might be, could not hurt his religion; but, in the fettling of proteftanifin, their aid was both unfeemly and fufpicious, and inferred that the greateft part of protestants 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 famenefs of allegiance and fubjection." If he thought fo from the beginning, wherefore was there fuch compulfion used 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 pleases.

Not to tax him for want of elegance as a courtier, in writing Oglio for Olla the Spanith 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 diverfified fects, who yet were all proteftants, one religion, though many opinions.

Neither was it any "fhame 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 counfel and the aid of papifts to help establish proteftancy, who were led on, not 66 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 counfellors, charged upon him fo often by the parliament, he puts off as "a device of thofe men, who were fo eager to give him better counfel." That "thofe men" were the parliament, and that he ought to have used the counfel 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 those 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. ment;

D

ment; and imputes what mifcarriages of his they could not yet remove for his oppofing, as if they were fome new mildemeanours of their bringing in, and not the inveterate difcafes of his own bad government; which, with a difcafe 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 discharged in the afferting of our liberties, he calls, "another artifice to withdraw the people from him to their designs.' What piece of juftice could they have demanded for the people, which the jealoufy of a king might not have mifcalled a detign 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 straight 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 ftop the commonwealth fteering under full fail to a reformation: they thought to fhare 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 "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 againft and beyond law. As for the philofophical liberty which in vain he talks of, we may conclude him very ill trained up in thofe 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 restraints, and force enlargements upon our confciences in things for which we were to antwer God on y and the church? God bids us "be fubject for confcience 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 thefe 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 himfelf "much honour and reputation, that, like the fun, fhall rife and recover himfelf to fuch a fplendour, 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 themfelves 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 fpeak evil, as often as it is the truth, of thofe who in their dignities do evil. Thus did our Saviour himself, John the Baptift, and Stephen the Martyr. And thofe black veils of his own mildeeds he might be fure would ever keep "his face from fhining," till he could " refute evil fpeaking 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 become the headftone of the corner.

XVI. Upon the Ordinance against the Common Prayer Book.

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 ufhered 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 hardly can the dotage of

thofe that dwell upon antiquity allow prefent times any fhare of godlinefs 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 anfwer, as was answered for the man born blind, "They are of age, let them fpeak for themselves;" 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 witness than King Edward the Sixth, who to the Cornish rebels confeffes it was no other than the old mafs-book done into English, all but fome few words that were expunged. And by this argument, which King Edward fo promptly had to use 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 fhould incenfe the people, and be deftitute of the fame fhifts to fly to, which they had taught the young king.

"For the manner of using 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 fhould 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 conftantly the prieft 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 fet 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 rigorously 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 spirit of utter

ance

ance that moves them, is a tyranny that would have longer hands than thofe giants who threatened bondage to Heaven: What we may do in the fame form of words is not fo much the queftion, as whether liturgy may be forced as he forced it. It is true that we 66 pray to the fame God;" muft we, therefore, always ufe the fame words? Let us then ufe but one word, becaufe we pray to one God. "We profefs the fame truths," but the liturgy comprehends not all truths: "we read the fame. fcriptures," but never read that all thofe facred expreffions, all benefit and ufe of Scripture, as to public prayer, fhould be denied us, except what was barrelled up in a common prayer-book with many mixtures of their own, and, which is worse, without falt. But fuppofe them favory words and unmixed, fuppofe them manna itself, yet, if they fhall be hoarded up and enjoined us, while God every morning rains down new expreffions into our hearts; inftead of being fit to ute, they will be found like referved manna, rather to breed worms and ftink. "We have the fame duties upon us, and feel the fame wants;" yet not always the fame, nor at all times alike; but with variety of circumftances, which afk variety of words: whereof God hath given us plenty; not to use fo copiously upon all other occafions, and fo niggardly to him alone in our devotions. As if chriftians were now in a worfe famine of words fit for prayer, than was of food at the fiege of Jerufalem, when perhaps the priests being to remove the fhowbread, as was accuftomed, were compelled every fabbath day, for want of other loaves, to bring again ftill the fame. If the "Lord's Prayer" had been the "warrant or the pattern of fet liturgics," as is here affirmed, why was neither that prayer, nor any other ict form ever after ufed, or fo much as mentioned by the Apoftles, much lefs commended to our ufe? Why was their care wanting in a thing fo ufeful to the church? fo full of danger and contention to be left undone by thein to other men's penning, of whofe authority we could not be fo certain? Why was this forgotten by them, who declare that they have revealed to us the whole counfel of God? who, as he left our affections to be guided by his fanctifying fpirit,