SERMONS ON St PETER.  
BY ROBERT GOMERSALL bachelor IN DIVINITY.  
LONDON, Printed by M. FLESHER for JOHN MARRIOT. 1634.   

Imprimatur.  
Tho: Weeks. Cap. domest. Episc. Lond.   

TO Sr JOHN STRANGWAYES OF MELBURIE KNIGHT.  
WORTHY SIR,  
GIve me leave for your many favours, to present you with S. Peter's Net: his Net, I call his Epistle so, for if our SAVIOUR made him a Fisher of men, I am sure, with this he hath caught many; and indeed, if the Church hath had any profit by these labours in the delivery, if these have taken some, it was the Net caught them, and not I. To give you a brief reason of the end and manner of this Work; the end is Religion and Thankfulness, (and indeed Thankfulness is a part of Religion:) Religion towards GOD, by setting forth a Divine Work; Thankfulness towards you, by setting it forth in your name, whose obligations are so strong upon me, that, next to him, I am bound to honour you: these are the End, and the Manner is such, as that I hope it hath hit upon the mean; sure I am that I abhor Barbarism, and I would not dote upon Curiosity. My words are those of my every day's discourse, which I would strive to have more full of sense than sound; and for my part, I never cared how big they were, but how expressing; 'twere but folly to see a golden Key that would not open, and to cast away a Leaden one that would; in S. Aust. not leaden similitude. Yet I could never be of the mind, that Religion and Wit must needs be at odds, that the Mistress can never agree with the Handmaid, that those Preachers in the new language are Dawbers, which are not Downright. It is their own Partition of Preachers, & those terms must be contradistinct if it be a good one, that neither the dauber can be downright, nor the downright a dauber. But, is Wit, is Elegancy daubing? Are Esay, job, Solomon, Moses in his Songs, but dawbers now? I am sure nothing can be invented more witty than their writings, more sublimely Elegant. Oh holy Dawbers! oh profane Down-rightnesse if it be opposed to this Daubing! But why do I plead for Wit and Elegancy, when, after all the most forcible reasons, they who speak against it, will speak against it, because they have it not, and no reason will bet hought needful, to commend it to those, who have it, and indeed the most Downright need not to fear that daubing here. Yet if here were some of it, I trust it would not be esteemed an inexpiable offence: Sure I am Solomon speaketh it for no disgrace of himself, The Preacher sought out acceptable words; or, out of the Hebrew, Words of delight, observe, Words of delight, pleasing words, no less than saving words; and that, when he had said immediately before, Because the Preacher was wise: Not only the wise Preacher sought out these words, but he sought them out of his wisdom, because he was wise; as who should say, he had been, others would be, but foolish Preachers, if they imagined that any other would be the words of salvation, besides those which were the words of delight. Oh unwise Solomon! who would take such pains to be a Dauber? who would seek out those profane words, which he should have cast away in an holy anger, yea even when they had offered themselves unto him? Well then, they forbid others to write finely, but they themselves will not write their own: they say, that the more Elegant preach their own selves, but they their own selves do not preach; all that they have is what they filch from others; a Sermon perhaps they deliver, but it is not their Sermon, and they have not so much as their absurdities, but by stealth: What a misery is this, that they must have the disgrace of thiefs, and yet want the commendation of cunning thiefs; that they have nothing but what they steal, and yet could never learn to steal the best? Charity forbid, that I should say, that their heart is never inditing a good matter, but confidently I dare say that few of them can truly say, I speak the things which I have made. But inveighing against ignorance, I have expressed not a little of it, by being too talkative, and it is enough to discourage you from the rest, if this be my manner of entreating. It remaineth, that I pray GOD, that, for the general, it may be received with the same mind that it was set forth, that whereas it is an Exposition of S. Peter, it may have part of S. Peter's happiness; and where he converted thousands at one, these labours of mine may convert some in many Sermons. And in particular, that I entreat you (as you have hitherto done) to protect the Work, and love the Author, who still prayeth for your happiness, with your truly Christian and noble Family: These are the supplications of  
Yours in all Christian service, ROBERT GOMERSALL.   
1 Peter 2. 
13. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supreme.  
14. Or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.  
15. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.  
16. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.   

ST. PETER told these brethren before, that the Gentiles spoke evil of them as of evil doers; either in general that there was no thing so evil, which they would not do; or more particularly, that they would do this evil; they would not submit unto authority; Our Apostle therefore cometh from his general to his more particular advices, by which he would make it appear unto all, that Religion was at no feud with civil polity, that the best man was the best subject; which that he might be and so acknowledged of all, he exhorts them to submit, etc. Which words contain a Duty, and the Motives; the duty, subjection to the Magistrate; the motives, 1. from God Christ Jesus our Lord v. 13. 15. 2. from the end why the Magistrate is sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punishment and praise, v. 14. 3. from their enemies, described to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their unjust slandering of them, who must be silenced by their obedience, v. 15. 4. from themselves, that though they are free, yet they are withal servants of God, and therefore must not use their freedom to cover their Rebellion, to make it a matter of conscience to disobey, v. 16.  
1. Of the duty, submission or subjection, and to whom we must submit, to wit, the Magistrate, him that is in Authority; which is first described from his matter, an humane Creature, he also is but a man. 2. from his supremacy, and subordination: The King, and they, who are sent by him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Precedents. I enter now upon a subject, I know not whether more necessary or distasteful; necessary it is, for we must needs obey, Rom. 13. and yet nothing is more distasteful to corrupted nature than to submit. Whilst I told you that you were a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, etc. then I was heard with a greedy attention, every one of you then would be ready to alter the question of the Apostles, and say, Is it not I? Is it any other than myself that you mean? but now that I am to show that these priests have no better sacrifice to offer than Obedience, that these kings are but subjects and must submit themselves unto the King, you will be ready to answer as the King of France did to our conquering Edwards letters, wherein he barely termed him Charles de Valois, that he had read some such thing indeed, but he could not conceit that it concerned himself: so whatsoever you shall hear of this argument, I am afraid too many of you would believe that it concerneth not yourself. The refusing of this submission was the first sin, and if Adam before corruption thought it too much to submit himself to his Divine Creator, it will be no wonder, if after so many sins, we add this unto the rest, that we will not without grudging submit ourselves to an humane Creature. But whether we like it or no it is our duty, we must submit. The word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which cometh from two words, that signify be ye under order: we must submit ourselves to our superiors, that we must be under their order, that which they order we must do, whether that order concern us or ours; whether it have a reference unto our persons or our goods. Concerning both of these their order may be, and it is our part to submit, to be under their order. All men, even the Christians, the Regenerate must thus submit. Let every soul be subject, Rom. 13. 1. Every soul, that is, every person; if then a Christian be a person, he must be a subject; he must have obedience, if a Being. Be subject, that is, unto commands, and the commands of the Magistrate reach and that justly too, as well to the body as the purse. Honorthy Father and thy mother, thou must needs remember this, if thou hast not forgot the Commandment, if they are not fled as far from thy memory as from thy practice: thy Superiors are thy Father and thy Mother, therefore thou must honour thy Superiors. Now honour in Scripture signifieth no less maintenance than good speeches, that both ways thou shouldst submit. You will say this was Moses his commandment: but you cannot deny that this which follows was Christ's; Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, Mat. 22. 21. But who can deny that Caesar hath a right to thy full subjection? Where the word of a King is there is power, Ecc. 1. 4. now, what power were there in it, if it could not make thee every way submit? it followeth, and who may say unto him, What dost thou? as who should say, If thou sayest so unto him, thou sayst what thou canst not justify, as he writeth in his Epistles to Atticus, Hoc quod dicis & turpe, nec tamen tutum est, such a speech hath the disgrace of shamefulness, and not so much by way of recompense for that disgrace, as the benefit of safety. If thou sayest, What dost thou, he may do that with thee that thou shalt not be able to say again. In the multitude of the people is the King's honour, Prov. 14. 28. but the multitude must be obedient then; it is a dangerous honour if he have a multitude of refractory people, of such who know not to submit. Put them in mind to be subject, etc. Tit. 3. 1. to obey Magistrates, to be ready in every good work: they are backward in every good work, if they be not ready in this one; to obey Magistrates. And mark you, he doth not say simply, Let them obey, or be subject, but put them in mind; this duty cometh so harsh unto the most, that they must be often put in mind of it before they will be perfect in it. I exhort or desire therefore first of all, says St. Paul, that supplications etc. be made for Kings and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2. 1. we must pray for them that we may lead a quiet life, than likewise we must submit to them that we may live a quiet life, otherwise they will trouble us into peaceableness, we shall not be quiet unless we will be obedient. It is a proposition in the School, Quaelibet res perficitur per hoc quod suo subditur-superiori: Every creature receiveth perfection from its subordination, it would have more defects, if it did not submit its self to its superior; we must be subject therefore for our own good, we should be worse if we were not under. Had God intended that all should be equal, that none should command, none should submit, without doubt he would never have made heaven and earth, the one so much higher than the other. What in Kings towards the subject is command▪ that in the heaven towards the earth is its influence, and what in subjects towards their prince is obedience, that in the earth towards heaven is the receiving of its influence. Now as the earth would be barren if it did not receive that influence, so the subject would have no abundance, if he did not obey. Is there any harmony if all the strings are of the same bigness? must there not be some greater, some lesser, some sharper, some flatter, if you: look for music from the instrument? Even amongst beasts, where ever there is a flock, there is Dux gregis, the Leader of the flock, to whose direction the rest submit their selves. Can a Ship be set to sea without a master? and must not all in the Ship submit to him? Now it would be strange if the Commonwealth should be of easier guidance than a Ship, that it should not sink without submitting to a Master. Nay, let us look into our own selves, there is the soul and the body; the Commander, and that which is to submit. Or let us go farther into the soul, there is the Reason and the Appetite; in the Divine part which is indivisible which properly hath no parts, there is that which ruleth, there is that which is to obey. To teach us our submission to lawful Governors, God would not let us be without a kind of Commonwealth, a government within us. Besides, even the Heathens themselves may be our Leaders here, and teach us our duty of subjection: In the East Country they always esteemed their Princes to be Gods, and their commands as Oracles; even the Germans, as Tacitus reports, were so addicted to their Governor to manifest this submission, that he saith of them, Principes pro victoria pugnant, Comites pro principe, that for what ever reason their Prince doth fight, they fight for nothing but for their Prince, if he be safe they are well, they are well because he is safe, to whom they may submit themselves: what then was Leo the tenths Ensign, to wit, a yoke, with this word, It is sweet, (he used it whilst he was a subject, it was sweet to him to obey, and it was used of him when he was a prince, that it was sweet to obey him) may be all of ours, and if it be a yoke to be under Authority, we must account it a sweet yoke, that it is delightful to submit. But you will say, wherefore is all this? who is there amongst us that doth not think it his duty to submit? only we would know how far this subjection doth extend, and how it can be made appear, that we must submit both body and goods unto the order of our superior? we must know therefore, that the Scripture hath commanded subjection in general only, the determination therefore of this general is left either unto the Prince or people: not unto the people, for if they may ordain that they will obey so far, by the same authority they may decree one degree short of that obedience, & so an other & an other, till they had decreed not to obey at all. It remaineth th●● that the prince▪ that the chief Magistrate is to teach us how he will be obeyed, unto what degree of subjection we must submit. Besides, we are to take notice who this Magistrate is, to whom S. Peter exhorts to submit, to wit, the Roman Emperor, with all the Laws and ordinances, by which that Empire was commanded; amongst which Laws this was one, that their persons and goods should neither be exempt from serving of the commonwealth. And indeed if we consider the blindness of our understandings and the depravation of our wills; we shall find that there is a necessity fully to submit ourselves to those, whose direction may direct our understandings, whose power may take order that our depraved wills may hurt no other than ourselves. You will say then, if my understanding be clearer, and my will more reform than those, who are in authority, may I choose whether I will submit to them who are not so wise nor so good as myself? no, by no means, since thou mayst be too partial a Judge of thine own good parts, and their Right confirmeth them in their authority, what ever their parts are; nay, what hinders but that weak Princes may have able Ministers, and that is all one for thy direction. Again, wilt not thou submit thyself to authority? why, by the same reason a second will not, nor a third, and so, because we know not where to stop, none will. Now judge thine own self whether it were not better to live with wild beasts than in such a place where there were no authority but what the stronger would usurp to his own self, which must never be accounted unjust against the weaker. Briefly, thou wilt live alone or in Company. If alone, who shall defend thee? if in Company, thou must have a Magistrate to defend thee, or that Company will be worse than any solitariness: Lastly, there is none but would enjoy the benefit of a Commonwealth, why then should any think it too much to endure the burden. You would all have peace, and riches, and righting from injury, why then of necessity you must submit unto Government, without which you cannot possibly enjoy any of the forementioned blessings. If thou wilt gather the rose, the prickels must not affright thee; and if thou wilt not be miserable, it is as necessary that thou must submit. But must we submit, says the Anabaptist, we, the Royal priesthood, the peculiar people? wherefore then did our Saviour say, Then are the children free. Mat. 17. 26. He meaneth from paying tribute, and so by consequent, from any other law of Sovereignty. Again, The law is not made for a righteous man, 1. Tim. 1. 9 Then the righteous are not under the law, they are not under that which was not made for them; and if not under Gods, much less under man's law, they should too much debase themselves, if they would submit to that. The base son of one of our English Kings sued to the Pope for an Archbishopric, the Pope denied it him, if he would call himself by the name of his supposed father; the issue was this, that he should have the dignity, if he would renounce this dignity that he was a King's son; upon which terms he refused it, he would not so far debase himself for any other title whatsoever. And these, because they suffer themselves to be God's sons, the children of the King that ruleth heaven and earth, think it too low for them to be under any government. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. 1. Cor. 7. 23. But you are their servants, say they, if you be their subjects, & in such a service, such a subjection, you seem to deny that you were bought with a Price. Again, the same Apostle (though not to the same men) saith, Owe no man any thing, but to love one another, Rom. 13. 8. If we owe nothing but love, we do supererogate, we do more than is required of us, if we pay service. In a word, there is one Lord, 1. Cor. 8. How then should we submit to any other besides him? Besides, if Christians must be subject, if these sons must not be free, then either to Heathen or Christian Magistrates: but not to Heathen, because they are enemies, nor to Christian, because they are brethren; it is folly to submit to the one, and that the other should subject us, is unnatural. Brother's must love, and not command their brothers. Besides, subjection was brought in by sin; Christ then having freed his from sin, must needs have freed them from subjection, that they do not sin, if they will not submit. God indeed saith to Adam in his innocency, Have dominion, but over whom is it that he must have dominion? Over the fish of the Sea; and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genes. 1. 28. The Creature is subjected to him and not Man; nay to man, in him, is the inferior Creature subjected, and thus S. Augustine collects in his 13. book of the City of God, chap. 13. That God would not that his Reasonable Creature should rule over any but unreasonable Creatures, non homo homini, sed homo pecori, and therefore the first just men are taken notice of, to be shepherds of sheep, rather than of men; to prefer the Crook before the Sceptre. But against these and all other darts of theirs, though we want not other armour, yet for this present we oppose but this one buckler, that Peter commands us to submit. Whom doth he command? even the peculiar people. And what doth he command? that they should submit: now if we must submit, we must be subjects. Since than truth cannot be contrary to truth, and S. Peter hath told us that we must be subjects, we must needs conclude, that they have mistook the Scriptures who have cited them for freedom from subjection. To begin with the first. The sons are free, therefore we cannot be subject, in that we are the sons of God. But what if S. Matthew spoke not what was his mind, but what followed out of Peter's words; if we shall say so, we shall affirm nothing which the Text will not be ready to confess with us. Christ's demand of Simon is, Of whom do Kings take tribute, of their own children or of strangers? Simon replieth, Of strangers: hence it necessarily followeth from Simons opinion, whether it were true or no, that the sons were free. They are free of whom Kings do take no tribute, and in Simons conceit they took no tribute of their own children. But if by their own children he understood their own subjects, than Simons opinion was not true, for of whom do earthly Kings receive tribute but of their own subjects? Again, because this is their principal reason, and I fear some seeds of Anabaptisme have been sown here, I am sure there have been those who would take away the Ecclesiastical Magistrate, & that is no good proof of their subjection to the civil (especially seeing the Civil hath established, or at least wise confirmed the Ecclesiastical Magistrate) for these reasons I say, I would give the fuller satisfaction to this reason, and that is this. Sons in this place cannot be generally taken for all Sons of God whatsoever, for so no men should be subject at all, which yet the Anabaptist himself denyeth, seeing that all men in some sense are the Sons of God; it must admit then of a limitation, and such a limitation as shall agree unto the scope of the place: now the scope is, to prove that Christ had no necessity of paying tribute, that all his subjection was from his own will, because he had received the command from his Father. To prove this then, there is no other thing to be required than that sons should be understood for natural sons. So Peter's answer is true, Earthly Kings receive no tribute of their natural children, so Christ's inference is most firm, Then ought I to be free, who am son, natural son of that King, in whose hands are all the corners of the earth. Thus the son is free, and yet for all his freedom, they may still be subject, because they are not the son, the natural son: and by these opinions they cause us to have a shrewd guests that they are not sons, his sons by grace. If they were, (though indeed it were true that the adopted sons were free likewise) they would imitate at lest the natural son, and though they were not bound to it, yet lest they should offend, lest they should be scandalous, they would pay tribute. But, they are Righteous, and the Righteous are under no law. True, to be condemned by it; false, if they understand to be directed by it. Nay, in that they are righteous they are under a law; there is no righteousness without a law, in our conformity to which we are righteous. But, they must not be the servants of men. Well, what are the former words, ye are bought with a price, from whence the immediate deduction is this, therefore you must be his, that hath bought you: and therefore in the next place you must not be so the servants of men, as not to be his, who hath bought you with a price; so than you are not forbidden to be men's servants, unless that service hinder you from being his servants; where both can stand together you are enjoined to both. Nay, in that you are bought with a price and are Christ's servants, for that very reason ought you to submit your selus to men since here he hath commanded it, and in doing his commands you show yourselves his servants. But we must owe nothing but love. What then? this place exhorts you to a speedy satisfaction of your Creditor, not to any disobedience against authority; for your money that you have borrowed, pay what you owe; but for mutual love, so pay it, that you think you still owe it, that you never conceive you have paid enough. Lastly (for the answer to others will be clear out of these,) There is but one Lord, that is, originally and supreme, but many by participation and subordinate. Now as it is a weak kind of arguing, We must be subject to the King, therefore not to the Governor; so it is of the same force, we must be subject to the Lord, therefore not to the King, since as the Governor is sent by the King, so the King himself is sent by the Lord, and to the end that we should submit unto him. But the Anabaptist proceeds farther, & as he would have no Christian to submit, so, which is an apparent contradiction, he would have Christians only to submit; he thinks command and rule and empire to be things altogether incompatible with a Christian. Divers places they wrest for their purpose, but none seems to make more for them than this present. S. Peter exhorts all those unto whom he writes, and all those unto whom he writes were Christians, that they should submit. Must all submit? then none must rule, it is impossible that submission should belong to him, to whom the rule doth. Now all Christians must submit to the King, and therefore it is utterly unlawful, in their opinion, that any Christian should be a King. Against this madness (for it is to be esteemed no better) let us take this into our consideration, that from their opinion it followeth, that in Christian times, either there must be no Magistrate, or an Heathen Magistrate; no King, or a bad one. That there should be no King, no Magistrate, I have showed you before how absurd it was, (not to speak how ridiculous it is to imagine that Christ who came to take away sin, came to take away princes, that he so spoiled principalities and powers:) but then, that Christians should be perpetually under an Heathen Magistrate, is equally inconvenient. For that there should be an Heathen Magistrate unto the end of the world, implies that there should be Heathen until the end of the world, out of whom the Magistrates may be chosen, but where hath God promised or threatened so? or who shall question the Almighty, if at this instant he will have all come to knowledge of the truth, and seek out their wickedness till he find none? Christians therefore may be Magistrates and to them we must submit. Of which one word more. We read, Submit yourselves, and not let them enforce you to submission: as therefore we must submit, so that submission must be voluntary, we must be freely subject. What the Stoic said to his God, we must to our Prince, Nulla parendi mora est, adsum impiger. I deny not mine obedience, I am ready to be commanded. Here than we see, how true the opinion of the Papists is, whereby they would exempt the Clergy from subjection, by which they would so prove them Priests, that they do deny them to be Citizens. It is their opinion, that whosoever is in holy orders, for that very cause even by the Law of God is freed from paying tribute, and so should be slavish, if he did submit; as if with shaving away their hair, they had shaved away their obedience, and their ointment had wiped off all that which belonged to the King. And indeed this fancy though it hath no ground hath some age, even Hierome in his time could say, Christ suffered the cross for us and paid tribute: nos verò pro honore illius tributa non reddimus, but we for his honour do not pay tribute but are freed from it as if we were Kings sons: where yet you observe that he speaketh of the Fact, not of the Right; he showeth, That he doth not show wherefore they did not pay tribute. Indeed Bellarmine minceth it and sayeth that they are not exempted from the obligation of those Civil Laws, which are not contrary to the Canon Prop. 2. But then his third Proposition maketh this obligation to be just nothing, when he affirmeth that Clerks cannot be judged by the secular Judge, although they will not observe these Civil Laws. A strong obligation that binds not at all, as that doth not bind them to the punishment when they have loosed themselves from their obedience. But if there were no other word for us against them, yet we cannot imagine, but that there were some Ministers amongst those to whom S. Peter writ, nay it is manifest that there were 1. E. 1. 2. Yet he exempts none, he bids them in general to submit. But though the Clergy cannot challenge this exemption, I am far from their mind that think they cannot receive it, or that it is unlawful for a Christian Prince to free them from every Command of a secular Magistrate. When the times of greatest devotion were, than were the times of their greatest freedom; it was unheard of then, that any should judge a Prophet, but a Prophet, when that noble Constantine could say unto them: Vos Dii estis, & non est aequum ut homo judicet Deos; ye are Gods and it is not fit for men to judge Gods. Briefly, for a Minister with the Papist to claim this exemption as a due, is an Imposture, but for a Christian Prince to bestow it on them, is a great expression of his Charity. joseph in the general subjection of the Egyptians to Pharaoh, could exempt the priests though idolatrous; and Artaxerxes himself an Idolater, could free the Priests and Levites etc. from paying toll, tribute, or custom, though they were of an other religion, Ez. 7. 24. If one of these could free the Priests of a false, the other of a strange religion, then sure it will be lawful at least for a Christian prince to be equally indulgent to his Clergy, who are of the same, of the true religion. But lastly, this submission is both in body and goods. What then shall we say to those, who if there be an office, which as it challengeth their personal employment, so it brings in profit, they will be most greedy after it, and seek it though it be denied; but if it be only to do service to the Prince, and it have not the sauce of profit, they would avoid it, even when it is imposed upon them; do these submit their persons? Others there are that stand not much on that, they will vouchsafe to be Constables, or Sheriffs, or the like, they can swallow the trouble which they are not paid for, only, because in such places they may overtop and bear down their neighbours; but if the King have any use for their purse, that he shall still find shut, or if it be opened, it shall be with a mouth opened also; he shall have a reviling with his subsidy. But these consider not, that they are both ways to be under, that they must thus submit. Submit we then and that without any force, any constraint. Our Saviour saith, that a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and if you do not thus submit, you will of necessity be divided, the humane ordinance will not easily part with his divine right. I told you that the Anabaptist would prove subjection to be unlawful, because it was brought in by sin, from which they by our Saviour are freed; but they err grossly in saying so, for even in innocency there of necessity must be rule. There would then have been fathers and children, husbands and wives, older and younger together, and to think that all these should have been equal, that there should be no subordination amongst them, is a fancy which in absurdity hath no equal. What a motive than is this, why you should be subject, since even man in innocency was to submit, he should be no longer innocent than a subject? If thou wilt not be thus instructed, O jerusalem, saith the Prophet, my soul will depart from thee, the Hebrew word signifieth shall be loosed or disjointed jer. 6. 8. Subjection and Command are the ligaments of the Commonwealth; if then you will disjoint the commonwealth by taking away subjection from pule, take heed lest you disjoint his soul from you. If he do, you must needs perish. Rather be ready with the Israelites to joshuah, thus to bespeak your Prince All that thou commandest us we will do, and whither soever thou sendest us, we will go, josh. 1. 16. To your Prince I say, for that is he to whom you must submit, He is that humane Ordinance.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1. Peter 2. 13. 
— To every ordinance (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of man, whether it be to the King, as supreme (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.)  
14. Or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him etc.  
OBedience cannot be but to a Superior; if I am subject, it is to one that is above me: since than I have showed you the necessity of submission, it will be necessary to show you unto whom you must submit, and that is To every etc. where we have first the Distribution, 2. the Appellation of Magistrate, and 3. the universality of them. 1. The distribution is into King and Governors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supreme and those who are sent by him; to these, every one of these we must submit; to the King because he is supreme, to the Governors, because they are sent by him, who is supreme; the chief power in the Commonwealth, that is the King; all subordinate, that is the Governor: you can suppose no power but it falls within this distribution, and you must be subject to all that falls within this distribution. The chief Magistrate than was the Roman Emperor, and among the Romans the name of King was odious, yet the Greek called him by that name which signified a King, this Prince had by league and conquest and inheritance, made himself Master of the greatest part of the known world, and so of necessity, where he could not reside himself (as Prince's persons are not so great as their Empire) thither of necessity he was to send Deputies, Lieutenants, and those are the Governors in my text, to whom, together with him that sent them S. Peter exhorts these brethren to submit. All then that I have formerly spoken of submission, is here to be understood. I showed you, that you were to submit, and the Apostle tells you that that submission must be to the King and to the Governors. But you will say, there are many unprofitable Princes, of whom the Commonwealth may cry, as that seditious Bishop did of one of our Kings, Mine head, mine head▪ others, that are harmful likewise, who will exactly represent the King, that Samuel speaketh of, 1. Sam. 8. 14. who will take the fields and vineyards, and oliveyards, even the best of them, from his subjects, and give them to those, whom he pleaseth. Nay worse than this do not many of them blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called, as S. james speaks: And farther, strive to make you blaspheme that worthy name likewise? Is it not possible, that a Turk, an Infidel may have command over Christians? and is it fit, that Christians should submit to a Turk, or Infidel? Shall he be my King, who is a Rebel against the King of Kings? or shall not the faithful subject labour with all his power to deprive and depose that Prince, who if it lay in his power would depose God? Who is so impatient, that he would not suffer the Lord to be King? No surely, because he is a bad Prince, this doth not give thee licence, to be a bad subject, and the Christian man must not be a Traitor to an Infidel. Submit ye to the King saith S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to the Supreme. But if the subject upon any ground, either of Policy or of Religion, either because he was a weak, or a wicked Prince could depose him, than he could punish him, if he could punish him, than he could be his Superior, then in the same Commonwealth, there could be one above him that is highest, more supreme than the supreme. Every King in his own Kingdom is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the supreme, and therefore for no misdemeanour whatsoever can he be punished by his Subjects, for, that were to make them supreme. Neither let any man object against this, that S. Paul sayeth, that all Magistrates are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we render, in authority, 1. Tim. 2. 2. And yet we are sure that all Magistrates cannot be supreme, since we have already distributed them into subordinate and supreme, I say this maketh nothing against us, since in a diverse respect, the same authority may be supreme and subordinate, and even the inferior Magistrate, may have a supremacy in respect of the people, who, if we consider the King above him, can glory in nothing, but his subordination. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath given him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his supremacy is under an others supremacy, and there are higher than he. Thus it is manifest, that unless there be Higher than the Highest, no subject in any case whatsoever can depose his Prince. Doth Saint Peter tell us this alone? or is it not the verdict of the whole Scripture, which doth so uphold Majesty, that though it is the word of God, yet you will suppose that it is For the King. Is it fit to say to a King, thou art wicked? and to Princes, Ye are ungodly? job. 34. 18. It is not fit, in his opinion to say to a King, that he is wicked, and do you think he would have conceived it fit, to have deposed him for his wickedness? Doth the speech dislike him, and would he have been contented with the action? Would he have given you liberty, to depose your Prince in case you were so mannerly as not to term him wicked? In a word doth he tie your tongues only against your Prince, and would he give a full liberty to your hands? No, he would not have thee to disgrace him, much less to depose, to unking him. According to that of Moses, Thou shalt not revile the Gods, (for all thy reviling, the holy Ghost esteems them Gods,) nor curse the ruler of thy people. Exod. 22, 28. Give the King thy judgements, O God, is the Psalmists prayer; that is, grant that he may be good; but he sayeth in no place, that in case he is otherwise, it is lawful for the people to give judgement upon him, that if he be not according to their mind, the wrath of the people, likewise should be as Messengers of death. If this be true; I know not why Solomon should say, that, The Fear of a King is as the roaring of a Lion, if there be so many roaring Lions against him, of whom, upon the case of misdemeanour, he may justly be afraid. The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, saith the preaching King Prov. 21. 1. But if subjects may judge their Prince, if there be some case, wherein they may not submit to him that is supreme, the King's heart too often will be in the hands of his people, torn out of his royal breast in a popular insurrection. A King's heart is in the hand of the Lord; then how wicked soever it be we must leave it unto his turning. Briefly, By me Kings reign, saith the Lord; and shall they be deposed by any other, than by him, by whom they reign? How then doth Solomon number amongst those things which are comely in going A King against whom there is no rising up, Prov. 30. 31. If there be so many cases, in which the subject may rise up against him, and throw him down? Out of these then and the like places let us strongly conclude, That we cannot lawfully rise up against wicked Princes, that we must submit to those, who are supreme, though they be supreme in wickedness likewise; and as in their dominion, so in their iniquity, they have no equal. But because this is a truth, not affected of the most, because it is opposed by those, who in many other things are contrary, and do chiefly agree in opposing this, to wit, the Papist, and those who would seem the more reformed Protestants, I shall not think too much, to speak a little more of it, and defend that which one would think, none durst assault, Majesty. Against thee, thee only have I sinned, saith holy David; saith he, that would not mince his sin. Ps. 51. 4 How? is the holy Prophet to be reckoned amongst those men, who go on ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis, who aggravate their fault by depressing it, who augment the iniquity of their sin, because they say, that never or at lest not fully they will confess? What do I hear? Against Thee only have I sinned? Recollect thyself o blessed David, and thou shalt find that though against him chiefly, yet against him only thou hast not sinned. Hast thou not sinned against Vr●jah in taking away first his wife's chastity, and afterwards his own life from him? Hast thou not sinned against Bathshebah, sinned against her, whom thou so lovedst; nay haste thou not sinned against her, in such a love, by which thou hast made her to be reckoned amongst the foolish women? Hast thou not sinned against the Commonwealth, by giving such a bad example? against the Commonwealth I say, unto which their King's actions are the more prevalling statute? Hast thou not sinned against the Church likewise, against which thou hast opened the mouths of the adversary, who from thee will judge of all other Professors, and say, that lust and murder are the best fruits of thy Religion. Nay, hast thou not sinned against the Enemies of the Church likewise, by making them to continue enemies, still to hate the Church, of which before these enormities of thine they might happily have desired to have been members. Hast thou sinned against all these? and yet darest thou say & that in thy profoundest humiliation, when thou wouldst be thought rather to weep than speak; nay when thou pretendest such a grief, that thou wouldst be thought rather to bleed it out than weep, darest thou then say, that thou hast sinned only against God? yes he dareth say it, and that with as much truth as confidence. He hath sinned in all those respects, which I have mentioned, & yet he may boldly say, that he hath sinned only against the Lord; he hath sinned only against the Lord, as against him that can take notice of, and punish him for his sin; against whomsoever he hath offended beside, it is all one as if he had not offended, in respect of punishment; they may dislike, they cannot judge him, they must still submit even to such a Superior. But you will say, that David was a King, and therefore might be partial in his own case, he might affirm that in no respect, the subject might rise against his Prince, not because he thought it true, but because he found it to be convenient, that he did not think it safe to divulge that mystery of State, That notorious wickedness subjected the Prince to his subjects, who could be no longer supreme than virtuous. Well, suppose he was partial in his own cause, shall we think that he was in Saul's likewise? and yet even then we see that upon no pretence whatsoever will he make an Inferior of the Supreme. And yet Saul was as bad as we can imagine, a man that spared those, whom God commanded him to kill, and killed those, which all the motives of Humanity and Religion would have persuaded him to spare, Clementior in Dei hostes quam in Dei sacerdotes, saith one, who exercised more clemency towards God's enemies than God's priests, for he spared the best of their sheep and oxen 1. Sam. 15. 15. but these he utterly destroyed, both men and women, children and sucklings, oxen and asses, and sheep with the edge of the sword, 1. Sam. 22. 19 and which might inflame David the more, all this cruelty was exercised on them, for his sake. What shall I speak of his Tyranny, against the Gibeonites, against the league which God approved of; of his perpetual seeking of David's life, who though he was anointed King by God's appointment, yet he was kept so far from the Crown that he had no great assurance of his Being; and yet for all this, for all Saul's badness in general, for all his particular hatred against him, though he himself likewise was elected by God unto the Kingdom, yet when he had him at advantage, his heart smote him, because he had smote but the garment of the King, Dum timuit Deum, non laesit inimicum saith Optatus. It was Saul's oil defended him and not his armour; David could not in any respect lift up his hand against the anointed of the Lord, nor not submit himself to him that was Supreme. Against this nothing can be replied, but that David made conscience of what he needed not, that he was too just; Saul's death had been an Execution not a murder, and therefore Magister hìc non tenetur, they will remember David and all his meekness, as the Sept. read it, Ps. 132. 1. They will remember but they will not imitate it. And yet the Primitive Church would imitate it: For 300. years they were under ungodly Emperors, and yet for all that time they did submit. S. Augustin hath a memorable passage, concerning those Christians, that served in the army of julian the Apostate: When it came, saith he, unto Christ's cause, than they only knew him for Supreme who is in heaven etc. but when he said, Go forth with the Army, go against such or such a Nation, without any more ado they presently obeyed; Distinguebant Dominum aeternum à Domino temporali, & tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum, etiam Domino temporali: They could well distinguish between their temporal and eternal Lord, and yet they willingly submitted themselves to their temporal for their eternal Lord. But for this they have an evasion; S. Paul enjoined, and the Christians for so long a time performed obedience to the higher powers, not because they were bound to it, but because they had no strength, to lose themselves from it; this subjection was more out of weakness, than out of Conscience; or if it was out of conscience, it was out of conscience only of their weakness; thus Aquinas, and out of him Bellarmine, with all the modern Jesuits: So that in these men's opinion they did submit for wrath only, for fear of punishment; could they once but have pleased themselves with their own strength; had they but consulted with their limbs, and found that they were able to try such a mastery, they then would have broke their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from them; when they could stand up, they then upon no terms would have submitted. But this very objection did Tertullian answer a thousand years before ever it was made. Do you think, saith he, to the Heathen, that if we would right ourselves by war, we should want numbers or power. As if the Moors, or Marcomanni, or Parthians, people but of one Nation could be compared with those which fill the whole world. We are strangers to you, and yet we replenish all, that is, your Cities, Lands, etc. only we have left you your Idolatrous Temples. Cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis, qui tam libenter trucidamur? What war are not we fit for, even though our numbers were smaller, who count it nothing to be slain? Only this hinders us, that apudistam disciplinam magis occidi liceat, quam occidere, that our profession thinketh it far more lawful to be killed than kill; as long as you are supreme, we can do no other than submit. Besides, were it true that weakness only caused the Christians to continue subject to the Heathen, (which I deny,) yet it were a truth not to be divulged, unless we would divulge that which should cut the throats of all Christians; for if once bad Princes shall be informed, that good men will obey them no longer, than till they are strong enough to resist; how will this cause them to keep down, to oppress good men, lest when they ceased to be weak, they would cease to be subject likewise, and do them most hurt, when they might do them most good. But what saith jeremiah to the Jews Seek the peace of the City whither I have caused you to be carried away Captives, jer. 29. 7. They are carried away Captives, yet they must seek the peace of them which carried them away Captives; they had caused their trouble, and yet they are commanded to seek their peace. Besides, according to the vulgar we read, He maketh the Hyprocrite to reign for the sins of the people, Job. 34. 30. And we ourselves read, I gave them a King in mine anger. Host 13. 11. What God giveth in anger, and for the sins of the people, must be God's just judgement: now it seemeth to be too much sauciness, that any man should strive to exempt himself from God's judgements; which they seek to do, who when it is in their power, will depose a wicked King. God giveth his judgements unto Kings, nay diverse times he giveth Kings his judgements, and I should think, that he did merit a new one, who would not submit unto the former. And, to see the perverseness of it, those men that think it unlawful to fly from a place infected with the plague, because it is God's judgement, to which we must submit, from which we cannot fly, are most earnest to maintain that we may depose bad Princes, which yet they cannot deny to be God's judgement. And yet the Plague is so God's judgement, that I know not whether it be particularly intended against me or no, and in that respect may fly from it, when they cannot be ignorant that a bad Prince is their judgement in particular, and yet for all this will fly upon him. But they should consider, God giveth him in his anger, and he taketh him away in his wrath he, and no other; it is not good that they in their wrath should take away, whom God hath given in his anger. In a word, if Infidelity, or Heresy were a sufficient ground for the subject to rise against his Prince, there were no Prince in Christendom, but might every day fear an insurrection; since by divers of his subjects, he will be no better esteemed of then an Infidel and Heretic. Where there is a Protestant King, he will be an Infidel to his Popish subjects; and where there is a Popish King, he will be an Heretic to his Protestants, especially if either shall be any ways vehement in his profession. Now if on these pretences either side may take away their submission, who seeth not that the red horse will be let out, who hath power given him to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another. Rev. 6. 4? I conclude this point with this Argument, If it be lawful to depose a supreme Prince, than it is lawful in this respect, that he hinders and opposeth true Religion; But we cannot depose him, because he hinders and opposeth Religion, as I have already showed: and therefore in no case it will be lawful to depose him. But you will say, may he do what he list, may he play with the throats of his subjects, make murder his delight, ravish their wives, assault their consciences, and yet never be questioned for all this, because he is Supreme? We must understand therefore, that such Princes as they, take notice of David's sentence, Against thee Only have I sinned, and so are sufficiently protected from the punishment of men; so they should remember, Against Thee have I sinned, and so that they are not free from the punishment of God, which therefore shall be the greater, because it was not prevented by an inferior chastisement, and they shall at length find, that it is a fearful, horrendum, a most horrid thing, to fall into the revenging hands of the Lord. May we then upon no terms seek to depose him, that is supreme? Hearken then to this ye Papists, that in case of heresy affirm, that the Pope may excommunicate the subject; nay depose his Prince. Your dictates these are, Defuisse Apostolis Reges, etc. That the Apostles wanted Kings to depose, and not a power of deposing Kings; that the Apostles could have exempted faithful people from the subjection of Infidel Princes, if they had thought it fitting, or if their power could have effected that which they thought fitting. In a word, that they then endured their Persecutors, not for conscience sake, but for want of power to resist, if they had hearts to be Soldiers they would never have had mind to be Martyrs; and they would never have filled the Calendar, if they had had numbers enough to fill an Army. And here I cannot sufficiently wonder at that gross doting, of the acutest of Schoolmen. Infidelity, saith he, doth not of itself destroy Dominion; his meaning is, that it is possible, and, with the good, safe, to be a Prince, and an Infidel together, that a man who hath not faith, may have dominion over them, that are faithful; and yet in the same place he affirmeth, Infidels who have formerly been faithful may and aught to be deprived of their dominion by the sentence of the Church. Is not dominion founded on Faith? How then can it be lost by Infidelity? Doth the House's foundation stand, whence then is there a necessity of the houses falling? But if such Apostata Princess could not be so punished, Hoc vergere posset in magnam fidei corruptionem, such their impunity might turn to great damage to the Church; this pitch would defile shrewdly, well: is that the reason why they must be deposed, by the Pope's sentence? But before their Apostasy, when they were yet but bare Infidels, they might do, and perhaps did great harm to the Church, and yet then himself confesseth, they were under no Censure of the Church. Briefly, the harm that they do to the Church, is a just ground of deposing, or, it is not a just ground: if it be not, why doth he urge it? if it be, then contrary to his own acknowledgement, even negative Infidelity will uncrown; and against the Apostle, The Church will judge of those who are without. Again, is it in nocase lawful, to depose the supreme power? Then what shall we say to those pretended brethren of ours, who though they confess it unlawful for the people, indulge it to the Superiors? who dare affirm that in regard of incorrigible excesses, a Prince may be put down by subordinate Magistrates? But what are subordinate Magistrates? are they not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here mentioned? these Governors in my Text? and what is said of these Governors? is it not, that they are sent by him, who is supreme? Now it would be most strange, if he that were sent should have a power over him, that sent him; that the Governor should trample down the Supreme. This sending is his delegation, now he that hath a power to make, hath a power to revoke his delegate; and he were too unwise if he would not revoke it then, when he saw that they would prove Authentical rebels against his own self. It is true, he that hath the sword, hath it not in vain; but it is as true, that he that put the sword into his hand, can pull it out again at his pleasure, and few will be of Traian's mind in any case, to charge inferior Magistrates to employ their swords against themselves. I had thought that what S. Peter had said of servants in respect of their Masters, had been appliable to inferiors in respect of the Supreme, Be subject in all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the Froward. 1. Pet. 2. 18. Name what vice you will in a Prince, it is but his Frowardness, and God forbid, that we should be rebels, because he will be Froward. And they that resist, saith S. Paul, shall receive to themselves damnation. Rom. 13. 2. They whosoever they be, People or Magistrate, You or They which are sent, if they shall resist the Supreme, there is nothing remains but damnation; they shall be Fiends in Hell, who in Earth will not be good subjects. Lastly, we must submit to them who are sent likewise, to the Inferiors; he must not resist the Supreme, but we must obey him. Now those Governors are either Civil or Ecclesiastical, your obedience to the Civil I have fully pressed before, and I shall need to say no more for your submission to the Ecclesiastical likewise, but that he is sent by the Supreme, and we are to obey him, and those, who are sent by him. Let us not then with some perverse men judge of Religion by our stubbornness against Bishops, nor prove that we are called from hence, because we can be bitterly witty against their calling. Rather consider we, that such are in dignities, and S. jude termeth them but filthy dreamers, who speak evil of dignities. O let not us be filthy, who would be accounted Pure, nor be dreamers who would be esteemed of all men to be the only wakeful ones. But because I shall speak more of this in my next discourse, concerning the appellation of Magistrates, that they are called an humane Creature, I will add no more at this time, but a Thanksgiving to our Divine Creator, to whom, Father, Son etc.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1. Pet. 2. 13. To every Ordinance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) Creature of man. 
WE have heard the Distribution, let us now proceed to the Appellation of the Magistrate: they are either supreme or subordinate; Kings, or they who are sent by them: but supreme, and subordinate; Kings, and they who are sent by them, are here called, their Appellation is but, an Humane Creature. This therefore shall be the method of of our proceeding: We will first show why the Magistrate is called an humane Creature, according to the Greek, and then what the humane ordinance may signify, according to the English: Submit yourselves, therefore, unto every ordinance; or, to every Creature of man.  
1. To the humane Creature, and why the Magistrate to whom we must submit is termed 
1.  so. And that may be principally to humble him; that they may learn what David taught the Nations, that they are but men. Natural it is for all those that are in high places to think too highly of themselves, to raise their mind and countenance and outward port unto their places, that so others may have the greater estimation of them, nay they do too often forget their own condition; and when once their mountain is made so strong, they are ready to give out, that they shall never be removed. Nihil est quod credere de se non possit, cum laudetur Dii● aequa potestas, Make a God of a Man once, and he will be ready to persuade himself, that he can do all things. When Moses did first deliver his message to Pharaoh concerning the dismission of the Israelites, all the reply he could get from that proud Prince was this, Who is the Lord? Exod. 5. 2. as who should say, I know no other Lord but myself, there is no God but Pharaoh. Thus Rabshakeh, when he would have won Jerusalem by words, when he would have entreated them out of their necessary defence, what argument doth he press more eagerly than this, that they should not believe that the Lord could defend then? Who are they amongst all the Gods of the Lands, that have delivered their Land out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver jerusalem out of my hand. Es. 36. 20? The Lord could not deliver them, why? because the King of Assur would oppress them, then of necessity in his judgement the King of Assur was of greater power than the Lord. So the King of Tyrus, if he enjoy a City enriched and fortified by the Sea, his heart is strait lifted up, as it were with a wave of the sea▪ and he is ready to say, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the Se●. Ezech. 23. 2. Thus, not to trouble you with multitudes, the Pope calls himself, at least suffers others to call him Vice-God, the only Deity on Earth, the Best and Greatest. Lest then those, that are in authority should imitate these impieties, left they should make their irreligion of higher note than their dignity, the same Spirit that terms them Gods, saith in the next breath, that they shall die like men, that they shall find at length themselves to be but Humane Creatures; that they are but humane Creatures, I say, whose breath is in their nostrils, whom the Poet could call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a thin shadow, a very nothing to talk of. Do they not come into the world the same homely way with their subjects? and when they are entered in thither, are they not as weak and froward infants as the meanest? Can they command away those years of childishness, that they may suddenly be men, that they may suddenly be sensible of the glory of their height? And when they have attained unto those years, when they think of nothing but Empire and Dominion, yet how many things are there then, which if they should be so foolish as to command, they should never be so fortunate as to see done? They cannot make the Sun rise a minute before his appointed time, and when he is once risen, till his own time again they cannot cause him to set; it is in their power to take men's lives away, that they shall not see the Sun, but it is not in their power to obscure the Sun; even but for that one instant, that he might not see their Cruelty. What can he do to the Air? unless perhaps this be much, that he can build a Tower, which shall look up high into it; to the top of which if he do ascend, he may perceive the small birds flying about him, and securely smiling at his commands: and for the Sea, there is a pretty story of our Canutus a Dane, that sometimes conquered England, who being magnified by his Flatterers to be one, that could do what he pleased; to whom, as unto God, nothing that he willed was impossible, and so that he was more than an Humane Creature; he to express his modesty and cause their shame, commanded his Royal throne to be set near to the seaside against the coming in of the Tide: in brief, he forbade the sea to touch his throne, but that remitted nothing of its pace, for all his forbidding; and had not his servants been more officious than the Sea, he might have been well washed for his labour; but this he did to the end that they might see how that he did not esteem so highly of himself, but that with the Kingly Prophet he kept his soul down, like a weaned child. But you will say? that though he have no power over the Elements, yet he can command men. I reply, that he can neither command those that are dead, nor those who are not yet borne, he commands but men, and he cannot command all them neither. And for diseases, which of them can he enjoin, to punish any of his rebels? nay which of them can he forbid, when God sends it, to punish his own self? But in a word, he can by no means free himself from death, after all his glory, all his pomp, all his magnificences, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Night or one Fever sends him to the grave, and teacheth him then, that he is but an humane Creature. Man, even this man, even a King dieth, he wasteth away, yea he giveth up the Ghost, and where is he? Job 14. 10. Which maketh the holy Ghost to insult over the overweening King of Tyre, Wilt thou yet say before him that slaieth thee, I am God? Ezech. 28. 9 as who should say, at that time thou hast learned perfectly that thou art but man. Mors sola fatetur, quantula sunt hominum corpuscula, we never know our true quantity till our death, till in the Prophet's phrase the worm be spread under us, and the worm cover us; till that alone covers us which will leave nothing at length to be covered. Which meditation did so inflame Origen, that he cryeth out in his first Hom. in Ps. 36. You that do so admire these great Men, these Kings and Governors, go saith he, ad Cadaverum eorum reliquias etc. to the remainder of their carcases, if so be it be possible to find them, if this humane Creature be not altogether lost, by being the food of some other Creature. But last of all, they are as subject unto judgement as the meanest of their brethren; We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. Rom. 14. 10. Kings & Governors are not exempted from standing there, and they who have commanded all upon earth, if they have died out of God's favour, shall entreat as vainly as the poorest, that the mountains would cover them from the fierce anger of the Lord. Thus you see that they are but men, and that it is fit they should know it. What comfort then is here to them who are unjustly dealt with and oppressed by proud greatness? Let them threaten as fearfully as they will, yet it is possible those threatenings may want effect. A man cannot do all that he would, nay and if they have done any great harm, either in their body, goods or name, yet there is comfort for the unjust sufferer; they are but men, and it is possible to outlive a man: nay, if finally they have taken away all hopes of expecting their death, by taking away their life, yet their comfort ends not with their life. Still they are certain that their Enemies are but Humane Creatures, and with Solomon's rejoicing young man, God shall bring them into judgement. And then what will it profit them to have been great men, and to have done what pleased them, when they shall be found but men, miserable men that cannot avoid the damnation of hell? S. Paul saith to the distressed Christians for the loss of their friends, Comfort ye one another; and let us say to tyrannising Superiors, to Kings and Governors who will trample on them, that do submit, fright ye one another with these words. But again are Kings and Governors, Supreme, and those who are sent by them, but men? Why then inferiors cannot be excepted from the common frailty, without doubt they cannot be more than Humane Creatures. What then shall we say to the Covetous, whose eye lusteth after whatsoever it seeth, from whom Naboth cannot keep his vineyard if it lie commodious for him? surely this man hath goods laid up for many years, but he hath forgot, that this night they shall take away his soul from him, and then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? Luc. 12. 20. As who should say, Whosoevers they be, thine they cannot be, wherefore then dost thou so strive to get what thou art sure thou canst not keep? Why wouldst thou prove an eternity by thy unlimited love of riches? and by the perpetual labouring for them flatter thyself that thou art a divine, when indeed thou art but an Humane Creature? In a word, thou art either God or man; if God, thou hast no need of riches; if man, thou canst not have an eternity of being rich; that must have an end, which is no more than an Humane Creature. In time then forsake this vanity, enter at length into thyself, and say with him in the Preacher, For whom do I labour and bereave my soul of good? Eccl. 4. 8. For whom dost thou labour? for thyself? but thou shalt not live to enjoy it, thou art but a man. For another? but perhaps he doth not deserve to enjoy it, at lest he doth not deserve it thus far, that for him thou shouldst bereave thy soul of good: & if it were possible that he could deserve that likewise, yet because he is but an humane creature, it is possible that he may die before thee, and than the question will still return a question that thou canst never be able discreetly to satisfy, For whom do I labour and bereave my soul of good? if thou dost labour, thus labour etc. thou bereavest thy soul of good, as of others principally, so of this also, of the longer stay in the body: thou art so covetous because that thou hast forgot thy mortality, and by that covetousness thou dost but hasten thy mortality, and so only the sooner prove thyself to be but an Humane Creature.  
2. The Magistrate may be called an Humane Creature, because he is elected by men, as we know diverse nations do choose their Kings, according to that of the Panegyricke, Eligatur ex omnibus, qui imperet omnibus, all must have the choice of him, who is to have the rule of all. But, this we shall have a better occasion to discuss, when we come to the first reason of our submission, which is, for the Lord.  
3. Then, the Magistrate may be termed an humane Creature, because he is ordained for the benefit of humane creatures; nothing doth better agree with man, than a good Magistrate; and yet because I shall speak of this in my second reason of submission, to wit, the end why the Magistrate was given, I shall say but little to it in this place, only this, that if the Magistrate be for our good, this can be no small motive to our submission. In the Fable, the Horse quarrels with the Hart, who being too hard for him, he desireth the assistance of the man, the man promiseth if he will let him ride him; in brief, the Hart yields to subjection, so he may have defence, he will suffer the man to ride him; rather than his enemy to overcome him. Nay, in the History, the Campani having many factions amongst themselves, and powerful enemies of their neighbours the Samnites, willingly offered themselves up, to be servants to the State of Rome, so that the Romans would protect them from the Samnites, so their enemy might not prevail they would be content, with what Magistrate soever, and they were so in love with this humane Creature, that they would sell their liberty for it. How then can we disapprove, what they so generally liked of? How should we think ourselves reasonable men, if we did not affect this humane Creature? And thus much for the word as we read it in the Greek. Come we now to our English, ORDINANCE, which I told you might be taken for law, & from henceforth enforce, that as we are obedient to the Prince, So we must be to his law likewise, to every Governor and to every law. But before we handle that: do not we all conclude, that All good things come from God, and that Laws are amongst the numbers of good things? Do not we know that they are only inferences and deductions & determinations as it were of the Law of nature? and is not the Law of nature immediately from God? for instance, that a murderer should be put to death, is the Law of nature, but, that he should be put to this death, is an humane Constitution: God saith, Let him die, but the King, Hang him. Are laws from God, and yet shall we dishonour them, as an invention of man? are they a divine, and shall we term them but an Humane Ordinance? Surely all good Laws even of men are Divine and Humane: Divine in their Principles, Humane in their Conclusions. God saith, That the thing shall be done, and man, So. And that determination of man's may be termed an humane Ordinance, as the Magistrate himself is called an humane Ordinance; not so much because man made it, as because it is made for the good of men. To a good Law, therefore it is required, that the Efficient should have Power, and the Matter, Goodness, at least no ill in it. If the Lawgiver hath authority, if the matter of the Law be good, or at least not evil, it hath all the Conditions required to an Humane Ordinance, and to such we must obey. The Ancients did shadow a Law under the figure of a Crown, because as a Crown compassed and kept in what was under it, so should the Law likewise, and therefore S. Hierome expounds that Pythagorean Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we ought not to violate the crown, after this manner, we ought not to tear or violate the Laws, but keep them in their full vigour. And for this reason likewise they are compared to hedges, because as the hedge defends, and encloseth, so likewise doth the Law, it defends from violence of others; it encloseth and keeps us in, lest we should violate others, it is a strong hedge. And therefore well was it termed by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it gave every one his due, defence to him that wanted it, and punishment to those who deserved it. If all this will not move thee to submit to it, yet consider it is an humane Ordinance, and to that God hath commanded thee to submit. But, what if it be bad, you will say? what if it command me to blaspheme my God, prostitute my wife, or with those wicked Barbarians, after certain years, in case they lived too long, to become the Executioner of mine own Father? Shall I submit then? No surely: for I exhort thee, to submit only to a law, but these are no Laws, but authorized impieties, but transgressions with a privilege. Mihi lex esse non videtur, quod non justa fuerit, saith S. Austin; in his Opinion what was not just could be no Law, and nothing can be more unjust than these tyrannical Injunctions. In brief, I commend the Obedience performed unto Humane, I detest that which is done to devilish Ordinances. Take a reason out of the Text. We must so obey the Governors, those that are sent, that at the same time we must not disobey the King, the Supreme; solikewise we must submit ourselves to the Laws of the King, of the Supreme, but never when they contradict the known Commands of God, who hath sent them. But in case they are not contrary to God's Laws, we must submit, and that to their Ecclesiastical Laws likewise. The greatest Enemy of the Church's government can, in disgrace say no more than this, that her Canons are but an Humane Ordinance, and yet we bring an infallible demonstration of the necessity, of our Obedience to those Laws, even because they are an Humane Ordinance. The text saith, Submit ye unto every ordinance of man. How justly are they then to be reprehended, who, although they make conscience of other Laws, do securely contemn and deride these? insomuch that they who break them, are termed good men, & whosoever stands up in the defence of them, and would by reason first, and in case that prevaileth not, by punishment, bring them to their observation, are said to be Persecutors of goodness and of good men. A strange delusion of the Devil, that whom S. Peter calleth presumptuous, selfwilled, because they speak evil of dignities, 2. Pet. 2. 10. they for the same reason should count the only godly. I was informed by one, that before my coming hither, here was flourishing Holiness, as if since, there were no holiness, at least that it was decayed by my fault. Now I appeal to your Consciences, whether I have not as my Text led me exhorted you to all virtues of the first and second Table, and I am not guilty, how I have any way hindered Holiness, unless it hath been by opposing Religious disobedience. What their Holiness was before my coming, and whether Flourishing or but a Flourish, I judge not, God will; but if it were no other Holiness than that which I oppose, they must give me leave to call it but Holy Faction, for only with that have I an enmity: whereof a part is this, that they will not obey that part of the Church's Law, which binds every one at the time of prayer, to frequent his own Church. We urge the Law why they should come, and they this reason why they will not; The Law that binds us to a presence at the afternoon Service is either absolute or else admits of some Exceptions. If Absolute, then in no case whatsoever may a man absent himself, than he must not follow his merchandise abroad, than it will be a sin to be sick, for at that time he cannot come to his own Church, but if the Law admit of these Exceptions, then why not this likewise, that since for their temporal, much more for their spiritual benefit they may be absent. Before I answer this, I will give them a like argument, that so by comparing both together they may judge whether theirs be solid or no. The Law that binds us to a presence etc. in the Forenoon, or when we have Sermons, is either Absolute or hath some Exceptions, if Absolute, than all the former inconveniences follow, if it hath exceptions, then if for our temporal good, why not, much rather for our spiritual good may we not absent ourselves even in the Forenoon, or when at home we have a Sermon? since others may preach more effectually than our own Minister, and so from others, I may have more spiritual good, than I can have from him. I appeal to their own Consciences, whether such an argument be sound or no. If they say it is, than one Church shall be oppressed, when another is empty; one Minister will suspect an other, as if he drew away his flock from him; there would be as many schisms as priests; and because amongst the Ministers, none is so well gifted, but some are, or would be thought better, whilst all run after the best, there would be no certain hearing of any, and we should have nothing but Confusion. But if they confess the truth, that it is a weak kind of arguing, than they spoil their own reason, which was the same in effect with this. To which in brief I answer, That the Law concerning etc. admits of Exceptions, but only of such which are not against the intent of the Law. The intent of the Law is to prevent Schism, and therefore to cause men to frequent their own Churches. Now they that travel, do not cross this intent, there is no fear of Schism in them; and when they can, they do frequent it, but they that go to hear sermons abroad, for their spiritual good, as they pretend, take the ready way to make a Schism, and do never frequent their own Churches. Now it would be strange, if the same Law, which was made to cause men to frequent their own Churches, should admit of an Exception by which they never should come thither. But they may be absent for their Temporal, why then not for their spiritual good? Surely, because there is not the same reason: should they not trade abroad, they were not able to live, but you will not say, that should they not hear abroad, it were impossible that they should be saved. This truth will be clear in some few syllogisms. If it were lawful to break the Church's Law, then chiefly for our spiritual good we might break it. But we may not break it for our spiritual good, Ergo. The Minor is thus proved, If we may enjoy as much spiritual good, by keeping as by breaking it, than we may not break it for our spiritual good. But we may enjoy as much spiritual good by keeping as by breaking it, Ergo. The Minor is again proved. All the good that we can get by breaking it, is but the Confirmation of our Faith; But, the Confirmation of our Faith we may have, even when we keep it. The Major appeareth; For, who are they that break the Law, but such who account themselves called, and justified already? Now, I may be Confirmed, I may be strengthened, but I cannot be called after I am called. And for the Minor that our Faith may be confirmed though we keep the Law and stay at home, is manifest out of their own confessions, which yield thus much, that though the word preached alone begets, yet the word but read only may nourish Faith. Thus if only they keep away, and break an Humane Ordinance, for their spiritual good, and that spiritual good be but confirmation of their Faith, and that confirmation they might have had at home without the breach of any Law, who seeth not that it is far safer to obey than to contest, to be subject to, rather than to subject under us, these humane Ordinances. I will press but one reason more, and that upon a ground by themselves confessed. Where ever God hath commanded a thing in general, there the Church may determine the particularities; as where God sayeth, Let all things be done in Order, the Church may particularly describe, what that order shall be, and such a Command of the Church is to be received as a Law of God; this ground is confessed: But concerning Hearing there is a Command of God in general, and a particular Command of the Church, concerning what persons and in what place, to wit, their own Pastor in his own Cure; therefore that Law is a Law of God to us, and so by all means must be kept. If they shall cavil, that they are only bound to hear but when the Minister doth preach; I answer, that in the Law there is no such thing, they must not leave their Minister when they may hear him, and they may hear him when he but reads the word of God. Examine and weigh these reasons, (for I stand to my former Protestation, which was mistook for a threatening:) if these reasons be firm, follow them, if they be infirm, make it appear, and I will follow you; but I am certain you cannot make it appear, unless you can produce some Ordinances of man, and that not contrary to God's Law, unto which we are not bound to be subject. O than my beloved, let us no longer walk in the light of our own eyes, nor follow that which Saint Hierome terms the worst Master, our own Presumption. Away with those vain words▪ [I care not for the commands of men] seeing in saying so you disobey the command of God, who hath commanded you to obey men. You know what Saint Paul saith▪ The powers which be, are ordained of God; whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Submit yourself to God, though you despise the Humane Creature; and though you care not for his Ordinance, yet be afraid of damnation. Neither talk, that you must have your Supper as well as your Dinner, that is, the afternoon as well as the morning Sermon. Know you not, that if you urge that proportion between Sermons and Dinners too far, you will find nothing but absurdities? For if you have two Sermons on the Lord's day, and one in the Week, you suppose you are abundantly fed; but if you should receive no more corporal sustenance in the Week, you would hardly subsist until the Sunday. Besides, my carnal nourishment benefits me only at the present, but my spiritual, though it be almost neglected at the present, may upon Meditation, benefit me many years after. Add to this, that where you want the afternoon Sermon, you want not your Supper, as you term it: for where you have a Sermon you may have perhaps a more plentiful repast, but wherever the word is, there is the meal. Besides, God regards not the multitude, but the use of Sermons, and if thou hast forsaken thine iniquity, if thou dost firmly cleave to thy Maker, it is all one to him whether it be after one, or one hundred Sermons. Wilt thou have him ask of thee, Who hath required these things at thy hands? and yet he must inquire it of thee, if thou wilt bind they self necessarily to hear two Sermons a day, which he hath never enjoined, and wilt not submit thyself to the Church's Laws which he hath commanded. It is a good thing to hear Sermons, but a good thing must be done well. It is a good thing to hear Sermons, but not at all times, not at all places. If thou a poor man shalt go to hear them in the week days when thou shouldst provide for thy Family; by hearing Sermons, thou mayst do against the Duty, which thou shouldst learn in Sermons, the duty being this, that thou shouldst not hear them then; and so if thou hear not in the right Place, God will not so approve of thy Hearing, as he will be angry with thee for the Place. For I have showed you, that this partial Hearing opens a gap unto Schism. O do not make Preaching guilty of that Crime, nor let it be truly accused, to be the scattering of that Church for whose collecting it was ordained. But if man's Laws thus bind us, certainly Gods Law far more; and one of his Laws is, concerning the receiving of this blessed Sacrament. Which that you may do well, consider what you are who are the Guests; what he is, who is the Food. We poor, sinful, miserable men; He, the rich, most pure and blessed God. God I say is our Food; our Food, whosoever draw near with Faith unto this Table. It was a wonder when man was fed with the bread of Angels; what wonder then is this, when the Believer is fed with him, that made the Angels? He opens his hand and fills all other things with his blessing, but the Faithful with himself. For as sure, as we receive the Creature into our mouth and stomach, so sure our Faith maketh us receive our Creator in our heart: and if we shall receive him into our Soul, he will receive us into his Kingdom, there to reign with him for ever.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1. Peter 2. 
13.—, for the Lords sake:  
15. For, so is the will of God.  
WE have already showed you what you must do, you must submit; you have likewise heard, unto whom this must be done, and that is every Magistrate, every Ordinance of man, whether Supreme or Subordinate, whether they be Kings, or those, who be sent by them. But because proud nature cannot endure to submit, and always striveth that itself may be Supreme, our Apostle doth not only prescribe the duty, but he giveth us reasons for it, and the first of them is drawn from the First from the Alpha of all things, as S. john termeth him. We must submit, and that, first, For the Lords sake, For so is the will of God. Where I shall show you that we are exhorted to obedience, from God's institution, & Command; from his institution of the Magistrate, and from his Command, that we should obey the Magistrate. The Institution we have vers. 13. For the Lords sake; as who should say, Obey the Magistrate for the Lords sake, who made him so: and the command vers. 15. For, so is the Will of God, so, to wit, that you should submit to every Ordinance of man etc. And that the Magistrate, the Ordinance of man, is a divine Institution, an Ordinance of God, is most clear to every one, that respects God and that Ordinance. judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all the Gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee throughout thy Tribes Deut. 16. 18. The people shall make the Officers, but it is by God's Command that they shall make them, he that giveth the Gates, giveth the Magistrate likewise, who shall execute judgement in those Gates. This is acknowledged by Daniel, He (he meaneth the Lord,) removeth Kings, and sets up Kings. Dan. 2. 21. He that removeth, sets up; he that taketh away doth institute Kingdoms, and he is no other than the lord Give ye unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, is our Saviour's command Matt. 22. 21. Caesar hath some Things which he may challenge, and it is our Saviour's injunction, that those things should be given him, now what could he challenge, had not God given him a right, and he gave him that right when he made him Caesar, when he bestowed his Magistracy upon him. When Pilate was boasting of his Authority, daring to affirm, that it was in his power either to release or Crucify the Son of God; Christ replieth, not by denying his power, but by showing whence he had it, Thou couldst have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above. Joh. 19 11. He doth not say, thou hast no power, but he affirmeth, that if he hath any power, he hath it from above; Pilate hath his Power from thence, from whence Christ hath his nativity; in a word, Daniel frights Nabuchadnezzar, that they shall make him to eat grass as the Oxen, and expresseth how long this shall continue, to wit, till thou knowest that the most High ruleth in the Kingdoms of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Dan. 4. vers. 25. that, which Nabuchadnezzar was to know by such a miserable experiment▪ was most true, and he was to know that God only made this Ordinance of man. A truth confessed by the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confirmed by the Historian especially justin out of Trogus Pompeius that at first the Governors were Monarches, and their Wills, the Laws; which could not have been, had the people been their Creators, had they not received them, & that with all the inconveniences accompanying them, as a gift of God. But you will say, No man doubts whether that God be the Author of the Magistrate, whether it be for the Lords sake, that there is government amongst men, since God is the God of order, and not of confusion; now what order would there be, where there not some under, and some above, some that were to command in chief, & others, whose duty was to obey. But the question is, whether God be the immediate Author of the Magistrate? whether as he ordains, that there shall be a Magistracy, so whether he purposeth that there shall be this kind of Magistracy, and this man Magistrate? I clear it thus. That God ordaineth Government, no man doubts, since it doth not depend upon the consent of men whether they will be governed or no, for if it did they might refuse to have any government, which were the ready way for the destruction of Mankind, whose liberty is so dangerous, that he can last no longer, than he is governed, that cannot be if he be not subject: but whether he ordaineth, that people shall be governed by one only, which rule we call a Kingdom or a Monarchy; or by the chiefest and best of the Commonwealth, which is called an Aristocracy; or lastly, by the command of the people, which goeth under the name of Democracy; and whether God at the first did invest any particular man or men in any of these forementioned kinds of government; this is disputed amongst Divines, some affirming that as Magistracy is God's Ordinance, so is the Magistrate also, others being peremptory, that as one is from God, to wit Government, so the other is from man, to wit, the kind of Governor, that so at least in some sense, the Magistrate may be termed an Ordinance of man. Man must needs have somewhat to do in his Election, otherwise if God do all in all, how is he in any respect termed man's Ordinance? But these suppose, that which Sensible men can never grant, that the Accident could be ordained without the Subject in which it is, that Magistracy could be executed without any Magistrate to execute it. Now we know that Magistracy is a thing, which cannot exist without a person, who should execute it▪ as absurd therefore it is to say, that God ordained Magistracy and not a Magistrate, as to affirm, that he made whiteness, and no Wall nor other solid body, in which it should subsist; or that he made Faith and Hope, and yet no Creature in the world, which should have Faith and Hope: if then God be the Ordainer of Magistracy, he ordains it in some Magistrate, he that executeth this Authority is from the Lord. And that upon better consideration our Adversaries will at length grant; Common sense tells them that he which institutes a Ministry, must institute a Minister; and what Schismatic would care for Episcopal jurisdiction, were there no Bishop appointed to put it in execution? So then they confess, that this power is in some subject; that God ordaining Magistracy, ordaineth a Magistrate: but they make the Subject of this power to be the people. Bell. 3. l. the Laic. ca 6. Secundò mira. But surely these men forget, what they have said before, and the proceeding in such like discourse is not to fill a book but to blot it; that which followeth being directly contrary to the former. They confess the Magistrate to be from the Law of nature, and they cannot deny but that the Law of nature as it will be of force to the end, so it was from the beginning of Mankind. But was Mankind created in Multitudes? Did not God of one blood make all Nations of men? as Saint Paul teacheth us Act. 17. 26. We know that there was a time; when there was but Adam and his wife, Cain & his brother in the world. I demand, was there then a Magistrate? if they say there was not, they must deny that Magistracy is from the Law of nature; if they say that there was, they must unsay, that the Magistracy is in the multitude, unless they will make the Accident to be before the Subject, and Magistracy in the Multitude, whilst yet there was no multitude, in which that Magistracy should be. But if they will make three a multitude, and Eve with Cain and Abel are those three, I shall again inquire, why they shall rather place the power of government in them than in Adam, since all they sprang from Adam, and even the light of nature will guide us to this truth, that they which proceed from one ought to be subject unto him from whom they proceed? There is a Divine, and he of some note too, who having made the question, whether subjects were before Princes, and ordained them; or Princes were before Subjects, and caused those to submit to their Dominion: answers, that both in regard of nature and of Time, Subjects were before Princes, and gave them their power. But to omit, that these words Subject & Prince are Relative, and so neither can be before, or after another, for as soon as ever there is a Prince, he is the Prince of some Subjects; and as soon as ever there is a Subject, he is the Subject of some Prince: to omit this I say, it seemeth when he wrote these words he had forgot the first chapters of Genesis where Adam without doubt was before his grand children, and it remaineth (an hard task for him to prove) that Adam's grandchildren chose him to be the Prince over them. But if they shall reply, that Adam's power was rather Fatherly than Princely, such an answer will prove no better than mere wind; for if it were so, yet as Saint Augustine hath well observed, Even as in speech one letter, so in government one Man est quasi Elementum Civitatis & regni, the first element, the beginning of a City and Kingdom; now one letter is before the whole speech, & the government of one man is before the government of many: in brief, a Family is ruled before a Kingdom. But it doth not from hence follow, that a Kingdom is ruled quite contrary to a Family; that whereas in a Family the Father's authority doth not depend upon the Children, in a Kingdom the Prince's authority should accrue to him by his Subjects. Besides, a Fatherly power is but over one Family, a Princely over many; they then who deny Adam's Princely Authority must confine his Authority to his own Family, must deny it to extend unto his children's children, which with what authority they do, it stands upon them to consider. But if those first times are so far removed from us, that in the search of them we can find nothing but obscurity, yet immediately after the Flood, we have evident confirmations of this truth, that one Supreme Magistrate, (call him King, or Judge, or Father etc. but one supreme Magistrate) is immediately from God, that the Lord ordaining the power, ordained the numerical person, that should execute it. Gen. 9 6. we read Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Here on all sides it is confessed, that there is an institution, or at lest a Confirmation of the Magistrate. He that kills, must be killed; but not rashly, nor by any one that lists, for the intent of the Law is to prevent murder, and such an interpretation would increase it, one would kill another, because he had killed his friend, an other would kill him for killing, and so a third him, and thus in infinitum; then to prevent this mischief, the murderer must be killed by him that is in authority, which presupposeth that there is one in Authority, who lawfully may kill him. But, who were then in the world? Surely, only Noah & his Family, amongst these we must seek the Magistrate who might lawfully shed the blood of the Murderer. In Noah's wife and Sons it could not be, we cannot imagine them to have the command of their Father, of necessity it must be in Noah, that alone Emperor of the world. So that I hope it appeareth sufficiently by this, that as the Magistracy is from God, so the Magistrate likewise; in particular by man shall the murderer's blood be shed, and, that man in those days was Noah. Is then the Magistrate the Ordinance of God? How should this inflame the Magistrate to all goodness, keep him back from all Evil, that being from God, he may be for God likewise, that he may not by his bad life call in question the Author of his Calling. Is he a Divine Ordinance? why then, as Solomon tells us, A Divine Sentence should be in the lips of the King. Proverb. 16. 10. according to that advice of jehosaphat, he saith, Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord. 2. Chr. 19 6. & we may say, that they are therefore to take heed what they do, because they judge not from man but from the Lord; he only is the Author of their power. Again, is the Magistrate, and more especially the government by one, the ordinance of God, how thankful ought we to be unto God, that out of his tender mercy hath bestowed this best and primitive kind of government upon us? There is none amongst us ignorant, What Peace, what riches, what safety, and beyond all, what a truth of the word, and for what a space of time we have enjoyed this truth: and all these blessings I dare say, next unto the merciful providence of God, we owe unto our form of government. Not that I condemn other forms, no I condemn them not, I know that there is no power but from God, only I desire leave to prefer our own, wherein we have had the so long experience of multitudes of blessings, that all Christendom put together, may well envy them, but hardly be able to show the like; In a word, God hath not dealt so with any nation; neither hath any Christian Kingdom so full a knowledge of his Favours: If then we shall despise this government which I showed you that God did institute in Adam and Noah; if contrary to the Israelites, who desired to be like to other nations by having a King we shall desire to be like other nations by not having a King, but fancy to ourself a better form of rule, if either the nobles or the people were the Magistrate; shall we not show ourselves wondrous unthankful unto God? shall we not deserve to lose his mercy for our disrepute of it? But you will say, you are not so traitorously foolish, you find, and would still enjoy the benefits of a Monarchy. Well, it is my desire, & hope that it is so, but I remember what our late King was wont to say, No Bishop, no King; as if they, who would pull down Bishops would pull down Kings likewise, & bring that parity into the Commonwealth, on which they so doted in the Church. I am sure the Anabaptists urge the same text, against the one as plausibly as they do against the other. It shall not be so among you, to wit Rule and Superiority; amongst Christians, saith the Anabaptists; amongst Ministers saith the Diseiplinarian: yet both wide enough from Christ's meaning, which is not to forbid Government, but Ambition; nor to deny them to rule at all, but so as the Princes of the Gentiles. Let us then in God's name submit unto God's ordinance, and that for the passionatenes of S. Peter's exhortation, he doth woe us unto this duty for the Lords sake: for whose sake will we do any thing, if we will not do this for the Lords sake. For the Lords sake I say, which brings me to the second General, for, that we should submit, is the will of God. But you will say that this is to rack, and not to expound the Scripture, since S. Peter doth not say, that to submit, but that to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men is the will of God. If there be any amongst you that shall be so curiously idle, I would ask of them, what thing these brethren should do, which being done would put to silence etc. surely, if they search the text, they will find it to be no other than this, their submission unto every ordinance of man. If then their submission to Authority will silence the ignorant, who seeth not, that he who affirmeth, that it is Gods will, that they shall silence the ignorant, must imply necessarily, that they must submit to Authority, since by that submission to Authority, the ignorance of the foolish would be silenced. In a word, if God would have us stop the mouths of Detractors, and the mouths of Detractors are only stopped by our obedience to the Magistrate, it followeth, that he will have us obedient to the Magistrate, that we may stop the mouth of Detractors: So than God willeth our obedience to the Magistrate. Now the places wherein God hath expressed this will of our submission, I have already abundantly handled, and they require more your practice than my repetition. But, is it the will of God, that we should submit? then the chief ground of this submission is his will; were it not for his will, for his command, it were in our choice, whether we would submit or no. I desire you to observe this the rather, because that some late Divines would bear us in hand, that God's nature, and not his Will was the rule of our goodness. Their meaning is, that then we may be said to be truly good, not when we do what God commands, but when we strive to make ourselves like God, who hath commanded us: as, we must be just because he is just, pure, because he is pure, holy, because he is holy. But I conceive this to be at best but a plausible error, I am sure, if we shall put this rule in practice, we shall never perform the duty of this text. By their rule, we must do a thing, because God doth it, than likewise, we must not do a thing, because God doth it not; now God doth not submit to any Magistrate, therefore we should not be subject neither. A goodly rule, whereby Disobedience to God's law will prove conformity to God's nature, whereby the Traitor will boast, that he is like unto God. Do we not know, that there are diverse virtues, which we cannot perform without a body? now in the exercising of them, it is impossible to be like unto the nature of God, unless we will heretically, and blasphemously in our minds paint out the Almighty with a body. If we abstain from unlawful lust, if we use temperance in our diet, discretion in our speech, moderation in our apparel, we shall exercise many virtues; yet who dares say, that in doing these things we shall comform ourselves unto the nature of God? Besides, God commanded Abraham to kill his Sonn, The Israelites to rob the Egyptians, and by strong hand to dispossess the Canaanites of their Country, which for 400. years, or more, they had quietly enjoyed, shall we imitat him in these actions? Shall we kill our children, rob our neighbours, cast strangers out of their possessions, & then discreetly soothe ourselves, that we have been imitators of God? How then can God's nature, be the rule of ouractions, which neither we can perfectly understand, and when we understand, we understand thus far, that in many things it is to be admired and not imitated. But our Saviour hath said, Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5. 43. where he seemeth to propose the perfection of our heavenly Father, as a pattern which our perfection should represent; and so our goodness will prove to be nothing else, but a resemblance of his nature. But, one Swallow they say, maketh no Summer, neither doth it follow, that because in some particular respect, we are commanded to set God for our pattern, that therefore he is to be our pattern in all things, and because that by doing one duty, I must resemble him, therefore I do no good duty, wherein I do not resemble him. Our Saviour in that place exhorts us to the love of our Enemies; this that he may the more easily allure us to, he presseth us with the example of God, who loveth his Enemies thus far forth, that he maketh his Sun to shine upon the Evil, and the Just, Matt. 5. 45. Now this would be strange, because we must do one act, and which is commanded us likewise, that in so doing we may be like unto God; therefore our goodness is not in doing that, which is commanded us, but only in being like unto God. Rather let us hearken to our Saviour, who saith, If ye love me keep my Commandments; keep my Commandments, he doth not say Imitate my Father, unless it be in some particular cases, where in imitating the Father we keep his Commandments. To the Law and to the Testimony; these, as they are the Canon of Faith, so they are the rule of goodness. In a word, the secret things belong unto God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us; they belong unto us, to make us good. Let us then in all things square ourselves unto this will of command; leave we unto God why he hath enjoined it, and let us be diligent to do that which enjoined, whether it be harsh or pleasant, whether it will make us like or not like unto God, yet if it be his will, let us do it, though they who are sent for the punishment of evil-doers, and praise of them that do well, should for our obedience punish us as evil-doers, which yet they will not do, for, it is against the end of their sending, which is etc.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1 Peter 2. 14. For the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 
WHen Isaac's servants digged one, and a second Well, the Herdsmen of Gerar strove with the Herdsmen of Isaac, Gen. 26. 20, 21. but when they came to the third, that which he called Roboboth, or Room, for that they strove not: the name of the later showeth us why they strove for the former, to wit, because in the two other there was scarce room, it would not suffice for Isaac and for them of Gerar likewise. Would you see the true Reboboth, the place where there is room enough? cast your eye upon the Scripture, more particularly upon this Text,; we have discoursed amply upon it already, and behold there is still room for more; we have showed you that you must submit from the Author of Authority, and now we must exhort you to the same duty from the the end of Authority, which is, for the punishment, etc. But sent by Him for, etc. By whom? Immediately before we read of the King, of him that is supreme. Is that He that sends the Governors for the punishment, etc. or is not he himself likewise sent unto the same end? But we read in Story, where Kings have preferred diverse men only because they would prefer them, without any respect at all unto this end; nay sometimes with a contrary respect, for the praise of evil-doers, and for the punishment of such as do well; and we are not ignorant likewise that the King, the supreme Magistrate himself, is sent for this end, for the punishment, etc. If then diverse Governors are not sent for this end by the King, and if the king be sent himself for this end by God, how cometh it that it is here said of all inferior Magistrates, and of them only that they are sent for, etc. For answer: Sent by him may be understood for, sent by the Lord, which, though not immediately, yet not far off neither, precedeth these words; and then the very Text will show us, that both King and Governor, the Supreme and He that is sent, is sent from the Lord, and howsoever they do too often violate it, yet that this was the end of their sending: But if you had rather that, sent by him, should be understood of the inferior Magistrate and the Prince, this excludeth not the Prince himself to be sent by God, and for this end too: neither doth it enforce, that he always proposeth this end unto himself in their sending, but only that this is the duty both of him that sendeth, and of him that is sent, They should punish, etc. Or lastly, why may we not say, that though it be possible and too frequent, that the chief Magistrate may mistake in the offender, as when he taketh the true Christian for an evil-doer, and thinketh he doth well which persecuteth him, and so punisheth the true Christian, and praiseth the persecutor; yet he doth aim at the discharge of his office, since he punisheth him whom he thinketh to be an evil-doer, and he praiseth him, of whom he is persuaded that he doth well. Thus whether we refer these words, Sent by him, to the Lord, which is the fuller sense; or to the King, which is the better Grammar, neither interpretation will be absurd; and the inferior Magistrate, though under a wicked Prince, may be said to be sent by him likewise, for the punishment, etc. So then in respect of two kinds of people, here is proposed to us a double end of the Magistrate: The two kinds of people are, good, and evil; the two acts of the Magistrate proportioned unto these people, are, praise, and punishment, The punishment of evil-doers, etc. I begin with the first, where we shall observe, that unto them who do ill, besides those eternal torments which are to come, temporal punishments are due likewise at the present. If this were not clear to the sense, it would abundantly be collected from this place, the Magistrate will not neglect the end of his sending, and he is sent for punishment; Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil, Rom. 2. 9 upon every soul, and every tribulation likewise; there is no person shall escape that will be wicked, and he shall escape no kind of punishment; against such God hath threatened, that he will make the heaven as iron, & the earth as brass, Deut. 28. 23. that there shall come as much rain from one, as much corn from the other, as you may look for out of Brass and Iron. Here he threatens them with famine and poverty; hath God nothing else to do think you, but to enrich transgressors? if thou art of the number of them, who go forward in their transgression, the Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the Emerods', and with the Scab, and with the Itch, whereof thou canst not be healed, Deut. 28. 27. Here he threatens such with sickness, which with the pain hath shame likewise: Who is not ashamed of Scabs and Itch? especially if they be lasting, if they be such whereof he cannot be healed? and indeed what punishment is fitter for the wicked? what can be more prudently just than this? For, why should he be well who will not be good? why should he have health, that will not have righteousness? But to come nearer to the words of the Text, to show that they shall not only be temporally punished, but punished by the Magistrate, Whosoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed. By man? by what man? surely by the Magistrate, by the ordinance of man, otherwise one man's fault would give another licence to commit the same fact; and because one private man had shed man's blood, another private man might shed his; and then to what end should God have said, Thou shalt not kill? It is the Magistrate therefore that can kill the murderer, only He, but he without doubt; for, He beareth not the sword in vain, Rome▪ 13. 4. The sword is born in vain with which we strike not, & whom should he strike with that sword but the evil-doer? Is it not fit that they whose evil is against man should be punished by man? now the evil of the wicked is against man, some in act, and all of it by example. Dost thou hate and slander thy neighbour? thou dost evil to him in act: dost thou spend too much time in good company, and art no man's foe but thine own as they term it? thou dost evil to him in example; the malicious man doth him a more sensible, but the drunkard an harm likewise: so likewise the luxurious, the proud, the Schismatic, the perfidious, or what other vice you can name contrary unto sound doctrine, whether it be by act or example, it matters not, still they do harm unto men; and shall not men punish them then? Shall Achan trouble Israel, and shall not the Lord by Israel trouble Achan this day? joshua 7. 25. Again, what can be more wisely done than to inflict upon an offender the punishment which he most feareth? Now the wicked stand most in awe of temporal punishments. The Schools have noted well, that as all sin is from, so all punishment ought to be against the will. Let the Act be never so bad, yet if my will subscribe not to it, it is more my misery than my sin; as if a mad man should kill his Father. And let the torture be never so hideous, yet if I delight in it, it is in itself a torture but to me no punishment; laesio, but not ultio, as they speak; an harm but not a revenge: Now they are only these temporal punishments of imprisonment, loss of members, and life, which the wicked stand in fear of, which come against their wills; they are frighted with death when they will be damned. There is a pretty strange place in the Psalms, that, According to thy fear so is thy wrath; or, as you usually read it, Even as a man feareth, so is thy displeasure, Psalm 90. 11. Is God's wrath no greater than our fear, do his punishments depend upon our apprehension of them? then if we fear but a little, GOD hath but a little wrath; if we have no apprehension of it at all, there is no punishment at all for us to suffer? who then would not bless himself in his evil acts? who would not strive for obduratior that so he might be without fear, if being without fear he should be without punishment▪ then the best way would be to turn Libertine whose chief perfection was, Omnes scrupulos abjicere, Bell. l. 2. ca 2. the Amiss. Grat. to cast away all scruples; and indeed who would not do so, if by so doing he might cast away all judgement, which our timorousness did bring upon us, and not God's vengeance? We must understand therefore that David speaketh of God's wrath, displeasure and judgements, not as they are in themselves, but as they are in the conceit of the ungodly: in truth his anger is beyond the sufferance of Angels, but it is conceited by the wicked like a fire of thorns, which with much noise doth soon go out. Were there then nothing else but the fear of hell to restrain them, who could live with safety by them, since they fear not that at all? Of necessity therefore there must be somewhat else, which, though in itself it be nothing near so terrible, yet in their conceit hath more power to keep them in. I remember a Story to this purpose in justin, A whole Nation went out at once to war, and left at home only their wives and slaves, and in their absence their slaves marry their wives, and enjoy all that they had left, so that at their return in stead of a welcome they had a repulse from their own houses; to make short, Masters and Slaves come to battle, where the Slaves were hard enough for their Masters: in brief, against the next day the Masters take counsel, and in stead of coming into the field with swords, every man had provided his whip ready; upon the unexpected sight of these, the slaves instantly ran away, as being frighted with that, with which they were so often before punished. The sword is more terrible than the whip, yet those slaves run away from the whip, which could not be frighted with the sword; and damnation is infinitely more fearful than any torture of the Magistrate, and yet many may abstain from evil for fear of those tortures, which care not for damnation; which will run upon the sword, but away from the whip. Lastly, S. Austin hath given a good reason why temporal punishments should be inflicted on the ungodly; for, saith he, if nothing should be punished in this world, God's justice would not be known at all; and if all things should be punished here, than God would not be thought to be just hereafter: that therefore the world might know his justice, he causeth diverse to suffer in this world, especially by him that is sent for punishment. But than you will say, they are punished twice for the same fault, and what justice can there be in that? I reply, that every offence in itself merits eternal damnation, and so, that no man can be punished twice for the same fault, since if for one fault only he should be punished for ever, every day's torment would be but a part of his one punishment. Is it so then that unto them who do evil, temporal punishments are due, and that from the Magistrate; what then shall we say to those mild Magistrates that will not punish, but rather reward the evil-doers? sure these do not consider, that in the Ark there was laid up as well Aaron's rod, as a pot of Manna; why therefore will they have nothing but sweetness, but Manna for their Inferiors, when a Rod will be needful for the wicked? The old Egyptians figured GOD by an Eye and by an Hand, by an Hand as well as by an Eye, and by an Hand immediately under the Eye: If the Eye did signify his Providence, it nothing hinders that the Hand should intimate his severity; God is an eye therefore he can see all wickedness, and God is an hand underneath that eye, and therefore he will punish that wickedness which he doth see; why then should any Magistrate whom GOD hath called god, imitate him but in one of these? why should he content himself with the eye, when the hand is expected from him, & think it enough that he can find out lewd practices, if it be not his intent to be revenged of them? A wise King (saith Solomon) scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them, Prov. 20. 27. This scattering proceeds from his wisdom, not from his cruelty; there may be terror, but there is no injustice in such a wheel. If a body be full of corrupt humours, will you say it is cruelty to take a Purge? or, if the blood be overheated, is he an enemy that opens a vein? These than should know, that necessary severity is the commonwealths purge, and seasonable execution is the opening of the kingdoms vein. Did David's guard consist only of the Pelethites? did not the Cherethites belong unto that number also? as you may read, 2 Sam. 15. 18. A Pelethite signifies a deliverer, and a Cherethite a killer; now David's guard consists as well of the killers as of the deliverers. Let those Magistrates than consider with themselves, whether half of David's guard be enough; whether it will suffice to have the Pelethite without the Cherethite, the deliverer without the killer. Indeed it was an old saying, Romani ignoscendo crescunt; The Romans obtain their Empire by their mercy; their pardoning of others advanceth them, & it holds good still: the Romans increase by their pardons, their indulgences do principally reflect homewards, & they would not be so rich, were they not so gracious. Indeed mercy raised them, but not to punish incorrigible evil-doers, is not mercy, was not their mercy: had it been, what S. Peter complaineth in the Church, would have been verified in their commonwealth, Quamta putamus impunitas ista parturiret punienda; How many things that ought to be punished would that want of punishment have brought forth? After a great drought Elijah at length heard the sound of abundance of rain, but it was after he had destroyed all the Priests of Baal, 1 Kings 18. 42. to teach them that are in authority, that if they will look for favour, they must, where it is deserved, show severity; if they will have rain, they must when occasion serveth, give blood. But, so they shall show themselves cruel men, men of blood? No such matter; let them hear what the same Elijah says in another place, If I am a man of God let fire come down from heaven and consume thee and thy fifty, 2 Kings 1. 10. as if the consuming of the wicked were the only testimony of a man of God; as if such a punishment did make one not an harsh, not a cruel, but a divine man. And if they are thus reprovable who will not punish, what are they who will reward the evil-doer▪ as some have set a price upon drunkenness; the Spartans' rewarded theft, if it were cunning, and the thief was rather punished for his bodging than for his felony; because he was unskilful, not because he was unjust. And no doubt many such there are at this day, who invert their office, who punish and praise, but the contrary way, who punish those whom they should praise, and praise those whom they should punish; as too many are suffered and encouraged, and that by some of the civil Magistrates in their opposition to the Church's discipline: but these should think of the doom of Ely, his children he corrupted not, neither did he exhort them unto evil to be done, neither did he reward them for doing it, nay, he reproved them likewise, and that with those words which are full of gravity and holiness; yet because he went no farther, because he so remembered he was a father that he forgot he was a Judge, the Lord would suffer him to be no longer Judge nor father; and so because he would not be troublesome, he proveth pernicious to his children: His reproof is not enough; and dost thou think that thy soothing, thy flattering of men in their offences is not too much? especially since his weakness may be somewhat excused by fatherly affection, which, as Chrysostome saith, is a kind of natural tyranny; when thine can have no other name but a devilish corruption. Again, must the Magistrate punish the wicked? why then let me entreat all those who as yet are not reform, to see in what a dangerous estate they are that are in no safety, whether they look up to the heaven, or remove out their eyes from the earth? if they look upward, there they may see God writing grievous things against them, sealing their iniquity in a bag, and treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath for them; if they look downward, there the Magistrate hath prisons, racks, halter's and swords for them, what then shall they do, when for being of the world God hateth them, and yet the world doth not love these that are of the world? Indeed if they could persuade God to be like unto them, which the Psalmist saith they foolishly imagine, they then needed not to care what man could do unto them, or if they could effect that the Magistrate would not punish them, it would prove a kind of Reprieve unto them, though no pardon; but now that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, and the Magistrate on earth beareth not his sword in vain, when the one will judge, and the other must punish, in what straits is the evil-doer placed? A child, if either the father or mother be fond of it, will be wanton, but if both frown, it will be ruled; nay, a dog, as long as there is any to set him on, will be violent, but quiet enough if he see all against him: The wicked then are more sottish than Children, or the very beasts; who, though God and man oppose them, will not give over to be wicked. Lastly, must the Magistrate punish the wicked? is it the end of his Office? was he ordained for that purpose? wherefore then should the wicked be offended with the Magistrate for punishing of them? He is a madman who would be angry with the fire because it did burn, the water because it doth moisten, the earth because it doth dry; & the reason is, because drying, moistening and burning were the end of the earth, the water and the fire; they are made for those purposes: Certainly then his judgement is to be called in question, who is angry with the Magistrate for his just punishment; when one end of the Magistrate is to punish justly. Great Malefactors on the Scaffold and the Block, forgive their Executioners; and why? because they do nothing but what they are commanded: Is it sufficient for their forgiveness that they are commanded by the Magistrate, and is it not more sufficient for the forgiveness of the Magistrate, that he is commanded by God to punish thee? Whosoever then by his deserts, whether for drunkenness, filching, or faction hath been punished by the civil or Ecclesiastical Magistrate, let him not blame them, but his own self; and with the good Thief, Luke 23. 41. affirm, We indeed justly suffer, for we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this Ordinance of man hath done nothing amiss for punishing us according to our deeds. And if Magistrates are not to be hated for punishing, neither are they, who, by their Office and place, are to certify the Magistrate of our offences, that they may punish us, since the Magistrates Office is to punish the evil-doer, and if he do not know him, he cannot punish him; and, unless he be informed, he cannot know him: And yet how many are there, that if after all other ways tried, they are complained of to the higher powers, suppose it be for faction, for dividing the Church, for making new Parishes of their own head, etc. are so far from reforming themselves, that they hate him who would reform them; and cannot endure neither the Magistrate which is to punish, nor him who informed the Magistrate: If any such be here, I would advise them, that if they cannot take away their hatred, yet they would place it rightly, and that against their offence, that so they may be bettered, and not against the Magistrate, that so they may increase their judgement. Well then, the Magistrates duty it is to punish: But here you will first ask me, why the Apostle when he speaketh of punishment and praise, sets the punishment of the evil-doer, before the praise▪ etc. which seemeth to be quite contrary to God's method? The Angel cryeth in the Revelation, Hurt not the earth, nor the Sea, nor the trees, before we have sealed the servants of our God in the foreheads, Revel. 7. 3. Here is sealing before hurting, here is a preventing of the harm of the godly, before God will inflict any punishment upon the wicked: And so, the Angel can do nothing till Lot be out of Sodom; the good man must be praised, must be delivered before the punishment of those evil-doers. Why then doth not the Magistrate imitate God? why doth he punish first? it may be it is to intimate the corruption of the subject, who is so bad, that if he have a Magistrate, the first thing that that Magistrate can do, is to punish; or, to express the nature of many Magistrates, who had rather be feared than loved, Quibus Gratiaon●●i, etc. as the Historian observeth, who, whensoever they will praise, they will first be sure to punish. Again, is punishment due to evil-doers, and but praise to the good? but punishment is somewhat real, when praise is nothing but a word; are words sufficient reward for the well-doers? I take it the Holy Ghost doth thus express himself, either because that the covetousness of great ones is such, that at most they do but praise, they do not bountifully reward the well-doer; or, he so speaketh to raise up the weldoer to the expectation of an heavenly Crown, & in that respect he would have him content himself, though for all his good deeds upon earth he have no other reward than praise: Or lastly, praise may be taken for reward in general, since, whosoever is rewarded for any good act, is, in that reward, praised; the Magistrate and all good men praise him whom they see worthy of a reward for goodness: and thus to reward the good, the Magistrate was ordained: where I shall be very brief. This, Scripture, reason, Christian and Heathen Authority make good; all agree in this verdict, that the great are to respect the good, that the Ordinance of man is to praise the well-doer. what then shall we think of those great ones, who are so far from praising, that they disgrace; from rewarding that they injure the well-doer? Such as Caligula, who put his friend to death for giving him good counsel, Qui officium ut contumeliam excepit, saith Philo; who esteemed his duty to be no other than contempt: or such as Heliogabulus, who being himself given to incredible sensuality, and willing to bring up his Successor in the like, banished all the Philosophers from Court, upon a pretence that they did debauch and corrupt him, as if luxury had been the only prevention, and the sole way to be spoilt were to be bettered: Such have forgot their end, which is to reward, and praise, not to injure nor dishonour goodness. And must well-doers be praised by greatness? who then would not be a well-doer, a meek, a peaceable, a conscionable man, if not that he may be saved, yet at least that he may be praised; if not for the good hopes from his God, yet for the good word of the humane Ordinance? Wilt thou not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, Rom. 13. 3. there is no medium between fear and praise; the Magistrate frights him whom he doth not honour, and he must honour all that do well. Do well then, and that because in so doing thou shalt be praised, because in so doing the Magistrate will praise thee. Who is there that is not affected with praise? who is there almost, who when he cannot be drawn to any act by profit, cannot easily be persuaded unto it by glory? in so much that Tacitus observeth of Thrasea Pato, otherwise a very rigid man, that he was somewhat, desirous of glory; Quando etiam sapientibus cupido gloriae movissima exuitur; where he affirmeth, that they who care for nothing else, care for this. Oh then, why will we not strive to be well-doers, when we shall be praised for for it, which you should strive to be if we were dispraised for it? but for it we shall be praised by Princes; Princes which did sit and speak against David, shall speak for us if we do meditate in God's Statutes. Many seek the Ruler's favour, Proverbs, 29. 26. It is there an accusation, but thus it may be advice, if that favour be to be obtained by goodness: in the mean time it showeth us what all desire, and how joyful Haman will be the only subject that is invited to Queen esther's banquet. But yet if man should neglect thee, which yet he ought not to do, he was ordained for this end, to praise; yet GOD will never fail thee; with him there is always a reward for the righteous: To him therefore, the Father, etc.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1 Pet. 2. 15. That with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 
THE motives by which S. Peter would persuade to obedience, are drawn from Heaven and earth, from God and from man. From God, Submit for the Lords sake: from man, and him either above you, the Magistrate, which we have handled already; or, against you▪ your enemy, which we are now to handle: or lastly, your own selves, of which hereafter. Now than we must obey, and that for our enemy's sake: as if S. Peter should have said, Hath God ordained the Magistracy? hath he ordained it for such necessary ends, and will you not yet submit? why then, where reason will not prevail, let fear do it; if you will not submit for the Lord, submit atlest for your enemy's sake— Aliquisque malo siet usus in illo; for your enemy's sake I say, that so by welldoing ye may put to silence the ignorance of those foolish men. Where we shall observe three propositions. 1. That foolish men are commonly speaking evil of the good. 2. That the ground of this evil-speaking, is their ignorance. 3. That we must silence them; and how? 1. Foolish men, etc. It is clear from the Text, 
Prop. 1.  we are commanded to silence them, but we cannot silence them who do not speak; as blindness presupposeth sight, and silence of necessity implieth a former speaking. The foolish then speak evil, etc. Be merciful unto me, O God, saith the Prophet; and why? for man would swallow me up; Psalm. 56. 1. the word in Hebrew signifieth, doth breathe against me: what is this breathing, but his evil-speaking? and it is so terrible to him as if that breathing were a swallowing up. They made me pay that which I owed not, Psal. 67. 4. The Fathers interpret the place of Christ, and make this the meaning, that he which knew no sin was made sin for us; he owed no punishment, to wit, for himself, and yet he paid it. This exposition I reprove not, and yet the words may make for our present purpose. What they speak of punishment in general, and of Christ, give me leave to apply to defamation in particular, and of the faithful; they deserve no evil speeches, yet they shall not want them; they shall pay those bad words which they do not owe: Otherwise, if it were not thus, if it were not so lamentable to be thus, the Psalmist would never have complained, My soul is amongst Lions, and I lie even amongst them that are set on fire, even the sons of men. Here you see the sons of men are put in the last, in the aggravating place; as if it were more dangerous to lie amongst men than amongst Lions, and why so? truly, because their teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword, Psalm. 57 4. It is not enough that their tongue be a weapon, unless it be weapons, and that not of defence only, but of offence also nay, it must offend both at hand and a far off likewise: it contents them not, that it is a sword to hurt them that are near, unless it be a spear and an Arrow which can harm at a farther distance. Indeed, what distance can secure us from it, when they set their mouth against the Heavens, and their tongue walketh throughout the earth; in so much that a man can almost as well hide himself from God's presence, as from its malice. Indeed such men show that they are of near kin to the Serpent, whose chiefest mischief is in his mouth. Take out the teeth of a Snake, and you may put it in your bosom; make it so gentle, and tender Ladies will make a Playfellow of their terror: And so if these men's tongues were gone, they would be far more tractable; as long as those remain, they account them their own, and they will use them at their pleasure. In a word, SOLOMON saith, Every fool will be meddling, as otherwise oftentimes, so always with his tongue. Doth not Joseph's Mistress impute that fault to joseph, whereof herself is guilty? doth she not speak against his lust, whereof she was desirous? The Hebrew servant which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me, Gen. 39 13. where I take no notice of her womanly malice, or cunning, that would make her husband Author of all the mischief, (Which thou broughtest unto us; here would have been no mischief, hadst not thou brought it in:) to pass by that, I say, you see she would make her husband believe, that whosoever had brought him in, had consulted shame to his house; had brought in an Adulterer, and not a servant: And yet by the way, see how she betrayeth herself in her own speech; how she accuseth herself in that solemn speech wherein she would lay the fault on joseph: To mock, to deceive one, is to do that which he expected not, or not to do that which he expected. Potiphars' wife then confessing that joseph came in to mock her, doth withal confess, that he came in not to do that which she expected; now she expected, she hoped that he would have committed folly with her; so that in accusing she absolveth him: his coming in had been guilty, if he had not come in to mock her. How ready is the Devil to speak ill, at least to mince, to extenuate jobs well-doing? Doth job serve God for nought? as who should say, A great piece of service! if he serveth thee, thou rewardest him; nay, thou rewardest him first before he serveth thee; hadst thou no reward thou shouldst have no service: Hast thou not made an hedge about him? saith he, Verse 10. Doth he serve thee? certainly he can do no otherwise, thou hast taken order that he cannot be a fugitive, that he cannot run away from thy service, thy hedge will keep him well enough in for that. Nay, all that tedious discouse of jobs friends harps only upon this, they conclude his wickedness from his sores; they see he is exceeding miserable, and hence infer, that he must needs be exceeding sinful. And though words are wind, and quickly fly away, yet these words remain even at this time; otherwise how should that of S. james hold good, that a bad tongue sets on fire the whole course or wheel of nature, as it is in the Greek, if that part of the wheel which runs in our time were free from it? But we see, that if a man oppose faction, foolish people will give out, that he opposeth religion; if he cause some seditious persons to be punished for hearing, where they should not, it shall be given out, that he is an enemy of the Word, that he punisheth them for hearing. But here we must observe, that all are not foolish who speak evil of others, no more than all are Saints of whom evil is spoken. Of a man that is a perpetual drunkard, swearer, or irreformably seditious, good cannot be spoken, if we speak the truth; and such cannot with any colour challenge righteousness unto them upon this ground, because they are spoken against: I therefore point at this, because there are a generation in the world that do much abuse this doctrine, that when ever they hear that foolish men speak against the righteous, they take it for granted, that they are the righteous, and those are foolish wicked people that speak against them, whilst yet in the mean time they live in manife opposition against authority, and when they are censured one day, for a fault, like the drunkard in the Proverb, the next day they commit it again. If you tell these, that these courses tend unto schism, their reply is, That by that which we call schism they worship the God of their Fathers; if we say, they are seditious for doing so, oh say they, men will speak evil of the righteous, as of evil-doers; thus applying all those Scriptures, which the Apostles, in a good cause, have used against the Jews and Heathen, in their bad cause against Christian & Ecclesiastical Magistrates. But do not they see that they say no other thing than any damnable Heretic would allege for himself in the like case? Tell the Anabaptist, Familist or Papist, that most of their opinions have a strong sent of heresy; what will be readier in their mouths than, You call it heresy, but we know that it is the worship of the God of our Fathers? so than you see that it is not enough to urge the Text, but to have a title, a just right to urge it, which I deny that any seditious Archdisciplinarian hath; the reason is manifest: that falsely called heresy was the true worship of God, but they shall never be able to make their schism to be any part of the worship of God; for indeed, how specious soever, it is against it: I instance in voluntary absenting after admonition from their own Church: God hath not commanded them to absent themselves, therefore their absenting is no part of his worship; and the Magistrate hath commanded them to present themselves there, which nevertheless they will not do, which must needs be against God's worship, since that is against his worship which is against his command, and it is against his command to disobey the Magistrate. When then we shall see such hate to be reform, they must pardon us if we call them what they are, I hope they will not count us foolish, if we shall say, that in so doing they are evil-doers: But, though this Text maketh nothing for the factious, it maketh for the good, they have the greater encouragement to persuade themselves that they are good, because they are spoken against by foolish men; why then should they be dejected with such speeches▪ such speeches are but part of their momentany affliction, and that petite affliction shall work a far more excellent and eternal weight of glory. In Exod. 24. 10. God sets his feet upon a paved work of a Sapphire stone, the word in Hebrew is, Of a Brick, which had the shape of a Sapphire stone. Wherefore was this apparition of God? surely, for the comfort of his people, to show that after their bondage they should have glorious liberty; their Brick with which they were plagued in Egypt should be changed into Sapphire stones: He suffered thee to hunger, and he fed thee with Manna, Deut. 8. 3. Why after hunger doth he presently make mention of Manna? surely for no other reason but either because that hunger was Manna, that affliction was a blessing to them; or because that hunger should get them a better stomach to their Manna, their affliction should make them only more sensible of their blessing. And obseve the phrase, it is, He suffered thee to hunger, but he fed thee, etc. as if the cross were but by permission, only the blessing were God's act. And here we may be the more ravished with that mercy, which would not so much as suffer our hunger, if it were not to feed us with Manna, he would not permit that men should speak evil of us for his name's sake, but to the end that he might make us blessed. And hereupon it is, that whereas we read, Deep calls upon deep, because of thy water-spouts, Psal. 42. 7. which are expounded for miseries and crosses, it may be read, Deep, etc. because of thy Pipes, thy music, as if miseries to God's children were to no other end, than that they should be his music. David saith of the wicked, especially of his evill-speakers, The Plowers ploughed upon my back, Psalm. 129. 3. You will easily understand this of the tormenting of David; the ground is as it were tormented when it is torn, when it is ploughed up; but what if it be for the comforting of David? It will seem strange, but yet the ground would not be fruitful were it not ploughed, and David would not have been so good, had he not been afflicted; thus to injure was to right him, thus to tear him was to make him whole: And therefore Chrysostome wittily calls the wicked, The husbandmen of the righteous, Hom. 4. ad pop. Ant. the Husbandman ploughs the ground, these the righteous; ploughing maketh the ground fruitful, affliction the righteous; & will any man be dismayed with that by which he is made the more fruitful? But if foolish men speak against thee, beware that thou dost not become one of those foolish men, and speak evil again, that thou mayst give him as good as he brings, as too commonly and foolishly they use to say. The same Chrysostome saith, A woman dispraiseth thee, wilt thou turn woman? as if to use or return bad speeches were to fall down from the nobleness of our Creation, and to new mould us into women; and therefore David when he would reprove Abishai, who whetted him unto revenge against Shimei, for his evil-speaking, saith, What have I to do with you ye sons of Zerviah? 2 Sam. 16. 10. he calls them from their mother, not from their father; to show, that they who are too impatient of evil speeches, have too much of the mother remaining in them. We read that Annah suffered harsh speeches from Peninnah, we do not read that she did return them; we hear the one objecting barrenness unto her, and we find it true too, but it is of reproaches not of children. Neither is it any excuse for thee, that another begun first; for if one rail, and thou railest against him, what difference is there between you, but only in the time? he first, and thou after, but both of you do rail. Now Tertullian hath acutely said, Nulla in maleficio ordinis ratio; God hath no regard of order in evil-doing; thou shouldest not do ill, no though thou be the last that doth it. Doth this seem strange? then that of S. Basil will amaze us, in his judgement, He that returneth evil speeches is more faulty than he that began to speak evil; for, saith he, such an one hath time to consider the deformity and ugliness of the fault in another, & yet nevertheless he dareth go forward in it, in so much that he useth his enemy for his teacher; (he doth that which he seeth him do before him) nay, he carrieth his image in his countenance, whose hatred in his heart, that so he may be as it were a lookingglass of his adversary. And indeed, bad words are as burning coals, put one by itself upon a pavement, and he will do little hurt, but add others to him, they will flame then; who then is the occasion of the flame but he that added the other coals? So, let there be a bad word unanswered, there is one single burning coal which will do no great hurt, but reply, you add many other burning coals, you are the occasion of the mischief. Chrysostom's similitude is excellent, Hom. 11. in 1. Epist. ad Thess. If two doors directly against the other stand open, and the wind blow fiercely, shut one of them and thou shalt take away all the power of the wind: There are two doors, saith he, thine enemy's mouth, and thine own; shut thine own and thou hast taken away the greatest power of that stormy wind and tempest. Again, who would willingly do that which his enemy would have him? now thine enemy's desire is to grieve thee, and to make thee confess that thou art grieved, Idcirco quis te laedit ut doleas, quia fructus laedentis in dolore laesi est, saith Tertullian, If then all the benefit of the hurter be in the grief of him that is hurt, grieve not, rave not, and thou hast made him lose all the benefit that he hoped for. And in this respect Hagar is to be preferred before Sarah, for she by her harsh speeches amongst the rest, caused her to fly; but Hagar being demanded of the Angel the reason of her flight, giveth no bad word of her Mistress; she doth not say, She hath turned me out of doors, but, I went away from my Mistress; as if she had rather confess herself a fugitive, than her Mistress cruel. Let then the so often before mentioned Chrysostome close this point, where he exhorts unto suffering, his words shall be mine, Non exeas, etc. in this case of evil-speaking, Go not forth to fight, and thou hast overcome, strive not and thou art crowned. But then, what discomfort is here to those evill-speakers? They should consider, that even Heathen Philosophers term those things which are the fountains of these speeches, Passions, and not actions; as envy and malice the ground of evil speaking in their language are passions of the mind; that we might learn, that when ever we were envious and malicious, etc. we ourselves did rather suffer than inflict harm upon others. Was not the Viper burned that leapt upon Paul's hand? the Text saith, He shook it off into the fire: & all these viperous mouths which are filled with the venom of evil-speaking, they may touch Paul, but they shall burn themselves, and that with fire unquenchable, if they repent not; since we read, that the reward of such tongues is a sharp Arrow, to show the swiftness, and hot-burning coals; or, out of the Hebrew, juniper coals, to show the lasting of their judgement. In a word, the good man is called a stone, a lively stone, as I have already showed; now they that bite a stone hurt their own teeth, & not that which they would bite; they are but Curs, & those foolish ones too, that will wear their teeth out against stones. For shame or fear then at last, leave off this evil speaking, especially since by continuing it thou shalt but show thyself a fool, since the principal foundation of it is but ignorance. 2. Proposition. Here I could show 
Prop. 2.  you their ignorance of God, and how they opened their mouth against the Saints, their ignorance of themselves likewise, who, as Esau for jacob, so themselves likewise are made for the service, and nor for the contemning of the faithful; but I will now only insist upon their ignorance of the godly, we need seek no farther for the ground of all their evil speeches. Now it is most manifest that they do not know them; God, we know, doth esteem them as gold, as Jewels, as precious stones, nay, he hath called them his peculiar treasure, such of whom he glorieth, and that to Satan the accuser of the brethren. We find that the fine linen in the Revelation is the righteousness of the Saints; how then doth God respect their persons, to whom he giveth such rich clothes? How shall not they which are arrayed with this soft clothing, be of the Palace of the great King? Thus it is manifest he respects them highly, when on the other side the world thinketh of none so basely as of them; they account them worms and not men, the outcasts of the people, the off-scouring of the earth: If they see them sorrowful, they say they are disdainful; if they see them merry, they affirm than they are mad, all their actions shall be interpreted the wrong way; and what would not be taken notice of in another, shall be sufficient to condemn them. What can be more contrary than the estimation which God and the world have of the same people? Now we know, that the judgement of the Lord is most true, (and therefore diverse times the Holy Ghost in Scripture, when he would affirm that a thing was done indeed, affirmeth, that it was done before the Lord, as, Noah walked uprightly before the Lord, etc. that is, he was upright indeed, he appeared so in his eyes, which no affection can blind:) so then the judgement of the Lord being true, and their judgement of the same persons being so thwart, so contradictory to the judgement of God, it appeareth that their judgement is most false; if God knoweth, then certainly they must needs be ignorant of the righteous. S. Paul saith of the Jews, that had they known him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; and we may say of the wicked, that had they not been ignorant of them, they would never have so grossly defamed the most beloved servants of the Lord of glory, nor reproached the footsteps of Gods anointed. Oh the glory of the righteous, of whom no man could speak ill if he did know them; unto whose fame nothing is required but their knowledge! whom, whosoever reproacheth, must in that reproach his own self, must confess his own ignorance▪ But, oh the folly of the wicked, which will hate them of whom they are ignorant! who will open their mouth to the contumely of those, to whose praise (if they knew them) their mouths ought to be more open▪ We know that they do not know the righteous, and yet we know that they speak evil of those whom they do not know; Cum oderint & ignorent, as Tertullian, they hate those of whom they are ignorant, when they should rather hate their own ignorance, and strive to love and know them. But was ignorance the ground of their evil speeches? surely, we shall bewray our own ignorance, if we lay no other ground for them: without doubt, living together, they could not choose but know their meekness, their patience, their contentedness; and therefore when they spoke against them, they spoke of purpose, not of ignorance. Saint Paul saith, He obtained mercy because he did it (that is, he persecuted the Church) out of ignorance: not that ignorance was the cause of mercy, not that GOD therefore did know S. Paul, because S. Paul would not know his people; but because his ignorance being not affected, excused him à tanto, though not à toto, because he should not have obtained mercy so easily, had he done it of purpose, and not of ignorance. Why then of these enemies of goodness is no more said than that their enmity was ignorance? Perchance because S. Peter would show that he did slight them; as who should say, They speak grievous things against you, but take them not to heart, they are but fools for their labour, and you should suffer fools gladly. The heart of the foolish proclaimeth foolishness, Prov. 12. 23. It is most certain, that what ever cometh into their hearts they will proclaim, but who careth for a fool's proclamation? or rather it is our Apostles charity maketh him speak thus, and not his indignation; it is unlikely but that amongst so many evill-speakers, some speak evil out of malice; and yet because he would not seem to despair of any of them, he saith, that they do it out of ignorance. When God had commanded Ezekiel to speak to the rebellious house, he again commands him to speak to them, And be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house, Ezek. 2. 8. S. Peter, where he taxeth their evil-speaking, speaketh but mildly of it; as if God had said unto him, Be not thou a bad speaker like unto these bad speakers. Doth Saint Peter use the Heathen so gently, and shall we be harsh unto Christians? doth he make the best of the enemy's actions, and shall we make the worst of our brethren's? Rather, if they do an indifferent act, let us think they do it out of a good mind; & if we see that it be bad, let us not make the worst of it; let us not say, quite contrary to S. Peter, that it was out of malice, when, for aught we know, it was but out of ignorance. But though we must not make the worst of our adversaries, we must do the best that we may for ourselves; we must silence it howsoever, whether it be from malice, or but simple ignorance. 3. Proposition. The 
Prop. 3.  word in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to muzzle, and is used by the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5. 18. We must not muzzle the Ox which treads out, but here we must muzzle those wild Bulls which tread down the corn: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render ignorance, Clement Alexand. readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we may render, work; as if, either those foolish men did work nothing but ignorance, or, if we did well, we should thereby take order that they should do nothing, that they should be without work: Not that we must use any violence against them, like him that sealed up the mouth of one that railed against him; not that we must strive for the last word, and gain the victory by our good sides, not by our good manners; no, this silencing must not be physical, but moral; we must do such good acts, and so often, that they can speak no more against us, than if indeed they were become speechless; and this the Text tells us is effected by well-doing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It was well-doing made them first speak against us for envy; and now they must be silenced by the lustre, by the frequency of our well-doing. Now well-doing is either taken for a particular duty, for our obedience to the Magistrate, or universally, for our faith, hope, patience, for all our duties both towards God or man. If we understand the word in the first sense (which is most literal and shall be hereafter proved at the next Verse) we may conceive how highly God esteemeth of our loyal submission, how he counts it in effect all our duty; how he termeth it well doing indefinitely, as who should say, If we did so, we could not do ill. But if we understand the word in the second sense, we shall then find, that only virtuous and religious actions, & all of them too, (they will not serve the turn single) can silence the ignorance of foolish men. Wouldst thou then not be spoken evil of? canst thou not endure to hear disgraceful speeches? do well, do nothing else but well, do it constantly; upon these terms God is not silent, that thine enemy will be silent. When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh his enemies to be at peace with him, Pro. 16. 7. and surely they will not speak evil of them, with whom they are at peace. In vain then dost thou strive, whilst thou art yet bad, by Authority, power of friends, or by bribes to stop the mouth of thy detractors; thou must never look to compass that by evil-doing, which is the reward of doing well. But I told you that the word here did not so much signify to silence, as to muzzle; indeed the difference is not great, for he that is muzzelled will keep silence, and yet some there is. We do use commonly to muzzle the mouths of such beasts of which we are afraid, as of Bears, and such like; which whilst they are so held, are tractable, but dangerously unruly if they get loose. What then will you think of those who shall unmuzzle them? will you not suppose, that they throughly deserve all the inconveniences which they shall suffer,? And yet this is the case of every negligent Christian, of the secure Professor: only well-doing, universal, perpetual well-doing muzzles up the mouths of these beasts: If then we fail in either of these respects, if we do some bad actions; who seeth not then that we unmuzzle them, that we open their mouth to our own devouring. And this may be the reason that GOD would punish David, even where he pardoned him; in one Verse we read, Thou shalt not die; and in the next Verse, Nevertheless, because thou hast given great occasion to the enemy of the Lord to blaspheme, thy child, etc. shall surely die, 2 Sam. 12. 14. As if God could have freely forgiven him, had he not caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; as if it had been a greater crime to unmuzzle them, than to unman, to kill Vriah. Let us then be wary of this fault, and let not our bad lives open those mouths, which our good lives should silence; and if we live well we shall silence them. Say ye unto the righteous, it shall be well with them, Esa. 3. 10. it shall be well with them in this respect likewise, that they shall be well spoken of. Indeed, this is not frequent; many would not believe it, did not the Lord again and again repeat it, did he not give an express charge that the Prophet should say so. But, since he hath said it, it must be, nay, more likewise; whatsoever man saith of them, the Angels shall never cease to praise GOD for their conversion, and them for their. obedience.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1. Pet. 2. 16. As free and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the Servants of God. 
WE are at length come to the last motive, which S. Peter useth, and that is drawn from their own selves. If neither because God is the Author of the Magistrate, nor because the Magistrate is ordained for praise and punishment, nor because upon the neglect of this, your foolish enemies will cry out against you; if for none of these reasons you will submit, yet consider what yourselves are, what yourselves call yourselves, the Servants of God: Now than a Servant must do that which his Master will have him, and your God, your Master will have you to submit unto the Magistrate; howsoever than you are free, yet you are God's Servants, and therefore, upon his command, to submit; otherwise you shall be Atheists, as well as Traitors; by not honouring the King you shall show that you fear not God. Or, which I will now insist upon, these words do not so much contain a motive to obedience, as they satisfy an Objection, which might be made against the necessity of obedience. Should we submit, might they have said? but we are free, what hath freedom to do with submission? Saint Peter therefore grants their proposition, but denieth their Inference, he denieth not that they are Free, but he denieth that their Freedom is incompatible with Submission to Princes, nay he concludeth that therefore they must submit, because they are Free; this Bondage is very natural unto their liberty, as I shall hereafter show you. So that this shall be our Method for the present 1. S. Peter's Grant, You are Free. 2. The limitation and restraint of this Grant, which is double. 1. That we must not abuse our Freedom, not using your Liberty etc. 2. That for all our Freedom we must know, that we are Servants, as the Servants of God. As free and not using etc. Then whosoever is a Christian is Free, Freedom is annexed unto Christianity. But before I show you the Christians Freedom, it will not be amiss to make it appear, what a desired thing it is, to be free: it is indeed most desirable, and therefore S. Paul where he speaketh of liberty, knoweth not what better Epithet to bestow upon it than that of glorious, Rom. 8. 21. the glorious liberty of the Sons of God. Adam was content to exchange his innocence for his liberty, and had rather not be immortal than not Free. Not that Adam got a liberty by sinning, for he ran into a most miserable slavery, but because so the Devil persuaded, and such was the presumption of his folly: Ye shall be like Gods, faith the Tempter; now They are most Free. And therefore Heathen Philosophers have termed man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we should render it, one who is under his own rule, and certainly such an one cannot complain of want of liberty. Yet I am persuaded that they could not think that this was true, but that they imagined it was fit; it could not be convenient in their opinions, that so excellent a Creature should not be free, & only under his own rule. Nay, the Jews themselves were so in love with this liberty, that they would boast of it, even when they had it not, as if they could have more willingly heard any other reproach, than the want of that. When our Saviour said unto them The truth shall make you free. joh. 8 32. they in a great fume reply, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage unto any man; to be made I'ree supposed that now they were not Free, and they could not endure to hear of that. We were never in bondage under any man? Why? but at this very instant, they were under the bondage of the Romans, who had lately conquered them, and made a Province of their Kingdom. We were never in bondage under any man? But when the wind turneth we shall have you cry, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, and, was not that a part of your bondage? &, we have no King but Caesar, & had not He taken away your liberty from you? if you were conquered how then are you yet Free? if the Roman yoke lie heavy upon you, how can you deny that you are under bondage? It may be that they said so because the Romans had suffered them to retain many of their former privileges, which they called liberty, showing by that esteem of the shadow, how highly they would have valued a true liberty. All then being so desirous of liberty, we shall speak no mean thing of the Christian, when we shall show that he is Free. Stand fast in the liberty, saith S. Paul to his Galathians 5. 1. therefore he presupposeth that they are Free; a man cannot stand fast, no nor at all, in that which he hath not. In the former mentioned place of S. john, our Saviour tells them, that if they know the truth, the truth shall make them free. What is the truth but Christian Religion? and this all Professors are supposed to know. For the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ jesus hath made me free Rom. 8. 2. wheres, as we take notice of the author of this liberty, the Spirit of life, together with the instrument by which he effects it, the Law of the Spirit of life; so likewise we should not forget the Subject, in which it is effected, to wit Him, to whom there is no Condemnation; Him, who is in Jesus Christ. How often in the New Testament do we read, that we are bought, that Christ hath redeemed us? God sent his Son to redeem them that were under the Law. Gal. 4. 4, 5. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in jesus Christ Rom. 3. 24. He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us, Tit. 1. 14. now as redemption taketh away our pride; they were slaves who are redeemed; so it confirmeth our gratitude, they who are redeemed are Free. Men have freedom either by nature or by Courtesy; by nature when they are borne, by courtesy when another maketh them free, and that is either by giving away his own right when they are slaves to himself, or buying out another's title, when they are in bondage to another. Freedom by nature we cannot have; by nature, we are no less the children of bondage than of wrath: so than if we have any Freedom, it must be either by manumission or Redemption; by Manumission it is not, for so we should not be Christ's, by Redemption therefore it must needs be, or else we should be the Devil's Servants. In a word Christians are redeemed, and the Redeemed are Free. You may observe that at the resurrection of Lazarus when he came forth of the grave, bound hand and foot with grave-cloaths, Jesus said unto them, (his Apostles, S. Aust: saith,) Lose him, and let him go. It is in every man's Spiritual rising verified, what was seen in this Resurrection. He is loosed before he go to Christ, he is free when a Disciple. Amongst the orders of the Nazarites, this was one of them, that all the days of his separation, there should come no razor on his head Num. 6. 5. if the Nazarite signified the Christian, I am sure the not coming of a razor on his head signifieth the Freedom of the Christian; since amongst the Ancients, as they who were Captives had their hair shorn, so to wear it at its length was a manifest sign of liberty, as if their Freedom grew with their hair; and he that cut off that, had cut off their liberty. Shall not Christianity make her Professors free? But the Heathens imagined that Philosophy made her professors free: now it were hard if Christianity should yield to Philosophy, the Mistress not have so great a privilege as the handmaid. Hac ipsum Philosophie servire, libert as est, saith Seneca Ep. 8. Had he put out Philosophy, and put God in the place of it, we might have thought he had stole his sentence out of our liturgy, which affirmeth of God what he doth of Philosophy, That his service is perfect Freedom. Briefly, the Sons are free, saith Christ, now the Christians are Sons; he than that denyeth their liberty, must deny their filiation also, he must cross that which the Scripture so often averreth, that they are born of God. But the doubt is rather of the kind than of the Thing. Supposing then that the Christian hath liberty, we will now inquire what it is, & in what it consists, which that we may the more solidly perform, we must distinguish of the Christian. For there are some, who say, that they are Jews and are not, others that are true Israelites indeed, in whom there is no guile, many that have the form of godliness, denying the power; others that with the son have the power also; not a few, who are in the Church but as corrupt humours, not as sound members; others that are not so much in the Church as the Church, even that blessed company, which shall at length reign with their Saviour for ever. And yet though all, that bear Christ's name shall not enjoy Christ's Kingdom; nevertheless, they shall enjoy many Privileges, even for bearing the Name, to show what benefits they shall enjoy, who give their souls to Christ. Those are no small savours whereof they are made partakers, who only give their names to Christ. Even this freedom, this liberty after a sort belongs to them. First then, whosoever calls upon that name is for ever free from the burden of the Ceremonial law. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, saith S. Peter to them who would have the Brethren to be circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses, Acts 15. 10. If once they are Disciples, the yoke is not to be put upon their neck, and mark, he saith, if any urge these ordinances, that They put on the yoke, They and not God, they put on the yoke, from which God had loosed them. Nay when S. Peter out of humane infirmity had forgot in practice his own Doctrine, and by a dangerous example, had given occasion to the Gentiles to suppose, that they were to live after the manner of the Jews, S. Paul withstood him to the face because he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Let him once any manner of way cause the Gentiles to Judaize, the brethren to lose their liberty, he walketh not uprightly; he stoopeth himself if he would bring them down unto this yoke. In a word, he is our Peace who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the Enmity, even the Law of the Covenant Ephes. 2. 14, 15. The wall of Partition between us and the Jews, was only the Law of Ceremonies, for to that of Manners all Nations were bound, that was a wall of union and not of partition. What a perverseness than is this of them who will build again what God hath pulled down; and like Hiel the Bethelite lay once more a foundation of a cursed Jericho? jacob a little before his end cries out against Simeon & Levi, because in their selfe-will they digged down, and we may as justly inveigh against those, who in their selfe-will, will raise a wall, a wall which God himself hath razed. For truly if man must not separate what God hath conjoined, neither may he join again, what God hath separated, our obedience unto those precepts. Especially our madness will be the greater in reviving of them if we consider what they are called, and they are called Enmity; Having abolished the enmity even the law of the Covenant; that law hath no better name than Enmity, whether it were so called because it occasioned hatred between the Jews and the Gentiles, of which the one was proud, and the other envied; or because by reason of its neglect or not due performance, it caused hatred between God and the Jew, the Jew detesting so many burdensome commands, and the Lord detesting their detestation: whether for these or any other reasons, it were called Enmity, it matters not, still they are fools, who would again bring in Enmity. What then shall we say to some amongst us, who seem to be desirous of this Enmity, who would again at least in part bring in amongst us the Ceremonial Law, and write again those contrary ordinances, which Christ hath cancelled on his cross? I mean those rigid and Jewish observers of the Sabbath. And yet you must not expect here a full dispute upon the controversy, whereof I shall only briefly show you the Sum. In the fourth precept of the Decalogue all agree, that there is somewhat alterable; which may be changed, somewhat unalterable to which we are obliged for ever. Alterable, as the particular Detormination of the time, to wit, that the Rest should be just upon the very seventh day after the Creation, and the strict Observation of the day, as that therein a man might not gather sticks, and had made himself a brand of Hellfire, if he had but made a fire: these all agree to be alterable, to be altered, and at this day to bind none. Now that which they say is unalterable in the Sabbath, they affirm to be some certain time of Worship & a Solemnity carefully religious; and yet in this agreement they differ, for some will have that time which is unalterable to be, though not a certain, yet one day of the Seven, though not Monday or Tuesday, yet at least they or one between them, which God or his Church should determine: whilst others think, that time to be no more bound to the week than it is to the Saturday to any other time, than it was to the Jews Sabbath: and so likewise, as touching the observation they vary; the former prescribing a rising before day, quick arraying, private prayer, till the Minister be in the Church, repearing and prayer after, till he come thither again, then hearing a second Sermon, and then a third, if they may; and so having other forms till midnight: the other thinking that they have conscionably discharged their duty if without so many observances, fit rather to tyre the body than refresh the soul, after their private Devotions they religiously frequent the public Service of God; which being ended, they believe they may as well bestow moderate Recreation as temperate Diet on their body. But I would ask of the former sort of these, when they say, that somewhat is unalterable in the Sabbath, by whom they mean it is unalterable? if they say by man, it is no great matter which they say, all men know that what by God is established must needs be unalterable by him; to change another's ordinance is the only privilege of an higher power. But if they say, that it is by God unalterable, I shall again ask whether it be simply unalterable or upon the presupposed approbation of his will and pleasure. Not the latter, nothing in the Sabbath is so unalterable, if there be, they must show it in the Scripture. If they shall reply, that he hath expressed his will in the fourth Commandment, which being placed amongst the moral precepts must needs have something moral in it, and seeing that is not the seventh Day, therefore at least it must be a seventh which is moral: I shall only desire them to review the Commandment, where we shall find that the Jews are commanded to keep that day holy, in which the Lord rested, nay therefore to keep it holy because in it the Lord rested, they are to hollow that Day, which the Lord had hallowed; now, in what day did he rest? What day did he hollow? was it not the seventh day? For in six days, they are the words in the commandment, the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh day; so that from hence they may prove the Jews Sabbath, but they will destroy the Lords Day. The seventh day is established by this commandment, but it is a weak Foundation for One in Seven. Well then at length they are driven to this, to affirm that there is some what in the Sabbath, to wit, the necessity of sanctifying one in seven, which is simply and absolutely unalterable. But to omit, that they but affirm and cannot prove this, see what the consequence of this wouldbe, if there were as much truth as there is the confidence in that Assertion If it be simply unalterable, than it was simply necessary that at first it should be ordained, then, observe it, it was then simply necessary, that either upon Saturday or Sunday, or some other one day in seven, God should ordain a Sabbath, but he could not ordain one in seven to be a Sabbath, unless he had first ordained that there should be seven days, so than it was simply necessary, that there should be seven days, and because the Sabbath was made for man, therefore, if there must of necessity be a Sabbath, of necessity there must be a man for whom the Sabbath should be, and since Time is only the measure of the creatures actions, therefore if time be by necessity (as it must be if the Sabbath is) by the same necessity the Creature must be, whose actions are to be measured by time. And thus we have learned a new and goodly Divinity, that whereas the ancient Fathers affirm that, Deus nihil agit ad extrà necessariò that God doth nothing necessarily but beget the Son, and breathe the holy Ghost; and that, whatever he doth outwardly he doth freely, that is; he might either do it, or not do it, these men's opinions would cause him, to make the world out of a necessity, and that he could not possibly do otherwise: the sum of all is this; That God maketh laws for man, not for himself, he might have chose whether he would have made man, and when he hath made him whether he would make a Sabbath for him; That when ever you shall hear men laying stumbling blocks in the way, and making scruples, when the Sabbath beginneth and when it ends, and whether you may lawfully dress or eat your meat that Day, you desire them to show you Scripture for that which they require, which if they cannot, know you are not bound unto Judaisme, S. Peter acknowledgeth that you are free. But are Christians free from the Ceremonies of the Law? How can it be? Since a man is not said to be freed from that, under whose bondage he never was, and the Christians, especially such as spring from the Gentiles, were never under those ordinances. He showed his word unto jaacob, his statutes and judgements unto Israel, Ps. 147. 19 Besides as I showed you before, those Ceremonies were the partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles, now it could not have parted, had they both agreed in it, had it been given to the Heathen, also; if then they were never under it, how can it be properly said, that they are free from it? S. Austin hath well satisfied this point discoursing of an other argument, where he saith, that this word. Freeing in Scripture is not only taken for a deliverance from some danger, or burden which is past, but sometimes for a preventing of that to come: he instanceth, as I remember, in that speech of David, thou hast delivered my Soul out of the nethermost Hell, the nethermost Hell is the Hell of the Damned, and into that the Soul of David, of a penitent Sinner, never did, never shall come; to deliver out of Hell, therefore, must be expounded to hinder him lest he should come thither: here the Preventing is the Freeing; and so likewise, when we say, that Christians are freed from the yoke of the Ceremonies, we do not suppose that they ever were under them, but that they never shall be under them, that that hand-writing against them is for ever blotted out. But thus you will say even the Heathen, the Infidel are Free, they likewise never were, never shall be under the Ceremonies of the Law: What a privilege than is that for the Christian, which is communicated to the very Infidels, when all the world, which Claudius only thought to make partakers of the Privileges of Rome; are made partakers of this immunity? 'tis true, none of the Heathen are bound unto the Law, and yet they cannot boast of their freedom from it, as the Christian can, because though he be free, yet God hath not revealed so much unto him, God leaveth him in his times of ignorance, wherein he is subject unto most miserable thraldom by worshipping of stocks and stones, which he doth because he thinketh he is bound to it, and because he thinketh he is bound, he is not free, as the Christian is. In the second place, from the bondage of all indifferent things, to wit, thus far forth, that in respect of Conscience, he may either do or omit them; by these performed he hopes not to please God, neither doth he fear to offend him, by neglecting of them. This is the Doctrine of the Apostle in the 14. to the Romans, 1. Cor. 8. and where not●●. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient, 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawful? why then Murder, Profaneness, Atheism are lawful: no, he speaks not of things generally, but only of indifferent; in the use of which as we must avoid some as not convenient, so we must account none as not lawful; and that I persuade myself to be the meaning of the latter part of the verse, All things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any, to wit, of any indifferent thing, that which is in itself Adiaphorall, shall never have the power over me to make me do it of necessity, or to make me think the not doing of it absolutely unlawful; there may be a circumstance that may bring a non-expedit, It is not profitable; there is none can bring a nonlicet, that it is against the Law. This we shall make manifest in the point of observing of days, excepting the Lord's day; a man may according to his occasions either do or abstain from the works of his calling, either the Act or the Omission is then indifferent unto him. But, if Authority shall appoint such a day to be kept holy, and will have this to be part of the hallowing of it to abstain from all works of our vocation, it will not be lawful to do them then, not because it is not indifferent to work or not to work, but because it is not indifferent to obey, or not to obey; to obey is commanded, is a duty. So likewise according to my means I may wear silk or garments of meaner Stuff, it is all one in point of conscience, what raiment I ordain for my body; but if the Magistrate shall confine me to a meaner we●d, I sin if I wear silk, not because the silk, but the Disobedience was unlawful. In a word, S. Paul hath taught us that meats commend us not unto God▪ 1. Cor. 8. 8. therefore neither if I eat, am I approved of him, neither rejected if I eat not. In point of Religion it matters not much whether for my ordinary provision, I have fish or flesh, whether I go to the Sea or the shambles for my Diet. Meats then being thus lawful in themselves, there comes an Injunction from Superiors that I shall abstain from some kind of Meats. Are those meats that are thus forbidden unlawful? What God hath cleansed, shall we or any commandment of man make common no certainly, to eat is not unlawful, but to eat against the command; the meat retaineth his indifferent nature still, but the Magistrate for a time hath restrained its indifferent use, and that without any prejudice to thy Freedom, whose liberty must not cancel thy obedience, because as Saint. Austin hath well said in Ps. 71. Nihil 〈◊〉 expedit anima quam obedire, meat is not so wholesome to thy body, as to thy Soul obedience. And cannot the Magistrate then make things of themselves indifferent, in themselves unlawful? what then shall we say to those, who on the contrary side will put such a rate upon indifferences, as if they were enacted by the Law? Such we have too many of Ministers and others who propose to us a kind of preaching by doctrine, Reasons, use, means, motive, and that, in this order, and they must be named too, as if it were absolutely necessary, in so much that they who use it, are esteemed, sanctified and powerful, they who either use an other, or do not say that they use this, must be either ungodly or unfruitful. But to the Law, to the Testimony, where there shall we ever find, that we are tied to this or any other Form of Method? There I find that the manifestation of the spirit is given for every man to profit withal. 1. Cor. 12. 7. I do not find that Doctrines and uses, proclaimed to be such, are the only manifestation of the Spirit, it is our duty to employ our gifts that way, by which they may profit; but it is man only and not the holy Ghost who saith, they can only profit this way. Christ saith to his Apostles Go teach all Nations Matth. 28. 19 He doth not say: Teach them thus: he would have one Doctrine taught▪ he doth not say, he would have one manner of teaching. All Scripture is given &c. for Correction for instruction, 2. Tim. 3. 16. We may safely say that the Method of the Sermon may be the same with that of the Scripture, and there if Correction and Instruction be the same with Doctrine and use, yet Correction is put before Instruction, sometimes the Use is set before the Doctrine. In a word, Saint Paul preacheth to his Timothy, that he should preach the word, be instant in season and out of season, here you see he binds him unto diligence, but he leaves him free to his own Method. And indeed, I cannot but wonder that they who would have no set Form of Prayer, should tie all to a set Form, to one set Form of preaching, that they should think the Form a confining of the Spirit, though there be many forms of them, and this no confining where there is but one. If any after so often instruction shall urge the necessity of this kind of instruction; for my part I would only confute him by my practice, I would use another form and so confirm that I were free. Again, there are others that think themselves bound in conscience to hear two Sermons upon the Lord's day, (though some of them will scarce practise one of them in any day of their life) and therefore if their Minister preach not twice on that day, they suppose, that they are bound to hear an other. But I desire these to direct me to the Scripture, where this is required of them. It is required of them indeed to hear, but how often in one day, I find not; only this I find, that they must not be their own choosers, nor hear whom and where they list. I am sure they hear but ill by the Apostle, who heap to themselves Teachers, having itching ears 2. Ti. 4. 3. If they must not heap up to themselves, than they must accept of those whom Authority hath set over them, those and only those. But what if they do not speak, how can we hear then? What if the mute devil be in them, shall the deaf devil be in us, and shall we be bound to starve if our own Pastor will not feed us? I answer, Either he preacheth not so much as his Duty requireth, or not so much as an others Fancy; if he speak not as much, as they in their fancy would have him, it matters not much, he is their Minister not their Martyr; he must use means to bring them to the spiritual, he must not throw away his corporal life. But if he speak not so often to them as his duty requireth, he offends indeed, but, they are not to punish him, neither must the defect of his tongue be mended with the nimbleness of their legs. Plainly, they have no Commission that I know of, to leave him, they have, to accuse him to Superiors, who will either urge him to his duty, or take order that an other should perform what he neglects. But, we go away to increase our knowledge. Would it were no worse, and yet if it be so well, we are not to gain knowledge with the hazard of our obedience; a good end doth not justify that action which is not good. Saul might not reserve any of the forbidden spoil though it were for sacrifice. But, you have heard the contrary heretofore. I question not what you have heard but whether it be true, which you have heard, neither do I much care unto what it be contrary which I said, so it be agreeing with the truth. But lastly, some will object that this Doctrine of frequenting our own Church where there is but one Sermon, doth not make so much for the flourishing of holiness, as that which would have us hear two or more wheresoever. God forbid that I should hinder, that I should not promote the flourishing of holiness, and yet God forbid that I should affirm that it made for the flourishing of holiness to hear promiscuously, whom we pleased. It maketh for the flourishing of Schism▪ and if it be generally permitted, it will make for uncleanness too and not for holiness. But that let Superious look to. In the mean time if my opinion did not in some men's opinion make so much for holiness, as the contrary; yet it is à saying of one, whom you cannot except against, and I honour, Doctor Twisse, that it is a very preposterous course, that when ever we dispute of the truth of a thing we should bring the controversy to this issue: An eò sc. ad officia hominis Christiani aptiores fiamus, whether by holding such an opinion, we should make ourselves more fit for Christian Duties, when certainly a man is more fitted unto such Duties by Truth than Error. So then the last issue is this, if we are commanded to hear two Sermons upon Sunday, all Ministers must preach, all the people must hear twice; but if we are not commanded, let no man lay a snare upon his conscience, even a pretext of piety must not take away our Freedom. And thus I have showed what liberty agreeth to Christians in general; Liberty from Ceremonies, liberty from indifferences. What remaineth but that I restore those words to religion which Seneca usurps of Morality, O ars verè liberalis quae liberum facit! O how liberal, how free this Art, that thus many ways doth make us free. As it doth the true Christian in an higher measure. But of that hereafter. Now to him, that hath brought us all out of service, at least unto this Liberty, and which if we will be obedient children, will bring us through an higher liberty, unto Glory, be all praise, etc.  
DEO GLORIA.   
1 Pet. 2. 16. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of GOD. 
THere are two vices extremely opposite to themselves, and no better agreeing with the right, Profaneness I mean, and Superstition. Profaneness, by which a man will do according to no law of God; Superstition, by which he will make himself more laws than God hath: the one of the seturneth our liberty into licenciousnes, the other into bondage; by the first we are the more daring, by the second the more solemn and grave offenders. Of the former, Profaneness, I shall have occasion to discourse ere long; of the latter, Superstition, I have discoursed already, and yet must add a few words, since this over-service, this voluntary worship, this invention rather than devotion, carrieth itself to the greater deceit of the beholders, under the shape of piety and religion; and for antiquity challengeth Christianity itself, since these Tares were sown almost as soon as that Come; since this restraint was as early very near, as that publishing of liberty. In Acts 15. 5. it is said, that there rose up certain of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, & to command them to keep the law of Moses. No sooner had they received the faith, than these Pharisees would have filled them with superstition; they had but scarce begun to be Christians, and they are already tempted to become Jews: And so in the Father's time there rose a sect which were termed Minaei, of whom S. Hierome elegantly, Dum Iudaei cupiunt esse & Christiani, nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani; Whilst they strive to be Jew's & Christians together, they are neither Jews nor Christians: not Jews because they were bapti●ed, not Christians because they joined Circumcision to their Baptism: Nay, would to God that this mischief had stopped here, and not derived itself unto our times, wherein diverse men, more cunningly, and yet as truly, restrain our liberty. Not to speak of Judaizing Sabbatarians, who scrupulously dispute of the beginning, and the end of that day, whether it be natural or artificial, whether if they sleep in any part of it they profane it, wherein they rest, and so rather keep it. Whether they may make a fire upon that day, and venture upon that high offence of dressing meat, which yet they will eat on that day, as if the eating were not a labour to their teeth, as well as the dressing to their fingers: With many such impertinent queres, of which you shall not find one, either in the Scripture or the Ancient, and were only invented, as so many thorns and pricks to wound the tender consciences of the godly. I say, not to speak of these, you shall have others, and those at best but private Ministers, make orders themselves, which they will not forsooth have to be called parts, but only helps unto worship, which yet they do so press and urge, upon such terms of necessity and enforcement, that a man having accidentally omitted any one of them, beginneth instantly to doubt whether he be called, or no; as if the certainty of his calling depended upon these observations. And then will it not be high time for us to demonstrate and insist upon the doctrine of Christian liberty, to make you know how far you are free? which freedom I told you, was more general, and agreed to all that were called Christians; or more particular, and only belonged unto them who were Christians. Of which freedom we are now to entreat. And indeed were there not this liberty, what where the former freedom but a milder bondage? for what comfort could it yield to any man's soul, that he was not under the Ceremonies, if he were under the curse of the Law? or what great matter is it, that indifferent things cannot bind my conscience, if it be subject to God's wrath for the breach of things which are not indifferent, for the violation of his Law? The true Christian then, the man after God's heart, he that is borne of GOD, is not only free from the Ceremonies of the old Law, but from all laws of indifferent things to bind the conscience, but also from the moral law itself. This seemeth strange, Is he that alone amongst mankind strives to keep the law, free from the Law? are other men damned for not observing it, & is it in his choice whether he will observe it or no? Nay, is he who is the only obedient, the only superstitious one? for, he is superstitious, who binds himself, where he is free, and the true Christian binds himself to the performance of the Law, to which you say he is not obliged: we must understand therefore how he is free, to wit, from the rigour, from the curse, but not from the observation of the Law: There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus, Rom. 8. 1. Whosoever is in Christ Jesus is so free from the Law, that it shall not condemn him; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, Gal. 3▪ 13. we shall not be that which Christ for our sakes was; he was a curse, therefore shall not we be accursed, but be freed from that which he endured: In a word, The Law is not made for a righteous man, 1 Tim. 1. 9 Which cannot be understood as the words sound; for, no man can be righteous but by conforming himself to a law, which conformity is his righteousness; so that it is so far from truth, that a Law is not made for the righteous, that it is principally made for him, that by obeying it he may prove his righteousness: they must necessarily then be understood of some respect, in consideration of which he is not under that Law, and that is only, the penalty annexed; the just that is under the obedience, is not under the penalty of the Law: neither is he under the rigid command of it, that is, he is not bound to it in its strictness, in so much that God will not impute disobedience to him, though he hath not so accurately observed it, as the letter seemeth to exact: for Christ he pardons their failings, and Christ he esteemeth of them, as if they had not failed at all: And as they are free from the curse, so are they free from the cause of the curse; their liberty extends no less to a freedom from sin, than from punishment. Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the Law, but under Grace, Rom. 6. 14. where the Apostle from the first infers a second freedom; because we are not under the curse of the Law, therefore neither are we under the dominion of sin; sin is in us, but it hath no command in us; we are free, not from its existence, but from its tyranny. As a meek man is not without choler, but he over-ruleth it, so the true Christian man hath sin, but it is in fetters; he is freed from it, that it shall not reign, he shall be freed from it, that it shall not be in him. And this, if it be rightly considered, is a more glorious freedom than the former; more glorious, more happy, more desirable to be free from sin rather than misery. Divers men do not esteem it so miserable to be in bondage, as to be in bondage to such an one; Oh, you shall hear diverse say, I care not whom I serve, so it be not that Master: Pharaoh can pray that he may be rid of that death only, & jeremy doth not care whither he be carried, so it be not to the house of jonathan the Scribe; he had rather be under any torturer than under him. If then these might have the happiness, though not to be freed from all misery, yet from that from which they would choose to be freed, would they not esteem themselves fortunate men? And this is the case of the truly faithful, they had infinitely rather be free from sin, than from punishment; and it is God's mercy that they are freed from sin, freed from it, that if they cannot root it out of them, yet it shall take no deep root in them; and even that scantling which it is not God's pleasure, as yet, to take out of them, it is his pleasure not to see: He seeth no iniquity in jacob; not because there is none to be seen, but because he will take no notice of that which is. Thus, when he pryeth into the least circumstances of the sins of the wicked, and sealeth those in a bag, ready to be opened at the last day, for their eternal confusion, he will not so much as see them of his servants; for, Blessed is the man whose sins are covered: Or if he see them, it is that he may no more see them; it is, as Micah speaketh, Chap. 7. 19 To subdue them and cast them into the depths of the Sea: as if he thought he could execute no fitter judgement, than to drown them which would damn us, than to cast them into the Seas waters, which would plunge us into hell fire. And it is observable, that we first read he will subdue our sins, and then that he will cast them into the depths of the Sea, to show, that our sins are terrible monsters, are furious wild beasts, they require even an Omnipotent arm to subdue them: which consideration of their power cannot choose but aggravate our happiness, that we are free from them. But, amongst all these freedoms we do not find that we are free from the obligation of the Law, that we are not bound to keep the commandment. The faithful is freed from the condemnation, not from the observation; and he that doth not strive to observe it, is not free from the condemnation of it neither. Seneca hath well said, Non est libertas nihil pati, That is not liberty to be under nothing, that is arrogance and not liberty. To all such as think Christ hath freed them to do what they please, as if he had no other thing to do, than to suffer the most bitter pains of death, that men might be securely wicked, I must tell, that to them the Law is in as full force, as it was in the very first minute to the Israelites, as if the Ink remained yet fresh upon the hand-writing that is against them. Divines observe, that God punisheth more severely the faults committed against his, than against himself; and therefore he was silent at Paul's blasphemies, but Christ himself must appear and strike him to the ground, when he maketh havoc of the Church: So likewise where Elis sons seized upon their part of the offering, before they had burnt the fat unto the Lord, which by the law they were bound to do, the Lord scarce takes notice of it, besides the bare relating of it; but when by taking away the portion of the people, they kept them from frequenting the Tabernacle, and so hindered their spiritual good, it is presently said, That the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, for men abhorred the offering of the Lord, 1 Sam. 2. 17. as if, had they not made men to abhor the offering, God would not have esteemed their sin so great, as for it to abhor them. This showeth us, that God doth principally take order for his children's injuries, but i● doth not show, that he neglects his own, that he will free them from the punishment, who have freed themselves from the observation of his law: Nay, such men should know, that they are the principal of the wicked, they are the principal of the wicked, who in Scripture are termed, The sons of Belial; & these despisers of the law are the sons of Belial. For, to omit the other derivations which Divines do fancy of that word, as it cometh of two Hebrew words, which signify, either without light, or without profit, or lastly, without ascent, which all agree very fitly unto them; they are the children of darkness, their actions are nowise spiritual, profitable either to themselves or others: and lastly, they shall never dwell in Gods holy hill, into which none can come but he that ascends; Heaven is not situate in a descent, or a level. To omit these, as Prettinesses without much solidity, the true etymology of the word is; Without a yoke; Those are the true sons of Belial who would be without a yoke: and who would be without a yoke, but they who would be without a Law? Whomsoever then we shall see to go forward in whoredom, drunkenness, swearing, covetousness, malice, schism, or any such notorious offence, we may conclude, that he would be free from the yoke, that he is a son of Belial. And thus all unrepentant sinners are, whence the Prophet saith, They were haughty, and committed abomination against me, Ezech. 16. 50. junius reads it, Exaltarunt se, They exalted themselves; as if none could commit abomination who was not first proud and haughty, who had not first exalted themselves, which no man can do under a yoke; under that he will be humbled, not exalted. But, let them look to it in time; God punisheth all sinners, but heeresists the proud only; as who should say, Though many did offend him beside, yet it was but timorously; none durst fight hand to hand with him, but the proud, only they put God to his defence, to resist; but though he resist them, they shall never be able to resist him, When the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud & lofty. Esay hath a pretty strange speech, The earth, saith he, shall be removed like a Cottage, and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it, Esa. 24. 20. The transgression is heavy upon the earth, what then? Therefore it shall be removed; but one would think, Therefore rather it shall stand still; that which lieth heavy upon a thing, hinders it from being removed. Oh the strange power of sin, that by making a thing weighty maketh it the more movable; for whose sake the earth, which stands still, must be removed, and removed by a weight! As those than should suddenly repent, who are yet under, so should they always triumph & rejoice in the Lord, who are free from the curse of the law: and yet oftentimes none so dejected as they, especially when the Devil doth thus assault them, Whosoever doth not exactly perform every the least circumstance of the Law, is subject to eternal damnation; thou hast not exactly performed every circumstance, thou hast been sometimes unadvisedly angry, rash words have escaped the prison of thy mouth, thy heart hath been a den of corruption, and thou hast again and again done that evil, against which thou hast vowed, as if thou hadst repent of thy repentance; what then remains for thee but the blackness of darkness? to be cast into that fire which was as well prepared for thee, as for the devil and his angels. This is Satan's sophistry, but yet his major is untrue, and his minor, although it be true, doth not infer his conclusion. It is true, Whosoever doth not exactly perform the Law, etc. is subject to the eternal punishment; but it is legally true, and thou art not under the Law, but under Grace: thou canst not deny but that in many things thou hast offended; but thou must answer that CHRIST, in whom thou art offended, never. The sum is this, the Devil hath nothing to do with thee if thou art free from the Law, and if thou art in Christ thou art free. Neither let any man think that I would soothe him in his bad courses; that I would say, The soul shall live, which God hath said shall not live; and so that I would only pitch him a smother Causeway unto hell; no, you may remember I affirmed, that they, who shall be free from punishment, must be free from the dominion of sin; if then that have dominion over thee (and it hath, if thou obeyest it in the lusts thereof) this comfort doth not at all concern thee, a corrosive is fitter for thee than a cordial; but to those dejected souls, who, after all their endeavour, find not the comfort of godliness, who have the gift, but not the joy of believing, and therefore do doubt of the gift, because they do not feel the joy; to those, who run after God's commandments, and will not lie still though they fall: to these I proclaim, that they are free from the laws curse, & therefore heirs of heaven's blessing; one confirmation of which they enjoy from hence, if they do not use their liberty as a Cloak, etc. which is the first restraint of S. Peter's grant. Where we shall consider, 1. What maliciousness is. 2. What it is to use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness. 3. That we must not so use it. Maliciousness in the latitude of the word, may either be taken for that vice which is opposite to charity, and termed malice, or for sins in general, which all proceed from the depravation, from the maliciousness of our nature; or particularly for that offence, to whose contrary duty he had before exhorted, even disobedience to the lawful Magistrate. But we are not so much to inquire what the word may signify in itself, as what it must signify here, and it cannot signify Malice in the former sense, not that it is lawful to use our liberty as a Cloak even of that malice, as to abstain from reproving our brother, because we hate him; as if it were an indifferent thing to reprove or no; as, if we performed it to our friend we did well, but not ill, if we did not perform it to our enemy, even when we had just reason to suppose that such a reproof would amend him; I say, it is not lawful to use our liberty for a cloak of that malice; but that is not the malice of which our Apostle here speaketh, for he speaketh of such a malice which is opposite to subjection; now hatred and rancour is opposed ●o charity, not to subjection; and he that upon pretence of his liberty, denyeth obedience to Magistracy, doth it not out of malice, because he hateth him, but out of injustice, because he will not give him what is his due, not fear to whom fear, nor honour to whom honour appertaineth. Not to speak in the mean time, that the word in the Text is not malice, but maliciousness, between which there is a great difference. It being then not so aptly to be interpreted of uncharitableness, let us see in the next place whether it will sound better for Sins in general: they all proceed from maliciousness or corruption, and we must not use our liberty to cloak this malice. This indeed is thought to be the meaning by the most, & that not without good probability; for a general reason may not unfitly be used in a particular exhortation, and the argument holds good, We must not refuse subjection by reason of our liberty, because universally we must not do any bad act by reason of our liberty: But we must know that the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth evil-doing, and is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or well-doing in the former verse. If therefore well doing, as I there proved, must signify our obedience, evil-doing or maliciousness must needs import our disobedience to government. This you see is God's account of rebellion, of disobedience; he calls it maliciousness, sin, without any addition; as if it were the only, or, at least, the greatest sin: and therefore no wonder if we must not use our liberty to cloak it; the meaning of which phrase we are next to find out. To use our liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, in general, is to pretend, that those Actions are indifferent, which indeed are unlawful, and upon that pretence to practise them, and it principally holds, where the Action that these would do is, of itself, indifferent, or at least seemeth to be so, and is only made unlawful by some circumstance. For instance, it is, in itself, indifferent whether I eat one or two meals in a day, & that meal which I eat, whether it be of this or that kind of meat; but if Superiors shall command, Eat not at such a time, or, at other times, eat not of such a meat; if thou, pretending thy liberty, dost the contrary, and feasts when thou shouldst eat nothing, and emptiest the Bucher-Row, when Authority sends thee to the fishmarket; I say, if thou pretendest thy liberty, that with thy liberty thou dost cover thy disobedience, thou thus makest thy freedom a cloak of maliciousness. Do I sin then, wilt thou say, if hunger will not suffer me to fast, if tenderness or antipathy make fish a kind of poison to my body? No certainly, thou offendest not the law, if thou contemnest not the lawmaker; but thou dost contemn him, if thou dost only urge thy liberty as a sufficient plea against the obligation of his law: In a word, if thou dost it not publicly, if thou make it appear that thy excuse is true, and after all this dost willingly submit to his judgement, thou sinnest not, though thou dost not what man commands, but this, not by making thy liberty a cloak of thy maliciousness, but by making thy infirmity to cover thy omission, which, if it had not been, thou hadst done otherwise. Thus, He that regards a day, regards it to the Lord, and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it, Rom. 14. 6. which showeth, that the regarding or the not regarding, is, in itself, indifferent; if he had commanded or forbidden either, both of them could not be done to the Lord. But Authority interposeth and faith, that such a day I will have you to observe the Nativity, the Passion, the Ascension, the Resurrection of our Saviour; on them thou shalt abstain from thy ordinary labours, frequent the Church, and make it an holy rest. Thou nevertheless wilt put off thy business unto this day, thou canst find no such time for sowing, or ploughing, or the like, as this, and that by reason of thy Christian liberty, which hath taken away the distinction of days. But harken, Christianity hath taken away the distinction of days, but it hath not taken away distinction of orders; there must be some to command, some to obey; it hath not taken away obedience; if upon this colour thou shalt flinch from it: this is with thy liberty to cloak thy malice. In a word, as you have some that Jewishly observe, so there are too many that Atheistically neglect the Lord's day; these have no journeys but only then, as if they would ride away, not so much from their place, as their duty; to Church they will not come, their house is a Church: in a word, they give themselves to feasting, sporting, all kind of excess then, and that forsooth because they are free. But this is only a cloak, and a threadbare one, which will appear when we take it off. Thou art free indeed, but yet not from Laws which God hath immediately made, or which he hath published by the Church. Now that there should be a time indefinitely for public worship, God hath intimated in his fourth Commandment, and when, and how that day shall be observed, hath been determined by his Church; to wit, principally in praying, hearing, meditating, in acts of mercy, and such like. So that thy freedom is not a truth, but a pretention, not a garment which sits close to thee, but a cloak which the least wind can blow off, nay, it is not so much a cloak as one of Adam's fig-leaves▪ which, as the fathers observe out of natural Historians, will rather serve to annoy thee with its roughness, than to hide thee with its quantity. This then is to cover malice with liberty, and this is utterly unlawful, whether we consider it in general of any wickedness so covered, or particularly of disloyalty to Princes. Of which in the third place. And that this is too usual we may collect by the very position of these words, first we have, As free; & then immediately, Not using, etc. as if most men did use their liberty unto maliciousness, as soon as ever they conceived that they were free: and therefore S. Paul when he had but newly said, Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, presently adds, Only use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, Gal 5. 13. to show, that most did use it for an occasion of the flesh, who were taught, that they were called unto liberty. A place almost the twin with this here, As free, there, Called unto liberty. S. Peter speaketh against Cloaking maliciousness with liberty; S. Paul, Using liberty for an occasion to the flesh, to wit, for an occasion whereby either the flesh might practise or cover its maliciousness. But though this be frequent, it is unfit; he that hath put on zeal as a cloak, cannot endure that liberty should be used as a cloak. Liberty is a great privilege; now it is most unnaturally absurd, that a privilege should be used against the Donor. If a Prince make one his Lieutenant in a Province, can he endure that, by reason of that Lieutenantship, he should not do what he would, he should do that which he would not have him? No more can God endure that by our liberty, by which we resemble him, we should take occasion to break his laws, and oppost him. To do thus, is to deny the faultiness of our Action, and to deny the fault, is to make it more faulty. All men when they have done that which is evil, either if they can possibly, they deny the fact, or, if that cannot be done, they would fain deny the unlawfulness of the fact. Milo, if he cannot deny that he killed Clodius, will affirm, that he did it justly; and most, if they cannot say with Gehazi, Thy servant hath gone no whither, yet are ready to say with Saul, Yea, though I went thither, though I did such an act or the like, yet I have obeyed, or at least I have not transgressed the voice of the Lord: And thus, when they should rather strive for a robe of mercy, they lay a cloak of liberty upon their maliciousness, but, as I told you, to the aggravation of their sin. For, though the quantity be great before, if you add but a little more to it, it is the greater; now the deny all of the fault, and excusing it by liberty, or by such pretexts, is an addition to the fault. But this only proves that it maketh the same fault greater, I therefore go further and affirm, that it makes a new fault, greater than the first; for the former might be out of ignorance, passion, or vehemency of temptation, when this, the putting on of this cloak, must needs be out of deliberation and choice; no man can pretend his liberty to an act, who is not first presumed to have discussed the point. Briefly, he that sinneth, heinously, for the most part, knoweth it, and knoweth that he must be damned without repentance, but he that pretends liberty for his malice; thinks he hath done no otherwise than he ought to do, and such an opinion will rather inflame him to boasting, than to repentance. No man reputes of indifferent, but only of sinful acts. Here then I could justly reprove them, Qui in diem vivunt, as he speaketh, Who are dead in security, who never look unto any of their actions, nor consider whether they be commanded or left at large, whether they be necessary or free; these neither know that they are free, nor can use their freedom even where it ought be used for the justifying of their indifferent acts, but though they live as if they were fre● in all things, yet they can give no reason why they live so, but are rather blocks than men. Others there be, that lose themselves where they are bound, and tie themselves where they are free, that do not with their liberty cover their maliciousness, but with their folly smother their liberty. If any thing be out of order in their clothes, they dare not present themselves in God's house, when yet they will impudently enough thrust in thither, though their souls be altogether out of order; thus to manifest themselves to be the wicked, they fear where no fear is, and they do not fear where they should. And thus much for not covering wickedness in general. I should now show, that you should not cover this wickedness of disobedience by your liberty; but I have performed it already in the first Sermon on this Text, and therefore think only this necessary to urge you to that duty, by showing you that so you shall approve yourselves servants of God. Where I shall briefly consider the necessity and the glory of that Title. For the first, not 〈◊〉 speak of our Creation, Redemption, overwhelming with benefits, & the like; I will only ground myself on that of Aust. Fieri potest ut malè servias, ut non servias fieri non potest: Thou must serve him ill, but it is impossible not to be his servant; that, is most necessary. For, suppose thou dost not what he commands, thou dost what he will order to his own glory: why then wilt thou not be his servant willingly, whose servant by force thou shalt be? Oh then seriously and timely address thyself unto this service, and that for the glory of it. The greatest glory is to be supreme, the next, to be near unto him, and even he in a mean office is honoured, who is the King's servant. Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants which stand continually before thee, saith the Queen of Shebah unto Solomon, 1 King. 10. 3. Where she esteemeth the servants to be almost as happy as their Master, the attendants as Solomon: What an happiness then, what a glory will it be for us to attend upon the true Solomon, the everlasting Prince of Peace? Where observe ye, that of those whom she first calls servants, she immediately saith, They stand continually before thee; as if it were the same thing to be one's servant, and, to stand perpetually before him. How this can be true in all other services, I list not to inquire; I am sure it is most certain in the Lords: be his servants, and you shall stand perpetually before him, in his favour now, in his Kingdom hereafter.  
DEO GLORIA.  
FINIS.