Lords yet if the Villain passed any thing to another before the Lord seized or claim'd it such a passage was valid and if the Lord himself had made the Villain any fixed Estate he was so far from retaining any power over it that it enfranchised his Villain In both these cases we are worse then Villains though never so much free-born For after the first owner i. e. their founders hath passed the Land away as in the Oxf. mens case the Houses Power remains as good as ever which the Lords of the Villains did not And in the second let our Estate be never so fixed it is as Mr. Cr. assures us p. 97. but at the pleasure of the Parliament and by that too he means the two Houses And this is securing Propriety but so they secured the King at Holmby and the Isle of Wight Certainly this Scottish Doctrine would never have been pleaded for by any but those whom the two Houses had assured they should have a considerable share in the next scamble But I marvel the People should like this Doctrine they have sure I am no Reason but because it is called Securing Propriety And thus it is true of us what Charls the Fifth is said by Strada to report of the Dutchmen Nullos esse populos qui servitutis nomen magis execrentur magis patiantur We cannot endure to be called Slaves slaves but will earnestly contend to be so And truly the effect would have been the same in both had our Noble Patriots been uninterrupted Victors who fought against Taxes till we came to pay the greatest in all the World All this which hath been hitherto urged in this Point hath been in their behalf only as men which equally concerns all the Nation There is something yet for them in that capacity to be urged which is peculiar to it How If besides the interest the Oxf. men had in them as theirs God had an interest in them as His. Sure I am if God doth accept of any thing from men under the Gospel He hath such an interest in those Lands because they were granted to God by King and Parliament and when they were in a National capacity and so according to Mr. Cr. Divinity p. 145. That obligation not to divert them to other uses lies upon us while we are a Nation By that National Act each man is barred even those who are not by a Personal This is Mr. Cr. own Divinity throughout his whole Sixth Section particularly in p. 145 146 c. The Covenant swears us to that we were before obliged not to do That that was one alteration Christ brought into the World That God would henceforth accept of no fixed Estate in any thing from men to the use of those who were employed in the Sacred Function is a part of the Gospel not at all revealed in Scripture That whatever is given to the Church is forfeited to the State though given before the Civil Law had prohibited it is a strange Statute of Mortmain The Money Ananias his Lands were sold for God is said Acts 5. to have an Interest in Would He not have had an Inrest in the Land too had it not been sold This is a very strange Evasion but only men must say something When the only reason why God had an Interest in the mony was because it was the price of his own Land Whence can my title come to the mony for which such Land was sold co nomine as the Price of it if I have no interest in that Land That because God doth not command our Lands therefore he will not accept them the so much derided Oxford Casuists know to be a pitiful lame consequence The Supreme Authority where ever residing is every where the same equally absolute Suppose had the Supreme Authority disposed of Ananias his Money had they not in that Case robbed God Sure then by the very same Reason our Parliaments may do so too If you say The case is different our Magistrates are Christians their 's not this is not to the purpose For Civil Authority is not founded in the truth of our Religion And 't is a prety nicety That it is a great sin for any to rob God but those who believe him to be a God This were a most admirable plea for a Rebel who owned him whom he fought against to be his lawful Prince If I should urge examples out of the Old Testament the answer is ready Whatever is there to be found if men have not a mind to it is part of the Ceremonial Law abolisht at the coming of Christ. Though why any thing should be counted part of that Law which Moses doth not set down as such nor I nor they can give any tolerable account They must to begin say Moses his description is imperfect But that this is one of the differences of the Priesthood of the Law and the Ministery of the Gospel that in the Lands of the former God had an Interest and not in those of the latter is I think not from Scripture to be found What I cite out of the Iewish story in this matter is answered They were Iews what out of other stories They were Heathens If I should cite the example of the Patriarch under the Law of Nature and shew them to have alwayes esteemed God interested in such Lands Then their answer is themselves know not well what but at last all the Patriarchs actions were Figures of things to come the body is Christ. And that as the rest was Typical If I aske Typical of what I must be fain to tell them my self Priests all along being capable of Land in Gods Right before the Gospel was Typical of this That those under the Gospel should not be so capable Believe it a most special and proper Type it is If God hath an interest in those Lands I hope the Parliaments jurisdiction though very much improved of late is not over Him too I verily perswade my self had the Committee of Safety pulled down Tithes some men would have found such a sin as Sacriledge to be possible to be committed in the times of the Gospel though there be no command in the Gospel for them But after all this there is a material thing in this Exception not taken notice of by Mr. Cr. which is The Iniquity of this Article in obliging the Oxf. men to pull down those by whose titles many of them hold their lively-hoods i. e. to bind them even before they are convicted of any crime to undo themselves The wildly large power of Parliaments alledged is not large enough to reach this For though they have power to dispose of my Estate at pleasure yet to bind me sincerely to the utmost of my power to endevour to assist them in ruining my self is a thing far different Where there is a just Power and deserved sentence both which were in this case wanting though I may be obliged to submit yet sure not sincerely
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
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