approved at Rome The clearing of this should in all Reason commend Episcopacy to those men who make opposition to Rome the rule of their Faith But oh the intolerable though holy villany of those godly Cheats who Preached up this Tenent for Popery which all who understand what Popery means know to be the bane of it and was at Trent by the See of Romes most skilful Advancers discarded as such It seems some not esteemed Iesuites can lie for God and pious frauds can be used and rayled at It is said by the Oxf. men in their third ground of their first exception That they are not satisfyed of that Phrase in the Covenant Lest we be partakers of other mens sins They do not apprehend how they are guilty of those sins suppose them to be sins which is not yet proved unless they endeavour by fire and sword to root them out To which Mr. Cr. Replyes p. 76. That they are so guilty but hath not one word to prove it That Saints in Scripture did weep for other mens sins I read But that they esteemed them to be made their own if they did not fight them down I do not read There were Kings of Israel who were Idolaters and the Law was general that they who were such should be put to death yet I do not find the Prophets telling the People that it was the same thing for them not to stone the King as it was for him to worship stones And yet this is the Import of that expression Those are our sins we are partakers of them if we do not pull them down The Foundation of the second Article of the Covenant is harder then all the Laws of God besides if it self be one It binds us to the extirpation of all Superstition Heresie Schism Profaneness or whatever shall be found contrary to the Power of Godliness and this they make to be every mans duty and swear him to it under no milder expressions then these Lest we be partakers of other mens sins and so in danger to receive their plagues And here if we consider the way of endeavouring this Covenant practised and required viz. Fire and Sword and with this their Invitation to Foraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Government so that they must only be looked upon as so many private men on whom yet this duty is incumbent It teaches us this by that Engagement Lest we partakers of other mens sins c. That a godly man can never be at peace with himself till he be at war with every one he knows or thinks wicked He must perpetually expect Gods vengeance on himself when he is not executing it upon another The first thing of moment against this Article is p. 78. That the Universal alleadged Practise of 1500 years will more weaken then strengthen the Divine Right for the most pure estate was before that in the first 140. years I shall not at all insist upon the Catalogues of Bishops in unquestionable Histories to be had even from the beginning But only say this That all Christian Churches in those dayes should deviate from the Primitive pattern and all the same way no common cause imaginable inducing them to err the same way is a thing highly incredible As to that which is ordinarily urged viz. Ambition it could not if we consider the Persons or Times have been universal nor if we consider the thing have been at all Being a Bishop having only the priviledge of being burnt next Mr. Cr. in the following Pages makes demands for Texts Though the Article insists only on Practise and so is not concerned Which if not granted good National Parochial Churches The Canon of the Scripture and the Lords-Day are lost Nor is this Truth utterly past by in Scripture though if it had considering that the intent was to deliver to us Doctrine not the precise Form of Discipline we might rationally have appealed to Antiquity in that Point i. e. to the Practise of those from whom we receive the Canon of the Scripture and without whose Suffrage were it once questioned it were not possible without immediate Revelation to have it sufficiently attested to be what it pretends to be Mr. Cr. tells us that Bishops and Presbyters are intrusted with the same Power of Governing But I cannot be satisfied in this particular since I find Timothy and Titus being single men are without any intimation of others being equal with them directed how to receive accusations and to rebuke and censure Evidences in my apprehension pregnant enough of sole Iurisdiction To disprove the Universal alleadged Practise he tells us That the King of Denmark in the year 1537. exstirpated it and so did the Scots since Goodly goodly And so did those he pleads for the long Parliament I cannot apprehend but that either he droles or is utterly ignorant of the nature of Tradition as taking it to be what none ever contradicted a notion of it which they that understand what it means have not Sure I am at that rate the Deity of Christ cannot approve it self to be Catholick Doctrine because there were Arians of old and are Socinians now The mutual correspondence by Letters which was at that time used in the Church forbad any Church to be ignorant of what all the Churches do hold so that Innovations could not but be discovered And to suppose that the same Imposture should be imposed upon all the Churches together in those early dayes as an Apostolick Tradition upon so many various Countries and Inclinations upon men whose choisest care was in delivering and dying for that Faith they had once received from the Apostles is to suppose all the World to be out of their wits together If they tell us It was the ambition of Pastors that introduced that Order no account can be given how this should be universal and yet not perceived or resisted and this is as strange as to the Exemplar Piety of those Times And yet more in the nature of the thing it is absurd For their ambition in that case could tend to nothing but a more quick and severe Martyrdom to be sooner burnt then their fellows The Heathens spite was at the Bishops as well as the Presbyterians Aerius being called a Heretick for promoting that Opinion himself glories in he qualifieth with this That Austin only calleth it Proprium dogma p. 87. Which term in St. Austin's esteem signifieth nothing less In his judgement for a private man to oppose his own private Opinion dictated by discontent as some late ones are known to have been for not being Bishops themselves in a matter of fact against all Records Histories and the owned Practise of all the Churches was Spiritual Pride and Folly And St. Austin in that case would if pertinaciously held not at all have stickt to have called it Heresie If the expression he useth do not import as much In the Answer to the fourth Exception handled I know
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
and to the utmost of my Power to endevour to have it executed upon me In the 101 page He considers that Argument used in behalf of Episcopal Government viz. The agreeableness of it to the civil constitution of the Kingdom which he proves to be no Argument by two Mediums The first is Christs Kingdom is not of this world Ergo. The second is this Christ hath a Regal Power and is faithful in the Administration of his house ergo The agreement of a Church Government to the Civil constitution of the State is no Argument for such a Church Government As to the later Argument I shall not answer it at all but desire the Reader to consult the place that he may see that the Argument is his own and then ask him Whether in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ergo The agreeableness of c. were not altogether as conclusive As to the former though a slighted Argument I say it is a material one and it is none of the least commendations of Christian Religion that it provides even for the temporal security of men and states and were they obeyed universally we should have a kind of heaven before we came thither But had Mr. Cr. but read over the whole verse he argues from and but considered the occasion of its being delivered he would sure not have used it in this Argument He could not have avoided a Doctrine which sets a clear distinction between the Church of Christ and that of Scotland it is this My Kingdom is not of this World else would my servants fight i. e. His Kingdom which was not of this world was not to be promoted by the way of this World That Cause which refused the assistance of Legions of Angels scorned the aid of Armies of Rebels Against Bishops superiority over Presbyters and their medling in Temporal Affairs there is a Prohibition brought out of Scripture The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion c. But it shall not be so among you but whoever will be great among you let him be your Minister and whoever will be Chief among you let him be your Servant Matth. 20.25 26 27. Mark 10.42 43 44. Luk. 22.23 24. The Impertinency of this place is clear at first sight For it proves nothing of this nature or too much concludes not against us unless against them too For it concludes for an absolute equality if any thing in this Point and so Super-Intendents are as bad as Bishops and the sin of Temporary Moderators is coeval to their Office The only difference which is to be between all Christians especially Clergy-men if the sense of the words be this alleadged is Who shall be most humble But sure Christs Precept and Practice did not so much differ The Twelve and the Seventy were sure not equal Timothy and Titus were Superiors to those whom they were to rebuke to judge The Angel of each Church in this Revelation had some authority sure over those he was threatned for not inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures upon If this be the Import of the place there is no manner of Authority in one Church-man over another if there be of any Christian over another so that every Synod may be reproved with Ye take too much upon you c. if one single Presbyter dissent and they punish him But the truth is These words do rather teach Superiors how to behave themselves then deny any to be so and suppose rather than forbid some to be greater and more chief then others He who is great c. He who is chief By the usual Application of this Mistake it is also concluded I suppose from the first words The Princes c. exercise Dominion c. But it shall not be so among you c. unlawful for Clergy-men to be endowed with any Civil Authority and Mr. Cr. p. 101. hath stated the Question What will become of the Bishops when the Dukes be damned That Clergy-men may not meddle with Temporal Affairs if a truth is such a one which the Presbyterian Ministers are the most unfit people in the world to plead for of whose guilt in this particular these Nations and almost all Europe are publick and bloudy Testimonies Nor did they procure the least share they have had by the pretence of having none and disclaiming to have any Here I might be copious but to omit others I shall peculiarly stick to the business in hand and only intimate the self-condemnation they brought upon themselves in relation to this Tenent and the Oxf. men To be Head of a Colledge is certainly a Civil Authority and this sure they did not refuse but contend for with War fraud and violence Did they not very godlily Visit themselves into what a godly Minister dares not be as being uncapable To be a Vice-Chancellour as so and in that right to be a Iustice of Peace are Authorities I think not purely spiritual And to be a School-Master is so too And to take the other Argument used in this case The Ministery requires the whole man this takes up more time from his Function Ministerial than to be a Peer of the Realm And this last instance brings in another To be Master of a Family is a Civil Authority Correction there not purely spiritual But the truth though urged in behalf of both these Presbyterian Tenents signifies nor of nor on to either They are an Answer to a Question they are the deciding or rather taking away the Foundation of a Controversie We shall therefore endeavour to attain their true meaning by that sure and easie and neglected Method considering the occasion upon which those words were delivered For it is not citing but profaning Scripture to urge it as a proof of what it was never intended to concern But such shifts those men are unavoidably brought to who first resolve upon Conclusions and Practices and then are necessitated to seek Principles to make them good those men must make the best of such as they can get The Occasion of those words must needs be the same with the Quarrel he thereby appeased unless we will suppose our Saviour to have spoke besides the business He spoke to and the Disciples satisfied with nothing to the purpose which Disputes about being made great seldom are Which was this The Iews had an Opinion of the Messias as of a temporal Prince and the Disciples were not free from that Error and in this sense it was they thought he should restore the Kingdom to Israel Upon this account they thought their Religion entituled them to Secular Grandure were sharing the great Offices And that this was it Christ reproved and that this was the very mistake is as often evident as there are discourses of theirs about Christs Kingdom The not thorough purging out of which Tenent was the cause that one branch of it occasioned the Millenarian Error in the first Ages Christ had indeed promised them they should raign with Him in his