not to take notice of any thing Mr. Baxter had said of me because as they said his tongue is no slander nor his pen neither especially when he whets either the one or the other against Bishops and because I had already long ago both answered and prevented all the Objections he had then or hath since made against the truth of what I had said of him in relation to the Conference at the Savoy and of the justice of what I had done to him when I was Bishop of Worcester which is now above 20 years ago These perswasions and reasons together with the consideration of the little time I had left for better employment prevaild with me to lay aside some few Observations and Animadversions I had begun to make upon some particulars relating to me in some of Mr. Baxter's late Writings untill some other of my Learned and Reverend Brethren did very lately let me know that in their opinion I was obliged for the Churches sake as well as for mine own not to suffer it to be said hereafter that a Bishop of the Church of England having been told and told in Print that he was a Preacher of untruths and consequently a liar in the pulpit a slanderer of all the Non-conformists nay a blasphemer or a defier not of Humanity onely but of the Deity it self had nothing to say because he did say nothing to the contrary though I could have replied that I thought and some others of my Reverend Brethren thought also that the Letter I had written and printed so long ago with the Testimony annexed to it was enough and more than enough to vindicate me from the two first of those Reproaches and to prevent the last of them also yet because they have been again repeated and because there hath been since a Book written and written on purpose as Mr. Baxter the Authour of it saith to prove Bishop Morley to have been grosly mistaken in the relation he hath made in the aforesaid Letter of what was asserted by Mr. Baxter in the aforesaid Conference at the Savoy and because it was since the writing of that Letter also that he makes me a defier of Deity and Humanity because I am not of his opinion that all unlimited Governours are Tyrants and have no right to their Governments for these reasons I say and for the satisfaction of some of my friends rather than out of any inclination of mine own who love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be quiet and to doe mine own business as well as Mr. Baxter doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have an Oar in every man's Boat and thereby quieta movere to disquiet both himself and others I have adventured to launch forth once more though I have reason to fear I may not live to finish what I have begun not because I foresee any difficulty at all in the work I have to doe I mean the justifying of my self against any thing Mr. Baxter hath laid unto my charge but because humanely speaking there is so little of the sand in the Hour-glass of my life left which yet if it last but a month or two longer before it be run out with the continuance of that mediocrity of health of body and soundness of mind which by God's great goodness and mercy I do yet enjoy I hope it will by God's gracious assistance be long enough to make the impartial part of the world see that Mr. Baxter is not a man of that sincerity ingenuity or integrity as he would be thought and perhaps he is by those who have his person in admiration but one that will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve his turn for the present and to keep up his reputation with his party say or unsay affirm or deny any thing either in matter of right or of fact and juggle one proposition into the room of another as if it were identically the same or at least equipollent or equivalent to the other when there is nothing of likeness either in sound or of sense betwixt them Which that it may the more clearly appear and that the impartial Reader may the better judge both of what I have said of him and what he hath said of me and whether I or he have dealt more difingenuously or injuriously with one another I have caused all that I printed before to be reprinted viz. Mr. Baxter's own report of the Conference at the Savoy and my Letter in reply to that report of his together with the Collection of Aphorisms out of that Book which he calls his Holy Commonwealth and all these verbatim in the same words without any the least addition diminution or alteration onely I have added thereunto another Paper of Mr. Baxter's which I met with since and which he calls a Revocation or Recantation of his Book of the Holy Commonwealth or Political Aphorisms which whether it be indeed a Recantation or such a Recantation as it ought to have been or no we shall examine in due place But I have added I say that because it was printed by him since the printing of what I have now reprinted and because it is in that paper that Mr. Baxter hath been pleased to expose me as a Defier of Deity and Humanity This Advertisement I thought fit to premise and withall to desire the impartial Reader first to peruse what I have reprinted I mean Mr. Baxter's Narrative to his Kidderminster friends and my Letter in answer thereunto together with Mr. Baxter's Political Aphorisms annexed to that Letter and then to take notice of the time when that Narrative of his and Letter of mine were first printed which was 10 years before the publishing of his pretended Recantation of all or any of his aforesaid Aphorisms and lastly when he hath done this to proceed to the perusing of what upon another provocation of Mr. Baxter's I now write to justifie what I writ before and after mature deliberation to pronounce sentence for me or against me as he shall see cause Reader You are desired to take notice that this work was prepared designed and expected to have come forth before Easter-Term last THE Bishop of Worcester's LETTER To a Friend For VINDICATION of himself FROM Mr. BAXTER'S Calumny Together with The ATTESTATION of Dr. GVNNING and Dr. PEARSON AND A Collection of Mr. Baxter's Theses and Doctrine concerning Government Reprinted Tenet insanabile multos Scribendi Cacoethes LONDON Printed for Joanna Brome 1683. Mr. Baxter hath lately printed a Book called The Mischiefs of Self-Ignorance and the Benefits of Self-Acquaintance in the Address of which Book to his dearly beloved the Inhabitants of Kidderminster he hath this ensuing passage relating to the Bishop of Worcester IN a disputation by writing those of the other part formed an Argument whose Major Proposition was to this sense for I have no Copy Whatsoever Book enjoyneth nothing but what is of it self lawfull and by lawfull Authority enjoyneth nothing that is sinfull We denied this
all others besides themselves are to be excluded from Governing or chusing of Governours And amongst the ungodly that are to be thus excluded he reckons all those that will not hearken to their Pastours he means the Presbyterian Classis or that are despisers of the Lord's-Day that is all such as are not Sabbatarians or will not keep the Lord's day after the Jewish manner which they prescribe and which is condemned for Judaism by all even of the Presbyterian perswasion in the world but those of England and Scotland onely XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Sovereign shall sinfully dispossess him and contrary to their Covenants chuse and Covenant with another they may be obliged by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former and particular subjects that consented not in the breaking of their former Covenants may yet be obliged by occasion of their latter choice to the person whom they chuse Thes. 181. XVI If a Nation injuriously deprive themselves of a worthy Prince the hurt will be their own and they punish themselves but if it be necessarily to their welfare it is no injury to him But a King that by war will seek reparations from the body of the people doth put himself into an hostile State and tells them actually that he looks to his own good more than theirs and bids them take him for their Enemy and so defend themselves if they can Pag. 424. XVII Though a Nation wrong their King and so quoad Meritum causoe they are on the worser side yet may he not lawfully war against the publick good on that account nor any help him in such a war because propter fiuem he hath the worser cause Thes. 352. And yet as he tells us pag 476. we were to believe the Parliaments Declarations and professions which they made that the war which they raised was not against the King either in respect of his Authority or of his Person but onely against Delinquent Subjects and yet they actually fought against the King in person and we are to believe saith Mr. Baxter pag. 422. that men would kill them whom they fight against Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the Government of England in particular HE denies the Government of England to be Monarchical in these words I. The real Sovereignty here amongst us was in King Lords and Commons Pag. 72. II. As to them that argue from the Oath of Supremacy and the title given the King I refer them saith Mr. Baxter to Mr. Lawson's answer to Hobbs's Politicks where he sheweth that the Title is often given to the single Person for the honour of the Commonwealth and his encouragement because he hath an eminent interest but will not prove the whole Sovereignty to be in him and the Oath excludeth all others from without not those whose interest is implied as conjunct with his The eminent dignity and interest of the King above others allowed the name of a Monarchy or Kingdom to the Commonwealth though indeed the Sovereignty was mixed in the hands of the Lords and Commons Pag. 88. III. He calls it a false supposition 1. That the Sovereign power was onely in the King and so that it was an absolute Monarchy 2 That the Parliament had but onely the proposing of Laws and that they were Enacted onely by the King's Authority upon their request 3. That the power of Arms and of War and Peace was in the King alone And therefore saith he those that argue from these false suppositions conclude that the Parliament being Subjects may not take up Arms without him and that it is Rebellion to resist him and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy and from the Parliaments calling of themselves his Subjects but their grounds saith he are sandy and their superstructure false Pag. 459 460. And therefore Mr. Baxter tells us that though the Parliament are Subjects in one capacity yet have they their part in the Sovereignty also in their higher capacity Ibid. And upon this false and traitorous supposition he endeavours to justifie the late Rebellion and his own more than ordinary activeness in it For IV. Where the Sovereignty saith he is distributed into several hands as the King 's and Parliaments and the King invades the others part they may lawfully defend their own by war and the Subject lawfully assist them yea though the power of the Militia be expresly given to the King unless it be also exprest that it shall not be in the other Thes. 363. The conclusion saith he needs no proof because Sovereignty as such hath the power of Arms and of the Laws themselves The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia supposeth it to be against Enemies and not against the Commonwealth nor them that have part of the Sovereignty with him To resist him here is not to resist power but usurpation and private will in such a case the Parliament is no more to be resisted than he Ibid. V. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Declaration of the dangers of the Common-wealth the people are to take it as raised against the Commonwealth Thes. 358. And in that case saith he the King may not onely be resisted but ceaseth to be a King and entreth into a state of War with the people Thes. 368. VI. Again if a Prince that hath not the whole Sovereignty be conquered by a Senate that hath the other part and that in a just defensive War that Senate cannot assume the whole Sovereignty but supposeth that government in specie to remain and therefore another King must be chosen if the former be incapable Thes. 374. as he tells us he is by ceasing to be King in the immediately precedent Thes. VII And yet in the Preface to this Book he tells us that the King withdrawing so he calls the murthering of one King and the casting off of another the Lords and Commons ruled alone was not this to change the species of the Government Which in the immediate words before he had affirmed to be in King Lords and Commons which constitution saith he we were sworn and sworn and sworn again to be faithfull to and to defend And yet speaking of that Parliament which contrary to their Oaths changed this Government by ruling alone and taking upon them the Supremacy he tells us that they were the best Governours in all the world and such as it is forbidden to Subjects to depose upon pain of damnation What then was he that deposed them one would think Mr. Baxter should have called him a Traitour but he calls him in the same Preface the Lord Protector adding That he did prudently piously faithfully and to his immortal honour exercise the Government which he left to his Son to whom as Mr. Baxter saith pag. 484. he is bound to submit as set over us by God and to obey for conscience sake and to behave himself as a Loyal Subject towards him
necessary consequences of their blasphemous Doctrine of Transubstantiation and as I believe Mr. Baxter doth the necessary consequences of that Assertion I charged him with Nay I am apt to believe that Mr. Baxter himself now he sees what will necessarily follow upon that Assertion of his is sorry and ashamed that ever he did assert it and wishes with all his heart he had never asserted it but his heart is too great to suffer him to confess it and he values his reputation with his Party at too high a rate to acknowledge that ever he was guilty of so much weakness as to have denied what he did deny and consequently to have asserted what he did assert And therefore as I said before he would fain have it to be believed that it was another thing that he denied and asserted than indeed it was But all that he hath done hitherto or can doe hereafter to that end will be all in vain and to no purpose as long as two such Witnesses as the Bishop of Ely and the Bishop of Chester who disputed with him have attested it under their hands presently after the matter of fact and when it was fresh in every man's memory without having been contradicted or excepted against either by Mr. Baxter himself or any of his party in his behalf though it be above twenty years ago since this Attestation of theirs was first printed And therefore whatsoever Mr. Baxter hath said since or doth say now or shall say hereafter it will never make what he did say then to be non dictum not to have been said or what he writ then to be non scriptum not to have been written so that he may as well call back yesterday as unsay what he had said repent it he may but recall it he cannot If therefore that Pamphlet of his concerning sinfulness per accidens was purposely written as he saith it was to prove Bishop Morley was grossly mistaken in charging him with what he did assert then because he doth not assert it now or because he now doth assert the contrary the publishing of it to that end is not onely vain and useless but absurd and ridiculous unless Mr. Baxter thinks his own Party does believe of him as the Bygott-Papists do of their Pope namely that he never erred because he cannot err which is Blasphemy to be said of any but of God For Errare labi decipi suit eritque semper humanum to err to slip to be deceived and mistaken hath been and will always be the effect and character of Humane frailty And therefore Mr. Baxter ought not to have taken it so heinously to be charged and to be charged ashe was with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that which is but an humane infirmity for so and no more but so is all Errour But the denying of it and much more the persisting in it and defending of it and most of all the defending of it by disguising it and making a false representation of it seems to have somewhat of a much worse principle in it and makes the Errour to be much more culpable than otherwise it would have been for Causa Patrocinio non bona pejor erit A bad cause will but prove worse by standing out in it and endeavouring to make it good It would have been therefore much more ingenuously and much more excusably too done of Mr. Baxter if as when he speaks of his Political Aphorisms he saith he would have some part at least of that Book to be taken pro non scripto as if it had never been written so in speaking of what I say he said in the Conference at the Savoy he would not have said it was non dictum a thing that he had not said but that he would have it taken pro non dicto as a thing he wished he had not said and so he might have saved all the pains he hath taken and all the trouble he hath given his Readers in his Metaphysical Casuistical Treatise of things sinfull per accidens wherein there is nothing to prove Mr. Baxter did not say what I say he did at the Conference in the Savoy nor consequently to prove that I was grossly mistaken in charging him with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is the thing I was to make out Which being the onely Instance he hath given of the many mistakes in matter of fact which he saith there are in that long ago printed and now reprinted Letter of mine They that observe how notwithstanding all the disingenuous fraudulent scandalous and injurious Artifices he hath made use of he foully fails in the proof of this one mistake onely will I hope hardly take his own bare word for proof enough that there are many or indeed any other mistakes in matter of fact in that Letter of mine as he pretends there are and no doubt would not have omitted to specifie if he could have proved any of them The End of the First Section SECTION II. A Confutation at large of Mr. Baxter's Aphorism concerning Governours wherein having said that Governours are some Limited some de facto Vnlimited he affirms that The unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to that unlimited Government CHAP. I. A calumnious Charge of Mr. Baxter in some late writings of his against the Bishop making him to be a defier of Deity and Humanity answered One of his Aphorisms concerning Governours limited and unlimited taxed and censured The Bishop's solemn declaration in the point ANd now having as I suppose sufficiently vindicated my self from what Mr. Baxter hath excepted against as a gross mistake of mine in matter of Fact in my so long ago printed and now reprinted Letter I am if I can and I doubt not but I can to vindicate my self from a much higher charge of Mr. Baxter's against me which is no less than That I am a defier of Deity and Humanity An horrible and a diabolical Crime if true and therefore an horrible and diabolical Slander if false which whether it be or no I am now to examine But first I must make it appear that Mr. Baxter doth indeed and in totidem verbis in plain terms charge me to be so For proof whereof I refer my self to a printed Paper of his now before me subscribed R. B. and pretended to be a Recantation or Revocation of some of his Political Aphorijms in his Holy Common wealth in which Paper which together with some of his Aphorisms I have caused to be reprinted he saith He doth not reverse all the matter of that Book nor all that more than ONE hath accused him of which he saith he cannot without defying Deity and Humanity as they saith he meaning his accusers defie them both In which words it is observable that the word One is printed in a different Character from any of the rest on purpose no doubt that the Readers of that pretended curtail'd Recantation may take
notice of whom he means by that One which it was easy for any that had read my Collection of some of his Aphorisms to guess at but this is certain that whomsoever he means by that One he saith of him in express terms that he is a defier of Deity and Humanity Now that he means me by that One though it be not clearly and plainly exprest in that Paper yet it is more than intimated in Mr. Baxter's Answer to a Letter of Dr. Hinckley's wherein he doth repeat what the Doctor had said touching those Aphorisms of his which I had collected and printed so as though neither of them name me yet it cannot be doubted but both of them mean me the rather because Mr. Baxter doth there and in that place of his Letter set down the very words of the first of those Aphorisms I have collected from denial of which Aphorism or rather from the denial of another Proposition substituted by him in the place or instead of that Aphorism he doth in the aforesaid Paper infer and conclude that One he speaks of to be a defier of Deity and Humanity But to put it out of question that I am the man he means by that One in the aforesaid Paper and whom he there makes to be a defier of Deity and Humanity There is a late I will not say the last Book of his for he may have writ two or three since for ought I know wherein he saith He wonders that Bishop Morley there you have whom he means in words at length and not in figures or figurative intimations onely did put the denial of this amongst the accused passages of his Political Aphorisms where saith he I expressly speak of God's limitation But what or of what was that denial of Mr. Baxter which he wonders the Bishop puts among the accused passages of his Aphorisms Why It was saith he my denial that there was any such thing in the World as a lawfull unlimited Monarchy or humane Power expressly speaking of limitation by God But where doth Bishop Morley accuse Mr. Baxter for denying there is any lawfull Monarchy or humane Power unlimited by God He doth it saith Mr. Baxter among the Passages of my accused Aphorisms But why doth not he name the passage where or the particular Aphorism wherein I do accuse him for his denying the aforesaid Proposition or for his denying there is any lawfull Monarchy or any other humane Power unlimited or not limited by God I will tell you why he doth not because indeed he cannot there being no such Aphorism nor any such Passage in any of those Aphorisms of his which I question him for or accuse him of There is indeed an Aphorism of his viz. the first of those which I have collected and exposed wherein he saith That of Governours some are limited and some are unlimited and those which are de facto unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to their unlimited Governments And the reason why I put this Aphorism of his into the catalogue of those which I except against is his affirming that such Governours I presume he means all such Governours as are de facto unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to their unlimited Governments It is I say his affirming of this and not his denying the lawfulness of a Monarchy or any other power or species of Government that is not limited by God that I question him for or accuse him of For if he thinks the affirming of that and the denying of this to be all one he is very much mistaken but the truth is that he is not at all mistaken as to this particular he knows well enough that it is not all one to affirm the one and deny the other for if he had thought it had been so why did he not specifie the Aphorism it self which I except against in terminis as it is set down in my Collection and as he sets it down himself in his aforesaid Letter to Dr. Hinckley It had been much more fairly and ingenuously done of him if he had done so and much more pertinently too as to the business in hand there being no question betwixt him and me in relation to the truth or falshood of the aforesaid Aphorism whether all lawfull Monarchies or humane Powers are limited by God or no but whether all such Governours as are de facto unlimited not by God but by Men are Tyrants and such as have no Right to their unlimited Governments The former I never did nor no man that is not a downright professed Atheist can deny to be true The latter I affirm to be false and not false and erroneous onely but dangerous and seditious also and I doubt not but by God's assistance to prove it to be so In the mean time let no man think it was the not discerning or not animadverting the difference betwixt what Mr. Baxter affirms in his Aphorism and what he denies in his Paraphrase of it that makes him substitute the one for the other Non sic notus Vlysses The cunning man is better known than so No he doth it artificially and designingly that he might the more probably and plausibly infer from the one what he knew he could not with any colour of consequence infer from the other and thereby to vent the overflowing of his Gall against me in revenge of my publishing of those Aphorisms of his whereby he seems to be so much galled And hence it is that as in the aforesaid recanting or rather canting Paper of his instead of my denying all unlimited Governours to be Tyrants and to have no right to their unlimited Governments which he affirms in his Aphorism he saith I deny all humane Powers to be limited by God and thence infers that I am a defier of Deity and Humanity So here again in that aforesaid late printed Book of his instead of my denial of what he affirms in the aforesaid Aphorism he saith that I accuse him for denying that there is any lawfull Monarchy or humane Power unlimited by God and then infers That he who asserteth the contrary as he implies I do is 1. saith he an Enemy to God because he denies God to be the universal Sovereign which is Atheism 2. He is an Enemy to Kings because he renders them odious to Mankind by drawing such a picture or description of them as to say a King is absolutely unlimited in his power and therefore may deny or blaspheme God and may destroy City and Kingdom and kill all the innocent People when he pleaseth 3. He is an Enemy to all Mankind who would bring them all into such a slavery to such a Monster By which large and indeed monstrous Paraphrase of his not upon what I do indeed assert but upon what he would have his Readers believe I do assert he explains what he means when he said I was a defier of Deity and Humanity Sed ne soevi
could wish and if I had authority enough I would take care that neither in Sermons unless in the Vniversities and other like learned Auditories nor in any of our ordinary English Books of Divinity any sense or Exposition should be given of any place passage or word in the Scripture other than is rendred in the allowed and vulgar English Translation which is used in our Churches and that not onely though chiefly for the reason before specified but also because as it is commonly used it is more for ostentation of a man's self than for edification of the People nay many times it is made use of also to countenance and abett some Heretical or Schismatical opinion of a Party or to gratifie some Novel fancy or Notion of a man 's own contrary to or differing from the received doctrine or usage of the Church And for one or both of these ends I think I may without breach of Charity believe Mr. Baxter doth so often find fault with and vary from the allowed Translation of the Text and will have another of his own devising preferred before it For example the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as often as it occurs in the New Testament is rendred in our Translation by the word City and most truly and properly as being derived from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as consisting of many or a multitude of People cohabiting or incorporated together But Mr. Baxter will have it as he often tells us to signifie not a City but a Market town as if he thought the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be derived from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vendo to sell contrary to all Etymology or Analogy of derivation of one word from another and contrary to the use and sense and signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all Greek Writers profane as well as Sacred And why then would Mr. Baxter have it signifie a Market town it could not be if he knows any thing at all of Greek out of ignorance onely but it was because being not able to deny without contradicting all Antiquity that every Bishop even in that first age of the Church and so downwards was Bishop of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a city and consequently of as many several Congregations as were in or belonging to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City he had no other way to make his own Novel fantastical notion of a Congregational Episcopacy or that no Bishop was or ought to be Bishop of more than one Congregation possibly reconcilable with the Primitive Notion of Episcopacy but by making the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra jus normámque loquendi Against the right and rule of speech to signifie not a City consisting ordinarily of many Congregations but a Market town which yet if it were true would not serve his turn neither because there be Market towns even with us here in England that have some of them many and many of them more than one Congregation and consequently according to Mr. Baxter's Hypothesis ought every one of them to have more Bishops than one also Another instance of Mr. Baxter's disliking our Translation is because it doth not favour or rather indeed because it doth condemn his own opinion and practice and not his own onely but the opinion and practice of his whole Party is that I named before and am now more particularly to consider I mean our Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word resisting which as he saith is not a proper Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And why so good Mr. Baxter why because He and his Party have resisted their Sovereign and therefore some resistance of Sovereigns by their Subjects must be lawfull and if lawfull then not forbidden by St. Paul and consequently by Mr. Baxter's Logick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which it seems he confesseth or implies at least to be forbidden by St. Paul to all Subjects in all cases is not cannot properly be translated by the word resisting because resisting of Sovereigns by their Subjects is lawfull say they in some cases And indeed it would be so if not obeying were the first and chief resisting or the proper and primary signification of the English word resisting were simply not obeying and no more as Mr. Baxter tells us it is For not to Obey their Sovereign in some cases is so far from being unlawfull that it is the duty of all Subjects to doe so in all such cases wherein they cannot obey their Earthly Sovereign without sinning against their Heavenly Sovereign and yet in those very cases as I said before though they may and must disobey their earthly Sovereign yet they may not they must not resist him but meekly and patiently Submit to what punishment though never so unjustly he shall please to inflict upon them Whereby it plainly appears that simply not to obey is not to resist much less is it to resist in the chief and most proper signification of the word as Mr. Baxter saith it is But God forbid it should be so for then sins of ignorance and sins of infirmity would be more properly a resisting of God than sins of wilfull obstinacy and presumption and the best of God's servants might more properly be said to resist God than the greatest of his Enemies because the best of his servants do not always obey him nay do never obey him in all things nor in any thing as they ought to obey him though they be never so carefull and desirous to doe so And can such as these properly nay most properly be said to resist God can they who humble themselves under the mighty hand of God because they cannot obey him as they would be said to resist him God forbid for God resists them that resist him and who are they not the humble but the proud for to the humble saith St. Peter he giveth grace but he resisteth the proud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Text God sets himself in Battel aray as it were against the proud to resist them when they rise up as it were to assail and defie and provoke him as Pharaoh and Julian the Apostate did For indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are both of them used in the same sense in the aforesaid place viz. Rom. 13. 2. by St. Paul and are therefore both of them rendred by the same word in our Translation are both of them Military terms and the genuine primary and proper signification of the one as well as of the other is to be in a military posture of resisting that is of defending ones self against one that assails him and therefore purposely used by St. Paul to teach all Christian Subjects that though they were never so wrongfully or never so much oppressed or persecuted by their Sovereigns they should be so