Page images

not many. What I have spoken, is the language of that which is not called amiss "The good old Cause:" if it seem strange to any, it will not seem more strange, I hope, than convincing to backsliders. Thus much I should perhaps have said, though I were sure I should have spoken only to trees and stones; and had none to cry to, but with the prophet, " O earth, earth, earth!" to tell the very soil itself, what her perverse inhabitants are deaf to. Nay, though what I have spoke should happen (which thou suffer not, who didst create mankind free! nor thou next, who didst redeem us from being servants of men!) to be the last words of our expiring liberty. But I trust I shall have spoken persuasion to abundance of sensible and ingenuous

men; to some perhaps, whom God may raise to these stones to become children of reviving liberty; and may reclaim, though they seem now choosing them a captain back for Egypt, to bethink themselves a little, and consider whither they are rushing; to exhort this torrent also of the people, not to be so impetuous, but to keep their due channel; and at length recovering and uniting their better resolutions, now that they see already how open and unbounded the insolence and rage is of our common enemies, to stay these ruinous proceedings, justly and timely fearing to what a precipice of destruction the deluge of this epidemic madness would hurry us, through the general defection of a misguided and abused multitude.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]



I AFFIRMED in the preface of a late discourse, intitled, "The ready Way to establish a Free Commonwealth, and the Dangers of re-admitting Kingship in this Nation," that the humour of returning to our old bondage was instilled of late by some deceivers; and to make good, that what I then affirmed was not without just ground, one of those deceivers I present here to the people and if I prove him not such, refuse not to be so accounted in his stead.


He begins in his epistle to the General,* and moves cunningly for a licence to be admitted physician both to church and state; then sets out his practice in physical terms," a wholesome electuary to be taken every morning next our hearts;" tells of the opposition which he met with from the college of state physicians, then lays before you his drugs and ingredients; "Strong purgatives in the pulpit, contempered of the myrrh of mortification, the aloes of confession and contrition, the rhubarb of restitution and satisfaction;" a pretty fantastic dose of divinity from a pulpit mountebank, not unlike the fox, that turning pedlar opened his pack of ware before the kid; though he now would seem, personate the good Samaritan," undertaking to" describe the rise and progress of our national malady, and to prescribe the only remedy;" which how he performs, we shall quickly see.

(6 to


First, he would suborn St. Luke as his spokesman to the General, presuming, it seems, "to have had as perfect understanding of things from the very first," as the evangelist had of his gospel; that the Genera!, who hath so eminently born his part in the whole action, "might know the certainty of those things" better from bim a partial sequestered enemy; for so he presently appears, though covertly, and like the tempter,

• Monk.


commencing his address with an impudent calumny and affront to his excellence, that he would be pleased "to carry on what he had so happily begun in the name and cause" not of God only, which we doubt not, but " of his anointed," meaning the late king's son ; to charge him most audaciously and falsely with the renouncing of his own public promises and declarations, both to the parliament and the army, and we trust his actions ere long will deter such insinuating slanderers from thus approaching him for the future. But the General may well excuse him; for the Comforter himself scapes not his presumption, avouched as falsely, to have empowered to those designs "him and him only," who hath solemnly declared the contrary. What fanatic, against whom he so often inveighs, could more presumptuously affirm whom the Comforter bath empowered, than this anti-fanatic, as he would be thought?



Prov. xxiv. 21, My son, fear God and the king, and meddle not with them that be seditious, or desirous of change, &c.

Letting pass matters not in controversy, I come to the main drift of your sermon, the king; which word here is either to signify any supreme magistrate, or else your latter object of fear is not universal, belongs not at all to many parts of christendom, that have no king; and in particular not to us. That we have no king since the putting down of kingship in this commonwealth, is manifest by this last parliament, who, to the time of their dissolving, not only made no address at all to any king, but summoned this next to come by

the writ formerly appointed of a free commonwealth, without restitution or the least mention of any kingly right or power; which could not be, if there were at present any king of England. The main part therefore of your sermon, if it mean a king in the usual sense, is either impertinent and absurd, exhorting your auditory to fear that which is not; or if king here be, as it is understood, for any supreme magistrate, by your own exhortation they are in the first place not to meddle with you, as being yourself most of all the seditious meant here, and the “desirous of change,” in stirring them up to "fear a king," whom the present government takes no notice of.

likewise granted: but who is his anointed? Not every
king, but they only who were anointed or made kings
by his special command; as Saul, David, and his race,
which ended in the Messiah, (from whom no kings at
this day can derive their title,) Jehu, Cyrus, and if any
other were by name appointed by him to some parti-
cular service: as for the rest of kings, all other su-
preme magistrates are as much the Lord's anointed as
they; and our obedience commanded equally to them
all; "for there is no power but of God," Rom. xiii. 1:
and we are exhorted in the gospel to obey kings, as
called any where
other magistrates, not that they are
the Lord's anointed, but as they are the "Ordinance of ¦
man," 1 Pet. ii. 13. You therefore and other such
false doctors, preaching kings to your auditory, as the
Lord's only anointed, to withdraw people from the pre-
sent government, by your own text are self-condemned,
and not to be followed, not to be "meddled with,” but
to be noted, as most of all others the “seditious and
desirous of change.”


Your third proof is no less against yourself. Psal. cv. 15, "Touch not mine anointed." For this is not spoken in behalf of kings, but spoken to reprove kings, that they should not touch his anointed saints and servants, the seed of Abraham, as the verse next before might have taught you: he reproved kings for their sakes, saying, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm;" according to that, 2 Cor. i. 21, “He who hath anointed us, is God." But how well you confirm one wrested scripture with another! 1 Sam viii. 7, "They have not rejected thee, but me:" grossly misapplying these words, which were not spoken to any who had "resisted or rejected” a king, but to them who much against the will of God had sought a king, and rejected a commonwealth, wherein they might have lived happily under the reign of God only, their king. Let the words interpret themselves; ver. 6, 7, “But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us: and Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they that have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, conclude, I should not reign over them." Hence you


so indissoluble is the conjunction of God and the king." O notorious abuse of Scripture! whenas you should have concluded, so unwilling was God to give them a king, so wide was the disjunction of God from a king. Is this the doctrine you boast of, to be “so clear in itself, and like a mathematical principle, that needs no farther demonstration?" Bad logic, bad ma

king only: for Gideon, by whom you seek to prove thematics, (for principles can have no demonstration


You begin with a vain vision, " God and the king at the first blush" (which will not be your last blush) "seeming to stand in your text like those two cherubims on the mercy-seat, looking on each other." By this similitude, your conceited sanctuary, worse than the altar of Ahaz, patterned from Damascus, degrades God to a cherub, and raises your king to be his collateral in place, notwithstanding the other differences you put; which well agrees with the court-letters, lately published, from this lord to the other lord, that cry him up for no less than angelical and celestial.

Your first observation, page 8, is, "That God and the king are coupled in the text, and what the Holy Ghost hath thus firmly combined, we may not, we must not dare to put asunder;" and yourself is the first man who puts them asunder by the first proof of your doctrine immediately following, Judg. vii. 20, which couples the sword of the Lord and Gideon, a man who not only was no king, but refused to be a king or monarch, when it was offered him, in the very next chapter, ver. 22, 23, “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you." Here we see, that this worthy heroic deliverer of his country thought it best governed, if the Lord governed it in that form of a free commonwealth, which they then enjoyed, without a single person. And thus is your first scripture abused, and most impertinently cited, nay, against yourself, to prove, that "kings at their coronation have a sword given them," which you interpret "the militia, the power of life and death put into their hands," against the declared judgment of our parliaments, nay, of all our laws, which reserve to themselves only the power of life and death, and render you in their just resentment of this boldness another

Dr. Manwaring.

Your next proof is as false and frivolous, “The king," say you, "is God's sword-bearer;" true, but not the

this, neither was nor would be a king; and as you

yourself confess, page 40, «There be divers forms of government." "He bears not the sword in vain," Rom. xiii. 4: This also is as true of any lawful rulers, especially supreme; so that “" Rulers," ver. 3, and thereof their doctrine, which are the plain refutation: and this fore this present government, without whose authority is all the Scripture which he brings to confirm his point.

at all,) but worse divinity. O people of an impliest faith, no better than Romish, if these be thy prime teachers, who to their credulous audience dare thus juggle with Scripture, to allege those places for the prof

you excite the people to a king, bear the sword as well


The rest of his preachment is mere groundless chat, as kings, and as little in vain. They fight against save here and there a few grains of corn scattered to God, who resist his ordinance, and go about to wrest entice the silly fowl into his net, interlaced here and the sword out of the hands of his anointed." This is there with some human reading, though slight, and not

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


without geographical and historical mistakes: as page
29, Sueria the German dukedom, for Suecia the Nor-
thern kingdom: Philip of Macedon, who is generally
understood of the great Alexander's father only, made
contemporary, page 31, with T. Quintus the Roman
commander, instead of T. Quintius, and the latter
Philip: and page 44, Tully cited" in his third oration
against Verres," to say of him, "that he was a wicked
consul," who never was a consul: nor Trojan se-
dition ever portrayed" by that verse of Virgil, which
cite page 47, as that of Troy: schoolboys could
have told you, that there is nothing of Troy in that
whole portraiture, as you call it, of Sedition. These
mistakes may justly bring in doubt your other
loose citations, and that you take them up somewhere
at the second or third hand rashly, and without due



Nor are you happier in the relating or the moralizing your fable, "The frogs" (BEING ONCE A FREE NATION, saith the fable) "petitioned Jupiter for a king: he tumbled among them a log: they found it insensible; they petitioned then for a king that should be active: he sent them a crane" (a STORK, saith the fable)" which straight fell to pecking them up." This you apply to the reproof of them who desire change: whereas indeed the true moral shews rather the folly of those who being free seek a king; which for the most part either as a log lies heavy on his subjects, without doing aught worthy of his dignity and the charge to maintain him, or as a stork, is ever pecking up, and devouring them.



But" by our fundamental laws, the king is the highpower," page 40. If we must hear mooting and law lectures from the pulpit, what shame is it for a doctor of divinity not first to consider, that no law can fundamental, but that which is grounded on the light of nature or right reason, commonly called moral Law: which no form of government was ever counted, but arbitrary, and at all times in the choice of every free people, or their representers. This choice of goernment is so essential to their freedom, that longer an they have it, they are not free. In this land not aly the late king and his posterity, but kingship itself, uth been abrogated by a law; which involves with as od reason the posterity of a king forfeited to the ple, as that law heretofore of treason against the king, attainted the children with the father. This law inst both king and kingship they who most quesin, do not less question all enacted without the king and his antiparliament at Oxford, though called monby himself. If no law must be held good, but passes in full parliament, then surely in exactess of legality no member must be missing: for look many are missing, so many counties or cities that ent them want their representers. But if, being once sen, they serve for the whole nation, then any numer, which is sufficient, is full, and most of all in times of discard, necessity, and danger. The king himself We bound by the old mode of parliaments, not to be sent, but in case of sickness, or some extraordinary ccasion, and then to leave his substitute; much less

might any member be allowed to absent himself. If the king then and many of the members with him, without leaving any in his stead, forsook the parliament upon a mere panic fear, as was that time judged by most men, and to levy war against them that sat, should they who were left sitting, break up, or not dare enact aught of nearest and presentest concernment to public safety, for the punctilio wanting of a full number, which no law-book in such extraordinary cases hath determined? Certainly if it were lawful for them to fly from their charge upon pretence of private safety, it was much more lawful for these to set and act in their trust what was necessary for the public. By a law therefore of parliament, and of a parliament that conquered both Ireland, Scotland, and all their enemies in England, defended their friends, were generally acknowledged for a parliament both at home and abroad, kingship was abolished: this law now of late hath been negatively repealed; yet kingship not positively restored, and I suppose never was established by any certain law in this land, nor possibly could be: for how could our forefathers bind us to any certain form of government, more than we can bind our posterity? If a people be put to war with their king for his misgovernment, and overcome him, the power is then undoubtedly in their own hands how they will be governed. The war was granted just by the king himself at the beginning of his last treaty, and still maintained to be so by this last parliament, as appears by the qualification prescribed to the members of this next ensuing, that none shall be elected, who have borne arms against the parliament since 1641. If the war were just, the conquest was also just by the law of nations. And he who was the chief enemy, in all right ceased to be the king, especially after captivity, by the deciding verdict of war; and royalty with all her laws and pretensions yet remains in the victor's power, together with the choice of our future government. Free commonwealths have been ever counted fittest and properest for civil, virtuous, and industrious, nations, abounding with prudent men worthy to govern; monarchy fittest to curb degenerate, corrupt, idle, proud, luxurious people. If we desire to be of the former, nothing better for us, nothing nobler than a free commonwealth : if we will needs condemn ourselves to be of the latter, despairing of our own virtue, industry, and the number of our able men, we may then, conscious of our own unworthiness to be governed better, sadly betake us to our befitting thraldom: yet choosing out of our number one who hath best aided the people, and best merited against tyranny, the space of a reign or two we may chance to live happily enough, or tolerably. But that a victorious people should give up themselves again to the vanquished, was never yet heard of, seems rather void of all reason and good policy, and will in all probability subject the subduers to the subdued, will expose to revenge, to beggary, to ruin, and perpetual bondage, the victors under the vanquished: than which what can be more unworthy?

From misinterpreting our law, you return to do again the same with Scripture, and would prove the su


premacy of English kings from 1 Pet. ii. 13, as if that were the apostle's work: wherein if he saith that "the king is supreme," he speaks so of him but as an “ordinance of man," and in respect of those "governors that are sent by him," not in respect of parliaments, which by the law of this land are his bridle; in vain his bridle, if not also his rider: and therefore hath not only co-ordination with him, which you falsely call seditious, but hath superiority above him, and that neither " against religion," nor" right reason:" no nor against common law; for our kings reigned only by law. But the parliament is above all positive law, whether civil or common, makes or unmakes them both; and still the latter parliament above the former, above all the former lawgivers, then certainly above all precedent laws, entailed the crown on whom it pleased; and as a great lawyer saith," is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons, within any bounds." But your cry is, no parliament without a king. If this be so, we have never had lawful kings, who have all been created kings either by such parliaments, or by conquest: if by such parliaments, they are in your allowance none; if by conquest, that conquest we have now conquered. So that as well by your own assertion as by ours, there can at present be no king. And how could that person be absolutely supreme, who reigned, not under law only, but under oath of his good demeanour, given to the people at his coronation, ere the people gave him his crown? and his principal oath was to maintain those laws, which the people should choose. If then the law itself, much more he who was but the keeper and minister of law, was in their choice, and both he subordinate to the performance of his duty sworn, and our sworn allegiance in order only to his performance.

[blocks in formation]

As for your Appendix annexed of the "Samaritan revived," finding it so foul a libel against all the well affected of this land, since the very time of ship-money, against the whole parliament, both lords and commons, except those that fled to Oxford, against the whole reformed church, not only in England and Scotland, but all over Europe, (in comparison whereof you and your prelatical party are more truly schismatics and sectarians, nay, more properly fanatics in your fanes and gilded temples, than those whom you revile by those names,) and meeting with no more Scripture or solid reason in your “Samaritan wine and oil,” than bath already been found sophisticated and adulterate, I leave your malignant narrative, as needing no other confutation, than the just censure already passed upon you by the council of state.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »