changed without manifest scandal to the Papist and Separatist 1. By yielding the Cause our godly Bishops have by writings and sufferings maintained 2. By justifying the Papists in calling Ours A Parliamentary Religion 3. By acknowledgement that something to which conformity is required is not agreeable to the Word of God and so justifying Recusancy and Separation 4. A confession that our punishing of Papists was unjust because it was for not joyning with Us in a form of worship which our selves approve not of as well as they To all which Cr. bravely retorts much at the rate of City-Logick p. 45. T is well Scandal is at length become an Argument of some force had it been regarded from the Non-conformists c. Here is a triumph when there is not only no victury but no fight When the true sense of an Argument is not to be avoided or endured some can entertain themselves and some Readers with putting on it a sense they can answer Scandal in the Reason and in the Reply are no otherwise akin then that the English words answerable to them may upon an occasion be drawn to make a quarter quibble Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Offence Therefore every one who is offended in a different sense i. e. angry is forsooth scandalized A Doctrine which hath brought greater Scandals then those it pretended to remove were ever fancied to be It hath been it self a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stumbling-block whereat many have fallen I shall discover and remove it Offence which in Scripture as hath by many learned men beyond all exception been proved and will demonstrate it self to any that will but consult the places where that word is used is any action of Ours by which a Brother may be led on to sin And that either by misunderstanding an Action of Ours which was the case of eating meat offered to Idols which might have been interpreted as in honour to the Idol and so one who thought well of us might be induced to do it indeed or else something directly criminal which we by word or example encourage others to The other notion of the word Offence which the Non-conformist urged and Mr. Cr. revives That whatever another is pleased to be angry at is a sin for me to do is in it self absurd and in its consequence intolerable For then the rule of my actions should not be the Law of God and the commands of my Superiour not repugnant to them both which the Scripture expresly obligeth me to if it doth to any thing at all but every peevish fellowes humour and melancholy and contrary to our Saviours rule If my Brother were angry with me without a cause not he but I should be in danger of the Iudgement Nor could our consciences be any longer satisfied in any action than they were assured there were no mistaken or humorous well-meaning men in the world St. Paul tels us If meat make my Brother offend I will eat no meat while I live If this mistaken sense of Scandal in this and such like cases were true and we obliged upon such penalties as are assigned in Scripture to men guilty of that sin Christianity were a bondage greater then that which Christ came to remove and free us from Should a sect of well-meaning ignorants arise who thought all Flesh and Wine abominable and some such there have been are we all bound upon pain of hell to forbear Because they are angry is it therefore true that we sinned because they upon no ground thought so Do Erronious conceits alter the nature of things Do false opinions by being stifly held become true A Surplise must not be used in Divine Service nor worn because a godly brother is angry The same Reason will conclude for a black Gown For Sectaries were once and possibly are esteemed agaâ—â— Godly and Brethren This palpable mistake I have the longer stood upon not only because it occasioned Triumph but because I could not easily apprehend it other than wilful Because the Reasons have expressed it so plain as to prevent all possible misunderstanding In these words they have shewed wherein the Scandal did consist viz. In justifying the Recusancy of One and Separation of the Other i. e. in helping them to a reason to encourage and so continue their sin not in making them angry but pleasing them too well Nor is it likely for him who is offended in the vulgar sense to be offended in the Scripture-sense He who is angry with me for doing a thing is not like to do it because I do it to imitate me in that for which he doth abominate me But here I cannot but observe that Reason in this Section should be acknowledged when by being so it overthrowes their whole cause The Reasons are indeed so pressing and the words so uncapable of a sinister interpretation that the Covenant it self must undergo one to avoid their reach Where after the droling Preface of These serious Casuists with reverence may I note it understand the Words of the Covenant Sophistically p. 46. He then presents us with this Notion Religion as it denotes the Matter c. is different from the Circumstances Order and Ceremonies annexed and appendant and none but ignorant Idiots will deem the change of them the change of Religion p. 46. This is the first Salvo The Oxf. Arguments are not concluding because nothing of the Religion but Circumstances Order and Ceremonies were to be changed which was not that our Martyrs suffered for What ignorant Idiots as Mr. Cr. cals them are these Oxford Schollars who must understand words in their true plain literal meaning What a silly University this was Give me Mr. Cr. there is a man indeed can find out a meaning of words they are in no wise capable of By the Reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline is meant in Circumstances Order and Ceremonies If this be the meaning the words were very ill chosen to express it But withal Mr. Cr. hath not at all mended the matter by enforming us plainly That they will use such violent proceedings when only Circumstances Order and Ceremonies are the Debate But the vanity of the former Plea being possibly to himself apparent The next salvo is p. 46 47 48 49. We must make a distinction between what is Established and what is Exercised in Engl. c. Because all the Declaiming is about the latter What is calâ—ed the Religion exercised I shall not flourish that is use many words not to express what I would say but to hide my having nothing to say but ask directly because I would be answered to where I suspect jugling They have Sworn to reform the Doctrine Worship c. in England according to several not at present to say inconsistent Rules the Word of God the Church of Scotland the best Reformed Church I ask then Do they mean to alter the established Doctrine or No If yes the distintion is vain and crafty A sleight instead
Oath to any one we do necessarily break that part of it which was taken to another and in all probability observing in it any one is breaking it to both the other The Covenant obligeth us to reform England according to the best Reformed Church but determines not which it is as Mr. Cr. acknowledges The reason of which is clear because by that reservedness they engaged all Sects to them when by declaring their meaning they had engaged but one every one by this means who was for the Covenant the Covenant was for him and such ambiguity sure is not an Oath but a Iuggle But from this proceeds another Ambiguity Who are the common Enemies c. How shall I know who are Enemies to the best Reformed Church if I know not which is so Can I prosecute any as an Enemy to the best reformed as such and know it not or shall I tell him I know him to be an Enemy to I know not what Mr. Cr. p. 128. waves this Plea and assures us That the words plainly run to the Church of Scotland c. and Independents by their enmity to the Church of Scotland are our common Enemies This Explication I must needs say fits the meaning of the Covenanters and the no meaning of the Covenant In different Pages it is as in different States of Affairs one while the best Reformed Church is not determined another while it is plainly Scotland If Independents were common Enemies sure it was from the Presbyterians they received Arms and Authority There is a Contradiction alledged by the Oxf. men which I thought not to have considered which because Mr. Cr. professes not to see I shall shew it him out of himself It is We are bound absolutely and without exception to preserve and yet upon supposition to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland To which Mr. Cr. p. 131. That Supposition must be plainly expressed in the Covenant to make it a contradictâ—ry Oath which is not done The best way of proving a Contradiction is to lay the Propositions contended so to be together which will clearly if they are so shew themselves Thus then We are absolutely bound to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline c. of Scotland We are to bring the three Kingdoms of which Scotland is one to Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline We are to reform 2. England and Ireland according to the best Reformed Church See the first Article of the Covenant The Covenant asserts not which are the best Reformed Churches but binds the Covenanters to reform England whatever shall appear to be the best Reformed Church Cr. p. 129. Thus then The first Proposition binds us to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland absolutely The second to bring the English Church and the Scottish Church to an Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline The third to reform England according to the best Reformed Church The fourth assures us that the Covenant asserts not Scotland to be the best Reformed Church but binds to reform England according to whatever shall appear to be so Now then if Scotland doth not appear to be the best Reformed Church the third Proposition binds me to alter what the first binds me absolutely to maintain If I am obliged to make the same thing exactly after several Patterns if they happen not to be exactly the same I must necessarily in following one differ so much from the other as I follow that which differs for to agree with what differs is sure so far to differ I perceive the Covenant is as it was at first urged to several men so as to comply with their several humors and interests The well-meaning and undiscerning Populacy they now as they did formerly before things were ripe engage to the Covenant and tell them those horrid Consequences deduced from it belong not to it but afterwards engage men to them by vertue of the Covenant they have taken whose Obligation never fully appears til due season Their first aim is at that part which is least guarded Religion which being that wherein most are least concerned is their first attempt Because the Church would not pull down the State the State must pull down the Church But what followed They who perswaded that the Nobles Prelates were nor good enough to be their Equals made it out that Coblers and Draymen were good enough to be their Masters And besides the Grandees who acted in that change the whole Party were as forward to own the other House as ready at any time to take the other Oath I very well know many will not in spite of Reason and Experience be perswaded but that reforming the Church is the sole aim of the Covenanters In the new sense of reforming the Church-Lands being already in their opinion disposed of Reformation must begin at the State and surely it is great pity but they who will not beware by the examples of others should be made examples to others The second Article of the Covenant is only talked of and that being the concernment of the Church others think themselves not interessed in But he who considers that they are in the sixth Article sworn never to be wrought off no not so much as to an indifferency or neutrality but zealously and constantly in despight of all impediments pursue all they have sworn And that in the fourth Article they swear to bring all to punishment who have been Malignants Which words signifie what they please and expresly all who have acted contrary to the Covenant and they to be punished as the Supream Iudicatories i. e. no doubt the two Houses who are no Court at all or others from them shall think fit will find the Cavaliers in an ill case nay all who at any time did any thing which was ever Voted Malignancy by the two Houses The rigour of whose Sentence they not being in a now capacity to pardon being dissolved must be now executed upon the first opportunity nor must they at all question the reasonableness or legality because the Rule is As they or any from them i. e. their Committees shall think convenient One thing I shall observe that though the Parliament may be trusted to act arbitrarily beside or against the Law which they are not yet that they may delegate such an extravagant power over Lives and Fortunes as is here mentioned to oothers though men of such Principles and Fortunes as our Committees were who were to make Offenders by whom they might thrive having nothing to grow rich with but an ill Conscience and other mens faults is such a Liberty of the Subject as destroyes all the trust Besides it is a rule in Law and Reason Offices of confidence and trust by our Representatives in Parliament are not cannot be delegated because that trust is only personal I have before observed That that Invitation in the conclusion to forraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Power must be to them confessedly as Subjects whom notwithstanding they absolve from their Allegiance Though it is not delivered in Scripture that freedom from a Master or Prince who is a Heathen is any part of that liberty wherein Christ hath installed us and so is seditious Having shewed it to be against Duty I will in a word shew it to be against our Interest It engages us to pursue by the way of the Sword as their Practice and the Invitation in the conclusion shews all we have sworn to all our dayes which is Whatever is contrary to the power of Godliness So then Every man is to slay his brother who commits any sin that deserves it so many Covenanters so many Commissioned Officers There is a Tribunal in every brest to condemn and execute both And if their Oath obligeth them to any thing it doth to this they being equally sworn to all the other Articles though that alone takes up all their thoughts What horrid effects there would follow hence themselves would quickly feel should they thus begin to assert the Covenant themselves would quickly find its edge They who set a house on fire themselves be soon made a part of that fire It is not then more dishonourable to God injurious to the King and the Nation then it would if pursued be quickly found to be to its most violent assertors All that is desired of them is they would either pursue the Covenant in all things or none that is deal equally and sincerely shew that they act out of the sense of an Oath not of a party or rather let the Covenant be buryed placed in the Regions of Rottenness and Forgetfulness and let them be quiet and suffer others to be so If any Reproofs seem in these Papers too sharp I wish the unreasonablâ—ness of those expressions may thus appear that few deserve them But then as few are concerned in them I should willingly make a distinction between those of the Presbyterian Iudgement and those of the Presbyterian Party and I hope themselves will concurre with me in it by making it appear that there are those who may approve that way of Government yet abhorr the usual way of promoting it The former may possibly be reclaimed by rational discourses the latter by nothing but severe Laws FINIS * By whatever Combination Perswasion c.
make a sufficient ground for separation and the godly Non-conformists contended against separation This seems to me a very pretty Argumentation There was no necessity to separate from the Church as it was by Law established in Discipline Ceremonies c. yet there was a necessity to pull it down lest we be partakers of other mens sins and so of their plagues c. with other such like phrases as the Covenant expresses it Sure I am if there was no sufficient ground for separation there was no sufficient ground for a Covenant to reform in so violent a way and to pull down that Church from which there was sufficient reason in your own judgement to separate If as you truly urge Our Saviour kept Communion with a Church much in need of Reformation and taught men so to do I would willingly learn Who taught men to take up Arms to destroy what you acknowledge to be only such a Church If there was no necessity for even those who did not approve the Worship and Ceremonies to separate as you do and say the godly Non-conformists alwayes did What imaginable necessity could there be for these English men who were subjects and the Scots strangers to compel by force Prince and People who approve of both to swear it down Now come p. 53. some Endeavours to prove the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church to be not agreeable to the Word of God First Can. 36. Enjoyns Common Prayer and no other which they had broke by Praying at St. Maryes and is it self a limitation of the Spirit c. To the first That the Church ever intended to bind men to say those Prayers in the Pulpit before Sermon is not true but contrary to her own Laws and practice Those universal words must as all others of that sort are to be be referred ad subjectam materiam The Liturgy was made for what indeed it is and hath approved it self to be so far as skill and malice never questioned but carped only at particular phrases it was made I say only for a Compleat Form of Publick Prayer comprehensive of all our common needs imaginable from whence none could pretend upon that score reason to vary But it was never intended to banish occasional Prayers of which nature those before Sermons are for which a peculiar Canon is provided and that penned in words which admit of latitude I suppose because they are looked upon as occasional and so may better endure to be various Limitation of the Spirit is a phrase equally admired by those who understand nothing as laught at by those who do It is vulgarly granted but upon what reasons I could never yet learn That Praying by the Spirit signifies in Scripture To pray Ex tempore Though to me it seems rather a sign of a voluble tongue then inspired heart and to pray without considering is rather I should think boldness then grace But if that be the import of that phrase as Women and Lecturers generally hold the Prayer of Christ is least said by the Spirit of Christ and so the most unacceptable Prayer we can put up to him in all the world is his own But now I begin to think on that phrase I profess my self unable to understand it which makes me think the reason many do not apprehend when the Argument drawn from thence is answered is Because they do not know what it means It would be no inconsiderable damage to the Puritan Cause if they would explain those terms Limitation of the Spirit I will pawn my Credit on it the very admiring Rowt shall laugh at it the very same moment they understand it the whole force of it consisting like that of a charm in being unintelligible Whatever I can guess it to be according to those principles and purposes it is used for amounts clearly to this He limits the Spirit in himself who gives over while he hath one word left to say and he limits it in another when he suffers any body to hear him because he confines him to his words when the Spirit might possibly suggest to him different And this is really so in every Auditory unless we can suppose that every man there were he called to exercise would use the same matter and words which he who carryeth on the work of the day doth make use of But some men have ventured to say and prove too which I wonder Mr. Cr. took no notice of it if he thought it possible to answer it That the Directory it self was guilty of this evil viz. Limiting the Spirit if it be an evil which it was intended to remove That Directory prescribed matter and in most cases the very order of Praying Seeing it prescribes the matter the only excellency whereby it differs is it gives weak and careless that men which are by much the major part leave to choose words unapt to express that matter it self prescribes It hath then all the real inconveniences of unprescribed Prayers and that one fancyed one of prescribed The second Exception of his p. 54. is very Tragical and vaunting In comes great zeal and little wit and tells us of a fault so very gross that the very plain Popish Scotch Service-Book shall be commended for not being guilty The very first sentence so called of Scripture is not there At what time soever a sinner doth repent c. I perswade my self Mr. Cr. hath read in the New-Testament of proofs alleadged out of the Old barely according to the sense the express words whereof are no where to be found the instances are various I mention but one Mat. 2.6 taken out of Micah 5.2 But what need I stand to prove that some men can very be angry when there is little cause for it Nor scape we so and therefore Thirdly In the last we did read that which is not Scripture now we do not read what confessedly is Much of the Canonical Scripture is omitted Apocrypha read some parts of the Scripture dignified above others as the Gospel by standing c. Many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture not being read in course was one of the mighty faults the wise Assembly took upon them to mend and it amounted to this When the vulgar people came to Church to hear the Law of God according to which they must frame their lives a considerable part of the year they caused to be spent in Genealogies or less Edifying History which could not but have had the same effect upon the people read in Hebrew as English or else the Ceremonial Law which at this day concerns no body and never did concern them at all This was so apparently absurd that no imaginable account can be given of it besides that not very Christian resolution of spite and singularity or that politick Art of not receiving Pay Preferment and Applause without seeming to do something for it Our Dignifying as they phrase it some parts of Scripture above other as the Gospel by standing is a thing
it did not concern them to have much so they professed to have very little understanding of it Which though Mr. Cr. is pleased to wonder at another man possibly may not at all think it strange that wise-men should not trouble themselves with what did not concern them When he sayes They should know as much as all the Nation besides I desire to know his opinion of those Gentlemen who came into their places The next thing of moment is p. 42. in answer to the Fourth Reason where the Oxf. men find in Scotland several things tending toward Superstition and Schism as accounting Bishops Antichristian and Indifferent Ceremonies unlawfull Where first he catcheth at those Phrases tending toward and to our thinking where he triumphs thus Me-thinks Superstition and Schisme should be so well known at Oxf. that they might be able to conclude what things tend thereunto Modesty of Expression is no more a sign of Ignorance then Bold peremptoriness is an infallible evidence of Knowledg When St. Paul sayes I Think I have the Spirit of God should a witty Sophister retort What the great Apostle of the Gentiles who magnifies so his Office but Think he should know whether he hath the Spirit or no Nay this grave Corrector in this very place useth the same expression he carps at Me-thinks Superstion c. The Charge is this They account Bishops Antichristian and Indifferent Ceremonies unlawful and make their Discipline a Mark of the true Church and the setting up thereof the erecting the Throne of Iesus Christ. There is but one way to excuse this from Schism and that too many Non-conformists have taken which is to say They do not divide from a Church because where these fancies are not received there are no Churches not considering they have by that means un-Churched all the World that any History gives an account of And that for so many ages that if this be true the gates of hell prevailed against the Church as soon as themselves can pretend it made the first attempt But this Mr. Cr. would willingly salve They give Assemblies Authority about Ceremonies ergo do not deem Indifferent Ceremonies unlawful If so Ceremonies not commanded in the Word of God may be enjoyned They make Discipline rightly administred as is prescribed in the Word of God the Note of a true Church but do not appropriate it unto theirs Either their Discipline is prescribed in the Word of God or not If not they did well to swear and fight down Ours for not being in the Word of God prescribed to make way for another which it self is not there If it be there prescribed and yet this Title Prescribed in the Word of God which is the Note of a true Church be not appropriate to it but may belong to another and that which either is not in the Word of God which is the former inconvenience or which is in the Word of God as well as theirs and then there be two several Disciplines prescribed in the Word of God A Doctrine I suppose our Scotch-Masters would not once have liked They deem indeed English-Popish-Ceremonies unlawful but deny them to be Indifferent p. 43. Are they unlawful because used in Popish-Churches or for any other Reason If for any other Reason that should have been expressed or at least intimated so as we might have guessed at it If for that reason alone as seems being alone alledged The appellation Popish I do not apprehend how another mans using a thing can make it unlawful for me to use it For sin is nothing else but the transgression of a Law What then by the laws of God and my just Superiours is not prohibited me it is not imaginable how a Heathen Turk Iew or which some make worse a Papist can by doing it make it unlawful for me to do For seeing the Laws of God and Man have left it free he or I either or both in doing such a thing do but use our indulged Liberty that which is left free for us to do Now how it comes to pass That his using his lawful liberty should deprive me of mine I would gladly know The Question seems to me this How it can be criminal in me to imitate other men suppose Papists whom I hope I may reckon Men in those cases in which they are confessedly Innocent for so in this present Case Papists confessedly are seeing they transgress no law of God or Man For had it been otherwise not its being used by Papists but the law against which the action is should have been urged as the Reason of the sin of it The Iews who crucified Christ in his person and persecuted Him in his members were certainly as great enemies to Christ as Papists can in modesty be supposed to be Yet St. Paul whose trade was not to gain by Factions would do actions upon that very score to be like them complyed with them in Ceremonies which he knew to be abolished To the Iew he became a Iew in that sort I know it is said He did it to win over the Iews and it is not likely we should win over the Papists A Discourse dictated not by Reason but Malice which makes it blind and the blow missing its Adversary throws it self St. Paul was far from being ignorant how the spirit of obduration was in a very great measure gone out upon that People he yet durst not omit all possible condescension Their being stubborn was no warrant to Him to be morose To endeavour was his duty and he did it What use they would make of it he left to them what effect it should have to God His last Salvo is p. 44. The distinction between verè and vera Ecclesia The Scots do not un-church all others for want of their Discipline Because a True Church is opposed to a Corrupt as well as falsly constituted I demand here Whether a Church may be a Church of Christ without the Scotch-Discipline or no If No the Distinction is impertinent not to say crafty serving to hide their meaning till there is opportunity of discovering it If it may then there was no need of a Covenant and attending-violences to force in that without which we may be a Church of Christ and so without it The Lord might have dwelt among us as the phrase of the Covenant is Or if for all that Grant it is yet necessary to bring that Discipline in in such a manner then it is not enough to be a Church of Christ unlesse we be a Church of Scotland too and Wars are necessary not only till a Church is a true one but till every one acknowledgeth it the best imaginable Atenent the Army raised upon the score of this Covenant and learnt it so well that they quickly taught their Scotch-masters the meaning and consequents of it The second ground of the Oxf. mens Refusal is They are not satisfied How they can swear to reform the Doctrine Discipline c. Because it cannot be
of an answer If no doth reforming according to those rules that is as I understand it bringing in the Doctrine of Scotland c. signifie Doing some new act to continue the established Doctrine in England or to let it alone as it is If either of these let that word have the same meaning in all parallel places and this Controversie is at an end But how we shall be brought to the same Confession of Faith Directory c. which is also sworn without altering the establisht Doctrine Worship Government which are different is not very clear As to the Doctrines themselves here called The Religion exercised Though it is no Demonstration at Oxon that they are false because the Scotch Army made them a Pretence to get Money with yet being they are as Mr. Cr. acknowledges private men he must also acknowledge it concerns only those private men to defend them But from that Answer of his I shall conclude a little farther and over-throw it by its own self prove what it denies out of what it grants For it is in it self very clear seeing the Quarrel was at the Religion exercised not established Those Opinions called the exercised Religion ought only to have been discarded and the establisht Doctrine have been made the Rule to reform by by which they might have had the Law and their Adversaries too on their side But because they name another Rule It is plain they mean to alter that too and so are lyable to those inconveniencies Mr. Cr. endeavours to free them from by a strained Interpretation which their words and actions are no way capable of Though it is a pretty strange account of bringing Englands established Religion to the Scotish mode by Allegations out of Authors which are contended for to be no part of that Religion so established Mr. Cr. doth indeed set several Doctrines and name Authors many of which have been eminently useful to this Church and therefore hated by Rome and Scotland but being there are no references to any part of their Works with what sincerity it is done I am not able to say But I may guess it to be done with very little if I may conclude by one which I single out because that sort of people have so little shame or conscience as to Preach it down to the people as Arminianism It is p. 47. That men had free will of themselves to believe and repent he may justly say The University was poysoned with Arminianism if this horrid Tenent was owned and there countenanced Arminians need not be angry that they are slandered for that is a tacit Confession there is not truth enough to object against them Men must bely them to make them odious part with their own Innocency to darken theirs But I much wonder Mr. Cr. should tell the Masters of Oxf. That This Tenent among others was defended by them from censure Though people are apt to believe any thing of Papists Arminians yet the Oxf. men are not so apt to believe any story of themselves They challenge all the world to tell when and by whom they defended that horrid Doctrine from censure The utmost ground of this accusation is some men in Oxf. might possibly affirm they understood not what it was to be made willing whether we would or no how freedom and force liberty and necessiâ—ation were the same thing This is far enough from the purpose But censure is there a judicial word I demand therefore Whether the University defended the men he means from the censure of these who had authority to censure them or from those who had nothing to do in the matter If from the former I desire to know How it was possible for them to do it and when they did it If from the later those who had nothing to do with it sure the harm is not great If I should grant all the Tenents he reckons up to be false because it were perhaps too hard to prove them so to one who would deny it I do not apprehend the considerable advantage he would get by it toward his Cause because they are only particular mens He will not sure think himself concerned in all we can prove preached in Camp and City and the men not only defended against the King and the Laws but encouraged applauded and preferred Might not men safely preach at London Believers to be above all Ordinances but those of the two Houses Was any more care taken at London even when the Covenant was Triumphant and set up in Churches instead of the Lords Prayer and Ten Commandements of what Opinions men were of any more then of what Countrey if they would but fight against the King Was there any Heresie but Loyalty or Common Enemy but the King Might not those take the Scripture in any or no sense who would take the Laws in equitable sense It is altogether as reasonable to pull down Presbytery because there were Independents in the Parliaments Army as they to Covenant us into the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland because some men preached what their ablest Defender acknowledges no part of the Doctrine of the Church of England And this is equal supposing those Doctrines false which as yet are only said to be so But at last comes an Attempt to answer those Arguments the force of which Mr. Cr. hath hitherto evaded by pretences which I have proved and perhaps himself perceived groundless It will not saith he p. 49. justifie the Recusancy of the Papists because these things were never a reason of it This answer is none at all because if those things to which their conformity was required were really sins we cannot at all blame nor justly punish them for refusing to be partakers in them It is not easie to think of any thing which would more please them in or justifie them for disobeying our established Laws than our proclaiming them thus to be grosly horrid so apparently abominable as there was an unavoidable necessity of using the worst of remedies a Civil War and the worst of dangers hazarding our souls in the most suspicious of actions the defiance of our Prince to remove them It is from hence if this be once granted clear we have all along punished Papists for not conforming to what it is a Christians duty not to conform to And this is sure a competent ground for not assenting to this part of the Covenant for be the grounds of sinfulness what it will our selves by this should own that to be sin which we punished them for not joyning in the concession of which would be so pleasing to them that I wonder to see those men plead for it who make spite to Rome the only rule they walk by As to the second part of the scandal justifying the Separatists Mr. Cr. answers not much better p. 50. Neither can such an acknowledgment justifie the Separatists For that the corruptions established were never made such Essential parts of the Worship as to
which provokes their anger and Mr. Cr. like an angry Disputant confutes himself Is that our fault that we shew a peculiar respect to that part of it which peculiarly concerns our Saviour his Words and Works Our particular obligation assures us it were ill if it were otherwise Outward Reverence provided we do not let it serve in stead of but use it to signifie and promote inward cannot in that case be a crime But if to dignifie some parts of Scripture above others be a crime themselves are guilty as doing so to the Psalms of David only they are not Davids but Sternholds by singing them before every Sermon a thing in Scripture no where commanded But so have I seen a distempered person in spite to another beat himself The next thing considerable is p. 55 56. Christmas Easter c. and the Holy-days are superstitious plainly repugnant to Gal. 4.10 Col. 2.16 If the Feasts there mentioned were evidently not Christian Festivals I suppose I may safely conclude Christian Festivals not to be plainly forbid in that place where they are not so much as spoke of The Text in the Galatians mentions expresly Moneths and Years proportions of Time no way to be accommodated to Christian Festivals or then or now That in the Colossians is so plain that it must be a worse Principle than Inconsideration which occasioned the mistake not only because it expresses New Moons a thing not established by Christian Authority but in the words following the 17. verse gives a clear account of the unlawfulness of those Feasts of the Observance of which he there complains which are a shadow of things to come but the Body is Christ Those Feasts therefore were not reproved as having been commanded by any Christian Church which it is clear they were not but because they had in them not only a general malignity as being kept in Obedience to the Iewish Law and so must suppose that to be still in force but had besides a peculiar malignity in their nature being and for that very reason reproved a shadow of Christ to come and so consequently denyed His coming Now then all which can be gathered from this place is Christians must not keep Feasts which prefigured Christ to come Ergo they may not keep Feasts in remembrance that He is come There is a pretty piece of Divinity p. 56. to enforce the former Conclusion which no doubt would be admirable if it were but sense To observe the Nativity Circumcision Passion Resurrection Ascension severally is irrational and irreligious irrational because they are not in themselves Mercies to the Church but as they center in Mans Redemption irreligious because without Divine warrant That none of all these signal condescensions of Divine goodness should be esteemed in themselves Mercies or worth giving thanks for when Edge-Hill and Nasby Battails though but in order to the undoing of the King were so accounted argues a more passionate esteem and concernment for the Covenant of Scotland than that of Grace That it is irreligious because without Divine warrant is said but not proved For a thing becomes unlawful only by being against some Law that is by being forbidden not barely by being not commanded Our Saviour Christ we are sure observed Feasts which had not such Institution notwithstanding that prohibition which was as strict to the Iews whose Authority instituted those Feasts and in obedience to which He kept them as it can possibly be to us Ye shall not add c. Christ did indeed abolish the Ceremonial Law of the Iews and that was all He did abolish so as to make unlawful From hence men gather That it is â— sin for us to imitate them in any thing we find done by them according to the Principles and Dictates of Nature Gratitude c. as Feasts of Commemorations clearly are Though this is a Proposition sufficiently distant upon this pitiful ground without any more ado do men put off all which can be fetcht out of the Old Testament whereas though Christ abolisht the Ceremonial Law he left all other Laws and Rules as he found them But as Christ observed Feasts not instituted by divine Authority so possibly doth Mr. Cr the command in Scripture for Sunday being not so very clear that Mr. Cr. cannot but doubt to be Irreligion and Will-worship in his notions of those terms No man can ground it on the fourth Commandement that doth not take the seventh and first to be the same day i. e. Seven and one to be the same number If he will interpret the Seventh-day to signifie one in seven I desire to know whether the Iews might have observed which of the seven days they pleased and whether then the Reason of the fourth Commandement was not strangely impertinent to the Matter of it That being expressed to be For in the Seventh day God rested c. seeing that was the very seventh and no other and a command in the New-Testament for it I suppose is not to be found The next three leaves 57 58 59. are spent in proving what none ever denyed That There are several things in the Form of our Service and Discipline not commanded in the Word of God A thing comes to be unlawful sure by being forbid not by being uncommanded Seeing this is the only fault I ask Is the Directory the Form there prescribed in the Word of God I desire a direct Answer to that Can that pretend to anything but to be the result of Prudence and Authority Both Directory and Common-Prayer agree in that which the Directory was made to differ from the Liturgy in both were made by Men. The only imaginable difference is the one was made by those who had Authority the other by those who had none That the Scripture is a compleat Rule of Faith And what cannot be proved thereby as it is interpreted by that Original and unquestionable Tradition by which we receive the Scripture it self is not to be believed as a revealed Article of Faith We not only assert but in the defence of this Practice of ours whereby we are said to over-throw the Scriptures being a compleat Rule we contend for it as an advantagious Truth in this Cause Because this Doctrine Nothing is to be in Discipline or Order but what we find in Scripture is a Doctrine in Scripture no where to be found So that the very Accusation is the same Crime it would be thought to reprove And what is clear concerning this Principle is as clear concerning their Practice Till the Form and Order in the Directory prescribed be shewed to be so in the Bible too The demand of the Written Word for every particular of Order and Discipline is hugely plausible and senseless I will not throw away Reason upon unreasonable men to show the vanity of that admired tenent That whatever though but of Order Decency Discipline is not in the Written Word which is a compleat Rule for all is Will-Worship c. I shall
not the case For those Princes were confessedly Supream Our King it seems is not not God's Vicegerent but the Peoples Officer from whom he received his Power and is but Tenant at Will at best They still retaining Iurisdiction over him may abridge it at pleasure He is a stranger in England that doth not know all Land to be held of the Crown and every one of us pays acknowledgment that we received it from thence and all manner of Iurisdiction to be owned in Law to proceed from the King without the least concurrence of the two Houses In England when any doth Homage Fealty c. in their Oath they perpetually have a Salvo of saving their Faith to other Lords In the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy we find no such salvo of our Faith to the two Houses No nor if any of us take them during their Session do we promise any equal Allegiance But the very Members do promise Allegiance to the King inasmuch as no Member though never so fairly elected can sit without taking those Oaths But according to this Doctrine of Iurisdiction over the King never any Laws in the World were so sottishly penned as the English to place all Marks of Soveraignty where it is not and none at all where it is Nay that the very two Houses when they send to the King as in that capacity should Petition their Inferiour and acknowledge themselves Humble Loyal and Obedient Subjects to him over whom they ever retained Iurisdiction Ever retained O the brave English Monarchy of the two Houses of Parliament This is a strange concealed Iurisdiction of the two Houses which never any King owned or Parliament claimed When King Iames came in he should have recognized them not they him Nor was that Parliament faithful either to King or Countrey in concealing so important a concernment I will cite but one Law and that not Ancient for none I think can doubt its Opinion in this point but one When the assent of the two Houses to Law-making was required and after those words so much to serve some mens turns wrested beyond their import Be it Enacted by the King Lords and Commons came in fashion It is Anno 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Whereas by sundry old Authentick Histories it is manifestly expressed That this Realm of England is an Empire governed by One Supream Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the IMPERIAL Crown of this Realm unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People and divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty Temporalty bin bound and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble Obedience If the King is next to God what Iurisdiction the two Houses have over Him I profess my self unable to comprehend or how owning natural and humble Obedience signifies retaining Iurisdiction over Him But those who are not of this wild Opinion do yet embrace the ground of it and stand stiff for a share in the Government These two grounds Mr. Cr. often insists upon That their Assent is necessary to the making and repealing Laws and that the King receiving his Power from them they reserved a considerable part of it to themselves The former I have spoken to in The Rebels Plea That that doth not at all evince any such thing and it is also false in Experience for the Monarchs of the East whom none ever supposed to have sharers in the Government could not alter all their Laws at pleasure c. And I there referred to an Author who had so admirably stated that Point in Law and Reason in that Incomparable Treatise The Case of our Affairs that nothing can be added on that Head it is there done so fully and clearly I think it is not easie to shew such a King whose Laws are as ambulatory as his pleasure and yet sure there are some whose Subjects are not Partners in the Soveraignty And certainly so long as Kings are but single men and not naturally stronger then all their Subjects they must rule by the help and advice either of Gentlemen or Ianizaries The former way is I think more honourable for the King and better for his People There can be no way of proving this Proposition unless it carries its own Evidence which though generally granted I do not apprehend why The Prince promises not to exercise such a part of his Power without the consent of his People Ergo They share with him in it is a consequence far from Necessary When Tenants get Rights by Promise Grant or Custom do they presently share in the Dominion Is none a perfect Landlord that cannot turn out all his Tenants as easily as say so Can no man make another a firm Estate in the Tenancy but eo ipso he makes him his Co-Landlord Is it the same to have sharers in the Authority and to be limited in the exercise of it This is perfectly the case The King hath granted to us that he will not alter our old Laws or make new till by common consent it is represented to him expedient for the Publique good from hence alone we gather that we share with him in the making of them As to the other Point That Princes received their Power by Election is a very plausible Impossibility Let us consider a rude scattered multitude as Men are supposed to have been when they chose their first Governours living sine Lege sine Lare to meet together about a business of that nature where could not but be many who apprehended it their Interest to use Violence Can we suppose them all to carry it fairly and prudently and equally A thing which certainly we could not expect from the most civilized Common-wealth this day in the World There could not want bold Villains who would make it their business to usurp Dominion over their well-meaning neighbours There could not but be many who would think themselves wise enough to Rule Nor could there want enow to make their title good by strong hand by the Combination though of a very few and the Combination of a very few could not but have overpowred a very great undisciplined Rabble Surely those men were not of the same species with us where a whole People meet together without any force over them every one gives his Vote freely every one names his man every one acquiesces It were certainly a prety sight when all the World was wise and innocent and had it been so still they would have sound no want of vernment If the Original of Government had been a fair and free Election it is not at all probable that the most ancient Governments would have been Monarchies Not only for that to have made more then one would have been a very good exdient to reconcile competitors But because it seems also at the first sight better to trust more then One. Or if they had been so it is not like they would have been so absolute Arbitria Frincipum pro-legibus
approved at Rome The clearing of this should in all Reason commend Episcopacy to those men who make opposition to Rome the rule of their Faith But oh the intolerable though holy villany of those godly Cheats who Preached up this Tenent for Popery which all who understand what Popery means know to be the bane of it and was at Trent by the See of Romes most skilful Advancers discarded as such It seems some not esteemed Iesuites can lie for God and pious frauds can be used and rayled at It is said by the Oxf. men in their third ground of their first exception That they are not satisfyed of that Phrase in the Covenant Lest we be partakers of other mens sins They do not apprehend how they are guilty of those sins suppose them to be sins which is not yet proved unless they endeavour by fire and sword to root them out To which Mr. Cr. Replyes p. 76. That they are so guilty but hath not one word to prove it That Saints in Scripture did weep for other mens sins I read But that they esteemed them to be made their own if they did not fight them down I do not read There were Kings of Israel who were Idolaters and the Law was general that they who were such should be put to death yet I do not find the Prophets telling the People that it was the same thing for them not to stone the King as it was for him to worship stones And yet this is the Import of that expression Those are our sins we are partakers of them if we do not pull them down The Foundation of the second Article of the Covenant is harder then all the Laws of God besides if it self be one It binds us to the extirpation of all Superstition Heresie Schism Profaneness or whatever shall be found contrary to the Power of Godliness and this they make to be every mans duty and swear him to it under no milder expressions then these Lest we be partakers of other mens sins and so in danger to receive their plagues And here if we consider the way of endeavouring this Covenant practised and required viz. Fire and Sword and with this their Invitation to Foraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Government so that they must only be looked upon as so many private men on whom yet this duty is incumbent It teaches us this by that Engagement Lest we partakers of other mens sins c. That a godly man can never be at peace with himself till he be at war with every one he knows or thinks wicked He must perpetually expect Gods vengeance on himself when he is not executing it upon another The first thing of moment against this Article is p. 78. That the Universal alleadged Practise of 1500 years will more weaken then strengthen the Divine Right for the most pure estate was before that in the first 140. years I shall not at all insist upon the Catalogues of Bishops in unquestionable Histories to be had even from the beginning But only say this That all Christian Churches in those dayes should deviate from the Primitive pattern and all the same way no common cause imaginable inducing them to err the same way is a thing highly incredible As to that which is ordinarily urged viz. Ambition it could not if we consider the Persons or Times have been universal nor if we consider the thing have been at all Being a Bishop having only the priviledge of being burnt next Mr. Cr. in the following Pages makes demands for Texts Though the Article insists only on Practise and so is not concerned Which if not granted good National Parochial Churches The Canon of the Scripture and the Lords-Day are lost Nor is this Truth utterly past by in Scripture though if it had considering that the intent was to deliver to us Doctrine not the precise Form of Discipline we might rationally have appealed to Antiquity in that Point i. e. to the Practise of those from whom we receive the Canon of the Scripture and without whose Suffrage were it once questioned it were not possible without immediate Revelation to have it sufficiently attested to be what it pretends to be Mr. Cr. tells us that Bishops and Presbyters are intrusted with the same Power of Governing But I cannot be satisfied in this particular since I find Timothy and Titus being single men are without any intimation of others being equal with them directed how to receive accusations and to rebuke and censure Evidences in my apprehension pregnant enough of sole Iurisdiction To disprove the Universal alleadged Practise he tells us That the King of Denmark in the year 1537. exstirpated it and so did the Scots since Goodly goodly And so did those he pleads for the long Parliament I cannot apprehend but that either he droles or is utterly ignorant of the nature of Tradition as taking it to be what none ever contradicted a notion of it which they that understand what it means have not Sure I am at that rate the Deity of Christ cannot approve it self to be Catholick Doctrine because there were Arians of old and are Socinians now The mutual correspondence by Letters which was at that time used in the Church forbad any Church to be ignorant of what all the Churches do hold so that Innovations could not but be discovered And to suppose that the same Imposture should be imposed upon all the Churches together in those early dayes as an Apostolick Tradition upon so many various Countries and Inclinations upon men whose choisest care was in delivering and dying for that Faith they had once received from the Apostles is to suppose all the World to be out of their wits together If they tell us It was the ambition of Pastors that introduced that Order no account can be given how this should be universal and yet not perceived or resisted and this is as strange as to the Exemplar Piety of those Times And yet more in the nature of the thing it is absurd For their ambition in that case could tend to nothing but a more quick and severe Martyrdom to be sooner burnt then their fellows The Heathens spite was at the Bishops as well as the Presbyterians Aerius being called a Heretick for promoting that Opinion himself glories in he qualifieth with this That Austin only calleth it Proprium dogma p. 87. Which term in St. Austin's esteem signifieth nothing less In his judgement for a private man to oppose his own private Opinion dictated by discontent as some late ones are known to have been for not being Bishops themselves in a matter of fact against all Records Histories and the owned Practise of all the Churches was Spiritual Pride and Folly And St. Austin in that case would if pertinaciously held not at all have stickt to have called it Heresie If the expression he useth do not import as much In the Answer to the fourth Exception handled I know