According to Mr. Cr. method we proceed to The First ARTICLE.

First exception is, They are not sa­tisfyed how they can in judgement Swear to preserve the Religion of ano­ther Kingdom.

To which Mr. Cr. p. 39. Tis but Reason they suspend their act till they can swear in judgement.

If so, the Visitors, the tender-con­scienced Visitors, turned the Oxf. Heads out of their places (and by the way put themselves in) for not doing what in Mr. Cr. judgement, they ought not to have done. But [Page 16] neither hath he given or offered any thing to satisfie us, How and where Christ bound us to Swear the Refor­mation of another Kingdom by fire and sword. Gods people, sure we are, Jewish and Christian, had Ido­lators in the Regions round about them: yet we do not finde them Covenanting to pull down the Idols of silver and gold, that they might put the silver and gold in their own Pockets. If the Scots may Covenant to reform England and Ireland, why not France and Spain? Doth Reli­gion forbid them violence in its cause against all but their own Prince? or is Rebellion never sanctified till it is a­gainst him, to whom we owe parti­cular Allegiance?

But besides the general unwarran­tableness of such courses; the Oxf. men render several Reasons peculi­arly relating to Themselves and that Cause. As first, That as it did not concern them to have much, so they [Page 17] professed to have very little understan­ding of it. Which, though Mr. Cr. is pleased to wonder at; another man possibly may not at all think it strange, that wise-men should not trouble themselves with what did not concern them. When he sayes, They should know as much as all the Nation be­sides; I desire to know his opinion of those Gentlemen who came into their places.

The next thing of moment is, p. 42. in answer to the Fourth Rea­son; where, the Oxf. men find in Scotland, several things tending to­ward Superstition and Schism; as ac­counting Bishops Antichristian, and Indifferent Ceremonies unlawfull. Where, first, he catcheth at those Phrases, tending toward; and, to our thinking: where he triumphs thus, Me-thinks, Superstition and Schisme should be so well known at Oxf. that they might be able to conclude what things tend thereunto. Modesty of [Page 18] Expression, is no more a sign of Ig­norance; then Bold peremptoriness, is an infallible evidence of Knowledg. When St. Paul sayes, I Think, I have the Spirit of God; should a witty Sophister retort, What? the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who magnifies so his Office, but Think, he should know whether he hath the Spirit, or no? Nay, this grave Corrector, in this very place, useth the same expressi­on he carps at, Me-thinks, Supersti­on, &c.

The Charge is this, They account Bishops Antichristian, and Indifferent Ceremonies unlawful, and make their Discipline a Mark of the true Church, and the setting up thereof the ere­cting the Throne of Iesus Christ. There is but one way to excuse this from Schism, and that too many Non-conformists have taken, which is to say, They do not divide from a Church; because, where these fan­cies are not received, there are no [Page 19] Churches; not considering, they have by that means un-Churched all the World, that any History gives an ac­count of. And that for so many ages, that if this be true, the gates of hell pre­vailed against the Church, as soon as themselves can pretend it made the first attempt. But this Mr. Cr. would willingly salve. They give Assemblies Authority about Ceremonies, ergo, do not deem Indifferent Ceremonies un­lawful. If so, Ceremonies not com­manded in the Word of God may be enjoyned.

They make Discipline rightly ad­ministred, as is prescribed in the Word of God, the Note of a true Church, but do not appropriate it unto theirs. Either their Discipline is prescribed in the Word of God, or not. If not; they did well to swear and fight down Ours, for not being in the Word of God pre­scribed, to make way for another, which it self is not there. If it be there prescribed, and yet this Title [Page 20] [ Prescribed in the Word of God, which is the Note of a true Church] be not appropriate to it, but may belong to another; and that which either is not in the Word of God, which is the for­mer inconvenience; or, which is in the Word of God as well as theirs: and then there be two several Disciplines prescribed in the Word of God. A Doctrine, I suppose, our Scotch-Masters would not once have li­ked.

They deem indeed English-Popish-Ceremonies unlawful; but deny them to be Indifferent, p. 43.

Are they unlawful because used in Popish-Churches, or for any other Reason? If for any other Reason; that should have been expressed, or at least intimated, so as we might have guessed at it. If for that reason alone, (as seems, being alone alledged, The appellation, Popish:) I do not ap­prehend, how another mans using a thing, can make it unlawful for me to [Page 21] use it. For sin is nothing else but the transgression of a Law. What then, by the laws of God, and my just Supe­riours is not prohibited me; it is not imaginable, how a Heathen, Turk, Iew, or (which some make worse) a Papist, can by doing it make it un­lawful for me to do. For seeing the Laws of God and Man have left it free; he or I, either or both, in doing such a thing do but use our indulged Liberty, that which is left free for us to do. Now, how it comes to pass, That his using his lawful liberty, should deprive me of mine, I would gladly know. The Question seems to me this, How it can be criminal in me, to imitate other men (sup­pose Papists, whom, I hope, I may reckon Men) in those cases in which they are confessedly Innocent? for so, in this present Case, Papists confessed­ly are; seeing they transgress no law of God or Man. For had it been otherwise; not its being used by Papists, [Page 22] but the law, against which the action is, should have been urged as the Reason of the sin of it.

The Iews, who crucified Christ in his person, and persecuted Him in his members, were certainly as great ene­mies to Christ, as Papists can in mo­desty be supposed to be. Yet, St. Paul (whose trade was not to gain by Factions) would do actions upon that very score, to be like them; com­plyed with them in Ceremonies which he knew to be abolished. To the Iew he became a Iew in that sort. I know it is said, He did it to win over the Iews, and it is not likely we should win over the Papists. A Discourse dicta­ted not by Reason, but Malice, which makes it blind, and (the blow missing its Adversary) throws it self. St. Paul was far from being ignorant how the spirit of obduration, was in a very great measure gone out upon that People; he yet durst not omit all possible condescension. Their being [Page 23] stubborn, was no warrant to Him to be morose. To endeavour was his du­ty, and he did it. What use they would make of it, he left to them; what effect it should have, to God.

His last Salvo, is p. 44. The di­stinction between verè and vera Ec­clesia. The Scots do not un-church all others for want of their Discipline, Because a True Church is opposed to a Corrupt, as well as falsly consti­tuted.

I demand here, Whether a Church may be a Church of Christ without the Scotch-Discipline, or no? If No, the Distinction is impertinent; not to say, crafty: serving to hide their mea­ning, till there is opportunity of discovering it. If it may, then there was no need of a Covenant and at­tending-violences to force in that, without which we may be a Church of Christ; and so, without it, The Lord might have dwelt among us, as [Page 24] the phrase of the Covenant is. Or if, for all that Grant, it is yet necessa­ry to bring that Discipline in, in such a manner; then it is not enough to be a Church of Christ, unlesse we be a Church of Scotland too: and Wars are necessary, not only till a Church is a true one; but till every one ac­knowledgeth it the best imaginable. Atenent, the Army raised upon the score of this Covenant; and learnt it so well, that they quickly taught their Scotch-masters the meaning and consequents of it.

The second ground of the Oxf. mens Refusal, is, They are not satis­fied, How they can swear to reform the Doctrine, Discipline, &c. Because it cannot be changed without mani­fest scandal to the Papist and Sepa­ratist.

1. By yielding the Cause, our godly Bishops have by writings and sufferings maintained.

[Page 25]2. By justifying the Papists, in cal­ling Ours, A Parliamentary Reli­gion.

3. By acknowledgement, that some­thing to which conformity is required, is not agreeable to the Word of God, and so justifying Recusancy and Se­paration.

4. A confession that our punishing of Papists was unjust, because it was for not joyning with Us in a form of worship, which our selves approve not of as well as they.

To all which, Cr. bravely retorts, much at the rate of City-Logick, p. 45. Tis well, Scandal is at length become an Argument of some force, had it been regarded from the Non-conformists, &c. Here is a triumph when there is not only no victury, but no fight. When the true sense of an Argument is not to be avoided or en­dured; some can entertain themselves and some Readers, with putting on it a sense, they can answer. Scandal [Page 26] in the Reason and in the Reply are no otherwise akin, then that the English words answerable to them, may up­on an occasion be drawn to make a quarter quibble. Because [...], is translated [ Offence] Therefore every one who is offended in a different sense, i. e. angry, is forsooth scanda­lized. A Doctrine, which hath brought greater Scandals, then those it pretended to remove were ever fancied to be. It hath been it self a [...], a stumbling-block whereat many have fallen. I shall discover and remove it.

Offence, which in Scripture (as hath by many learned men, beyond all exception been proved; and will de­monstrate it self to any, that will but consult the places where that word is used) is, any action of Ours by which a Brother may be led on to sin. And that; either by misunderstanding an Action of Ours (which was the case of eating meat offered to Idols, which [Page 27] might have been interpreted as in honour to the Idol; and so one who thought well of us, might be induced to do it indeed) or else, something di­rectly criminal, which we by word or example encourage others to. The other notion of the word Offence, which the Non-conformist urged, and Mr. Cr. revives, That whatever ano­ther is pleased to be angry at, is a sin for me to do; is in it self absurd, and in its consequence intolerable. For then the rule of my actions should not be the Law of God, and the commands of my Superiour, not repugnant to them, both which the Scripture ex­presly obligeth me to, if it doth to any thing at all, but every peevish fellowes humour and melancholy: and, contrary to our Saviours rule, If my Brother were angry with me without a cause, not he, but I should be in danger of the Iudgement.

Nor could our consciences be any longer satisfied in any action, than [Page 28] they were assured there were no mistaken or humorous well-meaning men in the world. St. Paul tels us, If meat make my Brother offend, I will eat no meat while I live. If this mista­ken sense of Scandal, in this and such like cases were true, and we obliged upon such penalties as are assigned in Scripture, to men guilty of that sin: Christianity were a bondage greater then that w ^ch. Christ came to remove, and free us from. Should a sect of well-meaning ignorants arise, who thought all Flesh and Wine abominable, (and some such there have been) are we all bound upon pain of hell to forbear? Be­cause they are angry; is it therefore true that we sinned, because they upon no ground thought so? Do Erronious conceits alter the nature of things? Do false opinions by being stifly held be­come true? A Surplise must not be used in Divine Service, nor worn, be­cause a godly brother is angry! The same Reason will conclude for a [Page 29] black Gown. For Sectaries were once (and possibly are esteemed aga [...]) Godly, and Brethren. This palpable mistake, I have the longer stood up­on, not only because it occasioned Triumph; but, because I could not easily apprehend it, other than wil­ful. Because the Reasons have ex­pressed it so plain, as to prevent all possible misunderstanding. In these words they have shewed wherein the Scandal did consist, viz. [In justi­fying the Recusancy of One, and Sepa­ration of the Other] i. e. in helping them to a reason to encourage, and so continue their sin; not in making them angry, but pleasing them too well. Nor is it likely for him who is offended in the vulgar sense, to be of­fended in the Scripture-sense. He who is angry with me for doing a thing, is not like to do it because I do it; to imitate me in that for which he doth abominate me.

[Page 30]But here I cannot but observe, that Reason in this Section should be acknowledged, when, by being so, it overthrowes their whole cause. The Reasons are indeed so pressing, and the words so uncapable of a sinister interpretation; that the Covenant it self must undergo one to avoid their reach. Where, after the droling Pre­face of, These serious Casuists, with reverence may I note it, understand the Words of the Covenant Sophisti­cally, p. 46. He then presents us with this Notion, Religion, as it denotes the Matter, &c. is different from the Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies annexed and appendant, and none but ignorant Idiots will deem the change of them the change of Religi­on, p. 46.

This is the first Salvo. The Oxf. Arguments are not concluding, be­cause nothing of the Religion, but Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies were to be changed; which was not [Page 31] that, our Martyrs suffered for. What ignorant Idiots, as Mr. Cr. cals them, are these Oxford Schollars, who must understand words in their true, plain, literal meaning? What a silly University this was? Give me Mr. Cr. there is a man indeed, can find out a meaning of words, they are in no wise capable of! By the Reforma­tion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, is meant, in Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies. If this be the meaning, the words were very ill chosen to ex­press it. But withal, Mr. Cr. hath not at all mended the matter, by en­forming us plainly, That they will use such violent proceedings, when only Circumstances, Order, and Cere­monies are the Debate.

But the vanity of the former Plea being (possibly to himself) apparent; The next salvo is, p. 46, 47, 48, 49. We must make a distinction between what is Established, and what is Ex­ercised in Engl. &c.

[Page 32]Because all the Declaiming is a­bout the latter, What is cal [...]ed the Religion exercised? I shall not flou­rish; that is, use many words, not to express what I would say, but to hide my having nothing to say; but ask directly, because I would be answered to, where I suspect jugling. They have Sworn to reform the Do­ctrine, Worship, &c. in England, according to several (not at present to say inconsistent) Rules; the Word of God, the Church of Scotland, the best Reformed Church. I ask then. Do they mean to alter the established Doctrine; or No? If yes; the distin­tion is vain and crafty: A sleight instead 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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, [Page 36] 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 necessi [...]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 [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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, w ^ch 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 make a sufficient ground for separation; and the god­ly Non-conformists contended a­gainst separation. This seems to me a very pretty Argumentation. There was no necessity to separate from the Church as it was by Law establish­ed in Discipline, Ceremonies, &c. yet there was a necessity to pull it down [ lest we be partakers of other mens sins, and so of their plagues, &c.] with other such like phrases as the Co­venant expresses it. Sure I am, if there was no sufficient ground for sepa­ration, there was no sufficient ground for a Covenant to reform in so vio­lent [Page 41] a way; and, to pull down that Church, from which there was suffici­ent reason in your own judgement to separate. If, as you truly urge, Our Sa­viour kept Communion with a Church much in need of Reformation, and taught men so to do; I would wil­lingly learn, Who taught men to take up Arms, to destroy what you ac­knowledge to be only such a Church. If there was no necessity for even those, who did not approve the Wor­ship and Ceremonies, to separate; as you do, and say the godly Non-conformists alwayes did: What ima­ginable necessity could there be for these English men, who were sub­jects, and the Scots strangers, to com­pel by force Prince and People, who approve of both, to swear it down.

Now come (p. 53.) some En­deavours to prove the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church to be not agreeable to the Word of God. First, Can. 36. Enjoyns Common Pray­er, [Page 42] and no other, which they had broke by Praying at St. Maryes, and is it self, a limitation of the Spirit, &c.

To the first, That the Church ever intended to bind men to say those Prayers in the Pulpit before Sermon, is not true; but contrary to her own Laws and practice. Those universal words must ( as all others of that sort are to be) be referred ad subjectam materiam. The Liturgy was made for (what indeed it is, and hath approved it self to be, so far as skill and ma­lice never questioned, but carped on­ly at particular phrases,) it was made I say, only, for a Compleat Form of Publick Prayer, comprehensive of all our common needs imaginable; from whence, none could pretend upon that score, reason to vary. But it was never intended to banish occasional Prayers, (of which nature those be­fore Sermons are: for▪ which, a pecu­liar Canon is provided, and that pen­ned in words which admit of latitude, [Page 43] I suppose, because they are looked upon as occasional, and so may better endure to be various.

Limitation of the Spirit, is a phrase equally admired by those who under­stand nothing, as laught at by those who do: It is vulgarly granted, but upon what reasons I could never yet learn; That [ Praying by the Spirit] signifies in Scripture [ To pray Ex tem­pore] Though to me it seems rather a sign of a voluble tongue then inspi­red heart; and to pray without consider­ing, is rather, I should think, boldness then grace. But if that be the import of that phrase, as Women and Lecturers generally hold; the Prayer of Christ is least said by the Spirit of Christ; and so the most unacceptable Prayer we can put up to him in all the world is his own.

But now I begin to think on that phrase, I profess my self unable to understand it; which makes me think, the reason many do not apprehend [Page 44] when the Argument drawn from thence is answered, is, Because they do not know what it means. It would be no inconsiderable damage to the Puri­tan Cause, if they would explain those terms, Limitation of the Spirit. I will pawn my Credit on it, the very admi­ring Rowt shall laugh at it the very same moment they understand it; the whole force of it consisting like that of a charm, in being unintelligible. What­ever I can guess it to be according to those principles and purposes it is used for, amounts clearly to this; He limits the Spirit in himself, who gives over while he hath one word left to say: and he limits it in another, when he suffers any body to hear him; because he confines him to his words, when the Spirit might possibly suggest to him different. And this is really so in every Auditory, unless we can suppose that every man there, (were he called to exercise) would use the same matter and words, which [Page 45] he who carryeth on the work of the day doth make use of.

But some men have ventured to say and prove too, (which I wonder Mr. Cr. took no notice of it, if he thought it possible to answer it) That the Directory it self was guilty of this evil, viz. Limiting the Spirit (if it be an evil) w ^ch it was intended to remove. That Directory prescribed matter, and in most cases the very order of Pray­ing. Seeing it prescribes the matter; the only excellency whereby it dif­fers, is, it gives weak and careless that men (which are by much the major part) leave to choose words unapt to express that matter it self prescribes. It hath then all the real inconveni­ences of unprescribed Prayers, and that one fancyed one of prescribed.

The second Exception of his (p. 54.) is very Tragical and vaunt­ing ▪ In comes great zeal and little wit, and tells us of a fault so very gross, that the very plain Popish, [Page 46] Scotch Service-Book, shall be com­mended for not being guilty: The very first sentence (so called) of Scripture is not there; At what time soever a sinner doth repent, &c.

I perswade my self, Mr. Cr. hath read in the New-Testament of proofs alleadged out of the Old, barely ac­cording to the sense, the express words whereof are no where to be found; the instances are various, I mention but one, Mat. 2.6. taken out of Micah 5.2. But what need I stand to prove, that some men can very be angry when there is little cause for it?

Nor scape we so: and therefore Thirdly, In the last we did read that which is not Scripture; now we do not read what confessedly is. Much of the Canonical Scripture is omitted, Apocrypha read, some parts of the Scripture dignified above others, as the Gospel by standing, &c.

[Page 47]Many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture not being read in course, was one of the mighty faults the wise Assembly took upon them to mend, and it amounted to this. When the vulgar people came to Church to hear the Law of God according to which they must frame their lives; a consi­derable part of the year they caused to be spent in Genealogies, or less Edifying History, which could not but have had the same effect upon the people read in Hebrew, as Eng­lish; or else the Ceremonial Law, which at this day concerns no body, and never did concern them at all. This was so apparently absurd, that no imaginable account can be given of it, besides that (not very Christi­an) resolution of spite and singularity; or that politick Art of not receiving Pay, Preferment, and Applause, with­out seeming to do something for it.

[Page 48]Our Dignifying (as they phrase it) some parts of Scripture above other, as the Gospel by standing, is a thing 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.

[Page 49]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 [Page 50] 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, [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 [...] 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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, [Page 57] 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, [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] (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 [Page 61] 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 [Page 62] 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 [Page 63] 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 the Lords Supper, as of greater solemnity, and consequently requiring greater preparation. Yet Baptism alwayes so esteemed, as not to be administred by a Deacon, but in the absence of a Priest. The great clamor amounts to this then, The Sacrament of Bap­tism, because of the sudden occasions [Page 64] which may often require haste, hath therefore been thought fit by the wis­dom of the Church (rather than the administration thereof in case of danger should be omitted) to be per­mitted to be performed by a Deacon, in case a Priest be not at hand to per­form it. The case in the Lords Supper is clear otherwise; because, that is not usually administred without pub­like notice given to the People some convenient time before, when it shall be done; at which time, it is pre­sumed, the Priest who gave the notice, will be present to attend the ser­vice. There is a clear disparity in the Natures of the two Sacraments; those Reasons which Apologize for Permission in case of the one, will by no means reach the other. Nor do we want evidence for the Dea­cons, power to Baptize, out of Scri­pture it self. In the 8. of the Acts, we read, that Philip the Deacon (ver. 12.) Baptized; that it was that Philip, [Page 65] not the Apostle, appears, because we find Peter and Iohn sent to lay hands on those he preached to, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, and accordingly we read, that they two did lay their hands; but no manner of intimation, that he did joyn with them: which he would cer­tainly have done, had he been an A­postle. In the 21. of the Acts, where his being one of the seven, i. e. a Deacon, is expresly mentioned, he is there owned an Evangelist, though but a Deacon. He who will say, he was a Presbyter, ought well to con­sider how to prove it.

The next of the Oxf. Reasons, is; That in taking this Oath, they should break another. And, what security can they expect by an Oath, who themselves teach men to break them? By this Covenant they swear to alter what they had by the Parliaments Order sworn to maintain, in the Protestation 5. of May, 1641. Which [Page 66] Mr. Cr. thus reconciles, p. 65. The House of Commons, the then known Legislators, explained the Protestation, to be meant only so far as is opposite to Popery. That is to say, The House of Commons are Legi­slators distinct from King and Peers: For in that capacity they made that in­terpretation of an Oath, w ^ch, sure, they were not solely to interpret, because they were not the sole Imposers, and they declared the Lords meaning con­trary to their Lordships express pro­test to the contrary, that that was not their meaning. Their being sole Legislators in defiance of King and Peers, (for so it was in that case;) is very prety Doctrine, which I would have been glad to have seen one Law to have proved. I wonder Mr. Cr. should think it would be taken for granted. But indeed, Mr. Cr. hath one expression which could not have been well spared, The House of Com­mons were then known to be, &c. I must confess, there were many prety [Page 67] things then known to be, though no man knew why. The words of the Protestation, [ The Protestant Reli­gion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, &c.] Now what is in the 39. Articles, is, I suppose, The Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land: and then if the Covenant be contrary to any of those, these are contradictory Oaths. The 36. Ar­ticle, which declares, that there is no­thing, in the Book of Consecration, su­perstitious or ungodly, is hardly re­concileable to the second Article of the Covenant. Sure, the meeting of the Assembly is irreconcileable with the 21. Article, if we suppose His Majesty was a King at that time. As to the explication of it, by the House of Commons, notwithstanding the Lords express dissent; it was an arrogating of the whole Parliamentary Power (and more) to themselves solely, and so a breach of the Fundamental Constitution of that Assembly. And then declaring [Page 68] none fit to bear Office but those who would except of that explication, and so concur with, and assist them in that violence; was against the Liberty of the Subject, as depriving Men of what they had no way legally forfeited. Where the Legislative Power resides, I do not here mean to decide: But certainly, according to the worst Prin­ciples then owned, The Commons were not the sole Legislators; and then, sure, not the sole Interpreters: and therefore the Oxf. Men had ve­ry little cause to accept of their mean­ing for Authentick. That Man is lit­tle obeyed, whose words must be taken in the sense that another (and he, as frequently in our case, his declared Enemy) shall put upon them.

The next is, The consistency of the Covenant with the Oath of Suprema­cy, which binds us to defend all Iu­risdictions, Priviledges, Preheminen­cies, granted, or belonging, united [Page 69] or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: of which in the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. this is one; That the Cler­gy are not to Enact, Promulge, &c. any new Canons, Constitutions, &c. or by whatever Name they shall be called, unless the KINGS ROY­AL Assent first be had to make, pro­mulge, &c. Now the very meeting of the Assembly, and this Covenant ▪ was a defiance to this His Prerogative: unless the Votes of the two Houses be the KINGS ROYAL As­sent.

Mr. Cr. answer to this, is, ( p. 67.) in short, High Treason. That the Pow­er given to the King, is such a Pow­er, as Bishops, Cardinals, Popes had used, not such as Parliaments; who ever retained a Iurisdiction in themselves over Church and Crown. As I un­derstand words, Your Majesties hum­ble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament, signifies not your Lords and Masters. How comes Treason [Page 70] to be against the King, and not against them, if they are Supream? How come they to have ever retained a Iurisdiction over the Crown; when our Law so often owns all Iurisdi­ction to flow from the Crown? How comes the Kings Masters to be so ab­solutely at His disposal, as to be turn­ed out as easily as it is possible for him to say so? How comes England, in our own and other Chronicles, and Laws, to be styled a Monarchy, an Imperial Crown? How comes it to pass that we neither pay nor pro­mise Allegiance to these our true Soveraigns? The King is expresly called sole Supream Governour in the Oath of Supremacy; and yet he hath Superiours. Sharing in the Supremacy with the King was all, I had thought, would have been required: not re­taining Iurisdiction over him. I wonder, if this be true▪ That Mr. Cr. did so prevaricate with his Brethren, when he pleaded (as he calls it) for the King: when it was indeed only [Page 71] against the Sectaries; and so was not Loyalty, but Spite. But, why did he, if this be true, urge Precepts for, and Ex­amples of, Obedience out of Scripture, and the Primitive Church (though by the way, they were such as themselves had before taught them to slight or an­swer)? Why did he urge them, when they reached not the case? For those Princes were confessedly Supream. Our King it seems is not: not God's Vicegerent, but the Peoples Officer; from whom he received his Power, and is but Tenant at Will at best. They still retaining Iurisdiction over him, may abridge it at pleasure. He is a stranger in England, that doth not know all Land to be held of the Crown; and e­very one of us pays acknowledgment that we received it from thence: and all manner of Iurisdiction to be own­ed in Law to proceed from the King, without the least concurrence of the two Houses. In England, when any doth Homage, Fealty, &c. in their [Page 72] Oath they perpetually have a Salvo, of saving their Faith to other Lords. In the Oaths of Allegiance and Su­premacy, we find no such salvo of our Faith to the two Houses. No nor if any of us take them during their Ses­sion, do we promise any equal Allegi­ance. But the very Members do pro­mise Allegiance to the King: inas­much as no Member, though never so fairly elected, can sit without taking those Oaths. But, according to this Doctrine of Iurisdiction over the King, never any Laws in the World were so sottishly penned as the Eng­lish: to place all Marks of Soveraign­ty, where it is not; and none at all where it is. Nay, that the very two Houses, when they send to the King, as in that capacity, should Petition their Inferiour; and acknowledge themselves Humble, Loyal, and Obe­dient Subjects to him, over whom they ever retained Iurisdiction. Ever retained! O the brave English Mo­narchy of the two Houses of Parlia­ment! [Page 73] This is a strange concealed Iurisdiction of the two Houses, which never any King owned, or Parliament claimed. When King Iames came in, he should have recognized them, not they him: Nor was that Parliament faithful either to King or Countrey, in concealing so important a concern­ment. I will cite but one Law, and that not Ancient; for none, I think, can doubt its Opinion in this point, but one. When the assent of the two Houses to Law-making was required; and after those words (so much, to serve some mens turns, wrested be­yond their import) Be it Enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons came in fashion. It is Anno 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. ‘Whereas by sundry old Authen­tick Histories, it is manifestly ex­pressed, That this Realm of England, is an Empire governed by One Su­pream Head and King, having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the IM­PERIAL Crown of this Realm; un­to [Page 74] whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People, and divided in terms, and by names, of Spiritualty & Temporalty bin bound, and ought to bear, next to God, a natural and humble Obedience.’ If the King is next to God; what Iuris­diction the two Houses have over Him, I profess my self unable to compre­hend: or how, owning natural and humble Obedience signifies retaining Iurisdiction over Him. But those who are not of this wild Opinion, do yet embrace the ground of it, and stand stiff for a share in the Govern­ment. These two grounds Mr. Cr. of­ten insists upon, That their Assent is necessary to the making and repealing Laws: and that the King receiving his Power from them, they reserved a consi­derable part of it to themselves. The former I have spoken to in [ The Rebels Plea] That that doth not at all evince any such thing: and it is also false in Experience; for the Monarchs [Page 75] of the East, whom none ever supposed to have sharers in the Government, could not alter all their Laws at pleasure, &c. And I there referred to an Author who had so admirably stated that Point in Law and Reason, in that Incomparable Treatise [ The Case of our Affairs], that nothing can be added on that Head, it is there done so fully and clearly. I think, it is not easie to shew such a King, whose Laws are as ambulatory as his pleasure; and yet, sure, there are some whose Subjects are not Partners in the Soveraignty. And certainly, so long as Kings are but single men, and not naturally strong­er then all their Subjects; they must rule by the help and advice either of Gentlemen, or Ianizaries. The former way is (I think) more honourable for the King, and better for his Peo­ple. There can be no way of proving this Proposition; unless it carries its own Evidence: which though gene­rally [Page 76] granted, I do not apprehend why. The Prince promises not to ex­ercise such a part of his Power, with­out the consent of his People, Ergo, They share with him in it, is a conse­quence far from Necessary. When Tenants get Rights by Promise, Grant, or Custom; do they presently share in the Dominion? Is none a perfect Landlord that cannot turn out all his Tenants, as easily as say so? Can no man make another a firm Estate in the Tenancy, but eo ipso he makes him his Co-Landlord? Is it the same to have sharers in the Authority, and to be limited in the exercise of it? This is perfectly the case: The King hath granted to us, that he will not alter our old Laws, or make new, till by common consent it is repre­sented to him expedient for the Pub­lique good: from hence alone we ga­ther that we share with him in the making of them.

[Page 77]As to the other Point, That Princes received their Power by Election, is a very plausible Impossibility. Let us consider a rude scattered multitude, (as Men are supposed to have been, when they chose their first Governours,) li­ving sine Lege, sine Lare; to meet toge­ther about a business of that nature, where could not but be many, who ap­prehended it their Interest to use Violence. Can we suppose them all to carry it fairly, and prudently, and equally? A thing, which certainly we could not expect from the most civi­lized Common-wealth this day in the World. There could not want bold Villains, who would make it their business, to usurp Dominion over their well-meaning neighbours. There could not but be many, who would think themselves wise enough to Rule. Nor could there want enow, to make their title good by strong hand, by the Combination though of a very few; and the Combination of a very few, could [Page 78] not but have overpowred a very great undisciplined Rabble. Surely those men were not of the same spe­cies with us; where a whole People meet together without any force over them; every one gives his Vote freely; every one names his man; every one acquiesces. It were certainly a prety sight, when all the World was wise and innocent; and, had it been so still, they would have sound no want of vernment. If the Original of Go­vernment, had been a fair and free Election; it is not at all probable, that the most ancient Governments would have been Monarchies. Not only for that to have made more then one, would have been a very good ex­dient to reconcile competitors: But because it seems, also at the first sight, better to trust more then One. Or if they had been so; it is not like they would have been so absolute. Arbi­tria Frincipum pro-legibus was a trust that would have seemed too dange­rous: [Page 79] and▪ that unlimited Power, scarce fit to have been exercised over those who made him what he was. Whereas we finde the most Ancient Governours, still the most absolute. The ancient Historians who tell us that Government at first came in this way of Election; because they do not tell us in particular, but in general only: They dream to us, That Governours were of old dayes chose for vertue, (the Best was made the Greatest;) not as now, by Fraud, Violence, and Money, &c. Wherein there is a manifest spice of weakness, in doting upon those who lived a great while ago; as if they were better then others: As old Men use to tell us, what brave times there were, when they were boyes. When the Scripture (which may at least have the credit of a History with us) assures us, that before the times they so much applaud, The earth was filled with violence. How they should [Page 80] come to suppose so much Innocency in mankind, they never had experi­ence of; might possibly be (as all er­rours are founded in some truth) some obscure Tradition of Adam in his in­nocency. I know, it is ordinarily said, We are all Men, and a King is but so: We are all born free; and what He is more then us, is by our own Act. Whereas the ground of this ar­guing, we are born free, is it self a con­tradiction; insomuch that whoever is born, is eo ipso not free, as having a Father to whom he is obl [...]ged for all that he hath, or is. By him we were begot, and nourished: and he who gave us our life, had anciently (be­fore Principalities grew large) the sole power of taking it away. That this Paternity was the original of Power in England; it is no obscure Evidence, That those to whom the greatest share of the Administration is com­mitted, are to this day under the style of the Kings Cozins [Cognato nostro] [Page 81] so in the Writ whereby the Lords are called to Parliament) as if their Proximity in blood, were their title to their Power. If any tell me, That I devise a title for Princes, that cannot be of any use; they not being able to shew their right to be Political Pa­rents, by proving themselves the true Heir to the Natural one of a whole Nation. To this, I say, I have shew­ed a title, to which any other can as little pretend to, and so they are not at all the worse. And no man can pretend right, that cannot shew him­self that very person, whose very place I shew them to possess: and it is a rule in Law and Reason, That he who is in possession, hath a right a­gainst all the World, but him who hath the very right. The very right, if the present Princes have not, none can pretend to; and if any have, they have: if any other had, they have certainly relinquished it by so long a Non­claim. And to set up any other Person, [Page 82] or other Form of Government, for a People to pretend, that because they were brought to that consent by force, and so not obliged any longer then the force continueth; is absurd: and their consent and submission is obli­gatory; because it was free, though forced. Free, I say, though forced; I am not ashamed to own that ex­pression: For, no outward force can constrain us to promise Obedience fur­ther then we our selves please. For it is a truth known by all who un­derstand Ethicks, or themselves; That whatever I do to avoid a greater danger, I do willingly: and as I judge it in that state of affairs, (as taking it to be the lesser evil,) I may rational­ly; and it is clear, I do freely, be­cause I do actually, choose it. If I part with my liberty; nay, with my con­science, to gratifie him who hath de facto a power to kill me: in this la­ter case as it is certain I sin; It is as certain I do it voluntarily: because [Page 83] all sins are so. For, if he de facto may kill me; and, that he may not use that power, I promise him to do this, or that: I have quid pro quo; my life for my subjection. He who might kill me, and so prevent all the harm it were possible for me to do, and upon my promise of obedience, lets me live; trusts me: and then if I am false, I break my trust. Though he had no right to force me to make the promise; yet he hath an unquesti­onable tye upon me to the thing pro­mised, even my own promise.

If it be here replyed, according to this; All who were forced to take the Covenant, or engaged to the late Pow­er, &c. are by this obliged to keep it.

I answer, First, I do not mean to make an excuse for any who did either. But secondly, I deny the Consequence: Because, though I say, That our own Act, may deprive us of our own Rights; I neither say, nor think, that it can deprive a third per­son [Page 84] of his: which was the case, as to the King, and all the Bishops, and Deans and Prebends. Consider though but as so many single persons of the Covenant, it binding us to deprive them of their livelyhoods, they had not been legally convict of crimes to for­feit the same: nor only doth it bind to destroy their Rights, but all the Roy­al Party; nay, all who had done any thing, which at any time was, or might be voted malignity, though it were but in living where the King took Contri­bution, when they had no where else to live. And these to be judged, not according to any Rule; but as, (ac­cording to the fourth Article) The Supream Iudicatories, or Committees from them should think convenient]. Though I affirm a mans own act may prejudice his own right: yet no man had such a right over others concernments as to subject them to Committee­mens pleasure: and that will reach the case of the Oath of Allegiance, [Page 85] it was not at his own dispose to give it to any late Powers. I have con­tended against the Government being by compact, by having submitted to the King: for be it Paternity, or Conquest in a War, just or unjust; it overthrows that Doctrine, of Parlia­ments Ever retaining a Iurisdiction over Church and Crown. But should I grant the Original of Government to have been compact; it would not infer our retaining Iurisdiction: be­cause we might have submitted ab­solutely. If [...]arliaments have such a power; they receive it from the King, or People. Not from the King, sure; but if they have, let them show it. Not from the People, as their Repre­sentatives; for so the Lords are not at all concerned. If the Commons have it, they must shew when the People gave it them, (if they had it to give). Their Writ expresseth no such thing; and by Grant they must have it. For As­semblies are not born but constituted: [Page 86] their whole Being, or Authority, is purely derivative: and if they will say by grant; let them produce it.

But after all this, the Covenant is not justifiable, though the Parliament had such a transcendent and un­heard 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 [Page 88] 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 [Page 89] 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 90] 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 [Page 91] 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.

[Page 92]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. Lan [...]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 [Page 93] our hands, by that incomparably ju­dicious Historian, Inde enim collige­bant Claves non fuisse soli Petro datas, & Concilium esse supra Papam: fie­bant (que) 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 approved at [Page 94] 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. [Page 95] 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 [Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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 [Page 98] 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, [Page 99] 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, [Page 100] 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.

[Page 101] 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 not why) before the third, I find nothing ma­terial, only p. 92. in answer to that acknowledgement, That the Holy Church was founded in Prelacy, be­cause [Page 102] the Church, when that Statute was made, was Popish, he insinuates that it was so when it was first founded in Prelacy. A thing which the Romanists have long in vain la­boured to prove; and if Mr. Cr. will at last do it effectually, the Pope will (no doubt) acknowledge his good sevice with many thanks.

The third of the Oxf. Reasons is now considered, Why it was not in its own turn considered, I know not, unless this Book was wrote by a Club, and he to whose lot this fell, was not timely provided.

The first was this, The Oxf. men alleadge, That they had, as they were by Law required, testified their ap­probation to that Government as a­greeable to the Word of God, which they are now required to swear down as contrary to it.

To which Mr. Cr. (if not, for the above mentioned Reason, his fellow-helper) tells us, The Article might [Page 103] only intend it to be a Political Civil Constitution, as indeed all our Statutes do suggest, and so an adiaphoron, &c. p. 94.

This is the best Salvo to recon­cile this Oath with the Subscription, and this Mr. Cr. himself refutes, p. 95. By telling us, That in the Book Or­dering Priests, &c. It is directly af­firmed, That it is evident by the Holy Scriptures, &c. That from the A­postles, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, &c. Which words declare their in­tent to found that Government upon the Word of God, not the Law of the Land; and so that Interpretation of his is false: and the Oxf. mens Rea­son good, and the Covenant irrecon­cileable with the Subscription.

The Oxf. mens second Reason is, They had received Orders from Bishops Hands, and theref [...]re could not so ill requite them, as to lay to their hands to pull them down. To which Mr. Cr. Replyes, p. 96. In so doing, they would do the Bishops a real kindness, [Page 104] of which he gives us this satisfactory account. Richard Havering Arch­bishop of Dublin, dreamt that a Mon­ster heavier then the whole world stood upon him, and when he waked, thought it to be his Bishoprick, and renounced it. Sure Mr. Cr. was scarse awake, when he thought to answer the University with a dream.

The fourth Reason is this, They held their livelyhoods by such Titles, &c. And, sure, being not convict of any crime, were not to be bound to un­do themselves, and were to the con­trary sworn. Cr. p. 97. They held their Estates at the pleasure of the Parliament, whose Pow [...]r is over the enjoyment of all publick (much more particular) Societies, against whose Laws, no Domestick Laws, or Oaths could bind them.

We have already shewed how this Covenant destroyes the Kings Prero­gative: this Doctrine teaches us in what a high degree it asserts the Pro­prieties and Liberties of the Subject. [Page 105] The Power of Parliaments over our Estates, so as to dispose of some part in Taxes according to our several Proportions, is indeed clear and le­gal. (To prevent wilful mistakes, I do not mean to justifie the Taxes the Long Parliament imposed. For they may dispose of the Subjects mo­ney to the King: They have no pre­tence of right to dispose of it to them­selves). But this Power of Parlia­ments which Mr. Cr, pleads for, is e­qually groundless and unreasonable: a power so unlimited both in regard to their King and Countrey; as it is not fit in regard of either they should have, nor doth it at all appear how, or when, they came to have it. It can never be made appear to be one of the due priviledges of Parlia­ment: unless we suppose, whatever it is possible for them to Vote, to be so, though against all the Laws and the King; and then what a prety Animal is his Majesty of England.

[Page 106]But in earnest, if it be consider­ed by any, but those who no other­wise are like to get Estates; or can justifie what they have already got; That the two Houses may dispose at pleasure of all the Lands of publick and particular Societies (and sure, then private mens; for so, beside that other capacity, are those who are interessed in Publick Lands) though c [...]nvict of no crime; That they may cancel all Oaths: is, what I never till now thought to be, one of the Liberties of the Kingdom. If their Power and Trust be so great, I would we had not at least, the security of an Oath, that they would use it well. By this Doctrine, they may even strike up a bargain, and share all amongst them­selves. And, call you this Securing Propriety?

A Monarchy may possibly be found­ed in Nature, and so in himself re­tain all rights he hath not parted with. But such a thing as an Assem­bly, [Page 107] as our Parliaments, can have no pretence to any thing (as I before have observed) but what they have by Grant from him who calls them, or compact with those who send them. Whatever therefore they can­not thus shew, they are not to pre­tend to; for Assemblies are not born, but made.

As to Lands that the two Houses have any thing to do, further then by Established Laws they are ena­bled, which receive all force from the Kings assent; I cannot imagine ground for.

Our Lands we all receive from, and hold of, the KING; as Sir Ed­ward Cook in the first part of his In­stit. and, as I remember, in the very beginning: but that we at all depend upon the two Houses for them, He (though a great adorer of that As­sembly) affirmeth not. But if we had received them partly from the two Houses, (of which there is not [Page 108] the least shadow or colour,) yet that would not justifie this Doctrine, They may dispose of them at pleasure; as Mr. Cr. prodigiously affirms to the Oxf. men, who alleadge, That they were not convict of any crime, be­cause they had not broke the condi­tions upon which they received them. Did they, at the same time, give them, and keep them, at their own di­spose? And upon this ground it is, that His Majesty could not, without injustice, and consequently without sin, should He have agreed to the Houses in that particular; (though in the Courts of Earth, it might have had the effect of a Law; yet in that of Heaven, it would have passed for Iniquity established by a Law:) be­cause by giving it to another, he passed away that interest from himseif, when he gave it away. The Dominium utile I mean, and in this, I think, consists the propriety of the Subject. But Mr. Cr. hath placed this All-disposing [Page 109] Power in the two Houses, when they were in hostile opposition to the King: and so makes us as great Slaves, as Earth hath any; to our fellow-Sub­jects. And much greater slaves are all we free-born People of England, made by the assertors of our Liber­ties; then Villains were among our selves. For I remember, though not the page, and have not the book by me, that Sir Edw. Cook in his Chap. of Villenage, affirmes, That whatever the slave had, was his 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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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. [Page 112] 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. [Page 113] 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, theirs not:) this is not to the purpose. For Civil Authority is not founded in the truth of our Reli­gion. And 'tis a prety nicety, That it is a great sin for any to rob God, but [Page 114] 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; [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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 and to the utmost of my [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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, [Page 119] 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 [Page 120] 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 [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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.

[Page 123]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 [Page 124] 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 Kingdom: But let them not nourish carnal pride, for His Kingdom was not to be here. [Page 125] All which can be gathered from hence, is, That Christians, as such, can­not claim Secular Honors: or, if they have them, they are not by reason of them to be supercilious toward, but more useful to, those who want them; not to scorn, but to help their Bre­thren. This doth not all prove, That if the Civil Magistrate, at whose disposal Honours are, will dignifie Clergy-men, they may not ac­cept it; when it may be the concern­ment and the welfare of Church and State: which are no such Enemies as that they cannot be administred to by the same Persons. I wonder, how so much is so securely built on this Text, when it cannot be made out, that Christ spake these words to the Apostles as in the capacity of Clergy-men. That Clergy-men, either as so, or as Christians, have not an eternal Right to Secular Honours, I grant. Christ bequeathed no such thing: but that He any where made them uncapable, [Page 126] if the Civil Magistrate (who is the Fountain of Honour,) bestows any up­on them, I no where read. He left those things as he found them: to be bestowed as he whose right it was to dispose of them should see cause. Christ would, certainly, have sharply and plainly reprehended such an Universal Custom, had he in­tended to remove it. But seeing He and his Apostles said nothing against it, they certainly intended it to remain as before.

The Exception to the third Arti­cle, is, That there is a limitation put upon an absolute duty. [To defend the Kings Person and Authority, in the preservation of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdom]. Though the King is really bound to those things: yet his neglect of his duty, doth not discharge us of ours. To this Mr. Cr. replyes, Those words are not a limitation of duty; but a predica­tion of the capacity the Parliament [Page 127] and People were in, and so the mean­ing is; We being in the preservation of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom, shall endeavour to pre­serve the King, &c. An Interpretati­on not to be made good by Grammar: To which (I must needs confess this though) it may as easily be reconciled, as to their Actions. All Declarations and Sermons were but Satyrs against the King; they represented Him e­qually an Enemy to God and Man, Religion and Liberty; upon which score, they justified Violences, as great as they would have his Crimes thought. In short, they had this pretence, to deprive him of all power, and that he was not fit to be trusted with any. Let any man but ask himself, what case the King was in, what usage he had, or might expect in those dayes; he would readily grant this Interpretation of Mr. Cr. (which is indeed as far from the sense of their words, as truth of their [Page 128] actions) to shew them to be as Loy­al, as he should be thought by Mr. Cr. friendly; who should revile and persecute him all wayes imaginable for Non-conformity; and then should thus manifest to all the world his ten­derness to him, should engage mul­titudes of his powerful and enraged Enemies, in a Covenant to defend Mr. Cr. in defence of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Eng­land. A Parenthesis would be in Mr. Cr. Eye, a slender ground of our good will toward him. This is not only the natural and practised mean­ing of that phrase, but the confessed and owned one, Mr. Cr. Legislators, the Commons, in Answer to the Scotch Commissioners 28. November 1646. p. 21. acknowledge and plead for this sense of those dangerous words, [ They are to preserve the King, &c. Relatively, viz. In the preservation of, &c.] And frequently in that De­claration, blame the Scots, for men­tioning [Page 129] the Preservation of the King, and omitting that clause upon which they were bound to defend him. This being then the natural and confessed meaning of those words, and, in Mr. Cr. own jugdement, sinful, p. 103. Because, as he truly there urges, Al­legiance, and so the preserving the Kings Person and Authority, is an absolute duty founded in the Relati­on, without regard to the Quality, Piety or Impiety of the Person, &c. And this is a duty we are bound to God to perform. If there were no more against the Covenant then this, Mr. Cr. must acknowledge the Cove­nant to be as to the matter, unlaw­ful; and so in his own esteem ob­liging to nothing but Repentance: be­cause it endeavours to bind us to to what he owns to be sin. But if this which Mr. Cr. is ashamed to own, (either because he takes it not to be true, or else not seasonable) be not the true meaning of those [Page 130] words, and the King for misusing his Authority is not to be deprived; nay, even then they swear to pre­serve it. I will not say, What meant that Resolve pleaded in the aforesaid Answer to the Scots, p. 65. That until satisfaction and security be given to both Kingdoms, the King was not to be admitted to come to them with Ho­nor, Freedom, and Safety. If to dispose of every thing in the Nation without, and against his command, be to preserve his Authority, I wish They had been so preserved. What mean the Votes of Non-Address, 1647. (Recalled, I confess; but let us consider, it was when Affairs were so much chan­ged, that the Army was ready to give them the same Law they had given the King, to defend them just so:) Nay, I shall go on; What means the Loyalty they so much brag of now, The Isle of Wight Treaty? All Offices, Civil Military, Peers, Counsellours, Iudges, Marriage of his [Page 131] own Children; in effect, all the Re­galia: Call you this preserving his Authority? Those horrid words are in themselves clear: and, if they had not been so, their Opinions had made them so.

In the conclusion of this third Ar­ticle, p. 104. After the supposed Jeer of serious Casuists; he tells us, They must grant, that where the words of an Oath seemingly doubtful may, they must be taken in a good sense. The Oxf. men were in this case of another mind; where an Oath is so doubtful, I am rather to refuse, for fear it should engage me upon a sin, and so I might be engaged to dishonour God for his own sake. An Oath is to be taken in the sense of him that gives it; otherwise it is no security, but a cheat. Shall I then strain a sense upon an Oath which the words offer not, (not to say, will not admit), and the Authors, I am sure, pursue not.

[Page 132]To the fourth Article, The Excep­tion is, It will protect Impiety, and necessitate Barbarism; it layes a ne­cessity on the Son to accuse his Father, &c. and makes way for those who are sick of their Fathers, &c.

To which the Reply is, p. 104. All penal Statutes for Felony, Trea­son, The Oath of Allegiance, Supre­macy, the Protestation, the Law Deuteronomy, 13.6.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. do the same. As to the Law of the Land; it looks upon the harbour Cri­minals receive from near Relati­ons in some cases, as duty: which it would severely and might justly pu­nish in others not so related, as a crime. But not to stand on that, at the very first reading, this Article sug­gests a considerable difference, from all the above-mentioned Instances. In those I am only obliged to dis­cover present guilt, and endeavours; which if not prevented, may go on to the high dishonour of God, and [Page 133] disturbance of the Publick. Conside­rations if sincere, much above any private, or particular Obligements. But this Covenant obliges to disco­ver all who have been Malignants; no consideration that the design is pre­vented, or repented of: and therefore serves not at all for Publick Securi­ty; but may, for private Ambition, or Revenge.

There is another Exception, which though Mr. Cr. pleases to slight, I will be bold to say, all the Earth can­not answer it, viz. That it betrays in­evitably, The Liberty of the Subject. We there swear to maintain in setting up an Arbitrary Power, when all the Rule they are to go by, is, [ As they think convenient] which Mr. Cr. an­swers by saying nothing to it. He repeats indeed the other words, [ As the Supream Iudicatories, or others from them, &c.] But saith not one word in answer to that expression, wherein the malignity lies, [As they [Page 134] shall judge convenient]. Words fit only for those men to use, who knew they had no Law on their side. It might here (not unseasonably) be asked, Who are the Supream Iudi­catories? Certainly, the two Houses distinct from the King, are so far from being the Supream, that they are no Court at all; nor is there in Law any style or form of their joynt Acts.

To the fifth Article, It is said first, That there is a false Assertion, These Kingdoms (if Ireland be one, as in the former Parliaments it is) are not at Peace, nor dare the men of Oxf. abusively thank God for a blessing they do not all believe, and Mr. Cr. proves by no better Argument, then that England & Scotland entered in Covenant. As to the Peace which was between England and Scot­land, made by both Parliaments, I ask, If the Power of War and Peace be not solely the Kings? If so, here [Page 135] is another of the Kings Prerogatives, this Covenant preserved.

As to the second Remora, Mr. Cr. asks where this Covenant is defective towards the Kings Rights &c? I might rather ask, where it is not; where it left him the Authority (I do not say Name, but Power) of a King, or the freedom of a Gentleman?

The very design of all their Pro­ceedings, which this Covenant was a main Engine to effect, was perfect dethroning him, when they made what the Law, what their Wit, the foundation of all their Power: cal­led, but his Counsel, his Controllers. And this is a Truth so clear, that they durst not for shame but call them­selves his Subjects; even when they exercised all but the Name of his Soveraign. When they raised Ar­mies to compel; even then they made a resemblance of their duty by send­ing Petitions to beseech. They could not be Rebels, but in the style of [Page 136] Your Majesties Humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament. Let Mr. Cr. shew me any thing that Law or Reason call a Right, or Pre­rogative of the King; and I shall quickly make it appear, how they took it from the King: and Mr. Cr. himself, p. 98. hath proved the truth of the Maxime he so much rails at, No Bishop, no King, by giving us just such a King as he hath allowed us Bishops. To the Bishops he will al­low the formality of the Chair; and the KING, for ought I perceive, shall have no more. The Lords and Commons (Melthodi & Majestatis causa) apply themselves to him. Well said! though I would the Law had been cited for it. The King, poor Gentleman, may sit uppermost, whilest he is mannerly: his assent shall be asked if he will first secure us, he will never refuse: If he doth, he shall then be reminded where the Reason of the Kingdom, nay and King too, [Page 137] resides. As in the Declaration about Hull, in 1642. p. 36.

I am so far reconciled to this ab­solute depriving the King of his Au­thority, that I like it much better than the prety knack of sharing it between him and two equal Houses, which would be the worst Government in the world. It is in our Saviours judg­ment, Hard to serve two Masters. But this Nation should have served three co-ordinate Enemies; whose In­terests, and consequently commands were thwarting. Every Convention would be a wrastling match, where each his business was to give another a fall.

The Contradictions the Oxf. men assign, are so clear, as nothing more; I shall therefore say little to them, because they best appear, when they are nakedly considered. One Ambi­guity I shall pitch upon, because it is the most considerable part of this My­stery of Iniquity.

[Page 138]The Oxf. men demand [ Which be the best Reformed Churches?] Because before they swear to make those Churches their pattern, it were well, certainly, that they knew them. To which Mr. Cr. p. 129. The Covenant asserts not which are the best reform­ed Churches; but binds the Covenan­ter to the observation of whatever shall appear, and be found the best reform­ed, as the example to which he shall endeavour England may be conf [...]rmed. Very well Sir, The Covenant asserts not which is the best reformed Church, but binds me to reduce England, to what shall appear the best reformed Church. That possibly may appear to me either that already established in Old England, or that devised for New England. Possibly I may not find Classes, or other canting knacks in the Word of God; and then tell you in your own language, I dare not own that for the Scepter of Christ: which I believe, nay can prove, to be [Page 139] an Humane Institution. I can tell where and when it came first up: and that Policy was the very best, (and if any was, that was, the only justifi­able) Ingredient in all its constitution. How shall I then reform England according to the Word of God, and the best reformed Churches; and yet according to the Scotch mode, which I know to be neither? Or if I am not bound to the Scottish pattern; How shall I bring the three King­doms to Uniformity, not only in Con­fession of Faith, but Form of Church-Goverment, Directory for Worship and Catechizing; and how preserve that in Scotland, which I swear to do, and yet set up another in England, which in that case I am sworn to al­so?

But because Mr. Cr. tells us, p. 129. The Covenant hath not de­termined which is the best reformed Church, &c. I would fain know, whether these three terms we are [Page 140] equally sworn to, [ The Word of God, the best Reformed Churches, Uniformi­ty with Scotland] are three expres­sions of the same Rule, or of different ones. If of the same; then it is not true, what Mr. Crofton being put to his shifts, sayes, because it is ex­presly determined, viz. Scotland. If of different; With what Conscience can we swear to all, when by keep­ing our 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 [Page 141] 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, [Page 142] 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 contradict [...] ­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 [Page 143] (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 [Page 144] 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 [Page 145] 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 [Page 146] 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 [Page 147] 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 [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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 [Page 150] 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 un­reasonabl [...]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 [Page 151] 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.