him The silly vulgar suspected and the crafty knaves proclaimed him to be a Confederate of Hannibals Nor was that errour discovered till there was reason to repent it Timeo Danaos vel dona ferentes Had there been lesse ability and resolution to oppose Rome in that head it might in all probability have stood longer upon its own shoulders Mr. Cr. wonders at that expression In the intended sense without which words the Oxf. men would never have denyed the Rage c. of the enemies of God and Religion to be at that time encreased because they saw and felt it And truly on which side they were Mr. Cr. shall witness even where he is professedly handling the Argument p. 28. Who abetted the murther of the late King Which Army did that needs no dispute Who commissioned the men that did that furnished them with Principles and opportunity in prosecution of whose avowed Declarations and Resolves that Act might be justified The men of Oxf. saw then as clearly as all the World do easily now If the Kings death was as Mr. Cr. urges a design of the Papists the King the Bishops and the Royal Party were not sure their only Factors You see Sir one may believe the presumption of the enemies of God to have been at that time increased and yet not in that sense That Papists rejoyced at our Troubles is granted and withal that they have not at all discovered their sorrow their joy they have that this Covenant pulled down that Church which themselves by strength of Arguments and Armies could not do Oxf. Second Reason is They could not truly say That they had used or given consent to any Supplication or Remonstrance to the purpose therein expressed The force of this is plainly thus They durst not swear they had done what they knew they never did To which Mr. Cr. p. 29. Had not they Representees in Parliament did they give No to such Supplications or if they did were they not carryed by the major Vote and is not the Negative swallowed therein that all persons and bodies Corporate did thereunto consent This a strange piece of sense Whatever the Parliament upon other mens Supplications Vote though of such a nature as many men from their very souls abhor the thought of it is for that sole reason true that they supplicated for it and they may swear it though they know they did not On the other side I conceive I may be bound to submit to many Laws as proceeding from a competent Authority which I may truly affirm I neither did nor was at all bound to desire Had the Parliament when they first voted No-Addresse in 1647. Voted the Kings death which they might have done by the same law of Reason nor could their ablest defenders ever answer Goodwin and others upon that Head did every man in England therefore supplicate for it But for Him we need not be sollicitous seeing at the very beginning of the War he was declared but a Trustee who had shamefully betrayed his Trust c. But if this Logick be good there is a worse story behind even this Blessed Covenant hath lost its ablest defendor not to say at one blow it hath lost them all seeing the Parliament have voted the Covenant burnt and Mr. Cr. himself may swear he hath supplicated for it Sure he will finde a way to evade this special piece of Law so applyed That by the Parliament all Persons and Towns Corporate did consent that in things belonging to their cognisance the Majority concludes the whole House and they the Nation I believe true and account it reasonable But Mr. Cr. good friend Mr. Baxter tells us another story and endeavours to prove it in the enlargement of his 179. Thesis of the Efficient and Conveying causes of Power p. 185 186. The Minor part if it be the better and wiser are not concluded and if they have any advantage as strength c. they may use it I suppose that he thinks with the Minor he will perswade them who will be not unapt to believe it of themselves that they are the wiser and better The next thing considerable is p. 30. an answer to the fourth Reason which is that they apprehended it not to be according to the Commendable practise of these Kingdoms or the example of Gods people in other Nations nay the Defenders tels us The world never saw the like before To which M. Cr. tels us That Israel did in the dayes of Ioash Iosiah c. The only difference is in short one of the greatest reasons for which this Covenant was expresly and frequently refused and refuted Those were with This expresly against him in whom that Obligatory Power lay the Prince In his Reconciling these words with those of Mr. Nye Mr. Cr. grants what is abundantly enough to prove what he denies That for Matter Persons and other Circumstances the like had not been in Any age or Oath we read of in Sacred or Profane Stories Whence I thus argue If there is so much in this Covenant distinct from what was ever in any before and that so considerable as to make a distinct Argument to commend this Covenant to the world more then any other ever could pretend to That for Matter and Persons i. e. The thing sworn and persons swearing besides other circumstances there had never been the like before It is not imaginable this should be warranted by former examples when neither in Matter nor Persons the thing sworn or persons swearing besides other attendant circumstances the like had ever been before It seems it was done after and warranted by the example of a thing nothing like it 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. T is 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 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
Kingdom But let them not nourish carnal pride for His Kingdom was not to be here 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 confâ—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 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 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
me to an Oath himself in cases of danger or profit broke takes me a Fool and engages me to take him for a Knave If the Covenant be a National Obligation obliging all even those who took it not as well as those who took it and Posterity into the bargain as Mr. Cr. in the sixth Section throughout none are more guilty than those who imposed and asserted it because none have acted more contrary to it according to that loyal sense which is now put on it The truth is it is penned so ambiguously that like their Consciences it might suit all times They swear in the third Article To preserve the Kings Person and Authority c. By preserving the Kings person their practice teaches me to understand preserve i. e. keep safe i. e. in custody i. e. in Prison As for his Authority that was preserved too where as things then stood they could have been content it should have been continued That they would have preserved the Kings Authority I shall not deny but in whose hands let themselves speak They told us pretty fair at the beginning of the War See 19 Propositions All the Kings Privy Council to be approved by them take such an Oath as they pleased so likewise the Chancellour Iudges the Steward c. all the great publique Officers so likewise Peers the whole Militia at their disposal and the marriage of the Kings Children all who had stood for the King to be at the mercy of the Parliament Their other Proposals were much at the rate of these I therefore pass them over all and so I shall their Votes of Non-Addresse with their Declaration upon them because shame hath made them buy them all up so that upon ordinary enquiry they are not to be had and themselves revoked them when they knew not well how to help it but were fain to make a vertue of Fear and Spite and call it Loyalty at the Isle of Wight-Treaty where the Kings Party must be first acknowledged guilty of the blood shed in the War in the Preface and accordingly treated in the Articles the Militia Law-making Officers c. all in them solely for twenty years all Peers made by the King since the Great Seal went to him null their Great Seal approved c. with much more to be seen in the Articles And after all this for fear some Regalia some shadow of Authority should have escaped their observation they only Voted his Concessions a fit ground for establishing a peace so that if they could think of any thing else which looked like Authority they were resolved to have it for the Agreement was only begun not made As to the Kings Person I do not finde they can acquit themselves much better I very well know that in the actual cutting off the Kings Head and some other attendant violences the Army did not suffer the Presbyterian party to have the whole share of the benefit but I suppose that will not free them from the whole share of the guilt except when two joyn in an unlawfull design he who is outwitted is presently innocent First I enquire whose Army it was who raised them furnisht them with opportunity not at present to say Principles Had there been no more they could not have been easily acquitted for a man is responsible for the consequents of his unwarrantable actions especially if they are foretold and he will not desist In that case he can scarce say He did not intend those consequences not at all pretend he did not produce them In our Law if a man in his lawfull calling doth an act though without his intent or knowledge by which a man is unawares to him killed the punishment is severe though morally he cannot be supposed to help it As a Mason throwing stones or timber from the top of a House a Man going by by chance is killed but if such a Man doth such an act out of his Calling it is Death and that deservedly So the two Houses had they professed no hostility to the King they not being in their employment the power of the Sword not at all being by our Lawes vested in them nor can they make out which way they came by or who gave them that Authority whatever is the consequent of their so doing they are guilty of it be it what it will And truly it is reasonable that they who will usurp employment should be obliged to see the Ills of it not to be greater than those which before perhaps they did but fancy He who forces me out of the security of the Law and by violence confines me to another protection is obliged to see that that be not less And this would have been so suppose the King to have had the rights barely of a private person He who without authority of Law but solely upon the grounds real or imaginary of expediency will commission enrage and arm men against me and after their having made them my mortal Enemies make them my Life-guard commit my life to the keeping of those themselves had often represented me to as not fit to live he before God and Man is answerable for my life without whom those others could have had neither power nor pretence nor in all probability would have a will to take my life from me But alas how small a part of the Presbyterian Parliaments guilt is this from whom they received not only opportunity but principles and example They not only enabled but taught the Army by doctrine and practice Imprisoning the King our Law and common sense too calls compassing his Death For in that case his life as to the publique can be nothing but a capacity of taking away theirs and they all that while are in a fair probability of being hanged After the imprisonment of a King suppose him like to escape and head a numerous party did he not deserve to be farther proceeded against and would not their own security require it Would they have ever restored the King to the Exercise of any power till he had assented to what they should please or no If no I desire to know first what the Army did more then that Secondly what a King he were who had nothing to do in the Government but only groâ—n under it And thirdly why may not they who have Authority to depose a King and have just grounds viz the security of the publique may not for the assurance of that security put him to death If they would have restored the King though he had not tamely said Yes to every Demand yielded his Crown to save his Head let them say so for shame if they can What they did and owned from the beginning and it may be too justly concluded from the no remorse we finde in them would own again were it not for fear and shame will justifie the Army from any thing but being their servants who understood and only acted their Commandement In the first Reason for a War The
King was but a Trustee and had broken his trust which tended to the Dissolution of Government That was fair to begin with Tended to c. i. e. The relation of King and Subjects was fairly going and why if but a Trustee and the Trust broken it may not be re-seized I could almost tell them I see no cause Sure it would sufficiently shew their intentions in case of the King but not at all better their own claim I would not have the House of Commons triumph too soon because as is very evident they had received their whole power and trust so both in the Judgement of him who called them and those who sent them they had basely betrayed it Again the King was not King in his personal but political capacity i. e. themselves against whom therefore to wage War was Treason according to this the cutting off the Kings Head cannot be Treason I shall not deal farther in this but only desire all those of them who would perswade themselves of their own innocency that they are at least thus far concerned that they employed and empowered those men who but for them never would have been able to accomplish nor in all likelihood to contrive that black Act and that after the King had often by rational and convincing Arguments shewed it to be the necessary result of their principles and proceedings And truely the Army were almost obliged in their own defence to pull down the King and Lawes they had so much offended that they could scarce hope for pardon nor at all be secured of it the King being once restored any farther then they were assured of the Kings regard to Honour and Conscience a thing the two Houses had very unworthily often declared to be none at all I cannot but observe how the Parliament thought to order the King by employing such men as would doe their work throughly They could not in discretion trust the King but could an Army and so betrayed themselves with a great deal of warinesse as it is very ordinary for men to ruine their own Interest by preferring it before their Duty And in that case the question is this Who knowes what is fittest to be done God who commanded this or themselves who contrived that And sure it cannot be otherwise expected but that God should declare those who take upon them to be wiser then him to be very Fools But in our case they did not more sacrifice their Religion and Allegiance to Craft and Interest then they did sacrifice that Craft and Interest to Passion and Humour and truely it frequently happens that they who change Government do neither mend it as to the Peoples advantage nor enjoy it as to their own The chief Instruments of prosperous Rebellion are usually the Avengers of it at once expound and chastise the vice set up a power which is indeed Arbitrary both in the rules and exercise of it when that they had pulled down one which was only called so it fared so with us The people had as little need to be fond of their Patriots as they of their Army Neither of us have cause to complain of any but our selves It was just with God to permit us our ruine when we were fond of it that after we had complained without a cause we should have cause to complain The Parliament and People both say they were unhappy let us see whether they were not as unwise beside the being dishonest We employed Mercenary Souldiers to secure our Liberties we expected that a victorious Army i.e. Legions of Indigent persons armed with power and want should secure propriety after having pulled down their Prince submit to their fellow-subjects having ventured Lives and Fortunes and their Souls too to get a Conquest having got it intend only to be called Good Boyes and then very mannerly retire to their old Trades and Beggery This was not very probable that after having beaten their Enemies their Friends should Vote them down Let the Parliament as they did tell them of duty themselves had employed against it they will obey their command by your own Example act according to the declared sense of the Houses interpreted by their practice And in earnest were it not that Sin and Vengeance are not laughing matters it would make one smile to hear a Rebel earnestly tell others of their Duty to him conscientiously state the obligation of an Oath to those himself had employed in breaking all Sir Iohn Hotham told his Majesty he would obey his Commands signified by both Houses of Parliament when the Army afterwards thought they had been Rebels long enough for other mens sakes and advantages it was time now to be so for themselves Had they then said they would obey the Resolves of the two Houses delivered by his Majesty could the most desperate Villain in that Assembly have retorted any thing but a Blush Is there any disparity here but what is to the disadvantage of the two Houses the King being their Head nor can they oblige at all without his consent when as to Militia Affairs the King needs not their Authority at all We would willingly forget their former Actions if they would suffer us but their desire to begin again appears by resuming now all other marks of distinction are worn out their so long laid aside Original Mark and Bond whereby to discern and engage their Party to know their strength and how to use it The nature of which being abundantly laid open by the Oxf. Reasons there needs no more to be said as to the strength of those Reasons and innocency of the Covenant then briefly to consider some passages in both which Mr. Crofton was willing to mistake ERRATA PAge 8. line 21. read whom the Carthaginians could not beat p. 10. l. 17. r. could not do till then p. 12. l. 19. add Our Representes in Parliament as to the exercise of that Power the Law vests in them which every one that knows the constitution of England knows to have bounds do legally bind us because we chose them and gave them authority for that purpose To consent for us But if they usurpe any other Power as the Milicia Reforming the Caurch in spite of the King c. the conclude not us at all We neither entrusted them with any such Power nor know of any such Power inherent in our selves to trust them with This being very clear to any but those that will not see in this sense I grant Thay by c. p. 12. l. 21. r. do consent and that p. 13. l. 9. r. that if he l 13. add Good Doctrine for the Rump p. 20. l. 4. r. and then to one which p. 24 l. 10 r. A Tenent which the Army raised upon the score of this Covenant learnt so well p. 32. l. 2. f. what r. which l. 8. f. to r. so p. 42. l. 14 after questioned add it as to that p. 43. l. 6. aft nothing add of it p. 45. l. 14.
which provokes their anger and Mr. Cr. like an angry Disputant confutes himself Is that our fault that we shew a peculiar respect to that part of it which peculiarly concerns our Saviour his Words and Works Our particular obligation assures us it were ill if it were otherwise Outward Reverence provided we do not let it serve in stead of but use it to signifie and promote inward cannot in that case be a crime But if to dignifie some parts of Scripture above others be a crime themselves are guilty as doing so to the Psalms of David only they are not Davids but Sternholds by singing them before every Sermon a thing in Scripture no where commanded But so have I seen a distempered person in spite to another beat himself The next thing considerable is p. 55 56. Christmas Easter c. and the Holy-days are superstitious plainly repugnant to Gal. 4.10 Col. 2.16 If the Feasts there mentioned were evidently not Christian Festivals I suppose I may safely conclude Christian Festivals not to be plainly forbid in that place where they are not so much as spoke of The Text in the Galatians mentions expresly Moneths and Years proportions of Time no way to be accommodated to Christian Festivals or then or now That in the Colossians is so plain that it must be a worse Principle than Inconsideration which occasioned the mistake not only because it expresses New Moons a thing not established by Christian Authority but in the words following the 17. verse gives a clear account of the unlawfulness of those Feasts of the Observance of which he there complains which are a shadow of things to come but the Body is Christ Those Feasts therefore were not reproved as having been commanded by any Christian Church which it is clear they were not but because they had in them not only a general malignity as being kept in Obedience to the Iewish Law and so must suppose that to be still in force but had besides a peculiar malignity in their nature being and for that very reason reproved a shadow of Christ to come and so consequently denyed His coming Now then all which can be gathered from this place is Christians must not keep Feasts which prefigured Christ to come Ergo they may not keep Feasts in remembrance that He is come There is a pretty piece of Divinity p. 56. to enforce the former Conclusion which no doubt would be admirable if it were but sense To observe the Nativity Circumcision Passion Resurrection Ascension severally is irrational and irreligious irrational because they are not in themselves Mercies to the Church but as they center in Mans Redemption irreligious because without Divine warrant That none of all these signal condescensions of Divine goodness should be esteemed in themselves Mercies or worth giving thanks for when Edge-Hill and Nasby Battails though but in order to the undoing of the King were so accounted argues a more passionate esteem and concernment for the Covenant of Scotland than that of Grace That it is irreligious because without Divine warrant is said but not proved For a thing becomes unlawful only by being against some Law that is by being forbidden not barely by being not commanded Our Saviour Christ we are sure observed Feasts which had not such Institution notwithstanding that prohibition which was as strict to the Iews whose Authority instituted those Feasts and in obedience to which He kept them as it can possibly be to us Ye shall not add c. Christ did indeed abolish the Ceremonial Law of the Iews and that was all He did abolish so as to make unlawful From hence men gather That it is â— sin for us to imitate them in any thing we find done by them according to the Principles and Dictates of Nature Gratitude c. as Feasts of Commemorations clearly are Though this is a Proposition sufficiently distant upon this pitiful ground without any more ado do men put off all which can be fetcht out of the Old Testament whereas though Christ abolisht the Ceremonial Law he left all other Laws and Rules as he found them But as Christ observed Feasts not instituted by divine Authority so possibly doth Mr. Cr the command in Scripture for Sunday being not so very clear that Mr. Cr. cannot but doubt to be Irreligion and Will-worship in his notions of those terms No man can ground it on the fourth Commandement that doth not take the seventh and first to be the same day i. e. Seven and one to be the same number If he will interpret the Seventh-day to signifie one in seven I desire to know whether the Iews might have observed which of the seven days they pleased and whether then the Reason of the fourth Commandement was not strangely impertinent to the Matter of it That being expressed to be For in the Seventh day God rested c. seeing that was the very seventh and no other and a command in the New-Testament for it I suppose is not to be found The next three leaves 57 58 59. are spent in proving what none ever denyed That There are several things in the Form of our Service and Discipline not commanded in the Word of God A thing comes to be unlawful sure by being forbid not by being uncommanded Seeing this is the only fault I ask Is the Directory the Form there prescribed in the Word of God I desire a direct Answer to that Can that pretend to anything but to be the result of Prudence and Authority Both Directory and Common-Prayer agree in that which the Directory was made to differ from the Liturgy in both were made by Men. The only imaginable difference is the one was made by those who had Authority the other by those who had none That the Scripture is a compleat Rule of Faith And what cannot be proved thereby as it is interpreted by that Original and unquestionable Tradition by which we receive the Scripture it self is not to be believed as a revealed Article of Faith We not only assert but in the defence of this Practice of ours whereby we are said to over-throw the Scriptures being a compleat Rule we contend for it as an advantagious Truth in this Cause Because this Doctrine Nothing is to be in Discipline or Order but what we find in Scripture is a Doctrine in Scripture no where to be found So that the very Accusation is the same Crime it would be thought to reprove And what is clear concerning this Principle is as clear concerning their Practice Till the Form and Order in the Directory prescribed be shewed to be so in the Bible too The demand of the Written Word for every particular of Order and Discipline is hugely plausible and senseless I will not throw away Reason upon unreasonable men to show the vanity of that admired tenent That whatever though but of Order Decency Discipline is not in the Written Word which is a compleat Rule for all is Will-Worship c. I shall