No blinde guides, in answer to a seditious pamphlet of J. Milton's intituled Brief notes upon a late sermon titl'd, The fear of God and the King preached, and since published, by Matthevv Griffith, D. D., and chaplain to the late king, &c. addressed to the author.

NO Blinde Guides, &c.

Mr. Milton,

ALthough in your Life, and Doctrine, you have Re∣solved one great Question; by evidencing that De∣vils may indue Humane shapes; and proving your self, even to your own Wife, an Incubus: you have yet Started Another; and that is, whether you are not of That Regiment, which carried the Herd of Swine headlong into the Sea: and moved the People to beseech Jesus to depart out of their coasts. (This may be very well imagined, from your suita∣ble practises Here) Is it possible to read your Proposals of the be∣nefits of a Free-State, without Reflecting upon your Tutours—All this will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down, and worship me▪ Come, come Sir, lay the Devil aside; do not proceed with so much malice, and against Knowledge:—Act like a Man;—that a good Christian may not be affraid to pray for you.

Was it not You, that scribled a Justification of the Murther of the King, against Salmasius: and made it good too, Thus? That murther was an Action meritorious, compared with your superiour wickedness. 'Tis There, (as I remember) that you Common place your self into Set forms of Rayling, two Pages thick: and lest, your Infamy should not extend it self enough, within the Course and Usage of your Mother-tongue, the Thing is Dress'd up in a Travai∣ling

Garb, and Language: to blast the English Nation to the Universe; and to give every man a Horrour for Mankind, when he Considers, You are of the Race. In This, you are above all Others; but in your ICOMOCLASTES, you exceed your self.

There, not content to see that Sac•…•…ed Head divided from the Body; your piercing Malice enters into the private Agonies of his struggling Soul; with a Blasphemous Insolence, invading the Prerogative of God himself: (Omniscience) and by Deducti∣ons most Uuchristi•…•…n, and Illog•…•…cal, aspersing his Last Plet•…•…es, (the almost certain Inspirations of the Holy Spirit) with Juggle, and Prevarication. Nor are the Words III fitted to the Matter. The Bold Design being suited with a conform Irreverence of Language. (but I do not love to Rake long in a Puddle.)

To take a view in particular of all your Factious Labours, would cost more time, than I am willing to afford them. Where∣fore I shall stride over all the rest, and pass directly to your Brief Notes upon a Late SERMON, Titl'd,

The Fear of God and the King.

Pr•…•…ch'd, and since Publish'd by MATTHEW GRIFFITH D. D. and Chaplain to the late KING, &c.

ANy man that can but Read your Title, may understand your Dri•…•… & that you Charge the Royal Interest, & Party thorough the Doctour's sides. I am not •…•…old enough to be his Champion, in all particulars; nor yet so Rude, as to take an Office most proper∣ly to him Belonging, out of his Hand: Let him acquit himself, in what concerns the Divine; and I'll adventure upon the most ma∣terial parts of the Rest. (but with this Profession, that I have no design in exposing your Mistakes, saving to hinder them from be∣coming the Peoples.)

Your Entrance is a little Peremptory, and Magisterial, methinks, (but that shall be allowed you) 'please you, wee'll see how Per∣tin•…•…nt it is, and Rational.

I Affi•…•…md in the Preface of a late discourse, Entitl'd, The ready way to establish a free Commonwealth, and the dang•…•…rs of readmitting Kingship in this Na•…•…ion, that the humor of returning to our old bondage, was instilld of late by some deceivers; and to make good, that what I then affirmd, was not without j•…•…st ground, one of those deceivers I present here to the people; and if I prove him not such, I refuse not to be so accounted in his stead.

TO the First: give me leave to mind you, that you make an Observation of things Past, amount to a foretelling of what's to come. This Sermon was not Preach'd, when that Humor you men∣tion, was Instill'd. Next; You'll as hardly satisfie the people, that you your self, are no Deceiver, as prove the Doctor one of those you meant. And thus I'll I•…•…stance; KINGSHIP, is your old Bon∣dage; RUMPSHIP, ours: (Forgive the Term) You were Then, pas•…•… the One: we are now (God be thanked) past the Other: and should be as loth to Return, as You. Yet you are Tampering to delude the People, and to withdraw them from a Peaceable, and Rational expectancy of good, into a mutinous, and hopeless attempt of mischief.

By your own Rule now, who are the Deceivers: We, that will not Return to our old Bondage; or you, that would perswade us to't?

Your next Paragraph talks of Purgatives, Myrrh•…•…, Aloes, &c.—It may be an Apothecaries Bill, for ought I know, and I have no skill in Physique.

As little shall I concern my self in your unmannerly descant upon the Epistle, which is the Business of your Second Page. The Third, conteins your Gloss upon the Text, and that I shall exa∣mine.

The Text.

Prov. 24. 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 controversie, I come to the main drift of your Sermon, the King; which word here is either to signifie 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 parti∣cular, not to us. That we have no King since the putting down of King∣ship in this Commonwealth, is manifest by this last Parlament, who to the time of thir dissolving not only made no address at all to any King, but summond this next to come by the Writ formerly appointed of a free Commonwealth, without restitution or the least mention of any King∣ly 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, un∣derstood for any supreme Magistrate, by your own exhortation they are in the first place not to meddle with you, as being your self 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.

NOt to contend about the Large, or Limited Sense of the word KING: since 'tis agreed upon, at all hands, to signify Supreme Authority; and, where a Single Person governs, to denote the Monarch. The issue rests upon this Point: Is there, or is there not at present, any King of England? You say, No; I'm of another mind: Compare our Reasons.

You Argue; First, the Putting down of Kingship; and then,—the Tacit confirmation of that Act, by the last Session: who with∣out any Address to any King, or Restitution of any Kingly Right, sum∣moned the next to come by the Writ formerly Appointed of a Free Com∣monwealth.

To your Assumption, that Kingship was put down; I cannot sub∣scribe, till I am better satisfied, by what Authority: for no Form of Government can be altered, but by consent of all the Parties to it. In short, the late King was Destroy'd, Kingship Abolish'd, the House of Lords Disauthoris'd, and at least 7. parts of 8. of the Commons Members secluded—by the same Power.

Come to your Inference now; That, halts of all four, There

was no King, because they did not mention him: you are a little bold methinks, to lay your Brat at the Parliament Door: and Father your opinions upon them, that in the case, would not declare their own.

Reasons of State, of Honour, and Convenierce, might very fair∣ly move them to suspend. Suppose they thought it Prudence to refer all to the next Convention, without so much as a Debate; whether a King, or No: and upon this point of extreme necessity (the Nation running headlong, into another War without the In∣terpose of a new Representative) rather dispence with something of Informality in the Writs, than otherwise to hazzard the main Issue of the Publique weal. If all this be not yet enough, I hope the re-minding the Nation of the COVENANT; and their own refusal of the Oath of ABJURATION, will content you.

Your 4th Page, runs away in some mistakes concerning Gideon;—(a Person, Call'd and set apart by God himself; guided by Divine Inspirations; and Acting without Partnership, the work he was employ'd upon)

A little further, you deny the King, the Power of life and death; urging [Page 4.] that 'tis against the declared Judgements of our Parliaments, nay of our Laws; which reserve to themselves only the power of life and death, &c.

I'LL not deny, but a Parliament is above the King: (That is: The King is greater in Conjunction with his two Houses, than by Himself) but still this weakens not the force of my assertion; which is; that Kings must necessarily have that power: without it, they're no Kings (and 'tis the same thing in all Governments whatsoever, 'tis one of the Prerogatives Inseparable from su∣preme Authority) But since you urge the Declar'd Judgements of our Parliaments, in favour of your opinion, I should be glad to see them.

Now for the Laws; 'tis true; they Pronounce Life, or Death; but the King's left at Liberty to Take, or to Remit the forfeiture, at pleasure. Enough is said of this.

If I were b•…•…nt to Cavil; your 5th. Page would afford matter: abundantly, where you extravagate upon the word Anointed: but That is more Peculiarly the Doctor's Businesse, and I refer you to him. So are your slips, [Page 6.] but Those, I cannot passe without a marque: For There, you shew your Teeth. (I might have said, your Eares to boot)

But how will you confirm one wrested Scripture with another: I Sam. 8. 7. They have not rejected thee, but m•…•…: grosly 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 reject∣ed a Commonwealth, wherein they might have liv'd happily under the Reign of God only, their King. Let the words interpret themselves: v. 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, barken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejec∣ted thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them Hence you conclude, so indissoluble is the Conjunction of God and the King. O notorious abuse of Scripture! when as you should have concluded, So unwilling was God to give them a King, So wide was the disjunction of God from a King.

Mr. Milton, when your hand was In, another verse methinks should not have over-charg'd you: and 'tis the very next too. As they have ever done (sayes God to Samuel) since I brought them cut of Egypt, even unto this Day, (and have for saken me, and served other Gods) even so doe they unto thee. This, would have gi∣ven you light to read the Rest by; and (possible) have done you the same service, which you pretend to doe the Doctour. (But none so Blind as they that will not see especially, had you but taken in likewise the verse next Antecedent to your Quotation, which speaks the motive to their such Desires; as the other does fairly imply the Reason of Gods Disapproval of them, 'twas a hard misse, and an industrious one (I fear) to scape the 5, and 8, verses, without the which, the 6 and 7, (which you make use of) have no intelligible Coherence. Make us a King, (say they)

to Judge us like the NATIONS v. 5. and after That, v. 8. God charges them with inclinations to Idolatry; so that the inference is open; They had a hankering after the Gods of the Nations, as well as the Kingship; and That moved the All seeing wis∣dome, (that knew their hearts) to tell Samuel, saying, they have not Rejected Thee, bùt Mee: a Speech applyable to their Disobe∣dience, rather, than to their Proposition: God is r•…•…jected, in the re∣jection of his Ministers.—This is a stubborn Text Sir, and will not mould as you would have it.

Had not they against the will of God, sought a KING, and re∣jected a Common wealth, you tell us, that they might have l•…•…v'd HAPPILY under the reign of God onely their King. (Indeed you have the best intelligence)——I beseech you how doe you know this? whom God loves, he chastens: and persecution, in this world; is the Portion of the Saints. It's true; their obe∣dience to God here, would certainly have rend•…•…ed them Happy hereafter; but this is not the Happinesse you drive at. Look back now upon the 3. verse of the same Chapter; and there you'll find some Reason to apprehend the contrary. For Samuel being Old, and having made his sonnes Judges over Israel; the Text sayes, that his sonnes walked not in his wayes, but turn'd aside after Lucre, and took Rewards, and perverted Judgement, &c. now, if from hence, you can perswade your self into a good opinion of a Popular Government, I cannot blame your stickling for the Rump; But that this mis-rule should please God, your modesty I hope will not pretend to offer. You'll say however, that the Popu∣lar form did; I'll not contend about it; Did not the Regall too, as much in David; a King of God's particular choice, and a man after his Own Heart? So that you gain little by the odds of a Free-State in ballance against Monarchy. In one word: The Saviour of the World was a KING, and a King of Jewes.

Grant, or Denie at pleasure, I have you in a Net. Why would you meddle with a Chapter, that you were sure would burn your fingers? There's no Relief you see, against Authority.

'Tis well you stopp'd short of that Lex Regni which Samuel opens to the People; (beginning at the 11. verse of the same Chapter;) from whence, lyes no Appeal. Truly, your insincerity in this Section, is more exposed, than I could wish it.

Under the Reign of God onely their King you say. This expression, doubtfully implies you a Millenary. Doe you then, really ex∣pect to see Christ, Reigning upon Earth, even with those very eyes you Lost (as 'tis reported) with staring too long, and too saw•…•…i∣ly upon the Portraiture of his Vicegerent, to breake the Image, as your Impudence Phrases it? (It is generally indeed believed, you never wept them out for this Losse.)

In my Passage from hence, to your Frog-morall: I cannot but remember you that there was a Plague of Frogs as well as a Fable. Frogs that crept into the Kings Chambers, and into the Houses of his Servants, &c.—Now to your Fable.

Nor are you happier in the relating or the moralizing your Fable. The frogs (being once a free Nation •…•…aith the Fable) petitioned Jupiter for a King: he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 amongst them a log. They foun•…•… it insensible: they pe∣tioned then for a King that should be active: he sent them a Crane (a Sto•…•…k saith the fable) which straight fell to pe•…•…king them up. This you apply to the reproof of them who desire change: whereas indeed the true mo∣ral shews rather the folly of those, who being free seek a King; which for the most part either as a log lies heavie on his Subjects, without doing ought worthie of h•…•…s dignitie and the charge to maintain him, or at a Sto•…•…k is ever pe•…•…king them up and devon•…•…ing them.

Mr. Milton, (to agree with you as far as possible) if One Log be so Intollerable, for the Burthen; or One Stork, for the Cruelty, and Greedinesse: what do you think of 40. Storks, and every Stork a Log in his belly?

What do you think of a Grand, Arbitrary, & Perpetual Counsel; and no more Parliaments? (according to your Gratious Proposi∣tion, [Page 8.] of your Free and easie way, &c.) And, in regard that in a free Commonwealth, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who are greatest, are Perpetual

Servants, and Drudges to the publique, at their own cost and Char∣ges, neglect their own Affairs; yet are not Elevated above their Brethren, L•…•…ve soberly in their Families, walk the Streets as other men; may be spoken too freely, familiarly, friend•…•…y, without Adora∣tion, [Page 4.] What do you think of the Rump Parliaments Perpetuating it self, under the name of That grand Counsel? [Page 10.] the Government being in so many Faithfull, and Experienced hands, next under God, so Able; especially Filling up their number, as they intend, and abundantly sufficient so happily to govern us: [P. 11, &c.] Alas, these Gentlemen are very Pigeons, not a Stork among them; do not deceive your self Sir; you're one of those they have Fed: of the same Plume, and Kind; ask but the honest party of the Nation, and they shall tell you, that Tom. Scot, and his Associate Patriots, can Peck, as well as Bill.

Now we have Play'd, let's to our Book again, and be a little Earnest.

You charge the Doctor, in your 8. Page, for saying,

That by our Fundamental Laws, the King is the highest power, Page 40. If we must hear mooting and Law-lectures from the Pulpit, what shame is it for a Dr. of Divinitie, not first to consider, that no law can be fun∣damental, but that which is grounded on the light of nature or right rea∣son, commonly call'd moral Law: which no form of Government was e∣ver counted; but arbitrarie, and at all times in the choice of every free people, or their representers. This choice of Government is so essential to their freedom, that longer then they have it, they are not free. In this •…•…and not only the late King and his posteritie, but Kingship it self hath been abrogated by a law; which involves with as good reason the posterity of a King forseited to the people, as that Law heretofore of Treason against the King, attainted the Children with the Father.

MEthinks you might have spar'd your Criticism upon the word Fundamental, being a Term, that Usage hath authori∣zed; were nothing more in't: and soberly, I do not find but it may stand a nicer Test, than perhaps you'll impose upon it.

No Law (you say) can be Fundamental but that which is grounded

in the •…•…ight of Nature, or right reason,—which no FORM of Go∣vernment was ever counted, &c.—So that tho' GOVERN∣MENT it self directs to Fundamentals: yet the Specification of it, into such or such a FORM, does not. You are Queint, Sir: shew me Government without a Form, further than in Notion; and only Notional must be the Laws too that support it. Obedience to Superi∣ors, is a Moral Fundamental: and wh•…•…re, to One, or More, vested with unconditionate Dominion, (I mean, as to the Power of Revo∣cation) we •…•…n e Contract a Duty; as the Person, and Authority are Inseverable, so is the Obligation Indispensable, which by a Fun∣damentall Law is become du•…•…; as well to the King himself, as unto Kingship. I shall be tedious if I unty all your knots.

The Choice you say is Arbitrary; so 'tis in Mariage, that is, till we have pass'd away our Freedom. (but you are for Divorce, I see, as well of Governours, as Wives) Your next now is a shrewd one, (is it your own I pr•…•…y•…•…e?) This choice of Government (you tell us) is so essential to the Peoples Freedoms, that longer then they have it, they're not free. In truth, you're in the Right. Is any People Free, where there is any Government? This is somewhat worse, than the Doctors FUNDAMENTALL. FREEDOME and GO∣VERNMENT (in Politiques) Contra-Distinguish one another. (have a care of this argument; for if the People are Free to Chuse, they'll never Chuse any of your Friends again)

But if the King, his Posterity; nay, and Kingship it self, have been abrogated by a Law; That's another matter.

By what Law I beseech you? By the Law of a little Faction, that dares not put their heads upon a Tryal by the Establish'd Law of the Land? (your next shift is wretched)

If that no Law must be held good, but what passes in FULL Parlia∣ment, then surely, in exactnesse of Legality no Member must be mis∣sing, &c.—

I Answer you, that it is not the Actual sitting of All, but the Li∣berty of All to Sit: not the Fullnesse of the House, but the Free∣dom

of the Members. It is one thing; a Law that's made in the Absence of many of the Members, that might have been Present, if they would; (and are possibly fined for non-attendance) and another thing; the Vote of a tenth Part of That Body, which it self entire, is but the third Part of the Legislative Power: This Remnant too by force of Armes violently •…•…cluding the Rest.

But you have no Conscience with you. Kingship Abolished will not do your work it seems.

You suppose it never was establish'd by any certain Law in this Land, nor possibly could be: for how could our forefathers bind us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 certain form of Government, more then we can bind our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a people be put to war with their King for his misgovern•…•…, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉∣come him, the power is then undoubtedly in their own 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will be govern'd. The war was granted just by the King 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the beginning of his last Treatie; and still maintain•…•… to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Parliament, as appears by the qualifications prescrib'd to the M•…•…bers of this next ensuing, That none shall be elected, who have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a∣gainst the Parliament since 1641 I•…•… the war were just, the Conquest w•…•… also just by the Law of Nations And he who wa•…•… the chief enemie, in all right ceased to be the King, especially after 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by the deciding verdit of war; and royal•…•…ie with all h•…•…r Laws and pretentions, yet re∣mains in the victors power, together with the choice of our future Go∣vernment.

IF Kingship was never established, what was I beseech you? had we no Government?

Nor could it be, you say: Alas then for your ready, and easie way to ESTABLISH a FREE COMMONWEALTH, what will become then of YOUR STANDING COUNCIL? If no certain form of Government can bind our posterity (as you affirm) Then is it free at any time for the People to Assemble, and Tumult, under the colour of a new Choyce

Your next for altering the Form of Government upon a Quar∣rell

onely in point of male-administration: I think that cleers it self.

You say that the Warre was granted just by the King himself, &c. and (a while after) if the War were just, so was the Conquest also, by the Laws of Nations;—and that the victors, are free to chuse, a Future Government.

What would you give that I'd dispute the Originall of the Quarrell with you? Come, we'll not differ about the Kings Concessions: Take it for granted, that the Warre was just: That is, The Warre was Just to such intents, and with such limits, as were the evident, and declar'd scope, and Bounds of it. The Reasons, and the Tendency thereof, me-thinks they should know best that L•…•…vied, and were Parties in it, and for That, take but one pas∣sage of above a Hundred, to the same purpose.

We are (say they) so far from altering the Fundamentall Con∣stitution, and Government of this Kingdom, by King, Lords, and Commons (that we have onely desired, that with the consent of the King such Powers may be sett•…•…ed in the Two Houses, &c.——

This Declaration bears date Ap. 17. 1646. and is entitled——A Declaration of their true intentions, concerning the Antient Govern∣ment of the Nation, &c.

Now if the Prospect of the War was bounded; in Reason, and in Honour, the Conquest ought to be so likewise. Especially, where onely, extreme necessity was pleaded to make it appear war∣rantable; and where the dispute was Lawfull Liberty, and Safety; not Dominion.

Again; 'twas not against the King, the warre was raised, there∣fore the Conquest cannot in Reason Reach him. His Honour, Safety and Support, the two Houses Vowed and Covenanted to main∣tain.

Further; those Things that you call Victors, may, by the same Pretence, claim to a Conquest over the Lords, and their Fellow-Members, whom they Forcibly cast out; as well as over the King, and his Pretensions.

Lastly; if Victory gives Title, your Masters are gone too.

You fall now into a vein of weighing Governments: (your old Trade; and the very Coffee-Boyes have got the knack on't al most as well as you.) As you order the Scales, the Common-wealth goes Down most usually, but now your great Civility gives Us the Better on't. FREE-COMMON-WEALTHS (as you will have it) have been ever counted fittest, for CIVILL, VIRTUOUS, and Industrious Nations, &c. believe me then, That Form's not Fit for you, and your Adherents.

MONARCHY, Fittest (as you hold it forth) to curb DEGE∣NERATE, CORRUPT, IDLE, PROUD, LUXURIOUS People; This, does your businesse then.

Upon necessity yet at last, I find, a Single Person you'l 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to entertain; provided, such a one as ha's best aided the People, and best merited against Tyranny. (That's your Caution) this must be one of those that turn'd the Rump out: for never was a more me∣ritorious Service to the Nation.

Your next Page is a very Angry one. You'll have the Parlia∣ment Kide the King, you say, as well as Bridle him; and you'll perswade the People that there's Law for't too. The Question's triviall; to cut it short: Rumps are no Parliaments. But if they be so Sacred, as you argue them; how bold are you, that durst propose the finall Abrogation, and extinction of them! (As in your Ready way you have, in Terminis, so often done.)

In the next place; I•…•… as you idlely seem to imagine, all our Kings are created by Parliament, or Conquest. What becomes of that Maxime, Rex non moritur? and why doe you swear Allege∣ance to Him and his Heirs positively, if there be any uncertainty of his being admitted to the Crown? [In short, his Birth entitles him to the Soveraignty.] I doe not delight my self in these con∣tests, but I am willing to lay open your little Tricks to the People.

You urge next his Coronation-Oath, but Deceitfully, you make him by his Oath, accomptable to Act, (in Effect, according to

the Judgement of the People, but he swears to Govern according to his own (neither does this suppose him at Liberty to Rule ac∣cording to his Will.)

Once more; You say, That the Kings principall Oath was to main∣tein those Laws which the People SHOULD chuse. (Consuetu∣dines quas Vulgus Elegerit) Reconcile Consuetudines (referring necessarily to what is Past) to Elegerit, in the Future Tense, and I have done.

FINIS.