A Third Defense of Peace, Part 1 (2 of 3)

A Third Defense of Peace · Part 1 (2 of 3)

p. 45You add [You mention ſome good things in the Covenant; as the Declaration againſt Popery, Schiſm, and Prophaneneſs: But you paſs by the ſecond Article, &c. Anſ. So I perceive you would have me Conform that I may Preach: And what ſhould I Preach againſt but Sin? And will you not give me leave to ſuppoſe, that Perjury is one of the greateſt of all ſins; and that he that is knowingly for Perjury, is againſt humane ſociety, and not capable of Truſt or Credit, and is againſt the ſafety of the King; which dependeth much on the Conſcience of the Oath of Allegiance in his Subjects; and that he that would but ſay, I would declare my ſelf for Perjury, that I may preach againſt all other ſins, …—. Theſe things being premiſed, I ask you, Are you in good ſadneſs? What! after ſuch a confident Perſwaſive to Conformity? Will you tell your Hearers, If you Vow to God Repentance, Obedience, or any Good; this Vow bindeth none of you all, if there were but ſome Evil joyned with it.] And ſo, if a Jeſuit would take the Oath of Allegiance or Supremacy, yea or the Vow of Baptiſm be taken at our Chriſtening, if either Ignorance or Knavery do but joyn ſome bad things with it; nothing of all the reſt is obligatory. What Cheater then will not foiſt in ſome bad thing into his Vows, that he may be diſobliged from all the reſt? If you dare preach ſuch Doctrine, and dare die in the Aprobation of it, and dare perſwade others to do the like, as their Duty to God; your Book's Title, p. 46ſhall make me view S. Paul's warning, foreign. Would you have me deliberately undertake to juſtifie all men from the lawful or good parts of a Vow, that I may have leave to preach againſt ſin.

You add [And the Power impoſing the whole.] Anſw. Still all alike; What? will you tell your Hearers, that no Oath or Vow bindeth them, which powerleſs man impoſed: The want of power in the Impoſers, proveth indeed that no Power of theirs obliged you to take it. But what if you had taken it to ſave your life from a Thief, or within your Cloſet-walls voluntarily, without the command of any Power, doth it not oblige to lawful matters? Biſhop Sanderſon would have taught you otherwiſe to reſolve that Caſe. This is a hard way to Conformity.

You add, [What was good in it we were obliged to by a former Covenant.] Anſw. And what then? Is that another Doctrine, that Conformiſts muſt preach, That [no Vow or Oath obligeth you to any good that you were obliged to before.] Oh dreadful! The Jeſuits Morals would abhor ſuch a Doctrine: If there may be new Vows to the ſame thing, there may be new or additional Obligations to the ſame thing; elſe all the following Vows are no Vows. What if the Oath of Allegiance be thrice taken? Doth it oblige only the firſt time? Then if a man be at Baptiſm obliged to Chriſtianity, no after Vows at the Lords Supper, or other time, are obligatory. Sir, be not angry with me for telling you, that Non-conformiſts have ſomewhat in them, that will not permit them to take theſe for indifferent things: And that the diminution of your p. 47glory and mens temptation to ſeparation from you, hath too much occaſion and colour from your ſelves.

You add, [The worſt of Hereticks maintain ſome Truths.] Anſw. And quid inde? Suppoſe, ſo the Covenant hath ſome good? Our queſtion is not, whether we are bound to the bad, but to the good: And will you ſay, that I muſt receive no truth which a Heretick holdeth; or am bound by it to no good, which is contained in a Vow that hath evil with it.

§. 12, 13, 14. Will any thing convince you of an Error or Sin, if the viſibility of my words and yours, and my reminding you of your viſible miſreport will not do it? but ſtill when you ſee your words and mine, and hear of your miſtake; you will yet go on, yea and falſly add, that [In one breath I ſay I did, and I did not retract them.] This practice, and your fore-going Doctrine well agree: When I had askt you [Whether it be all one to ſay I had expunged all that you accuſe me of (or charge me with) and that I expunged all that you pervert] (or falſly took occaſion from for a viſible ſlander.) This is no ſtop to you, nor worthy of any Anſwer; but you go on: Yea when you tell me the Page you meant, and ſee that there is no ſuch thing there as you mentioned; yet all this (nor my many Writings againſt that ſame Opinion) are nothing at all to ſtop your Calumny. I am not juſtifying what I expunged; but if it were faulty, muſt it needs contain a Doctrine which it never mentioned, which I openly wrote againſt. This dealing is enough to tell me, to what purpoſe a Diſputation of Conformity with you would prove, p. 48when Senſe it ſelf will not convince you: And all your juſtification is, you [give the ſenſe, though not the words.] Utterly falſe; there are no words there (how bad ſoever) of any ſuch ſenſe. The words ſpeak moſtly De fine belli, and not of the Juſtifying power, which is ever ſuppoſed beſides a good end. I never thought that War might be made againſt Authority, for Religion ſake, what ever I might then think of the Subjectum in quo of that Authority, though not as Hooker did.

§. Still Confuſion and Untruth twiſted: I deny not that I led many (if you will call Convincing Reaſon, Leading) into an Aſſociation: was that in the Queſtion before? I rejoyce and glory in it, and thank God for it, as much as almoſt any paſſage of my life! I told you before, (and two Printed Agreements told the World) what our Aſſociations were for. One was to exerciſe ſo much Diſcipline, as all the three Parties were agreed in, contradicting none of them in our Agreement. The other for Catechiſing and Instructing every Family at ſtated Days, every Week in courſe. And what's this to mens preſent coming to your Churches which you talk of. If they Conform no more than I, I am not aſhamed to be eſteemed a Promoter of their Judgment. If they Conform leſs than I, that they never had that from me, my Five Diſputes of Church Government, then written, are a viſible Witneſs againſt your raſh and heedleſs Calumny.

§. 16. Be not offended with me, for judging ſome Conformiſts honeſt: And I could wiſh that you would conſider of it, before you teach your People, that [there are no honeſt Sinners.] For p. 49that's all one as to ſay, that the World hath never had one honeſt man, but Chriſt, and Adam and Eve a while. Though a man be not honeſt quatenus vel in quantum a ſinner: (nor I think quatenus a Conformiſt) yet I hope ſtill that there are ſome honeſt men in the World; yea ſuch as have ſinned avowedly and deliberately (when they knew it not to be ſin, as moſt Sects that contradict each other do) yea and ſome that ſin againſt knowledge too (as many do in their vain thoughts and words.) But where is it that I ſaid, that theſe honeſt Conformiſts ſin avowedly, delaberately, and againſt knowledge? Make Conſcience of Truth. 'Tis like that I might ſometime ſay, What it would be in me if I ſhould do it: But is that to ſay, that it is ſo in others, whoſe knowledge I am a ſtranger-to; or that it borders on the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt. As for your Invective againſt theſe honeſt Conformiſts; I ask you, 1. May not a man be an honeſt Conformiſt, that taketh Conformity for a thing lawful meerly in caſe of Deprivation, as Mr. Sprint did, though he had rather be excuſed? If not, few learned godly Divines of my youthful acquaintance were honeſt men: For all ſuch as pleaded then with me for it, went upon thoſe terms. May not thoſe be honeſt Conformiſts that heartily and openly wiſh for abatements, as the Biſhop of Cheſter doth, and Biſhop Gawden openly upon my demand of his Judgment, oft did. May not thoſe be honeſt Conformiſts who go on Biſhop Reynolds and Dr. Stillingſteet's grounds, That no form of Church-Government is of Divine Inſtitution: Or thoſe that had rather all the Ceremonies were out of the Church, than ſo many Preachers. If they are, you do ill p. 50to cenſure them as diſhoneſt; If they are not, I ſhall never be induced to Conform: for it would be to give away my honeſty, if I do it on thoſe aforeſaid Principles. Thus I perceive that it is not Conformity that would ſatisfie you if we yielded to it, unleſs we alſo did it on your Principles. But if neither the Biſhops and Clergy of England in Abbot's days were any of them honeſt, ſaving the few deſcribed by Heylin that went higher; or if all the Latitudinarians (that had rather the Ceremonies were forborn) and all the unwilling Conformiſts in England (that would not do it but to keep their Miniſtry) be diſhoneſt men, I am not yet ready to fall in with that other ſort of men that charge ſo many of their own Society with diſhoneſty, and that account ſo few honeſt, who are accounted honeſt by the reſt of Mankind, and appropriate honeſty to thoſe, that others can hardlieſt diſcern it in.

§. 17. And will you ſo groſly diſpute down Non-conformity? To diſtinguiſh between [meddling with the War] and entring into the Army] to you is [a Fly, ad populum phalerae ficulnea evaſio, a little poor Criticiſm.] So that it ſeems you dare affirm or deny that of the one, which you do of the other. Durſt you ſwear that none of the Lords, or Commons, or Citizens meddled with the War, but thoſe that entred into the Army? And can you inſiſt on ſuch paſſages thus againſt your ſight, when your Error is detected? I pray you if ever you be a Confeſſor, reſolve not other mens Caſes of Conſcience at this rate, as you do your own.

§. 18. It is an unhappineſs in you, that ſo hardly p. 51write that which is not errour, and yet ſo hardly acknowledge any crrour in your Writing. The Aphoriſms recited by the Biſhop were mentioned by way of Accuſation: You excepted none, but ſpake generally of thoſe collected by him; What can I do more for tryal than to name Particulars? And where ſhould I begin but with the firſt? But it's many more that I can name, which would extort from you the ſame Anſwer: Particularly that which Bagſhaw (ſeeing there) was tempted to tranſcribe among his falſhoods, as if I had ſaid all that of Oliver, which I ſaid of his Son, which others alſo have falſly ſaid of me.

§. 19. It is a troubleſom thing to diſpute on terms not explained or underſtood: I thought all this while that Presbyterian and Epiſcopal had been terms whoſe ſenſe we had agreed of, but I was miſtaken; for now you let me know, that an Archbiſhop (who ſtrove hard for ſuch Preferment) who drew the reſt of the Biſhops into that high Proteſtation, for which ſome were impriſoned, who forſook the Parliament and went to the Kings Party; as ſoon as he ſaw that they would bring low the Biſhops, who for ſelf-ſafety turned to the Parliament, when he ſaw all was almoſt gone on the other ſide; and this but in Wales to recover his own houſe: this man with you was a Preſbycerian Archbiſhop; I may underſtand ſhortly what a Presbyterian ſignifieth of late in England! As many Epiſcopal Non-conformiſts are ſilenced, and go now under the Name of Presbyterians: So take heed of ſtraining the word too high, leſt Archbiſhops and Biſhops at laſt be put down as Preſbyterians too. If he be a Presbyterin who is an p. 52Archbiſhop, and would continue an Archbiſhop, becauſe he foreſaw that the Biſhops would pull down themſelves, and the Puritans would prevail. In this ſenſe I ſhould not have denied but that they were Presbyterians that firſt raiſed that War in England againſt the King: But your proof is out of Ruſhworth, p. 224. viz. No other than thoſe two famous men, Sir John Lamb, and Dr. Sibthorpe importuned the Biſhop to proſecute the Puritans; the Biſhop ſaid, He knew of none, and asked what manner of people they be? It's anſwered by Sir John Lamb in Dr. Sibthorp's preſence, That they ſeem to the World to be ſuch as would not Swear, Whore, nor Drink, but yet would Lye, Cheat, and Deceive. That they would frequently hear two Sermons a day, and repeat the ſame too, and afterwards Pray, and ſometimes faſt all day long. Then the Biſhop asked, Whether thoſe places where thoſe Puritans were; did lend Money freely (to the King) upon the Loan. To which Sir John Lamb and Dr. Sybthorp replyed, That they did generally reſolve to lend freely. Then ſaid the Biſhop No man of deſcretion can ſay, that that place is a place of Puritans: For my part I am not ſatisfied to give way to Proceedings againſt them. At which Dr. Sibthorp ſaid, He was troubled to ſee that the Church was no better regarded. Very good; A Presbyterian then is a Biſhop that is not ſatisfied to perſecute ſuch Puritans as thoſe. Add but what is ſaid by many old Conformiſts, how the word Puritan was uſed with the utmoſt Malice by Papiſts and Drunkards, and ungodly perſons, againſt thoſe who were firm Proteſtants, and would not Drink, and Whore as they did; as Dr. Robert Abhot, Regius Profeſſor in Oxford, and Biſhop of p. 53Salisbury, and Biſhop Downam, (one that I verily thought had been no Presbyterian) in his Spittle Sermon, called Abraham's Tryal, Mr. Rob. Bolton frequently, (who thinks there was never poor perſecuted word uſed with ſuch bitter malice by the mouth of the Serpents Seed, as that word Puritan was at that day of good people.) I ſay take in all this, and let Poſterity judge of an Engliſh Presbyterian by it, that he is one that will not perſecute and undo ſuch Puritans: We had divers ſuch Presbyterian Biſhops, Uſher, Bedle, Downam, Davenant, Hall, &c. And before them Grindal, Abbots, and the moſt of our Biſhops for Queen Elizabeth's Reign. Again, I confeſs that it was ſome ſuch Presbyterians as theſe that raiſed the Parliaments Army in England.

The two next Sections evincing your Errour and Calumny you paſs by.

§. 22. Is of no further uſe to us; only about Dr. Jo. Reignolds, you are a moſt deceived and deceiving Hiſtorian. 1. You do not know, &c. But you might have known that there is extant in Print his Letters to Sir Francis Knowles againſt Prelacy, for a meer Moderatorſhip or Preſidency. 2. You ſay, [Did he not live and die in full Conformity with the Church of England.] Anſw. A known falſhood, if a Queſtion may be falſe: What matter of Fact ſhall ever come to Poſterity by ſuch hands without falſification? if Cartwright and Reignolds, the leading Non-conformiſts of England were Conformiſts; Sir, I, and hundreds more have offered long to Conform as far to the utmoſt, as either of theſe did. And yet we are unworthy to Preach the the Goſpel of Chriſt for want of Conformity; (It p. 54may be, left it prove them to be Presbyterians that will not proſecute us:) Learn better whether ever Dr. Reignolds did ſubſcribe to the Liturgy and Ceremonies; whether ever he took the Oath of Canonical Obedience, or was not againſt the preſent Prelacy? Whether he was for the Croſs in Baptiſm, &c. But you verily think that were he now alive, he would be as hard a Màwl of the Schiſmaticks, and Non-conformiſts, &c. Anſw. 1. Of the Schiſmaticks no doubt, for he wrote againſt both Prelacy and Separation. 2. Wonderful! What cannot you verily believe, which you are but willing ſhould be true? That an Archbiſhop is a Presbyterian, and that the Leading Non-conformiſt would be a Mawl of the Non-conformiſts: when 1. Twice as much is now required of Conformiſts as was then. 2. And Dr. Reignolds was not a man to do what he did without ſuch Reaſon as would have made him conſtant. And to requite you with as ſtrong Confidence, Sir, I do not raſhly but ſoberly and deliberately profeſs, that were they all alive at this day (the old Religious Conformable Divines themſelves) ſuch as Dr. Io. White, Dr. Willet, Dr. Challoner, Dr. Field, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Robert Bolton, Dr. Preſton, Dr. Sibbes, Dr. Stoughton, Dr. Taylor, with a thouſand more, and a thouſand; yea theſe that wrote for the old Conformity, Mr. Sprint, Mr. Paybody, Dr. Jo. Burges, Forbes: yea the old Biſhops themſelves, Jewell, Sands, Grindall, Abbot, Miles Smith, &c. I do firmly believe without heſitation, that the generality of them would have been reſolved Non-conformiſts at this time, not changing their judgment, but becauſe of the p. 55great Change of Conformity: For I know that Cornelius Burges, the Learned Gataker, Dr. Robert Harris, and almoſt all the late Weſtminſter Aſſembly, were formerly ſuch kind of Conformiſts as theſe were: And I know the ſame Non-conformiſts now (though not many) would have yielded to the old Conformity. Yea more, I am perſwaded that were Rogers, Bradford, Sanders, &c. Yea Biſhop Hooper, Biſhop Farrar, and Biſhop Latimer alive now, they would all chooſe rather to burn at a Stake again, than to do what is required of us. Say not that I reproach the Laws, for I only ſpeak of the matter of Fact; whether they or the preſent Biſhops were the wiſer, I meddle not. Yea more, yet I much doubt, whether all the Biſhops of England now would Conform themſelves as Miniſters do, if they were put to it? For I ſuppoſe you to know, that they are not put to the Declarations and Subſcriptions, as the Miniſters were, nor to their Oaths: But in this I am not confident, but only doubt. But of ſuch old Conformiſts as Bolton, Whateley, &c. I make no doubt at all. 3. But your Proof is, That he received Abſolution according to the Church of England. Answer, Is this proving? So would I do: yea, I do receive the Lords Supper according to the Liturgie. Am I therefore a Conformiſt? Doth it follow that he would ſwear, ſubſcribe, declare, uſe the Image of the Croſs as a ſymbole of Chriſtianity, &c.

§. 23. Your intimated Calumny about Popery, it's well you let fall, though you confeſs it not.

§. 24. We come now to the greateſt of our Differences, which you call my foreign, about p. 56a notorious matter of Fact, Whether they were Presbyterians or Epiſcopal and …raſtians, that firſt raiſed the Armies in England againſt the King: When in the very Age that it was done, ſuch a thing can be ſo confiuently denied, what Credit is there in ſome mens Hiſtory?

I thought all theſe ſet together, had been proof enough. 1. That former Epiſcopal Parliaments began the Buſineſs, and left it where thoſe found it. 2. Heylin himſelf ſheweth fully, that the difference was long working between the two ſorts of Epiſcopal men, about Arminianiſm, favouring Papiſts, Innovations, and Propriety. 3. That ſuch as Jewel, Bilſon, and Hooker, gives us the Principles on which they did proceed: And Sir Edward Sands that hath written for high Conformity, and was Hooker's Pupill and boſom Friend, was one of the Chief for the People intereſt in th…ſe Parliaments. 4. That H…ylin and Ruſhworth and Fuller acquaint us, That Abbot was laid by for refuſing to licenſe Sibthorp's Book; and how the reſt did proſecute Mainwaring. 5. That we knew our ſelves abundance of the Parliament-men, who were all of their Judgment; Viz. [That Moderate Epiſcopacy was the beſt Government, and that the Biſhops that followed Lawd did by Innovation ſeek to deſtroy both Religion and the Subjects Liberty (as they thought) and that it was neceſſary to bring down the Biſhop's Power in Temporals, and to get better men that would be confined more to Spiritual Government, and uſe it better: But that no Epiſcopacy was ſo neceſſary, as that the State ſhould be hazarded to ſupport it.] This was the Judgment of almoſt all them that I could hear or know of p. 576. That even to this day 1671. there are yet about threeſcore of them alive, beſides Lords, from whom the matter may be known. 7. That underſtanding conſcionable Members of the Houſe yet living, openly profeſs that Presbytery was fearce known among them, and that there was but one known Presbyterian then in that Houſe, which was Mr. Tate of Northamptonſhire, an honeſt man. 8. That when they had raiſed their Army, in their Propoſitions ſent to the King at Nottingham, they offer the moderating of Epiſcopacy, and not Presbytery. 9 That the Earl of Fſſex General, the Earl of Bedford General of the Horſe, the Earl of Peterborough, Sir John Merick, Dolbiere, the Earl of Stamford, the Earl of Huntington, the (now) Earl of Denbigh, the Lord S. John, the Lord Roberts, the Lord Mandevile (late Earl of Mancheſter) the (now) Lord Hollis, Colonel Eſſex, Col. Goodwins; Colonel Grantham, Sir Henry Cholmley; and ſo through the reſt of the Colonels, were no Presbyterians; (though the Lord Say, Lord Brook, and the Lord Wharton were not Epiſcopal.) 10. That except theſe three laſt named, all the Parliament's Lord-Lieutenants through England that ever I could hear of, were men accounted Epiſcopal and Conformable; and theſe three were not accounted Presbyterians, but honeſt godly Independents or neither 11. That their Major Generals in the ſeveral Parts of the Land were commonly Epiſcopal and Conformable men; yea the Earl of Stamford, Sir William Waller, Mr. G. Brown, Mr. G. Maſſey, Mr. Lawghorn, Ferdinando Lord Fairfax, Mr. G. Pointz, Mr. G. Morgan, Sir Thomas p. 58Middleton, Mr. G. Mitton, Sir John Gell, &c. 12. That the Synod at Weſtminſter at firſt were all Conformiſts, except about nine or ten, (As Doctor Hammond telleth them in his Anſwer to the London Miniſters.) 13. That the Scots themſelves (as may be ſeen in a late Anſwer to the Biſhop of Dumblanes Accommodation) do profeſs, That as England never was Presbyterian, ſo they never ſuppoſed that they ſhould immediately be ſuch, but only put into the Covenant the general words of [Reforming according to the word of God, and the Example of the beſt Reformed Churches] That they might engage them further to enquire what is the Reformation which is moſt agreeable hereunto; that ſo in time they might attain it: So that when the ſaid Biſhop (now Archbiſhop of Glaſgoe (being known to me) citeth my own words, and other mens, to prove that the Aſſembly or Parliament never intended the Renunciation of Epiſcopacy, but of the Engliſh exorbitant Prelacy, the Scots Presbyterians deny it not, but anſwer as aforeſaid. 14. That it is a commonly known thing, that the Covenant came in, not only after the Wars were begun, but when the Parliament was brought ſo low as to ſeek to the Scots for aid. And that Presbytery was little known in England, till the Scots brought in the knowledge of it. 15. And it was a notorious thing that the Parliament yielded to Presbytery and to exclude Epiſcopacy at laſt, not becauſe they thought that a moderate Epiſcopacy was not lawful and beſt, but becauſe they had no way to hold up their Wars, (without which they thought they had no way to uphold themſelves) but by the help of the p. 59Scots and ſuch as were againſt Epiſcopacy. And becauſe they had ſeen the Prelacy fly ſo high, and now to be ſo ſtrong againſt them that they had no hope of moderating it, but fear'd it would bear down all. Inſomuch that Mr. Thomas Coleman gave the Covenant to the Lords with this open profeſſion, That it ſignified not the Renunciation of Epiſcopacy. 16. And it is a notorious thing, that before the Parliament 1640, there were not ſo many Non-conformable Miniſters in England, (Presbyterians, Independents, and Anabaptiſts altogether) as there were Counties in the Kingdom. And 17. It is known that few of thoſe few had any hand in raiſing or promoting the War: Mr. Dod in Northamptonſhire, Mr. Ball in Staffordſhire, Mr. Langley in Cheſhire, poor Mr. Barnet of Uppington, in Shropſhire, Mr. Oliver Thomas, and Mr. Wrath in Wales (that quickly died, as almoſt all the reſt did) Mr. Augier in Lancaſhire, Mr. Slater, Mr. Root, and a few more in all England. And 18. It is known, that when neceſſity had drawn them to pleaſe the Scots, and take the Covenant, the Parliament would never be drawn (though they made Ordinances for it) to appoint any to ſettle Presbytery in the Counties in execution of their Ordinances. But purpoſely delayed, and never did it, except in London, Lancaſhire, Warwickſhire, and a few more places. 19. And it is known, that the Miniſters of England themſelves were but few of them indeed Presbyterians, and therefore were the backwarder to ſet up that Diſcipline: And therefore our Worceſterſhire Agreement (to concur in all that the three Parties are agreed in) did the more eaſily p. 60and generally take; and that the People themſelves were ſo generally againſt Presbytery (except ſome of the ſtricter ſort) that they never would ſubmit to it: And ſo de facto, it was never indeed ſet up, ſave in the few places forenamed. 20. Laſtly, It is viſible, that the Reaſons of the Parliament's War publiſhed in their Remonſtrances and Declarations, do ſuppoſe their Conſent to Epiſcopacy, and mention nothing of a change: And that the Lawyers of the Houſe (as Judge Brown, Selden, Glin, &c.) were generally Epiſcopal Eraſtians, that thought Epiſcopacy lawful, as being from the Soveraign Power, which they thought might appoint Church Government as he pleaſe: (As Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenic. pleads; and as the Kings late Acts in Scotland intimate ſo far, as to determine that all the external Government belongs to the King: And I will not believe, though you ſhould ſwear it, that the King is a Presbyterian. I did think that theſe Twenty Evidences ſet together, would have proved to any ſober man, that on both ſides it was Epiſcopal men, and Epiſcopal Eraſtians that raiſed the firſt War in England.

But all this Evidence notwithſtanding, this is to you the ſtrangeſt Paradox in Hiſtorical Tranſactions that ever ſaw the light: A ſerious Confutation of it would have ſhewed you to be in a delirium, &c. Anſw. You have hit on the beſt Confutation of it in thoſe words that the Cauſe was capable of: For now ignorant ſtrangers and Poſterity may poſſibly think, that a man would not ſo confidently deny a notorious thing, without ſome ground. But what are thoſe grounds (for it is almoſt all one, as to diſpute whether the Engliſh War was between Proteſtants, p. 61or between Engliſh-men.) Why 1. you ſay, That [the Spirit of Presbytery and Non-conformity was ſtirring in thoſe Parliaments, though not known by thoſe Names.] Anſw. Nay, then there is no dealing with you in Hiſtory. We judge of mens Hearts by their Profeſſions and direct practice, and take him for conformable, that ſaith he is ſo, and actually conformeth. But you ſee deeper into the Spirit: So you may ſay that it was the Spirit of Socinianiſm that workt in the Arminians, as others ſay, it was the Spirit of Popery that workt in A. Biſhop Laud and his Party; and others ſay, that it is the Spirit of Democracy that worketh in popular Princes, and the Spirit of Rebellion that workt in Hooker, and the Spirit of Independency that worketh in the Preſbyterians, and the Spirit of Anabaptiſm that worketh in the Independents; and ſo Bagſhaw and his Brethren ſay, it is the Spirit of Conformity that worketh in us. And ſo whatever Errour a man runs not as far from, as frightned, or furious Adverſaries do, he muſt be ſaid to have the Spirit of that Error. As if a Pythagorean ſhould tell you that you have the Spirit of Ajax, Thraſo, or of ſome Brute. Sir, we plain people have hitherto taken a Presbyterian to be one that holdeth [That the Church is and ought to be governed by Seſſions, Claſſes, and Synods, the leſſer ſubordinate to the greater, to which there lieth an Appeal, and theſe compoſed of Pastors in parity and ruling Elders conjunct, and that not for meer Concord, but direct Regiment.] Theſe are Presbyterians in the ſenſe of Beza and Saravia, Downam, and Gorſ. Bucer, Bilſon, Hooker, and all that have written on it: Whom though I differ from, I take to be commonly the moſt ſober, p. 62religious, ſtrict, and underſtanding ſort of Chriſtians, (together with the New England moderate Independents) that I know, who make up a party in the world. And I take my ſelf to be under a rational diſparagement to differ from them ſo far as I do, though for truth … will bear that diſparagement. But now forſooth, we have … profeſſing Epiſcopacy and Conformity in Parliements, that have the Spirit of Presbytery: And it was Archiepiſcopal and Epiſcopal Presbyt…ians that began the War. Juſt as among the Pa…ſts, the poor Janſeniſts, yea the perſecuting …, are ſaid to have the Spirit of the Ca…viniſt…, Ergo, they are Calviniſts, deny it who dare.

2. You prove it fully, by ſaving, Did you never hear that when theſe Parliaments we…e in their full Cry againſt the Duke of Buckinghum; they ſecretly moved him to make Dr. Breſton Archbiſhop, and then all Complaints ſhould be huſhed] Anſw. What ſtill untruths? 1. Produce your credible proof if you are able. 2. Could a Parliament which doth all things by the major Vote tranſact ſuch a Buſineſs ſecretly. Could it have been proved, would not the Duke of Buckingham have alledged it againſt his Adverſaries? 3. Would Heylin himſelf have ſilenced ſuch a thing, and emplyed the contrary if it had been true.

4. Would Mr. Thomas Ball that Florid full Hiſtorian, in the Life of his Tutor Dr. Preſton, have omitted it, when he advanced his Reputation as high in outward reſpects as poſſible.

5. But what if all this had been true? Oportuit fuiſſe memorem? Truth ſhameth the cunningeſt and moſt confident Adverſaries, Doctor Preſton was conformable. p. 63And is it a proof that the Parliament had the Spirit of Presbytery, if they would have had a Conformiſt made Archbiſhop. Thus we have ſtill your firſt deſcription of Presbyterians, viz. Such Conformiſts as would be Archbiſhops, and ſuch Parliaments as would have Archbiſhops. We call Archbiſhops, Biſhops, and ſo Epiſcopal; and you call them Presbyterians: And are we not there like to agree well of the Thing, that are not agreed of the Name.

6. But he that knoweth that Abbot was then Archbiſhop of C. will hardly believe you, that the Parliament would have had Dr. Preſton put in, (though it be nothing to the purpoſe.)

What you ſay of the Infection from Geneva, hath this ſenſe: [Geneva infected the Engliſh Fugitives with Presbyterianiſm; Ergo the Parliament 1642, were Presbyterians.] We deny the Conſequence. For, 1. They infected not all England. 2. Nor thoſe individual perſons. 3. They that were infected were non-conformable Miniſters, who were after ſilenced or trodden down by the Biſhops, and had not any Votes in Parliaments.

Next when I tell you, That Parliament, Militia, Army, Major Generals, &c. were no Presbyterians: You anſwer me, That you meddle not with Lay-men. Anſw. And what need we more, were not the Parliament Lay-men? And was it not the Parliament that raiſed the Militia and the Armies, and that gave Commiſſions to Major Generals &c. And was it not the Lay-men that were the Commanders and Souldiers that fought againſt the Armies of the King. And yet all this was an Hiſtorical Paradox to you. But you ſay, The diſſenting p. 64Brethren were moſt guilty in blowing the Trumpet. Anſw. 1. Suppoſe that were true; all that you can ſay were but this, That one Epiſcopal Party raiſed a War againſt the King, and the other Party, becauſe ſome Non-conformiſts blew the Trumpet, or perſwaded them. But if Epiſcopal men are ſo unſtable and ſimple to be drawn into ſuch a War by a few Non-conformiſts, why do you not acknowledge it? But you queſtion whether there were …hen ſo few Presbyterians in England, becauſe a thouſand ſubſcribed a Petition in King Jame's time. Anſw. This is to write Hiſtory by conjecture againſt notorious matter of fact. I named you the men; I can name you thoſe in the Aſſembly of Divines, Mr. Nie, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Simpſon, Mr. Bridge, Mr. Boroughs, Mr. Philips, Mr. Greenhill, and Mr. Caryl (after) all Independents, and Mr. Aſh a Presbyterian. Name me many more Engliſh Non-conformiſts if you can: And name me as many more in the Land then I have named, if you can! But a thouſand ſubſcribed the Petition. Bancroft, and your other ſuch Conformiſts tell you, that it was not ſo, and that moſt of them Conformed then or ſoon after: You can believe ſuch men when it ſerveth your turn. The truth is, many Conformed, and the reſt were dead and gone. Do you think there were many Non-conformiſts alive in 1642, who ſubſcribed that Petition when King James came in. If Mr. Dod were, I ſuppoſe not many more. But did they not increaſe and multiply? Anſw. Excellent Hiſtory! Did not we live in the Country with them? Should we not have known them? Name them as I do. They were all conſumed to the number that I mention, except ſome that went into p. 65New England; And of theſe named, divers came back out of Holland. Death and Conformity had almoſt made an end of them, when they wonderfully revived from among your ſelves: Know you not, that this is the grand hope of your preſent Generation from old Experience, that Non conformity will be but res unius aetatis. (But Reaſon, Conſcience, Scripture, Duty, and Sin will for all that be ſtill the ſame.)

As to your doubt, whether England infected not Scotland? Heylin in his Life of Land will tell you plainly. They might at laſt encourage them, but it was not for Presbytery, but for that which they called Propriety, Liberty, and Safety from Popery. Theſe were the frights of the Epiſcopal great men of thoſe times: But as for any Miniſters to infect Scotland hence with Presbytery, when it there prevailed, and here were next to none at all, it is a ridiculous fancy. But now you pretend to ſpeak ſence, and tell me, That one of the Propoſitions ſent to the King after Edge-Hill, was to aboliſh Archbiſhops, Biſhops, &c. Anſ. Unhappy ſtill! 1. But how long ſince after Edge-Hill Fight? Was it not long after, at the Treaty of Uxbridge that you mean? And was that before the raiſing of the Army? 2. Was not the Propoſals at Nottingham ſent by the Earl of Eſſex, a little before the raiſing of the Army? A ſurer Proof againſt you that then they were not for Presbytery, but reſtrained Epiſcopacy. 3. Even at Uxbridge Treaty, many thought that another frame of Moderate Epiſcopacy would not be well ſet up, till the preſent Frame was taken down. 4. And even then they ſaid nothing that I know of for Presbytery. 5. But the truth is, they ſaw p. 66by that time, that they could not ſtand but by the help of thoſe that were againſt the Biſhops, the Scots, the Independents, and the unwilling Conformiſts that deſired a Deliverance. But this proveth not that the Parliament was Presbyterians then, much leſs that they were ſo before the Wars: But you that meddle not with Lay-men, remember that Lay-men ſent thoſe Propaſitions.

You next tell me of Alderman Pennington, and the Apprentices. Anſw. 1. Few of thoſe Apprentices knew what Presbytery was, but were exaſperated againſt Epiſcopacy for the ſake of the preſent Biſhops; as the common people be now within theſe nine years, thinking that it's they that ſilence their Teachers, and cauſe all our Diviſions. But alas little knew they what Church-Government to deſire. But moſt that were in judgment againſt Epiſcopacy, were Independents and Separatiſts then. And how inconſiderable a number in London were thoſe Apprentices. 2. And our Queſtion is not, what Party of Lads, or Apprentices, or Women did clamour againſt Biſhops,? But what Party it was that raiſed the War? Did theſe Lads give the Earl of Eſſex his Commiſſion? But you find none that ſaid any thing againſt their Petition, but the Lord Digby. Anſw. And hath not he forſaken you alſo? 1. Where did you ſeek to find it? Not in the Parliament Journal ſure, elſe you might have found more. 2. The truth is, the Epiſcopal Parliament themſelves perceiving what Party they muſt truſt to, oppoſed not thoſe Petitions, becauſe the Petitioners might ſerve their turns, and I doubt were too well contented with them. But p. 67as no man muſt ſay, that the King had the Spirit of Popery, becauſe he was willing that the Papiſts ſhould help him: So no man can prove that the Epiſcopal Parliament had the Spirit of Presbytery, or were againſt Epiſcopacy it ſelf, becauſe they were willing to be helped by all ſorts, who on a ſudden were fallen out with Biſhops. The truth is, the ſuſpending and ſilencing of Miniſters, and the cropping the Ears, and ſtigmatizing Prin with Burton and Baſtwick, had ſuddenly raiſed in the London Apprentices and others, a great diſtate of the Biſhops, though they knew little of any Controverſies about Church-Government at all. When you ſay, that [Epiſcopacy (or rather Biſhops Lands) was the Palladium, &c.] 1. Epiſcopacy was not ſo till after the Army was raiſed: It was ſo, no doubt, in the private deſigns of ſome particular men, Apprentices and Women, in the City and Kingdom; that is, all that were againſt it deſired it ſhould fall: And many that were Epiſcopal deſired that it ſhould rather fall, than the Abuſes of it continue by ſuch men as they thought would elſe ruine Church and State, thinking that there was no other way to ſave them: (ſo far did different apprehenſions about Propriety, Liberty, Popery, and Arminianiſm, carry men from one another, who were all for Epiſcopacy.) But forget not 1. That it is the major Vote of the Parliament, and not a few ſecret deſigners within or without doors, that is the Parliament. 2. That it was the Parliament that raiſed the Militia and Armies. 3. That this Parliament was not at that time againſt Epiſcopacy; (Therefore your talk of the Iſle of Wight ſo long after, is liker a Jeſt than ſerious. p. 68Beſides that you ſeem ignorant of, the Parliament reſolved to accept of the Kings Conceſſions, (as Prins long Printed Speech will ſhew you) and therefore immediately before they ſhould have voted that cloſure were pulled out by Cromwell, (who had ſecret intelligence what they were going to do.) 2. And your oblivion cauſed you by your Parentheſis to contradict what you have hitherto ſaid your ſelf: For if it were Biſhops Lands rather than Biſhops that they would have down, it implyeth that they were not Presbyterians, nor againſt Epiſcopacy. Would you make an Engliſh-man of this age believe, that none of your own Church have an appetite to Biſhops Lands? Try them, and they will confute you more effectually than I can. Do you think that of the Multitude that now drink and …rant, and roar, and whore, and rob, there are none whoſe Conſciences could be content that Biſhops fell, that they might have their Lands? you will ſay perhaps, theſe are not truly for Epiſcopacy. Ridiculous! Muſt we write Hiſtories out of mens ſecret thoughts and hearts, and call men only what they are conſcientiouſly and in ſincerity? Who knoweth another mans ſincerity but God? Come into London, or go among theſe Gallants, and tell them that they are not Sons of the Church if you dare. Hearken whether they talk not more for Biſhops, than for any other Sect? Whether they do not curſe and damn the Presbyterians and Fanaticks, and their Conventicles, and deride their Preaching and praying, and ſay as bad of them as you can wiſh them? Though I know that too great abundance ſince our ſilencing are fallen off from you to Infidelity or Atheiſm, p. 69and to make a Jeſt of the Sacred Scriptures; and the Papiſts ſay, that very many thouſands are turned to them: yet I ſpeak of thoſe that ſtill call themſelves Proteſtants of the Church of England. Really if you will take none to be of your Church that would ſell the Biſhops Lands, or none that are not conſcientiouſly for you; I doubt your Church yet will prove inviſible, and as little as ſome of the houſed Sects. And if that will ſerve your turn, I pray deal equally, and let the Sectaries alſo have leave to ſay of any of their Party that killed the King, or were guilty of Treaſon, he was not truly one of us. The War was firſt called Bellum Epiſcopale by the Parliament-men, becauſe they thought or ſaid that Land and his Adherents were the Cauſes of it, by ſeeking to reduce the Scots to their will, and to ſet up Altars and other Innovations in England. But not becauſe the Parliament at that time renounced Epiſcopacy it ſelf.

As to the particular Members of the Armies, I confeſs I did know them better than you; I ſpeak not of Fairfax or Cromwell's Army, but of Eſſex's: And its well that you have ſo much modeſty, as not to deny that they were Epiſcopal or no Presbyterians. But you venture to ſay of thoſe yet living, [That they were ſo whilſt they aſſiſted in the ſupport of the late Cauſe, I have not ſo far renounced my Reaſon and Experience as to fall in with your account. And if we perſevere in this new Doctrine, we ſhall be as diſtant as the two Poles.] Anſw. Now you are at your Strength, your Confidence, and Reſolution to believe (or ſay you believe) as you do, is all the life of your Cauſe. It is now taken for no diſhonour to the greateſt Lords, to ſay, that p. 70they are for Epiſcopacy. There are yet living the Earl of Bedford, the Earl of Denbeigh, the Earl of Stamford, the Lord Grey of Warke, the Lord Hollis, the Lord Asthey, the Lord Roberts, the Earl of Angleſey (though he be no Souldier) Major General Morgan, Mr. G. Maſſey, Sir John Gell, and many more. Enquire of themſelves, or any that know them, whether they were ever Presbyterians, or againſt a moderate Epiſcopacy. Sir William Waller was moſt called a Presbyterian (in your ſenſe) who died lately, and hath told me (being my very dear Friend) his own Judgment and the Parliament's, as I now tell it you. I have in the heat of the Wars heard Sir Thomas Middleton, Major General Mitton, and many others thus give their Judgment: Yea, theſe were for the Liturgy and full Conformity; and ſome of them for Dr. Hammond's higheſt ſtrain of Epiſcopacy. But its ſufficient to your Cauſe, that though the men who are yet living, are the beſt Witneſſes of their own minds, yet you are reſolved not to believe either them or me. But let me remember you of one wide-mou…hed Witneſs more, which will almoſt ſwallow up your credit: When Cromwell and his Army, and their ſecret Adherents in the Parliament, caſt out the eleven Members of Parliament firſt, and Conquered the City, and pull'd down all the Committees, and disbanded all the other Forces of England, (Maſſey's Army, and all the Garriſon and County Forces:) Yea before that, when they layd by Eſſex and his old Officers and Army, and abundance of the Parliament-men that had Command in Garriſons, Armies, &c. by the ſelf-denying Vote (as p. 71it was called.) All this was done upon Inſinuations, that they were not men to be truſted, being even then at the heart for the moſt part Epiſcopal. And if yet you are incredulous, and as diſtant as the other Pole, I will now but intreat you to fetch one Argument from the North, to draw you from your North-Pole diſtance; and tell your ſelf whether Major General Monk (and Morgan) and his Army which brought in the King, and ſet up the Biſhops again, was Epiſcopal or Presbyterian? And yet their long abode in Scotland made that Army accounted to be more Presbyterian than any Army that was in England. But as King Charles ſaith in his Letter to Mr. Henderſon, No man can ſo hardly underſtand as he that would not know. That the War is ſo odious now as that neither ſide will own it, is no wonder, when they have learned by ſo much Experience: I would it had been ſo from the beginning.

§. 28. I muſt allow you to eaſe your Fancy with the name of [Singularities, ſtrange Imaginations, the body of a dead man, &c.] for want of bettet ſtuff. But its more ſtrange to me, that the Contention between Arminian and Calvinian, Prelats and Prelatiſts, ſhould be talked of as ſo incredible; when your Goliah, Peter Heylin hath made it ſo much of the ſubſtance of his Hiſtory of the Life of A. B. Laud. In what you ſay more of Williams, you ſtill confute your ſelf: For what ſay you, but that ſelfiſh carnal Motives did make an A. B. fight againſt the King. But was he therefore no Prelatiſt, and yet an Archprelate; or was he therefore a Presbyterian A. B. I again adviſe you not to caſt all out of your Church that are ruled by ſelfiſhneſs p. 72and worldly intereſt, leaſt you leave ſo few as will take away the glory of your Magnitude, and leave the Sectaries to vie with you for the majority. And I will intreat you but to mark throughout the foreſaid History of A. B. Laud, how groſly and uglily your foreſaid Champion deſcribeth Laud and the chief of his Party, as if Preferment and Riſing were there very ſcope, and the contriving and ſeeking it by all Friends and means, were their very Trade of life and buſineſs in this world: So that to a truly heavenly mortified Chriſtian, it muſt needs ſeem as loathſom a Character, as Chriſt giveth the rich man, Luke 16. 12. if not much more: For he writeth Pride, Ambition, worldlineſs, ſeeking to be greateſt; as it were the very Inſcription of the Picture which he draweth: (As his own Letters in the Caball ſay the ſame of Williams.) And will you make that to be a mark of No-prelate, which your Champion maketh their notorious Character. Read him impartially, and judge.

As for Arrius, I had no acquaintance with him, nor have I any buſineſs with him: But if all my foreſaid twenty Evidences fail me, and I cannot know what a Parliament was? what a Synod was? what an Army was? when I was acquainted familiarly with ſo many of them all? How ſhould I know whether or no that Epiphanius ſpake truly of the ſecret heart of Arrius who ſo openly, falſly, and furiouſly abuſed and perſecuted his Superiour Chryſoſtom. You ſhall believe what you will, and I will believe what I can. But few men have ventured to caſt ſuch a ſlur upon S. Hierom as you do, ſaying, That [Jerom himſelf was not a jot the better for it, even for miſſing of a Biſhoprick:] Medina p. 73himſelf hath not done him ſo much wrong. What Biſhoprick was it that he ſought and miſſed of, and when? Though he joyned with Chryſoſtom's Adverſaries, I find not that he ſought his Place or any other Biſhops, though he ſowrly over-top Auguſtine in confidence of arguing; I find not that he ſought to be above him in place. It's well that you are not out of hope of Preferment your ſelf, leſt you ſhould turn Presbyterian: for (pardon on my ſmarting ſharpneſs of ſpeech to you (as you account it) while I tell you that) I take you not for a better man than S. Jerom; and therefore think that want of Preferment would do more with you, than it did with him. But this is the ordinary judgment of Worldlings, who meaſure other men by themſelves. When I am dead, and cannot anſwer for my ſelf, I doubt not but the ſame will be ſaid of me, though you were now forced to recede from that Cenſure. But above all Impudencies, I muſt magnifie theirs that charge this on the Presbyterians as ſuch, whoſe denominating opinion lieth in reſiſting all Honours, Preferments, Precedencies, great riches, &c. in the Miniſtry, ſave what meer Worth or Age procureth; and yet they are ſaid to be diſcontent becauſe they cannot be Biſhops, when their Doctrine is againſt them. The Dog that is buſie about his Carrion, ſnarleth at every one that paſſeth by, as jealous that he would bereave him of his Feaſt.

§. 29. 31. When the Queſtion is, As whether the Parliament of England be Engliſh-men, or French-men? I will take your return of [round, ſquare, and forked Atomes] for a very moving Anſwer, conſidering the Cauſe and Perſon. But p. 74when I alledge your perverſeſt Champion Heylin only ad hominem, I will not believe that your Allegation of his Lies againſt Presbyterians is any more argumentum ad hominem to us, than if you alledged the authority of Maneſſeh Ben Iſrael, till you have proved, (for what cannot you do that you have a mind to do) that Pet. Heylin (as well as the Archbiſhop of York) was a Presbyterian. I thank you for your ſilence to §. 32.

§. 33. When our Queſtion was of the Cauſers of the late War, and we came to recite the Principles of the Leaders of the Prelatical party, what ſhould I do more than name the men and their Books. When the Biſhop ſilenced me, and forbid me to Preach in his Dioceſs, he commended 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 p. 75theirs 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 Francis 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 p. 76of 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 onelyonly 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] p. 77And 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.

p. 78But 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 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 p. 79Nonconformiſts 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 p. 80not 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 Vo… 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 p. 81to 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 p. 82you 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 Heylin charge them on ſome called Diſciplinarians in the laſt age. Ergo, I may charge them on the preſent Non-conformiſts; yea on the whole Chorus, yea on their Diſcipline that deſired Biſhop Uſher's Epiſcopacy.] Let it be ſo, that you may be your ſelf: As to what you ſay againſt the Genevian Principles, as againſt Government, &c. I anſwer, 1. Why did you not name ſome one of thoſe Principles, and try by what Conſequence it inferreth all the Villanies which you name. Do not the Papiſts ſay the ſame of the Proteſtants. 2. And p. 83next, why did you not prove that we hold thoſe rebellious Genevian Principles? Were it Chriſtian dealing in me, if I ſhould ſay, [Becauſe Prins Hiſtory of Prelates Treaſons proveth that multitudes of Prelates have been Traytors therefore our preſent Prelates are ſuch too.] But we ſee what Inſtruments the Prince of Malice and Calumny uſeth. You tell me that you ſhall the leſs believe Confeſſions, becauſe the Parliaments Declarations ſo differed from their practice. Anſ. 1. But will you falſly accuſe the part that is good for the part that is evil? Moſt Chriſtians live not according to the Chriſtian Profeſſion: Is the Chriſtian Profeſſion therefore bad, and the cauſe of all their Villanies? Will you judge fidem ex homine? Will you charge all that upon a mans Religion objectively conſidered, which you find amiſs in his life. 2. Do you not know that our Queſtion now is not what the men are, but what their Principles and Diſcipline, and that it is not the Profeſſio profitens, but the Profeſſio profeſſa which is to be diſputed of. And by what means ſhall any Church or Party under Heaven defend their Religion againſt ſuch a Cenſurer and Diſputant as you are? They will ſay that they have the true Religion; you will ſay, no, for you are not true to your Religion: They will ſay, that their Articles are true; you will ſay, no, they are falſe, becauſe you live not according to them, (which implieth that they are true and good, or elſe what fault were it to contradict them in practice.) The Proteſtant will ſay, Our Religion is ſound and agreeable to Gods Word: you teach the Papiſts to anſwer, no, it's falſe, for there are vicious Livers among you. And I pray you, p. 84what number of Sinners muſt go to prove a Religion, Creed, or Articles falſe? Muſt it be all, or the major part, or will any one ſerve? Muſt the Kingdom try by the Pole, or Vote whether the Vicious or the Vertuous are the greater number among them, before they can prove their Religion true? Doth the Act go to the Eſſence of the Object? 3. But if it muſt needs be ſo, I pray diſpute no more againſt the Non-conformiſts, or diſpute againſt them better by your Lives, than you have done? Will you teach them to argue the XXXIX Articles, the Liturgy, and Book of Ordination are not true, or to be ſubſcribed, becauſe the Conformiſts live thus or thus. You know Foreigners and Poſterity know not which of the Hiſtories of this Age are true or falſe: Suppoſe that they ſhould read Mr. White's Centuries of Drunkards, &c. ejected from the Miniſtry, and the Records of the Country Committees, ſaying, So many and ſo many were upon Oath proved ſcandalous Drunkards, &c. And Ralph Wallis naming ſo many Drunkards and ſcandalous Conformiſts now. Would you have them queſtion the Principles and Diſcipline of the Church of England, till they can prove theſe Hiſtories falſe. I profeſs to you reſolvedly, that if I muſt needs judge that Church or Party to have the ſoundeſt Principles and Diſcipline, who have the beſt lives; I ſhould far and very far prefer the Presbyterians, Independents, and much more the Conciliators, before the Prelatiſts, and yet not extenuate any of their Faults. But all this is nothing to you that go another way to work. [Why tell you of mens Profeſſions, when you ſee their contrary Practice?] p. 85When as it is not the Practice only, but the Profeſſion that is the Principles and Diſcipline that you accuſed: And ſo when their Principles are in queſtion, why do we talk to you of their Principles? And how ſilly a ſhift is all this covered with? Becauſe the Parliament promiſed to make the King the moſt glorious King, if he would return to them, &c. But 1. Is a Promiſe and Diſciplinarian Principles of the ſame nature, when we queſtion their truth. The Promiſe is not true, unleſs it agree with the Mind of the Promiſer, of which God is the Iudge till Performance ſhew it. But Principles may be true, though he that profeſs them be never ſo falſe. 2. And I pray remember, that the Parliament were pulled to pieces, and conquered by Souldiers (even for reſolving to cloſe with the King) before the King could be cut off. But as for the firſt War, I have told you the Authors of it.

To your next; [If we muſt call none Epiſcopal men that are not faithful to their Principles] Then I know not indeed whom I may call ſuch: If Parties muſt be notified by their Fidelity, we ſhould have agreed thus to ſenſe the Word before we had diſputed, for other men ſpeak not thus. Did you think I cited Moulin againſt Philanax to prove that our Principles are better than the Papiſts. Have you read him all, and underſtand him no better? I cited him as fully proving hiſtorically that the Places now charged with Presbyterianiſm and Rebellion, Geneva, Holland, &c. had changed this Government before, or on other accounts; Flanders and Brabant joyned with Holland in the change, the main Body p. 86being Papiſts, who after fell off when the Prince of Orange mentioned Liberty of Religion. And for Geneva, pag. 27. he faith, [My buſineſs being to vindicate the Reformation from the charge of Rebellion, I muſt take from the Reformers of Geneva that Aſperſion, that they expelled their Biſhop, and that they altered the Conſtitution of that State, and both theſe aſcribed to Calvin: It is a Tradition received in England, as a currant and undoubted Truth: (A fair Credit to the Prelatiſts Honeſty and hiſtorical Veracity!) And upon that ground many fine and judicious Inferences are built. But it is like the Story of the Phoenix, and the ſinging of Swans, never the truer. What credit can be given to Histories of things bapned in the Indies 2000 years ago? if in things done ſo lately, and ſo near us, groſs Miſtakes go for uncontrolable Truths. (You know with whom.) I ſay, it is utterly falſe that Calvin was one of the Planters of the reformed Religion at Geneva. Falſe alſo that he or the Reformers at Geneva turned their Biſhop out of doors. And falſe alſo that the Biſhop went away upon the quarrel of Religion. The Biſhop was fled eight Months before the Reformation, ſeeing his Conſpiracy diſcovered to oppreſs the Liberties of the City by the help of the Duke of Savoy, for which his Secretary was hanged after he was gone; the ſaid Biſhop being hated before, for the Rape of a Virgin, 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 p. 87again 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 aforecited 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 p. 88cite 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 p. 89in 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.