CERTAIN SERMONS AND LETTERS of DEFENCE AND RESOLUTION, TO Some of the late CONTROVERSIES OF OUR TIMES.  
By JAS: maine, D. D.  
LONDON, Printed for R. ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1653.   

THE CONTENTS.  

I. A Sermon against Schism, or the Separations of these Times, on Heb. 10. 24, 25.  
II. A Serm. concerning Unity and Agreement, on 1 Cor. 1. 10.  
III. A Sermon against False Prophets, on Ezek. 22. 28.  
IV. The Serm. against False Prophets, Vindicated by Letter.  
V. The People's War examined, according to the Principles of Scripture and Reason.    

A SERMON AGAINST SCHISM: OR, The SEPARATIONS of these TIMES. Preached in the Church of Wattlington in Oxford-shire, with some Interruption, September 11. 1652.  
At a public dispute held there, Between JASPER maine, D. D. And one——  MAT. 13. 47. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
LONDON, Printed for R. ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1652.   

THE PREFACE.  
IF you please to turn to the 19 Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and to read from the 24. to the 33. verse of that Chapter, there is there mention made of a great Assembly, and concourse of people; Who upon the Instigation of one Demetrius, a Silver-Smith, were confusedly drawn together into a public Theatre. And when they were met there, the Confusion was so great, that the Theatre for the time, was quite changed into a Babel; there was a perfect Division of speech, and Tongues among them, scarce any two spoke the same Language; For some cried out one Thing, and some cried out Another, as you may read at the 32. v. of that Chap. Rudeness, Clamour, Tumult, Noise, was all that issued from them. Nay 'twas a Meeting so confused, so wholly void of Reason, that the greatest part knew not why they were come together, as you may read in the end, and close of that verse. And hence 'tis, that when Saint Paul would have engaged himself among them, and would have preached to them to convert and turn them from their Error, 'Tis said at the 31. verse of that Chapter, That some of the chief of Asia, who were his Friends, sent to him, and desired him, that he would not adventure himself among such a rude, Tempestuous rout of people.  
And now, if you desire to know why I have said this to you, 'tis to let you see, First, That this hath partly been my case, I have been sent, nay spoken to, by some persons of Quality and Honour, not to engage myself among such a mixed Multitude as this; where my Affronts may be great, but my success, and Harvest small: And to speak truth to you, if I had been left to the peaceableness of my own quiet Temper, (which never did delight in storms, nor to dispute with Fire.) If the fierce, and eager Importunity of some who have provoked me, had not drawn me from my judgement, I should have followed their Advice, this Meeting had not been. Nay, I should have looked upon my Appearance here, as a Distemper, like to theirs, who have provoked and called me hither. For my cool and wiser Thoughts have still suggested to me, that to dispute of Truth with those who do not understand it, is such a piece of Madness, as if I should dispute of Colours with a Blind man, of Music with a Deaf, or of the Sent of Flowers with One borne without a Smell.  
Next, therefore, having so far departed from my Reason, as to submit to a Dispute in this great public Meeting, lest it should prove such a confused Meeting, as I described to you before; A Meeting where my Logic must fight Duels with Men made of Rudeness, Tumult, Noise; Or lest it should prove a Meeting where Men who can speak nought but English, shall yet speak divers Tongues; And where some shall cry out one Thing, and some shall cry another, I have made it my humble suit to some persons of Honour here present, that by their presence they will free the place from all such wild Confusions. And that, if I must dispute, I may dispute with civil men, and not undergo Saint Paul's misfortune, who fought with Beasts at Ephesus.  
Thirdly, lest this Meeting should prove like the confused Meeting, which I mentioned to you before, in one particular more; That is, lest the greatest part of you should not know why you are this day come together. Before I enter upon a full pursuit, or handling of this Text, it will be needful that I tell you the occasion of this Meeting, which that I may the better do, I shall desire you to believe, that 'tis not a Meeting of my projection or Contrivance. I appear not here to raise a Faction, or to draw a party after me, nor to add to the Rents of the Country, which are too wide already. Nor am I come hither to revenge myself in the Pulpit, or to speak ill of those who have most lewdly railed at me. Let them wallow themselves, as much as they please, in their own gross filth, and mire; let them, if they please, be those raging Waves of the Sea, which Saint jude speaks of, which are always foaming out their own shame, when 
Judas 13.  they have steeped their Tongues in Gall, and spewed forth all their Venom, They shall not make me change my Opinion; which is, that to cast dirt for dirt, or to return Ill-Language for Ill-Language, is a course so unreasonable, as if two Men should fight a Duel, and choose a Dunghill for their weapon. As therefore, I am not come hither to show myself Malicious, so I am not come hither to gain Applause, or Reputation by this Meeting. No thirst of Fame, no affection of Victory hath drawn me from my Study to step into this Pulpit. I understand my own Infirmities too well to be so self-conceited. Or if my Abilities were far greater than they are, yet I have always looked on Fame thus got, to be so slight a Thing, as if a Man should feed on Air, or make a meal of shadows.  
Not to hold you therefore any longer in suspense, if you, who know it not already, desire to know the true occasion of this Meeting, 'tis briefly this; I have for some years (even with Tears in my eyes) seen one of the saddest curses of the Scripture fulfilled upon this Nation: With a bleeding Heart I speak it, I have seen, not only three Kingdoms, but our Cities, Towns, and Villages, nay even our private Families divided against themselves. I have seen the Father differing in opinion from the Son, and I have seen the Son differing in opinion from the Father. I have seen the Mother broken from the Daughter, and I have seen the Daughter divided from the Mother. Nay, our very Marriage-Beds have not scaped the curse of Separation. Like jacob and Esau issuing from the same womb, I have seen two Twins of Separation rise from between the same Curtains. I have seen the Wedlock knot quite untied in Religion; I have seen the Husband in opposition to the Wife, go to one, and I have seen the Wife in opposition to her Husband, for many years together, go to another Congregation. In a Word (my Brethren,) the Church of Christ among us, which was once as Seamelesse as his Coat, is now so rend by Schisms, so torn by Separations, that 'tis become like the Coat of joseph which you read of in the 37. Chapter of Genesis, at the 3. verse, scarce one piece is coloured like another; And I pray God it prove not like the Coat of joseph in one particular more; I pray God the Weaker be not sold by his Brethren, and his Coat be not once more died red, once more imbrued in Blood. This, you will say, is very sad, and yet this is not all; That which extremely adds to the Misery of our Rents, and Separations, is, that the wisest cannot hope they will ere be peeced, or reconciled. For the persons who thus Separate, are so far from believing themselves to be in an Error, that they strongly think all Others err who separate not too; They think themselves bound in Conscience to do as they do. Nay, zealous Arguments are urged, and Texts of Scripture quoted, to prove that 'tis a damning sin not to go on in Separation. The Churches where their Neighbours met are now contemned, and Scorned: Nay, I have with mine own Ears heard a Dining Room, a Chamber, a Meeting under Trees; Nay, I have heard a Hogsty, a B●…rne, called places more sanctified than they. In a word, one of the great Reasons which they urge, why they thus forsake our Churches, and make divided Congregations, is, because (They say) the people which assemble there are so wicked, so profane, that they turn God's House of prayer into a den of Thiefs. To keep this infection from spreading in my Parish, and to keep this piece of Leaven from souring the whole Lump; And withal to satisfy one, whom I look upon as a well-meaning, though a seduced, and erring person, who hath engaged herself by promise, that if I can take the mist from her Eyes, and clearly let her see her Error, she will return back to the Church, from which she hath for some years gone astray; and being invited to do this in a way of Christian challenge, which hath raised a great expectation in the Country, I have taken up the Gauntlet, and here present myself before you; and before I enter the Lists, to let you all see the Justice of the Cause which I here stand to defend, I have chosen this Text for my shield; where He, who wrote this Epistle to the Hebrews says, Let us consider one another to provoke one another to love and to Good works, not forsaking the Assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.   

The Division.  
IN which words, the only point which I shall insist upon, as the fittest, and most seasonable to be preached to this divided Congregation, shall be the point of Schism; or, in plain English, Separation, as 'tis expressed to us in these Words, Let us not forsake the Assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is. In the pursuit and handling of which words, I will proceed by these two plain and easy steps. First, I will prove to you, by Arguments, which have a sunbeam for their parent, That the Rent or Separation which is now made in the Church, is a very grievous sin: Indeed, a sin so grievous, that I scarce know whether Christians can be guilty of a greater. Next, I will Examine and answer their Arguments, and Texts of Scripture; who do persuade themselves and others that their separation is no sin; Nay, that would be a grievous sin not to separate as they do. In the mean time I beseech you to lend me a quiet and favourable Attention, whilst I begin with the first of these parts, and that shall be to prove to you, that the separations of our Times, are great and grievous sins.  
Among the other Characters and Descriptions which have been made of us Men, we have been called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, a Creature borne and made, and created for Society. Towards the preservation and maintenance whereof God at the Beginning, ordered his Creation of us so, that whereas other Creatures take their Original and Birth from a Diversity of parents. He made us Men to spring from one, undivided, single pair. One Adam, and one Eve were the two joined parents of Mankind. And the Reason of this was, That there might not only be among us one common Kindred and Alliance, but that we might hold a firm, and constant League and Friendship with each other too. And hence 'tis we see, that without any other Teacher but their own Natural Instinct, Men in all Ages have avoided separation, by gathering themselves into form Bodies of Cities, Towns and Commonwealths. Neighbourhood, Society, mutual help, and Conversation, being one of the great Ends for which God made us Men. And upon this Ground it hath been disputed, whether a Hermit, or Monastic man, break not the Law of Nature, because he separates himself from the company of Men? And 'tis clearly stated by some great Casuists, That if he separate from others for no End but separation, if he retire himself into a Cave or Wilderness, or Desert, (as some of the Ancient Hermits did) not for Devotion, but out of a hatred, or distaste of the rest of Mankind; In that particular he cannot well be called a Man, but some wilder Creature, made to dwell in Caves, Deserts, Forests, Dens.  
As then, the Law of Nature doth require us to preserve society and Friendship, so the Law of Christ hath tied, and woven this knot much faster. We are all of Kin by Nature, but we are all Brethren as Christians: Men allied to one another by one common Hope, one common Faith, one common Saviour, one common God, and Lord, and Father of us all. And upon this Ground, when one Christian shall divide or forsake the society of Another, unless it be upon a just principle of Conscience, and to avoid a sin, the Scripture calls it not barely Separation, but Separation which is Schism. That is, such a Separation as is a Gospel-sinne too.  
Which, that you may the more clearly understand, give me leave to ask you in truth what is Schism? Why the best Definition of it that was ever yet given is this, That Schism is nothing else, but a separation of Christians from that part of the Visible Church, of which they were once Members, upon mere fancied, slight, unnecessary Grounds. In which Definition of Schism, three things do offer themselves to your serious observation, to make it formal Schism, or a sign of Separation. First it must be a separation of Christians from some part of the Visible Church, of which they were once Members; That is, (according to the Definition, a visible Church as it concerns this present purpose) it must be a Denial of Communion with that Congregation of Christians, with whom they were once united under a rightly-constituted Pastor. Next, they who thus separate, must betake themselves to some other Teacher, whom, in opposition to the former, they choose to be their Guide, and so make themselves his Followers.  
Thirdly, they must erect a New Assembly, or place of Congregation, as a New Church distinct from that from which they do divide.  
Lastly, This choice of a New Guide, and Separation from the Old, this Erection of a New Church, and Division from the former must be upon slight unnecessary Grounds; For if the Cause, or Ground of their Separation be needless, vain, unnecessary, if it spring more out of Humour, Pride, desire of change, or Hatred of their Brethren, than out of any Christian love to keep themselves from sins; 'Tis in the Scripture-Language Schism, That is, a sin of Separation.  
Or if you will hear me express myself in the language of a very learned Man (who hath contrived a clue to lead us through this Labyrinth) This breach of Communion, This separation from a Church rightly constituted; This choice of a New Guide, New Teacher, New Instructor. Lastly, This setting up of a New Congregation, or place of private Meetings, is the same sin in Religion, which Sedition, or Rebellion is in the Commonwealth or State. For upon a right examination of the matter 'twill be found, That Schism is a Religious, or Ecclesiastical Sedition, as Sedition in the State is a civil, Lay-schisme.  
Which two sins, though they appear to the World in divers shapes, the one with a Sword, the other with a Bible in his H●…nd; yet they both agree in this, that they both disturb the public peace. The one of the State, where men are tied by Laws as Men; The other of the Church, where men should be tied by Love as Christians.  
To let you yet farther see, what a grievous sin this sin of Schism or Separation is; If the time would give me leave, I might here raise the Schoolmen, Ancient Fathers, and General Counsels from the dead, and make them preach to you from this Pulpit against the sin of Separation. I might tell you, that in the purest Times of the Church, a Schismatic, and Heretic were looked upon as Twins; The one as an Enemy to the Faith, the other to Communion. But because in our dark Times, learning is so grown out of date, that to quote an Ancient Father, is thought a piece of Superstition; And to cite a General Council is to speak words to our New Gifted men unknown, I will say nothing of this sin, but what the Scripture says before me.  
First, then, I shall desire you to hear what S. Paul says in this case, in the last Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans at the 17. verse. Turn to the place, and mark it well I beseech you. Now I beseech you, brethren, says he there, Mark them which cause Divisions, and offences, contrary to the Doctrine which ●…e have learned, and avoid them: That is, in other words, Separate yourselves from them. And then he gives you a Character, and Description of those Separaters at the 18. verse of that Chapter; And says, For they that are such, serve not our Lord jesus Christ, but their own Belly. And by good words and fair speeches deceive the Hearts of the simple.  
In which words, Four things are so exactly drawn to life, as makes them a perfect Prophesy, or rather picture of our Times. The first is, that there were some in S. Paul's days, who caused Divisions in the Church; Men, who in a way of Schism, and Separation, made themselves the Heads and Leaders of divided Congregations.  
Next, The Ground upon which they built their Separation; 'twas not upon any just, true, lawful, Scripture- Ground. For the Text says, 'Twas contrary to the Doctrine which the Apostles taught, and preached. But the true cause, or Ground, why they thus caused Separations, was merely self-Interest; And that they might gain by their Divisions. Nay, 'twas such a poor, base, unworthy self-interest, that 'tis there said, they did it in compliance to their Belly.  
The third thing which will deserve your observation, is, the cunning Art they used to draw the weaks to be their Followers. 'Tis there said, that by good Words and fair Speeches, they deceived the Hearts of the simple, especially the simple of the weaker sex. And who these were, S. Paul, in other words, but to the same purpose tells you, in the 3. Chapter of his second ●…pistle to Timothy at the 5, 6, 7. verses of that Chapter. Where speaking of such Cozeners, he says, they had a Form of Godliness, an outward seeming Holiness to deceive and cozen by; And that under this Form of Godliness they crept into Houses, and there led Captive silly Women, loaden with sins, and drawn away with divers Lusts. Women so unable to distinguish Right from Wrong, that they were always learning, and never able to come to the Knowledge of the Truth.  
And certainly, my Brethren, 'tis no new thing under the sun, to see the weaker sex misled by holy Forms, and Shows. 'Tis no new thing, I say, under the Sun, for a man that makes long prayers, to eat up a Widows House; Or for a cunning Angler to catch the fillyer sort, with a hook baited with Religion. 'Twas so in our Saviour's time, and 'twas so in S. Paul's. And whether their demure looks, their precise carriage, their long prayers, their good words and fair speeches, be not the Hook, and snare, by which weak people are caught now; whether the feasting of their Bellies, or the making gain of Godliness; Or whether the Itch and pride of being the Leaders of a Faction; Or whether the vain Ambition of being thought more holy or more gifted than the rest, be not the true end of those, who do now cause Separations, I will not rashly censure, but I have some reason to suspect. But this is not all.  
The fourth, and last thing, which most deserves your observation, is, that Separation in that place is such a Scripture-sinne, that S. Paul commands us to separate from those, who do thus cause Separations. Hear the place, I pray, once more repeated to you, I beseech you, Brethren, says he, Mark them who cause Divisions among you, and avoid them. That is, as I said before, Separate yourselves from them. If they, who upon no just cause do Separate, must be Separated from, I hope you'll all confess that Separation is a sin.  
And what sin think you is this sin of Separation? Why, I know some of you will think it strange if I should say, 'tis a sin of the Flesh. And yet S. Paul says, that 'tis a sin of the Flesh, in the 3. Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. Mark I beseech you what he says in that place. Are ye not carnal? says he there. For whereas there are among you Envyings, and Strifes, and Divisions; Are ye not carnal, and walk as men? Says He at the 3. verse. Again, when one saith, I am Paul; And when another saith, I am of Apollo's; Are ye not carnal? says he at the 4. v. of that Chapter. If to divide and separate from the Followers of S. Paul, and to make themselves the Followers, and Disciples of Apollo's; or if by way of Separation to make themselves the marks of several Churches to which Apostles were the Guides, were a sin of Carn●…lity; (as S. Paul says it was) what shall we say of some people of our Times? who instead of several Apostles to divide themselves by, do choose to themselves Guides so mean, so unlearned, so liable to Error, that they perfectly make between them the picture of Mistakes: The Blind leading the Blind, and both fallen into a Ditch? 'Tis not now, as 'twas then. When some said, we are of Paul, and when others said, we are of Cephas, and when others said, we are of Apollo's; Others, we are of Christ. Though to make the Names of Christ, or Paul, or Cephas, names of Faction, was a sin. But we are fallen on Times so made of Separation, that people do divide themselves by Teachers, whose second Trade is Teaching. Teacher's so obscure, so bred to manual Occupations; Teachers so sprung up from the basest of the people. Lastly, Teachers, so accustomed to the Trowel, Forge, and Anvil, that I almost blush to name them in the Pulpit. 'Tis not now sa●…d, we are of Paul, And we are of Apollo's; But we are of Wat Tyler; We are of jack Cade; We are of Alexander the Coporsmith; We are of Tom the Mason; and we are of Dick the Gelder. And whether to Divide and Separate under such vulgar Names as These, be no a sin of the Flesh, I leave to every one of you, who have read S. Paul, to judge.  
And here, now, if Time were not a Winged Thing, or if it would but stay my leisure, I might lay before you many other places of the Scripture, which clearly do demonstrate that Separation is a sin. For though, like the Ghost of Samuel, which you read of in the Scripture, it usually appear clothed in the Mantle of a Prophet, though it were Holiness in the Tongue, And preciseness in the Face; yet to let you see what an Apple of Sodom it is; How it looks with a Virgin cheek without, and is nought but Rottenness within, I shall once more desire you to hear what S. Paul says of it, In the 5. Chapter of the Galatians at the 19 and 20. verses of that chapter, Where he once more reckons it among the sins of the Flesh. As for Example, The Works of the Flesh are manifest, says he, which are these. Adultery, Fernication, Uncleanness, Lasciviousness, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Hatred, Variance, Emulation, Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Heresies, says our English Translation. But the words in the Original Greek, (which are the true Word of God) will bear it thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, Divisions, Sects, Envyings, Murders, Drunkenness, Revellings, and such like. Of the which I tell you before, says he, As I have told you in Times past, That They which do such Things shall not Inherit the Kingdom of God. Where you see Seditions, Sects, and Schisms, as well as Adultery, and Murder, are there listed by S. Paul among those works of the Flesh, which do shut men out of Heaven, and exclude them from salvation.  
Many such like places of the Scripture I might lay before you. But I will content myself with one Argument more; which shall not only prove to you, That Separation is a sin; But one of the Greatest sins, of which Christians can be guilty.  
To make this clear to you, and beyond all Dispute, or Question. That which I will say to you (and mark it well) is this. 'Tis a Rule in Divinity, (and 'tis a Rule infallible) That those sins are the Greatest, which are most contrary, and do most oppose the greatest Christian virtues. Now the Three Great Christian virtues which do make and constitute a Christian, are set down by S. Paul, in the 13. chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, at the last verse, where he says, Now abideth Faith, Hope, and Charity; But the Greatest of these is Charity. Thus, then, stands the case. Distrust in God's promises, or an unbelief in his power, is a very great sin. For 'tis a sin which doth oppose and quite cut off the wings of Hope. Heresy, or the strife, and obstinate Defence, and persisting in a known Error, is a far greater sin. For 'tis a sin against Faith, a sin which strives to draw a Cloud about the Beams of Truth. But if it be true what S. Paul says, (as most certainly it is) If it be true that Charity is greater than either Faith, or Hope, Than 'twill follow by Good Logic and all the Consequence of Reason; That that sin which doth untie, and break the Bond of peace; That sin which destroys Christian Friendship, and Communion; Lastly, That sin which rends, and tears the Cords of Charity asunder, is a far greater sin than unbelief or Heresy. And the sin which doth all this is the sin of Separation.  
First 'tis a greater sin in it self, and the very formality of the sin. As being the worst Extreme to the best, and greatest virtue, Namely, The virtue of Love; By which Christ would have his Followers distinguished from the rest of Mankind. For by this shall all men know, says he, that you are my Disciples, if ye love one another. As you may read in the 13. chapter of john at the 35. verse. And agreeable to this is that which is delivered here in this Text, where the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews says, Let us consider one another to provoke one another to Love. And not forsake the Assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.  
And as Schism, or Separation upon a slight, or needless Ground is in it self one of the greatest sins; So 'tis one of the greatest sins too, in its dangerous Effects. Besides the Hatred, Envy, Strife, which it begets among Men of divided Interests, and Minds, 'tis many times the Coal which sets whole States and Commonwealths on fire. It pretends, indeed, very much to the Spirit, And at first clothes itself in the Dress of Humility and Meekness; But they who have written the Chronicles of the Church can tell you, That those pretences to the Spirit have no sooner gathered strength, but they have proceeded to bloody Battles, and pitched fields. Where the Meek persons have thrown aside their Bibles; and have changed the Sword of the Spirit into the Sword of War. The proceedings of the Donatists in Africa, and of the john-of Leyden-Men at Munster are two sad Examples of the truth of what I say.   

The Grounds of Separation examined.  
BUt here, perhaps, will some of you, who hear me this day, 
2.  say, What's all this to us? In saying this which you have hitherto said, like those who wrote Romances, you have but created an Adversary out of your own fancy, and then foiled him; or like the man in Aristotle who drove his shadow before him, you first frame a man of Air, and then cry he flies from you. But if this be to conquer, one of our Gifted Men who is at all no Scholar, can as well triumph over men of Air, and shadows, as yourself. To let you see, therefore, that I am one of those, who desire not to fight Duels with naked unarmed Men, nor to meet any in the Field, before we have agreed upon the just length of our Weapons: If your patience will hold out so long, who come disinterested hither, This second part of this Sermon shall be spent in the pursuit of that, which Master Deane of Christ-church just now very seasonably noted as a Defect in our present way of Arguing, and Dispute, which was, that the Grounds were not examined upon which the present Separations of these Times, do build themselves. These Grounds, therefore, I shall now in the next place call to some reckoning and Account, And in the doing of this, I will hang up a pair of Scales before you, you shall see their Arguments placed in One Scale, and my Answers in the Other: And because no Moderator sits in the Chair to judge (which was a thing foreseen by me, but could not well be compassed) I shall make you the judges who hear me this day. And because the Rudeness, and Ill-language of those who have disturbed me in this Pulpit, hath made me stand before you here like a man arraigned for Error, I will freely cast myself upon God, and you the Country. Thus, then, I shall proceed.  
Here (as I said before) may some of the Separating party, say to me, How doth the former part of your Sermon concern us? We separate, 'tis true, But not on those false Grounds which you have all this while described. We grant, indeed, That if we broke Communion with you out of Faction, or Self-interest, or Pride, or desire of Gain, or mere Love of Separation, you might well call us Schismatics; and we should well deserve that Name. But the Ground on which we separate from you, is, because you are not fit to be Assembled with, you are sinners; wicked, lewd, profane, notorious sinners. The places where you meet breathe nothing but Infection. Your Teachers preach false Doctrine; and your people practice Lies. In a word, we cannot with the safety of our Conscience frequent your Congregations. Since to appear there would be an enterprise as dangerous, as if we should make Visits to a Pest-house, and there hope to scape the Plague.  
This you will say (good people) is very hard language. And How, think you, do they prove it? why, as they think by two clear places of the Scripture, which no man can oppose, and not make War with Heaven. Two places of Scripture, I say, have been produced, and quoted to me, like Samson and Achilles, with Invincible Lances in their Hands. Places which do not only allow, but command a separation; Nay, they command it so fully, that if they should not separate, or forsake our Congregations, they say they should sin greatly, and disobey the Scripture. And what are these two places?  
The first you shall find set down in the 5. last verses of the 6. Chapter, of the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, where the words run thus. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what Fellowship hath Righteousness with unrighteousness? And what Communion hath Light with Darkness? And what Concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? For ye are the Temple of the living God; 
* Levit. 26. 12.  As God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, 
* Esay 52. 11.  saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. This is their first great place, which they urge for separation. Will you now hear their second? That you shall find set down in the 4. first verses of the 18. Chapter of the Revelations. Where the words run thus, After these things, says S. john there, I saw another Angel come down from Heaven, having great power; and the Earth was lightened with his Glory. And he cried mightily, with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the Habitation of Devils, and the hold of every foul Spirit; And the Cage of every unclean, and hateful Bird. For all Nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her Fornications; And the Kings of the Earth have committed Fornication with her. And the Merchants of the Earth are waxed rich, through the Abundance of her Delicacyes. And I heard Another voice from heaven, (says he) saying; Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.  
These two places of Scripture (if you will hear me express myself in the threadbare Lunguage of the Times) They say, do hold Forth themselves so clearly, that I may sooner quench the sun than find an Answer to them. Nay, to deal freely with you, these two places, and these only are a piece of the Challenge which hath occasioned this Dispute. For I am promised by Her, whom I here come to undeceive, that if I can answer these two places, she will be my Convert; And will soparate from these who do now make separations.  
I take her at her word, and do thus contrive, and shape my Answers; Mark them I beseech you. As for the first place in the 6. Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians; you are to understand, that when S. Paul wrote that Epistle, The City of Corinth was not wholly converted to the Faith, but was divided in Religions, some were yet Heathens, and sacrificed to Idols: Others did embrace the Gospel, and gave up their Names to Christ.  
Nevertheless, they were not so divided in Religions, but that dwelling together in the same City, certain Neighbourly civilities, and Acts of kindness passed between them. As for Example, when a Heathen or Unbeliever offered a sacrifice to his Idol, 'twas usual, for old Acquaintance sake, to invite his Christian Friends to be Guests to his sacrifice; And to eat of his meat which was offered to his Idol, As you may read, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28. And the place where the sacrifice was eaten, and where the Feast was made, was, for the most part in the Temple of the Idol, As you may read, 1 Cor. 8. 10. Now, this mingling of Religions; This meeting of Christians with Heathens, at a Heathen Feast; Nay, at a Feast where the Meat was first offered to an Idol, Nay in that Idol was offered to the Devils, as you may read, 1 Cor. 10. 20. Nay, this meeting of Christians with Heathens at an Idol sacrifice, and their eating with them of that sacrifice in the very Temple of the Idol, was a thing so dangerous, so apt to call weak Christians back again to their former Idolatry, That Saint Paul thought it high time to say, Be not thus unequally yoked with unbelievers. In which expression he doth cast an eye upon that Law of God, which you may read set down in the 22. Chapter of deuteronomy, at the 9, 10, 11. verses of that Chapter. Where God says, Thou shalt not sow thy Vineyard with divers seeds; Nor shalt thou plough thy field with an Ox, and an Ass yoked together; Nor shalt thou wear a Garment of divers sorts, Namely, of Linen, and Woollen woven together in one piece. To the Mystical meaning of which Law, S. Paul here alludes, when he says, Be not unequally yoked with Unbelievers. For a Christian mingling with a Heathen, in a Heathen Congregation: Nay, a Christian mingling with a Heathen in the Temple of an Idol, was a more disproportioned sight, then to see an Ox yoked with an Ass in the same Plough; Or then to see Corn sown with Grapes in the same Field; Or then to see Wool mixed with Linen in the same Garment. In a Word, the Idolatry of the Heathens was so inconsistent with the Religion of the Christians, that S. Paul proceeds, and says, that they might as well reconcile Light to Darkness, or contrive a League between Christ and Belial; Or tie a Marriage knot between Righteousness and sin, as make it hold in fitness; That Christians who are the Temples of God, and of his holy Spirit, should meet, and eat, and bear a part in the Idol Temples of the Heathens. And these Infidels, these Heathens, who did not believe in Christ; These Corinthians unconverted, These Worshippers of Idols, who strove to draw the Christians back to their former Superstitions, were they from whom S. Paul bids his New Converts separate themselves. Come out from among them, and be ye separate, says he, at the 17. verse of that Chapter. O●…, (in the Language of the place) Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. Which words are but a string struck by the Prophet 
* Esay 52. 11.  Esay first, and spoken by him, of the separation of the jews, from the then Idolatryes of the Heathens. And that this is the true Interpretation of this place, will appear to any who shall compare, what S. Paul here says, with that which he says, in the 10. Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, from the 19 to the 30. verse of that Chapter.  
This then, being so, Let me ask the zealous persons, who thus delight in Separation, are They from whom they separate such Infidels, such Heathens, such Worshippers of Idols, as S. Paul doth here describe? Do they see any Gods of Gold, erected in our Temples? Or do they see any Images of Silver adored, and sacrificed to by our Congregations? Do any of us make prayers to a stock? Or do any of us burn Incense to a Stone? Nay, let them (if they please) examine us by their private-meeting-Catechisme. Do we not confess the same God that they do? Do we not believe in the same jesus Christ? Do we preach another Gospel? Or hope to be saved by any other Name but His? Are not our Congregations built on the Scripture-Rock? Is not Christ our Corner Stone, and his Apostles our Foundation? Do we not agree with them in all things, but where they differ from the Scripture? As for Example, we do maintain, and say, that separation is a sin. They do maintain and say, That 'tis a Christian Duty; We urge that Text which says, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism; They urge no Text, which says, Men must be twice Baptised. We say, that if a Child of God do break God's Laws, a Child of God sins. Some of them say that God beholds no sin in his Children. Lastly, we say of the Scripture, as 
† 2 Pet. 3. 16.  S. Peter said of S. Paul's Epistles; That there be some things in them, very hard to be understood, which they who are unlearned wrest to their own Destruction. They say unlearned Gifted Men are the best Expounders of the Scripture; What they mean by Gifted Men I will not here examine. But that which I will say is this, because We differ in Opinions to divide themselves from us; Nay to apply such a reproachful place of Scripture to us, as makes us no better than Infidels, and Heathens, and Worshippers of Idols, is to revile us with the Word of God, and to Libel us with Scripture.  
Would They take it well, if we should apply to Them that place which says; Woe to you, ye Hypocrites, ye Blind Leaders of the Blind; you who strain at Gnats, and yet securely swallow Camels? Would They take it well, if we should quote a place of Scripture, and make it call Them Whited Sepulchers; which show fair and beautiful without, and hold nought but stink, and Rottenness within? Again, would They take it well if we should apply to them, that place which speaks of Men, who have a Form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof? Men, who like the old Pharisees, with a long prayer in their Mouth, creep into Houses, and there lead Captive silly Women? Lastly, would They take it well if we should apply that place to Them, which says; That as jannes', and jambres withstood Moses, so do these men resist the Truth? Men of corrupt Minds; Reprobate concerning the Faith? (as 'tis in the Greek, and the Margin of your Bibles) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Men purblind, void of judgement concerning the true knowledge of the Faith? If they would not take it well, why do they not observe the Rule of Equity, and justice, which is, To do to us, but as They would have us do to them?  
But here perhaps, will some of you who hear me this day, say; We do not separate from you, because you are outright unbelievers, Pagans, Infidels, or Heathens; But because you wear the Names of Christians, and yet live the Lives of Heathens. Though you do not worship Idols, yet there is Covetousness among you, which S. Paul calls 
† Col. 3. 5.  Idolatry. And though you do profess Christ, yet you walk disorderly; And do commit those sins which they who denied Christ did. Though we see no Gods of Gold nor Silver in your Temples, yet if we came there, we might see a Congregation of such people as S. Paul in other places bids us Separate from. As for Example, turn to the 3. Chapter of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the 6. verse. Doth he not there command us In the name of the Lord jesus to withdraw ourselves from every Brother, who walks disorderly, and not according to the Traditions which he taught? Or if this place be not clear enough, turn to the 5. Chapter of the first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, and to the 11. verse, Doth he not there say, that if Any man that is called a Brother, be a fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one we are not to keep Company, No, not to eat?  
I grant, indeed, S. Paul says so, and do think it very fit that S. Paul should be obeyed. But how doth this prove that they are to forsake our Congregations? That there are such men among us, as S. Paul doth there describe, is a Truth too clear to be denied. But are our whole Congregations composed of such men? Are all Drunkards? Are all Fornicatours? Are all Railers? Are all Extortioners? Are all, both Priests and People so like one another, that when they meet they make not a Church. Assembly, but a Congregation of such sinners? Or are they only some? And they, perhaps, the lesser part who are guilty of those sins? Nay suppose they should be far the greater part, who are guilty of these sins; yet you know our 
* Mat. 13.  Saviour Christ compares the Church to a Field sown with good seed; But than he tells us too, That to the World's end, among the good seed there shall still grow Weeds, and Tares. Again, in the 13. chapter of S. Matthew at the 47. and 48. verses of that Chapter, he compares the Kingdom of God here in this World, to a Net cast into the Sea, which enclosed Fishes of all sorts, Bad as well as Good. And what the meaning of this draught of mingled Fishes is, I shall desire you to read at the 49. and 50. verses of that chapter, where he says; That at the End of the world, and not till then, the Angels shall go forth, and shall separate the wicked from among the Just: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says the Original Greek, They shall separate the wicked from the midst of the Just, which clearly doth prove to us, That till this final Separation, in the Church of God here on earth, there will always be a mixture: To divide or separate, therefore, from the whole Congregation, because some wicked men are in it, is a course so unreasonable, as if they should refuse a Field of Corn because there grew some weeds, or should renounce a Field of Wheat because it bears some Tares.  
Besides, I would fain know, how far they will extend the meaning of that Text, where S. Paul says, That they are not to eat with a Brother, who is a Drunkard, or Adulterer, or Railer, or Extortioner. Will they extend it to all sorts of persons who are such? If they will, Then if a Woman have a Drunkard to her Husband, she must separate from him because he is a Drunkard, if she do not, every time she eats with him, she disobeyes S. Paul; and in every meal she makes with him she commits a Scripture sin. By the same reason also, If the Son have a Drunkard to his Father, he must remove Tables, and not diet with his Father. And so there will be one Division more than those the Scripture speaks of: For that only tells us that the time shall come when the Son shall be divided from the Father, and the Mother from the Daughter. But if this Interpretation be true, the Wife must divide and break herself from her distempered Husband too.  
Nay give me leave to go one step farther yet. If the sins of a part be a just sufficient Ground to separate from the whole, Why do not they who separate, divide and fall asunder? For here let me ask them, and let me ask without offence; Are they all so Innocent, so pure, so free, so void of sin, that there is not one disorderly Brother among them? Is their place of private Meetings so much the New jerusalem, That no Drunkard, no Adulterer, nor Railer enters there? I wish there did not, my Brethren. We Ministers should not then so oft be called Dumb Dogs, Idol shepherds, Limbs of Antichrist, Baal's Priests, by Tongues, which if S. james say true, are set on fire of Hell.  
If then, it be not the meaning of S. Paul in that place, that 
●…am. 3. 6.  we should separate from all because some of those All are wicked, upon what other just Ground do they break Communion with us? Is it because we preach in Churches? They are God's House of prayer. Made his by the Piety, and Devotion of our Fathers, who if they lived now would hardly call them Saints, who prefer a Barn, nay a Hogsty before a consecrated Temple. Or is it because there is Heresy or Superstition mixed with our once Common Form of prayer? If there had been, you see that scandal is removed. Or do we persecute, or force, or drive them from our Congregations? We are so far from that, that you see, they are ready to require that our public Congregations, should stoop, and bow the Knee to their private Meetings. What other secret reason 'tis which thus divides them from us, I can by no means think, unless it be wrapped up in the Mystery and cloud of the 18. chap. of the Revelations, which is their other strong Herculean place of Scripture, which hath been urged to me to make good their Separation. From which dark place of Scripture when I have removed the veil and Curtain, I will put a period, and conclusion to this Sermon.  
'tis there said, that S. john heard an Angel proclaim aloud, and say, Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the Habitation of Devils, the Hold of every unclean Spirit, and a Cage of every unclean, and hateful Bird; As you may read at the 2. verse of that chapter. 'tis farther said, That he heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. As you may read at the 4. verse of that chapter, where by Babylon fallen, they understand the Church of England fall'n, By the Habitation of Devils, the Hold of foul Spirits, and Cage of unclean Birds. They understand our Parish Churches, and Congregations which meet there; which, they say, are so much a Cage of unclean Birds, places so corrupt, so full of wickedness, and sin, that God, by his Spirit, as it were, by a voice from the Clouds, hath said unto them, Come out of them, my people, divide yourselves from them, lest ye be partakers of their sins, and go sharers in their plagues. This is, or must be their Interpretation of that place; or else 'twill no way serve to uphold their Separation. If, I say, by the Habitation of Devils, and Cage of unclean Birds be not meant our Church Assemblies, from which they do divide, they do but build a House of straw, and choose the sand for a Foundation. I am sure I have been told that this was the very Interpretation which the Gentleman gave of this place, who just now disputed with me, at a dispute which not long since he had with Mr. Gibson of Chinner.  
But now will you hear my censure of this wild Interpretation? Take it then, thus. Among the several Expounders of the Revelation, I once met with one, who when he came to interpret the Seven Angels, which blew the Seven Trumpets, He said that by one of those Angels was meant Luther, by another Queen Elizabeth. And when he came to give the meaning of the Locusts which ascended from the Bottomless pit, with Crowns on their Heads, by the Locusts, He understood Scholars of the University; And by the Crowns on their Heads, He understood Square Caps. Methinks, these kind of people deal just so with this place of the Revelation. They see strange visions in it which S. john never saw; Namely, they see Babylon in our Churches, and unclean Birds in our Assemblies. Nay, though the Devils being Spirits are too invisible to be seen, yet, by the benefit of a New-light, they can see sights which no other Eyes can see without being present in the place to which foul Spirits do resort, (as if they had borrowed one of Galilaeo's Glasses) they can see Devils take Notes at our Sermons. But whether in shorthand, or at length, S. john hath not revealed.  
Pardon me, I beseech you, you who are of the more grave and nobler sort, that I am thus pleasant in the pulpit; I am compelled to be so when I meet with people who deal with the Scripture, as men of melancholy Fancies use to deal with the Clouds. For as I have known some hypocondriac men, who have feigned to themselves flying Horses, winged Troops, and Skips sailing in the Air; Nay, as I have known some, who, like the Melancholy man, who thought himself a urinal, have thought they have seen two Armies in the Sky; and have mistaken Clouds, and Meteors for Soldiers, Trumpets, Drums, and Cannons; So I do not wonder that our Gifted, thinking people should so mistake the Revelation as they do; or that they should see Monsters in the Scripture Clouds. Where the Scripture is most clear, they hardly understand it; How then, should they find out the Key to such dark prophecies as this?  
But here may some man say to me, if they mistake this place, what's your Interpretation of it? Why, my Interpretation is the very same which S. john Himself delivers, Rev. 14. 8. Where the Angel expresseth himself in the very same words, And says, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; That great City which made all Nations drink of the Wine of the Wrath of her Abominations. And what was that Great City? Why the City built on seven Hills; As 'tis described in another place of the Revelation. That Great City which was the Queen of Nations; Namely, the City of Rome, when 'twas the seat of Heathen Emperors. Lastly, that Great City, which gave Laws to all the World, to worship her False Gods, and to partake of her Idolatryes. And this was that Great City, which S. john calls Babylon; either, because speaking of the Fall and Ruin of it, He thought it not safe to call it Rome, or by its right and proper Name; Lest, if he had done so, he might draw persecution on the Christians. Or else, Because as Babylon was the Head City of the Persian Monarchy, so Rome was then the Head City of the Roman. In a word, this is that Great City, which was then the great Court of Idolatry, the Queen of Superstitions; And therefore, justly called by the Angel which spoke to S. john, The Habitation of Devils, and Cage of unclean Birds. And from this Babylon, this Rome, the then City of confusion, the Angel of God bid the Christians of those Times to come forth, and separate themselves; lest they should be partakers of her sins, and go sharers in her plagues. But to say as they do, that the Church of England is that Babylon the great; or that cut Parish Congregations, from which they do divide themselves, are the Habitation of Devils, the Hold of foul spirits, and Cage of unclean Birds here mentioned in this chap. is such a piece of Ignorance, as well as zealous slander, that they will never be able to prove it, till they can make the Capitol of Rome stand in our London streets, or till they can make the River Tiber run, where now our Thames doth; or till they can change the Countries in our Maps, and make the Mid-lanà Sea flow on our English shore. And farther than this I will not trespass on your patience; or enlarge myself to prove to you that Separation is a Sin.  
THE END.   

A SERMON CONCERNING Unity & Agreement. PREACHED AT CARFAX CHURCH in OXFORD, August 9 1646.  
By JASPER MAINE, D. D. and one of the Students of Christ-Church, OXON.  ROME 12. 18. 
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.  
Printed in the Year, M D C XLVII.   

A SERMON CONCERNING UNITY and AGREEMENT.  1 COR. 1. 10. Now I beseech you Brethren, by the Name of our Lord jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no Divisions among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement. 
THough Truth, from what mouth soever it be spoken, or in what shape or dress soever it appear, be but one and the same; and where it is rightly understood, carries this uniting, peaceful quality with it, that it makes all its followers of one consent, and mind too; yet I know not from what mist, or impotence, lodged in our nature, with whom errors and mistakes do for the most part prevail more than Arguments or Demonstrations; and with whom our own misconceipts (conveyed into us from such whom we think too holy to deceive us, or too learned to deceive themselves) do for the most part stick so deeply, and take such root and impression in us, that it is not in the power of truth itself to remove them: This one, uniting, peaceful Bond of minds, this Ray of our Souls, according to the several Teachers of it, and according to the several forms and shapes, into which they have cast it, hath always been looked on as so many several Truths; And to the discredit, and disadvantage of it, hath in all Ages been as severally entertained and followed. Thus among the Heathen Plilosophers, we find the number of Sects, to be much greater than the number of Sciences. Every new famous Teacher, who professed severity in his looks, and austerity in his man ners, had the power to draw a cloud of Disciples after him, and to erect a new Truth with a new School. And thus in the very Church of God itself, the Gospel no sooner began to be preached to the world, but it began to have its Sects and Schisms, and sidings too. The Apostles taught but one Faith, one Baptism, one Christ, one plain, open way of salvation to men; yet they were misunderstood by some, as if they had preached many: Or as if the numbers of their several Doctrines, had equalled the number of their several persons, and they had (every one where he went) scattered a several Gospel.  
To speak yet more plainly to you, and nearer home to the History of this Text; The Corinthians (to whom this Epistle was written) as if from every new Teacher that came thither, they had learned a new Religion, began at length to have as many Religions among them as they had heard Teachers. You might have distinguished divers Churches in the same City, and have divided their Beliefs and Creeds by their Families and streets. Where, by a fallacy and deceit of the ear, judging of the things taught, by their affection to the Teacher, and not judging of the Teacher by the things which he taught, every one chose to himself the name of his Minister to make a Side and faction by. One (as you read at the 12. Verse, of this Chapter) said, I am of Paul, another, I am of Apollo's, a third, I am of Cephas, a fourth, I am of Christ: As if Christ had either been divided, or else were to stand with the rest as the name of a distinct Religion; Or at least, as if the Gospel (which at first sprung from him) like streams broken off from their springhead, were no longer to retain the name of the Fountain from whence it rose, but were to wear the stile of the several pipes and channels, by which it was conveyed abroad into the world.  
This diversity of names, and sides, grew at first from their diversity of opinions, and minds. When the unlearned wresting the Scripture which they had heard preached to an Apostles sense, would presume to impose that sense, which was indeed, not an Apostles, on others. And those others, equally as unlearned, thought it as reasonable, so they could entitle it to another Apostle, to impose their interpretation of Scripture on the first.  
This diversity of minds, proceeded at length to diversity of language and speech. Congregation spoke censoriously of Congregation, as if none had been in the right, but they only who most vehemently could charge others with being in the wrong. Saint Paul was urged, and quoted against Saint Peter, and Apollo's against both, and Christ against all three. Whose Sermons, like those changeable figures which melancholy men frame to themselves in the clouds, were made to wear the shape and form, which every man's zeal and fancy suggested to him.  
Hence, in time, from difference and disagreement in minds and speech, they grew to difference and disagreement in society and conversation too. Difference of opinion bred separation of companies; and that which was at first but a neighbourly dispute, by degrees took flame, and grew to be mortal hatred, division and schism. Men of the next door were no longer neighbours to one another. All the bonds of Charity became utterly broken. All Christian intercourse, and familiarity and commerce ceased between them. He was thought to be false, and to betray his side, who offered to show himself affable or civil to one of another party.  
In short, the breach became so wide, that he was thought to be the only religious man who could most enlarge the rent, and could bring most fuel to the present combustion which was thus unhappily kindled among them. To compose these differences the refore, (differences not unlike those of our miserable, distracted times) and to make the Knot and Reconciliation as fast and strong, as the disagreement and rent was large and wide, S. Paul here in this Text, prescribes a several Cure, for every particular and several breach. First, to remove the discord which rose among them, by calling themselves by several names, and to banish the ill consequences of all such factious compellations, which for the most part are bitter Invectives, and sharp arrows of detraction hurled at one another, he persuades them to unity of language and speech, and exhorts them to call themselves all by the same name, in these words, Now I beseech you Brethren, that ye all speak the same thing. Next, to remove their want of meetings, and Communion together in the same place of God's Worship, he persuades them to unity of Assemblies, and Congregation, in these words, Now I beseech you, Brethren, that there be no divisions, That is, (as I shall in the progress of this Sermon, make it clear to you from the Original) that there be no separations, that is, (as our English word doth well express it) that there be no private sequestered meetings, no such things as Conventicles among you. Thirdly, to remove the root, and spring of all these uncharitable strifes, and divisions, and separations, he persuades them to unity of opinions and minds, in these words, Now I beseech you, Brethren, that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement. Lastly, that he might with the greater success do this, and (like a skilful reconciler) might win upon all sides, he for a while lays aside the Authority of his Apostleship; and mingling Request and Conjuration, with Exhortation and Advice, he acts the part of an Apostle, in the form of a Petitioner, in these words, Now I beseech you Brethren, by the Name of our Lord jesus Christ, etc. Upon these parts, the Apostles mild insinuation, and address of himself, and the several Degrees of unity and concord, in speech, in Assemblies, and in Opinions, to which he here exhorts the Corinthians, I will build my future discourse. In the ordering of which, I will begin with the Apostles submissive insinuation, or address of himself, in these words, Now I beseech you, Brethren, by the Name of our Lord jesus Christ.  
For the clearer and more useful handling of this part of the Text, First, it will be necessary that I speak something to you of 
●…1. 〈◊〉 qualifis  Saint Paul's person, the Preacher here in the Text, and of his calling to the Ministry; which well considered, will conduce very much to the removal of a certain dangerous error received of late into the minds of too many unlearned, vulgar men among us: Which is, That Universities, and Books, and Studies, and Learning are so far from being necessary preparations to make a Preacher of the Gospel, that any Layman, though perhaps brought up to a manual Trade, or a vocation of Husbandry, or attendance upon cattle, if he find by himself that he is called by the Spirit of God, may put himself into Orders, and take the Ministry upon him. And thus enabled from above, without the form of Ordination, or those other slow, tedious, lazy helps, of sitting twenty years in a College to understand the Bible, may in the few minutes of a powerful Inspiration spring up an Apostle, and go forth a Preacher of the Word of God.  
To this persuasion they have been invited by two sorts of Examples in the Scripture; one in the Old Testament, the other in the New, In the Old Testament, Do you not read, say they, that God called Elisha from the Plough to be a Prophet? And doth not Amos tell you in the 7. Chapter of his Prophecy, at the 14. Verse, that he was a Herdman, and a gatherer of Sycamore fruit? Then for examples in the New Testament, pray what were the Apostles? were they great Scholars? or did Christ send to Athens for them? were they not Fishermen, men altogether unlettered, men called from mending nets to preach the Gospel? If this were so, That God according to his good pleasure, without any consideration of study, or height of parts, chose simple, unlearned, unstudied men, to be Prophets and Apostles, and Teachers, then why should any think he hath so confined, or entailed his free Spirit, or vocation of men, upon great parts, and studies, that he may not, if he please call the like unstudied, simple men from the Plough or Fisherboat, or Stall, or Shopboard, to be Ministers of his Gospel, and Teachers of his people now?  
My Brethren, you see I have not prevaricated, or diminished aught of the strength of the Argument which is urged in favour of laymen's preaching. In answer to which, laying aside all partiality to myself, and prejudice against them, I shall with the same spirit of meekness and Candour, with which Saint Paul here in this Text bespoke his Corinthians, beseech you, who hear me this day, to observe, and weigh, and consider well this which I shall say for a Reply?  
First, Farneze, far be it from me so to flatter the place of my Education, or so to bias my belief, by any false ovevarluing of humane Industry, or great parts that I should pinion, as it were, or put limits to the power of the Almighty; Or should be so irreligiously bold, as to gainsay that piece of his Gospel which compares his holy Spirit to the Wind, which bloweth where it listeth. If they who thus pretend to a private Inspiration do mean, that whatever God did in the times heretofore, he is able to do now, I shall easily grant it; And here in the presence of you all, confess myself to be of their opinion. Nor shall I make any doubt or scruple at all, to say, that, if we look upon what God is able to do, by the same power by which he was able to raise up Children to Abraham out of stones, or (to speak yet more nearly to the Argument in hand) by the same power that he was able to make a Herd-man a Prophet, or a Fisherman an Apostle, he is able, in our times also, if he please, to make the meanest Tradesman one of the greatest Luminaries of his Church. Since to an Omnipotent Agent, whose gifts are merely Arbitrary, and depend wholly upon the pleasure of his own will, the greatest endowments of men, and the least, are alike easy. But though he be able to do this, and in the ancient times of the Scripture have imparted his Gifts without respect of Persons, yet whether he now will, or whether in our times he doth still thus extraordinarily raise up Teachers to himself, is extremely to be doubted. For here with all the Christian gentleness and reason, which may possibly conduce to the clearing of this doubt, were I to argue this Controversy with one of those men who invade our function, and from gathering of Sycamore fruit step up into the Pulpit, I would only ask him this question; What Commission he hath thus to usurp upon our Office; Or who signed him his patent; Since the Apostle tells us in the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, at the fourth Verse, (A place well worth your marking, my Brethren) That no man taketh this honour of a Priest to himself, But he who is called of God, as was Aaron? I know his common answer will be, that God hath called him to this Office by the secret Instinct, and Motion of his Holy Spirit. But, then, he must not take it ill, if I yet farther ask him, by what signs, or marks, or testimonies, or tokens, he can either ma●… it reasonably appear to himself, or others, that God hath dealt with him as he dealt with some of the Prophets, or Apostles; called him from his Trade by such a motion of his Spirit? Elisha we know, made Iron swim, and knew men's Closet-discourses in a far Country, which was a sure and certain sign that God had called him to be a Prophet. The Apostles also we know, wrought many of Christ's miracles, which was a most infallible sign that God had chosen them to be Apostles. If any of these men, who derive their warrant from the same sacred spring, can make Iron swim, or like Elisha, remaining here in their own. Israel, can tell us what the King of Syria says in his Bedchamber; Or if like Saint Peter they can cure fevers and diseases by their bare shadows passing over them; Or if, like the rest of the Apostles, having never before known Letters, they can of a sudden speak all Languages, the Controversy is at an end; It would be a very great sin against the Spirit of God to deny, that he is in them of a Truth. But if all the proof and sign they can give us that they have him, be only a strong persuasion of themselves; Nay, if by an infallible Illumination they could assure themselves, that they have him, yet as many as have not the like infallible Illumination to assure them so too, will not be guilty of an unpardonable offence, if they suspect they have him not. For here, I must once more repeat my former Question, and ask by what effects, or signs of the Spirit, men shall know them to be called? By what? will some man say, why? Do you not hear them preach, expound Scripture, unfold Prophecies, interpret Parables; nay pluck the veil and cloud from the Book of Mysteries itself, the very Revelation? Can any of you great Scholars, with all your study of Philosophers, Fathers, Counsels, Schoolmen, Historians, Orators, Poets, either hold your Congregations longer, or send them away more edified? And will you yet ask Questions? Or doubt of the certainty of their vocation? I must not dissemble with you, if I could meet with an unlearned Handicraft-man, who without study, can do this to the same height, and measure of Truth, as those unjustly-cryed down, learned, and well-studied men do, I should begin to alter my opinion; And should reckon him as he deserves, in the number of the inspired. But alas, my Brethren, as I am not come hither to disparage the gifts of the Holy Ghost, in what person soever I find them, or to persuade that Scripture rightly expounded, is not one, and the same, from the mouth of a Priest, or an inspired Layman; so this I must freely say to you, That as many of those strange Teachers as I have heard, have expounded Scripture indeed, and have ventured upon some of the hardest places of the Prophets. But, then, if all my studies of the Bible, assisted with all those holy, uncorrupted learned helps, which might enable me to understand it aright, have not deceived me, their expositions, and Sermons, how passionately delivered, or how long soever, are evident proofs to me that they have not the Spirit. If they had, they would never, certainly, expound Scripture so directly contrary to his meaning; Or make the writings of the Prophets or Apostles, wear only that present shape, not which the holy Ghost hath imprinted and stamped upon them, but which tends to the division of a Kingdom, and the confusion of a Church; Nor would they, as they do, what ever the Text be, press that sense from it, not which is genuine, and natural, but which tends most to the destruction of a party, or the fomentation of a most unnatural Civil War. Saint Paul tells us in the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, at the 22, and 23. Verses, that the fruits, or effects of the Spirit, are love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance. He useth to speak to men in the voice, and figure of a Dove: But to entitle him to all those forbidden works of the flesh, of variance, hatred, sedition, heresies, envyings, murders, and the like, there reckoned up in the precedent Verses of that Chapter, is to make him speak with the voice of a Raven.  
In short, my Brethren, the Holy Ghost is not the Author of such Doctrines as break God's Commandments in the Pulpit. Nor is it a long Prayer, or a zealous two-houres reviling of the footsteps of the Lords Anointed, their lawful Sovereign, which can make their Sermons to be any other then so much Libel, or holy Detractation; Or which can make their Intrepretations of the Word of God, how moderate soever in other cases, if they be not agreeable to the scope, and mind, and intention of the Holy Ghost, to be any more than so many zealous mistakes, and so many illegitimate births, and creatures of their own deluded fancies.  
Next, in pursuit of this seasonable Argument, give me leave, I pray, with all the plainness I can, (for I well know where I am, and to what Auditory I speak) to make it yet farther evident to you, that if I should grant what these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Basil calls them, these Saints of a day's growth, challenge to themselves, who think that all that is required to make a Minister of the Gospel, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only to be willing, and to start up a Preacher. If, I say, it should be granted them, that they have the inward calling of the Spirit, yet God is so much the God of order, that unless they will enter themselves into his service, by undergoing those Rites of Consecration and Imposition of Hands, which God hath prescribed in his Church, to stand for ever as the outward forms and signs of their vocation too, every act of the Ministry which they perform, is but a sacrifice like theirs who offered strange fire before the Lord, and miserably perished by their own forbidden Censors. Or if you will have me express the danger of it by a judgement as terrible. Thus to put their hand to the Ark, thus to support it, if 'twere ready to fall, is such an unwarranted piece of officiousness, as will (certainly) unrepented, at some time or other, draw the punishment of Uzzrah upon them, provoke the abused Almighty to break forth in a flame of fire upon them, and consume them for their unnecessary diligence. For here, all the Scripture examples which embolden them to this work, do return upon them, as so many instances and proofs of their encroachment on our office. For here let me once more ask them, How was Elisha called to be a Prophet? merely by the secret, unknown whisper and instinct of the holy Ghost? Truly, if he had, yet this would not make much for them; because God never tied himself precisely to those outward forms in the choice of a Prophet, which he then did, and still doth in the choice of his Priests. Yet the calling of this Prophet was not without its visible sign. Go, says God to Elias, in the 19 Chap. of the first book of Kings, at the 16. Verse, Anoint Elisha the Son of Shaphat to be Prophet in thy room. And whether the like Ceremony of pouring oil on his head, were not also performed by some elder Prophet upon Amos as the younger, as 'tis not affirmed, so 'tis not denied in Scripture, but left probable. In the Consecration of the Priests of those times, the case is much more evident: Read at your leisure the 29. Chapter of Exodus, there you shall find, that before God would receive them into that sacred function, first, divers Sacrifices were to be offered for them; then they were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and there to be washed; then the Priests Garments, the Coat, the Ephod, the Breastplate, and Mitre, were to be put upon them. Lastly, followed the anointing oil, which was poured upon their heads: And this was the Consecration of the Priests of those times.  
The Ceremonies of Consecration in the New Testament, were different, I confess, from those of the Old; but yet equivalent, and answerable to them in their kind. These were, a public meeting of the Church together, a presentation there made of the person to be made a Priest; solemn prayers and supplications put up to God, to make him useful to his Church: and for a seal of all the rest, the Imposition of the Bishop's hands, assisted by his Presbyters. Now, my Brethren, apply this to the strange Priests of our times, who with unwashed feet thrust themselves into the Tabernacle; not a sacrifice, not so much as a handful of meal, or grain of Incense, or drop of oil spent towards their Consecration; No solemn assembly, no presentation of themselves made to God, no imposition of hands, not so much as a short Prayer, or benediction, or God speed you, used towards their setting forth into the Lord's Vineyard, and you will find that these are the thiefs and robbers (pardon the hardness of the language, I cannot make the Scripture speak mildlier than it doth) which our Saviour Christ speaks of in the 10. Chapter of S. john at the first Verse, Men who enter not in by the door into the sheep-fold, but climb up some other way. In brief, men, whose Sermons and Doctrines correspond to their consecrations. By stealth they enter into the Ministry, and by stealth they exercise it. And whereas the mark and Character of all the true Ministers of the Gospel is to stand, having their feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace, these men wander, and go about, having their feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel 
〈◊〉. 5, 15.  of strife. Men, who never think themselves sufficiently Apostles, till all the world do call them the sons of thunder too. Men who speak fire, and throw lightning among the people; and think they have then only done the work, and business of an Apostle, when they have cast the Congregation which they leave behind them into a combustion and flame. I shall trouble your patience but with one Objection, which may possibly be made against what I have hitherto said; that is this: Here, some one of these modern, selfe-inspiring Teachers may say, Sir, you tell us of Ceremonies and Consecrations, and I know not what, Imposition of hands; but either you have forgot yourself, or wisely dissembled the vocation of the Apostles. Were not they without your formality of laying on of hands, without all this ado of conveying orders, and the holy Ghost by fingers, immediately called by Christ? What imposition of hands went to change S. Peter from a Fisherman into an Apostle? or what Bishops Ceremonies past to make S. Paul (in whose person you have all this while preached against us) of a persecutor of the Church to become a Doctor of the Gentiles? Doth no●… your own Tertullian say, Nun & Laici Sacerdotes sumus, That any Layman, if he please, may be a Priest?  
To this I reply; first, As for the Apostles, 'tis true, indeed, we do not read that they were consecrated to their Ministry by such Rites and Imposition of hands, as were afterwards received and practised in the Church. Yet something answerable to the Imposition of hands went to their Consecration, before they were invested with full Authority to preach the Gospel to the world. For besides their first vocation by Christ to be his Disciples, from whom they learned that Gospel which they afterwards preached, what says the Scripture? Tarry ye at jerusalem, says Christ to them, after his Resurrection, till I send the promise of my Father upon 
Luk. 2●….  you, and ye be endued with power from above. And, pray, what was that promise, and what was this power? Certainly, that which you read of in the second Chapter of the Acts, where at the time prefixed by Christ, the Holy Ghost descended on them. And how did he descend? in a still, soft, secret, invisible persuasion of the Fancy? Or in the silent whisper of an unperceived Illumination? No such matter, Quod Episcopus aliis, Spiritus sanctus Apostolis, says a learned man. The holy Ghost here supplied the Office of a Bishop, descended upon them in an audible rushing wind, which signified his election of them to the ear; And sat upon their heads in the shape of cloven Tongues of fire; which signified his election of them to the eye. Hi ritus, haec impositio; These were his Ceremonies, this his Imposition of hands, says that Author. So that all the difference between the Admission of the Apostles to the Ministry, and others, was only this: In other Consecrations the Bishop only granted the power to preach, but bestowed not the Gifts; Here the Holy Ghost bestowed both. He first by visible, outward signs, testified to the world whom he had chosen, and to whom they were to hearken; And then furnished them with Tongues, and Languages, and knowledge, and parts, fit to be the Guides and great Instructers of the world. Let these men make it appear to me, that the Holy Ghost hath thus descended upon them, thus furnished them with parts, and I will most willingly resign my place to them in the Pulpit.  
Next, as for S. Paul, 'tis clear by the story of his Conversion, that he received not his Commission to preach from that which Christ spoke to him immediately from Heaven. But what says the place? After he was fallen to th●… Earth blind, Arise, says Christ 
Acts 9  to him, and go into the City, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. When he came into the City, a certain Disciple named Ananias, pre-instructed by Christ in a vision, was sent to him, who putting his hands on him, says the Text, said to him, Brother Saul, the Lord (even jesus that appeared to thee in the way) hath sent me, that thou mightst receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Till his Imposition of hands, the holy Ghost was not bestowed upon him. And when he was bestowed upon him, yet he had not his full Commission; he was but yet a Disciple consecrated by a Disciple. To make him an outright Apostle, a higher, second, and more solemn consecration passed upon him, which you may read in the 13. Chapter of the Acts, where, says the Holy Ghost to the Trophets, and Teachers of the Church of Antioch, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them, Ver. 2. And how were they separated I pray? The third Verse tells you, When the Prophets and Teachers (there mentioned) had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands on them, says the Text, they sent them away, till than they wanted power. To which passage of this vocation, or calling to the Ministry, give me leave to add this for his parts. That in a humane way of acquired Learning, he was the greatest Scholar of his time, bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, a great Doctor of Law, spoke more Tongues, attained by his own Industry, than all the other Apostles, which had almost all Languages instilled into them by infusion. In short, he was versed, and read, and studied, not only in the Scripture, but in the highest parts of secular learning; In the writings of Menander, Epimenides, and Aratus, Heathen Poets. Which is sure sign to us, that studies, and learning, and parts acquired in Universities, ar●… no hindrances, or impediments, if not helps to the Ministry. Lastly, as for that saying of Tertullian, that Laymen may be Priests, he tells you, in the following words, in what case this is to be understood. Ubi Ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus; Where the condition of the time and place is such, that Ecclesiastical orders cannot be had; If a Christian Layman should come into a Pagan Island, or into a Country of Heathen people, where there is no true Minister, here Tinguis, & offers, & sacerdos es, every man is a Priest, and may baptise, and adminster the Sacrament, and preach as much of the Gospel as he knows. But where this necessity is not, to snatch the Sermon out of the mouth, or the Sacrament out of the hands or the child out of the arms of the true Minister, is certainly to to be in the number of those uncalled Teachers, of whom God complains in the 23. Chapter of jeremy, at the 21. Verse, where he says, I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ●…an; I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. And farther than this I will not pursue the first thing I proposed to you; which was by occasion of Saint Paul's calling to be an Apostle, to remove an error of late taken into the minds of some, that craftsmen may exercise the place and function of a Priest.  
The next thing I shall observe to you, is, the holy art and insinuation 
The a●… insinua himself  which S. Paul here useth to win upon the minds of his disagreeing Corinthians. Though he profess, in the beginning of the next Chapter, that he came not to them with that part of an Orator about him, which consists in the excellency of speech, or the enticing words of man's wisdom, (lest if he had done so, he might perhaps, have gained much glory to himself, but then his Master must have been in danger to lose his, and so the Gospel have suffered from his Eloquence; and his Epistles might, perhaps, have past for a good piece of Rhetoric, but not for good Sermons) yet he every where carried this other, equally prevailing part of a good Orator with him, that by complying with the affections of those to whom he wrote, he first transformed himself into their shapes, and became all things to all men, that he might the better transform them into his, and make all men become like himself. Thus to the Jews he became as a Jew; and put himself a while with them under the Law, that by insensible degrees he might take their yoke from them, and might beget their liking, and entertainment of the Gospel. And thus to the Gentiles, who were without the Law, he became as a Gentile, without the Law too, that he might unite them to the Jews. If I may speak of him, by his own description of himself, (and certainly, in that description of himself, he was inspired to speak truth as well as in his other writings) as he was not chosen, like the rest of the Apostles, out of Fishermen, or men unlearned, nor called to preach the Gospel from mending Nets; But as there was a concurrence of natural, acquired, and infused abilities in him, which rendered him though not one of the twelve, yet of equal gifts and endowments to them all. Lastly, as his task and patent to preach the Gospel was much larger than the rest, as much larger, as the rest of mankind was larger than the Nation of the Jews; So in the performance of his task, he never failed to express all this. Like the beast, of which Pliny speaks, which puts on the likeness of every thing next it, and shows like a flower before a flower, like a stream before a stream, and like a flame before a flame; so 'twas a piece of this Apostles (Art shall I say? or) holy commission, to be all things to all men. Strong with the strong, and weak with the weak. To part with his Liberty to the scrupulous, and to use it with the indifferent. To eat all things with those that did eat all things, and with those that did not, to keep himself to herbs. Will you hear him in all these particulars express himself? Turn to the ninth Chapt. of this Epistle, and to the nineteen Verse, where setting down the end, and aim, which he proposed to all his holy Arts, he says, Though I be free from all men, that is, no way obliged to do as I do, but for my Master's ser●…ice, yet have I made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more. Now if humility, and the casting of himself below himself; if to beseech, and entreat, and petition there, where he had sufficient authority and commission to enjoin and command, be to wear the form of a servant; and if all discreet behaviours, compliances, and applications, take their measure, and use, and praise, from the good end to which they are directed, and the good success which they are likely to procure, in all his Epistles I find not this Apostle more expediently making use of his Art in the form of a suppliant, then in this Text. For consider these Corinthians, to whom he here applies himself, divided, and broken into Factions; and these Factions severally deriving themselves, some from him, others from Cephas, others from Apollo's, (Names in their opinions, as holy, and great as his) and to have dealt imperiously with them, or to have used his Apostolical power, and to have commanded them to agreement, had not been to make peace, but to animate, and inflame that party which called themselves his side. It had been too, to call up opposition, and disdain in the others, who were not of that side. Who citing Apollo's, or Saint Peter against him, and thinking it to be some confession of their error and weakness to yield first, or to go over to them who said they were of Paul, it being as reasonable that they should come over to them, who said they were of Cephas or Apollo's, might have asked the same question which the striving Israelite asked Moses, Who made thee a judge over us? And might have seconded this question with another, and have asked him, how one interested, and engaged, nay the head (as they conceived) of a Faction, could be presumed to be an impartial reconciler? The better therefore, to establish a peace and concord among them, S. Paul in this Chap. proceeds by three conducible ways of Reconciliation. At the 13. Ver. he clears himself from all interest and engagement to a side; and equally blaming those who said they were of Paul, as those who said they were of Cephas, or Apollo's; he asks them how it came to pass, that they dealt with the Gospel of Christ, which was entire and seamlesse, like his Coat, as the Soldiers did with his other Garments, divided it by a kind of blind Lottery among them, and every one take his share? Is Christ divided? Says he. Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptised in the name of Paul? If you were not, why do you raise a Sect, and Faction from him? Why do you call yourselves by way of mark and distinction, Paulists? And so turn the name of your Preacher and Apostle, into the name of a Schism and side?  
Next, as he well knew that the readyest way to reconcile all sides, was to manifest himself to be of none; so he well knew too, that he that would knit, and reunite disagreeing minds, was not to deal roughly, or magisterially with them, (for that were to lose both; and to turn the enmity and hatred which they held between themselves, upon the Reconciler, who strove to make them friends) but was to quench such discords with soft language, and to cure such rents and wounds of the Church by pouring oil into them. Though, therefore, being armed with the authority of Christ himself, he might, with justice enough, have made Decrees and Ordinances to bind them to agreement, yet he rather chooseth to reconcile them to one another with their own consents. In a mild, and humble address of himself; therefore, not entitling himself more to one side then anonher, he equally beseecheth them all, that he might the more regardfully be listened to by all. And he beseecheth them for things which little concerned himself, but for their own good. He petitions them that they would be saved, and spends entreaties that they would vouchsafe to go to heaven. He requests them that they would not be worse Christians, that is, Schismatics and Separatists, than they were Heathens, that is, unanimous Idolaters.  
Lastly, he begs of them that they would once more be a Church and City; that is, a place of communion, and society, and Christian conversation. And that he might the more prevailingly obtain this of them, he addresseth himself to them in a stile and compellation of the greatest and gentlest persuasion to peace that can be used, and calls them Brethren. A word, which to remove all opinion of better or worse, or of inferior or superior, (the usuail grounds of discord) not only signifies an equality between the beseecher and the beseeched, and the beseeched among themseules; (For Esse Fratres est relatio inter aequales, says the Lawyer as well as the Logician; to be brethren, carries a reference of equality to one another) but it implies all the natural and religious grounds for which men ought to maintain League and Agreement, and Peace with one another. For in calling them Brethren, he called them men of the same fociable kind, equally descended from the same common Original and stock, and equally wearing in their nature one and the same common Image of God. And therefore, for this they were not to disagree, or quarrel with one another: Since likeness of kind maintains agreement between savage beasts and Tigers. Leonum feritas inter se non dimicat, serpentum morsus non petunt serpents; Who ever heard of a Lion devoured by a Lion? Or who ever heard of a Serpent stung by a Serpent? much less should men then, by't and devour, and prey upon one another.  
Again, in calling them Brethren, besides the natural affinity that was between them as men, he put them in mind of their spiritual alliance, as they were Christians too. That is, men allied to one another by one common Faith, one common Hope, one common Redemption, and therefore to meet in one common bond of Peace and Charity too. Rixari, & se invicem convitiis lacessere Infidelium est; 'Tis for Infidels, and men not converted to the Faith, to provoke, or brawl, or quarrel with one another.  
Thirdly, lest all this sweetness of address and language should not prevail, he joins Conjuration to Petition, but veils it in the stile and form of a Petition too, and beseecheth them to unity by the name of his, and their Lord Jesus Christ. A name, by which as he had before dispossessed Devils, cured sicknesses, and restored the dead to life again, so he repuests that he may dispossess opinions, cure divisions, and restore agreement by it too. It being that name into which they were all baptised, and to which they had all past their promises, and vows. Lastly, a name by which they were all to be saved; and by which they, by whose names (to the blemish and disparagement of this) they called themselves, were, with them, equally to be called, that is, Christians.  
Here then, 'twere much to be wished, that the Preachers of our times would deal with their disagreeing flocks, as this Apostle dealt with his: That is, that they would employ their holy, and religious arts and endeavours, by sweetness of language, and indifferency of behaviour to all parties, to reconcile them. For since it may be truly said of Preachers, what was once said of Orators, that the people are the waters, and they the winds that move them; to be thus the winds to them, as to speak, and move, and blow them into waves and billows, which shall roll, and strike, and dash, and break themselves against each other; Or to be thus the winds to them, as to rob them of their calm, and to trouble the peaceful course, and stream of things well settled, and to raise a storm and tempest there, where they should compose and allay one, is not to act the part of an Apostle, or of a Preacher of the Gospel, but of an Erynnis, or Fury, who ascending from hell with a firebrand in her hand, and snakes on her head, scatters wars, and strifes, and hatreds, and murders, and treasons, and betrayings of one another as she passeth. Every hair of her head hurled among the people becomes a sedition, and serpent; and every shaking of her Torch sets Villages, and Towns, and Cities and Kingdoms, and Empires in a Combustion.  
Alas, my brethren, how many such furies, rather than Preachers, have for some years walked among us? Men who speaking to the people in a whirlwind, and breathing nothing but pitcht-fields, and sieges, and slaughters of their Brethren, do profess no Sermon to be a Sermon, which rends not the Rocks and the Mountains before it: forgetting that God rather dwells in still, soft voices. 'Tis true indeed, the Holy Ghost once assumed the shape of cloven Tongues of fire: But that was not from thence to beget Incendiaries of the Church; Teachers whose Doctrine should be cloven too; and which should tend only to divide their Congregations.  
If I should ask you, from whence have sprung our present distractions? Or, who are they who keep the wounds of our divided Kingdom bleeding? Are they not certain tempestuous, uncharitable active men, who make it their work and business to rob men of the greatest temporal blessing of the Scripture, and to preach every man out of the shade of his own Vine, and out of the fruit of his own Figtree, and out of the water of his own Cistern? Are they not men who will stone you for your Vineyard, and then urge Scripture for it? And will take away your field, your possession, your daily bread from you, and then repay you with a piece of Esay or Ezekiel, or one of the Prophets, and call this melting, and reformation? Are they not men who do only profess to have the art not to heal, or close, or reconcile, but to inflame, and kindle sides? Men who blow a Trumpet in the Pulpit, and there breath nothing but thunder, and ruin, and desolation, and destruction, Whose followers call themselves Brethren, indeed, and boast much of their charity; But they call only such as are of their own confederacy, Brethren: and make no other use of the word which was at first imposed by Christ, to be the stile and mark of agreement and peace, then to be the word and mark to know a faction by, and make no other use of their charity, which should extend itself to all men, even to their very enemies, but only to keep themselves together in a separation and conspiracy.  
Lastly, these are the men, who when they should strive to quench the present flame with their tears, do conjure as earnestly by the name of Christ to discord and confusion, as S. Paul here in this Text doth to order and agreement. Men who call it prophecy, and edification, and building up of the people, when they break and divide them into Sects and Factions. As zealously exhorting them to speak divers things, as S. Paul here exhorts them to speak all the same. Which is the next thing to be considered; and the first step towards the reconciliation, and peace, here petitioned for, which is unity and agreement in compellations and names in these words, Now I beseech you Brethren, that ye all speak the same thing.  
Whether the dispersion of men, after the building of the Tower of Babel, over the face of the whole earth, were a punishment or a blessing to mankind, I shall not in this Auditory examine or dispute. Only thus much we learn from the History of that place, that the occasion of that dispersion and separation of men from one another, sprung first from the confusion which God threw among them, and that confusion sprung from their diversity of speech. For as speech was at first bestowed upon us by God, that we might hold league and society, and friendship with one another: so you may read in the 11. Chapter of Genesis, that as long as all the world was of one language, and of one speech, they lived unanimously together like men of one family and house. One heart, one soul seemed to move in them all. But when they once ceased to be unius labii homines, men of the same lip and speech, when as many languages were thrown among them, as they afterwards possessed Countries, than society, and co-habitation, and brotherhood ceased among them too. They were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth, says the Scripture. They who were before children of the same common Ancestors, and derived themselves from the same common parentage and stock, as if they had been borne in the adverse Hemispheres of the world, or had taken their beginning from as many several Parents, as they afterwards found Islands, of one great Family and Kindred, became so many divided Nations.  
As this diversity of Tongues at first broke the world into the several crumbles and portions of men, who from that time to this have divided it among them; so there is not any one thing which hath so fatally divided Kingdoms, and States, and Churches against themselves, sometimes to an utter extirpation, many times to an eternal breach, and Irreconciliation, as diversity of Language. I do not mean when men speak divers tongues of several dialects, and significations, (as when they at the building of Babel spoke some of them Hebrew perhaps, some of them Greek) but my meaning is, that nothing more directly tends to the division of a State, or Church, then for several companies of men to distinguish, and divide and separate themselves from one another by certain words and names of mark and difference, especially if they be words of disgrace, and scandal, and reproach, mutually imposed, and stuck upon each other; Or words of faction, and combination, assumed and taken by themselves. Then, if hatred of person, or difference of Religion do accompany such words of distinction, that for the most part befalls them, which befell the men of the old world, they break society and Communion, and crumble asunder; and of one people become so many divided Nations, and Churches to each other. This is an Engine which the Devil and wicked Politicians have in all ages of the world made use of, to disturb the peace, and trouble the happiness of Kingdoms and Commonwealths. Making holy, virtuous words and names, many times the partition wall of separation; And the device, and incitement, not only to divide Kingdoms but Corporations, and private Families against themselves. As long as the Jews called themselves by one and the same common name of their Father jacob, Israelites, they made but one State, one Commonwealth among them. But when once ten Tribes engrossed that name to themselves, and the other two for distinction sake called themselves by the name of the Tribe of judah, the most united, happiest, neerliest allied people in the world, a people of one blood, as well as one language, fell asunder, and divided themselves, like jacob and Esau, into two hostile, irreconcilable, never more to be united Kingdoms. And this was the case of these disagreeing Corinthians, to whom S. Paul directed this Text. As long as they called themselves by one, and the same common name of Christians, they made but one City, one Church, one place of Concord. But when they once began to distinguish themselves by their several Teachers, when some said, We are of Paul, others, we are of Cephas: A third sort, we are of Apollo's; And only a fourth sort, more Orthodox than the rest, we are of Christ; Then, then indeed, as if Christ had been divided, or had been the Author of several Religions, preached among them by several Apostles, they became broken, and rend, and torn asunder, into several Churches and Congregations. Where their usual custom was, not only to oppose Sermon against Sermon, and Gospel against Gospel, and Teacher against Teacher, but every one in the defence of their own Teacher, and his Gospel, thought it part of their Religion to extol, and quote, and urge the purity and infallibility of the one, to the depression, and disgrace, and contempt of the other: Till at length it came to pass, (as I told you before) that that which begun in Religion, proceeded to bad manners, and ill behaviour. Marks and words of distinction, and difference, grew to bitter invectives, and mutual reproaches of one another. They who were the followers of Saint Paul's Doctrine, called those who followed Apollo's, by way of mark and infamy, Apolonists. And they who were the followers of Apollo's, by way of retaliation, and brand, called the followers of Saint Paul, Paulists, though Saint Paul and Apollo's preach both the same Doctrine. Hard censures flew between them in as hard language; who ever was not of a party, nor enroled of a side, was thought to be without the pale of the Church. The gates of heaven were shut against him, and nothing but reprobation, and the lot of the damned, and hell fire were allowed to be his portion.  
Here then, my Brethren, let me make my appeal to eyery one of you, who hear me this day, hath not this been our very case? I must with sorrow of heart confess to you, that as often as I have for some years, made to myself a contemplative survey of this unhappy Kingdom, I have been able to discover no cause so pernicious for the many alienations of mind, or the many separations of Congregation from Congregation, heightened at length into the tragedy of an overspreading Civil War, as certain vain, ridiculous, empty words, and names of distinction among us; which have sprung from some men's stricter or loser carriage of themselves in their profession of the same Religion. They of the more free, and open carriage and behaviour, who call a severe regularity and strictness of life, preciseness, and an abridgement of Christian liberty, have called those of a more reserved, and locked up, and demure conversation, Puritan, and Roundheads, and I know not what other names of contumely, and reproach. And they of the more strict behaviour, have equally as faulty, called those of a freer, and less composed conversation, Libertines, and Papists; the usual words of infamy made to signify a Cavalier. These two words my Brethren, have almost destroyed a flourishing Kingdom between them.  
To this, I cannot but add one most pernicious cause of our present divisions more, which people have derived to themselves from making themselves followers too much of several Teachers; and affecting too much to be called after their names: whilst one says, I am of Paul, another, I am of Cephas, a third, I am of Apollo's, only a few neutral men, We are of Christ. Nay, if we needs must go several ways, I could wish we had such sacred names as S. Paul, or S. Peter, or Apollo's to divide us. I know not whether it will be seasonable for me to speak it in this Assembly: But we for some late years have chosen to ourselves names more modern, and fallible to divide ourselves by; whilst some have said, We are of Calvin, others, We are of Arminius, others, We are of Socinus. These, to the blemish, and reproach of Christian Religion, have been made names of strife and faction. Yet they have been great and learned names; though some of them, I must confess, have been liable to humane Errors. But if you consider the many rents and separations into which the ordinary sort of people have for some years divided themselves, either you will find no names at all for them, or names so unlearned, so obscure, so altogether mechanic, and unconsiderable, that it will be your wonder how such vulgar, rude, untaught Teachers should draw Disciples after them. It would pose me very much to tell you by any Monument of learning, or piety, which he hath left behind him to be known by, who was the Father, or first bringer up of the Sect of the Brownists; or who was the first Author of the Sect of the Anabaptists. I know there were Anabaptists in divers of the Father's times; and I know too, that the Parent of that Sect then, though he were an Heretic, yet he was a Scholar. But as for the Author of the Sect of the Anabaptists of our times, I cannot well say what he was. One who hath written the History of their wild proceedings at Munster, (where they begun with the Reformation of the Church of Jesus Christ, and proceeded at length to three wives a piece) says, he was a Dutch Butcher; one who repaired old Germents under a stall at Leyden in the Low-Countries; Another says, he was a Garmane Cobbler; A third, that he was a Westphalia Needle-maker; But another controls that, and says he was a Westphalia Baker. But whatever he were, have not we in our times seen patriarchs and Prophets, as vulgar and mechanic, as unlearned and base as he? Men who have invaded the Pulpit. I will not say, from mending old breeches, or cobbling old shoes, (pardon the homeliness of the expression I beseech you, it is but the Historians Latin translated into my English) but from Trades so mean, so disingenuous, so illiberal, that I should defile your ears, and the Pulpit to describe them: And yet, have not these modern shades of Muntzer, john of Leyden, Rotman, Knippenburge, Knipperdolling, Melchior Hoffman, the great Enthusiasts, and disturbers of Germany, to the Astonishment of all Judging men, drawn Disciples after them, I wish I could only say, as mean, and base, and vulgar as themselves? Certainly, my brethren, consider the parallel well between the inspired Troublers of our Kingdom, and those, who by their wild Doctrines did set Westphalia, Saxony, Munster, and all the noblest parts of the German Empire in a flame, and you will find, that in this sad Eclipse of Monarchy among us, there wants only a Sarcinator, or botcher, to assume to himself the Crown, and to be called by a Sanedrim or privy Council of the like Trades, Rex justitiae, & novae jerusalem Imperator, King of Righteousness, and Emperor of the new Jerusalem, to make our case the very same with theirs.  
Again, in this diversity of Guides and pastors, (Pastors scarce fit to be Overseers of unreasonable Flocks) do we not also hear as great a diversity of language spoken? The Lay-Preacher accuseth the University-man with want of the Spirit; and we of the University do back again account such Laymen mad. Nay among us Scholars, they who pretend to calvin's Doctrine, do banish all those out of the state of salvation, who deny absolute Predestination; Or hold not, that from all eternity without any respect of their works or actions, whether they be good or bad, God hath passed this sad irreversible sentence and decree, That some shall necessarily be saved, others shall as necessarily be damned. They who think this a piece of Stoicism, or a Doctrine brought into the world to drive People to despair, do equally banish those from the state of salvation, who thus uncharitably banish others. But what speak I to you of this Congregation of such high, schollarly dissensions? or discourse to you of disputes and controversies, not in the power of Scripture, Synods, or General Counsels to decide? That which hath more troubled the peace of our distracted Kingdom, hath been a strife of words about things as small as Cummin, or anise: And about that part of the Kingdom of heaven, which lies not wrapped up in an unsearchable Decree, or an eternal sentence of Gods concealed Will, but in a grain of mustardseed: A little, slight indifferent Ceremony, or piece of Church-Discipline. One hath called it an Idolatry to make an obeisance in the Church; another hath called it a piece of God's outward worship to do so. One hath styled the Cross in Baptism a sign of Superstition; another hath styled it the mark, and badge, and emblem of his Christianity and profession. One calls all Pictures in Church windows, Idols; another looks on them as so much holy story, brought into Imagery and Colours. The very garments we wear have not escaped contradiction. One calls the Surplice a Romish vesture; another calls it a white robe of Innocence, and Decency. Nay our very Prayers and Devotions have not been free from quarrels. Whilst some have called the Lords Prayer, A perfect form, enjoined by Christ to be said as it is; others most irreverently have called it a Tailor's Measure, fit only to cut out other Petitions by.  
In this miserable diversity of sides, th●…n, where Countrymen, and men of the same speech, do so ordinarily speak divers languages, What way is there left to beget a peace and union among us?  
Truly, my brethren, I know none so fit as that which Saint Paul here prescribes in this Text; a way, which if it were well practised, or if men would either have more charity, or less gall in them, would in time beget an union and agreement between all Churches; that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we all speak the same thing. That is, first, that we lay aside all those odious, hateful names and words of reproach, which serve only to Provoke and engender strifes, and to beget a dislike of one man's conversation with another; that the honest, strict, regular, heedful, conscientious man, be no longer called a Puritan, nor his wife a holy Sister; Nor the free, sociable, affable, open, harmlessly unscrupulous man, be any longer called a Papist, or Atheist, or by way of reproach, a Cavalier. I speak not now of the adulterous, swearing, riotous, lying, drinking, covetous man; these are such, that one of the ways to reform them, is to call them by their right names.  
Next, that we no longer, as our interest, or affections, or prejudices, or education, or customs sway us, pin our belief or faith upon any one Particular Guide or Teacher, so irremoveably, as without comparison or examination to reject and despise all others. I am of opinion we should quickly make one Church again, if those newborn names and words of Independent and Presbyter did not divide us. And I am also Persuaded, that our several Disciplines and Doctrines have not kept the Church of Rome at a greater distance with us, than the style and compellation of Protestant and Papist  
Thirdly, that we Scholars, in those high mysterious points which have equal argument and proof on both sides, and which both sides (for aught I know) may hold yet meet in heaven, do factiously or peremptorily betake ourselves to neither; But either lay them aside, as things of mere contemplation, not of practice or use; or else speak of them to the people, only in that general sense wherein all sides agree, and as that general sense is laid down to us in the Scripture.  
Lastly, that in matters of Ceremony and form, things either altogether indifferent, or at most, neither enjoined, nor forbidden in the Scripture, that our carriage and words be always as indifferent: That we call not that scandalous which is decent; or that decent which is scandalous: That we press not things as necessary, which are merely ornamental; nor impose ornaments as things of necessity. That where no well-establisht Law is broken by it, both in Actions and Language, where ever we come, we conform ourselves to the harmless (though to us unusual) custom of the place: Herein imitating that sure example of S. Paul, by being strong with the strong, and weak with the weak, as near as we can, to become all things to all men. In things merely Ceremonial, to part with our Christian liberty, and peaceably to yield to those, who, being otherwise persuaded, will contentiously refuse to part with theirs. And where our salvation, or the salvation of our neighbour is not concerned, charitably to comply, and sort with their infirmities; neither crossing them by our practice, though perhaps the better, nor perplexing them with our disputes, though perhaps the more rational: But if it be possible, as much as lies in us, not only to have peace with all men in words and speech, but in society, and conversation, and Church-Assemblies too: Which is the next degree of Unity here petitioned for, that is, an unity of meeting together in the same house of God, set down in these words, I beseech you Brethren, that there be no divisions among you.  
That I may the clearlier proceed in the interpretation of this 
4. Unity of blies.  part of the Text, I shall desire you to observe, that the word which we here in English do translate Divisions, is in the Original Greek (by which we are to order our exposition) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: A word which signifies not every kind of rent, or division, or disagreement among men; but such a division only as is accompanied with a perverse, unreasonable denial of society and communion together in the same Church. A division which carries with it an obstinate separation upon unnecessary grounds. Which unnecessary separation upon weak, slight grounds, is that which Saint Paul here in this Text, by way of difference and distinction from lighter Rents, calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Schisms. A sin, my Brethren, of which if I should discourse to you at large, and should show you the heinousness of it, by its dangerous effects; I might tell you that it is not only a sin against the sociable nature of men, who are borne for Communion and Commerce, and the mutual help of one another; but it is a sin directly against that unity and peace, which Christ, as his last Legacy bequeathed to his Church. A sin, which (besides the uncharitable opinion which accompanies it, which is, that they who are separated from, must therefore be separated from, because they are wicked, deplorably wicked men, men reprobated, and utterly lost in the ways of Error, and with whom all communion is destructive to our Salvation) doth not always confine itself within the retired, sequestered limits of a bare separation. But that which at first began from a scruple, hath many times proceeded to a Tragedy and massacre. They who at first causelessly separated themselves from their Brethren, because they were wicked, have many times, as their strength and numbers have encouraged them, and as the time hath favoured their Reformation (as they have called it) proceeded from the rectifying of men's Errors, to the lessening of their fortunes. And they only have at length been called the wicked, who have been rich, and have had estates to lose.  
That only which I shall further say to you of it, is this: Separation is a sin which hath always veiled itself in the disguise of sanctity. Thus Montanus, and his followers broke off Communion with the whole Christian Church then in the world, because, forsooth, 'twas revealed to them by divine illumination, that the Holy Ghost was no where to be found but in their Conventicle. An Heresy, which beginning in Schism proceeded at length to this monstrous conceit among them, That only the house of Montanus was the true. Church, and that Montanus himself▪ was the Holy Ghost. Thus also the Donatists (an over-scrupulous Sect of men) divided themselves from the than Catholic Church, because it was not pure enough for such sanctified Communicants; nor complied with the inspired doctrines of the Father of that Sect. And this, it seems, was the fault of these Corinthians here in this Text; who having entitled themselves to several Teachers, proceeded by degrees to divide themselves into several Churches and Congregations: every one of which challenging to themselves the true and right Religion, and charging the others with the name of the false, thought at length that no way was left to keep themselves pure and unspotted, but by breaking off all Religious, nay Civil Commerce and Communion with each other. Hence, for fear of infection, it was held a crime for any but the Righteous, to assemble, or converse with any but the Righteous; or for any to meet together at a spiritual Exercise, but such who first agreed in the same purity of Opinions.  
Here, then, if I may once more take the liberty to parallel one people with another; is not this our very case? Hath it not been the practice of many, many years, for those who call themselves the godly, the righteous, the children of the most High, to break off society and communion, nay almost neighbourly civility, with those whom they call the wicked? As there were among the Jews certain unclean places, and things, and persons, which whosoever touched were for that time unclean too; so, hath not the like opinion passed among us, that there have been certain unholy, unsanctified places, and persons, which make those who touch, or approach near them unholy too? Have not some Pulpits been thought unsanctified, because, forsooth, the Preacher hath been ungifted? And wherein, I pray, hath his ungiftedness appeared? Because he hath not expressed himself in that light, fluent, running, passionate, zealous stile, which should make him for that time seem religiously distracted, or beside himself? Or because his Prayer or Sermon hath been premeditated, and hath not flown from him in such an Ex-tempore loose career of devout emptinesses and nothings, as serve only to entertain the people, as Bubbles do children, with a thin, unsolid, brittle, painted blast of wind and air? Or because, perhaps, the sands of his Glass have not fleeted for two tedious hours together with nothing but the bold insolent defamation and reviling of his Prince?  
Again, have there not been some who have thought our Temples unholy, because the Common-Prayer Book hath been read there? And have renounced the Congregation, where part of the Service hath been tuned through an Organ? Hath not a dumb Picture in the window driven some from the Church? And in exchange of the Oratories, have not some in the heat and zeal of their Separation, turned their Parlours, Chambers, and Dining-roomes into Temples, and Houses of Prayer? Nay, hath not Christ been worshipped in places yet more vile and mean? In places, which have reduced him the second time to a Stable? If I should ask the people of both Sexes, who are thus given to separation, and with whom a Repetition in a Chamber edifies more than a learned Sermon in the Church, upon what religious grounds, or motives either taken from the Word of God, (which is so much in their mouths) or from reason, (which is so little in their practice) they thus affect to single and divide themselves from others: I believe it would pose them very much to give a satisfying Answer. Is it because the persons from whom they thus separate themselves, are irreligious, wicked men? Men who are Christians only in form, and whose conversation carries nothing but evil example and pollution with it? If I should grant this to be true, and should allow them to be outright what they call themselves, The Elect, and Godly, and Holy ones of the earth; and other men to be outright what they call them, The Reprobate, the wicked, the ungodly and profane, yet is not this warrant enough to divide or separate themselves from them. Nor are they competent Judges of this, but God only, who by the mouth of his Son, hath told us in the Parable, that the wheat and corn is not to be separated from the chaff and tares when we list, but that both are to grow together till the great harvest of the world. Till then 'tis a piece of the building of it, that there be a commixture of good and bad.  
Besides, let me put this Christian Dilemma to them: either the persons from whom they divide themselves are holy or unholy: If they be holy, they are not to separate themselves from them, because they are like themselves; If they be unholy, they are in charity to converse with them, that they may reform and make them better. Did not our Saviour Christ (and certainly his example is too great to be refused) usually converse with Publicans and sinners? Did he forsake the Table, because a Pharisee made the Feast? Or did he refuse a perfume, because a harlot poured it on his head? Or did he refuse to go up into the Temple, because buyers and sellers were there, men who had turned it into a den of Thiefs? Certainly my Brethren, we may, like Christ, keep company with Harlots, and Hypocrites, and Publicans and Sinners, and yet retain our innocence. 'Tis a weak excuse to say, I will never consort myself with a swearer, lest I learn to blaspheme: Or, I will utterly renounce all familiarity and acquaintance with such and such an Adulterer, or with such and such a Drunkard, lest I learn to commit Fornication from the one, or Intemperance from the other. In all such conversations, we are to imitate the Sun, who shines into the foulest puddles, and yet returns from thence with a pure untainted Ray. If men's vices then, and corruptions, be not a sufficient cause to warrant a separation, what else can be? Is it the place of meeting, or Church, or the things done there, which hath made them shun our ordinary Congregations? Yes, say some, we have held it very unlawful (as we conceive) to assemble in such a place, where we have seen Altars, and Windows worshipped, superstitious garments worn, and have heard the more superstitious Common-Prayer Book read, that great bolster to slothful Ministers, and twin-brother to the Mass, and Liturgy of Rome.  
Were this Charge true, (a very heavy one, I confess) had there been any among us so unreasonably stupid, as to spend their devotion on a pane of glass, or pay worship to the dumb senseless creature of the Painter, or adore the Communion-Table, the wooden issue of the Axe and Carpenter, (as I think there were none) had there (I say) been very Idolaters among us, yet unless they would have compelled them to be Idolaters too, I (after all the impartial Objections which my weak understanding can frame) can see no reason why they should not communicate with them in other things wherein they were no Idolaters. I am sure, if S. Paul had not kept company with Idolaters, we to this day (for aught I know) had remained Infidels.  
My Brethren, deceive not yourselves with a fallacy, which every child is able to discover. If such superstitio ns had been publicly practised among us, it is not necessary that every one that is a spectator to another's man's sin, should presently be an offender. Nor are all offences so like the Pestilence, that he that comes within the breath and air of them, must needs depart infected. Thou seest one, out of a blind zeal, pay reverence to a picture, he hath the more to answer for. But why dost thou, out of a zeal altogether as blind, think thyself so interested in his error, as to think thyself a partaker of his fault, unless thou excommunicate thyself from his conversation.  
Again, tell me thou, who callest Separation security; what seest thou in a Surplice, or hearest in the Common-Prayer Book, which should make thee forbear the Congregation where these are retained? Is it the web, or matter, or colour, or fashion of the garment, or is it the frame or form, or indevotion of the Book which offends thee? Or art thou troubled because they have both been borrowed from the Church of Rome? That indeed is the great argument of exception; which under the stile of Popery, hath almost turned Religion itself out of the Church. But, then, it is so weak, so accidental, so vulgar an Argument, an Argument so fit for none to urge but silly women, with whom the first impression of things always takes strongliest, that I must say in reply to it, That by the same reason, that thou poor, tender-conscienced man, (who art not yet past milk, or the food of infants in the Church) makest such an innocent, decent vesture as Surplices, unlawful, because Papists wear them, thou mayest make eating and drinking unlawful, because Papists dine and sup. The subject is not high or noble enough to deserve a more serious confutation. That therefore, which I shall say by way of Repetition, is only this: If to wear or do, whatever Papists wear or do be unlawful, as it will presently concern us all to throw off our garments and turn Adamites, so it will very nearly concern us too, to lay aside our Tables, and betake ourselves to fasting, as the ready way to famine. Then to reject the Common-Prayer Book, because some of the Prayers in it resemble the Prayers in the Romish Liturgy, is as unreasonable, as if thou shouldst make piety and devotion in general unlawful, because Papists say their Prayers. And so, in opposition to whatever they do, shouldst think thou art to turn Atheist, because most in that Church do confess there is a God.  
The time will not give me leave to say much in the defence of that excellent Book; Or, if I should, 'tis in any thing, I presume, which can fall from my imperfect mouth, which will be able to recover the use of it back again into this Church. Yet thus much, out of the just sense, and apprehension which I have of the wisdom, as well as piety, and devotion of it, I shall adventure to say. That I cannot think, that ever any Christian Church, since the time that that name first came into the world, had a public form of God's Worship, more Primitively pure, more Religiously grave, and more agreeable in all points to the Scripture, then that is.  
To which I shall only add this one praise of it more, that there is not any Ancient, Classically condemned Heresy, to be found in the Records of Counsels, Church-Histories, or the Confutations of Fathers, which is not by some clause or other in that most Orthodox Book excluded.  
Here, then, if there be any in this Assembly of that il-perswaded mind, that he would not at this present make one of the Congregation, if the Common-prayers were read, let me once more ask him, what that great Antipathy between him, and that admirable Book is, which should make them quarrel one another out of the Church: Is it because it prescribes a Ring i●… marriage, or a Cross in Baptism? over-scrupulous man! who wouldst rather choose to make a rent and schism, and division in the Church, then be spectator to th●…ngs so harmless, and indifferent. But thy weak Conscience is wounded. Weak, indeed, when a piece of marriage-Gold, or a little water sprinkled in the sign, and figure of a cross, the Type, and Emblem of thy Christianity, shall drive thee from the Church. I must confess to you freely, if such things, as the veneration of images, or adorations of Altars, or sacrifices for the dead, or the worshipping of the Host, or the Mass-book, with all the unsignificant Ave mary's, and superstitious prayers, which use to travel round the Circle of a numerous set of Beads, had been established among us by public Authority; And had be●…n enforced upon the practice, and Consciences of men, and no Liberty of person, or freedom of estates allowed them, unless they would conform to the present Golden Calf of superstition set up before them, a separation had not only been allowable, but necessary. We would have offended God very much to be partakers of such dross. And our best Answer would have been the Answer of the Three Children, when the King would have had them fall down to the huge image, and Colossus which he had set up, O King, we are 
〈◊〉. 3. 16.  not careful to observe thee in this matter. But where no such things were enjoined, where every one was left to the full use and exercise of his Christian liberty, where nothing was unblamable among us, but the ridiculous, overacted postures and gestures of some few busy, fantastical men, whose Popery lay in making discreet men laugh, to see them so artificially devout, and so affectedly ceremonious, to divide, and separate, or to give us over for a lost Church, because the Psalms of David, after his own Musical way, used to be sung to an Organ; As innocently, certainly, as if they had been tuned through his own loud Cymbal, or had more softly been sung, and vowelled to his Harp: Or to renounce our solemn Assemblies, for such sleight, indifferent things, as a piece of holy story in a glass window, or because the Minister wears white, or because married people come together by a Ring, or because the Lord's Prayer is more than once repeated, is not only Schism, and I may safely say, Schism upon scandal taken, not given, but 'tis directly contrary to S Paul's advice, here in this Text; who is so far from tolerating any such needless divisions, and separations of presences and bodies, that he will not allow in the same Church and Congregation the least dissent or division of minds; But makes it the least part of his Petition to his disagreeing Corinthians, that they would not only meet together in the same place of God's Worship, but that they would be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, which is the last part of the Text. To which I shall only add some brief Application of some things in this Sermon to you my hearers, and so commend you to God.  
'Twas well said of one of the Philosophers, (which saying of his hath since almost grown into a Proverb of truth) Nihil est in Intellectu, 
5. ●…ty of minds  quod non fuit prius in sensu; That there is nothing in the understanding, or mind within, which was not first in the sense without. 'tis as great, and measured a Truth, that there is nothing in our speech, or words, or actions without, which was not first in our mind, or will, or affections within. For what our Saviour Christ said, that Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, and the like; to every 
Mat. 15. 1  one of which sins without, belongs some secret, invisible spring within. As, I say, to every Adultery without, belongs some hidden lust within; and the uncleanness of the body is but the foul issue, and offspring of the soul; And as to every murder without, belongs some secret envy, or hatred, or thirst of revenge within; and the rancour of the heart only clothes itself in the violence and bloodshed of the hand: so we may say of our Divisions, and Disagreements too. All those odious words, and names of mutual infamy and reproach; all those perverse cross, and thwart, and contradictions of speech; all this duel, and skirmish, and quarrelsomeness of language; Lastly, all this shunning and loathing of one another's company; all this separation, and denial of communion, which we so ordinarily see exercised, and practised without, are but so many unchristian behaviours, which take their original and birth from as unchristian grudges, and prejudices, and jealousies, and misapprehensions within. Never man yet dissented from another in speech, but he first dissented from him in opinion: And never man yet separated from another in communion, but he first separated from him in affection and will. To remove, therefore, the root and spring of all disagreements, as well as the current and stream; and to beget a peace, and concord, and reconciliation without, Saint Paul, like a skilful Artist, who reserves the hardest part for the last, proceeds from men's words and actions, to their opinions and thoughts: and like those who set Watches, and Clocks, where the Hand upon the Dial without, cannot move regularly, unless the weights and springs which guide it, move orderly within; the better to make us go all alike, and strike the same time, he endeavours to settle and compose those inward wheels, by which our words and behaviours without, are to be ruled and governed.  
The thing then for which he here so earnestly Petitions, is Unity, and Agreement, and Consent of minds. Which, in plain terms, is to exhort us, that as we are all men of one and the same reasonable kind, form and created like one another in the shape and figure of our body, so that we would approve ourselves to be men of one and the same reasonable kind, in the Music and Harmony of our souls too. Which would then come to pa●…s, if every one of us would by the impartial search, and examination of his own mind, dislodg those mists and clouds of error, which blind him towards himself, and benight him towards others. Or, if he cannot do this by the strength and diligence of his own natural Forces, that he would have recourse to t●…ose who are most able to pluck this beam out of his eye; and whose work and business it is so to apply their Cures, as by proposing that one, constant, immutable, eternal, Divine Truth to his mind, in which 'tis possible for all minds well enlightened to concentre and agree, by degrees to reduce him from his bli●…dness and error, and to make him not only speak, but conceive, and think the same things with him that taught him.  
It was well said of him, who compared our minds to Looking-glasses, or Mirrors; For certainly if we could but keep them open, and unclouded, they carry this property of Mirrors with them, not only to return the images, and shapes, and truths of things, which pass before them as they are; but all minds in a clearer, or less clear degree, have a capacity to receive into them the truth of the same things alike. As a thousand Glasses, if they be true, successively looked in, will show us the same faces: But then, as Glasses, if they be false, will cast false resemblances; or if they be discoloured, will transform all things which flow into them into their own die: So 'tis with us. I know not how it comes to pass, or whether I may ascribe the fault to Education, or Custom, or to our parents, or to our Affections, too much knit, and wedded to the Religion, or Doctrine, or Opinion, or Teacher, which most complyes with our Fancies; but there are certain ill-cut, false-reporting minds, which look upon men, and things, in another size and figure than they are. Other minds there are stained and died (as it were) with certain weak prejudices, and corrupt opinions; through which, as through so many deceiving colours, they discern no truths which wear not that hue. As he that looks through a green Glass, takes all things for green; and he that looks through a blue Glass, takes all things for azure. And this was the very case of these Corinthians here in the Text. They first addicted themselves over-partially to several Teachers; and from their several Teachers, took in several apprehensions, as they pleased to like or affect him above others, whose Disciples they called themselves. Some, though they did not well understand what they held, resolved (without any examination what they were) to be only of Saint Paul's opinions: Others resolved to hold only what had been taught them by Apollo's: Others resolved to hold only what had been preached by S. Peter. All which three taught and preached one and the same Gospel; yet that Gospel was not alike entertained by all hearers. Whilst some disliked it in S. Paul, because 
2 Cor. 10.  (as himself complains) he was of an humble presence, and of an ungrateful utterance. Others dislike it, perhaps, in the mouth of Apollo's, because it came Rhetorically from him, and he was guilty of that unedifying crime, forsooth, of being eloquent in the Pulpit. Others perhaps entertained it coldly from S. Peter, because he had not been bred up in the School of Demosthenes, nor tasted of the finer Arts and educations of Greece.  
In short, one and the same saving Truth, for want of a little right judgement in the Hearers to compare it, coming from several mouths, passed into divers opinions first; and then these opinions broke forth into divers factions. And is not this, my Brethereu, our very case? Do but consider the present distempers of our poor, divided Kingdom; and, pray, what hath been the true root and spring of so much variance, and hatred, and heartburning among us? what hath crumbled us asunder, and turned one of the purest, and most flourishing Churches of the world, into a heap of Heresies and confusion? Hath it not been the very word of God itself? In which all minds, I confess, should agree, and which should be the rule to compose all our strifes; and before whose decisions the greatest Scholars Disputes, and the meanest man's Doubts, should fall down, and mutually embrace, and kiss each other. How comes it then to pass, that Religion, which was ordained by God to be the oil to cure our wounds, should prove only the oil to feed, and nourish our combustions? Whence is it, that the Scripture, that Sword of the Spirit, should prove to us only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a two-edged sword, and that no other use should be made of it by us, but only to be the weapon of our Conflicts, by committing the edges, and making them enter duel, and combat with each other? Truly, my brethren, all the reason that I can give you for this, is, That some (perhaps well minded people, but not of understandings either strong, or learned enough to reach the true sense and meaning of some places) have stepped beyond their measure; and have presumed to interpret more than they have well understood. Others, of a more modest, but credulous composition, have thought that only to be the right meaning of the Word of God, which they have heard from the mouth of the Preacher which they most affect. Others, of a more dangerous policy, finding that the Scripture rightly expounded would extremely make against the plot of their dark proceedings, and that the holy Ghost cannot be bribed to find Texts to make covetousness, sedition, or the slaughter of their Brethren, or Rebellion against their Prince, lawful; have, with some formal helps of piety, and zeal, put to their expositions, made the Scripture speak only those plausible untruths, which most complied with their ends, and the people's Fancy. Hence, the better to arrive to their Estates, by the distractions of their minds, they have dealt with them as cunning Anglers do with silly fishes, troubled the stream, and blinded them, and then made them their prey. The way to do this was to affront, and disgrace, clamour down all the primitive Truths for some Generations taught among them; and to recall from their sepulchers, and dust, all the old, intricate, long since buried Opinions, which were the madness of their own times, and the Civil War of ours. With which opinions they have dealt, as the Witch of Endor dealt with her Familiar, raised them up to the people clothed in a long mantle, and speaking to them in the shape and voice of a Prophet. Hence come those several acceptions, and interpretations among you, even in your ordinary discourses, of one and the same plain, but sinisterly understood places of Scripture. One, following the practice of all the purest ages of the Church, thinks the Sacrament of Baptism is to be administered to Infants. Others, (who would certainly be a strange fight to the Congregation, if they should appear the second time at the Font) of late are taught to think that none are to be baptised, but such as are old enough to be their own Godfathers, and can enter into Covenant with God, and promise for themselves. Some, because it hath been called a binding of the spirit, to fetter their devotions in a set form of Prayer, have banished that Prayer, which Christ prescribed to his Apostles, out of their Closets, as well as Temples. Others, of as rectified a piety, think no Prayer so likely to find acceptance with God, as that which was conceived, and put into form by his Son. I should tyre your patience too much to give you an exact Catalogue of all the rotten opinions which at this present swarm among us. One who hath computed the Heresies, which have sprung up in this Kingdom within these five years, says, they have doubled the number of those which were in Saint Augustine's time; and then they were very near fourscore. One is a Chiliast, and holds the personal Reign of Christ upon Earth. Another is a Corporealist, and holds the death of the Soul with the Body. Nay, as 'tis said in Africa, a Lion will couple with a Tiger, from whence will spring a Libbard; so certain strange, unheard-of, double-sexed Heresies are sprung up among us: not able to understand what he would hold himself. You shall have an Arrian and Sabellian lodged together in the same person. Nay, (which is yet worse) whatever Celsus spoke in scorn, and Origen in vindication of our Redeemer, Christ and his Mother, hath of late trodden the Stage again, and appeared to disturb the World. One (I tremble to speak it) hath called the Virgin mary's chastity into question; And others have spoken of the Saviour of the World so suspiciously as if he had been a thing, of a stolen, unlawful Birth. In short, there want only some of those Munster men among us, of whom Sleydan writes, where one calleth himself. God the Father, another God the Son, A third Paraclete, or God the holy Ghost, to make our Babel and confusion of wild opinions at the height. In this miserable distraction, then, where Heresy, and Error, hath almost eaten up the true Religion; And where all the light of the Gospel, which shines among us, is but like that imperfect light at the Creation, which shined before the Sun was placed in the firmament; A light creeping forth of a dark Chaos and blind mass, and strifefull heap of jarring Elements: In this thick fog of strange Doctrines, I say, which hath condensed itself into a cloud, which hath almost overspread this whole Kingdom, from which Truth seems to have taken flight, and made way for Ignorance to style itself once more the Mother of devotion, what way is there left to reconcile our minds, or to beget one right knowledge, and understanding of the ways of God among us? Truly, I know none but that which Saint Paul here prescribes in the Text; which is, that we endeavour as near as we can, to be of one mind, and of one judgement.  
But how shall this be brought to pass, unless all judgements were alike clear, and unbiased? Or, unless, laying apart all partiality, and affection to their own side, and all prejudice, and hatred against those from whom they differ, men would submit themselves to him, who is best able to instruct them; Or who can bring with him the most saving Truths into the Pulpit? Besides, (may some one say) if people should bring minds prepared to entertain the Truth, where is that instructor so infallible, or so opinionated of the strength of his own gifts and knowledge, that another pretending to the same Truth, may not challenge to himself the like infallibility? who shall be the Judge of Controversies? or who shall present Truth to us with such known marks and notes about it, that as soon as 'tis presented, every congregation (of what mean capacities soever) shall presently acknowledge, and entertain it? Will you, Sir, who have all this while thus bemoaningly pitied our divisions? we are bound to thank you for your charity to us; and should be desirous enough to embrace a truth of your description. But you are a Scholar, whose parts and abilities lie in the humane model, and building of your own secular studies. We are therefore bid to doubt very much, whether you have the Spirit; and are told by some who profess themselves inspired, that all your Readins, and Studying, and tire of yourself over a difficult piece of Scripture, at midnight perhaps, when all others sleep, by a loan, solitary, dumb candle, are but so many labours in vain, Since 'tis impossible for any to understand the Scripture aright, but such only who have it revealed to them by the same holy Spirit that wrote it.  
My Brethren, what shall I say to you? Modesty, and the knowledge I have of my own imperfections, will not allow me to say peremptorily, that I have the Spirit of God. Or if I could distinguish his secret influences and assistances from the operations of my own soul, or could certainly say I have him, (which S, Paul himself durst not say definitively) yet 'twould not become me so to confine him to my frail, narrow parts, as to deny him to all others more learned than myself.  
For the settling therefore, and composing of your divided minds, I will not take upon me to be the Judge of Controversies, but you yourselves shall be. Only the better to enable you to peforme this charitable office to yourselves, and for your better direction how not to be out in your judgement, as a sure clue to guide you through the perplexed windings of that labyrinth into which some of you are fall'n, so fall'n, that they seem to me quite lost in a wood of mistakes, where every path is a guide, and every guide is an error, give me leave to commend to you that seasonable advice of Saint john, which he delivers in the fourth Chapter of his first Epistle, at the first verse, where (as if he had prophesied of our times) he says, Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false Prophets are gone out into the world. In which words; you have two of the best Rules assigned you to go by, that can possibly be prescribed for the settlement of minds.  
First, be not too credulous; Do not presently believe every man that says he hath the Spirit; nor suffer yourselves to be tossed and carried about with every wind of doctrine: For that is not the way to be all of one, but of as many several minds as the art or cunning of several Teachers shall please to work upon you. I am persuaded this easiness of belief, this credulity, or (as the Apostle calls it) this admiration, this overvaluing of some men's persons, hath been one of the great parents of our present dissensions: whilst some weak, but yet well-minded people, building their judgement merely upon the outward appearances of men, have mistaken the zeal and strict life of their Preacher for his sufficiency. And taking their Logic from the preciseness of his behaviour, have framed these charitable, but false conclusions to themselves: He is a man of a composed countenance, of a reserved speech, of a grave carriage, and of a devout elocution, therefore surely he is a holy man. And because he is a holy man, therefore whatever he says, shall be to us Oracle; as coming from the mouth of one, so much in the favour of God, that it is impossible he should deceive us, or speak that which is not right.  
My Brethren, I have no design or purpose to bring Holiness into contempt; nor can I be so injurious to piety or a good life, where ever I find it, as to expose it to the scorn of the licentious, by not giving it its due. I am so far also from lending encouragement to the lives of vicious Teachers, (Teachers who are the shame of their Mother, and the scandal of their Flock) that I could wish that every Congregation in England were furnished with such an exemplary Minister, that his life as well as preaching, might be Sermon to the people. Nay, give me leave, I beseech you, to extend my charity yet one degree farther. I am so far from disliking holiness either in Preacher or people, that I wish we all made but one united Kingdom of Priests. Or, if you will have me express myself in the words of one of the holiest and meekest men of the earth, I could wish that all the Lords People were Prophets. But, 
●…b. 11. 29.  then, you must give me leave to say too, That holiness and strictness, and austerity of life, are no infallible signs that the Preacher may not err. Nor hath God so annexed the understanding of his Word to the unstudied, unlearned piety, or sober carriage of the Expounder, that he that is most zealous shall still be most in the right. As long as that saying of S. Paul remains upon record, That we hold this treasure; this knowledge of Gods Will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
●…r. 4. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in earthen vessels; As long as the Preacher, how holy soever he be, is so much one of the people, as to dwell in a frail, weak Tabernacle of clay; Lastly, as long as men are men, they will be liable to men's infirmities. And as the learned scandalous Preacher may be sometimes in the right; so it is possible that the ignorant, zealous, holy Preacher may be often in the wrong. How to know this, and how to distinguish them, therefore, you are to make use of the next Rule prescribed to you by Saint john; that is, when you hear an Exposition, or a Sermon, or a new Doctrine preached to you, not rashly, without distinction or choice to consent to it, till you have passed the impartial sentence of a clear judgement on it; compared and weighed Sermon with Sermon, and Preacher with Preacher; called every Doctrine, every Proof, every confident Assertion to the touchstone, and measured it by some plain evident place of Scripture; and examined whether the Holy Ghost, or his own vain, popular ambition, have for that time inspired the speaker; or whether his Sermon have had some dissembled, secular end, or God's glory for its mark. And this Saint john calls, ●…ying of the spirits; which is then done, when (as I said before) you reduce what you hear spoken by the Preacher to the infallible Rule of Truth, the Word of God; and make that, well considered, the scales to weigh his Doctrine in. Does he preach charity, and banish strife from his Pulpit? Does he not flatter Vice, though he find it clothed in Purple, nor speak neglectfully of Virtue, though he find it clothed in rags? Does he strive to plant the fear and love of God in his Auditory, the forgiveness of their enemies, and pity towards the poor? Dares he arraign a public sin, though never so fortunate? or speak in defence of afflicted Innocence, though over-borne by oppression? Dares he maintain his Christian courage in Tyrannical, doubtful times? And dares he call prosperous Sedition, but a more successful mischief? Lastly, does he preach such Christian Truths for which some holy men have died, and to which he himself would not be afraid to fall a sacrifice? This, this man is to be harkened to; this man is fit to be obeyed. And this man speaking the same things which God himself doth in the Scripture, (whatever his gifts of pleasing, or not pleasing sick, fastidious, delicate fancies be) is thus at least to be thought of, That though he speak not by the Spirit, (as a thing entailed upon him) yet, for that time, the Spirit speaks by him, which ought to be all one to you. On the contrary, does the Preachers Sanctity and Religion consist merely in the devout composure of his looks and carriage? Does he strive to preach down Learning, or does he call Study a humane folly? Does he choose his Text out of the Bible, and make the Sermon out of his Fancy? Does he reprove Adultery, but preach up discord? Is he passionate against Superstition, but mild and calm towards Sacrilege? Does he inveigh and rail at Popery, and at the same time imitate the worst of Papists, Jesuits, urge Texts for the Rebellion of Subjects against their Prince, and quote Scripture for the deposing, and Butchery of Kings? Does he startle at a dumb picture in a Church-window, and at the same time preach all good order and right Discipline out of the Church? Does an Oath provoke his zeal, yet does he count lying in the godly no sin? Lastly, does he preach separation upon weak untempered grounds? Or does labour to divide the minds, which he should strive to reconcile? Let him bring what demureness or composure of countenance he please into the Pulpit; Let him, if he please, join sanctity of deportment to earnestness of zeal; Let him never so devoutly bewail the calamities of his Country, which he hath helped to make miserable; Or let him weep never so passionately over the Congregation, which he hath broken into factions; In short, how seemingly holy, how precise, how unprophane soever his behaviour be; though the Scripture do so continually overflow in his mouth, that he will neither eat, nor drink, nor speak, nor scarce sleep but in that phrase, yet as long as he thus forgets his Charity, thus Preaches strife, thus Division, I shall so far mistrust whether he have the Spirit, that I shall not doubt to reckon him in the number of those false Prophets which S. john says are gone out into the world.  
The Conclusion then of this Sermon shall be this. Men and brethren, I have with all the sincerity and plainness which might benefit your souls, preached Truth, and Concord, and mutual Charity to you. I have also for some years, not been so sleepy an Observer, but that I have perceived some of you (who have thought yourselves more Religious than the rest) to be guilty of the (I might say Crime, but I will rather say of the) misguided Zeal of these Corinthians here in my Text. There have been certain Divisions, and I know not what separations among you. I have farther observed, that certain false, causeless prejudices and aspersions have been raised upon our University, which to the grief of this famous Nursery of God's Church at home, and the reproach of it abroad, are still kept waking against us by some of you, as if Conscience and Religion, as well as Learning and Gifts, had so far forsaken us, that all the Schools of the Prophets cannot afford you a set of able, virtuous men, fit to be the Lecturers to this soule-famisht Parish. How we should deserve to be thus mistaken by you, or why you should undervalue those able Teachers which you have already, or refuse to take your supply from so many Colleges which here stand present and ready to afford you choice: or why you should supplicate to the great Council of this Kingdom, in pity to your souls, to send you Godly Teachers, (which, perhaps, is but a well-meaning Petition from you, but certainly 'tis agreat scandal, and Libel against us) I know not. But whatever the mysterious cause be, I am confident, that unless they will sleep over their infamy and reproach, it will always be in the power of our despised University-Divines, to make it appear, even to those whom you intent to petition, That this is but a zealous error in you: And that they are as able to edify you, certainly, as he, whose occupation it was to repair the old shoes of the Prophets. I should shame some of you too much, who were the Disciples of that Apostle, if I should describe him to you by a larger character.  
Instead therefore of a farther vindication of the reproach thrown upon us, that which I shall say of more near concernment to you, is this: If I have in the progress of this Sermon, ripped open any wounds among you, it hath not been with a purpose, to enlarge, or make them bleed, but to pour wine and Oil into them, and to heal, and close them up.  
Next, If I have cleared any of your sights, or enabled you at length to discern, that the reason why the mote in your brother's eye seemed so big, was, because an over-scrupulous zeal had placed a beam in your own; and that in contributing to the ruin of one of the purest Religions in the world, the reason why you have swallowed so many monstrous Camels, hath been, because at first you made scruple, and strained at gnats, I have what I intended: Which was to let you see, that to divide and separate yourselves from the communion of our Church, if it had been guilty of a mole or two, is as unreasonable, as if you should quarrel the Moon out of her Orb, or think her unworthy of the skies, because she wears a spot or two writ on a glorious ball of light.  
Lastly, if I have said any thing in the reproof of discord, or the praise of charity, which may reunite your minds, and make you all men of the same heart and belief, as well as of the same City and Corporation, I shall think I have done the work and business of a just Divider of the Word of God towards you, and of a faithful Servant and Steward towards my heavenly Master. Whose blessing of peace be upon you all, together with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost. To which glorious Trinity, be ascribed all Honour, Praise, Dominion and Power, for ever.  
AMEN.  
FINIS.   

A SERMON AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS. PREACHED In St. MARY'S CHURCH In OXFORD, shortly after the Surrender of that Garrison.  
By JASPER MAINE, D. D. and one of the Students of Christ-Church, OXON.  IER. 23. 16. 
Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Harken not unto the words of the Prophets that prophesy unto you; They make you vain; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.  
Printed in the Year, M D C XLVII.   

A SERMON AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS.  EZEK. 22. 28. Her Prophets have daubed them with untempered Mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken. 
THE PREFACE.  
THat which the best Orator said of Oratory put to the worst use, Nihil est tam horridum, tam incultum, quod non splendesent oratione, That there is nothing so deformed, or rude, which may not be made amiable by Speech, hath always been verified of Religion too. No one thing hath, in all Ages, been more abused, to paint and disguise foul actions. It hath been made the Art to cozen people with their own Devotions, and to make them, in the mean time, think sacredly of their seducers. Conspiracies, and Insurrections, dressed in these colours have been called holy Associations and Leagues: And the Ambitious, to work the more securely on the credulity of the simple, have not only presented evil to them growing on the Tree of Good, but have proceeded thus much farther in the fallacy, that they have still made forbidden fruits seem pleasant to the eye. And the false colours under which they have seemed pleasant, have always been taken from Religion. Thus in these Heathen States, where they first made their own gods, and then worshipped them, never plot was hatched to disturb the Commonwealth, but the writings of some Sibyl, or other, were entitled to that plot; And never any design was laid to destroy the Roman Empire, but some Augur, or Priest was taken in, whose part 'twas, to make the Entrails, and Liver of his sacrifice, give credit to the ambition of the design. And thus among the jews, some ambitious men, the better to gild over their proceedings, still entitled God to them. Who, as if he had been one of those Tutelar, changeable Deities, which used to be enticed, and called over from one side to another, they still entertained the people, that they who most zealously pretended to him, had him most. And that however he be the God of Order, and justice, & Agreement among men, yet in favour of his own Cause, he would for a while be content to change his nature, and become the God of Injustice, Disorder, and Confusion too.  
The better to work this persuasion into the minds of the Multitude, their first piece of policy was to draw the Prophets into their Faction. This is expressed to us in the 25. verse of this Chapter. Where 'tis said of jerusalem, There is a conspiracy of her Prophets, in the midst thereof. And truly, 'twas a Conspiracy so unfit for Prophets that the resemblance of it was never yet found in any but those Men of a much unholier stile, of whom the Historian says, Est aliquod etiam inter Latrones & Sicarios foedus, that Thiefs and Robbers hold League and friendship amongst themselves. For 'tis said in the following words of that verse, that 'twas a Conspiracy like the roaring of a Lion, ravening the prey. A Conspiracy, by which they devoured Souls, and took to themselves the Treasure, and precious things of the Land. And because pillage of this public Nature, could hardly be gained without the Death, and Murder of the Owners, 'tis said in the close of that verse, That they made her many Widows in the midst thereof. To which if the Scripture had added these two words of pity, the Fatherless and Orphan too, nothing could have been added to the calamity of the Description.  
Nor is there a much more favourable Character stuck by the holy Ghost, upon the Priests of those times. For by that which is said at the 26. verse of this Chapter, (And 'tis well worth your marking) you may perceive that the Disorder to which things were brought in the State, sprung first from the Disorder, to which things were brought in the Church. For 'tis there said, That The Priests had violated the Law, and profaned the holy Things; That they did put no difference between the Holy, and Profane, nor made any Distinction between the unclean, and the clean. In brief, the Legal, well established Service, and Worship of God was at a kind of loss, and Indifferency. 'Twas referred to every man's Fancy, to make to himself his own Religion, Blemished, and unblemished Sacrifices began to be sacred alike. And the Scripture of another Prophet, became quite altered; He that offered a Swine, was thought as religious as he that slew an Ox; And he that ●…t off a Dog's neck, was thought as liberal a Sacrificer, as he that brought a Lamb to the Altar.  
Next, having taken the Prophets, and Priests, so far into their plot, as to mingle and confound the Services of the Church, they made it one part of their policy, more, to make them lend Reputation, to their proceedings in the State. This is plainly intimated to us, by that which is said at the 27. verse of this chapter, cohering with that which is said in the words of my Text. For there mention is made of certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Princes, or chief men, who are there said to be like Wolves ravening the prey; Yet there wanted not some Prophets (as you may gather from my Text) who presented these Wolves to the people in Sheep's clothing. 'Tis said too that they had this property of Wolves, that they took pleasure to shed blood; yet there wanted not Priests, who called Blond thus spilt Sacrifice. 'Tis said too that they did shed Blood that they might get to themselves dishonest Gain; yet there wanted not some, who called even that dishonest gain, godliness. If you will have all this limbed to you in one short Draught and picture, how cruel soever, & destructive to the common safety, the Projects, and proceedings of some men powerful in the then State of the jews were, there wanted not Prophets who daubed them with untempered Mortar; seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord had not spoken.  
Which words are a History of the worst Times, in the then worst 
division.  State. In which we have these considerable parts. 1. An irreligious Compliance, or rather Collusion, of Spiritual men with Lay. Some there were, (as you have them described in the precedent verse) whose design 'twas, to make their Country their Prey; Others there were, whose part 'twas, to make them seem Good patriots, and Protectors of their Country. Some destroyed Souls in the way to their Ambitious Ends, Others made it their business to put Holy colours on their Slaughters. Or if you will have me express myself in the Language of both Texts, some there were who did Shed blood, that they might get to themselves Dishonest gain; And some Prophets there, were, who to make their proceedings seem specious, did put religious pretences to them, and with these pretences did disguise, and daub them.  
Next, we have here, the Frailty, and Weakness, and Deceivable nature of such pretences. How plausible soever they seemed to the deluded vulgar, and however they might a while, not only serve to cover, and veil foul purposes, but to set them off with a Beauty, and Lustre too, yet this could not be lasting. Dishonest projects thus adorned were but so many painted Ruins. And therefore, the Prophets, who thus disguised them, are here said to Daub them with untempered Mortar.  
Thirdly, for the effecting of this, we have here a very strange abuse of their Ministry and Function, set down to us in three Expressions, having every one of them something of the Form, but nothing of the Reality of a Prophet in them. First, they are here said to be S●…ers. But as for the things they saw, they were of that foolish empty nature, that the Scripture hath not vouchsafed to call them Dreams. We may call them visions, perhaps; But such as Aene as in Virgil saw among the Shades. So void of Weight, and Body, and Substance, so far from Sense and Reason, as well as Revelation, that as the fittest word which could be found for them, they are here in this place called Vanity. Next, they are here said to Divine, or foretell. But 'tis added withal, that they foretold not Things, but lies. As many untruths as Prophecies fell from them. And their predictions had only thus much of Divination in them, that some time was required for men to prove them false; And to perceive, that, contrary to all true predictions, they would never come to pass. Lastly, (which was the third, and great abuse of their office and function) they were not afraid to entitle God to their vanities and lies. As often as they were pleased to deceive the people, he was cited, and quoted, as the inspirer of the deceit. And this bold, insolent sin was committed against the holy Ghost, that the vain, foolish, groundless conjectures of the Prophets, were called his Inspirations: who, to make their falsehoods take the stronglier, still uttered them in the holy, Prophetical stile of Truths, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord had not spoken. All which contracted into a narrow room, the Irreligious Compliance of Spiritual men with Lay, the weakness of their pretences, the abuse of their Calling, by uttering their own vanities for inspirations, and and their own Fictions for Truths, together with the injury offered to God, by entitling Him to all this, shall be the parts on which I will build my future Discourse. In the ordering of which, I will begin with the Compliance or Combination. Some there were among the jews (as you have them deciphered in the former verse) who did shed blood, that they might get to themselves dishonest gain; and some false Prophets there were, who, to go sharers in that gain, by the Holiness of their Function, did disguise and daub them.  
It was well said of a virtuous man in the praise of Virtue, Si 
1: The com●…ance.  oculis cerneretur, If it could be seen, or could be put into Limbs or Colours, nothing would more inflame, or ravish the Beholders. And he had spoken as well in the dispraise of Vice, had he said, Si oculis cerneretur, if it could be made visible, or put into Colours, nothing would appear more deformed, or loathsome. To speak of it, as it deserves, there is so little Beauty or Amiableness in Dishonest actions, that to be disliked, and abhorred, it hath always been sufficient for them to be understood. None but the Father of mischief, ever loved mischief for itself: And none but the Children of such a parent, have found out a comeliness of Evil, merely as 'tis Evil. Of all other men, who have not quite lost their Reason with their Innocence, and over whose understandings darkness and Error have not so prevailed, as to present vice and virtue to them, as one and the same thing, the saying of the Poet hath always held true, Exemplo quod●…unque malo committitur ipsi displ●…cet Authori; Bad actions are so far from pleasing others, that they never yet pleased themselves. Nor can I persuade myself, that ever any man could so stifle his Conscience, or force it, (like some compelled to enter into unwilling contracts) to embrace a Bad Design, but he for that time divided himself between his Design, and his Hatred. And the advantages which have accompanied the foulness of the Enterprise, have never been so great, but that the poor cozened offendor, at the same time sinned, and loathed himself. But then, as some either borne, or grown deformed, have found out certain arts to hide their deformities; As some I say, of a withered, ill-shaped complexion, have by the help of their pencil, turned yellow into red, and pale into white, and by the same help, have placed a Rose there, where there was before a decay; And so have bestowed, not only an Artificial beauty, but an Artificial youth upon themselves, and in this borrowed shape have flattered themselves, and deceived others: So few bad men have been so unpolitick, not to hide their Deformities by painting too. And this cunning use hath been made of virtue, that it hath always been made the colour, to adorn, and cover vice. A thing the more easy to be effected, because that saying of the Philosopher hath always been true, Difficile est Nonnulla vitia â virtut●…bus secernere, adeo prudentes nonnunquam fallunt, some vices are so nearly allied to some virtues, that wise men have frequently mistaken them for Twins. Thus Rashness with success hath passed for valour, and cowardice with discretion hath passed for Counsel. Covetousness well ordered hath worn the shape of Thrift; and Riot hath put on the name of Magnificence, and a large m●…e But where this Neighbourhood between good and evil is not, ot●… helps have been taken in; And a virtue of one shape hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disguise the foulness of a vice of another. Thus among the jews in our Saviour Christ's time, there were some who tithed Mint, th●… they might wi●…hhold justice, and some pa●… ●…min, that they might keep back the weightier matters of the 〈◊〉 ●…ome made long prayers, that they might devour Widow's ●…ouses, and some wore broad Phylacteries that they might swallow Orphan's goods. And thus in this Prophet ezechiel's time, some disguised their rapine by a Prophet, and their slaughters by a Priest; their Covetousness by a Seer, and their Oppressions by a Man of God. Between whom the parts were so speciously carried, that, as if there had been no such things in Nature, as Right or Wrong, justice or Injustice, but only as Holy men would please to call them, the one devoured the prey, the other gave a Blessing to it; The one destroyed Souls, the other excused the Murder; The one committed Sacrilege, the other made it plausible. Or if you will have me express myself to the true Historical Importance of this Text, the one grinded the faces of the poor, and polluted themselves both with private and and public Oppressions; the other gilded, and palliated, and veiled, and daubed them. Complana●…ant, says one, Gypsabant, says another Translation. The Prophets did smooth, and sleek, and put a fair crust upon them. The words are divers, but have all one Sense.  
For first, whether we express their palliation of Sins by daubing, (which is the word here used by our English Translators, and answers to Saint Ieromes Obliniebant in the Latin, and the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek) 'tis a Word (if a learned Interpreter, well skilled in the Original, have not deceived me) taken from those who deal in Ointments. And the meaning of the place is, That as some, skilled in such Confections, have at times been hired to disguise deadly Receipts in fragrant Smells, and so have conveyed poison in a perfume, and clothed Death in the Breath and Air of an Odoriferous Sent; so these Prophets here in the Text, among the other Abuses of their Calling, changed one of Solomon's best Proverbs into one of the worst Compliances: Which was, that by the Opinion of their Holinesle among the people, they made some men's Illnames pass, as 'tis there said of Good, like a precious Ointment poured forth. Perfumes and Odours were put upon Ambition and Avarice. And God's Laws were a while taught to forget their stile; And those Commandments were made most to defend the men, who did most violate, transgress, and break them. Or next, whether we use the word sleek, or smooth, 'tis a word taken from those who use the polishing tool, or file. And the meaning of the place will be, That, as such Artificers do ordinarily file rude, rough, misshapen matters, into decent figures and forms, and by the Repetition of their instrument, and application of it artificially to the same place, do raise a Glass and Lustre there, where there was before only a deformity and shade; so these Prophets dealt with the public Sins of their times. Rapines, and Oppressions were filled, and polished, into the softer names of just levyes and supplies. Murders also and Bloudsheds, together with the Cries of Widows, and Tears of Orphans were smoothed and glazed into the milder appearances, perhaps, of public Utility & necessity of State. In brief, these Prophets here in the Text, dealt with some men's vices, as the Philosopher would have us deal with our Affections, transformed and wrought them into Ornaments, and virtues. Or lastly, whether we use the word Gypsabant, 'tis a word taken from those who deal in plaster. And the meaning of the place will be, That as such Artificers, by laying a new Crust upon old Decays, do many times make a falling building seem strong, and to the certain danger of the dweller, do so veil, and cover aged Walls, as to disguise Rottenness, and make a ruin seem habitable; So these Prophets dealt with the sins of their times. They whited Sepulchers and adorned Rottenness, and putrefaction. Wicked designs had a fair crust put upon them; And ruinous projects were supported with splendid, holy Colours. If you will have me speak more home to the mind of the Text, some ambitious men built Houses on the Sand, and some flattering, servile Prophets daubed them with weak, untempered mortar. Which discovers to us the frailty and unsoundness of all such proceedings as are not built upon justice, or Truth, those two immovable Rocks of the Scripture; And leads us on to the next part of the Text.  
For the clearer understanding and interpretation of which 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…he frailty of ●…d designs.  words, it will be necessary, that I once more briefly reconcile the several Translations of them. That which we in English do read untempered mortar, a very Classical Interpreter of the Bible reads thus: Prophetae ejus linebant eos insulso, Her Prophets have daubed them with a thing which is insipid, or which hath no salt in it. From whence some have made this exposition of the place. That though the thing with which these Prophets disguised the soul actions of their times were Holiness, and Religion; and though it be true, that we may say of Religion, as Christ said of the Teachers of it, that it is the salt of the world, yet this salt sprinkled upon forbidden erterprises, leaves off to be sale, and loseth its savour. To speak yet more plainly to you; Holiness itself applied to wicked designs, leaves off to be Holiness. And they who put sanctity to that vile use, to serve only as the paint to make the unlawful projects of others seem fair, add thus much guilt of their own to the others, that they turn Religion itself into their crime. And I may confidently say, that they had been much more innocent, if in such forbidden cases they had been less holy.  
Saint Jerome translates the words thus: Propheta obliniebant eos absque temperamento, The Prophets daubed them with a thing which would not piece, or unite, or make a mixture. From whence some have given this Interpretation of the place, That however religious pretences may be found out to mask irreligious deeds, and however Holiness may be made the vermilion to impiety, yet there can never such a mixture, or composition pass between them, that it shall cease to be Impiety, because it hath piety joined to it. But rather as gilded upon false coins makes it so much the more counterfeit; or as Tin silvered over is so much the more Treason, because 'tis silvered over; and Copper so much the more deserves hanging, because it wears the King's Image, and the Inscription on it is written in golden Letters: So 'tis with bad actions silvered over with Religion; they are so far from becoming good, that they double their iniquity, and become so much the more counterfeit. And as the spirit of Delusion is so much the more the spirit of Delusion, when he transforms himself into an Angel of Light; so foul projects are never fouler, than when there is a glory and lustre put upon them. In all such disproportioned Commixtures, where the worse is sure to vitiate, and corrupt the better, we may not only ask the Question, What agreement there can be between light and darkness, or what fellowship Christ can have with Belial? but we may boldly pronounce, that light thus joined with darkness, loseth its rays, and becomes darkness. And that Christ thus joined and matched with Belial, degenerates into a Deceiver, and becomes Belial too.  
The third and last translation of this place, (which our English Translators have followed) is that of Va●…ablus, who renders the words thus, Prophetae ejus linebant eos luto infirmo, Her Prophets (that is, the Prophets of Jerusalem) have daubed them with infirm, untempered mortar: That is, as Dyonisius Carthusianus, very fully expounds the Metaphor, Confirmabant eos in errore persuasionibus non solidis, sed fucatis: The Prophets confirmed them in their errors with weak, untempered Reasons. All which several Interpretations do agree in this one and the same undeniable sense; That such is the conscious, guilty, unjustifiable nature of sin, so suspicious and fearful 'tis to be seen publicly in its own shape, that it not only deals with all sinners, as it did with the first two, upon a mutual sight, and discovery of themselves, shows them ashamed, and naked to one another; but to cover and veil their nakedness and shame, sends them to such poor, frail, unprofitable shelters, as Bushes, and Fig-leaves: which though they should grow in Paradise itself, or should be gathered from the same holy ground, in which Innocence, and the Tree of Life were planted together, yet applied to hide an oppression, or plucked to cover a sacrilege, they will still retain the fading, transitory nature of leaves, which is to decay, and wither, between the hands of the Gatherer, and lose their colour and freshness in the very laying on; and to every well rectified, religiously judging eye, instead of being a veil to hide, will become one of the ways to betray a nakedness.  
To speak yet more plainly to you, and to lay it as home as I can to every one of your consciences, who hear me this day; If the design and project be unlawful, and contrary to God's Commandments, let there be a Prophet found to pronounce it holy, let there be a Statist found to pronounce it convenient, let Reason of State be joined to Religion, and public utility to quotations of Scripture; Lastly, let it be adorned with all the varnishes and paintings taken either from Policy or Christianity, which may render it fair and amiable to the deluded multitude, yet such is the deceivable nature of such projects, such a worm, such a self destroyer grows up with them, that, like jonas Gourd, something cleaves to their root, which makes their very foundation ruinous, and fatal to them. At best they are but painted Tabernacles of clay, o●… palaces built with untemp red mortar. The first discovery of their hypocrisy turns them into heaps, and the fate of the scarlet whore in the Revelation befalls them, whose filthiness and abominations were no sooner opened and divulged, but she was dismembered, and torn in pieces by her own Idolaters and Lovers.  
Here then, if any expect that I should apply what hath been said to our times, and that I should take the liberty of some of our Modern Prophets, who have by their rude Invectives from the Pulpit made what ever Names are High, and Great, and Sacred, and Venerable among us, cheap, and vile, and odious in the ears of the people; If any, I say, expect that by way of parallel of one people with another, I should here audaciously undertake to show that what ever Arts were used to make bad projects seem plausible, and holy in this Prophet's time, have been practised to make the like bad projects appear plausible, and holy now; Or that in our times the like Irreligious Compliance, hath passed between some Spiritual men, and Lay, to cast things into the present Confusion, I hope they will not take it ill, if I deceive their Expectation. For my own part, as long as there is such a piece of Scripture as this, 
* Exod.  Diis non maledices, thou shalt not revile the Gods, (that is, thou shalt not only not defame them by lying, but shalt not speak all truths of them which may turn to their Infamy, and reproach;) I shall always observe it as a piece of obligatory Religion, not to speak evil, no not of offending dignities. Much less shall I adventure to shoot from this sacred place my own ill-built jealousies, and Suspicions, for Realities and Truths: Which if I should do, 'twould certainly savour too much of his Spirit of Detraction, who having lost his modesty, as well as Religion & Obedience, to the Scandal and just offence of all loyal Ears here present, was not afraid to forget the other part of that Text, which says, Nec maledices principi in populo meo, Thou shalt not reproach the Ruler of my people.  
Yet because so many strange Prophets, of our wild, licentious times, have preached up almost five years' Commotion for a Holy war; And because, in truth, no war can be Holy whose cause is not justifiable; If I should grant them what they have proclaimed from so many Pulpits, that the Cause for which they have all this while, some of them, so zealously fought, as well as preached, hath been Liberty of Conscience; or, in other terms, for the Reformation of a corrupted, degenerated Church; Or to speak yet more like themselves, for the Restitution of the Protestant Religion grown Popish; if I say, all this should be granted them, yet certainly, if Scripture, Gospel Fathers, Schoolmen, Protestant Divines of the most reverend, and sober mark, and Reason itself have not deceived me, all Sermons which make Religion, how pure soever, to be a just cause of a War, do but dawb the undertakers with untempered Mortar.  
For however it be an Article in the Turkish Creed, that they may propagate their Law by their Spear; yet for us who are Christians, to be of this Mahumetane persuasion, were to transfer a piece of the Alcoran into a piece of the Gospel. And to make Christ not only the Author of all those Massacres, which from his time to ours, have worn that Holy Impression, but 'twere to make him over-litterally guilty of his own saying, that he came not to send peace, but a Sword into the World For though it be to be granted, that nothing can more conduce to the future happiness of men, then to be of the true Religion; yet I do not find that Christ hath given power to any to compel men to be happy; or commanded, that force should be used for the collation of such a Benefit. All the ways more proportioned for the achieving of such an end, he hath in his Gospel prescribed, namely preaching, and persuasion, and Holy example of life. He bade his Apostles go, and teach all Nations; not stir up one Nation against another, or divide Kingdoms against themselves, if they would not receive the Gospel. This had been plainly to join the Sword of the flesh, to the Sword of the Spirit. Which to save their Lives, and Fortunes, might perhaps, have made some Hypocrites, and dissemblers without, who would nevertheless, have remained Pagans, and Infidels within. In short, some things in the Excell●…ncy, and Height of the Doctrines of Christian Religion being no way demonstrable from Humane principles, but depending for the credit, and evidence of their truth upon the Authority of Christ's miracles, conveyed along in Tradition and Story, cannot in a natural way of Argumentation force assent. Since, as long as there is such a thing in men, as liberty of understanding, all arguments, even in a Preaching, and persuasive way, which carry not necessity of demonstration in their Forehead, may reasonably 〈◊〉 rejected. Much less have I met with it in all my progress of D●…vinity or Philosophy, convincingly maintained, that men upon every slight disagreement, or descent in Religion, are to be whipped, or beaten into a Consent; or that the plunde of men's Estates is a fit medium to beget a Belief or persuasion in their Minds.  
Here then, should I once more grant the charge of these Prophets to be true (a very heavy one I confess) that the Protestant Religion among us, had very far taken wing, and had almost resigned its place in this Island to the Romish Superstition. Nay, suppose (which is yet far worse) that a great, and considerable part of this Kingdom, had through the Corruption of the times, not only relapsed from the Protestant Religion in particular, but from the Christian Faith in general; suppose, I say, (which is the worst that can be supposed) that they who have so frequently of late been branded for Papists, had outright turned Infidels, however in such a case, that War which fights against the Errors of men thus lost, and proposeth to itself no other end but their Repentance, and Conversion, may to some perhaps, seem to wear the Helmet of their Salvation, and the Army which thus strives to save men by the sword, may to some seem an Army of Apostles, yet I do not find that to come into the field with an armed Gospel, is the way chosen by Christ to make Proselytes. The Scripture indeed, tells us of some who took the Kingdom of Heaven by violence; But of any, who by violence may have it imposed upon them, 'tis no where recorded. But alas, my Brethren, (if I may speak freely to you in the defence of that defamed Religion, in which I was borne and to which I should account it one of the greatest blessings that God can bestow upon me, if I might, with the Holy Fathers of our Reformation, fall a Sacrifice) that which these men call Idolatry, and Superstition, and by names yet more odious, was to far from having shrined itself in our Church; So little of that dross, and Ore, and tin, which hath lately filled our best Assemblies with so much noise and Clamour, was to be found among us, that with the same unfeignedness that I would confess my sins to God, and hope to obtain pardon for them. I do profess, that I cannot think the Sun, in all his heavenly course, for so many years, beheld a Church more blest with purity of Religion for the Doctrines of it, or better established for the Government, and Discipline of it, then ours was. And therefore, if I were presently to enter into dispute with the greatest Patriarch among these Prophets, who, even against the Testimony of sense itself, will yet perversely strive to prove that our Church stood in such need of Reformation, that the growing Superstitions of it could not possibly be expiated but by so much Civil War. I should not doubt with modesty enough to prove back again to him, that all such weak, irrational Arguments as have only his zeal for their Logic, are not only composed of untempered Mortar; But that in seeing those spots and blemishes in our Church, which no good Protestants else could ever see, 'twill be no unreasonable inference to conclude him in the number of those erroneous Prophets here in the Text. Who to the great Scandal and abuse of their Office, and Function, did not only palliate, and gild over the public sins of their times, but did it like Prophets, and saw Vanity too. Which is the next part of the Text; And is next to succeed in your attentions.  
If the Phil●…sophers rule be true, that things admit of definitions according to their essences, and that the nearer they approach to 
3. 〈◊〉 first abuse ●…eir functi  nothing, the nearer they d●…aw to no Description; to go about to give you an exact definition of a thing impossible to be defined, or to endeavour to describe a thing to you, which hath been so much disputed whether it be a thing, were to be like those Prophets here in the Text; first, to see Vanity myself, and then to persuade you that there is a Reality, and Substance in it. Yet to let you see by the best lights I can, what is here meant by Vanity, I will join an inspired to a Heathen Philosopher. Solomon, (whose whole Book of Ecclesiastes is but a Tract of Vanity) as we may gather from the instances there set down, places vanity, in mutability, and change. And because all things of this lower world consist in vicissitude, & change (so far, that as Seneca said of Rivers, Bis in idem flumen non descendimus, we cannot step twice into the same stream; so we may say of most Sublunary things, whose very beings do so resemble streams, ut vix idem bis conspiciamus, that we can scarce behold some things twice) that wisest among the sons of men, whose Philosophy was as spacious as there were things in nature to be known, calls all things under the Sun, vanity, because all things under the Sun are so liable to inconstancy and change, that they fleet away, and vanish, whilst they are considered; and hasten to their decay whilst we are in the Contemplation of them.  
Aristotle desines vanity to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every thing which hath not some reasonable end or purpose belonging to it. For this reason, he calls emptiness, and vacuity, vanity; Because there is so little use of it in nature, that to expel it, things have an inclination placed in them to perform actions against their kind. Earth to shut out a vacuity, is taught to fly up like fire; and fire to destroy emptiness, is taught to fall down like earth. And for this reason, another Philosopher hath said, that colours, had there not been made eyes to see them, and sounds, had there not been ears made to hear them, had been vanities, and to no purpose. And what they said of sounds, and colours, we may say of all things else; not only all things under the Sun, but the Sun itself, who is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the eye of the world, without another eye to behold him, or to know him to be so, had been one of Aristotle's vanities.  
As then in Nature those things have deserved the name of vanities, which either have no reasonable end, or purpose belonging to them, or else are altogether subject to Mutability, and change, so 'tis in policy, and Religion too. To do things by weak, unreasonable, inconstant principles, principles altogether unable to support, and upold the weight, and structure of public business built upon them; or to do things, with no true substantial, solid, useful, but a mere imaginary good end belonging to them; As for example, to alter the whole frame and Government of a State, not that things may be mended, but that they may run in another course than they did before; or to change the universally received Government of a Church merely for change sake, and that things may be new, not that they may be better, is a vanity, of which I know not whether these Prophets, here in the Text, were guilty; but when I consider the unreasonable changes already procured, and the yet farther endless changes as unreasonably still pursued by the Prophets of our times, I find so much vacuity, and emptiness in their desires, so much interested zeal, and so little disinterested reason, so much novelty mistaken for reformation, and withal so much confusion preferred before so much decency, and order, that I cannot but apply the Wise man's Ingemination to them and call their proceedings Vanity of vanities.  
For if we may call weak, groundless, improbable surmises and conjectures, vanities, have not these Prophets dealt with the minds of vu●…gar people, as Melancholy men use to deal with the clouds, raised monstrous forms and shapes to fright them, where no fear was? Have they not presented strange visions to them? Idolatry in a Church window, Superstition in a white Surplice, Mass in our Common-prayer Book, and Antichrist in our Bishops? Have they not also to make things seem hideous in the State, cast them into strange, fantastical, Chimaera figures? And have they not, like the fabulous, walking Spirits we read of, created imaginary Apparitions to the people from such things, flight, unsolid melting Bodies as Air? And for all this if you inquire upon what true stable principle, or ground, either taken from reason (which is now preached to be a saecular, profane, heathen thing) or from Scripture, (which is now made to submit to the more unerring rule of fancy) they have proceeded; or what hath been the true cause, of their so vain imaginations, you will find, that (contrary to all the rules of right judgement, either common to men, or Christians) they have been guided merely by that Causa per accidens, that fallible, erroneous, accidental cause, which hath always been the mother of mistakes. Socrate ambulante coruscavit; Because it lightened when Socrates took the Air, one in the company thought that his walking was the occasion of the flash: this certainly, was a very vain and foolish inference; yet not more vain and foolish than theirs, who have ●…right people to conclude, that all pictures in Church-windowes are ●…dols, because some out of a misguided devotion, have worshipped ●…hem; or that Surplices, and the like Church Vestures are superstitious, because some superstitious men wear them; or that our Comm●…●…rayer book is Popery, because part of it is to be found in the 〈◊〉 of that Church; or that the government of the Church 〈◊〉 bishops is Antichristian because in their belief, Antichrist al●…ady is, or, when he comes into the world, shall be a Bishop.  
For here, if I should press them in a rational, logical way, (un●…sie they will call Argument, and Logic, and Supersti●…●…oo ●…oo, and banish Reason as well as Liturgy out of the Church) ●…o think (as they do) that Churches are unhallowed by reason of their ornaments, or to persuade people to refrain them, because some out of a blind zeal have paid worship to the Windows, is to me a feare●…s ●…s on reasonable, as theirs was, who refused to go to Sea, because ●…ere was a Painter in the City, who limned Shipwrecks. For certainly, if that be all the reason they have to banish Images out of th●… Church, because some (if yet there have been any so stupid) have made them Idols; by the same reason, we should not now have a Sun, or Moon, or Stars in the Firmament, but they should long sin●… have dropped from Heaven, because some of the deluded Heathen, worshipped them. And if that be all the reason they have to prove Surplices, or white vestments superstitious, because Papists wear them, (pardon the meanness of the subject, I beseech you, which is score●… worthy of a confutation) why do not they also conclude Linnes to be superstitious, because Papists shift, and so make cleanliness to be as unlawful as Surplices or Copes? Thirdly, to say our Co●… prayer-book is Popish, because 'tis so good, that some in the Church of Rome have praised it, is to me an accusation as senseless, as theirs, who accused the General of their Army of treason against the State, because his enemies out of the admiration of his virtues, erected a Statue to him. Lastly, to call the government of our Church by Bishops, Antichristian, because that Church which they make to be the seat of Antichrist is so governed, is to me such a weak Imputation, as by the same reason makes all the Christian Governments of the world pagan. And therefore to be utterly extirpated, and banished out of the world, because in some points of Government they resemble the Commonwealths of Infidels. To all which vain, unlearned, impotent, shallow objections raised against the Church, when I have added their vain, improbable conjectures, and objections raised against the State too; Where things possible, nay in a civil, politic way, almost impossible, have been urged, and cited as things present, and done; Where, because some Princes have been Tyrants, and grievous to their Subjects, people in serene, easy, halcyon times, have been made believe that an Egyptian bondage, and Thraldom was ready to fall upon them; And where, because there was a time when a bunch of Grapes or two extraordinary was gathered for the public, people, after so many reparations, so many acts of recompense, have been entertained, that those few, irregular Grapes were but the prologues, and forerunners to the intended rape which should in time have been committed upon the whole future, following vine; I cannot look upon the Prophets who have thus preached vanity to them, thus amuzed them with false, imaginary dangers, but under that description which the Prophet jeremy hath made of them, in his 23. chap. at the 26. verse; where he calls them Prophets of the deceit of their own hearts, Seers who coin their own visions. Men who relying wholly upon the uncertain illumination of their own fancies, which they call the Spirit, and having never acquainted themselves with the true ways, and principles either of reason, or Religion, which should clear their minds, and take off the gross film which beclouds their understandings, make it their business and profession to deceive themselves, and others. Building false conclusions upon weak, irrational premises; and supporting improbable conjectures, by fictions, and untruths, Which suggests to me the second abuse of the Ministry, and function of these Prophets here in the Text. Which was, that they not only saw vanity, but divined lies too.  
The thing in nature which makes the expression hold true, that man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sociable creature, is that we are able to repay 
4. ●…he second a●…e of their ●…nction.  conversation with conversation; and have a privilege bestowed upon us, beyond that of beasts, that we can unite, and join ourselves to one another by speech. Without which, we, who now make rational assemblies, and Commonwealths, had been only a rude, discomposed multitude, and Herd of men. Nay, without Language to express ourselves, and to associate ourselves to one another in Discourse, every man had been thus like the first, that he had been alone, and solitary in the world. For where commerce and intercourse, and exchange of minds is denied, and where all that passeth between us of men is that we are Alter alteri spectaculum, only a dumb, speechless show, and spectacle to one another; meetings, and numerous Assemblies are but so many unpeopled Wildernesses and deserts. And where all that we enjoy of one another's company is only the dull sight, and presence, every one of us may reckon himself single in a full theatre and crowd.  
As speech, then, was at first bestowed upon us that we might hold conversation, and discourse with one another, so there was a Law imposed upon us too, that we should not deceive one another by our sppeech. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'Tis Aristotl●…s definition of speech, which hath a piece of commutative 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  justice in it. Words, says he, are the images of thoughts. That is, says the Divine, they always ought, or should be so. The mind is thereby enabled to walk forth of the Body, and to make visits to another separated, divided mind. Our Souls, also, assisted by Speech, are able to meet, and converse, and hold intercourse with other Souls. Nay, you must not wonder at the expression, if I say, that as God at first conveyed our minds, and Souls into us by breathing into us the breath of Life, so by Speech he hath enabled us, as often as we discourse, to breathe them reciprocally back again into each other. For never man yet spoke Truth to another, and heard that other speak Truth back again to him, but for that time the saying of Minutius Felix was fulfilled, Crederes duas esse animas in eodem corpore, there were interchangeably two minds in one Body.  
But this (as I said before) is only when Truth is spoken. Otherwise, as the Question was asked of fire, Igne quid utilius? What more useful gift did God ever bestow upon us then Fire? And yet the same Poet tells us, that some have employed it to burn Houses. So we may say of Words, Sermone quid utilius? What more beneficial gift of nature did God ever bestow upon us then Speech? 'Tis the thing which doth outwardly distinguish us from Beasts, and which renders us, like the Angels, (who discourse by the mere Acts and Revelation of their wills) transparent and Crystal to one another. But then Speech misemployed, and put to a deceitful use, may turn Crystal into jet. And put into a Lie, may raise a shade, and cloud of Discourse, and Obscurity there, where there should be only a Translucency and clearness. In short, some men, like the Fish which blacks the stream in which it swims, and casts an Ink from its bowels to hide itself from being seen, make Words, which were ordained to reveal their Thoughts, disguise them: And so like the Father of lies, deal with their hearers, as he dealt with our first Parents, appear to them, not in their own, but in a false, and borrowed Shape; And thereby make them embrace an Imposture and Falsehood, in the figure, and Appearance of a Reality and Truth.  
An offence so fit to be banished out of the World, that after I have said, that two thus talking, and deceitfully mingling Speech, are some thing more than Absent to one another; After I have said, that the liar is injurious to things, as well as persons; Which carry the same proportion to our minds, as Colours do to our eyes; And have a natural aptness in them to be understood as they are, but are for that time not understood, because not rightly represented: I must say too that there is injustice done to humane society. Since in every untruth that is told, and believed, one man's Lie, becomes another man's Error, whereby a piece of his natural Right is taken from him; which Right is by the Casuists called judicandi libertas. He is disabled to make a Right judgement of what he hears. His belief betrays him: And the Speaker thus fallaciously conversing with him, is not for that time, his companion, but his deceiver.  
But when Religion shall be joined ●…o a lie, and when a Palsehood shall be attited, and clothed with Holiness; When they, whose profession 'tis to convey Embassies, and Messages, and voices from Heaven, shall convey only cheats, and delusions, and impostures from thence; though I cannot much blame the credulity of the Simple, who suffer themselves to be thus religiously abused, and like men who see jugglers, think their money best spent, where they are best cozened; yet, certainly, the deceivers themselves do add this over and above to the sin of Lying, that whereas others hold only the Truth of things, these men hold the Truth of God in unrighteousness.  
And such it seems, were these Prophets here in the Text. Who the better to comply with the Public sins of their times, did put untruths, and falsehoods to the same holy use, that others did sacred Inspirations, and Dreams. Fictions, the bastard creatures of their own corrupt fancies, were delivered as Prophecies infused into them from Heaven, and he who feigned most, and could lie with the most religious Art, was thought to have the greatest measure of the Spirit. Prosperous successes were foretold to wicked undertake, and the Prophets dealt with the people, as some bold Almanac-makers deal with us; coined soul, or fair weather as they pleased to set the times, and then referred it to casualty, and chance to come to pass.  
And can I pass over this part of the Text, and not say that there have been such Prophets among us in our times? Unless things should come about again, that the devil should the second time get a Commission to become a lying Spirit in the mouth of the Prophets, with a promise from the Almighty, that he should prevail too, were it possible that so much cozenage should so long pass, for so much Truth? Have we not seen the Prophet Micah's prophetical curse fulfilled upon this Kingdom? 'Tis in ●…his 2. Chap. at the 11. ver. where he says, that if a man walking in the Spirit, and falsehood, do lie, he shall be the Prophet of this people. Certainly, my Brethren, when I consider how much Romance, how much Gazette, how much Legend hath for some years passed for Sermon; When I consider (even with tears in my eyes) the many false aspersions stuck upon our defamed, wronged University, by some, who (even against the light of their eyes as well as Consciences) have charged the Breasts that gave them suck with infected poisoned milk; And have belied their spotless Mother, as if she were turned Strumpet; or as if't were grown a place from whence piety, and gifts and true Religion, have long since taken slight; a place which needs Conversion, and which affords nothing but dangerous education; of which crime, I confess, I know not whether ●…he be guilty, unless it be for bringing forth such abortive lying Sons, who thus make it part of their Religion to revile Her; when I farther consider, that they have not spared Majesty itself, though clothed, and armed by God with all the sacred Guards which should protect it from the venom of such disloyal, slanderous mouths; when I yet farther consider the seeming sanctity of the persons that do this, with what Holy passion, what inspired zeal, what composure of face, what contention of voice, what earnest Rhetoric of hand, What Language of Saints, they do this; Lastly, when I consider how many there are, who, driving a gainful Trade in fictions, (fictions as strange as his, who wrote of Virgins transformed to Bay-trees) use to lie as devoutly from such holy ground as this, as others use to pray; And when withal I do observe that there is sprung up a certain Sect of Hearers among us, who as zealously lend attention to lies, as their Preachers utter them; I cannot but take the Philosopher's liberty to myself, and pronounce of such Congregations, as he did of Markets; that they are places where people meet to deceive, and be deceived.  
And as in Shops, and Markets, Religion is sometimes put to help out faulty Ware, and the name of God is cited to make up measure and weight, and part of the false light by which the Buyer is overreached, is the seeming sanctity of the Seller: So 'tis here. A certain religious, holy, sacramental cozenage passeth between Preacher and People. And that they may the more solemnly be cozened, these Prophet's deal with their Fictions, as the Devil dealt with his temptations, when he would have persuaded our Saviour Christ to cast himself down from a Pinnacle, cloth them with Scripture, saying, Thus it is written, and, thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken; which brings me to the third, and last abuse of their Profession, and Ministerial Function. Which is to entitle God to their vanities, and lies. To which I shall only add somebriefe Application of some things in this Sermon to ourselves, and so commend you to God.  
Lucian, I remember in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or false Prophet, tells us of a certain Mountebank Cheater, who the more artificially to deceive the People, did set up an Oracle of his own Fancying, and 
〈◊〉 ●…jury of●… to God.  contrivance; in which he was both the God, and Priest to the People who came to inquire. And, like the Priests of those other true Oracles, which we read of, where the Sibyl never gave answers till she was first entranced, and felt a kind of sacred fury, and possession within herself; so he, (as often as he pleased to delude the People) had his sacred ragings, and trances too; and appeared to those who came to consult with him, filled with a kind of holy fury, and possessed with the God that spoke through him.  
Me thinks, these Prophets here in this Text, were just such jugglers, who, in preaching their own Fancies for Gods dictates, did not only set up a false Oracle, in which they were to the People, both the Deity, and the Priest; but they divined untruths to them, in the same holy, solemn, Prophetical form and way, as others did truths. Lies had a kind of holy trance, and ecstasy, and rapture put to them; and Falsehoods came from them in a kind of sacred madness, and possession As often as they had a mind to deceive the People, they could presently raise to themselves their own inspirations, and a●… often as a Plot, or Project was to be brought about, they could ●…ently snatch themselves up into the third Heaven; and could 〈◊〉 from thence as full of holy fiction, and imposture, as S●…. Paul did of astonishment, and wonder. In the delivery of which Fictions to the People, ●…here was thus much holy cozenage more added, that the ●…ips of the Reporters seemed for that time to be touched with a Coal from the Altar; and God by the secret instuence and instinct of his holy Spirit, was thought to be the kindler of that Coal.  
An injury of that (hypocritical, shall I say? or rather) bold, presumptuous, impudent nature, that when I have spoken of it the most gently I can, I must say 'tis something more than the breach of the third Commandment. For there we are only bid not to take God's name in vain; that is, not to mingle him with our ordinary, rash, light, unpremeditated discourses, or not to forswear ourselves by him, or cite him to be a witness to our perjuries. But they who speak falsely in his name, and vent their own sinister Plots for his inspirations; they, who, when they should be the messengers of truth, and the reprovers of sin, shall stand as the messengers of of falsehood, and encouragers of public wrongs, between him, and the people; do not only take his name in vain, and (as much as in them lies) draw a cheapness, and contempt upon it; but do commit a sin worse than perjury, for that only calls him to testify, and bear witness, but these men make him the Principal, and first Author of a Lie: And so stick the reproach of a weak, impotent vice upon him, common to none, but base, servile, perfidious natures, and slaves.  
You may read in the old Testament, that the Priest of those times, among his other Ornaments, wore two precious Stones in his Breastplate, called the Urim and Thummim. Through which, according as they did at times cast a bright, or dimmer lustre, God revealed his pleasure, or displeasure to the People; and spoke to them by the sparkle of a jewel, as he did at other times by the mouth of a Prophet. You may read too, that after the Tabernacle was set up. God had a Throne, or Mercy-seat placed for him, between the Wings of two Cherubims, which veiled it; from whence at certain times he sent forth Oracles. Here then, let me put this case to you.  
Suppose the Priest, who wore the Breastplate, should have belied his jewels, and when the people came to inquire of him, should have interpreted a pale, for a bright Ray to the people; or suppose he should have taken out the true, and have placed two false counterfeit jewels in his Breastplate; and should have taught them, by a kind of secret conspiracy, not to sparkle by the certainty, and holiness of their own impartial Fires, but according to the desires, and Plot, and Stratagem of the Consulters; had not this been plainly to set up an illegitimate Anti-urim, and Thummim, which should have cast a false, as the other did a true lustre? Nay, had not this been to make God, who used to appear, and reveal himself in these jewels, as he did to Moses in the Bush, in a flame of Fire, to become like one of those erratical, uncertain, wand'ring night-fires, of which Aristotle speaks in his Meteors; Fires, which shine only to lead Travellers out of the way?  
Once more put the case, that the Priest should have usurped the Throne, and Mercy-seat of God, and when the people came to inquire, should have placed himself between the Cherubins, and should from thence have uttered such false, pleasing Oracles, as he knew would most suit, and comply with the humour, and Interest of the Inquirers; Had not this been most insolently, to thrust himself into the place of God, and for that time to depose him from his Sanctuary or holy Place, and to assume his business and peculiar Office to himself? Nay, had not this been the way in time, to draw the same bad report upon him, which once passed upon the Oracle at Delphos, Apud Apollinem ut mihi videtur, mendacia emuntur, men paid for lies at Delphos, and sacrificed to Apollo to be cozoned and deceived?  
That this was the sin of these Prophets here in the Text is evident from the words of it, and from their coherence with the rest of the Chapter. Who, (as if they had entered into the same secret compact with God, as they had with their other Complotters of those times) made no other use of their profession, but only to humour great men, and to make Sale and Gain of their Prophecies. Enthusiasms, and Visions, and Dreams, and Revelations, were uttered, as some Mechanic men utter their Commodities, to him that would give most. The Sanctuary, in plain terms, was made a place of Merchandise; only the Ware was Spiritual. And the difference between Simon Magus' bargain with the Apostles, and the Bargain here in the Text, was only this, that here both parties consented; The one sinisterly bought, the other sinisterly sold the holy Ghost.  
An offence, my Brethren, so directly against the Truth, and Veracity, and Majesty of God, so near, (●…it not outright) that never to be pardoned sin against the holy Ghost, that I am sorry I must say, that all the defence that can be made for it, is, that our times have brought forth prophets who have taken the same course.  
For now, as if the Scripture were in a perverse, 〈◊〉▪ sense the second time to be fulfilled, that the 〈◊〉 things of the world shall confourd the wise, and that 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉, and things that are not, shall bring to nought Realities, and 〈◊〉, and things that are, he is not only thought to be the holiest man, who can lie most in a holy Cause, but he thrives best, and makes the best spiritual M●…kets, who most belies God to his Glory. To what unweighed, airy scruples, and vanities, is he entitled? How is his Scripture, for want of learning to understand it aright, abused, and made the bellows to blow a fire, fit rather to be quenched by the repentance, and tears of the Incendiaries, and feeders of it? How many are there who daily urge text for Bloodshed, and undertake to prove the slaughter of their Brethren, (I had almost said of their lawful Prince and Sovereign too) warrantable by the Word of God? What bold Libel, or Pamphlet hath not for some years railed in a holy style? And what Sermons have not been spiced with a a holy sedition? Hath it not (even to the ruin of one of the most flourishing Kingdoms of the world) been made a piece of Religion to divide it against itself, & to divorce a King from his People, and his people from their peace? Have not men been taught that they cannot give God his due, if they give Caesar his? And that the only way left to preserve in themselves, the grace and favour of the one, is quite to deface and blot out the image and superscription of the other? And have not the Teachers of these strange, unchristian Doctrines, delivered them to the people in the holy stole of Prophets? Have they not called a most unnatural, civil War, the burden of the Lord? Have they not quite inverted the injunction of the Apostle, and turning his affirmative into their negative, have they not (directly contrary to his word) said, Thus saith the Lord, honour not the King?  
My brethren, let me speak freely to you, as in the presence of God, who knows that I hate the sin of these Prophets here in the Text, too much to flatter. Or if I would be so irreligiously servile, you yourselves know that the present condition of things is at too low an ●…bbe, for me or any man else to hope to thrive by such a false Engine. If there be such a thing as a Waking providence over the actions of men, (which, I confess, an unresolved man in such irregular times as these might be tempted to question) or if there be such a thing in nature as Truth, with a promise annexed to it by the God of Truth, that first or last it shall prevail, unless by a timely, and seasonable repentance of their abuse of the Name of God, and of their many bold reproaches thrown upon his Anointed, they divert their punishment: Something, me thinks, whispers to me, (I dare not be so confident of my own infallible sanctity, as to call it the Spirit of God) but something whispers to me, and bids me in the Prophet ezechiel's words in another place, Prophecy against these Prophets; and say, * Woe to the foolish Prophets who have followed their own spirit, and have seen nothing. Because with lies 
●…ek. 13. 3.  they have made the heart of the Righteous sad, whom the Lord hath not made sad; and have strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way.  
Or if this will not awake them, but that they will still be guilty of the sin of these Prophets here in the Text, they must not take it ill, if, not I, but the holy Ghost (which they so much boast of, & by whom they so confidently pretend to speak) pass this sad sentence on them and their complyers, by the mouth of two other Prophets. 1. As for their complyers (if any such there have been) who have said to the▪ Seers, See not, and to the Prophets, Prophesy not unto 
●…ay 30. 10.  us right things, but speak to us smooth things, Prophecy deceit; let them hear with trembling what the Prophet Esay says in his 30. Chapter at the 12. and 13. Verses. Because (says he) ye despise my word, and trust in oppression, and perverseness, and stay thereon; Therefore, thus saith the holy one of Israel, This iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling ●…ut in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly, at an instant. The meaning of which prophetical judgement will be easily understood of any, who shall consideringly mark the beginning and progress of the Chapter to the context where 'tis uttered and denounced.  
Next, as for the Prophets themselves, who for poor, low, earthly interests, and respects, have suffered themselves to be misled, let them with confusion of face, hear what the Prophet jeremy says in the 23 Chapter, at the 32. verse. A place no less remarkable than the former. As for those, says he, who do prophesy false d●…eames, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness yet I sent them not, nor commanded them; behold, I am against them, saith the Lord, and they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord God.  
The conclusion then of this Sermon, shall be this. Fathers, and 
The conc sion.  brethren of this University: I presume it could not but seem strange to you, to hear your Manners, and Religion, as well as Studies, and Learning not long since publicly reproved, and preached against out of this Pulpit, by men, who profess themselves, indeed, to be Prophets, but discovering to you so little, as they did of the abilities of Prophet's sons, could not but seem to you very unfit Reformers, or instructers of this place. I presume also, that with a serious grief of heart, you cannot but resent, that there should be thought to be such a dearth, and scarcity of able, virtuous men among us, that the Great Council of this Kingdom, in pity to our wants, should think it needful to send us men better gifted, to teach us how to preach. What the negligence, or s●…oth, or want of industry, in this place hath been, which should deserve this great exprobration of our Studies from them; or how one of the most famous Springs of Learning, which of late Europe knew, should by the misrepresentation of any false reporting men among us, fall so low in the esteem of that great Assembly, as to be thought to need a Tutor, I know not: Nor will I here over-curiously inquire into the ungiftednesse of the persons, who have drawn this reproof upon us, or say that some of us, perhaps might have made better use of our time, and of the bounty of our Founders, then by wrapping up our Talon in a Napkin, to draw the same reproach upon our Colleges, which once passed upon Monasteries, which grew at length to be a Proverb of Idleness. But that which I would say to you, is this: Solomon, in one of his Proverbs, sends the sluggish man to the Spider, to learn diligence. Take it not ill, I beseech you, if I send some of you (for this is a piece of exhortation which doth concern very few) who have been less industrious to these vain, but active Prophets, which I have all this while preached against. Mistake me not, I do not send you to them, to learn knowledge of them. For you know 'tis a received axiom among most of them, that any unlearned, unstudied man, assisted with the Spirit, and his English Bible, is sufficiently gifted for a Preacher. Nor do I send you to them to be taught their bad Arts, or that you should learn of them to daub the public sins of your times; or comply with the insatiable, itching Ears of those whom St. Paul describes in the fourth Chapter of his second Epistle to Timothy, at the third verse, where he says, that the time should come, when men should not endure sound Doctrine, but after their own lusts, should heap to themselves teachers. A prophecy, which I wish were not too truly come to pass among us; where Studies and learning, and all those other excellent helps, which tend to the right understanding of the Scripture, and thereby to the preaching of sound Doctrine, are thought so unnecessary by some Mechanic, vulgar men, that no Teacher's suit with their sick, queasy Palates, who preach not that stuff, for which all good Sch●…llers deservedly count them mad: I do not, I say, send you to them for any of these reasons. But certainly, something there is which you may learn of them; which St. Paul himself commends to you, in the second verse of the forementioned Chapter. If you desire to know what it is, 'tis an unwearied, frequent, sedulous diligence of Preaching the Word of God, if need be, as they do: In season, out of season, with reproof of sin, where ever you find it, and with exhortation to goodness where ever you find it too; and this to be done at all times, though not in all places. For certainly, as long as there are Churches to be had, I cannot think the next heap of Turfs, or the next pile of Stones, to be a very decent Pulpit; or the next Rabble of People, who will find ears to such a Pulpit, to be a very seemly Congregation. For let me tell you my brethren, that the power of these men's industries, never defatigated, hath been so great, that I cannot think the mild Conqueror (whose Captives we now are, and to whose praise, for his civil usage of this afflicted University, I as the unworthiest member of it, cannot but apply that Epithet) owes more to the Sword, and courage of all his other Soldiers, for the obtaining of this, or any other Garrison, then to the Sweats, and active Tongues of these doubly armed Prophets; who have never failed to hold a Sword in one hand, and a Bible in the other. There remain then, but one way for us to take off the present reproach, and imputation thrown upon us, Which is to confute all fly, sinister, clancular reports, and to outdo these active men hereafter in their own industrious way. To preach Truth and Peace, and sound Doctrine to the People, with the same sedulity, and care, as they preach Discord, Variance and Strife. If this course be taken, and be with fidelity pursued, it will not only be in our power to disenchant the People, (who of late (by what Spell, or Charm I know not) have unawares begun to entertain a piece of Popery amongst them, and to think, ignorance the only Mother of Devotion) But it will be no hard matter for us, (towards the effecting of so charitable a work, as the undeceiving of so many well-minded, but misguided Souls) to make our true Arts deal with their false, as the Rod of Moses dealt with the Magician's Serpents, first, show them to be only so much fantastical Form, and Air, then consume and eat them up, in the presence of their Believers. To which (for a conclusion of all) I shall only add this, That if this course be taken, and be reduced to practice, assisted with those great advantages (which are to most of them unknown) of Study, Learning, Tongues, the use of Libraries, and Books, besides those other helps of opportunity, time, and leisure, to render ourselves able, (which they too immaturely engaged to a Family, or Fortune, cannot have) we shall not only comply with the ends and intentions of those Founders, who built us Colleges: (which they, certainly, intended should be Schools of virtue, not Nurseries of sl●…th) but our despised Mother, the University, shall reap more honour by us, our Country more service, and God more glory. To whom with his Son, and the Holy Spirit of truth, be ascribed all honour and praise.  
Amen.  
FINIS.   

A late Printed SERMON AGAINST False Prophets, Vindicated by LETTER, From the causeless Aspersions of Mr. FRANCIS CHEYNELL.  
By jasper maine, D. D. the misunderstood Author of it.  LUKE 21. 19 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Printed in the Year, M DC XLVII.   

A late printed SERMON against FALSE PROPHETS, Vindicated by Letter, from the causeless Aspersions of Mr. FRANCIS CHEYNELL.  
AS often as I have, for some years, considered the sad Distractions of this Kingdom, methinks, thus divided against it self, it hath verified upon itself the Fable of the People sown of Serpents T●…eth; where, without any known Cause of a Quarrel, Brother started up suddenly armed against Brother, and making the place of their Nativity the Field, and Scene of their Conflicts, every one fell by the Spear of the next, upon the turf, and furrow which hatched and brought him forth. 'Tis true, indeed, some have preached, and others have printed, that the Superstitions of our Church were grown so high, that they could not possibly be purged but by a Civil War. But finding, upon my most sober and impartial Inquiries, that these Superstitions were only the misconceipts of some men's sick Fancies, who called certain sleight harmless pieces of Church Ceremony Superstition, I thought it a piece of Charity to them and the deluded people, to let them no longer remain in the Case of the distracted Midianites in the Book of 
* c. 7. v. 〈◊〉  judges; where, upon a Dream told by a man to his Neighbour, and upon the sight of such inconsiderable things as lamps, and broken pitchers, every man's sword was against his fellow; and a well-ordered Host of friends, struck with an imaginary fear, became a confused and disordered heap, and rout of enemies. This desire to rectify mistakes, and withal to show upon what slender threads of vanity their Sermons hang, whose accidental, misguided Arguments, under certain false colours, have strived to prove things indifferent to be unlawful; and then, that thus by them pronounced unlawful, they are to be extirpated by the Sword, caused me at first to preach a Sermon against False Prophets, which hath since past the Travel of a more public Birth: wherein, what a cold Advocate I am in my plead for Superstition, will appear to any, who with an unclouded understanding shall read it: yet M. Cheynell, (one of the Preachers sent down by the Parliament to Oxford) in a morning Sermon of his preached at S. Mary's Jan. 17. upon Esay. 40. 27. Having directed the Doctrinal part of it against one M. Yerbury, an Independent, (who publicly in a Dispute with him held, that the Fullness of the Godhead dwells in the Saints bodily, in the same measure that it did in Christ) not without much violence offered to his Text, He directed the use and Application of it to me; whom (after some characteristical reproaches of my person, and defamations of my Sermon) He challenged to a public Disputation with him. This (after two days) coming to my knowledge, I disputed with myself what I was to do in such a case: To return reproaches for reproaches, or to vindicate myself in the place where I was thus publicly reviled, had been to make myself Second in a fault, which the whole Congregation condemned in him as the First. Besides if I could have dispensed with myself for being so unchristianly revengeful, as to remove part of the Civil War, which hath too long imbrued our Fields, into the Temple, and there to answer Challenges, and fight Duels from the pulpit, this licence was denied me; who have for divers months been compelled to be a speechless member of this silenced University. Again, To sleep over my infamy, and to dissemble my disgrace, had been to beget an opinion in the minds of those that heard him, that either I wanted a good cause, or else my good cause wants a Defender. At length (something contrary I confess, to the peaceableness of my studies, which never delighted much in those quarrelsome parts of Learning, which raise tempests between men) following the Scripture counsel, which is, to take my offending Brother aside in private, and to tell him of his fault, I resolved by the secrecy of writing to wipe off those Calumnies for the future, and to answer the bold Challenge for the present, which he hurled at me in the Pulpit; and having first banished all gall, and Bitterness from my pen, sent him this following Letter.  
SIR,  
THat a Text of Scripture in your handling should wear two faces, and the Doctrine of it should be made to look one way, and the use of it another, is at all no wonder to me. But that pretending so much to Holiness, and Christianity as you do, you should think the Pulpit a fit place to revile me in, would hardly enter into my belief, were not the Congregation that heard you on Sunday morning last at S. mary's, my cloud of Witnesses. From some of which I am informed, that you solemnly charged me with imprudence and impudence, for publishing a late Sermon against false Prophets. SIR, Though report, and my name perfixt in the Title-Page might probably persuade you, that I am the Author of it; yet to assure you, that I caused it to be published, or consented to the printing of it, will certainly require a more infallible illumination, then, I presume, you have. Besides, if I should grant you that 'twas printed with my consent, (which yet I shall not) yet certainly the seasonableness of it in a time where godliness is made the engine to arrive to so much unlawful gain, will excuse me from imprudence, though perhaps not from an unthriving, in your sense, want of policy. And as for the impudence you charged me withal, I am confident that all they who heard you with impartial Ears, and have read that Sermon with impartial Eyes, have, by this time, assigned that want of modesty a place in a more capable forehead. I hear farther that having in a kind of pleasant disdain shuffled pipes, Surplices, pictures in Church-windowes, Liturgy, and Prelacy together in one period, and styled them the musty Relics of an at-length-banisht Superstition, you were pleased out of that heap to select Images, and to call them Idols, and then to charge me as a defender of them.  
SIR, Had you done me but the ordinary Justice to pluck my Sermon out of your pocket, as you did the Practical Catechism, and had faithfully read to your Auditory what I have there said of Images, I make no question, but they would all have presently discerned that I defend not Pictures in Church windows as they are Idols, or have at any time been made so, but that 'tis unreasonable to banish them out of the Church as long as they stand there merely as Ornaments of the place. From which innocent use having not hitherto digressed, for you to call them Idols, and then to charge me as if I had made them equal with God, by my defence of them so formallized, will I fear, endanger you in the minds of your Hearers, and beget an Opinion in them, that you are one of the Prophets who use to see Vanity. I hear farther, that when you had traduced me as a Defender of the forementioned musty Relics of Superstition, you said, that this was the Religion to which I professed myself ready to fall a sacrifice. Certainly, Sir, This is not fair dealing. For if, once more, you had plucked my Sermon out of your pocket, and had read to the Congregation that passage of it which endeavours to prove that 'tis not lawful to propagate Religion, (how pure soever it be) by the sword, they would have heard from your mouth, as they once did from mine, that the Religion to which I there profess myself ready to fall a Sacrifice, is that defamed, true, Protestant Religion, for which the holy Fathers of our Reformation died before me. In saying, therefore, that I profess myself ready to fall a sacrifice in the defence of Surplices, the Common Prayer Book, or Church Ornaments, (things which I have always held not necessary, unless made so, by right Authority) you have incurred one danger more, which is, not only to be thought to see Vanity, but to be guilty of the next part of the Text. I am farther told, that to deliver yourself from the number of the false Prophets there preached against, you prophesied in the Pulpit; and chose for the subject of your prediction, a thing which is possible enough for you to bring to pass; which was, that you will have my Sermon burnt.  
Sir I have, for your sake, once more severely considered it. And can neither find Socinianism, or any other Poland Doctrine there which should deserve that doom. But if it must die like Bishop Ridley or Hooper, for its adhaesion to the best Religion that this Kingdom ever enjoyed, I must repeat the words of my Sermon, and tell you, that (without the fear of being thought by you a Pseudomartyr) I shall account it one of the happiest passages to Heaven, to be dissolved to ashes with it in the same funeral pile.  
Lastly, Sir, having, with all the sober detraction, which might probably beget a dislike in the minds of your Hearers, of me and my Sermon, sufficiently defamed both, I hear you did beat up a Drum against me in the Pulpit, and ehallenged me to a public dispute with you. If by a dispute you meant a pen-combate, I shall be as ready to enter the lists with you, as you have been to summon me to it, if you will grant me two things. The one is, that, if we engage ourselves in a Conference of that nature, you will confine yourself to the particulars in my Sermon which you quarrelled at; and not use your strange, wild Art of multiplying Questions upon Questions; or like another Hydra, what ever the Hercules be, make three heads spring up in the place where you find one convincingly lopped of. The other is, that, when you have made your Charge, and I my Resistance, you will consent that the debate of every question, thus disputed, may be made public and printed. But if by a Dispute, you meant that I should fight a Duel with you upon the same stage, and in the same Theatre of men and women, before whom you, and Mr. Yerbury played your prize, I doubt very much, if I should accept of your Callenge in that sense; whether all discreet men would not count this a spice of the frenzy in me, which you complained of in the Pulpit, for being imputed to you by Him that wrote the Conference at your late Scruple-House; and say I deserved to be cured by the Discipline, and Physic of a dark room. To deal freely with you, Sir, I by no means can approve of an English Disputation in a University. But because you shall not lose your challenge, nor I be thought to desert the cause, which I profess to defend, so you will choose the Divinity School, and Latin weapons, I shall not refuse (as well as God shall enable me) to give you a meeting there, and to sustain the Answerers' part in the defence of the lawfulness of white Surplices, Church Ornaments; the Common-Prayer Book, and Prelacy; which are the particulars in my Sermon, which you called Relics of Superstition. To one of these two offers I shall patiently expect your answer; unless without troubling me any further, you will let me quietly retire back again into the shade, from whence you have too importunately called me: Who, never the less, have learned so much Charity, as to pray God to forgive you the wrong which you intended towards  
From my chamber this evening. jan. 19 1646. The Author of the Sermon against False Prophets. J. maine.  
To this letter (in which (as briefly as the laws of a Letter would permit) I endeavoured to wash out the spots, with which M. Cheynell in his Sermon strove to defile and sully mine, and withal to comply with him in any sober way of Dispute, which might befit two University-men) after two days was returned an Answer: First, strange for the messenger's sake that brought it, which was One jellyman (some say) a preaching Cobbler; who from repairing the decays of University-mens' shoes was now thought fit to have a part in the conveyance of their disputes. Next, for the double Superscription of it, which without, on the side of the first paper that enclosed it, was as fair and full of Candour as the whited sepulchre in the Gospel, and was directed, To D. maine AT Christchurch. But this outward stone was no sooner rolled away, but another Inscription, very unlike the first appeared, which ran thus. FOR M. JASPER maine (ONE OF THE NEW DOCTORS) STUDENT AT Christchurch. By which parenthesis, it seems M. Cheynell, thought it an error in the University, to make me a Doctor. And truly (if I may be believed upon my own report) as often as I compare my unworthiness with my degree, I am of his opinion; and think I am a Doctor, fit only to stand in a parenthesis; and, without any injustice done me, to be left out of the sentence. This second Superscription was underwritten with a kind of a preamble Letter to the more inward Letter; with the lock and guard of a scale upon it; and ran thus.  
SIR, I have sent several times to your lodging this day to answer your challenge yesterday; if you cannot meet to morrow, let me understand your mind to night. For I have a great deal of business, since the University was silenced for your sake.  
What kind of meeting was here meant, or whether I (having I thank God, the use of my understanding) could consent to it, will appear by the Letter it self; which (being an Answer to mine) was verbatim this.  
SIR, I use to spend my morning thoughts upon a better subject than a pot of dead drink, that hath a little froth at top, and dregs at bottom;  
SIR, It appears by your Letter, that you do not understand my Text, and the learned Scribe, or Intelligencer, did not understand my plain, very plain English Sermon. I am not at leisure to repeat every Sermon that I preach, (preaching so often as I do sometimes twice, and upon just occasion thrice a day) to every one that is at leisure to cavil at that which they heard but at second hand; yet to show how much you are mistaken, I will give you a brief, but satisfactory account.  
My Text stands upon record, Isa. 40. 25. the Doctrine I raised from the words, was as followeth.  
Doct. There is no creature in heaven, or earth, like God in all things, or equal to God in any thing.  
The first Corollary I deduced from thence, when I came to make application, was briefly this.  
That no picture can be made of God, because there was nothing like him in heaven or earth. All nations are less than vanity in comparison of God; to whom then will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him? Isay. 40. 17. 18. The Prophet urgeth this Argument, against all manner of images which are made to represent God, who sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and stretcheth out the heavens from the 19 v. of the same chap. to the 23. ver. and he enforceth this Argument vers. 21. have ye not known— have ye not understood? etc. as if he had said, ye are ignorant sots, irrational, and inconsiderate men, if ye apprehend not the strength of this Argument. Now, SIR, be pleased to produce your strong reasons, and overthrow, if you can, the Doctrine or the Corollary. Your, Intelligencer was (if not a false Prophet yet) a false Historian, when he told you that I accused you of making images equal with God. SIR, I said, that images were not like unto God; and thereupon wondered that you took upon you to plead for the retaining of those images which have been too often turned into idols, not by the piety; but superstition of former times. You say, that by the same reason there should be no Sun in the firmament. Whence I collect, that you will be forced to maintain, that images are as necessary in the Church, as the Sun in heaven; be pleased to read the 22. page of the false Prophet.  
Moreover, you plead for Copes, and for those parts of the Common-Prayer Book which were borrowed from Rome, pag. 21, 22. The Uisitors will ere long inquire, whether there hath not been a Superstitious use of Copes at Christ-Church? and therefore I did not make any such enquiry in my Sermon, but as a Friend I give you and your adherents timely notice of it, because I believe you had need study for an Answer.  
You maintain, that some things in the excellencies and height of the Doctrines of Christian Religion depend for their credit and evidence of their truth upon the authority of Christ's miracles conveyed along in tradition and story, pag. 16. and therefore I say your Religion leans too hard and too heavy upon Tradition.  
You are offended that I spoke not distinctly concerning Prelacy, you may (if you please) try your strength, and endeavour to prove that Christ hath put the sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction in the hand of a Prelate. 2. You may (if you can) justify, that no Church that ever the Sun looked upon hath been more blest with purity of Religion for the Doctrine of it, or better established for the Government and Discipline of it, than the Church of England, pag. 7. if you believe this confident assertion, you may proceed and justify all the Doctrines, which were publicly countenanced, or approved; all the superstitious practices, and prelatical usurpations, nay, the delegation of the Prelates, usurped power to Chancellors and all the Tyranny of the high Commission, together with all the corruptions and innovations introduced into the State, Church, University from the year 1630. till 1640. by a prevailing faction, who were not the Church or University, but the disease, indeed the plague of both. If you dare not undertake so sad a task, you cannot justify the 17. 18. 22, 23. 27. 35. pages of the False Pr●…het; you must prove that the proceedings of the Parliament are Turkish, pag. 15. 17. that none of the Members of either House of Parliament (who complain of the blemishes of the Church) are to be esteemed good Protestants, pag. ●…8. that the Reformation which they have made is vanity of vanities, pag. 20. that they are guided by no other principles but such as are contrary to all rules of right judgement, either common to men or Christians, pag. 21. that the Ministers who have appeared for the Parliament, are all of them False Prophets, who have encouraged the Parliament to oppression, sacrilege, murder, and to make all names that are great and sacred, cheap and odious in the ears of the people. That the Ministers are the liars, and the Parliament-men the compliers, as appears by all your unworthy insinuations, hints, intimations, quite throughout your Scurrilous Libel, falsely called a Sermon: let any prudent man judge whether this be not your main drift and scope, à carceribus usque ad metam.  
You talk of a Religion, in which you were borne, were you borne in a Surplice or a Cope? Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt. Sir, the Parliament doth not defame nor will they suppress the true Protestant Religion, and therefore if you fall in this quarrel, I said, that you must be sacrificed in the defence of Tyranny, Prelacy, Popery: if you put not Religion in Copes, Images, Prelates, or Service-Booke, quorsum haec perditio? why do you talk of being Martyred? say, that (if the King will give you leave) you will burn your Copes and Surplices, throw off the Bishops and Common-Prayer Book, you'll break your windows, and take the Covenant, and make it evident that you are and ever will be of the King's Religion; for you hold none of these things necessary now, (whatever you have said heretofore) unless they be made necessary by right Authority.  
Sir, if I made any prediction, it was that your Sermon would be confuted, before it was burnt; you know Paraeus was burnt before he was confuted; and if you be not guilty of any doctrine received in Poland, I wonder, First, why you did endeavour to incense an Officer of this Garrison against me, because I had refuted M. Yerburies' blasphemous errors. 2. Why you did maintain those damnable Doctrines on the last Sabbath: forgive me this injury, for I hear you did but vent them, and were no way able to maintain them.  
Sir, I acknowledge that I do contend for the restitution of the true Protestant Religion, and contend for the civil right which we have to exercise the true Protestant Religion: we were in manifest danger to lose our right, by the force and violence of potent Enemies, whereupon the high Court of Parliament judged it fit to repel force by forces: be pleased to show how the Parliament doth hereby canonize the Koran, or declare themselves to be of the Mahometan persuasion; the Parliament will not compel you to be happy, only take heed that you do not compel them to make you miserable. Though you renounce all Doctrines that M. Yerberie maintains, yet I think you are too great a friend to the Rebels in Ireland; you contend for a Vorstian liberty, not for a liberty of conscience, for you desire a liberty for men that have no conscience, such as turn from being Protestants to be Infidels. There is one of M. Yerburies' opinion, who saith, that the righteous are at liberty, [he that is righteous let him be righteous still] and the wicked are at liberty, [he that is wicked let him be wicked still,] but you are of a more dangerous opinion, the wicked as (as you think) are at liberty to kill and slay, but the godly are not at liberty to defend themselves by the power of the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdom from illegal and unjust oppression, violence. I am convinced by many passages in your Sermon, especially the 15, 16, 17. pages, that you think we ought not to fight against the Rebels in Ireland, because it is part of their Religion (as it was of your brethren the Cavaliers) to put all Roundheads (as you term them) to the sword; missajam mordet, the Mass may be armed, but the Gospel must not: What think you of the War foretell in the book of the Revelation? Sir, you abuse your betters when you talk of the Scruple-house. You are not worthy to carry the books of those Reverend Ministers after them, nor could your Carfax-Sermon have ever silenced the ungifted Preachers; you would have found them gifted Disputants: if you think otherwise try one or two of them in some of their beaten points; Sir, I speak thus freely, because I was not present at the famous meeting, Novemb. 12. but I see you can cite one of your own Prophets, Poets I should say, but he is no truer a Prophet than you are like to prove a Martyr, a Cretian Prophet. Sir, the knowledge of my brethren's worth, and your famous pride and self-conceitedness hath provoked me to let my pen loose, that I might disabuse and humble you.  
It seems you are unwilling to come upon the stage (though that be a fitter place for you then the pulpit) to appear before a Theatre of men and women: Sir, you love the stage too well, take heed you do not love women too ill, there is a friend of yours that doth entreat you to beware of dark rooms and sight women; for though a great Physician doth advise you to the use of such pleasing physic, yet the Frenchmen will assure you, that it is not wholesome for the body, and the English can assure you, that it is not good for the soul; your kind of phrenfie must be cured by more severe remedies, your devil will be better cast out with prayer and fasting. You are misinformed when you say, that I did beat up my drum. No Sir, you did sound a charge and made a challenge, my acceptance of it was but the echo which answered the 17. and 21. pages of the False Prophet. In the 17. you seem prepared to enter into dispute presently with the greatest Champion that appears for the Parliament, Sir, one of the meanest that appears for them, takes up that Gauntlet which you threw forth with so much scorn and confidence.  
In your 21. page you threaten to press us in a rational logical way; Sir, do your best, you shall find that we have neither lost our reason nor our logic. We can distinguish between demonstration and superstition; and truly Sir, if you had not put more Poetry than Logic into your Sermon, though your Sermon might have been longer, yet your Libel would have been shorter; if you please to blot out those few places of Scripture which you have abused by misapplication and imprudent insertion of them into so profane and wild a stamp, you may do well to turn your Libel into Verse, and then it may pass currant amongst the Ballad-mongers for a triobolar Ballad, and you will be ranked in the number of those who are reputed the most excellent Authors, next to them that write in Prose. If you are offended that I did not show you so much respect, as I have showed towards the learned Author of the Practical Catechism, consider the difference, nay, distance between his person, education, learning, civility, writings and yours, and you will see a very sufficient and satisfactory reason. Sir, if that Author did overlook your Letter, I believe he did advise you to contend only for the lawfulness of Prelacy, because I see that is interlined, and he was present at the sad debate at Uxbridge; if that learned Doctor hath any thing to object against me, he knows my mind, habet aetatem, he is able to speak for himself, the Orator needs not borrow eloquence of so profane a Poet.  
You are unwilling to dispute in English, to which I answer:  
First, your Sermon is English. Secondly, many of the persons whom you have abused and deceived by your printed Sermon, understand not Latin. Thirdly, you have been too much addicted to English Plays, and English Verses, and you have with a pleasant kind of ignorance shuffled them (with other Verses published in more learned languages) in the same book printed by the University-Printer, and therefore I believe you are most able, and most engaged to dispute in English, for the disabusing & undeceiving of those whom you have seduced by a Sermon preached and printed in English. Be pleased to perform that task to morrow at two of the clock at S. Mary's Church, where your Sermon was preached, and I will meet you; and if you dare examine your Sermon by the Word of God, I shall be the Opponent, because you have chosen to be the Respondent.  
If when the Doctor of the Chair comes home, you please to dispute in the Divinity Schools, let us agree upon the state of the questions in controversy, and I will accept your challenge at your own weapon, which will I fear have more false Latin, then true steel.  
SIR,  
You make a dishonourable retreat, when you say that Prelacy is lawful; you have cried it up jure divino, & assured the King, that he cannot in conscience pass the Bill against Prelacy, because it is a Government instituted by the will and appointment of jesus Christ. Now stand your ground, o●… confess your error, acknowledge that you and your adherents have persuaded the King to destroy so many thousand of his loving and gallant subjects, that Prelacy might be established in its tyrannical height and rigour; and now the God of heaven and Lord of hosts hath broken all your forces, you tell us that the Parliament must not pursue their victory; but we must in charity bear with those malignant, Prelatical, and Antichristian errors, which will not consist with faith; be pleased to return such an answer as will endure the public test and touchstone, and you shallbe rationally, nay spiritually dealt with by  
The Prior opponent of the false Prophet, Francis Cheynell.  
To this letter (which (as all the world may judge) declines that part of intercourse, which obligeth one man's letter to carry some correspondence to another's, and instead of a confutation, only multiplies questions, and urgeth me to prove divers passages of my Sermon, which M. Cheynell's part was to convince) because the superscription of it darkly, and the close of it more clearly required me to meet him at an English disputation the next day at S. Mary's before the Townsmen and their wives, (very unfit moderators, certainly, in the points there to be discused) I for the present (to divert that meeting) returned him this short Answer.  
SIR,  
THough in the Letter you sent me yesterday by (I think) jellyman the Cobbler, you have given me such a taste of your Logic as well as civility, that I have small encouragement to med●…▪ any farther with you, (unless you will promise hereafter to write with better consequence, and less distemper) yet, Sir, lest you should triumph over me, as one beaten by your Arguments, not by your rudeness, I have thought fit for once to return you this answer. First, that without the danger of a dark room (as I told you before) I cannot consent to meet you at S. Mary's at two a clock. Next, that I do embrace your offer to meet me at Latin weapons in the Divinity School, when the Doctor of the Chair comes to town. Thirdly, that if your Syllogisms be no better than your wit, (which I perceive strived to be facete, when it adventured to say, that you fear my weapon will have more false Latin then true steel) I doubt the Poet you contemn so much, will go equal with you in the conquest. Lastly, not being engaged (I confess) to preach thrice a day) I will with as much dispatch as I can, put order to your chaos, and return a fuller answer to your strange letter; wherein I know not whether you have less satisfied, or more reviled  
From my Chamber this morning Jan. 22. 1646. The Author of the Sermon against false Prophets, I. Main.  
This Letter might have been lengthened with many other reasons (besides those already set down) to show how unfit 'twas for me to meet M. Cheynell at an English disputation at S. Mary's, as M. Yerbury did. As first, because the frame and carriage of the whole dispute between us, in all probability would have been as irregular and tumultuous as the other was; where, because neither of them kept themselves to the laws of disputation, which enjoin the Disputants to confine themselves to Syllogism, raised from the strict rules of Mood and Figure, which admit not of extravagancy: In the judgement of all Scholars who were present, it was not a Dispute, but a wild conflict, where neither answered one another, but with some mixture of ill language, were both Opponents by turns. Next, because the greatest part of the Auditory would have consisted of such a confluence of Townsmen and women, as understood good Arguments and Replies as little as they do Latin; and so the issue of this Disputation would probably have been the same with the former: where M. Cheynell was thought to have the better by one Sex, and M. Yerbury by the other. Loath, therefore to forfeit my discretion before such an Incompetent Assembly of witnesses, with as much dispatch as one engaged by promise could make, I returned to his Letter this fuller Answer.  
SIR,  
Among the other praises, which greater friends to the Muses than I perceive you are, have bestowed upon Virgil, he hath been called the Virgin Poet. Yet Ausonius ordering his Verses another way, hath raised one of the most loose lascivious Poems from him that I think ever wore the name of a Marriage-song. Me thinks Sir (and I doubt not but all they who shall compare them together will be of my opinion) you in your Letter have just dealt so with my Sermon; it went from my hands forth a sober Virgin, but falling into yours, it returns to me so strumpeted, so distorted in the sense, and misapplied in the expressions, that what I preached a Sermon, you by translating whatever I have said of false Prophets to the Parliament, have with the dexterity of a falsification, transformed and ●…anged 〈◊〉 a Libel. This I do not wonder at, when I remember what the Physician was, who said, that where the Recipient is distempered, the most wholesome ●…od turns into his disease; just as we see in those harmful creatures, whose whole essence and composition is made up of sting 〈◊〉 poison, the juice which they suck from flowers and roses, conc●…s into venom and becomes poison too. Having said this by way of Preface to my following Reply, first, Sir, (confining myself to your method) how you spend your morning thoughts, being impossible for me outright to know, unless your thoughts were either visible or you transparent; desire you will not think me overcurious, if I open a door upon you, 〈◊〉 proceed by conjecture. You say, you use to spend them upon a better subject than a pot of dead drink that hath a little froth at top, and dregs at bottom. To what passage of my Letter this refers, or why a language which I do not understand, should possess the porch & entrance to yours, I am not Oedipus enough to unriddle. But if I may guests what your morning thoughts were, when (as you confess) you did let them lose by your pen to discharge themselves upon me in a shower of rude, untheologicall, flat, downright detraction, though they were not employed upon a frothy subject, yet they show that you were at that time in his distemper in the Gospel, a piece of whose raging and distraction 'twas to foam at mouth.  
Next Sir, had I been present at your Sermon, (as I am glad I was not, for I desire not to be an Auditor where I must hear myself libelled from the pulpit) I shall easily grant, by the taste which you have given me in this short Conference with you of the perspicuity of your stile, and the clearness of your matter, that 't was possible enough for me not to understand it. I do, therefore, acknowledge it as a favour from you, that you will let me no longer wander in uncertainties, or write to you upon the misreport of a fallible Intelligencer; but will yourself be my Clue to guide me to what you said. Which favour, you have much heightened, by robbing your weightier employments of so much time to convey it in, as might have been spent in providing yourself to preach thrice a day, and yet not do it so hastily, or with such a running negligence, as to be thought to preach but once a week.  
As for your Text, and the Doctrine built upon it, at whom soever it was shot, I shall not quarrel with it. But how your Corollary should concern any thing that I have said in my Sermon contrary to your Doctrine, I cannot possibly imagine; who do there only speak of the vanity of some of our Modern Prophets, who can see Idolatry in a Church-window: And do only strive to prove that for people to refrain the Church (as you know who did) because some (though perhaps not of our age) paid worship to the windows, was a fear as unreasonable as theirs was, who refused to go to Sea, because there was a Painter in the City who limned shipwrecks.  
Sir, had you a mind to deal pertinently or ingenuously with me, you would witness for me, that though I speak in defence of the Ornamental use of Images, yet I in no passage of my Sermon do defend any Image or pourtraicture made of the Deity. Sir, 'tis not your saying, That no picture can be made of God, because there is nothing like him in Heaven or Earth, or the following proofs of your letter (which I conceive to be a piece of your Sermon at St. Mary's, which because I came not to it, you in charity have sent home to me) that persuades me that any such picture is unlawful: Nature, as well as the numerous places of Scripture, which you have quoted to prove that which I never yet denied, have long since taught me, that to make, or draw any picture, or Image of God is not only a breach of the second Commandment, which is built upon the invisibility of his Essence, and Nature, but that the Attempt would be much more vain, then if a Painter should endeavour to limn a soul or mind, which not affording any Idea, or resemblance to his fancy to be taken by, cannot possibly by him be expressed in Colours. The Task, therefore, to make any Draught or Figure of God (pray Sir, being misled by your example, do not think me superfluous in my pursuit of an Argument, to which I was not bound to reply) is (besides the sinfulness of it) much more impossible. For, First, Sir, if the Schoolmen (which I hear you once said you had long studied to little purpose) may be judges, He cannot be limned or drawn, because he is a Spirit: Therefore not capable to be represented by any gross, material Thing. Next, because He is Infinite; and therefore not capable to fall under Symmetry, or be circumscribed within the finite lines which stream from a Painter's pencil. Thirdly, because He is Simple, that is, (as your Schoolmen say, for you know Sir, I am but an English poet) All in All, and All in every part: Or, in other Terms, a Thing entirely uniform, and indivisible within itself, which admits not of any false representation of itself by limbs or parts. Lastly, Sir, (because I will not be tedious, and go over all his other Attributes) who shall paint his Omniscience, who his Omnipotence, who his Eternity, who his Ubiquity? Knowing this Sir, and much more of him (not by the Help of a borrowed Illumination) I could not trespass so much against my own studies, and Conscience as to allow of any picture of God. And therefore, in this particular, challenging me, (as you impertinently do) to produce my strong reasons, and overthrow, if I can, your Doctrine, or Corollary, deduced from E●…ay 40. 25. where God by his Prophet says, To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal saith the Holy One? You would fain have me be your Adversary in an undefensible Cause, that your conquest of me might be the easier. In short, you would have me profess myself to be an Anthropomorphite, that you might have the advantage to confute me for an Heretic.  
Sir, since you deny that you said in your Sermon, that I made Images equal with God (which if you had said, my Sermon without any new confutation, would have disproved you) I am in that particular satisfied, and shall think it was, though not a wilful one, yet a mistake in the reporter. But, then, Sir, I must tell you, that I am not at all satisfied with that which follows. Where you say, that Images are not like unto God, and Thereupon wonder that I took upon me to plead for the retaining of those Images which have been too often turned into Idols, not by the piety, but superstition of former times: For here, Sir, if I would take the advantage of expression not well considered, upon you, in saying that Images are not like unto God, and thereupon that I did ill to plead for the retaining of other Images not of God, a Sophister would make the world believe, that you think all Images superstitious, and therefore fit to be banished out of the Church, but only such Images as are made of God; which would expose you to the opinion of being thought very subject to speak contradictions. But being a mere poet, Sir, whose ability, you know, lies not in making use of Aristotle's Eleuches, but in the soft, harmless composure of an Elegy or Ode, I shall deal more gently with you; That is, take you in the most advantageous sense which you possibly, upon your better morning thoughts can put to your words; & believe, that the fault you find with me for the retainment of Images, is, because by the superstition of former times they have been turned into Idols. Sir, if I be not deceived, my Sermon, in this particular, is able to save me the labour of a reply. Where I have once for all said that which you will never be able to control (how poetically (that is not dully) soever you may think it expressed) that by the same reason that Ornaments are to be turned out of the Church, because some out of a misguided devotion have adored them, we should not have a Sun, or Moon, or Stars in the firmament, but they should long since have been banished the skies, because some of the deluded Heathen worshipped them. The little fallacy with which you think to entrap me, when you say, that hence you collect that I will be forced to maintain that Images are as necessary in the Church, as the Sun in the Firmament, will expire, like all other thin Sophis●…es, in vanity & smoke, when I have shown the weakness and infirmity of it, which will be briefly done by repeating only the sense of my Sermon in other words, and saying, that if Images do agree with the S●…nne, in that they have both been made Idols, though one be no necessary part of the Church, and the other be a necessary part of the building of the world, yet if for that reason wherein they agree, one must be banished any man that hath Logic (though he be a Poet) may infer, that 'twill be as reasonable that the other should be banished too.  
In your next Paragraph, or farthel of I know not what, you say that I plead for Copes, and for those parts of the common-prayer-book which were borrowed from Rome: And then confute me with the threats of an erelong Visitation. Sir, there is neither Logic, nor School-Divinity in this. As for Copes, you know I join them with Surplices in my Sermon; and say that by the same reason that the false Prophets of our times would persuade the people that Surplices are unlawful because Papists wear them, they may endeavour to persuade them, that Linen is also unlawful, because Papists shift; and so conclude Cleanliness to be as superstitious as Surplices or Copes. Sir, you may call this Poetry, but there is a Logic in it, which I hope doth not ceafe to be Logic, which you cannot resist, because 'tis not watrishly or slegmatickly expressed. As for those parts of the common-prayer-book, which I do not say were borrowed from Rome, (as you impose upon me) but are to be found in the Rubric of the Church: if I had said they had been borrowed from that Church, yet you have said nothing to prove, that upon this supposition 'tis Popery to use those Prayers in Ours. Foreseeing, I believe, that if you had offered to maintain that what ever is in the Popish liturgy is Popery, that is, superstitious, and fit to be proscribed out of the Church, you would (meeting with a good Disputant, and one not addicted to Poetry) have been compelled to confess, that the Lords Prayer, and David's Psalms are Popery too, (though the one were delivered by Christ, the other by one who lived long before Antichrist) because they are bound up in the same volume with the Mass. Sir, if this be your Logic, 'tis Socrate ambulante coruscavit, and will be a false fire to lead you for ever out of the way. But here, Sir, though I need not take the pains to confute the Nothings you have said against me, in this particular, yet whenever you shall call upon me to make good my undertaking, I do promise to make it evident to you, that all the ancient parts of the common-prayer-book, which I plead for, I do not plead for because they are used by the Church of Rome, but because they were part of the liturgy of those Churches which were thought primitively pure, and not superstitious, and were in the world long before Popery, or Antichrist was borne. I must, therefore, for ought you have yet said to alter my opinion, still stand to my former conclusion; which is, that by the same reason that either the whole, or any part of our Comon-Prayer-Book is to be turned out of the Church, because in some things it agrees with the liturgy of the Church of Rome, Italy, and Rome itself is to be turned out of the world, (& so a new Map to be made of it where these places are not) because they are the Pope's Territories, and lie under his jurisdiction. Lastly, Sir, as for the Visitors you threaten both me and Christ-Church withal, (of whom some report that you are one) when you come to execute your Commission, so you will not urge it as a Topicke to convince my understanding, but as a Delegary of power to examine my studies, life, and manners, I shall bring all the submission with mewhich can be expected from one subject to the trial and examination of such a power. Being withal very confident, that when that time comes, however you may perhaps find an old Cope or two in our College, yet you will never bring Logic enough with you to prove, that they are either Idolatrous, or have been put to a superstitious use. And therefore, Sir, in this particular you have lost your friendly counsel, there being no need at all that we should against that time study for an Answer.  
In your next Fascicle, you say, that I maintain that some things in the Excellency, and Height of the Doctrines of Christian Religion depend for their credit, and the Evidence of their Truth, upon the Authority of Christ's Miracles conveyed along in Tradition, and Story; And, therefore, conclude that my Religion leaves too hard, and too heavy upon Tradition. Sir, though I have always looked upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, as two glorious lamps, which to all eyes (that have not lost the use of seeing, by being kept sequestered from the sun too long in the dark) mutually give light to one another, so that a vigilant Reader, by comparing Prophecies with their Accomplishments, will have very great reason to believe that both are true, yet because this amounts but to the discourses and persuasions of a single man's reason, if I prefer Tradition, which is the constant, universal consent of all Ages, as a fuller medium to prove doctrines by which are hardly otherwise demonstrable, do I any more, I pray, then prefer the universal Testimony, and Report of the Church of all Times, before the more fallible suggestions of a private spirit?  
Your next Paragraph, is perfectly the Hydra with repullulating Heads which I warned you of in my first Letter; And multiplies so many causeless questions as make it nothing but a heap, partly of such doubts, partly of untruths, as would make it one of Hercules labours to examine them. First, you bid me prove that Christ hath put the sole power of Ordination in the hand of a Prelate. Sir, if the practice of the Apostles in the Scripture in this point were not clear, yet the practice and opinion of the Church for 1500 years ought to be of too great Authority with you to make this a scruple. Knowing that no Church in the world thought otherwise, till the Presbyterian Model crept forth of calvin's fancy; nor any good Protestant in the Church of England, till such as you recalled Aerius from his grave, and Dust to oppose Bishops. Next, you bid me justify, that no Church that ever the sun looked upon hath been more blest with purity of Religion for the Doctrines of it, or better established for the Government, and Discipline of it, than the Church of England hath. Sir, you repeat not the words of my Sermon so faithfully as you should. I am not so extravagant as to say, that no Church that ever the Sun looked upon, but that the Sun in all his heavenly course for so many, many years, that is, (in my sense) for many Ages, saw not a purer Church than ours was, both for the Doctrines, and Discipline of it. Against this you wildly object, I know not what Doctrines publicly countenanced, but tell me not what these Doctrines were, speak of certain superstitious practices, and Prelatical usurpations, but do not prove them to be either superstitious, or usurped; quarrel with the Delegation of Bishop's power to Chancellors, then proceed to the tyranny of the High-Commission-Court, and at last conclude with I know not what Imaginary corruptions and Innovations introduced into the State, Church, and University. Sir, if I should grant this long-winded Charge of yours to be true, (as truly I think it is only a seeing of vanity) yet my confident Assertion is not hereby enfeebled. I hope, when I spoke of the purity of our Church▪ you did not think I freed it from all blemishes or spots. The Primitive Church itself had some in it who broached strange doctrines; Saint john had not else written his Gospel against the Gnostics, nor Saint Paul his Epistle to the Galatians against those that held the necessity of Circumcision. The next Ages of the Church have not been more distinguished by their Martyrs, than Heretics; yet the Primitive Church ceased not to be Apostolically pure, because it had a Cerinthus, or Nicolaitans in it; nor the succeeding Churches to be the Spouse of Christ, because one brought forth an Apelles, another a Martion, a third a Nestorius, a fourth an Eutiches, a fifth an Arius. Sir, as long as the best Church in the world consists of men not infallible there will be errors. But than you must not charge the Heterodox opinions or Doctrines of particular men, though, perhaps, countenanced by some in public authority upon the Church. Besides, Sir, every Innovation is not necessarily a Corruption, unless it displace, or lay an Ostracism upon some other thing more worthy and better than it self. You yourself say, that the corruptions introduced were brought in by a prevailing faction, who were not the Church. If they were not, my Assertion holds good, that notwithstanding such corruptions, yet our Church in its time was the purest Church in the world. This, then, being so, me thinks, Sir, you in your pursuit of Reformation, by making Root & Branch your Rule of proceeding, have been more severe than the laws of right Reason will allow you. If there were such a tyranny as you speak of streaming itself from the High Commission Court, why could not the tyranny be suppressed, without the abolishment of the Court? Or if there were such a thing as Prelatical usurpation, why could not the usurpations be taken away, and Episcopacy left to stand? Sir, if you be Logician enough to be able to distinguish between the faults of persons and the sacredness of functions, you cannot but pronounce with me, that to extirpate an order of the Church, ancient as the Christian Church itself, and made venerable by the never-interrupted Reception of it in all the Ages of the Church but ours, for the irregular carriage of a Prelate or two, (if any such have been among us) is a course like theirs, who thought there was no way left to reform drunkenness in their State, but utterly to root up, and extirpate, and banish Vines.  
The remainder of your Paragraph is very politically ordered; which is, that because you find it hard for you to confute my Sermon by your Arguments, you will endeavour to make the Parliament my Adversary, who, you think, are able to confute it by their power: And bid me prove that the proceedings of the Parliament are Turkish.  
Here, Sir, methinks, being a Poet, I see a piece of Ben Johnson's best Comedy, the Fox, presented to me; that is, you, a Politic Would_be the second, sheltering yourself under a capacious Tortoise-shell. Why, Sir, can you persuade yourself that the great Council of the Kingdom, by whom you are employed, if they will vouchsafe to read my Sermon, will not presently discern your Art? And withal perceive, that though the Text, upon which I, out of the Integrity of my soul, preached that Sermon, stick as close to False Prophets, as the Cen●…aures shirt did to Hercules, and set them a raging, yet that they having never Parliamentarily professed to propagate Religion by their spear, can no way be concerned, when I say that such a persuasion in us Christians would be Mahometan; and we thereby should translate a piece of the Koran into a piece of the Gospel. Sir, I am so confident of the wisdom of that Honourable Assembly, of my own innocent meaning, and of your guilt, (who have been one of those Turkish Prophets, (and in your Letter to me still are) who have preached that piece of the Koran for good doctrine) that for answer to all your sly, impotently-malicious misapplications and shift off that which I have said only of such as yourself to the Parliament, I shall only appeal to my Sermon. And by that, if you please to undertake the Devil's part, and be my Accuser, shall be content to stand or fall. In the mean time, Sir, I must repeat what I said before, that if it be read, or looked on through those refractions, with which you have mis-shaped, and crooked it, I shall consent to what you say in the end of your filthy Paragraph; That 'twas once a Sermon, but you almost à Carceribus usque ad metam have made it a Libel.  
In your next (what shall I call it?) you are very Critically pleasant; And because I talk of a Religion wherein I was borne, ask me, whether I were borne in a Surplice, or Cope; and then very distinguishingly proceed, and say, Christiani non nascuntur, sed fiunt.  
To the first, I reply, that it had been as unnatural for me to be borne in a Surplice, or Cope, as for you to come into the world, with a little Geneva set-ruffe about your neck.  
Next, Sir, for your sharp distinction, I hope, though the Muses be your Stepdames, yet you think not the figures of Rhetoric to be so superstitious, that it shall be Popery in me, to make use of a Metonymy, and to express myself by the Adjunct, when I mean the place, and Country. I grant, Sir, that men are not borne, but reborn Christians; yet 'twill be no great Error in speech for a man to say he is born in Christianity, if he be a Christian, and were born in the place where Christianity is established. Sir, I doubt you begin to think secular learning to be a profane thing; And that you are bound to persecute Tropes out of Expression, as you have Liturgy out of the Church. If you do, Sir, we shall in time, (if we proceed in this conflict) fulfil a piece of one of Saint Paul's Epistles between us; I become a Barbarian to you, and you to me.  
I am glad to hear you say, That the Parliament will not suppress the true Protestant Religion; Sir, I never thought they would. But, than 'twill be no harm to you, if I pray, That whilst you pursue such a through Reformation of it, as of late years hath left it doubtful in the minds of the people what the true Protestant Religion is, you let not in Popery at that Gate, by which they strive to shut it out. If Queen Mary's days do once more break in upon us through the ●…luce which we open to them by our unsetledness, and Distractions, and if I then fall a sacrifice in defence of the same Religion for which I now contend, I hope you then will think yourself confuted; And no longer believe that I am such an ill judge of Religions, or so profusely prodigal of my life, that I would make it a Holocaust, or Oblation, either to Tyranny, or Popery.  
In short, Sir, let the King and Parliament agree to burn Copes, and Surplices, to throw away the Common-Prayer-Book, or to break our Windows, I shall not place so much Religion in them, as not to think them alterable, and this done by Right Authority. But as for the Covenant, 'tis a pill, Sir, which no secular interest can so sweeten to me, that I should think myself obliged to be so far of any man's Religion, as to swallow both parts of a contradiction in an Oath, if it appear to me to be such.  
Your promise that my Sermon should be first confuted before it be burnt, gives me hope it will be longer lived, then upon the first report I thought it would. But then I wonder you should pass that sentence on it, and choose Paraeus for your precedent. I must confess to you Sir, had I written so destructively of Parliaments as He did of Kings, I should think it no injustice from that High Court, if they should doom me the Author to be sacrificed on the same Altar with my Book. But having (upon the highest warrant that can possibly lend courage to a good action) directed it wholly against False Prophets, and no where reflected upon the Members of either House, but where I maintain it to be unlawful to speak evil of dignities, to condemn it to the flame for speaking such Truths, as I could not leave unspoken, unless I had prevaricated with the Scripture, will be so far from the reproach of a punishment, that 'twill increase the esteem and value of it from its sufferings; and make it ascend to heaven as the Angel in the Book of judges did, in the breath, and ayrc, and perfume of an acceptable sacrifice to God.  
Sir, As your she-D●…ciple did very much mis-inform you, if she told you that I endeavoured to incense an Officer of this Garrison against you, so 'twas one Error more in her (as upon just occasion I shall demonstrate to you) to tell you that I vented damnable Doctrines in her Company, which I was not able to maintain. She is my Gentle Adversary, and I desire she should know, that as I desire not to fight serious duels with that unequal Sex, so when ever she will again provoke me to a Dispute (so it be not at Saint mary's, for S. Paul forbids women to argue in the Church) she shall return with prizes, and I will confess myself conquered. In the mean time, Sir, whither she came to you, or you went to her, Her Sex puts me in mind of some false Teachers, not mentioned in my Sermon, but branded by Saint Paul, * for creeping into houses, and leading captive silly Women. 
2 Tim 3. 6  If your Intelligencer be one of these (as I shrewdly suspect she is) I should be sorry for those Friend's sake in whose Acquaintance we both meet, that she should be liable to the Character of such silly women in the next verse; where 'tis said, That they were ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth.  
You proceed, and say, That you were in manifest Danger to lose your Right to the Exercise of the Protestant Religion, whereupon the High Court of Parliament thought it fit to repel force by force. Sir, do not entertain me with your own false fears, and ●…ealousies; but demonstrate to me that the King (for Him I presume you mean) meant to extirpate the true Protestant Religion by the sword, and to plant Popery in its stead; And you shall not more 〈◊〉 charge me that I make the Parliament by such a Resistance to Denizon the Koran, than I shall truly pronounce the King's party, in fight for him to that end, guilty of a Mahometan persuasion. In saying this, you exceedingly mistake me if you think I contend for a Vorstian Liberty, or am hereby a Friend to the Rebels in Ireland. Sir, I hope you can distinguish between mens Disloyalty and Religion. As Rebels I hold it fit, if they will not otherway return to their Allegiance; that they be reduced by force. There is a right to their subjection pursued by such a War, which makes all Arms warrantable which are employed for the recovery of such a loss. But to think, that as they are Papists, nay, (Sir, I shall not shrink from my word) if they were outright Infidels, that the Protestant Rel●…gion is to be imposed upon them by force, is to make ourselves guilty of all the hard Censures which have passed upon the Spaniards Conquest of the Indians, where their Silver Mines were the true cause, and Religion the pretence. Notwithstanding your Holy War, therefore, mentioned in the Revelation (which place I have considered, and find it as mysterious as the pale or black Horse) for ought you have said in disproof of it, I find not myself tempted to desert my Opinion: which is, That to come into the field with an Armed Gospel, is not the way chosen by Christ to make Proselytes. And, therefore Sir, I will not so much distrust the Wisdom, or justice of the Parliament, that upon your bare Assertion, they will make me miserable, because I maintain that they cannot wa●…rantably compel any man to be happy.  
Why the bare mention of your Scruple-house should put you into such a fit of ill language, as to pronounce me unworthy to carry the Books of the Reverend Divines after them, who met there to heal Doubts, or why my Carfax-Sermon should contribute to the raging of that fit, I cannot reasonably imagine. Sir, I have no mind to fight many Duels at Once; nor, (having received a challenge from no other but yourself) to engage myself with them by whom I have not been provok'●….  
Whither they be ungifted preachers, or Gifted Disputants, is best known to themselves. But, certainly, Sir, if the Report which was made to me (by some who brought both their understandings as well as Ears with t●…em to the famous meeting November 12.) be true, there was nothing so demonstratively by them either objected, or replied, as might encourage them, or their Hearers, to believe this piece of Popery, that they are unerring, and infallible in the chair: pray, Sir, do not think my Famous pride, or self-conceitedness (which you say hath provoked you to break your chains, and to let lose your pen, that you might whip me into Humility) hath prompted me to say this. Had you named the Reverend persons whose Books I am not worthy to carry after them, so they be Greek or Latin Books, and those well understood by them, perhaps I should have expressed a greater Act of Humility than you are aware of, and have been content (though one of the new Doctors yet by the second Subscription of your Letter but a Master of Art) to sit a while at the feet of such learned Gamaliel's. But speaking indefinitely as you do, I hope Sir, for twenty years' study sake in this University, (where I have learned to distinguish the letters of the Greek Alphabet, and at first sight do know that it would beget a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or quarrel among the vowels, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a word should usurp the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) you will find me a nobler employment then to carry Books after Them who count Liberaries Superfluous, humane, Secular Things; And think a Minister, not Minister of Gospel, (as your Scribe hath twice erred in the transcription of your letter, in a vowel very fatal to you) needs no other furniture but the Spirit, Cottons Concordance, and the English Bible without the Apocrypha.  
Sir, I am sorry the Fit which the mention of the Scruple-house did put you into, should be increased by the mention of a Dark Room. There goes a Story of one who had tasted a while of Bedlam, and was at length, by the help of Discipline, diet, and Physic, cured of his Distraction; yet not so perfectly, but that still when he came within the sight of the place, his fancy remembered him of his old Distemper, and tempted him to do something which required a second cure. I speak not this parable to upbraid any with an infirmity which is avoidable natural to them, and no way contracted from the pride, or irregularity of their own Wills; But if you have read Tully's Paradoxes, you may remember, Sir, that he there maintains the Opinion of the Stoics, that not only they whose chains and fetters, proclaim them distempered, but that all foolish, over passionate men are to be reckoned into the number of those who are to be cured by manacles, and chains: pray Sir, do not take it ill, if (being as you say a Poet) I cite a Poet who was of this Opinion; but maintains it like a Philosopher, (I will not say a School Divine.) And having insisted in verse upon Covetousness as one, Ambition as another, The love of beauty either in real or painted faces, as another Species of Madness, He concludes in Anger, and says, Ira furor brevis est; that is, That the Choleric man, during the fit of his oholer, is in a short frenzy. That which Seneca, Tully, and Horace, called madness, (though not the other more natural, (which I should be uncharitable to object to you) you by this letter (especially the angry part of it) have given me very justifiable cause to apply to you, who (as all dispassionated men may judge) have fulfilled the Poet's definition of Madness upon yourself in all the parts of it but one, which is, that your Anger against me is not furor Brevis, a short distraction, but extends from the word Scruple-house to the End of your Letter. For first, Sir, in Language almost as unclean, as the sin of uncleanness itself, you endeavour to raise a Suspicion upon me in the world as if I had been more familiar than I should with light Women in dark Rooms: Sir, besides the poverty of your wit, and quibbling Antitheses of Expression, (to which I find you in other places of your letter very subject) I am not afraid (with all the confidence of an Innocent man) to tell you, That as I never was an Enemy to that Sex, so I never conversed with any of them single, or in a dark Congregation, so loosely, to deserve to have the slander fastened upon me, which Tertullian, and Minutius Faelix from him, say was laboured to be stuck upon the Christians of those Times, which was, That they used to meet in Conventicles, where their custom was, after the end of the Sermon, to put out the Candles, and then to commit Folly, the holy with the holy. Sir, in plain Terms, (How unblamable soever other Errors, or vanities of my life may make me stand in the presence of God, who upon a true Repentance, Sir, is not so Fatally tied to the Spindle of absolute Reprobation, as not to keep his promise, and to seal merciful pardons, yet) in this particular, my known Conversation in this University, and all other places, bids me defy you; And challenge not only yourself, but the precisest of your Informers, either here, or any where else, (who use not to suffer the looks, Gestures, or thoughts of any who are not of their Tribe, much less notorious matter of Fact, to scape unquestioned) to appear in an accusation against me; where it shall be probably, not conjecturally proved, that I have been frail with the frail Sex either holy or profane.  
Sir, all they of that soft Sex, with whom I have conversed, have accused me of too great severity, and ruggedness, towards them, but you are the first, who ever endeavoured to make me guilty of being too amorously affected.  
Next, sir, However you may tell me that you have not so lost your Reason, or Logic, but that you, (the meanest who appears for the Parliament) are ready to take up the Gauntlet which I threw down, and to answer the challenge which I first sounded in the Pulpit; yet, certainly, They who shall read that passage of my Sermon, where I say, That if I were presently to enter into a dispute with the greatest Patriarch among these Prophets, who (notwithstanding that which I said before) will still perversely strive to prove that our Church stood in such need of Reformation, that the growing superstitions of it could not possibly be expiated, but by so much Civil War, I should not doubt with modesty enough to prove to him back again, that all such irrational Arguments, as have only his zeal for their Logic are composed of untempered Mortar: And shall compare the wild Torrent of ill language, with which the furious remainder of your paragraph overflows, with the Sober Web, and Composition of my Sermon, which you there think no worthier of, then of a Triobolar Ballad, They will find that you have said nothing in the progress of at least forty Folio-lines together, which shows not that your Reason assisted not your pen. One passage I confess (like a lucide Interval) hath some taste of sobriety, and not short fury in it; which is, that how meanly so ever you think you may speak of me, yet you think you are to make a more honourable mention of the Author of the Practical Catechism. That learned Doctor, Sir, I am acquainted with, but not so inwardly as that he should contribute to the interlining any letter I write to you; or should suggest to me what he, not I, think fit to be maintained. I wish your lucid interval had been as long as your fit; For, than I persuade myself you would never have suspected that he did overlook my letter, or advised me to contend for the lawfulness of Prelacy, because he was present at the sad debate at Uxbridge.  
What you mean when you say, That if the learned Doctor hath any thing to object against you, He knows your mind, and (being none of the new Doctors, who you presume are Infants) is able to speak for Himself, I cannot possibly divine: unless by this Oraculous Expression, you would have him understand you ready to enter into a second conflict with him, and would put me to the mean employment to convey your challenge. Sir, if I know that Doctor well, you had best content yourself with me, who am a more poetical adversary; & whose weapons, you know, when they strike most, being sheathed in Roses, aught to be terrible to none but such, whose buying & selling Consciences (like the money-changers in the Gospel) will drive them out of the Temple at the sight of a whip made of straws and rushes. Nevertheless, Sir, if you be so fruitfully quarrelsome, that you think your leisure will serve you to hold combat with us both, let me desire you to hold this Opinion of us, that as I shall at no time recruit myself from him as an Orator, so he is too good a scholar to need my assistance as a Poet. This word Poet, I do observe, through the whole frenzy of your letter, you strive to make use of in ad●…graceful sense; And object it to me as a Reproach that the Muses are my Friends. In one place you call me a Cretian Prophet, That is, (according to your Comment) a Poet; In another place you tell me, that only the few places of scripture which I have misapplied in my Sermon, can preserve it from passing among the penny-merchandizes of those that s●…l Ballads. In your next paragraph (where you challenge me to dispute with you in English at St. mary's, as Mr ●…rbury did) one of your Arguments to move me to that frantic enterprise is, because I am an English Poet, and have been not only addicted to Plays, but have shussied my Mother-tongue Verses, with other Verses published in more learned languages, in the same Book Printed by the University-Printer. First, sir, though the ungentleness of your stile, and Expressions, do sufficiently testify that neither the Muses, nor Graces assisted at your Birth, yet I hope you are not such an enemy to numbers, to think poetry Superstitious, and therefore to be turned with Imagery out of the Church. If you do, you will compel me to call Nazianzen in to my Aid; who, besides his writing of a Play (if Erasmus have not misnumbered them) hath written thirty thousand Heroic, 〈◊〉, Hend●…casyllable, Elegiac, and other verses. Tertullian, Si●…, you know hath confuted Martion in Verse; and Synesius thought it as great a glory to be called a good Poet, as some who wrote in prose did to be called fathers of the Church. I will not repeat a piece of Prosper to you nor tell you what S. Austin hath said in the prais of Virgil. To be a Cretian Prophet, that is in your sense, a lying 〈◊〉, but in all theirs who understand the first C. of Titus, an Evil Beast, and a false Prophet) Is I confess a crime. But then, sir, as one excellently says in his Defence of Poesy, This is a kind of Poetry which belongs 〈◊〉 those who lie in prose as well as those who fain in Verse. For Plin●… when he speaks of men with one foot, whose breadth interposed between them and the sun, shades their whole body, to be as great a poet as Ovid, when he speaks of a Virgin transformed into a Laurel, so, Sir, when you, (contrary to the direct mind, and Expressions of my Sermon) feign that to be spoken of the Parliament, which is only spoken against False Prophets, you are a far greater Poet than I have yet shown myself either upon the Stage at Blackfriars, or in any University Book here in Oxford. Next, sir, I was never so addicted to English Poetry, but that in the same University Book I had Latin Verses too; And the Reason why I wrote in both Languages was, because I was prompted to it by my Obedience to their Commands, who had Authority over me, and thought English the fitter Language for that part of the Court, whose Sex doth make it a Solecism to be written to in Latin.  
Lastly, Sir, As for your Arguments to give you one of Mr Yerbury's Meetings, at Saint mary's; 1. Because my Sermon Preached there is English, next, because you conceive that to be the readiest course to undeceive the people who understand not Latin; thirdly, because I am an English Poet; if you think I have not sufficiently answered them in my two former letters to you, I desire you once more to consider, if I should have consented to that course, whither you, as well as I, in the opinion of discreet men, might not have endangered ourselves to have that half verse in Horace applied to us, Aut insanit Homo, aut versus facit, That either we are both mad, or both Poets.  
The way to avoid such an Imputation, in a Time of liberty, where every body may say what they list, is for us to stand constantly to the more Academical Proposition I made you; which was, to meet at Latin Weapons in the Divinity School. Where, sir, not agreeing upon the true state of the Questions before hand, (For if we agree before hand, nothing will be left us to dispute) if you please, the Question shall be that which concludes your Letter; That is, Prelacy, which, how far 'tis, or 'tis not to be defended to be jure divino shall then appear. In the mean time, sir, as I can by no means allow that victory, and Success, are always the true signs of a Right cause, (Because, The Lord of Hosts, who, you say, hath broken all our forces, is sometimes falsely thought to assist, when in truth he doth only permit) so, Sir when you write next to me, let me request you to keep your promise; which is, to deal with me rationally for the Matter, and Spiritually, that is, like a Divine for the language and form. Otherwise, sir, though I have long since learned from the best Master, that when I am reviled, I am not to revile again, yet, instead of a Conference, meeting with nothing but Invectives, 'tis possible you may so far provoke me from my mild temper, that the Philosopher's expression in Lucian's Nigrinus may be verified upon me; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The English of it will endure the public test; to which if you will be pleased to submit your Letters with the same readiness that I am content to submit mine, I doubt not but the world will judge, that as you have not yet confuted, so you have very unchristianly injured  
The Author of the Sermon against False Prophets, J. maine. From my Chamber, Jan. 23. 1646.  
To this Answer (in which the Reader may see, I have not much digressed from the copy which was before me, but have proportioned my Defence to every considerable particular of M. Cheynels' Charge) at the end of six days was returned this Reply.  
SIR,  
If I had not answered you according to your folly, you would have been wise in your own conceit; but if I should again answer you according to your folly, I fear I should become too like unto you, Prov. 26. 4, 5. I told you that I did let lose my pen, that you might see how easy it is to answer you with a running pen, nay a running negligence in the less serious part of the day; I did let fly so many quibbles that you might smell the stench of your own elaborate folly; glad I am that you have censured me for imitating of you, I hope you will now be at leisure to censure your self, for setting me so foul a copy; do but read over your own Sermons and Letters, and suppose they were mine, and then seriously and impartially pass your sentence on them, and I dare say you will be a gainer by this conflict.  
I am very much pleased with your fair condescension to have all things in controversy rationally and spiritually examined.  
1. Sir, you did as I conceive preach in defence of all images set up in any Chapel in the University; you know there are divers Images of some persons in the glorious Trinity set up in some Chapels within this University: You must then acknowledge all Images of that sort ought to be taken down.  
You are not persuaded by any Scriptures which I have cited, 
Imago nos tantùm ut memoriale excitat uti Iesuitae passim. Dico non esse ●…am certum in Ecclesiâ an sint faciendae imagines Dei, sive Trinitatis, quam Christi & sanctorum, hoc enim ad fidem ●…ertinet, illud est in opinion. Bella. de imag. l. 2. c. 8 Inanimata spiritualem quandam virtutem exconsecratione adipiscuntur, etc. Tho. p. 3. q. 83. art 3. Deum imaginibus inhabitantem colunt, Deum ●…utem virtutē stam spiritualē●…etrahere al●…quando sive 〈◊〉 fatentur. Cajetanus hac ●…n re ne Genti●…ibus quidem ●…apientior ha●…tur.  but nature hath taught you (so pure is your nature) that it is a breach of the second Commandment to draw a picture of God: (revise that fancy) the Schoolmen whom you prefer before the testimonies cited out of the Word, have taught you that it is not only sinful, but impossible to draw any picture of God. But, be pleased to consider that the Scriptures are a perfect (nay indeed the only All-sufficient perfect) Rule, & therefore you need not go about to patch up the rule with the low general dictates of nature & Schoolmen, you may study the Lullian Art, & fill your brain with Sebund's fancies, but my Schoolmen (as you call them) are the bestTutors, & the best Scholars. If you prove that is is impossible to picture God, you do not touch the point in Controversy, for vain men will fancy and endeavour to do, that which is impossible for to be done. Believe it Sir, they who had consulted as many Muses, and courted as many Graces as you have done, and were able to demonstrate out of their Poets that we are God's offspring, yet were not able without the help of divine Revelation to infer, from thence, that the Godhead is not like to Gold, as you may see it convincingly proved; Act 17. 29. For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to Gold or Silver, or stone graven by Art or man's device, I dare not therefore make the Schoolmen my judges in this weighty point, and I believe you cannot prove them to be judges in any point which concerns the Mystery of faith or the power of godliness, but enough of that.  
3. The word (thereupon) is sometimes Illative, sometimes Ordinative, you are sufficiently answered; but let me add, that if no Image is like God, then sure those Images, which are not made to represent God, and yet are by Idolatours turned into Idols, and worshipped as if they were divine, cannot reasonably be defended. Sir, I must guests at your meaning, because I believe you have omitted two or three words (such is your running negligence) which should help to make your sophistical criticism perfect sense.  
Truly Sir, if it be so high a fault to picture God: I may justly wonder that any picture of a Saint turned into an Idol should be retained and pleaded for by any man that pretends to be a Protestant, and if it be impossible to picture God, it is also impossible to picture God-man. And I believe that you will acknowledge our Mediator to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
4. That the Sun and Images cannot be put in the scales of a comparison in point of fitness to be preserved, is a truth written with a Sunbeam; Sir, I never durst argue from the abuse of a thing against the use of it, if the thing be necessary; But the Sun is necessary, and Images are not necessary, ergo, there is no parity of reason between the terms of your comparison.  
5. It appears to me by your shifting fallacy, that you make Copes as necessary as clean Linen.  
6. You will never be able to prove, that all, that the prelate's and their Faction have borrowed out of the Missal, rituals, Breviary Pontifical of Rome are to be found in any liturgy received by the Primitive Church; And I would entreat you to consider, whether they, who do profess a separation from the Church of Rome, can in reason receive and embrace such trash and trumpery. And yet though you would willingly be esteemed a Protestant, I find you very unwilling to part with any thing which the Prelates have borrowed from the Court (rather than Church) of Rome.  
7. Your next Paragraph doth concern Tradition; I shall give you leave to prefer the constant and universal consent of the Church of Christ in all ages, before the reason of any single man; but Sir, you do very ill to call the testimony of the spirit speaking in the word to the Conscience of private men, a private spirit; I think you are more profane in the stating of this point than Bellarmine himself.  
8. You have not yet proved that any Prelate can challenge the Sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction jure divino.  
9 I should be glad to know for how many years you will justify the purity of the Doctrine, Discipline and Government in England. I believe the Doctrine, Discipline and Government of the Prelatical faction whom you call the Church, was not excellent, if you reckon from 1630. to 1640. and that is time enough for men of our time for to examine. I believe that you will acknowledge, that the Prelates did lay an Ostracism upon those who did oppose them; who were in the right both in the point of Doctrine and Discipl●…ne, we shall in due time dispute. Though Prelacy itself be an usurpation, yet there were many other encroachments which may justly be called Prelatical usurpations, and the Parliament hath sufficiently declared its judgement in this point, they have clearly proved that Prelacy had taken such a deep root in England, and had such a destructive influence, not only into the pernicious evils of the Church, but Civil State, that the Law of right reason (even Salus populi quae suprema lex est) did command and compel them to take away both root and branch; you may dispute that point with them; Sir, you cannot prove that Prelacy is an Order of the Church, as ancient as the Christian Church itself, and made venerable by the never interrupted reception of it in all Ages of the Church but ours.  
10. I am no Turkish Prophet, I never preached any piece of the Koran for good Doctrine, much less did I ever make it a piece of the Gospel; all that I say is this, that Christians incorporated in a Civil State may make use of Civil and natural means for their outward safety. And that the Parliament hath a Legal power more than sufficient to prevent and restrain Tyranny. Finally, the Parliament hath power to defend that Civil right which we have to exercise the true Protestant Religion, this last point is sure of highest consequence because it concerns Gods immediate honour, and the People's temporal and eternal good. Pray Sir, show me if you can, why, he who saith the Protestants in Ireland may defend their Civil right for the free exercise of their Religion, against the furious assaults of the bloody Rebels, doth by that assertion proclaim himself a Turk, and Denison the Koran; you talk of the Papists Religion, Sir, their faith is faction, their Religion is Rebellion, they think they are obliged in conscience, to put Heretics to the sword, this Religion is destructive to every Civil State into which true Protestants are incorporated, & therefore I cannot but wonder at your extravagancy in this point. Sir, Who was it that would have imposed a Popish Service Book upon Scotland by force of Arms? You presume that I conceive the King had an intent to extirpate the Protestant Religion; Sir, I am sure that they who did seduce or over-awe the King, had such a design. I do not believe that the Queen and her Agents (the Papists in England who were certainly confederate with the Irish Rebels) had any intent to settle the true Protestant Religion; & you cannot but believe that their intent was, to extirpate the Protestant Religion by the sword, and to plant Popery in its stead; I know Christ doth make 〈◊〉, and break the spiritual power of Antichrist, by his word and spirit, for Antichrist is cast out of the hearts and consciences of men by the spirit of the Lord jesus; but Christ is King of Nations as well as King of Saints, and will break the temporal power of Antichrist by Civil and natural means. If Papists and Delinquents are in readiness to resist or assault the Parliament by Arms, how can the Parliament be defended or Delinquents punished but by force of Arms? I know men must be converted by a spiritual persuasion, but they may be terrified by force of Arms from persecution. All that I say, is, the Parliament may repel force with force, and if men were afraid to profess the truth because of the Queen's Army▪ and are now as fearful to maintain errors for fear of the Parliament, the scales are even, and we may (by study, conference, disputation, and prayer for a blessing upon all) be convinced, and converted by the undeniable demonstrations of the Spirit; Sir, this is my persuasion, and therefore I am sure far from that Mahometan persuasion of which I am unjustly accused.  
11. I am glad that you speak out, and give light to your dark room; I did not accuse you of Conventi●…les. I believe you hate those Christian meetings which Tertullian & Minutius, Pliny and others speak of; we had lights and witnesses good store at our meetings. And as for your conceit, that I deserve to be in Bedlam, because of the predominancy of my pride and passion, and the irregularity of my will; Sir, I confess that I deserve to be in Hell, a worse place than Bedlam; and if you scoff at me for this acknowledgement, I shall say as Augustine did, Irrideant me arrogantes, & nondum salubritèr prostrati, & elisi à te Deus meus, ego tamen confiteor dedecora mea in laude tua. Sir, be not too confident of the strength of your wit, make a good use of it, or else you may quickly come to have as little wit as you conceive, God hath bestowed on me. 1. Do you believe that your nature is corrupt? 2. And doth not a wanton wit make the heart effeminate? 3. Did you never converse with any woman of light behaviour? rub up your memory. 4. Superstitious persons are usually lascivious, I could tell you more, but I spare you. 5. Are you more temperate than the Disciples to whom Christ gave that caveat, Luk. 21. 34? you may then apply yourself to Prayer and Fasting; do not say that this is a filthy Caveat, but beware of that filthy sin, and acknowledge that the Caveat is given you, upon sad considerations.  
12. You tell me that God is not so fatally tied to the Spindle of an absolute Reprobation, but that upon your Repentance he will seal your Pardon. Sir, Reprobatio est tremendum Mysterium; how dare you jest upon such a Subject, at the thought of which each Christian trembles? Can any man repent, that is given up to a reprobate mind, and an impenitent heart? And is not every man finally impenitent, save those few to whom God gives repentance, freely, powerfully, effectually? See what it is for a man to come from Ben. johnson, or Lucian, to treat immediately of the high and stupendidious mysteries of Religion; the Lord God pardon this wicked thought of your heart, that you may not perish in the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness; be pleased to study the 9 Chapter to the Romans.  
You say if we agree upon the true state of the Questions before hand, nothing will be left us to dispute. Sir, it is 1. one thing to state a question for debate, so that you may undertake the affirmative, I the Negative, or è contra: 2. another thing to state a question in a supposition as the Respondent usually doth, and a third business to state a question after the debate in a prudent and convincing determination, as the Moderator should do; I speak of agreeing upon the state of the question in the first sense, that the Question may be propounded in such terms as do so far state the point in Controversy, that you and I may know which part to take, the Affirmative or Negative.  
The questions as I conceive are these that follow.  

1. Whether all that our Prelates have borrowed of the Church of Rome, and imposed upon the people, aught to be still retained in the Church of England?  
2. Whether the Images of our Mediator, and the Saints are useful Ornaments in Protestant Churches?  
3. Whether any Prelate be endued with the power of sole Ordination and jurisdiction jure divino?  
4. Whether they who defend the Protestants of Ireland against the Rebels by force of Arms, are therefore to be esteemed mahometans?  
5. Whether that faith which is grounded only upon Tradition, aught to be esteemed a Divine faith?  
6. Whether the spirit speaking in the word to the conscience of private men ought to be esteemed a private Spirit?  
7. Whether any Reprobate can ever be converted or saved?  
8. Whether the Papists of England, & Rebels of Ireland with their Confederates did endeavour to extirpate the Protestant Religion and plant Popery in its stead?  
9 Whether they who endeavoured to impose a Popish Service-Booke upon Scotland by force of Arms, were of the Mahometan persuasion?  
10. Whether the Schoolmen are Competent judges in any point which concerns the Mystery of Faith or Power of Godliness?  
11. Whether the national Covenant contradict itself?   
Sir, if you please to answer upon the three first questions in the Schools, and hold them as you seem to hold them all Affirmatively, I shall endeavour to prove the Negative.  
To all your scoffs and abuses I have nothing to reply; if God bids you revile or curse me, I shall submit to God; you call me Fool, Bedlam, Turk, Dog, Devil, because I give you seasonable advice: Sure Sir, Nazianzen, Prosper, etc. were not guilty of such Poetry, nor did Prudentius teach you any such strains.  
I did very honestly forewarn you of a visitation; it is I think proper enough to inquire into matters of fact at a visitation. Now whether Copes have been put to a superstitious use is not a question to be determined by any but Inartificiall Arguments, I mean by sufficient witnesses. To that which you Prophesy of, that I am like to be a Visitor; I answer 1. I think you have little ground for such a Prophecy: I call it a Prophecy, for I am sure the Houses of Parliament have not yet named any Visitor. 2. You talk much of the wisdom of the High Court of Parliament; and can you imagine that so wise a Court or (as you term it) Council will make choice of a Bedlam, a Turk, Dog, etc. to visit so many prudent and learned Doctors?  
Sir, you say you are not satisfied with my Arguments, you might have considered that I do reserve my arguments till we meet at Schools, our work for the present is to draw up the Points in Controversy into formal questions; I have you see form some questions, if you please to add more, you may, I shall be ready to give you the best satisfaction I can, after these are discussed, if I be not called away to some better employment by those who have power to dispose of  
Your humble Monitor, FRAN: CHEYNELL.  
An 

Omnia è Missali Breviario necnon Pontificali Romano à Prelatis nostris decerpta, populoque obstrusa in Ecclesiam recipienda sint?  
Christi Sanctorumque imagines Reformatorum Templis utili sint ornatui?  
Soli Praelato potestas Ordinationis nec non jurisdictionis jure divino competat?   In hisce quaestionibus animi tui sententiam expectat  
FRANCISCUS CHEYNELL.  
Having read over this Letter, I felt two contrary Affections move within myself. First, I was sorry, that it began in that kind of bitterness, which useth to have the same mischievous effect upon minds not addicted to quarrel, as blear eyes have upon other eyes more sound. Which find themselves insensibly infected by beholding; And in the presence of those that are bleared unawares learn their imperfections, and become bleared too. Next, I was glad, that the Controversies between us, (which like the original of mankind, began in two, and in a short time had multiplied themselves past number) were at length reduced to three latin questions, and those to be disputed in the Divinity School; where that part of Oxford, which understands no other Tongue, but that in which they daily utter their commodities, if they had been present towards the making of a throng, had yet been absent to the dispute. Thus divided, therefore, between my provocations to Answer the reproachful Preface, and my Alacrity to comply with the Conclusion of the precedent Letter, I returned this following Answer.  
Sir, When I had opened the Letter you sent me on Saturday night last, jan. 30. and found by the first period of it, that as your first Letter showed you a great Master in Detraction, so in this you had learned the Art to make the Scripture revile me too, and taught two of Solomon's 
* Pro. 26. 4, 5.  Proverbs to call me Fool; Finding also in the next period how naturally and uncompelled ill language flows from you; who do here confess that you did let lose your pen that I might see, how easily, and with what an unforced Dexterity, in the less serious part of the Day, without premeditation, or the expense of Study, you could revile me; And withal, that you did let fly so many quibbles (as the exercise of your Recreation, I presume) to mind me of my more industrious Trifles, I must confess I not only looked upon you as a Person fit to sit in the 
* Psa. 〈◊〉. 1.  Seat of the Scornful, but as one very capable to be requited with a Proverb; which the same 
* Pro. 26. 18. 19  Chapter which you quoted, presented to me at the 18. & 19 Verses; where 'tis said, That as a madman who casteth firebrands, Arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour and saith he is in sport.  
Sir, I should not have applied this piece of Scripture to you by way of Retaliation, (which may seem to have some bitterness in it) had you not at the very threshold and first unlocking of your Letter, verified this Proverb upon yourself, by casting firebrands and Arrows first, and thereby deceiving me, who (upon your promise that I should be spiritually dealt with, that is, as a Divine engaged in a needless Controversy with a Divine aught to be) unsuccessfully flattered myself, that for the future, though I could not expect much Reason or proof or Argument from you, yet you would certainly bind yourself to the Laws of Sobriety, and good Language. How you have made good your promise, will appear to any, who (besides the reproachful proverb with which you begin your Letter, and for which, a greater than Solomon hath said, you shall be in 
* Mat. 5. 22  Danger of Hell-fire) shall read the puddle of your letter which streams from the first foul Spring, and Head of it; where, having first charged me in my writing to you with Elaborate Folly, you make it an Excuse to the Dirt and mire of your pen, that I set you the Copy, and was foul in my Expressions first.  
Sir, Though the saying of Tacitus be one of the best confutations of Detraction, Convitia spreta exolescunt, and though I have always thought that to enter combat with a Dunghill is the way to come off more defiled, yet finding myself engaged (like one of the poetical Knights errand) with an Adversary that will not only provoke me to fight, but, who's best weapon is to defile me out of the field, I shall for once apply as good perfume to the stench you speak of, as can possibly in such times make me walk the streets in my own Oxford, uncondensed not by you made foggy, Air; And shall make it evident, first to yourself, next to the world, (if you will consent that what thus secretly passeth between us shall be made public, and Printed) that you are not only fallible in your most sad, and melancholy considerations, but in those more pleasant, mirthful chymes of quibbling, for which I before placed you in the Chair.  
First, sir, you bid me read over my two Sermons and the two letters which I have sent you, as if they were yours, and then impartially tell you, whether I am not to pass sentence upon them as you do; That they are Difficiles Nugae, Elaborate Follies.  
To which my Reply is; First, that there is so much loyalty, and so little self-interest in them, that my imagination can never be strong enough to Suppose them to be yours, Next, That what Folly soever betrays itself in your expressions, yet the matter is built upon such sure rocks of the Scripture, that 'tis not all the waves or Tempest which you can raise against them, will be able to reduce them to the fate of a House built upon the Sand. Thirdly, (since all Disputes, as well as wit, are like a Rest Kept up at Tennis, where good players do the best with the best Gamesters) I do sadly promise you, that when ever you shall either write or urge to me such Arguments of serious Consideration, that I shall not have reason to think St. Paul's saying verified in my Expressions, that my Foolish things are sufficient to confound, and bring to nought your wise; I will lay aside the Folly you tax me withal. In the mean time, if you think my Letters to you (By what Glass soever my Sermons were made) are elaborate, pray compare the Dates, and Receipts of them, with the No-dates, and uncertain Receipts of yours; And you will find that the longest letter, I have yet written to you, was but the creature of two days, when your unelaborate answer to it back again was the Birth, and Travel of a whole week.  
Having said this, Sir, by way of Answer to your ungospel-like preface, I shall next, (confining myself once more to your own method) address myself to the examination of the rest of your letter. A hard task, I confess; It being so much a Twinn-brother to your former where your evasions, and little escapes are so many, and your true substantial, solid disproofes of any one thing which I have said either in my Sermons or Letters, so few, that, to deal freely with you, my Conflict with you hitherto hath been (and for aught I yet foresee is like to prove) like the Fight between Hercules, and the River Achelous; which when 'twas foiled in one shape, could tyre the Conqueror, and presently provoke him to a fresh encounter in another. Sir, I could wish (without your strange endless multiplication of Questions) you would assume to yourself some constant figure, wherein I might say, I grappled with a bodied Adversary. But changing Form, as you do, and putting me still to prove that which you have not yet so much as seemingly confuted, pardon me (I beseech you) if I say, that my combat with you is not only like the combat of Hercules with that River, but like his, who thought he had entered Duel with a Giant, and after much toil found himself encountered by a cloud.  
First, you conceive, that I preached in defence of all Images set up in any Chapel within this University. Sir, This is but your conceit, of which you, not I am guilty. My sermon, if you mark it, is not so confined either to Vanlings Draughts, or any other man's pencil, as to defend what ever their Irregular Fancies shall draw, or not to defend what ever, either here, or any where else, they shall regularly limb. But if your conceit were true, what doth your Logic infer, That because some Chapels are adorned with the Images of some of the persons in the Glorious Trinity, therefore I must acknowledge all Images of that sort ought to be taken down? Pray, Sir, how long hath the single- Topick of your mere Assertion been of such forcible Authority, that without any other proof, you should think me obliged to hold such Images worthy of expulsion, because you say they are? Had you either from Scripture (the most perfect Rule for the Decision of Controversies) or from Reason, (Though in your esteem but a piece of nature corrupted) urged any one necessary Argument to prove them unlawful, or things which deserve to be called the Idolatry or Superstition of the place, perhaps being a servant to Demonstration, (though a favourite of the muses) I should have been one of the first that should have cried out for Reformation. But this not being done by you, nor indeed, possible to be done by any other, though my sermon speak not of any Image of any person in the Trinity, yet I conceive all Arguments, which shall strive to prove, that no picture of any person in the Trinity ought to be the Ornaments of a Church, or Chapel Window, will be as frail and brittle as the Glass in which they stand. Sir, I have said in my last Letter, and shall repeat it in this, that 'tis not you, but nature and the numerous places of Scripture, which forbid to make any picture of God, (either taken for the Divine essence common to all the three persons, or for the person of God the Father distinct from the other two) which persuade me that any such picture (besides the impossibility) is unlawful. And therefore you need not have put yourself to the unnecessary trouble to hang your Margin with quotations taken out of Bellarmine, or Aquinas; since all such quotations applied to that which I have said and you have cited, which is, That all pictures of God are a breach of the second Commandment, do strike me no more, then if I should enter conflict with those dead Arras-Captains, which in hangings threaten to assault the spectator with imaginary, woven Lances. Much less need you so superfluously have called S. Paul from the third heaven to prove, that (because he once quoted this Greek Hemistick out of Aratus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we are the Offspring of God) God is not like to gold, silver, or stone, graven by the art of man's device. Since by that which I have said of him in my former Letter, you are obliged to testify for me, that I have urged convincing reasons to prove he cannot be: which Reasons, as borrowed from nature and the schoolmen (with whom, sir, I hope you are not implacably fallen out) I do not urge as the supreme judges of what I there prove, but as subservient mediums, which carry a music and consent to that which God hath said of himself in the more perfect Rule of his Word. So that, for doing this, to charge me (as you do) with the Study of the Lullian Art, is either nonsense in your Letter, or an Illation which resolus itself into a contemptible mistake; which is, That because Lullius, who wrote of Chemistry, was called Raymundus, I, who have read another Raymundus who wrote of Natural Theology, am to be called a Lullianist, which is a Logic as wretched, as if I should say, Mr Cheynell hath read Cajetane, and hath made him a marginal note, Therefore he is a seeker of the Philosopher's Stone, and study's to convert the Ore and Tin of the kingdom into Gold. Sir, Your Logic is not much mended when you say, That the Word (thereupon) is sometimes Illative, sometimes Ordinative. For take it which way you will, As it stands in your last letter, you are bound to give me thanks as a Poet, that I dealt not with you as a Sophister, and proclaimed your infirmity for having uttered a contradiction. Which contradiction, I confess, might have been avoided by the insertion of the omitted word or two, for want of which, you say my sophistical Criticism is abortive, and came but with one leg into the World.  
In answer to your next Paragraph, I shall most readily grant, That 'tis a high fault to picture God. Because, any such Draught not being possible to be made of him, but by resembling of him to something w●…n is able to afford a Species or Idea to the sense, would, (besides the Falseness of it, where a gross material figure should represent a pure invisible Essence) degrade him from the honour which he ought to hold in our Minds which are his Temple; in which Temple if he should hang up in a frame or table, which should contract and shrink him to the finite Model of a man or any other creature, 'twere the way to convert him into an Idol; and so (as I have often said) to sin against the second Commandment, which as it may be broken by spending our Worship upon false Gods; so it may also be broken by our false portraitures, and apprehensions, and venerations of the True.  
The case of the Saints is far otherwise. For whose pictures turned into Idols, as I have no where pleaded, (For as Idols I acknowledge they are the crime of those who worship them) so, as Ornaments, you will never be able convincingly to prove but that they may be innocently retained, and be looked on by those who do only count them speechless Colours. The like may be said of all Pictures made of Christ, which pretend to express no more of him then is capable of Representation, and exceed not the lines and symmetry of his Body and flesh. For I shall grant you that to Limb his Divinity, or to draw him in both his Natures, as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God as well as man, is altogether impossible, and not in the power of any Painter, though we should recall Apelles, or Parrhasius from their Graves, and once more put Pencils into their Hand. You know, sir, if a man should have his picture drawn, 'twould be an impossible task, if he should enjoin the Painter to limb his soul, as well as the proportion and feature of his Body, since the Soul is a thing so unexpressible to the sense, that it scarce affords any Idea to be understood by the mind. Sir, if you have read Aristotle's Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you will there find, that the proper Objects of all the senses besides those of the Eye (though much grosser than Spirits or Souls) cannot be brought into picture. A Painter may draw a flower but he cannot limb a scent. He may paint fire, but he cannot draw heat. He may furnish a table with an imaginary banquet, but he that should offer to taste of this banquet would find himself cozened. The Reason is, because Nature itself makes it impossible for the proper Object of one sense to be the Object of another; And finds not art or colours for any thing invisible; But only for those Superficie's, Symetry's, and sensible parts of Things, which are first capable to be seen, and then to be transcribed into a picture. But why that part of Christ, which after his Resurrection, (when it began to cease to be any longer a part of this visible World) was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, may not be painted; Nay, why the figure of a Dove, or of cloven Tongues of fire (wherein the third person in the glorious Trinity appeared, when he descended upon our Mediator Christ, and sat upon the heads of the Apostles) may not be brought into imagery, I must confess to you, I am not sharp-witted enough to perceive. Though this I shall freely say to you, (and pray do not call it Poetry) That to maintain that Christ thus in picture may be worshipped, is such a piece of Supe●…stition, as not only teaches the simple to commit Idolatry, but endeavours to verify upon him in colours the reproach which the calumniating Jews stuck upon his person and to make him thus painted, a Seducer of people.  
As for your fourth paragraph, (which assaults me the second time with an Argument without an Edge, which is, that the Sun and Images cannot be put in the scales of comparison in point of fitness to be preserved) having in my former Letter already answered you, I shall not put myself to the needless trouble, the second time to confute it.  
For answer to your Fifth, pray, Sir, read that part of my Sermon which you have corrupted into a quibble; And there you shall find, that what I say of clean linen is not, as you say, a shifting Fallacy. But I there say that which you will never be able to control; which is, That by the same reason that you make Surplices to be superstitious because papists wear them, you may make Linen also to be superstitious because papists shift; And so conclude cleanliness to be as unlawful as Surplices or Copes. Sir, this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I confess, the same Answer twice served in to you, not out of scarcity or barrenness, or for want of another Reply, but because much of your Letter is but cram repetita, a carrot twice boiled.  
Your sixth paragraph is a faggot bound up with more sticks in it, than you, without poetical Licence, can possibly gather from my Letter; where, Sir, I only promise you, (when ever you shall call upon me) to derive to you all the ancient parts of our English Liturgy from Liturgies which were in the Church before popery was born. Of which if any part be to be found in the Rubrics of the Church of Rome your logic will never be able to prove, that therefore 'tis to be rejected as trash and trumpery in ours. Good things, Sir, lose not their goodness, because they are in some places mingled with superstitious. Nor, as I told you before, do David's Psalms cease to be a piece of Canonical Scripture, because they are to be found bound up in the volumn with the Mass. Sir, if what ever is made use of by the Pope, or touches upon Rome, should be superstitious, the River Tiber would be the most unblamable river in the World. What you mean by a prelatical Faction here in England, or what they borrowed from the Rituals or pontifical of Rome, is expressed to me in such a mist of words (which sound big to the common people, and signify nothing to the wise) that I must confess my dulness, I do not understand you. If you mean, that they inserted any new pieces into the old garment of our Common-prayer-book; and those borrowed from the Missal, or Breviary of Rome, I believe, Sir, (abstracting from those alterations made in the prayers for the King, Queen, and Royal issue, which the Death of Princes exacted, (unless, for constancy sake, you would have them allow of prayers for the dead; and in King Charles and Queen Mary's days, to pray still for King james and Queen Anne, which would be a piece of popery equal to the invocations of saints) you will find nothing modern or of such new contrivance, as passed not Bucers' Examen in the reign of Edward the sixth; And was confirmed by Act of Parliament in the reign of Queen El●…zabeth. In saying this in their defence, who had the ordering of such changes, I hope Sir, you will not so uncharitably think me embarked in their Faction (which truly to me still presented itself like the concealed Horses under ground, a fiction made to walk the streets, to terrify the people) as to persuade yourself, after my so many professions to fall a sacrifice to the Protestant Religion, that it can be either in the power of the Church or court of Rome, to tempt me from my Resolution: Which is, to go out of the world, in the same Religion I came in.  
Sir, I gave warning in my last letter not to venture your writings upon the Argument, which deceives none but very vulgar understandings, and which I in my Sermon call the Mother of mistakes; which is, from an accidental concurrence in some things to infer an outright similitude and agreement in all. Because Bellarmine says tradition is a better medium to prove somethings by, than a private spirit, and because I in this particular have said so too, you tacitly infer that I and Bellarmine are of the same Religion; which is the same, as if a Turk and a Christian saying that the Sun shines, you should infer, that the Christian is a Mahometan, and for saying so, a Turk. I confess, you do not say we are both of the same Religion: but that I, in preferring Tradition, which you yourself, in your seventh paragraph, tllow to be the Constant and universal Report of the Church) before he Testimony of the Spirit, speaking in the Word to the Consciences of private men, am more profane than he. Heer, sir, you must not take it ill, if I expose you to the censure of being deservedly thought guilty of a double mistake. The one is, that if Bellarmine in this particular were in an Error, and if I had out-spoken him in his Error, yet the Laws of speech will not allow you to say, That in an unprofane subject, either of us is profane; more heretical, or mistaken you might perhaps have said: and this, though a false Assertion, might yet have passed for right Expression. But to call him positively, and me comparatively more profane, because we both hold, That a Drop is more liable to corruption then the Ocean, or the testimony of all ages of the Church is a fuller proof of the meaning of a text in Scripture, than the solitary Exposition of a man who can persuade none but himself, is as incongruous, as if you should say, that because Bellarmine wrote but three Volumes, and Abulensis twelve, therefore Abulensis was a greater Adulterer then Herald Your other mistake is, That you confound the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture with the private Spirit (that is) Reason, Humour, or Fancy of the person spoken to. Sir, let that blessed Spirit decide this controversy between us. He says 
* 2 Pet. 1. 20  that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of private Interpretation. That is, so calculated, or Meridianized to some select minds & understandings, that it shall hold the candle to them only, and leave All others in the Dark. But, if you will consent to the Comment of the most primitive Fathers on that Text, The meaning of it is; That as God by his Spirit did at first dictate the scripture, so he dictated it in those thingswhich are necessary to Salvation, intelligible to all the world of Men, who will addict their minds to read it. It being therefore a Rule held out to all mankind, for them to order their lives and actions by, and therefore universally intelligible to them, (it should else cease to be either Revelation or a Rule) for you to hold that it cannot be understood without a second Revelation, made by the same Spirit that wrote it, to the private spirit of you the more-Cabinet Reader, is as if you should enclose and impale to yourself the Air, or Sunbeams; And should maintain that God hath placed the Sun in the firmament, and given you only eyes to see him. In short, sir, 'tis to make his word, which was ordained to give light to all the World, a Dark Lantern, In which a candle shines to the use of none but him that bears it.  
Your Eighth Paragraph being the third of your eleven Questions as also the close of your ninth, shall receive a latin Answer from me in the Divinity School.  
Your next Paragraph is again the Hydra with repullulating Heads: Where, first, you put me to prove the purity of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Government in England. Which, being managed by a Prelatical faction, whom, you say, I call the Church, was not excellent, if I reckon from the year 1630. to 1640. As for the Doctrine, Sir, I told you before, that the Primitive Church itself was not free from Heresies. If therefore I should grant you (which I never shall, till you particularly tell me what those erroneous doctrines were) that some men in our Church were heterodox, nay heretical in their opinions, yet I conceive it to be a very near neighbour to heresy in you to charge the doctrines of persons upon the Kingdom or Church. Such Doctrines might be in England, (as you whether out of Choice or Luck have said) yet not by the Tenets or Doctrines of the Land: No more, then if you should say, that because M. Yerbury and some few o●…hers hold the Equ●…lity of the Saints with Christ, the whole Kingdom is a blasphemer, and was by you confuted at S. Mary's. The public doctrine of the Church of England I call none but that which was allowed to be so by an Act of Pa●…liament of England; and that, Sir, was contained in the 39 Articles. If any Prelate or inferior Priest, for the Cycle of years you speak of, either held or taught any thing contrary to th●…se, (as it will be hard I believe for you to instance in any of that side who did) you shall have my consent, in that particular, to count them no part of our Church. In the mean time, Sir, I beseech you be favourable to this Island; and think not that for ten years' space 'twas heretical in all the parts of it on this side Berwick. Withal, Sir, I desire (since you have assigned me an Epocha to reckon from) that you will compare the worst doctrines which wore the date of the Trojan War among us, with those which have since broke loose in the space of a War not half so long, and you will find, that our Church for those ten years you speak of wore a garment, I will not say, as seamless and undivided as Christ's coat: But since the Soldiers did cast lots upon it, so much heresy, as well as schism, hath torn it asunder, that 'tis now become like Joseph's coat imbrued in blood, where no one piece carries colour or resemblance to another. As for the Discipline and Government of our Church, (if you would speak your conscience, and not your gall) you would confess, that the frame and structure of it was raised from the most Primitive Model that any Modern Church under the Sun was governed by. A Government so well sized and fitted to the Civil Government of the Kingdom, that till the insurrection of some false Prophets, who presumed to offer strange fire before the Lord, and reduced a Land which flowed with milk and honey, into a wilderness; they agreed together like the two Scripture-brothers, Moses and Aaron; and were the two banks which shut up schism within its channel, and suffered not heresy or sedition to overflow their bounds. In short, Sir, I know not into what new form this Kingdom may be moulded, or what new creation may creep forth from the strifefull heap of things, into which, as into a second Chaos, we are fallen; But if the Civil State do ever return to its former self again, your Presbyterian Government, which was brought forth at Geneva, and was since nursed up in Scotland, mingled with it, (if I be not deceived in the principles of that Government) will be but a wild Vine engrafted into a true. Upon which unequal, disproportioned Incorporation, we may as well expect to gather Figs of Thistles, or grapes of thorns, as that the one should grow so Southern, the other so Northern; that one harmonious, musical Body should arise from them thus joined. What Errors in Government or Discipline were committed by the Prelates, I know not; neither have you proved them hitherto chargeable with any; unless this were an error, that they laid an Ostracism (as you say) upon those that opposed your Government. I believe, Sir, when Presbytery is set up, and you placed in your Consistory with your Spiritual and Lay-brethrens, you will not be so negligent, or so much asleep in your place, as not to find an Ostracism for those, who shall oppose you in your office. In the mean time, Sir, to call them, or those, who submitted to their Government, A Prelatical faction, because the than wheels of their Government moved with an unanimous undisturbance, is, I believe, a calumny, which you would fain fasten upon them, provoked (I suppose) by the description which I have made of the conspiracy of the False Prophets of jerusalem in my Sermon. I must deal freely with you, Sir, do but probably make it appear to me, that this Faction in your letter was like the Conspiracy in my Sermon; Do but prove to me, that the Prelates devoured souls; That they took to themselves the Treasure, and precious things of the Land; That to effect this, they kindled the first spark towards a CivilWar; & then blew it into such a flame, as could not be quenched but with the blood of Husbands ravished from their Wives, and the slaughter of parents pressed and ravished from their children: Do but prove to me that they made one widow, or built their Honours upon the ruin or calamity of one Orphan; Lastly, do but prove to me that the Priests (whom you make to be the lower orb of their Faction) did so mingle, and confound the services of the Church, as to put no difference between the holy, and profane, or that in compliance with them, they saw vanity, and divined lies to the people, and I shall think them capable of all the hard language, which you or others have for some years heaped upon them. Till then, Sir, pray mistake not Concrets for their Abstracts; nor charge the faults of persons, upon the innocency of their functions. Prelacy is an Order so well rooted in the Scripture, though now deprived of all its Branches in this Kingdom, that I verily persuade myself, that as Caiaphas in the Gospel when he spoke Prophecy, perceived not himself at that time to be a Prophet; so you (overruled by the guidance of a higher power) have in this Paragraph exceedingly praised Prelacy, whilst you laboured to revile it. For either it must be Nonsense, or a very great Encomium of it, when you say, that as long as it enjoyed a root here in this Kingdom, it had not only a destructive influence into the evils of the Church, but of the Civil State too. If the Influence of it were so destructive of evils, (as indeed it was) pray with what Logic can you say, that Salus populi quae suprema lex est, did compel the Parliament to extirpate a thing so preservative and full of Antidote both to Church and State?  
Sir, if men's styles & denominations be to be given to them by the place & climate where they are borne & bred, I shall grant you are an English, nay an Oxford Christian. But if you preach, & maintain, that Religion is to be propagated by the Swor●…, I must tell you, that an English Presbyter may in this case be a Turkish Prophet, and that though his Text be chosen from the Gospel, yet the Doctrine raised from it, may be a piece of the Koran. I shall allow you to say that the Protestants in Ireland had a Right to the defence of the free exercise of their Religion against the furious assaults of the bloody Rebels. But when you tell me that Christ is King of Nations as well as King of Saints, (which I shall grant you) and say, that as one of his ways to make Proselytes is by the persuasion of his Word and Spirit; so, if that will not do, his other way to break the power of Antichrist, that is, (as I conceive you mean) to convert men from Popery, is by civil and natural means, that is, (if you mean any thing) to compel them to be Protestants by the Sword; Methinks I am at Mech●…, and hear a piece of Turkism preached to me by one of Mahomet's Priests. In short, Sir, whether the Papists in England were confederate with the Irish Rebels I know not: But do you prove demonstratively, not jealously, to me, that the Queen and her Agents had an intent to extirpate the Protestant Religion, and to plant Popery by the Sword; and the Army that should bring that design to pass, shall, in my opinion, be styled an Army, not of Papists, but of baptised janissaries. As for your bidding me dispute the right of taking up Arms in such a case, with the Parliament; First, I must desire you to accept the Answer which Fauroinus the Philosopher gave to a friend of his, who asked him, why he would let Adrian the Emperor have the better of him in a Dispute; I am loath to enter into an Argumentation with those who command Thirty Legions. Next, Sir, if I were of consideration enough to be heard to speak publicly to that Great Assembly, having first kissed my weapon, I should not doubt, with all the respective liberty, which might witness to them that I strive not to diminish the rights of their power, but to defend the truth of my cause, to tell them, that to come into the field with an armed Gospel, is not the way chosen by Christ to make Proselytes. If this be an error or mis-perswasion in me, show me but one undeniable demonstration of the Spirit to disprove it, besides your untopicall persuasion of yourself to the contrary, and, without any farther conference, or dispute in this point, I shall acknowledge myself your convert, and be most glad to be convinced. In the mean time, Sir, you are obliged, (though I be in your opinion in an error) to think more nobly of me, then of those Cowards of your side, who durst not speak Truth in a time of danger, when you see me, in the like time, such a resolute Champion (as you conceive) for the wrong.  
Sir, 'tis one of the praises of a good picture to be drawn so livingly, that every one in the room that beholds it, shall think it looks only on him; 'Tis just so with some Texts in Scripture, and some parts of moral Philosophy; which when they speak very Characterizingly of an irregular passion, or vice, if they meet with a man Conscious, and one subject to such passions, remember him of his guilt, and prick his mind as if he only were signified by that which was writ to all the World. By your charging me that I dealt more sharply with you then I should, you give me cause to suspect, that my Letter proved such a picture to you; and you to your guilty self seemed a person so concerned. The words of bitterness which you have laid together in one heap, are composed of such Language, as upon your twentieth perusal you will never be able to find in my Letter. Sir, Christianity; and my profession▪ (however you in your letter forgot both) have taught me not to return Vomit for Vomit. And the love which I bear to to the Civility of expression, would never suffer me to be so revilingly broad. If I made use of one of Senoca's Epistles, or of Tully's Paradoxes, or Horace's poetical Controversies, and if you would apply what they said of Ambition, Pride, or Choler to yourself, certainly, Sir, you have no reason to call this the Luxuriancy of my wit. And thereupon to infer these provocative conclusions; that my wit is wanton, therefore I am effeminate. That I am superstitious, therefore lascivious too. Sir, as my wit is so poor that I shall observe your Council, that is, never wax proud upon the strength of it, or despise those that are more weak, so (without sparing me at all) I do once more challenge you to prove, that the wantonness of it hath betrayed me to the loose Conversation of any that are light. Lastly, Sir, I hope you do not think I have so much of the vain glory, or selfe-conceitedness of those Reverend Hypocrites in the Gospel in me, who were able to boast of their long Prayers, and broad phylactaries, and of their fasting twice a week, that I will offer to think myself more temperate than the Apostles. Yet, Sir, I dare once more challenge you, & the precisest of your inspired informers, to prove me at any time guilty of the breach of the Text you quote against Surfeiting, and Drunkenness. Luk. 21. 34. That part of your Paragraph, therefore, which ends in exhortation, is a piece of Homily, which returns to you, to be made use of towards some other on the next last Wednesday of the month, where Fasting, and Sobriety will be seasonable Themes.  
I grant, Sir, that Reprobation is a Mystery to be trembled at. Yet Sir, all they who (maintaining it to be absolute) do revive the fiction of the three destinies, where one holds the Distaff on which the Thread of every man's Fate is spun, and do preach a piece of Zeno's Philosophy for a piece of Saint Paul's Epistles, can have no reason to accuse me of a jest, because I applied a spindle to the Distaff, on which men's fates are rolled. Sir, in plainer terms, as absolute Reprobation, is a piece of Stoicism, which was never held to be Christian, till it crept forth into the Church from the same fancy, which was the womb in which the Presbyterian Government was form, so me thinks, Lucian, Sir, (how cheaply soever you think of him, or me, for having closed my last letter to you with a piece of his Nigrinus) in his confutation of this Heathenish Error (which hath made so many hang themselves) urgeth Arguments which would become one of the Fathers of the Church. I know not whether you have read his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But if you have, he there tells you, that if there be such a thing as the fatal Decree, you speak of; 1. That all they who lie under the Inflexibility of it, being tied by an unalterable necessity to do what they do, can in no reason be rewarded if they do well, nor with any Justice be punished if they do ill. Next, that the Sins which they commit, (if they cannot but commit them) are not to be called their Sins, but the Sins of that Decree which laid this necessity upon them. And, therefore, Thirdly that a murderer (thus predestined) if he should be arraigned, may say to any judge thus stoically persuaded, Why do you accuse me? Pray call my Destiny to the Bar; and do not sentence me, but my fate to the Rack and Wheel. I was but an overswayed Instrument in this Murder; and was but such an Engine to my Destiny, as my Sword was to me. Though this were spoken by a Heathen, only in disproof of Fate, yet since Saint chrysostom in more than three Sermons had said the same things in disproof of absolute Reprobation, I hope, Sir, neither Calvin, nor Piscator, have so mistaught you to understand Saint Paul, as from any Epistler of his to conclude peremptorily, that anywithout their desert, are given up to a Reprobate mind, and finally struck, & necessitated to a remediless impenitence. The 9 Chap. of the Romans, I have long since considered, and studied it by the most ser●…, impartial lights which might uncloud the great Mystery to me which lies so obscurely there wrapped up. And to deal freely with you, the best Commentator I ever yet met with to lead me through the darkness of it, was another place of Scripture or two set in presence, and scale with this, both which joined, me thought, made perfectly the Cloud which guided the jews through the Wilderness, which was a Cloud to the Egyptians, but a pillar of fire to the Israelites. Sir, I know that neither Saint Paul hath written Contradictions, nor any other of the Apostles written that which is Contradictory to Saint Paul. Sir, I presume, also, that Aristotle's Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not so forsaken your memory, but you know that an Universal Affirmative, and a particular Negative are a perfect Contradiction, and cannot both be true. Here, then, stands the case. You, building your Opinion upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or great depth of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, infer from thence that God gives Repentance only to some few, whose peremptory will 'tis that they only shall be saved. Saint Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, Chapter 2. vers. 4. gives us a line and plummet to sound this Depth; and says expressly, That 'tis the will of God that all men should be saved. Between these propositions, 'tis his will that all shall, and 'tis his will that only a few shall be saved, there is no Medium, in which they may be reconciled; but one of them must necessarily be true, the other false. This, then, being so, I have always held it safer to build my Faith upon those clear places of the Scripture, which have no veil before their face, than those which are mysterious, and lead me to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over which I stand amazed, but cannot from thence infer. I do farther profess to you, that I am not so wedded to this or any other Speculative Opinion, but that, if you will show more convincing Scripture for the contrary, I shall most readily renounce my own thoughts, and espouse myself to yours.  
Your premonition or forewarning of me that we at Christ-church would e'er long taste of a visitation, hath since come to pass, and in part approved itself to be true Prophecy. Whether inspired by you or no, I know not, but there have been two with us, who have taken away as many Copes and guilt candlesticks, as if they had been superstitious. Sir, 'tis no wonder to me that in our times silver should be Popery; Or that Church utensils if they be Gold should be called superstition. But certainly, Sir, 'twas a great misinformation to send them to search for Copes or things of value to my poor Protestant Chamber; where there never was a Cope, though, perhaps, they might have found a long-disused Surplice, there. And as for Idols of price, if they had searched my purse, I believe that all the popery, which, in these impoverishing Times, they could have found in it, cast into the fire, like the jewish Earrings, would neither have come forth a Silver Crucifix; much less so wealthy an Idol as a Golden Calse.  
Sir,  
since at length I understand you, that by agreeing upon the true state of the questions before we dispute them, you mean that we should agree upon the terms in which they are to be held, I am very ready to comply with you in that reasonable particular. But to accept of any, either of your eleven English, or your three Latin questions, in the terms in which you have form them, I can by no means consent. First, Sir, Because I find a piece of Artifice in the Web, and contrivance of them, which hath something of a Trap, and Snare, and Engine in it. Which is, that by making them as Popish questions as you can, (especially one of them) where you insert the words Missal, Breviary, and Pontifical) words odious to the people, and part of the dismal spell which for six years hath raised the spirit of discord to walk among us; if I should hold it affirmatively under these terms of hatred, 'tis possible it may beget an opinion in the minds of those that know me not, that, though I have more than once professed myself ready to fall a sacrifice in the defence of the Protestant Religion, yet that this was but a disguise which concealed my hypocrisy, till provoked I were put to defend the superstitions of the Church of Rome. Sir, I know upon what lesser grounds than this, some in our credulous times have been unjustly called Papists. Next, Sir, if I should hold them affirmatively, with their faces thus looking towards Popery, and should bring them thus clothed in your terms of superstition into the Divinity School, I doubt very much whethet the publickness of the Defence may not draw an aspersion not only upon me, and the Moderator, (if he will vouchsafe to sit in the Chair whilst we quarrel) but upon the whole already too much defamed University, which such as you have from numerous Pulpits called long since Popishly affected; But if it should allow of such a Dispute, 'twould lend fuel to your calumnies, and be endangered to be no longer thought Popish, but outright a Papist. Thirdly, Sir, your first and last Question (if they were purged of their odious terms) cannot publicly be maintained without some affront to the Parliament, who by one Ordinance have put down the Common-prayer-book, by another Episcopacy. If, therefore, under your terms, I should publicly stand up in defence of them, you had need procure a third Ordinance, which when I have done may keep me safe. Yet, Sir, to assure you that this is no evasion in me to decline a dispute, because my Sermon was the occasion of your challenge of me in the Pulpit, and of this private conference between us since; Since also you allow me the liberty of alteration, and to add my stroke to the Anvil on which the questions to be disputed on between us are to receive the last form, and shape, in which, with least offence, and scandal, they may walk into the public. Lastly, since the three Latin Questions you sent me are three passages of my Sermon, but so corrupted from themselves, as show them to have been once purely Protestant, but passing through your hands have degenerated, and clothed themselves with a to-be-suspected robe of Popery, the nearest way I know for us to agree upon their true state is to deal with them as the Bishops at the Reformation dealt with the Religion of the Church of Rome; that is, purge them from their corruptions, and restore them to the Primitive rule from whence they have digressed. Which Rule, being my Sermon, (if you read it with open eyes) presents you with your three questions, in this more genuine form.  
An 

Liturgia Anglicana ideò ●…liminanda sit, quia nonnullas partes ab Ecclesiâ Romanâ mutuata est, Neg.  
Christi, Sanctorumque imagines in Reformator. Ecclesiis l●…ite retineri possint, Aff.  
Regimen Ecclesiae Anglicanae per Episcepos sit Antichristianum, ex eo quòd Ecclesia Romana (quam nonnulli sedem Antichristi statuunt) sic gubernatur, Neg.    
Upon these three Questions (which are but three periods of my Sermon cast into a problematical for●…e) if you approve of them, and, like a generous Adversary, will promise me, that neither for sending of them to you now, nor for defending them hereafter, I shall be questioned, (for this I require no other security but your word) I will not fail (God assisting me) to meet you in the Divinity School at University weapons, when ever you shall think fit to call upon me; and to bring with you those Arguments, which, you say, you reserve for that place, and in your two letters have not vouchsafed to afford me, who do daily pray (for I begin to be weary of fight with shades) that this unnecessary conflict may at length end in a Christian peace between you the opponent, and me the defender of  
The Sermon against False Prophets, J. maine. From my Chamber this Afternoon, Feb. 4. 1646.  
In the evening to the afternoon, in which this Letter was sent, M. Cheynell returned an Answer, not so large, I confess, as I expected; but composed of Language, so complying with my desires, that I unfeignedly felt a new strife within myself, how, having hitherto tolerably borne his rougher assaults, I should preserve myself from being conquered by his civilities. Which I confess, have such a forcible charm upon my nature, softend, and tutor'●… to it by Religion, that the World cannot afford an Enemy, who shall raise such a tempest of persecution against me, but that I shall be ready to afford him my Embraces, and Arms, if he will be content to be received there in a calm. I do farther confess, that M. Cheynell, by undertaking to secure me against the danger which might have followed a public dispute, hath not only verified my expression, and shown himself a generous adversary; but by that engagement of himself, hath made me see, what reason I have to complain of my hard fortune, which hath left me only the will, and not the power, to be in the like kind, as generous to Him back again. His Letter was to a syllable this.  
SIR,  
You may be confident that the Messenger was not sent by me, because he returned without you and without his fees. I never writ up one Letter to London that did in the least measure reflect upon you; if your Sermon had not been printed, I had not spoke one word against it. I desire to deal with you in a rational way, and therefore I do accept of your Academical proposition or challenge so often sent me; and because I find my prayers in some measure answered, and you more civil than heretofore, I shall deal freely with you. I do here under my own hand assure you, that if you be questioned for defending these Propositions in a Scholastical way, (you know reproaches are not Scholastic) in the public Schools, I will answer for you; the Parliament will not question you for any learned rational debate about Prelates or the common-prayer-book, for the satisfaction of yourself and others.  
I will meet you if you please, at the Doctor of the Chair his lodgings to morrow about two of the clock in the afternoon; I doubt not but by his advice we shall agree upon terms fit to express the points in Controversy; if you like the proposal be pleased to send your approbation of it in two lines by this bearer to  
Your friend to serve you, FRAN: CHEYNELL. Mert. Coll. Feb. 4. 1646.  
To this Letter (which was the last I received from him) by the same Messenger that brought it, I returned this Answer, which was the last he received from me.  
SIR,  
I shall (God willing) meet you to morrow at your hour, at the Doctor of the Chairs Lodging. Where if you be as willing to submit to the terms which he shall think fit to put the Questions in, which we are to dispute upon as I shall be, there will be no variance between us there, nor shall we I hope, bring any with us from the Divinity School. Where Sir, you shall meet one who is so great a lover of truth, that if you can convince me for being all this while in an Error, I shall think myself indeed, a gainer by this conflict. And no longer style myself the defender of the Sermon against False Prophets, but one, who for being confuted by you ought to remain  
From my Chamber, 〈◊〉. 4. 1646. Your Affectionate friend and Servant, JASPER maine.  
Here, if any be curious to know how this last act of our conference ended, or what Catastrophe did shut up the conflict between us, which had so much busy Epitasis and expectation in it, I could wish Master Cheynell himself were the Historian. Nevertheless, none will have reason to think me partial or unfaithful in my Report, having not only Master Wilkinson, if I deliver false story, but the Doctor of the Chair to dispro●…, and contradict me. At whose lodging in Christ-church when we 〈◊〉, First, with a prudence becoming the granity of his person, and the Dignity of his place, he told us, that he could not think it sit to sit moderator to any disputation which was ●…ot either pro form, and conduced to the taking of a degree, or pro Termino, which is a Divinity exercise, at which the University Statutes require his presence in the chair. Next, if we resolved to meet in the Schools without a moderator, his advice was, that Master Cheynell should have his scribe and I mine, to write down faithfully his Arguments and my Replies: which thus taken and compared, would not be so liable to the variations of report, as when the ears and memories of the hearers are their only Register.  
There remained but one difficulty, which was, how to make us agree upon questions fit to be disputed in such a public way. M. Cheynell utterly refused Mine, and the Doctor of the Chair thought it no way reasonable, that in the dangerous attire they wore, I should accept of his; especially the first. Which upon M. Cheynells' unlocking of the full extent and meaning of the terms, revealed itself to be a kind of Trojan horse; consecrated indeed to Pallas without, but lined with an Ambush of Armed enemies within. For, besides the Words Missal, Breviary, and Pontifical (against which I before gave in my exceptions) by A praelatis decerpta, populoque obtrusa, Master Cheynell said, he not only meant those parts of our English liturgy which have been borrowed from the Church of Rome, but the Scotch liturgy too, as it was imposed upon that Nation by the Sword. Which, though it were a mistake in him to say it was imposed by the sword, (since the date of the reception of it in that Church was the year 1637. At which time the Sword of both Nations lodged peaceably in the Scabbard) and though upon the perusal of it since, I find it the same in all points with ours, but only in the contraction of the form of the Administration of the Lords Supper, and so for the matter of it as defensible as ours, yet having been turned out of that Kingdom, and Church as solemnly as it was at first introduced, that is, by an Act of Parliament; To whose birth the King and Houses concurred,, for me to have disputed publicly for the second reception of it, had been the way not only to raise a Northern Army of men against myself, (who would, doubtless, have thought it a very bold piece of insolence in me to disallow in a public dispute, the proceedings of a whole State) but of such Northern Women too, whose zeal upon the first reading of that innocent liturgy, mistook it for the Mass book, and thereupon converted their joynt-stools, upon which they sat, into Weapons, with which they invaded the Reader, and chased him, with his Newborn Popery in his hand, out of the Church. These Reasons being laid to those other, which in my last letter but one, produced to show how scandalous, as well as unsafe, it would in all likelihood, prove both to the University and myself, if I should publicly maintain a question which carried so much danger with it, I pressed M. Cheynell with the intimation which he gave me in his last letter, which was, to stand to that frame of Questions which the Doctor of the Chair should contrive for us. To whose Ordering of the terms of his first Question if he would submit, I promised him to accept of his other two; (though in the Doctor of the Chairs opinion, the terms of his third Question were something hard) in that unaltered form into which he had cast them. To this his reply was, that after the Words populo obtrusa, in his first Question, he would allow me to insert these two words of Mitigation, ut fertur. Whereto my answer was, that this addition would so little deserve the name of a Mitigation, that it very much increased my burther, and hung more weights upon me. Since hereby I obliged myself, not only to stand up for the Readmission of the Scotch liturgy; which could not be done without an affront offered to the Act of State that banished it, but for the justification of all the unknown practices of the Prelates, who had the contrivance of that liturgy, against the Sinister reports, and Calumnies of the incensed people. Who, as for some years, they have been falsely taught to think the Order of Bishops Antichristian, so looking upon their persons through the mist cast by some False Prophets before their eyes, it ought to be no wonder if their best Actions have seemed Popery. The Conclusion of all was this. M. Cheynell at length, without any farther Clouds of discourse, told me plainly, that to any other alterations than this he could not consent; being bound up by his instructions to hold this Question only in the latitude & sense, which was signified by the terms in which he had Arrayed it. Whereupon, the long expected scene between us closed, and the Curtain to this Controversy was let fall. And we, after some mutual exchanges of Civility, parted, I hope like two Divines, in perfect Charity with one another.  
THE END.   

ΟΞΛΟ-ΜΑΞΙΑ. OR THE PEOPLE'S WAR, EXAMINED According to the Principles of SCRIPTURE & REASON, IN Two of the most Plausible Pretences of it. IN ANSWER To a LETTER sent by a Person of Quality, who desired satisfaction.  
By JASPER maine D. D. one of the Students of Ch. Ch. Oxon.  Rom. 13. 2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Printed in the Year, 1647.   

Honoured Sir,  
I Have in my time seen certain Pictures with two faces. Beheld one way, they have presented the shape and figure of a Man. Beheld another, they have presented the shape and figure of a Serpent. Me thinks, Sir, for some years, whatever Letters the King wrote either to the Queen, or his friends, or what ever Declarations he publish●… in the defence of his Rights and Cause, had the ill fortune to undergo the fate of such a Picture. To us who read them impartially, by their own true, genuine light, they appeared so many clear, transparent Copies of a sincere and Gallant Mind. Looked upon by the People, (of whom you know who said, populus iste vult decipi, decipiatur) through the Answers and Observations, and venomous Comments, which some men made upon them, a fallacy in judgement followed very like the fallacy of the sight; where an Object beheld through a false deceitful medium, partakes of the cozenage of the conveyance, and way, and puts on a false Resemblance. As square, bright, angular things through a mist show dark and round; and strait things seen through water show broken and distorted.  
It seems, Sir, by your Letter to me, that your Friend, with whom you say, you have lately had a dispute about the King's Supremacy, and the Subject's Rights, is one of those who hath had the ill luck to be thus deceived. Which I do not wonder at, when I consider how much he is concerned in his fortunes that the Parliament should all this while be in the right. Besides, Sir, Having looked upon the Cause of that Side merely in that plausible dress with which some pens have attired it, And having entertained a str●…ng prejudice against whatever shall be said to prove that a Parliament may err, it ought to be no marvel to you if he be rather of M. ●…rinnes then judge Ienkins'. Opinion; And persuade himself, that the Parliament having, if not a superior, yet a coordinate power with the King, in which the People is interested, where ever their Religion or Liberty is invaded, may take up Arms against Him, for the defence of either. But then. Sir, finding by my reading of the public writings of both sides, that both sides challenged to themselves the Defence of one and the same Cause, I must confess to you, That 〈◊〉 a while the many Battles, which so often coloured our fields with Blood, appeared to me like Battails●…ught ●…ught in Dreams. Where the person combating in his sl●…epe, imagines he hath an Adversary, but a wake perceives his error that he hel●… co●…flict with himself. To speak a little more freely to 〈◊〉, Sir, the King's Declarations, and the Parliaments Remonstrances equally pretending to the maintenance of the same Protestant Religion, and the same Liberty of the Subject, I wondered a while how they could make two opposite sides, or could so frequently come into the field without a Quarrel.  
But since your Friend is pleased to let me no longer remain a Sceptic, but clearly to state the Quarrel; by suffering the two great words of Charm, Liberty, and Religion. (from whence both sides have so often made their Recruits) to stand no longer as a Salamis, or controverted Island between two equal Challengers; And since he is pleased to espouse the defence of them so wholly to the Parliament, as to call the War made by the King the Invasion of them; Both for his and your satisfaction, who have laid this task upon me, give me leave to propose this reasonable Dilemma to you. Either 'tis true what your Friend says, that the Parliament hath all this while sought for the defence of their Liberty, and Religion, or 'tis only a pretence, and hath hid some darker secret under it. If it have been only a pretence, there being not a third word in all the World which can afford so good Colour to make an unjust War pass for a just, the first discovery of it, will be the fall, and ruin of it; And the People who have been misled with so much holy Imposture, will not only hate it for the Hypocrisy, but the Injustice too. If it be true, yet I cannot see how they are hereby advantaged, or how, either or both these joined can legitimate their Arms.  
For first, Sir, I would fain know of your friend, what he means by the Liberty of the Subject. I presume he doth not mean a Releasement from servitude. Since amongst all their other complaints, delivered in Petitions to the Parliament, they never yet adventured to say that they were governed as Servants by a hard Master, not as Subjects by a Prince. Nor do I find that the King was such a Pharaoh to them, that they were able to say, that he changed a Kingdom of Freemen into a House of Bondage. Some Acts of his Government, I confess, some have called Illegal; namely the exaction of Shipmoney. But this certainly, was a grievance which if it had not been redressed, deserved not to be reckoned among the Brick kills of Egypt, or to denominate his Government despotical too.  
Next then, doth your friend, by Liberty, mean a Releasement from Tyranny, as Tyranny allows men to be Subjects, but not much removed from slaves? Had the King indeed, made his Will the Rule of his Government, and had his Will revealed itself in nineteen years of Injustice, had he like Caligula, worn a Table-book in his pocket, with the names of the Nobility in it designed and Marked for slaughter; Had he without any Trials of Law made his pleasure pass for sentence, and lopped off Senators heads as Tarquin did Poppeys; Had he in his oppressions of the People made them feel Times like those which Tacitus describes; where no man durst be virtuous, lest he should be thought to upbraid his Prince; where to complain of hard usage was capital; and where men had not only their words, but their very looks and sighs proscribed; his Reign would bear that Name. But alas, Sir, you yourself know, that these are Acts of Tyranny, which were so far from being practised, that they have not yet been feigned among us. 'Tis true, indeed, certain dark jealousies were cast among the people, as if some Evil Counsellors about the King had had it in their design to introduce an Arbitrary Government. But these were but jealousies, blown by those, whose plot 'twas to make the popular hatred their engine to remove those Counsellors, that by their ruin they might raise a Ladder to their own Ambitions. For if the Calamity of these times have not quite blotted out the memory of former, people cannot but remember, that no Nation under Heaven, more freely enjoyed the Blessing of the Scripture than we; every one secure under the shade of his own vine. perhaps a grape or two extraordinary was gathered for the public. But if any did refuse to contribute, I do not find that like Naboth, they were stoned for their Uineyard. If therefore, the Gentleman your friend understand Liberty in this sense, the most he can say for the Parliament, is, that they have taken up Arms against their King, not because he was, but because he possibly might be a Tyrant. Which fear of theirs being in itself altogether unreasonable, and therefore not to be satisfied, could not but naturally endeavour (as we find by sad experience it hath done) ●…o secure itself by removing out right the formidable ob●…ect which caused it▪ which being not to be done but by the Removal of Monarchical Government itself, could not but cast them at length upon a new form of State, or such a confusion or no Form of state, as, we see, hath almost drawn ruin upon themselves and their Country.  
Once more therefore▪ I must ask your Friend what he means by Liberty. I hope he doth not mean an Exemption from all Government; Nor is fallen upon their wild Opinion, who held that there ought to be no Magistrate, or superior among Christians. But that in a freedom of condition we are to live together like men standing in a Ring, or Circle, where Roundness takes away Distinction, and Order; And where every one beginning and ending the Circle, as none is before, so none is after another. This Opinion, as 'twould quickly reduce the House of Lords to the House of Commons; so 'twould in time reduce the House of Commons to the same level with the Common people. who being once taught that Inequality is unlawful, would quickly be made Docile in the entertainment of the other Arguments, upon which the Anabaptists did here to fore set all Germany in a flame. Namely, that Christ hath not only bequeathed to Men, the liberty of his Gospel, but that this liberty consists in ones not being greater than another. It being an Oracle in Nature, that we are all borne Equal; That these words of Higher, and Lower, superior, and Inferior, are fitter for Hills, and Vales, then for men of a Kind; That the names also of Prince and Subject, Magistrate and People, Governors and Governed, are but so many styles Usurped. Since in Nature for one Man to be borne Subject to another, is as much against Kind, as if men should come into the World with chains about them; or as if Women should bring forth Children with Gyves, and shakles on. Which Doctrine as 'twould naturally tend to a Parity, so that Parity would as naturally end in a Confusion.  
Lastly, therefore, I will understand your Friend in the most favourable sense I can. That by the Parliaments defence of the People's Liberty, he means the maintenance of some Eminent Rights belonging to the Subject, which being in manifest danger to be invaded, and taken from them, could not possibly be preserved but by Arms taken up against the invader. But then, granting this to be true, (as I shall in fit place show it to be false) yet the King being this invader (unless by such an Invasion He could cease to be their King, or they to be his subjects▪) I cannot see how such Rights could make their Defence lawful.  
For the clearer Demonstration of this, I shall desire you; Sir, not to think it a digression in me, if I deduce things somewhat higher than I at first intended, or then your Letter requires me; Or, if to cure the stream, I take the Prophet's course, and cast salt into the spring; And examine first, How far the Power of a King, (who is truly a King, and not one only in Name) extends itself over Subjects. Next, whether any such Power do belong to our King; Thirdly if there do, How far 'tis to be obeyed, and not resisted.  
As for the first, you shall in the Scripture, Sir, find two Originals of Kings, One immediately springing from the Election and choice of God himself. The other from the choice and election of the People; But so, as that it resolves itself into a Divine Institution. The History of Regal power, as it took Original from God himself, is set down at large in the eight Chapter of the first Book of Samuel. where, when the Israelites, weary of the Government by judges (who had the same power that the Dictator's had at Rome, and differed nothing from the most absolute Monarches but only in their Name, and the temporary use of their power) required of Samuel to set a King over them, God bid him hearken to their voice. But withal 
* v. 9  Solemnly to protest and show them the manner (or as one translat ●…s it more to the mind of the Original, Ius Regis, the Right, or power) of the King that should reign over them. That he would take their sons, & appoint them for his Charets; And their Daughters, to be Confectionaries, and Cooks f●…r his Kitchin. That he would also take their fields their Uineyards, and their Olive-yards, even the best of them and give them to his Officers; Lastly, That he would take the Tenth of their seed, and sh●…epe, And ye, says the Prophet (which is a very characteristical mark of subjection) 
* v. 17.  shall be his servants.  
All which particulars, with many others there specified, (which I forbear to repeat to you, because they rise but ●…o the same height) may in oth●… terms be briefly summed up into these two Generals. That the jews by requiring a King to be set over them, (such a King as was to Reign over them, like the Kings of other 
* V. 5.  Nations) divested themselves of two of the grea●…est Immunities which can belong to Freemen, Liberty of person, and propriety of Estates. And both these in such an unlimited measure, as left them not power, if their Prince pleased, to call either themselves, or Children, or any thing else their own.  
To this if either you, or your friend shall reply, that this was but a Prophetical Character of Saul, and a mere prediction to ●…he people wha●… He, made King would do, no true Draught of his Commission, what He in justice might, (since a Prince who shall assume to Himself the exercise of such a boundless power, doth but verify the Fab●…, a S●…ork set over a Common wealth of Frogs, They to be his prey, not He to be their King) To the first I answer negatively. That what is said in the forementioned Chapter by Samuel, cannot be meant only of Saul, since nothing is there said to confine the description to this Reign. Nor doth any part of his History charge him with such a Government. Next, I shall g●…ant you, that no Prince ruling by the strict Laws of naturall-equity, or justice, can exercise all the Acts of power there mentioned. Nor can his being a King so legitimate all his Actions, or so outright exempt him from the common condition of men, that what ever he shall do shall be right. Most of the Acts there recorded are not only repugnant to the Laws of sociable Nature, or just Rule, (which forbids One to have All; and binds Princes themselves in chains of Reason) but to the 
* Deuter. 17. v. 16, 17, 18, 19  Law of God in another place; which allows not the King of his own choice, to Reign as he list, but assigns him the Law of Moses for his Rule. From which as often as he broke loose, he sinned like one of the People. yet so, as that upon any such breach of the Law 'twas not left in the power of the People to correct him, or to force him by a War, lik●… ours, to return back again to hi●… duty. His commission towards them (if you mark it well) ●…an in such an uncontroleable stile, that his best Actions and his worst, towards them, wore the same warrant of Authority. However therefore, Regal power, in the forementioned place of Samuel, be called the manner of what a King would do, yet that Manner, (as I told you before) carried a Ius or power with it unquestionable by the Subject, to do if he pleased things unlawful. And hence 'tis that the Prophet tells the jews at the 18. verse of that Chapter, That in the Day they found themselves oppressed by their King, they should cry out for redress to the Lord; As the only Arb●…ter, and judge, of the Deeds, and Actions of Princes.  
The Original of Regal power as it took beginning from the People, you have most lively expressed to you by S. Peter in the 13. v. of the 2. Chapter of his 1. Epist. Where exhorting those to whom he wrote to order their Obedience according to the several Orbs, and Regions of power of the States wherein they lived, he bids them submit themselves to every Ordinance of Man; whether it be to the King as supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them who are sent by him etc.  
In which words I shall desire you to observe. First, that Monarchy as well as other Forms of Government, is there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Human Creature, or thing of Humane Creation. From whence some, such as your Friend, (who, I perceive by his Arguments against Monarchy in your Letter hath read junius Brutus, and Buchanan) have inferred, That as to avoid Disorder and Confusion, people did at first pass over the R●…le and Government of themselves to a Prince, so the Prince being but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Derivative from them, doth still retain a Dependence on his first Creators. And as in Nature 'tis observed that waters naturally cannot rise higher than their Springhead; so Princes, they say, have their Springhead too. Above which as often as they exalt themselves, 'tis in the power of the Fountain to recall its stream, and to bring it to a plain, and levelly with itself. For though, say they, it be to be granted, that a King thus chosen is Major singulis, superior to any One, yet he is Minor universis, Inferior to the whole. Since all the Dignity and power which makes him shine before the People, being but their Rays contracted into his Body, they cannot reasonably be presumed so to give them away from themselves, as that in no case it shall be lawful to call for them back again.  
For answer to which Opinion (taken in by your Friend from his misunderstanding of that Text) I will go no farther than the place of Scripture on which 'tis built, where (without any critical strife about the signification of the Words) I will grant that not only Monarchy, (which is the Government of a People by a Prince) But Aristocracy, (which is the Government of a People by States) & Democracy (which is the Government of the people by the people) hath next, and immediately in all States but the jewish been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Humane Creation. But then that 'tis not so purely humane, as not to be of God's Creation, and Institution too, is evident by the words next in Contexture, where the Apostle bids them, to whom he wrote, to submit themselves to every such Ordinance of man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the Lords sake. who by putting his Seal of Approbation to men's Elections and choice, hath not only authorised a Humane Institution to pass into a Divine Ordinance; But towards it hath imprinted even in Nature itself such a Necessity of Government, and of Superiority of one man over another, that men without any other Teacher, but their own inbredde Instinct, (which hath always whispered to them that Anarchy is the Mother of Confusion) have naturally fallen into Kingdoms, and Commonwealths. And however such a state, or condition of life under a Prince or Magistrate be something less free than not to be subject at all, (since men's Actions have hereby been confined to the Wills of Superiors, whose Laws have been certain chains and shackles clapped upon them,) yet a subjection with security hath always, by wise men, been preferred before Liberty with danger, & men have been compelled to enter into those Bonds, as the only way, & means to avoid a greater Thraldom. Since without such a subordination of one man to another, to hold them together in just society, the Times of the Nomads would return where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the weaker served only to be made a prey to the stronger.  
The next thing which I shall desire you to observe from that Text, is, that the King, though chosen, and created by the People, is there styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Supreme. Now Sir, you know that 〈◊〉 Supreme, is so to be over others, as to have no Superior above him. That is, to be so Independently the L●… of his own Actions, of what sort soever, whether unjust or just, as not to beaccountable to any but God. If he were, that other, to whom he is accountable, would be Supreme not Herald Since in all things wherein he is Questionable, He is no longer the King, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there describ●…d, but a more specious Subject. Whereupon will either follow this contradiction in Power, That the same Person at the same Time may be a King, and no King; or we must admit of an Absurdity as great; which is, That a Supreme may have a Supreme; which to grant were to cast ourselves upon an Infinite progress.  
For that there must be a Non-ultra, or Resolution of power either into one, (as in a perfect Monarchy) or into some Few, (as in the Government by a Senate) or into the Mayor part of the People joining suffrages, (as in a pure Democracy; All three Forms agreeing in this, That some body must be Supreme and unquestionable in their Actions,) the nature of Rule, and Business, and Government itself demonstrates to us. Which would not else be able to obtain its ends, or decide controversies otherwise undeterminable. And however this power may sometimes be abused, and strained beyond its Just limits, yet this not being the fault of the power, but of the Persons whose power 'tis, it makes much more for the Peace of the public, that one, or Few should in some things be allowed to be unjust then that they should be liable to be Questioned by an Ill▪ judgeing. Multitude in All.  
The third thing which you may please to observe from that piece of Scripture, is, The Creation of Magistrates, or Governors, who are there said to be sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Him. Where a Modern Writer applies the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or By Him, to God. As it all other Governors were sent by Him, not by the King. Which Interpretation of the place I would admit for currant, if by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Governors, so sent, he did understand the Rulers in an Aristocracy, or Free-state. which being a Species of Government, Contradistinct to Monarchy cannot be denied to have God, as well as the other for its Founder. But then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar Epithet of Monarchy, will bear another sense than I have hitherto given it; And will not only signify the King to be Supreme, (for so the Rulers of a Free State are within their own Territories) but compared with other Forms of Supremacy to be the most excellent. Monarchy being in itself least subject to Disunion, or civil Disturbance. And for that Reason pronounced by the wisest Stateists to be that Form of Government, into which all other incline naturally to resolve themselves for their perfection. But by Governors, in that place, understanding as he doth, not the Senate in a Free-state, but the Subordinate Magistrates under a Prince, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most certainly belongs to the King. To whom the Apostle there assigns the Mission of Governors as one of the Essential Marks, and Notes, that He is, in His own Realm Supreme.  
And thus Sir, having drawn the portraiture of Regal Power to you, by the best Light in the world, but with the meanest Pencil; I know you expect that in the next place I should show you what Rays, or Beams, of this power are Inherent in our King. Which being a task fitter for one of our greatest Sages of the Law, then for me, (who, being One who do not pretend to any exact knowledge in the Fundamental Laws, or Customs, of this Kingdom,) which are to stand the Landmarks and marks of partition between the King's Prerogative, and the Liberty of the Subject, may perhaps be thought by drawing a line or circle about either, to limne Figures in the Dust, whose ●…ate bangs on the Mercy of the next Wind that blows) the steps by which I will proceed, (leaving you to the late writings of that most learned and honest judge jenkin's for your fuller satisfaction in this point) shall be briefly these two. First I will show you what are the Genuine marks, and properties of Supreme power; Next, how many of them have been challenged by the King, and have not hitherto been denied Him by any Public Declaration of the Parliament.  
Sir if you have read Aristotle's Politics (as I presume you have) you may please to remember that he * there divides the Supreme power of a State, into three general 
Lib. 4. c. 4.  parts. The Ordering of Things for the public, the Creation of Magistrates, and the Final resolution of judgement upon Appeals; To which he afterwards adds the power of Levying War, or concluding of Peace, of making or breaking Leagues with foreign Nations, of enacting or abrogating Laws, of Pardoning, or Punishing Offenders, with Banishment, Confiscation, Imprisonment or Death. To which Dyonisius Halicarnassensis adds, the power to call or dissolve Comitia, or public Assemblies; As well Synods and Counsels in Deliberations concerning Religion; as Parliaments, or Senates, in Deliberations secular concerning the State. To all which marks of Supreme power, a * Modern Lawyer (who only wants their Age to be of as great Authority as either) adds the power to exact Tribute, and to press Soldiers. In the exercise of which two 
Grot. lib. 1. c. 3. de jure Belli & pacis.  Acts consists that Dominium Eminens, or Dominion Para▪ mount, which the state, (when ever it stands in need, And that too, to be the judge of its own Necessity) hath not only over the Fortunes, but the Persons of the Subject; In a measure so much greater than they have over themselves, as the public pool is to be preferred before the private Cistern.  
Now Sir, if you please to apply this to the King, though good Lawyers will tell you that the power of making or repealing Laws be not solely in Him, but that the two Houses have a concurrent right in their production, and Abolishment; yet they will tell you too, that His power extends thus far, that no Law can be made or repealed without Him. Since for either, or both Houses to produce a Statute Law by themselves, hath always, in this State, been thought a Birth as Monstrous as if a Child should be begotten by a Mother upon herself. They usually are the Matrice and Womb, where Laws receive their first Impregnation, and are shaped and form for the public; But (besides the opinion of all present Lawyers of this Kingdom, who, like that great 
* judge jenkin's.  example of Loyalty, dare speak their knowledge) it hath always been acknowledged by the Law made 2. H. 5. By the sentence of Refusal, Le Roy SH' Avisera, and indeed by all Parliaments of former Ages, That the King is thus far Pater Patriae: that these Laws are but abortive unless his Consent pass upon them. A Negative power He hath then, though not an outright Legislative. And if it be here objected, by your Friend, that the two Houses severally have so too, I shall perhaps grant it, if in this particular, they will be modest, and content to go sharers in this Power; And no longer challenge to their Ordinances the legality & force of Acts of Parliament.  
As for the other parts of Royalty, which I reckoned up to you; As the Creation of Officers, and Counselors of State, of judges for Law, and Commanders for War, the Ordering of the Militia by Sea and Land, The Benefit of Confiscations, and Escheats where Families want an Heir; The power to absolve and pardon, where the Law hath Condemned; The power to call and dissolve Parliaments, As also the Receipt of Custom and Tribute, with many other particulars, which you are able to suggest to yourself. They have always been held to be such undoubted Flowers of this Crown, that every one of them like his Coin (which you know Sir, is by the Law of this Land Treason to counterfeit, which is an other mark of Royalty) hath in all Ages but Ours, worn the King's Image, and superscription upon it. Not to be invaded by any, without the crime of Rebellion.  
And though (as your Friend says,) this be but a regulated power, and rise no higher in the just exercise of these Acts, than a Trust committed by the Laws of this Kingdom, for the Government of it▪ to the King, (for I never yet perceived by any of His Declarations, That His Majes●…y c●…aimed these as due to Him by Right of Conquest, or any ●…er of those Absolute, and Unlimited ways, which might render His Crown Patrimonial to Him, or such an outright A●…odium that He might Alienate it, or choose His Successor, or Rule as He pleased Himself) yet as in the making of these Laws He holds the first place, so none of these Rights which he derives from them, can without His own Consent, be taken from Him.  
For proof hereof, I will only instance in three particulars to you, (for I must remember, that I am now writing a Letter to you, not penning a Treatise,) which will carry the greater force of persuasion, because conf●…st by this Parliament. The first was an Act presented to the King for the settling of the Militia, for a limited time in such Hands as they might confide in. A clear Argument, that without such an Act passed by the King, the two Houses had nothing to do with the Ordering of it. Another was one of the Nineteen Propositions, where 'twas desired that the Nomination of all Officers, and Counselors of State, might, for the future go by the Mayor part of Voices of both Houses. Another Argument, That the King hath hitherto in all such Nominations, been the only Fountain of Honour. The third was, the passing of the Act for the Continuation of this Parliament; Another Argument, that nothing but the King's consent could ever have made it thus Perpetual as it is. Many other Instances might be given, but so undoubtedly acknowledged by Bracton, By Him that wrote the Book called The Prerogative of Parliaments, (who is thought to be Sir Walter Raleigh) By Sir Edward Cook, by the styles and Forms of all the Acts of Parliament, which have been made in this Kingdom, and by that learned 
* Sir john Banks.  judge who wrote the Examination of such particulars in the Solemn League and Covenant as concern the Law; And who in a continued Line of Quotation, and Proof, derives along these and the other parts of Supreme power in the King, from Edward the Confessor, to our present Sovereign King Charles, that to prove them to you, were to add beams to the Sun.  
Here then, For the better stating of the Third thing I proposed to you, (which was, That granting the King to be Supreme in this Kingdom, (at least so far as I have described him) how far He is to be Obeyed, and not Resisted) Two things will fall under Inquiry. First, supposing the King not to have kept Himself to that Circle of power which the Laws have drawn about Him, but desirous to walk in a more Absolute compass, That He hath in somethings invaded the Liberty of his People, whither such an Encroachment can justify their Arms. Next, If it be proved that He hath kept within his Line, and only made the Law the Rule of His Government, whether a bare Fear or jealousy, That when ever he should be able, He would change this Rule, (which is the most that can be pretended) could be a Just cause for an Anticipating War.  
The Decision of the first of these Inquiries, will depend wholly upon the Tenure by which he holds His Crown. If it were poorly Elective, or were at first set upon His Head by the Suffrages of the people; And if in that Election, His power had been limited; Or if by way of paction, it had been said, Thus far the King shall be Supreme, thus far the people shall be Free; If there had been certain Express conditions assigned Him, with his Sceptre, that if he transgressed not his limits He should be Obeyed, if He did, it should be lawful for the people to resist Him; Lastly, if to hinder such Exorbitances, there had been certain Epho●…i, or Inspectours, or a coordinate Senate, placed, as Mounds, and Cliffs about Him, with warrant from the Electours, that when ever he should attempt to overflow his Banks, it should be their part to reinforce Him back into his Channel; I must confess to you being no better than a Duke of Venice, or a King of Sparta; In truth no King, but a more splendid Subject, I think such a Resistance might be Lawful. Since, such a Conveyance of Empire being but a conditional contract, as in all other Elections, the choosers may reserve to themselves, or give away so much of their Liberty as they please. And where the part reserved is invaded, 'Tis no Rebellion to defend. But where the Crown is not Elective, but hath so Hereditarily descended in an ancient line of succession from King●…o ●…o King, that to find out the Original of it, would be a task as difficult, as to find out the Head of Nilus; where the Tenure is not conditional, nor hangs upon any contract made at first with the people, nor is such a reciprocal Creature of their Breath, as to be blown from them, and recalled, like the fleeting Air they draw, as often as they shall say it returns to them, worse than at first they sent it forth; In short, Sir, Where the only Obligation, or Tie upon the Prince is the Oath which He takes at his Coronation, to rule according to the known Laws of the place; Though every Breach of such an Oath be an Offence against God, (to whom alone a Prince thus independent is accountable for his Actions) yet 'twill never pass for more than perjury in the Prince; No Warrant for Subjects to take up Arms against Him.  
Here then, Sir, should I suppose the worst that can be supposed, that there was a time when the King, misled (as your Friend says) by Evil Counselors, did actually trample upon the Laws of the Kingdom, and the Liberty of his Subjects, derived to them by those Laws; yet unless some Original compact can be produced where 'tis agreed, That upon every such Encroachment it shall be lawful for them to stand upon their Defence; unless some Fundamental Contract can be shown where 'tis clearly said, that where the King ceaseth to govern according to Law, He shall for such misgovernment cease to be King; To urge (as your Friend doth) such unfortunate precedents as a Deposed Richard, or a Dethroned Edward, (Two disproportioned examples of popular Fury; The one forced to part with his Crown by Resignation, the other as never having had legal Title to it,) may show the Injustice of former Parliaments grown strong, never justify the Pitcht-feilds which have been fought by this. Since, (If this supposition were true) the King being bound to make the Law Hi●… Rule by no other Obligation but His Oath at His Coronation (Than which there cannot be a greater, I confess, and where 'tis violated never, without Repentance escapes unpunished) yet 'tis a trespass of which Subjects can only complain, but as long as they are Subjects can never innocently revenge.  
But this, all this while, Sir, is but only supposition; And you know, Sir, what the Logician says, suppositio nihil ponit in esse, what ever may be supposed is not presently true. I●… Calumny herself would turn Informer, let her leave out Ship-money (a grievance which being fairly laid a fleepe by an Act of Parliament, deserved not to be awakened to bear a part in the present Tragedy of this almost ruined Kingdom) she must confess that the King through the whole course of His Reign was so far from the Invasion of His Subjects Rights, that no King of England before Him, (unless it were Henry the first, and King john, whom, being Usurpers it concerned to comply with the People, the one having supplanted his Eldest Brother Robert Duke of Normandy, the other his Nephew, Arthur Prince of Britain) ever imparted to them so many Rights of his own. To that Degree of Enfranchisement that I may almost say He exchanged Liberties with them. Witness the Petition of Right. An Act of such Royal Grace, that when He passed that Bill, He almost dealt with His people, as Tra●…an did with the Pratorian praefect, ●…ut his sword into their Hands, and bid them use it for Him if he ruled well if not, against Him. In short, Sir, Magna Charta was a vine, I confess, cast over the People, but this Act enabled them to call the shade of it their own. An Act which (if your friend will please to forget Ship money) being in no one particular violated, so far as to be instanc●…d in by those, whose present Engagements would never suff●…r such Breaches of Privilege to pass unclam●…ur'd, will ob●…ge posterity to be grateful, as often as they remember themselves to be Freemen.  
Thi●… then being so, the next inquiry will be, whether a bare jealousy that the King would in time have recalled this Grace, and would have invaded the Liberty of his Subjects, by the change of the Fundamental Laws, could be a ●…ust cause for such a praeventive War as this. To which I answ●…re, that such a Fear, 〈◊〉 built upon strong presumptions cannot possibly be a just cause for one Nation to make War upon another; much less for Subjects to make War against their Prince. The Reason is, because nothing can legitimate such a War, but either an Injury already offered, or so visibly imminent, that it may pass for the first Dart or Spear hurled. Where the Injury or Invasion, is only contin●…ent and conjectural, and wrapped up in the womb of dark Counsels, no way discoverable but by their own revelation of themselves in some outward Acts of Hostility, or usurpation, to anticipate is to be first injurious; and every Act of prevention, which hath only jealousy for its foundation, will add new justice to the enemy's Cause, who, as He cannot in reason be pronounced guilty of another's Fears so he will come into the Field with this great advantage on his side, That his real wrong will join Battle with the others weak suspicion.  
But alas, Sir, Time, (the best interpreter of men's Intentions, hath at length unsee'●…d our eyes, and taught us that this hath been a War of a quite opposite Nature. The Gentleman who wrote the Defence of M. Chaloners' Speech, and M. Chaloner himself, if you mark his Speech well, will tell you, that the quarrel hath not been whether the subject of England shall be Free, but whether this Freedom shall not consist in being no longer Subject to the King. If you ma●…ke, Sir, How the face of things hath altered with success, How the scene o●… things is shifted; And in what a N●…w stile they, who called themselves the Invaded, have spoken, ever since their Victories have secured them against the power of any hat shall invade; If you consider what a politic use hath been made o●… those words of Enchantment, Law, Liberty, and Propriety of the Subject, by which the People have been musically en●…ced into their Thraldom; If you yet farther consi●…er the more than Decemvirall power which this Parliament hath assumed to itself, by repealing old Laws, and making Ordinances pass for new; If you yet farther will please to consider How much Heavyer that which some call Privilege of Parliament, hath been to the Subject, then that which they so much complained of, The King's Prerogative; so much heavyer, that if one deserved to be called a Little finger, the other hath swollen itself into a Loin; Lastly, if you compare Shipmoney with the Excise, and the many other Taxes laid upon the Kingdom, you will not only find that a whip then, hath been heightened into a Scorpion now; but you will perceive, that as these are not the first Subjects who, under pretence of Liberty, have invaded their Prince's Crown, (so far as the Cleaving of Him asunder by a State Distinction, which separates the Power of the King from his Person) so ours, as long as he was able to lead an Army into the Field, hath been the first King that ever took up Arms for the Liberty of his Subjects. Vpo●… all which premises, Sir, I hope you will not think it fa●…e Logic if I build this Conclusion so agreeable to the Laws of the Kingdom, as well as the Laws of God: Tha●… supposing the Parliament all this while to have fought, (as was at first pretended) for the Defence of their assailed Liberty; yet fight against the King whose Subjects they are, it can never before a Christian judge make their Armies pass for just. But being no way necessitated to make such a Defence (their Liberty having in no one particular been assaulted, which hath not been redressed) if S. Paul were now on earth again, and were the judge of this Controversy between them and their Lawful Sovereign, I fear he would call their Defence by a Name, which we in our Modern Cases of Conscience do call Rebellion.  
And thus, Sir, having as compendiously as the Laws of a Letter will permit, given you, I hope, some satisfaction concerning the first part of your zealous Friends dispute with you; which was, whether the Two Houses (which he calls the Parliament) have not a Legal power, in Defence of their Liberty, to take up Arms against the King, I will with the like br●…vity, proceed as well as I can, to give you satisfaction in the second part of his Dispute also; which was, whether Religion may not be a just Cause for a War. The Terms of which Question being very general, and not restrained to any kind of Religion, or any kind of War, whether offensive or defensive, or whether of one Nation against another, or of a Prince against his Subjects, or of the Subjects back again against their Prince, allow me a very large space to walk in. In which, lest I be thought to wander, and not to prove, It will first be necessary, that I define to you what Religion in general is; And next, that I examine, whether every Religion which falls within the Truth of that Definition may for the propagation of itself be a just cause of a War; and so whether all they who either are of no Religion, or a false, may not be forced to be of the true. Lastly, what the Duty of Subjects is towards their Prince, incase he should endeavour by force to impose a Religion upon them which they think to be false, and can probably make it appear to be so by proofe●… t●…ken from the Scripture;  
Religion then, (to define it in the dearest Terms) is says 
* 〈◊〉. Sae. q. ●…0. c. 3.  Aquinas, Uirtus reddens debitum Honorem Deo, A virtue which renders to God his just Honour. This payment of Honour to God as 'tis built and founded upon his Creation of us, by which he hath a Right to our S●…vice and Worship of him, so in the contemplative part of it, it consists in these four Notions or Apprehensions of him. First, that there is a God, and that there is but One. Next, that he is not any part of this Visible World, but something Higher and more excellent, than any Thing we see. Thirdly, that he hath a providence going in the World, and takes care of Humane affairs. Lastly, that he made and created the World. To every one of which four, answers a Commandment in the First-Table of the Decalogue. Where the first describes His Unity, by forbidding the Worship of other Gods. The next his Invisibility, by forbidding any Image, or Resemblance to be made of Him. The third his providence, described there by two eminent parts of it. His Omniscience, by which he knows the Thoughts of men's Hearts: and his justice, by which he inflicts punishments on those whose Thoughts are disporportioned to their Oaths and Words. The Fourth declares his Omnipotence, by which he created the World, and appointed the Sabbath to be the Feast and Memorial of that great Worke. From which speculative apprehensions of him do spring these practical, That being such a God thus known, He is to be Honoured, Loved, Feared, Worshipped, and Obeyed.  
Now since men's Religion, or Worship of God, cannot in reason be required to reach higher than their Knowledge of Him, (for Manifestation is so necessary to Obligation and Duty, that if'twere impossible to know that there is a God, 'twould be no sin to be an Atheist) so if God had never made any second Revelation of Himself by the Scripture, but had left Mankind to their own Natural search of Him, and to those Discourses of their Minds, by which they inferred that such an orderly frame and Systeme of things, where every one works to the good and End of another, is too rationally contrived to arise from a concourse of Atoms, or to be the Creature of Chance, and therefore must have some Efficient Cause higher, and nobler than itself, (since it implies a Contradiction, that any thing should be it's own producer) yet his bare Creation of the World represents so much of him, that without any other Book or Teacher, all Ages have believed that there is a God who made the World; and that He hath a Rule, and providence going in it.  
This then being so, 'Tis the Opinion of a very 
* Grot. l. 2. de jure Bel●…i ac pacis c. 20.  Learned Modern Writer, That if there should be found a Country of Atheists, or a People of Diagoras Melius' Opinion, or of the opinion of Theodorus the Cyrenian, whose Doctrine 'twas, Nullos esse Deos, inane coelum, That there is no God nor a habitable Heaven, But that such Names of Emptiness have been the Creatures of superstitious fancies, whose fears first prompted them to make Gods, and then to worship them; or if there should be a People found of Epicurus his opinion, who held that there were Gods, but that they were Idle, careless, vacant Gods, who troubled not themselves with the Government of the World, but past their time away in an undisturbed Tranquillity, and exemption from such inferior businesses as the Actions of Men such opinions (supposing them to be national) as they are contradictory not only to the Dictares of Natural Reason,) upon which God hath built the forementioned precepts of the Decalogue) but to that universally received Tradition, That there is a Divine power; whose providence holds the scales to men's actions, and first or last sides with afflicted Innocence against successful Oppression, so they would be just Causes for a reforming War. Not only because they are contumelious & reproachful to God himself, but because being directly destructive to all Religion, They are by necessary consequence destructive to Humane society too. For let it once be granted that there is no God, or (which, with reference to States, and Commonwealths, will produce the same irregular effects) that he regards not men's Actions, nor troubles himself with the Dispensation of Rewards and Punishments, and the Doctrine of Carneades will presently p●…sse for reasonable; That Utility is the measure of Right; And that he is most in the wrong who is least able to defend himself. That justice is the virtue of Fools; and serves only to betray the simple and phlegmatic, to the more active and daring. In short, Take away providence, especially the two great parts of it, which reign in the Hearts of men, hope of Reward, and fear of Punishment, and men's worst Actions, and their best will presently be thought equal. Whereupon Laws, the Bonds of Humane ●…ociety, wanting their just Principle, which upholds them in their Reverence, will inevitab●…y lose their force, and fall asunder; and Men will be Men to each other in nothing but their 〈◊〉 injustice & Oppressions of one another. 'Twas therefore the politic observation of an Atheist in 
* Adu. Mathemat. p. 3●…8.  Sextus Empiricus, That, to keep men orderly, and regular in a Commonwealth, wise men at first invented Laws, But perceiving that these, reaching only to their outward Actions, would never be well kept, unless they could find a way to awe their Minds within too, as a means conducing to that end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one more wise, and subtle than the rest, invented Gods too. Well knowing that Religion, though but feigned, is a conservative of States. upon consideration of which harmful consequences, which naturally follow Atheism, and the denial of God's providence, 'tis the opinion of that Author, that as 'twas no Injustice in those Grecian Cities, which banished Philosophers, who were of this Opinion, out of their Commonwealth, so if there should be found a Nation of such impious persuasions, 'twould be no Injustice in any other People, who are not Atheists, by way of punishment, to banish them out of he World.  
Though this, Sir, were the opinion of one, whose works have deservedly made him so Famous to the whole Christian World (besides the peaceableness of his Writings which decline all the ways of quarrel) that to err with him would be no disreputation to me, yet I must confess to you, that I am so fa●…re from thinking 〈◊〉 War made for the propagation of Religion, how true soever it be, is warrantable, that in this particular. I pers●…ade myself I have some reason to descent from, Hi●… and to think it a Problem very disputable, if his supposition were tru●…, that there were such a Country of Atheists, or Epicureans, who should 〈◊〉 there is a God, or that he 〈◊〉 providence going in 〈◊〉 World; whether for that reason only another Nation 〈◊〉 justifi●…bly make War upon them. For first, what should give them Authority to do so? Is't because men of this 〈◊〉 persuasion do sin very grievously against 〈◊〉? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be true, to the utmost 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 that this speculative error in ●…h●…ir Minds, d●… w●…s a practical error 〈◊〉 it in their lives, which i, not to p●…y Worship to a God, which either they think not to be, or not at all to regard them, yet this being but a crime against God, the same Author hath answered himself in another Paragraph, where he says, Deorum in●…ae Diis cura, That God is able to revenge the injuries committed against Himself. Next then, is't because such an Opinion is destructive of Humane Society? Truly, Sir, though I shall grant that saying of Plutarch to be true, that Religion (which Atheism, and the denial of providence do destroy) is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ one, (nay one of the firmest) Bonds of Society, and supporters o●… Laws, yet I have not met with any demonstrative Argument, which hath proved to me, that there is such a necessary dependence of Humane society upon Religion. that the Absence of the One must inevitably be the Destruction of the other. If it be, this is most likely to come to pass in the State, or Commonwealth, which is of this opinion among themselves, Not in a foreign State, or Commonwealth which is not. But since 'tis possible that a Country of Atheists may yet have so much Morality among them, seconded by Laws made by common agreement among themselves, as to be a People, and to hold the society of Citizens among themselves. And as 'tis possible for them, without Religion, so far, for mere utility and safeties sake, to observe the ●…aw of Nations, as not to wrong or injure a People different from themselves, so where no civil wrong, or injury is offered by them to another People, but where the moral Bonds of Society, and commerce, though not the Religious, of Opinion, and Worship, are unbroken by them, for the People not injured to make War upon them, for a feared, imaginary consequence, or because, being Atheists, 'tis possi●…l▪ that their example may spread, is an Act of Hostility which I confess I am not able to defend.  
For thirdly, Sir, such a War must either have for its end, their punishment, or their Correction. Their punishment can be no true warrantable end, because towards those who shall thus make War upon them, they have not offended. Nor can their Correction Legitimate such a War. Because all Correction as well as Punishment, requires jurisdiction in the Correctors, and Inflictors of the punishment. Which one People cannot reasonably be presumed to have over another People independent, and no way subject to them▪ unless we will allow, with that 
* Lib. 2. de jure bell▪ & pacis c. 20.  Author, that because Natural reason doth dictate that Atheism is punishable, therefore they, who are not Atheists have a right to punish those that are; which Covarruutas 〈◊〉 Spaniard, who hath learnedly disputed this point, and others, as learned as he, have not thought fit to grant.  
It hath been a Question●…k't ●…k't▪ whether Idolatry be not a Crime of this punishable nature in one People by another, who are not guilty of that Crime. To which the best Divines, which 〈◊〉 h●… yet read upon that Subject do answer negatively, that it is not. For though it be to be granted that an●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and kinds of Idolatry, One is more Ignoble and irrational than Another; A 〈◊〉 so t●… e●…nce towards God is greater or less as the Objects, to which men terminate their Idolatry, are more vile, or honourable; As in those old Heathens, 'twas a more faulty Idolatry to worship a Dog or Crocodile, or Serpent, then to worship things of a Sublimer kind, namely the Sun, or heavenly bodies, or Souls of famous men departed; And though all such Idolatries have deservedly been thought to be so many Affronts, and Robberies of the true God, whose worship is thereby misplaced, and spent upon false, yet having left behind him in his whole Globe of Creation no exact figure or Character of Himself, to be known or distinguished by, nor any plain Teacher but his Scripture to inform men of vulgar understandings, that there is but one God, and that that one God is only an Intelligible spirit, and no part of this gross material World which we see, wherever the Scripture hath not been heard of, if men (unable by the sight of a Natural discourse to apprehend him as He is) have fancied to themselves a plurality of False Gods, or made to themselves false representations of the true, S. Paul tells us that 
* Act. 17. 30.  God connived at it, as a piece of unaffected ignorance. which can never be a cause meritorious of a War to correct it. First, because being only an Offence against God, and the Offenders being (as I said before) free, and no wa●… subject to any People but themselves, Any foreign Nation (unless they can show the like Commission from God to punish them, as the jews had to punish and root out the Canaanites) will want jurisdiction, and Authority to their Arms. Next, because Idolatry though it be a false Religion, is yet as conservant of Society (which distinguishes it very much from Atheism, and the denial of Providence) as if'twere true. Nor can I see why He who worships many Gods, if he believe them to be Gods, should less fear punishment for his perjuries, or other Crimes, than He who only worships, and believes there is but one. Lastly, because though Idolatry be an Error in men, yet being an Error, without the light of Scripture to rectify it, hardly vincible in themselves, and no way criminal towards others of a more rectified Reason, 'Tis to be reform by Argument, and persuasion, not violence, or force. Since a War made upon the Errors or men's minds, is as unreasonable, as a War made upon the Freedom or their Wills.  
And for this ●…ast reason, I conceive that the propagation of Christian Religion, cannot be a just cause for a War upon those who will refuse to embrace it. First, because such a Refusal may possibly spring from an Error in the understanding, which even in a Preaching, and persuasive way would scarce be in the power of S. Paul himself, if he were on earth again (unless he would join Miracles to his Sermons) to dislodge. For though some parts of the New Law do carry such a Music and consent to the Law of Nature, that they answer one another like two strings wound up to the same tune; yet there be other parts, which though they do not contradict it, are yet so unillustrable from the principles of Reason, that they cannot in a natural way of Argumentation force assent. And you know, Sir, 'twould be unreasonable to make War upon men's persons for the reception of a Doctrine, which cannot convince their Minds. I must needs confess to you, should Christ now live in our days, and Preach much harder Doctrines than those in the Gospel, and should confirm every Doctrine with a Miracle, as he did then, 'twould be an inexcusable piece of Infidelity in all those who should see his Miracles not presently to consent, and yield belief to his Sermons. But somethings in his Doctrine appearing new and strange to the World, and depending for the probability of their Truth upon the Authority of his Miracles, And those Miracles being Matters of Fact, wrought so many Ages since, and therefore not possibly able to represent themselves to our times upon g●…eater Authority an●… proof, than the Faith and general Report of Tradition and story; If any shall think they have reason not to believe such a report, they may also think they have no reason to believe such Miracles, and by consequence the Doctrine 〈◊〉 be confirmed by them. In short. Sir, the Gospel, at that very time when the 〈◊〉 of it was accompanied with Miracles, obtained not always that success which the saving Doctrine of it deserved. The jews says S. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 22. Require a sign; that is, they would believe it no farther than they saw Miracle for it; And the greeks (That is, the learned Gentiles) seek after wisdom; that is, They would believe no more of it then could be proved to them by Demonstration. Nay, notwithstanding all those great Miracles which were wrought by Christ, and his Apostles after him, S. Paul tells us at the 23. verse of that Chapter, that the vileness of Christ's death did so diminish the Authority of his Doctrine, though confirmed by Miracles, that the Preaching of Him crucified, was a stumbling block to the jews, and Foolishness to the greeks. Next, Sir, As Christ hath no where commanded that men should be compelled to receive the Gospel by any Terrors or Infl●…ctions of Temporal punishments, so I find that all such endeavours are very unsuitable to his practice. You know what his answer was to his two zealous Disciples who would have called for 
* Luke 9 54.  fire from heaven, to consume those Samaritans who would not receive him. 
* v. 55. 56.  ye know not, saith he, of what spirit ye are of. The son of man is not come to destroy men's lives but to save them. Which Answer of hi●… was like the Commission which he gave to his Apostles, when he sent them forth to Preach the Gospel of verall Cities, which extended no farther than th●…s. 
* Luke 9 5.  If they will not receive you, shake off the dust of your feet against them, for a Testimony that you have been there. Ag●…eable to this p●…actise of Christ is ●…hat Canon whic●… p●…st in the Council of 
* C. de judiciis dist. 45.  Toledo, which s●…ies praecipit san●…ta Synodus Nemin●… deinceps ad credendum vim infer, 'Tis ordered by this holy Synod, that no man be henceforth comp●…lled to believe the Gospel. A Canon, which I wish the m●… of the Country where 'twas made had worn in their Ensigns when they made W●…e upon the Indians. And agreeable to this Canon, is the saying of Tertullian. Lex nova non se vindicat ultore gladio; The new Law allows not its Apostles to revenge the contempt of it by the Sword. And agreeable to this saying of Tertullian is th●… 〈◊〉 in 
* In Arcanâ Historiâ.  Procopius; where one tell●… justinian the Emper●…or that in striving to force the Samaritans to be 〈◊〉 by the Sword, he made himself successor to the two over zealous Apostles, who, because they would not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master, would have destroyed them by fire. Th●… 〈◊〉 ●…ing ●…o, to deal freely, Sir, both with you and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 as I read the writings of some of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, w●…o think all others Infidels who are not of th●… 〈◊〉. And whose usual language 'tis towards all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from them in Points, though in them●… ind●…fferent, and no way necessary to Salvation, 
* Luke 14. 28.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Covenants, raise Armies, st●…p them 〈◊〉 ●…ir Estates, and compel them to come in, 〈◊〉 thinks a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Alcoran is before me●…; an●… the Preachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…christian Doctrines, 〈◊〉 they walk our English streets in the shape of Assembly Protestant Divines, seem to me to be a Constantinople College of Mahomet's Priests. To speak yet m●…re pl●…ly t●… y●…u, Sir, I am so far●…e from thinking it a piece of Christian Doctrine, to Preach that 'tis lawful (if it may not be done by persuasion) to take from men the Liberty even of their erring Conscience, that the new Army which shall be raised (which I hope never to see) for the prosecution and advancement of such an End, however they may be Scots or Englishmen by their Birth, will seem to me an Army of 〈◊〉: and to come into the field with Scymitars by their sides, and Tulipants, and Turbans on their Heads.  
How far Defensive Arms may be taken up for Religion, cannot well be resolved without a Distinction. I conceive Sir, that if such a war fall out between Two Independent Nations, That which makes the Ass●…ylants to be in the wrong will necessarily make the Defendants to be in the Right, which is (as I have proved to you) a want of rightful power to plant Religion by the Sword. For in all such Resistances, not only They who fight to preserve a true, but They who fight because they would not be compelled to part with a false Religion, which they believe to be a true, are innocent●…like ●…like. The Reason is, (which I have intimated to you before) because All Religion, being built up, on Faith, and Faith being only Opinion built upon Authority, and Opinion built upon Authority, having so much of the Liberty 〈◊〉 men's wills in it, that they may choose how far they will, or will not believe that Authority, No man hath Right●…o ●…o take the Liberty of another man's will from him, or to prescribe to him what he shall, or shall no believe, though in all outward things hit other have sold his Liberty to him, and made his Will his Subject, where both parties, therefore, are Independent, and One no way Subject to the Other, Religion itself, though for the propagation of itself, cannot warrant the One to invade the Others Freedom. But 'tis permi●…ted to the Invaded, by both the Laws of God, that of Nature, and Scripture too, (unless they be guilty of some precedent Injury, which is to be repaired by Satisfaction, not seconded by Resistance) to repel Force with Force. And 〈◊〉 the Army now in Conduct under Sir Thomas Fairefax be of this persuasion thus stated, I shall not think it any slander from the Mouth of a Presbiterian, who thinks otherwise, to be called an Independent.  
If a Prince who is confessedly a Prince, and hath Supreme power, make War upon his Subjects for the propagation of Religion, the Nature of the Defence is much altered. For though such a War (whether made for the Imposition of a false Religion or a true) be as unjust as if 'twere made upon a foreign Nation, yet this injustice in the Prince cannot warrant the taking up of Arms against Him, in the Subject. Because b●…ng the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Supreme within his ow●… Kingdom, As 〈◊〉 power concerning the public, secular Government●…f ●…f 〈◊〉 itself i●…to Him, so doth the ordering of the Outward exercise of Religion too. In both Cases he is the judge of Controversies. Not so unerring or Infallible, as that all his Determinations must be received for Oracles, or that his Subjects are so obliged to be of his Religion, that if the Prince be an Idolater, a Mahometan, or Papist, 'twould be disobedience in them not to be so too. But let his Religion be what it will; let him be a jeroboam, or one of such an unreasonable Idolatry, as to command his people to worship Calves, and Burn Incense to Gods scarce fit to be made the Sacrifice, Though he be not to be obeyed, yet he is not to be resisted. Since such a Resistance, would not only change the Relation of inequality, and Distance between the Prince, and People, and so destroy the Supremacy here given him by S. Peter, but 'twould actually enter duel with the Ordinance of God; which ceaseth not to be sacred as often as 'tis wickedly employed. Irresistibility being a Ray and Beam of the Divine Image, which resides in the Function, not in the Religion of the Prince. Who may for his Person, perhaps, be a Caligula, or Nero, yet in his Office still remain God's Deputy and Vicegerent. And therefore to be obeyed, even in his unjust commands, though not actively by our compliance, yet passively by our sufferings. This Doctrine as 'tis agreeable to the Scripture, and the practice of the purest, and most primitive times of the Church, so I find it illustrated by the famous example of a Christian Soldier, and the censure of a Father upon the passage. This Soldier being bid to burn Incense to an Idol, refused; But yielded himself to be cast into the fire. Had he, when his Emperor bid him worship an Idol, mutinied, or turned his spear upon him (says that Father) he had broken the fifth Commandment in defence of the second. But submitting his Body to be burnt, (the only thing in him, which could be compelled) instead of committing Idolatry he became himself a Sacrifice. I could, Sir, second this with many other Examples, but they would all tend to this one pious, Christian Result, that Martyrdom is to be preferred before Rebellion.  
Here then, if I 〈◊〉 suppose your Presbyterian Friends charge to be true, (a very heavy one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that the King miscounselled by a Pre●…ticall Court Faction when he first Marched in●…o the field against the Armies raised by the two H●…uses of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a●… inte●…t to subvert the Protestant Religion▪ and to plant the Religion of the Church 〈◊〉 Rome in its stead, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to me, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King▪ or the two H●…uses to be his 〈◊〉 or (〈◊〉 their two Oath●…●…f 〈◊〉 and Alleage●…) that in so ●…ing ●…e for 〈◊〉 his Crowns, and w●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over all persons, and in all ●…auses as well ●…vill as ●…cclesiasticall within the 〈◊〉 of his three Kingdoms supreme Head and Governor, I know no Arms which co●…●…wfully be used against Him; b●… these which S. 〈◊〉 used against an Arian Emperor, Lach●…as & Suspi●…ia, Sighs & Tears, and Prayers●…o ●…o God●…o ●…o turn hi●… heart. And therefore, Sir, when your Friend doth next ask you▪ Flow it could stand with the safe ●…onscience of any English Protestant, to stand an idle spectator, whilst Queen Mary's days were so ready to break in upon him, that He was almost reduced to this h●…rd choice, either to follow the Times in the new erected fashion of Religion, or live in danger of the stake, and Faggot, if he persisted in the old, y●…u may p●…ease to let him know from me, That as I have no unruly Thirst, or irregular Ambition in me to d●…e a Martyr, Not am so much a Circumc●…lee, as to court, or woo●…, or (in case i●… fled from me) enthusiastically to call upon me my own Death and Execution; So, if it had been my Lot to live in the fiery times He speaks of, when a Protestant was put to death for an Heretic, as I should not have quarreled with the Power that condemned me, so I should have kissed my funeral pile; And should have though●… it a high piece of God's favour to me, to call me to Heaven by a way so like that of his Angel in the Book of 
* c. 13. 20.  judges, who ascended thither in the Flame, and air, and presume of a Sacrifi●…e.  
But what if this be only a Jealousy and suspicion in your Friend? ●…ay 〈◊〉 if it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disguise, and pa●…t to some Ambitious m●…s 〈◊〉, who, to walk the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 th●… dark and politic ends, ●…ave styled th●…mselves the D●…fendours when they have all this while been the Invadors; And have calle●… the King the subverter, who hath all this while (to his power) been the defender of this Religion? This certain●…y if it be proved, will very much 〈◊〉 and aggrav●…e their sin, and die it in a deep s●…let, through all the progress of it. But because I rather desire to east a m●…tle over their strange proceedings, then to ad●…e to their Nakedness, which hath at length discovered itself to all the World, all that I shall say, to deliver so much Goodness from so much misrepresentation it this. That the report, (which at first poisoned the minds of so many Thousand well minded people) That the King had an intent, by this ●…re, in destroy the Protestant Religion, could at 〈◊〉 have no other parent but some men's either crafty Malice, or needless Fear, appears clearly in this, that after all their great Discoveries, they have not yet instanced in one considerable Ground fit to build more than a vulgar jealousy upon. The King's affection to the Queen, His Alliance and confederacy with Popish Princ●…es abroad and the Gentleness of his Reign towards his Popish Subjects at home, being premises 〈◊〉 unfit to build this inference and conclusion upon, that, Therefore He took up Arms that he might introduce thei●… Religion, as his in Aristotle were; who because it lightened when Socrates to●…k the Air, thought that his walking●…use ●…use ●…hat commotion in the skies. For that the Root and Spring of such a report▪ could be nothing but their own deluded fancy, they must at length 〈◊〉 esse, unless with their Faith they have ●…ast off their Charity too. Let 〈◊〉 Friend, Sir▪ read ●…ve any one of His Majesty's Declarations, and wh●… sacred Thing▪ 〈◊〉 there by which he hath not freely and uncompelled, obliged, and bound Himself to live, and dre●… a Protestant? By what one Act have these many Vows been broken? Who made that Court Faction, which would have miscounselled him to bring in Popery? Or let your Friend if he can, name, who those Miterd Prelates were, who lodged a Papist under their Rotchet. If he cannot, let him for bear to hold an Opinion of his Prince and Clergy, which Time (the mother of Truth) hath so demonstratively confuted; And let him no longer suffer himself to be seduced by the malicious writings of those, who, for so many years, and from so many Pulpits have breathed Rebellion, and Slander with such an uncontrolled Boldness and Sting, that I cannot compare them to anything so fitly as to the Locusts in the 
* Revel. 9  Revelation, which crept forth of the B●…ttomlesse pit; every one of which worethe Crown of a King, and had the Tail of a Scorpion. In short, Sir, If he have not so deeply drunk of the Inchanted●…uppe, as to forget himself to be a Subject, let him no longer endanger himself to east of their Ruin too, who, for so many years, have dealt with the best King that this Nation ever had, as Witches are said to deal with those whom they would by piece meal destroy, first shaped to themselves his Image in wax, then pricked, and stabbed it with needles. striving by their many Reproaches of his Government, and Defamations of the Bishops, to reduce his Honour by degrees to a consumption, and to make it Languish, and pine, and wither away in the Hatred, and Disaffection of his People.  
But, perhaps Sir, your Friend, and I, are not well agreed upon our Terms: If therefore he do once more strive to persuade you, that (notwithstanding all this which I have said to the contrary) the King would, if he had not been hindered, have destroyed the Protestant Religion, pray desire him to let me know what he means by the Religion which he calls Protestant. Doth he mean that Religion which succeeded Popery at the Reformation, and hath ever since distinguished us from the Church of Rome? Doth he mean that Religion which so many Holy Martyrs sealed with their Blood, that for which Queen Mary is so odious, and Queen Elizabeth so precious to our memories? Lastly, Doth he mean that Religion which is comprised in the 39 Articles, and confessed to be Protestant by an Act of Parliament? If these be the Marks, these the Characters of it, let him tell me whether this be not the Religion which the King in one of his 
* Cabinet Opened.  Letters to the Queen calls the only Thing of difference between Him and Her, that's dearest to Him, whether this also, be not the Religion, in which, if there be yet any of the old Ore, and Dross, from whence 'twas extracted, Any thing either essentially, or accidentally evil, which requires yet more sifting, or a more through Reformation, Any thing of Doctrine to offend the strong, or of Discipline, or Ceremony, to offend the weak, His Majesty have not long since offered to have it pass the fiery Trial and Disputes of a Synod legally called. To all which questions, till He and his Com presbyters, give a satisfying Answer, however they may think to hide themselves under their old Tortoise-shall, and cry out, Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord, They must not take it ill if I ask them one question more, and desire them to tell me, whether this be not the Religion which they long since compelled to take flight with the King, and which hath scarce been to be found in this Kingdom, ever since the time it was deprived of the Sanctuary it had taken under the King's Standard  
This then, being so, hath your Friend, or his fellow Assemblers, yet a purer, or more primitive Notion of the Protestant Religion, which compared with the Religion which we and our Fathers have been of, will prove it to be Idolatrous, and no better than a hundred years' superstition? Let them in Charity (as they are bound not to let us perish in our Ignorance! show ut their Model. If it be more agreeable to the Scripture than Ours, have more of the white Robe, and not of the new invention; we may, perhaps, be their converse▪ And their Righteousness meeting with our Pea●…e●…ay ●…ay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ea●…h 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tim●…▪ Sir, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wi●… not define ●…e Prot●…stant Religion so b●… Neg●…tives, 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ No Bishops, No Li●…, or No Comm●…▪ ●…er Bo●…ke These we, (〈◊〉 y●… co●…vinced to the 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go●…d 〈◊〉, but not Ess●…ntialls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we c●…l the Pro●…t Religion 〈◊〉 Si●…e; Their Negation then, can b●… 〈◊〉 true Essential Constituent of the same Religion on theirs.  
There is but On●… positive Notion more in all he world, 〈◊〉 whi●…h▪ c●…n p●…ly ●…nderstand Them, when They say, T●…ey have all this while Fought for the Defence of the Protestant Religion: T●…at i●…, th●…t by the Defence of the Protestant Religion, (if they mean any Thing, or if this ●…ave not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t●… 〈◊〉 more dangerous secret) They mean the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 New Directory, and their a●… length conc●… Go●…rnment of the Church by Presbyters. If this be thei●… 〈◊〉, (And 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should rock my Invention, I c●…not make 〈◊〉 find ●…other) The Second part of that most Holy, and Glorious Cause, which hath drawn the eve●… of Europe upon it, and rendered the Name of a Protestant, a ●…roverbe to express Disloyalty by, That Pure, chaste, Virgin, without sp●…t or wrinkle-Cause, which like the Scythian Diana hath been fe●… with ●…o many Humane Sacrifices, And to which, as ●…o another Moloch, so many Men as well as Children, have been compelled▪ 〈◊〉 through the Fire, resolves itself into this Vnchristiaen Bloody conclusion. That an Assembly of professed Protestant Divines, h●…ve advised 〈◊〉 Two Parliaments of England●…nd ●…nd Scotland, confe●… Subjects, to take ●…p Ar●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King, their Lawful Severaigne▪ H●…e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Kingdoms in a ●…lame▪ been the A●…rs o●… more Prot●…stants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civi●…, th●…n 〈◊〉 ●…ave served to ●…ver the Pala●…ate by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bu●… thi●… vnn●…cessary ●…vell, accidental Consider●…on, T●…t the King (〈◊〉 compelled by Force) would never cons●…nt, (not indeed without Perjury could) to the Change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancient, Primitive, Apostolic, Vn●…versally received Government of this Church by Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 new, vpstart●…▪ Mushroom▪ calvinistical Government, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pre●…bytery, of Spiritual & Lay-Elders. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by ●…rinciples▪ ●…en both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 ●…ture proved ●…o y●…u) i●… the m●…st 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R●…sistance, 〈◊〉 no▪ a●… Invasion of the Higher 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 Higher 〈◊〉 being 
* Rom. 13. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's O●…dinance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a War made against God ●…imselfe. And ●…he Author's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (unless they repent, and 〈◊〉 ●…hemselves t●… timely r●…turne to their Obed●…ence) in ●…anger to draw upon themselves this other, s●…d, tragical▪ irresistible Conclusion, w●…ich St 
* V. 2.  Paul tells us is the inevitable Catastrophe 〈◊〉 Disobedience, which 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you may English i●…, swift Destruction.  
And thu●…, Sir (Though ●…ll weak●… Defences have something of the Nature of prevarication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a●…d he may in part be thought to betray a Cause, 〈◊〉 feebly arg●… for 〈◊〉) I have returned you a large Answer 〈◊〉 the two Quere's 〈◊〉 your short Letter; which i●…●…ou shall vouchsafe 〈◊〉 Satisfaction, you will very much assi●…t my Modesty, whic●… will not suffer me to think that I, in this Argument, have said more than Others. Only being so fairly invited by you to say something, to have remained silent, had been to have cons●…st●…ny ●…ny 〈◊〉 convinced; And my Negligence, in a T●…me so seasonable●…o ●…o speak Truth in, might perhaps, in the Opinion of the Gentleman, your Friend, have seemed to take part with those o●… his side, against whose Cause though not ●…ir Persons▪ ha●…e thu●… freely armed my Pen, Sir I should think myself fortunate, if Any Thing which I ●…ave 〈◊〉 in this Letter migh●… make him a Proselyte. But this being rather my wish then my Hope, all the Success which this Paper aspires to is this, that you will accept it as a Creature borne at your Command; An●…●…hat you will place it among your other Records, as a Testimony how much greater my Desires, than my Abilities are to deserve the stile of being thought worthy to be  
From my Chamber june 7. 1647. Your affectionate servant JASPER maine.