for my Cure the reading of Bilson and Hooker and named no others I now recited the words of Bilson and Hooker the first as asserting the Principles of the Parliament the second as going quite beyond them on the Principles of them that pull'd down the Parliament I cited page and words at large To all this I have nothing but that you will cover your Fathers nakedness and not own all that they say But doth not this yield that this was their doctrine What need you disown or cover it if it were not so Yet nothing will make some men confess But still Mr. Hooker you admire and so did Camden Usher Morton Hales Gawden King James King Charles I dare not joyn my self to so great Names as one of his Admirers lest I seem too much to value my self I will come far behind them supposing that a long tedious Discourse in him hath as much substance as one might put into a Syllogism of six Lines I said but that it was theirs and such Prelatist's Principles that led me into what I did and wrote His Principles might do it and not he as they were managed by other men But these are Niceties to men that heed not what they read or say What is written Line 1. p. 24. § 10. you seem to defend and 1. you say What is this more than some that writ for the Kings Cause in the late Wars professed Answ And will you defend or own all that then was confessed by them Have you read the Kings Answer to the 19 Propositions Do you know that the Parliaments Adherents drew up a Catechism out of that Answer as pretending to justifie all their Cause by it Know you not that in Fountains Letter answered by Dr. Steward and in Sir Nethersole's Writings for the King and many others those things are supposed or asserted which I would not counsel you now to assert Your Instance is That as to making of Laws our Kings have not challenged a Power without Parliaments Answer God be thanked but that 's none of our Question But what you will not know you cannot understand Seeing you seem to justifie Hooker here who saith That Laws they are not which publick Approbation hath not made so Which I believe of those Countries where such publick Senates have part in the Legislation By this you must say that in the Turks Dominions or any the like there are no Laws But if you say that the Original Grant of the Legislative Power to one is equivalent to an Approbation of his Laws I maintain that Hooker's Principle is false That by the natural Law whereto God hath made all subject the natural power of making Laws to command whole publick Societies of men belongeth so properly to the same entire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kindsoever upon earth to exercise the same himself and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent upon whose persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny How hard a task then do you put Kings upon to excuse themselves from Tyranny when ever such Prelatists will accuse them of it For 1. I hope you will not put them to prove That they have their Power by an express Commission immediately and personally from God as Saul and David had Shall we obey none but those that fanatically can pretend to a Revelation or immediate personal Commission from Heaven And 2. prove if you can that the People have Regal power to use or to give I grant that originally their Consent may be necessary to the designation of the Person or Family that shall receive it from God But it is God that giveth the power though the people choose the Person or Family no man giveth that which he hath not The People have not legal or governing Power Ergo they cannot give it The Wife chooseth her Husband but Gods Institution giveth him his power If that it be certain as Doctor Hammond hath proved against John Goodwin that the Peoples consent doth give no power but onely let in the person that shall receive it from God and not from them how dare you thus conclude all Kings on earth to be but Tyrants as Hooker plainly doth For no King on Earth hath an immediate personal Commission from Heaven And no King that I know of can receive power from the People that never had it to give Ergo you make all Kings to be no Kings but Tyrants but falsly Will you defend this because Hooker wrote it Were not these the Levellers and Democratists Principles higher than the old Parliament owned Must a Clergy of such Principles put men upon banishing the Non-conformists five Miles from a Corporation as men of seditious Principles Terras astraea reliquit You tell me I take what is for my purpose and leave out the rest Ans Semper idem Do I mai many Sentence Do I pervert any Is the rest contradictory to this What in the great Hooker No not at all I suppose the rest Unrighteous man If you require me to write out all his Book when ever I transcribe a part I own that which you transcribe What would you have more But next you say that I have found other Doctrine in Hookers other Books Answ A silly pretence of which anon You ask Was you led aside by Hooker c. yet you quote passages out of the 8th Book that came out since Ans A man that would turn us to Conformity must be able himself to heed what he readeth 1. I said not that Hooker but such Principles led me 2. I never said that I was led by every word that I now cite but that these words contain the Principles which missed me that is so far and so long as I followed those Principles Do you not see that your heedlesness tempted you to this Error and yet your Ex post liminio and first building the Roof seemed sence to you or you would have them seem such at least to me But it 's well that you disown these three Book of Hookers also But 1. is not this forecited in the first the very sum of all that you are afraid of 2. Will you so give away the sixth and seventh which say far more for Episcopacy than all the rest 3. Will you thus reproach all Bishop Gauden's triumphant Vindication and Dedication to the King 4. Did he not tell you that the Copy was interlined with Hookers own hand as approving it What would you have more 5. I again tell you I can bring you proof of a Concordant Copy the Scribes Errates excepted 6. Mr. Walton could not deny it 7. Dr. Bernard cited by you confirmeth it For to say that a Sentence or two were left doth intimate that the Book was his and leaving out is not putting in And I cited nothing that was left out nor any thing in it that is maimed for want of
and many Adulteries with Citizens Wives And it is most to be noted That they who after his flight reformed the Civil Government were strong Papists and mainly opposed the reformation of Religion I shall recite no more out of this Episcopal Doctor Prebend of Canterbury but desire you again to read page 23 24. What changed Luther's mind to own the Protestants Arms against the Emperour And page 32 33. What King James saith to vindicate the French Protestants I never knew yet that the French Protestants took Arms against their King c. And that Cap. 3. pag. 64 to 73. He cites the Confessions of all the Churches the Augustane the French the Belgick the Helvetian the Bohemian the Saxonian the Swevian the English as consenting for Obedience to their Soveraigns But all this is nothing to you that can say nothing of worth against it Neither the Vindication of their Principles or Practice But unrighteous Judge I am with you partial and unequal 1. Because I told you that you should not have set down the bare Names of T. C. and Travers as a Charge without citing what they say And is not that true Is that an unequal expectation And what if I had added That had you proved them guilty it had not concerned any of us or our Discipline or Principles till you had proved that we had owned the same And is that unequal O Justice 2. Because I said I will no further believe Bancroft or Sir Th. Aston then they prove what they say No nor you neither Must I believe Adversaries accusing Parties without proof and such Adversaries too Why must I believe them more than Heylin or more than Doctor Moulin afore-cited believed the English Tradition against Geneva Is this the equality of your way § 37. It 's tedious disputing with a man that cannot or will not understand what is said no not the Question no not the Subject of it You cite my words out of the Saints Rest that say not any thing to the Question The Question is not What were the final Motives of the War But what was the Controversie of the warranting Cause and Foundation that must decide the Case whether it was lawful or unlawful The Bonum publicum and the Gospel and Religion and mens Salvations are the great moving ends and Reasons of a lawful War But it is not these Ends that will serve to prove a War lawful Could that be the Cause or Controversie which they were both agreed in Did not the King profess to be for Religion Liberty c. as well as they See yet his Shrewsbury Half-crowns if Coin be any evidence with you private men may not raise War for Religion but the King may The Finis and the Fundamentum are not the same I there talkt but of the Finis and Motives I now speak of the Fundamentum and Controversie which is well known to be whether the King or Parliament then had the power of the Militia rebus sic stantibus and whether the Parliament had true Authority to raise an Army against the Army Commissioned by the King for that Defence and executing the Law upon Delinquents which they then pretended to Now I say still I know no Theological Controversie herein I know no Scripture but Policy and Law and Contract that will tell us whether the King of Spain or the States be the rightful Governours of the Low Countries Or whether the King of France be absolute If you can out of Scripture prove that all Republicks must have the same Form and Degree of Government or how Forms and Degrees must be varied in each Land I resist you not but only confess my weakness that so high a performance is beyond my power Had you understood the Question you might have spared your Citation of my words § 41. You come again to our swearing Conformity and you say That it must reasonably be understood of a tumultuous and armed endeavour Answ 1. And it is publickly known that we are ready to swear against a tumultuous and armed endeavour unless by the King's Command If you would not endeavour it even with Arms if the King commanded you accuse us not of Disloyalty for being more Loyal than you If you would we are of the same judgment as to the thing And so while the thousands of ignorant Souls are untaught men of the same judgment on our part openly professed out must some be Teachers and some silenced some preferred and some in Prison and banished from Corporations c. even while they hold the same thing And why Because one part of them dare take an Oath in a more stretching sence than the others dare And that 1. Because they are taught not only by Amesius where you cite him but by all consciencious judicious Casuists That an Oath is to be taken strictly and not stretchingly in the common sense of the words unless the Law-givers will otherwise explain themselves 2. And the words are universal Not endeavour at any time without the least limitation or exception of any sort of endeavour I should have broke that Oath by this writing to you had I taken it Et non est distinguendum aut limitandum fine lege 3. The Law-makers are to be supposed wise considerate men especially the Bishops and able to distinguish between an universal and a particular or limited enunciation and to express their minds in congruous words 4. The Law-makers knew before and since that we would take the Oath if Endeavouring had been limited as you do and yet they never would limit it by one syllable 5. The Reasons used for that Clause and our acquaintance with the Bishops and other Authors of it leave our Consciences perswaded that their meaning was against all Endeavours and not tumultuous military or illegal only as in the Et caetera Oath 1640. It was that I will not consent which is less than Endeavouring And we are not ignorant what relation this Oath hath to that And we take it to be a sin to deceive our Rulers by taking an Oath in that sence which we believe was not by them intended and seeming to them to swear what we do not mean 6. When twenty London Ministers took the Oath because Doctor Bates told them that the Lord Keeper promised him at the giving it to put in the words Endeavour by any seditious or unlawful means or to that sense the said limiting words were not only left out but when old Mr. Sam. Clark said My Lord we mean only unlawful endeavour Judge Keeling asked Will you take the Oath as it is offered you and refused to add any such Explication and told them when they had done they had renounced the Covenant 7. The Justices tell us when they offer us the Oath That we must take it according to the plain sense of the words 8. The Parliament in the Act for regulating Corporations in the Declaration there imposed and the Oath doth fully satisfie us what is their
sense about this matter 9. It is not true as far as any London Ministers can know that ever the Judges declared their sense as you say for that limitation That is that ever they did by any Consultation and Concord give any judgment in the Case whatever any single Judge as the Lord Keeper might say privately or any one alone when another may say the contrary 10. If they had it 's a known thing whatever their judgment may do to make Cases in the Common Law yet as to Statute Law only the Law-makers are the Law-Interpreters as to any Interpretation which shall be as the Law it self a Rule universally to the Subjects And that Judges and Justices who here are made the Judges do only interpret the Law for the decision of particular Controversies that come before them And if all the Judges and Justices in England should meet and agree of this Statute it would only shew how they resolve in particular judgments to expound it and not what is the true obliging sense to the Subjects Conscience Otherwise the Judges would be equal to if not above the King and Parliament For he hath more power who determineth what sense and soul the Laws shall have than they that only make the words and body which others may put what sense they please on Nor can all the Judges make it lawful to take up Arms against the King if they so expounded any Law They have a deciding Expositors judgment as to the Case before them but not the regulating universal expounding power at all 11. We think that Divines that preach against sin above al◠men must not stretch their Consciences in so dangerous a point as publick swearing 12. And we think that if men be once taught to equivocate and play fast and loose with the sacred Bond of Oaths Conscience is quite debauched no sufficient Bar is left to keep out any the greatest sins Preachers and People become incredible humane society is endeavoured to be dissolved and the King's Life secured much by his Subjects Fidelity and Conscience of an Oath is exposed to the wicked wills of men We charge no others with all this but we will avoid it our selves though it cost us yet more You may swear not to endeavour and mean particularly not by Tumult or Arms but by some other endeavour but so cannot we Therefore do you enjoy your Liberty Maintenance and Honour and we will be without them and to morrow at death we shall be as free and as high as you But fie Sirs why will you talk of straining Oaths and turning plain Oaths into Snares ana◠allowing no Interpreters Are your ways here equal too 1. What is the plain sense but an universal sense of an universal enunciation If by All or None I understand All or None and you understand not All but Some who is the Strainer of the Oath And I pray you tell me if once any endeavour shall be excepted who shall determine how much it must be The first part of the Oath saith Not on any pretence whatever That is we must not take up Arms against any Commissioned by the King What if a bold limited Expositor will here come in and say Except King John deliver up the Kingdom to the Pope Or except the King's Commissions through the Officers fault should be contradictory Or such Exceptions as Wil. Barclay and Grotius make Should not this man rather be the Equivocator and Strainer of the Oath than he that thinketh so plain a Phrase as not any pretence whatsoever is exclusive of any pretence whatsoever Never trust the man that feareth not an Oath 2. But why talk you of none being Interpreters we cannot give the Power to whom we please The Law-makers think it best as it is and will not interpret as you do when they can and know all the Reasons that you can give them The Justices are made our Judges I told you that the Justices when they sent me to the Gaol refused to Expound it and told me I must take it according to the proper sense of the words Yet do you go on as if none of all this had been said to you As to what you say of Obligation by the Covenant and leaving a gap c. I answer Melancholy men by fearing bring the thing feared on themselves It was the Et caetera Oath 1640 that forced me who else had lived quietly in my ignorance to read and study many Authors to know the truth before I swore who turned me not against Episcopacy but against the Italian and Diocesan frame The Covenant is not the thing that they are in danger of but their own Diseases we firmly believe that the Covenant bindeth us to nothing but what we were bound to if we had never taken it as being not a primary Bond to make new Duty but a secondary to bind us to that only which is antecedently a duty and that no Vow or Covenant bindeth us from obeying the King in any thing indifferent much less a duty before These are our Principles however you nauseate them But without respect to any Vow or Covenant we hold that we are all bound not to any Treason Rebellion or any illegal means but in our true Place and Calling to endeavour that those things may be reformed in the Discipline which my first Dispute of Church Government hath proved to be evil After which so long unanswered you need not so loudly have called for my Reasons And if this be it that maketh you think my Retraction not sincere think what you please I never retracted any of this § 44. First They that exercise the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land are Church Governours But Lay Chancellors exercise the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land Ergo Lay-Chancellors are Church-Governours 2. Who doubts but the Et caetera included them If it included None it was superfluous If Any how exclude you them And is it not said As it standeth and ought to stand But were it but Deans and Archdeaeons I would not swear that if the King commanded me by Writing or Petition to endeavour some alteration I will resist or disobey him you may do as you will 3. It were too long now to tell you how far I take my Conscience obliged to a Lay-Chancellor and how far not 4. But what 's next That no Learned men so much as maintain in the Schools the Lay-Chancellors Church Government And yet have we hot and feaverish heads if we will not swear to that which no man will maintain Well! let it go for our Crime or Folly while such men judge 5. Add p. 20. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom a good understanding have all they that do them Fools make a mock of sin See that ye walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise To fear an Oath is a mark of the fear of God and
Universal Soveraignty and next for Monarchy as under God and next seeing they were all on New Modelling I told them how Piety might be secured and promoted by Monarchy and to get Sir Francis Nethersoles Answer for my fuller satisfaction I added as to him as I promised the reasons that had moved me to be for the Parliament While I had purposed the later part first Oliver died and his Son Richard was set up while I was writing the Book Before I had finish'd it the Army had pull'd down first his Parliament and next Richard himself I never had known a Parliament more enclined to Piety and Peace My deep displeasure against the Madness of the Army that had rebelliously pull'd down all Power King Parliaments and at last him whom they set up themselves drew me first to write the sad Meditations in the end and then a sharp Preface to the Army against their Rebellions In which I aggravated their Crime in the last instance among the rest in putting down suddenly Richard their Protector whom they had lately Courted and Set up and I used these words It was written while the Lord Protector prudently piously faithfully to his immortal Honour how ill soever you have used him did exercise the Government c. Now so congruous are these mens Principles and Practice that they fear not to tell the world in Print and that successively from one another that I said this of the grand Regicide Oliver whom I so openly and so deerly opposed And a putarem or a non putarem will excuse a Volume of such tricks if the cheat or falschood be discovered They might easily have seen by the whole scope of that Preface that it was Richard and not Oliver that I spake of It was not Oliver that they misused and pulled down And I praised him to shew the evil of their Rebellious Proceedings It was not Taking the Government which he had no Right to which I praised but his short Exercise And I thought him praise-worthy on many accounts 1. He never meddled in any War against the King notwithstanding all his Fathers Interest and Power but was suspected to be for the King 2. We never heard that he sought or expected the Government but it was thrust upon him 3. When he was offered help presently to apprehend them that supprest him he refused it and renounced the Government at a word resolving not to shed a drop of blood to keep that which was so thrust upon him 4. He set himself by a Parliament of pious peaceable men to have supprest Heresie and Confusion and to have restored Order and Equity and Peace 5. The Kings chief Friends about us told me that Richard was for the King and that some were Treating with him to Restore him Though I confess I hardly believed that his Self-denial was so great I thought all this had so much laudable as to aggravate the madness of that Army who when they had destroved the King and pulled down the Parliament did also put down him whom they had Set up and Sworn Fidelity to themselves His want of Right did not justifie their Perfidiousness Thus the Conformist grounds his Accusation § 15. Impl. p. 128. He repeateth a Leaf of my own words to Mr. Bagshaw against the Armies Rebellion against King and Parliament and setting up the Protector and the rest of their Injuries not seeing that he confuteth his own Calumny while to prove that I am for those actions he proveth that I have condemned them as heinous sin See here how strongly these men argue § 16. Impl. p. 131. His applauding the first Boutefeus as glorious Saints in Heaven his vindicating the Authority and War of the Parliament against the King his pertinacious adhering to the Covenant crying down the Royal Martyr as a Papist after he had sealed the sincerity of his heart to the Reformed Religion with his Blood and the crying up his Murtherer for a prudent pious and faithful Governour His Principles in his Holy Commonwealth and his present practices in defending Schism and so sowing Sedition c. Cry aloud for Repentance and Retraction c. Answ Here are his Doctrinal Principles exemplified He hath now got the art of linking and condensing falshoods so close that I must cease numbring them while one is made up o◠so many 1. The first Accusation went before p. 88 89. where he mentions Brooke Pym Hampde◠and White c. saying What if they are gone to another place You were ashamed to continue them in your Book being left out in your later Editions Answ 1. I left them out because the Book could not be Licensed else And should I not rather leave out a few Names than cast away the whole Book Had I done it in Repentance or to please such as you you tell me how it would have been taken 2. I never spake with one of them but I have heard so credible testimony of their conversation especially of Hampden and White that I am far more confident that they are in Heaven than that such as you will ever come thither Impartial men of both sides honoured them I heard an antient grave Gentleman that was no Phanatick nor accounted a Puritan but a sober honest man say 1644. If I might choose what person in all the world I would be I would be John Hampden 3. It is not only Bishop Jer. Tailor but Politicians commonly that acknowledge that It hath not pleased God to make Politick Cases of the degrees and forms of Power so easie to us as that all good Christians can decide the Controversies about them It 's commonly agreed that God hath not forbidden Monarchy Aristocracy Democracy or Mixt Government nor made only one of these to be lawful And it is past Controversie then that it is National Fundamental constituting Contracts Laws or Customs and not any express Scripture that must tell us de facto jure what is the Species of each Countreys Government It is not in the Creed Lords-Prayer Decalogue or Sacraments Therefore the knowledge of it is not of absolute Necessity to Salvation I finde it not in the condition of the Covenant of Grace Methinks they that say Heathens may be saved should grant it of Christians that know not when a sinful division falls out between King and Parliament and that with many difficult circumstances which it is that should be then obeyed or defended Christ was drawn by Hypocrites to pay Tribute to Caesar rather than offend but he would not be drawn to justifie his Dominion over the Jews Paul commands Obedience to the Higher Powers as of God and as watching for our good But he would not be drawn to declare Whether it was Caesar or the Senate which was the Higher Power when they came to be divided in their Commands 4. I have produced too large Testimony from Antiquity how ordinarily the Bishops of East and West too quickly owned and praised the Usurpers of the Empire when once
may see that his Charity and his Veracity are proportionable he hence inferrs p. 57. Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted Is not the King and whole Nation greatly culpable not to trust themselves with the ingenuity of this people c. Answ Reader which is liker to be guilty of Tyranny 1. We that desire no power but to plead God's Law to mens Consciences 2. And that but with one Congregation And 3. with no constrained unwilling persons but only voluntary Consenters 4. And to rule over none of our Fellow-Ministers 5. And only to be but Freemen as Schoolmasters and Philosophers be in their Schools of Volunteers that we may not against our Consciences be the Pastors of the unwilling or such as we judge uncapable according to God's Laws but to use the Keys of Admission and Exclusion as to that particular Church 6. And to do all under the Government of the Magistrate who may punish us as he may do Physicians Schoolmasters or others for proved mal-administration and drive us not from but to our Duty 7. And to be ready to give an account of our Actions to any Synod or Brethren that demand it and to hear their Admonitions and Advice Yea and to live in peaceable submission where Archbishops or General-Visitors are set over us and upon any Appeals or Complaints to hear and obey them in any lawful thing belonging to their Trust and Power 9. And if we be judged to have worngfully denied our Ministerial help and Communion to any we pretend to no power to hinder any other Church or Pastor from receiving him 10. And if we be by Magistrates cast out or afficted for our Duty we shall quietly give up the Temples and publick Church-maintenance of which the Magistrate may dispose and without resisting or dishonouring him endure what he shall inflict upon us for our obedience to God This is our odious Tyranny 2. On the other side our Accusers 1. Some of them are for power in themselves to force men by the Sword that is by Mulcts and corporal Penalties to be subject to them or be of their Church and Communion 2. Others are for the Magistrate thus forcing them when the Bishop Excommunicates them 3. They thus make the Church like a prison when no man knoweth whether the people be willing Members or only seem so to escape the Jail 4. They would be such forcing Rulers over many score or hundred Parishes 5. They would have power to Rule Suspend and Silence the Pastors of all these Parishes when they think meet 6. They hinder the Pastors of the Parish-Churches from that exercise of the Keys aforesaid in their own Parish-Churches which belongs to the Pastors Office 7. They would compel the Parish-Ministers to Admit Absolve or Excommunicate at least as declaring other mens Sentences when it is against their Consciences 8. They would make Ministers swear Obedience to them and Bishops swear Obedience to Archbishops 9. Some of them are for their power to Excommunicate Princes and greatest Magistrates though contrary to the fifth Commandment it dishonour them 10. Some of them say that if the King command one Church-Order or Form or Ceremony and the Bishop another the Bishop is to be obeyed before the King As also if the King bid us Preach and the Bishop forbid us 11. And they say that their Censures even Clave errante must be obeyed 12. And that he whom a Bishop cuts off from one Church is thereby cut off from all and none may receive him 13. And that it is lawful to set up Patriarchs Metropolitans c. to rule the Church according to the state and distribution of Civil Government Look over these two Cases and judge which party is liker to Church-Tyrants and then judge what Credit is due to such Accusers of the Non-Conformists in this Age. § 43. II. As to Reordination I have answer'd to Mr. Cheny what he saith He deceitfully avoideth determining the first Question whether they intend a Reordination or not Whereas I have proved 1. That the Church of England is against twice Ordaining 2. That they call it and take it for a true Ordination which is to be received from them by such as Presbyters had Ordained 3. And therefore that they suppose the former Null 4. And this is much of the reason of mens doubting whether they should receive the second which is given on such a Supposition But this man is little concerned in the true stating of the case § 44. III. What he saith of the Ministers power for Discipline is answered already to Mr. Cheney that hath the same § 45. About the Covenant 1. he falsly makes me say that the King took it Whereas whether he did or not I only say that he was injuriously and unlawfully drawn to seem to owne it and declare for it 2. Next he aggravates this Injury And who contradicteth him 3. He pleadeth That the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of the Church Answ I will not examine your Reasons The King never made me his Confessor nor put the question to me Why then should I make my self a Judge of it And why must my Ministry lie on a thing beyond my knowledge But am I sure that no Parliament-man that took that Vow is bound there in his place to endeavour a Reforming Alteration when I am past doubt that much is needful He would 1. make it doubtful Whether it was a Vow to God I think it not worth the labour to prove it to him that doubteth of it after deliberate reading it 2. He saith Any lawful endeavours are not denied Answ But the Obligation to lawful endeavours are denied Are not the words universal 3. He saith The Covenant condemned as unlawful cannot lay an Obligation Answ A Vow to God unlawfully imposed and taken may binde to a Lawful Act. 4. He calls it unnecessary alterations against the Law of the Land Answ I suppose I shall prove some reforming alteration necessary And it is not against Law for a Subject to petition for it or a Parliament-man to speak for it Yet when the man seems to me to be pleading Conscience out of the Land he saith Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms Alas poor people what uncertain Guides have you 5. He concludes that the power of Reforming being in the King the Vow was null Answ The Regal Power of Reforming is only in the King To change Laws without him is Usurpation But Parliament-men may speak for it and Subjects petition and on just causes write and speak for needful Reformation And I speak for no other § 45. IV. About not taking Arms against those Commissioned by the King He plainly professeth that we must not distinguish where the Law doth not And if it be an unlimited Universal Negative it will quite go beyond Mainwaring or Sibthorpe And for all
they seem to have great advantage in the using of your Argument to tell them that would have Preaching that Humility should teach them to esteem the Readers labour above their own And truly Basil and Chrysostom's Sermons which they read are better than the Sermons in very many Churches in this Land which you that honour the Fathers its like will not deny But cheat not your self so as to dream that we are the Assailants when we meddle not with you but by way of Comparison when urged to it in our own defence But because Prejudice and Factious passages yellow Jaundices a Party c. are here accused I could almost find in my heart to send you a Copy of some of the Sermons that I have lately heard But you would but pretend that this were some rare unusual thing O let the World take heed what History they believe I have as much ado to perswade you that many Churches are left in a case which calls for Tears as I have to perswade Bagshaw and others on the other extream that any of them have worthy or tolerable men When yet many hundred thousand Persons have Sense Reason and Experience to decide the Case But these ten years experience and much more have taught me not hastily to believe a Faction though in a matter where the common sense is Judge for Faction is one of the greatest Lyars in the world But you say Just so did Martin Marprelate traduce the regular Clergies Answer Just so is just untruly spoken by you As well may the Papists say to the Lutherans Just so did the Heriticks of old Rather just so did Christ tell some men That they took away the Key of Knowledge and would neither enter nor suffer others And just so he told them That if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch One of the last Sermons I heard was on Servants obey your Masters in all things and our own Servants being almost wholly past by it was applied to shew That we are Servants to the Bishops and must obey them in all things As if subjection without servitude had not been enough One of the next before it was to prove That the Church may appoint Holy-days because Easter-day which is the Lords-day is a Holy-day of the Churches appointment When most of the people had more need to have been taught the Cathechistical Principles and what they did when they were Baptized I can name you the Man and Place that from the Title of John's Epistle To the elect Lady proved undeniably that then there were Lord Bishops because an Elect Lady relateth to an Elect Lord and there are no Elect Lords but Elect Lord Bishops And if such as you are pleased to approve of the silencing of many hundreds yea of such as Amesius Cartwright Greenham Hildersham John Rogers Egerton Dod Bradshaw Rob. Parker Paget Hering c. O what men and the setting up of such as These or Readers in their stead all is salved by telling us that we must think others better than our selves and that we may profit by all And if God did work by all alike sense or non-sence and made as much use of the Ignorant and Ungodly to procure Knowledge and Godliness in the world I would say as you I believe with K. James they have an ill Spirit that recount Grievances to make themselves popular I suppose Sir Edw. Sands named by you was one he meant so ill do your Allegations agree But I will not therefore consent to their Guilt that make grievances and then declaim against such Popularity They please not God and are contrary to all mens forbidding us to Preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved for Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost was this Popular declaiming against grievances Deny your Children Food and Rayment and then call them such Popular declaimers Again you snatch at your former self-deceiving fiction did these Hebrew Children and Ara bick Lads come out of your School they should have been stroaked for Precious Youthes Answer How pleaseing to you is a selfmade Cheat. Realy Sir I know not one such Lad that is a Conformist your urgency may possibly provoke me to send you if it please you some of our homebred Fruits to tell you whence I fetcht my comparison 1. when you well mourn for your Alehouses Sots and yet say that all our 1800 are not free your Confession on one part is constrained your Accusation on the other side I think is a Calumny 1. Because no one of all the Non-conformists was cast out for Drunkenness but many on the other side were cast out uppon Accusation of that sin seconded by Oathes how just I must not presume to say 2. I that know the Non-conformists better than you know not one Drunkard amongst them all in England 3. I Challenge you to Name one of all the Ministers I Named to you or any other in the County of Worcester where you live Next Page 7. you pretend that I Change my judgement in valuing the Common Prayer and Homilies Answer all false still no change at all I ever valued the Common Prayer and Homilies much before such Preaching as I described to you And realy I think that the Non conformists much more value the Homilies than the Conformists do Next I am glad that you disclaim the proving it of any of our Non-conformists in England that he was silenced for Insufficiency But was this impertinent to one that intimated such Charges of unlearnedness as you did But you say it is of another Nature the reason of our silence that we do not give security to Authority that we will Preach up no more Wars Answer I summon your Conscience to justify you silencing of so many and such in the necessity of so many Thousand Souls one moment after death upon the Charge now given us on these reasons 1. I told you and you could not deny it that if you leave out your Oath and Subscription to the Bishops and Chancellors with the Vast Assent and Consent few Non-conformists will refuse the renuncation mentioned by you about Wars Yet still have you that front to â—ay it upon this The many that took the Oxford Oath upon this and the more that were ready to take it if Judge Keeling had not presently and openly declared it to be a renunciation of the National Vow 2. I again provoke you to prove that there is one Non-conformable Minister of Ten or Twenty that ever was proved or can be to have medled with the War against the King 3. you read and cite my late Writing wherein I say Page 51. Differ of the Pow of Mag. and Past I ascribe all that power to Kings which is given them by any Text of Scripture or acknowledged by any Council General or Provincial or by any Publick Authentick Confession of any Christian Church either Protestant Greek or Papist that ever I yet saw And is all this Insufficient to
Teaching some men are angry with them if they will care whether they are taught or untaught Of all Merchandize I love not making Merchandize of Souls But I pray you dream not that I take all the old Ministry for such as these I know there are many excellent men But I think the present Non-conformists as fit for the Sacred Office as these Is that presumption § 10. p. 10. I thank you for your transitions and purposed brevity To requite you 1. Your first Paragraph doth but say in effect 1. That you untruly suppose me to meddle with the Controversie which I do but wish for leave to meddle with 2. And that you think many things good which I think to be stark naught But because you call me so oft to Dispute the main Controversie I tell you once that it is disingeniously done still in Print and Writing to call for more as if we had never done any thing in it while our Printed Books lie by you unanswered Answer my Fifth Dispute of Church Government 1. In the Point of Prelacy 2. Of Reordination 3. Of Impositions and then call out for more when you have done Or if you have more time Answer Baine's Diocesanes Tryal Robert Parker de Polit. Eccles Blondel de Episcopis where Dr. Hammond left at the entrance One quarter of the Reasons of our Non-conformity is contained in these Books and some are in Ames his fresh Suit and Nicols and Bradshaw but the most are upon a new account which our Fathers were not put upon 2. I am ashamed to Read a Preacher a Writer an Accuser of the afflicted to talk of the dreadfull subject of Oaths so poorly as you do Though I tell you I will not dispute this Point with you without a License from Authority I will say 1. That when you say Take an unlawfull Oath in what sense you please and will there be much need of absolution You should not so confusedly have Named an Unlawfull Oath Remember that you have proved against me that a Question may be false And that an Indefinite in renecessariâ or thus unlimitedly delivered goeth for an Universal an Oath is unlawfull 1. Quoad actum imponendi 2. Quoad actum jurandi 3. Quoad materiam juratam If the Materia Jurata be Lawfull do you think that the unlawfulness of the other two do leave no need of an Absolution 1. What if a Thief force me to swear Allegiance to the King or to swear to do some Duty doth it not add a Second bond Or what if I vowed without the Command of any power 2. What if I sinned in making a Vow or Oath by taking it from a Usurper or without just Cause or unreasonably or to an ill end c. If the Matter be good doth it not then bind me And de materiâ what if one Article or many be bad and another good doth the Neighbourhood of the bad disoblige me from the good If so it is but inserting some bad Clauses and men may be bound by no Oaths or Vows as in the former Case It is but swearing sinfully to an ill end c. and never be obliged But if this be your Divinity about Oaths and Perjury you have no cause to censure them so deeply that swear not as quick and deep as you Your next Question is Must the sense of an Oath be measured by him that receiveth it or â—rom the Authority and Intention of those that imâ—ose it Answer Still worse and worse what Confusion is here Who knoweth whether by â—easuring the sense you mean as to the taking of the â—ath or as to the Obligation of it when taken Your Must seemeth to speak of both But 1. He â—hat taketh an Oath from one in lawful Authority â—r from an Equal is bound to take it in the sense â—f the Imposer or Requirer whom we would saâ—isfie 2. He that taketh an Oath from a Thief â—r Murtherer some Casuists say Is bound not â—o lie to hide his sense but may take it in a sense â—ifferent from the Imposers when the plain words â—ill bear it without a Lie As if a Thief or Trayâ—r should force the King to swear that he will do â—his or that which hath an equivocal Name If â—he Traytor 's sense be not according to the Comâ—oner use or defaniosiore analegaâ—o but the King 's they think that the King is not bound to wear in his sense though yet he may be bound â—o swear to save his life 3. But our Case is only â—e obligatione juramenti praestandi If a man that â—as bound to take the Oath in a Usurpers sense â—hall either mistake the Usurpers sense or shall â—ke it in another sense as supposing that he is not â—ound to the Usurpers I say that this man if â—e make this A VOW to God and not only an â—ath to Man is bound to keep it in the sense he â—ok it in if it were materially lawful If I Vow to â—ive so much to a Minister of Christ and he that â—rced me to it meant a Mass Priest and I mistook â—im and meant a true Minister I am bound by â—y Vow to give it him If your confused Question suppose the contrary then a man's Vows to God are all null if he that forced him to it were of another sense A meer Oath to confirm a Contract to a man is to be interpreted by the Contract being but an Obligation to perform it yea and may be remitted by the man that will remit his Right But in a Vow God and Man are the Parties and God's sense imposing and Man's sense intending in the Vow are each obliging So that if ten men use the same words in Vowing in ten several senses they are ten several Vows and all oblige if materially lawful And therefore when you say that the Vow was commanded by Usurpers and when I know not the sense of one that vowed let him that will say of Millions that they are not bound no not when they vow against Schism and Prophaneness But you cite here a Non conformist against me Amesius Case Consc to you p. 216. to me p. 203. But 1. He speaketh not at all of our Questions In what sense an Oath bindeth when taken but only in what sense it ought to be taken 2. He speaketh not of a Vow but of a meer Oath 3. He speaketh only of the Case of Equivocation but he that sweareth in sensu famosiore to a Thief whose mind he is not bound to follow doth not equivocate 4. He himself saith in the next Case that the words of an Oath must be taken Eo sensu quem audientes concepturos judicamus id est regulariter eo sensu quem habent in Communi hominum usu But the Audientes and the Imposers may be different and a man may think sometimes that the Imposers sense may be contrary to the usum communem and his own agreeable to it But this impertinent Question is nothing to
it 8. Any man may see that the 8th Book was imperfect and that is proved by the matter manner and end But it was nevertheless Hooker's and concordant in style and matter with the first And have you now vindicated the Doctrine of the chief Prelatists any better than by disowning them And do you take it as incredible that many Episcopal men in Parliament should think as Bilson and Hooker thought and as the great Speakers Sir Dudley Digs Cook Philips Eliot and many such in former Parliaments did seem to think § 35. Did you write against their Discipline with such ugly Insinuations of Treason before you knew what their Discipline was and then think you are excused by saying It must not be touched 2. Did you not know till now that the Nonconformists are not in all things of one mind They never pretended to it How many men are so whose Faith is their own Are you after so many years to learn that some that Conform not are Episcopal some Presbyterians some Independents and some as we of Worcestershire and I think most of England addicted to no Party but thinking that each of the three and the Erastians too have somewhat in which they excel the rest and somewhat in which they erre more than the rest This is our judgment And will not old printed Writings make you know it before you first write against it and then wonder at it and make a stir about that which you know not when i'ts told you You next think that by proving that they flie their Habitation and refuse the Oath you sufficiciently prove that the Chorus sticks at renouncing War against the King Because it is a serious business I must profess that you here so cross the common Principles of Reason Humanity or Christianity that you do not at all tempt me to Conform When you know if you are reasonable that if they should take all the Oath except the last Clause they are nevertheless to be confined from Corporations When you know if you are reasonable that a man may judge the first part or one part lawful that thinketh otherwise of the last and so that he must remove his Habitation To conclude yet that the flying of their Habitations and not taking the Oath is a proof that they are against the whole or against that Clause that renounceth Arms against the King and to take this for a Demonstration as going is that there is motion I tell you again this reasoning beseemeth not a Divine or a man Doth it not imply that you will take an Oath your self if you judge but one part of it lawful And yet before that Voâ—doth bind no man to the lawful parts which you said had in it some parts unlawful Thus Errors agree amongst themselves You open your self yet more you say This makes me nauseate your Principles as much as the former viz. Not swearing not to endeavour an alteration in the Government of the Church Answ And indeed do you loath as much the altering of your Church Government as the Kings and yet be loyal Is it as loathsom to turn Diocesance into the old Episcopacy or to set up Bishop Usher's Model which we offered yea or to take down Lay Chancellor's power of the Keys as to take down Kings Yet this tempts me not unto Conformity Yet do you not stick to say next Yes by Petition as becomes Subjects viz. we may endeavour alteration Answ What a saying and unsaying is this And what a jumble of swearing and unswearing would you have us make Will men awake believe that Petitioning is no Endeavouring Will you preach this Doctrine to your Flock You may lawfully swear that you will not any time endeavour an alteration of the Scripture of the Ministry of the Universities of Religion of Monarchy and yet may endeavour it by Petitioning that Oath notwithstanding May a man swear universally and mean particularly May he swear that he will not at any time murder his Child and mean except by famishing him May he swear that he will never endeavour to defame you or take away your Life or Lands and yet may Petition the King or Parliament to take them away swear with you at these rates that will for me But by this it appeareth that quoad sensum you are of the Nonconformists mind though not as to the method of swearing For if they could but stretch their Consciences to put your sense upon that Clause of the Oath they would take it And yet do you nauseate their Principles and Discipline because they cannot interpret it as you who would take it were it so interpreted See then by how small a matter even the meer exposition of the words Satan can tempt some men to nauseate the Discipline and Principles of others that fear an Oath But you think in our Places and Callings is that Ministers must preach them down and Souldiers fight them down Ans 1. But is not Petitioning confest by you to be agreeable to the Place and Calling of a Subject and therefore allowable And so you build up what you would pull down 2. Either it belongeth to the place and calling of a Minister to preach for Church Reformation in the said Alteration or not If it be dare you oppose it If it be not this Clause restraineth it 3. If the King who can give Souldiers Authority should commission Souldiers to pull down Lay Chancellors or alter Prelacy and make a Bishop in every Market Town or Parish would you teach the Souldiers to disobey and any to resist him What! and yet in the Oath swear that it is not lawful to resist any Commissioned by him But a Souldier that is not authorized to do it doth it not in his place and calling Your talk of changing Discipline with Rebellion by instances from practices is but a proceeding in bold Calumniation when you say nothing to the Vindications which Dr. Pet. Moulin Bishop Bilson King James and others have given it And to name no Instance but that of Prague is so bad that I will not name its quality Do you know what Discipline they were of at Prague I suppose you know that the Bohemian Waldenses were Episcopal as Commenius and Lascitius Treatises will shew you under the name of Seniors and Conseniors And the Palatine Discipline was mostly Erastian by Magistrates even long before Erastus pleaded for it against Beza even as was and is the Discipline of the Helvetians And hath the Image of both Churches or some such Papist put this into your head to nauseate Magistrates Church-Government for the sake of them of Prague that raised a Tumult against the Magistrate on what cause I leave to just Historians When you ask me what I think of those disciplinarian Principles I answer I think who ever used them they are false and I think him a shameless Calumniator that will charge them on us that Conform not without one syllable or shew of proof Do you mean Bancroft and
say the Prelatists for then it will set Presbyters too high or rather take hundreds from that which belongeth to their Office whilst one in the same Office exerciseth the Keys upon all their people and themselves that are his equals Et par in parem non habet potestatem Not as Bishops for they are not such really and the Episcopacy cannot be delegated as I proved You said which I am glad of That it may be you could wish that Excommunication were reduced into a more Scriptural Apostolical and Primitive Channel as much as my self But you never look that the Church below should be without spot or wrinkle Answ You speak here so well that it half reconcileth us If so then the main difference left is not whether we shall live peaceably in such a Church or promise to do so for that I have oft done yea and did subscribe to the Archbishop that now is when he gave me a Licence to Preach and I could have had it without subscribing a word that I would not Preach against the Doctrine Liturgy or Ceremonies of the Church But whether I may deliberately give my hand and profession that I assent and consent to such a frame and may swear that I will not any time endeavour an alteration of that Government which runs not in the Scriptural Apostolick Primitive Channel nor of its acknowledged spots and wrinkles That is To promise or swear that I will not obey God nor seek the Reformation of any such thing in his Church which is acknowledged amiss no not in my place and calling and by any lawful means Whereas in my Baptism I vowed my self and service to Christ as the Saviour of his Body and in my Ordination I vowed my self to him as a Minister and I daily pray for the hallowing of his Name the coming of his Kingdom the doing of his Will on Earth even as it is done in Heaven And therefore will not by swearing to the contrary renounce my Baptism Ministery or Prayers Pardon the description of the Sin as it would be to me I do not say that it is such in you or another that seeth not what I see Good Meanings and Latitudes and stretching Expositions will not make this pass with me among things indifferent And for your own sake not mine who stand or fall to a higher Tribunal I entreat you to judge of us in this as of men that are dying daily and neer a World where Preferments and Wealth and humane Favour signifie nothing and who are so unwilling to neglect our undertaken Office for mens Souls that we offer our Superiours to take it joyfully as a Favour to be any way punished for this supposed Sin of not lying nor being perjur'd so it may not hinder us from Preaching the Gospel of Salvation Even to be punished as deeply as common Swearers Drunkards or Adulterers are to rid Channels to Dig or Plow or to be burnt in the hand as Felons are or our Ears bored or cropt as Rogues or perjur'd Persons are so we may but Preach Christ or see the Kingdoms so supplyed as that our Labours may be truly needless to mens Salvation I would take all this thankfully on my Knees much more be denied the Levites Bread or Ministerial Maintenance But these are too high Favours for such as we to hope for in such a time and from such Persons as Experience proveth except that the Clemency of the King vouchsafeth us some convenience against the will of such of the Clergy as you Nothing but either Debauching our Consciences and stretching them so wide as that any thing will afterward go down or else deserting the Preaching of Christ for mens Salvation will serve with some men that I have talkt with For it is not my Superiours now that I am speaking of I did all that I was able unfeignedly to have brought all men once to Union with the Church upon any other terms than these when the thing was feasible as to the most But was an Enemy and one that deserved shame and ruine for it But I am gone back To return I am glad also that you say That the Surrogates have the power of the Keys and indeed so most School-men say and so Spalatensis hath notably and oft proved But what it will infer against Bishops denying them to all the Presbyters in a whole Diocess save one or two or few I will not repeat You say I did not well to overlook what you said about Chancellour's Skill in the Civil Law c. Answ I did not overlook it but past it by as an Impertinency supposing we had been agreed 1. That the holy Scriptures are the Universal Rule of Church Discipline as to the Essentials and the Laws of the Land and Canonical Agreements the subservient Rules about Circumstances and Adjuncts and for the execution of the former 2. And that Ability in Scriptures much less in the Roman Laws doth give no man authority to the exercise of the Spiritual Keys without a Call being but his remote Capacity 3. And that he that is called hereunto is called to be a Clergy-man to whome the Keys are proper I pray you Sir deny none of this Let Begging this once go instead of Arguing 4. And he may be fit to Advise and Assist a Bishop that is himself no Clergy man but Advising and judicial Decreeing are several things 5. And I am weary with saying that we submit to Chancellors as Magistrates doing that which belongeth to Magistrates according to the sense of the Oath of Supremacy But what 's all this to our Case in hand You add Tell me Sir may not a man be said to do that virtually which he doth not immediately Answ Yes a man may pay a Debt by his Servant or Deputy but not Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper or Discipline by another because Christ hath annexed the Office to the Person and the Office is an Obligation and Authority to do the work You add The King doth neither Preach nor Administer Sacraments yet hath a Supremacy of Power in all things belonging to the Church Answ Now I cannot follow you so far as to believe that the King doth virtually Administer the Sacraments per alios At least I durst not swear it If you think it is but a Gorgons head that affrighteth me hear and judge 1. Christ gave the Keys immediately to Ministers and not to Kings and distinguished their Offices 2. Queen Elizabeth ' K. Iames and the Convocation have publickly disclaimed such a sense of the Oath of Supremacy and taken it for the Papists slanders and disclaimed such a Power of the Keys in the King and so hath our present King wisely in my hearing 3. Some Scots are well charged with an injurious refusal of the Oath of Supremacy on the account of such a false Exposition which is the Papists Case 4. Almost all the Papists and Protestants in the World that ever I heard or read are agreed that
the King hath not the said Power of the Spiritual Keys and Sacraments 5. And specially the most learned and zealous Defenders of Monarchy and Prelacy Bilson of Chest Obed. and Perp. Gov. and Andrews in Tortura Torti have most plainly and vehemently renounced it and shewed their malice or ignorance that impute such an Arrogation to our Kings So also Carlton of Jurisdic Jewel Whitaker and who not 6. What a King may do virtually by another I think unless Inconveniencies hinder the exercise he hath power to do himself But I think the King may not Administer Sacraments or Spiritual Discipline himself Which of our Kings did it Or who since Uzziah offered Sacrifice among the Jews 7. Our Kings never yet pretended so much as to Ordain that is to Invest another in that Power Ministerially in the Name of Christ But as to the Supremacy it 's true that the King is the Supream over Physicians Philosophers c. but not the Supream Physician or Philosopher He exerciseth Coercive Government by the Sword over Bishops who use Spiritual Government by the Keys and Word but hath not Authority to use this same sort of oversight himself unless a Clergy-man were King as some are Magistrates As to the Proxies of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament when you have as well proved that Christ hath allowed them to Preach Administer Sacraments and exercise the Keys by Proxies I will yield all that Cause But they will be loath to go to Heaven by Proxy Page 21. As to Jebosaphats Mission and his Nobles Teaching I answer 1. Teaching is not so proper to a Pastor or Clergy-man as the Keys and Sacraments Parents have their Office or Power of teaching and School-masters and Lay Catechists have theirs and Magistrates have theirs Judges on the Bench do usually teach the People even religious Duties so did Constantine and so may any King But there is a different teaching whith is proper to the Clergy which is by teaching to gather Churches and guide them and edifie them as Pastors devoted or separated to this as their proper Office As there is a difference between the Office of a Physician and a Womans healing a cut finger or giving a Cordial to one that fainteth But this proper Teaching which God did not leave in common to others no Prince can use no Bishop can do by Proxy Nor can he delegate to a Lay-man the power of the Keys and Sacraments 2. And the King may no doubt command Pastors to do their Duty as well as Physicians to do theirs I take none of this to be quarrelling but plain truth Your telling us that Chancellors may direct and advise the Surrogates may signifie something in another Land but not with us If we had never seen their Courts nor read Travers Of the difference between Christs Discipline and theirs yet Cousin's Tables are in our Libraries You add We are all but the Bishops Curates in the exercise of it Answ 1. I ventured to deny that to Bag shaw who made it the Reason of Separation And I will yet deny it of some others though not of you If we are all but the Bishops Curates the Italian Bishops of Trent were not so absurd as they were made in making the Bishops the Popes Curates How easie should I be were I a Curate could I believe that I have no more to answer for than the Bishop imposed on me and that he must answer for all the rest I suppose that the Office of the Presbyters or Ministers of Christ is immediately Instituted and described in the Scriptures and that the Bishop doth but Invest them in it and that their work is their own as properly as the Bishop's is his own and that his Precminence maketh not him the Communicator of the Power to them as from himself nor them to be his Curates 2. And while I think that I can prove this very easily censure us not too deeply for not swearing to the Bishops if the sence of it be to make us his Curates Not that I think my self too good to be a Servant to the Bishop's Coach man but that I dare not subvert Christ's established Church Orders As for your Engine and Wonders and Babel and Lucifer and trembling I have not learning enough to answer them As to your talk of Absolute Autocratical c. they are but Oratorical Flowers that speak against none of our particular Doctrines but are the rant of your Magisterial style And your talk of Excommunicating Kings may pass as part of your equal ways to one that hath written so oft against Excommunicating Kings when yet Bishop Andrews and other Prelates maintain the Refusing them the Communion and you know in what Case Chrysostom rather offered to lose Hand and Life even then to give the Sacrament to the Greatest that was unworthy Prove that ever any of the present Non-conformists who were called to present the judgment or desires of the rest did ever say more than Andrews and Bilson or so much But the Lord Digby is your Author Answ 1. Were we and our present Controversie for the most of us in being and at age when the Lord Digby spake that Is not Conformity now another thing Do all or half the Non-conformists profess themselves Presbyterians Are Presbyterians all for Excommunicating Kings And do not some that are for it confine it only to such Pastors as Kings themselves shall commit their Souls to and give leave to exercise that Power Are we I say we now living and silenced answerable for all that any Presbyterian holdeth any more than you are for what Hooker holdeth Some Scots-men refuse the Oath of Supremacy Are we guilty of that Mistake who Take it and Write for it Or did we spring out of their Loins and must be silenced for such Original sin derived from them that were no kin to us 2. But where did the Lord Digby say it You cite no Book or Speech of his but cite Rushworth p. 218. Where is no syllable of any such matter nor any where else that I can yet find 3. Suppose he had Did he not say in his Letter to Sir Ken. Digby Printed That the Primitive Church Government will be found pecking towards Presbytery He was then Episcopal he is now a Papist Is not his Authority then ad hominem while he was one of your own more valued against you than against them that were not of his Party or way and is this good arguing Whatever the Lord Digby Bancroft Heylin and if you will Bellarmine charge the Presbyterians with 1640 or I know not when or where all that are the Non-conformists Episcopal Presbyterians Independents and Catholick Moderators are guilty of in 1671. But the Lord Digby sometimes said that the Presbyterians would Excommunicate Kings Ergo the present Nonconformists even Episcopal and all are guilty of that Opinion even they that write against it But all your ways are just and equal But I pray you why was no Article about
Chancellors are the Kings Officers to Govern the Church circa sacra by the Sword we will swear and perform Obedience to them under the King in licitis honestis But I told you they that take them for the Usurpers of Spiritual power will easily prove it to be lawful to swear Obedience to Usurpers in licitis honestis will you deny that 3. And I told you that it is another Oath that is imposed on us to take But did you well to say You produced the words of Ignatius to prove the antiquity of swearing to Bishops who saith not a syllable of any such thing And untruly say I took no notice of it when I told you that Ignatius mentioned not Oaths but only actual Obedience This is no notice with you But do you not know how late it was before swearing Obedience to Bishops came into the Church and by what sort of men and to what end and effect § 52. Your talk of Cartwright confirmeth me of the vanity of the Hypocrites reward the praise of men there being nothing so false which may not by some men be said of them with boldest confidence If Cochleus or his like do but say That Luther learned of the Devil that Calvin was a stigmatized Sodomite c. all their Followers can ever after say It is in Print So Mr. S. P. some body Printed this you say And Heylin saith He promised What just the same or to the same sense as I told you I voluntarily subscribed when I might by the Kings Declaration have chosen meerly because I would have them know our minds and peaceable resolutions I told you why he that can promise to live peaceably c. cannot subscribe and swear the Approbation of all in that Liturgy Government c. which he liveth peaceably under But this is nothing to you if Cartwright Conformed first Prove it by credible History 2. Why then could the great Earl of Leicester procure no more liberty for him than an Hospital in Warwick and no Church 3. I have lived in Coventry and been oft in Warwick and know by all credible testimony of Neighbours that it 's false and no such thing as his Conformity was there dream'd of any further than I Conform 4. Why did he never declare it to the World nor retract his Writings 5. Your Heylin's own words intimate the contrary though I must tell you I owe as little belief to that Book of his as most Histories written by sober Protestants But you say much more Dr. Burges p. 377. observed That Cartwright opposed the Ceremonies as Inconveniences but not as unlawful and therefore perswaded men to Conform rather than leave their Flocks Answ 1. But the Ceremonies are but part and the lesser part of Conformity 2. Else had all Conformity been here included he was still a Conformist And how could you then say That at last he wrangled himself into Conformity if he was such at first 3. But if you cite him truly be judge your self whether Hoylin said true and what will be your case if you will report all that you find such men report 1. Dr. Burges's own words are but these pag. 423. The consideration of this necessity moved Mr. Cartwright to advise the wearing of the Surplice and Mr. Beza to resolve for the use of these Ceremonies rather than the Flocks of Christ should be forsaken for these And he citeth Cart. Repl. 2. So that here is not a word of Cartwright's Concession in any thing but the Surplice kneeling he was for The Answer of Amesius to his Father-in-law Burges is in these words Fresh suit p. 21 22. Whereas he addeth that Beza and Mr. Cartwright determined with them in case of the Surplice I answer 1. They did not so for the Cross 2. They did not so for subscription to either 3. They did not so but by way of toleration requiring also that men speak against the imposing of the Surplice 4. Beza was not throughly acquainted with the state of our Church Mr. Cartwright as I have been certainly informed by his own Son recalled that Passage of his Book and desired that his revoking of it might be made known Then followeth the Attestation of another to that report Do you see now how credibly S. P. Heylin and you report Cartwright to have wrangled himself at last into Conformity Be warned and take up false reports no more § 53. I thank you for shortning my trouble § 54. Waspish and faltering and raging after a tedious journey Are your Logicks above my skill to answer But adrem 1. It is a wonder to me that an Englishman should be in doubt who they be that drive men from the Parish Churches Enquire who drave away the People of Kederminster Did I I Preach'd I Printed long before That should the Liturgy be restored it were no sufficient cause c When I was silenced and might not Preach in publick the last Sermon that ever I preached to some at my Farwel in a private House was in conclusion to perswade all to keep to the publick Churches where the Ministers are not notoriously Insufficient as to the very Essentials or notorious Hercticks or Malignant Opposers not of differing Parties but of the certain Practice of Godliness it self But when I had done my best then and since by other means the Reading Vicar and one Sermon of the Bishops and one of the Deans and many of a Lecturers after and they saw so many hundred Ministers silenced it possessed them with so great a prejudice that till a good Minister came among them it was past my power to reconcile them to the Church nor is it done so fully as before I could easily have done 2. As to your second Questien When I told you how hardly the People would be driven tâ— Communion in your way You answered Haâ— they not been distracted distorted poysoned by other Tutors But since they have been taught like Wolves not to value the Scepter like Mastiff-dogs they will worry me to pieces Those that are lately perverted any way are most heady and â—ierce The Revolters are profound to make slaughter And after the Scribes and Pharisees compassed Sea and Land to make a Proselyte when he was made he was twofold more the Child of Hell than themselves These are your words And I thought I had used them very gently when I only say Whether all such Dissenters are such Children of Hell as you describe I might have added such Wolves Dogs c. I shall leave to a more wise and righteous Judge what is in these words Be impartial one hour before you die and compare them with your own and think how he that will say at last Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these my Brethren c. will take all these Revilings of faithful Souls But how heedlesly do you read I said All such Dissenters as you described and were talkt of And you say all Dissenters There is no
in possession Not only the Synods in Martius time that owned Maximus but Ambrose and Theopl Alexand to Eugenius and Gregory the first and many Western Bishops and ordinarily far most of the Eastern Bishops presently owned Usurpers that came into the Empire by the Murder or Deposition of their Predecessors And are all these Fathers and Christians damn'd 5. The Liturgie requires that when such are Buried they are openly pronounced saved that is That God of his great Mercy hath taken to himself their Souls out of the miseries of this Life and that we hope to be with them We must be Silenced and Imprisoned if we will not say this and subscribe to it and reproached if we do This is the Conformity which they would have us yield 6. Do you not tremble your self when you question whether they be not gone to a worse place and revile us for the hopes of their Salvation Doth not your Conscience ask If such men be not saved what will become of me that deliberately write such Volumes of Falshoods against God's true Servants and their present serving him as if they must cease Preaching and all Church-worship till they dare Conform to all imposed O why will you condemn your self in others 7. I finde many of your selves honouring Bishop Jewel Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker and such others that held the Principles which those men went upon and you never yet that I heard of reviled any man for hoping that they were saved No nor Grotius nor Barclay nor the common sort of Lawyers and Politick-Writers that have said more of the Cases in which Kings may be Resisted and Deposed than they did or than I ever said If such Principles may stand with the Salvation of Grotius Hooker Bilson Althusius Alstedius Willius c. Why not of theirs that I have mentioned 8. You know I suppose that it was mostly Episcopal men that began the War Lords Commons and Souldiers on both sides If you will not know and can be ignorant when you list your Will hath a freedom which mine hath not And are you sure that your Conformists also are damned 9. You hereby teach them that are confident that the Laudian Clergie were the chief Causers of the War to conclude therefore that they are damned And so our Clergy on both sides will be like Gregory the Seventh's and the Emperour 's in Germany first exciting and encouraging the Princes and People of the two sides and then taking Oaths against each other and lastly damning one another till a Reverend Council of Bishops Decreed that all the Bishops on the Emperours side should be Deposed and the Dead digg'd out of their Graves and burnt 10. You will open the eyes of the people to see what manner of Spirit you are of and that it is no wonder if you cannot endure us to Preach and Live by you who take us for Criminal for hoping that men are saved who otherwise were of most exemplary Lives but being in point of Politiques on the Parliaments side and doing accordingly while they professed to arm only against Subjects holding the person of the King to be inviolable I finde not that even in the Barons Wars or the Wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York no nor King Stephens the Censures were so high Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury is Sainted that was against his King § 17. The second Charge is my Vindicating the Parliaments War against the King Answ 1. I believed then that it was not against him when their Commissions were for him 2. I proposed my Reasons upon a Learned Knights demand requesting satisfaction by an Answer And had you or any of you ever since confuted them it had been more charity than only to Recite them and Condemn them But I have over and over publickly declared my revocation of that whole Book though not of all that 's in it and wisht that I had never written it for more Reasons than I will now name to you 3. My Judgment about the King's Power and our Obedience I have fully declared in The Second Plea for Peace § 18. The third Accusation is His pertinacious adhering to the Covenant Answ 1. The man knoweth that I own not the imposing it specially as a Test for the Nations Concord it being an engine of Division so imposed 2. That I own not the taking it so imposed 3. That I deny that it obligeth me to any thing that is evil yea or from any Obedience to the King in things lawful nor to any thing but what I have a former obligation to from God himself 4. But I confess that I dare not say that it obligeth no man to repent of his Sin nor to be against Popery Prophaneness or Schism nor to endeavour any amendment of Church-Government And I will not deny but that I take Perjury to be no indifferent thing which of these is the Crime of Adherence he tells me not 19. The next Accusation is Crying down the Royal Martyr as a Papist Answ I have said Till he tell me where and how he proveth it I must take him for a gross Calumniator and wonder not that he Conformeth In my Key for Catholicks he may see where I prove the contrary that the King was no Papist I will confess that which he knoweth not 1662 and 1663. when the Kings Letter in Spain to the Pope was Printed out of Mr. de Chesne by Prynne I was struck a while with doubt and suspicion But I soon considered 1. That the words promised but Endeavours for Unity 2. And that it was written in the Spaniards power in a streight § 20. The next is Crying up his Murderer Answ A repeated malicious falshood § 21. The next Accusation is His Principles in his Holy Commonwealth Answ 1. I oft told you The Book is revoked long ago 2. The Principles which I own I have published as aforesaid in the Third Plea and he doth not confute them 3. Of the Wars I spake before What other doth he name Bishop Morley recited many of them and the first as I remember was that I say That pretence to unlimited Monarchy is unlawful or Tyranny because God hath Limited all Humane Power If this be Heresie or Disloyalty I hold it still I mistake much if any Kings have Power from God to command all their Subjects to blaspheme or deny God or Christ or to renounce his hope of Heaven or to worship the Devil and sell his Soul to him nor to murder Father Mother Wife or Children I will venture to dispute this with any Conformist But as to the harder question Whether Kings may kill any or all their Senators or innocent Subjects for nothing or burn all their Cities or take all their Wives Children and Estates I will leave it to Statesmen to debate I am sorry that ever I wrote so much about their matters § 22. The next charge is His present practices in defending Schism Answ Prove it or number it with your
it a Calumny that I say the Liturgy is defective and Disorderly Answ I did in 1660. draw up a Catalogue of the mere defects and disorders but never offered it to avoid offending them He tells us 1. of the disorders of the Directory And had he proved it is that a justification of the Liturgy 2. And also he tells us of the defects and confusions which were in Mr Baxter's eight days exploit our Additionals or Reformed Liturgy 1661. when as neither this Accuser nor any of the Bishops or Dissenters then said one word of particular accusation against it nor any other that ever I knew of to this day save an impertinent quarrel of Mr. Roger le Strange that we used not more imposing words and such trifles § 35. XVI Next comes the Profession of the Antiquity of Three Orders in the Preface of the Book of Ordination and elsewhere p. 47. And he citeth me Christ Direct p. 127. as against my self falsly intimating that I assert three Orders because I am uncertain whether there be not divers Degrees in one Order I cited out of Spelnian the Canons of Aelfrike shewing that the Church of England even in times of Popery took Bishops and Presbyters to be the same Order as many Papists-Schoolmen do And the man should have known that it is not the Bishops of a particular Church that I mentioned in my Direct but only such as have the care of many Bishops Churches § 36. XVII He next defends the Scenical Call to the people to come forth and shew reason why the person may not be Ordained As if he knew not that it is not the sence of the words that is questioned but that this insignificant Ceremony should be set in the place of the ancient demand of their free consent over whom the Minister is set to seem as if they had still that liberty when it is no such matter nor do the people whose Souls he is to have the charge of know any thing usually of his Ordination nor at his Institution which sets him over them have they any Call Nor are so much as these Shews used at the Ordination of Bishops which by the old Canons was void without the Peoples Consent § 37. XVIII Of the words Receive the Holy Ghost c. he saith less than Mr. Cheny whom I have answered § 38. XIX So have I there answered p. 11 12. what he saith for the Oaths of Obedience to Archbishops Bishops Chancellors c. 1. It 's one thing to Obey them and another to Assent to the Oath of Obedience 2. And it 's one thing to swear Obedience to them as exerciâ—ing the power of Magistrates under the King and another thing as Laymen exercising the power of the Church-Keys c. And I have elsewhere cited divers old Canons that condemn such Oaths as dangerous § 39. XX. In the 20th Chap. to Mr. Cheny I have abundantly answered what he saith here about keeping men from the Sacrament and informing the Ordinary These be the Number of our Exceptions which the Impleader could finde though the rest were as plainly written § 40. XXI As for our Objections against the Declarations and Oaths required by Act of Parliament because it is not the sence of the Liturgie but of an Act of Parliament that we doubt of he refers us to the Executioners of the Law for our Instruction their natural way of satisfaction the Justice and Jailor I suppose Did these satisfie him to Conform herein Doth he take such Arguments for unanswerable Why did he pretend to defend the rest which are imposed in the same Act These are greater matters than the Ceremonies and need as clear a Justification § 41. But that you may see the measure of his Knowledge he can tell you that our mistake is wilful and an act of pure malice and revenge Answ Our Rule oft mentioned is agreed on by Casuists viz. To take such Oaths Promises and Professions in the sense of the imposing makers of them if they are our Rulers and unless they give us another sense we must take the ordinary sense that those words are used in to be theirs Therefore we take on any pretence whatsoever and those Commissioned by him and any alteration of Government in the Church and not at any time endeavour and no obligation on any other person as well as Assenting and Consenting to all things conteined and prescribed to have that meaning which not only our Parents that taught us to speak and our Masters and Dictionaries and the use of such as we hear talk hath taught us to take such words in but also in the sense of the Lawyers and Law-books which we are acquainted with unless any odde persons differ from the rest And this sagacious man hath found that this Exposition is a wilful mistake in malice and revenge Just as others of them can prove before God that it is through Covetousness that we Conform not viz. Two thousand Ministers England knoweth of what sort though the Accusers do not have forsaken all Church-maintenance and their Rulers countenance and put themselves under a Law that mulcts them 40 l. a Sermon banisheth them from Cities and Corporations lays them in Jayl c. reproacheth them as seditious and all this in Covetousness Malice and Revenge I have seen a Child throw away his meat in revenge but he returned to it in less time than 18 years I have heard of a woman that cut her throat and another that drowned herself and Children in a revengeful passion against her drunken cruel Husband but sure if she had 18 years deliberated it would have calm'd her passion But that 2000 such Ministers should chuse ruining Fines and Poverty and Jails and wilfully damn their own Souls by sin and all to be revenged on Parliament or Prelates is somewhat strange Especially when it is that which that Parliament and Prelates themselves are pleased with who chose the terms What kinde of Revenge hath our Malice found out which destroyeth ourselves and pleaseth our Afflicters § 42. And here p. 55. he falls with scorn on my Book of Concord and that his Book may be Conformable to itself describeth my terms of Concord by downright fiction and falshood as if he had thought none would ever open the book to shame his Calumny He tells you that the result of all is That every Pastor be independent free from any superiour to controul him and have an arbitrary Power and arbitrarily exercise the power of the Keys without Appeal to have the power of Ordaining who they will the power of altering the Laws in Church and State c. All which I have expresly written against at large Besides what I have written 1. For Bishops in each Church 2. For Archbishops or general Overseers 3. For Synods 4. Had it been no more than what I have written for the Magistrates Governing of all Pastors and Churches it would prove the falshood of this mans Assertion Yet that you
Whether I be good or bad learned or unlearned Let this be determined with him as he will I am so ignorant and bad that I will not now trouble him with much contradiction But the question is 1. Whether the two thousand Ministers were justly Silenced 2. And whether if they wilfully though so Silenced desert the Ministry to which they were Devoted and Consecrated they will not be guilty of damnable Sacriledge and Perfidiousness If the man will speak to purpose to this question it is like that some one will confute his Defence of so great a sin when I am past this unpleasant Military Work A Note on Varney's Book against the Dissenters from the Church of England INstead of Confuting it I commend the reading of it to such as would see which side hath Phanaticks It declareth that J. Varney hath by Faith pulled down the Devils Kingdome and that King Charles 2. shall be Emperour of all Nations by whom Christ will govern them greater than Turk Pope or French And the way is The Dissenters from the Government of the Church of England must be made Hewers of wood and Drawers of Water and must pay all Taxes and Payments of the Land to maintain the Forces that shall preserve the Land against them Like Decimation Notes on Mr. Le Strange 's Casuist uncased I Have had some gentle Touches from this Musical band heretofore which I found not my self obliged to answer Nor shall I now say any more than this I. That he that fetcheth his chief Stings and Scorns from a Book and the leaf of another Book about twenty years or longer at least revoked and obliterated sheweth that if with Austin we wrote Retractations such men would turn all to reproach II. That I make not Mr. Le Strange 's judgment the measure of my Repentance or Retractations III. That I have never had the Schooling of him and so never taught him to understand my Writings and therefore undertake not that things congruous shall not seem contradictions to him But I can reconcile more than he can For instance 1. My Disputation of Scandal Plea Second reconcileth what he dreamed was contradiction about imposing things evil by accident 2. I can reconcile the Kings having power about the circumstances yea and substance of Religion and yet that he hath none but what he had from Christ But I have not leasure for such work as this IV. Mr. Le Strange quite mistakes the Non-Conformists Question as the Reflecter doth as if Hissing and Stinging were disputing He seemeth to make the Question to be Whether I be not a giddy mutable self-contradicting Fool and Knave Let him in that believe what pleases himself Our Question is Whether Silencing Fining Imprisoning the Non-Conformists be the way of Peace and of the desired Concord of Protestants Yea Whether Concord be possible on those Terms and they will ever end our sad Divisions Notes on a Dialogue between the Pope and a Phanatick MR. L. Strange's Dialogue minds me of this for it is a Book not to be forgotten The Scope of it is to shew that the Non-Conformists are designing to Destroy the King that their Principles are rebellious that they have so far prevailed already that we must have no King or no Parliament which yet being needful and the genius of the Parliament thus corrupted the King must choose his own Councellors and take the choice from the People to this sense and all the Loyal Subjects must give their hands and list or engage themselves to defend the King against these Conspirators Just the Meal-Tub Plot But my Second Plea was written to answer such as this and I leave the fuller Answer to those that are more concerned in it So much against this Regiment of Accusers Turba gravis Paci placidaeque inimica quiâ—ti FINIS * Alas then there is no remedy