THE Presbyterians Unmasked: OR, ANIMADVERSIONS UPON A Nonconformist Book, CALLED, The Interest of ENGLAND IN THE Matter of RELINGION.  
Nihil ●cci dici● 3 I●o Nihil Fateris.  
QVISEQVITUR ME NON AMBULAT IN TEN●●RIS.  
Non Quis, sed Quid. Not Who, but What.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to his most Sacred Majesty, at the Angel in Amen-Corner, 1676.   

THE PREFACE.  
THough perhaps there have been several Junctures since 1661. wherein the publishing of these Animadversions (which were then finished) would have been judged more seasonable, yet I must profess myself in the number of those men who believe nothing of this nature can come out unseasonably, till either the Old cause cease to be thought good, or else the good old cause cease to be on the Anvil. And who can imagine but that it is so still when men still endeavour to support factious Parties in opposition to the Laws of the Land? Nay have the impudence to inveigh even against the Laws themselves that were designed to secure the State for the future, against the malignant influences, and the disturbing pernicious attempts of Presbyterian (as well as other Sectarian) Spirits, witness that late vile Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country; in which the able, but more daring Author accuses the Act for regulating Corporations as keeping many of the wealthiest, worthiest and soberest men out of the Magistracy of those places: The Act which settled the Militia, as establishing a standing Army by a Law, and swearing us into a Military Government. (Whereas nothing does more justify the necessity of a standing Army (of which such a jealousy is pretended) than the cross-grained seditious humours of those men who exclaim most against it.) The Five-mile- Oxford- Act, as imposing a most unlawful and unjustifiable Oath; and the Act for Uniformity, as that which rendered Bartholomew-day fatal to our Church, and Religion, in throwing out a very great number of worthy learned pious and Orthodox Divines. In which glorious Titles the Presbyterian Divines were without doubt intended to have the greatest share, and the Lay-Presbyterians in the forementioned character of the Wealthiest, Worthiest, and Soberest men. 'Tis a wonder he did not add [and most loyal Subjects;] but it may be he was not so intimately acquainted with them as this John Corbet was, who is so profuse and lavish of his praises as to commend Presbyterians 
Interest of England, p. 66. 2. Edit.  even on this score too. [We affirm boldly, says he, that those for whom we plead (viz. Presbyterians) must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King, and good members of a Christian Commonwealth.] The Man I confess has an excellent knack at whitening Aethiopians, and putting Wolves into sheep's clothing: But he must not be angry if we endeavour (for our own and other men's security) to strip them of that covering, lest under the specious disguises of Religion, Reformation, and Liberty they once more rend and tear us, and make us a prey to Atheism, Confusion, and Tyranny. It concerns us to have the Presbyterian vizor taken off, and these worthy, learned, sober, serious Gentlemen of the pad exposed in their proper shape and features, that so they may be too well known to be suffered to rob us any more of our Laws, Government, Order, Peace and tranquillity. And therefore he does a very good office who at any time gives men warning to take heed of these devouring Sepulchers: And because this demure Author had taken so much pains to make them appear beautiful outwardly, I thought it worth mine to pair away the grass, and to set a fresh mark upon them, that so honest men might not fall into them unawares, nor permit themselves to be again defiled with Presbyterian uncleanness.   

Imprimatur  
Maii 2. 1676. G. Jane R. P. D. Henr. Episcopo Lond. à Sac. Dom.   

ANIMADVERSIONS on a Book Entitled, The Interest of ENGLAND in the matter of RELIGION.  
THE Author having told us, Page 16. (26. 2. Edit.) that among the various disagreeing Parties within this Kingdom, two main ones appear above the rest, viz. the Episcopal, and Presbyterian: and that the disunion between these Parties must be removed either by the abolition of one Party, or by the coalition of both into one, or by a toleration indulged to the weaker side, he proceeds p. 17. (27.) (without staying to inform us how disunion of Parties may be said to be removed either by the abolition, or toleration of one Party) to that which he presumes the great case of the time, and therefore proposes it as the subject of his discourse, viz. in which of these three ways, Abolition, Coalition, or Toleration the true Interest of the King and Kingdom lies. And the first thing that he inquires into is,  
[Whether in Justice or reason of State the Presbyterian Party should be rejected and depressed, or protected and encouraged?]  
Which Party he distinguishes from Prelatists by these Characters (which p. 20. (30.) he calls their main and rooted Principles.) 1. They admire and magnify the holy Scriptures, and take them for the absolute perfect Rule of Faith and life without the supplement of Ecclesiastical Tradition— yet they deny not due respect and reverence to venerable Antiquity. 2. They assert the study and knowledge of the Scriptures to be the duty and privilege of all Christians— yet they acknowledge the necessity of a standing Gospel-ministery, and receive the directive Authority of the Church, not with implicit Faith, but the Judgement of Discretion. 3. They hold the teaching of the Spirit necessary to the saving knowledge of Christ— yet they hold not that the spirit brings new Revelations. 4. They exalt divine ordinances, but debase humane inventions in God's worship, particularly Ceremonies, properly religious, and of instituted, mystical signification— yet they allow the natural expressions of reverence and devotion, as kneeling, and lifting up of the hands and eyes in prayer: as also those mere circumstances of decency and order, the omission whereof would make the service of God either undecent or less decent. 5. They rejoice in Christ Jesus having no confidence in a legal righteousness, but desire to be found in him who is made unto us righteousness by gracious imputation: yet withal they affirm constantly that good works of piety towards God, and of justice and charity towards men are necessary to salvation. 6. Their Doctrine bears full conformity with that of the Reformed Churches held forth in their public confessions, and particularly with that of the Church of England in the 39 Articles; only one or two passages peradventure excepted so far as they may import the asserting of Prelacy, and humane mystical Ceremonies. 7. They insist much on the necessity of Regeneration, and therein lay the groundwork for the practice of Godliness. 8. They press upon themselves and others the severe exercise not of a Popish outside, formal, but a spiritual and real mortification, and self denial according to the power of Christianity. 9 They are strict observers of the Lords day, and constant in Family-Prayer. 10. They abstain from Oaths, yea petty Oaths, and the irreverent usage of God's name in common discourse. 11. They are sober, just and circumspect in their whole conversation. Such, says he, is the temper and constitution of this Party, which in its full latitude lies in the middle between those that affect a ceremonial worship and the height of Hierarchical Government on the one hand, and those that reject an ordained ministry and settled Church-Order and regular Unity on the other hand.  
Now either the man would have all these particularly looked upon as truly discriminating characters of the Presbyterians, from the Prelatical party, or he would not; if he would not, to what end does he here mention them? and that as middle Principles in reference to the two extremes, viz. Prelatists and rejecters of an Ordained ministry and settled Church-order, and regular unity? if he would, with what face, justice or honesty, does he imply that the Prelatists magnify not the holy Scriptures as the absolute, perfect, rule of Faith and life? that they deny the study and knowledge of the Scriptures to be the duty and privilege of all Christians, or the teaching of the Spirit to be necessary to the saving knowledge of Christ? that they exalt not divine ordinances? that they worship not God in the spirit according to the simplicity of Gospel Institutions? that they affirm not constantly good works towards God and men necessary to salvation, etc. Let him evince if he can, that the Prelatists are thus culpable; if he cannot, he deserves to be reckoned, not in the number of such Presbyterians as are [just and circumspect in their whole behaviour] but of such as practically deny justice and charity towards men to be necessary to salvation. And if he can with truth affirm (as I suppose he may) that the Presbyterian party believe S. James his Epistle (and the second chapter of it) to be Canonical Scripture, and that (according to his doctrine verse 10.) he that offends in one point of the Law of liberty is guilty of all, they are little beholding to him for exhibiting such a Character of them to the world, wherein so very few of those excellent virtues taught by our Saviour in his Sermon on the mount, and inculcated as Essential to Christianity and absolutely necessary to salvation, are mentioned as practised by that Party.  
I am sure Prelatists have great reason to complain of his fraudulent, disingenuous dealing, in endeavouring to cheat the world with such an imperfect pourtraicture of the Presbyterian party: wherein his behaviour is no more commendable than his would be who had either ignorance or confidence enough to give this as an adequate description of the Sect of the Pharisees, viz. They were persons that disdained not to hear John the Baptist's Sermons, and to come to his Baptism, Matth. 3. 5, 7. They gathered together also to hear Christ himself, Luk. 5. 17. Mark 2. 6. They kept him company at Feasts, as appears from Mark 2. 16. and abroad, Matth. 12. 2. One of them invited him to his house to Dinner, Luk. 7. 36. They made long Prayers, Matth. 23. 14. They gave Alms, Matth. 6. 2. They fasted twice a week, and gave Tithes of all they had, Luk. 18. 12. They outwardly appeared righteous, Matth. 23. 27, 28. They avoided the Society of such as were reputed sinners and offensive in their lives; and therefore accused Christ (though wrongfully) for eating with them, Matth. 9 11. They were the most exact and strictest Sect of the Jewish Religion (their Doctrine was, say some, least corrupt,) of which Sect Paul was, Act. 26. 5. Their Disciples as well as S. John's were exercised in fasting and prayer, Luk. 5. 33. Would our Author account it candid and sincere dealing if one of the Pharisees friends should present him with such a partial character of them? would he not look upon it as too grossly parasitical, and scandalously favourable? especially if exhibited in order to the re●olution of such a question as this, [Whether the Pharisaical Party ought in Justice to be rejected and depressed, or protected and encouraged by our Saviour?] or whether they ought to be called Hypocrites, Serpents and a Generation of Vipers, and to have Woe denounced against them eight times in one Sermon? would he think it fairly done to conceal their devouring widows houses? their straining at Gnats, and swallowing Camels? their covetousness? their neglecting the weightier matters of the Law, Judgement, mercy, and Fidelity? Or suppose the question were put [Whether in justice or reason of State the Jesuits should be rejected and depressed, or protected and encouraged here in England?] Would he (in order to the decision of this question) rest content with this character of that Society, viz. they believe all the books of the Old and New Testament, (which the English Protestants own) to be the word of God.— They assent to all the Articles of the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed.— They acknowledge the necessity of a standing Gospel-ministry.— They allow the natural expressions of reverence and devotion, and those circumstances of decency and order, the omission whereof would make the Service of God either undecent or less decent.— They affirm works of piety towards God and of charity towards men, to be necessary to salvation.— I say, would this man judge this character of that Society so entire and comprehensive, as that a more full and impartial deciphering of them would be needless in reference to a right determination of that question? I trow not. Would he not judge this also fit to be considered, viz. whether they deny that Faith is to be kept with Protestants?— Whether they own the King's Supremacy in all matters, over all persons, Ecclesiastical and Civil, within his own Dominions? Whether they will take the Oath of Allegiance and fidelity to Him, his Heirs and Successors?— Whether they approve Subjects taking up Arms against their Sovereign? whether they are persons resolved to yield all due obedience to the Laws of the Land and constitutions of our lawful Governors both Ecclesiastical and Civil, supreme and subordinate? Surely Reason of State (if by that be meant State-Policy in order to self-preservation) will prompt all Kings and Princes diligently and deliberately to inquire and consider, whether those who would be protected and encouraged by them deserve to have such a black character affixed upon them or no, and consequently they might justly treat that Writer with severity who should dare to move Kings to protect and encourage such persons, by giving in a list of a few wholesome opinions of theirs, and treacherously (or rather traitorously) concealing their damnable and pernicious tenants.  
That this man's Character of the English Presbyterians is of this nature may be evident to any person that reflects upon and seriously considers their solemn League and Covenant, framed and imposed in the time of the Long Parliament, in the first Article whereof they swear that they will sincerely and constantly endeavour in their places and callings the preservation of the Reformed Religion, [in the Church of Scotland,] in Doctrine, Worship, [Discipline and Government.] Now the Scotch Author or [Ladensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in his Postscript against Lysimachus Nicanor, tells us, p. 35. that Episcopacy is no way so opposite to the Discipline of [any reformed Church] as to that Discipline which many Assemblies and Parliaments have settled in Scotland: and therefore he concludes thus, p. 36. 37. [we cannot dissemble any longer our hearty wishes,— that England would after the example of all the reformed Churches rid themselves at last of their Bishop's trouble, as they did of old, without any repentance to this day, of their Abbots and Monks. This, says he, we conceive would much increase the joy and prosperity of all the three Dominions. Accordingly those Covenanters swore also to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, according to the word of God, and [the example] of the best reformed Churches. Now all the reformed Churches, as the same Author affirms, p. 35. cast out at first, and to this day have carefully holden at the door even that kind of Episcopacy which their chief Divines seemed not much to oppose. Suitable whereunto is that which Presbyterians swore in the second Article of the Covenant, viz. to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government by Bishops (as well as by Archbishops, Chancellors, Commissaries, etc.) With what face therefore can this Author presume to tell us, p. 19 (29.) that the Form of Ecclesiastical Government by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries, Provincial and National Assemblies, is remote enough from the main cause of Presbytery? especially since he affirms, p. 24. (34.) that one of his Majesty's Kingdoms (Scotland) is Presbyterian, by which sure he means not [moderately Episcopal:] for p. 59 (69.) that he may prove the Presbyterian Form of Government a. Fence against Heresies and Errors, he instances in the Form of Ecclesiastical Policy and method of Discipline in the Church of Scotland, which (as there described) is no otherwise than by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries, Provincial and National Assemblies. Now how injurious the Scotch Discipline (which English Presbyterians have thus covenanted to introduce) is to the civil magistrate, how oppressive to the subject, and pernicious to both, Bishop Bramhall, (since Primate of Ireland) hath abundantly manifested in his [Fair warning for England to take heed of the Scotch Discipline; or as 'tis lately Printed, of the Presbyterian Government.] In which treatise he endeavours to prove that their Discipline doth utterly overthrow the rights of Magistrates to convocate Synods, to confirm their Acts, to order Ecclesiastical Affairs, and reform the Church within their Dominions; that it robs the Magistrate of the last Appeal of his Subjects; that it exempts the Ministers from due punishment; that it subjects the supreme magistrate to their Censures; that it robs him of his pardoning power (as to some crimes) of his civil power in order to Religion; that it makes a monster of the Commonwealth, is most prejudicial to the Parliament, is oppressive to particular persons, and hurtful to all orders of men; that the Disciplinarians challenge this exorbitant power by Divine right. The truth of these propositions he hath evinced out of their Books of Discipline, and public Records of their practice. Since therefore the English Presbyterians have sworn to endeavour the preservation of this Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland, and to reform the Discipline and Government here in England, according to— the Example of the reformed Church in Scotland, 'tis but a piece of justice and reason that the King's Majesty should look upon them as persons owning those seditious Principles, upon which such enormous Disciplinarian practices are grounded. Some of which Principles are these: 1. That their National Assemblies ought always to be retained in their own liberties (of convening lawfully together, p. 7.) with power to the Kirk to appoint times and places. 2. That they have power to abolish and abrogate all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters, that are found noisome and unprofitable, and agree not with the time, or are abused by the people; and to make Rules and Constitutions for keeping good order in the Kirk, (p. 8.) 3. That Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised, whether it be ratified by the civil magistrate or no, p. 9, 12. 4. That from the Kirk there is no reclamation nor appellation to any judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm, p. 13. 5. That to their Discipline all the Estates within the Realm must be subject, as well Rulers as they who are ruled, p. 16. 6. That the Civil Magistrate cannot pardon any crime that was made capital by the judicial Law, p. 12. 7. That matters of the Pulpit ought to be exempted from the judgement and correction of Princes, p. 14. In proportion to which principles, the Kirk p. 5. by their own Authority decreed the abolition of Bishops, requiring them to resign their offices (as not having any call from God's word) under pain of Excommunication, and to desist from preaching till they had a new admission from the general Assembly.— They resolved also to dispose of their possessions as the King's Patrimony in the next Assembly.— When they could not prevail to have their Book of Discipline ratifyed by the Civil Authority, they obtruded it on the Church themselves, p. 6. ordaining that all those who had born or did then bear any office in the Church should subscribe it under pain of excommunication.— By their own authority also, p. 7. under the specious title of Jesus Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, the only Monarch of this Church, and under pretence of his prerogative Royal they erected their own Courts and Presbyteries in the most part of Scotland, long before they were legally approved or received.— In their Assembly at Edinburgh, 1647. they determined, that nothing should be passed in the next Parliament till the Church was fully restored to its Patrimony; yea, (says the Lord Primate p. 5.) they arrived to that degree of sauciness, Anno 1600. and reduced the Sovereign power to such contempt that 20 Presbyters (no more at the highest, sometimes but 13, sometimes but 7 or 8) dared to hold and maintain a general Assembly (as they miscalled it) after it was discharged by the King, against his Authority; an Insolence which never any Parliament durst attempt. Anno 1582. they rejected Mongomery's appeal from themselves to King James, as made to an incompetent Judge, and proceeded violently against him notwithstanding the King's prohibition, p. 13. They who have a mind to see more instances of the like nature may read that Book of the Archbishop.  
Now the Question must be, 1. whether those English Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the Preservation of the Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland, ought not to be looked upon as persons approving those Principles and practices upon which that Discipline and Government is founded and exercised? 2. Whether those English Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England in Discipline and Government according to the example of the best reformed Churches, in the number of which Churches they may well be supposed to reckon the Kirk of Scotland, ought not to be looked upon as persons engaging themselves to imitate that Kirk by endeavouring the Introduction of the like practices here in England, grounded on the like principles? 3. Whether therefore such an approbation of those Principles and Practices ought not in justice to have been mentioned as part of their Character? and 4. Whether persons that may justly have such a character affixed upon them, ought in justice or reason of State to be protected and encouraged, or rejected and depressed?  
Whereas this Author tells us, p. 24. (34.) [that the men of the Presbyterian persuasion are not lukewarm, but true zealots.] I answer, They are so much the more dangerous and more likely to be Instruments of mischief, unless their zeal be ballasted with knowledge and discretion, and exerted in lawful ways. Indeed if they are like the Scotch Disciplinarian zealots before mentioned, they are so far from being lukewarm, that they are rather Seditious Incendiaries, and prone to nothing more than the kindling of devouring Fires in that Nation where they are encouraged.  
Nevertheless, says he, they have no fellowship with the spirit of Enthusiastical and Anabaptistical fancy and frenzy.] What! not in their main and rooted Principles? By which he characterizes them, p. 20, 21. (30, 31.) which I intimate chief as another Argument of the lameness and imperfection of that character. We have reason to believe that our modern Presbyterians are somewhat better than their Forefathers, if they do not agree with them and the Anabaptists: 1. In disturbing the Church under pretence of reforming it. 2. In labouring both by conferences in private, and by Sermons in public to draw the common people from their liking the present State. 3. In publishing factious Books to the view of the world. 4. In disdaining and reproaching Magistrates for endeavouring to bring them to conformity by compulsion. 5. In slandering and reviling those Ministers that withstand their factious proceed, attributing much good to themselves, and pouring contempt and discredit upon their opposites. 6. In impugning the prescript Form of Prayer. 7. In holding that the word of God must of necessity be preached before the Administration of the Sacraments. 8. In protesting that they go not about to take any authority from Magistrates, even while they seek to overthrow the Government of the State. That the Anabaptists in Germany were thus guilty, and the Presbyterians in England in Q. Elizabeth's days, I refer the Reader for proof to Oliver Ormerod's picture of a Puritan, (written about those times, and reprinted 1605.) wherein he endeavours to prove, that the Puritans than resembled the Anabaptists in above fourscore Points. See also Archbishop Whitgift's defence of his Answer to the Admonition, p. 33, 34. (in Fol.)  
And I wish it were not easy to manifest, that our late Covenanting Presbyterians have had too much fellowship with the spirit of these Anabaptistical Frenzies now mentioned,— who, says this Author, are no fanatics, although they begin to be by some abused under that name. But he might have known that turbulent Presbyterians have been so called long since, by one that had skill enough to give persons such names as were suitable to their Natures, even King James himself in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, B. 2. where speaking of some Scotch Puritans, such fiery-spirited-Presbyterians as endeavoured to introduce a parity in the Church; you shall never find, says he, with any High-land or Border Thiefs more lies and vile perjuries, than with those Fanatic Spirits, etc.  
But, says this Author, they are persons of known learning, prudence, piety, and gravity in great numbers.] Here it may be questioned, 1. How he can prove this Encomium of them to be true? 2. Whether the Quakers do not excel them in gravity, the Anabaptists in piety, the Independents in prudence, the Prelatists in learning, and some Jesuits in all four? and yet this Author seems willing enough to have all these parties rejected and depressed.  
[Besides of inferior rank a vast multitude of knowing, serious, honest people.] 1. This also wants proof. 2. The more learning, prudence, piety, and gravity, those of the superior rank have, the more peaceably and quietly they will live under lawful Governors, and the more obediently they will submit to their Laws; which therefore if either they or those of inferior rank refuse to do, they are either less knowing or less serious and honest than in conscience it concerns those to be, who expect to be protected and encouraged by Governors.  
[None of all which are led blindfold by Tradition or implicit Faith.]  
This man sure is a very knowing person himself, if he be so well acquainted with all the Presbyterians, as to be able to aver this of them all, or of a vast multitude of them upon good grounds. But is he indeed certain that none of them are so lazy, ignorant, and sottish, as to be led blindfold by the Tradition and dictates of their Presbyterian Parsons? Did none of them by an implicit Faith believe it lawful to take the Covenant? Do none of them by an implicit Faith believe the Rites and Forms by Law and Canons established among us unlawful? p. 29. (39) Was it not an implicit Faith (in the seditious Doctrines of the Society of Jesus) whereby they believed it lawful to take up Arms against their lawful Sovereign?  
[Or do run headlong into Fanatic delusions.] Are any turned fanatics at last but those that were first such Presbyterians as himself describes, p. 21, 22?  
[But they give up themselves to the sole direction and authority of the holy Scriptures.]  
He hath told us before, that they deny not due respect and reverence to venerable Antiquity, p. 20. (30.) Let him show if he can, how they respect and reverence venerable Antiquity, if they afford it not [some directive] Authority. 2. Why may not Independents and Anabaptists as well be said to give up themselves to the sole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures, as Presbyterians?  
[Wherefore impartial Reason will conclude, that they chose this way as with sincerity of affection, so with gravity of judgement; and that the things themselves, even the more disputable part of them (as that against the Hierarchy and Ceremonies) are such as may frequently prevail with good and wise men.]  
Which inference signifies nothing till the truth of the premises be cleared, except the Author's confidence that the Prelatists have reason to believe whatsoever he says in the praise of Presbyterians, merely because he is bold enough to say it.  
[Inasmuch as they appear to those that have embraced them, to have the Impress of Divine Authority, and the Character of Evangelical Purity.]  
Dares this Author deny that the Principles of other Sectaries appear to those that have embraced them to have the Impress of Divine Authority, and the Character of Evangelical Purity? If not, does it follow that those men also chose their way with sincerity of affection and gravity of judgement? or that their opinions may frequently prevail with good and wise men? if it does not follow, why does he argue so weakly and injudiciously?  
[For the reasons aforegoing, the infringement of due liberty in these matters would perpetuate most unhappy controversies in the Church from age to age.]  
It seems the man is of opinion, that all parties ought to be tolerated, yea encouraged, who choose their way with sincerity of affection and gravity of judgement, and upon such grounds as may frequently prevail with good and wise men, inasmuch as they appear to them to have the Impress of Divine Authority, and the Character of Evangelical Purity. If he be not of this opinion, let him show why Presbyterians ought to be encouraged, and not others that have the same qualifications. If he be, let him produce convincing Arguments that other Sects have not all these qualifications, that is, that the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers were for the generality either Fools or Knaves, when they chose those ways. Besides, does he imagine that the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers are not as desirous of due liberty in their way as the Presbyterians are in theirs? or that the men of those persuasions are so lukewarm in their affections, or so inconsiderable for their number, as that the infringement of their liberty will not perpetuate most unhappy Controversies in this Church? Ergò, by this Authors (Presbyterian) Logic, they ought in reason of State to be protected and encouraged as well as Presbyterians.  
If the three next Pages prove any thing, they evince that the Presbyterian Leaven will from time to time sour the lump of this Church and State, if such literally-Polemical, and unchristianly-practical Teachers, as too many of them are, be protected and encouraged. 'Tis no wonder that Tares should grow where they are suffered to be sown; and that they should spoil the Wheat where they are nourished. I find it observed by a late writer, 
See the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament, P. 73.  out of Bishop Bancroft, that he long since plainly foretold, that the Puritans would never give over their clamour for Reformation, till they had utterly ruined the whole Kingdom and Church: and yet, said he, there are divers (meaning men in great places) that would gladly have these things smothered up, being willing to think that the Puritans were no such dangerous men as he and others did take them to be; only scrupulous and peevish perhaps about Ceremonies, and therefore were willing to forbear them, and not to censure them sharply. But that Prelate did wisely tell them, That if any such mischiefs (which God forbidden) shall happen hereafter, they were sufficiently warned, that both should and might (in good time) have prevented them; and withal it would then be found true which Livy says, Urgentibus Rempublicam fatis, Dei & hominum salutares admonitiones spernuntur.— When the Lord for the sins of a people is purposed to punish any Country, he blindeth the eye: of the wise so as they shall either neglect or not perceive the ordinary means for the safety thereof, etc.  
This Author would persuade us, p. 29. (39) that the numerous Presbyterian party will not vary from itself, or vanish upon changes in Government or new Accidents; for it rests not upon any private, temporary, variable occasion, but upon a cause perpetual and everlasting. Those forementioned principles of science and practice which give it its proper being, are of that firm and fixed nature, that new contingencies will not al●er them, nor length of time wear them out.] To which I answer: 1. If this Party is so invariable, how comes it to pass that those Rites and Ceremonies which himself tells us, p. 28. (38.) were heretofore by the greatest part of the Ministers named Puritans, looked upon, and yielded to as things in their own nature [Indifferent,] are now accounted (p. 29. (39) by most of this way [Unlawful?] Does not this argue a variation in this Party from itself? Hath not length of time worn out those their former Principles of science and practice? Dr. John Burges (in his Preface to his answer in Vindication of Bishop Morton touching Ceremonies) tells us, p. 11. that the State (in K. James his Reign) would never suffer these Ceremonies to be questioned of [unlawfulness] which Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Chaderton, Dr. Spark, and the rest of the most eminent men of this Nation, who seemed to favour that Party, would neither affirm to be unlawful, nor be known that any of that side were so [weak] as to think so. But now it seems the men famed so much by this Author for their Learning and Orthodoxy, their excelling in Polemical and Practical Divinity, p. 23. (33.) these Judicious and Prudent men that have no Fellowship with Anabaptistical Fancy and Frenzy, p. 24. (34.) these knowing and wise men, (p. 24, 25.) these fixed and unalterable men, p. 29. (39) are grown so weak and feeble in their Intellectuals, so Feminine in their resolves, as to deem them unlawful. Again, if they are such an invariable Party in their Principles of science and practice, what's the reason that in these days they have Covenanted to endeavour the extirpation of that English Hierarchy which in the days of yore their Presbyterian Ancestors were far from condemning as wicked and intolerable? Witness this passage which Crakanthorp in his Desens. Eccles. Anglicanae contra Archiepisc. Spalat. p. 243. quotes out of Henry Jacob, one of that Party, who is his Tract de Veritate Vocat. Minister. p. 88 against Johnson the Brownist, speaks thus; Quisquis quicquam de Ecclesiae Anglicanae Statu intelligit, non potest non videre multos eosque doctos in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ sentire & docere Hierarchicum quod nunc est in eâ Regimen unicum esse verum ac legitimum Regiminis genus; ferè omnes (etiam Puritanoes) idem ut indifferens & legitimum agnoscere, perpaucos verò & vix usquam quenquam invenies qui ut malum, impium aut non ferendum judicant. He that understands any thing of the State of the English Church, cannot but see that many learned men in the Church of England believe and teach, that the Hierarchical Government by which 'tis ruled, is the only true and legitimate Form of Government: and that almost all men acknowledge it indifferent and lawful: and that there are very few, scarce any men any where to be found who judge it evil, wicked, or intolerable. Thus he, who in the same P. is quoted by that Doctor as expressing himself to this purpose in behalf of the English Church-Government and Discipline. Haec verò Christi esse dicuntur, licet non à Christo sed ab Ecclesiâ mandata & praescripta sint, cùm Ecclesiae Authoritatem Christus dedit ea quae commoda ipsi visa erant instituendi & praescribendi. Ex hoc genere & regimen Ecclesiasticum & Ceremonias dicimus, quia non simpliciter in Fundamento aut Verbo Dei ut perpetuò observanda traduntur, sed arbitrio Ecclesiae & Magistratuum relinquuntur. Sic nos de his docemus, tenemus, & persuasi sumus nihil usquam in sacris literis repugnans, sed potius his consona reperiri.— Quòd si objicias multos inter nos socus sentire, respondeo, Generale hoc esse & Ministrorum & Ecclesiarum Anglicanarum de his Judicium, etiamsi unus fortè aut duo ex centenis aut millenis secus opinentur. These things, viz. the Hierarchical Government and Discipline are truly said to be of Christ, though they are not commanded and prescribed by Christ but the Church, forasmuch as Christ hath given the Church Authority to institute and prescribe those things which to her seem expedient; of this kind we affirm Ecclesiastical Government and Ceremonies to be, because they are not simply and immediately founded on the Word of God, or delivered there as immutable Constitutions, but are left to the pleasure of the Church and Magistrates. This is our Doctrine and opinion touching these things; and we are persuaded that nothing can be found in sacred Writ repugnant, but several passages agreeable to these sentiments: And if it be objected that many among us are of another mind; I answer, That this is the Judgement of the generality, both of the Ministers and Churches in England, though perhaps one or two among a hundred or a thousand opine otherwise.  
But now it seems the Presbyterian party is so variable and alterable from these its quondamopinions and principles, as to imagine those Rites and Forms which the Church hath prescribed, unlawful, and that the Hierarchical Form of Church-Government ought to be extirpated. And if they are now changed (in their science and practice) though to the worse from what they were heretofore, why may we not hope that (if not merely length of time, yet) some afflicting contingencies may make them change hereafter for the better from what they are now? I doubt I should rather inquire whether there be any thing besides this Authors bare word to secure us that they will not still grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Certain I am, the more unalterable they are in these their Fancies, the more mischief they are like to do in that State that encourages them. But what kind of Argument is this,— The Presbyterians will not vary from themselves, therefore they ought in justice and reason of State to be protected and encouraged by his Majesty? Is not this as good? The Jesuits will not vary from themselves; those Principles of Science and practice which they own and are actuated by, are of that firm and fixed nature, that new contingencies will not alter them, nor length of time wear them out: Ergo, Jesuits ought not in justice or reason of State to be rejected and depressed, but protected and encouraged by our King and Kingdom. One may suspect by this manner of arguing in the behalf of the Presbyterian party, that the Author of it was either a Jesuit, since his reasoning is so favourable to that society; or an half-witted Presbyterian, so dull as not to discern, that several of his arguments conclude as forcibly for the encouragement of Jesuits among us as Presbyterians.  
But in this P. 29. (39) 'tis suggested that the Presbyterians are [a numerous] Party— and that the imposing of such matters of Controversy as by [so many] are held unlawful,— cannot procure the peace of the Kingdom.] I might here ask whether the Anabaptists or Quakers are not altogether as numerous as that Presbyterian party which holds our Church-Ceremonies unlawful. Nay, are not the Independents themselves as numerous? for I confess I am in good hopes that there are comparatively but very few Presbyterians given up to such blindness of mind, such strong delusions, as to believe our Ceremonies unlawful. But my answer is this.  
If that Party be indeed so numerous that the endeavouring to reject and depress them will probably prove pernicious to the King and Kingdom, perhaps State-policy will dictate that it should not be endeavoured. But I affirm withal that though they were twice as numerous, yet (unless their Practice contradict their Doctrine) there is no such danger will accrue to the King or Kingdom by their rejection. For if this Author does not grossly abuse and impose upon his Readers, p. 54, 55. The Presbyterians are such learned knowing creatures, as to teach faith and holiness, as also obedience active in all lawful things, and passive in things unlawful, enjoined by the higher power. Now they that are resolved to be passively obedient, will not be instruments of mischief in a Kingdom, (though they are never so numerous) they will live peaceably, neither railing with the Tongue nor smiting with the First of wickedness; and therefore if the Presbyterians are indeed such good men and such good Christians (in this particular) they may (notwithstanding their number) be rejected and depressed (in State-Policy) because of their other persuasions repugnant to the public profession of the Nation, since their suppression will not prejudice the peace of the Church or Kingdom.  
In p. 30. (40.) (after some non sensicalcontradictious canting in praise of Presbyterians, for how can the inward spirit of Presbytery be said to actuate their whole body, to knit them each to other, and to remain in full strength and vigour, if some principal members of that body fall off and turn praevaricators?) Our Author inquires what those great things are for which this sort of men contend? Surely, says he, p. 31. (41.) they are no other than the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel, the upholding of all Divine Institutions; particularly the strict observation of the Lord's day, a laborious and efficacious ministry, taking hold of the conscience and reaching to the heart, a Godly Discipline correcting true and real Scandals and disobedience; in a word, all the necessary and effectual means of unfeigned Faith, and holy life, that the Kingdom of God may come in power. And for these things sake they are alienated from the height of Prelacy, and the Pomp of Ceremonious worship.] Say you so? It seems these godly Disciplinarians do not look upon disobedience to the Laws establishing Prelacy and Ceremonious worship as true and real disobedience; nor the scandal arising from that disobedience as true and real Scandal; or else they implicitly confess that the Presbyterians thus scandalously disobedient, were not chastised by the Bishops so severely as they deserved. It seems they fancy that Prelatists are enemies to the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel, to some divine Institutions, to a laborious and efficacious ministry, to Scripture-Discipline, to some necessary and effectual means of unfeigned Faith and holy life; whereas the only proof he offers of this Prelatical guilt is, 1. Their suppressing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons: which is nothing to the purpose, unless he had proved also that these are of Divine Institution, or are necessary means of unfeigned Faith, and holy Life. 2. A book for sports and pastimes on Sundays enjoined to be read by Ministers in their Parish Churches, under penalty of deprivation. What? so as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning, or Divine Service and Catechising in the Afternoon? or so as to licence the absence of any Parishioner from that service either part of the day? 3. Superstitious Innovations introduced; Si accusâsse suffecerit, quis erit innocens? 4. A new Book of Canons composed, and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy enforced. By whom? were not this Oath and those Canons composed in Convocation, by our Church-governors? were they not confirmed and imposed by the Royal Assent? And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy established by Law more superstitious than the newer Oath for destroying that Hierarchy so established? Far be it from me, says he, p. 32. (42.) to impute these things to all that were in judgement Episcopal; for I am persuaded, a great if not the greater part of them disallowed these Innovations. These Innovations? what Innovations? The word must in reason refer to the particulars just now enumerated. viz. The new Book of Canons, the new Oath, the Book for sports and pastimes on Sundays. But are these men in justice and Reason of State to be protected and encouraged, who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church, or both (occasioned by new emergencies) Innovations? or new practices, superstitious, merely because not commanded in God's word? Now these things are so far from being a proof of the inconsistency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel, with the upholding of all Divine Institutions, a laborious and efficacious Ministry, etc. that the contrary is evident from the instance of the Right Reverend Bishop Morton (whom this very Author, I believe, hath scarce confidence enough to accuse as a Delinquent in those particulars; since p. 67. (77.) he reckons Bishop Morton in the number of those Episcopal Divines, whose Doctrine is entirely embraced by the Presbyterians.) Who yet did not only approve of, but had the chief hand in contriving and publishing that Declaration which allowed some Sports and Pastimes as that which was then the most probable course to stop the current of Popery and profaneness, as appears from the story of that Bishop's life, published by Dr. Barwick, p. 80, 81. So 'tis evident also from the Augustan Confession, c. 7. De Potest. Ecclesiasticâ, and Mr. Calvin's Institutions, that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Institution, who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel and a laborious efficacious ministry.  
In some following Pages the Author pretends to manifest, that the Presbyterian Interest will never be extinguished while the State of England continues Protestant. For, says he, p. 34. (44.) let but the Protestant Doctrine, as 'tis by Law established in the Church of England, be upheld and preached, and 'twill raise up a genuine offspring of this people, whose way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine.  
But I as confidently affirm on the other side, that if the Protestant Doctrine by Law established in the Church of England, be upheld and preached, 'twill raise up such a genuine offspring of true English Protestants, as shall own Prelacy and the Church's Authority in appointing Ceremonies, both which are established by that Doctrine, but rejected by Presbyterians. If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine, they act suitably to these Principles, viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies; and authority in Controversies of Faith: (Artic. 20.) That whosoever through his private Judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common Authority, aught to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offends against the Common Order of the Church, and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. (Artic. 34.) They practically own the King's power within his Realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other his Dominions and Countries, as the highest power under God, to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the same, do by God's Laws own most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth. They act as if they believed his Majesty to have the same Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church. They use the Form of God's worship in the Church of England established by Law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, without surmising it to be either corrupt, superstitious or unlawful, or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures. They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England, by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, and the rest that bear office in the same; not fancying it to be either Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God. They do not combine themselves together in a new brotherhood, accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine, Government, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be profane and unmeet for them to join with in Christian Profession. They imagine not, 1. that any of the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous; or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law established are wicked, Antichristian, or superstitious, or such as being commanded by lawful Authority, men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or as occasion requires, subscribe to them; or 3. that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is any part of the substance of that Sacrament. They hold that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate, and may not be omitted at every man's pleasure, contrary to the Law when they be commanded, nor used when they are prohibited. These are parts of the Doctrine established by Law in the Church of England, as is evident from the 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 5, 6, 30. Canons legally framed and ratified: But where are those English Presbyterians to be found, whose way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine? Have not their practices too loudly proclaimed to the world, that they have rob the King of his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, and traitorously placed it in some Lords Temporal and Commons? Is the metamorphosing of our venerable Church-Liturgy into a thing called a Directory; the extirpating of our Church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, etc. the casting off of the Rites and Ceremonies established by Law, and fancying them unlawful; is this, I say, the life and power of that Doctrine before mentioned? Is Covenanting and combining against the loyal Asserters of the King's Supremacy and our Liturgy, of our Prelacy and Ceremonies, as Incendiaries, Malignants and evil Instruments, the life and power of that Doctrine? Durst this J. C. have canted at this rate, unless he had beforehand brazed his Forehead with Impudence? For what besides was it that made him talk thus? and further to say and testify, that [Let but the Free use of the Holy Bible be permitted to the common people, and this [Presbyterian] Generation of men will spring up afresh by the immortal seed of the word.] Let him prove, if he can, that they will spring up any otherwise than Independents, Anabaptists and Quakers do, viz. by a misunderstanding of some places in the holy Bible, and perverting them to unholy practices: which 'tis no great wonder if unlearned and unstable persons (such as too many of the common people are) be guilty of. Grotius in his notes on Cassander's consultation, would have the reading of the Scripture permitted to all men, but, Hauriant, says he, quantum necesse actutum est; minimè verò de locis omnibus jus sibi sumant interpretandi, sed consulant eruditos: He would not have them assume to themselves a right of Interpreting all places of Scripture, but to advise with learned men, and ask their judgement: Which counsel (as Rivet approved of in his Animadversions, p. 203. so) it behoves common people to follow, lest otherwise that permission occasion their destruction, 2 Pet. 3. 16. He goes on,  
For that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine pressing internal renovation, or the new birth, and the way of holy singularity and circumspection, and being written with such Authority and majesty must needs beget though not in the most yet in many a disposition and practice in some sort thereunto conformable.  
Which words, by the way, unless understood cum grano salis, will smell of Socinianism; but come out of the clouds, O thou Presbyterian, and tell us whether thou thinkest this to be pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine? Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: Whosoever resisteth the power, resists the Ordinance of God: And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Be subject not for wrath only but for Conscience sake. Where the word of a King is, there is power; and who may say unto him, What dost thou? Mark them which cause divisions among you contrary to the Doctrine which you have been taught, and avoid them. The works of the Flesh are manifest, which are these:— Hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, Murders.— They that do these thing; shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Put them in mind that they be subject to Principalities and Powers, that they obey Magistrates, be ready to every good work: that they speak evil of no man: that they be no brawlers, (fighters) but gentle (soft) showing all meekness to all men: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. Where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether unto the King as Supreme, or to Governors as to those that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers. Honour all men: Love the brotherhood. Fear God: Honour the King. Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a Thief, or an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters, etc. What thinkest thou J. C. Do these and the like Scriptures press any point of internal renovation, and the new birth, and the power of Christianity, or no? Is the Presbyterian party persuaded of the heavenliness and spirituality of this Doctrine? or do they account it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to love their enemies, to bless such as curse them, to do good to those that hate them, to pray for such as despitefully use them and persecute them? Hath their practice manifested that they esteem this imitation of the divine goodness a piece of holy singularity? Hath their way here in England been none other than the life and power of that part of the Law of Christ? Have they accounted it a part of holy circumspection to redeem time in evil days? to purchase to themselves a longer time to do good in by all just compliances, by honest actions, by a fair civil carriage, a peaceable conversation, by bending in all those flexures of fortune and condition which they cannot help? (See Dr. tailor's Sermon on Mat. 10. 16.) Or have they acted as if they believed these other passages of Scripture to be divinely inspired? If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me: Except you be converted and become as little children (in all humility and subjection) ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: Take my yoke upon you: Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart: If when you do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. Christ hath suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps; who when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered he threatened not.— In the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, cursed speakers, false accusers, intemperate, fierce, despisers of them that are good, traitors, heady, highminded,— having a Form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof, from such turn away. We beseech you brethren that you study to be quiet and to meddle with your own business.— If any man love life, and would see good days, let him refrain his Tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile, let him seek peace and ensue it. Fellow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall ever see the Lord. The fruit of the spirit is love, peace, long-suffering, meekness, gentleness. Now speak out man, is this pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine or no? Is the practising of it a duty incumbent upon all that would testify themselves internally renewed, or is it not? Is the contrary neglect an argument of an unregenerate person? were these things written by the Penmen of Scripture with such Authority and Majesty, as to beget in Presbyterians a disposition and practice in any tolerable measure thereunto conformable? If this Author has the confidence to answer in favour of Presbyterians, let him evince or at least endeavour to evince that their Covenanting to overthrow things legally established, their reproaching those that would have upheld them as Malignants, Incendiaries, and Evil Instruments, their choosing to take up Swords into their hands rather than the Cross: their being so far from submitting to the King as supreme, and the Governors sent by him, that they resisted and maintained a long War against both. Let him, I say, evince that such ways as these are the life and power of that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine taught in Scripture, and owned by all true English Protestants. Nor let him be angry that I handle him in this manner, and reply thus particularly to his ambiguous generalities; since the question now being Whether Presbyterians are the best English Protestants, and whether on that account they ought in justice or reason of State to be encouraged; It concerned him, if he meant to discourse pertinently and clearly, to manifest that they practically own those pure spiritual and heavenly Aphorisms in particular which so much conduce to the peace of the State, and the preservation of the Order and Government by Law established; and that they hearty acknowledge and embrace all that English Protestant Doctrine which is subservient to that end; for otherwise the encouraging, yea tolerating of them will probably prove pernicious to the State.  
To affirm that the Presbyterian Interest is one chief strength of the true Reformed Protestant Religion, p. 35. (45.) is much easier than to prove it.  
Let those well known Principles, says he, which strike to the heart of Popery, be brought forth for evidence: viz. 1. The perfection of holy Scripture, in opposition to unwritten Tradition. 2. The Authority of Canonical Books in opposition to the encroachments of the Apocrypha. 3. The distinct Knowledge of the Doctrine of Salvation according to every man's capacity in opposition to implicit Faith. 4. The reasonable serving of God according to the Word in opposition to blind devotion. 5. Spiritual Gospel-worship in opposition to a pompous train of Ceremonies. 6. The efficacious edifying use of Religious exercises in opposition to the Popish Opus operatum, or work done. 7. The power of Godliness in opposition to splendid formality.  
A. 1. I deny this Argument; The Presbyterians acknowledge the Truth of these Principles; therefore that Party is one chief strength of the true reformed Protestant Religion; for either, 1. they may own other Principles also which contradict these, and consequently weaken that Religion: or 2. they may own together with these such principles as are inconsistent with other parts of the Protestant Faith (grounded on and actuated by those Scriptures before mentioned) and with the English Protestant Doctrine by Law established conform to them. 2. Perhaps those seven Principles, as those many Presbyterians understand them, who are said to account our Ceremonies unlawful, are no part of the English Protestant Doctrine; but supposing they are rightly understood, with due limitations and explications, they are not all the parts of the Protestant Doctrine, nor the chief parts of it, as it refers to Government and Obedience, which yet should have been most of all considered in the discussion of this Question. 3. Independents, Anabaptists, yea, Socinians do as hearty embrace all those Principles as Presbyterians, therefore he may as rationally conclude, that those also are chief supporters of the true reformed Protestant Religion, and consequently to be protected and encouraged in this Kingdom. 4. Presbytery may be extinguished, and yet these seven Principles (understood in sano sensu) may be asserted by Prelatists, and consequently the State of England may continue Protestant without Presbyterian aids. That Prelatical men assert them as well as Presbyterians, this Author denies not; only he seems willing, p. 36. (46.) to have it believed that the Presbyterian Party is [more] rooted and grounded in those principles, which for my part I am ready to believe when I see it proved. But 1. This implies that Prelatists also are rooted and grounded in those Principles. Whence it follows, that England may keep herself pure from Romish abominations, though Prelatists only be protected and encouraged by her. 2. Till I see the contrary proved, I believe that Prelatists are more deeply rooted and grounded than Presbyterians in those and other Protestant Principles, so far as they are by Law established among us; in which sense they sufficiently strike at the heart of Popery, even by this Authors own confession, p. 34. (44.) where he assures us (if we may rely on his bare word) that, Let but the Protestant Doctrine [as 'tis by Law established] in the Church of England, be upheld and preached, and 'twill raise up a genuine offspring of [sound Protestants;] and therefore England may continue Protestant, though Prelatists only are encouraged, and Presbyterians rooted out; which therefore may be done in Justice and Reason of State, notwithstanding this Argument to the contrary.  
As for his story, p. 37. (47.) I observe, 1. that the English Roman Catholics are called a Faction in Religion, which is strange language from the pen of a Venetian Agent. 2. That the Agent looked not upon Puritans as Protestants, which as this Author tells us, p. 38. the Presbyterians complain of as a palpable injury, and give evident proof, that they of right have as much Interest in that venerable Name as English Prelatists. Now really I am much of his mind in this particular, if by Protestants he mean such as approve of Subjects protesting against the will the pleasure of their Sovereign; and such as deny obedience to the Edicts and commands of Kings and Emperors, or lawful Superiors: and if Romanizing spirits call this Puritanism, perhaps he well observes, p. 39 (49.) that the more primitive times of protestantism were more leaning to it: (I add, than they should have been) and I hope puritans have a greater portion of those venerable qualities than prelatists: But if he mean by protestants such as practically own the truth of the English protestant Doctrine, by Law established in the Church of England, (in which sense I suppose the Venetian Agent implicitly denied puritans to be protestants) I acknowledge the name of protestant in that notion venerable, (since in that notion 'tis a part of Christianity) and shall be very glad if this Author can produce any evident proofs, that the presbyterians have any right to and interest in that name; which till he do, he must pardon me if I suspend my assent, since himself has given another character of them, p. 22. and 29. (32. and 39) and if he had not, their practices, especially of late years, too evidently prove them to be creatures hugely differing from true English protestants; forasmuch as the Discipline of the Church of England excludes such Animals from its Communion.  
Watson in his second Quodlibet and first Article, proposes this Question. [Whether the Jesuits or Puritans be more dangerous, pernicious and noisome to the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, or any other Realm where both or either of them live, together or apart.] He answers thus: [The Jesuits without all question are more dangerous; not that their Doctrine is as yet so absurd as the Puritans— in matters pertaining to Manners, Government and Order of Life, nor that their Intent is manifested as yet to be more malicious against both Church, Commonwealth, Prince and Peer than the Puritans are; but because the means and their manner of proceeding is more covert, more seeming substantial, more formal and orderly in itself, and therefore are the more dangerous, because of the two they are more like to prevail, by managing of whatsoever they take in hand; and the rather, for that their grounds are more firm, their persuasions more plausible, their performance more certain, as having many singular fine wits among them; whereas the Puritans have none but Grossum Caputs— so that if matters come to hearing and handling between Jesuits and Puritans, the latter are sure to be ridden like Fools, and come to wrack.  
In the second Article the same Author proposes this Question: [Whether the Jesuits Doctrine abstracted from matters of Faith and Religion come nearer in matters of life and manners to the Protestants or to the Puritans.] His Answer whereunto is: [That Jesuits are in this respect all wholly Puritan, and therefore, says he, do some for distinctionssake call the one Puritan-Papists, and the other Puritan-Protestants.] Then he lays down a parallel between the Jesuits and the puritans in twenty five particulars: Some whereof are, That they agree in calling themselves the Saintlybrotherhood, in scoffing, scolding, and ignominious disgracing speeches, (Puritan against the Bishops and English Clergy, Jesuits against the Bishops and Prelates of Rome) in refusing to have any Superiors, — in acknowledging no obedience (due, I suppose he means) to any Ecclesiastical dignity, though dissemblingly they will yield it. The Puritans labour to pull all Bishops down, and to have none but Superintendents in England, and have already made havoc of all such in Scotland; and the Jesuits will let no Bishops be in either Realm, if they can keep them from the superiority over them. The Jesuits check and control both Pope and Prince, as at least their equals; and the Puritans control both Princes and Prelates, as if they were their superiors, etc.] At last he concludes, that the Jesuits and Puritans do come nearest together in platforms, though both opposite one to another in intention as far as may be.  
The use that may be made of these passages is this: since the Puritans of former times were (if these pictures of them be rightly drawn) of such an ugly complexion, 'tis no great wonder, 1. That the hatred of Prelatical Protestants against Puritan was (as that Venetian Agent observes) greater than against Catholics, (those Catholics, I presume he means, who were of the Widdringtonian persuasion, in reference to the obedience due from subjects to Kings and Princes;) for the Widdringtonian Catholics were more opposite to those Jesuitical principles and practices which are so prejudicial to the Authority of Kings and Princes, than such Puritans were. Nor is't a wonder, 2. That the hatred of such Catholics was greater against Puritan than against (Prelatical) Protestant's: for such Protestants differed from such Catholics, not so much about matters of Government and obedience, as matters of Faith; but such Puritans were opposite to them in both, in a very high degree. Nor 3. was it wonderful that the hatred of Puritans was greater against such Catholics than such Protestants. Because such Catholics are more opposite to such Puritans than Prelatical Protestants are; for these Protestants differ not so much from those Puritans about matters of Faith, as of Order, Discipline and Government; but those Catholics differ from them in both. Nor is it strange, 4. That both such Catholics and such Protestants did easily combine together for the ruin and rooting out of Puritans: for those Puritans entertained such principles as were inconsistent with that obedience, which both such Catholics, and such Protestants (Widdringtonian Catholics, and prelatical Protestants) acknowledged to be due from subjects to their Sovereign; upon which score also both those parties were eagerly bend against Jesuits.  
And now much good may these [notable observations] (out of the Venetian Agent's story) do this Author, who, p. 39 (49.) thus argues: Papists impose the name of Puritans on such as retain the old Protestant spirit of antipathy to Rome; therefore in the Puritan party lies the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church. Which is so far from being (what he is pleased to term it) a good Argument, that 'tis a mere sophism, unless he can prove that Papists [therefore] call some men Puritans, viz. merely because of their averseness to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church; but that they do not call any so on that ground, is evident from this, that they do not call all by that Name, who are resolute enemies to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church. The Venetian Agent by this man's own confession, p. 38. (48.) called that Faction in the Church of England [Puritans,] because being seasoned and initiated with the Doctrine of Calvin, they judged the English Reformation imperfect, and so refused submission to that Form of Policy,] endeavouring to introduce a purer and more perfect Form of their own. This is Puritanism in opposition to that old Protestant spirit which animated our 39 Articles, and the Canons Ecclesiastical ratified by Q. Elizabeth and K. James.  
Besides, suppose there were any Truth in this assertion, that the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church lies in the Puritan party, yet unless they are enemies also to those seditious and rebellious principles maintained by some Papists, they are not true English Protestants, and consequently they deserve not to be protected and encouraged by England's King.— If mere averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations were a good Argument of a good Protestant, 'twould prove Socinians the best in the world.  
[Those Bishops, said he, in the Church of England, who were hearty averse from Popish Innovations, were more benign and favourable to Puritans.]  
Which signifies little, unless he could prove it true of [all] such Bishops; but it may be he understands by [Popish Innovations] either the old Ceremonies enjoined by Law, or some new Ceremony permitted and allowed, perhaps recommended, by Law; and it had been strange, if such kind of Bishops as were hearty averse from such Ceremonies, because they fancied them Popish Innovations, should not favour Puritan. And again, If some Bishops in the Church of England were more benign and favourable to Puritans, 'tis no great wonder, since the same Bishops were (it seems) counted Puritan by the adverse party. Indeed both King and Bishops were more benign and favourable to many of them than they deserved; which gave them leisure and opportunity to grow numerous; to increase and strengthen their party, till at last they were too strong both for King and Bishops; for the loyal Nobility, Gentry and Commonalty; and when they had got the power in their hands, O what grateful and ingenuous returns they made them for that benignity and favour! They ruin'd the Bishops, (not sparing even those most hearty Protestant Bishops, who had been so benign and favourable to them,) they raised a War against the King; plundered, sequestered, murdered those that adhered to him, and by degrees extorted from himself such grand diminutions of his Royal Prerogative, as that they left him little more than the Title of a King: And are such men as these such true English Protestants, so good Christians, as that they ought in justice and reason of State to be still treated benignly and favourably? Nay rather, should not King, Nobles and Commons (p. 40. (50.) remember their darling Protestantism? I mean, that good English Protestantism contained in the 39 Articles; by Law established in the Church of England; that true mean between Fanatic and Jesuitical Protestantism. Should not, I say, King, Nobles and Commons remember this their darling, and in reason of State abandon that sort of persons, who have contributed so much to the destruction of it? Let them not sleep securely, while the seeds-men of the envious one sow the Tares of Division in our Field, not only to weaken and hinder, but to choke and eat out our English Protestant Faith, Order and Government: And let our gracious Sovereign still show himself gracious where his undeserved clemency is like to produce happy (permanent) effects; but on the other side, let the mischiefs that befell his Royal Father, through the stubborn Insolency of ingrateful and disloyal Presbyterians, make him wary in time, and circumspectly provident for his own and the Kingdom's safety, lest himself also know and feel by sad experience what it is to protect and encourage presbyterians.  
P. 41. (51.) The Author takes upon him to vindicate Presbyterians from the many Calumnies with which he tells us they are loaded. The first that he mentions is, [their plucking from the Civil Magistrate his power in Causes Ecclesiastical, and erecting Imperium in Imperio.] Which, says he, is a groundless and gross mistake, and to prove it so he urges the declared judgement of the Highest of that way according to their own words, which are these.  
[To the Political Magistrate is allowed a Diatactick ordering regulating power about Ecclesiastical affairs in a Political way; so that he reforms the Church when corrupted in Divine Worship, Discipline or Government.]  
But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may assume to themselves the power of judging whether there are such corruptions or no; and whether the Civil Magistrate reforms those corruptions in a warrantable manner or no; and consequently of checking him in both respects if he chance to judge otherwise than they do, witness the next.  
[He convenes and convocates Synods and Councils made up of Ecclesiastical Persons to advise and conclude determinatively according to the word of God, how the Church is to be reform and refined from corruption, how to be guided and governed when reform.]  
But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may challenge to themselves a power of convening without, yea against the Civil Magistrate's command, and here they actually challenge the power of conclusively determining how the Church is to be reform and governed.  
[He ratifies and establishes within his Dominions the just and necessary Decrees of the Church in Synods and Councils by his Civil Sanction.]  
But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may claim the power of determining whether its own Decrees be just and necessary or no; and of putting them in execution, though the Civil Magistrate deny to ratify them by his Civil Sanction.  
[He judges and determines definitively with ae consequent and political judgement, or judgement of Discretion, concerning things judged and determined antecedently by the Church in reference to his own Act.]  
But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may take upon them to control the King (as well as private persons) if his difinitive Judgement of discretion (which they allow to every [private] person, p. 20. (30.) in reference to his own act) should chance to contradict their antecedent determinations.  
[He takes care politically that even matters and Ordinances merely and formally Ecclesiastical be duly managed by Ecclesiastical Persons orderly called thereunto]  
But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may imagine that in case the King refuse to take this Political care, themselves may appoint Ecclesiastical Persons to manage them, and that their so doing is an orderly call to those Persons to act accordingly.  
[He hath a compulsive, punitive or corrective power formally Political in matters of Religion in reference to all sorts of Persons and things under his Jurisdiction]  
But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio: For holy Kirk may deny herself to be, in matters of Religion, under his Jurisdiction.  
[He may Politically compel the outward man of all Persons, Church-Officers, or others under his Dominion unto External performance of their respective duties and offices in matters of Religion, punishing them if either they neglect to do their duty at all, or do it corruptly.]  
But notwithstanding this also there may be Imperium in Imperio: For the Kirk may fancy themselves the only or chief Judges of what are the duties and offices belonging to such and such Persons, and whether they neglect or corruptly perform them.  
So that if Presbyterians grant no more power to belong to the King of England in Ecclesiastical matters, they deny his Supremacy and consequently erect Imperium in Imperio.  
How they who give up themselves to the sole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures, p. 24. (34.) can (in reason) acknowledge a spiritual power over the Conscience as intrinsically belonging to the Church, I leave him to inform us; who would have us believe, p. 43. (53) that [Presbyterians do not claim for the Convocation or any other Ecclesiastical Convention an Independency on Parliaments.]  
That they do not claim it for a Convocation of Bishops and Episcopal men I am apt enough to believe. But I cannot entertain any reasonable hope that they who have Covenanted so deeply in the behalf of the Scotch Discipline and Form of Government, as to swear an endeavour of reforming things in England according to the example of the Kirk of Scotland, (as one of the best reformed Churches) will acknowledge the ratification of the decrees of all Ecclesiastical conventions to depend on Parliaments. For, if Bishop Bramhall deceive us not, (Fair Warning p. 9) 'Tis a Scotch maxim, that Parliamentary ratifications can no way alter Church-Canons concerning the worship of God; for Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the Civil Magistrate or not. The want of a Civil Sanction to the Church is but like lucrum cessans, not damnum emergens, as it adds nothing to it, so it takes nothing away from it: If there be any clashing of Jurisdictions, or defect in this kind; they lay the fault at the Magistrate's door, accounting it a great sin or wickedness for the Magistrate to hinder the exercise or execution of Ecclesiastical Discipline. But we, say they, do give Christian Magistrates a Political power to convocate Synods, to preside in Synods, to ratify the Acts of Synods, to reform the Church; we make him the keeper of both Tables. Take nothing, says the discerning Bishop, and hold it fust; Here are good words but they signify nothing, for they teach that this power of the Christian Magistrate is not privative and destructive to the power of the Church, but cumulative and only auxiliary or assisting: Which very Doctrine is taught by [the highest of the Presbyterian way] here in England in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici; where their concessions just now mentioned by this Author are to be found, but p. 77. with this restriction, All the former power, say they, that is granted or may be granted circa sacra to the Magistrate, is only [cumulative] not [privative,] he may help her in Reformation, not hinder her in reforming herself, convening Synods herself, as in Act. 15. otherwise her condition were better without than with a Magistrate: The Christian Magistrate much less ought to prejudice her herein; otherwise her state were worse under the Christian than under the Pagan Magistrate. Thus the Presbyterian Authors (or Author) of that Book. Besides the power (as the Bishop goes on) which they abusively call authoritative, but is indeed ministerial of executing their Decrees, and contributing to their settlement; they ascribe to the Magistrate concerning the Acts of Synods (that which every private man hath) a judgement of discretion, but they retain to themselves the judgement of Jurisdiction, and if he judge not as they would have him, but suspend out of conscience the influence of his Political power where they would have him exercise it, they will either teach him another part of Popery, that is, an implicit Faith, or he may perchance feel the weight of their Church-censures, and find quickly what manner of men they be, as our late gracious King Charles, and before him his Father, his Grandmother and his great-Grandmother did all to their cost. See more p. 11, 12.  
Mr. Parker in his discourse concerning Puritan (printed 1641) though he talk sometimes extravagantly enough in their favour, yet now and then he has his Lucida intervalla wherein he speaks more agreeably to Truth and Reason. Having mentioned some Tenants concerning Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction maintained by that great Arch-Prelate Mr. Calvin, p. 28. according to the Popish Grounds, p. 29. he tells us that that method of Mr. Calvin ' s is the way to erect Regnum in Regno, and to maintain such concurrent Jurisdictions as cannot possibly stand together, p. 31. for all being subject to sin and offence as well the Spiritual as Temporal, either the one or other must go unquestioned, and this may produce division, or else both, and that will cause most certain confession. Both sides here seem, says he, strangely puzzled, (of which assertion he subjoins not so much as a seeming reason as to the Episcopal side, but proceeds thus) The rigidest of the Episcopal Faction allow Princes a coercive power over Priests and Prelates where they perform not what their duty is in their Functions or Jurisdictions, and this power requires an higher power of summoning, arraigning, and legally trying them; and yet the moderatest of the Presbyterian Faction would have Princes questionable, tryable, and punishable by the Spiritualty. Which sufficiently implies that he thought not any Episcopal men guilty of that crime.  
From which premises I conclude, that notwithstanding any thing produced here by this Author to the contrary, this first charge against Presbyterians is a true accusation, not a calumny.  
He proceeds to a second, and tells us, p. 43. (53.) There goes a voice that Presbyterians are Antimonarchical, (as if 'twere vox & praeterea nihil.)  
[But are their Principles inconsistent with Monarchy, or any impeachment to the same? These are contained in the character above written.]  
But what if that Character of them be traitorously partial, and in reference to the Question here treated of ridiculously impertinent and abominably deceitful? whereof if this Author or any of his Brethren desire farther proof, I may chance to satisfy their desires before I conclude these Animadversions.  
In the mean time let's listen to his fine Apologies.  
[Peradventure, says he, p. 44. (54.) the exact Presbytery, that is, the parity of degree and Authority in all Ministers is that against which this charge is directed.] Judge then whether that forementioned character, where that which is exact Presbytery is altogether concealed, be an exact description of Presbytery. [Although this parity is not insisted on] Was it not insisted on at the Isle of Wight Treaty? [or urged to the breach of peace.] He did [but think] p. 20. that most Presbyterians hear in England allowed in order to peace Episcopum Praesidem: but here he's more peremptory, and withal (it seems) so scandalously ignorant, as to believe that Tumults, Riots, Covenanting, and fight in the behalf of Scotch-Presbytery is no breach of peace. [Neither is it essential to Presbytery,] whence I gather, that exact Presbytery is not essential to Presbytery: but was it not essential to the Presbytery contended for at the Isle of Wight? was it not essential to that Form of Government which they had before Covenanted to introduce?  
[Yet what reason can be rendered why this may not comport with Kingly Government?] A. Even the selfsame reason which some of his own party have (as I take it) made use of, to prove that Episcopacy cannot comport with Kingly Government, viz. that it pretends (as some men discourse of it) to be Jure Divino: which since presbyterian parity also pretends to, 'tis upon that score inconsistent with Monarchical Government, as much as Episcopacy: the argument is as good against both Forms as against either. But 2. Since this Author is guilty, either of such gross ignorance, or such Treasonable dishonesty, as to make us believe, either that there is, or that he knows not any ground of this Accusation, but what is fetched from the presbyterian parity: I shall for his and other such men's better information, take the pains to transcribe part of the Answer to a Letter written at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof. Examine, says the Answerer, p. 15. the Presbyterian principles, and you will clearly find Kings and they cannot stand together; for either you consider that new Government in the Scottish sense, which allows no appeal to any other power; and then it's plain, that where men admit this they admit of a Supremacy, which doth not reside in the King, and by consequence of two several supremacies within the bounds of the selfsame Kingdom, which can no more stand with Monarchy, than it can with Monogamy, to be married to two several Wives; and though 'tis said, that this Presbyterian Government meddles only with spiritual things, which concern the good of the Soul, and so it cannot hurt Regal power, yet this is but only said and no more; for 'tis well known, that in ordine ad spiritualia (and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank, as they have been by the Church of Rome) this Government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth: and where a supremacy is once acknowledged, no wise man can think that it will carry itself otherwise; so that King James his maxim was undoubtedly most true, No Bishop, no King. For that most prudent Prince did soon discern, that if a power were once set up, which (at least in the legal execution of it) did not derive itself from the King, there was no doubt to be made that it would ere long destroy the very King himself.— Or consider the Presbyterian Government in the English sense, as it's now set up by the two Houses at Westminster, which is a Government limited by an Appeal to the Parliament; for either by Parliament here they mean the two Houses, excluding the King, and then 'tis as plain as before, they set up two supremacies, his Majesties and their own; or else by Parliament they mean the King with both Houses; and than 'twill follow, that either there must be a perpetual Parliament (which sure the King nor Kingdom can't have cause to like) or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery; because whenever a Parliament sits not, there will be no Judge to appeal to; or if it be said, the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive Appeals in such Ecclesiastical causes, then either in this Committee the King hath no Negative; and in that case 'tis clear, that the Ecclesiastical supremacy will be not at all in the King; or else the King hath a Negative, but yet is joined with persons whom he himself chooseth not, and so most probably will be cheked and affronted in any sentence he intends to give; and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament to be a right in the King, as inherent in his Crown, that Ecclesiastical Appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery, (for the Statute names no other) and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he pleases for their final decision: I say consider the Presbyterian Government in the English Parliament sense, and in the sense of the English Assembly, (for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scottish Form, as appears by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances,) and 'twill appear that their aim is not only to set up a new Government, but in plain terms, a new Supremacy: and hence, to say truth, he must see very little, who discerns not, that though the Presbyterian party seems to strike at the Bishops, yet their main aim is at the King, whose supremacy they endure not, as being a flower which they intent for their own Garland; and so though they hypocritically cry out (that they may abuse the people) against the pride of the Lordly Bishops, yet in the mean time the wiser sort must needs see that they intent to make themselves no less than indeed Kingly Presbyters. Thus he: And if this Author thinks this reasoning insufficient to prove Presbytery Antimonarchical, let him tell us why.  
In the mean time it follows, p. 44. (54.) [Or would his sort of men [Presbyterians] have no King to reign over them?] A. None, if he will not comply with their humours. [Doth a Republic better please them?] A. Not an Independent or Anabaptistical Republic; but time hath been when a Presbyterian Republic (some parcels of the two Houses) did please them far better than an Episcopal King.  
[Did the English or Scottish Presbyters ever go about to dissolve Monarchy, and to erect some other kind of Government? In no wise, quoth he; for in the Solemn League and Covenant they bond themselves to endeavour the preservation of the King's person and Authority; and declared they had no intent to diminish his Majesty's just power and greatness.] (Of the justness of which power themselves would be judges: But) did not all Covenanters do so as well as Presbyterians? The man sure would make us believe, either that our Monarchy was not dissolved (and another kind of Government exect) or else that 'twas done by some that were not Covenanters. For why is not this Argument as good? Independents Covenanted to preserve the King's person and Authority: Therefore they never went about to dissolve Monarchy? This is a much better consequence: Neither the English nor Scottish Presbyterians endeavoured to preserve the King's Authority, just power and greatness, (the Justness whereof must be judged of by Law, not by the dictates of insolent minds puffed up with prosperity) therefore either they never bond themselves and intended to preserve it, or else they practised contrary to those obligations and intentions. If he has the confidence to deny the Antecedent, I may chance to evince it to him before we part. Indeed his next words suggest a very considerable proof of it.  
[After the violent change of Government, they (the Presbyterians) came slowest, and entered latest into those new Engagements imposed by the Usurped powers.] Which is an implicit confession: 1. That those Engagements were inconsistent with fidelity to Monarchical Goyernment, and the King's Authority. 2. That yet at last the Presbyterians did enter into them; whence I gather, 1. That whereas the third Article of the Covenant obliged them to endeavour (not only sincerely, but also) constantly (with their Estates and Lives) to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's Authority, just power, and greatness; they ceased to do so at last, when they entered upon those new Engagements, and consequently did then break their Covenant. And 2. That the Presbyterians are not such fixed and unalterable Creatures (as he would needs have persuaded us, p. 29. (39) they are) since they did upon changes in Government vary by degrees from themselves, and either deserted those principles which kept them from engaging with the foremost, or else contradicted them by engaging at last though slowly. And truly that they did so is tacitly acknowledged by this Author, p. 45. (55.) where he tells us, that [the generality of conscientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of those times;] which sadly implies, either that the generality of Presbyterians were not conscientious, since they generally ran with the current at last, or that some conscientious Presbyterians did, notwithstanding the dictates of their conscience, run with the current: For either he must mean, that the generality of Presbyterians [otherwise conscientious] did [in that particular] by an error of Conscience run with the current; but this seems not to have been this Author's meaning, for than it follows (by his own confession) that the generality of them were deluded by an erroneous Conscience into a breach of Covenant, which yet this passage is brought to absolve them from; or else they must mean that some Presbyterians conscientious in this particular also, did run with the current, and then it follows that though they were conscious of their duty to the contrary, yet they did engage notwithstanding that practical dictate.  
His following Apologeticks are these, 1. That the Scotch Presbyterians adventured no more than all to uphold our Sovereign that now is.] Did they adventure so much as all? 2. [That when he fell, it was said by the adversary, Presbytery was fallen.] No wonder if Scots adventured much to uphold that King whom they believed willing to uphold their Presbytery. 3. [That keeping company with the chief Presbyterian Ministers, was objected by the Republican Council of State, as a crime causing (meritoriously I suppose he means) imprisonment.] It may be they were some such Presbyterian Ministers as had quite forgotten the obligation that was upon them (by their entering into the Engagements aforesaid) to be true and faithful to a Common-wealth-Form. And when they saw themselves like enough to be dealt with by other Sectaries, as themselves had dealt with the Episcopal party, began to bethink themselves whether they had not in the days of Yore entered into a Covenant to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's Person and Authority in this Nation, and to act as if they thought themselves obliged thereby against a Republican Form. 4. [That the Presbyterians by their influence first divided and then dissipated the Sectarian party, and so made way for his Majesty's return in peace.] That Presbyterians have, where they are protected and encouraged, a faculty of dividing first and then dissipating, I am not so envious as to deny: But 1. Either they had lost this faculty in Oliver's time, or else they were very loath to exert it in the behalf of his Majesty; the visible reason whereof was because Cromwell tolerated them in their Form of worship, and did so far protect and encourage them, as to continue them in those places of profit and preferment out of which they would very probably have been ejected by those Sectarians, who afterwards domineered. 2. That 'twas the Presbyterian influence which wrought those blessed effects among them whom he calls the Sectarian party, I would fain see him prove, and when he has done that, he would do me another favour if he would tell me why he calls that party (which he speaks of as divided and dissipated) Sectarian, but let him take heed lest he do it upon such grounds as being applied to Presbyterians will prove them also Sectarians. 5. [That 'tis acknowledged by some eminent on the Episcopal side, that the sense of the Covenant hath lately quickened many men's Consciences in their Allegiance to the King, so as to bring him with David home in infinite Joy and Triumph.] Their consciences it seems were a long time dead and callous; why did not the sense of their Covenant animate them when our Sovereign was at Worcoster to preserve and defend with their Estates and Lives his Majesty's Person and Authority? From these premises he concludes that [They are not averse from Regal Government or the Royal Family; but they desire to dwell under the shadow of our dread Sovereign, (but mark the following words) hoping to revive as the Corn, and to grow as the Vine under his gracious Influence] I doubt the man hath unawares discovered the chief ground of Presbyterians Loyalty (at least if instead of the Corn and Vine he had said the Ivy, and expressed himself thus, hoping to grow as the Ivy under the gracious influence of the Oak. (which at last kills the Oak that protected and nourished it.) For my part I never thought Presbyterians averse from any Regal Government that would advance their Party; or from the Royal Family, if they believed that that family would secure their designs: they were willing enough that Monarchy should revive and flourish, and that in the Royal Line, on supposition and in hopes that Presbytery would revive and flourish together with it; otherwise our experience sufficiently informs us, that two Houses (as I intimated before) pleased them better than a King, and Richard Cromwell than Charles the Second. Possibly if these Vines meet with a dread Sovereign whose Influence is so gracious to them as to set up Presbytery by a Law, they will afford some pleasing Juice; but if they Imagine not his Influence gracious, they will degenerate into the Plant of a strange Vine; and he shall receive no fruit from them but sour Grapes and the bitter Clusters of Gomorrha. They desire, 'tis true, to dwell under the shadow of this Royal Tree, if so be they may confidently promise themselves that under his shadow they shall live and thrive among the Christian Sectaries and Heathen 
* Consider, O Lord, that they are a faction principally of some few Persons, as the Prelates, that have caused such confusions in the Land; and wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? Far be it from thee, and even now do not thy people lift up strong cries unto thee against their [Egyptian] Taskmasters and [Babylonian] Lords? So Brother Burton's Holy Breathe, in the Consultation prefixed to his Reply to Archbishop Laud's book against Fisher.  Prelatists. But if not, 'tis to be feared that Fire will come out of these Brambles and devour the Cedar of Lebanon; that they will again pray and preach, and when they have opportunity fight against him till the breath of our nostrils, the Anointed of the Lord, Charles the Second be also taken in their Pits. If his shadow prove as offensive to them as that of some Trees in Asia, which Doves delight in, is said to be to Serpents, they will lop off all its displeasing branches, and so make way for others to lay the Axe to the root of the Tree.  
[Peradventure, p. 46. (56.) They would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent; surely I cannot find the rise of this objection, unless from hence, that they are not willing to come under any yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm, or to pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament.]  
Certes this man talks sometimes as if he were newly come out of his mother's womb; as if he were of yesterday and knew nothing, or else as if he hoped to meet with no Readers but such as would be either so credulous as to believe every thing he is audacious enough to say, or so ignorant as to be altogether unacquainted with the Principles and practices of Presbyterians. But since he sometimes seems to have heard of a thing called [The Solemn League and Covenant] and besides that, hath probably seen and read it, yea and possibly hath been so unhappy as to take it; I desire to know why he could not there find ground enough for that objection. Let him tell us, 1. Why they who swear to endeavour the preservation of the Scotch Discipline and Government, which so manifestly erects Imperium in Imperio, may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent, in Scotland? 2. Why they who swear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England, Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Discipline and Church-Government, and consequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England, may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England also, and render it too impotent by setting up there also Imperium in Imperio? 3. Why they who swear the extirpation of Prelacy, that is, Church-Government by Archbishops, Bishops etc. may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which esteems that Form of Church-Government as a very considerable support and strengthening to it: Witness the Aphorism of that wise Monarch King James, No Bishop no King, the truth whereof King Charles found by sad experience. 
* Dum Episcoporum Jurisdictionem invadunt (Anarchae) caveant Principes. Scitè admodum monet Poeta, Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet; ubi enim Episcoporum ditio expugnanda obsidetur, ibidem proximè imo potissimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur. S. Clara Apolog. Episc. p. 20.  4. Why they who when they had power in their hands constrained our former Sovereign to grant such Propositions as left him only a titular Kingship, may not justly be looked upon as persons that would whensoever 'tis in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent? When he hath given a satisfactory answer to these Queries I may possibly trouble him with some more of the like import; for I believe there are so many grounds of making this objection that (in probability) the only reason why this Author could find no other rise of it than what he mentions, was because he would not seek it.  
That which he is pleased to mention (as the rise) is, [That the Presbyterians were not willing, 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm: Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament.]  
To the 1. (hoping that (whatsoever this Author's words imply to the contrary) they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God also (at least such of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks) I answer, 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm, they would long ago have ceased to be Presbyterians; that is, shakers' off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies established by those Laws. 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke, they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant, since it was not enjoined by any Law of the Realm. 3. They have not showed themselves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy, (imposed by Law) since they have been far from a practical acknowledgement, that the King of England is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes; and that the reforming, ordering, corrrecting of them, is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; but on the contrary themselves usurped the power of reforming, ordering, correcting them without, yea, against his consent; and in so doing they enervated our Monarchy, and rendered it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative; nay, too many of them are so far from acknowledging the King's Supremacy in their actions, that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgement of it in their prayers; for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of those words [Defender of the Faith,] as if the confessing him Supreme Head in all Ecclesiastical causes, and over all Ecclesiastical persons, were either Error, Heresy, or a piece of Treason.  
To the 2. I answer, by demanding, 1. Whether there be not as much (if not more) Law for the Kings imposing Taxes (in some cases) without the consent of Lords Temporal and Commons, than there is for [their] imposing them without the King's consent. 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and cases (in reference to such impositions) than Presbyterian subjects? 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes imposed by the King, without consent of the three Estates, (viz. Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons?) 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes imposed by the three Estates (and much more by two only) without the King? 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons, though levied without the King's consent, and therefore without consent of Parliament? and consequently, whether that be not false which this Author tells us, that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament? 6. Whether in so doing they did not abundantly manifest, that 'twas not the arbitrariness of the Taxes, but either their being imposed by the King, or else their being imposed to such ends as did not serve the Presbyterian Interest; that was the main reason of their quarrelling with, and contending against those Imposition. 'Tis therefore too evident, that the Presbyterians had a design to enervate our English Monarchy; since, though they refused not to pay arbitrary Taxes to some Lords Temporal and Commons, levied without the King's consent, and on purpose to carry on a War against him, yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King, though levied for the defence of his person and Authority, because levied without consent of Parliament.  
Upon which pretence also their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have persuaded them to deny the payment of the Assessments imposed by those powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons. That Author in his Reasons why he would not pay Taxes, (viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons) tells us, p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm, no Tax, Tallage, Aid, Imposition, Contribution, Loan or Assessment whatsoever may, or aught to be imposed or levied on the Freemen and people of this Realm of England, but by the will and common assent of the Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, Commons and whole Realm, in a free and full Parliament, by Act of Parliament, all Taxes not so imposed and levied, though for the common defence and profit of the Realm, being unjust, oppressive, etc. This is sound Doctrine, it seems, when Independents domineer, but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be imposed and levied by some Lords Temporal and Commons only, without Act of Parliament, and yet not be accounted either unjust, or oppressive, or inconsistent with the Liberty of the Subject. The reason was, because Presbyterian ambition was cherished and gratified by those Taxes, which it ceased to be when Independents had the chief power of imposing them.  
And yet we are told in the next lines, that [none more reverence their Liberties, and value the native happiness of the Freeborn Subjects of England (than Presbyterians.)] But what, I pray Sir, was in point of State-affairs the native happiness of English men, (that had so much happiness as to be born before Presbyterians began to domineer) was it not that they were born subjects to a Sovereign to whom belonged the ordering of the Militia at all times, a negative Voice in Parliament, the Supreme power in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils? and members of that Nation where the only legal Form of Church-Government was by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. Where an excellent Liturgy was commanded to be used, and no other Form of Divine Service permitted by Law? Where the Ceremonies of the Surplice, Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Sacrament, were (for order and decencies-sake) appointed by the Church-Governors, and the use of them enjoined by Law? Is this the native happiness that Presbyterians valued? Or does the man mean by [native happiness] their receiving the temper of their bodies from predominant choler, phlegm or black melancholy? and the complexion of their Souls (from Heaven shall I say? 'twould puzzle S. Austin himself to determine; I confess I am somewhat apt to believe that presbyterians Souls are rather) ex traduce; from the prolifical, assimilating virtue of the Parents spirit, which being immersed in Hyle, and overcharged with ugly humours, is so far from generating a Platonical Soul, made up of Harmony, that its offspring does more resemble Galen's dull conceit of the essence of all Souls, and is of so base an alloy, that it little differs from a vicious, malign temperament of body: I confess, I think none do more value [this] native happiness than [these] Freeborn subjects of England, but whether there are none that more reverence their Liberties, let the world judge, by their frequent meriting severe restraints for their seditious and schismatical breaches of the Laws of England; by their paying arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of King, Lords and Commons, ('tis an Argument good enough ad hominem) by their swearing to submit their necks to the yoke of Scotch Discipline and Government, not allowed of by any Law of this Realm; was this to revere their Liberties? or rather to prostitute them to the lusts of those men, whose spirit breathed nothing more than contradiction both to man's Law and Christ's Gospel; to Civil constitutions and to the maxims of Christian Religion.  
For whereas this Author, p. 47. (57) talks of their true knowledge and sense of the nature of Christian Religion, and that this makes a due civil Freedom exceeding precious to them, 1. As I intimated before, 'tis not a due freedom from illegal Impositions, that the Religion of these professing Christians makes so precious to them; for to be enslaved to Presbyterian Impositions, though illegal, is very grateful to them; but 'tis a liberty from Episcopal Impositions and Royal Sanctions, and such Taxations (whether legal or illegal) as are not designed for the advancement of their interest, which they so highly value; and therefore 'tis manifest enough, they plead for such a liberty as will enfeeble our English Monarchy. 2. I much question, whether their high valuation of freedom from illegal Taxes, and their unwillingness to pay them, can (in reason) proceed from any true knowledge and sense of the nature of Christian Religion. For I desire to know of them, whether (at least in case our Laws do not expressly forbid our payment of Taxes, imposed by the King out of Parliament) our Saviour's precept, Matth. 5. 42. Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not away: and his own practice, Matth. 17. 27. paying tribute for himself and S. Peter, merely lest he should offend the exactors, who ought not to have demanded it of the children, v. 26. that were all free, but only of strangers: I desire, I say, to know of them, whether that precept and this practice do not oblige all English men that profess Christianity, to pay Taxes quietly and patiently, though levied by the King alone without Law? 3. On this occasion I shall take leave to question, whether these Freeborn subjects had indeed a true knowledge and sense of the Nature of Christian Religion in other particulars, as well as this; for if they had, would not their practice have been more conformable to it? (if at least that Axiom be true, Voluntas necessario sequitur dictamen Intellectus practicum, which those among them that do not Arminianize hold for a truth.) But whether their practices have been conform to the dictates of that Religion, let any one who knows those dictates, consider and judge impartially. They speak such language as this; Blessed are the meek, Matth. 5. 5. (who rather would suffer all injuries than revenge themselves) Blessed are the peacemakers, v. 9 Resist not evil. Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, v. 39 (rather receive double wrong than revenge thine own griefs) Love your enemies; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, v. 44. Judge not that you be not judged, Chap. 7. 1. (be not curious or malicious to try out and condemn your neighbour's faults— for Hypocrites hid their own faults, and seek not to amend them, but are curious to reprove other men's.) Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, do you also unto them, v. 12. Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening Wolves, v. 15. Be you wise as Serpents, and innocent as Doves, Chap. 10. 16. (not revenging, much less doing wrong) Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods, Chap. 22. 21. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, Chap. 23. 2, 3. Put up thy sword into his place, (the exercise of the sword is forbid to private persons) for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword, Chap. 26. 52. When you stand and pray, forgive, if you have any thing against any man, that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive your trespasses, Mark 11. 25. Condemn not and you shall not be condemned. Forgive and you shall be forgiven, Luke 6. 37, etc. If Presbyterian actions had been conformable to these and other Christian principles, their Pamphlets would have been freer from railing and reviling; their Sermons from inflaming men's spirits, and kindling in them the fires of disloyal Jealousy; their discourse from censorious judging and condemning their brethren; and their understandings freer from pernicious errors, than for aught appears by their pernicious actions, they were: They had neither run themselves into danger rashly and unnecessarily at first, nor afterwards by unlawful means preserved themselves from a legal Trial, and the stroke of Justice for those misdemeanours. But when resisting evil, and those that offer it, can be reconciled with not resisting it or them, and with the suffering of real and much more pretended injuries: When raising War against our Royal Sovereign, and continuing it for several years, can justly be interpreted making peace: When the applying, Curse ye Meroz, yea curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof, Judg. 5. 23. to those that came not forth to fight against the King and his loyal subjects, can consist with blessing and praying for those that are supposed despitefully to use and persecute us: when Dovelike harmlesness and Wolfish cruelty cease to be contradictories: when to wrest the power of the Militia out of the King's hands, and to deny him his Negative voice, is to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: when Covenanting against Prelacy and our Church-Discipline, and Orders, is all one with the observing and doing what our lawful Governors require: when putting up our swords into their sheaths, and loving, doing good to, and forgiving our enemies, is compatible with reproaching their persons, with ruining themselves and their Families, with turning them out of their legal possessions, with plundering their Goods, sheathing swords into their bowels, and spilling their innocent and loyal blood; then, and not till then will Presbyterian practices be reconcileable with Christ's precepts, and agreeable to that Religion which he taught the world, and which (as this Author well observes) is not variable according to the will of man, but indispensably binds every Soul, and is grounded upon an unchangeable, eternal Truth; (which if the English Independent J. Goodwin, or Bucanan the Scotch Presbyterian had believed heretofore, they had not made such an ugly Fanatic Apology as they did, for subjects taking up Arms against and murdering their Sovereign;) 
De jure Regni, P. 50, 55.  and if the Presbyterian professors of this Religion, and of their own true knowledge and sense of the Nature of it, had acted suitably to such a profession, they had never thought it expedient to reduce his late Majesty to such dismal straits at the Isle of Wight, where they constrained him to grant them so much liberty, as miserably enfeebled the Monarchical and Legal power of the Kings of England; whereby (whatsoever he cants in the following lines of a King's ruling over a free people) Presbyterians have sufficiently taught us, that they take more delight in making good Kings their slaves, than in manifesting themselves to be good subjects. [To be a powerful Monarch, says he, p. 48. ever a free people, is the freedom and glory of our Sovereign Lord, above all the Potentates of the Earth.] The more disloyal creatures were those presbyterians, who in that fatal Isle treated with such a Sovereign Lord, and once powerful Monarch, to such bad purposes; as to despoil him of his Royal Freedom and Glory; and by their imperious demands to dwindle this potent and glorious Monarchy into a slavish, ignoble, titular Kingship; whence we may conjecture what a licentious, treasonable liberty it is, that such Freeborn subjects breathe after, and how insolently they'll again exercise it (over our Sovereign Lord the King) if by his Majesty's connivance and indulgence they meet with the like opportune advantages of winding themselves by degrees into the like power.  
From which premises I conclude, that notwithstanding any thing produced here by this Author to the contrary, this second Charge against the Presbyterians [that they are Anti-Monarchical] is a true accusation, not a calumny.  
The third Calumny (as he calls it) with which Presbyterians are loaded, is the charge of Disobedience and Rebellion: [and this, says our Author, were a crying sin indeed] But yet he thinks it necessary to speak something Apologetical, at least to mitigate the business, and remove prejudice; and therefore, p. 49. he tells us, [The Presbyterian party in England never engaged under a less Authority, than that of both Houses of Parliament.] A. The word [engaged] is of dubious signification. 1. Did they never engage, that is, subscribe the Engagement (to be faithful to the Commonwealth, as established, without King or House of Lords) under a less Authority, than that of both Houses of Parliament? 2. Did they never engage, that is, raise and foment jealousies against the King, reproaches against the Bishops, or preach Division, Sedition and Schism, instead of Union, Loyalty and Obedience, under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament? Nay, 3. Did they never engage in fight against the King under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament? Is he ignorant that two thirds and more of the Lords deserted that house because of those frequent Tumults which drove the King from London? and that the major part of the House of Commons left that House also for the same reasons? and that new men 
See Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae. p. 35.  were chosen in their places against Law by the pretended warrant of a counterfeit Seal? Is he Ignorant that his late Majesty in a Declaration 1642. (occasioned by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for the assessing men a 20th part of their Estates) hath these words, Our good Subjects will no longer look upon these and the like results, as upon the Counsels and Conclusions of both our houses of Parliament (though all the world knows even that authority can never justify things unwarrantable by Law) They well know how few of the persons trusted by them, are present at their Consulations, of above 500 not 80, and of the House of Peers not a fifth part; that they who are present enjoy not the Privilege and Freedom of Parliament, but are besieged by an Army, and awed by the same Tumults which drove us and their Fellow-members from thence, to consent to what some few seditious schismatical persons among them do propose. Is to fight under the banner of such a minor part of both Houses or of the superinduced major part illegally chosen, to engage under no less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament? nay, not only illegally but treasonably chosen? for to counterfeit the great (Seal and by such a Seal they were chosen) is Treason by the 25 of Edw. 3. 4. Suppose they had engaged, that is fought against the King under the Authority of both Houses legally called, sitting in their full number and remaining free, yet even then they had fought against their Sovereign upon no higher Authority than Subjects could give them (which was none at all to that end) for the two Houses (though consisting of all three Estates, Lords Spiritual, Temporal and Commons) are no more than Subjects, whatsoever this Author insinuates to the contrary in the following Lines. [I have read, says he, that the Parliament of England hath several capacities; and among the rest these two. 1. That it represents the people as subjects, and so it can do nothing but manifest their Grievances and petition for relief:] By the way I must tell him, that I have read in a Speech of King James' to both Houses, March 21. 1609. these words, [I would wish you (of the lower House especially) to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of Grievances. 1. That you do not meddle with the main points of Government. That is my Craft, Tractent fabrilia fabri. To meddle with that were to lessen me; I must not be taught my office. 2. Nor with such ancient Rights of mine as I have received from my Predecessors possessing them more Majorum.— For that were to judge me unworthy of that which my Predecessors had, and left me. 3. I pray you beware to exhibit for Grievance any thing that is established by a settled Law— for to be grieved with the Law, is to be grieved with the King, who is sworn to be the Patron and maintainer thereof:— In general beware that your Grievances savour not of particular men's thoughts, but of the general Griefs rising out of the minds of the people, and not out of the humour of the Propounder.] If these Cautions had been carefully observed by the thing called the Long-Parliament; it had not been itself the greatest grievance the Subject ever felt.  
[2. I have read, says he, that by the Constitution it hath part in the Sovereignty, and so it hath part in the Legislative power and in the final Judgement.] I question whether he hath read this thus expressed in any Book but his own: I rather think it a mistake, and that he had read somewhere that the Parliament hath part in the Legislative power, and [so] it hath part in the Sovereignty, there being a Treatise extant wherein the Parliament's part in the Sovereignty, is inferred from its part in the Legislative power, but none (that I know of) wherein its part in the Legislative power is argued from its part in the Sovereignty.  
[Now, says he, when as a part of the Legislative power resides in the two Houses, as also a power to redress Grievances, and to call into Question all Ministers of State and Justice, and all Subjects of whatsoever degrees in case of Delinquency, it might be thought that a part of the Supreme power doth reside in them though they have not the Honorary Title.]  
To which I answer. 1. 'Tis denied that either or both Houses have any power of themselves to redress the Grievances of the Kingdom, or to call into question any Delinquents. I have read (in his Majesty's forementioned Declaration) that the House of Commons hath never assumed, or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature; having no more Authority to administer an Oath (the only way to discover and find out Facts) to, than to cut off the Heads of any Subjects. And in Judge Jenkins his Lex. Terrae, p. 116. That a Court must be either by the King's Patent, or Statute-Law, or Common-Law, which is common and constant usage: The House of Commons hath neither Patent, Statute-Law, nor Common-Law, enabling them to be a Court or to give an Oath, p. 27. and 140, 141. or to examine a man, p. 65. as also that both the Houses can make no Court without the King, p. 148. 122. that the two Houses by the Law of this Land have no colour of power either to make or pardon Delinquents the King contradicting, p. 24. and 119. and that though it belong to the Lords to reform erroneous Judgements given in other Courts (for that all the Judges of the Land, the King's Council, and the twelve Masters of the Chancery assist there, by whose advice erroneous Judgements are redressed) yet when the writ of error is brought to reverse any Judgement, there is first a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof, p. 55. 106. I have read also (in the Hist. of Independ. p. 1. p. 61, 62.) That the House of Peers is no Court of Judicature without the King's special Authority granted to them, either by his Writ or his Commission, and therefore in the trial of the Earl of Strafford, and in all other trials upon Life and Death in the Lord's House, the King grants his Commission to a Lord high Steward to sit as Judge, and the rest of the Lords are but in the name of Jurors; and says J. Jenkins, p. 103. When the Lords had condemned to death by an Ordinance Sir Simon de Beriford, a free Commoner of England, they afterwards better considered the matter, and that they might be acquitted of the sentence, became suitors to the King, that what they had so done might not in future time be drawn into Precedent, because that which they had done was against Law; and the Judge gives this reason against taking away men's lives by Ordinances, because an Ordinance binds not at all, (but pro tempore, as the two Houses then affirmed) and a man's life cannot be tried by that which is not binding, and to continue for all times, for a life lost cannot be restored.  
From which premises I conclude, that neither one nor both Houses, though legally summoned and elected, have power to redress public Grievances or try Delinquents without the King's consent.  
And as for that part of the Legislative power which is said to reside in them, and from whence their part in the Supremacy is thought fit to be concluded.] 1. The two Houses, even when full and free, have so constantly acknowledged themselves in Statutes and Acts of Parliament most loyal, faithful, and obedient subjects to the King their Sovereign Lord, that from this alone 'tis manifest enough they did not deem themselves to have any such part in the Legislative power as might entitle them to a part in the Sovereignty. 2. I have read in [the Rebels Plea examined] (p. 12.) these words, [Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them, (the two Houses) they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old Laws, but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supreme and Legislative power:] for which p. 14. he quotes these words of Grotius, c. 3. de jure Belli sect. 18. who says, Multum falluntur qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata, nisi à Senatu probentur, partitionem fieri potestatis. They are much deceived who think that the Supreme power is divided, if Kings will not account some of their Acts valid without the approbation of the Senate. I have read also in the Book called [The Kings Supremacy asserted] by Mr. Sheringham, p. 96, 97. That the concurrence of one or both the other Estates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws is no good colour or pretence, much less a sufficient ground for such a coordination and mixture as is pressed.— Although their assents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch, yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the Rights of Sovereignty. It's the common Assertion of Canonists, Civilians, Schoolmen, nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any, that the Legislative power is delegable; that such a concurrence is no Argument of supremacy, or of such a mixture as some would infer out of it. Some call it therefore apparens mixtura, because it seems to destroy a simple Form of Government, and to make a mixture in the power itself, but doth not, though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof. Grotius affirms to this purpose (de Imperio sum. potest. circa sacra, c. 8. N. 11.) Illam legislationem quae alii quàm summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae porestatis. He speaks this of Laws made by general Conventions, whose concurrence, he saith, doth not in the least manner diminish the Rights of Majesty. Such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies, which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power— as in the Persian, which appears from Dan. 6, 7, 8, 9 and the Roman Empire— And not only whole representative Bodies, but divers particular free Cities have the same privilege, yet have not supreme Authority.— As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of some Acts, he affirms, p. 101. That 'tis only a power of assenting; for it hath been resolved by the Judges, that this clause [Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty, and the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament] is no more in substance and effect, than that which was used anciently [The King with the assent of the Lords and Commons establisheth:] the words [assenteth] and [enacteth] being equivalent in this case; and p. 45. he tells us, that though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or descent, yet the Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law: the Authority that animates (a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses) and makes it differ from a dead letter, being in the King, who is the life and soul of the Law:— which was resolved also by divers Earls, and Barons, and by all the Justices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controversy with the King, and desiring to have it decided in Parliament, a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons, and to all the Justices, to consider of the business, it was resolved that the two Houses were not coordinate with the King in the legislative power, but that the King alone made Laws by the assent of the two Houses; that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm, and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons.  
From all which it appears, 1. That that part which the two Houses have by Law in the Legislative power is not a sufficient medium to persuade us, that they have a part in the supremacy: and 2. That they have no share at all in any power which may properly be called Legislative, (I mean in that sense in which the words [Legislative power] are now adays commonly taken, viz. for a power of making Laws. (For among the Romans, Legem far was no more than Legem ad populum,— in concionem— quasi in medium afferre & proponere, and Legislation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo, the proposing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens, and ask their assent in order to its establishment.) I conclude therefore, that the supremacy is wholly in the King, notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary. For the proof whereof, if this Author stand in need of more Arguments, I refer him to the Rebel's Plea examined, p. 11, 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of sin, Appendix. p. 210, 211, etc. To Mr. Sheringham's [Remonstrance of the King's Right, or, the King's supremacy asserted.] To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae, p. 7, 8, 9 Indeed this consideration alone is sufficient to evince it, that by the Oath administered to all that sit in the lower House the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Causes, (then in Parliament-Causes, says J. Jenkins, Lex Terrae, p. 127.) over all Persons, (then over the two Houses, (ibid.) which Oath every Member of the House of Commons is enjoined by Law to take, or else he hath no Voice in that House. (5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae, p. 67.) Therefore the King is by Law the only supreme Governor, and consequently it may not be thought, that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in the two Houses. Our Author goes on, [And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong, but how it might be capable of Rebellion, is more difficult to conceive.] 1. Here he [confidently takes it for granted] that the two Houses are part of the Supreme Power, whereas in the precedent words he spoke more modestly, and told us only [it might be thought] that a part of the Supreme Power did reside in them, not peremptorily inferring that it doth reside in them. And indeed he could not rationally have so concluded, unless he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that conclusion. 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houses capable of doing wrong, and tells us (only) that 'tis difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion. 1. Notwithstanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houses may have been guilty of Rebellion, since the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence. 2. I demand of him, whether, 1. they are capable of doing such wrong (to the King) as the Law makes Treason and Rebellion; whether, 2. if they do such wrong it be not easy to conceive, that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treason. The Law of the Land (25 Edw. 3. ch. 2.) makes it treason to levy war against our Lord the King in his Realm, or to be adherent to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere; and also to counterfeit the King's Great or Privy Seal, or Money. The resolutions of all the Judges of England upon the said Statute have been, that to seize upon the King's Ports, Forts, Magazines for War, is high Treason, Lex Terrae, p. 77. as likewise to levy War either to alter the Religion, or any Law established, p. 22. 40. or to remove the King's Counsellors, p. 22. Yea, these things were acknowledged to be Treason, not only by Sir Edw. Cook in his Institutes (printed by an Order of both Houses dated May 12. 1641.) but also by Mr. Solicitor S. John, and Mr. Pym, in their speeches touching the Earl of Strafford. Where, as J. Jenkins quotes them, Lex Terrae, p. 187, 188. they likewise affirm it Treason to usurp the Royal power, to raise rumours, and give out words to alienate the people's affections from the King, to subvert the Fundamental Laws, to impose unlawful Taxes, or new Oaths, to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King. 'Tis confessed also by Sir Edw. Cook, that no privilege of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treason, Felony or breach of the Peace, (4. Institut. 25.) If not to any one Member (says J. Jenkins, p. 15.) not to two, nor to ten, nor to the major part. Now I suppose this Author is not either so ignorant or so perverse as to deny, that the two Houses did levy War against the King; that they counterfeited the Great Seal; that they seized upon the King's Ports, Forts, Magazines for War; that they usurped the Royal power; raised rumours, and gave out words to alienate the people from the King: imposed a new Oath, unlawful Taxes, and levied War without yea against the King's Authority. From which premises I discern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine (though sad and dismal) consequence, that those two Houses and the presbyterian party which adhered to them, and gave them aid and comfort, were guilty of Disobedience, Treason and Rebellion. If the major part of a Parliament commit Treason, they must not be judges of it; for no man or body can be judge in his own cause, and as well as ten, or any number may commit Treason, the greater number may as well, says J. Jenkins, Lex Terrae, P. 15, 16.  
[In this high and tender point it belongs not (says our Author) to me to determine.]  
The main reason of which scrupulosity is most probably no other than this, that he's so much a Presbyterian, that either his blind and deluded understanding, or rather his disloyal and rebellious heart will not suffer him to determine the Question on the King's side. For if this Rector of Bramshot be not misreported, he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houses-Garrison, and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garrison, and at that time I presume this was not looked upon by him as a point too, high and tender. But now tempora mutantur— and yet not so changed, it seems, but that this Author still dares to insinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fight against the King: witness these following words, p. 50. (60.)  
And as touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers, without passing any judgement in the great case of England, I shall only make rehearsal of the words of Grotius, a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical, which are found in his Book de jure Belli & Pacis, by himself dedicated to the French King, [Si Rex partem habeat summi imperii, partem alteram populus aut Senatus, Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit, quia eatenus Imperium non habet. Quod locum habere censco etiamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore. Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est; cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summam partem habeat, non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi, L. 1. c. 4. sect. 13.] (which Chapter, by the way, is proved to be dangerously Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the [Observations on the original of Government] p. 34, etc. but) Here I demand, 1. Whether this Author can reasonably be imagined to produce these words of Grotius to any other end than to justify the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons against the King. 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to pass any judgement in the great case of England in not sillily (and yet sadly) hypocritical, especially considering, 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted, that the two Houses had a part in the supreme power. 2. That the same Author, who infers their having such a part from their having (as he fancies) a part in the Legislative power, quotes this very passage out of Grotius, to justify the two Houses and himself, in fight and encouraging others to fight against the King; which Author (yet) ingenuously promises that he will offer his Head (he meant, I suppose, his Neck) to justice as a Rebel, when, 'tis proved that the King was the highest power in the time of the divisions, and that he had power to make that War which he made. He here implicitly confesses, says Dr. Pierce, (Impartial Enquiry, Postscript, p. 14, 15.) the King was once the highest power, and implies he lost it by the divisions; but that he never could lose it, and that demonstrably he had it, I have made most evident in the Appendix of this Book, which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. (at least as far as I have proved the supremacy of the King, § 78.) And that the King had power to make that War which he made (in defence of pars sua, viz. the ordering of the Militia, his Negative voice in Parliament, his right to the possession of all Castles, Ports, Ports, Magazines, within his Dominions, etc.) is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this passage, as 'tis that the two Houses (in partem non suam involantes) had power to make that War which they made (to defend their own violation of the King's Rights.) The truth is, those words of Grotius are no argument of the justness of the late War on either side, and therefore they are impertinently produced to such a purpose, till these minors are well and sound proved: 1. That the two Houses had legally a part in the supremacy, which Grotius himself denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legislation. And 2. that the King did involare in partem summi Imperii non suam, invade any such prerogative or part in the supremacy, (for of that only Grotius speaks) as did by Law belong to the two Houses. For though it could be proved, that the King did entrench upon some privilege of theirs, yet if that privilege did not belong to them, quatenus having a share in the Sovereignty, Grotius his words (though they should be granted of infallible truth) will not justify their fight against the King upon that account. But this sly discourser was persuaded, it seems, that when he had rehearsed this hypothetical major, Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii, partem alteram populus aut Senatus, Regi, in partem non suam involanti, vis just a opponi poterit: Every Presbyterian that understood Latin, and had engaged against the King under the Authority of the two Houses, would willingly take the minor for granted, (Sed Senatus ille (qualis qualis) partem habuit summi Imperii, & in eam partem (non suam) involavit Rex,) and thence very hastily and joyfully conclude, Ergò vis à Senatu isto (vel potius Senatûs quisquiliis & retrimentis) Regi opposita erat justa: even by the verdict of Grotius, that man of renown. At this Presbyterian rate of disputing are Arguments huddled up in the Book called [The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers,] the sophistry of some parts of which Book is scarce exceeded by Knot's Volume against Chillingworth. In it several hypothetical majors are to be met with, but the minors are either not mentioned, or else presumed to be true without any attempt made to prove them so. Now Zachary Crofton tells us in his Berith Anti-Baal, p. 62. that [Ifs] are no proofs or demonstrations— What good, duty, justice, morality, or religion may not be ruined, if a man's fancied [If] be reason enough against it? This way of disputing as apparently Jesuitical— irrational, Machiavellian, barbarous.  
The Rector of Bramshot thus proceeds [with reverence to sovereign Majesty, I crave leave to speak this word of truth and soberness.] Parturiunt Montes— one would think some very sage and important Oracle should forthwith drop from the Pen of this Reverend Dictator. [In a knowing age, quoth he, flattery doth not really exalt or secure the Royal Prerogative.] Quid nascitur? Such a Triobolary Truth as I believe there's scarce any Presbyterian so simple as to be ignorant of it. But there's something suggested in it that I am afraid will one day be found a notorious and fatal falsehood, viz. that this hath been [a knowing Age] as to those parties who have opposed and sought against the Royal interest; whereas I doubt 'tis far easier to prove, that in that respect it hath been either the most ignorant, (I mean of most grand, concerning Truths) or the most maliciously wicked, profligated and debauched Age that ever Protestant England knew.  
[The Authority of Parliaments being depressed and undervalved is the more searched into and urged.]  
By [Parliaments] here 'tis evident enough he means the two Houses in contradistinction, yea opposition to the King: But says Lex Terrae, p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land, than a Body without a Head makes a man; for a Parliament is a body composed of a King their head, Lords and Commons the members, all three together make one body, and that is the Parliament and none other.— The two Houses are not the Parliament but only parts thereof, and by the abuse and misunderstanding of this word [Parliament] they have miserably deceived the people. And his late Majesty in answer to their Declaration of May 19 1642. and to that part of it wherein they complain that the Heads of the Malignant party have with much Art and Industry advised him to suffer divers unjust scandals and imputations upon the Parliament to be published in his Name] has these words, If we were guilty of that aspersion, we must not only be active in raising the scandal, but passive in the mischief begotten by that scandal: We being an essential part of the Parliament. And we hope the just defence of ourselves and our Authority, and the necessary Vindication of our innocence, and justice from the imputation laid on us by a major part then present of either or both Houses, shall no more be called a scandal upon the Parliament, than the opinion of such a part be reputed an Act of Parliament. And we hope our good Subjects will not be long misled by that common expression in all the Declarations wherein they usurp the word Parliament, and apply it to countenance any resolution or Vote some few have a mind to make, by calling it the resolution of Parliament, which can never be without our consent. p. 5. Neither can the vote of either or both Houses make a greater alteration in the Laws of this Kingdom— either by commanding or inhibiting any thing (besides the known Rule of the Law) than our single direction or mandate can do to which we do not ascribe the Authority.— And now let this Author search his Law-Books with the exactest diligence and skill he can, and then let him tell us by what Law the two Houses abstracted from the King have any Parliamentary Authority. Indeed his own following words do clearly enough imply that they have no such Authority. For p. 51. (61.) he is so inconsiderately bold as to assert that [Concerning the utmost bounds and limits of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary power, the Law in deep wisdom chooses to keep silence, for it always supposes union, not division between King and Parliament.] Whence all that I shall conclude is, that the power of a Parliament truly so called, viz. King, Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons is not limited by Law; and thence I gather either that some Acts of Parliament are no Laws; or that that part of some Acts wherein 'tis declared that any following statutes contrariant to such and such preceding statutes shall be utterly void, is vain and ridiculous. But 2. That the two Houses when they usurped the power of a Parliament (as well as the name) and acted in opposition to the King, had no Law on their side to justify their actings: For if the Law always supposes union between King and Parliament, it speaks nothing of the Rights and Privileges of the two Houses in case of their division from and opposition to the King. And 3. That the King's power and prerogative is absolute, and notwithstanding all Law of this Nation infinite, for if the Law be silent, and that in deep wisdom too, as to the utmost bounds of the Royal Prerogative, it hath very wisely lest it unbounded: which latter conclusions (and the first also) are so prejudicial to the Presbyterian Interest and Party, that I doubt they will conclude him either the veriest Fool (if indeed he knew not that the King's Prerogative was bounded by Law) or the most Malignant Flatterer that this knowing Age hath brought forth.  
His next Argument to evince Presbyterian Loyalty is, that [The subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom could never be effected till those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian, were many of them imprisoned; others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army, and the rest thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons.] An assertion so notoriously false, that it puts me in mind of the proverb in the late War, that— some men would not swear but they would lie basely. The truth is, the subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom both in Church and State was the great work of the Long-Parliament, which they effected in the Church, by overthrowing the Hierarchy and that Prelacy in which the Holy Church of England was founded (Stat. of Carlisle, 25 Edw. 1. recited 25 Edw. 3.) in the State by passing and pressing upon the King that Bill against the Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament (who were in all Parliaments either personally or by Proxy since we had any;) who were once of the States of Parliament, and in the Act of Parliament 8 Eliz. c. 1. acknowledged one of the greatest States of this Realm: all whose Liberties and Privileges, (and consequently that of sitting in Parliament, to which they ought to be summoned ex debito Justitiae, Cooks Institut. 4. c. 9) are confirmed to them by Magna Charta, which was itself ratified by 32 Acts of Parliament, and that inviolably by the 42 of Edw. 3. enacting that if any statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none (and consequently the Act of Parliament so called, against that Privilege of the Bishops, was ipso facto null and void) by robbing the King of his Negative voice, of his power in the Militia, by making Ordinances without him, yea against him, and so practically denying what they verbally swore, that he was the only supreme Governor in all Causes and over all Persons: By their electing new members warranted only by a counterfeit Seal: By their taking upon them to create new Judges, Justices, and other Officers without the King's consent.— For Laws and Liberties, says J. Jenkins, p. 146. have not the prevailing party in the two Houses destroyed above an hundred Acts of Parliament, and in effect Magna Charta, and Charta de Forestâ, which are the Common Laws of the Land? And p. 135. The Writ of Summons to this Parliament is the Basis and Foundation of the Parliament; if the Foundation be destroyed, the Parliament falls. The Assembly of Parliament is for three purposes: [Rex est habiturus colloquium & tractatum cum Praelatis, Magnatibus & Proceribus super arduis negotiis concernentibus, 1. Nos. 2. Defensionem Regni nostri. 3. Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae.] The King, says the Writ, intends to confer and treat with the Prelates, Earls, Barons, about the arduous affairs relating to 1. our Royal self, 2. the defence of our Realm, 3. the defence of the Church of England. This Parliament, says the Judge, hath overthrown this Foundation in all three parts. 1. Nos, Our Royal self; the King they have chased away, and imprisoned (at Holmbey) they have voted no Prelates, and that a number of other Lords (about forty in the City) must not come to the House, and about forty more are out of Town; the conference and treaty is made void thereby; for the King cannot consult and treat there with men removed from thence. 2. The defence of our Realm,] that is gone, they have made it [their] Kingdom, not his; for they have usurped all his Sovereignty. 3. The defence of the Church of England,] that is gone. By the Church of England must be understood necessarily that Church that at the Teste of the Writ was Ecclesia Anglicana; they have destroyed that too. So now these men would be called a Parliament, having quashed and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were summoned and assembled. If the Writ be made void, the Process must be void also. The House must needs fall where the Foundation is overthrown: thus he. And all this was done before those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned, and others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army: So that 'tis very wonderful how this Rector of Bramshot could be either so ignorant or so impudent as to utter such an assertion, especially since in his own following words (which it seems he fancied to be a proof of its Truth) a very considerable Argument is suggested to evince it an egregious Falsehood. For, quoth he,  
[They had voted the King's Concessions a ground sufficient for the Houses to proceed on to settle the Nation, and were willing to cast whatsoever they contended for upon a legal security.]  
Now in that very Treaty at the Isle of Wight the Presbyterian party wrested such Concessions from the King, as did (in their own nature) subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom, as is evident from the speech of Mr. Pryn himself, concerning those Concessions, (3. Edit. p. 38.) wherein he confesses, that the Kings of England have [always] held two swords in their hands— the sword of Mars in time of War— the sword of Justice in time of Peace.— And p. 37. he tells us, that in those Concessions the King had wholly stripped himself, his Heirs and Successors for ever, of all that power and interest which his Predecessors [always] enjoyed in the Militia, Forces, Forts, Navy, (Magazines, p. 36.) not only of England, but Ireland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey and Barwick too, so as he and they can neither raise nor arm one man, nor introduce any foreign Forces into any of them, by virtue of any Commission, Deputation, or Authority, without consent of both Houses of Parliament; and that he had vested the sole power and disposition of the Militia, Forts and Navy, of all these, in both Houses, in such ample manner, that they should never part with it to any King of England, unless they pleased themselves.— A security, says Mr. Pryn, so grand and firm, that [none of] our Ancestors [ever] demanded, or enjoyed the like— nor any other Kingdom whatsoever, since the Creation, (for aught that I can find) and such a selfdenying condescension in the King to his people in this particular as no Age can Precedent. Thus the sword of Mars (which themselves confess the former Kings of England always held) was insolently wrested out of the late King's hands, and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in this particular. Besides, some Parliaments, says he, p. 40. in former times have had the nomination of the Lord Chancellor, some of the Lord Treasurer, some of the great Justiciary, or some few Judges of England only; but never any Parliament of England claimed or enjoyed the nomination and appointment of any the great Officers, Barons, Judges or Treasurer's places in Ireland; nor yet of the Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports, Chancellors of the Exchequer, and Duchy, Secretaries of State, Master of the Rolls, or Barons of the Exchequer of England, yet all these the King for peace-sake hath parted with to us: And p. 41. we have the disposal (he might have added, Horresco referens) of all these Officers in England and Ireland, both Military and Civil; of his sword of War and Peace, his Justice, his Conscience, his Purse, his Treasury, his Papers, his public Records, his Cabinet, his Great Seal, more than ever we at first expected or desired. Thus horridly was the sword of Justice also wrested out of his Majesty's hands, and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in that particular likewise. Another Concession was, that no Peer, who should be (after that Treaty) made by the King, his Heirs and Successors, should sit or vote in the Parliament of England, without consent of both Houses of Parliament, which, says Mr. Pryn, p. 43. gives such an extraordinary new power to the House of Commons as they never formerly enjoyed nor pretended to. By which provision, p. 44. the Commons are made not only in some sense the Judges of Peers themselves, (which they could not try or judge before, by the express letter of Magna Charta, cap. 29. and the Common Law) but even their very Creators too. And (if the House of Commons might justly be termed any part of the Fundamental constitution of our Nation) what was this but to subvert the Fundamental Government? By other Concessions the Houses were enabled, p. 45. to make an Act of Parliament (for raising of moneys and ordering the Militia) though the King denied his Royal Assent, which power was never challenged by, nor granted to both Houses in any King's reign before, and takes away the Kings Negative voice as to those particulars. To pass by other instances (for I am quite weary of raking in such a stinking Dunghill) these are enough to manifest, what kind of creatures Presbyterians were in point of loyalty, when they had power in their hands to be (impunè) disloyal; and how willing to subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom, since by virtue of these propositions, which they had the imperious confidence to tender to his sacred Majesty in that deplorable condition to which they had reduced him; they denuded him of his Royal power, and vested themselves with all the considerable parts of Sovereignty: and when they had thus subverted the Fundamental Constitution of the English Monarchy, and had passed that Vote (which this Author mentions) touching the King's Concessions, and were thereupon deprived by the Army of that power of imposing on his Majesty and the Kingdom, which they had so Tyrannically abused; these secluded and imprisoned Members wrote a Vindication of themselves from the Aspersions cast upon them by the Army; in one passage of which Vindication (p. 8, 9) they give us reason enough to suspect, that if their own prosperity had continued, they would yet more unworthily have insulted over his Majesty, and have taken such a cruel advantage of those great infelicities (into which themselves had cast him) as to tender and extort from him some more diminutions (if possible) of that little power, and no greatness which the former had left him; for, say they, by this Vote (viz. that the King's Concessions were a ground sufficient for the House to proceed upon to settle the Nation) the House did not determine, as we conceive, the having no farther Treaty with his Majesty, before a concluding and declaring of peace; nor were the Houses so bound up thereby, that they could not propose any thing farther, wherein the King's Answers were defective, or from making any new Propositions for the better healing our breaches, or more safe binding up a just and righteous peace.] It seems then those Lords and Commons had some more such signal testimonies in pickle of their Presbyterian loyalty, some more demonstrations, that when they took and imposed the Covenant, they had no thoughts and intentions to diminish his Majesty's just power and greatness. It seems they had some clearer explications in their Budget of their meaning in those words in the preface to the Covenant. [Having before our eyes the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty's person and his posterity:] which words interpreted by their actions, must signify, that they had it before their eyes, only as a mark to shoot at. But God deliver us for the time to come from the Presbyterian reserves of such a disloyal and corrupt majority; wherein they abundantly manifested how tractable Scholars they were to Scotch Teachers, and how able and willing to imitate, yea, transcend that ungodly pattern which they had set them, who, when the King had before granted them more than was fit for such persons to receive, had the insolent confidence to ask moreover such things as 'twas not fit for the King to give. And thus the English Presbyterians by enlarging their desires as Hell, filled up the measure of that Scorch iniquity, which he that runs may read in his late Majesty's large Declaration of the Tumults in Scotland, printed Ann. 1638.  
Our Author proceeds thus;  
[In those times the Presbyterian Ministers of London, in their public Vindication thus declare themselves: [We profess before God, Angels and Men, that we verily believe, that that which is so much feared to be now in agitation, the taking away the life of the King in this present way of Trial, is not only not agreeable to the word of God, the principles of the Protestant Religion, (never yet stained with the least drop of the blood of a King) or the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom, but contrary to them, as also to the Oath of Allegiance, the Protestation of May 5. 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant; from all which, or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others.] To which I answer:  
1. Though the Presbyterian Ministers of London were granted not guilty of [the death] of the King, yet they might be guilty of [disobedience and rebellion] against him, which was the objection, p. 48. 58. to which objection therefore this Apology is impertinent. 2. Nor is the Apology at all satisfactory as to the taking away of the King's life in [some other way of Trial] it being designed only against that present way of Trial; for 'tis only with that limiting specification that they vindicate themselves; for they say, that [the taking away the King's life in this present way of Trial is not agreeable to the word of God, etc.] Whence all that I can conclude in reason is, that they did not imagine it agreeable to the word of God, or the principles of the Protestant Religion, or the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom, or the Oath of Allegiance, Protestation, Covenant, to take away his life in that way of Trial, viz. by that High Court of Justice set up by the Independent party; but notwithstanding this they might deem it consistent with the word of God and the principles of the Protestant Religion, etc. to take away his life in a way of Trial appointed and modelled by the corrupt majority of the two Houses, the Presbyterian Lords and Commons: And if the Author of Clerico-Classicum deceive us not, (p. 35. of his Answer to the London-Ministers letter to the General and Council of War, Jan. 18. 1648.) Mr. Pryn allows of a capital proceeding against Emperors, Kings and Princes, in his Appendix to the fourth part of his Sovereign power of Parliaments, p. 190. ad 194. It I am not deceived also, a man called Mr. Christopher Love, who I think deemed himself a Minister of Jesus Christ, I am sure he was a Presbyterian Minister of London, did in a thing called a Sermon at Uxbridge Treaty, justify, yea, urge the taking away of the King's life in as bad a way of Trial; for in that Sermon having spoken of the bloodguiltiness of the King, yea intimated unnaturalhorrible-bloud-guiltiness in him, and thereby made him the troubler of England, as Achan was of Israel, he hath these words, p. 32. 'Twas the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel; Oh that in this, our State-Physicians would resemble God, to cut off those from the Land who have distempered it! melius est ut pereat unus quàm unitas, Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est.— but yet more plain p. 37. men who lie under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persons to be at peace with, till all the guilt of blood be expiated and avenged, either by the sword of the Law, or by the Law of the sword. Mr. Love, says that Author, will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent blood, left he should contradict himself; neither will he say that bloodguiltiness can be expiated but by blood, lest he should contradict the Scriptures; neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword— Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love, the King's being put to death in that way of Trial was neither contrary to the word of God, nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion, etc. but a work fit and expedient to be done: and 'twill be well for English Presbyterians, if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open, it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Trial, was because he was not tried and condemned by Presbyterians, nor for their advantage; but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer. For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion, notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant, yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance, I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary (if at least, one of them be such an obligation) these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King, and send an Army to shed his blood in the high places of the Field; and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants, and their Religion the Protestant Religion, 'twas not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the King's safety, that in so many battles kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the blood of a King; especially as to Edge-Hill-fight, if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philip's his Veritas inconcussa, p. 79. that Blague, a villain in the King's Army, had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood, that they might the better know how to shoot at him: who accordingly gave notice of it, and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences, that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which grazed at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life; and the Presbyterian Religion, (such as it is) had been stained with the blood of a King. And though the Presbyterians (as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us, p. 69.) would excuse themselves that they never intended the King's destruction, yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse: For as Sir Walter Raleigh says truly, Our Law doth construe all levying War without the King's Commission, and all force raised, to be intended for the death and destruction of the King, not attending the sequel, and so 'tis judged upon good reason; for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent. The Lord Cook (as the Apologizer goes on, p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason, 3 Institut. p. 12. saith,) Preparation by some overt act to depose the King, or take the King by force and strong hand, and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands, is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compass and imagination of the death of the King: For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject, and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government, and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England, Hill. 1 Jac. Regis, in the case of the Lord Cobham, Lord Grey, and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests; and so it had been resolved by the Justices, Hill. 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton, who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was, and to have taken her into their power, and to have removed divers of her Council; and for that end did assemble a multitude of people, which being raised to the end aforesaid, was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen.— The Presbyterians, says he, did offend in this kind notoriously, and therefore committed Treason manifestly; for they imprisoned the King in divers places, and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight— and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians, out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects, to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues.— From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom; and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army; and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth, there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes, which (for aught I see) they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty, that they rather go about to justify their former actings by returning again (as far as they dare) to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in blood. Nor do I believe that they who took away the King's life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles, than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude, both French, Scotch and English. The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts. Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos. Knox's Appellation.— Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (by Junius Brutus, supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman.) David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. (burnt at London and Oxford, in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims. Goodman (an intimate Friend as 'tis said of John Knox's) his book of the same nature and tendency. Rutherford's Lex Rex. I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, B. 1. Ch. 2. (speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva) these words: Since which time, as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva (but contrary to the Judgement of all other reformed Churches (for aught I know) which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva) that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion, the inferior Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully, and aught if need required, even by force and Arms to reform it themselves. And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox, that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and chief Rulers only, but also to the whole body of the people, and to every member of the same as occasion, vocation, and ability shall serve to revenge the injury done against God. That the people are bound by Oath to God to revenge to the utmost of their power the injury done against his Majesty— That if Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth, their Subjects are freed from their Oath of obedience. And out of Bucanan these, That the people may arraign the Prince; bestow the Crown at their pleasure— that the Ministry may excommunicate him— that an excommunicate person is not worthy to enjoy any life on earth— that it were good that rewards were appointed by the people for such as should kill Tyrants— And Ch. 5. To this objection [God places Tyrants sometimes for the punishment of his people] this answer (given by the Reverend Bucanan) so doth he private men sometimes to Kill them. And this new Divinity, says the Bishop, of dealing thus with Kings and Princes, is not held only by Knox and Bucanan, but generally for aught I can learn by most of the Consistorians of chief name beyond the Seas, who being of the Geneva humour, do endeavour by most unjust and disloyal means to subject to their forged Presbyteries the Sceptres and Swords of Kings and Princes, as Calvin, Beza, Hottoman, Ursin (as he cometh out from Newstadt) vindiciae contra Tyrannos. Eusebius, Philadelphus, etc. These also B. 2. Ch. 1. I find out of Goodman. Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be deposed; and inferior Magistrates ought chief to do it— It is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants— when Magistrates cease to do their duties, (in thus deposing or killing Princes) the people are as it were without officers, and then God gives the sword into their hands, and he himself is become immediately their Head, for to the multitude a portion of the Sword of Justice is committed. And out of him and a Book of Obedience, these: If neither the inferior Magistrates nor the greatest part of the people will do their Offices (in punishing, deposing, or killing of Princes) than the Minister must excommunicate such a King; any Minister may do it against the greatest Prince. God will send to the rest of the people who are willing to do their duty but not able, some Moses or Othoniel.— by the word of God a private man having some special inward motion may kill a Tyrant— Or otherwise a private man may do so if he be commanded or permitted by the Commonwealth. Now if some inferior Magistrate, a handful of the people, yea one man may kill a Tyrant, an evil Prince, one that refuses to reform Religion, this implies that the same person or persons may be a Judge or Judges, whether such or such a King be a Tyrant, an evil Prince, a refuser to reform, and consequently one that deserves death or no.  
Upon such wicked principles as these (dictated and taught by Presbyterian Oracles) in conjunction with this minor, that the late King was a person so criminal as to deserve death, which they that ordered his Trial took upon them to be Judges of, as they might well by these now mentioned principles, horrid Regicide was pathetically recommended (to his Auditors at Vxbridge-Treaty) by Mr. Christopher Love, a Presbyterian Minister of London; and long after that perpetrated by Order of a part of the people, some Commons and the High Court of Justice, who adjudged the King to be thus criminous; and apologized for by John Price, Citizen of London, in his Clerico-Classicum, as an Act agreeable enough to the declared judgement of many protestant (he means Presbyterian) Divines, in testimony whereof he quotes several passages out of Presbyterian Authors, p. 32. to 35. which pamphlet, if the Title-page deceive us not, may serve as a brief answer to that Vindication of the London Ministers here spoken of. And indeed 'tis a discourse so abounding with strong and rational Arguments ad homines, that I doubt 'tis beyond the skill of a Presbyterian to give a solid and satisfactory reply to it. From all which it follows, that either the presbyterian Ministers of London must damn the now mentioned Principles and Tenants of those their presbyterian Ancestors, and their own opinions also at the Vxbridge-Treaty, if they were the same with Mr. Love's, one of their Tribe, or else they must justify this inference, That the taking away the life of the King in that (then) present way of Trial, was rather a duty than a crime: Which though it be a wretched and Traitorous conclusion, yet is very regularly deducible from those principles.  
And I appeal to any intelligent and ingenuous persons, and desire them to tell me, whether the murderers of the late King did infer that bloody Corollary from any more treasonable and rebellious Theorems and Consectaries, than these which I have now produced; and whether Independents did not in justifying that horrid Fact, writ exactly after those Copies, which Presbyterians both ancient and modern had set them. And hence I think I may reasonably affirm, that those principles of the Protestant Religion, which are contrary to King-killing, are not otherwise owned by such Presbyterians, as I have now spoken of, than as most Presbyterians say, that Papists own some Articles of our Faith, viz. damnably, because they hold together with them other principles which consequentially overthrow those Articles. And therefore 'twas but a vanity in the London Ministers to vindicate themselves, by speaking of those principles as opposite to that way of Trial: a greater folly was it to produce the solemn League and Covenant, which in the third Article talks so loosely and crudely of defending the King's person and Authority, that Presbyterians might without offering any violence to the words, plunder him of all his Authority; and both they and the Independents take away his life, notwithstanding that Article, whensoever they should think fit to determine, that the true Religion and Liberty of the Kingdoms could not be defended and preserved, unless the King's person and Authority were destroyed: But in the fourth Article there's as clear and smooth a way opened to the commission of that heinous sin, as the most forward Actors in it needed to desire; for there the Covenanters are bound with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries, Malignants, evil Instruments, that they may be brought to public Trial, and receive condign punishment, not only as the degree of their offences required or deserved, but also as the Supreme Judicatories (whether de facto or de jure, we are not certified) of both Kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect should judge convenient: So that since the men who ordered the Trial of the King were at that time de facto the supreme Judicatory of England; and since they looked upon him as an Incendiary and evil Instrument, and therefore to be brought to public Trial, and the men empowered by them judged it to be (at least) convenient to take away his life in that way of Trial; their murdering of Him in that way was not contrary, but agreeable enough to the Solemn League and Covenant: Yea, to imagine that by that League Scotland was bound to rescue the King's person from the Parliament of England, because of their Voting, that no farther application or Addresses should be made to his Majesty, under pain of High Treason, is called a slandering of the Covenant in that humble Edenburgh-Remonstrance, p. 45. Nor is either the Protestation of May 5. 1641. or the Oath of Allegiance, or the word of God, more wisely or pertinently urged by those London Ministers against those murderers, since all those obligations do as much forbid and condemn fight against the King, and dishonouring; and dethroning him, which Presbyterians were abundantly guilty of, as they do putting him to death, which the Independents did, ('tis true) but after the Presbyterians had first stripped him of his honour, and Royal State, and so politically killed him.  
All which considered, 'tis very admirable to me, that those Presbyterian Ministers of London (especially Mr. Love) could so confidently talk thus in vindication of their own Innocency, and in opposition to those Independent malefactors, as also with what face they could (as our Author tells us they did, p. 52-62.) warn and exhort men to pray for the King, that God would restrain the violence of men, that they might not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the blood of their Sovereign.] To use his own words, [Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of reason,] and tell us whether it were not a piece of practical Nonsense and contradictious hypocrisy, for those Priests who had employed themselves so many years together in cursing those that fought not against the King, and blessing those that did, to warn and exhort men (at last) to pray that God would restrain the violence of men, and not suffer them to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the blood of their Sovereign. If they had exhorted men to put up such a petition in the time of the Wars, would they not thereby have exposed themselves to the scorn and derision of their Auditors? Yea, would not their own Lords and Commons have treated them as Incendiaries, Malignants, evil Instruments; or were they so sottish as to imagine that there's so great difference between a Camp and a Scaffold, between an Army of Rebels, and a single Executioner, that 'twas a duty to pray to God to protect the King from the danger of the one, but no duty to pray for his safeguard from the assaults of the other? Or did they indeed believe if the King had been mortally wounded in the Field (at Edge-hill, Newberry, or Naseby, by one or more of the Presbyterian Soldiers) that this had not been violence, or that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had not thereby drawn upon themselves and the Kingdom the blood of their Sovereign? I seriously profess, that the more narrowly I search into these things, the more reason I have to fear (what indeed this very Vindication suggests) that had the King's life been taken away, either by Presbyterian Armies in the Field (the law of the Sword) or by order of Presbyterian Judges on a Scaffold (the Sword of their Law) for the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest, they would easily have believed such a manner of death, or way of Trial agreeable enough to, and consistent with all the obligations here spoken of, even the Covenant itself: as to which, says Price in his Clerico-Classicum, p. 27, 28. We were bound to preserve and defend the King's person, when we first took this Covenant, and at that time you (Presbyterian Ministers of London) know very well you stirred up the people to fight against his Army, though his person was the leader thereof; which presumes either, 1. That you persuaded the people against the dictates of your own Consciences; or, 2. That you conceived, that though his Person should be smitten into the chambers of Death, by those that aid fight against his Army, yet they did not break the Covenant. If so, then there is a case wherein the King's Person may be cut off without breach of Covenant.] Thus he, and appositely enough, and therefore I say again, Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of Reason.  
Our Author goes on and asks, Is there any thing in the nature of Prelacy that frames the mind to obedience and loyalty? or is there any thing in the nature of Presbytery that inclines to rebellion and disobedience—? A. If he means by the nature of Prelacy the principles of Prelatical Protestants, and by the nature of Presbytery the principles of Presbyterians, I maintain the affirmative in both Questions, and suppose I have already abundantly evinced it, as to Presbyterians both Scotch and English; and as for Prelatical Protestants, if this Author or any body else can produce any such enormous and seditious principles out of their Writings, as I have here quoted out of Presbyterian Authors, let those writings, by my consent, and together with them Mr. Pryn's Sovereign Power of Parliaments, (by which word [Parliaments] he means the two Houses, without and against the King) undergo the same Fate with David Pareus his Commentary, and the Presbyterian League and Covenant; and if any of their practices have been suitable, let those men's persons also have the odious character of Rebellion and Disobedience affixed unto them. But that any such Prelatical Protestant can be produced, is more than I know or have any reason to believe. Certain I am, that English protestant Prelatists profess their assent to, and practically own those principles mentioned, p. 24, 25. Which Principles do in their own nature, and where they are cordially enbraced, frame the minds of English Subjects to obedience and loyalty; and therefore let this Author prove, if he can, that since a Protestant Prelacy was erected among us, our Kings have had any such tedious conflicts with Prelates, as he says they had in ancient times, and for a series of many Ages. As for the Pope's Prelates, they are so near of kin to Presbyterians, that 'tis no great wonder if they create trouble to Princes.  
If, says he, Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural, how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been established or tolerated, have for any time been free from broils and commotions?] One would think there were a sufficient answer comprehended in the words of the Question. For those Presbyterians are rebellious with a witness, that will embroil even those States and Kingdoms where their Form of Worship and Polity is either established or tolerated; and yet the French Protestants are abused by a late Reflecter on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, if notwithstanding this they are not too prone to Rebellion, and that on account of their Principles. What an exception, says he (p. 42. of his Reflections) terrible to Princes, the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their Confession of Faith, speaking of obedience due to the Supreme Magistrate, appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in Print, where they acknowledge such Obedience due to them, except the Law of God and Religion be interessed (on condition that God's Sovereignty remain undiminish'd;) which clause, says he, what it means, their so many and so long continued Rebellions do expound.] What turbulent things Scotch and English presbyterians have been, those very practices of theirs, which these sheets have mentioned (to which many more might be added) are a competent Testimony. But this Quaere shall not scape so, let's view it again. [If Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural, how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been established or tolerated, have for any time been free from broils and commotions?] A. 1. It may be 'twas because though their minds were always inclined (by their principles) to rebellion, yet they had not power and opportunity to act suitably to those inclinations, with hopes of success. 'Twere a sad thing indeed, if Rebels should be able at all times to put their traitorous Designs in execution. 2. It suffices (in reference to the grand Question now disputed) if Presbyterian spirits are prone to Rebellion, in case their way of Worship be not either est ablisht or tolerated. For they deserve not to be so much as tolerated in any Kingdom, that will, when they have power, rebel against Kings, if they be not tolerated. 3. If this Quaere implies any good proof, that Presbytery and Rebellion is not connatural (by which he means, I suppose, not usually conjoined) it does as strongly imply, that Jesuitism and Rebellion are not connatural, since those States and Kingdoms where Jesuits have been tolerated, have for some time been free from broils and commotions. It follows:  
[Or how comes it to pass that Presbyterians have never disclaimed or abandoned their lawful Prince?] As if (to let pass other Instances) English Presbyterians did not disclaim and abandon the late King, when they denied him to be in a condition to Govern, (H. of Comm. Decl. 28. Nou. 1646.) when they denied him the exercise of that power in the Militia, which themselves acknowledged did belong unto him: (Veritas inconcussa, p. 147. 168.) When they affirmed that the Sovereign power resided in both Houses of Parliament; that the King had no Negative voice; that whatsoever the two Houses should Vote, was not by Law to be questioned, either by the King or Subjects; that it belonged to them only to judge of the Law. (Declar. of May 26. 1642.) as if likewise they did not make others to disclaim and abandon him, by making them swear that they would neither directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in his War and Cause. But he proceeds.  
[How comes it to pass that they have never ceased to solicit and supplicate his regards and favour? even when their power hath been at the highest, and his sunk lowest?] Whereas I read in Philip's his Veritas inconcussa (his Book that proves K. Charles 1. no man of blood) these words, p. 124. Indstead of offering any thing which was like to bring peace, they (the Presbyterian Lords and Commons) caused men and women in the first year of their war to be killed, because they did but petition them to accept of a peace: And in the third and fourth year of their war plundered and rob them that petitioned them but to hearken to it: And put out of Office and made all as Delinquents in the seventh year of their war that did but petition them for a Treaty with the King, and refused all the Kings many, very many messages for peace, not only when he was at the highest of his success in the war, but when he was at the lowest, and a prisoner to them, and conjured them as they would answer it at the dreadful day of judgement to pity the bleeding condition of his Kingdoms and People, and send propositions of peace unto him; and years and half-years, and more than a whole year together after the battle at Naseby (insomuch as their fellow-Rebels the Scotch Commissioners did heavily complain of it) were at several times trifled away and spent before any propositions could be made ready. Was this perpetually to supplicate their lawful Prince's regards and favour? And p. 126. We are told they were so unwilling to have any peace at all, as that 6 or 7 Messengers or Trumpeters could come from the King before they could be at leisure, or so mannerly as to answer one of them: but this or that message from the King was received and read, and laid by till a week or when they would after. And p. 128, 129. When they did treat they desired the granting of such propositions as were purposely contrived and stood upon to hinder a peace; and were not to be asked or granted by any that could but entitle themselves to the least part of reason or humanity, etc. And p. 68 The King complains that although he had used all ways and means to prevent the distractions and dangers of the Kingdom, all his labours had been fruitless, that not so much as a Treaty earnestly desired by him, could be obtained (though he disclaimed all his Proclamations and Declarations, and the Erecting of his Standard as against his Parliament) unless he should denude himself of all force to defend him from a visible strength marching against him. And when the business of the Treaty (1647 as I suppose) came into discourse, the Assembly of Divines quickly resolved (all of them but four) to be against it. (See considerations touching the present Factions in the King's Dominions, p. 6.) And yet this Brazen-face would persuade us that Presbyterians never ceased to solicit and supplicate the King's regards and favour. It seems their voting (1647) that they would receive no more messages from the King, and that no man should presume to bring any from him, and that they would make no farther applications and addresses to him, was so far from being a disclaiming and abandoning him, that 'twas not so much as a ceasing to supplicate his regards and favour (statuimus i. e. abrogamus) what shall be done unto thee, O thou false Tongue and ridiculous Flatterer? The other part of his Quaere is, [How comes it to pass that the Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot, than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government?] A. 1. 'Twas because they were unable to make their parts good against those men of violence (here intended.) Independents had cheated them out of that power which before they had. 2. Themselves were the men of violence that did first of all really change the Government by acting without and fight against the King's Person and Authority. Independents took away the name [King] but Presbyterians had long before destroyed the [thing.] 3. 'Twere no great wonder if Presbyterians suffered themselves to be trodden under foot (when they could not help it) rather than comply with those that would not advance the Presbyterian Interest; but what's this to the objection of Rebellion and Disobedience? Does it follow that they did not rebel against the King because they suffered themselves to be trodden under foot by Independents? but 4. 'Tis somewhat hard to understand what Presbyterians mean when they say they suffered themselves to be trodden under foot. None can properly be said to suffer themselves to be ill used, but those that are able to repel that ill usage if they please, which Presbyterians being not able to do when Independents had the power of the sword, they are very fond self-flatterers thus to apologise for themselves, which I speak only on supposition that they were ill used and trodden under foot, but that there is any Truth in that supposition (thus indefinitely expressed) is more than I believe, unless they imagined themselves trodden under foot and ill used because they were not suffered to domineer over and still to rule the whole Nation as they listed; as if all men were trodden under foot or cast out on the Dunghill (like unsavoury salt) that are not suffered to sit in the Throne and usurp the Sceptre of Majesty. For what else were Presbyterians deprived of when the Government was changed? Did they not still enjoy their lives and (in a far higher degree than Loyal Subjects) their Liberties? their Lands also and live, and their Sacrilegious Purchases? and besides all this were not Lay-Presbyterians continued in and advanced to Civil offices and places of Trust: and were not other Presbyterians Masters of Colleges and Halls in the Universities, and continued in their Fellowships there? as likewise Presbyterian Parsons in their fat Benefices in City and Country? and had they not the liberty to exercise whatsoever spiritual power they pleased to claim and vindicate to themselves over their Parishioners? Whence I conclude, that the meaning of those words must (as to the generality of Presbyterians) be this: They suffered themselves to be trodden under foot, that is, to live, to be kept out of prison, to reap the profits of the Lands in their possessions, whether well or ill gotten, whether by the robbing of God and his Church of their sacred Revenues, or others of that which legally belonged unto them; to be Mayors, Bailiffs, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, Constables, etc. And the Presbyterian Ministers in the University, City, and Country suffered themselves to be trodden under foot, that is, to be continued in those Headships, Fellowships, Parsonages, Rectories, Cures, which by Law belonged unto, and were illegally, unrighteously plundered from other men; and to enjoy the liberty of excommunicating (in their respective Parishes) whom they pleased, and excluding as many as they pleased from the privilege of both Sacraments. But sure if Royalists had been so favourably used by Presbyterians as Presbyterians were by Independents, they would never have been so ingratefully and nonsensically querulous, as to say they were trodden under foot.] In a Pamphlet printed 1648. called [The Pulpit-Incendiary] and directed against Mr. Calamy,— Case,— Cawton,— Cranford,— and other Sion-Colledge-Preachers, there are these words, p. 45. You complain of your misery, bondage and slavery, of oppressions, sorrows and troubles of the Church, that is doubtless of the Church Presbyterian, and no other. What doth all you? what troubles you? who doth oppress you? Have you not Authority on your side? have you not all the Church-livings in the Kingdom? have you not Declaration upon Declaration, Ordinance upon Ordinance, Order upon Order, for to back you? Is there the least show of oppression, sorrow or cause of complaint administered unto you, except it be because you are not suffered to oppress, vex and gall your Brethren that join not with you? Can you feed upon nothing but blood? yea the blood of your Brethren? that though you have every thing else, (that only prohibited) you complain of sorrow, slavery, oppression? Is this your slavery and captivity, that you cannot enslave and lead into captivity? Is this to kill you with the sword, that you cannot kill your Brethren with the sword? I add, Is this for Presbyterians to be trodden under foot, that they cannot tread others under foot? Besides, this Author hath before intimated (p. 45, 55.) that the generality of Presbyterians did at last comply with the men of violence in their changing the Government; for they subscribed that Engagement which was designed for the defending and maintaining of that change: The great, if not only motive whereunto in all probability was, that they might still keep possession of their Live and livelihoods, and not be outlawed: and yet here he would persuade us, that Presbyterians (indefinitely) suffered themselves to be trodden under foot, rather than they would comply with those men of violence. So true is that saying, Oportet mend— esse man— Some (as he tells us in that p. if we may believe him) utterly refused even to the forfeiture of their Preferments, and the hazard of their Livelihoods.— Notwithstanding which words, 1. There were but some only that so refused.— 2. Those very some might afterwards engage, rather than the forfeiture (occasioned by their refusal at first) should be taken, or their livelihoods lost as well as hazarded. I have heard indeed of one Presbyterian Doctor, who rather than he would subscribe the Engagement publicly at Oxford, parted with a Headship of about 80. l. per Annum; but yet the same man was so providently politic, as to subscribe in the Country rather than suffer himself to be trodden under foot, that is, to have a Living of six or seven hundred a year taken from him: and it may be there were a few more Presbyterians (that had Pluralities) who acted in like manner. But this is no Apology for the generality of Presbyterians, who did not so much as hazard their livelihoods, or render themselves liable to be trodden under foot, by refusing to comply. And as for those eminent Presbyterian Ministers and others, (spoken of in the same p.) who either hazarded or lost their lives in combining to bring our Sovereign, that now is, to the rightful possession of this Kingdom; it cannot reasovably be said, that such men suffered themselves to be trodden under foot, since by those combining attempts they opposed and endeavoured to ruin and destroy those men of violence that trod them under foot. Nor can they properly or justly be said to suffer themselves to be trodden under foot, who do not suffer it meekly and patiently, without railing at or reviling those that tread them under. Whereas if the carriage of Presbyterian Ministers generally was like that which is reported of the Ministers of London in 1648. (when they supposed that the men of violence were about to change the Government) they made it their business to inveigh against those men of violence in sharp and bitter language. For the Author of the Pulpit-Incendiary tells us, that [the London-Ministers (were so far from suffering themselves humbly, peaceably, and patiently to be trodden under foot, that their) Tongues were sharpened like Serpents, Adder's poison was under their Lips, stinging and poisoning the name and repute of the Army, p. 16. calling them a Rebellious Army, a generation of Vipers, a Viperous brood, etc. And that on Sabbath-days and Fast-days in Preaching and Praying they still girded at the Parliament (viz. the Independent majority) as men that declined their Solemn League and Covenant, hindered reformation, minded nothing but their own Interest. He tells us also, p. 14. That the morning Lectures which they called the Ark of God in their frequent removals month after month, from place to place, were so modelled and constituted, that in them a lamentable slaughter was made of the sweet affections of love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, patience each toward other, p. 2. That that Ark of theirs seems frequently to be drawn— by Bulls of Basan,— tossing and goring the Parliament, and Army, and their dissenting Brethren, from day to day, maliciously fomenting contentions, strifes and divisions, p. 3. That the London- Ministers did by conjunction of Counsels, and debates in Sion-Colledge (London's, nay, England's distemper) conceive sinful resolution to engage and tamper privately with chief Citizens in public places, as Common-Council-men, etc. and publicly in Pulpit and Press stirring up the people by all possible means, under the pretence of the glory of God, a blessed Reformation, the keeping of the Covenant, etc. to set all together by the ears— and raise a new War, p. 18, 19  
From which premises, I may, for aught I see, well enough conclude, that this Author instead of pretending that Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot, than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government, should (in Truth and Justice) have thus represented them— That rather than they would comply with the men of violence, when they presumed they were about to change the Government, they endeavoured to prevent the being trodden under foot by them, by embittering men's spirits against them in their preachments and direful Prayers, by sowing the seeds of contention and division, and by inflaming men's minds to take Arms, resist and destroy them— and when notwithstanding all such English and Scotch endeavours, Independents had effected the change of those small remains and parcels of the English Government, which Presbyterian violence had left unchanged, that Party generally did by degrees so far comply, even with that change also, that rather than they would be trodden under foot, outlawed and sequestered, they engaged to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as then established by the men of violence, without King or House of Lords; it seems they who thus act are said (in the Presbyterian dialect) to suffer themselves to be trodden under foot. And now judge whether statuimus must not here again signify abrogamus.  
Let us (as our Author proceeds) further examine. Are the persons that adhere to Prelacy more conscientious in duty to God and Man, than those that affect Presbytery? Are the former only sober, just, and godly, and the latter vicious, unrighteous, profane?] A. Though I could speak something to these Questions from my own experience, having lived both in Episcopal and Presbyterian Families and places, and being acquainted with divers Persons, Ministers, and others of both persuasions, yet because comparisons of this kind are odious, I shall answer only in reference to the main thing in Question, that [there's more reason of State] for the pro ecting a drunken Royalist than a sober Rebel, and yet I am fully persuaded, that neither of them so remaining have holiness enough in this world to render them capable of happiness in the next. Nor do I doubt, but it may be as much the lot of some Traitorous spirits to be sober, as 'tis (if this Author tell truth in the following lines) of some that adhere to Prelacy to be loyal; but whether I have not already said enough to prove, that Presbyterian principles incline to Rebellion, and the principles of English prelatists to Loyalty, let all impartial Readers judge. If this be not answer sufficient to those Queries, I shall supply the defects of it with transcribing (for this Author's sake) a passage or two out of the writings of his fellow-Rebels. The first shall be out of William Sedgwick's [Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations, p. 36.] Of the two 'tis more strange to see that the Presbyterian, who the other day was oppressed by the Bishop for his conscience in point of the Sabbath, etc. who could not (long since) live without the favour of the Bishop, should now thrust out those under whom he lived for not taking the Covenant, which is contrary to their conscience; and show less favour to them than he received from them, and do that which he condemned in others; and this upon weak and fleshly grounds, admiring his own way, which is to pray and preach longer and more than another, to be strict in repetition on Sabbath-days, and some such poor formal things; to set up this as the power of Godliness and Reformation, to the ruin of another, who it may be is a man of more justice, ability and wisdom, more sobriety, more stability, more patience and constancy in suffering, etc.  
The other shall be out of J. Price's Clerico-Classicum, p. 40. Have we not cause to judge better of many of the Prelatical party (who being men of learning and conscience, and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as yourselves (you Presbyterian Ministers of London) making no distunbances, rents, divisions, Factions by Pulpit and Press as you do, from day to day, (as all men observe) that being conscious to themselves of the many Oaths, Vows, Covenants that they have made of subjection and obedience unto Bishops, the then established Church Government, Book of Common Prayer, Homilies, Canons, &c. cannot take the Solemn League and Covenant, and rather choose to lose their Live and Livelihoods, committing themselves, Wives and Children to the mercy of God, having no visible means of subsisting, than to break the peace of their Consciences, by taking an Oath, Vow or Covenant contrary to all their former Oaths before satisfaction received) than of you or some of you that presently turned Presbyterians, cast away Episcopacy, took the Covenant, and having taken it, turn it and wind it, wring it and wrest it, making it to look East and West, North and South, as your Interest works with King, Parliament or Army, or against them all? And this, says he, is not my saying only, but it is vox Populi, the late King, the Lords, the Commons, the City, the Country, the whole Kingdom observed it.  
To these I shall add some passages of the like import out of Dr. Owen, in his [Mortification of Sin in Believers] p. 29. There is indeed, says he, a broad light fallen upon the men of this generation, and together therewith many spiritual gifts communicated, which with some other considerations have wonderfully enlarged the bounds of Professors and Profession— Hence there is a noise of Religion and Religious duties in every Corner preaching in abundance; and that not in an empty, light, trivial, and vain manner as formerly, but to a good proportion of a spiritual Gift; so that if you will measure the number of Believers by light, gifts and profession, the Church may have cause to say, who hath born me all these? But now if you will take the measure of them by this great discriminating Grace of Christians, perhaps you will find their number not so multiplied: Where almost is that Professor who owes his conversion to these days of Light, and so talks and professes at such a rate of spirituality as few in former days were in any measure acquainted with— that doth not give evidence of a miserably unmortified heart? If vain spending of time, talents, unprofitableness in men's places, envy, strife, variance, emulations, wrath, pride, worldliness, selfishness be badges of Christians, we have them on us and among us in abundance. The same Dr. in his Book of Temptations, p. 64. asks this Question, would any one have thought it possible that such and such professors in our days should have fallen into ways of self, of flesh, of the World; to play at cards, Dice, revel, dance, to neglect family, closet duties, to be proud, haughty, ambitious, worldly, covetous, oppressive? or that they should be turned away after foolish, vain, ridiculous opinions, deserting the Gospel of Christ? in which two lies the great temptation that is come on us the inhabitants of this world to try us. But doth not every man see that this is come to pass? and may we not see how it is come to pass? Some lose empty Professors that had never more than a Form of Godliness when they had served their turn of that began the way to them; then others began a little to comply, and to please the flesh in so doing; this by little and little hath reached even the Top-boughs and branches of our profession, until almost all flesh hath corrupted its ways, and he that departs from these iniquities makes his name a prey if not his person. And p. 55, 56. How full is the world of specious pretences and plead? as— the liberty and freedom of Christians delivered from a bondage-frame— This is a door that in my own observation I have seen sundry go out at into sensuality and Apostasy, beginning at a light conversation, proceeding to a neglect of the Sabbath, public and private duties, ending in dissoluteness and profaneness, and then there is leaving off public things to providence— These and the like considerations joined with the ease and plenty, the greatness and promotion of professors have so brought things about, that whereas we have by providence shifted places with the men of the world, we have by sin shifted spirits with them also; we are like a plantation of men carried into a foreign Country, in a short space they degenerate from the manners of the people from whence they came, and fall into those of the country whereinto they are brought; as if there were something in the Soil and the Air that transformed them. Give me leave a little to follow my similitude: He that should see the prevailing Party of these Nations, many of those in rule, power, favour, with all their adherents, and remember that they were a Colony of Puritans, whose habitation was in a low place, as the Prophet speaks of the City of God, translated by an high hand to the mountains they now possess; cannot but wonder how soon they have forgot the customs, manners, ways of their own old people, and are cast into the mould of them that went before them in the places whereunto they are translated. I speak of us all, especially of us who are among the lowest of the people, where perhaps this iniquity doth most abound, what were those before us that we are not? what did they which we do not? Prosperity hath slain the foolish and wounded the wise. Thus the (then) Dean of Christ-Church.  
Let's now return to the Rector of Bramshot.  
[Their principles, says he, p. 54. 64. whose cause is now pleaded, if faithfully received and kept, will make good men and good Christians, and therefore cannot but make good Subjects; when men have learned to fear God they will honour the King indeed, and none are more observant of Righteous Laws than they that are most a Law to themselves; yea, their pattern and practice will be a Law to many others, and consequently a main help to Civil Government in a Christian Nation.]  
If all this be true, than English Presbyterians have not faithfully received and kept Presbyterian Principles; for I am sure they have not been good Subjects because Traitors and Rebels against their Sovereign Lord: and therefore I shall make bold to conclude from this Author's premises, that they have been neither good Christians nor good men: I am sure they dishonoured the King, for as his Majesty complained in his Declaration concerning Levyes, his Authority was despised by them and as much as in them lay taken from him; and reviled in Pulpits and Presses by Persons immediately under their protection, and of their recommendation. And the London-Pulpitmen (if John Price speak truth in his Clerico-Classicum, p. 53.) told the people that the King was a man of blood; and took hold of all whispering, hearsays and probabilities of his wickedness to make him odious to the people: And therefore by this John Corbet's good leave, I shall conclude that they had not then learned to fear God. That they were a Law to themselves I easily grant, but 'twas just as Traitors and other Malefactors use to be, who trample under foot the righteous Laws of a Nation, because inconsistent with their rebellious, ambitious, and ungodly designs; and are resolved to follow the Law of their own wills; and in this Presbyterians were patterns to many others, and consequently a main help to the Independents in their destroying those remnants of the Civil Government of this Nation which themselves had (for want of time to finish their mischievous erterprises) left undemolished. But this Egregious Parasite has not done yet; for he would fain delude his Reader with another Apologetic in behalf of his Party. [Whosoever they be that teach blind obedience, Presbyterians teach Faith and Holiness; as also Obedience active in all lawful things, and passive in things unlawful enjoined by the higher Power.]  
A. I do not understand or believe that there is any such diametral opposition between blind obedience on one hand and faith and holiness on the other, but that the same Persons, Presbyterians as well as Jesuits may teach both. I rather believe that blind obedience in matters prescribed by and agreeable to the word of God, will sooner bring a man to heaven than all that Faith and Holiness which too many Modern presbyterian Boutefeaus have taught either by their Doctrine or Practice. But the latter clause [that they teach obedience active in all lawful things, and passive in things unlawful enjoined by the higher power] may justly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for several years together to wonder what this man means by [the higher power] by [things unlawful] by [obedience active and passive.] If in the days of the Long Parliament, Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were suitable and correspondent, the words must be thus paraphrasad: Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoined by the two Houses (whom Mr. Herle's (as 'tis reported) seditious invention made (only)  with the King) and disobedience active even to bloody Rebellion in things lawful enjoined by the King, whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governor of this Kingdom. I have read in Philip's his Veritas inconcussa, p. 23. that (in 1642) Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with seditious invectives against the King, and incitements to Rebellion, and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement, but those Ministers that preached obedience and sought to prevent Rebellion, were sure to be imprisoned and put out of their places for it.] Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holiness, or Obedience active to the King? or were those men so good Subjects, so good Christians, as either actively or passively to obey his Majesty, or preach such obedience, when they took themselves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant, which the King in his Proclamation against it calls a Traitorous and Seditious combination against himself and the established Religion and Laws of the Kingdom? [We do therefore, says his Majesty, strictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever, upon their Allegiance, that they presume not to take the said seditious and traitorous Covenant. And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose, administer or tender the said Covenant, as they and every of them will answer the contrary at their utmost and extremest peril.] What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others? was it obedience? either active, or passive, to the King? No, but on the contrary, 'twas active disobedience to his Majesty's command; and the taking up Arms against the King in prosecution of this Covenant thus taken, and cursing those that did not, was Treason and Rebellion by the Laws of the Land, and damnable resistance by the Law of Christ. And these and other Presbyterian practices were such a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, that in some late reflections on those Oaths, 'tis admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them. It's a wonderful mystery, p. 41. how it should come to pass, that our English Presbyterians, etc. should (especially now of late) with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths, and so clamorously urge them on others. Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles, and that of Allegiance to their practices? or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all, that themselves have done these last twenty years?— And a little after: Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue, or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian, so Christian a Position as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestant's and the general body of Roman Catholics, viz. that even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his Civil Power to persecute Truth, that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of Arms, but though they cannot approve, they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his misused Authority, leaving the judgement to God only? If this Rector can answer this Question in the affirmative, and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian, Scotch or English, within the compass of this last twenty years, let him, I shall be glad to see it. Whether he can do so much or no I doubt, (as I do likewise, whether that Reflecter can prove that that Position, as he has worded it, is owned by the general body of Roman Catholics;) but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally, or any considerable number of them, I am pretty well assured: if he can, 'twill follow that the generality of Presbyterians, or a considerable number of them most wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteousness, and for several years together acted most horrid things contrary to their Light, Knowledge and Conscience. But 'tis observable, that this crafty Impostor instead of [proving] that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful, and passive in things unlawful enjoined by [the King's Majesty] [affirms only] that they teach such obedience in things enjoined by the [Higher power] not telling us, whether they mean the higher power de jure, or de facto only; nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto, though themselves acknowledge it no power de jure, if so be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest. What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late divisions, was too evident by their practices, viz. that parcel minor, part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery, which opposed the King and made War against him, which elected a multitude of new Members, by virtue of a counterfeit (treasonable) Seal. Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Divisions, says Mr. Baxter, (Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth, p. 23.) They declared May 26. 1642. that the Sovereign power resides in both Houses of Parliament; as the Author of Veritas Inconcussa quotes them, p. 29. who also p. 91. informs us, That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament, when they had driven away the King, who is the Head and Life of it; nor they be said to be two Houses of Parliament, when there was not at that time when they first raised a War above a third part of the House of Peers, nor the half part of the House of Commons remaining in them; and what those few did in their absence, was either forced by a Faction of their own, or a party of Seditious Londoners; for indeed the War rightly considered, was not betwixt the Parliament and the King, but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament against the King, and the major part of the Parliament.] So that a factious, seditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as [the Higher power.] Nay, the chief Presbyterian Advocate was such a learned man, such a good Subject and Christian, he did so fear God and honour the King, as to be able and willing to distinguish between the supreme Governor and the supreme Power of this Nation, (Sooner. power of Parl. p. 104.) and to teach, that the King was indeed the Supreme Governor, but the Parliament (by which he understood those two Houses) was the Supreme Power: (which is very strange, says Judge Jenkins, for who can govern without power? p. 57) Whence all that I shall conclude is, 1. That this part of the Author's Apology is rather an implicit confession and proof of the crime objected than an Argument of Presbyterian Innocence. And 2. That it concerns his Majesty, before he resolve to protect and encourage Presbyterians, to catechise them very particularly and strictly, touching those Loyal principles which this J. C. pretends to be embraced by them, that so it may appear, whether when they take the Oath of Supremacy, they do it not with that Jesuitical, or more than Jesuitical Equivocation just now mentioned, or with such a mental reservation, as will infer their approving (now as well as in the late Wars) of that Treasonable distinction between the King's personal and politic capacity, and that damnable and damned opinion (as it seems Cook's Reports call it, B. 7. in Calvin's Case) that Homage and the Oath of Allegiance, was more by reason of the King's Crown, his Politic capacity, than by reason of the Person of the King: whence they inferred these detestable consequences: 1. If the King demean not himself by reason, his Liege's are bound by Oath to remove him. 2. Seeing the King could not be reform by Suit at Law, that it ought to be done per aspertè, by force. 3. That his Liege's are bound to govern in aid of him: all which were condemned by two Parliaments, one in the reign of Edw. 2. and the other 1 Edw. 3. ch. 1. (See Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King's right, p. 75.) And yet all these three damnable, detestable and execrable consequences are the grounds whereupon the present time (of the late Wars) relies, and the principles whereupon the two Houses found their cause, says J. Jenkins, p. 10. For aught I know Presbyterians own these principles to this day, and so are prepared in mind again to teach men actively to disobey the King, yea, and to dethrone his Majesty, by acknowledging two such Houses (and obeying them as) the Higher power, whensoever they can by their disturbing Arts and Influences (in raising and countenancing barbarous, and seditious Tumults) divide the King from the Houses, the Loyal part of the Houses from the Disloyal, and then patch them up again by Treasonable Elections, and so pack together a company of men, whom they will be bold enough to call a Parliament. If all Presbyterians are of the same belief with Zachary Crofton (in his Berith Anti-Baal) they are still of opinion, That the Covenant-imposing and taking Lords and Commons were a most lawful, rightly called, and constituted Assembly, the Princes and principal Rulers of the people, (though themselves swear that the King is the only supreme Governor) (p. 7.) that they were the Princes, [yea more] the body of the people, p. 30. That their Oath (Covenant) was the most positive authentic repeal of any Laws obliging to the contrary, p. 31. 51. This, says he, Mr. Crofton and all rational men do believe, That succeeding Parliaments are bound to repeal those Laws which establish the thing which those Lords and Commons had sworn to extirpate, p. 31. That their swearing those things as the collective body of the Nation, binds all posterity, who shall any way succeed into that national capacity. 'Tis no reason of State for the King (when he is able to suppress and reject them,) to protect and encourage any Party of men thus principled and disposed: and therefore reason of State will put his Majesty upon a curious and diligent enquiry, whether Presbyterians and others retain these and the like principles, (as that the Long Parliament is yet in being, which is favoured also, p. 52.) and will oblige him to deny them protection and encouragement, till they renounce and abjure all such damnable and pernicious maxims.  
In the following Lines, p. 55-65. this Author would fain persuade us that Presbyterians must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King, because [Profaneness, intemperance, revel, outrages, and filthy lewdness were not at any time in the memory of the present Age held under more restraint than in the late distracted times; the special reason whereof was because a practical Ministry was more thick set throughout the Nation, and the places where Presbyterian Ministers had the greatest influence were most reform and civilised, and the orderly walking of Religious Persons did keep others more within compass.]  
Which is no better than non causa pro causâ, for 'tis evident enough that that (supposed) effect must be attributed to Presbyterian Ordinances not Sermons, and (the Executors of them) Presbyterian Magistrates, (I mean Mayor, Bailiffs, Justices of the peace, Constables, illegally chosen) as the special principal cause, without whose coercive power presbyterian Ministers might have preached their hearts out before they had wrought the Reformation here talked of, especially considering 1. That himself p. 65. pleads for the annexing of some temporal damage and penalty to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; because spiritual censures (and then say I much more Sermons) pertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded. And 2. That 'twas easy enough for many filthy, profane, intemperate persons thus to bespeak many of those practical Ministers, (as S. Paul did the Pharisaical Jew:) Behold thou art called a Presbyterian, and restest in the Bible, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the Law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the Blind, a light of them who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of Babes, who hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law: Thou therefore who teachest another teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou year after year reap the profits of that Living which by Law belongs to another, who was plundered of it by illegal violence? and that because he was a more loyal Subject than thyself? Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou justify and approve of the committing Sacrilege? the robbing of God as well as man? Thou that gloriest in the Law (of the first Table at least,) by breaking the Law (of the second Table) dishonourest thou God? Knowest thou not that he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, Thou shalt not Kill nor Steal, nor bear false witness, nor covet other men's goods? Thou thunderest out rebukes and threatnest damnation against us that are Adulterers, Fornicators, Unclean, Drunkards, Revelers, and yet thou thyself art notoriously guilty of those (other) crimes which (together with these) are usually and equally forbidden and condemned in the same or the next verse, and the doers of them sentenced to Hell. When we lewd, profane, and intemperate persons read in the Old Testament that Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and Idolatry: And in the New Testament, that covetous Persons, revilers, extortioners are in the number of those unrighteous men that shall not inherit the kingdom of God: that they also who are guilty of idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, fedition, murder, shall be excluded the kingdom of Heaven, as well as adulterers, fornicators, drunkards: and when 'tis evident to us from your practices, that you presbyterian Ministers have for many years been (in a Scripture account) Wizards and Idolaters, because you have behaved yourselves stubbornly and rebelliously against the command and Authority of God and the King, contentiously, wrathfully and seditiously against the inferior Governors sent by him as the supreme, that you have born false witness against those that were loyal and obedient Subjects as Traitors, Incendiaries, etc. And then have manifested yourselves so insatiably covetous of their goods and legal possessions, that some of your party have enjoyed plundered goods, and sequestered livings, legally belonging to honest Royalists; and besides all this you have prayed for the prosperity of Presbyterian Armies, and encouraged them to fight against the King, and cursed those that did not, and the more of the King's Friends your forces killed, the more hearty you gave thanks to God, and by such approving compliances are guilty of the blood of thousands of the King's Loyal Subjects, and consequently of so many murders. To kill any man in war without Authority derived from him or them that have legal power to make war, being murder; and that your Presbyterian Lords and Commons had no such power (as to that war which they made and you abetted) is evident enough from this, that a Law of the Land, 25 Edw. 3. c. 2. makes it Treason to levy war against the King in his Realm, or to be adherent to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere: Since also 'tis no better than murder to kill or put those men to death, whose lives (as well as goods, lands, etc.) the Law hath taken special care to preserve, you are by your approbation partakers of their sin who murdered such men. That you approved the taking away their lives who adhered to the King in the late wars, we presume you will not deny (yea you covenanted to do them mischief under the Notion of Malignants, Incendiaries, and Evil Instruments.) That the Law of the Land saves them harmless, is evident from 11 Henry 7. c. 1. Wherein 'tis declared to be against all Laws, Reason and good conscience, that Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars, attending upon him in his person, or being in other places by his commandment within this land or without, should lose or forfeit any thing for doing their duty or Service of Allegiance. Wherein likewise 'twas enacted, that no manner of person or persons whatsoever— that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this Land, for the time being, in his person, and do him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same, or be in other places by his commandment in his wars within this land or without, that for the said deed and true duty of Allegiance, he or or they be in no wise convict or attaint of high Treason, nor of other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament; or otherwise by any Process of Law, whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit life, lands, tenements, rents, possessions, hereditaments, goods, chattels or any other things, but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation, trouble or loss: And if any Act or Acts, or other Process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance, that then that Act or Acts or other Process of Law whatsoever they shall be, stand and be utterly void. Now you Presbyterian Preachers being thus guilty, with what face can you reprove our profaneness, or judge us to Hell for those vices which are but motes in comparison of those beams which an ordinary sight may discern in your own eyes? and tell us if you can why these practices of yours do not give us just cause to suspect that either you are very scandalously ignorant of the most material and concerning portions of holy Scripture, or that you do not give any credit to them (and then why do you seek to affright us from our intemperateness and lewdness with such mormo's as yourselves are too sturdy to be scared with?) or else that you have some Salvoes and comfortable reserves which might keep us from despair, and make us presume (upon Heaven) as well as yourselves, if you would please to acquaint us with them? And therefore till yourselves are more reform and civilised, and walk more orderly towards God and the King, towards the Laws of Nature and Scripture, and this Nation, you cannot (in modesty) expect that your Sermons should prevail upon us to restrain our debauchery, or convert us from dissoluteness and disorder. And now let this Author prove if he can (as strongly as he boldly affirms) that the men whom he pleads for (who are such bad Christians) must needs be good Subjects.  
But p. 56. The man goes on to prevaricate and abuse his Readers into a good opinion of Presbyterians.  
[Neither are they wand'ring stars, a people given to Change, fit to overturn and pull down but not to build up; they do not hang in the air, but build upon a firm ground; they have settled principles consistent with the Rules of Stable Policy. Contrariwise fanatics (truly, and not abusively so called) do build Castles in the Air, and are fit Instruments to disturb and destroy and root out, but never to compose and plant and settle, for which cause their Kingdom could never hold long in any time or place of the World. Upon this ground Presbytery, not Sectarian Anarchy hath been assaulted with greatest violence by the more observing Prelatists; against this they have raised their main batteries: This appeared formidable, for 'tis stable and uniform and like to hold if once settled in good earnest.]  
From which heap of words I gather, 1. That the Presbyterian Lords and Commons were fanatics truly so called, since they manifested themselves (for several years together) fit instruments to disturb and destroy, and root out the Order, Governors, and Government established by Law; but when they had so far disturbed things, as to destroy by Force and Arms, that Form of Policy in Church and State; when they had done fight against the King, and had gotten him into their clutches, instead of showing their skill in composing, planting and settling, they employed their time in building Castles in the Air, till the Independent fanatics out-witted them, and cunningly juggled that power out of their hands which they had by force and violence wrested from the hands of his Majesty and the Laws.— 2. I gather that the principles of the Anarchical sectarians are more consistent with the Rules of Stable-policy than those of presbyterians, because their Kingdom and Tyranny lasted much longer than that of Presbytery. 3. I gather that Prelatists had more reason to oppose Presbytery than sectarian Anarchy, because (if this Author be in this particular a telltruth) presbytery was like to produce a more firm and rooted Schism against the Bishops, and a more formidable, because more durable rebellion against the King, than sectarian Anarchy. 4. I conclude, that therefore we have great reason to bless God, that the fanatics routed the Presbyterians, and put a period to the dominion of Presbytery, since, if it had once been settled in good earnest, it would either have kept out his Majesty much longer than sectarian Anarchy did, or else have introduced him upon such uncivil, insolent, and imperious terms, as the Scotch Presbytery brought him into that Nation, and would (in probability) have forced him to rest content with an Isle-of-Wight-titular-Kingship. But 5. I gather that Reason of State forbids the protecting and encouraging of Presbyterians, since they are not fit to overturn only, and pull down, but also to build up a stable and uniform Tower of Babel, in defiance to the Laws of God and the King; such an one as 'twill concern Heaven itself to take cognizance of, and to secure its own Sovereignty and Supremacy by exerting its wisdom, power, and goodness, in defeating their Counsels, controlling and confounding their ambitious designs. It follows:  
[This Party doth not run so fast, but they know where to stop: they are a number of men so fixed and constant as none more; and a Prince or State shall know where to find them.]  
Whereas, 1. The Presbyterian Lords and Commons declared April 9 1642. that they intended to take away nothing in the Government and Liturgy of the Church, but what shall be evil and justly offensive, or at least unnecessary and burdensome; and yet afterwards they wholly extirpated the Government of our Church, and abolished its Liturgy: (things burdensome, it seems, to them at last, though not justly offensive:) and yet these men are so fixed and constant as none more. 2. His late Majesty, in his Declaration occasioned by the Presbyterian Ordinance, for assessing the Twentieth part of men's Estates, hath left on record some notable examples of that Parties fixedness and consistency with themselves. We have not, says the King, lately heard of the old Fundamental Laws, which used to warrant the Innovations. This Ordinance needs a refuge even below those Foundations. They will say they cannot manage their undertake without such extraordinary ways; we think so too; but that proves only that they have undertaken somewhat, which they ought not to undertake; not that it's lawful for them to do any thing that is convenient for those ends. We remembered them long ago, and we cannot do it too often, of that excellent speech of Mr. Pym's, [The Law is that which puts a difference between good and evil; between just and unjust; if you take away the Law, all things will fall into a confusion; every man will become a Law to himself: which in the depraved condition of humane Nature must needs produce many great enormities; Lust will become a Law; and Envy will become a Law; Covetousness and Ambition will become Laws; and what Dictates, what Decisions such Laws will produce may easily be discerned.] It may indeed, says his Majesty, by the sad instances over the whole Kingdom. But will posterity believe, that in the same Parliament this Doctrine was avowed with that Acclamation, and these Instances after produced? that in the same Parliament such care was taken, that no man should be committed in what case soever, without the cause of his Imprisonment expressed; and that all men should be immediately bailed in all cases bailable; and during the same Parliament that Alderman Pennington, or indeed any body else but the sworn Ministers of Justice, should imprison whom they would, and for what they would, and for as long time as they would? That the King should be reproached for breach of Privilege for accusing of Sir John Hotham of High Treason, when with force of Arms he kept him out of Hull, and despised him to his Face, because in no case a Member of either House might be committed or accused without leave of that House of which he is a Member; and yet that during the same Parliament the same Alderman should commit the Earl of Middlesex (a Peer of the Realm) the Lord Buckhurst (a Member of the House of Commons) to the Counter without reprehension: That to be a Traitor, which is defined, and every man understands, should be no crime; and to be called Malignant, which no body knows the meaning of, should be ground enough for close Imprisonment: That a Law should be made, that whosoever should presume to take Tonnage and Poundage, without an Act of Parliament, should incur the penalty of a Praemunire; and in the same Parliament, that the same Imposition should be laid upon our Subjects, and taken, by an Order of both Houses, without and against our Consent? Lastly, That in the same Parliament, a Law should be made to declare the proceed and judgement upon Ship-money to be illegal and void, and during that Parliament, that an Order of both Houses shall, upon pretence of Necessity, enable four men to take away from all their Neighbours the Twentieth part of their Estates, according to their discretion? Thus his Majesty. And yet these are the men whom a Prince or State shall know where to find. I might instance in more particulars of the same or worse complexion, as to Lay-Presbyterians; but I must not pass over in silence some of the Presbyterian Ministers of London, to whom Price in his Clerico-Class. p. 53. speaks thus: If doubts arise concerning resisting Kings and Rulers, especially in case of Oaths, Vows or Covenants, touching preservation of the person of the King, (as there did from the Solemn League and Covenant) than you are ready to give satisfaction, and to tell the people, that that clause in the Covenant is to be understood not simply, but relatively, that is, is not a single, but a complex engagement, not an absolute, but a conditional clause (with many such distinctions.) It is for the King's person in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties; and though the King should be destroyed by you, you have notwithstanding kept your Covenant. But, p. 54. when the War is ended, the Enemy vanquished, the Liberties of the people recovered, etc. if they bring not the spoil of their victories, and lay them down at your Feet; and if they that sit at the stern do not lay aside all other business, and do nothing else but build your Palaces— then, p. 55. you temper your Sermons, and turn your Tongues, your Lines, your Language for the Royal Interest— and, p. 27. fly to that part and Article of the Covenant, engaging for the preservation and defence of the King's Majesty's person and Authority: and, p. 35. plead it against the Parliament and Army for purposing to bring the King to Trial:— when, p. 55. nothing serves but the Army prevails, the King is brought to— Prelatical Presbytery shall not be suffered, what pathetic cries and moans, sighs and groans are heard in your Pulpits, wring your hands in bitter complaints, that the Land is stained with the blood of our Prince, etc. when alas! the Royal party, and many judicious men with them, cannot believe, but that the root of all this bitterness is, that your Crown of Classical Jurisdiction is fallen to the ground. And, p. 17, 18. where as you speak so much of resisting Authority, and fill the ears of your Auditors from day to day, with rebellizing the Army for their late proceed against the Members, mustering up the same Scriptures, teaching and pressing duty to Authority, which the Prelatical party did formerly urge against you, as that of Solomon, Fear thou the Lord and the King; put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher powers, etc. Yet we heard not of these things from you, when the mutinous Apprentices and others offered violence upon the Houses, 1647. No noise then of such Scriptures; no putting men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers,— as if those Scriptures were added since that time. Can you presume that men are so blind, dull and sottish, as not to observe such partial and crafty handling of the Scriptures, Word and will of God? Do not these practices of yours settle and establish Atheism, irreligion and profaneness among men? making them to look upon Religion, the Gospel, the Word of God, as upon a mere piece of juggling, cheating and deceiving the World; and should we take your counsel which you give us from the words of Solomon, Meddle not with them that are given to change, we should all turn Separatists from you and your ways, who have been as full of changes as the Vanes of your Steeples, one while stirring up the people against the King, and for the Parliament; writing Books, answering objections, and using all manner of endeavours that way (that so the Bishops may be dethroned and you advanced;) witness many of your Sermons preached before the Houses and elsewhere; another while stirring up the people against the Parliament and for the King (lest the Independents should hinder your advance) as you did of late in your prayers and preaching, expressing greater malignity against the Parliament and their party, and greater zeal for the King and his Interest, than those very Ministers whose places you possess, they being sequestered and cast out for the Tenths of that Anti-Parliamentary malignancy, which you have vented— Have you not been for Bishops and against Bishops? for Common Prayer, for Ceremonies and against them? Have you not sworn and subscribed? and subscribed and sworn over and over again and again conformity and subjection hereunto, and yet cast away all, and entered into Vows and Covenants against all?— p. 24. Making your vicissitudes and turn up and down the subject matter of scorn and contempt and derision both of your persons and function; and yet these are the men that a Prince or State may know where to find. In the Pulpit Incendiary, p. 7. I meet with this story touching one Mr. Edmond Calamy of Aldermanburic London: That in the times when the Bishops did bear rule he obeyed their Laws, Canons, Injunctions, Orders and Ceremonies, (we say not wearing the Surplice, reading the Service-Book, and Crossing in Baptism, etc. which many honest and Godly Ministers in those dark days did likewise perform, but) reading the second Service at the High Altar, preaching in a Surplice and Tippet, bowing at the Name of Jesus, and so zealous an observer of times and seasons, that being sick and weak upon Christmas Day, yet with much difficulty he got into the Pulpit, declaring himself there to this purpose, that he thought himself bound in conscience to strive to preach on that day, lest the stones in the street should rise up against him: And yet upon the wonderful turn of the times, Ejection of Episcopacy and advance of Presbytery, did presently and without delay not only assert the same, but instructed the people in Presbyterian Principles after such a rate of confidence and skill, as if his Education had been some Superintendent among the Presbyterian Provinces of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, and not such a notorious conformitant unto and notable stickler for the Prelate's Fooleries (as the Author of that Pamphlet is pleased to speak) in the County of Suffolk, in the Kingdom of England. The same man gives us this observation, p. 7. That as the Constitution of public Affairs varies among us, so the constitutions of these men's Sermons do alter and change; one while we find them all for moderation and Christian accommodation, and forbearance one of another; another while all for Reformation again, that is, Presbytery in the rigid sense thereof, that is, that all power may be in the Ministers hands, and the Magistrates engaged to put their Orders, and Edicts, wills and pleasures into execution; one while pleading for and pressing the setting up the Government of Christ in the hearts of men, minding them to be zealous for the great things of the Gospel, Faith, Repentance, and love among Brethren, and not to contend so strenuously for the Mint and Cummin, Discipline and Government, etc. Anotherwhile calling with might and main for Reformation, Reformation, putting the Crown upon the Head of Christ, and the Sceptre into his hand, pleading for the Government of Jesus Christ, that is, the exalting themselves above their Brethren; and yet these are the men so fixed and constant as none more. The truth is, these and other Testimonies which might be produced, do abundantly evince that Presbyterian Principles altar according to the variation of the Presbyterian Interest. And that the same Principles which men of that temper exclaim against and condemn, when made use of to the prejudice of their Party, or in defence of Prelatical Government, have notwithstanding been approved of, and reduced into practice by them, when the doing so tended to the promotion and advancement of their Interest. Bishop Bancroft hath long since manifested to the world by the several instances produced in his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, c. 26. There is nothing, says he, more usually objected against the present State, Superiority and Authority of Bishops, than that of S. Peter, 1. Pet. 5. Not as though you were Lords over the Clergy. And Luk. 22. 26. But you shall not be so. And 'twill not be admitted in any wise that we should expound those places of ambitious affectation, of Tyrannous practice, or of the abuse of such superiority, or Jurisdiction: But if you will speak of the Right, Authority, and Jurisdiction of their Elderships, the case is altered. There are some as it seemeth beyond the Seas, who seeing the Pride of the Consistorian Government do affirm that the Power of the Church is only Spiritual, and not any External Exercise, Practice, and right of any Authority, Power and Government: With this opposition so much derogating from the dignity of their Elderships, Danaeus is moved and answering that conceit, saith, that although the power of the Church ad animarum salutem sit comparata, be instituted for the health of Souls, yet notwithstanding it hath necessarily annexed unto it, an indissoluble band, an external exercise, practice and use, Juris & Gubernationis, of Law and Government, De Potest. Eccles. c. 3. Against this answer reply as it seemeth is made with the same places mentioned that are urged against our Bishops; whereupon Danaeus to make all things clear, adds these words to his former Answer and publishes the same from Geneva [whereas it may be objected out of Peter, Not bearing Rule, etc. 'Tis easily answered, Damnatur enim partim abusus, non usus illius potestatis; partim illius cum civili confusio; for partly the abuse is condemned, not the use of that power, and partly the confounding of it with the civil power.] Which is the very answer that we make and approve (being extorted from them by God's good providence) for the stopping of our men's mouths, who upon pretence of those places, have opened them so wide against the lawful authority of our Bishops. Another example of the like nature we have in the same Chapter: It is a thing too manifest, saith he, with what libelling and railing the Form of our Service, of our Ceremonies, of our Ornaments, of our Apparel, etc. hath been depraved and shamefully slandered; as that our Communion Book was culied out of the Pope's Portuise— this was abused in Popery— that is papistical.— Whatsoever cometh from the Pope comes first from the Devil.— If of the Eggs of a Cockatrice can be made wholesome meat to feed with— then may also the things that come from the Pope and the Devil be good, profitable and necessary to the Church. Against these speeches answer hath been made, that 'tis lawful to try all things and to hold fast that which is good; that we must distinguish between the abuse of a thing and its lawful use.— that as good men sometimes devise that which is Evil, so Evil men may sometimes devise that which is profitable: But all these answers are misliked, denied and condemned by these our Factioners. Howbeit upon occasion the stream is turned, and they themselves are driven to make the very same Answers for the justifying of their own proceed, and for the maintenance of certain particular matters which they do urge and allow of. It hath been laid to their charge, that for all their goodly pretences of Reformation, yet indeed the course they held did smell most rankly of Anabaptism, Donatism, and of a new kind of Papism; as where they disquiet the peace of the Churches already reform, rail upon our Ministers and their Calling, affirm that our Sacraments are not sincerely ministered; that there is no Church as it should be but those that they like of; that our Ceremonies and Orders are all unlawful; that we have no lawful Ministers or Bishops;— that Princes may not deal in causes Ecclesiastical, etc. These and many such like points being laid to their charge, Cartwright (as though he had never dreamed of any thing to the contrary) frames this general answer in the name of all his fraternity. (T. C. B. 2. Ep.) If among the filth of their Heresies (viz. of Papists, Anabaptists, and Donatists,) there may be found any good thing (as it were a grain of good Corn in a great deal of darnel) that we willingly receive not as theirs, but as the Jews did the holy Ark from the Philistines, whereof they were unjust owners: For herein 'tis true that is said, the Sheep must not lay down her fell, because she sees the Wolf sometimes clothed with it; yea it may come to pass that the Synagogue of Satan may have some one thing at some time with more convenience than the true and Catholic Church of Christ: Such was the Ceremony of pouring Water once only upon the Child in Baptism used with us and in the most reformed Churches, which in some Ages was used by those of the Eunomian Heresy.] Much more of the same strain is legible in that chapter touching the mutability of the ancient Presbyterians, when the changing of their Opinions would render their Interest more considerable. And is there no example think you, to be met with of the like mutability in our Modern Presbyterians? Judge by what follows whether they have not contradicted their own Principles, yea and those of their Presbyterian Ancestors. For the proof of the latter, I refer the Reader to a little Book called, [Beams of former Light] written (by Mr. Nye as 'tis reported) on occasion of that Ordinance made by the Secluded Members at their Readmission into the House of Commons (1660.) imposing on all Ministers the assembly's lesser Catechism under the penalty of their being ejected as scandalous p. 101. if they neglected to use it though but 10 Sundays in a year (unless on a cause approved of by two Justices) against which impositions those Beams of Light, (discovering how evil 'tis to impose doubtful and disputable Forms on Ministers under penalty of Ejection) were darted. In which Book the Author heaps up the Arguments of the old Presbyterian Nonconformists against the new ones, and that injunction of theirs, and endeavours to manifest it more harsh and severe than the former Episcopal Impositions (p. 104, 105. 77.) and yet that there was more reason and necessity for those than this, p. 107. he throngs together the same Scripture-proofs against this, that were formerly urged against those, and speaks as superstitiously against a Catechism-Book, p. 37, 38. as the men of the Presbyterian strain were wont to speak against a Prayer-Book, and an Homily-Book. From which discourse it appears that those men did for the advancement of their Interest contradict the Principles [of their Nonconforming predecessors.] And that they have upon the same score contradicted their own Principles, I shall evidence partly from this John Corbet's affirmations concerning them, partly from their late Book called [The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers.] In which last piece I observe that though they did not well understand, p. 6. what good thing can be assigned which falls under no divine Precept, (and consequently they did not understand how any good thing can be indifferent and uncommanded) yet p. 10. they grant that the matter of a Promise, Vow, Oath or Covenant, may be something (not necessary or previously required of us by some divine Law, but) free and indifferent, not determined by the divine Law; And that rational and religious Acts (for such they affirm Oaths, Vows and Covenants to be (Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Ch. 3. p. 11.) yea sacred Invocations of the name of God, preces of divine Worship, Ch. 2. Sect. 3. p. 5. and p. 6. S. 3.) may be exercised about matters left indifferent (not enjoined by the Divine Law:) and moreover that by an Oath (imposed by a Lawful Magistrate) that which before was free and indifferent, is made necessary to the takers, p. 65. S. 19 and that the obligation of an Oath thus imposed results from Divine Institution, p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law, p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Concessions they do not only condemn all those Nonconformists, who refused compliance with Episcopal Impositions, because (forsooth) their Christian Liberty in things left indifferent by God, ought not to be prejudiced and restrained by man; but also they overthrew, 1. that principle, That nothing is a duty, especially in God's worship, which is not commanded by God; and 2. that principle, that no part of worship is lawful which is not commanded of God; and yet both these principles are owned by Presbyterians, if this Author deceive us not, p. 88 98. where he tells us they hold, that Scripture only is the Rule of instituted worship, wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden; and p. 84, 85. that whatsoever instituted worship is not ordained of God is unlawful; whence it sollows, that men ought not to swear or Covenant for or against any thing that's left indifferent in the Divine Law; not for any thing which God's word commands not, nor against any thing which it does not forbid. For so to do is to worship God, by taking such an Oath, and entering into such a Covenant as is not ordained by him, but is only of humane Institution and determination. Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either instituted or imposed by God in his Law, either of Nature or Scripture, (even by their own confession, who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the House of Commons, that the Covenant itself was not jure Divino, though the keeping of it being taken was, Hist. of Independ. 1 Part p. 125, 126.) but only by men; and 'tis acknowledged by those pleaders to have been a Vow only (freely and voluntarily entered into, and not by virtue of any Divine command) in the first takers and imposers; and therefore (since 'tis owned also as a sacred, religious Act of worship) 'twas in them and others, not only a piece of Schism against the Church of England, and of Sedition against the King and Laws of England, but also a solemn piece of superstition & will-worship (as that signifies, in their own dialect, a worshipping God in such a manner as himself hath not prescribed in his Word,) and therefore (on the score of Presbyterian principles) an Act of high and heinous disobedience to the Law of God; and therefore their taking an Oath thus imposed, was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Interest: and yet these are the men that are so fixed and constant as none more. Besides, this Author tells us, p. 85. that Presbyterians hold, that that Ceremony which is instituted by men, (not by God) which is of mystical signification, and (though it may naturally, yet) does not actually signify without humane institution, and is by men appropriate to Divine worship, is (upon that account) a part of Divine worship: and p. 88 98. they hold, that all such sacred Ceremonies (not commanded by God) are neither good nor lawful. But say I, this was the very case in the taking of the Covenant; for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it, viz. lifting up the hand, was appropriate to that Oath, (which they deemed a piece of religious worship.) It did not actually signify that the Takers did swear, either by Divine, or Natural, but by Humane Institution, and that novel too: the usual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation, (before) being tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis, laying the hand upon, and afterwards kissing the holy Evangels; to which indeed that Covenant was so contrary, that 'tis no wonder the Covenant was so contrary, that 'tis no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand, which is not of Divine Institution, or prescribed by God the Father in the Old Testament, and much less by God the Son in the New, whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Master of ordaining Ceremonies for the Christian Worship; and some of them, it seems, are yet to learn, that any examples oblige them, but those of Christ and his Apostles, (and consequently no Old Testament examples,) Discourse of Liturgies, p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of mystical signification I prove by that medium which this Author himself makes use of, p. 87. 97. to prove the Cross in Baptism such a Ceremony, viz. It is used as a sealing sign of our obligation to Christ, and therefore it's in that respect Sacramental: so say I was the lifting up of the hand (in the swearing the Covenant) used as a sealing sign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Christ— Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant sealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themselves to the disservice of him that died on the Cross, to a real and practical defiance of Christ the King of his Church, and his Vicegerent in this Nation, King Charles. Thus a Ceremony of humane (Presbyterian) institution for the ratification of a seditious Covenant, ordained and imposed against Law by an illegal power, for the satisfying of the Scotch appetite, and promoting the Presbyterian Interest, is a Camel easily and greedily swallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter, who yet at the same time can either blindly or perversely strain at the Gnat of a Ceremony instituted by lawful Authority, established and enjoined by the Laws of the Land and Constitutions of the Church. If I had some Books about me (fit for such a purpose) I believe I could add some sheets of pertinent instances (to Bishop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch. of his Survey) of Presbyterian Levity in opinion, and inconsistency with themselves, and with others of their own Faction, when self-interest prompted them to such variations. I shall at this time mention only one proof more. 'Tis a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea, and their discourse of Liturgies, that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven, can discharge them from the obligation of an Oath. This is good Doctrine it seems, when applied to the Covenant, and understood in a sense advantageous to Presbytery: but when the Question was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance (wherein they swore, that they would defend his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to the uttermost of their power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which should be made against his or their Persons, Crown and Dignity, by reason or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope, [or otherwise;] and that they are in conscience resolved, that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve them of that Oath, or any part of it;) I say, when this was the Question, then Presbyterian practices manifested, that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine, viz. that those two Houses (who were far enough from either deserving or being capable of the Title of the Parliament of England) might discharge men from the obligation of this Oath; for they imposed the Negative Oath, and made men swear, that they would not directly or indirectly adhere to, or willingly assist the King in his War against the Forces of the two Houses; which Negative Oath being contrary to that of Allegiance, could not with any colour of reason or conscience be imposed or taken, unless the imposers and takers were persuaded of the truth of that principle, viz. that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had authority to discharge men from the obligation of that Oath; and yet these are the men that are so fixed and constant as none more: and so settled in their principles, that a Prince or State may know where to find them; words that, for aught I see, have no Truth in them at all, unless understood in this sense, that a Prince may be sure to find Presbyterians constant to their self-Interest, though not to their Principles, and fixed and diligent in designing methods, and carrying on contrivances in opposition to legal establishments, for the thrusting up Presbytery into the Throne, and the forcing of Majesty and Prelacy to embrace a Dunghill.  
It follow, p. 57 67. [They do not strain so high, but they consider withal, what the Kingdoms of the world will bear, and are willing to bring things to the capacity of Political Government.] I suppose the man's meaning is this: That Presbyterians are somewhat cautious and circumspect for their own safety. They'll venture their Ears before they hazard their Necks; and contenting themselves with deserving a Dungeon only at first, will take heed of meriting the Gallows, till they are able to safeguard themselves from the sword of Justice by unsheathing that of Rebellion. They'll consider whether the Kings of the world have indeed the power of their (respective) Nations in their hands or no; and whether (if they have it) 'tis probable they will bear the sword in vain, or execute vengeance with it on them that do evil: In order whereunto they'll feel their way, it may be, step by step, first by talking seditiously in private Conventicles; then by railing and reviling Loyal subjects in the Pulpit; then by slandering inferior Governors, and rendering them contemptible and odious unto the people; and afterwards by raising jealousies and envious malicious passions in men's minds against the Supreme: and if he let the sword of Justice rust in the scabbard, till by the predominancy of a tumultuous rabble, aided and abetted by some seditious, malignant spirits among the Nobility and Gentry, he's disenabled from drawing it, either at all, or to any purpose; then those pawns and Rooks will strain so high, as to give checkmate to Majesty, and demonstrate to the world how imprudently those Pearls of Royal patience, lenity, and condescension were cast before such Swine, whose brutish temper inclines them to turn upon and rend their Benefactors; like traitorous Judas', to reward them evil for good, and hatred for their good will. [Mr. Martin (says the Hist. of Independ. p. 97.) was expelled the House for words spoken against the King— because spoken unseasonably, when the King was in good strength; and the words, whether true or false, were, in strictness of Law, Treason; lest the whole House might be drawn within compass of High Treason for conniving at them— but afterward the King growing weaker, and the Parliament stronger; the House restored Mr. Martin, and thought fit to set every man's Tongue at liberty.] It seems the Political Government was then brought to a capacity of bearing such crimes. Bishop Bancroft in his Book of Dangerous Positions, p. 98. tells us of a Book of Discipline subscribed to by some presbyterian Brethren in those days, which they promised, as God should offer opportunity, and give them to discern it so expedient, by humble suit to her majesty's honourable Council and the Parliament, and by all other lawful and convenient means to further and advance, so far as the Laws, and peace, and the present state of the Church would suffer it, and not enforce to the contrary. One Mr. Littleton being examined upon his Oath, what the last words should mean, answered, That he himself, Mr. Snape, Mr. Proudloe and others, did agree to put that Discipline in execution and practice, so far as the peace and the present state of the Church would suffer, and not enforce to the contrary, that is, till the Magistrate did enjoin them or enforce them to leave the practice of the said Discipline— Now, says the Bishop, what if by the secret practices (to draw away the people's hearts from the present Government of the Church) they could have procured such strength and number to have followed them, as that no reasonable restraint or force of the Magistrate had been able to have encountered and suppressed them? I do but ask the Question, says he, p. 101. and I answer it thus: If they had been of the same Rebellious humour with our modern Presbyterians, they would, when they had brought things to that pass, have appeared in Arms, and raised a bloody War, and by force have set up their holy Discipline, and strained so high in contradiction to all legal Authority, as to have subverted the constitution of our English Monarchy, and turned our Government in Church and State Topsiturvy.  
He goes on: [They can have no pleasure in commotions, for Order and regular Unity is their Way, and therefore stability of Government and public Tranquillity is their Interest:] Which has something of Truth in it, if understood of Presbyterians, when they are got into the Saddle themselves, and are well settled in an usurped Dominion, but till then (for aught I see) they take as much pleasure in commotions and alteraons as Jesuits do, and will disturb the public Tranquillity, and subvert all legal Order and regular Unity, rather than suffer their own Interest to be rejected and depressed; witness their late Wars, and their Solemn League and Covenant, and a series of other actions, whose direct tendency was to the destruction of our English Polity, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, as is before manifested.  
[It's most unreasonable, says he, to object that the late wild postures, extravagancies, and incongruities in Government were the work of Presbytery or Presbyterians; his reason is, because the Nation had never proof of Presbytery, for 'twas never settled.]  
A. If it should be granted that the Nation had never proof of Presbytery, what's this to Presbyterians (whom the objection speaks of as well as Presbytery?) Had the Nation never any proof of such kind of Creatures? nay had we not such proof of them for several years together, as we have great reason to lament even to this day? And I much fear that the satal Influence of those wild postures and extravagancies which Presbyterians, (such persons as himself described, p. 20. 30. by their main and rooted Principles) were the Authors of, is not yet exhausted; but will work us more mischief, and be very prejudicial to those initials of Order and Tranquillity, which at present we (through mercy) enjoy. The words of our late Sovereign quoted p. 58. 68 are no proof of that which this Author asserts and would prove by them, viz. that Presbytery was decried and exposed to prejudice by those that were in sway [in the more early times of the late Wars] for those words speak rather of the conclusion of the Wars; for 'twas then and not in the more early times that [Military success discovered to several Factions their particular advantages and invited them to part stakes;] but they are a considerable proof that 'tis no such unreasonable thing (as this Author pretends) to object that the late wild postures and extravagances were the work of Presbytery: For they inform us that [Presbytery was the great Master of the lesser Factions, Independents, Anabaptists, etc.] Which Factions were so well disciplined and documentized by that Arch-Faction, that (being some of them also men of quick apprehensions) they speedily and throughly learned the Presbyterian Arts of dividing and dissipating; yea those Factious Scholars made such zealous, diligent, and sagacious Improvements of those Factious Principles which the great Presbyterian Faction had inculcated into them both by Doctrine and Practice, that they became twofold more the children of Hell than their Teachers, and so extravagant and unruly at last as to whip their great Master out of that seditious and Tyrannical School with Rods of his own making, and to rout Presbytery in the strength of those very principles by which [Presbyterians] had before routed Prelacy first and then Majesty.  
[Neither, says he, can Sects or Schisms with any Truth or Justice be reckoned the Offspring of Presbytery] If he mean by Presbytery [exact Presbytery] (p. 44. 54.) and that Scotch Form of Ecclesiastical Polity (59 69.) where there is no presiding Bishop, he contradicts Father Hierome, who (though Presbyterians account him their great Friend) testifies in several places, that Episcopacy was instituted (unus caeteri praepositus— superpositus—) for the preventing of those Schisms which were begotten by Presbytery: In Schismatis remedium factum est, nè unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperit, (Ep. ad Evagrium.) ut Schismatum semina tolerentur.— and those studia in Religione which happened when the Churches were governed communi Presbyterorum consilio, (in Ep. ad Titum. c. 1.) ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur (ibid.) Nay in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, he tells us that Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet; cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes. The welfare of the Church depends upon the dignity of the chief Priest, to whom if some extraordinary and supereminent power be not granted, there will be as many Schisms in the Churches as Priests: Yea he contradicts Mr. Calvin who acknowledges also that Episcopacy was agreed upon, Nè ex aequalitate ut fieri solet, dissidia nascerentur, lest equality among Ministers should, as 'tis wont to do, produce division. I may conclude therefore with a late writer; that if any Presbyterian Churches do keep themselves entire from the Gangrene of Sects and Schisms, that Unity springs from some other Fountain and is the effect of some collateral cause which has Antidote enough in it to preserve those Churches from the venomous contagion of [Exact Presbytery.]  
[A wide breach (if he speak truth) was once made in the Netherlands by Arminius and his followers, but after some years' conflict 'twas healed by the Synod of Dort.] I discern not why this Author should produce this instance to prove that Schisms cannot truly or justly be reckoned the offspring of Presbytery, unless 'twere because he was either ignorant or had forgot that the men who, as he says, made that breach (viz. Arminius and his Followers) were Presbyterians (as vehement and resolute maintainers of the Ministerial parity, as any that concluded or accepted the Judgement of that Synod) say the British Divines there present in their [Joint attestation, etc.] men that though they were not so presumptuous as to condemn our English Hierarchy as unlawful, or so contentious as to fancy with our Puritans, 
See their Exam. Censure laid. Fol. 232.  Brownists and others, that they ought to divide and separate themselves from our Church because governed by Prelacy (if so be Prelates did not degenerate into Tyrants) yet they (not only deny that the superiority of one Minister above another is by divine right, but also) seem unwilling that that form of Government should be introduced into the Netherlands; and yet they produce a pregnant Testimony from Bishop Carleton's book against Bishop Mountague's Appeal, that the chief of their Belgic adversaries at that Synod were desirous of enjoying a Form of Church-Government modelled according to the English pattern: And when that Bishop of Chichester had openly in that Synod declared against that parity of Ministers spoken of in the Belgick-Dort confession as instituted by Christ, and manifested that imparity among Ministers, and superiority was ordained by our Saviour, and challenged any there present to prove the contrary, he was answered only with silence: And when afterwards he did in private conference with several of the best learned in that Synod maintain, that the cause of all their troubles was the want of Bishops, by whose Authority turbulent and contentious Novelists might be checked, censured and suppressed; they did not deny it, but answered that they did very much revere and honour the good Order and Discipline of the Church of England, and would hearty and gladly receive the same into their own Churches if the state of Affairs among them would permit it; but that could not be expected, and therefore they hoped that God would be merciful to them if they did what they could, since they could not do what they would: Which answer of theirs the Bishop looked on as a sufficient Apology, in that they did not openly defend that Anarchy and popular confusion which Presbyterian parity tends to.  
Well, it seems that wide breach was after some years' conflict [healed] by the Synod of Dort.  
Set certes if this Rector had a wide breach made in his body, and if his Physicians should in order to his cure handle him in such an inhuman and imperious manner as those Synodists treated the Remonstrants, (yea and some moderate men of their own Party) he would be loath to call it [Healing.] His most virulent enemy could not easily wish him a greater torment on earth than to have a Bogerman for his Doctor, a Sibrandus or Gomarus for his Chirurgeon. Let him read the brief account of the Synod of Dort, annexed by Tilenus to his [Result of false Principles] (lately published) or those letters from Mr. Hales and Mr. Balcanqual out of which 'tis extracted, or the Acta & Scripta Synodalia Remonstrantium; and then tells us how he likes those methods of Cure, or (if he thinks these too partial Relators) let him peruse the Acta Synodalia contraremonstrantium with an attentive and impartial spirit, and if that Book does not sufficiently prejudice him against those Physicians, 'twill not have so good an influence upon him as to my knowledge it has had upon one who was no friend to Arminian Tenants. Though some moderate men were against the Remonstrants in all five Articles in substance, yet if they differed but in manner of speaking from the rigid Synodists (who were the major part) they would not hold him sound; Does he call this Healing? There was a plot laid ex composito by the fierce Party for the disgrace of the Breme Divines who were more temperate, and the British Divines drawn the indignation of the Provincials upon themselves, by sweetly interposing to allay their contentions; Does he call this Healing? When the Remonstrants seemed to yield, the foreign Divines could not be heard for the continuing them in the Synod; their voices indeed were asked hoping they would have been answerable to the Provincials design, but finding it was otherwise, without so much as laying their heads together for consultation, they published a Decree of dismission which was written before they came into the Synod; (The trick was a little too palpable, says Mr. Balcanqual) Does he call this Healing? The Canons were drawn up in private, and as 'twere dictated by the Precedent, just as those of the Council of Trent are said to have been by the Pope, (which occasioned that reflection, that the Holy Ghost (to whose aids the Tridentine Synodists pretended so much in their Decrees) was sent from Rome to Trent in a Portmanteau;) Does he call this Healing? And says Mr. Balcanqual, they would have their Canons so full charged with Catechetical Speculations as they will be ready to burst.— and methinks 'tis hard that every man should be deposed from his Ministry who will not hold every particular Canon; never did any Church of old, nor any Reformed Church propose so many Articles to be held sub poena excommunicationis; Does he call this Healing? If the present Convocation at Westminster should apply such remedies to the wounds and breaches made by Presbyterians in Church-affairs, I doubt he would not call it an healing Synod. But since he seems to approve and take pleasure in the exercise of such severities as degradation, sequestration, excommunication, etc. towards these that could not in conscience subscribe to the dictates of that Synod; I wish him and his Party so much happiness as to be treated with the like severity by our Governors, Civil, and Ecclesiastical, in case they will not subscribe to the Articles and Canons of the Church of England, that so after many Conflicts those wide breaches which these State-Arminians have made among us may be healed, and which in all probability had never proceeded to that degree of malignity, if such gangrened members had been cut off according to Canon, deprived of the profits of their Benefices, and the privilege of Church-Communion. I wish also that our English Bishops may make them & others feel the smart of that method of Discipline, which (it seems) is very effectual to prevent the broaching of error, viz. censuring every aberration in Doctrine and practice; imposing silence upon Ministers as to doubtful and disputed opinions, till a Synod shall determine; which censures and impositions, if impugned and disobeyed, I presume are backed with the Excommunication of such refractory persons. These courses are esteemed good and laudable in Dutchland and Scotland, and may be called Healing, when made use of by Presbyterians: but if our Bishops and their presbyters should deal thus with the disobedient presbyterians here in England, Excommunication would be called persecution, and the imposing of Canonical subscription a yoke of bondage, an unneasonable thing, and what not? Witness this Author's language and discourse in this very Book, where (forgetting what 'twas he had called Healing in this p.) he affirms, p. 94, 95. (104, 105.) that Canonical subscription lately imposed is a yoke of Bondage, which he supposes to be removed by the King's Declaration, and therefore (though his Brethren in their Discourse of Liturgies, p. 60. ingenuously confess, that that Declaration cannot dissolve the obligation of a Law,) would not have that yoke laid on men's necks any more; since 'tis in his opinion both unnecessary, unprofitable; and unreasonable; which last he proves against Prelatists by as weak an Argument as White (as 'tis suspected) brings, in the latter end of Rushworth's first Dialogue, to prove (against protestants in general) that 'tis unreasonable for them to hold any point certainly true, and consequently to require any subscription to Articles, viz. because they profess themselves fallible; as if they who confess they might have been deceived, may not yet be confident (upon good grounds) that they are not actually deceived; and upon that account require subscription to them. The other two he proves also by such Arguments as will render all Synods, Presbyterian as well as Episcopal, useless things; and which will prove the Dutch, French or Scotch imposition of Articles, and Canons as unnecessary, unprofitable, and unreasonable as the English; and yet Bishop Bancroft assures us in his Survey, p. 311. that if the best and the learnedst man in Christendom were in Geneva, and should oppose himself to any thing that the Church there holdeth, if he escaped with his life he might thank God, but he should be sure not to continue a Minister there— No man shall ever persuade me, says the Bishop, but that the word of God doth give as free liberty to the Church of England for the repressing of such Schismatics, as either to Geneva or any Church whatsoever: Thus he. And if Prelatists had been as diligent and severe in enquiring out, and punishing; dissenters from the publicly received Doctrine, and oppugners of the Laws of our Church, a greater unity might have been procured, and our sad divisions and breaches, in all likelihood, prevented: I mean, on supposition that the Civil Magistrates had in their several places respectively, firmly adhered to the Ecclesiastical, and prosecuted their Canonical Censures, if contemned, with the addition of Civil penalties upon the refractory and contumacious: without which 'tis not probable that the Dort Assembly would have proved an [Healing Synod,] nor the Scotch-Discipline a sufficient preservative against Sects and Schisms: which I am apt enough to believe severity will suppress, though exercised by Presbyteries, if the Civil Governors act their part in abetting and promoting the just severity of ecclesiastics.  
[Whence therefore, says he, p. 60. should this charge of Presbyteries begetting Sects and Schisms arise? Peradventure some Presbyterians have turned Sectaries. Surely it would be taken for a weak arguing, to say that Prelacy is the way to Popery, because some Prelatists have turned Papists.]  
A. I acknowledge that arguing weak; but what if they that make the objection be found to frame their Argument (in reference to our modern Presbyterians) in this manner? Multitudes that embraced those Principles, which Presbyterians owned in the days of their calamity and depression, turned Sectaries and Schismatics afterward, and yet still retained those Principles, and by rational deductions pleaded them, in order to the justification of their Schism; therefore those principles do in their own nature produce Sects and Schisms. If the case be indeed thus, the objection is strong; and for the proof of the Argument and Antecedent, I'll undertake, if this Author shall deny either, or evince that the like objection may, upon the like ground, be urged against the English prelacy. In the mean time we'll content ourselves with the affirmation of Charles the First, that Presbytery was (in the late times) the great Master of lesser Factions in Religion.  
The truth is, says this J. C. Sectarianism (both Presbyterian and Independent, say I) grew up in a Mystery of Iniquity (good, for 'twas by opposing and exalting itself above all that was called God in this Nation) and State-policy, (good again; claw me and I'll claw thee, was the politic Dialect of Presbyterians at first towards Independents,) and it was not well discerned (by the Presbyterians, whom interest and reason of State persuaded to shut their eyes and wink at the Independents, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries,) till it became almost triumphant by Military successes; but after that its growth did manifestly appear (prejudicial to Presbyterian ambition) Presbytery began to struggle with it, (to frown upon and oppose those whom it before countenanced and caressed,) and so continued, until by the power of the Army it was enforced to sit down, but never to comply, (unless 'twere by taking the Engagement at last,) whereupon the Tongues and Pens of Sectaries were employed against none more than Presbyterians, (viz. because they thought the prelatists more conscientious adherers to Prelatical Principles than Presbyterians were to their dividing and dissipating maxims.) And I should be glad to hear of such bitter Invectives of the Papists against the Prelatists. It seems the man hath neither seen nor heard of S. W's. Scripts against the Right Reverend Bishop Bramhall, and the Reverend Dr. Hammond, or else he does not judge them bitter Invectives: but it had been too palpable hypocrisy (as well as a piece of high Ingratitude) for Jesuits to have inveighed bitterly against our modern Presbyterians, who were so zealously employed for several years together about Jesuitical work, and who had so industriously acted the Powder-Traitors part, that they very effectually blew up both King and Parliament: and at the Isle of Wight-Treaty were very busy in destroying Kingly power, and in accomplishing the design of Campanella and other Papists, viz. of changing our Monarchical Government into a Commonwealth-Form, by placing all the considerable Authority and prerogative, which before belonged to our Kings, in some Lords Temporal and Commons.  
[And verily there's no greater bar against Fanaticism, than the right Presbyterian principles, as 1. not to sever but join the written Word and Spirit for direction. 2. The Spirit and use of Ordinances for edification. 3. To erect a Stated Church-Order and Discipline. 4. To allow to the Church a directive, and to every Christian a discretive judgement. 5. To insist only upon Divine Scripture-warrant, and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion.] To which I answer briefly, That the four first of these (as he hath worded them in very general terms) are as much Prelatical as Presbyterian; nay, they are owned by Independents and Anabaptists as well as Presbyterians; and therefore if these Sects are fanatics, there must be some greater bar against Fanaticism than those Principles. But the Fifth [To insist only on Divine Scripture-warrant, and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion] is so loosely and crudely delivered, that 'tis rather the main Original of all Fanaticism than a bar against it; forasmuch as the Religion of the most sober Independents and Anabaptists, as also of Enthusiasts and Quakers, is founded upon this principle, all of them waving humane Authority, and insisting only on Scripture-dictates, and that Divine warrant which thence they plead for their modes, forms and opinions, for their walking according to the light connate with them, springing up within them, or darted into them from above.  
[But of all the prejudices and scandals (says this Author, p. 63. 73.) taken against this way, (Presbytery) there's none greater than this, that 'tis represented as Tyrannical and domineering, and that those that live under it, must, like Issachar, crouch under the burden.]  
A. It seems he thinks Tyrannical domineering over Inferiors to be a greater crime than disobedience and rebellion against Superiors, or else he would have accounted their being represented as Rebels, a greater prejudice against presbyterians, than their being represented as domineering persons: but he Apologises for them, by retorting the charge on Prelatists, and telling us, that Presbytery is not more severe in censuring the breach of God's Commandments, than the Hierarchy in censuring the breach of their own Constitutions, which passage looks as if the man had a mind to insinuate, that Presbyterian severity is exercised only on the Transgressor's of God's Commands, and Hierarchical severity only on the offenders against Episcopal Constitutions. Whether he had such an ugly meaning in those words or no, I am not certain, though to him that considers the egregious partiality of this discourse hitherto in favour of Presbyterians, 'twill be very probable he had. If he had (leaving him to prove the truth of them as to the Hierarchy,) I shall by and by make bold to disprove them as to Presbytery.  
In the mean time we'll pass on to the next words. [Or is the offence taken upon pretence, that Presbyterians affect and arrogate an arbitrary power, would rule by Faction, and exercise a rigour to the stirring up of animosities and unquiet humours?]  
A. No; the offence is not taken upon pretence, as that's contradistinct to proof, but upon sufficient evidence, that they are arrogant, factious persons, and very prone to stir up and foment unquiet humours by their disciplinarian rigour; and though the Nation generally hath not (through the mercy of Divine overruling providence) experimented that discipline, yet they say the Londoners had such proof of it in a little time, as made them quite weary of Classical-lay-Elder-Tyranny. If the goodness of an Almighty power had not prevented it, we may well suppose that Presbytery would have proved as imperious and domineering here in England, as Bishop Bramhall tells us, it was in Scotland. Towards particular persons, says he, (Fair warning, chap. 11.) this Discipline is too full of rigour, like Draco ' s Laws, that were written in Blood; in lesser faults inflicting Church-censures upon slight grounds, as for an uncomely gesture, for avain word, for suspicion of covetousness or pride, for superfluity in raiment, either for cost or fashion; for dancing at a wedding, or of servants in the streets; for wearing a man's hair a la mode— for using the least recreation on the Sabbath, though void of scandal, and consistent with the duties of the Day.— What digladiations have there been among some of their Sect about Starch and Cuffs? etc. just like those grave debates which were sometimes among the Franciscans, about the colour and fashion of their Gowns; they do not allow men a latitude of discretion in any thing. All men, even their Superiors, must be their Slaves or Pupils. It's true, they begin their censures with admonition; and if a man will confess himself a Delinquent, be sorry for giving the Presbyters any offence, and conform himself in his hair, apparel, diet, every thing, to what these roughhewn Cato ' s shall prescribe, he may escape the Stool of Repentance, otherwise they will proceed against him for contumacy to excommunication. By this let the Reader judge, whether Presbyterians censure the breach of God's Commandments only; nay, whether they are not more severe than Prelacy, in censuring the breach of their own Constitutions. Where has God commanded men to abstain from dancing? and yet Bishop Bancroft (in his Survey, c. 26.) informs us, that Mr. Calvin hearing of that horrible sin (forsooth) committed by certain persons at Widow Balthasar ' s house in Geneva, procured them all, both dancers and beholders, to be called before him and his Elders in the Consistory. They denied the matter at first, whereupon Calvin judged it meet, that they should be put to their Oaths, and so compelled to confess the Truth. (An Oath ex officio, it seems, is allowable at Geneva.) They excepted against that way of proceeding; and one Henriche a Minister, who did by way of supposition (if any such dancing had been) take upon him to defend it, as not being a matter to keep such a stir about, alleged the very same place that Cartwright did in the Consistory of S. Paul ' s, and that which all the rest of that brotherhood do commonly allege, viz. Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Calvin laughs at this exception, and termed it a pleasant jest, and for all this, sworn they were, and so confessed the Fact, whereupon they were all cast into prison, Henriche was deprived of his Ministry, and one of the four Syndics (or chief Magistrates) of the City (who had the ill luck, it seems, to be in the company) was removed from his office, till he had given some testimony of his Repentance. Other pretty circumstances there are of this story in that Chapter, to which I refer the Reader, and return to Bishop Bramhall, who tells us, That the Scotch Disciplinarians will by hook or crook bring all crimes whatever, both great and small, within their Jurisdiction: that in greater crimes, trial for life is no sufficient satisfaction to these third Cato ' s, that to satisfy their own humour they care not how they blemish publicly the reputation of the Magistrate upon frivolous conjectures. Add to this the severity and extreme rigour of their Excommunication: after which sentence no person (his Wife and Family only excepted) may have any kind of conversation with him that's Excommunicated: They may not eat, nor drink, nor buy, nor sell with him: They may not salute him, nor speak to him, except by the licence of the Presbytery: His children begotten and born after that sentence, and before his reconciliation to the Church, may not be admitted to Baptism, until they be of Age to require it, or the Mother, or some special Friend, being a member of the Church, present the Child, abhorring and damning the iniquity and obstinate contempt of the Father.— Upon this Sentence Letters of Horning, as they use to call them in Scotland, do follow of course; that is, an out-lawing of the Party, a confiscation of his goods, a putting him out of the King's protection, so as any man may kill him and be unpunished.— When a man is prosecuted for his life (perhaps justly, perhaps unjustly) so as appearing and hanging are to him in effect the same thing; yet if he appear not, this pitiful Church will Excommunicate him for contumacy; as if the just and evident fear of death did not purge away contumacy. And Chap. 12. he certifies us, That if their Discipline be admitted in England, the Nobility and Gentry shall not be exempted from these rigours,— but subjected to the Censures of a raw, heady Novice, and a few ignorant Artificers.— They shall be bearded and mated by every ordinary Presbyter.— It's nothing with them for a Pedant to put himself into the balance with one of the prime and most powerful Peers of the Realm.— Parents shall lose the free disposition of their own children in marriage, if the Child desire an Husband or Wife, and the Parent refuse to consent, either for lack of goods, or if the other party is not of birth high enough.— Yea, Presbyteries will compel the wronged Parent to give that child as great a portion as any of his other children.— The common people shall have an high Commission in every Parish, and groan under the arbitrary Decrees of ignorant, unexperienced Governors; who know no Law but their own wills; who observe no Order but what they list; from whom lies no appeal but to a Synod, which for the shortness of its continuance can afford, which for the condition of the Persons will afford them little relief: Thus he. Whence 'tis evident enough that they who live under Scotch-Presbyterian-Discipline, (and that Discipline the English Covenanters swore to endeavour the Introduction and advancement of in this Nation; which it concerns us frequently to call to mind, that so the signal mercy manifested in blasting those endeavours may be the more magnified) must like Issachar crouch under a grievous burden, and either submit their Necks to such heavy yokes as imperious arrogance shall affect to lay upon them, or else resolutely shake off those yokes, by giving vent to those animosities and unquiet humours which will be stirred up in them by Presbyterian rigour: as the Scotch Shoemakers did who were most interessed in the Monday Markets at Edinburgh, which were upon a time abolished by a Kirk-Enactment, but they by their tumults and threaten compelled the Ministers to retract, whereupon it became a Jest in the City, that the Souters could obtain more at the Ministers hands than the King. (Fair warning, Ch. 7.)  
But there are remedies at hand, says our Author, to prevent the Abuse of any Government that is of itself lawful and laudable. Certainly the wisdom of the King and Parliament, with the advice of grave Divines, may prescribe sure and certain Rules of Discipline.] A. Very true, But if I am not mistaken, Presbyterians have a faculty of controlling and disobeying the most certain Rules and commands of their Governors if not suitable to their own fancies and determinations. Bishop Bramhall tells us in his 7. Chap. that the Kirk in Scotland assume a power to abrogate and invalidate Laws and Acts of Parliament, if they seem disadvantageous to the Church. Church Assemblies (says one of their Books of Discipline) have power to abrogate and abolish all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noisome and unprofitable, and agree not with the times, or are abused by the people. The Acts of Parliament 1584. at the very same time that they were proclaimed, were protested against at the Market Cross of Edinburgh by the Ministers in the name of the Kirk of Scotland. The general Assembly of Glascow 1638. impugned Episcopacy, and Perth Articles although ratified by Acts of Parliament and standing Laws then unrepealed. And if Presbytery should chance to be established in England by a Law, what shall assure us that English presbyterians also would not prove unruly and disobedient Subjects against both King and Parliament that shall prescribe any Rule to them in order to the preventing of their arrogant Tyranny? Not their Oaths, unless they had kept those of Supremacy, Allegiance, and Canonical obedience better. But this Author has another remedy.  
[Moreover, quoth he, to cut off all occasions and prevent all appearance of domineering, all political coercive jurisdiction in matters of Religion may be withheld (if need require) from Ecclesiastical Persons, and that mere spiritual power alone (by which he means Admonition and Excommunication) may be left to their management.] The man sure would persuade us that (he thinks) there can be no occasion of domineering afforded by the granting, nor appearance of it in the exercise of power merely spiritual, and then there is some hopes that he is not in the number of those who imagine that the Prelates heretofore did Tyrannically abuse that power. But for all this he is unwilling that Presbyterians should have only spiritual power at their command, and be wholly devested of political, and therefore what he takes away with one hand, he gives with the other in the following words.  
[And because spiritual censures appertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded when no temporal damage is annexed unto them, there may be a collateral, civil power always present in Ecclesiastical meetings, to take cognizance of all causes therein debated and adjudged in order to temporal penalties.] From which words we may gather, 1. That the man is loath that all occasion of domineering should be cut off from Presbyterians, and all appearance of it prevented. 2. That he can well enough digest prelatical power, and as many Ecclesiastical Courts in a County as there are Ecclesiastical meetings, if so be Presbyterian Priests and Lay-Elders may have the management of that power and sit as Judges in those Courts; which is another indication that ambitious affections (rather than an impartial judgement) make presbyterians exclaim so much against Prelacy; viz. because they are not allowed to exercise that dominion themselves which they condemn in others as Tyrannical.  
[Upon the whole matter, says he, aforegoing we firmly build this position, That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be rejected and depressed, but aught to be protected and encouraged.]  
And upon the answer to that matter contained in these Papers, I firmly build this contradictory Position, That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be protected and (much less) encouraged, but to be rejected and depressed; unless they will renounce the practices and principles here objected and laid to their charge; and will disclaim that Covenant, which otherwise will engage them in such turbulent and seditious practices, as can never be justified but by such rebellious Principles.  
THE END.   

A Summary OF THE CONTENTS.  
The Question proposed,  
WHether in Justice or Reason of state the Presbyterian Party should be rejected and depressed, or protected and encouraged?  

The Character given of Presbyterians is considered, and manifested to be very imperfect, and deceitful, p. 4, 5, 6, etc.  
Of their zeal, p. 13. their resembling the Anabaptists in Germany, p. 14. their being called fanatics, p. 15.  
Of their varying from themselves, p. 20, 21. their multitudes, p. 24, 25  
Of the great things for which they are said to contend, p. 26, etc.  
Whether the Protestant Doctrine by Law established in the Church of England be owned by Presbyterians, p. 29, etc.  
Of the pure spiritual heavenly doctrine which they ought to be actuated by if they expect to be encouraged, p. 33, etc.  
Of Principles striking to the heart of Popery, p. 37.  
Which sort of men are more pernicious in a Commonwealth, Jesuits or Presbyterians, p. 40, 41, etc.  
Whether Presbyterians ought to be protected and encouraged because of their averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations, p. 44.  
Whether they erect Imperium in Imperio, p. 47, etc.  
Whether their principles and Government are Anti-monarchical, p. 53, etc.  
Of their unwillingness to come under any yoke but that of the Law of the Land, p. 66. and to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament, p. 67, etc.  
Of their valuing the native happiness of freeborn English Subjects, p. 69.  
Whether they have any true knowledge or sense of the nature of the Christian Religion, as it refers to the question discussed, p. 71, etc.  
Whether they were not guilty of rebellion in the late wars, p. 76, etc.  
Whether the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom was not subverted by the Presbyterian members of the Long-Parliament, p. 95, etc.  
The London- Ministers vindication of themselves in reference to the Kings murder considered, p. 104, etc.  
The murderers of the King acted therein suitably to such principles as are owned by Presbyterian writers, p. 109, etc. and to the fourth Article of the Covenant, p. 114.  
Of the Presbyterian Ministers exhorting men to pray that God would not permit the King to be put to death, p. 115, etc.  
Whether Presbyterians disclaimed their lawful Prince, p. 120.  
Whether they suffered themselves to be trodden under foot, rather than they would comply with Republicans, p. 123, etc.  
Whether they were more conscientious in their duty to God and man than Prelatists, p. 130, etc.  
The Plea, that Presbyterians teach obedience active in all Lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoined by the Higher power, considered, p. 137, etc.  
Whether the restraint of profaneness, intemperance, etc. in the late times ought to be attributed to the doctrine and orderly walking of Presbyterian Ministers, p. 145, etc.  
Of the inconstancy of Presbyterians, their inconsistency with themselves, and their unfaithfulness to their principles when their Interest tempts them to a change, p. 153, etc.  
In what sense they are willing to bring things to the capacity of political Government, p. 170.  
Whether Sects and Schisms may justly be reckoned the offspring of Presbytery, p. 175.  
Of the Synod of Dort, and its healing the breach in the Netherlands, p. 176, 177, etc.  
Whether Presbytery is unjustly represented as Tyrannical and domineering. p. 187, ad fin.    

The ERRATA.  
PAge 3. line 29. read, particulars. p. 11. l. 15. r. p. 1●. p. 28. l. 25. leave out So. p. 32. l. 26. r. approves. p. 35. l. 18. r. to do your own— p. 55. l. 9 r. Turner (printed 1647.) p. 56. l. 28. r. checked. p. 78. l. 8. r. the great Seal (and. p. 81. l. 18. r. de Bereford. p. 94. l. 25. r. shall conclude is, 1. p. 99 l. 25. r. precedent. p. 106. l. 26. r. sending, p. 115. l. 3. r. in the humble Edinburgh Remonstrance (of March, 1. 1648.) p. 118. l. 16. r. mentioned p. 29. 30. p. 121. l. 14. r. In stead. p. 159. l. 1. r. p. 17. l. 2. r. constitution. l. 3. r. Sermons altars and changes. p. 165. l. 8. r. p. 63. l. 21. r. 99 l. 25. r. 96. p. 166. l. 29. after 85 add 96. p. 167. l. 31. r. 98. p. 175. l. 29. r. rumperet. l. 30. r. tollerentur.  
The inconvenient distance of the Author from London, hath occasioned some Erratas more than ordinary to pass the Press, which I shall desire the Reader to amend with his Pen.  
R. Royston.   

Lately Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Amen-Corner.  
THE Estate of the EMPIRE: or, an Abridgement of the Laws and Government of Germany; farther showing what Condition the EMPIRE was in, when the Peace was concluded at Munster: Also the several Fights, Battles, and Desolation of Cities during the War in that EMPIRE: And also of the GOLDEN BULL. In Octavo.  
The Sycillian Tyrant: Or, The Life and Death of AGATHOCLES: With some Restections on our Modern Usurpers. Octavo.  
The ROYAL MARTYR, and the Dutiful Subject, In two Sermons: By Gilbert Burnet. In Quarto.  
The Generosity of Christian Love; Delivered in a Sermon, by William Gould. Quarto.  
The Witnesses to Christanity: By Sy. Patrick, D. D. Octavo.  
D●ctor Dubita●tium: Or, Bishop Tailors Cases of Conscience. The Fourth Edition. Folio.  
The Life and Death of K. CHARLES the First: By R. Perenchief, D. D. Octavo.  
A Modest Plea for the Church of England. Octavo.  
The Spiritual Sacrifice, or Devotions and Prayers fitted to the main uses of a Christian Life; by a late Reverend Author. In 12ᵒ.  
Chirurgical Treatises: By Richard Wiseman, Serjeant-Chirurgion to his MAJESTY. Folio.