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 an answer If no doth reforming according to those rules that is as I understand it bringing in the Doctrine of Scotland c. signifie Doing some new act to continue the established Doctrine in England or to let it alone as it is If either of these let that word have the same meaning in all parallel places and this Controversie is at an end But how we shall be brought to the same Confession of Faith Directory c. which is also sworn without altering the establisht Doctrine Worship Government which are different is not very clear As to the Doctrines themselves here called The Religion exercised Though it is no Demonstration at Oxon that they are false because the Scotch Army made them a Pretence to get Money with yet being they are as Mr. Cr. acknowledges private men he must also acknowledge it concerns only those private men to defend them But from that Answer of his I shall conclude a little farther and over-throw it by its own self prove what it denies out of what it grants For it is in it self very clear seeing the Quarrel was at the Religion exercised not established Those Opinions called the exercised Religion ought only to have been discarded and the establisht Doctrine have been made the Rule to reform by by which they might have had the Law and their Adversaries too on their side But because they name another Rule It is plain they mean to alter that too and so are lyable to those inconveniencies Mr. Cr. endeavours to free them from by a strained Interpretation which their words and actions are no way capable of Though it is a pretty strange account of bringing Englands established Religion to the Scotish mode by Allegations out of Authors which are contended for to be no part of that Religion so established Mr. Cr. doth indeed set several Doctrines and name Authors many of which have been eminently useful to this Church and therefore hated by Rome and Scotland but being there are no references to any part of their Works with what sincerity it is done I am not able to say But I may guess it to be done with very little if I may conclude by one which I single out because that sort of people have so little shame or conscience as to Preach it down to the people as Arminianism It is p. 47. That men had free will of themselves to believe and repent he may justly say The University was poysoned with Arminianism if this horrid Tenent was owned and there countenanced Arminians need not be angry that they are slandered for that is a tacit Confession there is not truth enough to object against them Men must bely them to make them odious part with their own Innocency to darken theirs But I much wonder Mr. Cr. should tell the Masters of Oxf. That This Tenent among others was defended by them from censure Though people are apt to believe any thing of Papists Arminians yet the Oxf. men are not so apt to believe any story of themselves They challenge all the world to tell when and by whom they defended that horrid Doctrine from censure The utmost ground of this accusation is some men in Oxf. might possibly affirm they understood not what it was to be made willing whether we would or no how freedom and force liberty and necessiâ—ation were the same thing This is far enough from the purpose But censure is there a judicial word I demand therefore Whether the University defended the men he means from the censure of these who had authority to censure them or from those who had nothing to do in the matter If from the former I desire to know How it was possible for them to do it and when they did it If from the later those who had nothing to do with it sure the harm is not great If I should grant all the Tenents he reckons up to be false because it were perhaps too hard to prove them so to one who would deny it I do not apprehend the considerable advantage he would get by it toward his Cause because they are only particular mens He will not sure think himself concerned in all we can prove preached in Camp and City and the men not only defended against the King and the Laws but encouraged applauded and preferred Might not men safely preach at London Believers to be above all Ordinances but those of the two Houses Was any more care taken at London even when the Covenant was Triumphant and set up in Churches instead of the Lords Prayer and Ten Commandements of what Opinions men were of any more then of what Countrey if they would but fight against the King Was there any Heresie but Loyalty or Common Enemy but the King Might not those take the Scripture in any or no sense who would take the Laws in equitable sense It is altogether as reasonable to pull down Presbytery because there were Independents in the Parliaments Army as they to Covenant us into the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland because some men preached what their ablest Defender acknowledges no part of the Doctrine of the Church of England And this is equal supposing those Doctrines false which as yet are only said to be so But at last comes an Attempt to answer those Arguments the force of which Mr. Cr. hath hitherto evaded by pretences which I have proved and perhaps himself perceived groundless It will not saith he p. 49. justifie the Recusancy of the Papists because these things were never a reason of it This answer is none at all because if those things to which their conformity was required were really sins we cannot at all blame nor justly punish them for refusing to be partakers in them It is not easie to think of any thing which would more please them in or justifie them for disobeying our established Laws than our proclaiming them thus to be grosly horrid so apparently abominable as there was an unavoidable necessity of using the worst of remedies a Civil War and the worst of dangers hazarding our souls in the most suspicious of actions the defiance of our Prince to remove them It is from hence if this be once granted clear we have all along punished Papists for not conforming to what it is a Christians duty not to conform to And this is sure a competent ground for not assenting to this part of the Covenant for be the grounds of sinfulness what it will our selves by this should own that to be sin which we punished them for not joyning in the concession of which would be so pleasing to them that I wonder to see those men plead for it who make spite to Rome the only rule they walk by As to the second part of the scandal justifying the Separatists Mr. Cr. answers not much better p. 50. Neither can such an acknowledgment justifie the Separatists For that the corruptions established were never made such Essential parts of the Worship as to
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
Oath to any one we do necessarily break that part of it which was taken to another and in all probability observing in it any one is breaking it to both the other The Covenant obligeth us to reform England according to the best Reformed Church but determines not which it is as Mr. Cr. acknowledges The reason of which is clear because by that reservedness they engaged all Sects to them when by declaring their meaning they had engaged but one every one by this means who was for the Covenant the Covenant was for him and such ambiguity sure is not an Oath but a Iuggle But from this proceeds another Ambiguity Who are the common Enemies c. How shall I know who are Enemies to the best Reformed Church if I know not which is so Can I prosecute any as an Enemy to the best reformed as such and know it not or shall I tell him I know him to be an Enemy to I know not what Mr. Cr. p. 128. waves this Plea and assures us That the words plainly run to the Church of Scotland c. and Independents by their enmity to the Church of Scotland are our common Enemies This Explication I must needs say fits the meaning of the Covenanters and the no meaning of the Covenant In different Pages it is as in different States of Affairs one while the best Reformed Church is not determined another while it is plainly Scotland If Independents were common Enemies sure it was from the Presbyterians they received Arms and Authority There is a Contradiction alledged by the Oxf. men which I thought not to have considered which because Mr. Cr. professes not to see I shall shew it him out of himself It is We are bound absolutely and without exception to preserve and yet upon supposition to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland To which Mr. Cr. p. 131. That Supposition must be plainly expressed in the Covenant to make it a contradictâ—ry Oath which is not done The best way of proving a Contradiction is to lay the Propositions contended so to be together which will clearly if they are so shew themselves Thus then We are absolutely bound to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline c. of Scotland We are to bring the three Kingdoms of which Scotland is one to Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline We are to reform 2. England and Ireland according to the best Reformed Church See the first Article of the Covenant The Covenant asserts not which are the best Reformed Churches but binds the Covenanters to reform England whatever shall appear to be the best Reformed Church Cr. p. 129. Thus then The first Proposition binds us to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland absolutely The second to bring the English Church and the Scottish Church to an Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline The third to reform England according to the best Reformed Church The fourth assures us that the Covenant asserts not Scotland to be the best Reformed Church but binds to reform England according to whatever shall appear to be so Now then if Scotland doth not appear to be the best Reformed Church the third Proposition binds me to alter what the first binds me absolutely to maintain If I am obliged to make the same thing exactly after several Patterns if they happen not to be exactly the same I must necessarily in following one differ so much from the other as I follow that which differs for to agree with what differs is sure so far to differ I perceive the Covenant is as it was at first urged to several men so as to comply with their several humors and interests The well-meaning and undiscerning Populacy they now as they did formerly before things were ripe engage to the Covenant and tell them those horrid Consequences deduced from it belong not to it but afterwards engage men to them by vertue of the Covenant they have taken whose Obligation never fully appears til due season Their first aim is at that part which is least guarded Religion which being that wherein most are least concerned is their first attempt Because the Church would not pull down the State the State must pull down the Church But what followed They who perswaded that the Nobles Prelates were nor good enough to be their Equals made it out that Coblers and Draymen were good enough to be their Masters And besides the Grandees who acted in that change the whole Party were as forward to own the other House as ready at any time to take the other Oath I very well know many will not in spite of Reason and Experience be perswaded but that reforming the Church is the sole aim of the Covenanters In the new sense of reforming the Church-Lands being already in their opinion disposed of Reformation must begin at the State and surely it is great pity but they who will not beware by the examples of others should be made examples to others The second Article of the Covenant is only talked of and that being the concernment of the Church others think themselves not interessed in But he who considers that they are in the sixth Article sworn never to be wrought off no not so much as to an indifferency or neutrality but zealously and constantly in despight of all impediments pursue all they have sworn And that in the fourth Article they swear to bring all to punishment who have been Malignants Which words signifie what they please and expresly all who have acted contrary to the Covenant and they to be punished as the Supream Iudicatories i. e. no doubt the two Houses who are no Court at all or others from them shall think fit will find the Cavaliers in an ill case nay all who at any time did any thing which was ever Voted Malignancy by the two Houses The rigour of whose Sentence they not being in a now capacity to pardon being dissolved must be now executed upon the first opportunity nor must they at all question the reasonableness or legality because the Rule is As they or any from them i. e. their Committees shall think convenient One thing I shall observe that though the Parliament may be trusted to act arbitrarily beside or against the Law which they are not yet that they may delegate such an extravagant power over Lives and Fortunes as is here mentioned to oothers though men of such Principles and Fortunes as our Committees were who were to make Offenders by whom they might thrive having nothing to grow rich with but an ill Conscience and other mens faults is such a Liberty of the Subject as destroyes all the trust Besides it is a rule in Law and Reason Offices of confidence and trust by our Representatives in Parliament are not cannot be delegated because that trust is only personal I have before observed That that Invitation in the conclusion to forraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Power must be to them confessedly as Subjects whom notwithstanding they absolve from their Allegiance Though it is not delivered in Scripture that freedom from a Master or Prince who is a Heathen is any part of that liberty wherein Christ hath installed us and so is seditious Having shewed it to be against Duty I will in a word shew it to be against our Interest It engages us to pursue by the way of the Sword as their Practice and the Invitation in the conclusion shews all we have sworn to all our dayes which is Whatever is contrary to the power of Godliness So then Every man is to slay his brother who commits any sin that deserves it so many Covenanters so many Commissioned Officers There is a Tribunal in every brest to condemn and execute both And if their Oath obligeth them to any thing it doth to this they being equally sworn to all the other Articles though that alone takes up all their thoughts What horrid effects there would follow hence themselves would quickly feel should they thus begin to assert the Covenant themselves would quickly find its edge They who set a house on fire themselves be soon made a part of that fire It is not then more dishonourable to God injurious to the King and the Nation then it would if pursued be quickly found to be to its most violent assertors All that is desired of them is they would either pursue the Covenant in all things or none that is deal equally and sincerely shew that they act out of the sense of an Oath not of a party or rather let the Covenant be buryed placed in the Regions of Rottenness and Forgetfulness and let them be quiet and suffer others to be so If any Reproofs seem in these Papers too sharp I wish the unreasonablâ—ness of those expressions may thus appear that few deserve them But then as few are concerned in them I should willingly make a distinction between those of the Presbyterian Iudgement and those of the Presbyterian Party and I hope themselves will concurre with me in it by making it appear that there are those who may approve that way of Government yet abhorr the usual way of promoting it The former may possibly be reclaimed by rational discourses the latter by nothing but severe Laws FINIS * By whatever Combination Perswasion c.