House of Peers carried for them by far the major part of Lords Yet after five repulses contrary to all order and custom it was by tumultuary instigation obtruded again and by a few carried when most of the Peers were forced to absent themselves In like manner was the Bill against root and branch brought on by tumultuary clamours and schismatical terrors Bill against Episcopacy which could never pass till both Houses were sufficiently thinned and over-awed To which partiality while in all reason justice and religion my conscience forbids me by consenting to make up their Votes to Acts of Parliament I must now be urged with an Army and constrained either to hazard my own A cause of the War defence of Episcopacy and my Kingdoms ruine by my defence or prostrate my conscience to the blind obedience of those men whose zealous superstition thinks or pretends they cannot do God and the Church a greater service than utterly to destroy that Primitive Apostolical and antiently Vniversal government of the Church by Bishops And the King hath the like complaint * Kings declaration to all his loving subjects Aug. 12. 1642. p. 8. print Cambr. else-where So that we see what was the mind and affection the scope and intent of the King and the two Houses as then when that Act passed touching Episcopacy Whence it will follow that as they had no intention nor ever consented to the Bill for it to destroy the office so neither did the Commons think that it was so by that Act of taking away their votes or by recalling of the former clause of 1 Eliz. 1. touching Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for then they would not have prepared another Act for it which never passed the Houses whilst full nor the Kings assent afterward and so is no Law It remaineth therefore that the intention of the Parliament in the repealing of that clause was onely in reference unto the High-commission Court or other excentrical from the legal jurisdiction of Bishops and raised onely by the Kings prerogative yet of use whilst established but removed not for its unprofitableness as to prevent some greater inconvenience It was their jurisdiction in those cases and upon such special commission from the King that there ceased not their ordinary legal and per se Episcopal power of government in this Church * By Act of this present Parliament for restoring Episcopal jurisdiction As hath been of late more authentically evidenced Answ 4 even before this was printed As for the Ordinance that especially at that time as it could at no time cannot countervene a setled Law Neither have the Houses power to declare any thing against Law as we heard above Lord Cant. speech ubi suprà For close therefore I repeat that suit of his and do humbly in the Churches name desire of his Majesty that it may be resolved not onely by all the Reverend Judges of England A supplication to his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament but by his Majejesty and both Houses of Parliament and then published by them that the Doctrine and Articles of Religion the Liturgy and Worship the Discipline and Government are not against or besides the Laws of this Realm That so the Church-Governors may go on cheerfully in their duty and the peoples minds be quieted by this assurance that neither the Laws nor their Liberties are infringed as Subjects thereby SECT VII Of the Obligation of the League and Covenant AGain it is objected that there is an engagement for the Reformation of the Doctrine Worship Assemblies Discipline and Government in the solemn League and Covenant therefore they are not to be adhered unto Subsect 1. That the Covenant obligeth not OMitting the elaborate and excellent pains of the University of Oxford in this argument Reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the Covenant 1647. Duplies of the professors of Aberdeen to the Brethr. concerning the Covenant 1638. Dr. Lesly Bish of Down in his Visitation speech Lond. 1638. 1. Argument Because it is opposite to after other Oaths c. Gal. 3.14 18. as also that of the Professors of Aberdeen in Scotland And of the Bishop of Down in Ireland the testimony of the three Kingdoms against it I shall propound only four Arguments to evince first the nullity of its obligation and then from thence collect what it binds yet unto The Arguments touching the former are First from the nature and order of this Oath The second from the power imposing of it The third from the matter of the oath it self The last from the scope and end of its framing and imposing First from the nature and order of this Oath When there are two oaths touching the same things and they contradictory one to another if the former be lawful and obliging the latter cannot be so too but void and null ipso facto Hence it is that our Apostle proveth the invalidity of the Ceremonial Law and Covenant being different from and in some sort opposite to the Covenant of Grace because it was made four hundred years after and so could not make the other void So this Oath and Covenant whereof we now speak being contradictory as shall be seen and is evident of it self to former lawful Oaths and Engagements confirmed by the Laws of the Kingdome as the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy Canonical Obedience Subscriptions to the three Articles and Protestations cannot make those former of none effect and is therefore void being taken as it was unlawful to take it unless the Obligation of the former Oaths and Engagements had been by the same or superiour power relaxed As was done by Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen to his subjects Sleid. Com. l. 18 Ad Ann. 1547. when he was no longer able to protect them Which was not our case Our former Oaths and Engagements were agreeable to Law and Equity both in their matter and authority injoyning them This contradictory to them and by an inferiour power yea by such a power as had not authority to do it which brings me to the second Argument 2. Arg. Because it was in posed by unsufficient power in opposition to the lawful authority namely taken from the power or rather the impotency of the imposers as to this act It is proved above that in the Government the King is Supreme by the Laws But if he were but equal yet in a coordinate power if when one desires to do his duty and is well able thereunto the other shall exclude him and act in opposition not only to him but also to the Laws established by all and impose upon the Subjects who are not obliged but as it proceeds from all to submit and to accept of such impositions if voluntarily is a threefold iniquity and injustice First Unto the person excluded against his will and right Secondly Against the liberty of the Subject who is not liable to injunctions proceeding from some but all Thirdly Against the priviledge
King James's Proclamation for Uniformity of Common-prayer prefixed to some Editions of the Liturgy which by Law was established in the daies of the late Queen of famous memory blessed with a peace and prosperity both EXTRAORDINARY and of many years continuance A STRONG evidence that God was therewith well pleased The importunity of the complainers was great their affirmations vehement and the zeal wherewith the same did seem to bee accompanied very specious And they began such proceedings as did rather raise a scandal in the Church than take offence away and did other things carrying a very apparent shew of Sedition Upon this double experience when such motions of change were made to him hee * In his Proclamation for unity of Common-Prayer and confer H. Court crushed the chicken here in the shell lest it being hatched by indulgence might pick out his eyes as it did afterward some others and did well King Charls His Majesties Father yeelded in these things to Scotland but doth not obscurely bewail it If any saith hee speaking of Episcopacy shall impute my yeelding to them my failing and sin Icon. Basilic medit 17. p. m. 156. I can easily acknowledge it On the issue whereof no man can without horrour reflect Now Faelix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum O happy hee whom others failings make Wise to become and by them warning take But it may be times are different and am I made of the Kings Counsel I conclude all 2 Chron. 25.16 Erasm in Epist Hieron ad Heliodor Tom. 1. Ep. 1. in Antidot advers calumniam first with that of Erasmus Ad haec video esse non-nullos hujuscemodiingenio ut cùm apicula ad omnem flosculum ad omnem advolans fruticem tantum id excerpat quod ad mellificium sit conducibile ipsi solum hoc venentur si quid sit quod aliquo pacto Calumniari possint His mos est è toto libro quatuor aut quinque verba decerpere atque in eis calumniandis ostendere quantum ingenio polleant Non animadvertunt quibus temporibus cui Causes of calumniating of an Author qua occasione quo animo scripserit ille Neque conferunt quid praecesserit quid sequatur quid alio loco eadem de rescripserit Tantum urgent ac premunt quatuor illa verba ad ea machinas omnes admovent Syllogismorum detorquent depravant aliquoties non intellecta calumniantur That is I perceive saith Erasmus that some men are of that disposition that whereas the little Bee flyes to every flower and to every green thing onely that it may gather that whereof it would make honey these men only hunt after that which they may rail at The custome of such men is out of a whole book to cull out four or five words and in reviling of them to shew what abilities they have They consider not in what times the Author wrote nor to what persons nor upon what occasion nor with what intention Nor do they compare what went before with what follows after what hee said of the same matter in another place Onely they urge those four words they wrest they deprave and sometimes reproach what they understand not Thus far hee Next with that elegant and prudent observation absit invidia verbo of our late Soveraign upon this same Argument Icon. Basilic Medit. 27. To His Majesty that now is Not but that saith hee the draught being excellent as to the main both for Doctrine and Government in the Church of England some liues as in very good figures may happily need some sweetening or polishing Which might have easily been done by a safe and gentle hand if some mens praecipitancy had not violently demanded such rude alterations as would have quite destroyed all the beauty and proportion of the whole Thus the King The close of all Dr. Usher L. Primate of Armagh Serm. before the H. of Com. Febr. 18. 1620. pag. 6 7. Rom. 16.17 I seal up all with the grave admonition of a Primate Bishop and the Authentique Decision of this case by a Prince of Kings Let not every wanton wit saith the former to one of the Houses of Parliament bee permitted to bring what fancies hee list into the pulpit and to disturb things that have been well ordered I beseech you Brethen saith the Apostle mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which yee have learned and avoid them Howsoever wee may see cause why wee should dissent from others in matter of opinion yet let us remember that that is no cause why wee should break the Kings Peace and make a rent in the Church of God A thing deeply to bee thought of by the Ismaels Ismaels of our time whose hand is against every man Gen. 16.12 and every mans hand against them who bite and devour one another until they bee consumed one of another Gal. 5.15 who forsake the fellowship of the Saints and by sacrilegious separation break this bond of peace Little do these men consider how precious the Peace of the Church ought to be in our eyes to bee redeemed with a thousand of our lives and of what dangerous consequence the matter of Schism is unto their own souls For howsoever the Schismatick secundum affectum as the Schoolmen speak in his intention and wicked purpose taketh away unity from the Church even as hee that hateth God taketh away goodness from him as much as in him lyeth yet secundum effectum in truth and in very deed hee taketh away the unity of the Church onely from himself that is hee cutteth himself off from being united with the rest of the body and being dissevered from the body how is it possible that hee should retain communion with the head Thus that most learned Primate Note for whom the Brethren seem to have a special reverence in recommending of his Model of Episcopacy Necessit Reform p. 53. Wherein yet hee did propound but not prescribe his â—udgement according to that Seneca Illi qui in his rebus nobis praecesserunt non Domini sed Duces nostri sunt or as the Apostle as a helper 2 Cor. 1.24 not as a Lord over the Faith of the Church in this particular but especially as respecting the time when more could not well bee hoped for The last word as 't is meet shall bee the Kings and 't was his deciding one in these controversies after hearing of all debates about them at the conference at Hampt Court Proclamat for authorizing the book of Com. prayer at the close And last of all saith hee wee do admonish all men that herereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and publick form of Gods service from this which is now ESTABLISHED For that neither will wee give way to any to presume that our own judgement having determined in a matter of this weight shall bee sweighed to
but even to those that are froward 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and that do afflict for well-doing For so the Apostle speaking to servants which by proportion holds unto subjects both because every Master is a Magistrate but especially because the ground of non-resistance here is not the lawful power he had neither as to the obtaining of it for he might take his servant by praedation pyracy or other unlawful ways nor the lawfulness of his commands for the Apostle supposeth the Masters to be such as punish for well-doing in which case God did never give direct power to command though he have given indirect power for the trial of his servants faith and patience The Apostle after he had required subjection to the King and others under him 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. explained in every Ordinance and command comes in the same chapter unto servants with the same precept but with this further explication which belongs to both that this subjection should be to the froward that is to the wicked and for not doing things they commanded against â—od for so the sense must be also The words are If a man for conscience toward God endure grief suffering wrongfully You see it is â—ods Ordinance not to resist though he suffer wrongfully that is for things wherein there is no direct right to command which is the same with that of our Saviour Resist not evil Matth. 5.39 explained but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek which sure he hath no right to do turn to him the other also Which is to be understood especially with reference unto Superiors and comparatively that is rather than resist Plead a subject may as Paul did Act. 16.37 chap. 22.25 against oppression of Magistrates resist he may not because God hath in so many places of his Word ordained otherwise but least of all by arms and in a publick way What cases may fall out wherein subjects may be no subjects they are very rare and are spoken to else-where in this Treatise but are far from our case in this Nation and so concern us not SECT IV. A State a Parliament or inferior Magistrates THe fourth mistake of the former Authors is that they distinguish in this question betwixt a Parliament or State or inferior Magistrates and private persons granting defence unto the one though denyed unto the other and so would avoid the Scriptures as well as Reasons prohibition not to resist the higher powers But first they say that a private person is not prohibited resistance but for want of strength so not for conscience sake a vile position If the power in a Parliament or State or inferior Magistrates be derived from a Superior they have no power to use it against him for it is his and theirs onely by concession from him nor is it conferred on them but with that intention for his service not his opposition If they use it against him it must be by some other superior power that hath conferred other powers upon them and that must be some visible one too for their very esse and being as such a Parliament State or Magistracy is wholly dependent from him who conferred those powers upon them This for Reason Then for the Scripture they would so elude by saying That it doth not forbid the Senate to resist if it did prohibit private persons because neither Paul nor Peter wrote to them not being Christians We must note that the Apostle Rom. 13. forbidding every soul to resist the higher powers as being the Ordinance and order of God by and among men 1 Pet. 2. explained must mean according to the known practise of those times whether by Law or Custom or Will of the Prince Now if the Law did enable any to resist as the Senate or other why then that is the higher power for resistance is by the Sword Note and it is the higher power onely that bears the sword and so such resistance should not be resistance to but an execution of the higher power If the Laws formally or really gave no power then by this prohibition of the Apostle they could not resist because none might resist the higher power He speaks distributively every soul that he might be understood the more comprehensively all together And he speaks indefinitely without restraining or excepting lest any should plead exemption What the Senate did against that Prince under whose government they were when the Apostle wrote to the Romans viz. Nero by proclaiming him an enemy to the Common-wealth proscribing of him and decreeing he should be punished more majorum And what their power or the foundation of it was and what their case is not much material for us to query seeing the constitution or at least the practice of their State and ours as they do so they ought to differ as much as Heathenism and Christianity And this for their fourth mistake in placing any difference betwixt inferior Magistrates and private men in case of resistance beyond the Laws for in that respect they are but private men as genera species subalternae respectu superiorum But from the Thesis of States and inferior Magistrates in general they come SECT V. The co-ordinate power of the two Houses in making Laws TO the Hypothesis and in particular in reference unto the Government of this Nation They say That the King is not wholly supreme because as he hath a negative voice so also each of the Houses of Parliament and that he cannot make alter or abrogate a Law of himself but that they have a co-ordinate power with him For answer It were more for the personal advantage Answ and perhaps satisfaction of Kings if there were no Laws but that they govern'd after their own judgment It is therefore of concession and a departing from their advantage to have Laws and to limit themselves by them for the better satisfaction of their subjects Now although it be truly affirm'd by a present and reverend Pen Dr. Sanderson L. Bishop of Lincoln Preface to B. Usher of the right of Kings pag. 4. That the justice of succession is the onely right and proper foundation of Government wherein he was foregone by him who saith of succession * D. Hen. Savilius praefat ded R. Jacob. prefix operib J. Chrysost Gr. Quod si cui leve videatur sciat eam rem tanti apud majores nostros fuisse ponderis ut non priùs justum legitimum Normannorum in Anglia imperium fuisse arbitrarentur quà m Mathildis Davidis soror Henrico primo enupta regiam nobis sobolem daret ex antiqua regum Saxonicorum stirpe derivatam Which Succession saith mine Author if it seem a small matter to any man he must know that it was of so great weight with our Ancestors that they never thought that the Government of William the Conqueror and the Normans was just and lawful until Mathildis the sister of David * Abnepos grandchild to
But all this so as that no Article of the Confession no point of Doctrine no part of Worship is altered And yet the Brethren have raised such a hue and cry as if the later Bishops yea and Princes not excepting Queen Elizabeth had a design to corrupt the Articles to poison the Worship to impose unestablished things upon the conscience and liberty of the Subject and to punish men for disobedience thereunto As if all Religion were pessundated and Omnia in pejus ruere retro subâ—apsa referri All goes to ruine Thames to Tyber flows Th' Assembly to a Convocation grows As if as Pauls by the Brethrens fautors so the whole Church were like to be an Augaean Stable Well spake Tertullian of their fathers Prescript adv Heres non longè ab initio Scripturas obtendunt hac suâ audacia statim quosdam movent in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant infirmos capiunt medios cum scrupulo dimittunt They pretend Scripture saith he and by this their confidence they presently move some In disputation they trouble those that are strong they take the weak and send away the middle sort with doubting I conclude that notwithstanding the exceptions of the Brethren the Common-prayer-book as well as the Articles Act for uniformity of Com. prayer is established by Act of Parliament And that therefore If any manner of Parson Vicar or other whatsoever Minister shall preach declare or speak any thing in the derogation or depraving of the said faid Book or any thing therein contained or any part thereof and shall be thereof lawfully convicted shall forfeit c. I have done with the second Head of Objections viz. The establishing of the Liturgy and Worship Subsect 3. Discipline established Object I Come to that against the third the Discipline which they say is not established neither The discipline not establish'd They instance in the Episcopal Courts and Canons the first whereof is Jurisdiction Now the Bishops are of age Answ let them speak for themselves One of them Arch-bishop Whitgift against T. Cartwright Bishops Courts Lord Cant. speech at the censure of Dr. Bastwick c. in the Preface and the greatest in his time doth acknowledge That they exercise their jurisdiction in their Courts by vertue of the Laws and Commissions Royal onely The next in the same rank goes farther and upon occasion of such calumny makes it his suit unto the King and I do humbly in the Churches name desire your Majesty that it may be resolved by all the reverend Judges of England and then published by your Majesty that our keeping Courts and issuing Process in our own names and the like exceptions * Namely by T. Cartwright and others formerly taken and now renewed are not against the Laws of this Realm as 't is most certain they are not Thus far he What can indifferent men desire more then an appeal to all the legal Interpreters the Judges of that Law which they are said to violate and to the supreme Judge and spring-head thereof the King This for their Courts The Canons of the Church K. James As for the Canons Because the King-craft of that Prince which did confirm them as himself calls it is herein question'd as if he understood not what did touch his own prerogative and the Laws for he by his Authority under the Broad Seal confirmed those Canons I shall not take upon me the vindicatâ—on of so great a Person seeing he hath a Grandson and Successor our present Soveraign to do it for him at whose feet and the Laws I shall let that lie the rather because that point is like very shortly to be determined by publick authority So much for Discipline Subsect 4. Of Government Episcopal THe last is Government Episcopal namely and here 25 Edw. 3. Ann. 1350. Necessity of Reform p. 40. illis adhaeret aqua Themselves acknowledge and cite the Act saying That whereas the holy Church of England was FOVNDED in the estate of PRELACY within the said Realm of England by the said Grandfather Edw. 1. and his Progenitors and the Earls and other Nobles of his said Realm and their Ancestors to inform them and the people in the Law of God c. This then is granted to be according to the constitutions of this Nation Legal which is moreover known to all by this That all Acts of Parliament since that foundation have given the precedency of Baronship unto the Bishops the form usually being The Kings Majesty with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Object doth enact c. Nay but though Episcopacy was established by Law 17 Car. cap. 1. Office of Episcopacy ceased yet it is not so now For the Act of 17 Car. 1.11 repeating the clause of the Act of 1 Eliz. 1. which instals the Queen and her Successors with power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the onely ground of the Bishops authority and jurisdiction Reasons for necessity of Reform p. 51 52 53. and repealing that clause did besides the taking away their Votes in Parliament take also away their power authority and jurisdiction and so the very office it self of Episcopacy whereupon the Ordinance of Lords and Commons makes all their grants void since 17 Car. 1. because then their Office expired Answ 1 For answer first in general That it was neither in the purpose nor to speak as the thing is in the power with due observance be it uttered of either Parliament or Prince to take away the powers which are essential and unseparable from the Crown and Office of a King which we see of right to have belonged and with praise to have been executed not onely in the Scripture both by Jewish and Heathenish Princes as by Nebuchadnezzar by Cyrus Dan. 3.29 Ezr. 6. Jon. 2. by Darius by the King of Ninive c. as well as by David Jehosophat Hezekiah and Josiah but also in the primitive Church by Constantine and Answ 2 others after him Besides we may not conceive the Parliament intended to countervene an express Article of the Confession of this Church Artic. 37. of the Civil Magistrate which having named the Queens Majesty saith Unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain That prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself And in particular that it was not the Answ 3 purpose of the King or the two Houses as then they were to take away the office and ordinary jurisdiction of Episcopacy appears evidently in that the King he asserts it to be a main cause of the war Ei kâ—â— Basilic Med. 9. and of his own calamity for that he would not consent thereunto How oft saith the King was the business of the Bishops injoying their antient places Bishops Votes in Parliam and undoubted privileges in the
1538. p. 283. The summe is he distinguisheth betwixt miscarriage by errour ignorance and negligence which he acknowledgeth and the Lords correction of him for it and wilful guilt and intentional mischief which he denyeth to have been in that affair but retracting and lamenting we have him in the former Adde to these Mr. Ridley Bishop Bishop Ridley of Lond and one of the Learnedest of the Martyrs in Q. Marys time Whom his Answer to the Q. Commissioners April 2. 1554. hath these words His notable expression and protestation of Liberty to Retract These things I do rather recite at this present because it may happen to some of you hereafter as in times past it hath done unto me God may open it unto you in time to come Therefore I b] Fox Act and Mon. in Q. Mary protest here publickly that it may be lawful for me to adde or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more convenient and meet for the purpose through more sound judgement better deliberation and more exact tryal of every particular thing Nay even Bellarmine himself that wrote against all Errants of his time whether real or imagined as if himself had been without errour and whom our c] Contro 1. Epist Dedic ad D. Cecil Whitaker styleth Virum sanè doctum ingenio foelicem judicio subtili lectione multiplici praeditum and to whom being a Cardinal and a Pillar it might be scandalous to alter any thing Yet he hath also the Recognition of his Works wherein he retracts several things he had formerly asserted Bellarmine and this formally Not to insist on his retractations real and in effect who whilest he writes for Recognit oper prefix Editionibus recent Cynthius aurem vellit admonuit undermines the main foundations of his own cause as might be shewn Yea and the five Independent Br. themselves that I may have them the more exorable Judges do profess and say In a jealousie of our selves Independents Apologetic Narrat p 11. we kept this reserve to alter and retract though not lightly whatever should be discovered to be taken up out of a misunderstanding of the rule c. Now Coronidis loco to set a Crown with the conclusion upon the ingenuity of the former Company His late Majesty We have His Royal Majesty our late Soveraign condescending unto Retractations yea even once and again We must saith he without endeavouring to excuse that Kings Answ to the Remonstr of May 19. 42. p. 10. which in truth was an errour Our going to the House of Commons Again elsewhere having spoken of his consenting to the deposition of Episcopal Government in Scotland he saith If any shall impute My yielding to them as My failing and sin I can easily acknowledge it c. Icon Basilic Medit. 17. p. 156. Seeing therefore imperfection and obnoxiousness unto errour is not only as the shadow to this body of death always following of it but also that the best and wisest of men in all Ages have judged it their parts to retract and denie their former judgements if found erroneous I shall conclude this first point touching the right causes and instances of Retractations with that of the great example in this kind so often quoted n] Aug. de Dono perseverantiae cap. 21. Bonae quippe spei est homo si eum sic proficientem dies ultimus vitae hujus invenerit ut adjiciantur ei quae proficienti defuerunt perficiendus quà m puniendus potiùs judicetur There is good hope of that man saith he whom the last day of his life shall find going forward in the pursuit of truth that there may be added to the thriving man what he yet wants and he may be counted worthy rather to be perfected then punished CHAP. II. How farre only the Authour declined how he behaved himself therein and what awakened him unto recovery Sect. I. How far the Authour lapsed in the Church Affairs IT follows next to represent in short how far only I proceeded in my lapse what was my carriage therein and by what means it pleased God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stir up the sparks of light for my arising Of the first 1 Sam. 2. Psal 37. There is a promise that God will keep the feet of his Saints so that though they fall they shall not be cast off for the Lord will put under his hand And that they shall hear a voice behind them Isa 30. saying this is the way walk in it when they turn to the right hand and when they turn to the left according to that of the wise man Eccles 5. ult He that feareth God namely in sincerity shall come out of them all 1 Joh. 3. chap. 5. For he that is born of God cannot sin to wit that sin unto death and of final Apostacy The reason is first his seed remaineth in him Job 19. even the root of the matter as Job speaks And then again 1 Pet. 1. he is kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation as S. Peter uttereth it All which like as we have heard Psal 48. so have we seen in the City of the Lord of Hosts in the City of our God the Church that God will establish it for ever Matth. 16. so that the gates of Hell shall not for ever prevail against it For at my receding from the Church the many Conflicts of my spirit brought forth this protestation at my very first * At Colch Apr. 15. 1644. Artic. 3. admission into that Company The Authors protestation atentring into Indepency Which he noteth not as owning every expression in it but as to evidence his opposition even then to Separation viz. Causes and Motives of my present motion First Of coming off from the way I have been in 1. Negatively what they are not Not because the Congregations of England are all false Churches and the Ministers false ones and the Ordinances none For I conceive first that where any number of visible Christians have chosen expresly or by consent a fit Pastor and joyn in spirit with him and one with another in the things of God according to his Word though there be no express Covenant nor Separation from the multitude for want of light in these things they become a true Church they having thereby all the essential◠of one Secondly where God ordinarily and plentifully works to edification there must be something of a Church for he is not ordinarily present to edification but in his house 2. Positively what they were namely an apprehension of more purity in Assemblies and Ordinances Secondly Under what condition I desire to be taken on scil of a profession 1. Of my acknowledgement of the Authority of Magistracy over all persons in Civil Causes 2. In Church matters for the point of publick exercise so as not to raise tumults and by force to obtain the exercise of Religion 3. Of my
resentment of the premises and which hath wrought this repentance may never be repented of nor that there ever be cause that I retract these retractations Amen Yea there may be those who having lost me may by some artifice effect that I shall lose those whom they think I now intend to win that so being by both deserted I might be ruined But God who sees their plots and my plainness in this affair will I hope disappoint them But if he shall for his glory and my further mortification permit them I hope my suffering shall be like that of Mephibosheth for even David may be abused by a treacherous Ziba for my Loyalty 2 Sam. 19.27 1 King 2. not like that of Shimei for my Apostacy And that I shall never prove either * Qui Sacr. libros tradebancâ— ethnicis Traditor or Proditor false to this Church or faithless to my Country Quia qui in pace militibus suis futuram praenunciat pugnâ—m dabit militantibus in congressione victâ—riam Because he that hath warned his Souldiers of the approaching Battel Cypr. Epist 2. l. 1. will also in the conflict assist to victory And I may give them this taste of my spirit and his grace That whereas upon his Majesties return by prayer I was often importuned to ask and assured to have I wilingâ—y let slip the season that I might evidence I did not follow Christ for the Lâ—eaves nor the King for a Living As also that I might by the publishing this being not onely my retractation but confession also of my faith clearly be known and so no error personae or ignorantia facti be complained of afterward Besides Providence hath so disposed in outward matters that I may in the state I am perhaps not uncomfortably subsist without much addition Sect. 6. Proof that the Author went no further Now for close and confirmation that my lapse was not so exorbitant through the mercy of God as to my principles in either of the former causes I shall subjoyn a passage touching each out of those my actings which were most eminent in these particulars and first for the War Serm. on Judg 5.23 Jun 19 1642. at Trin. Ch. in Camb. Prov. 19. In that Discourse wherein I gave Answer in the University unto Dr. Feams Book at its first appearance there are these words Object 3. But the King forbids this help viz. by the War and commands the contrary Now where the word of a King is there is power and his wrath is as the roaring of a Lion Eccles 8. Ibid. And I counsel thee obey the Kings commandment and that because of the Oath of God vers 4. Rom. 13. And who shall say to the King What dost thou And He that resists resists the Ordinance of God c. Answ We are not to take notice of the Kings commands as they look upon the publick but by his Laws which are his deliberate will and by those whom the Law hath appointed interpreters of it And then indeed when a King comes in his Laws he is more than a man for he is the Minister of God and whosoever resists resists the Ordinance of God and he that resists shall receive to himself damnation Object 4. But the King saith He proceeded according to Law who shall judge Resp The same body rightly gathered that made the Law i. e. the Common-wealth can best judge of its own meaning And seeing Law is not declared by the King but in his Courts and the higher Court being that of Parliament we are to rest in their declaration unless we see manifestly to the contrary By which passage it doth appear that there was this especially that did misguide me viz. The misapplication of some true principles First That the Law of Nature allowing self-preservation to a Nation as well as a Man it might be endeavoured in case of necessity as to particular Laws illegally Which is untrue Rom. 3. for We must not do evil that good may come thereof Secondly That the King being always to be obey'd in his Laws declared in his Courts and the Parliament being the highest Court therefore what the two H. H. did declare to be Law was so wherein there was a doubble mistake 1. That the two Houses were the Parliament in exclusion of and opposition to the King that I say not a lesser part for number of Lords and Commons though enough in formality of Law 2. That it was Law which they declared to be so See the Declaration of 2 H. H. Novemb 2. 1642. in answer to that of the Kings May 26. pag. 22. though no Law was shewed but a sentence out of Bracton who wrote in Hen. 3. in the time of the Barons Wars and who in another place hath the clean contrary as shall appear and it may be a sentence or two out of some other private Lawyer against the constant sentence of Lawyers and the known practice of the Law and Parliaments This for the War that I might shew that Law the Authority of Parliament mistaken and no private headiness did transport me Next for Independency In the Tract I published on that Argument Vindiciae Catholicae cap. 1. p. 3. there is this passage Now the scope of this Treatise is not to unfasten the ground of all Church-combination and to lay a foundation for absolute Independency The conveniency and sometime the necessity of Classes and Synods for direction and determination and that by Divine Authority is freely acknowledged though no with power properly Juridical yea I add that Episcopacy it self was and might be maintained as also Presbytery if confined to a particular Church and not subjected to Superior Ecclesiastical power which was the most antient way of it might both consist together in a particular one Again The violation of Parochial limits oft-times manifestly prejudicial to edification yet am not I for the drawing of any godly able pag. 69. and faithful Ministers people from him who is for the substance of Reformation though with many defects in lesser things Again But this is not their my own and some others opinion pag. 79. that it is essentially requisite to the being of a visible Church that it meet in one place they hold it de benè esse for conveniency not absolutely necessary From which passages it is evident first That not such an Independency as some practised was pleaded for but such as might agree not with Presbytery onely but with Episcopacy and not onely with a Parochial Church or the Church of a City but such as might agree with a Nation also As indeed the Church of England and other National Churches are independent as to right of Jurisdiction from all other Churches There being no such thing in re as an universal Visible governing Church as I have I think evinced in the Treatise above mentioned but every expression in that passage I own not But to conclude I repeat that of Bucer
the Kingdom Dec. 15. 1642. was the fountain of all the following mischiefs The very first line is Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled Next the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy do declare That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supream Governor of this Realm over all persons and in all causes 2. Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance 3 Eliz. cap. 1. Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. Remonstr of Lords and Commons Nov. 2. 1642. Ecclesiastical and Temporal and of all other his Dominions and Countries Yea and every Parliament-man before he can sit is bound by Law to swear them Now this is not answered in my judgment by a saying out of a Private * Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Lawyer that Rex habet in populo regendo superiores legem per quam factus est curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones And by that other that Rex est major singulis but minor universis For the former Author hath that sentence and words out of Bracton who hath several times also the quite contrary as shall appear Again It is against the tenor and current of Law and Lawyers and the known practise of the Nation Thirdly It may bear an other interpretation namely understanding the Law either of God who makes Kings Prov. 8. or of men made with the Kings consent whereunto he hath voluntarily obliged himself from which at first he might be free And by the superiority of his Court their legal jurisdiction conferred on them by his approbation for decision of ordinary controversies that may fall betwixt himself and his Subjects but not simply his superiors first because he calls it His Court now the owner is greater than the thing owned as such Again else the Earls and Barons were the superior power to the King Fourthly This refers not at all to the House of Commons whereof neither Fleta nor his Author Bracton in this sentence make any mention Again secondly the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance and the style the Parliament speak in of his Majesties loyal and humble subjects the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. are not answered by saying that this of supream head and governor over all persons Object in all causes is meant of singular persons rather than of Courts or of the collective Body of the whole Kingdom And that it is meant in Curia not in Camera in his Courts not in his private Capacity and properly onely in his high Court of Parliament wherein and wherewith his Majesty hath supream Power For first Answ 1 The Oathes speak comprehensively both of Persons and Causes over all and in all So again the style of humble and obedient subjects is spoken as from them as the two Houses of Parliament for so they say assembled in Parliament Now if Subjects then and there sure Soveraigns or associates in Soveraignty they cannot be the terms in the same respect are contradictory Thirdly If the King be acknowledged to be the fountain of justice as the Law and Lawyers say he is of which anon then both Laws and Courts flow from him and thence are called his Laws his Courts and so ordine naturae dignitatis both in nature and dignity must be before and above both His splendor is in his Courts but his Supremacy not onely there but in his person also from whence it was derived to his Courts For there must be a First in nature either the King or his Courts and if they be His Courts then he made them and therefore in esse naturae before them Neither doth it hence follow as is there inferred Object That then the King may over-rule all his Courts Ibid. even the Parliament it self and so the goodly frame of Government should soon be dissolved and Arbitrary power brought in Answ For the King having both consented and sworn to the Laws and to the maintaining the jurisdiction of his Courts acting according to those Laws is not now in that respect sui juris and arbitrary in Government but obliged both to God and man to act by Laws and to preserve his Courts unviolate But if any Court shall assume a greater power than the King and Law hath given them or act in opposition to that power from whom they had their being whilst he doth not openly reject all Laws and Government much less when he doth rationally together with as many or more both of Lords and Commons though excluded the formality of being in such a place judge that he acts according to Law in the main of his proceedings In such case and in such actings they are not such a Court nor are not authorised with power from above but act excentrically and as private persons unto whom the Declaration grants the King to be superior As the Army having received Commission from the two Houses of Parliament afterward turned their Arms against them which they could not do by their Commission as also a great fautor of their proceedings since then spake in my hearing God thereby perhaps representing to the Houses by the Army their own failings toward their Superior And the Armies reasoning was on the like principles viz. That they were entrusted with power for the Kingdoms preservation and that the Parliament degenerating they must not see the Kingdom perish Object 3 Neither may it be received that if the Parliament may take account of what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts Ibid. much more of what is done by him without the authority of any Court For to speak properly the Parliament takes account not of the Kings actions or authority in his Courts but of his Officers and of their administration of that authority and this also by the Kings consent established by Law whereby they are enabled so to do Or to speak yet more properly The Parliament that is the King Lords and Commons for the Parliament is not without the King as being the Head of it but without and in opposition unto him and the Laws they do not take such cognizance Again for that saying That they might much more take account of the Kings actions that are done without the authority of any Court meaning the great administration of Justice and the raising of Arms Seeing no Court is superior to its Author the King therefore no Court can give authority to him but he to them nor can they call him to account for then they were his superiors and had the Regal Power and himself should be no King as is expresly affirm'd in Mr. St. John's speech against Ship-mony of which afterward Humbly represent to him they may his miscarriages and punish his Ministers so it may be done without sedition and assuming the Sword which is inseparable from the Supreme Power Lastly How can this be assented unto that because when the Title is dubious Ibid. pag. ult he is
to be accepted for King whom the two Houses declare to be so by the Statute of 11 H. 7. that therefore much more they may judge in the great question what is the best service of the King and Kingdom Whence also it will follow that they have the power of declaring Law in all cases How I say can this be received namely to argue from a power in doubtful cases to a power in cases that are clear in Law and reason or sense Secondly when there is no King actually their power may be more as the wife that hath no husband Thirdly The Declaration of Parliament doth not give the King his title or authority but onely declares recognizeth and acknowledges that he had it before As for those assertions in that Declaration Ibid. viz. That the Soveraign Power resides in the King and both Houses of Parliament That the two Houses are judges superior to all others That the Kings negative voice doth not imply a liberty to deny c. because no Law is produced and that they oppose such as are known as also the practise of Parliament in this Nation conscience is to seek for a foundation of assent unto them It is delivered as Law that the King is the * Mr. Pym's speech at the attainder of the Earl of Straffâ—rd p. 10. Father the Husband of the Common-wealth he is the Head they are the body * Mr. St. Johns speech at the same Attaind p. m. 7. That the Laws are the Kings Laws he is the fountain from whence in their several channels they are derived to the subject * The case of Ship-mony a speech in Parliament Nov. 3. 1640. pag. 12 13. Note That he is the soul of the Law in whose power it is ALONE to execute Law and yet not be constrained thereunto That the Sacred PERSON of the King is INVIOLABLE and subject to no force or compulsion of any other and free from any coercive or vindicative power That this freedom is unsepar ble from the Person of the King because no force can be used but by Superiors or Equals and he that hath Superiors or Equals is no KING Again first The Judges in Calv. case recited by D. Austin Allegiance not impeached cap. 1. That allegiance of the subject is due to the King by the Law of Nature Secondly That the Law of Nature was before any Judicial or Municipal Law as being written from the beginning in mans heart Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable Fourthly That this immutable Law of Nature Bractoâ— is a part of the Law of England That Rex in regno parem habere non debet cum par in parem non habeat potestatem multo fortiùs non habeat superiorem The King in his Kingdom ought to have no equal because one equal cannot have power over another much less should he have any superior Object And this is not to be taken with that exposition as above Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. Serg. Bradshaw at the sentencing hâ—s late Majesty vâ—z That he is major singulis minor universis Greater then any one but less then all For both the Statute is express That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People Answ of the Spirituality and Temporality 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. 4. Declarat of Parliament Proposition in Parliament Apr. 25. 4 Car. propos 5. Rushworth Collect. p. 553. are bound next unto God in a natural obedience As also it is acknowledged in full Parliament First in general by the House of Lords As touching his Majesties Royal Prerogative intrinsecal to his Soveraignty and betrusted him withall from God Ad communem totius populi salutem non ad destructionem That his Majesty would resolve not to use or divert the same to the prejudice of any of his loyal people in the property of their goods or liberty of their persons is prayed by the Lords And in particular by the Commons Most dread Soveraign We your dutiful Commons now assembled in Parliament we think it is a meet and most necessary duty being called by your Majesty to consult and advise of the great and urgent affairs of this Church and Common-wealth Commons Remonstrance against the Duke 4 Car. Anno 1628. Rush Collect. pag. 631. Note finding them at this time in apparent danger of ruine and destruction faithfully and dutifully to inform your Majesty thereof and with bleeding hearts and bended knees to crave your speedy redress therein as to your wisdom unto which we most humbly SUBMIT our selves and our desires shall seem most convenient So then first the Kings prerogative is intrinsecal unto his Soveraignty and betrusted to him by God say the House of Lords And they most humbly submit themselves and their desires to the wisdâ—m of the King say the House of Commons even then when both Church and Common-wealth were in apparent danger of ruine and destruction And to return again unto the judgment of the Sages of the Law the former Author saith That the King is the most excellent * Bract. l. 1. c. 8. Majestas Intemerata pag. 38. Bract. l. 2. de Acquir rer domin c. 24. Stamf. r. 7. 11. Majestas Intemerata p. 32. part of the Common-wealth next unto â—od Again Dominus Rex habet ordinariam jurisdictionem dignitatem potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt Our Lord the King saith the same * Bracton cited by Stamford lib. 2. cap. 2. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant sect 7. pag. 27. Bracton hath ordinary jurisdiction dignity and power over all which are in his Kingdom And ea quae jurisdictionis sunt pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam dignitatem regiam nec à Coronâ separari possunt And that therefore those things which are annexed to justice and peace belong to none but the Crown and dignity Royal neither can they be separated from the Crown We have heard the testimony of Lawyers yea and of the Law it self the dialect also and speech of Parliament and the judgment of those who have not by the way Dr. Bilson of Subj Rebel Part. 3. ed. Lond. 1586. p. 277. but ex professo handled this argument with the full witness of one of which number and that an eminent one I shall conclude this particular who speaking of the German Wars and of their Laws and ours saith Their States be free and may resist any wrong by the Laws of the Empire The German Emperor is elected and his power abated by the liberties and prerogatives of his Princes The Queen of England inheriteth and hath ONE and the same right over ALL her subjects be they NOBLES or others Now all the fore-mentioned allegations concerning the Person Power and Prerogative of the King and the subjection of all persons and our allegiance
due by nature to him being uttered as Law and in Parliament and cited by those that in the late contest appeared against him are authentick And the the things being so as they came farther into my knowledge and consideration the same sense of the Laws and my allegiance as that before of Religion did concuss and shake me from the one and setle me on the other side And this to the first Motive 2. The Integrity of the persons and their ability To the second the integrity and ability of many of the persons inviting to this contest might be very great yet all of them were not for it as shall be seen anon Besides Answ it is the doctrine of our Church that a Council may Artic. 21. Paphnut Socrates H. lib. 1. cap. 8. 3. Authority of the two Houses and have erred even in things pertaining to God And in the first and great Council of the Primitive Church in a very material point they all erred but one and suffered themselves by him to be corrected To the third the Authority of the two Houses I did not then so throughly consider though I had some doubts as was noted above that they were the Child the King Answ 1 the Parent that they were the Spouse the King the Husband 1. Their Relation that they were the Body the King the Head as we heard above out of Mr. Pym. Now these relations doubtless could not regularly act without much less in opposition to the chief relatum unless in cases of infancy alienation of mind voluntary absence abdication of the Government 2. Their Style and such like of which more anon Besides we heard even now themselves in Parliament style themselves His Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament in that Declaration wherein they did not onely pare the nails but even also pierce the quick 3. Their Title and Power whereon founded and in what consisting Moreover what power and authority they have it must be by Law Power publick and authoritative I suppose consists especially in three points first in making Laws secondly in declaring Law lastly in executing Law Touching the first Although the King being the fountain of Law it must primarily flow from him though into his Courts yet it is condescended unto and a share is granted them in making Laws and protecting Liberties Kings answer to the 19 propâ—sit 1642. pag. 12. what that is his late Majesty you will say hath fully opened In this Kingdom saith he the Laws are joyntly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free votes and particular privileges The Government according to those Laws is trusted to the King 1 power of Treaties of war and peace 1. Kings prerogative 2 of making Peers 3 of choosing Officers and Counsellors for State 4 Judges for Law 5 Commanders for Forts and Castles 6 giving Commissions for raising men to make war abroad or to prevent or provide against invasions or insurrections at home 7 benefit of confiscations 8 power of pardoning and some more of the like kind are placed in the King 2. House of Commons Next for the House of Commons he saith Again That the Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it and make use of the name of publick necessity for the gain of his private favourites and followers to the detriment of his people The House of Commons an excellent conserver of liberty but never intended for any share in government for they do not administer an Oath or the choosing of them that should govern is solely intrusted with the first Propositions concerning the levies of monies which is the sinews as well of peace as of war and the impeachment of those who for their own ends though countenanced by any surreptitiously gotten command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knows it to protect and to the protection of which they were bound to advise him at least not to serve him in the contrary This for the Commons Next for the House of Lords he proceedeth And the Lords 3. House of Lords being trusted with a judicatory power are an excellent skreen and bank between the Prince and People to assist each against any encroachment of the other and by just judgment to preserve that Law which ought to be the rule of every one of the three Whence he adds Since therefore the power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of tyranny c. Thus far the King A share then they have in their several degrees in the Legislative power though neither supreme nor co-ordinate but subalternate and by descent from the high unto the lower 2. Declaring Law In his speech after his assent to the Petition of Right Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of the 19 of May 1642. pag. 21. Touching the next the power of declaring Law though the King do avow That the power of declaring Law be not in either or both Houses of Parliament without his consent and that the Judges are the interpreters of Law under himself Yet he saith We deny not but that they the Lords and Commons in Parliament may have a power to declare in a particular doubtful case regularly brought before them what Law is but to make a general declaration whereby the known rule of the Law may be crossed or altered they have no power nor can exercise any without bringing the life and liberty of the subject to a lawless and arbitrary subjection Lastly as to the execution of Law or judging by it This is not in any other 3. Execution of Laws but either in the House of Peers in Parliament with the Kings consent who must sign all their capital sentences or in the Judges and other Officers by Commission from the King in whose name they all proceed So then the power of government original and final and of execution of the Laws is in the King so far as is made known by the constant practice of the Nation A power therefore of resistance publickly and by Arms how should they have in opposition to the King who have no power of judging or execution of the Law but by authority from him and his consent formally expressed 4. Their silence in point of particular Law Lastly There was though spoken of and they urged to produce it never any Law shewn nor the Charter or Custom or Act named that did either formally or virtually imply a power of Government and much less of Arms without and in opposition to the King which might settle and satisfie the conscience The Barons Wars For some presidents in tumultuous times of some great men will not be a fit example for a Parliament And some very few sentences of one or two Lawyers
they were the judgment of the Kingdom He replyed Shew me such a body of people in the Nation as the Army is that have not forfeited their liberties and so implying that they might assume unto themselves the judgment of the Kingdom though in that case the Kingdom it self could not judge as was shewed above out of Mr. St. Johns speech because the Royal Person is exempt from vindicative justice So here in this speech all Government being as he said dissolved the Army were a considerable part of the Nation Nay by what follows that there was left nothing to keep things in order but the sword he might have said as before That they were the onely judgment of the Nation But this by the way though not out of it Again in the former speech The Judges saith he thinking pag. 21. that there was a dissolution of the Government did declare one to another Note The Judges that they could not administer justice to the satisfaction of their consciences untill they had received Commissions from me pag. 33. The Parliam And as touching the Parliament and the Militia the great Helena of our Trojan War The Militia whether to be in Parliament whether it should remain in the King or the Parliament have power of it he saith Whether the Parliament have not liberty to alter the form of Government to Aristocracy to Democracy to Anarchy to any thing if this THE MILITIA be fully in them Note yea unto all CONFVSION and that without remedy Lastly The Kings Negative voice pag. 34. as touching the Supreme Magistrate whose Person then he had usurped he saith I shall be willing to be bound more then I am in any thing that I may be CONVINCED of may be for the good of the people which point was like the Armour of Hector betwixt Ajax and Vlysses at the beginning of the War Corollaries from the former speech Now from these expressions we may observe 1. That the ends of the War Religion and Law were not attained but perverted 2. That the government of the Nation was dissolved in their judgment and not setled 3. Note That we were under an absolute arbitrary power 4. That in his judgment the Parliament ought not to have the Militia in them 5. And lastly That the Supreme Magistrate must be convinced in his own judgment before he yield to alter what by right he is possessed of in reference unto all which the War was undertaken But to close this point 4. Testimony of the Parl. grounds of the war declar Aug. 3. 1642. of the grounds of the war and to leave it with some further authentick demonstration and evidence The two Houses of Parliament in their Declaration setting forth the grounds of their takiâ—g up Arms published August 3. 1642. do represent onely three sorts of them viz. 1. either some former miscarriages of the Kings Government or 2. some preparations on his part to War with the incidents thereunto or lastly his refusal to grant their petitions especially that of July 16. 1642. containing their desire of the Militia the leaving Delinquents to their tryal the Kings return and concurrence with the Houses Together with the result of all these the danger to the Kingdom in Laws Liberty and Religion Now for the first of these the King had not onely acknowledged some of them as the dissolution of the Parliament before of the unhappy dissolution of the last Former errors in Government saith the King by the uninformation and advice of some persons looked upon now under another character Where they should remember that some miscarriages in government is incident unto all Princes yea all Governors whereof Dioclesian maketh a very serious complaint Vopiscus in vitâ Aurelian cit à Bucholc Chronol ad Anx. d. 304. Nihil est inquit difficilius quà m benè imperare Nam quatuor vel quinque viri se colligunt atque unum consilium c piunt ad Imperatorem decipiendum dicunt quod probandum sit Imperator qui domi clausus est vera non novit Cogitur hoc tantum scire quod illi loquuntur Facit judices quos fieri non oportebat amovet à Republicâ quos retinere debebat Quid multa Bonus cautus optimus venditur imperator There is nothing more difficult saith he than to rule well Four or five men associate themselves and take counsel together to delude the King they advise what is to be done A Note for Princes The Prince who is shut up at home knows nothing of the certainty of things but is constrained to know onely that which they acquaint him with He makes hereupon those Judges whom he ought not and removes those from government that he should not To be short a good provident and excellent Prince is bought and sold Thus he And the Parliament themselves were not a little abused by their informers Again the King acknowledges his failing in coming in person to the house of Commons to seize the five Members Kings answer to the Declation of May 19. 1642. p. 10. Edit Cambr. and saith As if by that single casual mistake of ours in form onely we had forfeited all duty credit and allegiance from our people We must without endeavouring to excuse that which in truth was an error our going to the House of Commons But besides these acknowledgments the King made real both amends and security for the future not onely by solemn promise but by passing such Acts of Parliament that did not onely remove the former grievances but also secure the subject for the time to come as we saw above both by the acknowledgment of the Commons in the Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdom among other things these The Monopolies are all supprest That which is more beneficial than all this is pag. 22 23 24. that the root of those evils is taken away which was the arbitrary power pretended to be in his Majesty of taxing the subject or charging their estates without consent in Parliament which is now declared to be against Law by the judgment of both Houses and likewise by an Act of Parliament now the Kings consent was there The evil Counsellors so quelled the Star-chamber the High-commission the Coâ—rts of the President and Council in the North are all taken away The immoderate power of the Council-Table is ordered and restrained we may well hope that no such things will appear in future times but onely stories Note to give us and our posterity more occasion to praise God for his Majesties goodness and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament The Canons and power of Canon-making are blasted by the vote of both Houses the exorbitant power of Bishops and their Courts are much abated the Authors or many Innovations in Doctrine and Ceremonies terrified the Forrests are by a good Law reduced to their right bounds the oppressions of the Stannary Courts the extortions of
the Clerk of the Market the compulsion of subjects to receive Knighthood are by other beneficial Laws reformed Many excellent Laws and provisions are in preparation which they there enumerate Then a little before they say The discontinuance of Parliament is prevented by a Bill for a Triennial Parliament and the abrupt dissolution of this by another Bill Whence they truly collect and profess pag. 26. We acknowledge with much thankfulness that hâ—s Majesty hath passed more good Bills to the advantage of the subject than have been in MANY ages Thus they Now were not the former failings of Government sufficiently remedied and the fear of future is acknowledged here to be secured and prevented No ground then of the War for what was passed Come we to the second Kâ—ngs preparation for war The Kings preparations for War he saith they were first they the contrary if it be hard to determine perhaps it is not greatly material seeing they were very near one the other and that argued both jealousie I say a jealousie of intentions to destroy each the other and actings to prevent it Now take it at the worst that the King prepared first which yet doth not appear yet considering that he having granted all the former Acts acknowledged to amend the past and secure the future and they not satisfying but high demandings and declarations still and actings in his conscience no doubt he did as in reason he might apprehend intentions in some to destroy the Government as it hath since come to pass and the Laws of the Nation he might be induced thereunto by a consideration of his duty and doubtless was seeing no other way though often tryed would prevail The motions of the Houses and specially of the Commons did give occasion to him to think of securing the Liberties from such intrenchings 3. Not yielding the Militia c. Touching the last His not granting that Petition and giving way to the Militia and rendring up those who adhered to him and returning to London and concurring with the Houses and disbanding his forces and recalling his Commissions of Array and others Military The rendring of the Militia had been to depose himself of Soveraignty whose especial ensign and security is the power of the Sword His giving up those who adhered to him 1 Sam. 11. had in appearance been to send Uriah for his faithful service to his enemies To return to London was to object him to those temptations which he could not nor perhaps any Prince ought to hazard himself unto unless more effectual order had been taken to prevent both contumely and danger which is a truth howsoever flighted To concur with the Houses at this time had been to have given up at once both his safety and conscience The recalling his Commissions and disbanding his Forces unless both themselves had done so too and also had declared their repentance for their provocations of him had been to strip both himself and Kingdom of necessary defence against those whom he had cause to think would invade both as it proved afterward So that by high and extraordinary actings to provoke the King to like undertakings and then to raise Arms because he would not desert them without security is as if one should by assault provoke a man to draw his sword and then fight him because he will not put it up again and stand to mercy 4. No Law alleadged for the war in particular But a fundamental error it was in that declaration that held out the grounds of the war That no particular Law was alledg'd to enable them to that way of securing the Nation For granting all to be as was suggested yet onely id possumus quod jure possumus Rom. 3. We may not do evil as all actings above our sphere is that good may come of it This should have been the chief ground for conscience to rest upon Kings Proclamation from York Jun. 18. 1642. forbidding levying of Soldiers Whereas on the contrary the King alledges divers particular Laws for his bearing of the Sword as also examples of men that have upon necessity some real some pretended taken the Sword and though they have done service to the King and Common-wealth by it have been forc'd to obtain their pardon There is no need here to name particulars the constant practise in the Nation justifying the Kings sole bearing of the sword Now to come to an issue The issue of the Quest The King as much fears the ruine of the Laws and himself as the two Houses do the Liberties and themselves and their grounds we will suppose though not grant are equal The King is in possession and by Law entrusted with the Sword to protect both The two Houses produce none Then sure as this should have prevented resistance then so especially taking in what hath followed ought it to provoke repentance now And thus much in answer to the fourth Motive SECT III. Answer to the fifth Motive Examples I Come now to the last viz. The Examples in Scripture and in latter times together with the approbation of such Examples by our Princes and Bishops above alledg'd To all which I answer first in general Isa 10 That we must apply our selves first unto the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this rule there is no light in them to guide us by And that in Examples the greatest of all is the Captain of our Salvation Matth. 22. who ever did precept and practice to give unto Cesar the things that were Cesars yea Matth. 17. ult for peace-sake to give him that which was not his from some All other examples we must so follow 1 Cor. 11.1 as they follow him Matth. 26.52 now he forbad to resist for they that take the sword shall perish by the sword namely if such to whom the sword is not committed The Sword which must needs be the supreme Magistrate the sword being the Ensign of supreme power Rom. 13. Hence that of the Apostle The higher powers bear not the sword for nought they then are they who bear the sword This in general 2. David But in particular 1. David's retaining a few men to guard himself being design'd King from the violence of private men and from the sudden and passionate assaults of Saul's distemper and malice fleeing and not fighting such as was the Prophet Elisha his holding the Kings messenger at the door 2 Reg. 6.32 who saw the King coming to change his sentence 1 Sam. 14.45 Also the peoples rescuing of Jonathan not by any set contest or battel but by a friendly kind of violence And the Priests thrusting Vzziah being leprous 2 Chron. 26.20 out of the Temple but not resisting any of his Regal precepts or such forcible impressions All these and such like are ridiculous-parallels to the raising of an Army and managing of a War For though these examples shew that
Ethelred the Saxon King being married to Henry the first brought us forth a Royal seed derived from the antient blood of the Saxon Kings Yet why may we not think that some of our Princes originally might be as free as another lately who had no such such title either of Succession or Conquest professeth himself to have been in points of Law and Government Lord Protectors speech Septemb. 12. p. 11. and p. 13. untill he limited himself I say saith he the Authority I had in my hand being so boundless Again my power again by this resignation was boundless and unlimited as before All things being subject to Arbitrariness and a person having power over the three Nations pag. 14. boundless and unlimited Again The Government limited me and bâ—und my hands to act nothing to the prejudice of the Nations without consent of a Councel until Parliament and then limited by a Parliament I did accept it I was arbitrary in power May it not then have been in Princes as it was in this Vsurper and invader of the publick Liberties And indeed the Coronation-Oath seems to imply so much Coronation-Oath H. scrips 24. Apr. 61. die Coronationis casu non consilio dum opus recognoscerem wherein among other things the King is asked ' Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful customs which the Commonalty of this Realm consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit His Majesties answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. pag. 17. 15. whether you expound it have or shall choose Which words do not imply a force upon the King It is for the ease of Princes and satisfaction of Subjects that that unlimited power given by God to Princes is bounded in all places by Laws with their own consent Dr. Sandersons preface to Dr. Usher of the right of Kings pag. 12. but a desire of his engagement Therefore the choice of Laws being not the Princes but the Peoples advantage and priviledge is left unto them not as implying a co-ordinate power but a concession of liberty not now to be changed because established both by Law and Oath yet so that the King reserves to himself the power of a negative voice Negative voice and of refusing to pass their Elections into Laws if he like them not If it be said Object That the Houses have the like negative voice that 's a mistake Answ they have it in order the one house to the other but not in order to the King because he doth not propound Laws unto them his desiâ—es he may but they to him So that there is no such thing as a negative voice in the Houses about the Laws in order to the King it is onely in reference of the one House to the other So that to speak properly according to the known practise of the Parliament the two Houses seem to have no co-ordinate share in making Laws but in choosing things to be made Laws the King onely making of them for the Houses acknowledge Declar. Parl. ' That they are not Laws till the Royal assent But I may not correct the King who saith Object in this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by a King Kings answ to the 19 proposit p. 12. by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the people all having free votes and particular privileges Nor do I but explain what he must intend Answ The making of the matter of the Laws belongs to the two Houses the conferring of the form Declar. Parl. in defence of that May 26. 1642. and giving them the esse and being of Laws is from the King onely and so acknowledged by the Houses viz. That if he do deny it is no Law without him Script Reas sect 5. p. 64. Kings answ to 19 Proposit p. 19. and so acknowledged by the greatest pleaders for the taking up of Arms. But secondly because his Majesty saith a little after We conjure you that you allow us our share in the Legislative power which would be counted in us not onely a breach of priviledge but Tyranny and subversion of Parliaments to deny you Which implies the other have a share also I answer That they have a share but derivative not original subordinate as subjects even in Parliament for so they call themselves not co-ordinate as equals The wife hath a share in the government of the family for sure she is more in point of right relating to the government of it than a servant but it is not a co-ordinate but subordinate power The King would not be understood to confute his Father Himself or the Laws Not his Father K. James's Law of Free Monarchies who saith That the King is above the Law as both the Author and giver of strength thereto Not Himself who hath several times avowed his Soveraignty though not his solitude his Supremacy though not his aloneness in government who at the time of publishing that answer had drawn his sword to vindicate his Sovereinty prerogative Nor was it his intent to confute the Law which maketh him the fountain of justice as we saw above therfore what waters of power any else have must needs flow originally from him Thirdly the King hath said he is no Lawyer neither is it necessary that he should so be if then his Majesty out of zeal to content his subjects should let fal any * To the 19 Propositions expression in that answer of his so much insisted on that might prejudice his legal right it ought not in duty as it cannot in conscience be improved against him contrary to the known practise of Laws and Parliament It is true the two Houses say in their declaration of November 2. 1642. That the Kings Soveraignty is in and with the two Houses That they are the supreme Court whose determinations ought not to be question'd by the King That the Kings power is a trust from the people That the two Houses may dispose of any thing of the King or Kingdoms But seeing no Law is produc'd a sentence of out Fleta above answered is not sufficient to bottom in my conscience so high assertions To conclude All that have share in Legislative power have it not equally the King is acknowledged by the Oath of Supremacy sworn by every Parliament man before he sit to be Supreme over all in these his Dominions Neither have they it originally but by concession and grant though now setledly But though they have this derivative power in Legâ—slation and in some cases in declaring Law so it be not against the known Lavvs yet have they none in execution of the Lavvs much less the povver of the Sword further then the King shall grant unto them For vvhich though Laws vvere spoken of yet vvere they never produc'd Though the King declare That there is no power in either or both Houses Kings Answer to the Declaration of both Houses in answer to his
into Congregations such as themselves also acknowledged to be true Christian Churches and bodies of Christ do read off themselves and incorporate into new ones of their own for the most part small and inconsiderable For the detecting further of which error we are to note one or two particulars First Ecclesiastical power may be lost we must distinguish between the original state of a Church as it might be at its first collection and the after-condition of it and present being When it was first gathered it might be free as was the family of Jethro Numb 10. but not so afterward when incorporated with another Church All the several Heptarchies in this Nation and many Provinces else-where were once free and Independent doth it follow they must be so still or rend themselves from the Kingdom if they could to be so again By this the 120 names that were the Church in the beginning should still have assumed their first liberty Act. 1. For we must note that Ecclesiastical power is as well disseasable as civil and may be lost so as it is not lawful to resume it and that not only by a voluntary concession or providential falling in with other Christians or Churches but even by force also As if by publick Edict two or more Churches should be constrained to unite into one As in England all the Christians in one Parish are made members of that Church and all the Parishes of that Diocess one Diocesan Church and all the Diocesan Churches one Metropolitical from whence they are aggregated yea incorporated into one National Church Now being thus joyned together by God and good order it is not lawful for themselves again to put assunder This is one of their fundamental errors A fundamental error of Independency to fancy a reducement of the Churches to their first infancy Why attempt they not the same in civil Societies Common-wealths and Kingdoms yea and families also there is the like reason rule and example for the one as for the other The strange consequences of it And so this flabel of Schism in the Church shall also be the bellows of Sedition in the Common-wealth For if Ecclesiastical original right of liberty and independency cannot be taken away neither can Civil and then the with-holding it is but usurpation no title Conference at Hamp Court pag. 82. 1 King 12. and then as there must be no Bishop so no c. King James his inference To conclude Look what right the ten Tribes of Israel had to separate from the Church of their brethren and to congregate and incorporate into one of their own and to make themselves Independent from any other the same have these Brethren Neither do they seem to have any better if so good for there was an appearing divine approbation of their recess from the Kingdom of Judah and their own reason prompted them to think that this must imply a withdrawing from the Church also Now that they became Idolaters first that was accidental Again they went not so far Ezek 16. as utterly to non-Church themselves for God did still acknowledge them for his people Thirdly the occasion of their separation seems to be more just from the Church than the Common-wealth 1 King 11. and 12. for by Solomon's apostacy it was fill'd with all manner of Idolatries Lastly some of those that have begun at Independency have proceeded as far in re and deed if not farther than they For they have apostatized from all communion with our Churches or any Reformed from thence to Anabaptism from that to Quaking and so not onely denying the Lord that bought them Jude vers 5. as the Apostle speaks but also the whole Scripture and are become worse some of them than Infidels and Idolaters even plain Atheists Whereof perhaps some instances and examples of this kind might be given if it were requisite to name places and persons By which things and through their hoâ—rid shipwracks by sub-divisions providence asketh the question now as it did once in another case of Apostacy from the Church and their unsuccessfulness thereupon Jer. 2.17 Hast thou not procured this unto thy self in that thou hast forsaken the Lord And Is it not of the Lord that the people weary themselves in the fire for very vanity And in them is fulfilled that They bite and devour one another Gal. 5. till they be consumed one of another And as he said of such Christians of old Nullae tam infestae hominibus bestiae Am. Marcell ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christiani There are no beasts unto man so mortal enemies as are most of that sort of Christians implacable one unto another I conclude this with that of the Father concerning their Ancestors Sic sic necesse est ut minutatim secti conscissique despereant Aug. contr Epist Parmen lib. 1. cap. 4. in fine qui surorem animositatis suae Catholicae pacis sanctissimo vinculo praetulerunt So so is it just that they should crumbling and cut in mamocks perish and come to nothing who have before the most holy band of the Churches general peace preferred the swelling of their own high stomachs Which leads me to the first point of Independency but last to be spoken to viz. Separation CHAP. II. Of the grounds of Separation with an Examination and Refutation of them And first in general TOuching Separation I shall speak first in general 1. In general and then descend to some more special causes of it In general thus It hath in it The evil of separation of all the three ingredients of Independency the most malignity not onely as it ariseth from pride scorn and hypocrisie the Sal sulphur and Mercury of this subterraneous body but especially because it suggests unto the hearts of the common people that most horrid temptation that they are not in a way of life and wherein they may be saved This provoked the Apostle so in the like case 2 Cor. 5.13 Gal. 1.8 9. chap. 5.12 that they thought he was besides himself And to curse the Authors of Schism and wish they were cut off To declame against them as those that served their own bellies Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 11. As false Apostles and ministers of Sathan Yea our Saviour upon this ground of separation and scattering of the flock calls them wolves in sheeps cloathing Matth. 7. Joh. 2. 1 Tim. 6. and thieves and robbers The Apostle else-where that they are proud knowing nothing doting about questions and strife of words that they count gain godliness and that the root of all this evil is pride How we may know when Separation evil Eph. 4. and the love of mony which is covetousness That where there is professed one God one faith one baptism one Lord one Spirit c. those that perswade separation from such are cunning and crafty men that lie in wait to deceive with several other the like 〈◊〉
of the Old and New Testament The Church of England receiveth the Canon of Scripture according to the antient Church exactly as the Church of England doth Secondly that he saith that is secundum majorum traditionem ex patrum monumentis That it is according to the tradition of the Church and out of the writings of the Fathers Whereby we see the Church of England follows antiquity in reception of the books of holy Scripture more truly than the Church of Rome doth But this obiter and the way Again Bullinger citeth the judgment of Bibliander Bibliander de opt genere interpretandi Hebraica whose words are Ecclesiasticos libros etiam Hagiographa nominant sancta scripta Quae etsi non habent idoneam authoritatem roborandi ea quae in contentionem veniunt ut Canonici Scriptores non tamen rejiciuntur ut Apocrypha qualis fuit prophetia Eldad Medad c. Ecclesiastici autem lâ—bri etiam in Scholam auditoria fidelis populi admâ—ssi sunt tam venerandi multis ut Judith etiam in ordinem canonicae Scripturae à quibusdam reponatur Which having the same sense I forbear to English Onely he saith that the Book of Judith was by some accounted Scripture I suppose he meaneth Origen which I think may as little claim that priviledge as any other Lastly Bullinger goes over every book of them and shews the benefit that the Church may reap by the reading of them And saith We may better learn the form of Houshold-government out of Tobit and Judith and the Ethicks or rules of good living out of Ecclesiasticus and the book of Wisdom than out of Plato Aristotle and Xenophon And the way of a religious Soldier out the Maccabees And of the first book of them he saith Ac tanti omnino hic liber est ut boni illo non possent citra jacturam carere That it is verily of such worth that a good man cannot without loss be without it Which is consonant unto that of King James speaking of the same book Conf. Hamp Court pag. 61. viz. Who shewed the use of the Maccabees to be very good to make up the story of the persecution of the Jews c. And of the History of Bel and the Dragon Bullinger saith Viderint autem qui eam historiam pro fabula damnant quibus nitantur Authoribus Ego video Historiam refertissimam esse multiplici fructu eruditione Let them look to it saith he what Authors they rest upon who condemn it for a fable I observe it to be a History full fraught with fruitful instructions And he names what In a word his whole discourse on these books is worth reading And it is to be noted that this was with the allowance of the rest of the Ministers of Tigur where this book was printed Necessit Reform pag. 20. Basilic Doron But the authority of King James is by some Brethren objected against the Apocrypha viz. As for the Apocrypha books I omit them because I am no Papist and indeed some of them are not like the ditement of the Spirit of God Answ Thus say they the King But it seems time and reading had further ripened the Kings judgment in that point For afterward when he upon great occasion solemnly delivered his judgment Confer Hamp Court second day confer p. 61. è Cathedrâ in reference to the satisfaction of his whole Kingdom this was the result His Majesty in the end said He would take an even order between both Affirming that he would not wish all Canonical books to be read in the Church unless there were one to interpret nor any Apocrypha at all wherein there was * He explains himself presently in allowing the book of Maccabees wherein he acknowledgeth some errors any error But for the other which were clear and correspondent to the Scripture he would have them read for else said he why were they printed and therein shewed the use of the book of Maccabees very good to make up the story of the Persecutions of the Jews but not to teach a man to sacrifice for the dead or to kill himself Thus far the King whâ—ch if the Brethren knew they did not well to cover and if they knew it not and were not vers'd in the most authentical books and writings of this nature as that Conference is a special one they were not fit to deal in such an Argument So also in the same place of the same Conference pag. 61 62. the King opened and defended a passage in Ecclesiasticus one of the Apocryphal books objected against as unsound and closes all with this salt quippe to the opposers What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus by my saul I think he was a Bishop c. You see with what judgment the Brethren have quoted the King against the Apocrypha and yet as a crowing argument they insist upon it Again Object 2 Hierom. Ep. ad Laetam Tom. 1. St. Hieron is also produced as a witness against these books viz. That he should advise a Lady say they caveat omnia Apocrypha that she should take heed of all the Apocrypha Answ There are several causes of mistaking and mis-representing of an Author as 1 That men rest on Quotations Causes of misunderstanding and mis-representing of an Author and read them not themselves 2 That they understand not the language and Idiom of the writer 3 That they weigh not his scope and drift 4 That they ponder not the context 5 That they compare not one place with another 6 That they consider not the circumstances time place c. 7 That they consult not others that may illustrate him Then for misrepresenting him 1 That they make no bones of it 2 That they conceit they shall not be seen by every eye 3 And that when they be they have a brow to bear it so what they say may serve the turn at present It so fares here For if the Brethren read the place they quote in Jerom it is sure they understood not what he meant by Apocrypha Erasmus therefore on the place shall teach them Inscribuntur Petro Paulo nonnulla ipsi Christo Erasm in Hierom â—p ad Laetam num 79. veluti epistola Jesu ad Abygarum regem They are saith he ascribed to Peter to Paul and some to Christ himself as the Epistle of Jesus unto Agborus Where you see that Jerome did not mean by the Apocrypha onely the Books joyned with the Old Testament but those also yea those especially that were affixed to the New Again They did not weigh Jerom's scope for it was onely to instruct a young Girl in reading in that place not to shew what the Church might do or did Fourthly They did not compare this passage with others where he expresseth himself ex professo As where he speaks of the Books which bear Solomons name but are not his used to be read
of Worship in the nerves and sinews of Discipline and in the bones and strength of Government which no true Son of the Church of England can without indignation reflect on Thirdly it striketh at the very beeing and safety of it For first this will both nourish and breed Papists and Separatists when they shall consider that by this Oath we have acknowledged that there is no one part Isa 1. wholly sound in this Church but that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot there are wounds sores and putrifying corruptions And being the expressions are indefinite they cannot tell what in any part is sound nor know what to cleave unto and so are prepared for apostacy from it 4. Schismaticall illegal oppressive to to the Government of the Church or confirmed therein 4. This Covenant sweareth a Schisme and is an unjust Oath as it is injurious and oppressive to the Government of this Church and the express Law whereby it is established to wit Episcopacy not to insist on the ranking of it with Popery and Superstition The Church of England is founded in Prelacy saith the Luws Of which before And the King in his Oath swears to defend the Rights of this Church Yea this order is by the Laws in force before 17 Car. 11. the very next the King himself in Parliam for so the style runneth the Lords Spiritual and Temporall The right of Episcopacy out of Scripture Antiquity and the late Reformers hath been shewed before and out of the Law of England also Now to swear against a main point of the Law of the Land wherein we have the suffrage of the whole Church and against that order of men both under which Bishops as Cranmer and others special instruments of the Reformation and by influence whereof we first received the Gospel and several whereof sealed it in opposition to Popery and Superstition with their blood Five Bishops being burned viz. Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Cant. Ridley Bishop of London Hooper and Latimer Bishops of Gloucester and Wortester and Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids is such a piece of unchristianity injustice and ingratitude yea and perjury also in those that have subscribed the three Articles and taken the Oath of Canonical obedience that I should wish mine eyes a fountain of tears to bewail it and my quill the pen of a more ready Writer to describe it Pudet haec opprobria nobis c. What shame is it that this should spoken be And nothing to be said to th' contray 5. It is of most dangerous insinuation 5. Of most dangerous insinuation against the dignity person and authority of the King in respect of the Kings Authority Dignity and Person First To his Dignity in putting him after the Parliaments and Kingdoms and yet put the Parliaments before the Kingdoms as if he were inferiour unto both whereas by our Oath of Supremacy we do acknowledge him to be over all persons within these his Realms and Dominions Supreme Governour And have in that and in the Oath of Allegiance and in the Protestation sworn and engaged to maintain his honour and priviledges Secondly It insinuates most imminent danger unto the Kings Person and Authority whilest it engageth to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms Openly implying that both the one and the other may be deserted in case he do not or seems to some not to defend true Religion and the Liberties Thirdly And for his Authority we swear obedience thereunto in the former Oaths indefinitely without such limitations as these are whence these appears to be no less then a treasonable limitation 6. It swears to betray and oppress contrary to Law 6. Is oppressive of the K. faithful subjects and true members of the Church 7. It bettaies the Liberty of the Subject in setting up an Arbitrary power against Law the Kings faithful Subjects and the true sons of the Church because they would keep faith with the one and unity with the other Artic. 4. under the names of Malignants and Hinderers of Reformation 7. It owneth the Houses of Parliament in opposition to the King to be the Supreme Judicatories and acknowledgeth a power in them of punishment to life and estate which is a betraying the Subjects Liberty as also that they may punish as they judge convenient or a Committee from them What is this but to pluck up Magna Charta by the roots which gives this priviledge that no free-born English man shall be punishable in life liberty or estate but by a Jury of his equals c. So that this is an erecting of an Arbitrary Government and destructive to the Fundamental Laws of the Land The same error is committed in the fift Article against those that should any way oppose this kind of union between the two Nations 8. In the sixt and last Article 8. Obliges to a blind a betting of all attempts in the pursuance of it 9. Engages against Repentance it obliges to defend all those that enter into this Covenant in the pursuance thereof which what it infers cannot be foreseen nor how far that clause may be extended 9. It engageth against Repentance which in an Oath of that nature and newness ought not to have been done but that juvat impiis as well as miseris socios habuisse It pleaseth them that have the plague to see That others as themselves infected bee 10. 10. Hypocritical blasphemous towards God scandalous and dangerous to other Churches and Nations Prov. 24. Eccles 10. Matth. 22. Prov. 13. 1 Pet. 2. Lastly In the Epilogue and close of it It is Horridly Hypocritical Blasphemous towards God Scandalous and Dangerous to other Churches and Nations First It is Horridly Hypocritical in acknowledging that we profess before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our sins and the sins of these Kingdoms against God and Christ his Son c. And yet at the same time swear to dishonour both and transgress the Gospel which commands obedience of Subjects to their Princes especially in doubtful cases the King holding forth not force but law as well as they and as I am perswaded with better evidence Ezek. 20.27 Secondly It is most blasphemous and a high temptation of Almighty God to pray most humbly unto him to strengthen us by his holy Spirit to live and dye in opposition to the just Laws of the Land in sedition against our natural Prince in schism against the Church and in oppression and violence against our innocent brethren Thirdly It is Scandalous to other Nations and Churches whereby through us the name of God as called upon and professed by the Reformed was blasphemed even among the very Turks Ezek. 36.20 yea our Nation the members of it in peril wheresoever they came as Merchants and Travellers know Lastly Dangerous unto the same Churches First
under the degree and calling of a Bishop or Dean of a Cathedral or Collegiat Church and they upon the Kings days and Festival days do take occasion by the expounding of any Text of Scripture whatsoever to fall into any set discourse or common place otherwise than by opening the coherence and division of his Text which shall not be comprehended and warranted in essence substance effect and natural inference within some one of the Articles of Religion set forth 1562. or in some of the Homilies Note set forth by authority in the Church of England not onely for a help for the non-preaching but withal for a pattern and boundary as it were for the preaching Ministers And for their further instruction for the performance hereof that they forthwith read over and peruse diligently the said Book of Articles and the two books of Homilies This I say had they observed the sound godly and comfortable doctrine therein contained might perhaps have so endeared them as not to be traduced by them so reproachfully that I say not their peoples edification the Kingdoms quiet and their own peace might have been more then now it is or like to be As to particulars the instances they give are few in number but two and weak in strength to bear up so heavy a charge as false doctrine The first is out of the Homily of the time and place of prayer part 1. Particular exception against the Homilies 2. 't is said that therefore plurality of wives was by special prerogative suffered to the Fathers of the old Testament because every one hoped and prayed that the blessed seed that should break the Serpents head might come of his stock The Brethren except As if every one did not know out of what Tribe Christ was to issue I answer No for these words may refer unto the Fathers more antient before any distinction of Tribes were Secondly After the distinction of Tribes it was long before this truth was made known and not till the latter Prophets if even by them understood of the people The next place is out of the Homil. of Alms-deeds part 2. pag. 160. The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach us in sundry places of Scripture saying Mercifulness and alms-giving purgeth from all sins and delivereth from death and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness The wise Preacher the son of Sirach confirmeth the same when he saith That as water quencheth burning fire even so mercy and alms resisteth and reconcileth sins Two particular places excepted against Against this passage they have three Exceptions 1. Against the expression reconcileth sins excellent sense say they Well we shall see how good theirs will be anon 2. Against the matter 3. Against the proof of it first for the matter they say that a charitable construction of them may be wyar-drawn implying they are not simply justifiable But why did not the Brethren retain so much ingenuity I say not honesty as to give the Homilies own explication of them which in that very page and the next saith But ye shall understand How good works do away sins dearly beloved that neither those places of Scripture before alledged neither the doctrine of the blessed Martyr Cyprian neither any other godly and learned man when they in extolling the dignity profit fruit and effect of vertuous and liberal alms do say that it washeth away sins and bringeth us to the favour of God do mean that our works and charitable deeds is the original cause of our acceptation before God or that for the dignity or worthiness thereof our sins may be washed away and we purged and cleansed of all the spots of our iniquity for that were indeed to deface Christ Note and to defraud him of his glory But they mean this and this is the understanding of those and such like sayings That God of his mercy and special favour towards them whom he hath appointed to everlasting salvation hath so offered his grace especially and they have so received it fruitfully that although by reason of their sinful living outwardly they seemed before to have been the children of wrath and perdition yet now the Spirit of God mightily working in them unto obedience unto Gods will and commandments they declare by their outward deeds and life in the shewing of mercy and charity which cannot come but of the spirit of God and his especial grace that they are the undoubted children of God appointed to everlasting life And a little after The meaning then of these sayings in the Scriptures and other holy Writings How to understand the Script and Fathers concerning good works Alms-deeds do wash away our sins and mercy to the poor doth blot out our offences is That we doing these things according to Gods will and our duty have our sins indeed washed away and our offences blotted out not for the worthiness of them but by the grace of God Note which worketh all in all And that for the promise that God hath made to them that are obedient to his commandement that he which is the truth might be justified in performing the truth due to his promise Alms-deeds do wash away our sins because God doth vouchsafe then to repute us as clean and pure when we do them for his sake and not because they deserve or merit our purging Note or for that they have any such strength or merit in themselves In which words a double account is given of those expressions in Scripture which seem to attribute justification and salvation unto good works First Because they declare a man to be the child of God and to be endued with his Spirit and so do evidence that his sins are pardoned Secondly Because God hath unto believers promised a reward unto his own graces and especially that of Love and that which is prima charitatis deificantis filia eleemosyna as Theophylact calls it the eldest daughter of divine Charity Almes-giving Then which what could be spoken more Orthodox or more comfortable I know not But secondly Lest they should say these Answers are invented to salve Apocryphal and other human expressions they are to remember that the same doctrine for substance is delivered by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Matth. 5.7 Chap. 6.14 As where he saith Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy Again If ye forgive your Heavenly Father will forgive you which proceeds upon the same ground Luke 11.41 Also Give almes of such things as yee have and behold all things are clean unto you Calvan Harm Which Calvin expounds in this sense And in the next Chapt. Sell that ye have and give Almes Provide your selves bags which wax not old Luke 12.33 A treasure in the Heavens that faileth not c. And that expression Love covers a multitude of sins is used by the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 4.8 Gal. 5.6 as well as James to the same effect And the
necessary in respect of their Ministry might possibly be one But I determine not onely I do from the premisses conclude seeing there is in the Ministries Ordination in England all the essentials observed and that God by his blessing of their Labours and protecting of their Calling declared his owning of them whatsoever defects may be imagined in their outward Calling Brightman in Apocal. 3.20 with Mr. Brightman in the place above noted Quid ergo verbum propter labem aliquam externae vocationis tam perverse respuunt cujus vim divinam in cordibus sentiunt Why do they for some defect in the external Call so perversly reject that Word and Ministry whose soveraign and divine power they feel upon their hearts I dismiss this particular and pass to the other Branch touching the Governors of these and their Regiment the Bishops SECT II. Of Episcopacy its Right and Title IT is certain ever since God had a formal and instituted Church there have been superior Ministers in it distinguished also by some appellations from the rest As the High Priests in the Jewish and the Apostles in the First Christian Church 1. Scripture And it is as evident that the Church cannot want such by the need that the Church of Ephesus 1 Tim. 1. and those adjacent had of Timothy and the Churches of Crete had of Titus Tit. 1. For Non minor est virtus quà m quaerere porta tueri A Common-wealth hath need not onely at first of a Magistrate but ever after And a Bishop is nothing else but an Ecclesiastical Magistrate And though times may require some things or persons extraordinary as the Church had Apostles at the first of unlimited power yet as Calvin observes Hoc Natura dictat Epist ad Reg. Polon 1554. Vnum ex singulis collegiis deligendum cui pâ—ecipua cura incumbat Nature it self saith he teacheth us That in all orders of men some one must be chosen unto whom the chief care must be committed And this is the esse or substance of Episcopacy Elsewhere he gives the reason of it Comment in Epist. ad Phil. cap. 1.1 Fateor quidem ut sunt hominum ingenia mores non posse ordinem stare inter verbi ministros quin reliqui praesit unus I confess saith he as mens spirits and manners are Order cannot stand among the Ministers of the Word unless one be over the rest But he would have first their jurisdiction restrained the name of Bishop common and the limits of their Government confined unto one City though afterward in his Letter to the King of Poland he acknowledgeth what the primitive Government was and seemeth not to disapprove it as we shall see anon And the best Independent extant hath expressed so much in my hearing viz. D. T. G. The Church would ever stand in need of such persons as Timothy and Titus This for Scripture Next come we to the Primitive Church 2. The Primitive Church wherein the practice is known to be both most ancient and universal Hierom indeed but without proof being himself no Bishop and angry sometimes with some of them and particularly with John Bishop of Jerusalem and even with Austin himself a passionate man Vid. Epist Aug. 8. seq and somewhat high in respect of his eminency for Learning especially in the Tongues in those times saith Hieron in Epist ad Tit. 1.5 Idem est Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret schismatum semina tollerentur That is The same is a Presbyter and a Bishop And before that 1 Cor. 1. by the instinct of the Devil Factions began in Religion and these speeches were among the people I am of Paul I of Apollo but I of Cephas The Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters But after that every one reckoned those whom hee had baptized to be his own and not Christs It was determined in the WHOLE WORLD that One chosen out of the Presbyters should be set over the rest unto whom the WHOLE care of the Church should belong and so the seeds of Schism should be taken away Concerning which testimony fore-prizing what others have said there need not be required a better testimony First it comes from an Adversary next it proveth the thing it contendeth against under favour of so great a person for if then and upon that occasion Episcopacy had its rise when Schisms began in the Church and that one said I am of Paul another I am of Apollo and that those whom some had baptized they counted their own Disciples And that this came to pass even in the very Apostles time Vers 12 13 14 15. as Paul complains Epistle to the Corinthians the first chapter the first And that hee grants that it was decreed in the whole world and that for so useful an End It must follow that Episcopacy succeeded the Apostleship And indeed from the end of their institution it appears in Scripture that they did so as to the office by what name soever For Paul saith expresly both to Timothy and Titus To Timothy that hee besought him to abide still at Ephesus that hee might charge some to teach no other 1 Tim. 1.3 and no Heterodox doctrine And to Titus that for this cause left I thee in Crete that hee might stop the mouths of vain that is Tit. 1.5 erronious and schismatical talkers not onely by word and by example but also by authority Hee so commands him to reject an Heretick Chap. 3. that is excommunicate him as may be conceived And indeed wee see by experience in some Churches those that are of latitude where this Government of late hath been suspended what factions have grown As in the Netherland Churches about Arminius so far that had not the Authority of the Magistrate and assistance of Neighbours interposed those Churches and that Republick had been utterly ruined what divisions are growing at this day among the Churches of France some adhering unto the opinion of Amiraldus about these points others opposing of them I hear with grief and have been told that a Minister of no mean note in that Church lately in London and whom I could name should say that some Ministers of France should express so much that had their Churches full establishment from the Civil Power they could not govern them without Episcopacy which it seems both Calvin Beza and of late Diodate foresaw of whom afterward By this Testimony it appears Episcopacy to have been of greatest Antiquity Universality and of such Necessity
that power into executâ—on Now in the former sense neither the Scripture so far as I understand nor the Church of England hath asserted such power in any Ecclesiastical persons since the Apostles who onely under Christ had a power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and autocratical Or thirdly For an eminent degree of power in Government so as that some acts thereof do solely belong unto him to perform regularly and in common order Now in this sense omitting the name as Zanchy said above and keeping our eye upon the thing it self seeing both the Scripture and the Church of England as also the practice of the whole Church through the world formerly and the most learned men of the reformed Churches of late all which have been evidenced above have constituted an order or degree of persons who of right had and ought to have the Regiment and Government over other Ministers as is plain not onely by the Apostles but also by the Evangelists Timothy and Titus as also by the perpetual necessity of the Church I must needs refer unto that fore-quoted sentence of Cyprian to this purpose and add here another of like effect out of him Haec sunt enim initia haereticorum ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum malè cogitantium Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 1. ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant Sic de Ecclesiâ receditur sic altare prophanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem Christi ordinationem atque unitatem Dei rebellatur These are saith hee the beginnings of Hereticks the rise and struglings of ill minded Schismaticks to please themselves and with proud stomach to despise the Bishop for so this word must here be meant thence men depart from the Church thence the prophane altar of separation is placed elsewhere thence against the peace of Christ and against the Ordinance and unity appointed by God rebellion is raised Fourthly Sole Jurisdiction may be taken for exercising those Acts that of right belong to him to do wholly of his own head without ingagement to consult and advise with any or else for the sole power of acting but upon ingagement of taking with him the Judgement and opinion though not the governing power of others also Hence the Apostle in the former sense admonisheth that the Bishop as well as any other Minister and Elder Tit. 1.7 must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that in the Government of the Church goeth upon his own head And in the latter sense is it that Cyprian than whom no man was more for the priviledge Episcopal and for entire obedience thereunto yet saith Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 10 Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri solus rescribere nil potui cum a primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere Unto that saith hee that my fellow Presbyters wrote unto mee I can alone return no answer for I determined from my first entrance into my office privately and of my own head without your counsel that are the Ministers and without the consent of the people to do nothing For the true understanding of which sentence and other like as also for a resolution of the question it self a few things must be severally and distinctly noted First That hee doth not in this overthrow what several times hee said before L. 1. Ep. 3. l. 3. Ep. 1. touching the obedience due from the whole Church to the Bishop but onely signifies that hee thinks it his duty to advise with them as theirs to be obedient unto him Secondly That this course of use then is not so necessary now when as all the motions and actings of the Bishop are laid forth and determined and hee obliged to operate and govern onely by them by the Laws and Canons which was not so fully done in that Fathers time Thirdly That this order is not observed therefore by those who are most Antiepiscopal not by the Brethren or Presbyters neither here nor beyond the Seas who do not call the people to all consultations but onely Presbyters either sacred or civil Lastly That this practice of Cyprian is ad amussim and exactly performed by the Bishops of England For The Bishops in the Church of England do nothing but by the advise of their Brethren and of the people First seeing they arrogate no power but what the Scripture the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land do allow and secondly that by these all whatsoever materially they do is already prescribed to them And in the third place those powers in Scripture Canons of the Church and Laws of the Nation are approved and confirmed both by their Brethren the Ministery in Convocation and by the people in the Parliament by their delegates it follows truly and really that the Bishops in England act nothing but in effect according to that Fathers example by the counsel of the Ministry and consent of the people Thus much for their assertion Brethrens proof As to their proof It is from Antiquity from the book of Ordination from the Common-prayer-book and from the Law First For Antiquity P. 47. they say in Cyprians time there were in Rome a number of the Clergy Answ who acted with the Bishop By this argument wee may infer strange consequences For the Parliament acts with the King So Acts run the Kings most excellent Majesty with the advice of the Lords and Commons c. And the Counsel acts with the King for that is common in proclamations The King by the advice of the Privy Counsel The question is not with whom the Bishops act as who hath the primary Power The Justices on the Bench act with the Judge but can they declare Law give the charge and pronounce sentence Wee heard above what Cyprians judgement was of the power of the Bishop what also out of tenderness and indulgence and to avoid offence and for better light not for more jurisdiction hee condescended unto also Next Proof 2 for that out of the book of Ordination that because it is asked the Minister to bee ordained whether hee will obey his Ordinary and other chief Ministers c. therefore there are other Ministers that have the power of jurisdiction As if this did not refer unto the Archbishop Answ or other officers of the Bishops To which because they cannot answer they object a place out of the Liturgy which shall bee spoken to in its time P. 48. The other place in the book of Ordination That because it is asked the Priest to be ordained if hee will administer the Doctrine Object and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same therefore they say it was the intention of the Church to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction That is It was the intention of the Church Answ to
admit all those to govern whom in that very question and the answer to it they did intend to oblige to subjection and obedience So gross is the Brethrens conscience to dare to utter and their confidence to think that so palpable a Calumny would pass undiscerned yea so ridiculous their hopes as to fancy it would bee beleeved To the third viz. that out of the Liturgy Proof 3 Because it is said in the Rubrick before the Communion Liberty given to the Minister by the Liturgy touching Communicants that the Minister is authorized to restrain notorious offenders from the Sacrament till they have openly declared themselves to have repented The Brethren query What is this but as much and as high jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular Answ But first how shall wee make a coat for the Moon sometime they struggle as even lately if not at present for more power about the Sacrament and when my self mentioned this Rubrick unto one Mr. J. Cas that is no Cypher among them hee said it was not sufficient Again if the Brethren are by Law already instated in as much jurisdiction as any Bishop can use about the Sacrament and that is the greatest point why rest they not in it why blaspheme they the Common-prayer-book wherein it is contained why do they so wrestle imponere pelio ossam And make the Church and State as blocks to be For steps to mount unto their Prelacy But thirdly There are some Acts common in all governments and some proper A petty Constable may charge any man upon a warrant to assist him as well as the Sheriff of the County upon a writ Some kinde of share in government and exercise of Discipline was never denyed to a Minister as a Minister no more than a share with the Bishop in Preaching of the Word But Jurisdiction is a word of a louder sound than Discipline and the Government of the Church than some kinde of restraining a particular communicant Although those Acts belong to Government and are exercised by private Ministers yet they are about lesser things And also it is by concession and delegation not to bee challenged I think of right otherwise than as the officer of the Church appointed in her name to do that which of himself and as a private Minister hee could not do For then there must bee not as the Brethren say if the Bishops have sole Jurisdiction so many Popes that is six and twenty but sixty times six and twenty Popes in England For every Minister might then exclude whom hee pleased from the Communion and exercise an absolute tyranny upon the people And so much of their third proof Their last is from Law Proof 4 which because I do not understand it much that it belongs unto the Judges to determine Answ That the Bishops have appealed thereunto that my self have said above something to that point That * Vid. Tract of the R. Bp. Linc. now published of the Legality of the Bishops Courts c. Wherein the Kings Proclam and Judges sentence are recited it is declared already by the sentence of all the Judges Enrolled in the Courts of Record and by his late Majesties Proclamation and that it is like shortly to be further determined I supersede from further answering although I could Onely I may not pass the great inconsideration of the Brethren with so much virulency resisting the useful restitution of the Bishops into Parliament which is the interest of Christ himself of the Ministry and of the Kingdome First Though we are blessed be God all Christians yet our masters cause will probably bee minded a little more intently by those whom hee hath commissioned for that purpose the Ministry the honour and flower whereof are the Prelacy Again other persons have a vote in Parliament more immediately by their proxyes Why England should observe Episcopacy the Clergy none but in the Bishops Lastly The publick interest to bee concerned may well bee thought from not onely that engagement of thankfulness that lyes upon it unto Prelacy under whose Government and by whose Influence and through the effusion of the blood of whose members Religion hath been restored nor onely in regard they were by the Antient Laws even the first members next the head for the form was The Kings Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Nor onely in respect perhaps of some higher ingagements But from our experience the Mistress of fools For first neither King Lords nor Commons continued in power long after the Bishops ejectment And next hitherto wee have had no face of a Church no certainty of Doctrine no observation of Worship no exercise of Government to speak of but all things have gone to Babylonian confusion and antique Chaos Discite justitiam moniti The Phrygians will not learn till lasht they be If that amend us not then worse are wee I shall for close touching the Civil honour annexed unto Episcopacy in this Nation Zanch. confess cap. 25. Aph. 21. subjoyn the conclusion and judgement of the learned Zanchy and that in the confession of his Faith The conclusion is Episcoporum qui principes sunt politicam authoritatem non negari That the Civil Authority of Bishops which are also Magistrates or Princes is not denyed The explication follows Interim non diffitemur Episcopos qui simul etiam principes sunt praeter autoritatem Ecclesiasticam sua etiam habere jura politica Secularesque potestates quemadmodum reliqui habent principes jus imperandi secularia jus gladii nonnullos jus elegendi confirmandique Reges Imperatores aliaque politica constituendi administrandi subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi praestandam cogendi c. That besides their Ecclesiastical Authority they have also Civil Rights and SECULAR Powers and may constrain obedience unto such their powers c. which hee contradicts not in the observations Neither doth hee contradict it in his explication of that Aphorism And that place Mat. 20.25 It shall not bee so among you is understood by some to concern all Christians saith hee neither doth hee refute it SECT VI. The close of the Church-Controversie HAving thus far passed through all the five heads of motives unto Separation viz. The Doctrine the Worship the Assemblies the Discipline and the Government with replies unto them and having also vindicated them according to my weak arm by the sword of the spirit against the opposers of them I come now to close this whole dissertation His present Majesty hath indulged to the Brethren and their adherents very much in all the Premises May it prove successeful But his Grandfather King James having tasted of this Solunne geuse and wilde fowl whilst in Scotland and being pressed at his first coming as His Majesty now to the like here hee utters his judgement upon observation of Gods presence with this Church and Nation in these words We have seen the Kingdome under that form of Religion
sure that it is not there in any point condemned of Heresie unless it be of the ANABAPTISTS as it is here And I do not think but there be some as well there as in England and it is like enough that SUCH do finde fault with it Who are offended with the Liturgy Dr. Martin Nay even of Mr. Cox himself and other that were Preachers in King Edwards time they have disproved your * This Book established 5 6. Edw. 6. was re-established 1. Eliz. with two or three alterations and is that we now use as was proved above The Alterations are in the Act prefixed before the Service-Book second Book in divers points and have now made a third Book how say you which of these three Books will you allow now Careless Forsooth I say still as I have written that the second Book is good and godly and IN ALL POINTS agreeing to the Word of God and I am sure that neither Master Cox nor any other of our godly Preachers that be fled unto Frankford have condemned that Book IN ANY POINT as repugnant to the Word of God though perchance they have altered something therein according to the usage of that Country where now they are And I have not denied in my Articles but the Church of Christ hath power and authority to enlarge or diminish any thing in the same GOOD BOOK so far forth as it is agreeable to the Scriptures D. Martin But what authority have you or how durst you bee so bold to make an Article of the Faith concerning that Book to be beleeved of all men under pain of damnation Carelesse Ah Master Doctor have I bound any man to beleeve that Article under pain of damnation as you do charge mee I am sure there is no such word in all my Articles I have there written what I hold and beleeve my self as I am bound to do in conscience And now I will add thus much more That the same Book which is so consonant and agreeable to the Word of God ☞ Nore in the fear of God and consider being set forth by Common Authority both of the Kings Majesty that is dead and the whole Parliament House ought not to be despised by mee or any other private man under pain of Gods high displeasure and DAMNATION except they repent 2. Concerning Monarchy and that of this Nation * The Testimony of Mr. Sam. Ward sometime the famous Preacher of Ipswitch the Author of several elegant and useful pieces Hoc enim mihi ratum indubitatum semper fuit hoc semper cum Politicis Theologis gravissimis sensi palum apud omnes professus sum Monarchiam haereditariam sub qua mihi vitales auras feliciter haurine bonis omnimodis frui piè tranquillè degere contigit esse omnium quotquot extant aut excogitari possunt regiminum formae longè multumque praestantissimam utilissimam laudatissimam Cui me ex animo favere ille novit qui perscrutatur renes meos c. i. e. This hath alwaies been with mee a certain and undoubted maxime In his Preface to King Charls the first prefixed before his Treatise in Latine of the Load-stone dedicated unto him intituled Magnetis Reductorium this alwaies with the best States-men and Divines I have ever concluded and openly among all men professed viz. That a Monarchical Government hereditary under which providence hath so ordered that I have drawn my vital breath enjoyed many comforts have had the opportunity to live godly and quietly is of all Governments which are or can be divised by many degrees the best the most beneficial and most commendable to which that I am from my heart a well-wisher hee knows that searches my reins and my heart said that Author Dr. Sanderson the now Right Reverend Bishop of Lincoln in his late treatise intituled Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal Power as established by Law in the Postscript Lastly Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy Though from one in that function yet because it derives it higher and founds it somewhat deeper more solidly and also briefer than is usually done deserves more special notice His words are My opinion is that Episcopal Government is not to bee derived meerly from Apostolical practice or Institution But that it is originally founded in the person and office of the Messias our Blessed Lord JESUS CHRIST who being sent by his heavenly Father to bee the great Apostle Heb. 3.1 Bishop and Pastor 1 Pet. 2.25 of his Church and annointed to that office immediately after his Baptism by JOHN with power and the Holy Ghost Act. 10.37 8. descending then upon him in a bodily shape Luke 3.22 did afterward before his ascension into Heaven send and impower his holy Apostles giving them the Holy Ghost likewise as his Father had given him John 20.21 to execute the same Apostolical Episcopal and Pastoral office for the ordering and governing of his Church until his coming again and so the same office to continue in them and their Successors unto the end of the world Mat. 28.18 20. This I take to be so clear from these and other like Texts of Scripture that if they shall bee diligently compared together both between themselves and with the following practice of all the Churches of Christ as well in the Apostles times as in the purest and Primitive times nearest thereunto there will bee left little cause why any man should doubt thereof Thus that Reverend Author II. Certain other Examples of Retractations In the next place other Instances of Retractations and repentings Beda prefat in Retract suas in Actor Apostol Tom. 6. Cujus Augustini industriam nobis quoque pro modulo nostro placuit imitari Nunc in idem volumen Actor Apostolic brevem Retractationis libellum condamus studio maximè vel addendi quae minus dicta vel emendandi quae socus quam placuit dicta videbantur The ingenuity and industry of St. Austin in his Retractations it is my purpose in my small measure to imitate also Now therefore let us compile a brief Treatise of Retractations with this intent especially either of adding those things which were not sufficiently expressed or of amending those that were expressed otherwise than did seem convenient saith venerable Bede Again For my part saith another though a late Author yet one of good note Good Reader Mr. Whately in his Bride-Bush in his advertisement to the Reader I account it no shame to confess and revoke an errour and will therefore do it plainly and without circumstance Then hee closes with this honest and Austin-like expression viz. From him that had rather confess his own error than make thee erre for company The like whereunto wee heard above out of that Father And Dr. Bishop Brownriggs sentence concerning Retractations Related by Dr. Gauden the now very Rev. Bishop of Excester his successon Brownrigge the late most worthy Bishop of Excester would say that Hee