displeasure of many at court when Ministers were freely rebuking sin in about the court they were accounted railers traitours And being accused of treason before the King his Councill They declined them as incompetent Judges Upon this account in this houre of darknesse by the meanes of the Earle of Arran This Parliament is suddenly called wherby there were two Parliaments in one year 1584. the one meeting May 22. the other which is called the ninth Parliament as the former was called the eight Agust 22. which granteth this supremacy to the King over persones ecclesiastick for formalities sake civil therefore in the end of that act it is declared to be treason to decline his Maj. or his Council in any case So then the question was not betwixt the King the Parliament But betwixt the King or his Councel the Church in spirituall matters It is true also that in the 1. Act of Parliament 18. Anno 1606. His Maj. soveraigne authority Princely power Royall prerogative and privilege of his Crowne over all Estates persones and causes whatsoever is acknowledged But this act is of the same nature with the former no prerogative over above the Estates of Parliament is acknowledged here to belong properly to the Crown And moreover these words are but faire flourishes parliamentary complements Finally the prerogative here spoken of is founded upon personal qualifications where with they say he was endued far beyond his predecessours such as extraordinary graces most rare and excellent vertues singular judgment for sight Princely wisdome the like these may be wanting in one possessing the crowne therefore it could not be the minde of the Parliament to give a supremacy founded upon such qualifications to these who had not those qualifications so they could not annex it unto the Crowne 9. Together with these particulars let this be considered That in 3 Article of the league Covenant they did all swear Sincerly really and constantly in their severall vocations to endeavour the preservation of the rights and privileges of the Parliaments And then it shall appear that there was good ground of scrupleing at that oath which as explained by their acts tendeth to the overturning of those rights privileges For none who desired to make conscience of the oath of the Covenant might swear an oath so apparently opposite thereunto It is true those questions concerning the power of Princes Parliaments are dark ticklish Ministers not being lawyers by profession can not be supposed to be well acquanted with the lawes constitutions of the realme or with the nature extent of the same in all points Yet it concerneth them to see to this that they run not themselves upon the rocks of contradictory oaths And having sworne to endeavour in their places callings the preservation of the rights privileges of Parl. it concerneth them all not alitle to search so far into the rights privileges of Parl. as that they may know when an oath is tendered unto them which crosseth the same being once engadged in an oath in a matter not sinfull not to change or to swear that which destroyeth contradicteth the former oath But leaving those things not laying more weight on them then they will bear other particulars more weighty pressing must be spoken to therefore let it be considered 10. What dreadfull consequences will follow upon the taking of this oath thus explained as to its civil part by the forementioned act concerning the prerogative other acts now to be mentioned as 1. A condemning of the convention of Estates Anno 1643. conform to the Act 6. of this Parliament 2. A condemning of the Parliaments Anno 1640 1641 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648. conforme to their Act 15. as also the committees Parliaments thereafter Anno 1649 1650 1651. conforme to their Act 9. 3. A condemning of all the Acts made by these Parliaments conforme to their Act 3. 4. A condemning of all the meetings Councells Conventions of the subjects at the beginning of the late work of Reformation conforme to their 4 Act. 5. A condemning of the League Covenant conforme to their Act 7. 6. A condemning of Scotlands joyning with helping of England in the day of their straite conforme to their Act 7. 7. A condemning of the renueing of the Nationall Covenant Anno 1638 1639. conforme to the last words of the 11 Act. 8. A condemning of the Generall Assembly 1638 severall others thereafter conforme to their 4 Act. 9. A condemning of Scotlands riseing in armes in their own defence against the Popish Prelaticall malignant Party conforme to their 5 Act. 10. A condemning of their seizing upon forts castles in their own defence conforme to the said 5 Act. Was there not then cause to scruple at the taking of this oath which would have imported a condemning of all those things sure there was as shall be showne in speaking to each of the particulars mentioned Now it is clear that the taking of this oath would have imported a condemning of all these particulars from this That the Parliament doth condemne all these mentioned particulars as the acts specified do clear because done without his Maj consent which ought say they to have been had by vertue of his prerogative royall and supremacy the perogative doth explaine his supremacy in things civill as shall be showne more fully hereafter But to come to the particulars first There was no ground for condemning that convention of Estates 1643. notwithstanding that the Kings consent was not had therto 1. Because in poynt of conscience the Estates of the land being essentially judges are bound when the publict affaires of the Kingdom do require to conveen consult thereanent when Religion lawes liberties are in hazard when the necessitie is such as will admit of no delay pure legall formalities of state must be dispensed with when they cannot be gotten followed as in this case it was clear The true protestant religion his Maj. honour the peace of the Kingdomes were in hazard by papists their adherents in armes in England Irland The King refuised to call a Parliament at that time though he was oftin requeested there unto In this case what could the states of the Land do who were bound by the lawes of God of nature of nations to see to the preservation of the Kingdom to their own interests to religion that should be dearâ—… to them then any thingâ—… else were bound by the law of God to judge governe the land but obey God disâ—…ense with state formalities according to the many examples of the Estates of Scotland before who did conveen in Parliament whether the King would or not as that Parliament which did imprison donald the 70. King the Parliament at Scone which summoned King Culenus before them that Parliament which
because when she was present as Act 1. Parl. 2. of Queen Mary both she the Governour are mentioned thus The which day the Queen's grace with advice of the Lord Governour three Estates of Par. moreover it is not usuall to have any Acts running in the name of a Commissioner For where a Commissioner is present the King is supposed to be present therefore to this day all the Acts of Parl. made were a commissioner is present except such as are wholly concerning the King himself Run in the name of our soveraigne Lord with advice consent of his Estates of Parl. but where neither King nor Commissioner is present then the Acts run thus The Estates of Parl. enact c. So that this Stilus curiae being punctually observed to this day consirmeth the observation concerning the fore mentioned parl viz. That they were holden without King or Queen when neither King nor Queen is mentioned in the Acts. 3. Is it not strange how they could annull the parl 1648. among the rest seing the Acts of that parl were more homogenious with their own Acts then the Acts of the rest For the Acts of designe carryed on by that parl were no such injurious violation of his Maj. power authority nor were they Acts of rebellion as they suppose the Acts of the other parl to have been So that the ground upon which they rescinde the rest of these Parl. will not warrand them to rescinde this so it is not upon the ground of their Acts that they rescinde these parl Because then they would not have rescinded this parl 1648. What grounds then they will seek out next who can tell For all the grounds which they have hitherto to given whether from their Acts deeds oâ—… from informalities through the want of the presence of the King or his Commissioner are declared null of no effect by themselves 4. It is yet more strange how they could annul the Parl. 16â—…8 When all the members of that parl some of whom no doubt were members of this did Iun. 10. declare and testify their resolution and obligation to acknowledge that Parliamentre have been a free and lawfull Parliament likeas they did oblige themselves upon their honours and credit and as they desired to be to be holden true lovers of their countrey and of the religion lawes libertâ—…es thereof efauldly faithfully to the uttermost of their power to joyn and concurre with their persones and estates every one according to their severall stations and callings in the maintenance of the freedome and lawfulnesse of that Parliament and they ordained that that Act should be subscribed by all the members of Parliament present and absent and by all noblemen Barons and all other subjects inhabitants of the Kingdome in their thires and brughs 5. It is yet more strange that this Parliament had so far forgot it self as to reckon up the Parliament 1648. among the rest in the Act rescissory when in their 9. Act they had acknowledged it to have been a Parliament for there when they are approveing the Engadgment the all onely bussinesse which that Parliament 1648. was carrying on they stile them the estates of Parliament of this kingdome which is a title agrying to none but to lawfull Parliaments Thus it is clear that there is no ground warranding a consent unto these Acts rescissory but good ground to scruple at that oath the taking whereof would have imported a consenting unto the annuling of these Parliaments considering 6. How King Charles the first in the large treaty in his answer to the first demand sayeth that at the humble desire of his subjects he did call conveen a Parliament to beholden at Edinburgh Iun. 2. 1640. so that this Parliament was lawfully convocated acknowledged to have been so by King Charles the first himself Thirdly nor is there ground for assenting consenting unto the anulling of those Acts done and concluded in these Parliaments for 1. They are Acts made by Parliaments lawfully conveened 2. They are Acts not repugnant to the word of God but Acts made for the carrying on advanceing of the work of reformation except those made by the Parliament 1648 which every one according to his place power is sworne to maintaine promove this the very vieuing of them will evince how ever that whole work be now branded as rebellion sedition So that none could swear that oath as now tendered by Acts explained but withall he must condemne the whole work of reformation all Acts made for establishing of the same in doctrine worshipe discipline governement 3. did not King Charles 1 in the large treaty give this answere unto the first demand That for as much as the King's Maj. at the humble desire of his subjects did call and conveen a Parliament to be holden at Edenbrugh Iun. 2. 1640. wherein certaine Acts were made which Acts his Maj. for the peace and good of this kingdome is pleased to publish in his own name with consent of the Estates and therefore commands that the said Acts bearing date â—…un 27. 1640. be published with the Acts to be made in the next session of the same Parliament and that all the saids Acts as well of the precedent as of the next Session to be holden have in all time coming the strength of lawes and to be universally received and obeyed by all the subjects of the kingdome of Scotland His Maj. doth in the word of a king promise the publishing of the saids acts in such sort as is above specified And more over at that next Session of Parliament Anno 1641. when himself was present all those Acts were approved ratifyed fully did not King Charles 2 before at his coronation ratify approve the Covenant all Acts made in order to the carrying on of the ends of the Covenant So that now they are full compleat lawes wanting nothing even of formality which can be desired seing he hath ratified approved them all 5. Are there not many of these Acts made by those Parliaments very much for the glory of God the good of the countrey did not themselves see this when for shames cause they were forced to make some Acts of the same nature for curbing of vice since they would not be said to renew them so that it were hard to put Christians to condemne those Acts laudable lawes 6. Is it not strange how they could condemne make null void all the Acts done by the committees Parliaments after 1648. seing by this meanes they shall condemne all the applications which were made unto his Maj. while he was in Holland also they shall condemne the Kingdomes receiving of him yea their crowning of him both as null as done by a Non-Parliament And thus they will have the King no crowned King of Scotland how deep this may draw let lawyers judge It was
5 2. 7 9. Ezek. 16 59. 17 16 17 18. Hos. 10 14. Zech. 5 3 4. 8 17. Mal. 3 5. Many precedents in scripture cleare it to be duty to stand to oaths As these Gen 21 31. 24 9. 25 33. 26 31. 31 53. 47 31. compared with Cap. 50 5. So Gen. 50 25. compared with Exod. 13 19. Iosua 2 12. comp with Cap. 6 22. So Ios. 9 15 20. 1 Sam. 24 21 22. 2 Sam. 19 23. compared with 1 King 2 8. 1 Sam. 20 17. compared with 2 Sam. 21 7. 1 Sam. 30 15. 1 King 1 13 30. Neh. 5 12. Now shall Christians make no more of all these them Sampson did of the new ropes Shall neither law of nature law of nations nor yet the law of God be of any binding force If so they declare themselves not only to be no Christians But to be no men Sure then it must be a hainous iniquity for any who are engaged in this Covenant to cast it behinde their heels contradict what they have there sworne It is a great sin to break a promise but it is a greater sin to break an oath because an oath is a greater ground of security in an oath the dreadfull name of God is invocated to attest the sincerity of the promises purposes of the promisers this maketh the obligation stronger so the breach of this bond must be the sader 3. There is in this a clear breach of a vow for in these covenants there is a promise made unto God that is a vow Now the obligation of a vow is no lesse then the obligation of an oath For in every vow there is an implicit calling of God to witnesse a vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath so should be performed with the like faithfulnesse sayeth the confession of faith at Westminster cap. 22. Sect. 5. That lawfull vowes ought to be observed with all carefulnesse many both precepts precedents in scripture do cleare as Num. 30 v. 2 4 8. 1 Sam. 1 21 Deut. 12 11. 23 21 23. Ps. 76 v. 11. Eccles. 5 4 5. Gen. 28 20. Numb 6 21. 21 2. Iudg. 11 30. compared with Levit. 27 28 29 Ps. 132 2. 22 25. 56 12. 16 5. Prov. 20 25. Isa. 19 11. Iona. 1 16. 2 9. Nah. 1 15. So then the sin of violating these oaths or covenants being likewise the violation of a solemne vow made unto the Lord after which it is not lawfull so much as to make inquirie must be great 4. There is in this a clear breach of a Covenant made with man for in the league and covenant The King the Parl. the people of the three Kingdomes do mutually covenante each with other for the performance of those things which do concerne them in their severall stations either as to the work of reformation or as to the preservation of each others mutuall rights privileges King and Parliament do Covenante to preserve the peoples liberties King and people Covenante to preserve the privileges of Parliament Parliament people Covenante to preserve his Maj. person honour authority And all the people stipulat engadge each to other so that here without all doubt there must be a clear breach of a Covenant and this must be a grievous sin for very heathens looked upon the breach of a Covenant as a hainous uncouth thing did abhominat the same Hence Collicrates did disswade the Achâ—…ant from hearkening to Perseus the King of Macedon who intending warre against the Romans was seeking to make peace with them Because it would be a breach of the Covenant which they had made with the Romans see Liv. lib. 41. To break Covenant is a sin against the law light of nature so condemned amongst very heathens Rom. 1 30. for which the Lord gave them up to a reprobat minde v. 28. The obligation of a Covenant is the highest assurance greatest ground of security that natures light could finde out betwixt nation nation or betwixt man man in matters of greatest concernment And this ground of assurance is generally rested on by all unlesse they have to do with a Hannibal or with the Samnites whom no Covenant could binde Hence is that saying sides supremum rerum humanarum vinculum est faith is the highest assurance in humane matters It is spoken to the dishonour of Philip King of Macedon that none could call him a good King because that usually he despised oaths and broke his promise upon any light occasion so that no mans promise was lesse esteemed of of Hannibal that in warring against Rome he did wadge warre more against his owne faith and promise and rejoyceing in lyes and deceit as so many excellent arts he resolved to leave behinde him a notable memory of himself but so as it should be uncertane whether as of a good man or of an evil man The Trojans accuse themselves of this iniquity apud Homer As rendered by one thus Rumpentes foedera sacra â—…uratamque fidem pugnamus non quibus est fas Who sacred leagues annihilate Their faith though sworne do violate 'Gainst those on whose side stands no right We do may with courage fight Yea it is reported that the Romans would not break Covenant even to such as had broken unto them therefore when Sergius Galba would have cut off 7000 of the Lusitanians who had broken Covenant in a most perfidious way he is accused by Libo a tribun of the people for wounding the honour of the Romans in recompensing perfidiousnesse with perfidiousnesse sayeth Appianus persidia persidiam ultus contra Romanam dignitatem barbaros â—…abatur It was a great evidence of basenesse in the Saxâ—…s when the pickâ—…s refused to make any Covenants with them because that with them Covenants which with others were the surest bond of friendshipe were but snares for the simple So Buchan in viâ—… Gorani So that natures light teacheth the obligation of Covenants to be inviolable And also the light of the scriptutes teacheth the same Ios. 9 19. Neh. 9 38. 2 King 11 17. Ezek. 17. throughout Ier. 34 18. c Gen. 21 27. 1 Sam. 18 3. 20 16. Gen. 31 36. 44 49 50 52. Neh. 5 11 12. 1 King 5 12. 20 34. 5. There is in this a breach of Covenants whose tye obligation is sacred religious of Covenants which God will owne as his he being called to witnesse therein by an oath which was interposed All Covenants confirmed with an oath whatever the things be religious or civill concerning which they are made are owned of God as his hence the Covenant betwixt David Ionathan is called the Covenant of the Lord 1 Sam. 20 8. upon this account the violating of those sworne Covenants must be a hainous great transgression therefore Zedekiahs fault in breaking his Covenant with the King
be base Ezek. 17 14. yet being taken it must be keeped So then his second case will not make much for him The third is in short this When it hindereth a greater good if the standing to it be found impeditive of a greater good to which we are bound by a prior obligation then the oath ceaseth to binde so is it here for supponing the indifferencie of episcopacy by adhereing to the oath we hinder our own obedience to the Magistrat in things not against God's law unto which we are pre-obliged as also it hindereth the great duety of preaching the Gospel unto which Ministers were bound before the taking of Covenant Ans 1. This man would disput strongly if he had his will and if men would yeeld him all which he demandeth he would fight wonderfully Grant him once that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent you see how he will disput to admiration for the looseing of all Covenants but iâ—… that be not yeelded what will he do then He hath no more to say for all his arguments run on this supposition when this ground faileth all is wrong with him But to discover his weaknesse yet more let this once againe be granted let it be supponed that Episcopacy is not against God's law yet it is Ans. 2. If this ground hold good men shall have a door opened for looseing of 〈◊〉 from all their oaths vowes Himself conâ—…esseth that by this meanes a wide gap may be opened to all perjury what course taketh he to prevent this Doth he limit 〈◊〉 this position in any thing No not to all for all this hazard which he cannot but see May not any at their pleasure loose themselves from the oath of alleagiance by alledging that the keeping thereof doth hinder a greater good to which they are bound by a prior obligation viz. the liberating freeing of the countrey from oppression tyranny 3. Had not Ioshua more to say for looseing of his oath seing the keeping of the oath made to the â—…ibeonits did hinder obedien ce unto a particular command which God had given unto his people yet God would dispense with that particular command in this case when it could not be obeyed without perjury which is directly against the law light of nature when the obeying thereof would have giveÌ„ the heathens great occasion of blaspheming the name of the Lord though he will not dispense with the breach of any morall law upon that account 4. Had not Zedekiaâ—… as much to say for the looseing of himself from his oath viz. that the keeping of the oath did hinder him from performing that duty to his Kingdome countrey unto which he was pre-obliged ' But this new coined divinity was not of force in those dayes his bare word will not make it passe now with tender consciences 5. What is the greater good which it will hinder It will hinder as he thinketh their obedience to the civill Magistrat But are all bound to obey the Magistrat in all things that are indifferent Doth every law of the Magistrat binde the conscience subjection it is true is necessary but not obedience Active subjection may consist with obedience passive that is in suffering the penalty when Active obedience cannot be given to the command passive obedience is consistent with the publick peace doth no way hurt the majesty honour or credite of the ruler So that though standing to this oath may now hinder Active obedience unto that command of the Magistrat enjoyning a countenanceing of a concurring with the abjured prelacy yet it will not hinder subjection or passive obedience this is all which in those positive indifferent things they can be said to be obliged unto unlesse he would say which yet he darre not that the prelacy which was abjured is a government commanded of God to be perpetually practised in the Church 6. It would be considered also that their standing to this oath doth no way hinder their obedience to the Magistrat in any thing commanded of God or in any indifferent positive thing save in this one particular if so be this must goe under that name of indifferent things then the true question is not whether is it a greater good to disobey Magistrats then to keep an oath But whether is it a greater good to obey the Magist. in this one particular of imoraceing that prelacy which was abjured or to stand to the oath And that will come to this whether is it a greater good for Church or common wealth to have prelats then to want them if this advocat will make this the question there will be some found who shall willingly undertake the disput But if what is past what is present be called in to give judgment in this matter the question will quickly be decided yea appear to indifferent beholders to be already determined If the persecution of godly faithfull Ministers of the Gospell If the laying of countreysides waste desolate If the feeding of people with winde lies If the great increase of atheisme arminianisme popery ignorance prophanity of all sorts If the persecuting of the godly of godlinesse If the hindering of the exercise of religion Christian dueties the like may have any weight in casting the scale 7. As for the preaching of the Gospell it is true it is the duety of Ministers to be mindeing that But God hath need of no man's sin to worke his work he calleth no man to preach the Gospell by the way of perjury yea their suffering now for truth tenddeth to the furtherance of the Gospell as phil 1 12. is much more edifying then all their preaching could be after they had proclamed their perjury unto the would 2. Whose fault is it that Ministers cannot have liberty to preach the Gospell Is their keeping of the oath the thing which standeth in the way Is there no other way for one to have liberty to preach the Gospell but by breaking his oath what influence hath the conscientions observing of the oath upon non-preaching What if that iniquity which is established for a law were taken out of the way Would there not be preaching of the Gospell notwithstanding of a conscientious observation of the oath there is no doubt of this So that it is not the observation of the oath which hindereth the preaching of the Gospell otherwayes it would alwayes have done it will alwayes do it which is false But some other thing now let the blame of not preaching the Gospell lye where it should lye for there it will lye whether he will or not Yea the conscientious observation of this oath is so far from lying in the way of preaching the Gospell that on the contrary the breach of the oath doth incapacitate a man for preaching of the Gospell both before God men perjury is no qualification of a minister before the Lord who can
of Babilon is aggraiged upon this score Ezek. 17 19. soâ—… judgments are threatened therefore Therefore thus sayeth the Lord God as I live surely mine oath that he hath despised and my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompense upon his owne head The oath is called God's oath the Covenant God's Covenant which v. 16. is called the King of Babilon his oath his Covenant And upon this account the sin is aggraiged he is the more assured of judgments because of his breach of this Covenant So likewise that Covenant mentioned Ier. 34 8 9 10. wherein thâ—… princes the people did sweare to let their Hebrew servants goe free is called God's Covenant v. 18. upon this account sorer judgments are threatened v. 19 20. And I will give the men that have transgressed my Covenant which have not performed the words of the Covenant which they had made before me into the hand of their enemies So then the breach of this Covenant which was sworn with hands lifted up to the most high God in an eminent way before the Lord must be the breach of a Covenant which God will owne as his Covenant as his oath therefore the greater sin 6. It will be the breach of Covenants made with God for they containea vow a promise confirmed with an oath made for doing of such things as God commandeth in his word therefora greater sin for Covenants made with God should be more bindeing inviolable then Covenants betwixt man man For in Covenants betwixt man man there may be dispensations in remissions of the obligation moreover the ground of those Covenants may faile Now none can either dispense with or grant remissions in the matters of God Moreover Covenants made with God are more absolute lesse clogged with conditions so more obligeing And therefore the sin of breaking such covenants must be the greater all may be sure that God shall avenge the quarrell of these Covenants which are his owne he being in them not only judge witnesse but also altera pars contraâ—…ens the party with whom the Covenant is made Lev. 26 15 16 17 25. 7. It will be the breach of Covenants made with God about morall duties It is a morall duty to abjure all the poynts of popery which was done in the nationall Covenant it is a morall duty to endeavour our own reformation the reformation of the Church which was sworne to in both Covenants It is a morall duty to endeavour the reformation of England Irland in doctrine worshipe discipline and Government which was sworne to in the league Covenant It is a morall duty to purge out all unlawfull officers out of God's house to endeavour the extirpation of heresy schisme whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine which was sworne to there also It is a morall duty to do what God had commanded towards superiours inferiours equalls which by the league Covenant all were bound unto And therefore the Covevenants are strongly obligeing being more absolute then other cov because they binde vi materiae vi sanctionis both by reason of the matter by reason of the oath so are perpetuall Ier. 50 5. And therefore a breach of these must be a greater fault then the breach of such Covenants as are about things not morally evil which only binde vi sanctionis so it is beyond all doubt that the breach of these Covenants is a most hainous crying sin 8. It will be a breach of such Covenants as are so framed as that they cannot be made void though they should be broken buried forgotten Because they are Covenants about morall indispensable duries such duties upon which dependeth the glory of God the advancement of the Kingdome of our Lord saviour Jesus Christ The honour happinesse of the King's Majesty his posterity the true publick liberty saifty peace of the Kingdomes the good of posterity in all time coming the Lord's being one his name one in all the three Kingdomes And so the transgessing of such Covenants must be a greater fault then the bâ—…each of such which are of that nature as to be made void after some period of time or after a failzy by the one party Therefore seing those Covenants must binde though all had broken them brunt them also so long as â—…fe lasteth It must be a hainous crime to break them 9. It will be a breach of Covenants reall hereditary such as reach not only the persons themselves entering into Covenant but likewise their posterity like that betwixt David Ionathan 2. Sam. 9 7. 21 7. that betwixt Iosua the Gibeonits that mentioned Deut. 29 14 15. For this Covenant is of that nature as shall appear if that which Grotius de jur â—…el pac lib. 2. c. 16. § 16. Sayeth concerning these Covenants be considered where he giveth this as one evidence of such Covenants viz. When the subject is of a permanent nature addeth albeit the state of a commonwealth be changed into a Kingdome the Covenant must binde quia manet idem corpus etsi mutato capite though the head be changed the body of the commonwâ—…alth is the same And againe he sayeth as grving another evidence of such Covenants When there is such a clause in the Covenant as that it should be perpetuall or when it is such as is made for the good of the Kingdome addeth When neither maâ—…er nor expressions can certanely determine then favorabiliora creduntur esse realia the most favourable advantagious are reall Covenants So that by these marks evidences it is clear that these Covenants are reall Covenants obligeing not only them but also their posterity for 1. The subject or the person who did first enter into this Covenant was the body or universality of the people themselves then their Parliaments in their Parliamentary capacity like the oath of Iosua the princes which did binde the people in all time coming notwithstanding of what they might have said for themselves as not owneing the same but murmureing against it Yea the King in his princely capacity sitting on his throne with the crowne on his head in the day of his solemne inauguration this though there were no more will make it a reall Covenant binding the people according to that imperator foedus percussit videtur populus percussisse Romanus As King Zedekiah's oath to the King of Babilon did oblige the people Now then seing where either the body of a land their Parliaments or their prince in their severall capacities do Covenante the Covenant becometh reall perpetually obligeing much more must it be so where all these three are so theseoaths being Regall oaths Parliamentary oaths nationall oaths covenants they must be covenants perpetually obligeing so that as long as Scotland
there is no just exception why they are not of bindeing force and this shall be made to appear in the 22 23 Sections following And this will further aggravat the hainousnesse of this sin of breaking these Covenants SECTION XXI The great dreadfull hazard of perjury or Covenant breaking is demonstrated HAving shown how sinfull hainous a crime it is to break Covenant It followeth in the next place that it be shown how God's curse wrath cannot but be expected to follow the breach of Covenants though Matchiavell would make his admirers beleeve that such as broke Covenants did prosper thereby Very heathens can preach â—…orth this doctrine That God will be avenged on false and perfidious Covenant breakers Hesiodus speaking of oaths said as Claudian translateth him Clades mort alibus unde Adveniunt quoties fallaci pectore jurant Cicero pro Roscio Comoedo sayeth whatsoever punishment is appoynted by the immortall Gods unto perjured persons the same is appoynted unto lyars for The Gods are wroth for the perfidy and malice whereby snares are laid for others in these covenants and againe in his book de legibus Llb. 2. he sayeth that the punishment with which God punisheth perjury is destruction and man punisheth it with disgrace And Hesiod as paraphrased by Claudian sayeth In prolem dilata ruunt perjuria patris Et poenam merito filius ore legit Et quas fallacis collegit lingu parentis Has eadem nâ—…ti lingua refundit opes Though perjuries God doth not visite On parents but them long do'th spaire The children sure shall them inherite Their punishments deferred beare Parents false tongues do riches gain Children them vomite up againe Homer Ilâ—…ad 4. Sheweth how Agamemnon inveigheth against the perjury of the Trojans thus as he is paraphrased by one Etsiperjuros violato foedere Troas Iupiter e coelis praesenti haud puniat ira At quandoque graves magno cum fâ—…enere poenâ—… Hi cum conjugibus tum 〈◊〉 a stirpe rependent Though perjur'd Trojans Covenant who breake Jov ' doth not plague from heav'n with present ire Yet sometime shall he on them vengeance take Pay them theirs with increase of their hyre And againe â—…bid contemni numen olympi Haud impune sinunt Superi sceira impia quanquam Distulerunt culpas hominum gravior a morantuâ—… Supplicia i. e. The Gods they do not passe unpunish'd those Who with contempt the heavenly pow'rs oppose Deserved punishments though they delay For greater crimes plagues greater waiting stay And Iâ—…venall could say that such should not escape fore punishment Saâ—…yr 13. Nullane perjuri capitis fraudisque nefandae Poena erit abreptum crede hunc graviore catena Protiniâ—…s nosiro quid plus veliâ—… ira neâ—…ari Arbitrio i. e. Shall to a false perjur'd head Of fraud treachery all made No punishment appoynted be Beleeve me thon may'st this man see In weighty chaines setters bound In triumph led cast to the ground Then have him kill'd at will pleasure Can all our wrath wish harder measure Hence their fictions of Iupiter's fountane of Tyana the watters in Sardinta Bythynia the Aâ—…dine wel which had severall malignant influences upon perfidious persons all speaking out what judgments they expected should follow the perfidious breach of Covenants This same is held forth by their way of Entering into Covenant such as their throwing away a stone saying per jovem lapidem thereby imprecating and so expecting that if they did wittingly willingly break that Covenant Iupiter might cast them away as that stone was cast away And their throwing of pieces of red hote iron into the sea did import that they expected the Gods might would so extinguish Covenant breakers So also their wishing that God wold so strike the Covenant breakers as the publick officer did strik or cut the beast as Liv. hath it Lib. 9. sheweth what they did look for if they did break the Covenant Beside that which natures light might teach Christians to expect from God as the due punishment of Covenant breakers Scripture doth plainly hold forth that Covenant breakers shall not escape the judgment of God He will not hold thâ—… guiltlesse that take his name in vame The judgment which followed the perdâ—…e of Saul in breaking the Covenant which was made with the 〈◊〉 some hundereds of yeers after it was made may make Christians to tremble So these sad threatnings against Zedekiah Ezck. 17 15 16 17 19 20. Shall he prosper shall he escape that doth such things Or shall he break the Covenant be delivered as 〈◊〉 live say eth the Lord in the place where the King dwelleth that made him King he shall diâ—… he shall not escape Therefore thus sayeth the Lord God as I live surely mine oath that he hath despised my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I reâ—…perse upon his own head I will spread my net upon him he shall be taken in my snare I will bring him to â—…abilon will plead with him there Such as break their Covenant are bloody deceitfull men shall be brought down into the pit of destruction shall not live out half their dayes Psal. 55 20. Compared with v. 23. That is a dreadfull word Neh. 5 13. Also I shoke my lap said so God shake out every man from his house from his labour that performeth not this promise even thus be he shaken out emptied Covenant breakers need expect no lesse then to be shaken out of God's house for the Man that shall ascend into the hill of the Lord is that man who hath not sworne deceiâ—…fully Ps. 24 3 4. And he that shall abâ—…de in the tabernacle of God is the man who though he sweare to his own hurt yet he changeth not Psalm 15 1 4. That is a dreadfull word Zech 5 2 4. the flying roll the length whereof is Twenty cubites the breadth thereof Ten cubites shall enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly shall remaine in the midst of his house shall consume it with the timber thereof the stones thereof And Ier. 34 17. behold I proclame a liberty for you sayeth the Lord to the sword to the pestilence to the famine will make you to be removed into all the Kingdomes of the earth v. 12. And I will give the men that have transgressed my Covenant which they have made before me when they cut the calfe in twaine passed between the parts thereof v. 20. I will even give them into the hand of their enemies into the hand of them that seek their life their dead bodyes shall be meat unto the soules of heaven to the beasts of the earth Doth not the Lord Mal. 3 5. Say That he will be a swift witnesse against fals swearers And Livit. 26 15 16. he sayeth He will appoynt terrour consumption the burning ague that shall consume the eyes
is a new obligation added ariseing from the oath Had not the Covenants oaths which the children of Israel swore concerning morall dutyes the law the worshipe of God an additionall tye obligation Ier. 50 5. Ios. 24. Deut. 29 3. By this meanes this author would take away this piece of God's worship service of vowing swearing unto him for it must either be about things necessary or about things indifferent But he will have no oath or vow made about things necessary because sayes he that is needlesse nor will he have any oath or vow made about things indifferent as shall be seen afterward so if he speak truth there ought to be no vowes or oaths at all 4. But why may not people look even to the Covenant obligation in things determined by the word Doth not God lay the breach of Covenant oftentimes unto the charge of his people doth not this say that they were bound to look to their promises obligations It is true that oaths Covenants should not be the only ground upon which to plead the lawfulnesse of such or such things yet these promises vowes Covenants ought to have their own secondary place So then it is a poor thing to say that such as plead for the standing force obligation of the Covenant must suppone that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent for by this same reason they must suppone also that the other great duties which are engadged to in that Covenant relating to true religion a holy life from which himself sayeth Pag. 37. no power on earth can loose to which they are indispensably tyed are of an indifferent nature which were most reasonlesse absurd 5. This is a hard case unto which this author would bring the Covenanters viz. That either they must quite the obligation of the Covenant or else say that all those particulars sworne to in the second article which is the article he mainely instanceth are but matters of indifferency and consequently say that not only prelacy in it's height as Hierarchicall but poperie heresie schisme every thing which is contrary to sound doctrine the power of godlinesse are matters of indifferencie But would he say so in his own case If one who had taken the oath of alleagiance or fidelity to his lawfull prince or the oath de fideli administratione in some office or other should afterward alledge that these bondes did not binde him for either the matter there obliged to was a thing indifferent if so he was not bound to wrong his liberty or else duties antecedent to the oath then the oath hath no force on him he is no way perjured though he crosse a hundered of those oaths Now what will this author reply in this case hath he not as it is usuall for such as pleaâ—…d for error in seeking to wound the Covenanters killed himself what evasions he findeth out for subjects to reject all the bondes of oaths imposed by superiours every one seeth And whether in so doing he doth his Maj. good service Acteth the part of a loyall subject and faithfull casuist any may judge But to proceed in the examination of the case set downe 4. Let this also be given unto this Author though it may not be granted he will not gaine his cause for let it be supponed that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent will it thence follow that the Church may not determine in a matter of indifferencie concerning Church government without the supreme Magistrat's expresse consent Whether is the Church or the Magistrat the fittest judge of that government which best suiteth the Church tendeth most to edification is most expedient whether are the Churches that live under the Turk more able to judge of the most expedient edifying way of Church government or the Turk himself If he reply That he speaketh of Christian Magistrats It is answered That heathens are as essentially Magistrats as Christians are that text Numb 30. groundeth no more an analogy for Christian Magistrats then for heathens And if that be a law then he would remember that non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit that Christians may be subjects unto heathen Magistrats is beyond all question And therefore if this argueing hold good a Christian Church living under the Turk might not vow to maintaine and follow such a forme of Church government as they judged most agreeable to the word of God most advantagious for the ends of government because forsooth it were a prejudging of the right of the great Turk their superiour If he reply that the case is altered because of the Turk 's granting liberty unto these Churches to do in these things as they think meet Ans. Then the Turk is a better friend unto the Church then the Christian Magistrat it were better for the Church to be under the Turk then under a Christian Magistrat 5. Let all this be yet granted by way of supposition he will not gaine his poynt for their oath in this Covenant doth not prejudge the right of the superiour because they sweare only to endeavour in their severall places callings such such alterations what incroachment can this make upon the superiours right May not a wife or a doughter sweare in their places according to their callings to endeavour the alteration of such or such a thing in the family yet never attempt it without the consent of the parent or husband May not here oath be lawfull binde hâ—…re to use all faire lawfull meanes to move incline the parent or husband there unto So that what ever he be pleased to say of the way of Scotland their carrying on that businesse in which how sowlely he erreth may be showne hereafter were it granted to him will make nothing against the Covenant concerning the obligation of which is the difference now Till then he make it appear that the Covenant as worded did directly prejudge the right of the superiour his alledgiance is frivolous groundlesse 6. This might be granted to him also which yet cannot be done his cause gaine no advantage that for this reason Because that place Numb 30. Exponed accord-to his owne glosse commentary maketh for the Covenanters every way For. 1. They had no open dissent declared It is true there is mention made of a proclamation declareing it unlawfull to enter into that Covenant but Mr Crofton in his Analepsis Analephthe Pag. 120. sayeth that it was not regular being done without the advice of his Councell who are vailed by the session of Parliament sheweth also how it was a breach of privilege But as to that this may satisfie That as that proclamation did not anull the act but only prohibite it so it did not concerne them in Scotland Now if the parent or husband hold his peace the oath is confirmed requiritur sayeth doct Sanders de jur prom obl
King 's 〈◊〉 as contrary tâ—… 〈◊〉 Covenant albeit in these dayes they â—…ad a way of useing liberty enough more then was fitting Ans. It would â—…come this gentleman to speak spareingly or these zealous stedfâ—…st worthies who lived in those dayes whose name for thâ—…ir piety constancy zeal shall smell most fragrantly when his may be rotting above the ground It is like he would suffer sin to be upon King court sell his soul conscience by sinfull silence in a day of defection thus declare himself a priest of Baal none of the messengers of the Lord of hosts who should set the trumpet unto their mouth But to the purpose Whether the assâ—…mblies Ministers did at that time speak of the deed of the King of the Councell as contrary to the Covenant or not who can tell This is known that both assemblies Ministers understood that King court all the land were bound to owne presbyterian governement by vertue of that Covenant severall times thereafter There is a letter which Mr Andrew Melvin who no doubt knew the minde of the assemblies wrote unto divines abroad An. 1584. in which speaking of the discipline of the Church he fayeth as reverend Mr Petree citeth in his history Pag. 448. And three yeers since was approved sealed confirmed with profession of faith subscription of hand religion of oath by the King every subject â—…f every state particularly Mr Petree also sayeth Pag. 570. That An. 1604. when Mr Iohn Spottiswâ—…d Mr Iames law were accused by the Synod of Lothian for overturning the discipline of the Church had denyed the same The Synod did presente the conâ—…ssion of faith to be subscribed by them so in the judgment of the Synod this confession did containe an abjuration of prelacy a promise of maintaining of presbyterian governement And againe when the ministers were impannelled at Lâ—…gow for treason sedition for meeting at Aberdeen 1605. Mr forbes who was one of them had a discourse to the gentlemen who were onâ—… the assise shewed that they were bound by the nationall Covenant to maintaine the discipline of the Church having read the same unto them he infered thâ—…t they should be guilty of perjury if for fear or pleasure they should decerne that to be treason which themselves had sworne subscribed he desired the Earle of Dumbar to report unto the King in their names what punishement followed upon the breach of the oath made unto the Gibconites how it was feared that the like should follow upon his Maj. his posterity Yea this author himself sayeth Pag. 13. that Ministers then accounted themselves as really bound against the allowaâ—…ce of Episcopall governement both by the Covenant by the word of God as any do judge themselves engadged against it by late bonds whether they did mistake in this or not we say nothing but that they did sâ—… judge is out â—…f all question But. 2. This author cannot with any good ground say that assemblies Ministers did not then speak of that which King Councell did as contrary to the Covenant for a negative testimony from humane history is the weakest of all arguments Moreover this is certane that the courts of Christ both nationall provinciall classicall were at this time going on faithfully in their work keeping their meetings censureing that perverse man Mr Montgomery who Prâ—…us like changed often licked up his own vomit notwithstanding of all the prohibitions or inhibitions they gote from his Maj. They openly protested before the King his Councell for the liberties of the Church supplicated exhorted his Maj. that as a chief member of the Church he would have a chief care thereof they complained that he was playing the Pope usurping both swords all which will speak some thing equivalent unto that wich this author alledgeth they did not speak But in the next place as touching the assembly 1638. their declaration of the sense of the Covenant he hath some what to say as 1. That it seemeth strange that any assembly should take upon them to declare what was the sense of the Church in taking a Covenant when few or noâ—…e of the men were living who took that Covenant or if living few or none of tâ—…em were members of that assembly 1638. as juramentum est vinculum pâ—…rsonale so no man or company of men can take upon them to define what was the sense of dead men in taking an oath unlesse they can produce some authentick expresse evidence that such was their meaning in taking the oath Ans. 1. By this argueing the sense meaning of a Covenant perisheth with the Covenantâ—…rs 2. It is true juramentum or foedus personale est vinculum personale but there is another Covenant that is called foedus reale of which kinde this nationall Covenant was the vinculum of this is more then personale it obligeth moe then such as did personally take it 3. Therefore this Covenant being a nationall reall Covenant obligeing the land in all time coming posterity is called to search to see very exactly narrowly into the sense meaning of the Covenant they are obliged to know the nature of that Covenant by which themselves stand bound before God 4. Who is more fit to give the sense of the Church in taking a Covenâ—…nt then a Generall assembly of the Church 5. It was shown before what was the constant judgement of the honest Ministers concerning the sense of this Covenant even in the time when prelats were heighly advanced out of this same author so the true sense of the nationall Covenant hath come down from father to son amongst the honest partie even in the most corrupt times then the Assembly at Glasgow was so much the more in tuto 6. The Assembly at Glasgow did produce authentick expresse evidences that such was the meaning sense of those who first entered into Covenant To this he is pleased to say That all that which they produced amounts to nothing more then this that before Iuly 1580. The Church had been labouring against Bishops who notwithstanding countinued till thereafter but all their citations prove not that Episcopacy was abjured by the Covenant or any words in it Ans. 1. This is certaine that in that Covenant some Government or discipline was sworne to be continued in defended as the expreâ—…e words before cited do shew 2. It is certane that this discipline or government of the Church was either prelacy or presbyterian Government there not being a third competitour if it was prelacy presbyterian governement was abjured if it was presbyterian governement then prelacy was abjured 3. It is certane that if it were once cleared what that governement was which the Church of Scotland in about that time did owne as the only governement of the Church it would soon be cleared what that
the duties of the one as well as for the duties of the other And every Presbyter hath the Ius to both as well in actu secundo as in actu primo judicious Vâ—…etius Polit. Eccl. Pag. 224. Quaest. 15. doth abundantly cleare this particular shewing that such a delegation is not lawfull out of Mat. 18 18. 16 18. 1 Cor. 5. Act. 20 28. 1 Tim. 5 17. 1 Thes. 5 12. 1 Pet. 5 1 2. comp with 1 Tim. 3 5. Ioh. 20 20. 1 Tim. 3. 4 13 14. 2 Tim. 2 2. 4 2. Tit. 1 3 5 7 8. Whatever may be done in case of necessity for dispatching of some particular Act which is transient And how or what way the limitation exercise of the power of jurisdiction belongeth to the Church in common more then the limitation exercise of the power of order is not yet clearly demonstrated by any thing which Mr Stillingfleet hath said And it is known that Prelats arrogat to themselves a speciall or sole interest in the power of order as well as in the power of jurisdiction therefore they stile themselves the only Pastors of the Dioecies say that the Presbyters are but their Substitutes Vicars And it is certane that they assume to themselves the sole power of ordination And though here in this place which is now under consideration Mr Stillingfleet is pleased to rancke up ordination under the power of jurisdiction yet else where viz. Pag. 273. he sayeth that The collation of orders doth come from the power of order not meerly from the power of jurisdiction 8. How cometh the Christian Magistrat in here to appoynt the constant limitation exercise of the power committed by Christ unto Church Officers This is a very great power granted unto the civill Magistrat some warrand would be seen for it But this is not the proper place to examine his notions concerning the power of the civill Magistrat in Church matters Enough of this observation Obs. 5. With Presbyterians the practice of the Apostles of the Churches in their dayes following their appoyntment command is of much weight It is true their examples as examples do not binde But when the Lord hath sent them forth for this end errand to plante Churches to ordaine new offices officers immediatly under him and to appoynt unto these officers their proper work to show them how what way they should goe about their work when in all things they delivered nothing to the Church but what they received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11 23. as Tertull. said de praeser adv haereses Apostoli nihil ex suo arbitrio elegerunt quod inducerent sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt Sure then their practice example ought to be followed Seing they were sent forth for this end especially viz. to reforme setle Churches in doctrine worship discipline governement according to a new Gospell modell can any think that we are not obliged to follow their practices It it true there can be no duty without a law making it a duty But Christ's sending them forth for this end giving them a speciall commission for this work sending them forth as the Father sent him breathing the Holy Ghost upon them commanding them Math. 28 v. 19 20. To goe teach all Nations all things which he had commanded them Act. 1 2 3. Speaking to them of the things pertainting to the Kingdome of God By which sayeth Calvin on the place Is signified that Christ would not goe away till first he had seen to the governement of the Church carry a law in their bosome say that their example is obligeing And when there is a law or warrand for following such an example it is but in vaine to dispute whether it be the example which bindeth or the rule making it our duty to follow such an example But moreover he will grant that examples in actions that are morall naturall are obligeing whether as examples or by reason of the morality of the action needeth not be anxiously enquired after will not actions done by them upon morall grounds that are of perpetuall concernement become actions morall naturall so obligeing Is not their example in observing the first day Sabbath obligeing And why He sayes because there was a morall law standing in force concerning the observation of one day in Seven Why then shall not their example in observing such or such a forme of governement be obligeing seing there was a morall law standing in force concerning the governement of the Church in generall Is there any rule extant making their example in the one case obligeing not in the other If the Apostolicall practice in the one case make an Apostolicall tradition so a divine institution so will their practice do in the other case yea the examples of the Churches practise in the Apostles times hints from their writtings do sufficiently evidence an institution we read of elders in Ierusalem hence we saifly argue that they were ordained though we read not in terminis terminantibus of the manner how they were ordained sayeth one But he hath foure things to object against this ground taken from the practice of the Apostles though acted by the Spirit Part. 2. cap. 6. § 20. As 1. That the Apostles did many things without any intention of obligeing others as preaching without maintenance c. Ans. 1. The consequence is null Because they did many things without such an intention will it follow Ergo they did nothing with such an intention 2. The disput is about such actions as were done by them by vertue of their speciall office calling of which kinde this is none to preach at some Churches without wages 3. Yea this same action of preaching without wages is to be imitated in the like cases that is when Ministers have a competent livelyhood otherwise as Paul had who said he robed other Churches 1 Cor. 11 ver 8. when there is no other way to stope the mouthes of false teachers who thereby take occasion to hinder the good of the Gospell for this was the thing which moved Paul to take â—…o wages from Corinth That he might cut off occasion from them that desired occasion and these were the false Apostles 1 Cor. 11 v. 12 13. 2. He sayeth The Apostles did many things upon particular occasions emergencies circumstances which things so done cannot binde by vertue of their doing them any furder then a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done as Paul's celebat communitie of goods their preaching from house to house absteaning from blood c. Ans. this is still to argue a particulari because such such particular practices oblige not Ergo no practice obligeth is a weak consequence 2. Actions done upon particular occasions emergencies are of another nature then such actions as are done
upon morall lasting grounds 3. If even those actions binde upon the ground of a parity of reason much more will these binde upon the same account for whatever ground or reason be given why the Apostles followed such a modell of Government in their dayes will stand good now evince that the same modell ought to be followed 4. And where as he sayeth before an acknowledged Apostolicall practice be looked on as obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason cause for the doing of it depending upon the severall circumstances of time place and persones but that they did it from some unalterable law of Christ or from indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all times places persons he confirmeth what is now answered for the reasons of their erecting such a species of Government do equally hold in all times places nothing can be said for the dependence of such a forme upon the severall circumstances of time place persons As for the particulars mentioned by him It is answered 1. For Celebat Christ himself Mat. 1 9 v. 12. restricteth it to such as have the gift of continency it bindeth none else 2. The Community of goods was for that time only for the contrary is practised in after times by all other Churches Christians for when Paul is pressing the Corinthians unto a contribution he never mentioneth this as an argument moving thereunto 3. Their preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency of more publicke places yet when they had liberty they went to the temple to Solomons porâ—…h to Synagogues 4. As for that Act 15 concerning the abstaineing from blood things strangled things offered to idols it was only for that time of the scandall not alwayes for Paul taketh off this 1. Cor 10 25 when he sayeth whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat asking no question for conscience sake againe when he sayes 1. Tim 4 3 4 5. Every creature of God is good nothing to be refused if it be received with thanks giving But there is nothing of this kinde that can be showne in the matter of the species of Government as shall further appear when his alledgances are answered afterward 3. He sayes officers that were of Apostolick appoyntment are growne out of use in the Church as widowes 1 Tim. 4 9. or diaconisses Rom 16 1. Ans. These Diaconisses were not Church-officers having any Ministeriall charge or office in the Church for there is nothing spoken of their ordination But they were poor eleemosynaries indigent women taken in for some service unto sick strangers or propter horam balnei aut visitationis quando nudatum fuiâ—… corpus mulieris as sayeth Epipâ—… rius lib. 3. Tom. 2. haeres 79. And so their work was for those â—…ote countreyes because now there is no such necessitie for their work themselves are laid aside But 2. are there not severall other officers laid aside as Apostles Prophets Evangelists will he hence conclude that therefore nothing of their practice obligeth 3. If this ground be followed forth that Apostolick practice even in the matter of officers instituted by them is not of an obligatory nature then may all Church officers be laid aside so his formerly mentioned position concession touching the government of the Church by officers only of divine appoyntment will fall to the ground If he say that divine institution is one thing bare examples are another thing Ans. Then his reason here is impertinent for all Church officers are of divine institution these Diaconisses among the rest must be of divine appoyntment then what hath this to do here where the examplary practices of the Apostles are only spoken of which yet to presbyterians in the case of Government will speak faire for a divine institution finally if it could be cleared what was ought to be the proper work of these Widowes that it were of a lasting necessity unto the Church in all places at all times of which the scripture is altogether silent as may be seen concerning other standing officers of the Church respect should be had to that ordinance of God as well as to others 4. He sayeth Rites customes apostolicall are altered 〈◊〉 dipping in baptisme love feasts holy kisse therefore men do not think that apostolical practice doth binde Ans. 1. He still argueth à particularâ—… which is very unsure fallacious because in some things men look not upon the practice of the Apostles as bindeing therefore in nothing This argument will not hold 2. There is a great difference betwixt rites customes which are alterable such such formes of Government which be of a more lasting nature As for dipping in baptisme It is no where commanded nor was it constantly practised by the Apostles nor other Church officers It is true they were commanded to Baptize but this will not necessarily import baptizing by dipping for baptizing any thing may be otherwise then by dipping as these places do cleare Mark. 7 4. Heb. 9 v. 10. with Numb 8 7â—… 1. Cor. 10 v. 1. Rev. 19 13â—… compared with Isa. 63 3. Mat. 3 11. compared with Act. 2 17. And next it is severall times found that they baptized when where they could not get Dipping used as Act 2 41. 4 4. Where such multitudes could not be gotten dipt especially in the streets so Act 9 18 19. This was in a lodging when Paul was sick weak so unfit for Dipping So Act 16 33. This was in the night in a privat lodging when Paul Silas by reason of their sores were unable for dipping And therefore all that can be said in this is that sometimes they used Dipping sometimes sprinkling as occasion offered this will speak nothing for the Apostles continuall practiseing of dipping so it will not speak home to the case in hand 4. As for love feasts if they were ordinary seasts amongst private Christians it was but an Act of civility to use these they needed no institution from the Apostles practice a custome it is that continueth yet But if it be meaned of the feasts which they keeped at the Lord's suppâ—… when rich persons brought some meat with them to make a feast of at that time This was not constantly practised by the apostles of whose practices we are now speaking not yet was it warranted by them yea Paul writting to the Corinthians Epist. 1. c. 11. v. 22. sayeth have yee therefore no houses to eat drink in And so would have them forbearing that custome which they had so much abused Their custome was to keep those feasts in the place of the assembly he would have them if so they would feast keeping those feasts at home in their own houses therefore this is nothing to the purpose in hand 5. As for the Holy