places and callings the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Now the Scotch Author or Ladensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Postscript against Lysimachus Nicanor tells us p. 35. that Episcopacy is no way so opposite to the Discipline of any reformed Church as to that Discipline which many Assemblies and Parliaments have settled in Scotland and therefore he concludes thus p. 36. 37. we cannot dissemble any longer our hearty wishes that England would after the example of all the reformed Churches ridd themselves at last of their Bishops trouble as they did of old without any repentance to this day of their Abbots and Monks This says he we conceive would much increase the joy and prosperity of all the three Dominions Accordingly those Covenanters sware also to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches Now all the reformed Churches as the same Author affirms p. 35. cast out at first and to this day have carefully holden at the door even that kind of Episcopacy which their chief Divines seem'd not much to oppose Suitable whereunto is that which Presbyterians sware in the second Article of the Covenant viz. to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government by Bishops as well as by Archbishops Chancellors Commissaries c. With what face therefore can this Author presume to tell us p. 19. 29. that the Form of Ecclesiastical Government by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries Provincial and National Assemblies is remote enough from the main cause of Presbytery especially since he affirms p. 24. 34. that one of his Majesties Kingdoms Scotland is Presbyterian by which sure he means not moderately Episcopal for p. 59. 69. that he may prove the Presbyterian Form of Government a. Fence against Heresies and Errors he instances in the Form of Ecclesiastical Policy and method of Discipline in the Church of Scotland which as there described is no otherwise than by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries Provincial and National Assemblies Now how injurious the Scotch Discipline which English Presbyterians have thus covenanted to introduce is to the civil magistrate how oppressive to the subject and pernicious to both Bishop Bramhall since Primate of Ireland hath abundantly manifested in his Fair warning for England to take heed of the Scotch Discipline or as 't is lately Printed of the Presbyterian Government In which treatise he endeavours to prove that their Discipline doth utterly overthrow the rights of Magistrates to convocate Synods to confirm their Acts to order Ecclesiastical Affairs and reform the Church within their Dominions that it robs the Magistrate of the last Appeal of his Subjects that it exempts the Ministers from due punishment that it subjects the supreme magistrate to their Censures that it robs him of his pardoning power as to some crimes of his civil power in order to Religion that it makes a monster of the Commonwealth is most prejudicial to the Parliament is oppressive to particular persons and hurtful to all orders of men that the Disciplinarians challenge this exorbitant power by Divine right The truth of these propositions he hath evinc'd out of their Books of Discipline and publick Records of their practice Since therefore the English Presbyterians have sworn to endeavour the preservation of this Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland and to reform the Discipline and Government here in England according to the Example of the reformed Church in Scotland 't is but a piece of justice and reason that the King's Majesty should look upon them as persons owning those seditious Principles upon which such enormous Disciplinarian practices are grounded Some of which Principles are these 1. That their National Assemblies ought always to be retain'd in their own liberties of convening lawfully together p. 7. with power to the Kirk to appoint times and places 2. That they have power to abolish and abrogate all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noysome and unprofitable and agree not with the time or are abused by the people and to make Rules and Constitutions for keeping good order in the Kirk p. 8. 3. That Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the civil magistrate or no p. 9 12. 4. That from the Kirk there is no reclamation nor appellation to any judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm p. 13. 5. That to their Discipline all the Estates within the Realm must be subject as well Rulers as they who are ruled p. 16. 6. That the Civil Magistrate cannot pardon any crime that was made capital by the judicial Law p. 12. 7. That matters of the Pulpit ought to be exempted from the judgment and correction of Princes p. 14. In proportion to which principles the Kirk p. 5. by their own Authority decreed the abolition of Bishops requiring them to resign their offices as not having any call from Gods word under pain of Excommunication and to desist from preaching till they had a new admission from the general Assembly They resolv'd also to dispose of their possessions as the Kings Patrimony in the next Assembly When they could not prevail to have their Book of Discipline ratifyed by the Civil Authority they obtruded it on the Church themselves p. 6. ordaining that all those who had born or did then bear any office in the Church should subscribe it under pain of excommunication By their own authority also p. 7. under the specious title of Jesus Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords the only Monarch of this Church and under pretence of his prerogative Royal they erected their own Courts and Presbyteries in the most part of Scotland long before they were legally approv'd or receiv'd In their Assembly at Edenburgh 1647. they determined that nothing should be pass'd in the next Parliament till the Church was fully restored to its Patrimony yea says the Lord Primate p. 5. they arrived to that degree of sauciness Anno 1600. and reduced the Soveraign power to such contempt that 20 Presbyters no more at the highest sometimes but 13 sometimes but 7 or 8 dar'd to hold and maintain a general Assembly as they miscalled it after it was discharged by the King against his Authority an Insolence which never any Parliament durst attempt Anno 1582. they rejected Mongomery's appeal from themselves to King James as made to an incompetent Judge and proceeded violently against him notwithstanding the Kings prohibition p. 13. They who have a mind to see more instances of the like nature may read that Book of the Archbishop Now the Question must be 1. whether those English Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the Preservation of the Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland ought not to be look'd upon as persons approving those Principles and practices upon which that
Fundamental Laws to impose unlawful Taxes or new Oaths to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King 'T is confessed also by Sir Edw. Cooke that no priviledge of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treason Felony or breach of the Peace 4. Institut 25. If not to any one Member says J. Jenkins p. 15. not to two nor to ten nor to the major part Now I suppose this Author is not either so ignorant or so perverse as to deny that the two Houses did levy War against the King that they counterfeited the Great Seal that they seized upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War that they usurpt the Royal power raised rumors and gave out words to alienate the people from the King imposed a new Oath unlawful Taxes and levied War without yea against the Kings Authority From which premises I discern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine though sad and dismal consequence that those two Houses and the presbyterian party which adhered to them and gave them aid and comfort were guilty of Disobedience Treason and Rebellion If the major part of a Parliament commit Treason they must not be judges of it for no man or body can be judge in his own cause and as well as ten or any number may commit Treason the greater number may as well says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae P. 15 16. In this high and tender point it belongs not says our Author to me to determine The main reason of which scrupulosity is most probably no other than this that he 's so much a Presbyterian that either his blind and deluded understanding or rather his disloyal and rebellious heart will not suffer him to determine the Question on the Kings side For if this Rector of Bramshot be not mis-reported he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houses-Garrison and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garrison and at that time I presume this was not look'd upon by him as a point too high and tender But now tempora mutantur and yet not so chang'd it seems but that this Author still dares to insinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fighting against the King witness these following words p. 50. 60. And as touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers without passing any judgment in the great case of England I shall only make rehearsal of the words of Grotius a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical which are found in his Book de jure Belli Pacis by himself dedicated to the French King Si Rex partem habeat summi imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit quia eatenus Imperium non habet Quod locum habere censco etiamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summam partem habeat non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi L. 1. c. 4. sect 13. which Chapter by the way is proved to be dangerously Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the Observations on the original of Government p. 34 c. but Here I demand 1. Whether this Author can reasonably be imagined to produce these words of Grotius to any other end than to justifie the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons against the King 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to pass any judgment in the great case of England in not sillily and yet sadly hypocritical especially considering 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted that the two Houses had a part in the supreme power 2. That the same Author who insers their having such a part from their having as he fancies a part in the Legislative power quotes this very passage out of Grotius to justifie the two Houses and himself in fighting and encouraging others to fight against the King which Author yet ingenuously promises that he will offer his Head he meant I suppose his Neck to justice as a Rebel when 't is proved that the King was the highest power in the time of the divisions and that he had power to make that War which he made He here implicitly confesses says Dr. Pierce Impartial Enquiry Postscript p. 14 15. the King was once the highest power and implies he lost it by the divisions but that he never could lose it and that demonstrably he had it I have made most evident in the Appendix of this Book which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. at least as far as I have proved the supremacy of the King § 78. And that the King had power to make that War which he made in defence of pars sua viz. the ordering of the Militia his Negative voice in Parliament his right to the possession of all Castles Ports Ports Magazines within his Dominions c. is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this passage as 't is that the two Houses in partem non suam involantes had power to make that War which they made to defend their own violation of the Kings Rights The truth is those words of Grotius are no argument of the justness of the late War on either side and therefore they are impertinently produced to such a purpose till these minors are well and soundly proved 1. That the two Houses had legally a part in the supremacy which Grotius himself denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legislation And 2. that the King did involare in partem summi Imperii non suam invade any such prerogative or part in the supremacy for of that only Grotius speaks as did by Law belong to the two Houses For though it could be proved that the King did intrench upon some priviledge of theirs yet if that priviledge did not belong to them quatenus having a share in the Soveraignty Grotius his words though they should be granted of infallible truth will not justifie their fighting against the King upon that account But this sly discourser was perswaded it seems that when he had rehearsed this hypothetical major Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis just a opponi poterit Every Presbyterian that understood Latin and had engaged against the King under the Authority of the two Houses would willingly take the minor for granted Sed Senatus ille qualis qualis partem habuit summi Imperii in eam partem non suam involavit Rex and thence very hastily and joyfully conclude Ergò vis à Senatu isto vel potius Senatûs quisquiliis retrimentis Regi opposita erat justa even by the verdict of Grotius that man of renown At this Presbyterian rate of disputing are Arguments hudled up in the Book called The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers the sophistry of some parts of which
Divine Law and moreover that by an Oath imposed by a Lawful Magistrate that which before was free and indifferent is made necessary to the takers p. 65. S. 19. and that the obligation of an Oath thus imposed results from Divine Institution p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Concessions they do not only condemn all those Nonconformists who refused compliance with Episcopal Impositions because forsooth their Christian Liberty in things left indifferent by God ought not to be prejudiced and restrained by man but also they overthrow 1. that principle That nothing is a duty especially in Gods worship which is not commanded by God and 2. that principle that no part of worship is lawful which is not commanded of God and yet both these principles are owned by Presbyterians if this Author deceive us not p. 88. 98. where he tells us they hold that Scripture only is the Rule of instituted worship wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden and p. 84 85. that whatsoever instituted worship is not ordained of God is unlawful whence it sollows that men ought not to swear or Covenant for or against any thing that 's left indifferent in the Divine Law not for any thing which God's word commands not nor against any thing which it does not forbid For so to do is to worship God by taking such an Oath and entring into such a Covenant as is not ordained by him but is only of humane Institution and determination Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either instituted or imposed by God in his Law either of Nature or Scripture even by their own confession who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the House of Commons that the Covenant it self was not jure Divino though the keeping of it being taken was Hist of Independ 1 Part p. 125 126. but only by men and 't is acknowledged by those pleaders to have been a Vow only freely and voluntarily entred into and not by vertue of any Divine command in the first takers and imposers and therefore since 't is owned also as a sacred religious Act of worship 't was in them and others not only a piece of Schism against the Church of England and of Sedition against the King and Laws of England but also a solemn piece of superstition will-will-worship as that signifies in their own dialect a worshipping God in such a manner as himself hath not prescribed in his Word and therefore on the score of Presbyterian principles an Act of high and hainous disobedience to the Law of God and therefore their taking an Oath thus imposed was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Interest and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more Besides this Author tells us p. 85. that Presbyterians hold that that Ceremony which is instituted by men not by God which is of mystical signification and though it may naturally yet does not actually signifie without humane institution and is by men appropriate to Divine worship is upon that account a part of Divine worship and p. 88. 98. they hold that all such sacred Ceremonies not commanded by God are neither good nor lawful But say I this was the very case in the taking of the Covenant for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it viz. lifting up the hand was appropriate to that Oath which they deemed a piece of religious worship It did not actually signifie that the Takers did swear either by Divine or Natural but by Humane Institution and that novel too the usual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation before being tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis laying the hand upon and afterwards kissing the holy Evangels to which indeed that Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand which is not of Divine Institution or prescribed by God the Father in the Old Testament and much less by God the Son in the New whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Master of ordaining Ceremonies for the Christian Worship and some of them it seems are yet to learn that any examples oblige them but those of Christ and his Apostles and consequently no Old Testament examples Discourse of Liturgies p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of mystical signification I prove by that medium which this Author himself makes use of p. 87. 97. to prove the Cross in Baptism such a Ceremony viz. It is used as a sealing sign of our obligation to Christ and therefore it 's in that respect Sacramental so say I was the lifting up of the hand in the swearing the Covenant used as a sealing sign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Christ Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant sealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themselves to the disservice of him that died on the Cross to a real and practical defiance of Christ the King of his Church and his Vicegerent in this Nation King Charles Thus a Ceremony of humane Presbyterian institution for the ratification of a seditious Covenant ordained and imposed against Law by an illegal power for the satisfying of the Scotch appetite and promoting the Presbyterian Interest is a Camel easily and greedily swallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter who yet at the same time can either blindly or perversly strain at the Gnat of a Ceremony instituted by lawful Authority establisht and enjoyned by the Laws of the Land and Constitutions of the Church If I had some Books about me fit for such a purpose I believe I could add some sheets of pertinent instances to Bishop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch of his Survey of Presbyterian Levity in opinion and inconsistency with themselves and with others of their own Faction when self-interest prompted them to such variations I shall at this time mention only one proof more 'T is a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea and their discourse of Liturgies that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven can discharge them from the obligation of an Oath This is good Doctrine it seems when applied to the Covenant and understood in a sence advantageous to Presbytery but when the Question was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance wherein they swore that they would defend his Majesty his Heirs and Successors to the uttermost of their power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which should be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope or otherwise and that they are in conscience resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve them of that Oath or any part of it I say when this was the Question then Presbyterian practises manisested that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine viz. that