which provokes their anger and Mr. Cr. like an angry Disputant confutes himself Is that our fault that we shew a peculiar respect to that part of it which peculiarly concerns our Saviour his Words and Works Our particular obligation assures us it were ill if it were otherwise Outward Reverence provided we do not let it serve in stead of but use it to signifie and promote inward cannot in that case be a crime But if to dignifie some parts of Scripture above others be a crime themselves are guilty as doing so to the Psalms of David only they are not Davids but Sternholds by singing them before every Sermon a thing in Scripture no where commanded But so have I seen a distempered person in spite to another beat himself The next thing considerable is p. 55 56. Christmas Easter c. and the Holy-days are superstitious plainly repugnant to Gal. 4.10 Col. 2.16 If the Feasts there mentioned were evidently not Christian Festivals I suppose I may safely conclude Christian Festivals not to be plainly forbid in that place where they are not so much as spoke of The Text in the Galatians mentions expresly Moneths and Years proportions of Time no way to be accommodated to Christian Festivals or then or now That in the Colossians is so plain that it must be a worse Principle than Inconsideration which occasioned the mistake not only because it expresses New Moons a thing not established by Christian Authority but in the words following the 17. verse gives a clear account of the unlawfulness of those Feasts of the Observance of which he there complains which are a shadow of things to come but the Body is Christ Those Feasts therefore were not reproved as having been commanded by any Christian Church which it is clear they were not but because they had in them not only a general malignity as being kept in Obedience to the Iewish Law and so must suppose that to be still in force but had besides a peculiar malignity in their nature being and for that very reason reproved a shadow of Christ to come and so consequently denyed His coming Now then all which can be gathered from this place is Christians must not keep Feasts which prefigured Christ to come Ergo they may not keep Feasts in remembrance that He is come There is a pretty piece of Divinity p. 56. to enforce the former Conclusion which no doubt would be admirable if it were but sense To observe the Nativity Circumcision Passion Resurrection Ascension severally is irrational and irreligious irrational because they are not in themselves Mercies to the Church but as they center in Mans Redemption irreligious because without Divine warrant That none of all these signal condescensions of Divine goodness should be esteemed in themselves Mercies or worth giving thanks for when Edge-Hill and Nasby Battails though but in order to the undoing of the King were so accounted argues a more passionate esteem and concernment for the Covenant of Scotland than that of Grace That it is irreligious because without Divine warrant is said but not proved For a thing becomes unlawful only by being against some Law that is by being forbidden not barely by being not commanded Our Saviour Christ we are sure observed Feasts which had not such Institution notwithstanding that prohibition which was as strict to the Iews whose Authority instituted those Feasts and in obedience to which He kept them as it can possibly be to us Ye shall not add c. Christ did indeed abolish the Ceremonial Law of the Iews and that was all He did abolish so as to make unlawful From hence men gather That it is â— sin for us to imitate them in any thing we find done by them according to the Principles and Dictates of Nature Gratitude c. as Feasts of Commemorations clearly are Though this is a Proposition sufficiently distant upon this pitiful ground without any more ado do men put off all which can be fetcht out of the Old Testament whereas though Christ abolisht the Ceremonial Law he left all other Laws and Rules as he found them But as Christ observed Feasts not instituted by divine Authority so possibly doth Mr. Cr the command in Scripture for Sunday being not so very clear that Mr. Cr. cannot but doubt to be Irreligion and Will-worship in his notions of those terms No man can ground it on the fourth Commandement that doth not take the seventh and first to be the same day i. e. Seven and one to be the same number If he will interpret the Seventh-day to signifie one in seven I desire to know whether the Iews might have observed which of the seven days they pleased and whether then the Reason of the fourth Commandement was not strangely impertinent to the Matter of it That being expressed to be For in the Seventh day God rested c. seeing that was the very seventh and no other and a command in the New-Testament for it I suppose is not to be found The next three leaves 57 58 59. are spent in proving what none ever denyed That There are several things in the Form of our Service and Discipline not commanded in the Word of God A thing comes to be unlawful sure by being forbid not by being uncommanded Seeing this is the only fault I ask Is the Directory the Form there prescribed in the Word of God I desire a direct Answer to that Can that pretend to anything but to be the result of Prudence and Authority Both Directory and Common-Prayer agree in that which the Directory was made to differ from the Liturgy in both were made by Men. The only imaginable difference is the one was made by those who had Authority the other by those who had none That the Scripture is a compleat Rule of Faith And what cannot be proved thereby as it is interpreted by that Original and unquestionable Tradition by which we receive the Scripture it self is not to be believed as a revealed Article of Faith We not only assert but in the defence of this Practice of ours whereby we are said to over-throw the Scriptures being a compleat Rule we contend for it as an advantagious Truth in this Cause Because this Doctrine Nothing is to be in Discipline or Order but what we find in Scripture is a Doctrine in Scripture no where to be found So that the very Accusation is the same Crime it would be thought to reprove And what is clear concerning this Principle is as clear concerning their Practice Till the Form and Order in the Directory prescribed be shewed to be so in the Bible too The demand of the Written Word for every particular of Order and Discipline is hugely plausible and senseless I will not throw away Reason upon unreasonable men to show the vanity of that admired tenent That whatever though but of Order Decency Discipline is not in the Written Word which is a compleat Rule for all is Will-Worship c. I shall
for quiets sake grant the Scripture to be so and that the Directory or any other beloved way is plainly in terminis in the Bible But then I shall require this in return that they would show me where-abouts for I would willingly read it there and truly this is but reasonable They who when we obey the Church though in matters of Order and Decency tell us We hang our Faith upon the Churches sleeve though by the way the word Faith is not very properly applyed to such matters They of all men should not require us to hang our eyes upon their sleeves believe that Form to be plainly in Scripture which we who know our selves able to read know not to be there let them but shew it us there and we will believe Themselves approve not they tell us Believing by an implicit Faith and we as little like to see with implicit eyes That things indifferent are not unlawful to be used because commanded we need no other Principle but their own That Humane Commands alter not the Nature of things Ergo They do not become unlawful by it Ergo they may even then be used without sin and if so Whether then it be not a duty I leave to him to consider who remembers Obedience to all Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical to be enjoyned in the terms of the greatest latitude Those general Commands signifie something sure the general Rule of Decency and Order were not intended for nothing St. Paul reproved the irregularities at Corinth upon other Principles then would admit the wild extravagancies of any thing that might be mistook for or called Tender Conscience If any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God So then to plead Christian Liberty against the Customs of the Church is indeed spiritual Pride Faction Singularity though it may be called Conscience There was a disorder in the Church of Corinth as we read Chap. 14. v. 23. St. Paul rectified it by the Rules of Decorum the Principles of Reason without any reference to the revealed Will of God Will they not say Ye are mad In the 26. of that Chapter he tells them One had a Psalm another a Doctrine a third a Revelation c. Every one after his own way as if there be no common Authority which hath power to restrain what can hinder It is very probable it was upon this very mistake of the Liberty given by Christ as appears in the close of the Discourse ver 33. God is not the Author of Confusion c. i.e. They mistake the matter quite Christ indeed abolisht the Laws of Moses but never told them he did those of Decency He never instituted Ordinances of disorder or Sects of rudeness And if there must be Decency and Order no confusion If Authority must not judge what is so but every private man for himself then I would fain know how Order differs from Disorder Though this is clear in the nature of the thing yet I shall show out of Scripture it self allowed Instances of the Churches Authority exercised over and altering of Institutions confessedly immediate of divine Institution At the Institution of the Pass-over Exod. 12.11 it is commanded expresly they should eat it in that manner with their loins girt shooes on their feet staves in their hands yet our Saviour according to the allowed and accustomed practise of that Church eat it in a Table-posture His loyns not girt nor His staff in his hand Now what account can be given of this matter by those who allow the Church in matters of this nature no Power but declaratory what the written Word in this case which every Cobler who can read hath let themselves tell us The practice of the Kings in varying as occasion served in such cases from the Law is mentioned and commended in Scripture and hath been often urged in this case The Truth as well as the Practise is clear That the nature of Government can no more be devested of this Power than it can of being what it pretends to be This power of varying with occasions from the very express Letter of Scripture the Presbyterians as well as all the rest of the world allow and practise The Eucharist was not instituted to be in the morning nor at the Publike Service The Decree Act. 15. of things strangled and bloud though made by the authority and direction of God Himself and in peremptory terms is not observed and he who says The Reason of that Command ceases doth not answer but confirm my Argument That in change of Times we may alter what is established in Scripture much more Power sure we have over what is not at all mentioned there The Order of Widows treated of in the fifth Chap. of the 1. of Timothy no where now The famous Love-Feasts every where ceased Let them not delude the World with a shew of Scripture-Discipline when of that little part which is come to our knowledge themselves retain nothing Though how according to their Principles who allow no Authority in the Church but confine it to the Written Word be our Times never so different they can omit or add any tittle without the most horrid Impiety I ununderstand not There is a Query p. 59. which they are very happy in having taken generally for granted Sure I am They cannnot say one word of sense to prove it Whether the Instituting significant Ceremonies be not the very Formality of Superstition I am very confident were not our Ceremonies significant they would be styled silly and useless and now they are significant they are Impious To the Query I say this The word Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used several times in Scripture but in what place they can pretend it to have that meaning I wish they would consider first and tell us afterward The Criticks I suppose will not befriend them with such a notion of it in the learned Authors I find St. Paul charging the Athenians Act. 17.22 downright with this crime Ye are too superstitious I suppose Mr. Cr. will not prove the very formality of their fault to be significant Ceremonies I find in Scripture a significant Ceremony viz. The Holy kiss If it was instituted by the Apostles as they were Ordinary Governours of the Church in that capacity they were to have Successors while there is a Church or World and so it proves the Churches Power to institute significant Ceremonies If they did it as Apostles it concerns us now The most material Objection is p. 60. How comes it to pass that the work of the Ministery is divided in Ordination Deacons Baptize but administer not the Lords Supper That the Church should give power to Deacons to Baptize though not to administer the Sacrament some account may be given from the different natures of both Sacraments Both of them it is confessed are equally Holy yet were alwayes looked upon with some difference that of Baptism as of greater necessity that
of Authority For being it is professed in the Conclusion to be an incouragement to Foraign Churches to enter into the like Association and Covenant c. where there is no such pretence of Parliamentary Power the Covenant consequently must needs be scandalous as inviting to down-right Rebellion if there be a possibility for any such thing as Rebellion and so to sin if Rebellion be a sin and if it be not I would fain know what is And for the same reason except the two Houses be Supream in Ireland too they cannot oblige us to reform that where they as well as we have no Authority Though Ireland is under the Crown of England I suppose the Crown is not theirs The second Article of the Covenant As an inducement to like well of Episcopal Government the Antiquity and Universality of it is considered an Argument worth considering at least certainly of moment with any but those who will not be perswaded that there ever were pious or prudent men who sought God or were directed by Him till the Scottish Army came into England It is certainly free from that prejudice which lies against the Covenant that Bishops Lands were Anti-Christian assoon as their Calling was Men had got a very fair Title to Bishops Lands by swearing the Bishops should not keep them as if wrong ceased to be wrong when men entred into a League to do it How the Parliament came to the power of disposing of Church Lands I am and believe they are too very ignorant The Bishops received their Lands from them who were the right owners and therefore certainly had it in their power to give it to whom they would nor were they by any Law disabled from giving it to that particular use And I presume that that place in Scripture is not easily produced Where whatever is given to the Church is declared forfeited to the State For the weight I suppose in the Argument drawn from the Antiquity of Episcopal Government is hardly avoided by that Text Redeemed from the vain conversation received by Tradition from their fathers In his Answer to the Oxf. Reasons Mr. Cr. urges The Bishops constant struglings with and encroaching on the Royal Authority c. p. 73. The strugling of Bishops which he means was in behalf of Papal not Episcopal Authority Sure he hath forgot the Practise and Principles of the Scottish Presbyters and the English Promoters of this Covenant were certainly very great encroachers upon the Royal Authority if ROYAL relates to the KING Their Brethren in Scotland whom they Covenant to be the same with have stood in and owned the Defiance of King and Parliament claim a coactive Power Independent on either The Convocations in England acknowledge themselves to have no power to Enact or Promulge any new Canons without the Kings leave Which of the two are the Encroachers then it is not hard to determine Si fur displice at Verri c. The Disciplinarian Calvinists objecting disloyalty to Bishops is like as the Doctrinal ones accused the Arminians of making God the Author of sin and damning men for what Himself had necessitated them to do 'T is a good way of hanging others for our own faults The next Crime is Punishing the best men for things indifferent i. e. Disobedience to such commands it could not be unlawful to obey in because the things were indifferent i. e. such as were not unlawful If they were as Mr. Cr. sayes meer trifles it is no sign of the best men to be contentious about such things about trifles Some little prejudices against or rather mistakes about Episcopacy of no moment I pass over and come to the Capital Objection p. 75. Episcopacy is a plain and clear Popery c. So say Salmasius and Beza Episcopi Papam pepererunt I do here very much question whether the Gentleman believes himself and that not only because of the notoriousness of the contrary evidencing those two Governments to all who understand the Constitution of them to be not only different but inconsistent But also because the granting of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy would over-throw unavoidably that of the Papacy And this is even by Mr. Cr. himself before he thought on it acknowledged when p. 82. in summing up his Authors he brings none who speak so clearly for him as a Pope He tells us that Pope Nicolas declared we acknowledge their Desire and Interest it should be so thought Episcopatuum Cathedras instituit Romana Ecclesia c. It seems Sir Popery is no friend to the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy And p. 78 Mr. Cr. tells us That the Pope's Legate interdicted the Dispute in the Council of Trent concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy or directed it in such general and uncertain debates that there might be no determination of it Is the Pope so much his own Enemy as not to endure the determination of that which is his best support Doth the Pope so much dread his best plea as not to endure to hear it or let any own it Sure they had other thoughts of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy at Rome which sure I am is as much abhorred there as at Geneva And truly they have Reason for it and they know it Hence proceeded that violent Opposition and fearful Outcryes against that Tenent we read of in Father Pauls History of the Councel of Trent p. 497. Lanâ—rius a Jesuit tels them Meram esse contradictionem Velle Pontificem esse caput Ecclesiae velle regimen esse Monarchicum tamen affirmare Esse aliquam Potestatem non derivatam ab ipso sed aliunde acceptam So that Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ destroyes his Holiness from being the Spiritual Monarch because he is not then the fountain of all Power It seems this Learned Romanist understood very well that these Tenents which pass at Lectures for one and the same are irreconcileable Contradictions and that which is called Popery in England quite destroyes that which is so at Rome This plain and clear Papacy puls down the Pope And the Reasons are summed up to our hands by that incomparably judicious Historian Inde enim colligebant Claves non fuisse soli Petro datas Concilium esse supra Papam fiebantque Episcopi aequales Pontifici cui nihil relinquebatur nisi quaedam prae aliis Praerogativa Thence would follow if Episcopal Authority were by Divine Right immediately derived from Christ without dependance on the See of Rome It would follow that the Keyes were not only given to St. Peter and consequently the disposal of them not solely in his successor then a Councel as consisting of men whose Authority was as immediately divine as his own would be above the Pope every Bishop was the Popes equal as to that who would then by Divine Right have nothing but a primacy of Order These are amongst other consequences from the Divine Right of Episcopacy once granted as impossible to be avoided as unlike to be