been ruining the people about the niceties of his ruling. He is accurate "to put a difference between the plague of malice and the ague of mistakes; the itch of novelty, and the leprofy of difloyalty." But had he as well known how to diftingnish between the venerable gray hairs of ancient religion, and the old fcurf of fuperftition, between the wholesome heat of well governing, and the feverous rage of tyrannizing, his judgment in ftate phyfic had been of more authority.

Much he prophefies, "that the credit of thofe men, who have caft black fcandals on him, fhall ere long be quite blafted by the fame furnace of popular obloquy, wherein they fought to caft his name and honour." I believe not that a Romish gilded portraiture gives better oracle than a Babylonish golden image could do, to tell us truly who heated that furnace of obloquy, or who deferves to be thrown in, Nebuchadnezzar or the three kingdoms. It" gave him great caufe to fufpect his own innocence," that he was oppofed by "fo many who profeffed fingular piety." But this qualm was foon over, and he concluded rather to fufpect their religion than his own innocence, affirming that "many with him were both learned and religious above the ordinary' fize. But if his great feal, without the parliament, were not fufficient to create lords, his parole muft needs be far more unable to create learned and religious men; and who fhall authorize his unlearned judgment to point them out?

He gueffes that " many well-minded men were by popular preachers urged to oppose him." But the oppofition undoubtedly proceeded and continues from heads far wifer, and fpirits of a nobler strain; those priest-led Herodians, with their blind guides, are in the ditch already; travelling, as they thought, to Sion, but moored in the Ifle of Wight.

He thanks God "for his conftancy to the proteftant religion both abroad and at home." Abroad, his letter to the pope; at home, his innovations in the church will speak his conftancy in religion what it was, without further credit to this vain boast.

His "ufing the affistance of fome papists," as the cause

might be, could not hurt his religion; but, in the settling of proteftanifm, their aid was both unfeemly and fufpicious, and inferred that the greatest part of proteftants were against him and his obtruded fettlement.

But this is ftrange indeed, that he fhould appear now teaching the parliament what no man, till this was read, thought ever he had learned, "that difference of perfuafion in religious matters may fall out where there is the fameness of allegiance and fubjection." If he thought fo from the beginning, wherefore was there fuch compulfion ufed to the puritans of England, and the whole realm of Scotland, about conforming to a liturgy? Wherefore no bishop, no king? Wherefore epifcopacy more agreeable to monarchy, if different perfuafions in religion may agree in one duty and allegiance? Thus do court maxims, like court minions, rife or fall as the king pleafes.

Not to tax him for want of elegance as a courtier, in writing Oglio for Olla the Spanish word, it might be well affirmed, that there was a greater medley and difproportioning of religions, to mix papifts with proteftants in a religious caufe, than to entertain all thofe diversified fects, who yet were all proteftants, one religion, though many opinions.

Neither was it any "shame to proteftants," that he, a declared papift, if his own letter to the pope, not yet renounced, belie him not, found fo few proteftants of his religion, as enforced him to call in both the counsel and the aid of papifts to help establish proteftancy, who were led on, not "by the fenfe of their allegiance," but by the hope of his apoftacy to Rome, from difputing to warring; his own voluntary and firft appeal.

His hearkening to evil counsellors, charged upon him fo often by the parliament, he puts off as "a device of those men, who were fo eager to give him better counfel." That "thofe men" were the parliament, and that he ought to have used the couníel of none but thofe, as a king, is already known. What their civility laid upon evil counsellors, he himself moft commonly owned; but the event of thofe evil counfels, "the enormities, the confufions, the miferies," he transfers from the guilt of his own civil broils to the juft refiftance made by parliaVOL. III.

D

ment;

ment; and imputes what miscarriages of his they could not yet remove for his oppofing, as if they were fome new misdemeanours of their bringing in, and not the inveterate diseases of his own bad government; which, with a difeafe as bad, he falls again to magnify and commend and may all thofe who would be governed by his "retractions and conceffions," rather than by laws of parliament, admire his felf-encomiums, and be flattered with that "crown of patience," to which he cunningly exhorted them, that his monarchical foot might have the fetting it upon their heads!

That truft which the parliament faithfully difcharged in the afferting of our liberties, he calls, "another artifice to withdraw the people from him to their defigns." What piece of juftice could they have demanded for the people, which the jealoufy of a king might not have miscalled a design to difparage his government, and to ingratiate themselves? To be more juft, religious, wife, or magnanimous than the common fort, ftirs up in a tyrant both fear and envy; and ftraight he cries out popularity, which, in his account, is little lefs than treafon. The fum is, they thought to limit or take away the remora of his negative voice, which, like to that little peft at fea, took upon it to arreft and stop the commonwealth fteering under full fail to a reformation: they thought to share with him in the militia, both or either of which he could not poffibly hold without confent of the people, and not be abfolutely a tyrant. He profeffes He profeffes "to defire no other liberty than what he envies not his fubjects according to law;" yet fought with might and main against his fubjects, to have a fole power over them in his hand, both against and beyond law. As for the philofophical liberty which in vain he talks of, we may conclude him very ill trained up in those free notions, who to civil liberty was fo injurious.

He calls the confcience "God's fovereignty;" why, then, doth he conteft with God about that fupreme title? why did he lay reftraints, and force enlargements upon our confciences in things for which we were to answer God only and the church? God bids us "be fubject for conscience fake;" that is, as to a magiftrate, and in the

7

laws;

laws; not ufurping over fpiritual things, as Lucifer beyond his fphere. And the fame precept bids him likewife, for confcience fake, be fubject to the parliament, both his natural and his legal fuperiour.

Finally, having laid the fault of these commotions not upon his own mifgovernment, but upon the "ambition of others, the neceffity of fome men's fortune, and thirst after novelty," he bodes himself "much honour and reputation, that, like the fun, fhall rife and recover himfelf to fuch a splendour, as owls, bats, and fuch fatal birds fhall be unable to bear." Poets, indeed, used to vapour much after this manner. But to bad kings, who, without cause, expect future glory from their actions, it happens, as to bad poets, who fit and ftarve themselves with a delufive hope to win immortality by their bad lines. For though men ought not to "fpeak evil of dignities" which are juft, yet nothing hinders us to speak evil, as often as it is the truth, of thofe who in their dignities do evil. Thus did our Saviour himíelf, John the Baptift, and Stephen the Martyr. And those black veils of his own mifdeeds he might be fure would ever keep "his face from fhining," till he could "refute evil speaking with well doing," which grace he feems here to pray for; and his prayer doubtlefs as it was prayed, fo it was heard. But even his prayer is fo ambitious of prerogative, that it dares afk away the prerogative of Chrift himself, "To Το become the headstone of the corner."

XVI. Upon the Ordinance against the Common Prayer Book.

66

WHAT to think of liturgies, both the fenfe of fcripture, and apoftolical practice, would have taught him better, than his human reafonings and conjectures: nevertheless, what weight they have, let us confider. If it be no news to have all innovations ushered in with the name of reformation," fure it is lefs news to have all reformation cenfured and oppofed under the name of innovation, by those who, being exalted in high place above their merit, fear all change, though of things never fo ill or fo unwifely fettled. So So hardly can the dotage of

D 2

thofe

thofe that dwell upon antiquity allow prefent times any fhare of godliness or wifdom.

The removing of liturgy he traduces to be done only as a "thing plaufible to the people;" whofe rejection of it he likens, with final reverence, to the crucifying of our Saviour; next, that it was done "to please those men who gloried in their extemporary vein," meaning the minifters. For whom it will be beft to answer, as was anfwered for the man born blind, "They are of age, let them fpeak for themfelves;" not how they came blind, but whether it were liturgy that held them tonguetied.

"For the matter contained in that book," we need no better witnefs than King Edward the Sixth, who to the Cornish rebels confeffes it was no other than the old mass-book done into English, all but fome few words that were expunged. And by this argument, which King Edward fo promptly had to ufe against that irreligious rabble, we may be affured it was the carnal fear of thofe divines and politicians that modelled the liturgy no farther off from the old mafs, left by too great an alteration they should incenie the people, and be deftitute of the fame shifts to fly to, which they had taught the young king.

"For the manner of ufing fet forms, there is no doubt but that, wholefome" matter and good defires rightly conceived in the heart, wholefome words will follow of themselves. Neither can any true Chriftian find a reafon why liturgy thould be at all admitted, a prefcription not impofed or practifed by thofe first founders of the church, who alone had that authority: without whose precept or example, how constantly the priest puts on his gown and furplice, fo conftantly doth his prayer put on a fervile yoke of liturgy. This is evident, that they "who use no fèt forms of prayer," have words from their affections; while others are to feek affections fit and proportionable to a certain dofe of prepared words; which as they are not rigoroufly forbid to any man's private infirmity, fo to imprifon and confine by force, into a pinfold of fet words, thofe two moft unimprisonable things, our prayers, and that divine fpirit of utter

ance