Man revealed Confession, when there is no Witness? And no Man can be Witness in his own Cause. A mere Gullery. There was a time when 'twas public in the Church, and that is much against their Auricular Confession.

Competency.

HAT which is a Competency for one Man, is not enough for another, no more than that which will keep one Man warm, will keep another Man warm: one Man can go in Doublet and Hose, when another Man cannot be without a Cloak, and yet have no more Clothes than is necessary for him.

Great Conjunction.

HE greatest Conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, happens but once in eight Hundred

Years, and therefore Astrologers can make no Experiments of it, nor foretel what it means; not but that the Stars may mean something; but we cannot tell what, because we cannot come at them. Suppose a Planet were a Simple, or an Herb, how could a Physician tell the Virtue of that Simple, unless he could come at it, to apply it?

Conscience.

E that hath a Scrupulous Conscience, is like a Horse that is not well weigh'd,* he starts at every Bird that flies out of the Hedge.

2. A knowing Man will do that, which a tender Conscience Man dares not do, by reason of his Ignorance; the other knows there is no hurt; as a Child is afraid to go into the dark, when a Man is not, because he knows there is no Danger.

3. If we once come to leave that outloose, as to pretend Conscience against Law, who knows what inconvenience may follow? For thus, Suppose an Anabaptist comes and takes my Horse, I Sue him; he tells me he did according to his Conscience; his Conscience tells him all things are common amongst the Saints, what is mine is his; therefore you do ill to make such a Law, " If any Man takes another's Horse he shall be hanged." What can I say to this Man? He does according to his Conscience. Why is not he as honest a Man as he that pretends a Ceremony established by Law is against his Conscience? Generally to pretend Conscience against Law is dangerous; in some Cases haply we may.

4. Some men make it a Case of Conscience, whether a Man may have a Pigeon-house, because his Pigeons eat other Folks' Corn. But there is no such thing as Conscience in the Business; the Matter is, whether he be a

* Dr. Wilkins reads well wayed, which is probably the right word.

Man of such Quality, that the State allows him to have a Dove-house; if so, there's an end of the business; his Pigeons have a right to eat where they please themselves.*

Consecrated Places.

HE Jews had a peculiar way of consecrating things to God, which we have not.

2. Under the Law, God, who was Master of all, made choice of a Temple to worship in, where he was more especially present; just as the Master of the House, who owns all the House, makes choice of one Chamber to lie in, which is called the Master's Chamber. But under the Gospel there was no such thing; Temples and Churches are set apart for the conveniency of Men to Worship in; they cannot meet upon the Point of a Needle; but God himself makes no choice.

3. All things are God's already; we can give him no right, by consecrating any, that he had not before, only we set it apart to his Service. Just as a Gardener brings his Lord and Master a Basket of Apricocks, and presents them, his Lord thanks him, perhaps gives him something for his pains, and yet the Apricocks were as much his Lord's before as now.

4. What is Consecrated, is given to some particular

To have a dove-house. A Lord of a Manor may build a dovecot upon his land, parcel of his manor; but a tenant of the manor cannot do it without licence. 3 Salkeld, 248. But any Freeholder may build a dove-cot on his own ground. Cro. Jac. 382.490. Burn's Justice.

man, to do God Service, not given to God, but given to Man to serve God; and there's not any thing, Lands, or Goods, but some Men or other have it in their Power to dispose of as they please. The saying things Consecrated cannot be taken away, makes men afraid of Consecration. 5. Yet Consecration has this Power; when a Man has Consecrated any thing to God, he cannot of himself take it away.

Contracts.

F our Fathers have lost their Liberty, why may not we labour to regain it? Answ. We must

look to the Contract; if that be rightly made we must stand to it ;* if we once grant we may recede from Contracts upon any inconveniency that may afterwards happen, we shall have no Bargain kept. If I sell you a Horse, and do not like my Bargain, I will have my Horse again.

2. Keep your Contracts, so far a Divine goes, but how to make our Contracts is left to ourselves; and as we agree upon the conveying of this House, or that Land, so it must be. If you offer me a Hundred Pounds for my

*It will be evident that the force of this observation must depend upon the word rightly. But hear the judicious Barrow: “An indefectible power cannot be settled by man, because there is no power ever extant at one time greater than there is at another; so that whatever power we may raise, the other may demolish there being no bonds whereby the present time may bind all posterity."

Glove, I tell you what my Glove is, a plain Glove, pretend no Virtue in it, the Glove is my own, I profess not to sell Gloves, and we agree for an hundred Pounds, I do not know why I may not with a safe Conscience take it. The want of that common Obvious Distinction of Jus præceptivum, and Jus permissivum,* does much trouble Men.

3. Lady Kent Articled with Sir Edward Herbert, that he should come to her when she sent for him, and stay with her as long as she would have him, to which he set his hand; then he Articled with her, That he should go away when he pleased, and stay away as long as he pleased, to which she set her hand. This is the Epitome of all the Contracts in the World, betwixt Man and Man, betwixt Prince and Subject, they keep them as long as they like them, and no longer.

* Jus permissivum, &c. The Law that enjoins, and the Law that suffers. "If this doth authorize usury which before was but permissive," &c.-Bacon.

Sir Edward Herbert, Solicitor and Attorney General to Charles the First, and for some time Lord Keeper to Charles the Second, when in exile. Dr. Aikin says that a legal friend suggested to him that Sir Edward Herbert, who was an eminent lawyer, was probably retained for his advice by Lady Kent, at an annual salary; and he produced examples of deeds granted for payments on the same account, one of them as late as the year 1715. Hence it would appear that the lady had a great deal of law business on her hands, which would render the domestic counsel of such a person as Selden very valuable to her.