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
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
their King when Perjury nay Covenant-Breaking Sacriledge and Treason were easier in those dayes swallowed then a Ceremony in these My own faults in the Performance are so many that I would not willingly be obliged to answer for any more then mine own viz. The Ill-timing c. But how to assure those men I before spoke of of the truth of any thing I shall assert about my own intentions in that or any thing else I profess I am utterly Ignorant since they out of their own experience of themselves very well know that the most Solemn Oaths and Imprecations are not sufficient Evidences of ones sincere meaning But there are others who are capable of and therefore deserve a better account who as they abhorred Time-serving in themselves are loath to suspect it in another it being very hard for him who doth no ill himself to think without great cause Ill of another To them I say thus Whoever thinks this time unseasonable for a Treatise of this Nature my opinion is so perfectly the same with his that had it been in mine own choyce I should not have needed to have told the World so And this I insisted upon in several Letters to one of that place and prudence whose commands it was scarce manners for me to dispute more pressingly then many others perhaps the most censorious would I urged that the Contest was about the Covenant which had been already answered by the Parliament The only way it deserved to be considered And to compose such a Treatise would be but to produce evidence against one who was executed the week before But this Objection doth not I confess reach the case so fully as I apprehended it would before I had exactly read over Mr. Cr. Book because Mr. Cr. sometimes in pursuit of his Argument oftner in running away from it doth insert Principles no way relating to the Covenant then as they may be subservient to the main though disowned end of the Composers of it viz. Anarchy in Church and State as several notions about the Kings Prerogative Liberty Propriety the Original of Government Sacriledge Will-worship the Power of the Church Holy-dayes Superstition Scandal c. Which according to his explication who to say the truth speaks out all the Covenanters were more wary then professedly to own Now I suppose there is no Reason why Errours because they are in a Book wrote in defence of the Covenant should be priviledged from Confutation this were to invest the Covenant in the Grave with the same Power it exercised in the Throne There are two Reasons Reader which I have prevented thee from using which had they seemed sufficient to One who is better able to judge then I or possibly thy self canst pretend to be thou hadst missed of that sport thou thinkest thy self to make with them Which yet I cannot deny but that there is some ground of suspicion for when I consider the practices of some in and the opinions thence drawn others have of the Place I live in For it may be thought first That I write now against the Covenant upon the same score in these times upon which I would have wrote for it in others Tenents as well as Cloths changing with the Fashion As to this I only say this Of those few that do know me many can witness me to be innocent in this particular even when they dare not say themselves have been so But if not this it may perhaps be thought that this is a sage Contrivance of a sneaking Schollar who being resolved to write against some body chose one who durst not answer I must confess this would have troubled me had this been my first attempt It is well known I appeared as to the civil part and to the Covenant as it referred to that when the Presse was open enough since which all Mr. Cr. Books on that subject have been writ There was one thing more which diswaded me from and hindered me in the finishing this and that alone would have me have suppressed now it is done which I to that end proposed to that Reverend Person who engaged me in it viz. A fear that it might displease the judicious Royalists as being an occasion to multiply the number of what is already too great Seditious Pamphlets it being not probable that of those numerous Abettors of Mr. Cr. and his cause he brags of not one should offer to assert either But I do assure all those worthy persons I received a Negative as to this too from one in whose judgment they would readily acquiesce and desired me to go on for that the Times did require what sure this Book did not an Answer to Mr. Cr. This Book I must confess comes out late against the Covenant I wish some men had more honesty or lesse countenance that this may be the last or if not so That there may never be need of other weapons besides Pens against it If thou wilt yet be satisfied Reader that I was only passive in the Publishing I am glad if not I am resolved not to be sorry The Introduction EIther the Covenant is in its sense as Loyal and in its obligation as indispensable as it is at present thought convenient to be asserted or it is not If not why is there such a do made about that which if in any circumstances of affairs certainly in these obligeth not But if it is How came it to pass that it was totally forgot by themselves when the Rump or the Cromwels appeared to be in good earnest against it Sure I am the very Covenanters thrived by contrary Oaths and practises Sure I am that whole party very very few particulars excepted have been such base complyers with nay flatterers of every thing but their lawful Prince take as unworthy conditions from an unlawful Power as themselves would fain have imposed upon the one only lawful one That they have discovered hitherto no other use of their conscience but in scrupling at things indifferent and that too when it brought along with it gain and credit Be turned out of a Benefice of 30 l. a year when to be a silenced Minister was worth a 100. The instances of other sufferers are not very numerous nor when tryal comes to be made will I suppose be Where was their Allegiance to King Charles in Queen Richards dayes Him they courted upon these two accounts He was an Usurper and so obliged to secure them in other mens estates Qualis Rex talis Grex. And secondly he was an easie fool and so apt to be ruled by crafty Knaves Nor did they trouble Him with their Covenant because they were sure to enjoy what they intended by it viz. other mens Estates No matter for the Scotch Government when without it they can securely keep English Livings Nor was it of any great Concern to have this Church reformed according to their principles when the best endowed Churches were reformed into their possession He who endeavours to perswade
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