Answer. If I give any exposition, but what is expressed in the text, that is my invention: if you give another exposition, that is your invention, and both are human. For example, suppose the word [egg] were in the text; I say, 'tis meant an hen-egg, you say a goose-egg; neither of these are expressed, therefore they are human invention; and I am sure the newer the invention the worse; old inventions are best.

2. If we must admit nothing but what we read in the 10 Bible, what will become of the parliament? For we do not read of that there.

LXV.

GOD'S JUDGMENTS.

We cannot tell what is a judgment of God; 'tis presumption to take upon us to know. In time of plague we know we want health, and therefore we pray to God to give us health1; in time of war, we know we want peace, and therefore we pray to God to send us peace. Commonly we say a judgment falls upon a man for something in him we cannot abide. An example we have in King James, con

1 And therefore we pray to God to give us health, H. 2] omitted in H.

1. 13. We cannot tell what is a judgment &c.] Suggested, possibly, by a book, published in 1636, under the title of 'A divine tragedie lately acted,' or 'A collection of sundry memorable examples of God's judgments upon Sabbath-breakers and other like libertines in their unlawfull sports.' It gives fifty-five examples of some misfortune to Sabbath-breakers in the course of two years, and it appeals confidently to these as proof of direct divine interposition. It ends with an account of the death of Mr. William Noy, closely following the execution of the Star Chamber censure on the 'well deserving gentleman, Mr. Prynne.' The book has been ascribed to Prynne, but it does not bear his name or signature. It is entered as Prynne's in the British Museum catalogue, and is so lettered on the cover.

cerning the death of Henry the IVth of France; one said he was killed for his wenching, another said he was killed for turning his religion. No, says King James, (who could not abide fighting) he was killed for permitting duels in his kingdom.

LXVI.

JUDGE.

1. WE see the pageants in Cheapside, the lions, and the elephants, but we do not see the men that carry them. We see the judges look big, look like lions, but we do not see who moves them.

2. Little things do great works, when great things will not. If I would take a pin from the ground, a little pair of tongs will do it, when a great pair will not. Go to a judge to do a business for you; by no means, he will not hear of it; but go to some small servant about him, and he will dispatch it according to your heart's desire.

10

3. There could be no mischief done in the commonwealth without a judge. Though there be false dice brought in at the groom-porter's, and cheating offered, yet unless he allow the cheating, and judge the dice to be good, there may be 20 hopes of fair play.

1. 17. There could be no mischief &c.] See note on 'The King,'

sec. 6.

1. 19. groom-porter] 'An officer of the royal household, whose business is to see the king's lodging furnished with tables, chairs, stools and firing: as also to provide cards, dice, &c., and to decide disputes arising at cards, dice, bowling, &c.' Quoted by Nares (Glossary, sub voce) from Chamb. Dict. Nares adds that 'formerly he was allowed to keep an open gambling table at Christmas. . . . He is said to have succeeded to the office of the master of the revels, then disused.'

LXVII.

JUGGLING.

'Tis not juggling that is to be blamed, but much juggling, for the world cannot be governed without it. All your rhetorick, and all your elenchs in logic, come within the compass of juggling.

LXVIII.

JURISDICTION.

1. THERE'S no such thing as spiritual jurisdiction; all is civil, the church's is the same with the lord mayor's. Suppose a Christian came into a pagan country, how can you 10 fancy he shall have power there? He finds fault with the gods of the country. Well, they will put him to death for it. Then he is a martyr; what follows? Does that argue he has any spiritual jurisdiction? If the clergy say the church ought to be governed thus, and thus, by the word of God, that is doctrine all, that is not discipline.

2. The pope, he challenges jurisdiction over all; the bishops, they pretend to it as well as he; the presbyterians, they would have it to themselves; but over whom is all this? The poor layman.

1. ALL things are held by jus divinum, either immediately or mediately.

2. Nothing has lost the pope so much in his supremacy, as not acknowledging what princes gave him. 'Tis a scorn

upon the civil power, and an unthankfulness in the priest. But the church runs to jus divinum, lest if they should acknowledge what they have, they have by positive law, it might be as well taken from them, as given to them.

LXX.

KING.

I. A KING is a thing men have made for their own sakes, for quietness' sake. Just as in a family one man is appointed to buy the meat. If every man should buy, or if there were many buyers, they would never agree; one would buy what the other liked not, or what the other had 10 bought before, so there would be a confusion. But that charge being committed to one, he according to his discretion pleases all. If they have not what they would have one day, they shall have it the next, or something as good.

2. The word king directs our eyes. Suppose it had been consul or dictator. To think all kings alike, is the same folly, as if a consul of Aleppo or Smyrna, should claim to himself the same power that a consul at Rome had. What, am not I consul? Or a duke of England should think himself like the duke of Florence. Nor can 20 it be imagined that the word Baσideùs did signify a king

1. 15. directs our eyes.] This seems to mean, the word catches our eyes and suggests the notion that it bears everywhere the same

sense.

This and the next clause seem directed against the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of 1640, framed by the Convocations of Canterbury and of York, in which the most high and sacred order of Kings is said to be of divine right, being the ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express texts both of the Old and New Testaments.' Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 545.

did with the

the same in Greece, as the Hebrew word
Jews. Besides, let divines in their pulpits say what they
will, they in their practice deny that all is the king's.
They sue him, and so does all the nation, whereof they
are a part. What matter is it then, what they preach or
talk in the schools?

3. Kings are all individuals, this or that king; there is no species of kings.

4. A king that claims privileges in his own kingdom, 10 because they have them in another, is just as a cook, that claims fees in one lord's house because they are allowed in another. If the master of the house will yield them, well and good.

5. The text [Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's] makes as much against kings as for them; for it says plainly that some things are not Caesar's. But divines make choice of it, first in flattery, and then because of the other part adjoined to it [Render unto God the things that are God's], where they bring in the 20 Church.

6. A king outed of his country, that takes as much upon him as he did at home, in his own court, is as if a man and I being upon different ground, I used1 to lift up my voice to him, that he might hear me, at length should come down to me and then expect I should speak as loud to him as I did before.

1 As if a man and I being upon different ground, I used, &c., H. 2] as if a man and I being upon the ground, used, &c., H. As if a man upon a tree, and I being upon the ground used,

&c., S. As if a man on high, and I being upon the ground used, &c. Early printed editions. No one of all these is quite satisfactory. I have chosen what seems the least faulty.

1. 2. let divines in their pulpits &c.] See, e.g., Dr. Manwaring's two Sermons on the King's prerogative, in which he insists that the King's power is not bounded by law; that it is the duty of his subjects to obey his illegal commands; and that if they are deprived of property in their goods they have no choice but to submit. Fuller, Church History, century xvii, bk. xi. secs. 61, 62, 63, in ann. 1628.