AN APPENDIX TO THE THIRD PART OF THE Friendly Debate, BEING A LETTER OF THE CONFORMIST TO THE NONCONFORMIST: Together with a POSTSCRIPT.  
By the same Author.  
LONDON, Printed for H. Eversden, under the Crown in West Smithfield. 1670   

The PREFACE.  
IF I was not swayed more by the love of Truth, than of my own Credit, I should, for many reasons, have suppressed this following Letter. Which discovers so many gross falsehoods in the reflections which have been made on the Friendly Debate, that, whatsoever Censures may be passed on me, the Reader may receive some profit from it. Which that I might not hinder by putting too big a Book into his hands, I have cast away a great deal of what I had writ about other untruths and absurd reasonings: hoping that this will be sufficient to make those that peruse it wary and observant; and then they may detect the rest themselves without my assistance. And truly the greatest difficulty I met withal in this work, was to resolve what things I should single out as Instances of the impertinencies, falsifyings, and misunderstandings, etc. of my New Adversary. Which proved, I confess, a business so tedious, in such a great number as lay before me; that to ease myself of too great a labour, I was constrained at last to take them just as they came next to my thoughts. If it chance by this means that I have left any thing untouched, which some desired most of all should have been handled, there is no remedy: And it is better that they should want complete satisfaction, than that all should be tired with the length of my Discourse. Besides, I find that I myself have suffered by it; for I have passed by sundry reflections wherein my private person was more particularly concerned; which came not to mind till my Letter, I thought, was swelled to too large a Bulk. This is some sign that I am not so melancholy as my Adversary muses (for such men use to be more resentive than to forget the injuries that are done them) and that I have no list to write a Book merely to clear myself from false imputations. And indeed I found other matter to make this Treatise larger than I intended: which was a Case that came to my hand after I had considered the Apology. Whatsoever belonged to me in those Sheets, I have also spent a few thoughts upon: But took not myself to be concerned in his bold challenge to answer a Book, which I have not the least knowledge of, and which another person, he tells me, is more particularly bound (I am sure is better able) to reply unto, if he think it worthy his pains. I cannot tell neither whether that person be engaged in honour to accept the challenge; no, though he proclaim him a Coward, if he do not: For to answer some men (as one well speaks) is but to comment upon their Gibberish for those that understand it not, and thereby to bring their folly into more credit and request. I apply not this to that Book, which, as I said, I am perfectly ignorant of; and may deserve consideration: But to such vainglorious Challenges as I have seen from mere Barbarians and Savages, who imagine roaring and being furious is far more noble than speaking and reasoning. Mr. Vavasor Powel I remember made a challenge 
* June 11. 1652.  to any Minister or Scholar of ours to dispute Publicly, or Privately on this Question (and another) Whether our mixed way, or their way of Separation was nearest to the Word of God? But it was drawn up in such rude and Kitchen Latin as never, I think, saw the light since the Goths sacked Rome; and as evidently demonstrated that he thought his sufficiency to be greater than it was, and that men take themselves sometimes to be true owners of things, of which they are but mere Usurpers.  
As for the Ecclesiastical Policy (which he also carps at) a work of equal strength and beauty; it hath an Author who needs no assistant to defend it against the ablest Champion they can bring into the Field. Time will show the truth of this; and therefore I shall say no more of it, lest those commendations which that Author hath in kindness bestowed on my poor endeavours, should look in the eyes of our Enemies, like bartering with praises for the return of others.  
I have but one thing more to add, which was omitted in its proper place, but fit to have been inserted, Page 118. of the following Book. There you will find Mr. Baily affirms, That both Houses abjured Episcopacy (whatsoever some pretended to the contrary) by the Oath and Covenant; which may be confirmed, I must add, by their Declaration of the Fifth of August, 1645. sent to the Lords States General of the United Provinces; who by their Ambassadors had, among other things, propounded and offered from the King the calling of a National Synod to correct and redress the Government of the Church by Bishops. One of the Answers there given, why they could not admit of that Mediation, was, That not only the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Members of both Houses of Parliament, but also many thousands of others of his Majesty's Subjects of England and Ireland stand bound by their late National Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of the Church Government by Bishops in England and Ireland, and to hinder the setting of it up again in the Kingdom of Scotland. This passage I find the Commissioners of Scotland remember the Houses of, both in their Papers of the 20. and 24. of October, 1646. about the disposing of the King's Person; and in their Answer upon the new Propositions of Peace, and the Four Bills, signed 17. December, 1647. which I thought good here to mention, as a further confutation of the Apologist; whose pretences I now leave you to consider.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 44. line 18. read they presented. p. 45. l. 5. r. falsifies. p. 59 l. 9 for of r. over. p. 77. l. 7. r. leaning. p. 80, l. 9 r. of it. p. 87. l. ult. for his Petition, r. suspicion. p. 100 l. 12. r. in Ireland. p. 115. l. 13. r. Land. But. p. 145. l. 10. for settling r. selling. p. 151. l. 15. deal same. p. 154. l. 22. r. charge King Edward 6.   

AN APPENDIX TO THE THIRD PART OF THE Friendly Debate.  
SIR,  
I Have received the Book you sent me [An humble Apology for Non Conformists, with modest and serious reflections on the Friendly Debate] and wish it had come to my hands before as it came after the last Term, that so it might have been considered by us when we discoursed together about Philagathus. This Apologist or Catechist (I know not which to call him) should indeed have been otherwise treated, because he is of another strain: And though he commits the very same faults, yet not with the same confidence and braving that Philagathus did; whose overdaring carried him in a ridiculous manner to catch a Tartar; that is, in plain English, to lose himself.  
You cannot but observe sure with what a grave and serious impertinence this N. C. Catechism gins: Alleging these words (wherewith Bishop Bramhal concludes his Vindication of the Church of England) for a reason why an Answer was not given sooner to my Book; viz. We little imagine with what difficulties poor Exiles struggle, whose minds are more intent on what they should eat to morrow than what they should write. It was very unadvisedly done, methinks, to put us in mind at the very first dash how cruelly they used such excellent persons in time past, who, as the Bishop there feelingly complains in the words immediately following, were chased as Vagabonds into the merciless World to beg relief of strangers 
a See pag. 275 and his Pathetic Address to England, p. 277.  He shows himself also a very careless Writer, who in the very entrance of his Work confesses that extreme rigour and severity against the men of the Church of England, which afterwards he denies; telling us, That scarce any man in those days, who was able sober and peaceable, but might, if he had pleased, have employment and a livelihood 
b Humble Apol. p. 23. & 151.  But to use the Bishop as their Advocate in this case (as he speaks) that is to make his heavy complaint a reason for their silence, is such an absurdity as none could be guilty of but one whose wit is turned Vagabond, and gone a woolgathering. For suppose he be an Exile (which I do not believe) are the rest of the Non-Conformists, and they who are best able to write a Book either banished into a strange Land, or exposed to those hardships which the Bishop there sighs under? One would think rather that this Apologist (for his part) is in so good plight that he hath time to be idle and trifle; or that he hath not yet lost that niceness and delicacy which I noted in this sort of men, who complain of every little restraint as if it were the hugest oppression. They are Exiles, forsooth, because some of them may not live within five miles of their former Dwelling: They are banished, because they are confined to a Country Town, and may not dwell in a Corporation. I can make no other meaning of his application of those words to themselves; Unless you will have it, that he had a mind to sport a a little as Luther sometimes did; who was wont to call the place of his retirement, when the Pope thundered against him, by the name of his Patmos 
c Melch. Adam. pa. 121, etc.  though it was a good Castle where he lay obscured from his Enemies, was well entertained by his Friends, had the liberty sometimes to gather Strawberries, or to go a Hunting in the neighbouring places; and which is best of all, had there the happy leisure to translate the New Testament into the Germane Tongue. And so indeed this Writer tells us (p. 47.) that the Non-Conformists are turned out to grass, and for that cause, the Circingle will not become them. By which merriment you may see the Animal is in good case, and that you are like to find wonderfully serious reflections on the Friendly Debate. But let it be as he supposes, that they are poor Exiles, and that the Pasture into which they are turned out, is but short; yet I hope they are not such Evil Beasts, slow bellies 
d Tit. 1.12.  as the Cretians were, that is (as some understand their Character) such great feeders, but that they might have chopped a little Logic with me without pinching their guts, and given an Answer to a Book that hath so little reason in it, if he may be believed, without endangering the defrauding of their stomaches. The great work of eating might have gone on, and this not have been neglected. For it would not have cost much more time to confute, than it did to read a Book, in which, as he tells you 
e Preface, p. 5.  the words are more than the matter, the Rhetoric far beyond the Logic, and which hath smitten them not so much with the Fist, as with the Palms of the hands. I should think it would cost him a great deal more to reconcile these words with those that follow in the end of his Preface, That I have made so many hard and desperate thrusts at them (which it is not easy to do with the Palm of ones hand) that it hath forced them at last to draw in their defence.  
O, may some say, but to what purpose had it been to draw sooner? Besides, that they are Exiles, If an Answer had stolen forth without Licence, would it not have been arrested for a seeming breach of a late Act about Printing? etc. This is another solemn piece of impertinence (to say no worse) wherewith he closes his Answer to the first Question of his Catechism, why a Reply came out no sooner. May not I better ask, With what Authority this comes out now? Was there a greater Privilege for unlicenced Books this last Michaelmas, than there was in Hilary or Easter Term before? This very Apology confutes itself; and lets you see how little you are to expect from this Undertaker who stumbles in such a lubberly manner at his first setting out. For as that Bishop, now mentioned, speaks in another case, It were strange if he should throw a good cast, who soles his bowl upon an undersong 
f Reply to S. W's Refutation, p. 1.   
If he had not wanted substantial matter to allege in excuse of their faults, he would not have fallen, I persuade myself, into so many of the Vices of Philagathus (whose sober Answer stands but for a cipher in this Man's account) being a little more modest. He wants not his, It may bee's, 
g Pag 6. 29, 34, etc.  it is possible, for aught I know, and such like words which signify nothing, but that he knew not what to say, and yet was big with an Apology. This barrenness of weighty matter, made him serve us up the same insipid Coleworts twice or thrice over. He gins his Preface and his Book too 
h See Ans. to Quest. 2.  with the same complaint, that I have smitten them on the right cheek, and on the left. And Bonner's Beef and broth he sets before us three times at least 
i Pag. 42, 89, 131.  He is for Cookery too, Sauces, and garnishing of dishes 
k Pag. 99 . And tells vagrant stories very prodigally 
l Pag 38, 41, 62, 64, 65, 68, 74, 89, 100, 104.  out of their unwritten traditions, from whence they furnished so many brazen Legends in the beginning of the late Tumults: News from Hell, News from Rome, News from Court, News from Ipswich, Cathedral news from Canterbury, and many more. All which I shall pass by at this present, because they are Peccadillo's in compare with the other faults that he hath committed.  
He makes no bones for instance, as modest and humble as he seems, to talk of several things which he doth not understand, nor hath examined at all. The very Second Page of his Book gives you a proof of it; where he tells you, He humbly conceives that every transgression of an humane Law, though but Penal, is not so culpable or criminous, as is pretended. Truly, I conceive so too, that all Offences are not of equal guilt; but I must let him know, that as I did not pretend every transgression of a Law to be so culpable as the transgression of that I spoke of, so, I humbly conceive, he pretends to skill in the nature of Laws but Penal, which he is utterly ignorant of. For both that Law which I mentioned, and all those that he instances in, are more than Penal, as is manifest to every one that hath made the least search into these matters. A Law that is but Penal, as every ordinary Casuist might have taught him 
* Instead of all, let him consult Dr. Sanderson de oblige. conscientiae Prael. 82. , commands nothing; but only exacts a Penalty in case a man think fit to do, or not to do some things therein expressed: As if a man be chosen Alderman of the City of London, and refuse to hold the Place, he is by a Law among them to pay a Fine to ●●em. Which is called a Law but Penal, because it doth not require or bind a man to serve this Office (he is at liberty whether he will or no) it requires only the payment of such a Sum of Money if he think good not to serve. So that here indeed to pay the Money doth ordinarily satisfy the Law; because a Lawmaker binds us only by declaring his will to Oblige us, and he declares nothing as his will to oblige a man in this case, but the payment of a Fine. Which is called a Penalty in a large sense, as it is something which a man would not willingly undergo if it were left to his own choice, and is imposed on him in stead of another burden which he refuses, viz. that of Government. But what is this to the Law which I had occasion to mention? Which is not of this sort, but a Law Mandatory, as I may call it; requiring them not to inhabit in such and such places. Upon which account it is a Moral Law, to regulate men's manners; and for that cause, it is a virtue to obey it, and a vice to disobey it. Nor doth the addition of a Penalty to it altar its nature. For such Laws are a Rule of life given with an intention to oblige men to obedience; there being few that know of themselves what is best and most profitable for common life: And the Penalty is not to be undergone in stead of the obedience, but is added to contain Subjects in their duty by the fear of it, because even they who may know what is best will not otherwise do it. So that in conclusion, such a Law with a Penalty lays a double obligation upon us both ad poenam and ad culpam as they speak, to suffer the punishment, and to be sinners if we disobey it. There is no doubt of the former, and it is as unreasonable to question the latter; because the Law contains a Command, and Sin is nothing but the transgression of a Command: which transgression is greater or less according as the will of the Lawmaker is more or less to oblige us; and that is to be known very much by the greatness or smallness of the Penalty whereby it is enacted to move us to obedience. This he might have learned of Bishop Taylor, whom he quotes directly against his meaning. For that Question which this man resolves Affirmatively [Is it not enough to satisfy the Law to pay the Mulct or Penalty in such Cases? p. 3.] he answers Negatively: And that within a few lines of that very place which this Apologist alleges to a quite contrary sense. You may find it in his Holy Living, Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Rule 7. which gins thus, Do not believe thou hast kept the Law when thou hast suffered the punishment, etc. Read the rest at your leisure; and do not believe this man who abuses the Bishop, and wrists his words (as their manner is) from their meaning: The Rule that he mentions being directed to another purpose, and expressed in terms flatly against him. As long, saith the Bishop, as the Law is obligatory, so long our obedience is due, 
m Ib. Rule the 4. quoted by this Apol. p. 4.  etc. If obedience be due, than I hope it is not sufficient to suffer the Penalty; and then this Writer shamefully perverts the sense of that Rule, or else doth not understand it; which is no more but this, that a fixed Custom abrogates a Law, and makes our obedience no longer due to it. While the Law is in force, we sin if we do not obey it; but a fixed Custom makes it not to be in force, and then we are free from it. This is the sense of the Bishop; to which nothing need be added, but that whilst the Lawgiver constantly declares his will that it should oblige, no Custom can be pleaded, nor excuse be made for doing contrary to it.  
But you think perhaps that he may find some relief in Mr. Perkins whom he also alleges. You may try if you please, but if you consult the place, you will see he had some reason not to tell you where to find it. For first he recites his words imperfectly, and doth not let you know that Mr. Perkins declares, where the Lawmaker intends obedience simply the Statutes are necessary to be kept. And again, that he doth not excuse men from all blame who break some of the lesser local Statutes, but only saith, Students may in some sort excuse themselves from the sin of Perjury, though not from all fault, in breaking some of the lesser local Statutes. They are his very words in his Second Book of Cases of Conscience, Chap. 13. in the latter end. But to pass by this: That part of his words which he citys, are so far from reaching his purpose, that they are against him. For first, the Lawmaker intends obedience simply to the Laws that they break, as is manifest to all. For secondly, they are not Laws merely for Decency and Order (which Mr. Perkins speaks of) but for the preservation of the being of Christian Society, which is destroyed by separation and division. And therefore thirdly, the Penalty is not as beneficial to the state of the Society as actual Obedience.  
As for that which follows in the end of his Answer to this Question (which he repeats again, p. 128.) it is altogether impertinent. For we do not charge them with a bare omission of what our Governors command, but with a direct opposition to it, and that to the great scandal of the People, and contempt of the Royal Authority. All which things considered, I think in stead of making an Apology for the Non-Conformists, he had better have followed the counsel of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busy about his Accounts; which was, that he should study rather how to give no account at all.  
For he is grossly ignorant in other Learning as well as in this; as appears by his discourse about Ordination by Presbyters, which follows a little after. The Friendly Debate gave him no occasion to mention any thing of this nature, but he had a mind it seems to give us a taste of his skill in this great Question; though it be so small that I know not how to excuse his boldness in meddling with it. He supposes that the Chorepiscopi (which he makes the same with our Rural Deans) may lawfully Ordain. And next, that Suffragans were but such Presbyters; so that he who was Ordained by them had not Episcopal Ordination. And then thirdly, He would have you believe that Archbishop Usher and other Learned men concurring in judgement with him, were of this opinion. Every one of which propositions are notoriously false, as I will plainly show you by demonstrating these three things. 1. That those called Chorepiscopi, Rural or Country Bishops never had the Power of Ordination, being not of the Order of Bishops, but Presbyters something advanced above the rest. 2. On the other side, that Suffragans had the power of Ordination, being not mere Presbyters, but Bishops, as those in the City were. And lastly, That the late Primate saith nothing contrary to this.  
For the first: The Country Bishops, saith the Council of Neocaesarea, 
n About the year 314.  Can. 13. were but of such a degree as the seventy Disciples, and appointed after their Type: to whom the Ancients, every body knows, make Presbyters to be the Successors, as Bishops are to the Apostles. And therefore that Council calls them only Assistants to the Bishops, in that part of their Diocese which was distant from the City. But that they had only a part of the Episcopal Power committed to them, not the whole, we learn from the Council of Ancyra presently after, Can. 13. which decreed that the Chorepiscopi, or Country Bishops ought not to ordain either Ppesbyters or Deacons. 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  To which purpose he that pleases may find many authorities in Justellus his notes upon that place. And in the Council of Antioch, Can. 10. the same is decreed again, that they should know their bounds or measures, and appoint Readers, Subdeacons, and Catechists, but not dare to proceed further, nor to make a Priest or Deacon, without the Bishop of the City to which both he and his Region were subject. The same Canons were in the Roman Church, as appears by the Body of the Decrees: 
p v. part 1. Distinct. 63. c. 4.  The words of which being abbreviated by Sigebert he calls them Arch-Deacons. But afterward the Council of Laodicea decreed, Can. 57 that this sort of Officers should be abolished, and no Bishops should be appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Villages, and in the Countries: and that they who had been already constituted should do nothing without the consent of the Bishop of the City. But instead of them there should be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Visitors, that should go about to find out what was amiss, and correct men's manners. In like manner we find in the Body of the Canon Law 
q Distinct. 68 c. 5.  a Decree of Pope Damasus to this purpose, That the Chorepiscopi have been prohibited as well by that See, as by the Bishops of the whole world. One reason of which prohibition might be that they did not 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  know their own bounds, as the Council of Antioch determined, but ventured to appoint Church Officers, without the Bishop's Consent. Upon which occasion St. Basil wrote a particular Epistle to the Chorepiscopi, requiring that no Minister 
s Epist. 181. p. 959. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Readers and such Ministers as those Luke 4.10.  whatsoever, though of the lower rank, should be made without him, contrary to the Canons. It is a sad thing, saith he, to see how the Canons of the Fathers are laid aside; insomuch that it is to be feared all will come to Confusion. The Ancient Custom was this, That there should be a strict inquiry made into the lives of those who were to be admitted to minister in the Church. The care of this lay upon the Presbyters and Deacons, who were to report it to the Chorepiscopi, and they having received a good testimony of them, certified it to the Bishop, and so the Minister 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  was admitted into Holy Orders: But now you Country Bishops would make me stand for a cipher, and take all this Authority to yourselves: nay, you permit the Presbyters and Deacons to put in whom they please, according as Kindred or Affection inclines them, without regard to their worth. But let me, saith he, have a note of the Ministers of every Village; and if any have been brought in by the Presbyters, let them be cast out again among the common people. And know that he shall be but a Layman whoever he is that is received into the Ministry without our consent.  
By this it is apparent that Presbyters had not power so much as to make the lowest Officers in the Church; and that the Chorepiscopi, though above the rest of the Presbyters, in Office, yet were not so high as Bishops, but were a middle sort of men between both. An image of whom was remaining in the late Bohemian Church, as I learn from Comenius; who in his Book concerning the Discipline and Order among them tells us, that beside the Seniors or Bishops, 
u For they had Episcopal Ordination after they had been made Presbyters, and Epicopal Jurisdiction and Succession from the Bishops of the Waldenses.  and Ministers or Presbyters, they had certain Ecclesiastical Persons called Conseniors, who were between the other two. For they were chosen out of the Ministers, presented by them to the Bishop, and then solemnly ordained by him to the Office of Conseniors by a new imposition of hands. But at the same time these Conseniors promised Obedience to the Bishop; 
x Ratio Discipl. & Ord. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 37.  as the Ministers when they were Ordained promised Obedience to them as well as to the Bishop. 
z Ib. p. 33.  Their Office therefore was among other things (as we are told, Chap. 1. page 23, 24.) to keep good Order, to observe what was worthy of correction, to inform the Bishop of it, to provide fit persons for the Ministry, to exercise Discipline with the Bishop, and visit with him, or without him if he required it, to examine those that were to be ordained Ministers or Deacons, to give them testimonials to the Bishop, and in short, To supply the place of the Bishop in businesses of lesser moment. So it appears by the Book, and by Comenius his Annotations upon that Chapter. 
a page 92. Minoribus in negotiis Episcopi vices obirent.   
Thus much may suffice for the Chorepiscopi who had not such a power as he ascribes to them; and as the Suffragans, I shall now show you, were invested withal; who were of the Order of Bishops as much as any other. Some have called them Titular Bishops ordained to assist and aid the Bishop of the Diocese in his Spiritual Function, and think they had their name from this, that by their Suffrages Ecclesiastical Causes were judged. But the better to understand what they were, you must know that all the Bishops of any Province were anciently called by the Metropolitan his Suffragans; being to advise and assist him in the common Affairs of the Church. So the word is often used in the Canon Law; and in latter times in the Provincial Council of Salisburg 
b An. 1420 Cap de Officio Ordinarii. . The Archbishop Everard speaks to all the Bishops as his Suffragans being called together with him, in partem solicitudinis; into part of the care of the people under his charge. Which are the words of our Linwood also, who saith the Bishops are called Suffragans, because they are bound to help and assist the Archbishop 
c Archiepiscopo suffragari & assistere tenentur. Annor. in cap. de Constitutionibus. . But since those times, they only have been called Suffragans who were indeed ordained Bishops, but not possessed as yet of any See, and thence called Titular Bishops: which kind of Bishops are no stranger, than those Ministers at Geneva, whom they call Apostoli, who preach in the Country Churches, and administer the Sacraments, but have no certain charge. Yet in England I must tell you it was otherwise, as appears by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII. chap. 14. where provision is made for Suffragans which had been accustomed to be had within this Realm, as it tells us both in the beginning and the middle of it. And it is enacted that the Towns of Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Dover, Guildford, Southampton, and twenty places more besides them, should be taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffragans to be made in this Realm, etc. For this end every Archbishop or Bishop being disposed to have them for the more speedy administration of Holy things, had the liberty given them to name and elect two fit persons, and present them to the King: who thereupon had full power by the Act to give to which of those two he pleased, the Style, Title, and Name of Bishop of such of the Sees aforesaid as he thought most expedient: and he was to be called Bishop Suffragan of the same See. After which the King was to present him by his Letters Patents under the great Seal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of York, signifying his Name, his Style, Title, and Dignity of Bishopric; requiring him to Consecrate the said person so nominated and presented, to the same Name, Title, Style, and Dignity of Bishop. For which purpose either the Bishop that nominated him, or the Suffragan himself was to provide two Bishops or Suffragans to consecrate him with the Archbishop, and to bear their reasonable costs. This Statute though repealed in the first and second of Philip and Mary 
d Chap. 8. , yet was revived among sundry other, in the first of Queen Elizabeth 
e See ch. 1. . And it is sufficiently manifest from thence that these persons had Episcopal Ordination (being Consecrated by the Archbishop, and two Bishops more) as much as any other. And therefore secondly, had Episcocal Power and Authority as much as the Bishop of the Diocese, though being dependent on him, the Suffragan could not use or execute any Jurisdiction, Power, or Authority but by his Commission under his Seal; as the Statute likewise provides. Upon which score Mr. Mason calls them Secondary 
f De Minist. Angl. l. 1. c. 3.  Bishops; and further observes truly, that though in compare with others they may seem to have nothing but a Title, because they had not their proper Dioceses to themselves; yet if we speak absolutely, they had both the Title and the thing signified by it. For they had for their Episcopal Seat some great Town 
g Oppidum illustre lege Parliamentaria illis designatum.  appointed to them by the Act of Parliament, in which, and some certain adjacent places to which the Bishop of the Diocese limited them, they exercised their Episcopal Function. From whence also they borrowed the name of Suffragan of Bedford: Suffragan of Colchester, etc. So that none of those who were Consecrated Bishops among us in England, whether Primary or Secondary (as his words are) were merely Titular, but destinated all of them to the administration of a certain place, according to the sixth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Accordingly we find that such Suffragans being made, acted like other Bishops in all things. For the Register of the Consecration of Archbishop Parker tells us, that at the time of it, four Chairs were set for four Bishops; one of which was John Hodgskin Suffragan Bishop of Bedford: who assisted also in the Consecration of the Bishops of London, Ely, Lincoln, and divers others: which he could not have done had he not had Episcopal Power, and consequently the Power of Ordaining Presbyters, as well as of Consecrating Bishops. And so much this Apologist might have learned from him whom he calls a Learned Prelate, if he had read his Books with care: I mean Bishop Bramhall, who writes thus of the Power of Suffragans 
h Romphaea Printed 1659. p. 93 : The Office and the Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things. Ordination is an Act of the Key of Order, and a Bishop uninthroned may Ordain as well as a Bishop enthroned. The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishoprics was always admitted and reputed as good in the Catholic Church (if the Suffragans had Episcopal Ordination) as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world. Nay, if he had but read their own Authors, he would not have doubted that Suffragans were altogether (to speak in their stile) as bad as Bishops. For the Admonition to the Parliament puts them among the Titles and Offices devised by Antichrist, and declares that though they take upon them (which is most horrible) to rule God's Church, yet they are plainly by Christ forbidden, and utterly with speed to be removed. You may read more to the same purpose in the Preface, as I find it cited in the Censure of the Pamphlet called, Humble Motives for Association, An. 1601. p. 23, 25. In which year I find this a part of the Secular Priest's complaint against the Jesuits, that they would not be subordinate in any manner to the Ordinary Prelates of England, as Bishops and Suffragans: and that they withstood their endeavours to have Bishops or Suffragans 
i Dialogue between a Secular Priest, and a Lay Gentleman, p. 73. 87, 90. . By which you may see they were numbered among the Prelates to whom all Priests were to be subject, which made those fiery Dissenters from our Church to declaim so loudly against them. And all this serves to convince our Apologist of unskilfulness in these matters, who pronounces roundly that Mr. Gataker 
k p. 13. of his Book.  never had any Episcopal Ordination, because he was Ordained by (a Suffragan of one of those places mentioned in the Statute, viz.) the Suffragan of Colchester. Suppose he were, 
* As Mr. Clark tells us he was. Collect. of Lives of ten Divines, p. 131.  he had notwithstanding Episcopal Ordination, as I have demonstrated; and as good as if he had been Ordained by the greatest Bishop in the World. But he did not understand I see by this what those Suffragans were, and contrary to what became an humble and modest man, and the Title likewise of his Book, wrote about things which he had not studied or considered. Which made him also confound these with the Rural Deans, alleging the Primate of Armaghs' judgement concerning the power of Suffragans, to prove it to be his Judgement, that the Chorepiscopi or Rural Deans might lawfully ordain. In which he hath done him a notorious injury; for there is not such a word in his Book, as that the Rural Deans may lawfully ordain, But only that the number of Suffragans (which was 26) might well be conformed to the number of the several Rural Deaneries, and supplying the place of those who in the Ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi, might every month assemble a Synod of the Rectors within the Precinct, and conclude all matters brought before them by the major part of voices. These are his words, which do not signify that Suffragans were the same with Rural Deans, or Chorepiscopi, but that there might be as many of the one, as there are of the other; and Suffragans do all that which those ancient Officers did, though they had power to do a great deal more: For I have proved a plain distinction between them. The Chorepiscopi were made by one single Bishop, viz. the Bishop of the City to whom they belonged, as the Council of Antioch tells us, Can. 10. But the Suffragans being real Bishops were made as other Bishops are by three at the least, according to the fourth Canon of the first Council at Nice. And so they had power to Ordain Presbyters, and join in the Consecration of other Bishops, which the Chorepiscopi had not. Nor did our Church ever acknowledge any such power residing in the Rural Deans, or any mere Presbyters subject to the Jurisdiction of our Bishops, to ordain Priests. But as Hadrianus Saravia tells the Ministers of Guernsey 
l See Clavi Trabales, p. 142.  in his Letter to them, As many Ministers as were naturally of the Country being not made Ministers of the Church by their Bishop or his Demissories, nor any others according to the Order of the English Church, were not true and lawful Ministers. Where by Demissories I think he means the Suffragans of the Bishop of Winchester, to whose jurisdiction they belonged.  
Yes, may some say, our Bishops have sometimes declared otherwise. For this Apologist 
m Pag. 13. out of Archbish. Spotswood.  alleges the story of the three Scots Bishops, who never had been ordained but by Presbyters, and yet Bishop bancroft's opinion was that they need not be ordained again; which hath often been alleged heretofore by others, particularly by the Lancashire Ministers of the first Classis at Manchester, in whom he might have found a great deal more than this amounts unto. For they fly to a Letter of the late Primate of Ireland, with the Animadversions of Dr. Bernard upon it 
n The judgement of the late Archb. of Armagh, etc. 1658. , in which this Story is cited, and the judgement of many other learned Divines; but nothing at all to the business. For as the Gentlemen to whom the Lancashire Ministers wrote their Letter well observe 
o Excommunicatio excommunicata, p.  the Primate did not make void the Ordination by Presbyters, but it was with a special restriction to such places, where Bishops could not be had: Which are the very words also of Archbishop Bancroft in the case of the Scottish Bishops. As for the Ordinations made by our Presbyters the Primate declared himself against them in the very same Letter (which they craftily concealed) as you may read p. 112. of Dr. Bernard's Book. The words are these; You may easily judge that the Ordination made by such Presbyters, as have severed themselves from those Bishops, unto whom they had sworn Canonical Obedience, cannot possibly by me be excused from being Schismatical. Which I find cited again in another Book of of his, called Clavi Trabales, p. 56. And both in that and the former Book 
p Judgement of the Archb. p. 122, etc. Clavi Tiab. p. 55.  he tells us the Primate thought their Ordination void upon another score. Because at the imposition of hands, they neither used those ancient words, Receive thou the Holy Ghost, etc. nor the next, Be thou a faithful dispenser, etc. nor any other words to that sense (at least there is no order or direction for it.) And they also wholly omitted those words at the solemn delivery of the Bible inro the hands of the person ordained: Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, etc. So that there being no express transmission of Ministerial Power, he was wont to say, that such Imposition of hands (by some called the Seal of Ordination) without a Commission annexed, seemed to him to be as the putting of a Seal to a Blank. And if a Bishop had been present and done no more than they did, he thought the same quere might have been of the validity of such Ordinations.  
As for other Reformed Churches, their case is widely different from that of these men, as he might have learned from another Bishop, whom he citys now and then to no purpose, viz. Bishop Bramhall 
* Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 71, 72. , who rel you, that he knew many learned persons among them who did passionately affect Episcopacy, and some of them acknowledged to him that their Church would never be rightly settled till it was new moulded. And others, he tells you, though they did not long for Episcopacy, yet they approve it, and want it only out of invincible necessity. And that their principal learned men were of this mind appears from hence; that Dr. Carlton, afterward Bishop of Chichester, protesting in open Synod (which then sat at Dort) that Christ instituted no parity, but made twelve Apostles the chief, and under them seventy Disciples; that Bishops succeeded to the Twelve, and Presbyters of inferior rank to the Seventy; and challenging the judgement of any learned men that could speak to the contrary: Their answer was silence, which was approbation enough. And after, saith he, discoursing with divers of the best learned in the Synod, and telling them how necessary Bishops were to suppress their Schisms then rising; their answer was, That they did much honour and reverence the good order and discipline of the Church of England, and with all their heart would be glad to have it established among them; but that could not be hoped for in their State. Their hope was, that, seeing they could not do what they desired, God would be merciful to them, if they did but what they could. Upon which speech one well notes 
q Answer to a Letter written at Oxford, 1647. p. 13, 14.  that if they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did, than they supposed they were not in the best estate; and that their necessity could not totally excuse them from fault, for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for mercy. Nor could they well think otherwise; since being pressed they denied not but that Episcopacy was of Christ's own institution.  
To this necessity Mr. Calvin himself hath recourse, declaring that their calling (being an extraordinary thing) ought not to be estimated by the common Rule. It were to be wished indeed (says he in the same place 
r Epist. ad Regem Polo●iae, p. 142.  that there were a continual succession of Pastors, that the Function itself might be delivered, as it were, from hand to hand; but the Pope having broken the succession of such as preached the uncorrupted Doctrine of Christ, God provided a remedy, exciting pious and learned men to reform the Church, and committing to them an extraordinary Office. This saith Melancthon 
s Enarratis in Evang. Joh. Cap. 1.  God did in ancient times, setting a greater value upon his Church, than upon the ordinary Power in it. If indeed the ordinary power would have done their duty, He is worthy, saith Mr. Calvin, of any execration who will not submit himself to that Hierarchy that submits itself to the Lord. And I protest before God and in mine own Conscience, saith Zanchy, that I hold them no better than Schismatics that account or make it a part of Reformation of the Church to have no Bishops 
t Both these cited by Dr. Peter Moulin the Son; in whom you may read a great deal more. . Of this mind were the first Reformers, who, as the Augustane Confession saith, had no intention to deprive the Bishops of their Authority; but the Bishops refusing to admit them into holy Orders unless they would swear not to preach the pure Doctrine of the Gospel 
u Cap. ult. de potest. Eccles. ; this compelled them, the public ordinary door being shut, to enter into holy Orders in a private and extraordinary way. Yea, we have often testified, say the Authors of it, our great desire to preserve the Ecclesiastical Polity, and even those degrees in the Church which are but of Humane Authority. This we declare again and again to be our mind: And this will and desire of ours shall excuse us before God and all the World to all Posterity, that the overthrow of the Authority of Bishops may not be imputed to us. It was mere necessity you see which drove them to Ordination without Bishops, which sometimes makes that lawful, which otherwise would be unlawful. They are the words of the Gloss cited by Dr. Crakenthorp in this very business, who compares the Case of the Reformers with that of Scipio 
* Defence. Eccles. Anglicanae, Cap. 41. contra Spalat. 1635. , as others I find have done since in his very words, without naming him. There being (as Valerius Max. tells us) a need of money to defray some necessary Charges of the Commonwealth, Scipio demanded a supply out of the Public Treasury: Which the Quaestors refusing to open, because the Law seemed against it, He opened it himself by a private Key, and made the Law give way to utility and necessity. The same was done in some Reformed Churches. The Apostles had commended their Keys to Bishops; nor were they ever lawfully used, saith he, by any others than Bishops before that time. When the Roman Quaestors (he means Bishops) denying to open the door, and admit any to the Office of Pastors, unless they would engage not to preach the pure Doctrine of the Gospel, Some great men, like Scipio, chose rather to lay hold on the Keys, and receive Ordination from the hands of private persons, than that the Church should be unfurnished and the People perish. They would not have gone out of the Road if they could have avoided it, as our Presbyterians did of their own accord. Who ought therefore to acknowledge their error, to return into the regular course from whence they voluntarily strayed, and not stand upon the justification of their proceed by the example of those who are nothing like them: But with all their heart would have entertained such Bishops as our pretended Reformers thrust out of possession, and joyfully received such Ordination as here they rejected. But if they resolve still to continue to maintain what they have done, I would wish them to get an abler Apologist than this man: and you, my good Friend, I would advise to keep this old Saying in your mind, Remember not to trust; no not those that pretend to learning, seriousness, humility, and modesty. For you see by what hath been said, that this person, who makes a show of these qualities, is grossly mistaken (to speak no harsher word) and too boldly endeavours to lead others into errors. I acknowledge indeed that there are both learned and modest men among them; but they are the confident talkers who generally carry the Bell away, and are cried up for all worth and excellency. Do what I can, I must think there is too much truth in the censure passed upon you by the Second fair warning to take heed of the Scottish Discipline 
y Printed at the Hague 1651 by Ri. Watson, p. 152. ; That you are not wont to prick any in the List of the Learned, but the best read men in Synopsis' and Systems, in Common place Books and Centurists, or in your own Reformed Fathers; whom you believe to be more proper than the ancients, because standing (as they tell you) upon their shoulders: When, if set on even ground, the longest arm they can make in true Learning and Eloquence, will not reach half way up to their girdles.  
But you may imagine perhaps, that though the Apologist be not so well versed in the Laws of the ancient Church, yet he hath good skill in the Laws and Customs of our own Land. So indeed any body would think, that reads his Book, and relies upon his bare word; but he that hath so much distrust as to take the pains to examine what he saith, will presently discover that he writes as if he were as unacquainted with them as with the Laws and Customs of Japan. The same heady forwardness possesses men now that did in Gregory Nazianzen's days, when, as he tells us 
z Orat. 9 p 150. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  all were wild to teach and talk about the Spirit of God, without the Spirit: and therefore no wonder they venture to talk of our Laws, without any Law. Thus this modest Apologist puts in their exception 
a Pag. 20.  against our Church for committing the power of Excommunication to men that are not in holy Orders. Which is notoriously false, and the contrary, I could show him, hath been acknowledged in their own Books. But he needed have looked no further than to a Book published not many years ago, concerning the Practice in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Where he might have been informed in express terms 
b Francisci Clark Praxis in Curiis Eccles. Titul. 20, an. 1666.  That the Judge of the Court having pronounced a man contumacious, and decreed that he is to be excommunicated in punishment of his contumacy, next proceeds to read the Excommunication, if he be in holy Orders; Otherwise, he delivers it to be read by the Priest appointed by the Archbishop for this purpose: Which Priest to this effect sits judicially with the Judge himself. 
☞  Of if he never heard of this Book, yet he hath heard I am sure of the Third Part of the Friendly Debate: Where, if he had been pleased to read a Book before he had censured it, he might have found this bold Error corrected in Philagathus; and so avoided it himself. But I see plainly, and am hearty sorry for it, there are more of that man's evil humour; who love to talk of things upon Record, out of their own drowsy imaginations. The general cry against the continuation of the Friendly Debate was, that it was a breach of the Act of Indemnity, or Oblivion; which was raised merely out of their own brains, that are stuffed with words more than things, without consulting the Act itself. But this cry Philagathus followed with open mouth, and now he hath got another to bear him company; who deserves in like manner to be chastised for his bold folly. Especially since he mentions this so often; first in his Preface, then at least five 
c Pag. 34, 73, 106. 112, 150.  times in his Book, and in one place affirms my Book seems to be a continued breach of the Act of Indemnity in the very design of it: And all this after I had evidently demonstrated in the further Continuation (which he also mentions p. 150.) that whatever it seems to him, this is a gross and impudent Calumny. But I shall spare him, notwithstanding this boldness, and have, I assure him, thrown away those apt illustrations of his Vanity, which offered themselves, because he hath more civility in him than the sober Answerer. I shall only desire him to follow his own advice which he gives me on this occasion 
d Pref. p. 8.  viz. To do justice upon himself, and execute his own Book in the flames, for committing such crimes. For I must tell you there are a great many more of them. He tells you confidently that the Notes, commonly called the Assemblies, came out before the Assembly convened, p. 15. By which I see he is no better skilled in Ordinances than in Laws. For the Ordinance for their convention bears date June 12. 1643. requiring them to meet the next first of July: And the Annotations came not out till two years after, in 1645 
e So it should be Printed in the Friendly Debate, not 1646. . But you may think perhaps they did not convene at the time appointed. Know therefore, that on June 24. 1643. all Ministers were required by an Order to pray on the next Fast for a blessing on the Assembly, who were to meet on Saturday July 1. and that accordingly they did meet on that day, as Mr. Fuller (quoted sometimes by this man) observes in his History: And not long after 
f July 19 1643.  I find presented an humble Petition for an extraordinary Fast, beseeching among other things, that Justice might be executed on all delinquents; and after this an Order 
* Aug. 10. 1643.  that those of them who were Residents in the Associated Counties should be desired to go down and stir up the People to rise in their defence. By which it appears they not only convened, but began at least to be busy about that which did not concern them long before those Notes saw the light. But let us pass by this: And observe rather how he satisfies in the lame excuse he makes for their not calling the Apostles always by the name of Saints. In the judgement of our Church, saith he, it is not necessary, as may hence be concluded, That in all the Collects for the days set apart to commemorate the holy Apostles in, there are but two wherein they are styled Saints. These are his words 
g Pag. 43. ; but if you love truth, call to mind the Rule I gave you, and remember not to trust. Even they who call one another frequently by the name of Saints have not such a care, as one would expect, of common honesty, nor of their own fame neither; but will assert such manifest untruths as lie open to every eye. Turn to the Prayers for particular days in the Service Book, and you shall find that they who told him this (for I charitably suppose he took it upon trust) made no conscience of what they said. For those glorious persons, whose memories are celebrated in our Church (and I hope always will be) are called no less than nine times in the very body of the Collects by the names of Saints 
h St. Steven, St. John, St. Andrew, St. Paul, St. Mark, St. Philip and St. James, St. Peter and St. James. . Seven of which were Apostles, and the other an Evangelist, and the first Martyr. And lest any one should imagine he made his observation by the old Common-Prayer Book, and thence may justify himself: you may understand that there is no difference in this point, but only in two of the Collects: in one of which in stead of St. John the Evangelist (as it is now) the words were the blessed Apostle and Evangelist John; and in the other, instead of St. Philip and St. James, it was, St. Philip and other Apostles. This may teach you to suspect the reasonings of these men (which may very well be thought to be exceeding careless) who are no more exact in reporting matters of Fact which lie before their eyes. But as for their stories which they spread up and down, and endeavour to propagate to posterity by stuffing their Books with them (as this man doth) there is the greatest cause to think that either they have no truth at all in them, or are very much altered from their original. You ought to let them pass for idle tales, unless you have better authority for them than these men's Books, who you see are so bold as to report notorious falsehoods which every body can confute. Their Traditions you should look upon as of no more credit than the Popish Legends: It being so easy for men to forget the very words they heard, and to place others in their room; so common to add or leave out what is most material; so hard and often impossible to know all the circumstances in a business, which very much alter the case; and lastly, there being such a proneness in men to invent downright falsehoods, and to publish them for their own advantage. I have now given you an instance of it, and I can give you more. The three Covenanting Ministers, I find, in their answer to the Queries of the Divines of Aberdeen, had the boldness to declare in Print, and positively aver, that his Majesty's Commissioner rested satisfied with their Covenant, according to their explication of it: by which report they hoped to draw the people to a liking of it. But this was such a calumny that the Commissioner thought it necessary to clear himself of it by a Manifest and Declaration 
i See his late Majesty's Large Declaration, 1638. p. 111, 112.  to the contrary. Which brought them to a confession that indeed they never heard him say he was satisfied, but had only some probable reasons whereby they were induced to believe that he was. And indeed men easily believe what they have a mind unto. They believed, or at least gave it out even in the Pulpit (saith his Majesty) 
k Ib: page 405, 406.  that we intended to bring in Popery into all our Kingdoms, or at least a toleration of it: It was preached that the Service-Book was framed at Rome, and brought over by a Country man of theirs. They told the people that all England was of their opinion. And some desired them publicly to give thanks to God for the overthrow which the Hollanders had newly given the Spanish Fleet before Dunkirk, assuring them that it was no less to be celebrated than the deliverance in 88 all that Fleet being prepared at the King's charge for their ruin and subversion. A most horrible thing, that in the House of God, and in that place of his House, which they called the Chair of Truth, men should deliver such things as either they did not know to be true, or did know to be false.  
But you will say we must be distinguished from the Scottish Presbyterians; they and we are not all of a mind. For they, for instance, believed Ruling Elders to be Jure Divino, but I knew few in England, saith this Writer, if any, that held that Office so; save only in a large sense, i. e. lawful and not contrary to God's Word 
l See p. 141. . Goodly! he knew few or none; therefore there were none here in England that held Lay-Elders to be of Divine right. This is his reasoning (for he satisfies a question by these words) and a rare one it is, built altogether upon his own Ignorance. For we know not a few but many who were of this opinion. And if he had not been negligent where he was concerned, and busy where he needed not have meddled, he might have more easily known the mind of the English than of the Scottish Presbyterians. He, being one of that Party, should have here known one would think better than I, that the London Ministers and Elders met in a Provincial Assembly, Novem. 2. 1646. put forth a Vindication of the Presbyterial Government. In the very Title Page of which, they set this down among the Contents of the Book, that the Ruling Elder is by Divine Right; and that it is the will of Jesus Christ, that ALL SORTS of persons should give an account of their Faith, to the Ministers and Elders before admission to the Supper of the Lord. Which is more, I hope, than not being repugnant to God's Word. In like manner the Lancashire Ministers of the first Classis at Manchester declared after this 
m An. 1657. in the Book called Excommunicatio Excomm. p. 46. , that they could not consent to part with the Ruling Elder, unless they should betray the truth of Christ, Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. These are the places they allege to prove the Divine Authority of this new Order of Ecclesiastical Officers. By which you may see that I said they are Changelings with more reason, than this Apologist had to excuse them from it: For I wrote from what I knew, and He from what he knew not. But there is another thing which he apologises for after the same manner, in the very language of his predecessor Philagathus, whom he was ashamed to own. The horrid Murder of his late Majesty, saith this Writer, was never undertaken (that I know of) to be justified by any Minister in Print, but by J. G. that great Goliath and Champion of the Arminians, p. 74. It is very likely that he is ignorant of this, as well as of other matters: but he must excuse us if we know more of these men, and such as were none of J. G.'s Disciples. There was one L.S. for instance, whom I have read, who maintains that desperate Fact, in a Book called Nature's Dowry, or The People's Native Liberty Asserted. It was not Printed till the Year 1652. but written (as he tells us in the Epistle) three year before (just upon the King's Murder) on occasion of a Question propounded to him by a Member of Parliament and Committee of State. In the first Chapter he determines; Should any one (it is easy to know whom he means) by a reserved and merciless obstinacy be shut up and barricadoed against the Law, Counsel, and Prayers; I see not but a people may warrantably go about to break such a one, seeing he will not be bended by reason. But look farther and you will find this to be the Title of the tenth Chapter, That Kings agreeable to the Law of God, may in some cases be forcibly resisted by their Subjects, and likewise deposed. In some cases indeed, he resolves, it may be the prudence of the people to pardon their Prince, not observing his stipulation, but their promise is out of date, and cannot bind them to further subjection. Nay, he saith, A people whose Ancestors have for themselves and their posterity either gratis, or upon inconvenient Articles promised subjection and obeisance to any one and his Heirs, may lawfully renounce the engagement and cast off the Yoke. And at the end of that Chapter citys the Vote of Parliament at the beginning of the Wars to justify his Doctrine, That if the King raised Forces against the Parliament, he forfeited his Trust. But proceed further to the next Chapter, and you will find he comes home to the business, and determines, That Kings may render themselves obnoxious to the penalty of death, according to the Law of God, in some cases to be inflicted by public Authority, in others by private men. This is the Title of the Chapter. And immediately he betakes himself to that very Scripture upon which Mr. J. Goodwin grounded his whole discourse: For the Chapter gins thus. That Law, Gen. 9, 6. Who so sheds man's Blood, by man shall his Blood be shed: reaches all the Sons of Noah, Princes themselves, though they be taller than their Brethren by the head and shoulders. And he explains it thus; Whether he shed it by himself, or by the Ministry of some other; whether a stranger or a neighbour, whether alone, or with the help of others, he is a Son of Death: no mortal is excused by his greatness. And adds, most ridiculously, Plato is very Orthodox in this point; and concludes that Princes in some other cases are liable to capital punishment to be inflicted by private men. As if a Prince attempt to murder another, that person invaded may lawfully kill him in his own defence, nay, is bound by the sixth Commandment to do it, rather than suffer himself to be murdered. The rest of the Book is an answer (after a strange fashion) to those places of Scripture which are brought (as he speaks) for the impunity of Tyrants. I will mention but one of his desperate devices, which you may find in the 18 Chapter to excuse David's sparing of Saul. It is not impossible (you see the stile wherein they deceived the people and put off their Ware) that David's interest might insensibly bias him into a tender care of the King. However, this he determines, That either David sinned in sparing of Saul, or else his clemency was warranted by some precept, or permission, which is not extant in Scripture; and which in all probability was peculiarly given to David. Here is enough to show what Divines have come out of their School, and how readily they can suppose a Divine Precept for any thing they have a mind to, though there be not the least foot-step of it in Holy Writ. If he be not satisfied, but hath a list to stir further in this business (which he had better never have touched) I will furnish him with more, whom I am unwilling to mention. Let me only add that they were the Presbyterian Principles, out of which the Independent Army drew their worst Conclusions. The discourse of this man now named is bottomed upon this Maxim, that the People are the Original of Power. A doctrine asserted in another Catechism 
n Politic Catechism, Licenced by Mr. White, May 20. 1643.  of yours, & Licenced by a known person, of the highest esteem (as I can prove) among you. And this consequence is thence drawn from it, That whatsoever the people have not expressly granted, they keep to themselves: The King must produce his Grant, and not the people show their reservation, for all is presumed to be reserved, which cannot be proved to be granted. Which being once supposed, he is stark blind, I think, who sees not the unavoidable consequence of all the mischief that ensued. And to speak freely, he that considers, saith a History 
o History of the English Scottified Presbytery, written in French, 1650. translated, 1659.  in those days, The terms to which the King was held, even when the Presbyterians had the better end of the staff (as that he should not dispose of the Militia, of the Officers of the Crown, of his Children, have no Negative Vote, etc.) will conclude that he was only left to his choice, whether he would be destroyed by his Enemies, or by his own proper Act. For if he condescended not to these demands, being then in their hands that made them, the least he could expect was to be deposed, and if he granted them, he deposed himself. Nay, he that considers how all along they supposed they were his Superiors, to whom he was accountable, will clearly discern, that it was upon the Presbyterian Principles that the Independents built their conclusions. And if it were lawful for them to wrest out of his hands, the Sword of the Militia, and to use it against him, it was no less lawful, thought the other, to employ the Sword of Justice against him. At least after they had taken from him his Sword, his Revenues, his Servants, his Children, the liberty of his Person, and, which is more, of his Conscience, they left the Independents but one step further to go, which was to take away his life: and all that in which they surpassed the others was, that they gave the last blow to him. All which I have remembered, not to load any man with reproaches, but to make them all humble in consideration of their past miscarriages (to say no worse) whereof I truly hope many of them repent. The latter day is the scholar of the former: and no man is too old to learn; especially the amendment of his faults. Which the more ingenuously he confesses, and the less he defends, the more likely he is to become a new man. I should have been glad to have seen something of this in this Apologist, which would better have becomed him than to talk of Noli me tangere's in my Book, and to hunt about for excuses of all things, nay, to waste his time in impertinent reflections on others, in stead of acknowledging or taking off the blame from themselves. J. G. he tells you, who justified the King's Murder, was the Great Goliath and Champion of the Arminians. What of all that, I pray you? what affinity hath Arminius his Doctrine with King-killing, or what Antidote is there in Mr. calvin's against it? I never heard the former taxed with any thing of this nature, though there is a dangerous passage in the last Chapter of Mr. calvin's institutions 
p Num. 31 ; which many have observed, if the three orders of a Kingdom have such a power of Kings as he thinks, it is possible, they may have. And yet I believe a man may be a Calvinist (as they speak) and be a good subject, and of the contrary persuasion, and be a bad: those things wherein they differ having nothing to do with this matter. But he was resolved to have a fling at the Arminians (whom he thinks to hit, I cannot tell: me he doth not hurt, who belong to neither of those parties) nay, he touches this difference I know not how oft, in his Apology; though I gave him no occasion for it: loving, lapwing-like, to make the most pewing and crying when he is farthest from his nest. He should rather have minded what I cited out of Mr. Calvin, whom I perceive he favours more than the other, concerning the points in debate between us. I told you his thoughts of Schism, and I could add a great deal more (out of other places of his works) of the great dread he was in of this sin; of the dislike he expressed that Bish. Hooper should contend so much about a Cap and a Surplice; and of his opinion about Humane Traditions; but that I should then digress too far out of the way, and prevent myself in that which remains of this Apology.  
Let us therefore return back to it, and, that you may be more wary hereafter in trusting these men, let me mind you of as notorious a Calumny, as ever I read, wherewith he asperses some Members of this Church. You will find it in his Preface, p, 11. where he saith, I cannot but own my utter dislike of the Principles and Practices of some high Conformists, or Hector's for Conformity; namely, such as prefer the Romish Church before the Reformed transmarine Churches; Arminius before St. Austin; who judge Aerius a greater Heretic than Arius; who have more charity for those that deny the Deity of our Saviour, than for those that scruple the strict Jus Divinum. of Episcopacy; and who can with more patience bear a dispute against the very being of a Deity, than about the taking away of a Ceremony, etc. This is the language not of the bold blades, but of a modest Presbyterian, of one that uses hard reasons and soft words, if you will believe himself in the very leaf before-going 
q Preface p 9 . Whatsoever charity they have for us, their good words shall never be wanting to themselves. They will call themselves humble and modest, whatsoever they say or do: Though they blush not to defend themselves by injuring any body, nor fear to cast reproaches on whomsoever, that for defence of the truth stand in their way. For every part of this Charge is a vile slander, and some of it is confuted, you shall see, by himself. Which that I may demonstrate, let me tell you,  
In the first place, that it is no Hectorism to assert the Divine Right of Episcopacy in the strictest sense. This is no upstart opinion, broached by some swaggering hot-brained men, who love to rant and vapour beyond other Folk (which is the proper quality of a Hector) but hath been anciently believed in this Church, from the very beginning of the Reformation, and maintained by the soberest men in it. I know they would have you to think otherwise, and have endeavoured to persuade the World that it is a novel Doctrine advanced of later times by some proud and haughty Divines. Mr. Robert Baily made bold to say that before Bishop bancroft's time, the Bishops did unanimously deny Episcopacy to be of Divine Right 
r Reply to fair warning p. 49. Printed at Delf, 1649 . And the Letter to Dr. Samuel Turner, Printed 1647. will not allow it to be so Ancient; but affirms (p. 3.) that it is an opinion but lately countenanced in England, and that by some of the more Lordly Clergy. He means, I think, Archbishop Laud, as some since have explained it. But both the one and the other of these, talked at random, out of their own imaginations, not from Historical observation. Archbishop Whitgift, and Bishop Bilson, as the Answer to that Letter suggests, were both of a contrary persuasion. And I can name a Divine of their Opinion elder than either, and much reverenced even by the Presbyterians, who was offered a Bishopric also, but refused it: And that is Old Bernard Gilpin, who left the World that very year in which Bishop Whitgift was advanced to the See of Canterbury, 1583. For when Mr. Cartwrights book was newly come forth, a certain Cambridge man, who seemed a very great Scholar, came to this famous Preacher, and dealt very earnestly with him about the Discipline and Reformation of the Church. But Mr. Gilpins' answer was, That he could not allow that any Humane invention should take place in the Church in stead of a Divine Institution. How, said the man, do you think that this Form of Discipline is an Humane Invention? I am, said Mr. Gilpin, altogether of that mind; And as many as diligently turn over the Writings of the Fathers will be of my opinion. O but the later men, replied the Disciplinarian, see many things which those ancient Fathers saw not; and the present Church seems better provided of many ingenious and industrious men. At which Mr. Gilpin, saith my Author 
s Life of Bernard Gilpin, Edit. 4. 1636. p. 106, 107, etc.  seemed somewhat moved, and answered; I, for my part, do not hold the virtues of the later men to be compared to the Infirmities of the Fathers. Which words he used on purpose, because he perceived this young man had a strong conceit of I know not what rare virtues in himself; which opinion the good old man was desirous to root out of him.  
But there is an Authority ancienter than all these, viz. The Form and Order of making and consecrating Bishops, etc. confirmed by Act of Parliament. In which three things are considerable; The very first words of the Preface are, That, it is evident to all men reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests; and Deacons. Then secondly, the Prayer after the Litany at the Consecration of a Bishop, gins in this manner: Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, etc. (which must needs be understood of those before named) And, lastly, the first question to the person to be Consecrated is, Are you persuaded that you be called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ? To which the Answer is, I am so persuaded. Put now all these together and you will not be able to conceive (as the Answer to the Letter 
t page 12, 13.  observes) how these words should fall from any men not possessed with this Tenet, that Episcopacy is of Divine Right, in the strictest sense. For if God by his holy Spirit hath appointed divers Orders of Ministers in the Church; and we may find evidently by Scripture and ancient Writers that there are three Orders, whereof Bishops the highest; and this is made the ground of praying for the Bishop to be Consecrated; and he must profess he is persuaded that he is called to that Ministration according to Christ's will, than Episcopacy (in the opinion of those who composed and confirmed this Book) is in such a manner according to Christ's Will, that it is grounded in Scripture, and appointed by the Spirit of God; and all this hath not been said only of late, nor countenanced only by some few, and those of the more Lordly Clergy.  
2. For which cause, no man ought to be disgraced with any odious name, much less be called an Hector, who is now of the same Persuasion. The most illustrious persons that have been in our Church, men far from that boisterous humour, have declared themselves for this Doctrine, and doubted not but they could maintain it. I need instance in no more than two: Bishop Andrews, whose mind is well known from his three Letters to Peter du Moulin, 1618. 
u Translated and Printed, 1647.  to which I refer you: and the late Bishop Sanderson, whom the best of you have spoken of with honour and reverence. He declares his opinion to be that Episcopal Government is not to be derived merely from Apostolical Practice or Institution, but that it is originally founded in the Person and Office of the Messiah, our blessed Lord Christ 
x Postscript to Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal Power. , who being sent by his Father, afterward sent his Apostles to execute the same Apostolical, Episcopal, Pastoral Office, for the Ordering and Governing of his Church till his coming again: and so the same Office to continue in them and their Successors to the end of the World. But suppose all our Churchmen had been silent, or that they are of no esteem with our Adversaries, yet since this Opinion of the Divine Right of Episcopacy hath been asserted by other Divines whom they respect, it ought not to have been reproached. Bucer declares in his Book of the Kingdom of Christ (as I find him cited above 60 years ago 
y Regiment of the Church by Mr. Tho. Bell, chap. 9  just as our Book of Consecration doth, that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost that one, to whom the name of Bishop was peculiarly attributed) should take the care of the Churches, and preside over all the Presbyters. And nearer still to the very words of our Book, in his Treatise of the power and use of the Ministry, as he is alleged by Saravia. These Orders of Ministers have been perpetual in the Church, and were presently in the beginning appointed by the Holy Ghost, of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. He that will see more to this purpose may read Bishop Mortons' Episcopacy Asserted, Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Nay, this is the Language of Antiquity; and they may as well call St. Gregory of Nazianzum a Hector as any of us: For he sticks not to tell his Auditors in plain words, that he held his Office by the Law of Christ. You may find the passage in his seventeenth Oration 
z page 271.  where, after he had exhorted all the People to obedience, he turns his speech more particularly to the Rulers and Magistrates, ask them if they will give him leave to speak freely: As truly, saith he, I think I may, since the Law of Christ hath made you subject to my Power, and to my Tribunal.  
3. This you may think is very high: but I must let you know they who seem to lay their claim lower, and speak in a more humble stile (as some love to call it) differ but in a verbal nicety: in the different manner of expressing the same thing, rather than in their different judgement upon the substance of the matter. So that excellent Bishop, lately mentioned (Dr. Sanderson) hath clearly resolved 
a Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal Power, p. 12, 13. . For sometimes this term Divine Right imports a Divine Precept (which is the first and most proper signification) when it appeareth by some clear express, and peremptory Command of God in his Word, to be the Will of God that the thing so commanded should be perpetually and universally observed. And that the Government of the Church by Bishops is of Divine Right in this stricter sense is an Opinion, saith he, at least of great probability, and such as may more easily and on better grounds be defended than confuted. But they that choose to speak otherwise, understand by Divine Right, an Authority for a thing from the Institution, Example, or Approbation either of Christ, or of his Apostles, etc. which is a secondary meaning of the term, but not much distant from the former. For the Observation of the Lords Day depends on this Divine Right; and there is as much to show (as he saith p. 19) if not more, for such a Divine Right of Episcopacy, as for the Divine Right of that day. So that whosoever they be that either wave the term Divine Right, or else so expound it as not of necessity to import any more than an Apostolical Institution; Yet the Apostles Authority 
b Ib. page 39, 40.  in the Institution of Episcopacy, being warranted by the Example, and (as they doubt not) by the direction of their Master Jesus Christ, they worthily esteem to be so reverend and obligatory; as that they would not for a world have any hand in, or willingly and deliberately contribute the least assistance towards the extirpation of that Government; but rather hold themselves obliged in their Consciences, to the utmost of their power, to endeavour the preservation and continuance of it in these Churches, and do hearty wish the restitution and establishment of the same wheresoever it is not, &c,  
Now that Episcopacy is of such institution, and so of Divine Right, he further adds 
c v. Ib. p. 18. , is in truth a part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England, and hath been constantly and uniformly maintained by our best Writers [mark these words] and by all the Sober, Orderly, and Orthodox Sons of the Church.  
This is sufficient to show that there ought to be no such distinction made, as we find in this man, between high and low Conformists: since all have spoken to the same effect, and yet were no Swashbucklers, but, in this great persons opinion, the Sober, Orderly, and Orthodox Sons of the Church.  
4. But let us suppose there is some difference, yet they that have spoken the highest words of Episcopacy never thought Aerius a greater Heretic than Arius, nor had more Charity for those that deny our Saviour's Deity, than for those that scruple the strict Jus Divinum of Episcopacy. No, this is a suggestion from the Father of lies, the Calumniator of the Brethren, and seem to me to be the words of one whose tongue is set on fire of Hell. For though our best Divines have called it the Heresy of Arius 
d Doctor Crackenthorp, Defence. Eccl. Anglicanae, p. 241, 242 , to affirm that there ought to be no imparity in the Church, or distinction between Bishops and Presbyters; and determined that this imparity was instituted and approved by the Apostles; yet they have declared withal, that they who think as Aerius did, are so far from being in a worse case than Arius was, that they are not in so bad. Let but obstinacy and perverseness be wanting, it will be no Heresy; and if it be Heresy (being about a point of Discipline) it will not be among those which St. Peter calls damnable Heresies 
e Bishop Andrews 3. Letter, p. 56, 57 . These are the words of one who was as vehement an Assertor of the Divine Right of Episcopacy, as any hath been (and there are none among us but will subscribe to them) who is so far, you see, from making Aerius a greater Heretic than Arius, that his words plainly make him less.  
5. But these perhaps are such Hectorly Divines, you may think, that they mind not what they say: so belike, if it be true which he says just before, that they prefer Arminius before St. Austin. A very strange humour! that these high Episcopal men should set a Presbyterian Divine above a great Bishop. But suppose, upon other scores, they should be so fantastical, yet this part of his accusation will contradict the calumny next before it, namely, that they prefer the Romish Church before the Reformed Transmarine Churches. How can that be, when the Arminians are among those Reformed Churches, for whom it seems they have such a great affection; and when the Pope himself, as every one knows that understands these matters, is against the Divine Right of Bishops? nay declared, when time was 
f Letter to his Legate in the Council of Trent. See p. 646. Engl. Edit. 1629.  that the opinion which makes them hold by that Title, is false and erroneous? But not to leave the least speck of his dirt sticking on us (which he blushes not to throw in our faces once more, p. 34.) you may know that the very same Bishop newly mentioned wipes it all off himself, by clearing and excusing the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas from sinning against the Divine Right, though they had no Bishops whom he thought to be of Divine Right in the strictest sense. I said no such thing (as his words are) 
g Bishop Andrews Letter to du Moulin, Ib.  but only this, that your Churches wanted something that is of Divine Right. Wanted, not by your fault, but by the iniquity of the times; for that your France had not your Kings so propitious at the Reformation of your Church, as our England had. In like manner the late Primate of Ireland, Bishop Bramhall excuses those in the Reformed Churches, who, as I told you, either had a desire, or but an esteem of Episcopacy, though they could not enjoy it. And as for a third sort who were so far from either of those, that they condemned it as an Antichristian Innovation, and a rag of Popery, whereby they became guilty, he thought, of most gross Schism materially, he saith thus much may be alleged to mitigate their fault; That they do it ignorantly 
h Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 71, 72. , as they have been mis-taught, and misinformed; and I hope that many of them are free from obstinacy, and hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds, because ready to receive it when God shall reveal it to them. Nay, Dr. Heylin himself (whom this man thinks so fierce) makes an Apology for their Ministers not being Ordained by Bishops at the first Reformation; there being he thinks a necessity for it; as you may read in his History of Episcopacy, p. 164. And lastly, a famous person now alive this Apologist citys afterward against his own self. Master Thorndike I mean, who he acknowledges 
i page 10. , hath a charity for the Churches beyond the Seas, though wanting Bishops, whom he doubts not to be of Divine Right. But he might have had recourse to a better place of his works for this purpose, than that which he hath produced. For he handles this question at large in his Book of the Rights of the Church 
k p. 194, 198. , where he excuses their necessity, and concludes at last out of the abundance of his Charity, that some excuse is to be made for those who have created this necessity to themselves by their own false persuasion. Let this man therefore do open penance for his sin in laying such foul things to the charge of the men of the high Prelacy, as he in scorn calls them, p. 35. And let him forbear if he can to say hereafter, That there is just cause to fear that some among us have a greater Charity for the Church of Rome, than the Presbyterians 
l page 34. : And to intimate that the high Conformists are warping from the Doctrine of the Church of England, and lean more to that of Trent: 
m p 80, 81.  For these are only old Calumnies now revived; I wish it be not to serve the Good Old Cause. We were told before the War that the Bishops were leaned toward Popery, nay, were driving fast toward Popery. And no sooner was it begun, but our neighbours were born in hand, that we had a company of half Papish Bishops 
n Dialogue between an Englishman & a Neatherlander, written in Low-Dutch, and translated into English, 1643. p. 7. ; nay that they were altogether Papists, one and the same brood with the Jesuits 
o p. 8. 16. , and intended to bring Popery into England: all which they affirmed was as clear as the bright noonday 
p page 10.  For to this end (saith this impudent Libel) they had stripped all the Assemblies of their faithfullest Preachers, and used many other means to banish wholly all saving knowledge out of the Kingdom, that so they might the better draw the people to Popery. From which considerations, the Author desires the Lords and Inhabitants of the United Netherlands 
q In the Dedicatory Epistle.  not to assist the King; for if he prevailed, the Government would be altered; Religion suppressed, the Bishops restored and put in force their Popish Canons. And all this I must tell you, was writ by a Presbyterian (a modest Gentleman no doubt, otherwise called a shameless liar) as appears by this passage, p. 37. where he saith, Our whole Nation is by the coming in of the Scots (before the War) yet more confirmed that they were led by God's Spirit.— What was the woeful issue of those suggestions we all know, though there was nothing of truth in them; as appeared by the stout opposition against the common enemy which some of those very men made, who (besides their other sufferings) had lain as deep under the suspicion of being Popishly affected, as any other of their Brethren whosoever 
r See Bishop sanderson's preface to 1. Volume of Serm. Sect 17. . And what they now intent that begin again to buzz the same tale in the people's ears, we are not so doltish as not to understand, and, when opportunity shall serve, they will more openly declare. Then you may hear the complaints renewed (which he remembers out of Mr. Fuller his Church-History) of Popery, Arminianism, Socinianism, and what not? You may hear an Accusation against a Minister (as the same Historian tells us there was on his own knowledge) 
s Book the 11. page 224.  merely for using the Gloria Patri, though in all things else he conformed to the Directory.  
6. In which case truly, there might have been some colour to charge the Accusers as more zealous for their Directory than for our Saviour's Deity: But to impeach any of us as more concerned for the Divine Right of Bishops than for the Divine Nature of our Lord the great Bishop of our souls, is a boldfaced calumny, for which there is no pretence at all. And yet he thinks he hath not said enough: for he tells you further, that these High Conformists or Hector's can with more patience hear a Dispute against the very being of a Deity, than about the taking away of a Ceremony. Which is the very highest strain of railing that the wit of a modest Presbyterian can invent. But to what pitch the more impudent may reach, who can tell? They may say that these Conformists are perfect Atheists, since they are already, it seems, such Fools as to bear more meekly with those who go about to Dethrone the object of all worship, than with those who only pluck away a Ceremony of it, Dull Asses! how should their Ceremonies stand, if the very sense of a Deity fall down? If he can find me any such Beasts as these, I shall easily believe the worst that he or his Complices can say of them. But the truth is, he is only disgorging his stomach all this while, and now, as I said, is come to the last strain, which brings up the foulest stuff of all. For the highest words that the highest Sons, or Fathers of this Church (to use his phrase) have spoken concerning Ceremonies are these 
t Bishop Bramhall 〈◊〉 his Romphaea, chap. 11. p. 234. : That they are advancements of Order, Decency, Modesty, and Gravity in the Service of God; expressions of those heavenly desires and dispositions, which we ought to bring along with us to God's House; adjuments of Attention and Devotion: furtherances of Edification; visible Instructors; helps of Memory; exercises of Faith; the shell that preserves the kernel of Religion from contempt; the leaves that defend the blossoms and the fruit. But the very same person who wrote all this immediately adds, that if they grow over thick and rank, they hinder the fruit from coming to maturity, and then the Gardener plucks them off. When Ceremonies become burdensome by excessive superfluity, or unlawful Ceremonies are obtruded, or the substance of Divine Worship is placed in Circumstances, or the Service of God is more respected for Humane Ornaments, than for the Divine Ordinance; it is high time to pair away excesses, and reduce things to the ancient mean. So our Church hath done; between whom and the Roman Church there is as wide a difference in this regard, as between the hearty expressions of a faithful friend, and the mimical gestures of a fawning flatterer: or between the unaffected comeliness of a grave Matron, and the fantastical paintings and patchings, and powdering of a garish Courtesan. And whereas this man would have you believe that there are those who are so enamoured of these few Ceremonies, that they even dote upon them; nay, have set their hearts upon them more than upon Almighty God himself. Another great Prelate 
u Bishop sanderson's Preface to the first Volume of Serm. sect. 12. An. 1657.  hath declared, That he knew no true Son of the Church of England, that doteth upon any Ceremony: whatsoever opinion they have of the decency or expediency of some of them. Nor doth this Gentleman, I have reason to believe, know such an one at this day. For they have been told a thousand times over (as that Bishop proceeds) 
x Ib. sect. 13.  in the Sermons and Writings of private men (as well as in the Public Declaration of our Church) that we place no necessity at all in these things, but hold them to be merely indifferent. 2. That when for Decency, Order, or Uniformity sake any constitutions are made, there is the same necessity of obeying such constitutions, as of obeying other Laws made for the good of the Commonwealth concerning any other indifferent thing. And 3. That this necessity, whether of the one or of the other, arises not properly from the Authority of the immediate Lawgiver, but from the Ordinance of God who hath commanded us to obey the Ordinances of men for his sake. And, to add no more, 4. That such necessity of Obedience notwithstanding, the things remain in the same indifferency as before; every way as to their Nature, and even in respect of us, thus far, That there is a liberty left for men upon extraordinary and other just occasions, sometimes to do otherwise than the constitution requires, when there is no scandal nor contempt in the case. A liberty which we dare not either take ourselves, or allow to others in things properly and absolutely necessary. Upon which very account (I mean the consideration of the indifferency of the things in themselves) and upon this alone it was that those who did most sadly resent the voting down of Liturgy, Festivals, and the Ceremonies of the Church, did yet so far yield to the sway of the times, as to forbear the use thereof in public Worship. Which is a direct answer to that which this Apologist talks of, about our omission of things required by Law in the late times. p. 128. And he may find more full satisfaction, if he be disposed, in the same Bishops seventh Sermon to the people 
y First Volume of Sermons in Folio. page 390. ; where he shows, that since the obligation to those doth not spring from the things themselves, nor immediately and by its proper virtue from the constitution of the Magistrate, but by consequence only, and by virtue of that Law of God which commands to obey them; thereby a liberty is left in cases extraordinary, and of some pressing necessity, not otherwise well to be avoided, to do sometimes otherwise: these two things provided. First, that a man be driven thereto by a true real, and not by a pretended necessity only: and secondly, that in the manner of doing he use such Godly discretion as neither to show the least contempt of the Law in himself, nor to give ill example to others to despise Government, or Governors.  
7. This is the sum of what our Churchmen, high and low (as he is pleased to distinguish them) have declared about Ceremonies. O but, saith the Apologist, why then will you not consent to a change, nay, a laying aside all those Ceremonies, since you do not make them necessary in themselves? Let them be removed whether nocent or innocent, as they have been out of other Reformed Churches. page 18. This he is at again, page 131. and propounds this as a good means to keep the people from grieving and vexing the Magistrate by the breach of his Laws: Remove the Law, saith he, and where there is no Law, there is no Transgression, p. 133. very right; nor is there any obedience. He hath found out a rare way for the Magistrate to ease himself wholly of his Office, by letting the people do as they will, and govern him. For when they please to scruple any other Laws, he must repeal them too, according to this wise advice, unless he will be vexed and grieved with the clamours and disobedience of his people, who will not be contented unless, in effect, they make Laws for themselves. King James indeed in his Proclamation in the first year of his Reign, March 5. admonishes all men hereafter, not to expect, nor attempt so much as any further change in the common and public Form of God's Service, from that which was then established. For which he there gives such substantial reasons, that my Lord Bacon 
z Cahala, page 42.  makes it his request to the Duke of Buckingham to read that excellent Proclamation, as he calls it; And if at any time there should be the least motion made for innovation, to put the King in mind to read it himself; for it is most dangerous in a state to give ear to the least alteration in Government. But it is all one for that; no matter what the King said, or any one else, they have been ever since, and are not merely for alterations, but for abolishing and removals, or else there will be no peace. I am hearty sorry for it; since even those whom they call the most moderate Prelates, have declared the removal of that which is well settled to be so dangerous, as that it is not safe to remove an inconvenience, the remedy of which may open a gap to let in others that may prove greater and more grievous. Not only Bishop Sanderson 
a Episcopacy not prejudicial, etc. p 99 100 , but Bishop Hall likewise is of the mind, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a sure Rule: Let the ancient customs stand: Every novelty carries his Petition in the face of it 
b Bishop Hall's Sermon● 2 Sund●● Lent, 1641▪ p. 80. . It was a good question of the Church in the Canticles, Why should I be as one that turns aside to the flocks of the Companions? It is the great and glorious stile of God, that in him is no shadow of changing: Surely those well settled Churches and States come nearest to his perfection, that altar least. But if with Lipsius you say; what if for the better? I must answer, that in every change there is a kind of hazard: It is a wise word therefore of our Hooker, that a tolerable Sore is better than a dangerous Remedy. And if any one say these words are not to be extended to Ceremonies, let him consult a Letter of his to Mr. Struthers 
c One of the Ministers of Edinburgh. , whom he desires to consider how far it is safe for a particular Church to departed from the ancient Universal. Surely no Kingdom can think it a slight matter, what the Church diffused through all times and places hath either done or taught. For Doctrines or Manners there is no question; and why should it be more safe to leave it in the Holy Institutions that concern the outward form of God's Service? Novelty is a thing full of envy and suspicion; and why less in matters of Rite than Doctrine? True it is, every Nation hath her own Rites, Gestures, Customs, and yet there are some wherein there hath been an Universal Agreement. As every face hath its own favour, it's own lines distinct from all others, yet is there a certain common habitude of countenance, and disposition of the forehead, eyes, cheeks, lips, common to all. So as they that under pretence of difference shall go about to raise an immunity from such Ceremonies, do no other than argue, that because there is a diversity of proportion of faces, we may well want a brow or a chin. He instances in the ancient custom of Solemn Festivities, and of kneeling at the Holy Sacrament. By all which it appears that one may be against a removal of the Ceremonies, and yet be no Hector, no more than He, or Bishop Sanderson, or Mr. Hooker 
d See ●●e Preface to his fifth part of Eccles. Pol.  were. And these men, I must tell you, have the least reason to complain (or give such Characters as this Apologist hath done) of those, whom they call rigid or stiff, Fathers or Sons of the Church of England (they are his own words, p. 34.) who were so unyielding themselves in every thing which they had a mind to have established. Nay, some of whom heretofore were so fierce for their own inventions, that every nicety seemed as if it were a Fundamental: and, if King James may be believed 
e Basilicon Doron cited in second Fair Warning, cap. 1. p. 8.  the smallest questions about their Ecclesiastical Discipline raised as great Disputes, as if the Holy Trinity were called in question.  
It would be only to tyre you and myself to proceed any further to anatomise the rest of this vile Character; the stench of which is already so offensive; Nor is there any need to spend any more time about it; for the bare reciting of it, will proclaim it to be a Libel, and an infamous one too; unless you can believe, that the chiefest Sons of the Church (as they profess themselves) descent from its Doctrine, transgress its Laws about Rites and Ceremonies, look upon the Archbishop's Grindal, Whitgift, and Abbot, as Puritans, and would unbishop some of the present Bishops for Presbyterians. Who would think that a Book fraught with such language as this, should be commended for a sober, modest Reply, by some of chief note among them? Such men would have made excellent Parasites, altogether as good as that Cynaethus, who, when he had spent all other ways of Flattery, praised his Master for his Phthisic, and said, he caught very musically. Their Favourites may say and write what they please, and still maintain the Reputation of godly men; nay, that which in us would be thought a Crime, is commended in one of themselves, as I have formerly shown you. That very Person who accuses another of writing Pasquil's, is not afraid to call several of the Bishops (as this man in effect doth some of our Priests) Amaziah-like Priests, Tyrants, ruffling, ceremonious, and violent Ringleaders 
f Anatome of Dr. G. 1660. . He declaims also against the Cathedral Service, reproaches the Dignified Clergy, and that after he had confessed in other parts of his Book, the Act of Indemnity had enjoined him silence 
g Antidote against Antisobrius, Oct 30. 1660. p. 15. 22, 25. . That which is bred in the bore, as we say, will not out of the flesh. This sort of men have ever been wont to revile, and so they cannot forbear it even when they know they should not, and that it is their interest to give good words. And if you will give me leave to speak my judgement freely, I think there is also in this very Writer, a great deal of that Hectorly swaggering quality, which he unjustly charges others withal. Witness that notable Vapour, and High Rant, page 28. where he tells you, the chief Quarrel of the high Hierarchists against the Presbyterian Ministers should in reason have been nothing but this, that they (who would have thought it?) were the first in bringing the King back. Which he joins with a new cluster of calumnies against many of the Bishops, and conforming Clergy: affirming (page 29.) that their own interest, it may be suspected, had a considerable influence into their Loyalty; and that they seem to express more and greater zeal against the Presbyterians than against the Regicides, etc. Who would not think, that reads this, that they were the men (who but they?) who kept life and heat in the King's Cause, and that the Episcopal men, many of them, were cold and indifferent? or that they were the sincere, the well-affected to his Majesty, and the others led by their own interest to follow the Presbyterian zeal for him? Nay, that they were the first movers towards the Kings Return, even before those that were always in motion, and never ceased their restless endeavours for it? O most glorious Apologist! He may tell us next, as the men of Judah said, The King is near of kin to us, for that is as true, as that they were the first in bringing him back. If he will stand to this, and not have it pass for a boast, but for a serious Truth; I will produce him the words of some of the heads of his party (which I had rather spare) that make it unlawful to attempt it. Whereby it will appear that they at least were not for bringing him in again, till they were forced to it, by those who would not let them keep him out.  
And now that he is in his Throne, methinks it is no great sign of the contentment they take in the change, that the Conventicles, which are so frequent and numerous on other days, are observed to be so few, if any, upon the day of this Kings Return, or upon the day of the former King's Death. Look about you, and consider all the private Meetings you know of on the Lords Day; How many did you ever know or hear of that will vouchsafe at the appointed times to bewail the horrid Murder of the Father, or to thank God for the happy Restauration of the Son? For my part, I have constantly observed, that those which come within my knowledge, do not assemble on those days at all; and many others have made the same Observation as well as myself.  
As for the other thing, the Conformists expressing more and greater Zeal against the Presbyterians than against the Regicides, and more frequently and more fiercely arraigning and condemning the Covenant, than the Engagement; the same Answer may serve which Bishop Sanderson gave to those who complained that the Visitation Sermons were more against the Puritans, than the Papists 
g Preface to 1 Vol. of Serm. Sect. 7. 8. 1657. . First, we say it is not altogether true: the Regicides have their share in the Public Sermons (of which I suppose he speaks) as well as their Fellows, as oft as the Text gives occasion, or the file of their Discourse leads the Preachers to it. And on those Days I mentioned, it is the General Complaint of your people that the Preachers speak too much against those King-killers and those Principles which led them to commit that Sin without Blushing. But, Secondly, admitting it to be true to a tittle, either our men are excusable in what they blame them for, or they that blame them inexcusable, who do the very same thing. Do they not usually (saith he) in their Sermons fall bitterly upon the Papists and Arminians, but seldom meddle with the Socinians, scarce ever name the Turks? I have been told often of their Declamations against the observing of Christmas, that great superstitious thing, but I remember not to have heard of much spoken against Perjury and Sacrilege, and some other Sins wherewith our times abound. Nay, did not their Zeal even against Popery itself seem to abate, when they had got most of the Pulpits into their Possession; at leastwise in comparison of the Zeal they shown against Episcopacy, the Liturgy, Festivals, and Ceremonies in use among us? These they cried down with all the Noise they could, and with all the Strength they had: But why I beseech you so zealous against them, which were (at the worst they could fancy them) but lesser Sins and Errors in comparison with those greater which now were little talked of? I doubt not but they had some reasons, wherewith to satisfy themselves for their so doing; and be they what they will, if they will serve to excuse them, they will serve as well to justify our men, should they do as they are charged. The best thing, I think, that can be alleged by a rational man for such a proceeding is this. That where people are more in danger to be seduced by a less Error or Sin (as it is conceived) than a greater, there more Pains and Zeal may be bestowed to keep them from that than from the other, that is in itself more dangerous. Thus our Saviour reproved the Scribes and Pharisees more frequently and with greater sharpness than he did the Sadducees, though in themselves, and in respect of their Matter, the Errors of the Sadducees were worse than those of the other; because the Pharisees by reason of their outside Holiness were grown into better esteem with the people than the Sadducees were, and the generality of the Jews were better principled against the gross Errors of the Sadducees, than the ensnaring Doctrines of the hypocritical Pharisees.  
All this is very good, and is the very Plea, which those may justly put in for themselves who express more and greater zeal against the Presbyterians than against the Regicides; and arraign the Covenant more frequently than the Engagement: there is more and greater need of it; the people being in more danger to be misled by the one than by the other; and having a greater abhorrence of those Crimes which are black and ugly, than of those which are gilded over with specious pretences.  
But this is not all the Hectorism he is guilty of; he makes a large boast of their great indulgence and charity towards Episcopal men when they had power, page 23. and desires me to Catechise myself why I charged them with rigour and severity without remembering their kindness to the Archbishop of Armagh, and many others, p. 151. I have obeyed him; and for this once shall tell him what my answer is (being ready if he long for it to tell him my mind in all the rest of those Questions.) If I had named their particular kindnesses to the Episcopal party, I must have remembered how that great person, as Dr. Bernard tells us 
h Clavi Trabales, p. 50. , was forced to fly from London to Oxford; what roughness he met withal from the Army then in field against the King, to the loss of some of his Books, and principal Manuscripts never recovered; how that maintenance was taken from him which had been settled on him by the King when he had lost all Ireland; and that at length being necessitated to return to London, he was Silenced a long time from Preaching, unless in a private house; and when with much ado he was permitted to Preach at Lincolns-Inn, it was that Honourable Society which gave him a competent maintenance. Well, but the English Bishops, saith the Apologist, had two hundred pound per annum allowed them by an Ordinance. Allowed? Voted he should have said, and that is true; by the same token that they could never get it. Hear Bishop Hall, who had a larger portion than that voted him, but, as he himself complains 
i Specialties of his Life writ by himself, , was never the better for it. Nay, the Committee for Sequestrations at London, saith he, sent to the Committee in the Country an express inhibition to pay any such Allowance; telling them that neither they nor any other Committee had power to allow him any thing at all. Nor could he get the fifth part which they said should be allowed his Wife. And, which is worse, they were not ashamed after they had sequestered the Profits of his Bishopric, sold all his Goods, and Personal Estate (not leaving so much as his children's Pictures out of their curious Inventory) 
k As he tells us there, p. 57 ☜  to come to him for Assessments and monthly Payments for that Estate which they had taken away; and took distress from him upon his most just denial. Nay, they vehemently required him to find the wont Arms of his Predecessors, when they had left him nothing, and a little before came and disarmed him. All this was over and above the many insolent affronts put upon him all this while, which you may read there if you please, page 62. which made that meek man conclude in these pathetical words 
l May 29. 1647. : This hath been my measure; wherefore I know not: Lord, thou knowest, who only canst remedy and end, and forgive or avenge this horrible oppression.  
O but Bishop Morton, adds the Apologist, did get a thousand pound. Right; but when did he get it, and by what means? This Gentleman might seasonably ask himself a cross question, Why he is pleased to remember this kindness, and not withal the rigour that preceded it? It would not have cost him or his Printer much pains to tell us, his barbarous usage in the Tumults at Westminster, when some cried, pull him out of his Coach; others, nay, he is a good man; others again, but for all that he is a Bishop. Which made him often say that he believed he should not have escaped alive, if a leading man among the rabble had not cried out, Let him go and hang himself 
m Doctor Barwick in his Life, p. 103. . Wonderful civility to such a reverend person! which was attended with ringing of Bells and making Bonfires upon their imprisonment, and with scattering abroad (as Bishop Hall tells us, p. 50.) scurrilous Pamphlets throughout the Kingdom, and in Foreign parts, which blazoned their infamy, and exaggerated their treasonable practices. He might have remembered also that after this first imprisonment (which, I gather from Bishop Hall, was from New-years-Eve till Whitsuntide) Bishop Morton was committed Prisoner again for six months more to their Sergeant. And what do you think it was for? Only for Baptising the Child of a Noble Person, according to the order of the Book of Common-Prayer 
n Ib. page 107. . From whence this Gentleman may learn that which it seems he never knew before (as you find page 24.) one that suffered for the use of the Liturgy. By these and such like means the good Bishop was reduced to great straits, and thereupon sued for some maintenance, and by the importunity of his Friends (which, I must tell you, and nothing else, brought the Primate into Lincolns-Inn) got the thousand pound this Apologist speaks of: not out of the Revenues of his Bishopric, but out of the Treasury of Goldsmiths-Hall, after all his Lands and Revenues were sold. Before this he had no allowance, and could not live upon a Vote for an annual maintenance, which making no mention by whom nor whence it should be paid 
o Ib. page 124. , was as good as no Vote at all. All which considered and many other things of like nature, Dr. Sanderson did not stick to write (and I hope he was no Slanderer) that in those days, They exercised an arbitrary Sovereignty without either Justice or Mercy 
p Episcopacy not prejudicial, etc. p. 51. .  
But was there not a fifth part, as the Apologist goes on, allowed for the maintenance of the Wife and Children of those Ministers that were ejected? No truly; it was only Voted, but seldom allowed. Bishop Hall's Wife, as you heard, could not obtain it; and others also not only went without that allowance, but had better been without the Vote too; which cost them dear, and proved the greatest cruelty. For they spent what they had left for a feeble support, in suing for that which they could never get; and sometimes that which was lent by their Friends was thrown away, by this means, after that which was taken from them. Hear the History of the English and Scotch Presbytery, chap. 25 
q Written in French by a Divine of the Reformed Church, translated 1659. . There is indeed, saith he, an Ordinance of Parliament, that the Wives and Children of ejected Ministers should have the fifth part of the Revenues of their Benefices, but it is very ill observed, for the new incumbents refuse to obey the Ordinance, constraining them to plead before Judges, their Adversaries; who instead of speedy relieving. them, delay them with length of time, and make them consume in Suits that which they borrowed to plead their cause. By this expense and delays these poor desolate persons are constrained to desist their prosecution; and many being ejected out of small Benefices, dare not present their Petitions for the fifths, because the expenses will amount higher than the Principal. You may read the rest there if you please, or if you suspect this Author of partiality, you may look into that Historian which this Apologist sometimes citys, Mr. Fuller I mean, who was none of the rigid Sons of the Church, I dare say, in his opinion: And he will inform you more distinctly 
r Book 11. p. 228, etc. , that though the Parliament ordered in the year 1644. that their Commissioners in the Country should appoint means (not exceeding a fifth part) to the Wives and Children of Sequestered persons, yet Clergymen not being expressed by name, they that enjoyed the Sequestrations refused to contribute to them. The complaints of this begat a new Order of the House of Commons, Die Jovis 11. Novemb. 1647. that the Wives and Children of Clergymen should be comprehended within the Ordinance that allowed the fifth part for Wives and Children, etc. But Covetousness, as he observes, found many little holes to wriggle out at. For if a Minister had a Wife without Children, or Children without a Wife, or but one Child, they denied them payment. Six other evasions besides these be there relates, to which I refer the Reader, by which the intention of the Parliament was deluded, and most of the poor souls who were in want received no benefit of that Ordinance: But rather, as I said, a great deal of mischief; while they were shuffled off with litigious and crafty tricks, and oppressed with charges, when they came to demand that small Alms which was granted them out of their Husband's Estates. What shall I say more? Mr. Bridges himself confesses their rigour to the poor Episcopal Clergy; for when the Converted Gentleman complains that many Learned, Religious, and Orthodox Divines were plundered, etc. While their Wives and Children begging their Bread are left to the mercy of those merciless times; He denies not a word of it, but answers roundly thus, There shall be Judgement merciless to him that shows no mercy. 2 Jam. 1.3. and a little after he repeats it again. believe it, Sir, you have been bloodily merciless, and the just God is now making Inquisition 
s Annotations on Loyal Convert. published by Authority. 1644. p. 17. . Nay, it was not the kindness of the Presbyterian Ministers that the Independent Brethren were suffered; but they sadly complain of it: as you may read in the Petition of the London Ministers to the House of Commons 
t Septemb. 18, 1644. , grounded upon the first Remonstrance of the Houses, [wherein they declared it was far from their purpose or desire to let lose the golden Reins of Discipline and Government in the Church, to leave private persons or particular Congregations to take up what Form of Service they please] and upon the Covenant, wherein they engaged themselves to be not only for a full Reformation, but an Uniformity in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government. This was received with great Acceptation, and the next year 
u Decemb. 18, 1645  the same Ministers agreed upon a Letter to the Assembly against Toleration, in the body of which they expressly call them, Reasons against the Toleration of Independency in this Church. The Common Prayer than you may be sure could not be tolerated by their good will, whatever this man says; nor were Dr. Gunning and the rest suffered at London and Oxford, till their Power was out of Doors. Whilst the Covenant was in Credit, it was severely forbid, and the King himself, had it been in their power, should not have had the privilege to use it. This Covenant also, though he would have us believe the contrary, was pressed with great Rigour. Look into our Church, saith Bishop Bramhall, 
x Replication to Bishop of Chalcedon. p. 40.  and see how many of our principal Divines have lost their Dignities and Benefices, only because they would not take a Schismatical Covenant, without any other relation to the Wars. I have read of a thousand imprisoned and sequestered upon this score, and near an hundred Fellows of Colleges in one Week banished Cambridge for refusing it. Nay, the Houses were so impartial (they are the express words of Mr. Pryn) 
y Fresh Discovery, etc. 1646. Sect. 3.  in the prescription of it, that such Members of the Lords or Commons that did but scruple the taking of it, were suspended the Houses till they did conform. Upon which ground he shows how unequal it was that any man should be privileged and exempted from it. And therefore I do not believe, that many of the Episcopal Persuasion were suffered to enjoy places in the Churches, Colleges, and Schools without ever taking the Covenant (as this Apologist affirms, p. 23.) unless he means, after it was laid aside, and the Sectaries (as they then spoke) not only obstinately refused it, but openly oppugned and derided it, nay, framed an Anticovenant against it in their private Congregations 
z Mr. Pryn. ib. . But it is no wonder he should write thus confidently, when Mr. R. Baily had the face to write, notwithstanding all this, that the Covenant was so far from being urged by fear of unjust suffering, that to this day it could never be obtained from the Parliament of England to enjoin that Covenant upon any by the penalty of a twopences 
a Review of the Fair Warning. p. 80. . No indeed, what need that? when the terms were, take it, or lose your Benefice. Just such another vapour he made (for these men are much given to it) in another place, affirming in a Sermon at the Hague, that not any thing had hitherto been objected against the Covenant. What could be more impudently spoken, when the Reasons of the University of Oxford had been published against it several years before; and testified the bold falsehood of what he saith also in his Epistle before the Review (where he would qualify the business a little) that to this day no man has showed any error in the matter of that Covenant? And indeed show what we will, it is all one, they will not regard it. They still retain, I see by this man, a wonderful affection for the Covenant, and cannot endure it should bear any blame. It was not, saith he, the Cause of the War. Why so? the Battle at Edgehil being fought before the Covenant came into England, p. 22. what of all that? The Covenant might notwithstanding be a great cause of the War, and I will prove it had a great hand in it. All the stirs in Scotland were by the means of it; they entering into it without the King's consent; obtruding 
b Large Declaration, p. 75, 199.  it with threatening, beating, tearing of ; turning men out of their Live, Excommunicating, Processing those that would not subscribe it; and binding themselves to a mutual assistance against all persons whatsoever. Upon which the King's Commissioner desired that they would add [Except the King and his Successors] but they refused it, and in their explication of the Covenant, which came out afterward, would add no such thing, but only that they would defend his Person and Authority in the Preservation and Defence of true Religion 
c Ib. p. 108, 109. . In that form it marched into England 
d What use the Ar●●y made of the clause, the Remonstrance about the Titary at the Isle of Wight will tell you. , whither the Spirit of it was come before, and had raised those Arms which might have been soon laid aside again, had it not been for the Covenant. For without the assistance of the Scots, the Parliament of England knew not how to carry on the War, and without the Covenant came along with them, or marched before them, they would not jog, or stir a foot: As appears by this Relation, which I find in the Second Fair Warning 
e By Rich. Watson, 1651. p. 178, 179. , sent from one well acquainted with the Affairs of his own Country. When the Commissioners, saith he, came down into Scotland from the Parliament of England, and a Letter they brought was read in the Assembly there, they received no other Answer but this: Gentlemen, we are sorry for your case; but whereas your Letter saith you fight for Defence of the Reformed Religion, you must not think us blind, that we see not your fight to be for civil disputes of the Law, which we are not acquainted withal. Go home, and reconcile with the King: He is a gracious Prince, and will receive you to his Favour. 
☞  You cannot say it is for the Reformed Religion, since you have not begun to reform your Church. You had thriven better if you had done as we did, begun at the Church. A few days after this, new Addresses being made, their Friends in the Assembly made this proposition, Will you join in Covenant with us to reform Doctrine and Discipline conform to this of Scotland? and ye shall have a better answer. The Reply was, thanks, and that they would represent their desires to the Parliament from whom they had no instructions for such an agreement. Nay, said the Assembly again, this will be loss of time, and the danger is great, the Parliament nor being able with all their forces to stand two months before the King; we will rather therefore draw up the Solemn League and Covenant here, and send up with you some Noblemen, Gentlemen, and Ministers that shall see it subscribed: which was accordingly done. The Covenant was cried up, the Scots came into England, and what did they come for? It was, saith the Preface to Mr. Knox his History to fight the Battles of the Lord, i. e. to pull down Episcopacy and to set up Presbytery in its room, according to the Covenant: which League and Covenant, saith Mr. Rutherford, was the first foundation of the ruin of the Malignant party in England 
f See Toleration Discussed, p. 117. , but not of Episcopacy, this Gentleman would have you believe; for it was declared in the Assembly that the Covenant did not bind against a Primitive Episcopacy, page 31. What they mean by a Primitive Episcopacy I will not stand to inquire; but this is well known, that the Three Ministers in their first answer to the Divines of Aberdeen, positively affirmed, That Episcopacy was not abjured by their Confession nor their Covenant 
g See Large Declara ion, p. 117. ; which was averred by many other Covenanters to those who otherways scrupled to enter into their Covenant. And I know that some declared the same in England; and yet notwithstanding nothing would satisfy but the extirpation of Episcopal power, and they laboured tooth and nail to settle the Government by Presbyters alone. This the people thought was the great end of the Covenant, and there is no doubt but the scope of the first contrivers of it was to destroy Episcopacy root and branch. This was their first work after the War was begun, to send a Commissioner to the English Parliament, 1642. to move them to cast out Bishops, [not a word of limiting them] and others to the King at Oxford to sign all propositions; which because he would not do, they resolve to assist their Brethren against him, under the name of the Common Enemy 
h Second Fair Warning, p. 185. . But before they came, they told the Commissioners of Parliament, as I showed you, they must covenant to reform Doctrine and Discipline conform to Scotland. And accordingly, the same Author informs me that, their Covenant came into England with such a clause as this, We shall reform our Church in Doctrine and Discipline conform to the Church of Scotland 
i Ib. p 383▪  of which the Independent Brethren cheated them, making that be razed out, and those words inserted which we now read in it. However the abolition of the Office of Bishops was their great demand of the King, as Mr. R. Baily expressly affirms: adding that the unhappy Prelates had found it to be their great demand from the beginning of our troubles unto this day 
k Review of fair Warning, 1649 chap. 12. p. 76.  And he plainly affirms that to deny them this satisfaction, was to conclude that the King himself and all his Family, and three Kingdoms should perish. Why so I beseech you? It could not be otherwise, notwithstanding all their fine words in the beginning, for they had sworn to root them out; and could not break their Covenant to save three Kingdoms. And therefore at last Mr. Baily persuades himself, the King did consent to abolish Name and Thing not only for three years but for ever. Strange! when his Majesty had so often clearly protested that he could not with a good Conscience consent to it. Did they force him at last to do it against his Conscience, or did they give him such satisfaction that he saw at last he might safely do it? Alas! we dull souls do not understand the mysteries which they can find in words. His Majesty consented to lay aside Bishops for three years, till he and his Parliament should agree upon some settled Order for the Church. Now this, saith he, was tantamount to for ever: it being supposed (mark the juggling) that they can never agree to admit Episcopacy again. Why so? For all and every one (saith he) 
l Ib. chap. last, p. 8●.  in both Houses having abjured Episcopacy by solemn Oath and Covenant (observe that) the Parliament could not agree with the King to erect the fallen Chairs of the Bishops; so there remained no other, but that either his Majesty should come over to their Judgement, or by his not agreeing with them, yet really to agree in the perpetual abolition of Episcopacy, since he had granted to lay aside Bishops till he and his Houses had agreed upon a settled Order in the Church. This was an admirable contrivance, especially if you call to mind, as the Answer tells him, how there was something else agreed, viz. that twenty Divines of his Majesty's nomination being added to the Assembly should have a free consultation and debate about the settlement of Church-Government after those three years or sooner, if differences could be composed. A very free Debate this was like to be, in which all Reasons that could be given for Episcopacy were shut out of doors, and concluded by an Oath to be put to silence. But why should I trouble myself any farther? The wider indeed the hole grows in the millstone, the clearer a man may see through it; but this man's Sophistry is visible enough already: nor needs there more words to show that this modest Braggadocio vaunts himself ridiculously in the merits of his party; and that Mr. Vicars and such like were not the only men that reviled and calumniated. They that pretend to humility, modesty, and seriousness cannot forbear it.  
But if you desire a farther taste of his Spirit, I pray have so much patience as to hear how he uses me. In the Preface he accuses me of railing, and in his Book (p. 2.) of reviling; without taking notice of one word that I have said in answer to these calumnies. They are resolved I see to be confident, and to have their saying, do, or say we what we can. For he tells you also of my jeering, scoffing, false accusation, and mocking; lightness and drollery; 
p 90. 92, 137.  but not a syllable to make good the charge. No, that was a hard thing, but very easy to say that I writ sometime, what might better become some Ecclesiastical Hudibras, or a Doctor of the Stage, than 
m p. 35.  etc. Just thus Mr. R. Baily was pleased to answer that excellent Bishop, which this man commends, Dr. Bramhall. Concerning the 8th. Chapter of whose Fair Warning, he saith, it much better beseemed a Mercurius Aulicus than either a Warner or a Prelate 
n Review, p. 48. . He charges him also with gathering together an heap of Calumnies, etc. though, as the Reply tells him, that heap was nothing else but a faithful Collection of Historical Narrations, which require not the credulity of the simple, but the search of diligent people, if they distrust them. The same I say for myself; they must be beholden to a new light, which no body can see but themselves, to make Historical truth to be a slander. They are fain to call it so, because they cannot tell how to answer it otherways, and they will not lay their hands on their mouths. If better were within, better would come out: they are fain to throw out such words, because they want a substantial Apology. The same Mr. Baily, I remember charges, the strength of one of the Bishop's Reasons to be black Atheism and much worse than Pagan Scepticism 
o Ib. 89. . By which you may see it is their manner to censure boldly, and tumble out frightful words, without regard to Truth. For if you would know what Doctrine it is, which he calls by the name of Brutish and Atheistical Maxims (that's another of his civil words, p. 90) it is this. That it is not lawful for Subjects to plant that which they apprehend to be true Religion by force of Arms: nor to take up Arms against their Prince merely for Religion. This was all the Bishop had said, and not without great reason. But they are Brutes or Atheists, divested of all Reason or Religion, who prefer not their Enthusiastical Heats before the most sober and wise Resolutions. They, as the Bishop speaks in the end of that Treatise, are more ridiculously partial than the men of China; for they talk as if they only had two eyes and all the rest of the world were stark blind.  
So one would think this Apologist supposed, when he thought to put us off with such a wretched Reply to what was objected from the Practices of the Old Nonconformists: who being silenced forbore to preach, and justified their silence against the Brownists, who accused them for their submission to the Ecclesiastical Censures. His Answer is, That the Number of the ejected Ministers then, was not comparable to what it is now. p. 6. Which is just like the Exposition, which they sometime gave of that Scripture. Rom. 13.1. I conceive, saith one, 
p Nature's Dowry. 1652. p. 31.  that those Christians who lived under the Heathenish Emperors, but wanted strength to defend themselves, were by that precept, [let every soul be subject to the higher powers] obliged to sit still, and to endeavour nothing against those that had the sword in their hands. For it would have discovered them to be of unruly Spirits, in that they proceeded wholly according to passion, and not according to sober judgement. So that there was nothing of Christian Virtue in their subjection, but only of humane Prudence; and no great store of that was necessary, for they had been errand fools if they had made a stir when they knew they could do nothing. It is not want of will, it seems, but want of strength that keeps these men from breaking those Laws that restrain them. The old Nonconformists, he would have you think, would have done as they do now, had they been as numerous: Then they would have entered into strong Combinations, and slighted that Authority to which they submitted. But weigh their Reasons, which I alleged 
q In the Continuation. Edit. 1. 345.  and shall not now repeat, and you will see he casts a blot on them as well as us; for they are such as will shut up the mouths of a great many as well as a few. But how few were they in those days, do you think, that were ejected? He tells you usually not one to one hundred, to what it is in our days. Ib. It is notably guessed by instinct, for, I dare say, he hath no Author to warrant his Assertion; and for once (as the forenamed Bishop speaks in another case) his instinct hath deceived him. According to the computation of Philagathus, there should not at this rate be five and twenty in all the Kingdom; whereas the Humble Supplication in King James his time 
r An. 1609. p. 26. 31.  talks of sharpness and rigour for the silencing and removing of no mean number of the worthiest Pastors in the Land: insomuch that the ordinary means of Conversion from blindness and infidelity was interrupted and crossed, in that so many worthy Lights had been by the Prelates removed from shining in the Church. Nay, one would think by their words, that all who were good for any thing were silenced, for they say, p. 25. in an indefinite manner, The faithful Ministers of the Gospel are in all disgracive and unworthy sort discarded, and removed from being any longer the Lords Sentinels and Watchmen. Which they repeat again, p. 28. And the Defence of the Ministers Reasons for refusal of Subscription 
s Preface, 1607.  tells you of so many turned out from that high and heavenly calling, that for any means of maintenance left to many of them, they may seek their bread. Here is such a many, that being divided into two parts, rich and poor, one of them makes a many; and therefore the whole was a great many, not a few, as this man affirms. Nay, by that time the War was begun, there was none of the best sort of Ministers left, if we will believe the Dialogue I mentioned; 
t Between a Netherlander and Englishman.  which saith, the Bishops had stripped all the Assemblies of their faithfullest Preachers. In this stile they were wont to speak then, as they do now; though I have reason to think that some of these faithfullest Preachers and Watchmen stood more upon their Credit, than any thing else when they refused Subscription. For I find it recorded above 60 years ago by Mr. Tho. Bell 
u Regiment of the church. Chap. 5. , that he discoursing with a Preacher about the Canons just then made, 1604. (against which he could allege nothing of moment) was told by him that he would neither lose his living, nor yet conform to those Orders. And when he demanded how that could be, was answered, that he would have one to do it, but not do it himself. And again, being told he might as lawfully do it himself, as procure another to do it, uttered these words, How can I do that against which I have so often preached? which, saith Mr. Bell, I told him savoured of the Spirit of the proud Pharisee, not of the humble Publican. I thought indeed before that all their Proceed had been out of mere Conscience, which now I perceive to be of Pride in a great many of them: through which manner of dealing the simpler sort become disobedient, and are deeply drowned in Error; and our Church pitifully turmoiled with Schisms and dissension. Honest Bernard Gilpin 
x See his Life. p. 132. 133.  was of another mind; who being called to subscription in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, though dissatisfied in two points of the Articles of smaller consequence, yet, subscribed to them, lest, thought he with himself, if I shall refuse, I shall be a means to make many others to refuse, and so consequently hinder the course of the word of God.  
But perhaps you desire to know the precise Number which were then ejected; and if you give Credit to one of your own Authors, this man is much out of the way, for the Altar of Damascus affirms, that there were either silenced or deprived upon the account of not conforming three hundred preaching Ministers. Dr. Heylyn indeed informs me that it doth not appear upon the Rolls that the●e were above nine and forty deprived upon all occasions, till the death of Archbishop Bancroft, and so the whole Number of the silenced and deprived might not be so great as they pretended. You must conclude one of these two things; either that they loved then when occasion served to make a Mountain of a Molehill; or now they are desirous to do the just contrary, and depress their Number to little or nothing. And in like manner now he tells us the people dissatisfied with the Liturgy or Ceremonies are ten if not an hundred to one to what they were formerly; and yet then they talked of many thousands 
z Humble Supplication. p. 36.  of the most loyal and best affected Subjects that joined with them in their Affection to the desired Reformation. That is, they talk boldly and at random out of their own imaginations, as if they wrote to simple Idiots that believe every word without chewing. Otherwise this Apologist would not have told us that Mr. Hildersham was silenced but in some Dioceses, etc. p. 7. whereas Mr. Clark tells us expressly that he was not only silenced, but deprived for refusing of Subscription, 1605. and was not allowed to preach till 1608. and within less than a year silenced again, and continued so a long time. Nay, was judicially admonished in the High Commission, (22 April 1613) and enjoined that saving the Catechising of his own family, he should not at any time hereafter preach, catechise, or use any part of the Office or Function of a Minister either privately or publicly until he was restored, etc. And that it was not till 1625 that he was licenced to preach in some Dioceses. How it was with others, I have not had occasion to observe, and now have not leisure to examine; but have cause from this to suspect that he doth not report these matters clearly and with sincerity.  
And indeed, overweening of men's selves is apt to blind them, and make them imagine any thing will pass for truth and for sound reason which comes out of their mouths. One would wonder what he thinks our brains are made of, who puts us off with such slender stuff as this, for an excuse of their holding Meetings separate from us. It is no schism, nor a breach of the unity of the Church, because they take occasion to meet for a time only; till a door be opened for them in the Church, by the removal of some supposed or real corruption in the public Worship. As if there were no breach in a garment when it is rend, because it may be sowed together again. But yet this the Apologist thinks, makes the Separation of the Non conformists from the Church of England, not total and perpetual, p. 11. which he repeats again, p. 128. and calls it a temporary and partial withdrawing. A very sorry employment this is, for a Divine (as I take him to be) to spend his time in sowing a few fig-leaves together to cover the shame of a sinful disobedience to their Governors, and the great breach they have made in the unity of the Church. For it may be demonstrated from his own words that this is a mere shift and frivolous excuse. He confesses a Separation; only he adds that it is but temporary. The cause of this temporary Separation is a supposed or real corruption in the public Worship. I ask now, Is this corruption such (whether real or supposed) that it is a just cause for a Separation? If it be not, they ought not to withdraw themselves for a time. If it be, they may withdraw themselves from us always. And so they will according to these Principles: for if this corruption be not removed, they must always continue separated, or else it is no sufficient reason for separating now. Do what they can, they are not like the old Nonconformists; for they did not withdraw themselves into separate bodies, no not for a time. If they had upon his Principles, they must have died Separatists (there being no removal of what they wished taken out of the way) as these men are like to do, unless they repent and alter their practices, in stead of desiring an alteration in the Public Worship. Besides, he is very ignorant of the state of our affairs, who doth not know it hath been the manner of this Sect to proceed from evil to worse since the very beginning of it: which makes me think it past doubt that they will settle in a downright Separation. At the first they only disliked some Ceremonies, 
See the Visitation speech at Lisnegarvy, p. 5.  and could pretty well digest conformity in the rest. In a little time they manifested a dislike of Episcopal Government, being better affected to the device of Mr. Calvin: and together with that, they distasted also our Common prayer. From a dislike Some proceeded to think them unlawful, and then fell into a contempt of Bishops and the Prayers, bitterly railing against them. From hence they advanced to open disobedience to all the Orders of the Church, and at last renounced it, and rend themselves from it, esteeming themselves the only Brethren and Congregation of the Faithful. Some there were indeed that did not go thus far; and being silenced or deprived for not conforming to the Ceremonies, would not separate from the Church, nor refused to join with our Assemblies. This Apologist would have us think that he and his Brethren are the followers of those: and yet confesses they are gone a large step beyond them, having separated for a time. And the same reason which hath carried them thus far, will advance them further, and make that time so long, that it will prove always. They will teach next, that God's people must be Separatists 
a Protestation protested, 1641. . In order to which we must be, that part of the kingdom which is the world, and not the Church of Christ 
b Groans for Liberty, 1646 . And still they will have a further journey to go, and never rest till they be uppermost, and have set Jesus Christ, that is themselves, upon his throne. What ground any man can have to hope any better, I cannot imagine: they being so bend to defend their present unwarrantable practices, that they will fly to any refuge, though never so dangerous; nay, take sanctuary in shadows, and think they are safe, rather than yield the cause. An instance of which you have in this Writer, who immediately after that which was now noted, alleges the words of a Romish Doctor mentioned by Bishop Bramhal, to excuse them from Schism, p. 12. But let any man consult the place, and he will find presently they are nothing to the business. For the Bishop is there speaking 
c Vindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 7.  only concerning clashings between Bishops and Churches, long and resolutely maintained, which he shows may be so managed as not to be Schism. But he expressly determines a little after, p. 23. that it is schism to separate from other Christians without sufficient ground in the participation of the same Sacraments, or in the use of the same Divine Offices and Liturgies of the Church, and public Worship and Service of Almighty God, or of the same common Rites & Ceremonies, etc. The very same he declares elsewhere, that they who break the unity of the Church for difference in in different rites, are guilty of Schism 
d Replic. to Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 79, 80.  and that most of the Schisms in the Church of Christ have been about the Canons of the Church, and not the substantials of Religion. Among other instances, he mentions the Schisms raised in our Church about a Surpless, sign of the Cross, etc. If therefore this Apologist would have done like a man, he should have shown that we obtrude sinful Rites as a condition of Communion with us, and so by this Bishop's confession are guilty of making the Schism ourselves. And he should, in order to this, have clearly answered all that hath been said in defence of our Church; and especially the Arguments of their Forefathers the old Nonconformists, who proved against the Brownists that there was no such corruption in our Church, as was a sufficient ground of separation from it. Here was the very point, if he durst have touched it, or come near it. Which since he hath not done, but spent his time in impertinent things, I must leave him to the favourable censure of S. Austin, mentioned somewhere by the same Bishop in another case; They cannot do better in a bad cause; but who constrained them to have a bad cause?  
This was it which made him turn his back so often upon the Question; and to make a Book which one cannot resemble more fitly then to a Winter-torrent, which abounds with water when there is no need of it; but in Summer, when it should be useful, it is dried up. (They are the words of the  Bishop, which I thought good to use, since he doth so, even when he doth not name him.) Such is this Apology, full of proofs where there is no controversy between us; and where the water sticks indeed, he is as mute as a fish. There is no question, for instance, but we may use the words of Scripture by way of accommodation: no body denies it; and that which he citys to this purpose out of one of our Bishops, I observed long before he told me of it, (p. 54, 87.) But then we ought to say that we use them so; and not talk as if that were the genuine sense of the Divine Writ, never acquainting the people with any other. And you ought not to pretend to more than other men, who can do this as well as yourselves; unless you had the very same spirit and power which the Apostles had. Nor is it the Question whether men's affections are raised with Novelty and Variety (p. 59) but whether those be the best affections which are raised by that means, or those which are raised by serious consideration and laying to heart of the same things in the same words. All that he alleges out of Mr. Hollingworth, p. 56. is to no purpose; for I have proved that the Non conformists pretend to more; even the very same that Mr. Baily did in his Answer 
e Review chap. 12. p. 75.  to Bishop Bramhal's Fair warning, who would have the people endeavour to attain a readiness to pray in their family out of their own heart, 
 in the words which Gods Spirit dytes to them. But as that Bishop said elsewhere, this man doth not seek the Question in earnest, but as he who sought for the Hare under the Leads, because he must seek her as well where she was not, as where she was. Else he would not have asked the Question, Whether Non conformist Ministers seek after Visions and Revelations, p. 68 That is not the point: but whether Mr. W. B. have not taught the people to do so. He might have added, if he had pleased, Whether they have not pretended to them. And an History in one of our Chronicles would have taught him to answer affirmatively. For there was a Physician in Oxford, one Rich: Haidock of New-Colledg, who pretended to preach in his sleep, in such sort, that though he was called upon a loud, or stirred, or pulled by hands or feet, he would make no show of hearing or feeling. His fame was spread abroad by the name of the sleeping Preacher; so that he was brought to Court, and one night his Majesty 
f See Sir Ri: Baker in the 3d year of K. James  being present to attend the event, the Gentleman began to pray, and then took a Text, made his Division, applied it to his purpose, which was to inveigh against the Pope, the Cross in Baptism, and the Canons then newly made. And yet all this was a mere cheat, as he confessed afterward to the King; who pardoned him on condition that he should openly in all places acknowledge his offence, because many, saith the Historian, were brought to believe that his nightly preaching was either by inspiration or by vision. This may serve to requite his impertinent tale, for which there was no occasion, about a Ministers praying that they might have godly dreams.  
Again; they are not accused for being time-servers now, (as he supposes, p. 89.) but heretofore. And in this, that excellent person Bishop Sanderson (with whom he may engage, if he please, now he is dead) will bear me out, that it is no false accusation. I will recite his words, and briefly prove the truth of them where it is needful. Before the beginning of the Long Parliament, and the unhappy divisions which followed thereupon, there were few (saith he) either of the Ministers that scrupled to use the Cross, or of the people that took offence at it 
g Preface to Clavi Trabales Aug. 10. 1661. . Which words as to the Ministers, on whom the people depended, may be justified from the Registers of Subscription, in which we find the most eminent men of your way subscribed libenter & ex animo, freely & hearty, to the three Articles mentioned in the 36 Canon. Among the rest, Mr. Calamy (whom our Apologist mentions with the titles of Discreet, honest, pious Mr. Calamy, p. 92.) Nou. 9 1637. and Mr. Jenkyn, Jan. 2. 1640. And if you look as far back as 1627., you will find Mr. Hugh Peter himself subscribing to the very height. As for the Archbishops & Bishops, he saith, I acknowledge their Offices and Jurisdictions, and cannot see but there would a fearful Ataxy follow without the present Government, whereof I so approve, that I have and willingly do submit to it and them, and have and will press the same upon others 
h Subscription before the Bishop of London, Aug. 17. the original whereof found under his hand in the Arch-Bishops Study by Mr Pryn, and published in his Fresh discovery, 1646. Sect. 8. . As for the Ceremonies, he saith, I shall diligently and daily practise them, neither have I ever been accused of neglect therein where I have formerly exercised my Ministry, but do give to them my full approbation and allowance. Lastly, for the Book of Common-prayer, the Liturgy of the Church, and what is in them contained, (finding them agreeable unto the Word of God) I have used as other Ministers have done, and am resolved so to do, etc. And to these, I subscribe with my heart and hand. What it was that altered his mind or his practice afterward, I have nothing to do with: but so it was, (as the Bishop proceeds) that when after the beginning of the Parliament all things were let lose in the Church, the greatest part of the Clergy (to their shame be it spoken) many for fear of losing their Live, more in hope to get other men's Live, and some possibly out of their simplicity beguiled with the specious name of Reformation, in a short space became either such perfect time-servers as to cry down, or such tame complyers with the stronger side, as to lay down, ere they needed, the use of the whole Liturgy, and of all the Rites and Ceremonies therein prescribed. But the Cross above all was anathematised and bitterly inveighed against, as it is even at this day by the Managers of the Presbyterian interest, etc. who having engaged to plead in the behalf of other men's tender Consciences, do wisely consider withal, that it will not be so much for their own credit now to become time-servers with the Laws, 
 as it was some years passed for their profit, to become time-servers against the Laws.  
If he desire any more on this subject, let him call for it, and I shall not be sparing of my pains to serve him. But let him be sure, if he make a new Catechism, to put his Questions better. For in this he eats up the true Question (as was said long ago) in stead of answering the Quaere; as the Cuckoo is said to suck up the Sparrows egg, and lay another of her own in the room. I did not charge them with holding it unlawful to keep Festival days, (as he states it, p. 43, 44.) but with not keeping ours, since they cannot deny it to be lawful, and keep others of their own. Nor found fault with the saying Well through mercy (p. 103.) but their using new distinguishing forms of speech. Nor, with their not condemning Sacrilege as a sin, but their not speaking and writing against it when there was such occasion for it. This I have told him already in the Third Part of the Debate, if he would have vouchsafed to peruse it, before he said any thing of it: and I shall now tell him once more, that they were wittily compared by a great person 
i Bishop Bramhal Schism guarded, p. 112.  whom he commends, to the two Sicilian Gluttons, who blew their noses in the dishes, that they might devour the meat alone: that is, they cried down the Bishop's revenues as dangerous, and nourishers of pride and laziness, because they gaped after them themselves. No body questions this, but they would have had them applied to their maintenance. That which they are charged withal is, that after all that gaping, they shut their mouths, and would not open them to declare against the alienation of the Church-lands, which was then in hand. Yes, (saith this Writer, p. 15.) the Assembly did dare to condemn Sacrilege as a sin against the second Commandment in their larger Catechism, for which they cite two Scriptures. I told you as much; but this is not the business: nay, more than this, I have showed you they believed not only Sacrilege to be a sin; but the alienation of our Church-lands, as things than stood, to be Sacrilege 
k Third part of Debate, p. 207. . And yet they did not plainly declare against that fact; much less made such declarations as they did against other sins in the Pulpit, and is they require us to make in the like case, or else think us negligent. None of them did like Mr. Vdal whom I mentioned, or like Mr. Bernard Gilpin in the last year of King Edward 
l Sermon at Court 1552, first Sunday after Epiphany.  or like Archbishop Whitgift, whose affectionate Speech on this subject to Queen Elizabeth, mixed with great humility and reverence, is recorded by a worthy Gentleman, Mr. Isaac Walton, in the Life of our incomparable Hooker 
m Pag. 70, 71, 72, etc. . The truth is, men of the greatest temper, wisdom and piety have noted this inequality of zeal in this party about such like matters as this, long before I was born: and therefore it ought not to be censured as such a piece of uncharitableness in me to mention it. Dr. Jackson, for instance, in his Treatise of Justifying faith 
n Chap. 15. paragr. 9 , tells us, that the first ground of his dislike unto the chief solicitors of Reformation in our Church, (though he always reverenced their excellent Parts and good Labours) was the difformity of their Zeal. For had it been uniform, saith he, no question but it would have moved them to lay down their lives for the redressing KNOWN ENORMITIES is the Common wealth; as much more material, and more nearly concerning the advancement of the Gospel, than those doubtful Controversies of Formalities, about which they strove, as death itself is more terrible than deprivation. The principal Authors and Abettors of which Enormities, notwithstanding were emboldened by these Encomiasts, 
 in whose language every Cormorant that would countenance their Cause, was a sanctified person, and a son of God. He may call this railing perhaps the next time he writes; if not, he must excuse me from it, who have writ nothing severer than this.  
But it may be further added, that the Catechism he mentions, did not come forth till the business was too far gone; and whatsoever had been said then, would but have been to shut the Stable-door, when the Steed was stolen. For the Ordinance for abolishing Archbishops and Bishops, and settling their Lands and Possessions upon trusties for the use of the Commonwealth, was made Octob. 9 1646. And that for settling their Lands, November 16 following: whereas the larger Catechism was not printed till October 22. 1647, and then no more than six hundred Copies only for the use of the Houses and the Assembly, to the end they might advise thereupon. More than this, the Scriptures were added afterward, and came not forth with the first Edition: and lastly, they make mention also there of Perjury; and yet there was no Preaching against it, till the Covenant came to be broken, though it was a sin before that time wherewith the Land abounded. As for the Authors of the Annotations, I know them not; and what he alleges concerning the additions to them 1651, it is nothing to the point. It was then too late, and the case was altered. The rest of the maintenance of the Clergy was in danger, the very Tithes being envied to them; which made it high time to say something to keep themselves from being undone, after they had ruined the Bishops.  
But it would be endless to follow this man in his vagares, and an employment more tedious and irksome, then Phocion's in chipping Demosthenes, to pair off all in his Book that is not to the purpose. Should I undertake it, his Apology would remain a very slender tool, not worth a straw.  
For setting aside his calumnies; his unjust complaints of railing, jeering, and what not? his falsities boldly asserted, his mistakes of the Question; his impertinent allegation of Authorities; his idle stories, frivolous observations, uncharitable surmises, and odious insinuations; his misrepresenting of my words, his cropping or enlarging them; his false glosses and commentaries, and such like things; I can find very little that looks like so much as an endeavour of a direct Answer. If you be not weary, I pray observe a few things on some of those Heads. What a frivolous observation is that out of the Rhemish Testament, about the retaining of old words; which you may read in him, if you will, (p. 42.) for I shall not stand to recite it? There being nothing plainer, then that neither they nor we refuse to use the words Amen, Fasting, Charity, the blessed Sacrament, Alleluja, and others there mentioned, and yet are in no danger to believe as the Church of Rome doth; nor should we, though we should use the words Altar, Oblation and Sacrifice, as well as Lent, Palm sunday and Christmas. And what do you think of the tale of the Citizen or Countryman (he knows not which) who being asked his opinion of a Sermon, said it ran or sounded thus, as if he had said, A pudding, a pie, a pudding-pie; a pudding for me, a pie for thee, a pudding-pie for me and thee? p. 65. This is the man that makes serious reflections upon the Debate; just like the serious prayer of one of their present Preachers, who in the presence of a numerous Auditory, used these words to God; which sound more like that Rhyme than any Sermon that ever I heard. Thou art the hope of our help, and the help of our hope; thou art our hope when we have no help, and thou art our help when we have no hope; yea, thou art our hope and our help, when we have neither hope nor help, but are helpless and hopeless. I should not have mentioned this, but that there are so many witnesses of it; and to show you what may be done, if they will have us proceed in this way of writing.  
No, by no means, I know you will say, let us have no more of this stuff. I am very well pleased with the motion: and wish likewise they would not ground their replies upon hear says, when they may believe their eyes. Let him not give any credit to him, whosoever he be, that saith, 
See pag. 101. of his Book.  I dealt disingenuously with Mr. Bridg in my quotations of him, but look into his Book, and make it apparent to me that I have wrested his words, and I will confess it, and make him the best amends I am able. It is as easy, I should think, for a Scholar to sit in his Study and read Books, as to gad up and down to hear and tell idle stories. But let not the Books he reads be cited impertinently, as the very Articles of the Church of England are by him. An instance you have (and it is the first that comes to hand, but the rest are like it) p. 87. For I never thought that the Fathers looked for no more then transitory promises: But that it was not by virtue of the Covenant made with Moses, that they looked for more, I did and do affirm. A great many of the Worthies mentioned, Heb. 11. lived before the Law was given, and the rest that followed them built their expectation on the same ground which they did. But we may well pass by such vain allegations out of the Articles, since the very Scriptures which he citys confute all that he saith. If coming to Christ, for instance, and believing in him be all one, which is apparent indeed from John 7.37, 38. (cited by him, p. 79.) then believing in Christ is more than relying on him for pardon of sins; for to come to Christ, is to become one of his Disciples, and to undertake to be of his Religion. This is have cleared sufficiently in the last Debate; and shown withal, that obedience to the Law of God is a condition of our Justification. No, saith this Gentleman, out of I know not what Author, p. 78. It is not the condition of the Covenant so properly as of those persons that enter into Covenant. Which is a monstrous absurd. Answer to this Question: no better then to affirm and deny the same thing in the same breath. For if it be the same condition and qualification of those persons that enter into the Covenant, than it is the condition of their Justification, which they obtain by entering into Covenant with God so qualified. As for the words themselves, without relation to the Question, they are right enough, if they be understood not to deny our obedience to be a condition required in or by the Covenant, though it be not so proper to say a Condition of the Covenant. For how comes our obedience to be a necessary condition or qualification of the persons entering into Covenant, but by the Covenant? That requires it, and doth not promise Justification without it; and therefore is a Condition in the Covenant of Grace.  
But I have neither list nor leisure to trace his steps in these things; which I would wish him not to meddle withal, till he know where the very pinch of the Controversy lies, & then we may end it one way or other in a few words.  
Let him forbear also his odious insinuations, as that I think the Papists good subjects, p. 67, suggest the N. C. laid aside the Lords Prayer, because of that Petition, Forgive us our trespasses, etc. p. 39 and that they dislike the Common-prayer only, or chief because taken out of the Mass-book. There are no such things said or intimated in my Book. And yet he himself dare not say that he knows no N.C. that refuse to join in it solely or chief on that account, but that he knows scarce one intelligent N. C. Very likely. He may know, notwithstanding, multitudes of silly ones; and here and there one whom he takes to be intelligent. But this is nothing to what this intelligent Nonconformist suggests concerning the Meetings of Dr. Gunning, and others in the late times, for Common-prayer; as if they were as much Conventicles as any now, p. 68 Whereas they were according to the Common-Law, and not against it: unless he will maintain that Ordinances were Law, as much as Acts of Parliament. If that still lie at the bottom of their hearts, let them speak out. But who can believe that the High Conformists have not all, and always been so constant and firm to the Government of King and Parliament, as they ought? Or is it likely that that Dr. Heylin was ill affected to Kingly Authority, or disrespectful to Superiors? So he would have you think, because of one passage in a Book of that Doctors (as you may see, p. 81, 82.) from whom he takes a measure of the rest. If he had known more, he would, I doubt not, have been so kind as to bestow it upon us: but this single speech was all he had in his Budget. If you pease therefore, I will furnish him with some other as bold speeches (let him make what he can of them) concerning the actions of those times, as any in Dr. Heylin. Who should have expressed his mind in less offensive terms; having no meaning, I verily believe, to charge the King, who was then very young, with any guilt, but only those greedy persons, who had possessed him with no better Principles. This is certain, that the best Preachers in those days, who spoke most against Nonresidence, took the boldness also to tell the King openly in their Sermons at Court, that unless he provided some remedy, Cormorants would devour wholly the live appointed for the Ministry 
o Mr. Gilpins' Sermon, 1552. p. 267, 268 etc.  the most part of which were either rob of the best part, or else clean taken away; by means of which, none had any heart to put their Children to School, any further than to learn to write, to make them Apprentices, or Lawyers; the two wells of Learning, Oxford and Cambridge were dried up, students decayed, of which scarce an hundred left of a thousand; and if in seven years more they should decay so fast, would be almost none at all, but the Devil might make a triumph, whilst there were none Learned to whom to commit the Flock, In short, his Majesty was told, that if his Grace (as they spoke in those days) did not speedily resist those ravening Wolves, there was entering into England more blind ignorance, Superstition and Infidelity, than ever was under the Romish Bishop, and his Realm would become more barbarous than Scythia. Which lest God Almighty, said the Preacher, lay to your Grace's charge, for suffering the Sword given you to rust in the sheath, bestir yourself now in your Heavenly Father's business. There was as plain Language used in Queen Elizabeth's days, in the Book called the Ladened Ass, said to be delivered to her at Greenwich 
p July 27. 1581. , where Mr. Gilpins Sermon was preached. It makes express mention of that which Dr. Heylin touches upon, how the mighty Hunters had caught one of the most ancient and stateliest Bishoprics in the Land; Durham, I mean, which they had quite strangled, saith the Book 
q See p. 54. , dismembered and dissolved. In later times Dr. Sanderson hath spoken the same sense, who was a man unexceptionable, both for loyalty & regard to his Superiors. He not only acknowledges, that the business of the Reformation under King Edward the sixth was carried on with a mixture of private ends, and other such humane frailties and affections as are incident usually unto the interprising of great affairs; but complains of such Sacrileges then acted, and that under the name of Reformation (though he hopes without his knowledge, at most through the malicious suggestions and cunning insinuations of some about him) as have cast very soul blemishes upon our very Religion, especially in the eyes of our Adversaries, who are apt to impute the faults of the persons to their Profession. All which notwithstanding, and a great deal more which he there 
r Episcopacy not prejudicial to R●gal power p. 81, 85, 92, 93.  makes bold to say, was not a casting dirt upon the Reformation, or upon the King, or upon any persons in Authority; but an honest confession, that they who had the managery of affairs in their respective times, were made of the same clay with other men, subject to infirmities and passions, and to be byassed with partial affections, etc. so that we have far great cause to bless God, that in their then Reformation, in very many things, they did not a great deal worse, then to blame them that is some few things they did not a little better than they have done. If the offend the Apologist, he may read the same complaints in Mr. Calvin, and in other of the Reformers, which I shall direct him unto, if he be not acquainted with them already, and do desire it. At present I shall trouble myself no further about it: this being sufficient to show the wickedness of that suspicion which he saith some may from hence entertain concerning these Conformists; that if the King and Parliament should put forth their hand now and touch all they have, they would (unless fear restrained them) curse them to their faces, p. 82. This was one of the charitable thoughts of Philagathus also: whom this man imitates in other surmises, as if he was led by the same evil spirit, which suggested such groundless imaginations to him. He will not say, I am an Human; but it may be suspected, he tells you, that there is something of the Amalakites ambition ●●me; and that I am moved to write, because there is some Mordecai in the gate or the Parish that will not bow to me, p. 92. They will you see be the Mordecai's, the select people of God, and we must be, at least endued with the qualities of the people devoted to destruction. And I remember indeed, in the late times, that they compared the Episcopal Clergy to Haman and his Sons, and told us in these words, 
s Beast wounded p. 4.  We will keep a day of thanksgiving, in remembrance of deliverance from the Bishops, as the Jews did after Haman and his Sons were hanged: which will be a greater blessing than the deliverance from the Gunpowder Treason. But if I, from my part, was now upon the Ladder ready to be turned off, and was to make a plain and full confession of my faults, as I hoped for Mercy; I could not charge myself with the least private grudge to any man whatsoever: and should protest that I never had any desire that any man, either in the Parish where I live, or out of it, should stoop or bow to me; no, nor give me more respect than it pleased himself to afford me. This childish ambition (which he suspects) is the furthest from my heart of all other things. I understand it not; nor had it the least finger in my Book, which was writ only out of a desire of Unity, Peace, good Order, and increase of true Piety. I have read in a Sermon of a great Divine of our own, preached fifty years ago 
t Dr. Sandersons first Sermon ad Clerum, p. 24. in fol. , that it is to be considered whether it be enough for one of that profession, which he supposes me to be, not to meddle with these things; and whether he be not bound in Conscience, especially in case he live among a people distracted in opinion, to declare himself expressly, either for them or against them, etc. Others may resolve in this case as they see cause: I have satisfied myself that I have done as became an honest man. But I did not think to have said so much about this matter, nor is it to any great purpose I see to labour to clear ourselves of their vile suspicions; say what we will, many of them stop their ears, or drown our words with their loud cries against us. We must have naughty intentions, and they must be the very best of men: the most loyally affected to his Sacred Majesty (who would have thought it?) more than the very Bishops themselves, as this Author would insinuate. For they would not be offended (as the Bishops you may think would) if the Statute of King Edward the Sixth was revived, whereby all Citations in the Courts Spiritual should issue out in the King's Name, and with his Seal. And it would not displease them to have a Vicar-General in SPIRITV ALIBUS, as he assures you, p. 33. But he must give us leave to think (as that Bishop now named speaks, who hath demonstrated that Processes in the Bishop's name, no way entrench upon the King's Authority 
r A Calumny long ago cast upon the Bishops, in the humble Supplication for Toleration, 1609. p. 10, 17. Revived in the late times, confuted by Bishop Sanderson. , that their meaning herein is rather to do the Bishop's hurt then the King service; and that their affections (so far as by what is visible we are able to judge thereof) are much what alike the same towards both. This you may read in his Book concerning Episcopacy not being prejudicial to Regal power, p. 3, 4. And what he saith of the one, I may say of the other motion, which is of the same strain; and then made to Queen Elizabeth, when Martin Marprelates Book came out; not to greaten her power, but to depress the Bishops. So the Book called the Ladened Ass tells us, that there were Suitors then to her, for a greater Authority (if they could have got it) than Cromwel's General Vicarship over the Bishops and Clergy 
a Pag. 12, 45. : and that the very same men, who contrived this, were the favourers of the Admonition, the frame of Discipline, the Mar-all-Libels, and other new Monsters which then were yearly bred and brought forth. And truly, there is some reason to think that such men as this would be no more displeased with a new Martin Mar-prelate, then with a new Vicar-General. For he is not ashamed to approve of such vile Books as Ladensium Autocatacrisis, to which he sends us for information concerning the greatest Enemies of our Church and Religion, those who bring in new and strange Doctrines, i. e. plain Popery, p. 80. A Book writ by that haughty and violent spirit, which so often calls the excellent Bishop 
y Bishop Bramhal , mentioned by this Apologist in the entrance of his Work, by the scornful name of Dr. Bramble 
z Review of fair warning, in the very Frontispiece of the Book. : and which puts Bishop Andrews and Bishop Hall among that Faction (as he speaks) whose avowed Popery was manifest from their Books. And therefore the Author of it justly defended that Censure which was given of him and his Book long ago, by a Reverend person now alive, who saith, the man had seen some Visions in Trophenius' Den, Raptures, and Embryo's of his own adled brain; and out he came to vent them, like Esop's Ass, j●tting in Purple. He was high set in pursuit of fame; and scorning to cope with a PIGMY, he challenges no less men than my Lord's Grace of Canterbury, and all the Learned Divines of England; and much grieved he was, that my Lord himself would not vouchsafe him the honour to confute him: as if a Sky-towring-Eagle, or Gyre Falcon, should have stooped to a Kite or Carrion 
a Dr. Creighton's Letter to Mr. R. Watson. 1650 .  
But perhaps the Apologist never seriously considered that Book; as I am sure he hath not duly noted & weighed mine: For if he had, he would have repeated my words more sincerely, and not misrepresented them so often as he hath done; at least, not have put me in the number of those that are Enemies of our Church, descent from its Articles, and bring in new and strange Doctrines. So he would have it thought; else why doth he oppose my words and the eleventh Article of our Religion the one against the other? p. 85. The comfort of it is, there is no clashing at all between them, but only in his own brains; which understand not, it seems, that good Works may be necessary to our justification, and yet no cause of it. But thus he deals with me in other things: what I said of Lawn-sleeves, and the Black Cap and White (first part, p. 81) he translates to Surplesses, and makes an idle discourse about them, p. 47. He makes you believe I said that afternoon-Sermons were wholly superfluous, p. 61. when I only told you that they might be used or not, as they should be found to be to Edification. The same perverse representation he makes of what I said about experiences, p. 70. Preaching of Obedience, p. 77. Doing good out of fear of threaten, p. 84. Pious discourses also, p. 96. which were not by me disgraced, but their rash censures condemned. If I did not begin to be tired with following him in his rambles, I could present you with a great many more Monsters of his own making; just like that which a Cheat promised to show his credulous spectators (they are the words of one whom he and I have often mentioned) an Horse whose Head stood in the place of his Tail; and when all came to all, he himself had tied the Horse to the Manger the wrong way. Besides, barely to show these misrepresentations, would be a very dull business, and endanger the tiring you quite; and to make them appear ridiculous, would much offend his seriousness. For which reason, I shall let these (and a great many other things in his Book) alone, till he give me a further occasion.  
But I entreat him, as he loves himself, to hold his hand till he hath learned a little more Logic, and knows better how to draw consequences. At least, let him forbear to draw any out of my Books, till he hath diligently weighed every word, and the occasion of it. For his manner is to make very silly ones, and then confute them, as you may read in his Preface, and p. 107, 108. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Vicars did thus and thus heretofore, therefore the N.C. are all thus and thus now. It this, saith he, good Logic, and solid reasoning? I say no; it is childish and ridiculous: but it is his own, not mine; who produced such men's say to other purposes. And I perceive it is his manner to draw Universals from Particulars. For presently after, ask Whether the N. C. shortly look to shut Heaven, and turn the waters into blood? He tells you Mr. Parker of N. England (whose words I cited) saith no: and so all the N. C. must be concluded to be of his mind. In like manner the Church of Scotland, he tells you, had as few Heresies, as any other, p. 139. Therefore; What? Then the N. C. were not the cause of the strange and new Doctrines,, Opinions, Fanatical words and Phrases in Preaching and Writing. For this is part of his Answer to the Question, Whether they be so or no. In time they may improve this way of arguing very much, as some did in the late times, when they told us 
b Reformed Presbytery, 1645. p. 19 ; the Romans and Athenians, whilst they were Free-states, bred ten to one more virtuous and illustrious men, than other Governments, or even they themselves at other times. You know the Consequence. And you may know also what horrid Doctrines were broached in Scotland, more than any where else, destructive to all Government: and that all the Sectaries in England were the Spawn of those who stood disaffected to our Church; nay, that Hacket himself and his mad Companions (though disclaimed by them when they saw their end) sprung out of their society; frequented their Sermons, and were their Associates, before they entered into those Frantic courses, as I can prove from good Authority. As also, that they are justly compared to the Pharisees, though that Sect were great sticklers for Ceremonies, and their Traditions: as they for their own Inventions. But for the present, let him read Dr. sanderson's Sermon lately printed. And not trouble us with his Arguments for less Uniformity than there is among us, upon this ground, that we have not a present Uniformity in all things: which is a thing that is not to be here expected. Yet this pitiful reasoning he repeats again and again: like to that of Dr. Busby's reading Logic sometimes to his Scholars, to prepare them for the University: therefore, the N. C. may read a whole Circle of Philosophy, to keep Youths from going to the University, and to make the Education there unnecessary, p. 123. For there lies the point: and he needed not have referred us to what some able men told him about the Oath, and the words of it at Oxford. For it is in print among the University-Statutes 
c Statuta selecta Anno 1661. Tit. 9 Sect. 6. : at the end of which Book there is an explication of the Oath which is taken to observe the Statutes. And this in the first place it admonishes us of, That the genuine sense of the words of the Statute, are to be taken from the mind and intention, not of him that swears, but of him that gives the Oath 
d Ib. p. 163. . Now it will be found, I take it, that they who give that Oath, intent not to prohibit the setting up of another University, wherein to take Degrees (which is not in the power of him that swears) but the keeping Schools for University-Learning, with intention to perfect Scholars there, and on purpose to keep them from the Universities.  
But I forget myself, and instead of writing a large Letter, shall make a great Book, if I proceed any further to detect all his weak Reasonings and slight Answers. Nor is it to much purpose; for I doubt they will not be the better by it. I have been often rounded in the ears with the words of Artenorius to the Author of Argenis 
e Parce labori: non ignorant se errare, etc. cited by Dr. Creighton in his Le●●er before mentioned.  (applied by a Reverend person to the like case) Spare your pains, good Sir, they know they are wrong as well as you can tell them: but all the earth shall not make them confess an error, or amend it. But suppose it be otherwise, as I hope it is with some, and hearty wish it may be with all; yet my labour may be spared, if all that pretend to be wise and honest, would but be humble (and truly he that is not so, is neither of those) and make that their business which certainly is their duty. They are the words of Bishop Sanderson 
f Preface to Clavi Trabales 1661. p. antepea. , who thus proceeds: That is to say, if they would study quietness more and Parties less; bear a just reverence to Antiquity, and to their betters; allow as favourable a construction to things established, as they are capable of; suspect their own judgement wherein it differeth from the public; submit to reason, and yield when they are convinced; obey cheerfully where they may, and where they dare not, suffer without noise, a little saying and writing would serve the turn. But when men are once grown to this, to make it their glory to head or hold up a Party; to study ways how to evade, when they are called to obey; to resolve to err, because they have erred; and to hold their conclusions ●● despite of all Premises; to prefer their private opinions before wiser men's judgements, and their reputation with the Vulgar before obedience to Superiors: In a word, to suffer themselves to be swayed with Passions, 
 Parties, or Interests; all the writing and saying in the World, as to such men (until it shall please God to put their hearts into another Frame) is to no more purpose, then if a man should go about to fill a Sieve with water, or to wash a Blackamoor white. And so far you well.  
Jan. 13. 1669.   

A Postscript.  
I Had no sooner run over this Apologetical Catechism, and made a few Reflections on it, but I received a Case of Conscience from you, wherein I am also concerned. A very weighty one it is, and as weightily and solidly resolved, if the Casuist may be his own Judge; who seems to have no low opinion of his own performance, but rather thinks we may chance to be beholden to him for a new invention. Here, saith he, p. 6. is that very MEAN indeed, for aught I know, which is wanting. A great Discovery! And for aught I know, may any body reply, that which is not wanting, but is the very dangerous Extreme into which the people are as apt to run, as he is to follow those with whom I have already had to deal. It would be no great matter indeed if he imitated them only in their phrase, and not in their weak reasonings and frivolous observations; but he is too forward to that also: and is a notable instance of the truth of my Lord Bacon's observation, that there is little dry light 
a Letter to Mr. Mathews, p. 69.  in the world; but it is all moist, being infused and steeped in affections, blood and humours. The Reason of men is made to stoop to their interest, and they judge according to the current of their inclinations and desires.  
I had some hopes that sober men would have consented to that which I said in the Continuation 
b Pag. 128, 129. edit. 1  of our Debate, and judged it very unbecoming such frail understandings as ours, to go about to unfold the secrets of high Providence, and assign the causes and reasons of those particular calamities which befall their neighbours. Nay, common prudence I thought would have taught any considering man to forbear the making such observations, as may be employed to any purpose, even against those that make them: insomuch that they who have served themselves by such arguments, when it comes to their own turn to suffer▪ can by no means endure to hear of them. And yet, behold, a grave Casuist come forth, who not only spells, but thinks he can read the meaning of Divine Providence toward the late Lord Chancellor of England, who is not suffered now to live in it. He hath picked it out of his own Letter left at his departure out of the Realm, in which he acknowledges that his Credit had been very little since that Session of Parliament which was at Oxford. What of all that? Why, he was the Contriver of that Act, says the interpreter of Providence, which banished Others from their houses; after which his Authority dwindled so much, that at last he was forced to leave his own house. As much as to say, if you will have the sense of this Privy Counsellor of Heaven in plain words, God punishes him now for all that he did against them. No, perpaps you will say, against God: for so the words run in his Prayer for him which immediately follows, Do not thou, O God, for all he hath done against thee, etc. But I suppose you understand the meaning of their words, and their opinion of themselves better, than not to know that what is done against them, is, as they construe it, done against God: and so whatever Calamity befalls any man after he hath opposed them, it is the hand of God avenging the quarrel of his people. Thus Mr. Baily, I remember, in that Book which I have oft had occasion to mention, talks of strange punishments which God from heaven visibly inflicted 
c Review, chap. 1. p. 2●.  upon Mr. Corbet, the Author of a Book called Lysimachus Nicanor, and Mr. Maxwel who wrote another called Issachar's burden: both against them, their Discipline and proceed. And what were those visible Judgements? Nothing but this; the Former, as I learn from the Second Fair Warning, was murdered by the Irish; and the Later (being Archbishop of Towmond) was stripped stark naked, and left desperately wounded, but by God's mercy recovered, and afterwards died a natural death. Had the like befallen any couple of his Brethren, (as that learned Writer adds) he would have been forward to write with their blood some red letters in the Calendar, and made them pass currently for two Martyrs of the Discipline. But these things befalling two persons who exposed their evil principles and practices to the view of the world, they were black marks of God's displeasure, brands of infamy wherewith they were stigmatised from heaven for writing against his chosen. So we must believe, if we did not know very well, that the hand of heaven (to use his words once more) is not guided by the mouth, nor God's judgements discerned always by the eye of the Disciplinarian Brethren: who we have little reason to think are well seen in the Mysteries of Providence, when we find them stone-blind in the most common and ordinary matters. For who is there that sees not, how by this wretched way of discoursing the worst Cause may be justified, and the best that is may be condemned? If all things that fall out one after the other, must be thought to have the same connexion, which the effect hath with the cause; Popery will prove itself the true Christianity, unless you can show that you have the sole privilege to expound God's Providence, and that nobody else may intermeddle in it. The Tenth Argument of Bellarmine 
d Tom. 2. l. de Reliquit. & Imag. cap. 12.  for Image-Worship is drawn merely from the unfortunate ends and ill successes of the Iconomachi, (those that set themselves against Images) and the felicity of those who defended them. First of all, in the time of Leo Isaurus, after the Images of the Saints were burnt in Constantinople, there ensued a Pestilence in which died three hundred thousand people. The same Emperor and his Successors lost Italy, and could never recover it. In the times also of Constantinus Copronymus, another enemy of Images, entire Cities were overthrown by Earthquakes; a grievous Pestilence raged, so that there was scarce room to bury the dead. And that there might be no doubt, saith the Cardinal, for what cause these things happened, there were at the same time little Crosses to be seen on the garments of men, and the Priests vestments, as if they had been drawn with oil. There was such an horrible Cold also, that the Pontic Sea was frozen for an hundred miles together, and the Ice was thirty Cubits thick; upon which a Snow fell twenty Cubits in depth: and when a Thaw came, great pieces of this Ice like Mountains or Islands swum up and down with great violence; and some dashing against the walls of Constantinople, broke down a part of them, and overturned the adjoining houses. And yet the calamities were not completed, but a great Drought followed all this, so that Fountains, Wells and Rivers were dried up. Whereby all might understand, saith this Roman Diviner, that God was angry at their impiety against him and against his Saints. For lastly Constantine himself, that obstinate Emperor, died wretchedly; when on the contrary, they that with the Pope of Rome stood up for Images and defended them, were promoted to Kingdom and Empire, lived prosperously and reigned happily. What an heap of Observations are here to countenance that which you so much abhor? Who can choose but take notice how God declared himself from heaven by all these Prodigies to be an enemy of those who were enemies of Images? When do you read of so many and so great misfortunes and dreadful Calamities in any age, as these upon the haters of Images; which point, as it were with the finger, to you that they ought to be worshipped? If you like not this kind of arguing, I pray let it alone yourselves. Let us not hear any more of the sad things which befall any particular men, as if they were upon the score of opposing or punishing Nonconformists. Nor tell us of any more Prodigies and Signs of God's displeasure against the Realm, which have appeared since you were pulled down, like to those Images; much less expound those terrible Judgements which have justly befallen us (though not equal to those now mentioned) to be punishments for any thing done against you, and arguments that you are approved by heaven, and we rejected. After this manner the very Heathens defended their Idols, as the Papists do their Images. All things went ill with those who despised them; Augustus, Vespasian, Titus had prosperous Successes & fortunate Reigns; but the poor Christians, the great enemies of their Gods, were dragged continually by the Hangman to be butchered, suffered the most exquisite torments, and for three hundred years together were most miserably harased, and barbarously used. And thus Parsons I remember disputes against all the Protestants from the unhappy success of those Princes which have in any sort opposed themselves to the See of Rome, as you may read at large in his Apologetical Epistle 
e An. 1601 sect. 7. ; none of which I shall now stand to transcribe.  
This is sufficient to show what may be expected from this New Undertaker: who will appear, I doubt not, as lame in his other reasonings as he doth in this; and prove as unfit to determine Cases of Conscience, as to make Observations upon Providence. For first, he doth not fairly and candidly represent that which I said, but accuses me of such Resolutions in matters of Conscience, as never came into my thoughts. I am beholden to him, I confess, for some good words, and for his favourable opinion of me; but I could have been well content to have wanted them, on condition he would not have said, that I am so unkind, and so unconscionably untender, as to account that no man who transgresses an Act of Parliament can be a good Christian 
f In the later end of the first page. ; nor asked, Whether indeed I think that every transgression of a Realm is no less than a deadly sin? There was no occasion for this Question, or for that Censure: unless he be of the opinion that all sins are equal, so that what a man saith concerning the open breach, and contempt of one Law, is to be applied to all transgressions whatsoever of any Law. I never said that no man can be a good Christian that transgresses an Act of Parliament, nor that every transgression of a Statute is a deadly sin. These are inventions of his own, upon occasion only of a single instance which I gave of Defiance to a Law wherein some men live (mark my words 
g Friendly Debate, p. 3. Edit. 1. . From whence he draws an universal proposition, that he might the better conclude me to be a man of no great depth 
h P. 3 of his Case. , that looks not to the bottom of a business which lies before him. That may very well be true; for it is no easy matter: But I will try a little how far I can see into this Case concerning the transgression of humane Laws: which, as I take it, depends upon this single point, Whether humane Laws bind the Conscience? that is, whether we sin, if we be not obedient to them? In the resolving of which he that finds no difficulty, may well suspect that he doth not fully understand it. For if, on the one side, we say that Conscience is not concerned; I beseech you what is? Nothing but our common discretion to keep ourselves out of the reach of the Prince's Sword; whose anger and power we may dread, but whose commands we need not care a straw for. And if on the other side, we say that Conscience is concerned and obliged by their Laws, than there may follow great perplexities, when any thing is commanded that proves a common and an intolerable grievance. More difficulties I need not mention of this nature; there being no dispute about commands to do sinful things: but immediately apply my discourse to the Question. And for all that which was last said, since there is no greater mischief than disobedience to Laws, and nothing can so certainly secure obedience, as a sense of duty; we must determine that a man is bound to make a conscience of observing the Laws of his Governors, which are not contrary to the Laws of God. So the holy Scripture itself teaches us to speak, when it requires us, and makes it necessary, to be subject for conscience sake, and not only for wrath, Rom. 13.5. that is, out of a sense that we cannot be innocent, and preserve a good conscience before God, unless we be observant of their Laws, where we are not preingaged by a higher Authority than theirs. The very same is included in those words, which require our submission to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, 1 Pet. 2.13. which if we do not yield, it is manifest, the disobedience is a violation of a General precept of God exacting our obedience to them. Insomuch that to set a man's self in opposition to their Laws, is by interpretation to oppose the Almighty: according to that of the Apostle, Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.  
Yes, saith this Casuist; but will you pronounce thus without any distinction? Doth a man commit a deadly sin every time that he transgresses an Act of Parliament? I answer, That's without the limits of the Question. We are not speaking of the degrees of sin, which are of more or less guilt according as the Law is of greater or lesser concernment, and as a man's transgression of it, is with modesty, or with a high hand: nor are we considering when, and in what cases, a Law may cease to oblige, and quite altars its nature: but whether while it doth oblige, and is in force, it lays a tye on the Conscience or no, and whether all Laws do so or no. And to this we say, Yes; [Laws while they are obligatory do bind the Conscience] because the Scripture saith so: and we say so indefinitely, because that's the Scripture-language also. But stay a little; this Gentleman cannot believe that. The Scripture saith the Magistrate is God's minister to us for good, Rom. 13.4. Very true; and the Apostle makes that an argument why we should be obedient to him, because it is much for our profit and benefit. But this Casuist turns the words quite another way, and makes them an outlet to disobedience: by taking that to include an Exception to the General precept of subjection, which is in truth Nothing but a Reason to enforce it. To countenance which interpretation, he tears a little patch out of Bishop Taylor's Rule of Conscience, and would draw him into confederacy with him: who accommodates indeed those words of the Apostle to the illustration of a particular case, but never intended any such use of them as this man makes; as is apparent from the entire Body of his discourse, and shall be touched afterward. Now let us hear this man's Exception. If the Magistrate, saith he, command that which is for the people's Good and welfare, they are bound in conscience to obey him: otherwise they are not bound in conscience, but for wrath sake; that is, because they dare not do as they would and as they may. Very well: But who shall judge of that; I mean, whether a Law be for the Public good, or no? His Answer is ready at his tongue's end, (for he need not go deep for it) The Magistrate must judge what is for the Public good as to the MAKING of the Law: and we must judge as to our OBEDIENCE to it. Then which it is hard to write any thing more inconsiderate or dangerous, and it declares to me, that he did not understand or mind the meaning of the words which he wrote. For what do we mean by a Law? Doth not the very form or essence of it (as the Casuists speak) consist in the Precept or the Command of the Lawgiver? If so; then that which we call a Law is not merely the signification of his mind and judgement, that he thinks such a thing to be good or bad for us: but a declaration of his will and pleasure that we should do that good or avoid that evil which he commands us to do or avoid: And, God having given him this authority to command us, this declaration carries with it an obligatory virtue to bind us to the execution of his will, under the pain of sin. Nor is it of any moment, as to the obligation, whether there be a punishment threatened or not by him to the disobedient. For the punishment is necessary only by consequence, and upon supposition that the people may be negligent and refractory to the will of the Lawgiver, unless they be moved to comply with that which he thinks necessary to be observed, by fear of punishment. To make a Law then is to declare to us his will to lay such an obligation upon us. When this is done, we are no longer free whether we will do accordingly or no. If we be, the very nature of a Law is taken away, and every man is left to his own will. That which we call a Law, is but only the Prince's opinion concerning that which he judges to be for the Public good; and so he is turned into a private person, and made like one of his subjects; for they obey not his judgement and pleasure, but their own. And if he punish them for disobeying his, that is only a sign that he is stronger than they, who suffer unjustly for doing well, not for doing ill.  
But let us hear his reason for this wonderful decision; which he hath as ready as he had his Answer. Because, saith he, God hath made every man judge of his own actions. What then? That you must seek by looking back, if perchance you may find some Consequent of which this is the cause. The Question, you remember, was, Who shall judge what Laws are for the People's Weal, i. e. the Common Good of them all? Why, the Magistrate may judge thus far, as to make Laws; but the People themselves must judge, as to their obedience, i. e. they are not bound to do any thing he bids them, unless they think it is for their welfare. Why so? Because, saith he, every man is made by God the Judge of his own Actions. I cannot for my life see how that follows from this, though I have put his reasoning into the plainest form that ever I could. Which is this: God hath made every man judge of his own Actions, therefore he hath made him judge what Laws are for the People's Weal, before he obey them. If he can show me the necessary connexion of these two, and that the former infers the latter, I shall acknowledge that he is a deep man, and much beyond my reach. But they seem to me so widely distant, that one can never pass from the one to the other by the longest train of Consequences. That you may think indeed is the fault of the shortness of my Discourse, which will not bring me within view of this Truth: For he reckons me to be such a pitiful Gamester, that I am not reflective (as he speaks 
i Pag. 3. ) upon more removes than one of those many I ought to see. It may be so, and I am not unsensible of my own weakness; yet I have done my endeavour to comprehend him, and to fathom the bottom of his deep Discourse, which seems to me shorter and more imperfect than he thinks mine. For he doth not reflect on that which is just next to what he hath said and lies close to it; whilst he rambles to that which lies so far off that no removes will bring him to it. Let him try, if he please: And begin with this Principle, God hath made every man judge of his own Actions; which may be put into these more intelligible words, God hath made every man to determine whether that which he doth be conformable to his Rule, which is the Law or Will of his Creator. Now what is next to this? Therefore, according to this Casuist, He hath made every man to determine what Laws are for the Public Good before he obey them. Doth this follow the other? No such matter. The immediate Consequent of that Principle is this, therefore he hath made him to determine, whether that which Humane Laws enjoin be not cross to his Rule, the Law of God. Now whither will this carry us, or what lies next to it? This; I take it, That if what Humane Laws enjoin be not controlled by that higher Law, he is determined by his very Rule of life to be obedient in that Point. Whether it be for the Public Good or not that he should do it, is another thing, out of the compass of his Judgement; God having made another Judge of that, viz. his Prince, the Governor and Ruler of all. Who by the vety making a Law determines what is for the Public Good, and obliges us, as hath been said already, to comply with it by virtue of God's Law which requires our subjection to him. This is implied in the very term of making a Law: And therefore it is not sense to say, He shall judge what is good as to the making a Law, and we as to obedience; for he doth not only judge, but enjoin when he makes a Law. Which leaves us no liberty but that which he cannot take away (because given us by him, that gave him his Authority) to judge whether his Will and Gods do not clash together. When this is known and determined, we have no more to do, unless we will place ourselves in the Throne, and become Sovereigns, by determining otherwise concerning the Public Welfare than the Proper Judge of it doth. Which in this Nation would be the more insolent and unsufferable, Because there is nothing determined here to be for the People's good, and passes into a Law for them, but by the advice, desire, and consent of those whom the People themselves choose to represent them, and to consider and judge what is most conducing to their Welfare. This is plain reason; and whatsoever inconveniences may ensue from hence, they shall be considered afterward: And should there be no way found to avoid them, they will appear not to be so great, as to resolve in general terms, as this man doth, that they who are to obey, and to follow Public Orders and Decrees, are to judge themselves what is for the Public Good. Mark I pray you, whither these Casuists drive. Other Non-conformists have absolved the People from all Laws about Church matters: And here now is one started up to teach them how to free themselves, if they please, from all Civil Laws and Statutes of the Realm. None shall bind but such as they think good: That is, every man is made a King and Governor himself. The danger of which determination I shall a little lay before you.  
First, it is certainly no easy thing to judge what is best for the People's good: But Kings themselves find it necessary to have their Council to deliberate and advise them to that which will promote it, which they declare to their People by their Laws. And if they did not, the Public Welfare would be but little regarded, though we supposed every man better able to anderstand it than he is.  
For (secondly) when men do know what is conducing to it, they will not presently do it, if their present private Interest incline them otherways. From which two grounds Plato I remember derives the necessity of Laws. There are few private persons that know what is most profitable for Common Life, and of those that know, fewer can or will do it, unless the will of a Superior Power be signified to them and oblige them to it. It is not hard indeed to know what will please themselves, and may make for their own private utility: But what will make for the General Good, that is difficult for them to comprehend, and more difficult to bring them to do it, because they are not inclined to prefer the good of all before that of their own Private Persons. No, Mortal Nature 
k Plato L. 9 de Legibus, p. 875, 880. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  hath a violent Propension to covet and draw all to its particular self; always flying, after a brutish manner, that which it feels grievous, and pursuing that which is pleasant and delightful. For which reason Law is needful to bond, direct, and govern him; since of himself he will not mind the Public Good. If indeed men were of such a nature, saith he, that they understood the Common Good, and had such a portion of Divinity in them, that they would always follow it, they would stand in need of no Law: For that would be better than any Law or Order whatsoever. But since it is rare to find such men; we must make the World as good as we can, by making them subject to a better and more disinteressed reason than their own, which is the Public Order and Law 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . And whosoever he be that makes every man judge of what is for the People's Weal, that man takes away the principal Power of the Magistrate. For he supposes the People able to judge of that; and if they be, there is no need of any Law; and consequently of no Lawgiver.  
But thirdly, they are so far from being able to judge what is for the Public good, that the wisest and best Princes with their Councils find it very difficult; and in many Cases are a long time considering about it before they come to a resolution. And that, though they have the help of those who have been long versed in affairs of this nature, and it is their business on which they attend; they have nothing else to mind unless they please, and information comes to them from all parts, which every private man cannot have; but as he hath something else to do, so he can know but a few of those things which are to be considered in the case. Good and evil, gain and loss, advantage and disadvantage (as that excellent Bishop 
m Replic. to Bish. of Chalcedon. p. 235, 236  I have so often cited may teach him) ought not to be weighed or esteemed from the consideration of one or two Circumstances or Emergents. All Charges, Damages, and Reprises must first be cast up and deducted before one can give a right estimate of benefit or loss. If a Merchant reckon only the Price which his Commodity cost him beyond the Sea, without accounting Customs, Freight, and other Charges, he will impoverish himself, when he thinks he hath sold it to good profit. If the benefit also be only Temporal, and the loss Spiritual (which few think of) as to gain Gold and lose Faith, which is more precious than Gold that perisheth, it is no benefit, whatever a man imagines, but loss and damage. The English Church and the English Kingdom are one and the same Society of men, differing not Really, but Rationally one from another, in respect of some distinct Relations. And that which is truly good for the Kingdom of England cannot be ill for the Church of England▪ nor that which is truly good for the English Church be ill for the English Kingdom. But yet, alas! how hard is it to comprehend what is good for both, and how few can attain it? When so many men are to be considered in different relations, and there are so many things and circumstances that must be considered to make them happy in both those relations; and when their good and happiness depend not upon what is done for them in one, but in both, nor in a respect to a few Circumstances, but to all: any of which if they be wanting, it is not good, but evil. I need not mention the Rule for this, which is commonly known: but ask now, what shall be done when there are so many things to be considered, which will cost so much time and pains to weigh, before we can know what will make for the Public Good? Shall a Private man (whom we now suppose to have the liberty which this Casuist gives) judge without considering or attending to all those things which the Supreme Magistrate had a regard to in making his Law? This is very hard, that a Public Decree, standing on such good grounds, should be thrown down by one that knows them not. And how ill will the Public Good be provided for at this rate, by those that know little what belongs to it? Or shall we suppose every Private man to be of quicker dispatch than their Governors, able to run over all things that are to be considered with more speed than they can do? That's very unlikely, if you reflect upon all that hath been said; and that they have not those advantages of knowing neither what is to be considered, as Public persons have. Or, in conclusion, must the Prince be content to wait till his Subjects have found means to know all that he doth, and till they have considered it, and till they be satisfied that his Law is for the Public Good, before he expect any obedience from them? What then shall become of the Public Good all that time which they take to think of the business? And who knows how long it will be before they are informed and have considered all things? And what if they be so scrupulous as never to be satisfied, because for any thing they know there is more to be considered than they have yet heard of? Besides; there are some Laws which require speed and Expedition in the execution: Must all these stand suspended, no body knows how long, till the Subjects be agreed they are for the Public Good? Must the Equity, Fitness, and Profitableness be sifted by every man if he please; and after all, if he do not like it, may it be rejected? The Prince is in an ill case who hath such Subjects; and he is not in very good whose Divines begin but to instill such Doctrine into them.  
For (fourthly) grant the Subjects such power, and in a little time no Law shall be observed, unless it be by the duller sort of People: The subtle, the fine, and the Conceited will be under no Obligation. Such as the Lacedæmonians, who could not tell to twenty 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Plato in Hippia Majori.  as we say, may prove much addicted to Laws (as Plato tells us they were above all the Grecians) but they who have more skill, and especially such as can tell how numerous their Party is, will easily absolve themselves, if it be against their private interest to obey them. For such is the passionate love men bear to their own private Concerns, that they will be very prone to conclude a thing to be a public mischief, which is only a particular burden to their dear selves. Let the Parliament, for instance, grant his Majesty a Tax, and it will be poorly paid at this race, and many times not without force: He must take it from his Subjects by violence, and be accounted an Oppressor, if they judge it not to be for the Common Good. And it will be very hard for those that love money not to be of that judgement. Their Covetousness will suggest to them, that he stands in no need of it, having a great Revenue; or that it is not for a good End; or that the Proportion is too great for those ends that are pretended; and an hundred such like things too long to remember. Nay, what should hinder if he exact it of a poor people, as they may vote themselves, but that they take Arms also for the Public Good, and the ease of the Subjects, as they did in Richard the Second time? The Parliament at Northampton granted the King a great Subsidy of Head-money, at which some of the Rabble took great distaste, and said it was an Oppression, and tended to their utter undoing. Presently the rest pricked up their ears at the new truth, and the glorious discovery which was made of the people's right to preserve themselves. They were ashamed of their old ignorance, and resolved to prove good Scholars of those Masters who taught them not to suffer any thing to be done to the People's hurt. Their Lords and the Lawyers they learned were Tyrants who must not be endured: And therefore to their Arms they betook themselves to root them out. And who could blame them, since they were Judges of their own Actions, and must determine what is for the People's Weal? Thus they did also in after times, when Henry the Seventh had an aid granted him by Parliament, in the beginning of his third year, toward the Relief of the Duke of Britain, assaulted by the French King. And although the King did not enter into the War but by the advice of the Three Estates, who willingly contributed to it, yet the Northern men raised a Rebellion under colour of the money imposed, and murdered the Earl of Northumberland, whom the King had employed in that Collection: As you may find in our Historians, and in a Dialogue 
o Printed at Middleburgh, 1628.  between a Counsellor of State and a Justice of Peace, said to be writ by Sir Walter Raleigh. In his thirteenth year also, as you may there find (p. 50.) a new Subsidy being granted, the Cornish men took Arms, as the Northern men of the Bishopric had done before. And indeed, thus the Tumults in Scotland began: They must take care of the people's good, whatsoever became of the Laws. And though the Law construe all Levying of War (as that Dialogue observes, p. 36) without the King's Commission, and all Forces raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King, not attending the sequel; and it is judged so upon reason (saith he) for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent: Yet the Public Security was pretended, and upon this score a new Government by Tables (as they called them) erected expressly against the King's Commandment, a Covenant entered into, and a seditious Band annexed to it, several Troops raised, and at last an Army form, for the peace and comfort of all the people 
p They were their own words . By all which you see plainly that this Principle leads to downright Rebellion, if the Subjects think good to follow it; they being Judges as well of that which they are to do, as of that which they are not to do. But let us, if you please, content ourselves with some lesser instances of its mischievous consequence. A Priest of the Roman Church thinks, notwithstanding the Laws which prohibit him, that it is for the People's Weal for him to come hither and draw the King's Subjects to a dependence on the Pope. Doth he sin in this, or doth he not? If he do, than this Principle is naught: For he is Judge of his own Actions as well as you. Why should he not? Since every man is made by God the Judge of them. From whence he may conclude, with this Casuist, that he is not tied to obey any Law which he thinks is not for the People's good. The very same Pretence the People will have, should they molest or drive away those strangers that live among them, though the Law should not only permit, but invite them to transplant themselves hither, because they eat the bread out of the Natives mouths. And this was the very case in 9th year of Hen. 8. 1517. when there was a great heartburning against Aliens in the City, especially among the Artificers, who were much grieved that so many strangers were permitted to resort hither. And one John Lincoln, a Broker, busied himself so far in the matter (which afterward brought him to the Gallows) that about Palm-Sunday he came to Dr. Standish, who was to preach at the Spittle on Monday in Easter Week, and desired him he would declare the great mischief that was like to come to the Realm by the liberty which Strangers enjoyed: and he offered him a Bill to read, which he refused. But he prevailed with him that was to preach on the Tuesday to accept it, and publish it: The Contents of which was, the grief which many found by Strangers who took away the living from Artificers, etc. When he had read it, he began his Sermon with this Sentence, The Heaven is the Lords, but the Earth he hath given to the Children of men. From whence he shown by as plain consequence as this in our Casuist, that this Land is given to English men, and therefore as Birds defend their Nests, so ought Englishmen to cherish and maintain themselves in their Land, and to grieve and hurt Aliens, for respect of their Commonwealth. I will not trouble you with the rest of the Story 
q Which you may find in the Survey of Lond●● by J. Stow, p. 152, etc.  nor with the Uses or Application which the People made of this goodly Sermon: Only this you may know in general, that they bestirred themselves lustily for respect of their Commonwealth. That was the word then, as now it is in this Casuist, the People's Weal: of which he teaches them to take a tender care. And it will be no hard matter to improve their understanding of their own good, and their affection to it so far, as to make them digest this new truth: mentioned by his late Majesty in his Large Declaration 
r Pa. 407. out of the Protestation. 22. Sept. 1638  That what Subjects do of their own heads is much better than what they do in obedience to Authority; the one savouring of constraint, but the other being voluntary and cheerful obedience. Why not? Since at the same time they may be taught that all power is originally in them, and came from them: who entrusted particular persons with it. Which is the surest proof (they will easily believe) that it is to be employed for their good (for they would not have entrusted it with any body to other purposes) and consequently they must retain the power still to hinder those persons from doing otherwise; and in order to that must judge whether they do so or no. This indeed is for the People to command the Magistrate, not to obey him: But it is that Authority which they may fairly assume to themselves from this man's dangerous Maxim. For if People are to submit in all things that are for their good, and no further; then they appeal back to themselves. And this appeal, they may well think, supposes power originally in themselves; some of which they have reserved, as supreme and above all Laws; and why they should not take all back when they judge it is not employed for their good, who can tell? For they are to obey no Laws but those which are for their good, unless it be for fear of wrath; and when they combine together they need not fear that, but can make themselves dreadful, and give what Laws they please to their Governors.  
No, saith this Casuist, a man must not resist; that is express, and rather than resist he must suffer, p. 4. But this is to steal a Goose, and stick a Feather. Why must he, when he is already persuaded that he need not unless he be forced? It is resolved just before, that if the Magistrate command any thing for the People's hurt, there lies no Obligation upon Conscience to be obedient, and they are made judges of what is for their hurt. If then he require them not to resist, and they find this is to their hurt, they are not bound in Conscience not to resist, but only for wrath. And that is not to be feared when the multitude is agreed not to suffer themselves to be injured. But they must avoid contempt and scandal. And so they will in their own opinion, even when they are contemptuous and scandalous. They are Judges of all their own actions for the public good; and they may resolve that which we call contempt and scandal, to be for the honour of the Nation, for the making their Prince glorious, by rescuing him out of the hands of those evil Councillors, who procure Laws for their own private interest, and not the people's good. In short, this Principle, if it be pursued, will prove the very same with that (in the perverse meaning of it) so much cried up when all our mischiefs began, The welfare of the people is the Supreme Law: for the right understanding of which Maxim, I refer you to the last Lecture of Dr. Sanderson, about the Obligation of Conscience. Who hath uprightly determined elsewhere 
t Pralect. 9 N. 9 , that we ought to obey a Law, made by a just Authority, not only when it may be supposed to be made with an ill intention, but when it is unprofitable for the Public, nay, something noxious and hurtful: provided the thing it commands may be done without sin. The Reason is, because every man ought to mind what belongs to his part and duty, and not trouble himself about other men's: and our duty is to obey, not to command and ordain. Besides, I may add, though the Magistrate ought not to ordain any thing but what is for the people's good, yet when he doth otherwise, it will be more for their good to obey him, then to refuse obedience. They ought still to look upon him as God's Minister for their good, because they receive a great many benefits by Government and Order, be it what it will) though in that particular he do amiss; and so to submit to his command. For the mischief of not obeying, is greater than the hurt that is done the people by obedience. It is in effect to turn all things upside down; to reduce the King to the condition of a private man, by making every body a Judge of his Laws whether they shall be obeyed or no. The very truth is, such Casuists as these have quite unhinged the people from their dependence on their Governors, and subjection to them: And I may say of them, as the secular Priests did of the Jesuits in another matter 
t Dialogue between Secular Priests & L●y Gentlemen, 1601. pag. 67. : They have not only much impeached the due estimation, honour and reverend respect which the people carried toward their Superiors, but they have exceedingly impaired (by their tricks, shifts and evasions) the natural sincere condition of our people: which is there most decayed, where they have had conversation and dealing. Many of modest and temperate constitution, are become imperious, brazenfaced and furious: They that were lowly and humble, are become peremptory, rash in their judgement, and disdainful. The simple and sincere are grown cunning and double dealers, full of equivocation in their words, and dissembling in their behaviour.  
Well; perhaps you will say we are all had enough; but when the Doctor now named (Bishop Sanderson) determines that we should be obedient, though the thing required of us be something hurtful to the Public, doth he not imply that, if it be extremely hurtful, we are not obliged? To this I will answer before I end; when I have first told you, that it doth not follow from what hath been said concerning an obligation upon Conscience to yield obedience to Laws, that every transgression of a Law is of so deep a dye as some is. He asks my opinion, you know, about this, in the beginning of his Case: And therefore I think good briefly to direct him to a better medium than any that he hath propounded to find out the several degrees of sin against Humane Laws; and what Laws are of such moment, that a man cannot be accounted a good Christian, or a good Subject that lives in defiance of them. For this end, look back to what was said concerning the nature of a Law, which will lead you to a right understanding in this matter. It is a Declaration of the will of a Prince concerning those things which he judges needful to be done, or avoided by his Subjects. The more needful than he judges any thing to be done or avoided, for the Public good and safety, etc. and the more it appears his will is set upon it; the more his Law is to be reverenced, and the greater the offence is, if it be broken, especially openly, and with an high hand. Now you may know this, partly by the matter itself, as all wise men have determined; if it be a matter of Justice, Charity, Piety, Religion or Peace. Partly, by the manner and form of commanding and forbidding; partly by the greatness of the penalty threatened in case of disobedience, and (lastly) very much by the Preface to his Law: in which, if he be pleased to expound the reasons and the necessity of it, and they appear to be great and weighty, his mind and will is thereby, without all doubt declared, that a more than ordinary regard be had to that Law of his. Apply now all this, if you please, to the Law which hath moved this dispute, and you will find that I had reason to say what I did, and that they have no reason to equal the breach of other Laws (which they mention) with the breach of that. An Act of the seventeenth of our present Sovereign made at Oxford, required such persons as had not, and should not perform some things therein named, not to come within five Miles of any Corporation, etc. The breach of which Law I hold to be a grievous sin; and when a man lives in it, and in defiance of it keeps Conventicles, I said his piety and honesty might justly be called in question. My Reason is, because it is plain to me by those indications now named, that the Lawgiver judges it to be a matter of great consequence, and that he is much concerned it should be observed. For first the Preface to it is solemn, and lets us know that both Religion, and the Civil Peace and tranquillity depends upon it; and that they are removed from Corporations, because if they were there, they might take an opportunity the better to distil the Poisonous Principles of Schism and Rebellion into the hearts of his Majesty's Subjects, to the great danger of the Church and Kingdom. This is the reason and ground of the Act, which is as great as well can be; and therefore the penalty is great; forty pound for every offence: and (as I remember) imprisonment for six months, without Bail or Mainprize (if two Justices of Peace please) unless upon or before such commitment they shall swear and subscribe the Oath and Declaration mentioned in the Act. Compare now this with the other about burying in Linen, and about Wagons which they make such a talk of, and you will find neither the Penalties (five pound in one Act, and forty shillings in the other) nor the Reasons given in the Prefaces any thing near so considerable as those now mentioned. Which is a sign that the Lawgiver doth not judge them of equal moment and necessity; and consequently that the transgression of these Laws is not so heinous, nor so much against his will, as the transgression of the other. The Penalties also for offences against these are ordered to be so employed, that they may do as much good to the Public, as the offences do hurt, setting aside contempt of Authority, which I cannot excuse.  
But may not a Lawgiver, you will say, be mistaken in his judgement, as some think there was an error in that which was enacted about Wagons? And if he be, why should we observe such a Law? I Answer, I am not bound absolutely to be of the Law-giver's opinion, that all such things are for the Public good which he decrees: I am only to follow his will, and do what he enjoins when I can without sin. And this I take myself bound to, even when I conceive it were better for the Public, if it were otherwise ordained. What? will you say again, when there is an intolerable inconvenience, and a very grievous evil to the subjects by obeying? That's the thing I know you would be resolved in. And truly the Moral Divines and Lawyers say no. It is to be supposed, when that case happens, that it not being the intention of a Prince to make his Subjects miserable, he would not have made that Law, if he could have foreseen such a mischief. And therefore it ceases of itself to be a Law, and loses its Obligation. But then in the reducing this to practice, they tell you there are these cautions to be observed. First, Obedience is never to be denied, but when the Law is against the Public good. If it be still consistent with the Public interest, though it be to the damage of some particular persons, they may not break the Law. Again, it must be practised then only when the Mischief to the Public is not small, but so great, that in the judgement of the best and most prudent persons, it be a sufficient cause of disannulling a Law: and doth outweigh the evil of material disobedience. And (thirdly) this mischief likewise must be certain and notorious, not only in our fancy. The security of which is, when it is declared so by the voice of all men (at least of all the wise and good) and not only by a party, whose particular interest is concerned to vote it to be unsupportable. And yet in case the truly wise and good on all sides think it so, they ought not (fourthly) to disobey the Law with the scandal and offence of other men. It must be done so modestly, humbly, and with fear, that the rest of Mankind be not taught hereby to slight all Laws upon little pretences, and trifling regards. And (lastly) to secure all, we must, if we have time and opportunity, ask leave of the Lawgiver, whose leave is to be presumed in such cases, only in time of a sudden danger. And having done thus; if we should be mistaken, and judge that a public mischief which is not, yet the guilt of our disobedience will not be deadly, but such as will easily find pardon both with God and man. To this purpose you may read more in that Doctor (Bishop Taylor) out of whom this Casuist quotes a line or two, relating to this matter only, separated from all the rest of his discourse. Which gives me occasion to note his disingenuity; for besides all the Cautions which the Bishop 
r Rule of Conscience, Book 3. R. 3. N. 10. etc.  there gives, I observe (since I writ all this) that he expressly determines point-blank against this man's decision of his Case. For this is his Maxim, Rule 7. That a Law should oblige the Conscience, does not depend upon the acceptation of the Law by the people. Which, supposing that which hath been already said, is a certain Rule he tells you, and there is no doubt in it.  
Of this mind were the first Christians (as I shall not now stand to show you) and our first Reformers of Christianity in this Kingdom. Who, I must let you know, used no such distinctions, as these men do now; but said expressly the same that I do. That we must submit to all manner of Ordinances of men for the Lords sake, so long as they ordain nothing contrary to the express Word of God. And be that resisteth shall receyve to himself damnation; for as much as he resisteth the Ordinance of God. They are the words of a Book called, the Destruction of small Vices, written in Edward the Sixth's days, as far as I can guests. Tyndal also taught the people thus 
x Obedience of a Christian man, fol. 26 : Whosoever keeps the Law of the Prince, whether it be for fear or vainglory, or profit, though no man reward him, God will bless him abundantly, and send him worldly prosperity; as thou readest, Deut. 28. what good blessings accompanied the keeping of the Law, 
 and as we see the Turks far exceed us Christian men in worldly prosperity, for their just keeping of their temporal Laws. And in another nameless Book, called the sum of the Holy Scripture 
y Printed by John Day with privilege 1547. chap. 26. , I find this Declaration, That the very Christian yieldeth himself willingly under the governance of the Sword, and Temporal Justice; he payeth tailles, he honoureth the Puissance and worldly highness; he serveth, he helpeth; he doth all that ever he may do, to th'intent that the same Puissance may prosper, and be kept in honour and feared: albeit, that the same Puissance to him is neither needful nor profitable. 
 And if he should not do so, be were no Christian, but should sin against the Rule of Charity. For he should give evil ensample to other, that they should not honour the Temporal Puissance, but despise it. And this despising of the Temporal Puissance, bringeth dissension, and (mark this) maketh sensual persons profitable unto nothing.  
It would be too tedious to add the words of other good men, and therefore I shall only desire you to ponder the counsel and direction of the famous Amyraldus, late Professor at Saumur. For you are much concerned in it, being given with a particular respect to our affairs, in an address to our present Sovereign 
z Paraphr. in Psalm Epist. Dedic. 1662. pag. 1. . There are three things, saith he, by which the course of our life is governed, and, as we may say, steered in this Sea of worldly affairs. By the Law of Nature; by the Laws of our Country; and by the Study of propagating Religion. To this last we should yield all, if the other two do not openly gainsay it. Where either the Law of Nature, or the Political Laws do command any thing, which is inconsistent with our Study of promoting Religion; we must diligently consider, what God commands us in that matter, that so we may exactly distinguish between his Will and our own; between what he requires, and what we are moved unto only by our own zeal. What God commands is to be done, though our Parents or Magistrates command the contrary. But whatsoever is commanded by them, which is not contrary to the express Precepts of Religion 
a Disertis Religionis praceptis non adversum. , that we are to look upon as commanded and given us in charge by God himself (because God is the Author of their Power, as he is the Author of Nature) whose Commands, and not our own voluntary Zeal, we are to make the Rule of our life. And therefore we are not here to have more regard, either to the danger which we may fancy the Church is in, 
 or to the hope which we have conceived to ourselves of advancing the Glory of God, then to that Will of the most high God, which is manifested to us either in Nature, or in Civil Laws. For God hath affection enough to his own Glory, and kindness enough to his Church, and Power and Wisdom sufficient, notwithstanding all the dangers that I see, to advance his Kingdom, and support his Church: although I contain myself within the bounds and limits which Nature and Civil Government prescribes.  
This is the resolution of that excellent person, by whose Principles I wish hearty you would all govern yourselves: otherwise the most glorious profession that you can make, will not persuade us you have the same spirit of Christian Piety. You have read perhaps, or heard how the Devil one day appeared to St. Martin, as he was at prayer; all glittering and shining in a most Majestic state: telling him that he was Christ, who being shortly to come down upon Earth, gave him a visit first. This he repeated again, saith the story, 
Sulpitius Severus in vita ejus, cap. 25.  and bid him not be faithless, but believe. So I will, replied the good man, but not till I see him in that habit and form wherein he suffered, bearing the Marks of his Cross. The Application is easy; and in short but this. If you would be acknowledged for the faithful Disciple of the Lord Jesus, let us see you in that garb wherein they always appeared; taking up the Cross patiently, humbly and lowly, meek and gentle, quiet and peaceable; submissive to Government, and obedient to Laws: Till then, we suspend our belief. Farewell.  
FINIS.   

Books printed for Henry Eversden, under the Crown-Tavern in West-Smithfield.  
THe Divine History of the Genesis of the World, explicated and illustrated; or a Philosophical Comment on the first Chapter of Genesis, and trial of Philosophy both Ancient and Modern by that most infallible Rule. Anonymus, in quarto.  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Or, a Being filled with the Spirit: As also the Divinity or Godhead of the Holy Ghost asserted, and the Arguments brought against it throughly examined and answered, etc. By John Goodwin late of Coleman-street, London, quarto.  
3. Theodulia: Or, a Just defence of Hearing the Sermons and other teaching of the present Ministers of England: By John Tombs B.D.  
4. A serious examination of the Independants Catechism, and therein of the chief Principles of Nonconformity to, and separation from the Church of England, in two Parts. To which is added, an Appendix of the Authority of Kings, and obedience of Subjects: By Benj. Camfield, Rector of Whitwell in Derbyshire.  
5. The Pen's Dexterity Completed: Or Mr. Rich's Shorthand perfectly taught, which in his life-time was never done by any thing in Print: Allowed by both Universities Oxford and Cambridge.  
FINIS.