of the Lords Supper as of greater solemnity and consequently requiring greater preparation Yet Baptism alwayes so esteemed as not to be administred by a Deacon but in the absence of a Priest The great clamor amounts to this then The Sacrament of Baptism because of the sudden occasions which may often require haste hath therefore been thought fit by the wisdom of the Church rather than the administration thereof in case of danger should be omitted to be permitted to be performed by a Deacon in case a Priest be not at hand to perform it The case in the Lords Supper is clear otherwise because that is not usually administred without publike notice given to the People some convenient time before when it shall be done at which time it is presumed the Priest who gave the notice will be present to attend the service There is a clear disparity in the Natures of the two Sacraments those Reasons which Apologize for Permission in case of the one will by no means reach the other Nor do we want evidence for the Deacons power to Baptize out of Scripture it self In the 8. of the Acts we read that Philip the Deacon ver 12. Baptized that it was that Philip not the Apostle appears because we find Peter and Iohn sent to lay hands on those he preached to that they might receive the Holy Ghost and accordingly we read that they two did lay their hands but no manner of intimation that he did joyn with them which he would certainly have done had he been an Apostle In the 21. of the Acts where his being one of the seven i. e. a Deacon is expresly mentioned he is there owned an Evangelist though but a Deacon He who will say he was a Presbyter ought well to consider how to prove it The next of the Oxf. Reasons is That in taking this Oath they should break another And what security can they expect by an Oath who themselves teach men to break them By this Covenant they swear to alter what they had by the Parliaments Order sworn to maintain in the Protestation 5. of May 1641. Which Mr. Cr. thus reconciles p. 65. The House of Commons the then known Legislators explained the Protestation to be meant only so far as is opposite to Popery That is to say The House of Commons are Legislators distinct from King and Peers For in that capacity they made that interpretation of an Oath which sure they were not solely to interpret because they were not the sole Imposers and they declared the Lords meaning contrary to their Lordships express protest to the contrary that that was not their meaning Their being sole Legislators in defiance of King and Peers for so it was in that case is very prety Doctrine which I would have been glad to have seen one Law to have proved I wonder Mr. Cr. should think it would be taken for granted But indeed Mr. Cr. hath one expression which could not have been well spared The House of Commons were then known to be c. I must confess there were many prety things then known to be though no man knew why The words of the Protestation The Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England c. Now what is in the 39. Articles is I suppose The Doctrine of the Church of England and then if the Covenant be contrary to any of those these are contradictory Oaths The 36. Article which declares that there is nothing in the Book of Consecration superstitious or ungodly is hardly reconcileable to the second Article of the Covenant Sure the meeting of the Assembly is irreconcileable with the 21. Article if we suppose His Majesty was a King at that time As to the explication of it by the House of Commons notwithstanding the Lords express dissent it was an arrogating of the whole Parliamentary Power and more to themselves solely and so a breach of the Fundamental Constitution of that Assembly And then declaring none fit to bear Office but those who would except of that explication and so concur with and assist them in that violence was against the Liberty of the Subject as depriving Men of what they had no way legally forfeited Where the Legislative Power resides I do not here mean to decide But certainly according to the worst Principles then owned The Commons were not the sole Legislators and then sure not the sole Interpreters and therefore the Oxf. Men had very little cause to accept of their meaning for Authentick That Man is little obeyed whose words must be taken in the sense that another and he as frequently in our case his declared Enemy shall put upon them The next is The consistency of the Covenant with the Oath of Supremacy which binds us to defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies granted or belonging united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm of which in the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. this is one That the Clergy are not to Enact Promulge c. any new Canons Constitutions c. or by whatever Name they shall be called unless the KINGS ROYAL Assent first be had to make promulge c. Now the very meeting of the Assembly and this Covenant was a defiance to this His Prerogative unless the Votes of the two Houses be the KINGS ROYAL Assent Mr. Cr. answer to this is p. 67. in short High Treason That the Power given to the King is such a Power as Bishops Cardinals Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Iurisdiction in themselves over Church and Crown As I understand words Your Majesties humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament signifies not your Lords and Masters How comes Treason to be against the King and not against them if they are Supream How come they to have ever retained a Iurisdiction over the Crown when our Law so often owns all Iurisdiction to flow from the Crown How comes the Kings Masters to be so absolutely at His disposal as to be turned out as easily as it is possible for him to say so How comes England in our own and other Chronicles and Laws to be styled a Monarchy an Imperial Crown How comes it to pass that we neither pay nor promise Allegiance to these our true Soveraigns The King is expresly called sole Supream Governour in the Oath of Supremacy and yet he hath Superiours Sharing in the Supremacy with the King was all I had thought would have been required not retaining Iurisdiction over him I wonder if this be true That Mr. Cr. did so prevaricate with his Brethren when he pleaded as he calls it for the King when it was indeed only against the Sectaries and so was not Loyalty but Spite But why did he if this be true urge Precepts for and Examples of Obedience out of Scripture and the Primitive Church though by the way they were such as themselves had before taught them to slight or answer Why did he urge them when they reached
not why before the third I find nothing material only p. 92. in answer to that acknowledgement That the Holy Church was founded in Prelacy because the Church when that Statute was made was Popish he insinuates that it was so when it was first founded in Prelacy A thing which the Romanists have long in vain laboured to prove and if Mr. Cr. will at last do it effectually the Pope will no doubt acknowledge his good sevice with many thanks The third of the Oxf. Reasons is now considered Why it was not in its own turn considered I know not unless this Book was wrote by a Club and he to whose lot this fell was not timely provided The first was this The Oxf. men alleadge That they had as they were by Law required testified their approbation to that Government as agreeable to the Word of God which they are now required to swear down as contrary to it To which Mr. Cr. if not for the above mentioned Reason his fellow-helper tells us The Article might only intend it to be a Political Civil Constitution as indeed all our Statutes do suggest and so an adiaphoron c. p. 94. This is the best Salvo to reconcile this Oath with the Subscription and this Mr. Cr. himself refutes p. 95. By telling us That in the Book Ordering Priests c. It is directly affirmed That it is evident by the Holy Scriptures c. That from the Apostles Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Which words declare their intent to found that Government upon the Word of God not the Law of the Land and so that Interpretation of his is false and the Oxf. mens Reason good and the Covenant irreconcileable with the Subscription The Oxf. mens second Reason is They had received Orders from Bishops Hands and therefâ—re could not so ill requite them as to lay to their hands to pull them down To which Mr. Cr. Replyes p. 96. In so doing they would do the Bishops a real kindness of which he gives us this satisfactory account Richard Havering Archbishop of Dublin dreamt that a Monster heavier then the whole world stood upon him and when he waked thought it to be his Bishoprick and renounced it Sure Mr. Cr. was scarse awake when he thought to answer the University with a dream The fourth Reason is this They held their livelyhoods by such Titles c. And sure being not convict of any crime were not to be bound to undo themselves and were to the contrary sworn Cr. p. 97. They held their Estates at the pleasure of the Parliament whose Powâ—r is over the enjoyment of all publick much more particular Societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind them We have already shewed how this Covenant destroyes the Kings Prerogative this Doctrine teaches us in what a high degree it asserts the Proprieties and Liberties of the Subject The Power of Parliaments over our Estates so as to dispose of some part in Taxes according to our several Proportions is indeed clear and legal To prevent wilful mistakes I do not mean to justifie the Taxes the Long Parliament imposed For they may dispose of the Subjects money to the King They have no pretence of right to dispose of it to themselves But this Power of Parliaments which Mr. Cr pleads for is equally groundless and unreasonable a power so unlimited both in regard to their King and Countrey as it is not fit in regard of either they should have nor doth it at all appear how or when they came to have it It can never be made appear to be one of the due priviledges of Parliament unless we suppose whatever it is possible for them to Vote to be so though against all the Laws and the King and then what a prety Animal is his Majesty of England But in earnest if it be considered by any but those who no otherwise are like to get Estates or can justifie what they have already got That the two Houses may dispose at pleasure of all the Lands of publick and particular Societies and sure then private mens for so beside that other capacity are those who are interessed in Publick Lands though câ—nvict of no crime That they may cancel all Oaths is what I never till now thought to be one of the Liberties of the Kingdom If their Power and Trust be so great I would we had not at least the security of an Oath that they would use it well By this Doctrine they may even strike up a bargain and share all amongst themselves And call you this Securing Propriety A Monarchy may possibly be founded in Nature and so in himself retain all rights he hath not parted with But such a thing as an Assembly as our Parliaments can have no pretence to any thing as I before have observed but what they have by Grant from him who calls them or compact with those who send them Whatever therefore they cannot thus shew they are not to pretend to for Assemblies are not born but made As to Lands that the two Houses have any thing to do further then by Established Laws they are enabled which receive all force from the Kings assent I cannot imagine ground for Our Lands we all receive from and hold of the KING as Sir Edward Cook in the first part of his Instit and as I remember in the very beginning but that we at all depend upon the two Houses for them He though a great adorer of that Assembly affirmeth not But if we had received them partly from the two Houses of which there is not the least shadow or colour yet that would not justifie this Doctrine They may dispose of them at pleasure as Mr. Cr. prodigiously affirms to the Oxf. men who alleadge That they were not convict of any crime because they had not broke the conditions upon which they received them Did they at the same time give them and keep them at their own dispose And upon this ground it is that His Majesty could not without injustice and consequently without sin should He have agreed to the Houses in that particular though in the Courts of Earth it might have had the effect of a Law yet in that of Heaven it would have passed for Iniquity established by a Law because by giving it to another he passed away that interest from himseif when he gave it away The Dominium utile I mean and in this I think consists the propriety of the Subject But Mr. Cr. hath placed this All-disposing Power in the two Houses when they were in hostile opposition to the King and so makes us as great Slaves as Earth hath any to our fellow-Subjects And much greater slaves are all we free-born People of England made by the assertors of our Liberties then Villains were among our selves For I remember though not the page and have not the book by me that Sir Edw. Cook in his Chap. of Villenage affirmes That whatever the slave had was his
Lords yet if the Villain passed any thing to another before the Lord seized or claim'd it such a passage was valid and if the Lord himself had made the Villain any fixed Estate he was so far from retaining any power over it that it enfranchised his Villain In both these cases we are worse then Villains though never so much free-born For after the first owner i. e. their founders hath passed the Land away as in the Oxf. mens case the Houses Power remains as good as ever which the Lords of the Villains did not And in the second let our Estate be never so fixed it is as Mr. Cr. assures us p. 97. but at the pleasure of the Parliament and by that too he means the two Houses And this is securing Propriety but so they secured the King at Holmby and the Isle of Wight Certainly this Scottish Doctrine would never have been pleaded for by any but those whom the two Houses had assured they should have a considerable share in the next scamble But I marvel the People should like this Doctrine they have sure I am no Reason but because it is called Securing Propriety And thus it is true of us what Charls the Fifth is said by Strada to report of the Dutchmen Nullos esse populos qui servitutis nomen magis execrentur magis patiantur We cannot endure to be called Slaves slaves but will earnestly contend to be so And truly the effect would have been the same in both had our Noble Patriots been uninterrupted Victors who fought against Taxes till we came to pay the greatest in all the World All this which hath been hitherto urged in this Point hath been in their behalf only as men which equally concerns all the Nation There is something yet for them in that capacity to be urged which is peculiar to it How If besides the interest the Oxf. men had in them as theirs God had an interest in them as His. Sure I am if God doth accept of any thing from men under the Gospel He hath such an interest in those Lands because they were granted to God by King and Parliament and when they were in a National capacity and so according to Mr. Cr. Divinity p. 145. That obligation not to divert them to other uses lies upon us while we are a Nation By that National Act each man is barred even those who are not by a Personal This is Mr. Cr. own Divinity throughout his whole Sixth Section particularly in p. 145 146 c. The Covenant swears us to that we were before obliged not to do That that was one alteration Christ brought into the World That God would henceforth accept of no fixed Estate in any thing from men to the use of those who were employed in the Sacred Function is a part of the Gospel not at all revealed in Scripture That whatever is given to the Church is forfeited to the State though given before the Civil Law had prohibited it is a strange Statute of Mortmain The Money Ananias his Lands were sold for God is said Acts 5. to have an Interest in Would He not have had an Inrest in the Land too had it not been sold This is a very strange Evasion but only men must say something When the only reason why God had an Interest in the mony was because it was the price of his own Land Whence can my title come to the mony for which such Land was sold co nomine as the Price of it if I have no interest in that Land That because God doth not command our Lands therefore he will not accept them the so much derided Oxford Casuists know to be a pitiful lame consequence The Supreme Authority where ever residing is every where the same equally absolute Suppose had the Supreme Authority disposed of Ananias his Money had they not in that Case robbed God Sure then by the very same Reason our Parliaments may do so too If you say The case is different our Magistrates are Christians their 's not this is not to the purpose For Civil Authority is not founded in the truth of our Religion And 't is a prety nicety That it is a great sin for any to rob God but those who believe him to be a God This were a most admirable plea for a Rebel who owned him whom he fought against to be his lawful Prince If I should urge examples out of the Old Testament the answer is ready Whatever is there to be found if men have not a mind to it is part of the Ceremonial Law abolisht at the coming of Christ. Though why any thing should be counted part of that Law which Moses doth not set down as such nor I nor they can give any tolerable account They must to begin say Moses his description is imperfect But that this is one of the differences of the Priesthood of the Law and the Ministery of the Gospel that in the Lands of the former God had an Interest and not in those of the latter is I think not from Scripture to be found What I cite out of the Iewish story in this matter is answered They were Iews what out of other stories They were Heathens If I should cite the example of the Patriarch under the Law of Nature and shew them to have alwayes esteemed God interested in such Lands Then their answer is themselves know not well what but at last all the Patriarchs actions were Figures of things to come the body is Christ. And that as the rest was Typical If I aske Typical of what I must be fain to tell them my self Priests all along being capable of Land in Gods Right before the Gospel was Typical of this That those under the Gospel should not be so capable Believe it a most special and proper Type it is If God hath an interest in those Lands I hope the Parliaments jurisdiction though very much improved of late is not over Him too I verily perswade my self had the Committee of Safety pulled down Tithes some men would have found such a sin as Sacriledge to be possible to be committed in the times of the Gospel though there be no command in the Gospel for them But after all this there is a material thing in this Exception not taken notice of by Mr. Cr. which is The Iniquity of this Article in obliging the Oxf. men to pull down those by whose titles many of them hold their lively-hoods i. e. to bind them even before they are convicted of any crime to undo themselves The wildly large power of Parliaments alledged is not large enough to reach this For though they have power to dispose of my Estate at pleasure yet to bind me sincerely to the utmost of my power to endevour to assist them in ruining my self is a thing far different Where there is a just Power and deserved sentence both which were in this case wanting though I may be obliged to submit yet sure not sincerely