Subsectio secunda.

Their exceptions to the Preface of the Covenant maketh no po­sitive charge, yet suggesteth sundry falshoods therein asserted, which they witness they could not acknowledge: As,

First, 1 Exception by Oxford Reason. They were not able to say, that the rage, power and pre­sumption of the enemies of God (in the sense there intended) is at this time encreased.

To which, Sir, I should have then answered,

1. Answer Their ability to say it is of little moment, nor could we well judge it: for whether they were under any natural, wilfull, vio­lent, or judicial incapacity, is not our part to determine: Others were able to say it: and if these reverend Fathers and Students did know it, though they were not able to say it, it was for us sufficient. And therefore may I be bold further to enquire

2. Whether they were able to read the whole Sentence ex­pressing the sense (Of the enemies of God, whose rage, power, and presumption was at this time encreased) here intended: and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspira­cies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of God, against the true Religion, and Professors thereof in all places, especially in these three Kingdoms, ever sinte the Reformation of Reli­gion, and how much their rage, power, and presumption are of late, and at this time encreased: whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England, and the [Page 27]dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, are pre­sent and publick testimonies. Are not these full expressions of the sense in which the enemies of God, whose ra [...] power, and presump­tion were encreased, are to be understood? And is it rational or religious to enquire after, and suspend a duty on jealousie of a sense intended, when we have the sense plainly expressed? Is not this repugnant to the end of Speech (the Interpreter of the mind?

3. Were the Masters, Scholars, and other Members and Of­ficers of the University of Oxford, such strangers in the Prote­stant Israel, as not to know the Papists, and Popishly affected, were enemies of God, against true Religion, and the Professors thereof in all places? Or so unacquainted at home, as not to know their plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices, were e­specially against these three Kingdoms, (the most publick and po­tent professors of true Religion) ever since the Reformation? Had they no notion of the Rebellions against King Edward the sixth? Of the Treasons, Plots, Conspiracies, Roaring Bulls, and Raging Spanish Armado against Queen Elizabeth? Of the Gunpowder-Treason and other plots against King James? Of the Colledge of Propagators of the Catholick cause erected in Rome, under the Government of Cardinal Barbarin, and designed against these Kingdoms? Or of the grand Plot agita­ted by Con, or Cuneus, the Popes Nuncio in England, discover­ed by Andreas ab Habernefield, first to Sir William Boswel His Majesties Resident in Flanders, and by him unto Laud late Arch­bishop of Canterbury, and since fully cleared and laid open by Mr. William Prynn in his Romes Master-piece, published in 1643. four years before their reasons, and might have been profitable to their eye-sight?

4. Did not this learned University judge it to be an high en­crease of their Rage, Power, and Presumption, to distribute their Jesuits into such several Orders, as should be capable in any place or profession to propagate their plots? To press upon the late King and Archbishop for a publick profession of union with Rome? To boast openly of Englands returning to Popery? To tender a Cardinals Hat to the late Archbishop? To poison our Fountains the Universities, and our very people with Arminian and Popish doctrines publickly preached and printed, and Popish [Page 28]pictures publickly sold, and bound up with our Testaments and Bibles? To provoke the High-Commission cruelties, and Puri­tans discontents? To plot a plain Popish Service-book (with ve­ry little variation o [...] from the Mass-book) and procure it to be by force and violence imposed on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, to the raising Mutinies, and stirring up the Bellum E­piscopale, with pretence to yoke them, and intention to destroy the King and Protestant cause? To rebell openly in Ireland, and with rage and cruelty to murder and massacre the Protestants? To divide between King and Parliament in England, and possess themselves of his Majesties Garrisons and Armies, as under their command? To abet, advise, and effect the most barbarous mur­ther of his late Majesty, and our since confusions? All which, and many the like, to have been the atchievements and accom­plishments of these enemies of God to true Religion. He that is in any measure observant of our affairs, can run and read. And are not these expressions of rage, power, and presumption? let right reason judge.

2. Oxford Rea­sons, second ex­ception. They cannot truly affirm, that they had used or given con­sent to any supplication or remonstrance to the purposes therein ex­pressed.

To this, Sir, consider,

That although they cannot affirm it, yet others can do it in truth, and with joy.

2. What are the purposes therein expressed? (not as before intended) shall we judge it from the Preface? It is the glory of God, and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honor and happiness of the Kings Ma­jesty, and His Posterity, the publick liberty, peace, and safety of the Kingdoms, wherein every ones private condition is included. For the End is the Argument which is urged to enforce the con­stancy to the Covenant; and in Article the sixth it is expressed to be the glory of God, good of the Kingdoms, and the honour of the King; and these are the onely purposes expressed in these particular acts propounded for the production of them, and shall we be so uncharitable, as to think the Gentlemen of Oxford to have been so void of piety towards God, love to their Country, or loyalty toward their King, as not to have used or given con­sent to Supplication or Remonstrance to these purposes therein ex­pressed? [Page 29]Must we think them so speechless, as not to pray to God, nor speak to men for the effecting of these purposes expressed? No! I will rather presume them modest, and not willing to pub­lish their piety and zeal to good purposes: or passionately preju­diced against some one expedient propounded to the effecting of these purposes expressed, and thereby acted to confound the pur­pose and pursuing meanes: But,

3. Had not the University of Oxford Representees in Parlia­ment? If they did not sit, were they violently excluded? Or, did they give their No to the Supplications or Remonstrances to the purposes expressed in the Covenant? and if they did, were not these Supplications and Remonstrances carried by the Majo­rity of Votes? And is not the Negative so swallowed therein, that all persons and bodies corporate through the Nation, did thereunto consent? When we finde Oxford excepted, we will say they could not truly affirme, they gave con­sent.

But 3dly, Oxford Reasons third exception they did not conceive the entring into such a League and Covenant, to be a lawful, proper, and probable means to preserve our selves and our Religion from ruine and de­struction.

To this, Sir, we must enquire into the conceipt of these Gen­tlemen, and desire to know whether it relate unto the quality of the Covenant, or the act of Covenanting? The particle Such, seems to carry it to the quality of the Covenant, in respect of the matter covenanted; which afterward is particularly and in its proper place excepted against: But the words of the Covenant suggested by this exception to be false, do relate unto the act of covenanting, as we have now at last for the preservation of our Religion, determined to enter into a (not such a) mutual and Solemn League and Covenant: And the place of this exception is in the beginning of their exceptions unto the Preface, which may be said to be no part of the Covenant, and therefore ad­mits not an exception to the quality of such a Covenant: More­over the next exception puts it out of doubt, that these words relate to the act of Covenanting, in which they profess they finde not in our Histories any footsteps of a sworn Covenant on any occasion whatsoever. So that it seems to be the Act of covenan­ting by Oath, which they cannot conceive to be a lawful, pro­per, [Page 30]and probable means to preserve Religion from ruine: Sure­ly then Sir, the weather was very misty about Oxford, and made their minds very muddy, that they could not conceive entring in­to Covenants, and Solemn Leagues, dictated by the light of na­ture, and directed by the Law of God, pursued and practised by all Nations, (and by Israel in the cases of their Religion,) as the utmost of humane policy, and highest of security to their pri­viledges endangered, as a method detecting concealed enmity, debarring fraud, expressing affection, engaging conscience, and animating resolution, to be a lawful, proper, and probable meanes of security. If it be good and safe as to our Civil, I hope it is no less probable in our Religious concernments. If Sir, I had been to deale with one single student, I must have told him, That he started this exception more like a Sophistical Disputant, than a conscienti­ous Dubitant.

Fourthly, They could not believe the entring into this Covenant to be according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms, 4th Exception in the Oxford Reasons. or the example of Gods people in other Nations: for that they found not the least footstep in our Histories of a sworne Cove­nant ever entred into by the people of this Kingdom upon any occasion whatsoever; nor could they readily remember any com­mendable example of the like done in any other Nation, but are rather told by the Defenders of the Covenant, that the world never saw the like before.

Whither Sir, Answer. will not prejudice carry men? I cannot but wonder to finde the Masters, Students, &c. of Oxford, so much unacquainted with Histories, as neither to finde in our own, or other Histories, a commendable example of Entring into Cove­nant: I may not mind them of the Covenant made by the No­bles and people of Scotland among themselves, and with Queen Elizabeth of England, under and against the Papal might, execu­ted by the then Queen Regent; nor of the Netherlands confede­racy and Covenant: These will not seem commendable in their sight now, though so judged when England became their pro­tection, and encouraged, nay, defended them in them.

Let me therefore enquire whether they knew Israel to have been Gods people of another Nation, and that they entered into Covenant in the time of the Judges, in the dayes of Joash, Josi­ah, Hezekiak, and Nehemiah, in times of danger and defecti­on [Page 31]in their Civil and Religious concernments; And was their pra­ctice commendable?

2. Did our Gentlemen of Oxford never finde any footsteps in our Histories concerning the Barons of Stamford, Anno 1225. assembled not only without, but against the Kings consent, and covenanted each with other to demand the restitution of their Liberties; whereupon a Parliament was holden at Northampton to give them satisfaction? And again, did they never finde in our Histories, how in Anno 1258. they Assembled at Oxford, a­greed on Articles, viz. The confirmation of the Charter de Fo­resta. 2. The establishing of a Lord Chief Justice, who might judge them by Law. 3. The driving Aliens and Strangers out of England, and the like; and that they confederated by Oath, and gave their hands and mutual faith one to the other, Matth. Paris Hist. Aug. p. 940, 941, 952, 653. that they would not desist to prosecute their purpose for loss of money or Lands, nor love, nor hate, no nor yet for life of them, or theirs, till they had cleared England of Strangers, and pro­cured laudable Laws: And under this Covenant they brought the Kings Brother, Richard King of Romans, and Earle of Corn­wall, and caused him to sweare upon the Holy Gospels this for­mal Covenant:

Hear all men that I Richard Earle of Cornwal, swear up­on the Holy Gosples, to be faithful and forward with you, to Reforme the Kingdom of England, hitherto by the counsel of wicked men so much deformed; and I will be an effectual coad­jutor, to expell the Rebels and troublers out of the same: Both these our Histories say, were in the time, and without the consent of King Henry the 3d. Not to trouble our Reader with the like in the time of King John, King Richard the 2d, and other Prin­ces; I must desire the Gentlemen of Oxford to tell us, whether these were not people of England? and these be not visible foot­marks of some Covenant of the people of England on some occa­sion? And if they shall question whether they be commendable examples, let them please to observe the commendable Epethite our Historian gives upon the last of these Covenanters, calling them Angliae Republicae Zelatores: But, the defenders of the Covenant told them, that the world never saw the like before: I but, they did not tell them, that there are no footsteps of any Covenant made on any occasion whatsoever: And if they had, [Page 32]were the Masters and Students in Oxford resolved into such an implicite Faith, as to believe an Enemy? But I wonder these Masters of Reason had so little Reason, as to conclude a general, from the concession of a special: Their Margent explaineth the concession of the defenders of the Covenant in these termes, Such an Oath for matter, persons, and other circumstances, the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we reade of in Sacred or hu­mane Stories. Know they not that there is a vast difference be­tween the general form of an Oath or Covenant, and those spe­cial Qualifications which may circumstance it? and that a dissi­militude in the last, will not conclude that there never was a Sworn Covenant on any occasion? but sit verbum sat sapienti.

Thus Sir, notwithstanding these learned Suggestions of the falsehood of the Preface, and in it of the assertory part of the Cove­nant, it yet continueth lawful, because true; and is our encou­ragement and assurance, that the promissory part will be answer­able: For as in rational conclusions, so I hope in Religious resolu­tions we shall find à veris vera sequuntur.

Subsectio Tertia.

The promissory part of the Covenant, is in these six Ar­ticles.

Subsectio quarta.

The Master, Scholars, and other Officers and Members of the University of Oxford, in their Apology for not taking the Co­venant, urge their Reasons against the same as unlawful not, in the matter it self simply considered, but by accident, in respect of some circumstances attending themselves; and discapacitating them unto the Act, and they offer their exceptions unto the Articles severally and distinctly.

Unto the first Article they except against the Preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland in Do­ctrine, Oxford Reasons Sect. 3. pag. 4. and Worship. Discipline, and Government; and then against the Reformation of England in those particu­lars.

Unto the first they tell us, 1 Except. They are not satisfied how they can in judgment swear to endeavour to preserve the Religion of ano­ther Kingdom.

To which I answer in General, it is but reason they suspend the Act untill they can swear in judgment; though such as have rashly in ignorance prophaned the Oath by swearing it, must in sence of its Sacred Obligation inform their judgments, that they may performe it, and not cast it off: but what hindreth their judgment in this required Act?

They urge four obstructive reasons: As

First, As it did not conc rn them to have very much, 1 Reason of this exception. so they profess they had very little understanding thereof.

In which reason it is to be noted,

1. They had some understanding of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland; and that little might so farre enlighten their judgment, as lawfully to swear the preservation thereof: I presume many Citizens have little and but general notion of the Liberties they swear to pre­serve, yet are judged to swear in judgment.

2. I wonder an Vniversity, and Protestant Vniversity, conversing in all Books, (and I must imagine) meeting with the two Books of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, their Confession of Faith, and Form of Worship. entertaining School­men and Bishops, thence fled, by reason of the same; and open­ly oppugning and disputing against the same, should profess they had thereof little understanding; but it may be they minded not to study these things.

3. Some understanding in the Religion of another Kingdom was necessary to them as Christians and Protestants, by vertue of the Communion of the Church; and some as an Ʋniversity, and Protestant School of Learning, where the true Religion of the Reformed Churches was to be defended, duobts dissolved, and errors oppugned and contradicted; and some was necessary, to them as Subjects, required to swear the preservation thereof for the injunction could not but provoke an enquiry after the matter to be preserved: I wonder therefore how these men could profess it did not concern them to have much, who (if I mistake not) ought to know as much as all the Nation besides: but from what they know, they adde the next Reason, (viz.)

In three of the four specified particulars; (viz.) Worship, 2 Reason of this exception. Discipline, and Government, it is much worse; and in the [Page 40]fourth, that of Doctrine, not at all better than our own to be re­formed.

I wonder Sir, what account of the Doctrine, Worship, Disci­pline, and Government of the Church of Scotland was by the oc­currences of those unhappy times, brought unto the knowledge of the University of Oxford? I hope they were more wise and just than to take it from Mr. John Maxwel, pretended Bishop of Ross, (a man excommunicated by the Church, and censured by the State of that Kingdom, a professed Enemy, and enraged De­linquent, cursing his very Judges) whom I find about that time at Oxford, writing his Issachars Burden, (a most railing, re­proachful discovery of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland:) and the rather, for that the heat of expectation and ostentation of many (in reference to that book) was cooled by a providential fire which seiz'd on the Printing-House, and burned the Copies ready to be published the next day, as Mr. Baylie in his Ʋindicati­on of the Government of that Church (which these Gentlmen might have met with) doth testifie.

Yet Sir, had these men of reading regarded what more sober and impartial men have said and written, they would have had another Character of this Church: I may not mind them of the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford, in the time of King James, preferring the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of Scotland, before that of England, or of their Philadelphian purity, Bright man on Apocalyps. 3. who did not only keep the Doctrine of Salvation pure and free from corruption, but doth also deliver it in writing, and exercise in practice that sincere manner of government, whereby men are made pertakers of Salvation mentioned by Mr. Bright­man our Countreyman; they will possibly tell us, these were Seperatists to whom Scotland is no friend) or Pu­ritans: Yet methinks Magnum hoc Dei mu­nus quod una & religi­onem puram & [...] doctrinae, viz. retinendae vinculum in Scotiam in­tulistis. Sic obsecro & obtesto haec duo simul re­binet, ut uno amisso al­terum diu permanere non posse semper memineritis Beza Epist. 79. Beza may call for a little audience and respect from this Learned Assembly: and he told us long since, This is the great gift of God, that you have brought into Scotland together pure Religion, and good order, which is the bond to hold fast the Do­ctrine; and I heartily pray and beseech you for Gods sake hold fast these two together, and alwayes remem­ber, that if one be lost, the other cannot long remain: And no less venerable, I presume, is the Corpus Con­fession, [Page 41]the Harmony of Confessions of all the reformed Chur­ches; and yet therein they have an account of the Church of Scot­land, which might render it more acceptable, and worthy to be preserved. For thus it is reported by the Collector, who much rejoyced in the providence that brought their Confessi­on into his hand: Est illud ecclesiae Sco­ticanae privilegium rarum prae multis, in quo etiam Nomen apud exteros suit celebre, quod circiter aut nos plus minus 54. sine Schismate nedum Haere­si, unitatem cum puritate doctrinae prevaverit & retinuerit; hujus unitatis adminiculum ex Dei mi­sericordia maximum fuit quod paulatim cum do­ctrina, Christi & Apo­stolorum Disciplina si­cut ex verbo Dei praescri­pta est, una suit recepta, & quam proxime fieri po­tuit secundum eam totum ecclesiae regimen fuit ad­ministratum. D [...]t Dominus Deus pro immensa sua bonitate Regiae Majestati, omnibusque Ecclesiarum gubernatoribus, ut ex Dei verbo illam unitatem & Doctrinae puritatem perpetuo conservat. Corpus Confess. p. 6. It is the rare priviledge of the Church of Scotlaod before many, in which respect her name is famous even among strangers, that about the space of fifty and four years without Schisme, yea or Heresie, she hath holden fast unity, with purity of Doctrine; the greatest help of this unity by the mercy of God was, that with the Doctrine, the Discipline of Christ and his A­postles, as it is prescribed in the Word of God, was by little and little together received, and according to that Discipline so near as might be, the whole government of the Church was disposed; the Lord God of his infi­nite goodness grant unto the Kings Majesty, and to all the Rulers of the Church, that according to the Word of God they may perpetually keep that unity, and the purity of Doctrine.

Unto these might be added the testimony of Arundel, Hut­ton, and Matthews, three English Archbishops, approving the order of the Church of Scotland; and the joy of King James professed in the Assembly 1590. That He was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world: All which might have brought to their knowledge a better account: but they look­ed not so farre back, but take it up by occurrents of those unhap­py times; in which I fear Scotland was not more full of perplexi­ties, than Oxford of passion and prejudice.

3. But in what particulars are the Doctrine, Worship Disci­pline, and Government, much worse than that of England? They should specifie these bad things; for generalia non pungunt; I confess in a Notion of Philosophy, or question in Divinity, the Say so of a University is of some Authority; but of none in the case of an accusation which must be particularly charged and plainly [Page 42]proved, if Englands Doctrine be doudtful and defective in respect of its clearness and certainty, or sophisticated by the obtruded fan­cies and terms of private men, as Mr. Prynn hath plainly char­ged in his Epistle to the late King, prefixed to his Quench-coal, and as the Ministers of sundry Counties in their Reasons for Refor­mation have suggested; and Mr. Ham [...]lton in his modest answer to Dr. Peirson, hath cleerly demonstrated, it will be found as much better than the Doctrine of the Church of Sco land, as its Worship, Discipline, and Government, is worse than that of England: And I hope, if the one be as good; though nothing better than the other, there can be no great Scruple, to swear to endeavour the preservation of it: 3 Reason of this exception re­ferred to the fifth Section of this Treatise 4th Reason of this exception. But to proceed,

Their third Reason is a supposed contradiction in this first Ar­ticle of the Covenant. This shall be considered under another Head.

The fourth Reason why they could not swear the preservati­on of the Religion in Scotland, is this, Wherein we already find some things, to our thinking, tending towards Superstition and Schism, which call for Reformation.

Here Sir, they seem to specifie what in the 2d reason they had suggested in general terms: But let it be observed,

1. That they find not in the Church of Scotland any formal Superstition or Schisme, but at the most something tending to­wards them. I imagine many Oxford Masters will not willingly admit a Reformation, or be denied a preservation of many things apparently tending towards Popery, bua not Popery it self.

2. The things they find, do but to their thinking, tend to­wards Superstition or Shisme; but they have no certainty of it; Must conjecture stand against the Covenant and conclusions of o­thers? Methinks Superstition and Schism should be so well known to the Scholars of Oxford, that they might be able to conclude what things tend thereunto.

3. What are the things they find in the Church of Scotland which tend (in their thinking) to Superstition and Schism? They point us unto the Margine, and there we find (viz.) in accounting Bishops Antichristian, and indifferent Ceremonies un­lawful; this they refer to Superstition: And (viz.) in ma­king their Discipline ad Government a mark of the true Church, [Page 43]and the setting up thereof the erecting of the Throne of Jesus Christ; and this they referre to Schism. Sure Sir, they were in a great strait, that made a shift to specifie these sad corruptions; but yet they do not tell us, where they find these laid down as the Doctrines of the Church of Scotland; whether in their Confes­sion, or form of Discipline; Whilst in their Confession of Faith they give unto general Assemblies authority about Ceremonies, Corpus Confessi. Conf. Scot. Art. 20. p. 120, 121. I cannot think they deem indifferent Ceremonies unlawful; nor do I find that they (as England hath done) do any where make their Discipline a part of their faith; that so they might damn Bishops as Antichristian; I find indeed, Artic. 8. p. 118. that they make Disci­pline rightly administred as is prescribed in the Word of God, the note of a true Church; but they do not appropriate it to their Discipline and Government, as these learned men would have us read it. I know indeed, that the Scotch Divines do account English Bishops Antichristian, and English, Popish Ceremonies un­lawful; but they deny them to be indifferent; but these are spe­cials, and far from the generals charged on them; nor can these specials be condemn'd in them, until Catherwoods Al [...]are Da­mascenum, and Mr. Gillespies Dispute against the English-Popish Ceremonies, (which have passed with much approbation through all the Reformed Churches, and I presume, missed not Oxford) be fully answered.

4. But wherein lieth the tendency of these principles to Su­perstition and Schism, that these learned men think of? As to their nature they are negative and exclusive; and I deem a denial of any of Gods appointments to be prophanenesse not su­perstition. I am apt to think Superstition to be a positive innovati­on and erection of some new matter and action into the worship of God on mans meer will and invention, without Gods institu­tion, I remember Mr. Blake denieth the baptizing of Bells, or the Horse in Huntingtonshire, to be Superstition, and damns it as a prophane misapplication of Gods Ordinance: How then the ex­clusion, neglect, or prophane esteem of Bishops and Ceremonies can tend to Superstition, I confesse I see not. Think you Sir, the Learned men of Oxford did deem Bishops and indifferent Ceremo­nies to be such immediate institutions and essential parts of Di­vine worship, that they think a profane contempt of them might tend (by exclusion thereof,) to make way for some innovation in [Page 44]their room; then I also will think they tend towards Superstition, but must think they are not indifferent:

I wish Sir, they have not mistaken the Scotch notion of a true Church, Gent. 2da. c. 2. col. 109. which is opposed as well to a corrupt, as falsely constituted Church; the Magdeburgences do so oppose it in the very same case, Ʋera enim ecclesia, &c. For, a true Church, as it retains pure Doctrine, so also it keep; simplicity of Ceremo­nies; but an hypocritical Church for the most part, changeth the Ceremones instituted by God, and multiplieth to its own traditions. And Bishop Halls Ʋere and vera Ecclesia, is no stranger at Ox­ford, and if then Scotland (concluding her Government to be ac­cording to the Word of God) should say, De specie, It is the sign of a true (that is, a pure) Church best Reformed, because the erecting of the Throne of Christ, doth it not tend more to provoke Reformation of Churches truly constituted but not com­pleated, than to stirre up Schism? For they do ot, nor ever did deny communion with Churches herein defective, and under male-administration of Discipline and Government.

Subsectio quinta.

We see Sir, very little ground to stumble at the preservation of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland; let us try the strength of their exceptions a­gainst the endeavor of the Reformation of these in the Kingdom of England: And to this they tell us,

They are not satisfied how they can swear to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Oxford exce­ptions to Re­formation of England. Worship, Discipline, and Government; which without making a change therein, cannot be done. For this they urge three grounds or reasons, which seem to be of weight.

The first whereof, 1 Reason for this exception. is,

Without giving manifest scandal to the Papist and Seperatist, By

Yielding the cause, which our godly Bishops, and Martyrs, and all our learned Divines (ever since the Reformation) have both by their Writings and Sufferings, maintained; who have ju­stified against them both the Religion established in the Church of En­gland, to be agreeable to the Word of God.

2. Justifying the Papists reproach and scorne We know not where to stay, what is our Religion, and that it is a Parliamenta­ry Religion.

3. A tacite acknowledgement, that there is something both in Doctrine and Worship (whereunto their conformity hath been required) not agreeable to the Word of God, and so justifying the recusancy of the one, and separation of the other.

4. An implyed Confession that the laws and punishments of Papists for not joyning in that form of Worship, which our selves (as well as they) do not approve of, were unjust.

A very fair and specious exception! To which, Sir, I say,

1. That it is well, Scandal is at length become an Argument of any force: Had it been regarded when rightly pleaded by the Nonconformists (enemies to separation, as well as Popery) there might not have been a Solemn League and Covenant to constrain its plea in a case wherein (under correction) it seems to have lost its force: For if, Sir, we have through ignorance practised, or wilfulness persisted in any sinful Superstitious course, concer­ning which we have been admonished by some, and declined by others, and yet being armed with power did constrain a compli­ance with us, so that a Recession from the same must be our shame, and their scandal to whom we would not hearken; I hope we must not, for fear thereof, go on in sin, and refuse so much as to endeavour a Reformation: If in this case scandal had been of any force, how, or when had Protestant Religion been effected by such who had burned for Hereticks, all that were but suspected of inclining to it? Were not the Papists then as much and more scanda [...]ized as now? Is Scandal of any more force in the following degrees of Reformation, than in the first act thereof? Though it is a stop to sin, and stay of violence in imposing things indifferent, must it be of any strength to barre duty in the endeavors of Reformation? I believe, Sir, professors of Physick and Chirurgery, will not consent ill humors to go un­purged, or festred, incurable members uncut off, because some will be scandalized, that their advice was not sooner minded, and others at the past, real, and now-seeming cruelty acted by the present change.

2. It is to me strange, to see Papists and Separatists con­joyned as objects of the same scandal: I am sure the reason and ground must be directly contrary; Continuance of corruption to the one; and Removal thereof to the other; the Separatist is [Page 46]offended that there were so many Popish Ceremonies retained, and that so long, when by him too rigidly resisted: The Papist that there were so few, and likely to be gone so soon: But I pre­sume, they are supposed in aliquo tertio convenire, to agree in some other capacity; The things are now to be Reformed; for non-observance of which they were both afflicted; and then Sir,

3. The Scandal seems to be a meer fancy springing from a fallacy in these words, The Religion established in the Church of England; which these serious Casuists (with reverence may I note it) do to me seem sophistically to understand in a sence dif­ferent from the words of the Covenant, which are these, The Re­formation of Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine, Wor­ship, Discipline, and Government.

It must therefore be observed, that Religion as it denoteth the matter, sabstantial parts, and essential form of divine Worship, is different from the Circumstances, Ord r, and Ceremonies an­nexed thereunto, and only as appendants thereof deemed Reli­gious, which are conversant about, and separable from Religion, liable to alteration as the prudence of men doth direct; and none but ignorant Idiots will deem the change of them a charge of Religion; for these are different in the Reformed Churches, whom yet, (I hope) the Universitie of Oxford will own to be of the same Protestant Religion with the Church of England, agreeing in the same faith, though not subscribing the same formal indivi­dual Articles; administring the same worship, though not in the same order, and with the same Ceremonies.

Again Sir, we must distinguish between what is established, and what is exercised in the Kingdom of England: Though we do not justifie, nay, believe a necessity of Reformation in many particulars in the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government established; yet we know in all these particulars, many gross and absurd corruptions brought in, and continued by a strong hand, were exercised in the Kingdom of England; and that in refe­rence to all these particulars: 1. For Doctrine, as that auri­cular confession and pennance was necessary and profitable for Christian men, and in Christs Church; That Christians must have Altars, and bow to them as towards Gods mercy-seat, and the place of Christ his real presence on earth: That Jesus Christ [Page 47]and his passion are offered up as a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Altar: That Crucifixes, Images, and Pictures of Christ, God, and Saints, may be lawfully and profitably used and set up in Churches: That the Pope or Papacy is not Antichrist: That there are Canonical houres of prayer which ought to be observed: That Churches, Altars, Chalices, and Church-yards, ought to be consecrated: That men had free-will of themselves to believe and repent: That men might totally and finally fall from grace: That Sunday is no Sabbath: That Bishops have a Superiority of Order and Jurisdiction above other Ministers, and that by Divine Right. Nor can there be a true Church, where there are not such Bishops: These and many such like (it is well known) were publickly preached by Mountague, Cozens, Pocklington, Shelford, Dowe, Reeves, Adams, and others, and the Preachers defended even in the University from censure for them; nay, these were Printed in several Books of the same Au­thors, licensed and allowed by the Archbishop and his Chaplains, and many of them asserted in the visitation Articles of some Bishops, and yet were not established in the Church of England. As in Doctrine, so in worship, many corruptions were innova­ted and exercised: As, Bowing at the Name of Jesus: The turning Communion-Tables into Altars, or Altarwise, and Rail­ing them in, furnishing them with Candlesticks and Tapers: Ty­ing the Gospel, the blessing, and other parts of the publick ser­vice to that place enclosed, and bowing to these Altars: The making Crucifixes and Canopies, pictures of God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, Ʋirgin Mary, and other Saints in our Church-win­dows: Consecration of Churches, Fonts, Bells, and the like: All which, and many such, were first innovated to the Chappel at Lambeth, and ferried over to White-hall, and so transmit­ted to all Cathedral, and almost all Parish Churches; and yet were not established by Law, though enforced by the corruption of Discipline in the Ʋisitation Articles of Bishop Wren, Bishop Mountague, Bishop Peircy, Bishop Lindsey, and Bishop Skin­ner, and others in their several Diocesses; and by the silencing, suspension, excommunication, and imprisonment, and High Commission vexation of Mr. Chauncey Vicar, and Mr. Parker, an Inhabitant of Ware, Mr. Burros of Colchester, and many o­thers: Nor was Government any more pure, if we consider [Page 48]how it was exercised in the High Commission, and Star-Cham­ber, with all rigor, cruelty, and injustice; and in Ʋisitations, Citations, Probate of VVills, Letters of Administration and Ex­communication in the name, and under the Seal of the Bishops themselves, never authorized thereunto: All which were evi­dently needful to be reformed, as having been so publickly exer­cised, and potently defended, and might well enforce a covenan­ted endeavor to reform Religion in the Kingdom of Eng­land.

I well know, Sir, that the change of Religion makes a great sound in the world, especially if established: I cannot be insen­sible of the noise made by it against our first Reformation, and must expect the Eccho to follow all after acts and degrees there­of, for all changes are scandalous, and many very dangerous: If therefore these Masters and Scholars of Oxford could rationally conceive the Covenant to bind them to endeavor a change of Re­ligion in the substance, matter, and essential parts and form there­of; then I must confess their exception is very important; for we cannot deny that our Bishops, Martyrs, and Learned Divines, have by Suffering and Writing testified it to have been agreeable to the Word of God: And that to resolve that into the power and pleasure of a Parliament (who may direct and authorize the profession, but not prescribe the matter or form) were to make it a Parliamentary Religion; and the change thereof must needs condemn our Laws, and the punishment of Papists not joyning with us as unjust, and so justifie Papist and Separatist; the one in his recusancy, and the other in his separation.

But, Sir, when I consider the Religion of Scotland to be pre­served as the concomitant and provocation, the VVord of God to be the Rule; and the best reformed Churches (professing the same substantial Religion, though differing in administration and order) propounded as the pattern; I see not how right reason can render any such sence of it; and the rather, for that Refor­mation, not alteration of Religion, is the formal act which presupposeth the continuation of the subject about which it is conversant.

But, Sir, if they (as they needs must) by Religion under­stand the order and annexed Ceremonies appendant to Religion, whether established, as was the Cross in Baptism, holinesse of [Page 49]dayes, and order of the Liturgy, and the like; or only exerci­sed and enforced by Prelates power and countenance, as the cor­ruptions before mentioned; then we must say their exception is of no weight, not the reason any thing worth; for this change can be no such scandal, as is conceived; for we deny them to have been testified by our Bishops, Martyrs, and learned men, by any Sufferings or Writings (untill of late by the persons and such like before mentioned) as agreeable to the Word of God; and must put them to the proof of it; we think we are able to produce Tindal, Latimer, Hooper, Ridley, Farrar, and ma­ny other Martyrs, by laying down their Bishopricks, and other contests and sufferings to have testified against them, and Mr. Cartwright, Baines, and many Devonshire, Cornwal, and Lin­colnshire Ministers, and others, ever since the Reformation by Writing, Petition, Remonstrance, Apology, and Sufferings to have testified against not only the corruptions exercised (a­gainst which our Jewel, Fulk, Whitaker, Archbishop Parker, Dr. Ward, Dr. Brownrigge, Dr. Bancroft, and all sound and learned Divines, not devoted to return to Rome, have written) but even the very Order and Ceremonies established, as being not agreeable to the Word of God: And if these learned Gentlemen had pleased to observe the Visitation and high Commission pro­ceedings, they might have found Prynn, Burton, Bastwick Layton, Workman, Langley, Hind, Nichols, Ball, and many others (known learned men) who were silenced, suspended, imprisoned, stig­matized: and in much Sufferings testified, these appendants to our Religion, whether established or exercised, to be no way a­greeable to the Word of God; and I know not whom they can ment on as a Martyr for them, unless it be Lawde the late Archbishop, the grand Innovator of our Church.

2. If therefore our Religion be by Papists or Prelates re­proached as a Parliamentary Religion, we will rejoyce in our re­proach, and bless God we had a Parliament that had zeal to im­prove their power about those things that were properly subject thereunto.

3. Nor can this Reformation justifie the recusancy of the Papists, because these things never became a Reason for their re­cusancy, further than they occasioned their obduracy by assuring their hopes of Englands return to them: Nor the Separation [Page 50]of the Separatists, for that the corruptions established, were ne­ver made such essential parts of worship, as to make a sufficient ground for separation. Witness Cart­wrights de­fence of the Church ser­vice. The Masters and Scholars of Oxford can­not have been so little observant, as not to know that the sober, zealous Non-conformists who groaned under the burden of these corruptions, and for this Reformation were grieved by, and greatly contended against the Mr. Geree his Vindiciae eccle­siae Anglicanae, shewing neces­sity of reforma­tion, not Sepa­ration. And Mr. Balls two Books against Mr. Cann. Separation, as that which was without sufficient ground; yet like Jesus Christ their Master, kept Communion with a Church, whose Doctrine and Wor­ship was very much in need of Reformation, and taught men so to do: granting, There was something in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of England not agreeable to the Word of God, and yet not enough to lay a ground for separa­tion.

4. Much less doth this endeavor judge the Law against, and punishment of Papists as unjust, which never had these pie­ces of Religion for their ground or reason.

You see, Sir, that the first ground of these learned mens dis­satisfaction, as to the covenanted endeavor of Reformation of Reli­gion in England, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Govern­ment, is clearly groundless, supposing a change, and suggesting a scandal not to be rupposed: Let us try the strength of their second reason for this exception: And that is,

They could not covenant this Reformation without wrong to themselves, 2 Reason for this exception their consciences, reputation, and estates, in bearing false witness against themselves, and sundry other wayes swea­ring to endeavor to reform that as corrupt and vitious, which they had by their personal subscription approved as agreeable to the Word of God, and for which they had not been condemned of their own hearts, nor convinced by their brethren that therein they did amiss.

2. Which they are in conscience perswaded, were not against the Word of God as they stand established by law.

3. Which they believe to be in sundry respects much better, more agreeable to the Word of God, and pactice of the Catholick Church, than that to be preserved in Scotland.

4. To which all Clerks admitted to any Benefice, are required to assent.

To these reasons, Sir, I should have answered.

1. Credit is indeed a matter of concerment, and Reputa­tion is to be regarded, and our Estate by all just, prudent meanes duely preserved; but they are not equivalent to the purity of Gospel administrations, nor must be admitted barres to duy, or stays from the endeavour of a necessary Reformation when called for.

2. We are at a loss to understand their terms; the establish­ment by Law is not expressed in the Covenant; and many cor­ruptions we have noted, were exercised, not established: The endeavour of a Reformation of them (though not them only) was, and is required; and it is very doubtful how or where to find and prove an establishment by law, to which they so much cleave; yet I hope the defect in proof thereof, will be no just de­murre to the endeavour of a Reformation of what is really vi­tious and corrupt, whether established, or only exer­cised.

We must also entreat a comment on these words, the practice of the Catholick Church. It is well known, that Rome doth en­gross and monopolize this Epithite: nor can the Worship, Do­ctrine, and Discipline of the Church of England admit it to be predicated of any so well as that; for all reformed Churches do in their practice differ (and I presume it will be hard to prove the agreement of the Primitive Churches) in these particulars, which were first derived from Apostate Rome, and have ever since continued as the dregs of their Catholick practices, not more to the grief of the Reformed Churches abroad, and Non-conformists at home, then joy and exultation of the Children of that Church, as a plain evidence of their continued possession, and encouragement to expect and endeavor a full recovery of England into her bosom: But as to their Argument;

3 The Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government might be vitious and corrupt, notwithstanding their apprehen­sion and assent to the contrary, or the subscription of others re­quired by the Law. We well know, that the Reformation of the Church in England, was begun on more Henry the 8th his discontent at the Pope. Political than pious principles; which did easily consent to a retaining of what (was justly discharged in other Rerormed Churches, embracing the administration of the Gospel in its simplicity; for the sake of its [Page 52]naked self) might consist with those Publick ends which did pro­voke it; and Policy being the principle predominant in the first, hath strugled against piety unto this last act, and is not yet ma­stered; and I presume, the Scholars and Masters of Oxford will not plead an immunity from policy, passion, and prejudice, when they are to pass judgment against their credits, reputati­on, and estates; as in the case of this Covenant, they appre­hend they were to do; and that these prirciples will provoke us to yield our own, and exact from others an assent to things as agreeable to the Word of God, which in themselves are vitious and corrupt, no serious man or Christian can or will deny: It is wel if we find this Reason stated under a more cautious, vigilant, and pious frame of spirit.

4. But I must confess, I wonder not so much to hear these Gentlemen to profess They had by their personal subscription ap­proved the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England as agreeable to the Word of God; (which might be an act of rashness, an effect of ignorance, an event of some distressed condition, or distemper of mind, fear of losing, or hope of gaining preferment,) as to hear them say, That this was enjoyned by law to them, and all that were admitted to benefices: That the Doctrine of the Church was to be assented unto, I grant is by Law established; but the assent to Worship, Discipline, and Government, I observe, not to be enjoyned by any full and for­mal Law: I find indeed, something relating to Discipline in the ordering of Deacons and Priests, Bishops and Archbishops, and the Churches power about traditions, and Rites, or Ceremonies, inserted into the 39. Articles? but how, or by what Law they are established, 13. Eliz 12. I know not: The Statute requiring Ministers as­sent, doth not specifie the Articles particulary; and the general Note whereby to know them laid down in the Statute, is this, Articles of Religion which ONLY concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments: This particle ONLY, is, in my judgment, exclusive to Discipline and Government; and how these came into the Articles, I know not: only I find the Epistle to His late Majesty, before the A Book sup­posed to have be on written by Mr. William Frynn. Quench-Coal, to charge corruption and forgery to have been acted about these Articles, and earnestly implores justice against the Forgers and Obtruders thereof; and untill the Legality of the [Page 53]Canons of 1603. and sence thereof be clearly asserted, and fully vindicated from the Necessity for Reformation. p. 56, 57, 58, 59. exceptions which are urged against them we must be at a loss for their establishment; for if the King had not authority by vertue of the Statute pretended, or the matter of them be repugnant to standing Statutes, as is suggested, the esta­blishment of Worship, Discipline, and Government by law, must a­bide very doubtful; but the University of Oxford might make a Law unto themselves, to which these Gentlemen might refer: But

5. Whether established or exercised, I think it very strange to see these learned men on serious thoughts to profess their own hearts did not condemn them, nor had their brethren convinced their judgements they had done amiss, by their personal subscri­ption to approve the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Go­vernment of the Church of England to be agreeable to the Word of GOD, but that thereof they were still per­swaded.

Sir, what effect had been wrought on their consciences, I can­not tell: I will hope they were not seared, or shut up by a resolu­tion of non-perswasion to the contrary; yet had I been amongst them (with submission) I must have expostulated with them, and enquire,

Whether they had not subscribed to the use of the Common Prayer, and form in the said Book prescribed in publick prayer, Enjoyned to be subscribed by every Mini­ster before he be ordained, in Canons of 1603. Ca. 36. and NONE OTHER. Did none of these Masters publickly pray in St Maryes in Oxford, and other Churches, before and after their Sermons? Were not such prayers publick prayer? Did they at such times use the Common Prayer? If not, did not their consciences mind them of their subscribed promise solemnly made in entring on so holy a calling? Are not NONE OTHER, words as fully exclusive of their own forms extemporary or pre­meditate, as can be expressed? Admit we this Common Prayer to be lawful, yea necessary, is not this exclusive subscription a plain limitation of the Spirit, rejection of the gift of prayer, and robbing the Church of Ministerial parts unto prayer, as well as preaching to the edification thereof? Did Christ, when he pre­scribed the most perfect prayer, tye his Disciples to use that and None other? Can any rationally-religious man, subscribe this promise, and approve it to be agreeable to the VVord of God, [Page 54]and stand perswaded it is not contrary thereunto?

Secondly, Is it agreeable to the Word of God to affix a sentence of mans conception and framing to divine service, and denominate it a Sentence of Scripture? In the Rubrick of the Common Prayer, the Priest is appointed to read one of these sen­tences of Scripture which follow: The very first of which is, At what time soever a sinner repenteth him of his sin from the bottom of his heart, I will put all his wickednesse out of my re­membrance, saith the Lord; the which is referred in the Mar­gine (as are the following sentences to their places) unto Ezek. 18.21, As is Dr. Boyes in his Expositi­on of the Li­turgy. p. 1. 22 (to say nothing of the effect, though accidental of this supposed Scripture) how many have been deceived, really belie­ving it to be a Sentence of Scripture, when it is not found in all the Bible? Methinks these men should have observed how our late Masters had corrected this gross and obvious fault in the Scotch Liturgy, before they had thus confidently told the world, They were perswaded there is nothing in the worship of England, which is not agreeable to the VVord of God.

Thirdly, In the VVorship of England much of Cano­nical Scripture is omitted, and never to be read (a fault com­plained of by the first Compilers of the Common-Prayer-Book) and much of the Ap crypha, Vide. The Preface of it. vain, false, and ridiculous, is appointed to be publickly read; the great Bible-Translation of the Psalms, is thrust out, The titles of the Psalmes. Psa. 72. Psa. 14. Psa. 105.28. and a most corrupt Translation of them, omitting some whole sentences, adding whole verses; and falsly translating ma­ny places and Texts, is affixed unto the Common-Prayer-Book, and made part of it: Some part of Scripture is dignified above other parts thereof; the Gospel must be honoured with the stan­ding up of the people, the Epistle (no way different in the mat­ter, Christ crucified, but only in the name and manner of Reve­lation from the Gospel) is slighted: Will the Gentlemen of Oxford say this is agreeable to the VVord of God? They must prove it; for we shall not believe them; and the rather for that this gross abuse is palliated by this false profession in the Preface to this Book, That nothing is ordained to be read, but the pure VVord of God, the holy Scriptures, or that which is evidently groun­ded thereupon; Vide. The A­natomy of the Service-book. p. 18. and the rather, for that we find the Common-Pray­er-Book condemned (in respect of these particulars) by Dr. Spark, no mean Son of the Church.

Fourthly, Will these Masters and Scholars stand per­swaded, that the extraordinary Solemn Worship appointed by the Common-Prayer-Book unto holy dayes and their Eves, is agree­able to the Word of God, wherein every particular holy-day hath its distinct and particular Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, as its Solemn Service appointed: not to insist on the supposed influence of that reputed sanctity on the Six or Seaven days following, di­recting the same service to be impertinently continued; as in the Feast of the Nativity, Easter, Whitsuntide, Ascension, and o­thers; nor the unwaerrantable preheminence given to some parts of Scripture above others; or the irrational denomination of some Prophetical and Historical portions of Scripture Epistles; all which are well urged by many Non-conformists. I would en­quire, what part of Sacred Writ stamps Sanctity on Wednesday and Friday, more than the other four dayes of the week, and sets them into a parity with Sunday (to retain their Dialect) that the same more Solemn service shall be read on those dayes, as on that day? By what Scripture-wa [...] mediate or immediate, are other dayes, besides the Lords day, made holy, or sanctified in honour of the Saints, so as in their nature to interdict mens labour in their lawful calling, engage men to the exercises of Re­ligion as oft as they return, and become Subjects of that So­lemn Service, which may not on other dayes be offered unto God? Is not a Religious owning, and observation of some time, as (not appointed by the God of our time, whose sole Preroga­tive it is to make it) Solemn and Holy time, to be Religiously employed, a plain and formal Superstition repugnant to Gospel-Rules? Gal. 4.10. Coloss. 2.16. I am not ignorant that some holy-dayes have been of ancient and universal observati­on in the Church, and have laid claim to Apostolical tradition, and occasioned much controversie in the Church; but I stand un­satisfied in their institution: I deny not the just authority of the Church or Christian Magistrate over our time; but I think there is a vast difference between time as the subject, and as the adjunct of Religion; God only can make it the first; humane authority may appoint holy Fasting, and holy Feasting (those transient acts of Worship dependant on, and subservient unto Gods di­spensations of providence to his people) and so may determine (the second) time (like the dayes of Purim) as a necessary [Page 56]adjunct to those acts of Worship; but to make holy-dayes Subjects of Solemn, Sacred service, I have not seen any Commis­sion that doth authorize the Church thereunto: Eminent Saints call for the esteem of the Church, but the keeping of them in a Calendar, and appointing them their several holy-dayes, sets them a pitch too high, and shews the Church partial, respecters of persons, having some in admiration, and slighting others no less deserving; or subjects here unto an intolerable burden, by ne­cessitating every day to be Holy: The Nativity; Circumcission, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord and Saviour, are all mysteries or matters of reverence, esteem, and admira­tion to the Church, to be duly and distinctly considered; yet (under correction of better judgments) the several holy dayes appointed to the memorial of them, is in my thoughts no less ir­rational than irreligious: I say irrational; because though some of them be great Mysteries, yet they are not simply and in themselves mercies to the Church, but as they relate unto, and center in the work of M [...] [...]edemption, to which they do re­late as several distinct act [...] that compleat and individual Bles­sing or Mercy; and right reason doth direct commemoration of all the parts in the mercies by them perfected and compleated. Ir­religious it seems to me, as without any divine Warrant, nay re­dundant to Gods own institution, who hath appointed the first day of the week as the day for the commemoration of the worlds Restitution by mans Redemption: If this be the cause of the change of the Sabbath (as we have been commonly taught) doth it not supersede the appointment of the Church? God doth not mediately, what he doth immediately; or by Commission, what is done in his own person I well know, some in their Con­tests for Holy-dayes make the Sabbath changeable at the Chur­ches pleasure; and if these several acts of Redemption be com­memorated in their distinct holy-dayes, I see not how we can avoid a return to the Jews Sabbath; for the fourth com­mand must needs be moral; and this method takes away the reason of the alteration of the day. Now Sir if the holy daies, the foundation, be Superstitious, sure Oxford will not say the su­perstructure, or Solemn, Special service, is agreeable to the Word of God!

Fifthly, Again Sir, will the Masters and Scholars of Oxford say, the very order and method of the Common Prayer is agree­able to the Word of God? How do they ground their perswa­sion concerning the Ʋersicles, Popular Responds, Intermixtures, Abbreviations, Abruptions, and stops, and present postings on again, with a Let us pray, wenn nothing but prayer is in hand, that they are agreeable to the Word of God? So do the very Papists, Anti­phonae, responso­ria, versiculi & ejusmodi minu­ta; non viden­tur necessaria; impediunt enim cursum piae & utilis lectionis. Spalat. l. 17. c. 12. Art. 96. Versiculos, re­sponsoria & ca­pitula omittere ideirco visum est, quoniam le­gentes saepe mo­rentur. Card. Quignonius. I observe the first Compilers of this Book, to leave a blot on this method, by ta­king away many Verses, Responds, Anthems, and the like, which did interrupt the duty of reading the Scriptures together, and that for this very reason, but à quatenus ad omne valet conse­quentia: The number is not only to be abated, but all things of this nature, obstructive to, and inconsistent with the Solemn, and serious, entire performance of any particular Act or Duty of Religion, ought to be abolished: Doth the VVord of God allow mute service, or private devotion in the publick Assem­bly? What warrant is there in the publick service of the Church for a silent space of time, that the secret prayers of the peo­ple may be sent to heaven, as is directed at the Ordination and Consecration of Priests and Bishops? The reason there­in declared, is, That Jesus Christ prayed all night, before He sent out His Disciples; and the Church of Antioch prayed, when they sent out Paul and Barnabas; but they do not tell us whe­ther Christ were in an Assembly when he prayed alone; or whe­ther the Church of Antioch had a silent pace in which they se­cretly prayed; nor whether the prayer of the one or of the other, were mental, or vocal; but I observe it was joyned with Fasting, in which our order agreeth not, whilst any Sunday or Holy-day, and a short space thereof will be an opportunity sufficient for such a work.

VVhat Text of either Old or New Testament, allots to the people other portion of publick prayer, save to say Amen? 1 Cor. 14.15. In respect of which prayer is prescribed to be in a known tongue to their understanding, How shall we make the peoples vocal re­sponds, salutation, supplication for mercies, deprecation of mi­series, meerly and only recited by the Ministers, agreeable to the Word of God? Exposition of the Liturgy. p. 40. Must it be by the salutation of Boaz and his Reapers? or Mary and Elizabeth, to which Dr. Boyes referreth it? it must then be proved, that Boaz was in the publick Assem­bly, [Page 58]and cele' rating divine service; and so for Mary and Eli­zabeth; and that it was not a civil complement, expressed in Re­ligious words on an occasional meeting each with other, as be­comes Christian friends; and that such pieces of civil respect wit­nesssing reciprocal affection, are parts of Solemn Worship to pass between the Pastor and People in the celebration thereof.

I shall not deny sighs, and short ejaculations, to be ardent expressions of the mind and affection, and find acceptance with God; but question the suitableness thereof to standing, solemn, and publick Worship. I yield to Dr. Boys, that the Publican did affectionately dart out his Lord be merciful to me a sinner! and the Woman of Canaan, her Have mercy on me, O Lord! and blind Bartimeus, O Son of David, take pity on me! But (by his leave) I must say these were personal, not publick; oc­casional, not fixed, ordinary Worship; extemporary on the occa­sion; not premeditated, much less prescribed; nay I will grant what he saith Augustine Reports of the Christians in Egypt, and which History mentioneth of other Churches: Yea, I could be easily convinced, that in the very first Age of the Gospel, many Christians did in the Assembly utter their short expressions, and darting prayers; preces raptim quodammodo ejaculatas: But yet it would be noted they were ejaculations personal, expressed in a sacred rapture, on the sudden ebolition of the Spirit, which without doubt wrought in prayer, as in Prophecy and in Psalmes, the heat whereof required the Apostles restriction and regulation, 1 Cor. 14. affection leading into confusion; and so can be no warrant for such premeditated, ejaculative expressions, to be prescribed in set and publick prayer, wherein all things by a Rule restraining this very method under the fervency of the Spirit, Let all things be done decently and in order, are to be regulated; that therefore might be admitted and exercised in the Church, and acceptable to God, in private, and personally expressed, or on the imme­diate ebolition, or boyling up of the Spirit, and in the heat of affection, in the infancy of the Church, which will not be so in the publick and prescribed prayers of the Church in her Adult estate, in which she must appear more serious and composed; and so will not render this Order of Worship agreeable to the Word.

Sixthly, Will the Masters and Scholars of Oxford say that the Rites and Ceremonies annexed to the Worship of God, are agree­able to the Word of God, viz. The Cross in Baptism, Sur­plice in divine service, supposed to be established? Or those since pressed; as, the Bowing at the Name of Jesus: Turning Tables into Altars, and Bowing to them, and placing on them Candlesticks and Tapers: The Consecration of Churches, and the like; though I should (which I confess I cannot) admit what is pretended in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book, that they are apt to stirre up the dull mind of man to the remem­brance of his duty to God by some notable and special significati­on, whereby he might be edified; yet I must enquire by what au­thority are they appointed? the highest pretended is the Church; and I see no Commission the Church hath to appoint such things: If I mistake not, the power of the Church is declarative, execu­tive, and Ministerial, not judicial and magisterial: She may publish the matter, and prescribe the Order of Gods Worship; but not constitute or ordain new matter, though never so much tending to edification, against which she is expresly barr'd by the 2d. Commandment. And if she hath power to continue our Cere­monies because significant; why, or how shall those be excluded, which are more antient and significant? Such as were the bapti­zing for the Dead, putting Cream and Honey into the mouth of the baptized; insufflation, and spitting at the Devil and the World; and coming to baptism in a white Garment which was left behind (and profitably produced as a pledge a­gainst Elpidophorus, when Apostatized from the Faith in which he had been baptized) and many such like, Tertul Coron. mil. pa. 449. Contra Marcion. lib. 7. p. 155. which Tertullian mentioneth as used in the Church, in the Year of our Lord 62. in the times of the Apostles, than which, the use of the Cross cannot be more ancient, nor is it indeed so ancient: If then the Church have not a power to ordain them, on what basis do all our Ceremonies stand, save that prophane Maxime, No Ceremo­nies, no Bishop? Before it be determined that these Ceremonies are agreeable to the Word of God, I wish it may be determined, whether the appointment and Religious exercise of matter signi­ficant (and so in it self tending to edification) not instituted by Jesus Christ, be not the very formality of Superstition?

Seventhly, and Lastly, Is it agreeable to the Word of God, in or­dination to divide the work of the Ministry? and give authority to apply one of the Sacraments, and not the other? to baptize, but not administer the Lords Supper otherwise than as Assistant to him who hath ministerial power of consecration, as it is done in the Ordering of Deacons? Again, is it agreeable to the Word, to denominate Gospel Ministers Priests (which properly relate to a Sacrifice and Altar?) If so, why did our late Masters altar the Title into Presbyters in the Scotch Liturgy? It is agreeable to the Word, that the Ministers of Jesus Christ swear, or So­lemnly promise obedience unto their fellow Ministers, under the notion of an ordinary and Cheif Minister? It is reason they keep order, and be subject to the Assembly; but parity of Office and Authority, admits not of obedience. Is it agreeable to the Word, that Bishops sweare, or Solemnly promise obedience unto the Archbishops? If so, why not Archbishops to Cardinals or Patriarchs, and they to the Pope? Is it because the Sea bounds our Papacy? Is it in the forme of ordination agreeable to the Word, that the Bishop ordaining, do Magisterially repeat the words of Jesus Christ who had a power and did effect it, (viz.) Receive thou the Holy Ghost; Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained? as actually giving the Holy Ghost as a qualification for that Office, and after this to give authority of administration with a Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments. Is it agreeable to the Word of God, by a spe­cial, Solemn, and Religious act, to Consecrate unto a degree convenient and only necessary for the method and Order of an Assembly? as if it were (and indeed however others think, by reason of the variation of the word, I believe it was intended to be) an actual Ordination to a distinct Office of Ministry in the Church, like the Cheif Priest-hood among the Jews? I am at a loss in Civil or Religious Policy, to finde a warrant for so Sacred a forme in an advancement to a degree, yet I will not deny the formalities of the Chaire; Is it agreeable to the Word of God, that excommunication (the last and greatest of Censures) do proceed without admonition? and be inflicted ipso facto, before obstinacy the proper and only ground of it be detected, much [Page 61]lesse convicted? and that so dreadful a Censure be denounced on the non-observance of Rites and Ceremonies declared indifferent, and other light and frivolous occasions? nay, on the very dis­charge of duty? As, suppose an exercise in a Market-Town, Canons of 1603. Can. 72. or a Fast kept in the Parish Church on the occasion of some spe­cial exigency of that Parish; or by a Minister in a private fami­ly, whose domestick concernments may call for the house and fami­ly to mourn apart, and intreat the assistance of their special parti­cular friends in prayer; and yet in all these cases it is directed in the Canons made by the Convocation in London, of which the Bishop of London sate President, Anno 1603.

Sir, these things, and such like, in the Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England, are obvious; and have been often urged as needing Reformation; and as Reasons Apo­logizing for the Non-subscription of the Sober, Learned, and Pi­ous Non-conformists, ever since the Reformation, as by Mr. Tho­mas Cartwright, the Ministers of Devonshire and Cornwal, the Ministers within the Diocess of Lincolne, and many others, whose Printed Books could not but have been seen by (at least some of) the Masters and Scholars of Oxford; and might have convinced their judgments, that they had done amiss by their personal sub­scription to approve that all things in the four specified particu­lars, were agreeable to the Word of God.

Sixthly, Their confidence that all things in these four specified particulars, are agreeable to the Word of God, and need no Reformation, may well engage them to conclude, that they are much better than those of Scotland, which they wear to swear to preserve: For, the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Govern­ment, in the Church of Scotland, differeth in all the particulars mentioned, and so must needs be dissonant, if these be AGREE­ABLE TO THE WORD OF GOD: Yet Sir, methinks the good grounds on which they thought so, might (for their clearer Apology, and satisfaction of other souls called to swear the same Covenant) have been specified and declared; the rather, for that they seemed to be in a strait when they pointed unto the account­ing of Bishops Antichristian, and indifferent Ceremonies unlaw­ful; the making their Discipline the mark of a true Church, and the setting up thereof the erecting of the Throne of Christ, as things tending towards Superstition and Schisme, and the worst [Page 62]things in the Church of Scotland, which called for Reformation, rather than Preservation.

Lastly, the Hazard of their estates doth seem indeed to be their great stumbling block in their way to the Covenant: All Clerks are by the Lawes yet in force, required to give their as­sent unto what by this Covenant is required to be reformed, and that on pain of losing their Benefice: Which Sir, we shall ad­mit (though it would admit a dispute in reference to many, if not all the particulars mentioned;) yet how should this demurre to the taking of the Covenant? Because the Law requires our assent, it will not therefore follow, they need not reformation, nor it is not lawful for us to endeavour their reformation: Many men have assented to the Law, who could never give the assent requi­red by the Law; and by suffering, shewed that the Law is their burden, binding them to suffer, whilst it requireth what they in truth and good Conscience cannot yield: But must good men continue under this burden, and take no care to ease themselves? Is it a sin for men to covenant in their places to endeavour the removal of a burdensom Law? Or might not the Reformation covenanted, be so endeavoured?

Nay Sir, on the consideration of the whole Reason, can such endeavour be any wrong to mens consciences, reputation, or estate? and then there is no strength in this 2d. Reason of Oxford against the covenanting such an endeavour. But we proceed to their 3d. Reason of this Exception.

The third Reason on which the Masters, 3d. Reason of this exception. Scholars, &c. of Oxford stand dissatisfied concerning the Covenant, or Reforma­tion of England in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Govern­ment, is indeed the most weighty and considerable, if but clearly proved: and it is,

Their manifest danger of perjury; the Covenant in this point seeming directly contrary to the former Solemn Protestation: (I presume they mean that of May 5. 1641.) which they had sworn neither for hope or fear, or other respect ever to relinquish: or the Oath of Supremacy, which according to the Laws of this Realm, and the Statutes of this University, they had sworn.

Unto this Reason I easily grant, that contradictory Oaths do run the soul on manifest perjury; and if the first were lawful, the [Page 63]last must needs be sinful, neither to be sworn at first, nor obliging at last, if it be sworn.

2. But the contradiction must be manifest and clear; not seeming, and conjectural, which may spring by passion and pre­judice, to the fancy of such as are willing to suppose it, (as all things look yellow to Jaundies eyes) and is not in reality such to impartial Readers. It seems this contradiction between this Co­venant and those Oaths, was, to the men of Oxford. but seeming, though to their best understandings (in their then capacity I pre­sume) and it must pass into a certainty, before it, discharge the bond to such as are under it, though seeming so to be, might suspend the act of them to whom it so seemed.

3. But let us see wherein seems this contradiction: It is well if it amount not to as much as the Scotch Notions before specified, which seemed to tend to Superstition and Schisme.

First then of the contradiction to their protestation, which I imagine can be no other but that of May 5. 1641. and so far as it concernes Religion, runneth thus, I A. B. do in the pre­sence of Almighty God, vow and protest to maintain and defend as farre as lawfully I may with my life, power, and estate, the true, Reformed, Protestant Religion expressed in the doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popery, and Popish Innovations within this Realm, contrary to the same Doctrine.

The Solemn League and Covenant in the Article under con­sideration, runneth thus; That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, according to the Word of God, and example of the best reformed Churches.

Contraria contrariis juxta opposita magis elucescunt. Let a­ny impartial eye reade these two Oaths thus opposed, and shew me wherein seeme the contradiction to lie: They may indeed seem different in their sound and manner of expression, but Ox­ford well knoweth, that all diversa, are not opposita, all diffe­rence amounts not to a contradiction; diversa & opposita aeque dissentanea sunt, sed non aeque dissentiunt; they differ indeed, but not with the same difference: I wish that on second thoughts they will please to tell us whether the difference be Re, or Ratio­ne only; the same thing being protested in the first (though not [Page 64]in the same words, and after the manner) which was covenanted in the last: But they specifie the contradiction; (viz.) The Doctrine they vowed to maintain by the name of the true Prote­stant Religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, they took to be the same now to be reformed and altered.

But Sir, were they not, in taking it so to be, much mista­ken? The Covenant binds to Reforme Doctrine in the King­dom of England; was there no such Doctrine openly divulged in the Court Sermons and Printed books of Mountague, Reive, Heylen, Dowe, Cozens, Pocklington, and others before menti­oned? In Mountague, Apello ad Caesarem: originum Ecclesi­asticorum, 2 parts: Anti-diatribae: Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath; Altare Christianum: Heylens Coal from the Altar; History of the Sabbath: Sales his introduction to a devout life: Shelfords five Treatises: Dowe against Mr. Burton: Cozens his houres of Prayer: and many other licensed books publickly sold in the Kingdom; and in the Ʋisitation Articles of Bishop Mountague, Bishop Peirce, and Bishop Wren (on which ma­ny good men were vexed;) which was distinct, and different, (if I may not say) expresly contrary to the Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England: And did not these need Reformation? And is it not the duty of every good Subject and Protestant in maintenance of this Religion, to en­deavor a Reformation, alteration, and total expunction of such Doctrine, and so to Covenant? And then Sir, where is the con­tradiction? In this sense the Protestation and Covenant do plain­ly coincidere, and agree in one and the same thing.

But, Sir, let us allow them their sence, That the Doctrine protested to be maintained, is the same covenanted to be refor­med: Are Maintenance and Reformation incompetible? is there not a possbility of some adjuncts unto the substance of the Do­ctrine of the Church of England expressing the true Reformed Protestant Religion, and seperable without the destruction there­of? Or may not the Doctrine of the Church of England be re­formed as to the scant, general, dubious, and difficult manner of expression, and yet the matter thereof be maintained and de­fended? Are those Articles which concern the Government of the Church, and Consecration of the Bishops and Archbishops, of the essence and formality of the true Reformed, Protestant Re­ligion? [Page 65]Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism, than Scotlands supposed making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church? As denying the Reformed Churches be­yond the Sea to have attained to the true Reformed, Protestant Religion, which yet they handed over to us?

But what reason had these Gentlemen of Oxford to under­stand the Doctrine of the Church of England in such a latitude? when the sence of it is limited by them who were then known to be Legislators (and a power sufficient to prescribe an Oath, un­to which themselves subjected) and were the best expositors thereof (viz.) the House of Commons who thus declared:

Whereas some doubts have been raised concerning the mean­ing of these words [The true Reformed, Protestant Religion, ex­pressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, against all Po­pery, and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine] This House doth declare, that by these words, was, and is meant only the publick Doctrine professed in the said Church, so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovati­ons: And that the said words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of Worship, Discipline, and Government, nor of any the Rites and Ceremonies of the said Church of England.

By which these Gentlemen might have understood,

1. The Realm, and Church of England, were two different Subjects; the one professing Doctrine in the other, wherein al­so there was Doctrine tending to Popery and Popish Innovation.

2. There were in the Doctrines professed by the Church of England some adjuncts of Rites, Ceremonies, Government, or some special order of Worship, which might need Reformation, and were not view'd to be maintained.

So that according to this sence of them who prescribed both, there is more of consistency, than contradiction between the Pro­testation and Solemn League and Covenant: So that the manifest perjury they feared, hath not so much as a seeming ground.

And as for the supposed contradiction of this Branch of the Covenant unto the Oath of Supremacy, it will on examination va­nish as an apparition, a thing which so seemed, but cannot be so proved: For if they will not hiss me out of their Schools, I will grant them their Proposition in the Oath, and assumption in the Statute by them quoted; and yet find a way to avoid the con­clusion, [Page 67]because a meer non sequitur on their premises; and this, if they will have the Argument logically resolved, by denying the consequence of their major Proposition; for I will grant unto them, that the Oath of Supremacy doth bind us to our power, to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences, and Authorities, granted and belonging to the Kings Highness, his heirs and successors, or united and annexed unto the Impe­rial Crown of this Realm: And assume with them, That the King had the whole power and Authority for Reformation, Or­der, and Correction, of all manner of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, &c. and yet deny the sequel, viz. That we may not endeavour in our places and callings to reform Religion. For the defence of the Kings power is no way repugnant with the duty of our parti­cular capacity. I hope a Minister may by his preaching, or a Di­vine by his disputation in the Schools, endeavour the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresie, Schism or Superstition, and yet not intrench on his Majesties Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and so interfer with their Oath of Supremacy? Yea, in refe­rence to judicial and authoritative Correction and Reformation (which we will suppose can only be done by the King) mens en­deavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel, Proposal, Remonstrance, Petition, Supplication, and the like, to procure His Majesties consent, and authority, to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government; and then Sir, where is the Contradiction?

Yet Sir, if I were to dispute with a single (though Senior) Sophister of Oxford, I would deny both Propositions; the ma­jor, as to its sequel or consequence, as before; and the assumpti­on, as that which the Statute doth not prove, viz. The whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for Correction and Reformation, is annexed to the King, and Imperial Crown of this Realm: For the power by that Statute, is special and particular, not general and universal; as themselves have cited it, is, (viz.) such Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Superiorities, and Pre­heminences, Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, as by any, &c. (and as the Statute proceeds) Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or autho­rity, hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for Visitation of any Ecclesiastical State, or Persons, and for Refor­mation, &c. So that the power given to the King, is such a pow­or [Page 68]as Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes had used; not such as Parlia­ments (who ever retained a Jurisdicton in themselves over both Church and Crown) enjoyed and exercised: This power was purely executive, not Legislative; over persons and particular Societies, not over the Kingdom and whole Realm: I presume, the Gentlemen of Oxford were not ignoront of the power and Legislative Authority which the Parliaments of England ever held over their Bishops, and the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical estate of this Land, tying them in all their administrations of Discipline, and Government, to the Customs and Statutes of this Realme, as they may read at large in the Statute of the Submission of the Clergy, 25. Hen. 8.19. wherein they confess, many of their Canons and Constitutions be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, whereby they did not only Restrain the exorbi­tancies, and from time to time Reform the abuses of the Church, but also extend the Prerogative and Jurisdiction of the King, as in that Statute, 1 Elizab. and Limit, Restrain, and Repeal it: (as in the case of this individual, specifical power granted in the words of the Statute quoted) by the Statute 17 Caroli entitu­led, An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 10 Elizab. concerning Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical; which clause repealed, is part of this very recited Paragraph, and immedi­ately annexed unto, and dependent on this very grant of power and authority: Nor are these Masters and Scholars of Oxford in­sensible, that there is a vast difference between Executive and Legislative power and authority; and that as no Ecclesiastical per­sons did ever enjoy (however the Pope and his Bishops did con­tend for it) so no King of England did ever pretend, or lay claim unto the Legislative power further than allowed by Act of Parliaments, who were ever Dictators of a general Reformation in the Land, Church, and Kingdom; as at this time in the Re­formation covenanted: Nor can they be ignorant, that it is very bad Logick, from such Jurisdictions, and Specifical, Exe­cutive Authority, to infer, that the whole power of Reforma­tion is so in the King, that the Parliament may not propose, or the people covenant in their places and callings to endeavor a Re­formation; but they must clash with the Kings Prerogative, and contradict the particular Supremacy they have granted and boun­ded themselves to defend.

And now Sir, I must desire to know (whilst the Oath affords not the Proposition, nor the words of the Statute the assumpti­on) how they will do to establish the Conclusion, and clear their manifest perjury from premises which, on trial, prove but seeming­ly contrary, and really consistent with the Oaths they had before sworn?

We see, Sir, notwithstanding the dissatisfactions of the Ma­sters and Scholars of Oxford, the first Article of the Solemn League and Covenant contains in it nothing but what is good and lawful; nay, so just, that in it self it is a duty, and therefore may be sworn; and their serious exceptions will scarce suffice to A­pologize their refusal, which could not be Religiously refused by such as desire purity of Religion, and uniformity in the Church, whilst the Word of God is propounded as the Rule, and the best reformed Churches as the pattern of this Reformation covenan­ted; and will not any thing avail, to acquit the obligation where it is laid, affording sufficient ground to establish the judgement of him that sware, without any apparent reason of scandal or ha­zard to Reputation, Estate, or Conscience; the perjury suppo­sed to be manifest, appearing at best to be but seeming; and that on a fancied Contrariety, that amounts only to a difference in the manner, not matter of the opposed Oaths.

Subsectio Sexta.

Reformation cannot proceed without a removal of what is repugnant and obstructive thereunto: Considereth the 2d. Article of the Solemn League and Covenant. the second Article of the Covenant, doth therefore bind us to the extirpation of certain e­vils: we must then consider in the next place, the justice and lawfulness thereof, and the weighty exceptions made against it.

In this Article we are to consider the Act covenanted, An endeavor of extirpation; and the matter about which that Act is conversant, viz. Popery, Prelacy, Error, Heresie, Schism, Superstition, and Profaness.

As to the Act, it is not objected against by any, save Dr. Gaudens Nephew. No Body, who in his new born Doubts and Scruples (midwiv'd into the world by the Drs. Epistle) would suppose himself by an endeavour of Extirpation, to be sworn in­to Gods Throne, whose only and immediate Act it is to extirpate the lusts, and principles of these impieties out of the heart of [Page 69]man; or mounted into the Magistrates Chair, who only may by Bonds or Banishment, or Mulct, or Death, extirpate the open exercise, and publick profession of those evils, and the promoters of them; as if Extirpation were no way a humane Act, or within the capacity of private men, though not to effect, yet by Moral Perswasion, Rational Discourse, Scripture Conviction, Submissive Petition, and the like, so much as to endeavour it with sincerity, reality and constancy; the very recital of this reception is a suf­ficient confutation, and resolution that folly, or some melancho­ly fancy, more than conscience did start this doubt, and stand per­plexed at this Scruple without a grain of Reason.

And as to the matter covenanted to be endeavoured to be extirpated, none that are seemingly Protestants, and religious, will make question of Popery, Errour, Heresie, Schism, Superstition, and Profaness, or whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine, or the power of godliness: these are such spreading Weeds, disgraceful to the Church (Christ his Garden) and destructive to the prin­ciples and practices of all Religion, that almost all men will ap­pear the foremost in an endeavour to extirpate them; and on this account Dr. Gauden in his late Epistle to the Doubts and Scru­ples, would divert our endeavour for extirpation of the Prelacy, Covenanted against, by directing the same unto Schisme and Su­perstition: But, Sir, by his leave, as we cannot own him as our Ma­ster, to be at his pleasure, appointed our work further than our own prudence will guide us; so we must tell him, that every Plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, must be rooted out; that some weeds are more visible & spreading than others; and as they need more speed and diligence, so they call for more strength and labour to remove them, being deeply rooted by their long continuance; and therefore the extirpation of them must be plied with endeavour, whilst the Earth is loose, and they unsetled; and it is more than probable, that many of the others, if not all, may come up with this one, which either occasioneth Schism, or by its shade defendeth Superstition and Profanesse, if I may not say Popery: But stay, Sir, the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do pluck me by the Ears, and tell me I am mistaken, if I deem Pre­lacy a weed, which is undoubtedly the fairest flower in the Gar­den of Christ his Church, according to whose language I find [Page 70]Dr. Featley's Ghost Canting in his League illegal; but Sir,

I shall desire to let them know that Prelacy in its general and genuine acceptation, is undoubtedly a very fair flower, and far from being weeded up; Oxford Excep­tion by a ge­neral term fal­lacious. and therefore in the Solemn Leagus and Covenant it is specified, and a particular kind of Prelacy sprung up, and over-spreading the Church of England, is Covenanted to be extirpated: I shall be willing to give the honour of this re­striction and specification to the speech of Dr. Daniel Featley, occasioned by the over-hot pressing of some (truly zealous for Reformation of what was amisse) that Prelacy in general (it having by appropriation to one kind obtained a vulgar evil ac­ceptation) should be extirpated; only I cannoc acquit his acute Executor from the dishonour of misapplying his Uncles speech, (when dead) as speaking against that which it had effected; (viz.) and express mention of the species, and particular kind of Prelacy to be extirpated; that is, the Government by Arch­bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy; whereby the general term Prelacy is limited and restrained; so that I shall expect their exceptions to lie against the extirpation of this species and kind of Prelacy, unto which the Covenant doth bind us; for we well know, dolosus versatur in generalibus, Crafty men do deceive the vulgar by an Out-cry of extirpation of things in their general nature good, but in this or that special kind evil; I shall therefore especially con­sider the exceptions of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford a­gainst this second Article, so far as it relateth to the Prelacy there­in specified to be extirpated; as those on which I observe others depend, from which others have derived theirs, and to which on all occasion they do retreat as to their impregnable Fortress.

They therefore in the fourth Section of their Reasons, for not swearing the Solemn League and Covenant, Page 7. do deface their ex­ception with an expression of their affection to that Government to be extirpated, and first present us with this fair Encomium of it; viz.

That Ancient form of Church-government under which our Religion was at first so orderly, Oxford Com­mendation of Prelacy consi­dered. without violence or tumult, and so happily reformed; and hath since so long flourished with truth and peace, to the honour and happiness of our own, and envy and [Page 71]admiration of other Nations: But Sir, good wine needs no bush; it is well if the Arguments be as cogent to the mind, as this glori­ous description of Englands Church-government is captivating to the affections; I hope Sir, serious Casuists in stating their Scru­ples, do not set a lustre on the object by glorious Epithites o en­gage the admiration of the vulgar: But Sir,

1. Antiquity may be no Argument of its glory, verity, or goodnesse; these learned men know this is the loud and common cry of Pagans for their Idolatry; and Papists for their Super­stition and Papacy which will in point of Age appear the Elder Brother to Englands Prelacy: Pope Gregory being before Austin the Monk, the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury; and yet is not owned as any addition to their glory, or demonstration of their verity; for as true Religion is first received, so it is after cor­ruption reformed by the Redeemed from the vain Conversation received by tradition from their fathers.

2. Order is indeed very amiable in any Act; but what they mean by the orderly proceeding of the first Reformation, I know not; sure I am that the precedency of the Laity unto the Cler­gy in a work of this nature in which they should have been Dicta­tors, was more just than regular: And when I consider the first step of Reformation in the expulsion of the Popes Supremacy (supported by all the Bishops unto a premunire) to have sprung in Henery the eighth, from discontent at the Popes dealing in the business of Queen Katharine, rather than conscience of its sin­fulness; to have been steered by policy, not piety; to stand con­sistent with a retention, and fiery inforcement of Popish Doctrine and Worship, unto the persecution and burning of Tyndal, Lam­bert, and others; and imposing of the six Articles (in which I must confess Cranmer quit himself like a faithful Bishop, but o­thers I find not opposing) And when I observe the Line which first ruled in Henery the eighth his dayes, to be retained and run­through the Reformation of King Edward the sixth, and was too much regarded in the time of Queen Elizabeth (who both acted from a more pious principle, had but their Counsellors ca­ptivated their policy, and the little knowledge of those reform­ing dayes given them to see, and set up in its lustre and power, the square and right Rule of Reformation) I cannot but say Gods power is much more manifest in the first Reformation of Eng­land, [Page 72]than was mans order; and yet what order was, History wit­nesseth to have been, though under, yet without, yea, against the Bishops; Foxe, Acts and Monuments, p. 959. The hundred and eighteen thousand eight hundred and forty pounds paid by the Bishops of the two Provinces, Canterbury and York, for their pardon from the praemunire, doth proclaim their opposition at the first. The thirty persons chosen out of the Parliament to consider and conclude Articles of Religion, and Cranmer and Ridleys Politick plea against pious Prince Ed­ward the sixth, for the Mass of his Sister Mary, and the after­conclusions in their Convocations, do not speak much of forward­ness at the last, whilst in the one, or in the other, they went not any faster; than driven by the Kings injunctions.

3. No marvel that they who could not see in this Reformati­on any disorder, could not hear any noise of tumults attend it, and yet if I mistake not, the Tarratantara-murmur of the Lin­coln-shire and York-shire men in their rebellious holy pilgrimage, headed by Dr. Makeree, denominated Captain Cobler, and abet­ted by many of the Clergy; not that I find resisted or quieted by any Episcopal influence in the time of Henry the eighth; and the like insurrections of Suffolk, York-shire, Oxford-shire, De­von-shire, Cornwal, and other Counties, against the Reformation by King Edward the sixth, doth signifie unto me that the Refor­mation was not at first more preposterouss than violent and tu­multuous, though not in the Authors, yet in the opposition and re­luctancy of its subjects, occasioning this note to be left upon it,

Yet I must not by reason of the one or other, deny it to have been happy; but I desire freely to acknowledge that this Reformed Re­ligion in the degree attained, hath since happily flourished unto the honour of our own, and envy of other Nations; only I see not wherein this Government (the extirpation of which is Co­venanted to be endeavoured) did either occasion, or add unto the happiness and honour thereof; I am sure it is noted by others; and were I the first observe of it, I durst undertake to make it good, That Religion had sparkled and flourish'd with more honor and happiness, in an higher degree of Reformation, than it yet doth, if not retarded, and sometimes retrogaded by Englands Episcopal Prelates, who have made it so much pompous unto sense, and the Worlds admiration, but so little powerful to the [Page 73]spirit: But, Sir, I love not to recriminate, or reproach things or persons; I shall therefore pass this applause of our late Prelacy, with this Request, That the Masters and Scholars of Oxford, or any other, will please to tell us what there is in this Government, so special and peculiar for its efficacie, to the order and quiet of Reformation, that may not be sound in another Form of Govern­ment; for that only is of the essence, and so must be the Empha­sis of this Episcopacy.

Subsectio Septima.

The apprehension of the worth of this Government, had, Sir, its full influence on the affections of these learned men; they there­fore profess themselves.

1. Affected with grief and amazement to see it endeavoured to be extirpated without any reasons offered to their understanding, for which it should be thought necessary or expedient so to do.

2. Ranked with Popery, Superstition, Heresie and Profaness.

3. Intimated to be some way or other contrary to sound Doctrine, or the power of godliness.

Unto all this I shall say in brief:

1. That if the constant struglings of this Government, Their grounds of affection and amaze­ment at Extir­parion of Pre­lacy examined. with the Civil power and encroachment, on the Royal Authority in all Ages having not kept its bounds, but hy exercising absolute independent Authority in their own Names, and under their own Seals, in a Legislative Declaration of what is Treason; and by an Imperial power to prescribe Oaths to be sworne, as in the Ca­nons of 1640. the Bishops of both Provinces did presume to do; if its innovation, defence and propagation of erroneous Do­ctrines and Superstition; if its suppression of Truth, and true Religion, by silencing, suspending faithful Preachers; if its vio­lence, irregularity and injustice in High Commission Censures, ba­nishing, imprisoning, confiscating, stigmatizing, and excommuni­cating of the best of men for meer trifles, things indifferent, so judged by themselves) at the least; nay, many times for opposing profaness and superstition; yea, for performing their duties in praying and preaching; and the like evils which did attend it, though (I should say) but accidentally, by the corruption of Mon­tague, Laude, Wren, Pierce, and their Companions, be written in such sensible Acts, and legible Characters, that England might [Page 74]feel, and the World read them; I think there need not be much of Reason offered to shew, not only the expediency, but necessity of extirpation of a Government, though in it self good, yet capable of such enormities, unlesse it be of an immediate and undoubted di­vine right.

But, Sir, Had not Oxford their numbers in Parliament? and did they not trust them with their understandings? or must a Par­liament offer Reasons of the necessity and expediency of every Act they impose on the Subject, before the Subject yield obedi­ence? and yet the Vote of the House of Commons past the 10th. of June, 1641. viz. That this Government hath been found by long experience to be a great impediment to the perfect reformation and growth of Religion, and very prejudicial to the Civil State; to­gether with the learned Speeches of many Members in the House, printed; to offer Reason without, as well as within doors, might have laid something before the judgments of these Gentlemen. I presume, Sir, the Subjects obedience must not (in the judgment of this University) be suspended untill the Reasons of State producing the resolution be known to, and and apprehended by every person and society.

2. If this Prelacy judged thus evil; were but contempora­ry with Popery, Superstition, Heresie, Schisme and Prophaness; though we should presume it good, I hope it may be ranked a­mongst its fellows, and taken upon suspition, it may be a grief, but no wrong to stay an honest man found in company with Thieves; when he hath cleared himself, justice will let him go.

But Sir, if this Prelatical Government be in the formality of it, a plain and clear Papacy, as the deriving it from Rome, and its standing on no basis but the constitutions of the Church when Popish, and institution of the Pope, not Christ or any Christian Magistrate, nor General Assembly of the Ministers of the Church of God in this Kingdom; the owning of Anselme Arch­bishop of Canterbury, Papam alterius mundi, the content all Papists find in the same, (could they but continue it in depen­dance on Rome, for Consecration and Investiture, pure circum­stances, not of the essence of the Government;) and principal­ly its springing from the same principles, standing on the same Basis, the indulgence of Princes, and being supported by the self­same [Page 75]Arguments and Authorities which are urged by Bellarmine, and the Council of Trent, History of the Council of Trent, Edit. 3. p. 589, 590. to p. 616. for the defence of the Papacy (in all which respects it must needs appear, that the difference be­tween an universal Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop, is in de­grees and limits, not in kind; for is there not the same reason for Arch-bishops over Bishops, to receive their Oath of Obedience, as for Juridical Bishops over Presbyters; and so the same for Car­dinals over Arch-bishops, and Popes over Cardinals?) do suggest it to be; and if it were the Foot-stool or Stirrup of the Papacy, as Salmasius doth at large demonstrate in his Apparatus ad Papatum; and as Beza doth affirm, when he tells us, Episcopi Papam pepererunt. Beza. Epist. 79. I hope it can be no great wrong to ranck it with Popery, which might be its proper name, though through use of a larger signification.

And if, Sir, its Rule whereby to square it, and Reason of sustentation be that which is not more openly Canted by some, then indeed generally practised; (viz.) No Ceremonies, no Bishop, whereby the Cross in Baptism, the Altar, the Surplice, and other matters innovated into the worship of God, the use of which (how edifying soever to the Church of God) is a for­mal Superstition; it cannot be much abused to call Superstition its companion.

And if it have been found to indulge Heresie, by publishing and printing cum priveligio, all Heretical Notions, and silencing the Pulpit, and stopping the Press from all possibility of Confu­tation; or if by innovation of Superstition into worship, and obtrusion of Error in Doctrine on the souls of men, it hath provoked Schism, I hope there is no great cause of complaint for putting these together with it.

And if it have been approved a protection and promotion of Revels, Church-ales, Clerks-ales, The seventy two Ministers of Somersetshire in their unani­mous consent to the continu­ance of Revels, Church-ales, &c. Sports and Pastimes on the Lords day; so that its Deans and Chapters, or other Colledge and Conventions, have proved like unto Bishop Pierce his Septu­agint in their Agreement against Justice Richardson's order for suppressing of these and the like profaness, certified in a letter to the late Arch-bishop, dated the fifth of November, 1633. and suppressing all Ministers that refuse to stir up such licentiousness, as did the visitations of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Bishop Pierce, and others; it sure can be no great wrong to rank it with [Page 76] profaness, and intimate it to have in it some contrariety to the pow­er of godlinesse; to which (whatever some few, very few, Bishops might do) the current of Episcopacy did never yield much countenance, or speak much amity. Sir, in these and the like re­spects, the extirpation hereof must be endeavoured by all that will not partake of other mens sins; and I must be free to tell them, that in their Parallel case propounded (which yet will not square) the alteration, yea, extirpation of the Civil Government of the City, capable of such proximity unto Treason, Murder, Advltery, Theft, Cousenage, and the like, would be by all inge­nuous men judged both just and reasonable; but I insist too long in abatement of their affection, who offer Arguments by which they were perswaded to adhere unto their object; let us there­fore weigh them severally.

Subsectio Octava.

This Preface being past, they proceed to the Reasons why they cannot Covenant an endeavour to extirpate Prelacy; that is to say, The Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancel­lours, or Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy: And they propound five Reasons; two relate unto the Govern­ment, the third and fifth unto their own capacity, and the fourth unto the estate of the Church; according to this order I shall consider them: And,

1. Oxford first and second ex­ception to the extirpation of Prelacy. They tell us, They are not satisfied how they can with a good conscience swear to extirpate Episcopal Government, which say they, we think to be, if not Jure Divino, in the strictest sense by express command, yet of Apostolical institution; that is to say, was established in the Churches by the Apostles, according to the mind, and after the example of their Master, Jesus Christ; and that by vertue of their ordinary power and authority deri­ved from him, as deputed by him Governours of his Church.

Or at least that Episcopal Aristocracy may lay a more just title and claim to a Divine Institution, than Papal Monarchy, Presbyterial Democracy, and Independants by particular [Page 77]Congregations, or gathered Churches.

2. We are assured by the undoubted testimony of Anci­ent Records, and later History, that this Form of Government hath been continued with such an universal, uninterrupted, unquestioned succession in all the Churches, and in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian, for fifteen hundred years together; that there never was in all that time any considerable opposition against it; that of Aerius was the greatest, which grew from dis­content, and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick.

From which antiquity to depart, they fear by this extirpa­tion to give advantage to the Papists by contempt of antiquity; and should diminish the Authority due to the consentient judge­ment and practice of the universal Church, &c.

Sir, this is a very fair and specious exception; for Divine Institution, and ancient universal practice are very strong bars against any Oath; and strong conjecture of the one, and cer­tain assurance of the other, do forcibly supersede any mans acting to the contrary; yet Sir,

I wonder that these learned men do but think of a Divine Insti­tution, and yet are assured of ancient universal practice, uninter­rupted for fifteen hundred year; methinks the last should rather have remained doubtful; for conscience can only be satisfied in the certainty of the former: A think so in a Divine Warrant, is both sinful and dangerous; and I think the universal uniter­rupted practice of the Church for fifteen hundred years might well run back unto the times of our Lord and Saviour, and at least the Acts of his Apostles; and the Sacred, as well as Ecclesiastical Story, might make mention of this Government, and so create an undeniable certainty; for the one, is a very uncertain ground of assurance without the other: But stay Sir, I forgot the year in which these learned men wrote, it was 1647. and so indeed one hundred and forty years might return before Episcopal Government appeared in the World; and yet they may by antient Records, and later Histories, find the practice of it fifteen hundred years; but this will more weaken, than strengthen the Divine Right; for without doubt, the most primitive and pure estate of the Church was in the first one hundred and forty years.

2. Their Argument loseth its force, by the ambiguity of their terms; for I am Sir, at the same loss with them, for the [Page 78] Ratio formalis objecti, Saint Peters Bonds abide. p. 2, 3. the thing to be extirpated, as in my last with Dr. Gauden. They tell us of an Episcopal Government, and an Episcopal Aristocracy, but do not describe it; it is no marvel that the Popes Legates should interdict the dispute in the Council of Trent, History of the Council of Trent, Edit. 3. p. 591, 592. concerning the Divine Right of Episcopal Superiority, or direct it into such general and uncertain debates, that there might be of it no determination; but, Sir, I think it very strange that a Protestant University, professedly seeking satisfaction to their con­science, should so sophistically by general terms of an uncertain acceptation, maintain to themselves doubts to which they desire resolution. They well know Episcopal Government may deno­minate the Government Communi Concilio Presbyterorum, by all Ministers in the Church, who are the very true undoubted Scrip­ture-Bishops; unto which, or whom there may be ordinis causa, for method sake, a Superintendent Moderator or Chair-man; and this Episcopal Government is undoubtedly of Divine Insti­tution, and antient practice, prescribed by the Holy Ghost, and propounded in the sacred story of the Acts of the Apostles, Chap. 20.28. where, as in other Scriptures, Bishops and Presbyters are terms synonimous, denominating persons invested with the same Office and Authority, and enjoying the same qualifications, and by common consent ruling the Church of Christ; and then, Sir, we must tell them this is not to be endeavoured to be extirpated, nor doth the Covenant so propound it; which if it do, I consent to reject it.

But if by Episcopal Government, they mean that special Form and Frame of Government wherein one person is advan­ced into a distinct order of Ministry above other Ministers, and is invested with Prince-like power over them, enjoying an Au­thority peculiar to him, eonomine, as Bishop, of sole Ordinati­on and Jurisdiction, unto whom all other his Fellow-Ministers are Subjects, and must swear to him obedience, who must have a Council denominated, Deans, Deacons, Prebends, Chapters, and the like, over and among whom he sits as Lord; and yet over him acknowledgeth a more superiour order under the title of Arch-bishop, to whom he oweth and sweareth obedience; and in this superiour order, and lordly manner, he ruleth all Pastours, and People, somtimes by himself, somtimes by his Chancellor or Comissary, his Surrogates, Deans, and Arch-deacons, with all [Page 79]Officers of State and Power within such prefixed bounds and li­mits, which is called his peculiar Diocess; and either they must mean this, or mistake the meaning of the Covenant; which yet doth very plainly describe the Prelacy to be extirpated, to be a Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, their Chancellours, Commis­saries, Deans, &c. And then, Sir, I must deny, not that they think (for I must believe the profession of their thought, though I think it strange) but that there is any good ground for such thoughts: and the opinion of an University, will not without good demon­stration in this point, beget such thoughts in me, That the A­postles by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from Christ, and deputed Governours of his Church, did ever esta­blish this Episcopal Government; or that it was according to the mind, and after the example of Jesus Christ, who himself did ne­ver exercise a Pompous and Princely power over his Disciples; but conversed with them as his Peers and Equals; and gave them in charge that they should not affect Superiority one over another, or Princely power over Gods Heritage.

I must put these Masters and Scholars of Oxford, to prove by plain and pregnant Scripture, That the Office of the Ministry may in Ordination be divided, and only some part of it be thereby com­mitted; so as that the Deacons may preach and baptize, but not con­secrate the Lords Supper.

That there are more orders of the Ministry than one, the Bishop or Presbyter, or more Officers in the Church, than Elders and Deacons, appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their Apostolical Authority, who have only described their qualification, and directed the Ordination of these two, and no more. That the Presbyter (in whom is required the same qua­lification; to whom is to be yielded the same obedience, subjection and respest; who receiveth the same Ordination, and is charged with the same duty, and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God, with the Bishop, and none other) is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop, so to be ruled by him, and not to exercise his Office, but by the Bi­shops License, and at his pleasure; and that the Presbyter is bound to swear obedience to the Bishop as his Ordinary.

That certain particular Priests or Deacons shuld by Papal con­stitution and Princely indulgence without the counsel and common [Page 80]suffrages of the Colledge of Presbyters, bespeaking their conset, or consent of the common people, The force of Prelacy cove­nanted against. be constituted a Colledge or Cathedral Council to the Bishop, to advise with him, and rule un­der him, by the name of Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-dea­con and Prebends, to Elect the Bishop in vacancy, and hold Courts, constitute Canons, and exercise all Jurisdiction over all Churches and Ministers, not being so much as chosen by them, or having their consent, much less commission so to do.

That any one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the Congregations and Pastors of them in one County, or many Counties making one Diocess; and be by vertue of office bound to the inspection, and pastoral Correction and Government of them; and that the several Bishops of a Kingdom be themselves subject to one Metropolitan Church and Arch-bishop, to whom they shall swear obedience, and shall be subject to be by him o­verseen, ordered and corrected; sure if the Word of God con­clude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom, it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universal Church; and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Arch-bishops, as the Arch-bishops are above the Bishops, and the Bishops above the Presbyters; for these are not differences of kind, but of degree; nor is there pleaded for Divine Right, or Apostolical Institution of the one in the Church of England, what is not pleaded for the other by the Fathers of the Council of Trent; and by Bellar­mine that Cardinal Popes Champion; Bellarm. de Cle­ricis. lib. 1.5. cap. 14. and who can deny a qua­tenus ad omne, &c?

Lastly, That Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel may ex­ercise their Office and Function by Ʋicegerents and Deputies, Com­missaries or Chancellours; or that by any Apostolical direction they may, and have authority to Commissionate any such; or that the determination and disposal of Civil Affairs, Matters of Mar­riage, and Administrations, belong to them; that they must by themselves, or joyning unto themselves, Professors and Students of the Civil Law, keep Courts, on which Proctors, Apparitros, and the like are dependent; and so judicially rule and govern in these cases.

This is the Form of Government these learned Casuists must think, is, if not of Divine Right by immediate precept from God, yet established by the Apostles, according to the mind, [Page 81]and after the example of their Master, Jesus Christ, and that by vertue of their power and authority, as deputed Governours of the Church; or otherwise their thoughts are very vain and imper­tinent; for not an Episcopal Government wherein all the Bishops, Ministers of the Church within any City, Country or Kingdom, invested with equal authority and dignity, being all of the same Order, do by common Council govern the Church; but this specifical Prelacy, presuming it self to be an Hierarchy, or holy Government, and chief Priest-hood, not to be gain-sayed without high profaness; or with-stood and destroyed without sacriledge, formally existing in Arch-bishops, super our Princes to Bishops; Bishops, Soveraign Lords to all Ministers or Pres­byters; and enjoying the standing Cathedral Council, and sub­ordinate Judges, Deans, Arch-deacons, Deans and Chapter, and transmitting their power, and Episcopal authority to Chancellours and Commissaries; and so ruling with all state, and pompous attendants; not only mens profession of Religion, but their propri­ety of civil enjoyments, is Covenanted to be extirpated. I hope Sir, that these serious men would not cozen their own Consciences, and cheat the World; by their observation the Covenant would bind us against Episcopacy and Bishops in general; and not take notice how it is limited to one particular kind; and then Sir, I must be free to tell them, That the Divine Right, or Apostolical Institution of this Episcopal Government, is but a think so, of no more value than a dream; for I not only think, but am sure, the libraries of learning, in all that famous Univesity, will never lay us down this Form of Government in the Church of Ephesus, (though I should grant Timothy to be a Bishop therein) Antioch, Philippi, Creet, or the seven Churches of Asia (supposing their Angels to have been Bishops) in all which I deny not a Govern­ment by Bishops, and those made by the Holy Ghost; to whom I will presume to think, had I then lived, and been invested with that Ministerial authority I now by Gods grace enjoy, poor, sim­ple I, might have stood up as a Peer, or at least Bishop Suffragan; and if they give not some Scripture instance, I think Ecclesiasti­cal story will never prove the Apostles established this Form of Government in the Church; or at least, not by their Apostoli­cal power and authority, as deputed by Christ governours of the Church; and I am sure, not after the example, nor according to [Page 82]the mind of Jesus Christ their Master; it being directly inconsist­ent with the quality of this Kingdom, and dictated parity of his Ministers.

Sir (with Reverence may I speak it) I think it had been ve­ry sutable to the learning and gravity of this learned Assembly, to have laid down in this case of conscience, some clear Reasons for their conjecture of this Divine Right, and Apostolical Institu­tion and Establishment: And the rather, for that Pope Nicholas hath affirmed, Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem, sive Me­tropolean primatus, aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Eccl siarum, sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem, instituit Romana Ecclesia: That Rome appointed all Ecclesiastical Dignities of Bishops, Arch-bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, &c. And Pope Apud Gratian. Dist. 22. cap. 1. Lucius and Clement, with whom agreeth Peter Lombard, and our own Histo­rians, That King Lucius instituted three Arch-bishopricks, and Distinct 80. lib. 4. dif. 24. Brit Hist. lib. 4. pag. 126. Po­lichro. lib. 4. c. 16. fol. 163. Pagets Chri­stianography. Foxe saith 28. chief Priests, called Flam­mens; Acts and Monuments. p. 96. Fol. 59, 60. twenty five Bishopricks in the room and stead of the three Arch­flamens, and twenty five flamens: And that Devotus, the Bishop of Winchester, falling into the seat of the flamen thereof, had all the possessions within twelve Miles cmopass, containing thir­ty two Villages, conferred on him and his Clergy: And the Arch­bishops, Bishops and Clergy of England, in their Institution of a Christian man, dedicated to Henry the eighth, have told all the World, It is out of all doubt, that there is no mention made, nei­ther in the Scripture, neither in the Writings of any authentical Doctor, or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apostles; that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power, Order, or Juris­diction between the Apostles themselves, or between the Bishops themselves; but that they were all equal in power, authority, and jurisdiction; and that there is now, and since the time of the Apostles, such difference among the Bishops, it was devised by the antient Fathers of the primitive Church, for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholick Church; and that ei­ther by the consent and authority, or else by the permission and suffering of the Prince, and civil power for the time ruling, the said Fathers considering the infinite multitude of Christians so greatly encreased, taking examples from the Old Testament, thought it expedient to make degrees among Bishops, and to limit their several Diocesses, bounds of Jurisdiction and Power: And then, Sir, [Page 83]this Form of Government will seem to be more Jewish, Papal, Paganish, or at best political and civil, than Apostolical; the last of which, the Statutes of our Kingdom do declare it to be, affirm­ing that the Arch-bishops, Bishops, Arch-deacons, and other Ec­clesiastical persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, 26. Hen 8. cap. 26.31. Henr. 8. cap. 9, 10.37 Hen 8 cap. 17. 1. Ed. 6 cap. 2, 1, 5, 8. Eliz, c. 1. but by, under, and from the Kings Royal Majesty; and Patrick Adamson, Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews in Scotland, Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife, professed sin­cerely, ex animo, That Bishops and Ministers are by the Word of God equal, and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Bishops, nullo nititur verbi fundamento: And I think it had been but Reason some satisfactory answer had been given to Gersom Bucer his Dissertationes de Gubernatione Ecclesiae; Didoclavius his Altare Damascenum; Cartwright's Exceptions; Paul Bains his Diocesan Tryal, Smectymnus; and especially Mr. William Pryns publick and positive Challenge, in the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, which I think will be ad Grecas Calendas, before they think so of an University had been published as a stumbling Block to the peoples swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant, when thereunto called by Parliament.

But it may be, Sir, I run too fast; methinks their think so of Divine Right and Apostolical establishment, is asserted very faint­ly; and therefore it is restrained and limited with an Episcopal A­ristocracy, hath a fairer pretension, and may lay a juster title and claim to a Divine Institution, than Papal Monarchy, Presby­terian Democracy or Independent: Yet I must say, fair pretensi­on, and comparative claims are very weak props against Parlia­mentary Resolves, and the power of an Oath; it must be plain and undeniable Divine Right must stand against them.

But what is that they call Episcopal Aristocracy; Are not these learned men mistaken in their terms? hath not Englands Episcopacy been ever deemed a Monarchy? and of the same kind, but lower degree with Papacy! How can it be conformable to the Government of the Nation, which these very men tell us, is Merum Imperium, an Empire, Monarchy p. 11? and establish that Maxim, no Bishop no King, if it be an Aristocracy! Whoever deem­ed Presbytery a Democracy? Or on what colourable ground can it be so deemed? doth not this Form fix the Government in the seniores and illustrior pars populi: The Officers of the Church or­dering [Page 84]all, and ruling the whole Church, excluding the Congre­gation from all Acts of Government: save a shewing their just exception to any Order, Office, or Censure? If Presbytery be a Democracy, what can Independency be judged? I find these learned men by the nicety of this distinction, at a loss for its name, as well they might, and so I shall leave it, and suppose a willingness in the University of Oxford to assent to Doctor Whi­takers Thesis, That Regimen Ecclesiae non est Monarchicum, nec Aristocraticum, nec Democraticum, sed Democratica Monarchica Aristocratica; That the Government of the Church is a Formal Aristocracy, qualified with something of Monarchy, which he means not to be the superiority of Prelates, and Democracy; by which is not meant the ruling power of the people; let but this learned Doctor explain himself, and Mr. Thomas Cartwright ex­pound, nay, translate his words; and we shall find a Government which will lay a very fair claim unto a Divine Right, Si velimus Christum ipsum respiscere, fuit semper Ecclesiae Regimen Monar­chicum; Whitak. oper. Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Quest. 12. de Origin. Ec­cles. Cart­wrights first Reply to Whi­takers gift. page. 35 si Ecclesiae Presbyteros, qui in Doctrina & Disciplina su­as partes agebant Aristocratioun; si totum corpus Ecclesiae qua­tenus in Electione Episcoporum & Presbyterorum, suffragia fere­bat; ita tamen ut [...], semper Presbyteris servatur Demo­craticum; which Cartwright thus renders, The Church is go­verned with that kind of Government, the Philosophers have af­firmed to be the best; for in respect of Christ the head (not his Vicar or Superiority of single Prelates) it is a Monarchy; in respect of the Ancients and Pastours that govern in common; (all the Presbytery) with like Authority among themselves (not a Superiority over them) it is an Aristocracy; and in respect the people are not excluded, but have their interest (unto exce­ption) in Church-matters, it is a Democracy: If then these men will take down the towring power of Prelates, and turn their Magisterial Throne into a Ministerial Chair; and bring into the Cathedral Council of Deans and Chapters, all the Presbyters, and let these lofty persons stand amongst their Fellows, till by com­mon consent, for common order one of them be set in the Chair to gather Suffrages, regulate the Assembly, declare their sentence, and see to the execution of their Decrees, and summon them to­gether, they shall constitute a Government, which I think will not only fairly pretend unto, but plainly appear to have an Apo­stolical [Page 85]Institution and Establishment; and there are very many, both ancient and moderne Authors of my opinion; and then we need no more dispute the matter of extirpation of Prelacy; for in this sense the Covenant will rather establish it.

Their think so of Divine Right turns into an assurance of universal uninterrupted succession of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian, for fifteen hundred years together, without any considerable opposition, save that of Aerius, which sprang from discontent, and gain'd him the reputa­tion of an Heretick.

This is, Sir, the old, only, and usual guard of Prelacy; I will not deny Antiquity its due Reverence, though I put not on it, The Antiquity of Englands Prelacy ob­served. nor consent unto it an authority equal with, or as the Papists I­dolize it, above the Scriptures. I confess in matters of Fact, it may give a clearer conviction, than direction, and assert things past done, rather than that they should be done and conti­nue.

It is well if their certain assurance in matter of Fact, be a­ny better bottomed, than their think so, in point of Divine Right. I know not what might be their undoubted testimony of ancient Records, and later Histories, for they mention none; and therein their faith must be unto themselves; but by such An­cient or Modern Histories as I have observed, it is very difficult to find this Form of Government (which must relate unto that to be extirpated by the Covenant, or else it is vain) to have been ei­ther universal, or uninterrupted in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian, for half fifteen hundred years; for if they ac­count backward from the time of their writing, they will find a violent interruption, and indeed extirpation of this Form of Go­vernment by Christian the King of Denmark, in the year 1537. as contrary to Christ his Institution; and then they will lose more then one of their fifteen hundred years without interruption, and that in a Kingdom called Christian; and this Sir was to sense, whatever it was to reason, a more considerable opposition than that of Aerius; not to mention the interruptions and extirpation in Scotland; which I presume may be to them of little weight, that people in their eye scarce appearing Christian.

And if they will account forward, from the Nativity of our Lord, their fifteen hundred years of universal, uninterrupted, E­piscopal [Page 86]Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, will rise very heavily; for let it be considered, that the division and distribution of Churches into Parishes and Dioces­ses, came not into the world for more than two hundred and sixty years; Polid. Virg. In­vent. l. 4. c. 9. and untill that time, small Towns and Villages had their Bishops, and all Bishops were before and after that chosen by the people, not by their Princes; and so long there could be no Metropolitan, Archiepiscopi vero su Hiber­nia nulli fuerunt; sed tan­tum se invicem Episcopi consecrabant donec Johannes Papyrio Romanae sedis le­gatus ad venit. Hic 4. Pallia in Hiberniam portavit. Archiepiscopal seat, nor Ca­thedral Episcopal Diocess. And will they give an Irish man leave to tell them, that Saint Patrick sent into Ireland by Eleuth rius, more than two hundred years after Christ, did consecrate as many Bishops, as he did constitute Churches in that Kingdom, three hundred and sixty five of each? and that from his time, to the coming in of Johannes Papyrio, the Popes Legate, Anno 1152. Girald. Cambr. Topograph. Hiber. destinct. 3. cap. 17. Vid. The Religion profes­sed by the Ancient Irish in an Epistle to the late Pri­mate Usher, by Sir Christo­pher Sipthorpe, Knight, pag. 58. there were no Arch-bishopricks in that Kingdom, and yet it was called Christian; and if the instance may not offend them, I would mind them, that Bishop Usher, the late Primate of Armagh, in his Treatise, De Primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannica­rum, pag. 800. doth affirm out of John Major, De Gestis Scotorum, That in ancient times, the Scots were instructed in the Christian Faith by the Priests and Monks, and had no Bishops, before the coming of Palladius, into their Countrey; and after that Palladius made Bishops, they had no Diocess, untill Malcolme, the third King of Scotland; but every Bishop did exercise his Episcopal Function wherever he came; who citeth also John Fordon, Scotichronicon. lib. 3. cap. 8. on the same account; so that then we shall not find this Form of Government by Diocesan Bishops, Cathedral Churches, and by Arch-bishops, to have been received in some Kingdoms half fifteen hundred years; and what then becomes of the assurance of these learned men?

Moreover, though the opposition of Aerius seem in their eye on inconsiderable one, yet it is such as stated a principle, which being once admittee (as it cannot be denyed) and obtained but liberty to be improved to the direction of the Government to be practised, will subvert the foundation, and pull down the superiori­ty of Arch-bishops, Bishop, Deans, and the like; for if all Mi­nisters, [Page 87]Presbyters and Bishops be of the same order, office and authority; we cannot but infer, Who are ye that advance your selves in the house of God, and Lord it over your Brethren, and Gods heritage? and notwithstanding that this principle be cloud­ed by the occasion on which it was divulged by him, the mans dis­content; we must say that Discontent is a better Dictator than Judge; and God knoweth how to make mens grudges grind out the knowledge of his truth, mind and will; I hope it will be deemed but a poor defence of the Popes Supreamacy in England, to say that King Henry the eighth in a discontented humour did cast it off, and was for it excommunicated; and here the Reason is the same; a great noise is made, and advantage taken, that Aeri­us was reputed an Heretick, for affirming the parity of Presby­ters with Bishops; and yet Sir, it would be well noted by whom, and by what authority he was branded as an Heretick; it was not by any Council, or Primitive Fathers; but by one only man, Epi­phanius, though to be Reverenced in the Church; yet by this ad­ministers little cause of regard: I think many in Oxford will be loth to have Arminian notions (more opposite to the grace of God, than Aerius notions to good order) publickly damned as Heresie, which yet were condemned by the Synod of Dort; and though that were not a general Council, it wins more Authority than the censure of Epiphanius; Saint Augustine therefore re­peating the opinion of Aerius, as recited by Epiphanius, doth more modestly denominate it Proprium Dogma; August. de haere­sibus cap. 53. and others re­peating the Heresies of Aerius, make no mention of this among them; nor indeed was there Reason, if in the Council of Trent, Michael of Medina were deservedly chidden, for saying, History of the Council of Trent, p. 591. Hierom and Austin fell into the Heresie of Aerius, and affirmed the de­gree of a Bishop, was no greater than the degree of a Priest: I hope that is not Heresie in Aerius, which is Orthodox in Au­stin, Jerom, and others; truly Sir I think the ingenuity of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford, might have led them to have considered, and indeed publickly contradicted, Collected by Mr. William Prynne, as an Appendix to his unbishop­ing Timothy and Titus. the Catalogue of testimonies in all Ages, evidencing Bishops and Presbyters to be one equal, and the same in Jurisdiction, Dignity, Order and De­gree; whereby in five several squadrons, Christ and his Apostles, Ignatius, Policarpus, Anacletus, Justin Martyr, and many of the ancient Fathers; Peter Lombard, Gratian, Hugo Cardinalis, and [Page 88]many other Canonists and Schoolmen; the Waldenses, Alphon­sus, Castro, Gersomus Bucer, and a multitude of Forraign Di­vines and Churches; our own, Sedulus, Anselme, Beda, Occham, Fulk, Juel, Reynolds, Whitaker, and almost who not, in every place and age, are produced, as thinking the same thing, which in A [...]rius is called Heresie; for certainly so general a consent to a conclusion so weighty, is a very considerable opposition directly re­pugnant to their confidence of an universal uninterrupted ex­ercise of this Form of Government; for now had Epiphanius more warrantably, and on better grounds called this an Heresie, I should not much regard it; nor will their assurance of this Argument avail, to establish this kind of Prelacy, or to anticipate the pro­mise on Oath of a due endeavour to extirpate it.

We see, Sir, there is nothing of weight in the Government, either on the supposed Apostolical Institution, or ancient universal uninterrupted practice, that could bar from taking, much lesse bind unto the breaking of this second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant; let us consider what is in the state of the Church of England, Oxford fourth exception to the second Ar­ticle of the Covenant. which may bind the perpetuation of this Government, or be of force to bar the extirpation thereof; and that in their fourth exception to this Article, wherein they tell us;

In respect of the Church of England, they cannot swear to extirpate this Government, for three Reasons.

1. The Inconveniences which attend all change in Go­vernment; and in this is like to be great, it being deeply rooted in the Laws, and of strong influence on the Civil State.

2. Repugnant to the Declaration of the Commons-in Par­liament.

3. And a striking at the foundation of this Famous Church of England.

Unto all which I cannot but briefly say, That the two first seem in my thoughts very little to respect the Church; for the alteration which might ensue in the Civil State, might consist with, and conduce unto the being, and well-being of the Church; and the declared purposes of the House of Commons might be contradicted without any great reflection on the Church.

2. Jealousies of inconvenient effects, must not intercept a duty; These effects may be accidental, the duty positive; and it is the prudence of Legislators to fore-see, and prepare against such incoveniences, as may happen on the alteration of Lawes, and Forms of Government; I question how far the care thereof lieth on private persons or societies; And if these jealousies were of weight for continuation of Episcopacy now, why not at the destruction of Monasteries and Abbies, and exclusion of the Popes Supremacy? (which was the root, to which Prelacy is but a Branch since continued) in conjunction with, and influence on the Civil State; by Magna Charta, the grant of the glorious King Saint Edward, and most of the ancient Lawes from which this Government doth at this day draw its sap and strength.

3. The Delaration of Parliament pleaded as a Bar to this extirpation, doth offer Reasons for its alterations, which I think are of weight; (viz.) its strenuous study and endeavour to ef­fect a conjunction between Papists and Protestants in Doctrine, Discipline and Worship, being before agreed in judgement: its Ty­rannical imposing a Liturgy in Scotland, and enforcing it after an happy pacification by his late Serene Majesty, with the Bellum Episcopale; its violence and cruelty to Religion, and Religious men, in the Star Chamber, and High Commission Courts; and what themselves observe, its influence on the Civil State, which made this Prelacy odious in all Ages, and was a very likely provo­cation to its extirpation in England, as in Denmark; and if they will but please to consider, that sinful superiority over the Mi­nisters of the Gospel, which is the anima animans, very form of it, and cannot be capable of any remedy, but by its ruine; all which having been published in print, by many Petitions to, Speeches in, and Declarations from the Parliament, might have offered Reasons for the extirpation to counterpoise, nay, weigh down all feared inconveniences which might arise, had these learned men pleased to have observed them; so that if the House of Commons did any way declare the continuance of it, it was from their indulgence and willingness by all fair means, if possible, to regulate it, rather than any merit of the Government it self.

4. But the supposed repugnancy of this branch of the Co­venant, [Page 90]unto the Declaration of the House of Commons, is not to me so visible; these Gentlemen refer us unto the Remonstrance of December the fifth, 1641. and tell us, That the House of Commons Remonstrated, that it was far from their purpose or desire, to abolish the Church-government, but rather that all the Members of the Church of England should be regulated by such Rules of Order and Discipline, as are established by Parliament: Which words, by the variation of the character I imagined, to be the words of the Remonstrance, but on search, and second reading of the Remonstrance, I find no such sentence in the same; some parts of the sentence in the Remonstrance, themselves have transcribed in the Margin, and it is this, They infuse into the peo­ple, that we mean to abolish all Church-government; which Text will not justifie or allow their inference; for it proclaims not the Parliaments purpose, but Malignants policy; not that it was far from their purpose or desire to extirpate this kind of Govern­ment; but that the malice of their enemies did infuse they would abolish all Government: Surely Sir, prejudice was very prevalent in these learned men of Oxford, which made them read instead of a complaint of grievance, a Declaration of purpose; and from the complaints of a general charge, to intend to abolish all Go­vernment, to infer a purpose of preservation of this specifical Government, as if all Government were included in it; had they pleased to have read the whole sentence, they would have seen that the words were much more general, abolish all Government, and leave every man to his own fancy, for the service and wor­ship of God; which they might not do, and yet extirpate the Pre­lacy, and late Episcopal Government of England; no marvel that this mistake makes them imagine, and insert into the Reason, a rather that all the Members should be regulated, &c. which desire is not therein expressed, but only a profession of their know­ledge That His Majesty was under God entrusted with the Ec­clesiastical Law, to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline, as are established by Parliament: I think Sir, a profession of his Majesties Preroga­tive, is vastly different from a Parliamentary proportioning of the Prelates preheminence; and the Kings Supremacy may be acknowledged, when the Bishops are degraded, and set among their proper Peers: And now Sir, this repugnancy between the [Page 91]Covenanted extirpation, and Parliaments purpose of perpetuati­on, appeareth a think so, of like nature with the Apostolical Institution of this Episcopacy; and it would be enquired whether it be more malignity to suggest to the people a purpose in the Parliament by them never declared, and so make them obnoxi­ous to the charge of self-contradiction, or infuse into the people the verity and plainness of their meaning, not to abolish all Go­vernment, but to extirpate this kind, which through the whole Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dange­rous; if they will evade the influence, compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case, I dare se­cure them from it in reference to the second.

5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England, is her foundation; which if it be removed, what shall the Righteous do? And these serious Casuists do tell us, That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy, within the Realm of England, and they proved it by the Law; (for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it, that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation, and Christ (an ene­my to Prelacy) the corner stone) and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile, 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profess, They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy, strike at the foundation of the Church, which they are bound to up­hold.

Truly Sir, their care of the Church, and its foundation is commendable; but how comes it to pass that this Form of Go­vernment must be made the foundation of the Church, without any danger of Schism by them, to whom Scotlands making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church, did seem so much tending to Schism? Must the Government of Eng­land be a fundamental point of Religion, the very esse of the Church? and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction? Turpe est doctori, &c. Sir, we cannot deny the proofs cited, and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy; but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies, propounding doubts, professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied; so much to content themselves, and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies; such Sophisme as better beseems the Logick, than Divinity Schools; [Page 92]and common Halls, than the Regent house.

Two things are to be explained. What they mean by holy Church? and what foundation this is, to which the Statutes relate?

These learned men wel know, that by holy Church, in the acceptation of that Age, and of those very Acts, the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile, and the Statute of Edward the third, was meant the Pompous, Popish Ecclesiastical State, whereof Ab­bies and Priories were no small Members, as in Magna Charta, and other Grants of Kings, which had then such influence on the Civil State, as that no Act of Parliament could bind, or be deemed valid, without the ratifying censure of holy Church, whose manner was by her authority, to curse all that should not keep such Lawes as were agreed; I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out, and tell us, whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church? or that the Church of Christ may not, yea, do not subsist in England, now holy Church is driven out; the Church simply Christian, is very different from the pompous popish, holy Church.

Again Sir, the foundation mentioned in these Statutes, is sutable to the Fabrick, Foxe, his Acts and Monu­ments. p. 22. holy Churches; viz. the temporal en­dowments whereby she was made so pompous; the Lands, Man­nors, and large Revenues given by the King, or Nobles of the Land, as the question occasioning the same, doth plainly evidence, which was, Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies, and all Benefices in England, and the profit of vacan­cies by Pope Clement, were just? and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare; providing for the advousance, and disposal of all Benefices, and the profits thereof, in manner as the founders, that is, first donors had esta­blished; and so the Prelacy, in which it was founded, is an In­dependency as to Rome, and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free, and within her self, in respect of which, in the very words of the Statutes themselves, it is said, The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores of such Possessions and Benefices, doth give and grant the same to Aliens, which did not, and Car­dinals which might not dwel in England; as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the said Benefices, as he was not of right [Page 93]after the Law of England; so that this Prelacy is purely Politi­cal, and the foundation more profitable than pious; could these learned men be so absurd, as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation? were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons, Possessons and Presentations? and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed? This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation; and by vertue of this Political Prela­cy, the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishop­ricks to their Chancellours, Treasurers, Secretaries, Kinsmen, meer Lay-persons for increase of their means, Pryns Cata­logue of Testi­monies for the parity of Pres­byters and Bi­shops, p. 16, 17, 18. and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void, for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 20. and sometimes 30. years together; by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist, when her Prelates her foundation in their sense was wanting? or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost, or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Christ, because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy? Ecclesiastical Pre­lacy (like the Petrae and Rupes, as in the time of King Henery the third) have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church, and in the State, that they have constrained the Kings and Parliament of England, as of all other Nations, in all Ages, to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds; and at last to Cove­nant the extirpation thereof; wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe, we not only pull an old house about our ears, but destroy the very Church; if we have not wit enough to see how they would cosen us by the Law of man, instead of the Law of God, and a false gloss on fair words.

Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Go­vernment by Episcopacy, of the estate of the Church of England, we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves, against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government; yet that little we shall consider, and it relates un­to their personal capacities in their third exception, or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception.

In reference to their personal capacities, they say, They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice, ingenuity or humani­ty, [Page 94]to require the extirpation of this Government, Oxford Rea­sons third exception against extirpation of Prelacy. unless it had been proved unlawful; what Sir, if it had been proved inexpedient? it would have been consistent with Saint Pauls Justice, Humanity and Ingenuity; for to him, All things might be lawful, but were not expedient, was a Rule; but their Reasons might restrain these learned men, and they are five in number.

• 1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government.
• 2. Received orders from their hands.
• 3. Petitioned the continuance thereof.
• 4. Htld their Livelyhood under such titles, and in the exer­cise of that Government, or some part thereof.
• 5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities, liberties and profits of the same.

Vnto all which I shall say very briefly:

1 It is worth their enquity, whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially, and so gave their approba­tion to this Government; we grant, that in the 39. Articles com­monly published, there is one (viz.) the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops, &c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God; I find not, in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen; these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before men­tioned, and so misread them both; but suppose the Article had so affirmed; it had laid no bar to the alteration, or extirpation of this Government; for it might be (as indeed all our Stattues do sug­gest) a meer Political, Civil constitution, and so (though an Adiaphoron) not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God, and alterable at the pleasure of Englands Parliaments: and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article, I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament.

Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of or­dering Priests and Deacons, and Consecration of Bishops and Arch­bishops, did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God; [Page 95]for I not believe, nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture, or ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons; for I find no Priests in the new Testament; and con­ceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denomi­nations of the same order; and make not different orders any more than Pastours, Teachers, Stewards, Angels, Stars, and the like; and if there were these orders, yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God, to add a fourth, Arch-bishops; and if they be not an order, how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops (a contended for order of the Ministry) and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience? neither the one, nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence; the Speaker of the Parliament, or Lord Chief Justice, hath no such like Solem­nity.

I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry, and give Authority to apply one Sacra­ment or Seal of the Covenant, and not the other; nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism; and assistance at the Communion, the Scripture specially points them to the poor, and to serve Tables.

I question whether mute service in a publick solemn As­sembly be not contrary to the Word of God; where all, as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification.

I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost (peculiar to Christ, who did it in reality) be not contrary to the Word of God? or according to the words of the Article, Superstitious and ungodly.

And whether Ministers swearing Caronical obedience to the Bishop, or Bishops to the Arch-bishops, be not plainly Papal and ungodly?

If these learned men considered, and were convinced of the consonancy of these, and the like things with the Word, I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously? yet I must enquire how judicially? I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article; for the Articles thereby enjoyned, 13. Eliz. 13. do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith, and Doctrine of the Sacraments; and this particle only; is exclusive to Discipline and Government, which [Page 96]by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature, & only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti, & at the pleasure of the Magistrate; and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith; I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed, shall not be shut out of the Christian Church.

Now Sir; were there any force in this exception to the Co­venant, I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts; yet it is as ponderous as the next.

They received Orders from their hands, and should ill re­quite them for laying their hands on them, to lay to their hands to root them up, and cannot tell for what.

That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them, was not required; they might continue Men, Ministers; it is like better Christians, and more painful Preachers, when they were not Bishops; I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable; that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other; and our question is of the thing, not person; in which degradation was the worst they could do them; who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin, The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169. ‘That a certain Monster, heavier than the whole World, stood eminently aloft upon his breast, from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered, than alone to have all the goods of the World; when he waked, he thought this was nothing but the Bishoprick of Dublin, and so forthwith re­nounced it.’ Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus, E­lected Arch-bishop of Florence, ‘who refused (on fear of hazard­ing his salvation) to accept it; and when thundred into it by the counsel of his friends, frowns of the Magistrates, and the Popes Bull, kept only eight persons, no stately furniture in his house, no Coach and Horses, and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family, saying, They should do him a special favour to thrust him fram his Bishoprick, wherein he continu­ed with very great Regret.’ They would acknowledge a kind­ness done unto them; and yet were it an unkindness, these Gen­tlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude; they have petitioned their continuance, and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiors, on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did [Page 97]depend; nor had they been without Parallel (if not a plea of Justice) ‘For the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops of England ( Ro­chester excepted) in the time of Henry the eighth, had vo­luntarily (without the command of the King or Parliament) sworn to root up the Pope (the Apex of this Episcopacy)’ from whom they had received their Palls, Properties, Power; Foxe his Acts and Monu­ments. p. 564. 565 566, 567. I had almost said Papacy.

Their third Reason I pass as an expression of their affection, only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason; yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty.

And for the fourth and fifth.

That they held their livelyhoods by such titles, and were sworn to preserve the immunities, liberties, and profits of the same.

I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament, whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons, and publick (much more particular) societies, against whose Laws, no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind; and so their plea in this, amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies, (which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished) unless they prove Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chap­ters, to be built on a better foundation, which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile, repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned.

Their fifth exception is,

In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King, Oxford Rea­sons, fifth Ex­ception to the 2d. Article of the Covenant. and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the

• Oath of Supremacy;
• Coronation Oath;

The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate;

The [...]greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom.

Unto which I answer briefly,

That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes, and [Page 98]over all Ecclesiastical persons; and that by the Oath of Supre­macy, and the protestation of the fifth of May, they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate, and Jurisdiction, we freely grant; but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, &c. I see not the dan­ger of disloyalty or injury to the King, or double perjury to our selves, or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge, that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal; and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered.

That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Sub­jects, distributively or particularly considered, no sober man will deny; or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour, Power and Authority, with which the Col­lective Body of the Nation, the three Estates in Parliament As­sembled (in respect of which the Lords and Commons, Metho­diet Majestatis causa, apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord) no Regular man will deny; and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice; so that the Judges are by and from Him, and in His Name and Authority; and so all Submission, Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him, no good Statist or Civilian will deny; and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical (Ratione objecti, or circa Ecclesiam) the Executive Administration about, not in the Church, within His Dominions, in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power, no Free-born Subject, Good Christian, or Protestant will deny; but that He is so Supream, as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political, but belonging to the Church; such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith, in such a Form and Method of Articles; such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship, and such a National Di­scipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm; so as that the People in Parliament Assembled, may not debate, consult, conclude concerning them; and sedente Parliam [...]to, put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts, and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation, as in other Affairs of the Nation, I think no Loyal Subject, Wise Po­litician, Good Statesman, or True-born English-man will af­firm; [Page 99]for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament; and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church, no less than of the Ci­vil State; and the thirty nine Articles, Form of Common Pray­er, and the Government of the Church, lay claim to Acts of Par­liament for their Civil Sanction; and the Parliament in the Re­monstrance of December, 1641. owned and cited by these learn­ed men, do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law; to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parlia­ment; and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supre­macy, and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth, in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof, doth oppose the King to the Pope, and That is to say, under God to have the So­ve aignty and Rule over all manner of per­sons, born with­in her Maje­sties Domini­ons or Coun­tries, of what Estate soever, Ecclesiastical or Temporal, as no Forraign power shall, or ought to have any superiority over them. Ad­mon. Enacted to expound the Oath of Supre­macy, quinto Elizab. primo. Forraign power, not to the Parliament; and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction, Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or au­thority which heretofore hath been, and may be lawfully exerci­sed; which was always directed by power of the Parliament of Eng­land: And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman, in his late learned Speech, concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily, did declare the King to be Supream, that is, beyond the Coercive power of His people; but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast, so as to Rule at His own Will; and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled (and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly) in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes, quas populus elegerit, as the people shall choose; so that His Majesties Supre­macy is not denied, when His Prerogative amplified by the Sta­tute of 1 Elizabethae, Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli, 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes, Resolves, Orders, or imposed Oaths, to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to ex­ecute and administer; His Supremacy being purely executive, and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament; upon which ac­count the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour, Estate, and Jurisdiction of the King, may be voided as to this and that parti­cular mode and thing; and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God un­to the King; nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy, [Page 100]as to this or that particular, and in this or that species inconsistent with, or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly under­stood.

And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant, keep, and confirm the Laws, Customes, and Franchises granted to the Clergy, by the glorious King Saint Edward; and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canoni­cal priviledges, &c. which these learned men do cite, is limi­ted unto the Laws of the Land, which the People in Parliament assembled shall choose; according to which the King is bound to Rule; for otherwise this Coronation Oath will not only bind the perpetuation of this Government by Prelacy; but also to the Restitution of the Abbies and Monasteries demolished, and the Popes Supremacy expelled; all which were granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward.

2. But admit we these learned men the sense they seem to put upon the Kings Supremacy; methinks the modest expressions of the Covenant might have anticipated this exception, it only binding us within our places and callings (which might be by humble advice and supplication to the King, by vertue of His Su­pream Authority to effect it) to endeavour the extirpation of this Prelacy; that is, the Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, and the like; but such was their af­fection to it, that they could not desire; nay, they could not but beg of God that he would not suffer the King to assent there­unto, which affection we must not think to abate, untill their judgements be better inform'd.

3. As to the benefit which did redound to the Crown by the Collation of Bishopricks and Deanaries, by their first fruits, and yearly tenths, and profits in vacancies, though some question the Kings propriety, not in respect of the Law of the Land, but of the Law of God; I shall not insist on that; only say, That the constant enjoyment of the full possessions of them, will make a much greater revenue, and maintain to the King a greater Ho­nour and Estate, than the first fruits, tenths and profits of vacan­cies, although such vacancies as the Kings of England have by ver­tue of this Argument continued for the space of 5, 10, 15, 20. or sometimes thirty years together, taking the profits to themselves, or bestowing them on their attendants; and undoubtedly there is [Page 101]the same capacity to extirpate the whole Government, as some Episcopal Seas; and to enlarge the Revenues of the Crown by the Reversion of all the profits of the Government, and the abo­lishment thereof, as to continue so long vacancies; moreover, I would desire to know what is in this Argument more prevalent for Arch-bishops, Bishops, and their Cathedral Churches, than for Abbots and Priors their Monasteries and houses.

4. As to the agreeableness of this Government in the Church to the Civil constitution of the Kingdom; I only say that I question whether the Lord Christ, who declared his Kingdom not to be of this World, will allow, or do appoint the Governments of the World to be the square of Government in his Church; and I confess I can hardly reconcile it to his Regal Power, and Faithful Administration in his House; and I must have a better Com­ment on the Text than I have yet met withall, if it be not pro­hibited in these terms: The Princes of the Gentiles exercise do­minion over them, and they are great, and exercise authority up­on them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your M nister; and whosoever will be Chief among you, let him be your servant, Matth. 20.25.29, 27. Mark 10.42, 43, 44. Luke 22.23, 24. The sense where­of made Pope Gregory write himself Servus Servorum Dei; Whitehead, and others, refuse, Coverdalle, and many others decline their Bishopricks, as having in them aliquid commune eum Antichristo; I think the Clown his question to the Bishop of Cullen, were worth considering, What will become of the Bishops, when the Dukes be damned?

Yet the agreeableness of Prelacy with Englands ill Govern­ment, hath not been so obvious to others, as these Gentlemen sup­pose; the vigilant eye, and strong hand, wherewith in all Ages it hath been restrained; these Petrae, and Rupes Winchester and Ri­vallo in the time of King Henry the 3d. were judged very dan­gerous, when they constrained a Covenant without and against the Kings consent, to remove them as evil Counsellours. Mat­thew Paris our old Historian, ‘notes Bishops to have ever been the Make-bates between the King and People, screwing up the Kings Prerogative beyond thee onstitutions of the Kingdom, and liberties, yea, safety of the Subjects; and chargeth all the Wars, Broiles, Mischiefs and Evils of the Barons Wars, to have [Page 102]sprung from, and been acted by the Bishops: And when ngKi Philip lay on his death-bed, He charged His son, If He would Rule by his Nobles, He must keep his Bishops low.’

The premuniries by which they have ever been awed, and their late High Commission, authorizing them to act any ap­pellation, provocation, priviledge, exemption, proclamation, law, sta­tute, whatsoever notwithstanding; and their bold Usurpation in their own name and authorities, and under their own seals to issue forth Process, Excommunications, Censures, and other Judge­ments, and their Imperial Canons in 1640. do bespeak them pre­judicial to the Civil Government and Constitution of the King­dom; and I think a private society should with very much of mo­desty affirm the agreeableness of this Government, after the Par­liament on mature deliberation and debate, as most proper Judges, Vote of the 10th of June had voted this Government to have been found by long experience very prejudicial to the Civil State of these King­doms.

Now, Sir, as to the so often Canted Aphorisme of King James, No Bishop, No King; with which the Prelates and their Priests do too much strive to rivet their Government unto the Crown; I must be free to say, that it is more politick than pious and of no more warrant or authority, than the Spaniards one u­niversal Emperour, and one Pope, or universal Bishop; and when the Scots loyal adherence to, and advancement of His most Sa­cred Majesty, unto the Ruine of their Kingdom, Loss of their lives and Estates, Exile and Imprisonment of their Nobles, and Conquest of their Land; together with the uncessant struglings of the Covenant Interest, under Sequestration, Imprisonments, Banishments, and death of many; not ceasing till they had (by Gods blessing) effected the Happy and Honourable Restitution of King and Kingdom, be well considered, I hope these learned Masters and Scholars of Oxford will see some proceedings that may at least weaken their belief in this political Maxime.

We have seen, Sir, the strength of these learned exceptions unto the second Article of the Covenant, the great eye-sore of our Age; and find little or nothing therein, to charge the matter thereof with falshood or injustice? but that notwithstanding the grudging of proud and profane men, it stands in this respect established; they have herein been long, and constrained me to [Page 103]stay too long in consideration of what they urge: but as they, so I shall be more brief and contracted in their following excepti­ons, wherein they suggest many to be great ones, but profess to take up with few, which we must needs imagine not to be of the least weight.

Unto the third Article they except nothing as to the matter of the promise, Subjectio quin­ta. Oxford Rea­sons, Excepti­ons to the 3d. Article of the Covenant. Sectio quinta. p. 12, 13, 14. only they stumble at those words relating to the de­fence and preservation of the Kings Majesty, Person and Autho­rity, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdom; which they conceive to be a limitation of our abso­lute duty, by a condition not allowable.

Though some endeavour to justifie these words, as a condition put upon our duty by the power of Parliament, who may limit the Prerogative of the King, as well as extend it, and think it will abide a Dispute, I am not of their opinion; for I do pro­fess my self convinced that our allegiance, and so the preserva­tion of the Kings Person and Authority is an absolute duty found­ed in the Relation, without Regard to the Quality Piety or Im­piety of the Person; who is bound also to His duty, but not on the condition of the Subj cts duty; both King and People owe a Reciprocal duty each to other, and are bound to God to perform it; but the duty of the one is no limiting condition to the other; and therefore in all those contests for the Covenant in behalf of the King, which not only I, but other Ministers have undergone in the opposition of the late sinful Engagement; Vid. The Exer­citation con­cerning usur­ped powers. Vindication of the Oath of Allegiance by the same Au­thour. Lancashire and Cheshire Plea for non-sub­scribers to the late Engage­ment. These words have been understood to be a predication of the capacity in which the Kingdom, Parliament and People then were, under the opposition of Malignants, who divided the King from the Peo­ple; and so the meaning of it is thus, We being in the preservati­on and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the King­doms, shall endeavour to preserve the Kings Majesties Person and Authority. I wish therefore that it may be observed, That the words fall into a plain parenthesis; and the sentence is entire without them, and they are fixed at the end of the Obligation, which relates unto the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and liberties of the Subject, as well as the preservation of the King, and yet these cannot be limited; and this sense is not only [Page 104]consonant to principles of right Reason and true Religion, but al­so the Declaration of the Parliament in their then proceedings; and the scope of this Covenant, and this very Article, which clo­seth with a most Solemn Appeal to the World, to bear witness of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts to diminish His Ma­jesties just power and greatnesse; and I hope these serious Casu­ists will grant, that where the words of an Oath, seemingly doubtful, may, they must be understood in a good and just sense; and then their exceptions to such a limitation in the Covenant, do va­nish with the Hypothesis on which they are built and inferred.

Unto the fourth Article of the Covenant, these Masters and Scholars of Oxford do suggest something in Politicks, which soun­deth as strangely in my ears, as their past Divinity; indeed they de­termine it not, but only desire it may be considered,

1. Whether this Article lay not a necessity on the son to accuse his father, and pursue him to destruction, in case he should be an Incendiary, Malignant, or evil Instrument, as is in this Article described, which they conceive to be contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity?

2. Whether the swearing this Article, do not open a ready way to children and husbands that are sick of their fathers and w ves, by appeaching them of Malignancy, the letter to effectuate their un­lawful intentions and designes?

To these I should have only desired it may be considered,

1. Whether all penal Statutes in point of Treason and Fe­lony, open not as ready a way for children and husbands to be rid of their fathers and wives? and the danger of concealment be not a very fair Apology for the same; are they therefore contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity? Have they never heard of such wickednesse? know they not that there is an impossibility of fence against malicious accusations mischievously managed? Must there­fore these Statutes be voided as wicked, and the like be prevented for time to come?

2. Did not these learned men take the Oath of Allegiance? and therein sware, That they will to the best of their endeavour [Page 105]disclose and make known unto His Majesty, His Heirs and Suc­cessors, all Treasons, and Trayterous Conspiracies which they should know or hear of, to be against Him, or any of Them: May na­tural affection interdict this duty? or are natural Relations ex­empt from this discovery? may not mischievous men find open a ready way to appeal such as stand between them and their de­sires? or did these Gentlemens learning and loyalty lead them to conclude the Oath of Allegiance is against Religion, Nature and Humanity?

3. May one time make contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity, that kind of promise, which at another time, may be consistent therewithall? These Gentlemen pleaded the protesta­tion of the 5th. of May, 1641. as a bar to the swearing this Co­venant, and tell us often they sware that, and therein they sware in this Form of words; To my power, and as far as lawfully I may, I will oppose, and by all good meanes endeavour to bring to condigne punishment all such as shall either by force, practice, counsels or conspiracies, or otherwise, do any thing to the contra­ry of any thing in this present protestation contained: will they please to tell us whether these words be not as directly contrary to the fourth, as the fore-going promise of this protestation was unto the first Article of this Covenant? or doth not this Pro­testation lay as great necessity, and give as fair an occasion for the son to accuse the Father, and persue him to destruction; and so appear as much against Religion, Nature and Humanity, as doth the Solemn League and Covenant?

4. I should have prayed the judgment of these learned men on that Law prescribed by Moses to Israel, in Deut. 13.6, 7. 8, 9, 10. If thy brother, the son of thy Mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosome, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, &c. thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death; and af­terwards the hand of all the people, &c. and all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no mere so wickedly; did not this Law bind to the same act? give the same occasion? lay the same ne­cessity which is laid by this Article of the Covenant? [Page 106]And was it contrary to Religion, Nature and Huma­nity?

Did these Gentlemen think we; expect to be preferred by this notion of Policy? or if they suggested this exception by a spirit of Prelacy, will it not bespeak that Government prejudicial to the Civil State, which condemneth Conventicles in acts of piety, but admits Families, the Subjects houses, the places and natural affection, to be the protection of Treasonable, Seditious Conspi­racies?

But they adde against this Article, that it binds to suffering punishment by an arbitrary power, without Law or Merit, contra­ry to the liberty of the Subject declared for by the House of Commons. Let us, Sir, but read the words of the Covenant, and that will evidence a contradiction to the Parliaments Declaration, of the same nature with those we have before observed; the words are these, That they may be brought to publick Tryal, and receive condigne punishment, as the degree of their offences shall de­serve, or the Supreme Judicatories of both Kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge con­venient: If Sir, condigne punishment on publick Tryal, accor­ding to the degree of the offence, be without law or merit, and Judicatory, Supream Judicatory, be Arbitrary; High Courts of Justice, and their proceedings will be Just and Regular, and the liberty of the Subject; for I think them to be more Opposites, than the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant.

Unto the fifth Article of this Covenant, Oxford Exce­ptions to the fifth Article of the Covenant. they profess a readiness to confederate, but they pretend to a double Remora.

1. They do not see the happiness of such a blessed peace between the three Kingdoms, Ireland being at War within it self.

To which I should have said no more than this:

Gentlemen, where are your eyes, and what obstructs your sight? when you sware the Protestation, you sware, By all just and honourable wayes to endeavour to preserve the union and peace of the three Kingdoms, of England, Scotland and Ireland. [Page 107]Was not Ireland then at War within it self? Or have you forgot­ten that it was so? or is not the Peace now concluded by both Par­liaments, and confirmed by this Covenant, a greater happiness of settlement than was then obtained! Sure some strong passion acted these learned men, to make Mountains against the Cove­nant, what were Mole-hills wssen they swore the Protesta­tion.

But their second Remora is, That no peace can be firm and well-grounded, which is not bottomed on justice, whose proper and adequate act, is jus suum cuique, unless the respective Authori­ty, Power and Liberty of King, Parliament and Subject be pre­served full and entire.

To this I should say no more then this; Specifie the defect of this Covenant, as to these particulars; for I cannot read or understand, if they be not all secured by the same; Suggestions without plain Demonstration, do proclaim jealousie and preju­dice; but make no Argument or good Apology against required duty.

Unto the sixth and last Article, Oxford Exce­ptions to the sixth Article of the Covenant. being an Obligation of adherence to this Covenant against all opposition; they say no more then what must be expected, that untill they be satisfied in the Premises stated in the foregoing Articles of the Covenant, they could not su scribe to this Conclusion; which we must needs admit them, hoping that a more cool & serious survey of the Covenant, & second thoughts on their Exceptions thereunto, may satisfie their consciences, and lead them to bewail their unhappiness in throwing such stumbling blocks before their weak Brethren, under the Name and Authority of a Famous and Learned University; and for their groundless dissent and refusal of an enjoyed duty, relating to the Honour of God, Reformation and defenct of Religion, Honour and Happiness of the King, Peace and Safety of the Kingdoms, in a Solemn League and Covenant; which, Sir, we find, notwithstanding these so much admired Exceptions, approves it self lawful, in respect of the matter therein sworn to be preserved or pursued; and will the better stand under all defects and miscarriages in point of manner and form of making it; which is the next thing to be considered.