority 7. If a Parliament or a
any thing amiss in the Government of Church or State Established by Law If Endeavour be taken in its Latitude it is a perfect contradiction to this Law 3. The Testimonies of several Members of both Houses who assured us that in the Debate this was the declared Sense of the Parliament Sir Heneage Finch told me the intention of it was only to have security from us without any respect to our Iudgments concerning the Government that we would not disturb the Peace and that it was imposed at this Season in regard of our Wars with France and Holland He added it was a tessera of our Loyalty and those who refused it would be looked on as Persons reserving themselves for an Opportunity My Lord Chamberlain said the Bishops of Canterbury and Winchester declared it only excluded Seditious Endeavours and upon his urging that it might be expressed the Arch Bishop replyed It should be added but the King being to come at Two of the Clock it could not with that Explication be sent down to the House of Commons and returned up again within that time The Bishop of Exeter told Dr. Tillotson That the first Draught of this Oath was in Terms a Renunciation of the Covenant but it was answered they have suffered for that already and that the Ministers would not recede it was therefore reasonable to require security in such Words as might not touch the Covenant 4. The concurrent Opinion of the Iudges who are the Authorized Interpreters of Law who declared that only tumultuous and seditious Endeavours are meant Iudge Bridgman Twisden Brown Archer Windham Atkins who were at London had agreed in this Sense Some of the Ministers were not satisfied because the Opinion of a Iudge in his Chamber was no Iudicial Act but if it were declared upon the Bench it would much resolve their Doubts I addressed my Self to my Lord Bridgman and urged him that since it was a Matter of Conscience and the Oaths were to be taken in the greatest simplicity he would sincerely give me his Opinion about it He professed to me that the Sense of the Oath was only to exclude seditious and tumultuous Endeavours and said he would go to the Sessions and declare it in the Court He wrote down the Words he intended to speak and upon my declaring that if he did not express that only seditious Endeavours were meant I could not take the Oath be put in the Paper before me that word and told me that Iudge Keeling was of his Mind and would be there and be kind to us The Ministers esteemed this the most publick Satisfaction for Conscience and Fame and several of them agreed to go to the Sessions and take the Oath that hereby if possible they might vindicate Religion from the Impâ—tation of Faction and Rebellion and make it evident that Consciences only hindereth their Conformity Some of the most unsatisfied were resolved to take it We came in the afternoon on Friday to the Court where seven Ministers had taken it in the Morning At our appearance the Lord Bridgman addrest himself to us in these Words Gentlemen I perceive you are come to take the Oath I am glad of it The intent of it is to distinguish between the King 's good Subjects and those who are mentioned in the Act and to prevent Seditious and Tumultuous Endeavours to alter the Government Mr. Clark said in this Sense we take it The Lord Keeling spake with some quickness Will you take the Oath as the Parliament hath appointed it I replyed My Lord We are come hither to attest our Loyalty and to declare we will not seditiously endeavour to alter the Government He was silent and we took the Oath being 13 in number After this the Lord Keeling told us He was glad that so many had taken the Oath and with great vehemency said We had renounced the Covenant in two Principal Points that damnable Oath which sticks between the Teeth of so many And he hoped That as here was one King and one Faith so here would be one Government And if we did not Conform it would be judged we did this to save a stake These Words being uttered after by his Silence he had approved what my Lord B. had spoke of the Sense of the Act and our express Declaration that in that Sense we took it you may imagine how surprizing they were to us It was not possible for us to recollect our selves from the Confusion which this caused so as to make any reply We retired with sadness and what the consequences will be you may easily fore-see Some will reflect upon us with severity judging of the nature of the Action by this check of Providence Others who were resolved to take the Oath recoil from it their Iealousies being increased I shall trouble you no longer but assure you That notwithstanding this accident doth not invalidate the Reasons for the lawfulness of it in our apprehensions yet the fore-sight of this would have caused us to suspend our proceedings The good Lord sanctifie this Providence to us and teach us to commit our dearest Concernments unto him in the performance of our Duty to whose Protection I commend you and remain Yours intirely William Bates London Feb. 22. After my Lord Keeling's Speech Sir Iohn Babor enquired of Lord Bridgman whilst he was on the Bench Whether the Ministers had renounced the Covenant He answer'd the Covenant was not concerned in it Mr. Calamy Watson Gouge and many others had taken the Oath this Week but for this unhappy Accident My Lord Bridgman came to the Sessions and declared the Sense of the Oath with my Lord Chancellor's allowance But all the Reasons contain'd in this Letter seem'd not to me to enervate the force of the fore-going Objections or solve the Difficulties § 24. A little before this L. B. and Sir S. committed such horrid wickedness in their Drinking acting the part of Preachers in their Shirts in a Balcony with Words and Actions not to be named that one or both of them was openly censured for it in Westminster-Hall by one of the Courts of Justice You will say Sure it was a shameful Crime indeed And shortly after a Lightning did seize on the Church where the Monuments of the were and tore it melted the Leads and brake the Monuments into so small pieces that the people that came to see the place put the Scraps with the Letters on into their Pockets to shew as a Wonder and more wonderful than the consumption of the rest by fire § 25. In this time the Haunting of Mr. Mompesson's House in Wiltshire with strange Noises and Motions for very many Months together was the Common Talk Of which Mr. Ios. Glanvil having wrote the Story I say no more § 26. The Number of Ministers all this while either imprisoned sined or otherwise afflicted for preaching Christ's Gospel when they were forbidden was so great that I forbear to mention them particularly § 27. The War began with
what he had suffered by the War who it 's said was but a poor Boy and after a Schoolmaster and Phillips having but one Leg told me he had lost his Leg by the Wars and I thought then there was no remedy but Preachers must be silenced and live in Goals But with much importunity I got them once to hear me while I told them why I took not my Meeting to be contrary to Law and why the Oxford Act concerned me not and they had no Power to put that Oath on me by the Act But all the Answer I could get was That they were satisfied of what they did And when among other reasonings against their course I told them I thought Christ's Ministers had in many Ages been Men esteemed and used as we now are and their Afflicters have insulted over them the Providence of God hath still so ordered it that the Names and Memory of their Silencers and Afflicters have been left to Posterity for a Reproach insomuch that I wondered that they that fear not God and care not for their own or the People's Souls should yet be so careless of their fame when Honour seemeth so great a matter with them To which Ross answered that he desired no greater Honour to his Name than that it should be remembred of him that he did this against me and such as I which he was doing Then they asked me whether I would take the Oath I named a difficulty or two in it and desired them to tell me the meaning of it They told me that they were not to expound it to me but to know whether I would take it I told them it must be taken with understanding and I did not understand it They said I must take it according to the proper sence of the Words I asked them whether the proper sence of those Words I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church was not of any time universally as it 's spoken they said yea I asked them whether it were in the Power of the King and Parliament to make some alteration of Church-Government Ross first said that before it was settled it was But better bethinking himself said Yea I told him the King once gave me a Commission to endeavour an alteration of the Liturgy and allowance to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government as may be seen in His Majesty's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs If he should command me the like again am I not sworn by this Oath if I take it to disobey him yea or if the Law-makers change the Law c. At this Ross only laught and derided me as speaking a ridiculous supposition and said that could not be the Sence I told him that then he must confess the Error of his Rule and that the Oath is not to be understood according to the proper meaning and use of those Words And I bad them take notice that I had not refused their Oath but desired an explication of it which they refused to give though I had reason enough to resolve me not to take it however they that were not the makers of the Law should have expounded it And so Phillips presently wrote my Mittimus as followeth § 112. To the Keeper of his Majesty's Goal commonly called the New-Prison in Clerkenwell Middlesex VVHereas it hath been proved unto us upon Oath that Richard Baxter Clerk hath taken upon him to Preach in an unlawful Assembly Conventicle or Meeting under colour or pretence of Exercise of Religion contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom at Acton where he now liveth in the said County not having taken and subscribed the Oath by Act of Parliament in that case appointed to be be taken And whereas we having tender'd to him the Oath and Declaration appointed to be taken by such as shall offend against the said Act which he hath refused to take we therefore send you herewith the Body of the said Richard Baxter straitly charging and commanding you in his Majesty's Name to receive him the said Richard Baxter into his Majesty's said Prison and him there safely to keep for six Months without Bail or Mainprize And hereof you are not to fail at your Peril Given at Brentford the Eleventh of June in the one and twentieth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord Charles the Second J. Philips Tho. Ross. § 113. Here it is to be noted that the Act against Conventicles was long ago 〈◊〉 that I was never Convict of a Conventicle while that Law was in force nor since that the Oxford Act supposeth me Convict of a Conventicle and doth not enable them to Convict me without another Law That really they had 〈◊〉 but Ross's Man to witness that I preached who crept in but the Lord's Day before and heard me only preach on this Text. Mat. â—5 Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth presseth especially Quietness and Patience towards our Governours and denying all turbulent unpeaceable and seditious dispositions and practices § 114. They would have given me leave to stay till Monday before I went to Gâ—â—al if I would promise them not to preach the next Lord's Day which I denied to promise and so went away the next Morning â—115 This was made a heinous Crime against me at the Court and also it was said by the that it could not be out of Conscience that I preached else why did not my Conscience put me on it so long before Whereas I had ever preached to my own Family and never once invited any one to hear me nor forbad any So that the difference was made by the people and not by me If they come more at last than at first before they had ever heard me that fignified no change in me But thus must we be judged of where we are absent and our Adversaries present and there are many to speak against us what they please and we are banished from City and Corporations and cannot speak for our selves § 116. The whole Town of Acton were greatly exasperated against the Dean when I was going to Prison insomuch as ever since they abhor him as a selfish Perseentor Nor could he devise to do more to hinder the success of his seldom Preaching there But it was his own choice Let them hate me so they fear me And so I finally left that Place being grieved most that Satan had prevailed to stop the poor People in such hopeful beginnings of a common Reformation and that I was to be deprived of the exceeding grateful Neighbourhood of the Lord Chief Baron Hale who could scarce refrain Tears when he did but hear of the first Warrant for my appearance § 117. I knew nothing all this while of the rise of my trouble but I resolved to part in Peace on my part with the Dean not doubting but it was his doing And so I went to take my leave of him who took on him to be sorry and swore it was none of
I so far defie any Accuser who will question my Loyalty that as I have taken the Oaths of Supremacy and of Allegiance and a special Oath of Fidelity when I was Sworn I know not why as His Majesty's Servant so I am ready to give a much fulle◠signification of my Loyalty than that Oath if I had taken it would be And to own all that is said for the Power of Kings and of the Subject's Obedience and Non-resistance by any or all the Councils and Confessions of any Christian Churches upon Earth whether Greeks or Romans Reformed Episcopal Presbyterian or any that are fit to be owned as Christians that ever came to my notice besides what is contained in the Laws of our own Land And if this will not serve I shall patiently wait in my Appeal to the Un-erring Universal Judgment § 123. 2. In other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy or Practice of the Church of England At which Conventicle Meeting or Assembly there should be Five Persons or more Assembled over and above those of the Houshold Pos. 1. To Preach or Teach in a House not Consecrated for a Temple is not contrary to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England Arg. 1. That which the Scripture expresly alloweth is not contrary to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England But to Preach and Teach even Multitudes in Houses and other places not so Consecrated the Scripture expresly alloweth Ergo. The Major is proved 1. Because the Book of Ordination requireth that all that are Ordained shall promise to Instruct the People out of the Holy Scripture being persuaded that they contain sufficiently all Doctrine required of Necessity to Salvation and to teach no other And with all Faithful Diligence to banish all Doctrines contrary to God's Word And to use both publick and private Monitions and Exhortations as well to the Sick as to the whole as need shall require and occasion shall be given 2 The same Sufficiency of the Scripture is asserted in the 6th Article of the Church And Article 20. bindeth us to hold That it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to God's written Word So Art 21. more 3. The said Scriptures are appointed by the Rubrick to be read as the Word of God himself 4. The Law of the Land declareth That nothing shall be taken for Law which is contrary to the Word of God 5. The First and Second Homily shew the sufficiency of it and necessity to all Men. The Minor is proved 1. from Acts 20. 20. 7 8 28. last 8. 4 25 35. 10. 34. 12. 12. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. Mat. 5. 1 2. Mark 2. 13. 10. 1. Luke 5. 3. 13. 26. 2. From those Texts which command Christ's Ministers to Preach and not forbear Therefore if they be forbidden to Preach in the Temples they must do it elsewhere Iohn 21. 15 16 17. 1 Cor. 9. 16. Acts 4. 18 19 20. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. Luke 9. 62. 3. From the Expository Practice of the Church in all Ages 4. From the Expository Practice of the Universal Church of England who Preached in Houses in the time of their late Restraint by Cromwel Arg. 2. The Church of England bindeth Ministers to Teach both publickly and privately in their Ordination as afore recited 2. In the Liturgy for the Visitation and Communion of the Sick it alloweth private Exhortation Prayer and Sacraments 3. The 13 Canon requireth that the Lord's Day and other Holy-Days be spent in publick and private Prayers And the very Canon 71. which most restraineth us from Preaching and Administring the Sacrament in private Houses doth expresly except Times of necessity when any is so impotent as he cannot go to Church or dangerously sick c. 4. The instructing of our Families and Praying with them is not disallowed by the Church And I my self have a Family and Persons impotent therein who cannot go to Church to Teach Arg. 3. The 76 Can. condemneth every Minister who voluntarily relinquisheth his Ministry and liveth as a Lay-Man Ergo We must forbear no more of the Ministerial Work than is forbidden us Pos. 2. The number of Persons present above Four cannot be meant by this Act as that which maketh the Religious Exercise to be in other manner than allowed by the Liturgy or Practise of the Church Arg. 1. Because the manner of the Exercise and the number of Persons are most expresly distinguished And the restraint of the number is expresly affixed only to them who shall use such unallowed manner of Religious Exercises not medling at all with others The Words at which Conventicle c. do shew the Meeting to be before described by the manner of Exercise Otherwise the Words would be worse than Non-sense 2. Because if the Words be not so interpreted then they must condemn all our Church Meetings for having above four As if they had said where Five are met it is contrary to the Liturgy of the Church which cannot be If it be said That for above Four to meet in a House is not allowed by the Church I Answer 1. That is a Matter which this Act meddleth not with as is proved by the foresaid distinguishing the manner of Exercise from the number of Persons 2. Nor doth the Act speak of private Houses or put any difference between them and Churches but equally restraineth Meetings in Churches which are for disallowed Exercises of Religion 3. Nor is it true in it self that the Church disalloweth the number of Five in private Houses as is proved before But it contrarily requireth that at private Communions there shall be Neighbours got to Communicate and not fewer than three or two And at private Baptisms and other occasions the number is not limited by the Church at all 3. Because the Act is directed only against seditious Sectaries and their Conventicles 4. Because the Words of the Act shew that the Law-makers concur with the sence of the Church of England which is no where so strict against Nonconformity as in the Canons And in these Canons viz. 73 and 11. A Conventicle is purposely and plainly descibed to be such other Meetings Assemblies or Congregations than are by the Laws held and allowed which challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches Or else secret Meetings of Priests or Ministers to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them or upon their motion or direction by any other which may any way tend to the impeachment or depriving of the Doctrine of the Church of England or the book of Common-Prayer or of any part of the Government and Discipline of the Church So that where there is no such Consultation of Ministers nor no Assemblies that challenge to themselves the Name of true and Lawful Churches distinct from the allowed Assemblies there are no Conventicles in the sence of the Canons of the Church of England which this Act professeth to
adhere to The same Sence is exprest also in Can. 10. which describeth Schismaticks Whosoever shall affirm that such Ministers as refuse to subscribe to the Form and manner of God's Worship in the Church of England prescribed in the Communion-Book and their Adherents may truly take unto them the Name of another Church not established by Law and dare presume to publish that this pretended Church hath long groaned under c. And in the 9th Canon where the Authors of Schism are thus described Whosoever shall separate themselves from the Communion of Saints as it is approved by the Apostle's Rules in the Church of England and combine themselves together in a new Brotherhood accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine Government Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be prophane and unmeet for them to join with in Christian Profession Pro. 3. If our manner of Religious Exercises did differ in some meer degrees or Circumstances from that which is allowed by the Liturgy and Practice of the Church it ought not no be taken to be the thing condemned in this Act. Arg. 1. Otherwise the Justices themselves and almost all his Majesty's Subjects either are already obnoxious to the Mulcts Imprisonments and Banishments or may be they know not how soon Arg. 2. And otherwise no Subject must dare to go to Church for fear of incurring Imprisonment or Banishment The reason of both is visible 1. Almost all conformable Ministers do either by some omissions of Prayers or other parts of the Liturgy or by some alterations many times do that which is dissonant from the Liturgy and practise or Canons of the Church I have seldom been present where somewhat was not contrary to them 2 Because most conformable Ministers do now Preach without Licenses which is contrary to the express Canons of the Church 3. Because few of the King's Subjects or none can tell when they go to Church but they may hear one that hath no License or that will do somewhat dissonant from the manner of the Church Pro. 4. Preaching without License bringeth me not within the Penalty of the Act. Arg. 1. Because I have the Archbishop's License Arg. 2. Because a License is not necessary for Family Instruction Arg. 3. Because else most of the Conformists would be as much obnoxious which is not so judged by the Bishops themselves § 124. 3. The Errors of the Mittimus with the explication of the Oxford Act. THis Act containeth 1. The end and Occasion that is the preserving of Church and Kingdom from the Danger of poisonous Principles II. The Description of the dangerous Persons 1. in the Preamble Where they are 1. Nonconformists or such as have not subscribed and declared according to the Act of Uniformity and other subsequent Acts. 2. They or some of them and other Persons not ordained according to the Form of the Church of England who have since the Act of Oblivion preached in Unlawful Assemblies and have settled themselves in Corporations 2. In the Body of the Act where are two parts answering the two aforesaid in the Preamble 1. The first Subject described is Non-subscribers and Non-declarers according to the Act of Uniformity c. That is Non-conformists who also have not taken the Oath which is here prescribed as a preventing Remedy 2. The second Subject is All such Persons as shall Preach in unlawful Meetings contrary to Laws which must needs refer to the second branch of the Preamble and mean only such Nonconformists and unordained Persons as shall so Preach the Word shall signifying that it must be after the passing of this Act. III. The Offence prohibited is being or coming after March 24. 1665. within five Miles of any Corporation or of any place where since the Act of Oblivion they have been Parsons Vicars Lecturers c. Or have preached in an unlawful Assembly contrary to the Laws before they have in open Sessions taken the Oath That is who have done this since the Act of Oblivion before this Act it being the purpose of this Act to put all those who shall again after this Act preach in Conventicles in the same Case with them who since the Act of Oblivion were Parsons Vicars c. That is that none of them shall come within five miles of any place where they were either Incumbents or Conventiclers before this Act since the act of Oblivion IV. The Penalty is 1. 40 l. for what is past which the after taking of the Oath will not save them from 2. And six months Imprisonment also for such of them as shall not Swear and subscribe the Oath and Declaration offered them So that in this Act the Offence it self prohibited is Coming within five miles c. But the qualification of the subject offending is absolutely necessary to it So that the Mittimus for an offence against this Act must signifie That N. N. having not subscribed and declared according to the Acts of Uniformity and other subsequent Acts or being not ordained according to the Form of the Church of England having since the Act of Oblivion preached in an unlawful Assembly and also hath so preached since this Act and hath not taken the Oath here required is proved by Oath to us to have been or come since Mar. 24. 1665. Within five Miles of a Corporation or a place where he was an incumbent or preached in a Conventicle before this Act since the Act of Oblivion and also hath refused before us to swear and subscribe the said Oath c. Now in this Mittimus 1. Here is no mention that R. B. hath not subscribed and declared already according to the Act of Uniformity or is a Non-conformist nor yet that he is not ordained according to the Form of the Church of England 2. Nor is there any mention that he hath preached in an unlawful Assembly since the Act of Oblivion much less since this Act which must be said 3. Nor that ever they had proof of his not taking the Oath before or that ever he was Convict of Preaching before he took it 4. The Offence it self is not here said to be proved by Oath at all viz. Coming or being within five Miles c. But another thing viz. his Preaching in an unlawful Meeting is said to be proved by Oath which this Act doth not enable them to take such proof of As for the Word in the Mittimus where he now dwelleth it cannot be understood as a part of Deposition 1. Because it is expressed but as the Justice's Assertion and not so much as an and or Conjunction put before it to shew that they had Oath made of it as well as of Preaching 2. Because the Word now dwelleth must be taken strictly or laxly if strictly it referreth but to the time of the Writing of the Mittimus which was two days after the Constable's Warrant and no Accuser Witness or other Person was suffered to be present and therefore it must needs
be but the Justice's own Words or Assertion without proof Or if now dwelleth be taken laxly for a distant time then note that here is not any mention of Proof that there was any just or considerable distance between his Preaching and his dwelling here but he might go away the next hour after his Preaching notwithstanding any thing here mentioned For any Man that Preacheth is in the place where he Preacheth while he Preacheth and if he go away the next hour it must be considered in what time he can go five Miles But if now be taken for the Witnesses Words here is no intimation of the least distance And none can imagine that the Law meaneth that the Preacher shall be five Miles off the next Minute or Hour And indeed seeing no Man can tell how many hours must be allowed it is plain that the Act meaneth that the Person must be first legally Convict of Preaching in an unlawful Assembly and also of not having conformed or taken the Oath before the Oath is made of his not removing five Miles 3. This Act not at all enabling the Justices to take Oath about the Conventicles but only about not coming within five Miles and there being but one Deposition mentioned where he now dwelleth being a very part of that one Testimony if it be not the Justice's own Words it followeth that this Oath must be made before the Act against Conventicles was expired because no other Act enableth them to take such an Oath And then the now dwelleth will signifie long ago without any notified distance from his Preaching 4. If where he now dwelleth be part of the Deposition then so must the following Words not having taken and subscribed the Oath which Charity forbiddeth us to believe that they swore seeing I was never accused of it and it 's not possible that they or any Man living should know that I have not taken it heretofore 5. Here is no Oath that Richard Baxter Preached in a Conventicle before this Act which is to be proved as well as that he did it after The great difficulty in this Act is whether the general Words all such Persons as shall take on them to Preach be not to be taken as expounded in the Preamble limited to Non-conformists and the un-ordained as aforesaid And it 's plain that it 's not to be extended to Conformists 1. Because the Law doth not dishonour them so far as to suspect them of poisonous Principles 2. Else what ruin would it make in the Church when every Pastor must no more come within five Miles of his Charge no not the dignified Clergy if any Enemy shall secretly swear that they once preached in an unlawful Assembly 3. All the Conformable Clergy and their Council are of this mind For none of them take this Oath at the Sessions and therefore none of them think they are bound to take it Note it is to be taken unoffered and that on the Penalty of 40 l. if they come within five Miles of their Charge though they were never so willing to take it after Objection 1. The Conformists need it not because they keep no Conventicles Answ. 1. They are commanded many private Meetings as private Visitations of the Sick Baptisms Communions Perambulations in the Rogation-Week when they use in Houses by the way to spend the time in Pious Instructions Prayers c. And many of them repeat their Sermons in their Houses which is as much Preaching as any thing I have ever done 2. And there are few publick Assemblies where some-what is not done contrary to the Liturgy by Omissions c. 3. And every Man hath some Enemy who may Swear that these are unlawful Assemblies Obj. 2. The Conformists have already Subscribed Answ. 1. That proveth that this Act intendeth them not and therefore not me who Conform as far as any Law requireth me 2. It is one thing to say I am of Opinion and another thing to Swear that so it is 3. I may say that the Covenant bindeth me not to endeavour any Alteration of Church-Government easilier than Swear That I will never at any time endeavour it when we once already so far endeavoured it by Command 1660. as His Majesty's Gracious Declaration about Eccles. Affairs expresseth even while contrary Laws were in force § 125. While I stayed in Prison I saw some-what to blame my self for and some-what to wonder at others for and some-what to advise my Visitors about 1. I blamed my Self that I was no more sensible of the Spiritual part of my Affliction such as was the interruption of my Work and the poor People from whom I was removed and the advantage Satan had got against them and the loss of my own publick Liberty for worshipping in the Assemblies of his Servants 2. I marvelled at some who suffered no more than I as Mr. Rutherford when he was confined to Aberdeen that their Sufferings occasioned them so great Joys as they express which sure was from the Free Grace of God to encourage others by their Examples and not that their own Impatience made them need it much more than at other times For surely so small a Suffering needeth not a quarter of the Patience as many poor Nonconformable Ministers and Thousands others need that are at liberty whose own Houses through Poverty are made far worse to them than my Prison was to me 3. To my Visitors I found Reason 1. To intreat my Acton-Neighbours not to let their Passion against their Parson on my account hinder them from a due regard to his Doctrine nor from any of the Duty which they owed him 2. To blame some who aggravated my Sufferings and to tell them That I had no mind to fancy my self hurt before I felt it I used at home to confine my self voluntarily almost as much I had ten-fold more publick a Life here and converse with my Friends than I had at home If I had been to take Lodgings at London for six Months and had not known that this had been a Prison and had knock'd at the Door and ask'd for Rooms I should as soon have taken this which I was put into as most in Town save only for the Interruption of my sleep That it sheweth great weakness to magnifie a small Suffering and much worse to magnifie our selves and our own Patience for bearing so small a thing than which most poor Men in England bear more every Day I found Cause to desire my Brethren that when they suffered they would remember that the design of Satan was more against their Souls than their Bodies and that it was not the least of his hopes to destroy their Love which wâ—s due to those by whom they suffered and to dishonour Superiours and by aggravating our Sufferings to render them odious to the People As also to make us take such a poor Suffering as this for a sign of true Grace instead of Faith Hope Love Mortification and a Heavenly Mind and that
Kingdom is to Heaven § 291. When I understood that the design was to ruin me by heaping up Convictions before I was heard to speak for my self I went to Sir Thomas Davis and told him that I undertook to prove that I broke not the Law and desired him that he would pass no Judgment till I had spoke for my self before my Accusers But I found him so ignorant of the Law as to be fully perswaded that if the Informers did but swear in general that I kept an unlawful meeting in Pretence of a Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England he was bound to take this general Oath for Proof and to record a Judgment and so that the Accusers were indeed the Judges and not he I told him that any Lawyer would soon tell him the contrary and that he was Judge whether by particular Proof they made good their general Accusation as it is in case a Man be accused of Felony or Treason it is not enough that Men swear that he is a Felon or Traytor they must name what his Fact was and prove him guilty And I was at charge in Feeing Counsellors to convince him and others and yet I could not perswade him out of his mistake I told him that if this were so any two such Fellows might defame and bring to Fines and Punishment himself and all the Magistrates and Parliament-Men themselves and all that meet in the Parish-Churches and Men had no Remedy At last he told me that he would consult with other Aldermen at the Sessions and they would go one way When the Sessions came I went to Guild-Hall and again desired him that I might be heard before I was Judged But though the other Aldermen save two or three were against such doings I could not prevail with him but professing great Kindness he then laid all on Sir Iohn Howell the Recorder saying that it was his Judgment and he must follow his Advice I desired him and Sir Thomas Allen that they would desire of the Recorder that I might be heard before I was Judged and that if it must pass by his Judgment that he would hear me speak But I could not procure it the Recorder would not speak with me When I saw their Resolution I told Sir Thomas Davis if I might not be heard I would record to Posterity the injustice of his Judgment and Record But I perceived that he had already made the Record but not yet given it in to the Sessions At last upon Consultation with his Leaders he granted me a hearing and three of the Informers met me at his House that had sworn against me I told them my particular Case and asked them what made my Preaching a Breach of that Law and how they proved their Accusation They first said Because I Preached in an unconsecrated Place I told them 1. That the Act only laid it on the manner of the Exercise which the Place was nothing to And 2. That it was the Practice of the Church of England to Preach in unconsecrated Places as at Sturbridge-Fair at the Spittle at Whitchall-Court and many such like They next said Because I am a Nonconformist I easily convinced them that I am not a Nonconformist in Law-sence but in the same case with a Conformist that hath no Benefice whatever I am in conscience the Law obliging me to no more than I do And if I were that is nothing to the manner of the exercise Their last and great proof was that I used not the Common Prayer I undertook to prove to them that Law commandeth the use of the Common Prayer only in Church Meetings and not in every other subordinate or by-Meeting for Religious Exercises such as ours was And that it was not the sense of the Act that Conformable persons that Communicate in the Liturgy with the Parish Churches should be judged Conventiclers whenever above four of them joyned in a Religious Exercise without the Liturgy For else all Tutors in the University should be punishable and all School-masters that teach their Scholars and pray with them if above 16 years of age and they that instruct Prisoners at Newgate and they that exhort and pray and sing Psalms with them at the Gallows with many such Instances We ought not to judge so uncharitably of King and Parliament unconstrained as to think that they would allow Multitudes to meet at a Play-house a Musick-house a horse-race a Bear-baiting or Dancing or any game and allow many to meet at a Coffee-house Ale-house or Tavern or in any private house and do on pain of utter ruine only forbid Conformable persons to joyn more than four in singing a Psalm or reading a Chapter or a Licensed book or in praying together or Conference tending to Religious Edification In Summ they confest they could not Answer me nor prove their charge but they still believed that I was guilty The Justice was so far from thinking that they proved it that he motioned to them to Retract their Oaths or else still he thought that he must condemn me They denyed to do that and said That the Bishop assured them That it was a Conventicle and I was guilty I desired them if it must all lie upon the Bishop that I might Speak with them to the Bishop for my self They told me That it was the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and they were all just now going to him and promised to bring me word when I might Speak with him But I heard no more of them of that But the Justice retracted not his Judgment but delayed a Month or more to give out his Warrant to distrein though I daily look when they take my books for they will find but little else Though both Justice and Accusers have before witness confessed that they cannot prove me guilty but one professeth to go on the belief of the Recorder and the other of the Archbishop § 292. But God hath more mercy on these ignorant Informers than on the Pharisaical Instigators of them For those repent but no Prelate save one that I hear of doth repent One of them that â—â—ore against me went the next Fast to Redrifâ— to Mr. Rosewell's Church where a Fast was kept where hearing three Ministers pray and preach his heart was melted and with Tears he lamented his former course and particularly his Accusing me and seemeth resolved for a new reformed Course of Life and is retired from his former Company to that end And a third the chief of the Informers lately in the Streets with great kindness to me professed that he would meddle no more coming by when a half distracted Fellow had Struck me on the head with his Staff and furiously reviled at me for Preaching with the titles of Rogue Villain Hypocrite Traytor c. as the Prelatists and Papists often do § 293. The Parliament meeting Apr. 13. they fell first on the D. of Lauderdale renewing their desire to
the 1 st 1662 nor ever since had any nor the offer of any And therefore the Law imposeth not on me the Declaration or the Assent or Consent no more than on Lawyers or Judges 2. I have the Bishop of London's License to Preach in his Diocess which supposeth me no Nonconformist in Law-sence And I have the Judgment of Lawyers even of the present Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Pollexfen that by that License I may Preach occasional Sermons 3. I have Episcopal Ordination and judge it gross Sacriledge to forsake my Calling 4. I am justified against suspicion of Rebellious Doctrine many ways 1. By my publick Retractation of any old accused words or writings 2. I was chosen alone to Preach the Publick Thanksgiving at St. Paul's for General Monk's success 3. The Commons in Parliament chose me to Preach to them at their Publick Fast for the King's Restoration and call'd him home the next day 4. I was Sworn Chaplain in Ordinary to the King 5. I was offered a Bishoprick 6. The Lord Chancellor who offered it attested under his hand His Majesty's Sense of my Defert and His Acceptance 7. I am justifyed in the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs among the rest there mention'd 8. When I Preached before the King he commanded the Printing of my Sermon 9. To which may be added the Act of Oblivion 10. And having published above an Hundred Books I was never yet convict of any ill Doctrine since any of the said Acts of King Parliament and others for my Discharge and Justification 5. I have oft Printed my judgment for Communion with the Parish Churches and exhorted others to it And having built a Chappel delivered it for Parish use 6. I was never lawfully Convict of Preaching in an unlawful Assembly for I was not once summon'd by the Justices that granted out the Five Warrants against me to answer for my self nor ever told who was my Accuser or who Witnessed against me And I have it under the hand of the present Lord Chief Justice that a Lawful Conviction supposeth Summons And the Lord Chief Justice Vaughan with Judge Tyrrel Archer and Wild did long ago discharge me upon their declaring that even the Warrant of my Commitment was illegal because no Accuser or Witness was named and so I was left remediless in case of false Accusation 7. As far as I understand it I never did Preach in any unlawful Assembly which was on pretence of any Exercise of Religion contrary to Law I Preached in Parish Churches where the Liturgy was Read as oft as I had leave and invitation And when I could not have that leave I never took any Pastoral Charge nor Preached for any Stipend but not daring perfidiously to desert the Calling which I was Ordained and Vowed to I Preacht occasional Sermons in other Men's Houses where was nothing done that I know of contrary to Law There was nothing done but Reading the Psalms and Chapters and the Creed Commandments and Lord's Prayer and Singing Psalms and Preaying and Praching and none of this is forbidden by Law The Omission of the rest of the Liturgy is no Act but a not-acting and therefore is no pretended Worship according to Law But were it otherwise the Law doth not impose the Liturgy on Families but only on Churches and a Family is not forbidden to have more than four Neighbours at saying Grace or Prayer nor is bound to give over Family-worship when-ever more than Four come in The Act alloweth Four to be present at Unlawful Worship but forbids not more to be present at Lawful Worship And House-worship without the Liturgy is lawful worship And yet if this were not so as the Curate's Omission of the Prayers makes not the Preacher and Assembly guilty suppose it were an Assize-Sermon that for hast omitted the Liturgy so the owner of the House by omitting the Liturgy maketh not him guilty that was not bound to use it nor the Meeting unlawful to any but himself Charity and Loyalty bind us to believe that our King and Parliament who allow more than many Four's to meet at a Play-house Tavern or Feast never meant to forbid more than Four to bâ—â—ogether in a House to sing a Psalm or Pray or Read a Licensed Book or edifie each other by Godly Conference while no Crime is found by any Man in the Matter of their Doctrine or Prayer and no Law imposeth the Liturgy on any but Church-Meetings If after many years Reproach once Imprisonment and the late Distress and Sale of all my Books and Goods and those that were none of mine but another's and this by five or six Warrants for present Execution without any Summons or Notice of Accusers or Witnesses I could yet have leave to die in peace and had not been again persecuted with new Inditements I had not presumed thus to plead or open my own Cause I Pray God that my Prosecutors and Judges may be so prepared for their near Account that they may have no greater sin laid to their Charge than keeping my Ordination-Vow is and not Sacrilegiously forsaking my Calling who have had so good a Master so good a Word so good Success and so much Attestation from King Parliament City and Bishops as I have haâ— If they ask why I Conform not I say I do as far as any Law bindeth me If they ask why I take not this Oath I say Because I neither understand it nor can prevail with Rulers to Explain it And if have a good sence I have not only subscribed to it but to much more in a Book called The second Plea for Peace page 60 61 62. Where also I have professed my Loyalty much further than this Oath extendeth But if it have a bad sence I will not take it And I find the Conformists utterly disagreed of the Sence and most that I hear of renouncing that sence which the words signifie in their common use And knowing that Perjury is a mortal Enemy to the Life and Safety of Kings and the Peace of Kingdoms and to Converse and to Man's Salvation I will not dally with such a dangerous Crime Nor will I deceive my Rulers by Stretches and Equivocations nor do I believe Lying lawful after all that Grotius de Iure Belli and Bishop Taylor Duct Dub. have said for it I think Oaths imposed are to be taken in the ordinary sense of the words if the Imposers put not another on them And I dare not Swear that a Commission under the Broad-Seal is no Commission till I that am no Lawyer know it to be Legal Nor yet that the Lord Keeper may Depose the King without resistance by Sealing Commissions to Traytors to seize on his Forts Navy Militia or Treasure Nor can I consent to make all the present Church-Government as unalterable as the Monarchy especially when the Seventh Canon extendeth it to an caetèra to Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same not
separated to God's Service those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and of Ieduthun who should prophesie with Harps c. 1 Chron. 25. 1 6. They were for the Service of the House of God according to the King's Order so 1 Chron. 16. 4. so did Solomon 2 Chron. 8. 14 15. The Magistrates Power in Church Matters was no Ceremony or Temporary Thing 13. When any Officers of the Temple were discovered to have no just Title and thereupon were put out yet none of their Actions while they were in Place were censured null Ergo if now any be discovered to have no just Title his former Actions are not to be judged null The Reason of the Consequence lyeth in the Equality of the Case The Antecedent is proved from Ezra 2. 62. Neb. 7. 64 65. They sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogy but they were not found therefore were they as polluted put from the Priest hood So Neh. 13. 29 30. And therefore the Ordination done before such Ejection is not null And that the individual Person to receive this Power may be determined of in case of necessity without an Ecclesiastical Authoritative Determination may further appear thus 1. If the individual Person may be determined of ordinarily or sometimes by the Peoples Election to be presented to the Ministers for their Ordination or Confirmation then may the individual Person be determined of by the People to be presented to God immediately for his Ordination in case there be no Ordainers to be had But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Antecedent is proved 1. From the Apostles Instruction to the Church of Ierusalem Act. 6. 3. Choose you or look you out seven Men of honest Report full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom whom we may appoint over this Business They describe the Men and leave them to nominate them that were such And if the Church can do this to present to the Apostles then it seems they are competent Discerners of Such If the Apostles had said We do appoint and authorize the seven Men whom you shall choose so that they be such and such Men the Ordination had been as valid on Supposition of such an Election as it was when it followed the Election And if the Apostles might have so done no doubt God may so do by his Law For he doth the same viz. describe the Persons and confer the Power particularly and on an Individuum vagum and sometimes quasi signatum and if popular Election can make it an Individuum determinatum then all is done 2. And the Church hath continued this Custom so far that Councils decreed Ordinations invalid without Elections of the People yea if they were but afrighted and over-awed and did it not freely Insomuch that Cyprian faith Plebs maximam habet potestatem vel dignos Sacerdotas elegendi vel indig nos recusandi Till the bloody bout in the choice of Damasus it is known that the Peoples Election was the principle Determiner of the individual Person or at least did much in it For the Consequence the Reason of it lyes here in that Scripture may apparently suffice for all except the Nomination of the Individual as you seem to intimate in laying the stress of all your Argument upon this that it meddles with no Individuum of these times The Law gives Authority to that individual Person that is justly nominated or determined of But a right qualified Man chosen only by the People in case there be no Ordainer is justly determinated of or nominated Ergo The Law gives Authority to such Where note that the Law needs no other Condition to the actuating of its Conveyance but only the Determination of the recipient Person Then note that regularly Officers and People are to join in this Determination of the Person The People sometime being in electing and the Officers conclusively determine and sometimes the Officers begin and the People after consent but both must concur and all that both can do is to determine of the Man whom God by his Law shall authorize though the very determination it self as by the Officers is an Act of Authority Now whenever two Parties are made Con-causes or are to concur in such Determinations when one Party faileth the Power and Duty is solely in the other At least it is hence apparent that there is a possible way left for the determining of Individuums in this Age. 2. If the Law do so far describe the Persons to receive Power as that a Bishop can nominate the Persons by the Light of that Description then it doth so far describe the Persons as that others may nominate them by the Light of that Description But the Antecedent is true Ergo The Antecedent you will own or else farewell all Episcopal Ordination The Consequence is plain in that others may be able to see that which a Bishop can see and in necessity at least may do it This therefore wholly answers your Argument against the Law being a sufficient Medium eo nomine because it meddles not with Individuums for it meddles with none of the Individuals which Bishops determine of and yet it is the Law that conveys the Power when the Bishop hath determined of the Person to receive it as Spalatensis hath largely proved of Kings Law is God's Instrument of conveying Right and imposing Duty though Men may be the Media Applicationis The Law is to be conceived as in this Form I do authorize the Persons that shall be justly determined of according to this Description And because Ministerial Determinations are the ordinary regular way with the Peoples Consent it is q. d. Ordinarily I do authorize the Persons whom Ecclesiastical Power shall determine of according to this Description So that it is God by his Law that gives the Power As when a Corporation is to choose their Bailiff or Major it is the Law or Charter that is the immediate Instrument of effective Conveyance of the Power though the Choosers are the Media Applicationis and perhaps some capital Burgesses may have the chief Power in choosing him ordinarily 3. If the People may per Iudicium Discretionis discern whether a Bishop have ordained them one agreeable to the Scripture Description then may they also discern whether a Man be agreeable to it though unordained But the antecedent is true Ergo Were not the People to judge of this then they must receive any Heretick or Infidel without Tryal if ordained their Bishop But that is not true Though the Officers contradict it yet the People of themselves are bound to reject a Heretick Bishop 1. It is a general Precept A Man that is a Heretick avoid and with such no not to eat If a Bishop ordain over this Church a common unreformed Drunkard Rayler c. The Holy Ghost bids us not to eat i. e. have Communion with him 2. Cyprian determines it that Plebâ— obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a Peccatore praeposito
Apostles Writings in reference to the Doctrine of Justification which being attended to the scope and meaning of them will plainly appear there hath been a seventh most insisted on which is not I think there to be found And this hath come to pass for want of understanding the difference between the two Covenants and for want of a distinct consideration of the several false Opinions of the then present Jews about Justification which the Apostles in their Writings engage against The Oppositions I mean are these 1. As the promise of Justification and Eternal Life upon condition of Faith in the Promise relating to the Messias before he came is opposed to the Promise of Temporal Felicity upon condition of a due Observation of the Law of Moses Gal. 3. 11 12. 2. As the Promise of Justification and Life upon condition of Faith in the Promise to Abraham is opposed to the Errour of the Jews who held that Promise to be made to Abraham upon condition of Circumcision and to them as his Seed upon condition of a Litteral Observation of the Law of Moses Rom. 2 3 and 4th Chapters Gal. 2 3 and 4th Chapters 3. As the Promise of Justification and Life upon condition of Faith in Christ as crucified is opposed to the Errour of the Unbelieving Jews who held it promised to their Litteral Observation of the Law of Moses without Faith in the Death of Christ Heb. 8 9 and 10 Chapters 4. As the Promise of Justification and Life upon condition of Faith and Gospel Obedience only is opposed to the Opinion of some Judaizing Christians who held the same to be promised upon condition of Faith in Christ and a Litteral Observation of the Law of Moses jointly Gal. 5. Acts 15. 1 5. 5. As the Promise made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed is opposed to the Opinion of the unbelieving Jews who held it made to his Natural Seed as such Or which is much the same as the Promise made to Persons so and so qualified is opposed to the Jewish Opinion of an absolute and unconditionate Promise made to them in Person as they were the Offspring of Abraham Rom. 9. 6 7 8. Rom. 2. 28 29. 6. As Justification by Faith accompanied with Gospel Obedience is opposed to the Opinion of some Professors of Christianity Gnosticks or other Solifidians who held Justification by Faith alone without reference to or necessity of a holy Life Iames 2. 1 Epist. Iohn Iude 3 4 c. These are the things to which the Controversal Part of the Apostles Writings in reference to the Point of Justification do relate But beside these there is another insisted on as if it were still included and intended in the Apostles reasonings against Justification by Works of the Law and that is an Opposition between Faith and all Works in reference to Justification as well such as consist in Gospel Obedience as the effect of Faith strictly taken as those which are properly Works of the Mosaical Law Whereas such an Opposition seems to be not only without but against Scripture Evidence For Gospel Obedience as an inseparable effect of Saving Faith is as well as Faith and together with Faith opposed to the Works of Moses's Law in point of Justification For so I take it to be where it is said Circumcision which by a Synecdoche is put for the Works of the Law availeth nothing but faith which worketh by love which is as much as to say which worketh by keeping the Commandments of God and by fulfilling the Law for so Love is said to be Yea Evangelical Obedience as comprehending Faith no doubt is by the same figure of Speech as before opposed to the Works of Moses's Law where it is said that Circumcision is nothing and Uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the Commandments of God The like Opposition again is made between the Works of the Law and the New Creature which consists in a new frame of Spirit and cannot be considered without new Obedience in will and resolution at least Gal. 6. 15. This Opposition which some make between Faith and Gospel Obedience in the Point of Justification seems like unto that if not the same in Iude which was made by the Gnosticks and which Iames opposeth in his Epistle rather than any which the Scripture any where maketh And truly this Opinion together with another as groundless as this hath I fear been a great Underminer of the Power of Religion in the Hearts and Lives of Men and a Betrayer of the Souls of many and that is that by Faith without Works the Righteousness or Obedience of Christ is not only virtually which we all hold but formally imputed to us for righteousness so that we are reckoned to have obeyed in his Obedience Which I think hath not been the Doctrine of a few called Antinomians only but of so many that not long since he could hardly be counted Orthodox that did not hold so too And it is to be feared that many that have been of these Opinions have thought themselves good Christians and in a justified state though otherwise of ill Tempers and of bad Lives Whereas did they understand that the design of the New Covenant is to restore the Humane Nature gradually to that rectitude and perfection from which it fell and that the terms of it are so laid that no Man can have any ground of confidence of enjoying the Saving Benefits of it further then he knows that he sincerely endeavours in the use of means to recover that rectitude and to be perfecting holiness in the fear of God they would be delivered from that delusive Confidence and consequently be put upon such sincere endeavours or be deprived of the comfort of that delusive Confidence by which while they are under it they support themselves All which considered if really true as I apprehend them to be what I have humbly moved to you cannot but be a most worthy Work and of great acceptation to very many as well as of general and of most important use unto all And in case you resolve on it I think to use as much brevity as will consist with plainness and as much plainness as the nature of the thing will bear will be generally most acceptable and most profitable and the more inviting to be read I have made bold herewith to send you some Papers which sometime since were written for private use and for trial of what might fairly be made out touching the Subject Matter of them To the end you may be them see some of the things more fully exprest which are but hinted in this Letter as also to desire your Judgment Whether the main scope of them be Matter of Truth or Matter of Errour And in particular I desire your Thoughts Whether that perfect Obedience which Mr. Truman insists on or that sincere Obedience mentioned in these Papers was the Condition of the first Covenant And whether the first Covenant as such did threaten Eternal Punishment to
or the Law and Canon Answ. It is an hard Task to a Minister of Christ either so to practice or so to speak as shall seem to accuse his Rulers and the Laws but when the saving of our own or other Mens Souls requireth it there is no remedy Our own silence if we ceased Preaching and our practice contrary to the Law in Preaching or Praying which is forbidden do against our wills unavoidably intimate that we suppose great sins to be commanded us And whether we preach or be silent while we Subscribe not Declare not Covenant not and Swear not and Practice not all that is required of us this cannot be hid Though our cautelousness and fear of accusing our Governours or the Conforming Ministers have given some Men occasion to affirm That we take not Conformity for a sin or that no considerable persons among us dare say so we spare the Authors whose published Names are dishonoured by themselves when prefixed to such words as he that will but read our Petition for Peace and our Reply unanswered delivered to the commissioned Bishops 1660. will say did ill beseem a Doctor a Preacher a Christian or a Man We profess from the first to this day that it is a great sin in us to forbear our Ministry or to exercise it in a forbidden manner especially when such doleful Divisions and Calamities follow it if it be not sin that is required of us and if it be not many and heinous sins our peace in suffering will have some less reason to that than we have thought it had Therefore being urged I cannot in Conscience deny a plain Answer to this Question But I despair of satisfying those Men that must have that which Augustine said he hated viz. A short Answer to a long and hard Question and that cannot away with distinction when distinct matters must be spoken to Let such Readers cast this Answer aside as being not suited to their Wits and Dispositions 1. We must distinguish between an Infant or Child in the Parents Family and one that is at Age or gone out of the Family 2. Between a thing that is either Duty or Sin or Indifferent in it self by the Law of God and Mens thinking it to be so or not so 3. And particularly between a Minister justly silenced and People justly prohibited to meet and those that are unjustly silenced and forbidden 4. Between the Prohibition or Command of the Civil Magistrate and of the Bishops 5. Between the Command of Laws or Parents to hear such and such Ministers and their Prohibition not to hear others nor joyn in such Assemblies 6. Between an Act of Formal Obedience to a Command and an Act of Prudence moved by the good or hurt that will follow 7. Between guilt of Divine Revenge and guilt of Humane Punishment I make use of all these distinctions in resolving your Doubt by 〈◊〉 following Propositions I. There is no Power but of God and none above God nor agâ—â—â—â—â— or any of his Laws All Laws are null to Conscience as being no Acts of true Authority thereto that are against the Laws of God in Nature or Scripâ—â—â—e II. Though only Rulers be Judges publickly to decide Controversiâ—â— and punish Offenders every rational Man must judge discerningly of his Duty what God's Law and Man's require else we were not governed as Men but 〈…〉 nor were accountable for our Actions to God any further than whether we obeyed Men And else all under Heathens Mahometans Papists Heretiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 be of the Kings Religion And then if the King and a Usurper strive for the Crown we must not be Judges whose part we must take All which are intolerable Consequents III. Every true Minister of Christ is in his Ordination devoted and consecrated to that Sacred Office during Ability and Life And it is from the Law of Christ that their Authority immediately ariseth as the Lord Mayor's from the King's Charter though Men elect and the Ordainers invest them in it by delivery And as he that crowneth the King cannot depose him or he that marrieth Persons cannot unmarry them no more can any depose a Pastor and dissolve his Obligations to his Office but in case of such Crimes as God's Law deposeth him for and enableth them to do it Of which Bishop Bilson of Obedience speaketh soundly too large to be here recited IV. For a Minister of Christ to forsake his Calling or Work while his Vow and the true â—â—cessity of Souls continue his Obligation and this meerly because he is unjustly forbidden by Man is to be odiously persidious and sacrilegious and a Deserter of his great Lord and Master's Work and a Murderer of the Souls which he neglecteth as verily as Parents murder their Children whom they give not food to And no Murderer hath Eternal Life were it but of the Body or Temporal Life such being as Cain of him that was a Murderer from the beginning and contrary to Christ who came to seek and save the lost V. The unjust forbidding Christ's Ministers to preach his Gospel is a sin so exceeding heinous as that no Christian should either concur in the Guilt or be so scandalous as to seem to do it Had I lived in Germany when many hundred Ministers were ejected and thereby the Churches cast into division and confusion and Protestant Preachers turned against each other about the Form or Book called the Interim while Melanchthon and some good Men partly conformed to save the Churches from ruine and Illyricus and more were Nonconformists I would not for all the Riches of the World appear before God in the Guilt of those three Men that did Compile that Book Iulius Pâ—â—ug Sidonius and Islebius Agricola or of those that for it silenced or banished Christs's Ministers 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom Preach the word be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine 1. Thess. 2. 15 16. Who both killed the Lord Iesus and their own Prophets and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved to fill up their sins always for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost When they persecute you in one City flee to another Shake off the dust of your feet against them It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Iudgment than for that City Matth 10. 14 15. and 23. 22. VI. God hath set up more Governments in the World than one and each hath its proper works and bounds and one may not destroy the other There is private Self-Government Family-Government Church-Government and Civil-Government each have their proper Ends also though all have one common End the pleasing of God The King in his manner and measure and to his Ends the Publick Good is