1. Their suppressing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons which is nothing to the purpose unless he had proved also that these are of Divine Institution or are necessary means of unfeigned Faith and holy Life 2. A book for sports and pastimes on Sundays enjoyn'd to be read by Ministers in their Parish Churches under penalty of deprivation What so as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning or Divine Service and Catechizing in the Afternoon or so as to licence the absence of any Parishioner from that service either part of the day 3. Superstitious Innovations introduc'd Si accusâsse suffecerit quis erit innocens 4. A new Book of Canons composed and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy inforc'd By whom were not this Oath and those Canons composed in Convocation by our Church-Governours were they not confirmed and imposed by the Royal Assent And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy establish'd by Law more superstitious than the newer Oath for destroying that Hierarchy so established Far be it from me says he p. 32. 42. to impute these things to all that were in judgment Episcopal for I am perswaded a great if not the greater part of them disallowed these Innovations These Innovations what Innovations The word must in reason refer to the particulars just now enumerated viz. The new Book of Canons the new Oath the Book for sports and pastimes on Sundays But are these men in justice and Reason of State to be protected and encouraged who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church or both occasioned by new emergencies Innovations or new practices superstitious meerly because not commanded in Gods word Now these things are so far from being a proof of the inconsistency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel with the upholding of all Divine Institutions a laborious and efficacious Ministry c. that the contrary is evident from the instance of the Right Reverend Bishop Morton whom this very Author I believe hath scarce confidence enough to accuse as a Delinquent in those particulars since p. 67. 77. he reckons Bishop Morton in the number of those Episcopal Divines whose Doctrine is entirely embrac'd by the Presbyterians Who yet did not only approve of but had the chief hand in contriving and publishing that Declaration which allowed some Sports and Pastimes as that which was then the most probable course to stop the current of Popery and profaneness as appears from the story of that Bishop's life publish'd by Dr. Barwick p. 80 81. So 't is evident also from the Augustan Confession c. 7. De Potest Ecclesiasticâ and Mr. Calvin's Institutions that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Institution who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel and a laborious efficacious ministry In some following Pages the Author pretends to manifest that the Presbyterian Interest will never be extinguished while the State of England continues Protestant For says he p. 34. 44. let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of this people whose way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine But I as confidently affirm on the other side that if the Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd 't will raise up such a genuine off-spring of true English Protestants as shall own Prelacy and the Churches Authority in appointing Ceremonies both which are establisht by that Doctrine but rejected by Presbyterians If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine they act suitably to these Principles viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith Artic. 20. That whosoever through his private Judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offends against the Common Order of the Church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying Artic. 34. They practically own the Kings power within his Realms of England Scotland and Ireland and all other his Dominions and Countries as the highest power under God to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the same do by Gods Laws owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth They act as if they believed his Majesty to have the same Authority in causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church They use the Form of Gods worship in the Church of England establisht by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments without surmising it to be either corrupt superstitious or unlawful or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons and the rest that bear office in the same not fancying it to be either Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God They do not 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 profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession They imagine not 1. that any of the 39. Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law establisht are wicked Antichristian or superstitious or such as being commanded by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requires subscribe to them or 3. that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is any part of the substance of that Sacrament They hold that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate and may not be omitted at every mans pleasure contrary to the Law when they be commanded nor used when they are prohibited These are parts of the Doctrine establisht by Law in the Church of England as is evident from the 1 2 4 7 9 5 6 30. Canons legally framed and ratified But where are those English Presbyterians to be found whose way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine Have not their practises too loudly proclaimed to the world that they have
Divine Law and moreover that by an Oath imposed by a Lawful Magistrate that which before was free and indifferent is made necessary to the takers p. 65. S. 19. and that the obligation of an Oath thus imposed results from Divine Institution p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Concessions they do not only condemn all those Nonconformists who refused compliance with Episcopal Impositions because forsooth their Christian Liberty in things left indifferent by God ought not to be prejudiced and restrained by man but also they overthrow 1. that principle That nothing is a duty especially in Gods worship which is not commanded by God and 2. that principle that no part of worship is lawful which is not commanded of God and yet both these principles are owned by Presbyterians if this Author deceive us not p. 88. 98. where he tells us they hold that Scripture only is the Rule of instituted worship wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden and p. 84 85. that whatsoever instituted worship is not ordained of God is unlawful whence it sollows that men ought not to swear or Covenant for or against any thing that 's left indifferent in the Divine Law not for any thing which God's word commands not nor against any thing which it does not forbid For so to do is to worship God by taking such an Oath and entring into such a Covenant as is not ordained by him but is only of humane Institution and determination Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either instituted or imposed by God in his Law either of Nature or Scripture even by their own confession who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the House of Commons that the Covenant it self was not jure Divino though the keeping of it being taken was Hist of Independ 1 Part p. 125 126. but only by men and 't is acknowledged by those pleaders to have been a Vow only freely and voluntarily entred into and not by vertue of any Divine command in the first takers and imposers and therefore since 't is owned also as a sacred religious Act of worship 't was in them and others not only a piece of Schism against the Church of England and of Sedition against the King and Laws of England but also a solemn piece of superstition will-worship as that signifies in their own dialect a worshipping God in such a manner as himself hath not prescribed in his Word and therefore on the score of Presbyterian principles an Act of high and hainous disobedience to the Law of God and therefore their taking an Oath thus imposed was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Interest and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more Besides this Author tells us p. 85. that Presbyterians hold that that Ceremony which is instituted by men not by God which is of mystical signification and though it may naturally yet does not actually signifie without humane institution and is by men appropriate to Divine worship is upon that account a part of Divine worship and p. 88. 98. they hold that all such sacred Ceremonies not commanded by God are neither good nor lawful But say I this was the very case in the taking of the Covenant for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it viz. lifting up the hand was appropriate to that Oath which they deemed a piece of religious worship It did not actually signifie that the Takers did swear either by Divine or Natural but by Humane Institution and that novel too the usual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation before being tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis laying the hand upon and afterwards kissing the holy Evangels to which indeed that Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand which is not of Divine Institution or prescribed by God the Father in the Old Testament and much less by God the Son in the New whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Master of ordaining Ceremonies for the Christian Worship and some of them it seems are yet to learn that any examples oblige them but those of Christ and his Apostles and consequently no Old Testament examples Discourse of Liturgies p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of mystical signification I prove by that medium which this Author himself makes use of p. 87. 97. to prove the Cross in Baptism such a Ceremony viz. It is used as a sealing sign of our obligation to Christ and therefore it 's in that respect Sacramental so say I was the lifting up of the hand in the swearing the Covenant used as a sealing sign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Christ Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant sealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themselves to the disservice of him that died on the Cross to a real and practical defiance of Christ the King of his Church and his Vicegerent in this Nation King Charles Thus a Ceremony of humane Presbyterian institution for the ratification of a seditious Covenant ordained and imposed against Law by an illegal power for the satisfying of the Scotch appetite and promoting the Presbyterian Interest is a Camel easily and greedily swallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter who yet at the same time can either blindly or perversly strain at the Gnat of a Ceremony instituted by lawful Authority establisht and enjoyned by the Laws of the Land and Constitutions of the Church If I had some Books about me fit for such a purpose I believe I could add some sheets of pertinent instances to Bishop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch of his Survey of Presbyterian Levity in opinion and inconsistency with themselves and with others of their own Faction when self-interest prompted them to such variations I shall at this time mention only one proof more 'T is a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea and their discourse of Liturgies that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven can discharge them from the obligation of an Oath This is good Doctrine it seems when applied to the Covenant and understood in a sence advantageous to Presbytery but when the Question was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance wherein they swore that they would defend his Majesty his Heirs and Successors to the uttermost of their power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which should be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope or otherwise and that they are in conscience resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve them of that Oath or any part of it I say when this was the Question then Presbyterian practises manisested that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine viz. that
in Scotland assume a power to abrogate and invalidate Laws and Acts of Parliament if they seem disadvantagious to the Church Church Assemblies says one of their Books of Discipline have power to abrogate and abolish all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noysome and unprofitable and agree not with the times or are abused by the people The Acts of Parliament 1584. at the very same time that they were proclaimed were protested against at the Market Cross of Edenburgh by the Ministers in the name of the Kirk of Scotland The general Assembly of Glascow 1638. impugned Episcopacy and Perth Articles although ratified by Acts of Parliament and standing Laws then unrepealed And if Presbytery should chance to be established in England by a Law what shall assure us that English presbyterians also would not prove unruly and disobedient Subjects against both King and Parliament that shall prescribe any Rule to them in order to the preventing of their arrogant Tyranny Not their Oaths unless they had kept those of Supremacy Allegiance and Canonical obedience better But this Author has another remedy Moreover quoth he to cut off all occasions and prevent all appearance of domineering all political coercive jurisdiction in matters of Religion may be withheld if need require from Ecclesiastical Persons and that meer spiritual power alone by which he means Admonition and Excommunication may be left to their management The man sure would perswade us that he thinks there can be no occasion of domineering afforded by the granting nor appearance of it in the exercise of power meerly spiritual and then there is some hopes that he is not in the number of those who imagine that the Prelates heretofore did Tyrannically abuse that power But for all this he is unwilling that Presbyterians should have only spiritual power at their command and be wholly devested of political and therefore what he takes away with one hand he gives with the other in the following words And because spiritual censures appertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded when no temporal damage is annext unto them there may be a collateral civil power always present in Ecclesiastical meetings to take cognizance of all causes therein debated and adjudged in order to temporal penalties From which words we may gather 1. That the man is loth that all occasion of domineering should be cut off from Presbyterians and all appearance of it prevented 2. That he can well enough digest prelatical power and as many Ecclesiastical Courts in a County as there are Ecclesiastical meetings if so be Presbyterian Priests and Lay-Elders may have the management of that power and sit as Judges in those Courts which is another indication that ambitious affections rather than an impartial judgment make presbyterians exclaim so much against Prelacy viz. because they are not allowed to exercise that dominion themselves which they condemn in others as Tyrannical Vpon the whole matter says he aforegoing we firmly build this position That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be rejected and depressed but ought to be protected and encouraged And upon the answer to that matter contained in these Papers I firmly build this contradictory Position That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be protected and much less encouraged but to be rejected and depressed unless they will renounce the practises and principles here objected and laid to their charge and will disclaim that Covenant which otherwise will engage them in such turbulent and seditious practices as can never be justified but by such rebellious Principles THE END A Summary OF THE CONTENTS The Question proposed WHether in Justice or Reason of state the Presbyterian Party should be rejected and depressed or protected and encouraged The Character given of Presbyterians is considered and manifested to be very imperfect and deceitful p. 4 5 6 c. Of their zeal p. 13. their resembling the Anabaptists in Germany p. 14. their being called Fanaticks p. 15. Of their varying from themselves p. 20 21. their multitudes p. 24 25 Of the great things for which they are said to contend p. 26 c. Whether the Protestant Doctrine by Law established in the Church of England be owned by Presbyterians p. 29 c. Of the pure spiritual heavenly doctrine which they ought to be actuated by if they expect to be encouraged p. 33 c. Of Principles striking to the heart of Popery p. 37. Which sort of men are more pernicious in a Commonwealth Jesuits or Presbyterians p. 40 41 c. Whether Presbyterians ought to be protected and encouraged because of their averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations p. 44. Whether they erect Imperium in Imperio p. 47 c. Whether their principles and Government are Anti-monarchical p. 53 c. Of their unwillingness to come under any yoke but that of the Law of the Land p. 66. and to pay Taxes levyed without consent of Parliament p. 67 c. Of their valuing the native happiness of freeborn English Subjects p. 69. Whether they have any true knowledge or sense of the nature of the Christian Religion as it refers to the question discussed p. 71 c. Whether they were not guilty of rebellion in the late wars p. 76 c. Whether the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom was not subverted by the Presbyterian members of the Long-Parliament p. 95 c. The London Ministers vindication of themselves in reference to the Kings murder considered p. 104 c. The murderers of the King acted therein suitably to such principles as are owned by Presbyterian writers p. 109 c. and to the fourth Article of the Covenant p. 114. Of the Presbyterian Ministers exhorting men to pray that God would not permit the King to be put to death p. 115 c. Whether Presbyterians disclaimed their lawful Prince p. 120. Whether they suffered themselves to be trodden under foot rather than they would comply with Republicans p. 123 c. Whether they were more conscientious in their duty to God and man than Prelatists p. 130 c. The Plea that Presbyterians teach obedience active in all Lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the Higher power considered p. 137 c. Whether the restraint of profaneness intemperance c. in the late times ought to be attributed to the doctrine and orderly walking of Presbyterian Ministers p. 145 c. Of the inconstancy of Presbyterians their inconsistency with themselves and their unfaithfulness to their principles when their Interest tempts them to a change p. 153 c. In what sense they are willing to bring things to the capacity of political Government p. 170. Whether Sects and Schisms may justly be reckoned the off-spring of Presbytery p. 175. Of the Synod of Dort and its healing the breach in the Netherlands p. 176 177 c. Whether Presbytery is unjustly represented as Tyrannical and domineering p. 187 ad fin The ERRATA PAge 3. line 29. read particulars p. 11. l. 15. r. p. 1â— p. 28. l. 25. leave out So. p. 32. l. 26. r. approves p. 35. l. 18. r. to do your own p. 55. l. 9. r. Turner printed 1647. p. 56. l. 28. r. check'd p. 78. l. 8. r. the great Seal and. p. 81. l. 18. r. de Bereford p. 94. l. 25. r. shall conclude is 1. p. 99. l. 25. r. president p. 106. l. 26. r. sending p. 115. l. 3. r. in the humble Edenburgh Remonstrance of March 1. 1648. p. 118. l. 16. r. mentioned p. 29. 30. p. 121. l. 14. r. In stead p. 159. l. 1. r. p. 17. l. 2. r. constitution l. 3. r. Sermons alters and changes p. 165. l. 8. r. p. 63. l. 21. r. 99. l. 25. r. 96. p. 166. l. 29. after 85 add 96. p. 167. l. 31. r. 98. p. 175. l. 29. r. rumperet l. 30. r. tollerentur The inconvenient distance of the Author from London hath occasioned some Errata's more than ordinary to pass the Press which I shall desire the Reader to amend with his Pen. R. Royston Lately Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Amen-Corner THE Estate of the EMPIRE or an Abridgment of the Laws and Government of Germany farther shewing what Condition the EMPIRE was in when the Peace was concluded at Munster Also the several Fights Battels and Desolation of Cities during the War in that EMPIRE And also of the GOLDEN BVLL In Octavo The Sycillian Tyrant Or The Life and Death of AGATHOCLES With some Restections on our Modern Usurpers Octavo The ROYAL MARTYR and the Dutiful Subject In two Sermons By Gilbert Burnet In Quarto The Generosity of Christian Love Delivered in a Sermon by William Gould Quarto The Witnesses to Christanity By Sy. Patrick D. D. Octavo Dâ—ctor Dubitaâ—tium Or Bishop Taylors Cases of Conscience The Fourth Edition Folio The Life and Death of K. CHARLES the First By R. Perenchief D. D. Octavo A Modest Plea for the Church of England Octavo The Spiritual Sacrifice or Devotions and Prayers fitted to the main uses of a Christian Life by a late Reverend Author In 12o. Chirurgical Treatises By Richard Wiseman Serjeant-Chirurgion to his MAJESTY Folio
gratified by those Taxes which it ceased to be when Independents had the chief power of imposing them And yet we are told in the next lines that none more reverence their Liberties and value the native happiness of the Free-born Subjects of England than Presbyterians But what I pray Sir was in point of State-affairs the native happiness of English men that had so much happiness as to be born before Presbyterians began to domineer was it not that they were born subjects to a Soveraign to whom belonged the ordering of the Militia at all times a negative Voice in Parliament the Supreme power in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils and members of that Nation where the only legal Form of Church-Government was by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries c. Where an excellent Liturgy was commanded to be used and no other Form of Divine Service permitted by Law Where the Ceremonies of the Surplice Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Sacrament were for order and decencies-sake appointed by the Church-Governors and the use of them enjoyned by Law Is this the native happiness that Presbyterians valued Or does the man mean by native happiness their receiving the temper of their bodies from predominant choler phlegm or black melancholy and the complexion of their Souls from Heaven shall I say 't would puzzle S. Austin himself to determine I confess I am somewhat apt to believe that presbyterians Souls are rather ex traduce from the prolifical assimilating vertue of the Parents spirit which being immersed in Hyle and over-charged with ugly humors is so far from generating a Platonical Soul made up of Harmony that its off-spring does more resemble Galen's dull conceit of the essence of all Souls and is of so base an alloy that it little differs from a vicious malign temperament of body I confess I think none do more value this native happiness than these Free-born subjects of England but whether there are none that more reverence their Liberties let the world judge by their frequent meriting severe restraints for their seditious and schismatical breaches of the Laws of England by their paying arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of King Lords and Commons 't is an Argument good enough ad hominem by their swearing to submit their necks to the yoke of Scotch Discipline and Government not allowed of by any Law of this Realm was this to revere their Liberties or rather to prostitute them to the lusts of those men whose spirit breathed nothing more than contradiction both to mans Law and Christs Gospel to Civil constitutions and to the maxims of Christian Religion For whereas this Author p. 47. 57. talks of their true knowledge and sence of the nature of Christian Religion and that this makes a due civil Freedom exceeding precious to them 1. As I intimated before 't is not a due freedom from illegal Impositions that the Religion of these professing Christians makes so precious to them for to be inslaved to Presbyterian Impositions though illegal is very grateful to them but 't is a liberty from Episcopal Impositions and Royal Sanctions and such Taxations whether legal or illegal as are not designed for the advancement of their interest which they so highly value and therefore 't is manifest enough they plead for such a liberty as will enfeeble our English Monarchy 2. I much question whether their high valuation of freedom from illegal Taxes and their unwillingness to pay them can in reason proceed from any true knowledge and sence of the nature of Christian Religion For I desire to know of them whether at least in case our Laws do not expresly sorbid our payment of Taxes imposed by the King out of Parliament our Saviours precept Matth. 5. 42. Give to him that asketh and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away and his own practice Matth. 17. 27. paying tribute for himself and S. Peter merely lest he should offend the exactors who ought not to have demanded it of the children v. 26. that were all free but only of strangers I desire I say to know of them whether that precept and this practice do not oblige all English men that profess Christianity to pay Taxes quietly and patiently though levied by the King alone without Law 3. On this occasion I shall take leave to question whether these Free-born subjects had indeed a true knowledge and sense of the Nature of Christian Religion in other particulars as well as this for if they had would not their practice have been more conformable to it if at least that Axiom be true Voluntas necessario sequitur dictamen Intellectus practicum which those among them that do not Arminianize hold for a truth But whether their practises have been conform to the dictates of that Religion let any one who knows those dictates consider and judge impartially They speak such language as this Blessed are the meek Matth. 5. 5. who rather would suffer all injuries than revenge themselves Blessed are the peace-makers v. 9. Resist not evil Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also v. 39. rather receive double wrong than revenge thine own griefs Love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you v. 44. Judge not that you be not judged Chap. 7. 1. be not curious or malicious to try out and condemn your neighbours faults for Hypocrites hide their own faults and seek not to amend them but are curious to reprove other mens Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you do you also unto them v. 12. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves v. 15. Be you wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves Chap. 10. 16. not revenging much less doing wrong Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods Chap. 22. 21. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Chap. 23. 2 3. Put up thy sword into his place the exercise of the sword is forbid to private persons for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword Chap. 26. 52. When you stand and pray forgive if you have any thing against any man that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive your trespasses Mark 11. 25. Condemn not and you shall not be condemned Forgive and you shall be forgiven Luke 6. 37 c. If Presbyterian actions had been conformable to these and other Christian principles their Pamphlets would have been freer from railing and reviling their Sermons from inflaming mens spirits and kindling in them the fires of disloyal Jealousie their discourse from censorious judging and condemning their brethren and their understandings freer from pernicious errors than for ought appears by their pernicious actions they were They had neither run themselves into
can do nothing but manifest their Grievances and petition for relief By the way I must tell him that I have read in a Speech of King James's to both Houses March 21. 1609. these words I would wish you of the lower House especially to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of Grievances 1. That you do not meddle with the main points of Government That is my Craft Tractent fabrilia fabri To meddle with that were to lessen me I must not be taught my office 2. Nor with such ancient Rights of mine as I have received from my Predecessors possessing them more Majorum For that were to judge me unworthy of that which my Predecessors had and left me 3. I pray you beware to exhibit for Grievance any thing that is established by a settled Law for to be grieved with the Law is to be grieved with the King who is sworn to be the Patron and maintainer thereof In general beware that your Grievances savour not of particular mens thoughts but of the general Griefs rising out of the minds of the people and not out of the humour of the Propounder If these Cautions had been carefully observed by the thing called the Long-Parliament it had not been it self the greatest grievance the Subject ever felt 2. I have read says he that by the Constitution it hath part in the Soveraignty and so it hath part in the Legislative power and in the final Judgment I question whether he hath read this thus expressed in any Book but his own I rather think it a mistake and that he had read somewhere that the Parliament hath part in the Legislative power and so it hath part in the Soveraignty there being a Treatise extant wherein the Parliament's part in the Soveraignty is inferred from its part in the Legislative power but none that I know of wherein its part in the Legislative power is argued from its part in the Soveraignty Now says he when as a part of the Legislative power resides in the two Houses as also a power to redress Grievances and to call into Question all Ministers of State and Justice and all Subjects of whatsoever degrees in case of Delinquency it might be thought that a part of the Supreme power doth reside in them though they have not the Honorary Title To which I answer 1. 'T is denyed that either or both Houses have any power of themselves to redress the Grievances of the Kingdom or to call into question any Delinquents I have read in his Majesties forementioned Declaration that the House of Commons hath never assumed or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature having no more Authority to administer an Oath the only way to discover and find out Facts to than to cut off the Heads of any Subjects And in Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 116. That a Court must be either by the Kings Patent or Statute-Law or Common-Law which is common and constant usage The House of Commons hath neither Patent Statute-Law nor Common-Law enabling them to be a Court or to give an Oath p. 27. and 140 141. or to examine a man p. 65. as also that both the Houses can make no Court without the King p. 148. 122. that the two Houses by the Law of this Land have no colour of power either to make or pardon Delinquents the King contradicting p. 24. and 119. and that though it belong to the Lords to reform erroneous Judgments given in other Courts for that all the Judges of the Land the Kings Council and the twelve Masters of the Chancery assist there by whose advice erroneous Judgments are redressed yet when the writ of error is brought to reverse any Judgment there is first a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof p. 55. 106. I have read also in the Hist of Independ p. 1. p. 61 62. That the House of Peers is no Court of Judicature without the Kings special Authority granted to them either by his Writ or his Commission and therefore in the trial of the Earl of Strafford and in all other trials upon Life and Death in the Lord's House the King grants his Commission to a Lord high Steward to sit as Judge and the rest of the Lords are but in the name of Jurors and says J. Jenkins p. 103. When the Lords had condemn'd to death by an Ordinance Sir Simon de Beriford a free Commoner of England they afterwards better considered the matter and that they might be acquitted of the sentence became suiters to the King that what they had so done might not in future time be drawn into President because that which they had done was against Law and the Judge gives this reason against taking away mens lives by Ordinances because an Ordinance binds not at all but pro tempore as the two Houses then affirmed and a mans life cannot be tri'd by that which is not binding and to continue for all times for a life lost cannot be restored From which premises I conclude that neither one nor both Houses though legally summoned and elected have power to redress publick Grievances or try Delinquents without the King's consent And as for that part of the Legislative power which is said to reside in them and from whence their part in the Supremacy is thought fit to be concluded 1. The two Houses even when full and free have so constantly acknowledged themselves in Statutes and Acts of Parliament most loyal faithful and obedient subjects to the King their Soveraign Lord that from this alone 't is manifest enough they did not deem themselves to have any such part in the Legislative power as might entitle them to a part in the Soveraignty 2. I have read in the Rebels Plea examined p. 12. these words Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them the two Houses they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old Laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supreme and Legislative power for which p. 14. he quotes these words of Grotius c. 3. de jure Belli sect 18. who says Multum falluntur qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis They are much deceived who think that the Supreme power is divided if Kings will not account some of their Acts valid without the approbation of the Senate I have read also in the Book called The Kings Supremacy asserted by Mr. Sheringham p. 96 97. That the concurrence of one or both the other Estates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws is no good colour or pretence much less a sufficient ground for such a coordination and mixture as is pressed Although their assents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the Rights of Soveraignty It 's the common Assertion
of Canonists Civilians Schoolmen nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any that the Legislative power is delegable that such a concurrence is no Argument of supremacy or of such a mixture as some would infer out of it Some call it therefore apparens mixtura because it seems to destroy a simple Form of Government and to make a mixture in the power it self but doth not though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof Grotius affirms to this purpose de Imperio summ potest circa sacra c. 8. N. 11. Illam legislationem quae alii quà m summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae porestatis He speaks this of Laws made by general Conventions whose concurrence he saith doth not in the least manner diminish the Rights of Majesty Such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power as in the Persian which appears from Dan. 6 7 8 9. and the Roman Empire And not only whole representative Bodies but divers particular free Cities have the same priviledge yet have not supreme Authority As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of some Acts he affirms p. 101. That 't is only a power of assenting for it hath been resolved by the Judges that this clause Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament is no more in substance and effect than that which was used anciently The King with the assent of the Lords and Commons establisheth the words assenteth and enacteth being equivalent in this case and p. 45. he tells us that though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent yet the Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law the Authority that animates a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses and makes it differ from a dead letter being in the King who is the life and soul of the Law which was resolved also by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controversie with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons and to all the Justices to consider of the business it was resolved that the two Houses were not coordinate with the King in the legislative power but that the King alone made Laws by the assent of the two Houses that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons From all which it appears 1. That that part which the two Houses have by Law in the Legislative power is not a sufficient medium to perswade us that they have a part in the supremacy and 2. That they have no share at all in any power which may properly be called Legislative I mean in that sence in which the words Legislative power are now adays commonly taken viz. for a power of making Laws For among the Romans Legem ferre was no more than Legem ad populum in concionem quasi in medium afferre proponere and Legislation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo the proposing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens and asking their assent in order to its establishment I conclude therefore that the supremacy is wholly in the King notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary For the proof whereof if this Author stand in need of more Arguments I refer him to the Rebels Plea examined p. 11 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of sin Appendix p. 210 211 c. To Mr. Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's Right or the King's supremacy asserted To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 7 8 9. Indeed this consideration alone is sufficient to evince it that by the Oath administred to all that sit in the lower House the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Causes then in Parliament-Causes says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 127. over all Persons then over the two Houses ibid. which Oath every Member of the House of Commons is enjoyned by Law to take or else he hath no Voice in that House 5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae p. 67. Therefore the King is by Law the only supreme Governor and consequently it may not be thought that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in the two Houses Our Author goes on And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong but how it might be capable of Rebellion is more difficult to conceive 1. Here he confidently takes it for granted that the two Houses are part of the Supreme Power whereas in the precedent words he spake more modestly and told us only it might be thought that a part of the Supreme Power did reside in them not peremptorily inferring that it doth reside in them And indeed he could not rationally have so concluded unless he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that conclusion 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houses capable of doing wrong and tells us only that 't is difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion 1. Notwithstanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houses may have been guilty of Rebellion since the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence 2. I demand of him whether 1. they are capable of doing such wrong to the King as the Law makes Treason and Rebellion whether 2. if they do such wrong it be not easie to conceive that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treason The Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. ch 2. makes it treason to levy war against our Lord the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere and also to counterfeit the Kings Great or Privy Seal or Money The resolutions of all the Judges of England upon the said Statute have been that to seize upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War is high Treason Lex Terrae p. 77. as likewise to levy War either to alter the Religion or any Law establisht p. 22. 40. or to remove the Kings Counsellors p. 22. Yea these things were acknowledged to be Treason not only by Sir Edw. Cooke in his Institutes printed by an Order of both Houses dated May 12. 1641. but also by Mr. Solicitor S. John and Mr. Pym in their speeches touching the Earl of Strafford Where as J. Jenkins quotes them Lex Terrae p. 187 188. they likewise affirm it Treason to usurp the Royal power to raise rumors and give out words to alienate the peoples affections from the King to subvert the
guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Mr. Love says that Author will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud left he should contradict himself neither will he say that bloud-guiltiness can be expiated but by bloud lest he should contradict the Scriptures neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love the King 's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion c. but a work fit and expedient to be done and 't will be well for English Presbyterians if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal was because he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians nor for their advantage but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary if at least one of them be such an obligation these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King and send an Army to shed his bloud in the high places of the Field and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants and their Religion the Protestant Religion 't was not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the Kings safety that in so many battels kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the bloud of a King especially as to Edge-Hill-fight if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 79. that Blague a villain in the Kings Army had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood that they might the better know how to shoot at him who accordingly gave notice of it and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life and the Presbyterian Religion such as it is had been stained with the bloud of a King And though the Presbyterians as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us p. 69. would excuse themselves that they never intended the Kings destruction yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse For as Sir Walter Rawleigh says truly Our Law doth construe all levying War without the Kings Commission and all force raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King not attending the sequel and so 't is judged upon good reason for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent The Lord Cook as the Apologizer goes on p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason 3 Institut p. 12. saith Preparation by some overt act to depose the King or take the King by force and strong hand and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England Hill 1 Jac. Regis in the case of the Lord Cobham Lord Grey and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests and so it had been resolved by the Justices Hill 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was and to have taken her into their power and to have removed divers of her Council and for that end did assemble a multitude of people which being raised to the end aforesaid was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen The Presbyterians says he did offend in this kind notoriously and therefore committed Treason manifestly for they imprisoned the King in divers places and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes which for ought I see they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty that they rather go about to justifie their former actings by returning again as far as they dare to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in bloud Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude both French Scotch and English The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos Knox's Appellation Vindiciae contra Tyrannos by Junius Brutus supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. burnt at London and Oxford in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims Goodman an intimate Friend as 't is said of John Knox's his book of the same nature and tendency Rutherford's Lex Rex I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions B. 1. Ch. 2. speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva these words Since which time as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches for ought I know which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully and ought if need required even by force and Arms to reform it themselves And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and
robbed the King of his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs and traiterously placed it in some Lords Temporal and Commons Is the metamorphosing of our venerable Church-Liturgy into a thing called a Directory the extirpating of our Church-government by Archbishops Bishops Deans c. the casting off of the Rites and Ceremonies establisht by Law and fancying them unlawful is this I say the life and power of that Doctrine before mentioned Is Covenanting and combining against the loyal Asserters of the Kings Supremacy and our Liturgy of our Prelacy and Ceremonies as Incendiaries Malignants and evil Instruments the life and power of that Doctrine Durst this J. C. have canted at this rate unless he had before-hand braz'd his Forehead with Impudence For what besides was it that made him talk thus and further to say and testifie that Let but the Free use of the Holy Bible be permitted to the common people and this Presbyterian Generation of men will spring up afresh by the immortal seed of the word Let him prove if he can that they will spring up any otherwise than Independents Anabaptists and Quakers do viz. by a misunderstanding of some places in the holy Bible and perverting them to unholy practises which 't is no great wonder if unlearned and unstable persons such as too many of the common people are be guilty of Grotius in his notes on Cassander's consultation would have the reading of the Scripture permitted to all men but Hauriant says he quantum necesse actutum est minimè verò de locis omnibus jus sibi sumant interpretandi sed consulant eruditos He would not have them assume to themselves a right of Interpreting all places of Scripture but to advise with learned men and ask their judgment Which counsel as Rivet approved of in his Animadversions p. 203. so it behooves common people to follow lest otherwise that permission occasion their destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. He goes on For that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine pressing internal renovation or the new birth and the way of holy singularity and circumspection and being written with such Authority and majesty must needs beget though not in the most yet in many a disposition and practice in some sort thereunto conformable Which words by the way unless understood cum grano salis will smell of Socinianism but come out of the clouds O thou Presbyterian and tell us whether thou thinkest this to be pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Whosoever resisteth the power resists the Ordinance of God And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Be subject not for wrath only but for Conscience sake Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Mark them which cause divisions among you contrary to the Doctrine which you have been taught and avoid them The works of the Flesh are manifest which are these Hatred variance emulation wrath strife seditions heresies envyings Murders They that do these thing shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Put them in mind that they be subject to Principalities and Powers that they obey Magistrates be ready to every good work that they speak evil of no man that they be no brawlers fighters but gentle soft shewing all meekness to all men Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves Where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether unto the King as Supreme or to Governours as to those that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers Honour all men Love the brotherhood Fear God Honour the King Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward Let none of you suffer as a murderer or as a Thief or an evil-doer or as a busie-body in other mens matters c. What thinkest thou J. C. Do these and the like Scriptures press any point of internal renovation and the new birth and the power of Christianity or no Is the Presbyterian party perswaded of the heavenliness and spirituality of this Doctrine or do they account it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to love their enemies to bless such as curse them to do good to those that hate them to pray for such as despitefully use them and persecute them Hath their practice manifested that they esteem this imitation of the divine goodness a piece of holy singularity Hath their way here in England been none other than the life and power of that part of the Law of Christ Have they accounted it a part of holy circumspection to redeem time in evil days to purchase to themselves a longer time to do good in by all just complyances by honest actions by a fair civil carriage a peaceable conversation by bending in all those flexures of fortune and condition which they cannot help See Dr. Taylor 's Sermon on Mat. 10. 16. Or have they acted as if they believed these other passages of Scripture to be divinely inspired If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me Except you be converted and become as little children in all humility and subjection ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Take my yoke upon you Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart If when you do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God Christ hath suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not In the last days perilous times shall come for men shall be lovers of themselves covetous boasters proud cursed speakers false accusers intemperate fierce despisers of them that are good traytors heady high-minded having a Form of Godliness but denying the power thereof from such turn away We beseech you brethren that you study to be quiet and to meddle with your own business If any man love life and would see good days let him refrain his Tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile let him seek peace and ensue it Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall ever see the Lord. The fruit of the spirit is love peace long-suffering meekness gentleness Now speak out man is this pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine or no Is the practising of it a duty incumbent upon all that would testifie themselves internally renewed or is it not Is the contrary neglect an argument of an unregenerate person were these things written by the Pen-men of Scripture with such Authority and Majesty as to beget in Presbyterians a disposition and practice in any tolerable measure thereunto conformable If this Author has the confidence to answer in favour of Presbyterians let him evince or at least endeavour to evince that their Covenanting to overthrow
things legally established their reproaching those that would have upheld them as Malignants Incendiaries and Evil Instruments their choosing to take up Swords into their hands rather than the Cross their being so far from submitting to the King as supreme and the Governours sent by him that they resisted and maintained a long War against both Let him I say evince that such ways as these are the life and power of that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine taught in Scripture and owned by all true English Protestants Nor let him be angry that I handle him in this manner and reply thus particularly to his ambiguous generalities since the question now being Whether Presbyterians are the best English Protestants and whether on that account they ought in justice or reason of State to be encouraged It concerned him if he meant to discourse pertinently and clearly to manifest that they practically own those pure spiritual and heavenly Aphorisms in particular which so much conduce to the peace of the State and the preservation of the Order and Government by Law established and that they heartily acknowledge and embrace all that English Protestant Doctrine which is subservient to that end for otherwise the encouraging yea tolerating of them will probably prove pernicious to the State To affirm that the Presbyterian Interest is one chief strength of the true Reformed Protestant Religion p. 35. 45. is much easier than to prove it Let those well known Principles says he which strike to the heart of Popery be brought forth for evidence viz. 1. The perfection of holy Scripture in opposition to unwritten Tradition 2. The Authority of Canonical Books in opposition to the encroachments of the Apocrypha 3. The distinct Knowledge of the Doctrine of Salvation according to every mans capacity in opposition to implicit Faith 4. The reasonable serving of God according to the Word in opposition to blind devotion 5. Spiritual Gospel-worship in opposition to a pompous train of Ceremonies 6. The efficacious edifying use of Religious exercises in opposition to the Popish Opus operatum or work done 7. The power of Godliness in opposition to splendid formality A. 1. I deny this Argument The Presbyterians acknowledge the Truth of these Principles therefore that Party is one chief strength of the true reformed Protestant Religion for either 1. they may own other Principles also which contradict these and consequently weaken that Religion or 2. they may own together with these such principles as are inconsistent with other parts of the Protestant Faith grounded on and actuated by those Scriptures before mentioned and with the English Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht conform to them 2. Perhaps those seven Principles as those many Presbyterians understand them who are said to account our Ceremonies unlawful are no part of the English Protestant Doctrine but supposing they are rightly understood with due limitations and explications they are not all the parts of the Protestant Doctrine nor the chief parts of it as it refers to Government and Obedience which yet should have been most of all considered in the discussion of this Question 3. Independents Anabaptists yea Socinians do as heartily embrace all those Principles as Presbyterians therefore he may as rationally conclude that those also are chief supporters of the true reformed Protestant Religion and consequently to be protected and encouraged in this Kingdom 4. Presbytery may be extinguisht and yet these seven Principles understood in sano sensu may be asserted by Prelatists and consequently the State of England may continue Protestant without Presbyterian aids That Prelatical men assert them as well as Presbyterians this Author denies not only he seems willing p. 36. 46. to have it believed that the Presbyterian Party is more rooted and grounded in those principles which for my part I am ready to believe when I see it proved But 1. This implies that Prelatists also are rooted and grounded in those Principles Whence it follows that England may keep her self pure from Romish abominations though Prelatists only be protected and encouraged by her 2. Till I see the contrary proved I believe that Prelatists are more deeply rooted and grounded than Presbyterians in those and other Protestant Principles so far as they are by Law establisht among us in which sence they sufficiently strike at the heart of Popery even by this Authors own confession p. 34. 44. where he assures us if we may rely on his bare word that Let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preached and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of sound Protestants and therefore England may continue Protestant though Prelatists only are encouraged and Presbyterians rooted out which therefore may be done in Justice and Reason of State notwithstanding this Argument to the contrary As for his story p. 37. 47. I observe 1. that the English Roman Catholicks are called a Faction in Religion which is strange language from the pen of a Venetian Agent 2. That the Agent look'd not upon Puritans as Protestants which as this Author tells us p. 38. the Presbyterians complain of as a palpable injury and give evident proof that they of right have as much Interest in that venerable Name as English Prelatists Now really I am much of his mind in this particular if by Protestants he mean such as approve of Subjects protesting against the will the pleasure of their Soveraign and such as deny obedience to the Edicts and commands of Kings and Emperors or lawful Superiors and if Romanizing spirits call this Puritanism perhaps he well observes p. 39. 49. that the more primitive times of protestantism were more leaning to it I add than they should have been and I hope puritans have a greater portion of those venerable qualities than prelatists But if he mean by protestants such as practically own the truth of the English protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England in which sence I suppose the Venetian Agent implicitly denied puritans to be protestants I acknowledge the name of protestant in that notion venerable since in that notion 't is a part of Christianity and shall be very glad if this Author can produce any evident proofs that the presbyterians have any right to and interest in that name which till he do he must pardon me if I suspend my assent since himself has given another character of them p. 22. and 29. 32. and 39. and if he had not their practises especially of late years too evidently prove them to be creatures hugely differing from true English protestants forasmuch as the Discipline of the Church of England excludes such Animals from its Communion Watson in his second Quodlibet and first Article proposes this Question Whether the Jesuits or Puritans be more dangerous pernicious and noisom to the Commonwealth of England Scotland or any other Realm where both or either of them live together or apart He answers thus The Jesuits
without all question are more dangerous not that their Doctrine is as yet so absurd as the Puritans in matters pertaining to Manners Government and Order of Life nor that their Intent is manifested as yet to be more malicious against both Church Commonwealth Prince and Peer than the Puritans are but because the means and their manner of proceeding is more covert more seeming substantial more formal and orderly in it self and therefore are the more dangerous because of the two they are more like to prevail by managing of whatsoever they take in hand and the rather for that their grounds are more firm their perswasions more plausible their performance more certain as having many singular fine wits among them whereas the Puritans have none but Grossum Caputs so that if matters come to hearing and handling between Jesuits and Puritans the latter are sure to be ridden like Fools and come to wrack In the second Article the same Author proposes this Question Whether the Jesuits Doctrine abstracted from matters of Faith and Religion come nearer in matters of life and manners to the Protestants or to the Puritans His Answer whereunto is That Jesuits are in this respect all wholly Puritans and therefore says he do some for distinctions-sake call the one Puritan-Papists and the other Puritan-Protestants Then he lays down a parallel between the Jesuits and the puritans in twenty five particulars Some whereof are That they agree in calling themselves the Saintlybrotherhood in scoffing scolding and ignominious disgracing speeches Puritans against the Bishops and English Clergie Jesuits against the Bishops and Prelates of Rome in refusing to have any Superiors in acknowledging no obedience due I suppose he means to any Ecclesiastical dignity though dissemblingly they will yield it The Puritans labour to pull all Bishops down and to have none but Superintendents in England and have already made havock of all such in Scotland and the Jesuits will let no Bishops be in either Realm if they can keep them from the superiority over them The Jesuits check and controul both Pope and Prince as at least their equals and the Puritans controul both Princes and Prelates as if they were their superiors c. At last he concludes that the Jesuits and Puritans do come nearest together in platforms though both opposite one to another in intention as far as may be The use that may be made of these passages is this since the Puritans of former times were if these pictures of them be rightly drawn of such an ugly complexion 't is no great wonder 1. That the hatred of Prelatical Protestants against Puritans was as that Venetian Agent observes greater than against Catholicks those Catholicks I presume he means who were of the Widdringtonian perswasion in reference to the obedience due from subjects to Kings and Princes for the Widdringtonian Catholicks were more opposite to those Jesuitical principles and practices which are so prejudicial to the Authority of Kings and Princes than such Puritans were Nor is' t a wonder 2. That the hatred of such Catholicks was greater against Puritans than against Prelatical Protestants for such Protestants differed from such Catholicks not so much about matters of Government and obedience as matters of Faith but such Puritans were opposite to them in both in a very high degree Nor 3. was it wonderful that the hatred of Puritans was greater against such Catholicks than such Protestants Because such Catholicks are more opposite to such Puritans than Prelatical Protestants are for these Protestants differ not so much from those Puritans about matters of Faith as of Order Discipline and Government but those Catholicks differ from them in both Nor is it strange 4. That both such Catholicks and such Protestants did easily combine together for the ruine and rooting out of Puritans for those Puritans entertained such principles as were inconsistent with that obedience which both such Catholicks and such Protestants Widdringtonian Catholicks and prelatical Protestants acknowledged to be due from subjects to their Soveraign upon which score also both those parties were eagerly bent against Jesuits And now much good may these notable observations out of the Venetian Agent 's story do this Author who p. 39. 49. thus argues Papists impose the name of Puritans on such as retain the old Protestant spirit of antipathy to Rome therefore in the Puritan party lies the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church Which is so far from being what he is pleased to term it a good Argument that 't is a mere sophism unless he can prove that Papists therefore call some men Puritans viz. merely because of their averseness to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church but that they do not call any so on that ground is evident from this that they do not call all by that Name who are resolute enemies to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church The Venetian Agent by this mans own confession p. 38. 48. called that Faction in the Church of England Puritans because being seasoned and initiated with the Doctrine of Calvin they judged the English Reformation imperfect and so refused submission to that Form of Policy endeavouring to introduce a purer and more perfect Form of their own This is Puritanism in opposition to that old Protestant spirit which animated our 39. Articles and the Canons Ecclesiastical ratified by Q. Elizabeth and K. James Besides suppose there were any Truth in this assertion that the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church lies in the Puritan party yet unless they are enemies also to those seditious and rebellious principles maintained by some Papists they are not true English Protestants and consequently they deserve not to be protected and encouraged by England's King If mere averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations were a good Argument of a good Protestant 't would prove Socinians the best in the world Those Bishops said he in the Church of England who were heartily averse from Popish Innovations were more benign and favourable to Puritans Which signifies little unless he could prove it true of all such Bishops but it may be he understands by Popish Innovations either the old Ceremonies enjoyned by Law or some new Ceremony permitted and allowed perhaps recommended by Law and it had been strange if such kind of Bishops as were heartily averse from such Ceremonies because they fancied them Popish Innovations should not favour Puritans And again If some Bishops in the Church of England were more benign and favourable to Puritans 't is no great wonder since the same Bishops were it seems counted Puritan by the adverse party Indeed both King and Bishops were more benign and favourable to many of them than they deserved which gave them leisure and opportunity to grow numerous to increase and strengthen their party till at last they were too strong both for King and Bishops for the loyal
Scripta Synodalia Remonstrantium and then tells us how he likes those methods of Cure or if he thinks these too partial Relators let him peruse the Acta Synodalia contra-Remonstrantium with an attentive and impartial spirit and if that Book does not sufficiently prejudice him against those Physicians 't will not have so good an influence upon him as to my knowledge it has had upon one who was no friend to Arminian Tenents Though some moderate men were against the Remonstrants in all five Articles in substance yet if they differed but in manner of speaking from the rigid Synodists who were the major part they would not hold him sound Does he call this Healing There was a plot laid ex composito by the fierce Party for the disgracing of the Breme Divines who were more temperate and the Brittish Divines drew the indignation of the Provincials upon themselves by sweetly interposing to allay their contentions Does he call this Healing When the Remonstrants seemed to yield the forrein Divines could not be heard for the continuing them in the Synod their voices indeed were ask'd hoping they would have been answerable to the Provincials design but finding it was otherwise without so much as laying their heads together for consultation they publisht a Decree of dismission which was written before they came into the Synod The trick was a little too palpable says Mr. Balcanqual Does he call this Healing The Canons were drawn up in private and as 't were dictated by the President just as those of the Council of Trent are said to have been by the Pope which occasioned that reflection that the Holy Ghost to whose aids the Tridentine Synodists pretended so much in their Decrees was sent from Rome to Trent in a Portmantue Does he call this Healing And says Mr. Balcanqual they would have their Canons so full charged with Catechetical Speculations as they will be ready to burst and methinks 't is hard that every man should be deposed from his Ministry who will not hold every particular Canon never did any Church of old nor any Reformed Church propose so many Articles to be held sub poena excommunicationis Does he call this Healing If the present Convocation at Westminster should apply such remedies to the wounds and breaches made by Presbyterians in Church-affairs I doubt he would not call it an healing Synod But since he seems to approve and take pleasure in the exercise of such severities as degradation sequestration excommunication c. towards these that could not in conscience subscribe to the dictates of that Synod I wish him and his Party so much happiness as to be treated with the like severity by our Governours Civil and Ecclesiastical in case they will not subscribe to the Articles and Canons of the Church of England that so after many Conflicts those wide breaches which these State-Arminians have made among us may be healed and which in all probability had never proceeded to that degree of malignity if such gangren'd members had been cut off according to Canon depriv'd of the profits of their Benefices and the privilege of Church-Communion I wish also that our English Bishops may make them others feel the smart of that method of Discipline which it seems is very effectual to prevent the broaching of error viz. censuring every aberration in Doctrine and practice imposing silence upon Ministers as to doubtful and disputed opinions till a Synod shall determine which censures and impositions if impugned and disobeyed I presume are back'd with the Excommunication of such refractory persons These courses are esteemed good and laudable in Dutchland and Scotland and may be called Healing when made use of by Presbyterians but if our Bishops and their presbyters should deal thus with the disobedient presbyterians here in England Excommunication would be called persecution and the imposing of Canonical subscription a yoke of bondage an unneasonable thing and what not Witness this Authors language and discourse in this very Book where forgetting what 't was he had called Healing in this p. he affirms p. 94 95. 104 105. that Canonical subscription lately imposed is a yoke of Bondage which he supposes to be removed by the Kings Declaration and therefore though his Brethren in their Discourse of Liturgies p. 60. ingenuously confess that that Declaration cannot dissolve the obligation of a Law would not have that yoke laid on mens necks any more since 't is in his opinion both unnecessary unprofitable and unreasonable which last he proves against Prelatists by as weak an Argument as White as 't is suspected brings in the latter end of Rushworth's first Dialogue to prove against protestants in general that 't is unreasonable for them to hold any point certainly true and consequently to require any subscription to Articles viz. because they profess themselves fallible as if they who confess they might have been deceived may not yet be confident upon good grounds that they are not actually deceived and upon that account require subscription to them The other two he proves also by such Arguments as will render all Synods Presbyterian as well as Episcopal useless things and which will prove the Dutch French or Scotch imposition of Articles and Canons as unnecessary unprofitable and unreasonable as the English and yet Bishop Bancroft assures us in his Survey p. 311. that if the best and the learnedst man in Christendom were in Geneva and should oppose himself to any thing that the Church there holdeth if he escaped with his life he might thank God but he should be sure not to continue a Minister there No man shall ever perswade me says the Bishop but that the word of God doth give as free liberty to the Church of England for the repressing of such Schismaticks as either to Geneva or any Church whatsoever Thus he And if Prelatists had been as diligent and severe in enquiring out and punishing dissenters from the publickly receiv'd Doctrine and oppugners of the Laws of our Church a greater unity might have been procured and our sad divisions and breaches in all likelihood prevented I mean on supposition that the Civil Magistrates had in their several places respectively firmly adhered to the Ecclesiastical and prosecuted their Canonical Censures if contemn'd with the addition of Civil penalties upon the refractory and contumacious without which 't is not probable that the Dort Assembly would have proved an Healing Synod nor the Scotch-Discipline a sufficient preservative against Sects and Schisms which I am apt enough to believe severity will suppress though exercised by Presbyteries if the Civil Governours act their part in abetting and promoting the just severity of Ecclesiasticks Whence therefore says he p. 60. should this charge of Presbyteries begetting Sects and Schisms arise Peradventure some Presbyterians have turned Sectaries Surely it would be taken for a weak arguing to say that Prelacy is the way to Popery because some Prelatists have turned Papists A. I acknowledge that arguing weak
but what if they that make the objection be found to frame their Argument in reference to our modern Presbyterians in this manner Multitudes that embraced those Principles which Presbyterians owned in the days of their calamity and depression turned Sectaries and Schismaticks afterward and yet still retained those Principles and by rational deductions pleaded them in order to the justification of their Schism therefore those principles do in their own nature produce Sects and Schisms If the case be indeed thus the objection is strong and for the proof of the Argument and Antecedent I 'le undertake if this Author shall deny either or evince that the like objection may upon the like ground be urged against the English prelacy In the mean time we 'le content our selves with the affirmation of Charles the First that Presbytery was in the late times the great Master of lesser Factions in Religion The truth is says this J. C. Sectarianism both Presbyterian and Independent say I grew up in a Mystery of Iniquity good for 't was by opposing and exalting it self above all that was called God in this Nation and State-policy good again claw me and I 'le claw thee was the politick Dialect of Presbyterians at first towards Independents and it was not well discerned by the Presbyterians whom interest and reason of State perswaded to shut their eyes and wink at the Independents Anabaptists and other Sectaries till it became almost triumphant by Military successes but after that its growth did manifestly appear prejudicial to Presbyterian ambition Presbytery began to struggle with it to frown upon and oppose those whom it before countenanced and caressed and so continued until by the power of the Army it was enforced to sit down but never to comply unless 't were by taking the Engagement at last whereupon the Tongues and Pens of Sectaries were employed against none more than Presbyterians viz. because they thought the prelatists more conscientious adherers to Prelatical Principles than Presbyterians were to their dividing and dissipating maxims And I should be glad to hear of such bitter Invectives of the Papists against the Prelatists It seems the man hath neither seen nor heard of S. W's Scripts against the Right Reverend Bishop Bramhall and the Reverend Dr. Hammond or else he does not judge them bitter Invectives but it had been too palpable hypocrisie as well as a piece of high Ingratitude for Jesuits to have inveighed bitterly against our modern Presbyterians who were so zealously imployed for several years together about Jesuitical work and who had so industriously acted the Powder-Traitors part that they very effectually blew up both King and Parliament and at the Isle of Wight-Treaty were very busie in destroying Kingly power and in accomplishing the design of Campanella and other Papists viz. of changing our Monarchical Government into a Commonwealth-Form by placing all the considerable Authority and prerogative which before belonged to our Kings in some Lords Temporal and Commons And verily there 's no greater bar against Fanaticism than the right Presbyterian principles as 1. not to sever but joyn the written Word and Spirit for direction 2. The Spirit and use of Ordinances for edification 3. To erect a Stated Church-Order and Discipline 4. To allow to the Church a directive and to every Christian a discretive judgment 5. To insist only upon Divine Scripture-warrant and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion To which I answer briefly That the four first of these as he hath worded them in very general terms are as much Prelatical as Presbyterian nay they are owned by Independents and Anabaptists as well as Presbyterians and therefore if these Sects are Fanaticks there must be some greater bar against Fanaticism than those Principles But the Fifth To insist only on Divine Scripture-warrant and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion is so loosely and crudely delivered that 't is rather the main Original of all Fanaticism than a bar against it forasmuch as the Religion of the most sober Independents and Anabaptists as also of Enthusiasts and Quakers is founded upon this principle all of them waving humane Authority and insisting only on Scripture-dictates and that Divine warrant which thence they plead for their modes forms and opinions for their walking according to the light connate with them springing up within them or darted into them from above But of all the prejudices and scandals says this Author p. 63. 73. taken against this way Presbytery there 's none greater than this that 't is represented as Tyrannical and domineering and that those that live under it must like Issachar crouch under the burden A. It seems he thinks Tyrannical domineering over Inferiors to be a greater crime than disobedience and rebellion against Superiors or else he would have accounted their being represented as Rebels a greater prejudice against presbyterians than their being represented as domineering persons but he Apologizes for them by retorting the charge on Prelatists and telling us that Presbytery is not more severe in censuring the breach of God's Commandments than the Hierarchy in censuring the breach of their own Constitutions which passage looks as if the man had a mind to insinuate that Presbyterian severity is exercised only on the Transgressors of God's Commands and Hierarchical severity only on the offenders against Episcopal Constitutions Whether he had such an ugly meaning in those words or no I am not certain though to him that considers the egregious partiality of this discourse hitherto in favour of Presbyterians 't will be very probable he had If he had leaving him to prove the truth of them as to the Hierarchy I shall by and by make bold to disprove them as to Presbytery In the mean time we 'le pass on to the next words Or is the offence taken upon pretence that Presbyterians affect and arrogate an arbitrary power would rule by Faction and exercise a rigour to the stirring up of animosities and unquiet humours A. No the offence is not taken upon pretence as that 's contradistinct to proof but upon sufficient evidence that they are arrogant factious persons and very prone to stir up and foment unquiet humours by their disciplinarian rigour and though the Nation generally hath not through the mercy of Divine over-ruling providence experimented that discipline yet they say the Londoners had such proof of it in a little time as made them quite weary of Classical-lay-Elder-Tyranny If the goodness of an Almighty power had not prevented it we may well suppose that Presbytery would have proved as imperious and domineering here in England as Bishop Bramhall tells us it was in Scotland Towards particular persons says he Fair warning chap. 11. this Discipline is too full of rigour like Draco ' s Laws that were written in Bloud in lesser faults inflicting Church-censures upon slight grounds as for an uncomely gesture for avain word for suspicion of covetousness or pride for superfluity in raiment either for cost or