Anti-Machiavell. OR, HONESTY AGAINST POLJCY. An answer to that vain discourse, The case of the Kingdom stated, according to the proper interests of the several Parties engaged. By a Lover of Truth, Peace, and Honesty. CIC. office. Lib. 3 ti●. Quicquid honestum idem utile; Nec utile quicquam quod non honestum. Printed in the Year, 1647. To the conscientious Reader on all Parties, Royalist, Presbyterian, Independent, or Citizen. THere came abroad the last week a glorious Pamphlet, boasting itself in the Front, as a Piece of rare observation, and contexture. This Pamphlet hath cast this Nation into four Pieces, or Parties, and undertakes to show them their several interests, having first by way of Preface bespoken them all severally. His address to the King, is arrogant. To the Presbyterian, scornful. To the Independent flattering. To the Citizen carnal; to all, Machivilian (ne dicam) Atheistical. For, he tells the King, that he that delivers him this Pamphlet ought to be esteemed as good a friend as any he hath been acquainted with this seven years, and that all his old Council would not represent the King's interest so clearly as these poor sheets, which yet are but glean of observation. An high Elegy of himself, and his own work, that his glean should contain more than the vintage of all the King's Council, that were thought to out-wit the Parliament, when all the wit, and wisdom of Presbyterians, and Independents were concentred in it. This great boast of himself in the book, leads me to think, that the glorious Title in the Frontispiece; A piece of rare observation and Contexture, was an Elegy bestowed on the Author by himself. Wherein I am sure, he neither kept to the rule of Moral prudence given by a a Nec te laudabis, etc. Cato, nor Divineby b b Prov. 2.2. Solomon; but if his work deserve it, I will not envy him his own praise. 2. For his scorn of the Presbyterian, his manner of expression, as well as the matter, do evidence it clearly, as in other places they do his bitterness, but I must remember him, that neither scorn, nor bitterness against brethren, are fruits of the Spirit. 3. The Independent he flatters, as those that are lifted more immediately under the Prince of Peace, and the wise, and coursels them not to begin a war for their interest, but to be on the defensive, till etc. But this Independent, what is he? Independent is a collective word. There be many strange creatures list themselves under this colour. There be seekers that deny all Ordinances and Churches, There be some above all Ordinances, There be Antiscripturists, Anti-Trinitarians. There be that hold the doctrine of the Arminians, the Socinians, and what not, that hath been broached by any under the vizard of Christianity: all these list themselves under the name of Independency. Are all these more immediately listed under Christ? The wise? If not here's worse then flattery in this courting language. But when he bids them not begin a War but remain on the defensive, this must have a further reach, and must intent the Army; for what war or defence else can the Independent party make? Now the Army sin the Votes of that authority to disband it, that raised it: can justly be looked upon under no other notion, but as a mixed body cemented together, with the humane mortar of interests. Acted by an Independent intelligence or spirit; whereby the independent is enabled to make war if he please, or to defend himself against any, and be terrible to any single party that opposeth him. But let me question this counsellor, how he can make out this counsel, to hold good plea in the Court of Conscience? For this Independent strength cannot remain thus on the defensive and subsist, deproprio of its own. To subsist de alieno, of what is another's, they have now neither authority, nor for the general consent of the proprietary. Now can this be justified, that any Party to maintain its private interest, should maintain itself on the public, or on any private man's propriety, against his will; is not this vivere ex rapto? His second advice is good, if it be as sincere as earnest, that above all things they should not be Antiparliamentary, for if this counsel be taken, the authority of Parliament will be obeyed, and we shall suddenly have the King at Richmond, Armis dissolved, etc. 4. What can be more carnal, Then to tell the Citizens, they cannot flourish, unless they mind only their peculiar interest, Trade; Are they not Christians aswell as Citizens? As Christians, are not they to mind Religion aswell, nay before their Trades? And will this hinder flourishing? nay, can they expect to flourish without it? or can any thing more conduce to their flourishing? hath not godliness the promises of this life, and that which is to come and shall not all things be cast in to him that seeks first the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof? Sure here the man forgot his Bible; and yet we have another chip of the same block, in his address to all together; Where 5. He tells them from the observation of the Duke of Rohan, touching the successes of the States of Europe, according as they followed, or declined their interest. Those Parties now on foot in this Kingdom, must look to stand or fall upon the same ground. Must look? What then hath God no hand in affairs to cross the cunning contrivances of men to take the wise in their own devices? Was Solomon mistaken, Eccles 9.11. when he tells us, The race is not the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor yet bread to the wise, not yet riches to men of understanding? etc. What if a man decline his interest for conscience? seeing such a thing would advance his interest, but it's under a prohibition, and therefore dares not make use of it. Must he look to fail in his enterprise? Sure then he looks only with an eye of sense, and reason: not of faith, for the promise will tell him, that if a man deny interest, and commit his way unto the Lord, he will bring it to pass, Psal. 37.5. and what the Word saith, the Christian may, nay, aught to look for. There is therefore a two fold declining of interest, the one of ignorance, or negligence, or evil conscience. The other conscientious denying his interest to keep in God's way, he that is indeed guilty of the former can look for nothing, but miscaryage. But he that practiseth the latter; sigh power belongs to God, and successes are in his hand, and he hath annexed the promise to those that approve themselves to him. He hath never more cause to look for good success, then when he declines interest for him, for than he honours him most, and pleases him best. This none can deny, unless misled by Atheistical Policy, of which this passage therefore to the whole is justly accused to sinell rank. Thus for the Preface, now to the Book. Anti-Machiavell, OR Honesty against Policy. THe chiefest interest of a Christian is to keep God his friend, which he that neglects, all his counsels, though as deep as Achitophel's, will end in folly. It was subtlety eyeing interest that made Jeroboam set up, and Jehu hold up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, but this their following interest against rule, was the ruin of both their houses. This therefore is a standing rule for all that profess God, Prov. 10.9. He that walks uprightly, walks securely: but he that perverteth his ways shall be known. Now to walk uprightly includes two things; first, to walk rightly; a man cannot be completely upright, but he must be right, rightness, regularity is the basis, the material of uprightness: to which secondly is to be added, the formal, to do that which is right on right grounds, and for right ends. Now he that by the bias of interest, leaves this path of integrity, forsakes his own safety, and runs upon snares and precipices, that will in the end destroy and deceive whatever they promise; and therefore for a Christian, and one that assumes the highest degree to himself, to be more immediately listed under Christ, to hold forth interest, unless he make it out, that the way is right too, is most unsuitable. For it's to hold forth a bait or lure to draw out of the right way of serving God, to serve ourselves. For a man to observe what under God conduceth to the advancing of his affairs, and that to follow usque ad arras is prudence to be practised, but for a man to look at interest without consideration of right, is directly contrary to that self-denial, which is the cognizance of Christ's Disciples, and the proper Character of Machivilian, which this Author seems to do not only in many particular passages, but in the general rare contexture of the whole. The Duke of Rohan (whom he citys) tells us that the French Kings interest is to maintain the Protestant Religion, though he were a Papist. The Duke of Rohan was a Protestant and judged, the French King did ill in professing Popery, but well in upholding Protestancy; but no man that approved his Religion as good, but if he were conscientious must condemn his maintaining a contrary Religion for State interest, as unlawful and so to be abandoned. But now let us see how he mannages his discourse of interest in which no doubt but there will be aliquid grande, for they say in this Theme of interests, either for theory or practice, his party need not yield the palm to any society in Christendom; and truly the Independent interest is notably acted in this Book, which is but a dramatical representation of Independency, which is here set forth, painted with wit and words, crying out, Who is on my side, who? nay represented so glorious, that all sides must woo her, as though none can stand or flourish without her friendship. Touching the King's Interest. THe King (he saith) as the case lately stood with him was a very prisoner. And what is he now? may he go whether he pleases, if so, than I hope we shall shortly see him at Whitehall; but if not, he hath only changed his place, not his condidition. His first work now is to remit the height of his design, and sigh the spleen of his adversaries hath done that for him which Machiavelli makes a sure principle toward purchase of Empire; Divide & impera, Divide and rule. his part is to sit still and blow the fire, etc. This is polliicy indeed, but is this honesty, to blow the fire of contention between his own? should a Father do so to his Children though undutiful to him? Is not a King Pater patriae? should he not rather study to quench this flame, prevent sin? hereupon only taking occasion, to persuade them to yield him his right, sigh there is a blast upon them in their conjunction against him, and so wait upon God to give in their hearts, not doing evil that good may come thereon? After the fire of contention hath burnt so hot, that they must rest in a third: The King is to look to that party that gives most hope of indulgence to his Prerogative, and greatest probability of favour to his friends; so still self, and friends must be the rule of actions, let them be never so blasphemous to God, yet indulgent to Monarchy, they must be embraced; had the King ever worse Counsellors, or greater parasites of Prerogative? But neither of these can be from the Presbyterian; not indulgence to Prerogative. Why? because he says (but without show of truth,) That Presbyterial government derogates not only from * * The contrary is apparent out of the harmony of confessions touching the civil Magistrate most of which are from Presbyterians. civil government in general, but carries with it a more special enmity to Monarchy, they are incompatible; a grievous accusation, that needs be backed with good reason, but here is none at all: This is but an Arrow out of Machiavels quiver, Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit, Slander audaciously something will stick. Turn O Lord, I pray thee, this counsel of Achitophel's into foolishness. Next he tells us, Politic Observations in this kind, should be strengthened out of History, and thence takes occasion of venting all scorn and spite in the highest degree on the way he opposeth, as though he loved all devouring words; There is nothing (saith he) in History touching Presbytery of moment to be observed: Why? First, it's an upstart: What newer than Independency; nay this is newer light sure, for neither name or thing of Independency is to be found till of late days; for all particular Congregations in the Apostles time were dependent on, that is, under the jurisdiction of the Apostles that planted them, as appears by St. Paul's Epistles to Corinth; and before the Apostles died, the Congregations were multiplied in great Cities, yet but one Church, as is made apparent out of Scripture, and so under one common government, which whether of a Presbytery, or Bishop, or both; it casts Independency, and so that can look no higher than the Anabaptists in Germany. Next it hath but little entertainment in the world, why then it seems it's not of the world, as he elsewhere calumniates, but hath it had less entertainment than Independency? What considerable part of the Reformed Churches except England and Ireland, but hath entertained Presbytery? and what doth he make of the Princes of Germany, have they little or none of Kingly power? Is Kingly power in the Title, or in Sovereignty under whatever Title? How bold and saucy is this bold Pamphleter untruly to debase the Principalities of Noble Princes, to debase a way he himself hates? But in the Scots Kingdom this Pest is Epidemical, etc. Here is bitterness in the highest, both in expression, and matter, wherein he affirms. That in Scotland Presbytery hath turned the King's Sceptre into a Manacle, and like an Hectic fever consumed the substance of Kingly power. This I shall leave to the Scots to answer, but if this charge be true, with what conscience could the Independent engage himself by Covenant, (as the Major part of them by his confession p. 10. hath) to maintain the Scotch Discipline against the common Enemies, among whom the King and his party must needs be pars maxima, if not sola, (for the Covenanteers combined by this Covenant against him and his force?) Will interest make an Independent engage to maintain unjust usurpation upon the power of his own Sovereign? Truly such objections discover wit to promote a cause, but little honesty in a party. Secondly having slandered Presbytery in relation to Monarchy, he proceeds to see what he can do in reference to the King's party: And here he saith, The Bishops must have neither name nor substance, and the Gentry must be enslaved in their own Lordships. For the first, Presbyterians use the Bishop's better than the Independents; for its better not to be, then to be Antichristian, which the Independents make them, and all that are under them. Besides what knows he but upon accommodation the Presbyter may yield something to the Episcopal, as they would have done to the Independent, as to keep up Parochial Presbyteries, and for Appeals have a Presbytery of Ministers in every Shire, whereof one to be precedent, who may be styled a Bishop. If the Presbyterian can take his counsel to renounce jus divinum, then undoubtedly he may yield to this expedient, and there is probability enough the royalist will accept it; and by this the Old form being altered, the Covenant according to the letter will not be infringed: And for the enslaving of the Gentry by Presbytery its false, unless this Pamphleteer be of their minds Psal. 2.1, 2, 3. And I would know of this independent,, whether if a Landlord and his tenant be in their Churchway, and the Landlord be in question whether the meanest of his Tenants must not be his Master in Judicature? And whether that be a mystery of iniquity in their new government? Turpe est Doctori, etc. Well, now he concludes, That the King's Interest is to close with the Independent, for which he gives Reasons. 1. Because they are the only friends to civil government in the world. Credat Judaeus appella, non ego. Are they the best friends to Civil government in the world, that with Papists divest it of all power in Church matters, with whom that derogatory voice of the Old Donatists quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia, at least with the Major part of them is good Divinity? Doth he think this bare Assertion of his will take with his Majesty, that knows the rise and progress of his misery cannot be ascribed to any party in this Kingdom, so much as to the Independent party? For had not they disturbed it (If my intelligence fail me not) the * * And for this their own declarations may give some evidence, April 9 1642. Parliament had once resolved to have annexed 12. grave learned and godly Ministers in every Diocese to the Bishop, that should have so qualified his power, that he should have had no opportunity to Tyrannize, a course if it had been taken the miseries under which this flourishing Nationlyes in dust and ashes, the dishonours of Religion, and decay of the power of Godliness occasioned by the Scandal and Distractions of this unnatural war, and all the disgraces and calamities of the King and his Royal Household had been prevented. For what he allegeth out of the Acts of the Assembly, it doth confute not confirm his doctrine: For first, Presbyters claim only distinction of powers, not exceptions, as the Independent doth. And saith he, they borrow also from the civil Magistrate power to compel men's consciences, but this is an odious calumny against the just power, that the Presbyterians ascribe to the Magistrate denied by this Independent, seil. to preserve peace, and purity in the Church, to take Order that Blasphemy, heresy be suppressed, etc. which power of his he ought to put forth on just occasion, but that this must be always when they advise, or as he maliciously adds, commands, the confession hath no Limit. The Magistrate is Arbiter of his own actions, and is to proceed in execution according to his own apprehension. Thus the confession apparently ascribes power to the civil Magistrate and derogateth not. Secondly, its easy for the King to mingle interests with the Independent. An Independent then may mingle interests with socular power, though it be a crime in all other reason. Thirdly, Because Independency leads them to admit rather of Monarchy, than any other Government: Sure this is but new light; for the Independents, so fare as I have had acquaintance with them, either by books or conference, have been most bitter, not only against the present King, as fare as deposing or execution itself; but against Monarchy, eyeing the State's Government of the Netherlands, with their toleration, as an imitable form for themselves to aim at: and his reason is without sense, and against experience, whereby it is plain; that Monarchy hath nourished Episcopacy, for its own greater supportment, who have carried an heavy hand over all that entrench upon them, or would have exception from them. 4. 5. Here is a door of hope for the Bishops, and their Clergy, with all that are for that Liturgy, which cannot be with Presbytery trusted with the State, The 5. Reason is in effect the same; that the people that will not be satisfied without the external form of Diocesan, and Liturgy. The Independents may help to instate them in that form again, upon some visible assurance, that they themselves will be left at liberty. First its true ridgid Presbytery is incompatible with Episcopacy; but with the Clergy, that lived under them, that were learned and honest not so; why may not they live under Presbytery, and bear a part in it in England; aswell as all learned Ministers do in other reformed Churches? And for Liturgy he cannot make it good, that people will not be satisfied without this Liturgy, so they have a Liturgy; See the letter of the Wallachrian Classes to the Assembly cited in the view of the Directory pag. 43. neither is there any incompatiblenesse between a Liturgy, and Presbytery: I know no Presbyterians that hold a Liturgy unlawful, many that hold it convenient. Liturgy, and Presbytery, have been consistent in all reformed Churches, and may be in ours; neither (if my information fail me not) was Liturgy expulsed by the most grave and Learned Presbyterians in the assembly as unlawful: but only to gratify the Independents, whose abuse of their indulgence, now may bring them to repentance, and a Liturgy may be established again, at least to be free for those that need it, and desire it. But how the Independent can help to instate the people again in it, without doing evil that good may come thereon, is above my capacity. They reject it as unlawful, and the major part of them having taken the Covenant, stand engaged to keep it out; and for them for any politic reason to help it in again, is to help to set (in their conceits) a plant not of Gods planting, and that with breach of Covenant, which will argue such levity and dishonesty, so to alter against conscience and Covenant for interest; that will make honest men abhor, and wisemen afraid to associate with them; lest their interest change, for then no bonds will hold them fast in friendship. In the 4th. Reason he dictates to us an everlasting practice of the Clergy to strengthen themselves, which we must believe, because he saith so without proof. But one particular is to mingle interests with the State or Prince, etc. which hath been no mean artifice of the Devil. Yet reason third he persuades the Prince to mingle interests with them; so rather than fail, he will use the artifices of the Devil to uphold his Babel Flectere si neque as superos Acheronta movebis? Last reason is, that the King by closing with the Independent, may so abate the fury of the Presbiterian, that those of his party excepted from pardon, may at last obtain the benefit of an Act of oblivion. Is not here brave and palpable juggling now? as though it were only the fury of the Presbyterians that hindered the Act of oblivion, or general pardon; who though they be not altogether to be excused, yet how notorious is it, that none were more averse to any favour to the King's party, than the Independent, and that upon pretence of conscience; because blood must be expiated by blood, till interest mitigates them, which though it should overrule passions and humours, yet should give way to conscience: Who knows not that the Scots, the most rigid Presbyterians would have had the propositions lower to gratify the King? And wherein could they have done that more acceptably, than in favouring his party? which to speak ingeniously he cannot deliver up to suffering in honour, or conscience; but he must asperse the sincerity of his own designs and protestations, wherein they were his assistants. The rest of the Presbyterians therefore may do well to gratify the King in this; it may be a means to win upon him to gratify them in matter of Reformation desired, at least to hasten a settled peace, a thing that all (not only in obedience to the commands of following peace; but from the experience of the mischievous consequences of war, both civil, and spiritual) should most earnestly thirst after, no visible inconvenience of an Act of oblivion can over-weigh the misery and danger of Church and State for want of it; if we can either buy truth or peace by an Act of oblivion, he sees little that sees it not a good bargain; nor need conscience startle. David in two civil wars, to end the one, 2 Sam. 3.20, 21.28. to prevent new broils after the other shed no more blood, than what the fury of battle drew; 2 Sam. 14.22.23. Therefore we have as good warrant for conscience to yield to an Act of oblivion for peace, as our Saviour brought to clear his disciples from sabbath-breaking, Matth. 12. Have ye not read what David did when he was hungry; So have ye not read what David did when he had civil wars to prevent blood? He let blood go unpunished, and yet the case in David's war was unquestionable; whereas whoever shall consider the practice in our Kingdom, the oaths of Supremacy and allegiance, The King's pretences and protestations, must needs acknowledge that if there is not enough to oblige all, yet there was so much show that might draw well meaning men to his party, that sure should incline much to moderation to his party: and thus this reason would be turned against the Pamphleter. I might after his reason call to him for politic observations out of History, to strengthen his assertions touching Independents according to his own direction pag. 1. But alas search all the Histories of the Church, and you must return, a non est inventus, what need had he then to jeer others? I hope by this time its clear there was no reason so to boast his counsel to the King. Honesty in a few words will give more wholesome counsel; That the King and his partty now brought low, would search and try their ways, and see what was amiss in his cause or in their carriage? Whether though he thought the demands unreasonable yet as things stood to prevent blood, he should not have condescended lower? Whether there were not many miscarriages in prosecution? And withal to turn from men to God, and see what God hath against them, for abuse of power, eminence, wealth, in oppression, pride, riot; and whether many under him and them did not suffer like things to those which they now suffer, being driven from house and home, their families scattered, and this for conscience, and sometimes without nay against law: And so with Rehoboam and his Princes acknowledge the righteousness of the Lord, humbly before him commit themselves to him; pray, and wait, and God will without any shifts, or violation of conscience, undoubtedly in due time exalt him, and those of his, that do so improve the heavy strokes of God upon them. And when God hath set him upon his throne, let him exactly observe all his promises, and protestations, for cleaving to the Laws, promoting true Religion, Justice in all his dealing to his People, declining all show of revenge; for so shall he justify his former proceed, be great in the thoughts and hearts of his People; and Princes loved for justice, shall never be straited in power. Touching the interest of the Presbyterian and his party. HEre he tells us, First by way of preface, that Presbytery was borne at Genevah; what doth he think then of that 1 Tim. 4.14. The laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, was that spoken by way of anticipation? As the Anti-sabbatarians say of Gen. 2.23. etc. Or was he named before he was borne? When born he was nursed up in the desires of many in England and whereas men use to be disaffected to the settled Government, either out of envy, or conscience; he willingly allows for good reason the Presbyters, who reckon themselves for the old Puritans of England; so much right as to think their disaffection proceeded merely from a conscience well informed. The first and only good word that ever he allowed Presbyters. Well yet we will not forget it, if he do not; But yet he would have them to know they are not come to mount Zion, till they be able to prove the chair of a general assembly the very throne of Christ. This is a bare mystical assertion, which I understand not the sense of, and he gives no reason for; therefore let it pass. And except they show all the lineaments of their Government from Scripture, it will fright conscience, and be disclaimed as a Monster; But this is more than ever the Independents did yet: You know what promises, what expectations of a model of your new way, hath been from your Coryphai the dissenting brethren in the Assembly, but all in vain; surely if your babe were so fully and clearly framed there, the birth would not be so difficult nor so delayed. But the reason is pretty, it will be disclaimed, unless it have all the lineaments out of Scripture, for the discipline now contended for is (as the Bishops was) but external, prudential, etc. sure this inference is more ridiculous than the Presbyters plea for jus divinum; But he goes on affirming, that Presbytery if rigidly pressed, would open a fare wider gap for Tyranny then Episcopacy; all discipline must be tyranny with this Pamphleter; but do not, have not the reformed Churches in France, Germany, Netherlands, lived under Presbytery without any such complaint of tyranny? shall not their experience more secure us, than this man's Sophisms fear us, yet further to show this is spoken rather to raise an odium then out of any just fear, let all know what this man cannot be ignorant of, that upon accommodation the Independents were offered; at a Committee for accommodation an exception from all Presbyters, Cla●●es, Synods etc. whereof (saith he) if they could prove one Scriptur●ll: it were honester to bandy against men of different judgements; why doth not this man know, that the learned among them confess a jus divinum for a * Burroughs Iren. cap. 7. pag. 43. Synods. But the more the Presbyter endeavours to assert a jus divinum with a compulsive power the more he looseth both parties. men's opposition prejudiceth not a good title in spiritual things, sigh through corruption many times the better they be, the more opposed. But hence he infers, the Presbyterians interest to allow them their Churchway, to esteem them as brethren, and not to make difference in circumstantials a ground for persecution. First there's none more willing to a brotherly accommodation than myself, nor more willing to embrace any as a brorher in whom there is aliquid Christi, nor more backward to lay heavy burden for light matters; ipse mali gnarus miseris succurrere disco. But to suffer one to act to the destruction of another's standing, that's not tolerable. To suffer them in their Churchway, where they live together, I should never oppose; but to suffer them to gather Churches out of our Churches, as it hath no warrant in Scripture, (our Churches being acknowledged as true Churches) so it is not tolerable, being destructive, or at least greatly distractive to us in our way. Yet better tolerate that, then raise a new war to hinder it, (nothing being so destructive, or distractive to Religion as civil war:) but if so that gross Heretics destroyers of the Faith be excepted, they deny us to be Churches, making us Babylon, exclaiming against our Churches, and Ministers, as Antichristian; here they begin persecution, for I hope this man knows there's persecution of the tongue, aswell as of the hand, and the wounds of the tongue pierce sharply, and dangerously; and if such come under censure, I shall never account it persecution, but just discipline, But it's as much madness faith he to prosecute men because unlike us in opinion: as for unliknesse in outward complexion. Is it madness to prosecute men because unlike us in opinion; what is more contrary to plain scriptures then this? doth not Saint Paul prosecute men for difference in opinion, Rom. 16, 17, 18? and Gal, 5.12. What were they prosecuted for, even to delivering up to Satan, (more dreadful I hope then any prison) but for corrupt opinions? Revel. 2.20. Why is Thyatira checked, but for suffering corrupt opinions? Is not this assertion also as much against reason as Scripture? are opinions as natural or unavoidable as complexions? are they as harmless to the party, or to those with whom they converse? are not some opinions damnable, 2 Pet. 2.1. and so need discipline, to preserve the erroneous? 1 Cor. 5.5. with 1 Tim. 1.20. are not opinions apt to spread and taint others, 2 Tim. 2.17. their words eating like a canker? What is there not need then of discipline, to prevent infection? can this be said of complexions, are any of them damning? are they infectious? And is not false doctrine called leaven, Mat. 16.6.12? And is it not as apt to leaven as vice; nay more, and those of better quality, as we see in experience? see 2 Pet. 2.2. and then is not the Apostles reason 1 Cor. 5.6. as strong to proceed against the erroneous, as against the vicious? For his reason that since the Fall, all divine knowledge is an influence of heaven upon the soul; and therefore if any understand better than other, free grace puts the difference, and so we are to look upon them as deplorable, rather than damnable. I answer though free grace be the chief cause of divine knowledge; yet our own industry in use of means, is subordinate to that Proverb. 2 2, 3, 4. And so we are neither to neglect means to beget knowledge, or reclaim errors, one of which is censures, 1 Tim. 1. ult. nor in censures d we look on men as damnable but to be pitied, and therefore appl censures as Medicines to cure, not to destroy. His second reason is, Because the design of conformity and uniformity in the Church is a ground whereby the Devil makes men run a madding, etc. it's the nurse of division, it's against common sense to expect every man will be of the same opinion, etc. For answer, 1. To tolerate nothing, and to tolerate all things are two extremes, between which there is a golden means, not to endure a man that differs from us in circumstantials, though peaceable in his carriage, is unchristian tyranny; on the other side, to suffer what destroys the faith, is to be cruel to ourselves, while we are indulgent to others, and to desert the faith which we are to contend for, and suffer the drawing of men into perdition, which in charity and office, all christian officers are bound to preserve. 2. There is difference between diffenting in judgement, from what is by authority established, and acting against it, not only in our personal acts, but in withdrawing others from it, and depraving it; not to suffer the former in matters not fundamental, were too much austerity: to tolerate the latter were to much lenity, and the way to confusion. 3. As it is an extreme to think men ought to make all men walk in the way which ministers cry up for right: so it is an insolence deserves censure, by any disgraceful ways, as this Pamphleter doth to withdraw people from that due reverence and obedience that the Holy Ghost requires of them to their Ministers, 1 Thes. 5.11, 12. Heb. 13.17. for crying fire from heaven against brethren in the faith, I know none guilty of it, if I did, I should sharply reprove them, but hope this Pamphleter knows many cover themselves under the name of Independency, that hold opinions destructive to the faith, those all aught to oppose in their own sphere. 3. Oppression makes wise men mad, but just and deserved censure is no oppression, though it may be esteemed so with men, yet * Rom. 5.34. not with God. Secondly, I hope with Saints tribulation will bring forth patience, etc. else they will make but sorry Martyrs, neither will they I hope be led by interests but by rule, else they are unfit followers for Christ, Mat. 16.24. 4. If a rigid course be prosecuted, and a breach made betwixt those who (for the Major part) be one by solemn Covenant the whole scandal will retort on the Presbyter. Ans. 1. They have the Art to cry whore first. 2. For rigidnes its never comely among brethren, but if according to the former rules, course be taken against revilers of established order, and desertors of the faith, not the inflicters but the sufferers will be the evil doers, for his answer to the objection of covenanting uniform Reformation, That the Covenant in its extent is limited by the word of God. I answer, this man counts that uniformity of Reformation, is a thing without any footing in the Word of God: so it makes him covenant a nonsense which asperses this man and his party, as well as others for taking it. 2. His interpretation with the application makes the covenant a nose of wax, to bend to every man's fancy, and so rather a combination of all sorts against an enemy, than an engagement to any to promote uniform Reformation. Lastly, he lays down the benefits of a moderate condescension in the Presbyter, as that which crosses new designs in the Independent, and insinuations of the Royal party, for a moderate condescension (as I have limited it,) I hope all Presbyters will subscribe to, (though no benefits accrue) out of charity to brethren, and for a boundless toleration, let some irregularly force it, or others timorously yield it, yet every conscientious Presbyter, I hope will witness against it. The conclusion is, That its the sole interest of the Presbyter to counter-work the King, and to count all rigid Presbyterians of what robe soever very Malignants, that fulminate against our fast friends, as Heretics and Schismatics. But who be these fast friends. Independents? the following Interest will give us but little encouragement to think so, if any call those Schismatics and Heretics which are not so, as Independents may be and many are free from both, they deserve sharp checks, but that there are such things as Schismatics and Heretics is apparent in Scripture, that some of those that shroud themselves under the name of Independents are such, is as apparent likewise, and why we should count him a Malignant that calls a spade a spade, I yet see no reason: The truth is, the Presbyterian interest with his duty was in peace, which he should have studied, upon all lawful condescension to have obtained with the King, but he acted the Independents Interest in crying up the War still, and keeping the King at too great a distance, both in place and terms, contrary to his pretences, and prayers, which hath given great and just offence, to the Royalists, and advantage to the Independent, though the Independent were as deep in this transgression as the Presbyterian; but the Independent can vary his principles with his condition, and interest (as he faith here) in reason third, and so hath gone beyond the Presbyterian. The Presbyterian therefore, now is to be humbled for neglect, not so much of following interest, as duty, and study reconciliation with the King. and settlement of the nation, and serve God humbly in the best condition he can attain, and God will not be wanting to his own way. Touching the interest of the Independent party. THis Machivilian Agent hath now bespok two suitors for his Paramour, that so she may see who offers fairest, and make her choice to best advantage; this is policy indeed, but such as an honest Virgin would not count honesty, to hold two in hand, when she could but answer the expectation of one; but with some men what's politic, and serves interest, is honest enough. First, he compares his Rivals, and asperses them at pleasure, and then advances his own Idol above the clouds. That the Independent would have the Church a spiritual building, framed of such stones as are chosen out of the World, but founded only on the wisdom of God, etc. Which is indeed the nature and constitution of the invisible Church of the Elect, but let him show me such a visible Church-constitution in Scripture; or let him make good that divers of the Churches of Asia did not apparently consist of other members, and let him carry the cause; but if he cannot, his Independent Church so constituted here on earth, is but a Chimaera of his own brain. Next he tells us again, That the Independents leave to all the Magistrate save the Kingdom of Christ. And so do the Presbyterians, though he dictate the contrary, And the Kingdom of Christ being not of this World can be no trouble to it, unless his be first troubled. Here's an exception for them to hold up the Sword against the Magistrate, King, or Parliament, if they do trouble them. But it's a most plain and pernicious addition to the Words of Christ. The scope whereof was, that his servants would not fight, though they were troubled, See joh. 6.36. because his Kingdom was not of this world. Well, Now (says he) Independency which owns no policy (he should say, but whatserves her turn) becomes the balancing power between them, that is, by the Arms the Parliament have entrusted them with, and they now hold perforce against it) now her interest is to close where she may have most indulgence, and little or no scandal. A little scandal than she may undergo for interest, but that may prove a Millstone, Mat. 18.6. if she take not heed; and that indulgence he conceives, may be expected rather from the Episcopal Party; and wherein interest is he must go; lo what a fast friend the Independent is to the Presbyter. His Reasons. 1. Though principles of Faith should sway Presbyters to brotherly amity, yet by their eagerness of Discipline, and uniformity of Letter, neglecting that of the Spirit, etc. they give little hope. What fury do the Presbyterian show in driving on upon terms of discipline? It's not in acting, that I know, and for procuring settlement. Why may not the Presbyterian be as zealous for his way, as the Independent for his? Wherein doth the Presbyterian sleight the glorious uniformity of Spirit? Si satis est accusasse, quis erit innocens? Wherein his eagerness in uniformity of Letter, hath he not studied accommodation, by all means, though he be against a wild toleration? And I know not where the Furnace is heating for any brethren in the Faith, but in your own fancies. Secondly, Setting aside that gross mixture of Ceremonies, the Episcopal Discipline were more tolerable, because Tyranny cannot be so great in few hands, as many. Answ. That which may be most dangerous in one respect, in an other may be more safe, though the hands be more in Presbytery; yet they be, I hope, in your apprehension better, you have not forgot (I hope) what testimony you gave of the evidence of conscientiousness in many of the Presbyterians; pag. 6. Oh, but here's an answer, If their burden under Presbytery prove fairer, than expectation, that's the goodness of their taskmasters, not of the Government; but what if time's grow worse? But what if the sky fall, will you run a scandalous course for fear of may-bees. Thirdly, Though the Episcopal Party be enemies to the Independents, yet in regard 1. of the Independents extreme civil usage of victories, 2. may most oblige them in their lowest condition, etc. the enmity may be extinguished. But to the first, men are more apt to remember injuries than courtesies, and so the Royalist may rather remember your * Yet, I think this may be truly excused (for they say) The valour of the Ruffian got, and the subtlety of the Independent moderated Victories gotten (as it appears now) to promote interest. beating them, than your courtesy afterwards. To the second, how can they now most oblige them in their low conditon, but by using those Arms entrusted by Parliament, without, and against consent of their trusters, is that honest? Is not this a great, not a small scandal? For the third, Their interests may stand together, while Bishops are under hatches; but when their yokes are gone, what then? Hath not this man told us, interests change with condition? and for their forced assurance, may it not be good, just a little longer than they have force to make it good? Fourthly, There can be no scandal in it to the Independent, by such an union of interests? Why? The woe of Scandals belongs to them, by whom the grounds of scandal are necessitated. I had thought the woe of scandals had been to those that give them; and that scandals being such evils, nothing could have necessitated them, qui mori potest, loqui nequit, but it seems Independent interests can change the nature of things; one told a well-willer to Independents, that the Army would join with the King, he replied, than I will give you my head; will not that friend be scandalised, think you, by this marriage of interests. Your convenant was to bring the Malignants to condign punishment, who was meant by that you know, (how just it was, let God be judge) but now to join with them against whom you covenanted, and against those with whom you covenanted; can it be without scandal? But that the Presbyter may bear the scandal, the Independent ought not to admit of a breach, till the red Dragon, etc. Oh! but its like, the Presbyter will not use severity if he intent it, till the Army is down, and when that is down, the Independent cannot serve the Royalists turn to demerit their league; and to keep up an Army raised for the public, for the private interest of one Party, at so vast a charge, without, nay, against consent of the Parliament, and Kingdom (while they may freely vote) how can this, or any man living justify? Lastly he adds a caution, that the Independent ought not so to respect the Royalist, as to neglect Parliaments, in whose safety liberty is involved, the only Rampire against all kinds of Tyranny; since all proceed against them there, are actuated by a few whom time will discover. Do the Independent Army observe this, not to neglect Parliaments? Was not the pretence of the Royalist against the Members of Parliament formerly managed as now, and Members required upon like pretences? But then the Independent as well as others, thought that was destructive to Parliaments, and is it not so now? when Members of as good repute as any, are required to be suspended on a light charge, which can only be for opposition to their design; is this tender regard to Parliaments? But now (that is since the Independents have got the King into their hands) the Crown of Independent and true Parliamentary interest too (though Presbyterians draw another way) is to reconcile the King on such honourable terms, etc. Here is first a slander on the Presbyterian, as generally against a peace with the King, on honourable terms, when they know the Scot would have had the offer more honourable, and the Independent hindered it; and that against true Parliamentary interest, as here he confesseeth, and the truth is, which makes their hindering honourable terms to the King then, the more inexcusable, because they crossed public for private interests; but let it be whose interest it will, it's the duty of all to seek to reconcile the King upon honourable terms; and (whatever the Independents end is) I shall thank them for it when I see it; but if their juggling prosper with them long, I have lost my aim. Touching the City Interest. First her greatness is graphically described, as rising from riches acquired by free trade, her only interest, hence she is slily accused of arrogance, which he faith, is heightened of late by her vast contributions, etc. therefore the man is in fear lest this huge Animal become rampant, unless he make her a bridle of some considerations; as first what they did was not by their own strength and riches, but as receiving outhority from Parliament, etc. This is true (and me thinks) its a bit that may well fit the mouth of the Independent Army grown rampant to use his phrase by its entrusted power. Secondly, though the Citizens pretend Religion to be the only necessary appendix to their trade, etc. and do not you think so too, sure else you will confirm us in it, that you are a pure Machivilian) Yet if they look into the Scriptures more narrowly, and the practice of their priests they may learn, the scope of their State Divinity is only to dirve a trade, etc. Here is pure spleen and malice, casting upon men as good as himself or any of his, aspersions of the basest and most wicked alley; which have no ground, but in his own uncharitable heart, and corrupted fancy: is this his glorious unity of the spirit? is this suitable to that confessed truth wrested from him, that the impression of glory in many of their practices, made him judge that they embraced Presbytery out of conscience? this scandal is so foul and false, that the honest Citizens, will rather detest his book, then suspect their godly Ministers for the suggestion in it. His third consideration, is of the same ally with the second, only uncharitable, and groundless surmises; who of us observe any other distinction between ministers and people, than Scriptures set forth, see 1 Thes. 5.11, 12. Heb. 13.17. Revel. 1. ult. The stars are the Angels of the Churches: do we deny brotherhood with our people? what a false insinuation is that? will he make such a brotherhood, as to leave no distinction between ministers and people? how inconsistent is that with plain Scripture? but some of the people (faith he) must be admitted into the partnership of tyranny, but the preaching Presbyter, will sway all, with other such like passages, full of scorn and bitterness, which cannot have probabuity without making the people witless, and the Minister without honesty, which insinuations as they discover his poisonous stomach, so will they make him, not our government odious with the godly and intelligent Citizen. But the fourth is yet more vile and Machiavellian for the labours to work upon the corruptions of men to make them think that that order that is appointed for to keep the ordinance from pollution, and them from profanation. is an infringement of just liberty: which is but a moderate restraint to Libertinism, and stirs them to shake of Government; that they may use use sinful ways, without fear or check, nay he excites the lawyers too with fears of what may be. If this be not wicked Machivilianisme there's none in the world. and I doubt not but the prudent Citizen will find it with detestations of his Jesuitical insinuations against wholesome and holy order: but what are these to the power and greatness of the City to moderate it, sure distemper hath made the man forget himself, and fit the bit for the wrong mouth. But 5ly. he comes to the matter and gins to threaten, that if they do any thing to hinder the union of interests between Royalist and Independent: then her greatness will begin to be suspected. That is, if they cross, the designs of these. Saints they will rail against them like etc. and do their best to make them odious, and to set it on tells them of a secret whisper of wisemen, that is Independents of whom he said in his Preface, A word is enough to the wise. But 6ly. he flies nigher and threatens danger to the City wealth, if they make so much show of it (That is to cross Independent designs otherwise no danger) that the Priace or state which is jealous, may secure them, and fear the vast and unmeasurable Revennes of their Halls, as sometimes the Abbeys, the reason being the same, for this is that, and much more pressing; here is not only Machivilian policy, to keep them o● from opposition by fears of what is dear. But I fear a worse snake in the grass, even the hissing on the Prince to seize on such a prey, in which they may hope for a share after union of interests Tantane animis caelestibus irae? The Abbots with their monks being regulars were immediately under the Pope, Let it be demanded of Tenants, whether they had rather hold of Hals, Colleges Hospitals, then of private-Landlords or what the reason is that there is such seeking to be the immediate tenants of Hals etc. if it be any prejudice to the Commonalty. And what use do the several Hals of London make of their revenues, but maintain their decayed Members or young scholars at the University, or lecturers in barren Countries, and such like; and can they be rightly deemed fit objects of rapine and envy? and exempt from the jurisdiction, of the Nation, and being the Pope's creatures, advanced his interest against the Nations, and so were justly looked on with an evil eye; but for the lying dead of their lands, that's a false suggestion, sigh they could not be alienated, yet they were possessed by leases, passable from man to man, which were little inferior to free-land, and yet came at easy rates; so that the commonalty had more benefit by them, then after alienation of them to private lords: the main reason then against Abbeys, hath no place against the lands of Halls in the City, nor are they of such vastness as to be a just cause of grievance, or envy to any, but such as are transported with malice, or prejudice, or greediness; after that which belongs to others. Lastly faith he, sigh Presbytery is only of the world; before he said, she took in some of the wisdom, and much of the power of the world, now she is only of the world, his tongue changes with his interest it seems. see pag. 11. They may consider how its like to thrive in the world; if his assertion were true, well enough the world would love her own, but they (says he) greatly detest it. And therefore if the City appear for it, they shall be the only Bandiers against the King and Independents, for the settling of a Government, which neither we nor our children shall be able to bear; yet Reformed Churches fathers and children have borne it, and then they shall bear the odium of a second war: nay that I should never counsel against the King, unless the warrant had been clearer, or the success of this had been better for the public; but I believe if the City should stir a new War and miscarry, if such spirits as this might have their way, York should be, or any thing that might testify revenge, for affronting them whom they should have admired, if not adored; yet though I would not have the City to wage a new War, it may not be amiss for the City to stand upon her own guard, and not to lie at the devoyre of those whose great orators do with such dangerous and odious expressions lay her out as a most rich booty, sometimes nothing will prevent war or intolerable oppression but preparation for it. And being in a posture not to offend, but to defend herself; she might be in a circumstance on occasion to rescue or receive the King, and to maintain him in his place once returned; if those who cry him up for interest, should upon change of interest prove dangerous to him. And also according to covenant, to defend the Parliament, if it shall appear, that not the regulating but the destruction of it, or of any of the innocent members of it is sought. His conclusion is that the City should stand neutral etc. The Independents have helped to put them on to petition against Episcopacy root and branch, and to draw them into covenant to endeavour it, and not for fear, or any cause to decline to detestable neutrality, because than their interests lay that way; now because their interest lies in union with Episcopacy, the City must sit still neutral while Episcopacy is voted up: what a snare have they brought the poor people into? from such interest-mongers, good Lord deliver all sinceresimple hearted people; for another war the Covenant will not engage them, they are but to endeavour according to their callings, let them repent and pray, and use all moral means, and if after all, they must enjoy the Gospel with tribulation. I dare assure them they will have more true comfort in their dearest suffering, than the Independents in their glorious union with those that they have hated, and endeavoured to persecute to the death. And thus I have gone through this book, of which I must confess, I never faw more Policy, or less Honesty in so narrow a compass. Postscript. What is here spoken against Independents is only intended against such as are of this Pamphleteers judgement, whose Machivilian principles and plots, I believe many sincere amongst them abhor as well as myself, to whom I wish all happiness, and would not injure nor expose to envy for the Errors of others. FINIS.