for quiets sake grant the Scripture to be so and that the Directory or any other beloved way is plainly in terminis in the Bible But then I shall require this in return that they would show me where-abouts for I would willingly read it there and truly this is but reasonable They who when we obey the Church though in matters of Order and Decency tell us We hang our Faith upon the Churches sleeve though by the way the word Faith is not very properly applyed to such matters They of all men should not require us to hang our eyes upon their sleeves believe that Form to be plainly in Scripture which we who know our selves able to read know not to be there let them but shew it us there and we will believe Themselves approve not they tell us Believing by an implicit Faith and we as little like to see with implicit eyes That things indifferent are not unlawful to be used because commanded we need no other Principle but their own That Humane Commands alter not the Nature of things Ergo They do not become unlawful by it Ergo they may even then be used without sin and if so Whether then it be not a duty I leave to him to consider who remembers Obedience to all Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical to be enjoyned in the terms of the greatest latitude Those general Commands signifie something sure the general Rule of Decency and Order were not intended for nothing St. Paul reproved the irregularities at Corinth upon other Principles then would admit the wild extravagancies of any thing that might be mistook for or called Tender Conscience If any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God So then to plead Christian Liberty against the Customs of the Church is indeed spiritual Pride Faction Singularity though it may be called Conscience There was a disorder in the Church of Corinth as we read Chap. 14. v. 23. St. Paul rectified it by the Rules of Decorum the Principles of Reason without any reference to the revealed Will of God Will they not say Ye are mad In the 26. of that Chapter he tells them One had a Psalm another a Doctrine a third a Revelation c. Every one after his own way as if there be no common Authority which hath power to restrain what can hinder It is very probable it was upon this very mistake of the Liberty given by Christ as appears in the close of the Discourse ver 33. God is not the Author of Confusion c. i.e. They mistake the matter quite Christ indeed abolisht the Laws of Moses but never told them he did those of Decency He never instituted Ordinances of disorder or Sects of rudeness And if there must be Decency and Order no confusion If Authority must not judge what is so but every private man for himself then I would fain know how Order differs from Disorder Though this is clear in the nature of the thing yet I shall show out of Scripture it self allowed Instances of the Churches Authority exercised over and altering of Institutions confessedly immediate of divine Institution At the Institution of the Pass-over Exod. 12.11 it is commanded expresly they should eat it in that manner with their loins girt shooes on their feet staves in their hands yet our Saviour according to the allowed and accustomed practise of that Church eat it in a Table-posture His loyns not girt nor His staff in his hand Now what account can be given of this matter by those who allow the Church in matters of this nature no Power but declaratory what the written Word in this case which every Cobler who can read hath let themselves tell us The practice of the Kings in varying as occasion served in such cases from the Law is mentioned and commended in Scripture and hath been often urged in this case The Truth as well as the Practise is clear That the nature of Government can no more be devested of this Power than it can of being what it pretends to be This power of varying with occasions from the very express Letter of Scripture the Presbyterians as well as all the rest of the world allow and practise The Eucharist was not instituted to be in the morning nor at the Publike Service The Decree Act. 15. of things strangled and bloud though made by the authority and direction of God Himself and in peremptory terms is not observed and he who says The Reason of that Command ceases doth not answer but confirm my Argument That in change of Times we may alter what is established in Scripture much more Power sure we have over what is not at all mentioned there The Order of Widows treated of in the fifth Chap. of the 1. of Timothy no where now The famous Love-Feasts every where ceased Let them not delude the World with a shew of Scripture-Discipline when of that little part which is come to our knowledge themselves retain nothing Though how according to their Principles who allow no Authority in the Church but confine it to the Written Word be our Times never so different they can omit or add any tittle without the most horrid Impiety I ununderstand not There is a Query p. 59. which they are very happy in having taken generally for granted Sure I am They cannnot say one word of sense to prove it Whether the Instituting significant Ceremonies be not the very Formality of Superstition I am very confident were not our Ceremonies significant they would be styled silly and useless and now they are significant they are Impious To the Query I say this The word Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used several times in Scripture but in what place they can pretend it to have that meaning I wish they would consider first and tell us afterward The Criticks I suppose will not befriend them with such a notion of it in the learned Authors I find St. Paul charging the Athenians Act. 17.22 downright with this crime Ye are too superstitious I suppose Mr. Cr. will not prove the very formality of their fault to be significant Ceremonies I find in Scripture a significant Ceremony viz. The Holy kiss If it was instituted by the Apostles as they were Ordinary Governours of the Church in that capacity they were to have Successors while there is a Church or World and so it proves the Churches Power to institute significant Ceremonies If they did it as Apostles it concerns us now The most material Objection is p. 60. How comes it to pass that the work of the Ministery is divided in Ordination Deacons Baptize but administer not the Lords Supper That the Church should give power to Deacons to Baptize though not to administer the Sacrament some account may be given from the different natures of both Sacraments Both of them it is confessed are equally Holy yet were alwayes looked upon with some difference that of Baptism as of greater necessity that
it did not concern them to have much so they 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
and to the utmost of my Power to endevour to have it executed upon me In the 101 page He considers that Argument used in behalf of Episcopal Government viz. The agreeableness of it to the civil constitution of the Kingdom which he proves to be no Argument by two Mediums The first is Christs Kingdom is not of this world Ergo. The second is this Christ hath a Regal Power and is faithful in the Administration of his house ergo The agreement of a Church Government to the Civil constitution of the State is no Argument for such a Church Government As to the later Argument I shall not answer it at all but desire the Reader to consult the place that he may see that the Argument is his own and then ask him Whether in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ergo The agreeableness of c. were not altogether as conclusive As to the former though a slighted Argument I say it is a material one and it is none of the least commendations of Christian Religion that it provides even for the temporal security of men and states and were they obeyed universally we should have a kind of heaven before we came thither But had Mr. Cr. but read over the whole verse he argues from and but considered the occasion of its being delivered he would sure not have used it in this Argument He could not have avoided a Doctrine which sets a clear distinction between the Church of Christ and that of Scotland it is this My Kingdom is not of this World else would my servants fight i. e. His Kingdom which was not of this world was not to be promoted by the way of this World That Cause which refused the assistance of Legions of Angels scorned the aid of Armies of Rebels Against Bishops superiority over Presbyters and their medling in Temporal Affairs there is a Prohibition brought out of Scripture The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion c. But it shall not be so among you but whoever will be great among you let him be your Minister and whoever will be Chief among you let him be your Servant Matth. 20.25 26 27. Mark 10.42 43 44. Luk. 22.23 24. The Impertinency of this place is clear at first sight For it proves nothing of this nature or too much concludes not against us unless against them too For it concludes for an absolute equality if any thing in this Point and so Super-Intendents are as bad as Bishops and the sin of Temporary Moderators is coeval to their Office The only difference which is to be between all Christians especially Clergy-men if the sense of the words be this alleadged is Who shall be most humble But sure Christs Precept and Practice did not so much differ The Twelve and the Seventy were sure not equal Timothy and Titus were Superiors to those whom they were to rebuke to judge The Angel of each Church in this Revelation had some authority sure over those he was threatned for not inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures upon If this be the Import of the place there is no manner of Authority in one Church-man over another if there be of any Christian over another so that every Synod may be reproved with Ye take too much upon you c. if one single Presbyter dissent and they punish him But the truth is These words do rather teach Superiors how to behave themselves then deny any to be so and suppose rather than forbid some to be greater and more chief then others He who is great c. He who is chief By the usual Application of this Mistake it is also concluded I suppose from the first words The Princes c. exercise Dominion c. But it shall not be so among you c. unlawful for Clergy-men to be endowed with any Civil Authority and Mr. Cr. p. 101. hath stated the Question What will become of the Bishops when the Dukes be damned That Clergy-men may not meddle with Temporal Affairs if a truth is such a one which the Presbyterian Ministers are the most unfit people in the world to plead for of whose guilt in this particular these Nations and almost all Europe are publick and bloudy Testimonies Nor did they procure the least share they have had by the pretence of having none and disclaiming to have any Here I might be copious but to omit others I shall peculiarly stick to the business in hand and only intimate the self-condemnation they brought upon themselves in relation to this Tenent and the Oxf. men To be Head of a Colledge is certainly a Civil Authority and this sure they did not refuse but contend for with War fraud and violence Did they not very godlily Visit themselves into what a godly Minister dares not be as being uncapable To be a Vice-Chancellour as so and in that right to be a Iustice of Peace are Authorities I think not purely spiritual And to be a School-Master is so too And to take the other Argument used in this case The Ministery requires the whole man this takes up more time from his Function Ministerial than to be a Peer of the Realm And this last instance brings in another To be Master of a Family is a Civil Authority Correction there not purely spiritual But the truth though urged in behalf of both these Presbyterian Tenents signifies nor of nor on to either They are an Answer to a Question they are the deciding or rather taking away the Foundation of a Controversie We shall therefore endeavour to attain their true meaning by that sure and easie and neglected Method considering the occasion upon which those words were delivered For it is not citing but profaning Scripture to urge it as a proof of what it was never intended to concern But such shifts those men are unavoidably brought to who first resolve upon Conclusions and Practices and then are necessitated to seek Principles to make them good those men must make the best of such as they can get The Occasion of those words must needs be the same with the Quarrel he thereby appeased unless we will suppose our Saviour to have spoke besides the business He spoke to and the Disciples satisfied with nothing to the purpose which Disputes about being made great seldom are Which was this The Iews had an Opinion of the Messias as of a temporal Prince and the Disciples were not free from that Error and in this sense it was they thought he should restore the Kingdom to Israel Upon this account they thought their Religion entituled them to Secular Grandure were sharing the great Offices And that this was it Christ reproved and that this was the very mistake is as often evident as there are discourses of theirs about Christs Kingdom The not thorough purging out of which Tenent was the cause that one branch of it occasioned the Millenarian Error in the first Ages Christ had indeed promised them they should raign with Him in his
SHORT STRICTURES OR ANIMADVERSIONS On so much of Mr Croftons Fastning St Peters Bonds As concern the REASONS OF THE UNIVERSITY of OXFORD Concerning the Covenant By Tho. Tomkins Mr. of Arts and Fellow of All-Souls Coll. in Oxon. LONDON Printed by E. C. for A Seile over against St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1661. To the Reverend IOHN MEREDITH Doctor of Divinity and Warden of All-Souls Colledge in Oxford Honoured Sir BEfore I presume to beg your Patronage I must bespeak your Pardon You might indeed justly wonder how I should think my self able to judge what were material in this weighty Controversie did I not live in an age of so much Light that there are two things we are all able to do viz. to Reform a Church and Model a State There is a Fault I must confess in Our as in All Governments which as some men are resolved never to Pardon so I have no hope ever to see mended viz. That all are not uppermost There is an Objection will be made against this Innocent Treatise that it is wrote against Consciencious men I cannot deny but that the concerned Gentlemen are admirably furnished with Consciences for every occasion To prevent this Cavil my appeal is to You who know what conscience is having suffered so much to preserve a good one A tryal those Gentlemen were never very forward to undergo nor if my Augury fail me not ever mean to be That sacred thing or what was mistaken for it or at least called by that Name hath done strange things in this Nation which it highly concerns some to enquire whether it will justifie We read in Scripture of Obeying for conscience but not one word of Rebelling for it And yet men can do it and at the same time make the written Word the rule of their Action It first distinguished between the Kings Person and His Power and next between his head his shoulders And truly they who once divide the Kings Person and Power are concerned that they never unite again Because men do dayly disobey Laws upon the score of conscience and for that reason take themselves and are taken by others for Innocent I shall beg your leave to ask this Question Whether following Conscience is a sufficient Plea to quit us from sin even where it is so indeed To say nothing of those Universal Pretenders Artifice and Melancholy The Scripture maketh mention of seared Consciences reprobate minds which sure are no great perfections and of strong delusions which though they be new lights are but flashes of hell-fire And St. Paul reckons himself the greatest of sinners for what he did out of the dictates of conscience I my self thought verily that I ought to do many c. These are competent grounds of rendring that Tenent suspicious I ask therefore briefly Hath the conscience any rule besides it self or no If not How is the written Word of God the rule of Action If it have Whether it be possible for it to swerve from its Rule or no If not then every man is infallible there can be no such thing as strong delusions believing a lie c. If it be possible for conscience to swarve from its Rule whether its swarving be its Innocency For if it be not so it is no sufficient ground for men to conclude themselves innocent when they disobey Authority because it is their conscience so to do because the Word of God to which Conscience as well as other Faculties ought to be subject and sins when it is not prescribes obedience to Governours in the most universal terms imaginable I could not but say thus much because This is our conscience was the old non-conformists first plea and the latter in name only different Enthusiasts only plea and if it be a sufficient one it must hold in all cases as well as any because the reason is equal in all It may justifie those many who killed the King and those many more who killed our Saviour My want of years and judgement I shall not at all excuse but urge as my fitness for this employment It were a disparagement to the University of Oxford if such an Antagonist could not be answered by one of the meanest who can plead relation to so Renowned a Body The many weaknesses you will find in these papers are so many evidences that I came to Oxford in times of Reformation when Learning was counted little lesse then an enemy to Grace as indeed it was to what they called so Our Imperfections Honored Sir we blush not to discover to you whose goodness will not see them but only to remove them whose business is not so much to preside in a Colledge as to reform it to be our Warden as Example Like the Sun who when he rules the world enlightens it too when he shines he cherishes so that its most spendid Majesty is but Love in all its glory So your Commands are so many boons and injunctions endearments so that you do not rule but assist and oblige us and have now abundantly satisfyed the Obligation the Founder laid upon you of promoting the good of the Colledge to your uttermost by vouchsafing to take us into your particular care So that how mean soever this Present is from your self I am assured to learn how in time to come I may make a better And in the mean time glory that I can account my self Honored Sir Your most devoted and obliged Servant THO. TOMKINS All Souls Coll. Oxon Sept. 26. To the Reader READER I Very well foresee that many who are conscious to themselves that such things are possible will laugh and scorn at the Author of this Treatise as one who meant to write the sense of the Times rather then his own In the beginning therefore I bar all who have been themselves guilty of what they only suppose to be viz. Our late Complyers whose consciences have been in this sense tender that they might be bended any way And now I hope I have prevented my most numerous and severe Accusers But now I think on it I will release them too let them employ all their art and passion in telling the World how unworthy such Proceedings while they have been their own are For why should I hinder such men from laughing at themselves The worst all those can say of me is I am like them and that were bad enough if it were true This Account is civil enough for these men I should gladly afford them another if I had any reason to think so well of them that their Principles would not fail them if it should once happen that they would consist with their duty and that their beloved Rule Obey the present Power whatever it be Blasphemously called following Providence had not this one and that the only Exception Provided it be not the Lawful Power And sure there is too much Reason so to guess when those whose Consciences scrupled nothing under an Usurper scruple indifferent things under
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
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
Oath to any one we do necessarily break that part of it which was taken to another and in all probability observing in it any one is breaking it to both the other The Covenant obligeth us to reform England according to the best Reformed Church but determines not which it is as Mr. Cr. acknowledges The reason of which is clear because by that reservedness they engaged all Sects to them when by declaring their meaning they had engaged but one every one by this means who was for the Covenant the Covenant was for him and such ambiguity sure is not an Oath but a Iuggle But from this proceeds another Ambiguity Who are the common Enemies c. How shall I know who are Enemies to the best Reformed Church if I know not which is so Can I prosecute any as an Enemy to the best reformed as such and know it not or shall I tell him I know him to be an Enemy to I know not what Mr. Cr. p. 128. waves this Plea and assures us That the words plainly run to the Church of Scotland c. and Independents by their enmity to the Church of Scotland are our common Enemies This Explication I must needs say fits the meaning of the Covenanters and the no meaning of the Covenant In different Pages it is as in different States of Affairs one while the best Reformed Church is not determined another while it is plainly Scotland If Independents were common Enemies sure it was from the Presbyterians they received Arms and Authority There is a Contradiction alledged by the Oxf. men which I thought not to have considered which because Mr. Cr. professes not to see I shall shew it him out of himself It is We are bound absolutely and without exception to preserve and yet upon supposition to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland To which Mr. Cr. p. 131. That Supposition must be plainly expressed in the Covenant to make it a contradictâ—ry Oath which is not done The best way of proving a Contradiction is to lay the Propositions contended so to be together which will clearly if they are so shew themselves Thus then We are absolutely bound to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline c. of Scotland We are to bring the three Kingdoms of which Scotland is one to Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline We are to reform 2. England and Ireland according to the best Reformed Church See the first Article of the Covenant The Covenant asserts not which are the best Reformed Churches but binds the Covenanters to reform England whatever shall appear to be the best Reformed Church Cr. p. 129. Thus then The first Proposition binds us to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland absolutely The second to bring the English Church and the Scottish Church to an Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline The third to reform England according to the best Reformed Church The fourth assures us that the Covenant asserts not Scotland to be the best Reformed Church but binds to reform England according to whatever shall appear to be so Now then if Scotland doth not appear to be the best Reformed Church the third Proposition binds me to alter what the first binds me absolutely to maintain If I am obliged to make the same thing exactly after several Patterns if they happen not to be exactly the same I must necessarily in following one differ so much from the other as I follow that which differs for to agree with what differs is sure so far to differ I perceive the Covenant is as it was at first urged to several men so as to comply with their several humors and interests The well-meaning and undiscerning Populacy they now as they did formerly before things were ripe engage to the Covenant and tell them those horrid Consequences deduced from it belong not to it but afterwards engage men to them by vertue of the Covenant they have taken whose Obligation never fully appears til due season Their first aim is at that part which is least guarded Religion which being that wherein most are least concerned is their first attempt Because the Church would not pull down the State the State must pull down the Church But what followed They who perswaded that the Nobles Prelates were nor good enough to be their Equals made it out that Coblers and Draymen were good enough to be their Masters And besides the Grandees who acted in that change the whole Party were as forward to own the other House as ready at any time to take the other Oath I very well know many will not in spite of Reason and Experience be perswaded but that reforming the Church is the sole aim of the Covenanters In the new sense of reforming the Church-Lands being already in their opinion disposed of Reformation must begin at the State and surely it is great pity but they who will not beware by the examples of others should be made examples to others The second Article of the Covenant is only talked of and that being the concernment of the Church others think themselves not interessed in But he who considers that they are in the sixth Article sworn never to be wrought off no not so much as to an indifferency or neutrality but zealously and constantly in despight of all impediments pursue all they have sworn And that in the fourth Article they swear to bring all to punishment who have been Malignants Which words signifie what they please and expresly all who have acted contrary to the Covenant and they to be punished as the Supream Iudicatories i. e. no doubt the two Houses who are no Court at all or others from them shall think fit will find the Cavaliers in an ill case nay all who at any time did any thing which was ever Voted Malignancy by the two Houses The rigour of whose Sentence they not being in a now capacity to pardon being dissolved must be now executed upon the first opportunity nor must they at all question the reasonableness or legality because the Rule is As they or any from them i. e. their Committees shall think convenient One thing I shall observe that though the Parliament may be trusted to act arbitrarily beside or against the Law which they are not yet that they may delegate such an extravagant power over Lives and Fortunes as is here mentioned to oothers though men of such Principles and Fortunes as our Committees were who were to make Offenders by whom they might thrive having nothing to grow rich with but an ill Conscience and other mens faults is such a Liberty of the Subject as destroyes all the trust Besides it is a rule in Law and Reason Offices of confidence and trust by our Representatives in Parliament are not cannot be delegated because that trust is only personal I have before observed That that Invitation in the conclusion to forraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Power must be to them confessedly as Subjects whom notwithstanding they absolve from their Allegiance Though it is not delivered in Scripture that freedom from a Master or Prince who is a Heathen is any part of that liberty wherein Christ hath installed us and so is seditious Having shewed it to be against Duty I will in a word shew it to be against our Interest It engages us to pursue by the way of the Sword as their Practice and the Invitation in the conclusion shews all we have sworn to all our dayes which is Whatever is contrary to the power of Godliness So then Every man is to slay his brother who commits any sin that deserves it so many Covenanters so many Commissioned Officers There is a Tribunal in every brest to condemn and execute both And if their Oath obligeth them to any thing it doth to this they being equally sworn to all the other Articles though that alone takes up all their thoughts What horrid effects there would follow hence themselves would quickly feel should they thus begin to assert the Covenant themselves would quickly find its edge They who set a house on fire themselves be soon made a part of that fire It is not then more dishonourable to God injurious to the King and the Nation then it would if pursued be quickly found to be to its most violent assertors All that is desired of them is they would either pursue the Covenant in all things or none that is deal equally and sincerely shew that they act out of the sense of an Oath not of a party or rather let the Covenant be buryed placed in the Regions of Rottenness and Forgetfulness and let them be quiet and suffer others to be so If any Reproofs seem in these Papers too sharp I wish the unreasonablâ—ness of those expressions may thus appear that few deserve them But then as few are concerned in them I should willingly make a distinction between those of the Presbyterian Iudgement and those of the Presbyterian Party and I hope themselves will concurre with me in it by making it appear that there are those who may approve that way of Government yet abhorr the usual way of promoting it The former may possibly be reclaimed by rational discourses the latter by nothing but severe Laws FINIS * By whatever Combination Perswasion c.