35 36 39. After avow is taken there ought to be as much tendernesse to observe it as caution before we undertake it else we shall but double our guilt and increase GODS displeasure against us What we vow is in it selfe good and so caries with it an engagement to performance Our Vow is second ingagement super-added to the first if after it we be negligent we breake more bonds and so must needs be more guilty It s not to be doubted but many enter this Protestation rather for company then conscience and so will make too little account of keeping it and need admonition to observe as well as to enter this Covenant But that this neglect should be so generall as to include the generality of the Godly as this Expositor doth make it that I dare not assent unto the Psalmist hath taught me more tendernesse Ps 73 15. If I will speake thus behold I should offend against the generation of thy Children To condemne the godly was such a thing to this blessed Psalmist that he would renownce sense and reason and set upon a serious review rather then dash upon it In whose steps had this Author troden hee would not have been so rash to have put the foole upon them He might with lesse adoe then the Psalmist have freed himselfe from needlesse Horrour and the godly from unjust censure But now to the point He gives us the ground of his Censure Pag. 2. THe Protestation is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery which they do not performe so long as they retaine and maintain the imposition of the Liturgy 2 the Discipline 3 the Government 4 the Ceremonies Ans In his very first Argumentation there is a most palpable fallacy which is so obvious that its wonder to me that any man that would undertake to write a Booke in a matter of this consequence should either not himselfe see or should imagine that so many cleere eyes that it must needs touch would not most easily discerne and discover it for the Argument must be framed thus He that hath solemnly vowed to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery must renownce all Popery and particularly the imposition of the Liturgy c. or else he breakes his vow and is a foole c. But the Ministers and people have protested to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery Therefore they must renownce all Popery and particularly the imposition of the Liturgy c. or else they breake their vowes and are fooles in whom GOD hath no pleasure Now what a manifest fallacy is here a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter from that which is spoken in some respect to that which is spoken absolutely for the Protestation is not against Popery absolutly but as this Author expresseth it so far forth as it is against the Doctrine of the Church of England what Popery then the Doctrine of the Church of England doth not condemne this Protestation doth not include being onely to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and Popish Innovations But then some will demand is not the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery I answere ad hominem If the things here objected be Popery then the Doctrine of the Church is not against all Popery for these things so far as they may be termed Doctrinall are yet according to the Doctrine of the Church of England unlesse you will say that the Doctrine of the Church of England is contrary to the practise of the Church of England whence then thus I Argue Either the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery or else the imposition of the Liturgy Ceremonies Discipline Government are not Popery for the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against them If the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery he that vowes to maintaine that Doctrine against all Popery vowes not against Popery absolutly but only as it is against that Doctrine and then this Authors inference from this vow against Popery with this restraint that we must therefore oppose all Popery absolutly is a manifest inconsequence on the other side if the Liturgy c. be not Popery as they must not be if the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND be compleate against it then they are not abjured So however it be the Covenanter is free from breach and folly And this I conceive is so cleare that it needs no further confirmation yet a little more to evince the absurdity of it by other particulars in the Protestation we protest to maintaine every person that maketh this Protestation in whatsoever he shall do in the lawfull pursuance of it If a man should thence inferre that we must defend him whatsoever he shall doe in the pursuance of it if hee shall move sedition or the like were not this a violation of the sense of this Covenant and is not the same when we stretch the opposing of Popery so far as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England to be meant against all Popery whatsoever though it be granted it be maintained in the Church of England His foundation then is most rotten and what firmnesse can be in the building But he makes the objection Page 2. which he indeavors to answere aswell as he can The Objection is that these things are established by the Law therefore we may not cast them off till the Law be abrogated and we protest against Popery to cast it out so far as lawfully we may Thus the Protestor wherein he hath objected what he hath not well answered though all be don very rawly For first he should have framed the Argument thus Those things are established by the Lawes of England where the Doctrine of the Church of England is established and therefore according to the Doctrine of the Church of England these things cannot be interpreted to be Popery and so not within the Verge of that Protestation which is against Popery as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England which objection if he ever answere erit mihi magnus Apollo The Objection which he hath made he strengthens from the words of the Protestation that we protest to cast out things as far as lawfully we may which clause doth not at all respect the matter protested against but the meanes and manner of pursuance that we shall not doe it in any tumultuous or seditious or illegall way but by honest and lawful meanes A thing needfull to be taken notice of by many respective Readers of this Booke who while they learne of him that they must oppose the things mentioned as parts of Popery from themselves infer that it ought to be done in a violent way without waiting for the direction of Authority which in private persons
is not to oppose lawfully but illegally and seditiously But now let us heare his Answer First saith he All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intention and end Now the Law for reformation never intended to allow or set up Popery in the Church of England Ans This rule for the interpretation of Laws in the a There is a twofold intention of Lawes one generall arising from mens goodnesse and that may be to remove whatsoever is evill the other speciall arising from mens light and that is to remove such particulars as are discovered to be evil the latter intention is the rule of interpreting Laws not the former and this Author speakes of the former sense he takes it is a device of his owne that hath neither authority nor reason for the confirmation of it Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law giver which the Grammaticall sense of the words doth usually discover Indeed in matters doubtfull where the words are capable of a double sense the intention of the Law may there cleere what sense is most Genuine but that the generall intention of of the Law shall give a sense contrary to the letter of the Law is without doubt a groundlesse and dangerous fancy It s true the Law never intended to set up Popery but the question is whether it be destructive of all Popery The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers who if they saw not all Popery could not by their Lawes condemne all nor did if the things in Question be Popery Lex Currit cum praxi The generall practise especially of those that are regular discovers the mind of the Law and the practise hath been to maintaine these things therefore it s not the meaning of the Law to condemne them nor of this Protestation to abjure them Secondly he saith If humane Lawes be found to be contrary to Gods word they are invalid and void ipso facto Ans This rightly understood is in part a truth but here misapplied we are subjected to all Terrene superiours by the Lord and under the Lord when they then command any thing contrary to GOD the Laws have noe binding power because by a superiour Law we are bound to the contrary But yet such Lawes are not Ipso facto void or if void yet they are void in foro conscientiae in the Court of Heaven not in foro politico in Courts on Earth though we are not bound to obey them yet we are without resistance to submit to such penalties under the danger of Sedition which were there noe Lawes we were free from Againe this Thesis of his is misapplied for thence he infers Thirdly that having made this Protestation we ought to have no communion with the aforesaid particulars notwithstanding they be confirmed by Law which inference is therfore faulty because the Protestation is onely against Popery as it is against the Doctrine of the Church and that which is confirmed by our law though it be Popery yet it is not Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England If the Lawes of the Land and the Doctrine of our Church had their establishment in different Courts then that which is establisht by Law might be against the Doctrine of the Church but the Doctrine of the Church and the Laws of the Lands having both their establishment in Parliament what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church and therefore this Authors arguing must needs be irrationall But now we are furnished with a second Objection which we are to consider of and whether this Author hath with any better successe taken of then he hath the former what saith hee If the Parliament did not by Popery understand the Liturgy Ceremonies Government of our Church and he gives good reason to conceive they did not for then many of them would not have taken it What shal we do then that is his Quaere now heare his Answers First saith he we are sure they intended in against all Popery To which I answere that its most cleare and so he himselfe expresseth in the former Page they only intend it against Popery as it is opposite against the Doctrine of the Church of England and such Popery the mentioned things cannot be Secondly saith he They expresse that the words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any forme of Worship Discipline or Ceremonies in the said Church What doth he thence inferre why forsooth that therefore we may not Protest for the maintenance of these why was that the Question whether we should be bound to maintaine them or whether we are bound to abolish them What ridiculous disputing then is this But hence I Argue If the Protestation do not include them for confirmation because they are no parts of Doctrine it doth not exclude them for abolition but leaves them for determination to another opportunity Thirdly saith he Suppose that at the first making of the Protestation that these particulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery yet no good Christian can or will deny that the House of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever should pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof This Author is very good at bold assertions but all as bad in confirmations for what a good Christian may do in weaknesse I will not determine but no wise Christian as far as I can conceive can judge that what ever shall be found to be Popery is included in this Protestation but what ever is found to be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church of England which is the terme limiting Popery in the Protestation Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament of such a Reformation as will not deserve the name of Reformation if all Popery be not made to be packing I joyne with him in all comfortable hopes from this Honourable House but what is this to his matter in hand All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament is not expected by this Protestation this is one degree to reforme whatever Popery or Innovation is against Law established this done the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation by removing corruptions established by Law Fiftly Suppose saith he that it could be imagined by any reasonable man that the House of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foresaid things in the fardell of Popery shall private and particular Christians knowing these to be Popery and Antichristian being bound by their solemne Vow and Protestation never reforme themselves c. I Answere no man can if as he is rationall he deale rationally But suppose that these things were not included in the Protestation according to the intention of the House of Commons which may appeare by unanswerable grounds 1. Because the expresse words be against that Popery which is against the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND which these things mentioned established
by Law in our Church cannot be Secondly Since the generall taking and first making of this Protestation the Government and Discipline of the Church hath been in strong dispute whether it should continue or no which had it been Protested against there had been no place for dispute which yet doth neither take off the friends of that side from asserting nor is used by the opposites to Prelacy to overbeare their Antagonists which had been the easiest and speediest way of victory if this Authors fancy had had truth in it Thirdly Under favour though as I shall make it appeare I am no friend to the foresaid things yet it was not rationall that the Parliament should include these things in their PROTESTATION for these things being establisht by Law and fixt in many of the members hearts aswell as Laws to desire men presently to abjure them before a full debating of them seemes a point of such rashnesse yea Tyranny as will not consist with the transcendent wisdom and Iustice of that Honourable Court Fourthly Nay further I conceive under favour that it would not have stood with the duty of that House to their Soveraigne of which I know they are most tender nor that respect that they owe to the Lawes of the Land to protest against things established by Law till the Law it selfe be abrogated for none may Protest in such a case further then they are free Subjects can challeng no more freedom then the Laws allow them where and while Laws do tye them they are in subjection and therefore could not in point of duty Protest against such things in such a manner to which the Lawes binds them The power of the House of Commons where this Protestation was framed is no doubt great far beyond my apprehension yet in this case I conceive their power over Laws is with the consent of the Lords and his Majesty to abolish them but not Protest against them while they are in force By all which Arguments its manifest that the Parliament neither did really nor could rationally intend in the Protestation to Protest against these things established by Law and if we suppose truly they intended it not this Author doth suppose still falsely that we are by our Protestation bound to reject and oppose them for its an old sound rule Oathes and Protestations are to be expounded according to the meaning of the framer and giver not of the taker else by a dishonest aequivocation any thing almost may be eluded therfor what the Protestation meant not we in the taking are not tied to And if this disputer should thinke this should bind us in the things mentioned though the Parliament intended no such thing but the contrary He may as well affirme that we are bound to maintaine his impendant Churches for whereas we Protest to maintaine the lawfull Rights and Liberties of the Subject and every person that maketh this Protestation he may infer but independancy is in his judgment a right and liberty of all Christians entring into this Covenant therefore we are tyed to maintaine it This inference hath lesse dissonancy from the letter of the Covenant then that of his about the particulars questioned yet though I beleeve hee hath as good a will to this as the former he dare not be so bold as to draw such a conclusion because though the letter may beare it yet the judgment of the compilers makes it manifest it was far from their meaning which reason likewise might have kept him from including the particulars in hand But now lastly he comes in with other quaeries What then shall men never reforme themselves but live and die Communicants c. Ans How doth this follow may not men Reforme themselves in these things unlesse they do it by vertue of this Protestation did not all that held these unlawfull before this Protestation was formed in their owne practise withdraw from these things so far as they held them unlawfull and against the word of GOD and so may and ought to do still though they be not included in the Protestation But to proceed this Author next brings in his Schollers questioning how it may appeare that the forementioned particulars are branches of Popery And he faines them speaking that if their Consciences were convinced thereof by the word of GOD then by their Protestation as well as by GODS word they were bound to renownce them Ans But by his leave he makes them speake what many will not and none ought to speake If these things be Popish then by the word of GOD we ought to renownce them indeed but by this Protestation we ought not unlesse they be Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England I my selfe must needs account these things or the most of them of the same alloy with many things by the Doctrine and Lawes of our Church already condemn'd and abolisht else I should not have been nor continued as in part I doe a sufferer for witnessing against them And I doe as earnestly desire Reformation of them as of any thing that little grace that I have doth asmuch Act that way to wrastle with the Lord for the rooting up of those plants which our heavenly Father hath not planted as any way but nothing ingaged by this Protestation but only by that allegiance which I owe to Christ and his word But some may say If you be against those things why doe you pleade for them Ans Mistake not I plead not for them but to cleare the sense of the Protestation that it may not be wrested to include them as it is by this Author of which wresting I see and feare manifest inconveniences First the Honourable Houses of Parliament are by it wronged and are thereby like to grow more opposite to the removing of the things here pleaded against and so as it is usually this making hast will hinder the work it aymes to further unlesse this conceit be seasonably corrected Secondly This misinterpretation will hinder many from entring this Protestation which remora of so good a worke had need be removed which this Answere may further Thirdly Many that have taken it are partly troubled because such things are yet suffered that they think they have Protested against which they think they should not only omit to Act but also by all meanes oppose partly I see men are taken off for praying for the abolition of such things as they conceive are already cast off by Protestation and are inclined by carnall violence under this pretence to do that in the Church which by a spirituall violence they should indeavor to prevaile for with GOD that so they may be prevailers with men to have publique corruptions purged by publique authority which is a safe comfortable and honorable way Lastly Some that think somethings in themselves lawfull and tolerable I find by this Protestation Protested to conceive them unlawfull as against the Protestation though in themselves indifferent As to instance though
In this Authors Answers to his owne Quaery what shall be substituted instead of Prelacy Liturgy and Ceremonies many things deserve examination First whereas he saith considering the Church of England to be none other then a National Church its uncapable of constitution This word Nationall Church I finde often used and much put upon it and yet neither is it a Scripture phrase nor do any give us a certaine exposition of it if by it they understand a Church that hath some common Nationall Worship by some common Pastor at some common place as all the Jewes had the same High Priest and Temple and all the Males were to meete thrice a yeare at the place which God should choose In which respect I conceive the Church of the Iewes was properly termed a Nationall Church in this sense Christians have no Nationall Churches But he seemes to make a National Church to be when an whole Nation is taken into a Visible Church or Churches having all of them the outward profession of Religion which he saith is impossible now because particular Visible Churches consist of none but Visible living members and visible Saints under Christ the King of Saints But here I would faine know the reason why it is necessary that the members in a particular Church should be of better mettall then the members of a Nationall Church doth not God require by his precepts as much of a Nationall Church and say as much of them as of a particular Church See Exodus 19.4 5 6 7 8. how often is that Priest on the Nationall Church of the Iewes Be yee holy or Saints for I am holy The very same charge that is prest on Christians 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. where no more is required of the members of Christian particular Churches then of the members of the Iewish Nationall Church and are not the members of the Iewish Nationall Church called holy or Saints aswell as be commanded to be so How often is this reason given by the Lord for you are an holy people See Deut. 7.6 14◠21 26 19. And many other glorious things are spoken of the church of the Iewes Ie. 2 5. Ps 1354 And was not Christ their King Psa 44 4. If he were slayne from before the Foundation of the world and the Redeemer of he Church under the Law was he not their King too What difference then doth Scriptures make betweene the members of a Nationall and particular Church and who dares distinguish where the Scripture doth not If they Answere that the Nationall Church of the Iewes were holy in Profession or are called holy in regard of some that were so indeed the denomination being from the better part will not nay must not that answere serve us were all the members of the Apostolicall Churches Visible Saints otherwise then by profession what those that were carnal in Corinth Cap. 3. and defrauders and scandalous contenders too C. 6. Those that were drunk whē they came to the Sacrament too Those that denyed the Resurrection too 1 Cor. 15 12. and those that had not repented of their uncleannesse fornication and Lasciviousnesse too 2 Cor. 12 21. And those that traduced the Apostle too Cap. 11. Then what shall deny the visibility of a Saint or a living member So I might aske touching some in the Ancient holy Church of Rome Romans 16 17 18. And the like of some in the Church of Philippi Cap. 3.18.19 So likewise in the Church of Sardis Revel 3 1 4. and Laodicea Revel 3 16 c. Can these be sayd to consist of Saints or holy people any more then the Iewes must they not have the Title of Saints in regard of their Profession or the denomination from the better part Can Sardis in any other respect have the name of a Golden Candlestick And then I would know againe for what reason it should be more dishonorable to Christ to be the head of a Congregation that are not all Visible Saints further then by profession and outward conformity then to be the head of a Nation where all are not Visible Saints or why Christians should be in more danger for being one by Profession in a Congregationall body then Christ and Prophets for being one with such as were not Visible Saints in a Nationall body these I confesse are Riddles to mee Nay I conceive that though all that doe professe holynesse and life should in duty be so yet Christ in the parable of the Tares and wheate showes it will not be so and a generall seperation is not to be attempted till the end of the world for the Tares signifie the workers of Iniquitie that grow are to be gathered out of the Kingdome of him who is stiled the King of Saints and out of what Kingdome but the Kingdome parabolized The Kingdome of Heaven Math. 13 24 41. and these Tares were not secret Hypocrits for the Servants did discerne them and tell the Master of them and not the Master the Servants nor doth it any way crosse us that the field is interpreted the world as though the wicked and Godly should be in the world together but in distinct societies For this cannot be Why should the Servants wonder to see the wicked in the world how could the Tares come after the wheat as they are said to doe seeing the wicked were in the world before the Godly in the Church see verses 25 27 Why should the Servants consult about the wicked in the world What have they to do with those that are without yea if the wheate and the Tares be thus interpreted there must by this parable be nothing but wheate in the Church no Chaffe no Judas no hypocrite for all but the tares are righteous and shall shine as the Sun in the Kingdome of the Father verses 41.43 But why then is the Field interpreted to be the world A. For good reasons because the visible Church was not to be limited to Judea but extended to the whole world that would entertaine it Secondly the word of this Kingdome ver 19. was to be Preached in the world and by the word of this Kingdome this Kingdome wa◠to be gathered in the world in which Kingdome should appeare the Tares with the Wheat These things are so suitable to Christs words scop that I do not at al doubt but that this is the true exposition of this parable Nor doth the Argument so confidently held out against it any whit overthrow it if you thus interpret the parable say some you must of necessity exclude all Church Censures and so crosse other plaine Scriptures A. There is no such necessity in it neither for its a rule in interpreting parables we must not extend them beyond their scope now we must know wicked men are of two rankes one ordinary that though they have no grace visible yet they are formal Professors not guilty of Crimes others that are guilty of notorious crimes as the incestuous person c.
they thinke and justly That the use of the Liturgy in the whole forme of it as a compleate service of GOD to be many waies vitious yet they think the use of some of the formes there which are without exception and most suited to the peoples wants to be in themselves lawfull Notwithstanding though not for his Arguments to prove them Popish yet for the exposition of the Protestation they refuse them and not only refuse them but lay imputation on those that use them as breakers of their Vow and Protestation Now as I have proved no use of the Service-Book is against the Protestation so nor the use of some prayers in such a manner out of the Booke can as I conceive be justly termed Popish for suppose that the forme we use be in the Masse-Book why may we not aswell ask the same Christian Graces that Papists and we both conceive to be necessary to a Christian soule as expresse the same faith touching the Trinity or any other point wherein we agree in the same words and that without the guilt or imputation of Popery And againe he that doth thus use the Booke not according to the whole frame of it but selecting what is most holy nor according to the set words of it but with liberty of correcting the expressions which to our times seeme harsh and unsutable doth hereby as I conceive avoid his second Argument the imposition makes it not Popish to him because he useth it with liberty of conscience To this we may add further There is I conceive a true and usefull distinction to be made of humane constitutions some are helps and so are in genere boni good in their kind the other have no ground but meere imposition and so are in genere mali in their kind evill Now formes of Prayer are humane helps and so good in their kind Prayer is an Ordinance of GOD it requires a forme of words especially in publique all men are not able to conceive a forme and therefore a composed forme to them is an helpe The forme of words in Prayer is not the service but modus the manner of serving God in that Ordinance and so good in its kind Now for the Governors of the Church where there is need of a form to tye to one forme which they conceive pure of purpose to exclude others which they conceive corrupt is I conceive no usurpation upon Christ And this was the end of our Godly reformers in appointing this Prayer Booke Now though many men need not this helpe and it may be can conceive better expressions yet being that formes are human helps and not in themselves evill I conceive we may use some of the Prayers without sin for though it s often said that we may not do evill that good may come thereon yet I never heard it proved that we may not sometime do a lesse good and not the greater for peace and order and to enjoy the greater good at other times more fully and freely This giveth me satisfaction and I beleeve many godly and so prevents division from the Church Assemblies which is desirable for breaches if they be not necessary are justly scandalous If any dissent from us we shall be more ready to contend with GOD then them with God I say that he would move the Parliament to remove this forme so excepted against and corrupt in the generall composure of it and what ever other they prescribe not exactly to tie the well guifted to it but leave a liberty to vary as God shall enable them as I have heard it hath been in our deare Sister Church of Scotland Or if they tie them to any forme that they will rather tie them to the matter then the words to prevent the broaching of errors in Prayers which some thinke was the first occasion of set formes There be Haereticall Prayers as well as Sermons A Socinian may vent his Haeresy against the person of Christ or the grace of Christ An Anabaptist may vent his Haeresy against the Magistrates of Christ or Ordinances of Christ in his Prayer as well as Preaching therefore the Governors may justly tie them to set heads of Prayer though they leave a liberty to the able to use their own expressions so Haeresy shal be prevented and no breach of liberty justly pretended but this I refer to the wisdome of that Honorable Court Another Evill of this Treatise which needed cure it hath bred in some and nourisht in others an opinion that our Churches are not Churches nor our Ministers true Ministers nor our Sacraments to be participated without sinne whereby some are drawne to and others confirmed in a neglect of the servants and service of God which is no small evill that deserveth cure Give me leave therefore a little to examine his grounds His first assay against our Churches is in the close of the proose of his third point the Discipline of our Church to be Antichristian whence he concludes we want Discipline and from the Book-prayer and pell mell admission to the Sacrament he affirmes in his judgment we want true Sacraments and that the Preaching of the word be generally corrupted then it wants a third marke of a Visible Church for answere I conceive a distinction suggested by the assertor of the Scotch Discipline to be very true and here pertinent P. 196. A Visible Church may be considered either Metaphysically or politically It is one thing to consider men as living Creatures indued with reason another thing to consider them as Magistrates Masters Fathers servants c. So it is one thing to consider a Visible Church in her essentialls as a Society of men and women separated from the blind world by divine vocation and professing together the Gospell of Iesus Christ another thing to consider it as a compleate politicall body in which the power of Spirituall government and jurisdiction is exercised som governing some governed Now a Church that wants government or hath one that is corrupt may be a true Church in the former sense though not in the latter being a tru Church in the former sense her mēbers may communicat together in these holy things which fall under the power of order which may be called Sacra mystica as word prayer Sacraments though not insuch things as are under the power of jurisdiction For his objections about Sacraments the first I hope hath received already sufficient answere For his second objection of Pell mell admission to the Sacrament if he dispute against the Church of England in generall he must consider what her Lawes are not what the practise of some is It s true the Law enjoynes all to come but it s as true that the same Law forbids those that are in contention or are otherwise offensive to the Congregation to be admitted till satisfaction given So the command is generall that men may not be let alone in prophanenes and the admission is restrained that men may not