Saint Peters Bonds Abide, Treatise

Saint Peters Bonds Abide · Treatise

ΑΝΑΛΗΨΙΣ, OR Saint PETERS BONDS abide: FOR RHETORICK Worketh no RELEASE, Is evidenced in A ſerious and ſober conſideration of Dr. John Gauden's ſence and ſolution of the Solemn League and Covenant, SO FAR As it relates to the Government of the Church by Epiſcopacy.

By ZECH. CROFTON.

Joſh. 9. 19.

VVe have ſworne unto them by the Lord God of Iſrael; now therefore we may not touch them.

London, Printed for Ralph Smith, at the Bible in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange. 1660.

p. 1TO THE HONOURED Sir LAWRENCE BROMFEILD, Knight, and Colonel in LONDON.

Honoured Sir,

YOU have been pleaſed (in order to compoſure of our unhappy differences) to ſuggeſt unto a grave and learned Divine, a conſiderable caſe of conſcience Relating to Church-Diſcipline, (viz.) The conſiſtency of Epiſcopacy with the Solemn League and Covenant, and you have thereby produced his Reſolution unto the looſing of Saint Peters Bonds, as he is pleaſed to Entitle it: You may Sir, remember, it is Solomons experienced Rule, It is a ſnare (or ſtumbling ſtone) to devoure holy things, Pro. 20. 2….Prov 20:2and after vows to make enquiry: (How to keep or retract them (ſaith Mercer) for that, indeed, many times, the Reſolution proveth more entangling than the Obligation; I wiſh that this were not found the unhappy fate of Dr. Gawden his ſence and ſolution of the Covenant in point of Epiſcopacy.

Truly Sir, according to that little skill that I have in things of this nature, this Reſolution to your enquiry is ſo ſadly ſhipwrackt on the uncertainty of the object, in advertency of expreſſion and imbecillity of anſwer and Argument, thoſe three Rocks that p. 2lay-way conſcience-ſatisfaction; that it cannot arrive at its deſired haven; but notwithſtanding its Angelical voice will leave Saint Peter as faſt fettered as it found him: If Sir, I may do it without offence, I would make bold to diſcover it that ſome other attempt for Saint Peters reſcue may be undertaken.

Firſt, Uncertain propoſal of the object.Sir, there is not a greater danger to be ſhunned by a Caſuiſt, than a miſtake, or uncertain propoſal of the object, or Ratio formalis of the obligation ſcrupled and to be diſcharged, whereby the ſcrupulous conſcience doth eaſily ſtart from the moſt pinching Concluſions that are put upon it; and herein Sir, if I miſtake not, the Dr. is very unhappy; for he propounds the object, or Ratio formalis of the Covenant, under the general term Epiſcopacy; the which he well knoweth, is owned as an appellation common to all, and every the Governours of the Church,Acts 20. 28.Acts 20:28 who are in Scripture denominated Biſhops, and by good demonſtration Biſhop and Presbyter have been aſſerted to be ſynominous titles of Church-Officers, and are found to have been ſo uſed in the Primitive times of the Church, and Writings of the Fathers;The true ſence of Epiſcopacy conſiſtent with the Covenant. and in this ſence the Epiſcopacy▪ which he ſuppoſeth to be the object of the Covenant, intends only the Government of the Church by the Miniſters and Officers thereof, who may, and muſt in their ſeveral Aſſemblies (ordinis cauſâ) have a Preſident or Moderator to Regulate and diſpoſe all things which belong to order; as in all policy to the Chair belongeth; and if this be it he means by his Epiſcopacy, Primitive, Regular, Reformed, and paternal Epiſcopacy: which I could eaſily imagine when I obſerve the Emphaſis of his univerſal diſcretive All Epiſcopacy, page 9. and elſewhere oftenmentioned, and that in an oppoſition▪ to ſome Epiſcopacy abjured and fit to be extirpated; and that it is explained by the adjuncts, Reformed and Regulated as it ought to be, as page 8. and oppoſed to an Epiſcopacy the confeſſed Subject of abuſive exceſſes and defects not only in the execution of its authority, through the faults, and infirmities of ſome Biſhops, and their inſtruments; who poſſibly were not ſo worthy and good; or not ſo wiſe, and diſcreet, as became Chriſtian Biſhops, and Eccleſiaſtical Governours of Chriſts Church; but alſo in the very inconveniency of its conſtitution and Cuſtoms in England. p. 10. In p. 3both which he confeſſeth, page 21. there needeth an honeſt and ingenuous Reformation of Epiſcopacy, beyond the former exceſſive, or defective conſtitution, or execution of it: And more particularly by that Explication which is annexed in page 14. The efficacious conjunction of it with Presbyterie according to the Reduction of the most reverend Primate of Armagh, and the conſiderations of the Lord Verulam offered to King James: if I ſay this be the Epiſcopacy he means; I humbly conceive in his Book he doth ſudare de nugis, labour to little purpoſe; for ſo farre is any intelligent Covenanter from looking on their looking back, to the Primitive, Catholick, and Univerſal government, of this, or any other ancient Churches; to endanger the turning of them into Pillars of Apoſtacy, as Lots wife was into a Pillar of Salt, that they judge an arrival at it, to be their Zoar in their eſcape from Sodom; and hereof he might have aſſured himſelf by what page 22. he profeſſeth himſelf to know to have been the ſence of the Learned men in the late Aſſemby of Divines, and by Mr. Marſhal's Declaration that the Covenant was levelled at the Despoticum Tyrannicum Regimen; there are no Covenanters that know any thing of the true nature of Preſbytery, but they will embrace this Epiſcopacy as not only conſiſtent with, but the very complement of the Covenant as to that point and Article; and will confeſs this is not only the honeſt, but literal and complexive meaning of it, and with him will condemn them for rigid Bigots and virulent ſpirits, to be ſlighted, not ſtriven with, who conceive themſelves bound againſt ſuch a Primitive, Reformed, and Regular Epiſcopacy under ſuch a reduction as I conceive would prove the formal corruption of the Epiſcopacy covenanted againſt, and I hope he will finde few, very few ſuch Covenanters in England.

But if Sir, by Epiſcopacy he mean (as I muſt confeſs I am jealous he doth) that frame and fabrick by which the man of ſin was made manifeſt, did advance himſelf in the Temple of God,The vulgar and late acceptation of Epiſcopacy repugnant to the Covenant. above (not only all his fellow Miniſters or Biſhops) but even Magiſtrates, all that were called God; which was, by his appearance and exaltation, innovated into, and obtruded on the Churches of God in theſe Nations, on the fall of the Monks of Bangor, and was ſo exerciſed, that Anſelm (whom Laude p. 4ſucceeded, as in place, ſo in property, and almoſt power) did appear papa alterius mundi; wherein Biſhops as a ſpecies or kind of Miniſters different and diſtinct from Presbyters; and ſo Superior to them, not only in point of Order, but Office and Authority, together with all that Hierarchy by which it was executed; all which his terms do too plainly ſuggeſt when he ſpeaks of the Epiſcopacy which England ſometimes had; was lately deſproyed, the legal Epiſcopacy, pa. 19 an Epiſcopacy wherein the Biſhops are diſtinct from Presbyters, pag. 21. arrogate unto themſelves the ſole power of Ordaining Miniſters, and to be the chief Conſervators, Ciſterns, and Conduits of Eccleſiaſtical authority, and Miniſterial power. page 12. who have not only Precedency and Order, but paternal authority; page 18. and that not only over people, but their Paſtors; who are by this antitheſis fraternal with them, and ſo fillial to the paternal power of the Biſhops; and make up the paternal, fraternal, and filial unity of Biſhops, Presbyters, and people, pa. 5. Nay, in oppoſition to whom the ordinary Miniſter or Presbyter, is diveſted of all power, and degraded of all dignity among the people; and the Biſhop, as dignified above him, ſo diſtinguiſhed from him by his Lawn ſleeves, which is plainly ſuggeſted when he tells us, The people of England are not to be governed by their equals and inferiors, becauſe they are in black Coats. page 17. All theſe expreſſions, with many of the like nature, do ſeem to ſet up and point out ſuch an Epiſcopacy, as is not Primitive and Regular: And I ſay, if this be the meaning of his Epiſcopacy, as the word (in the vulgar acceptation by the too long appropriation of it to ſuch an unjuſt and Anti-chriſtian frame of Government) may be underſtood: Truly Sir, then I muſt be free to tell him the ſence and very Letter of the Covenant is clear againſt it, and binds the taker in terminis to the extirpation of Prelacy, that is to ſay, the Government by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, their Chancellors, and Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers depending on that Hierarchy: So that it is the thing, not its abuſe; the ſubject, not its adjuncts; the Fabrick, not its defects and exceſſes, is covenanted againſt, nor will the Covenant be accompliſhed, or the conſcience be ſatisfied by the removal of the pride, preſumption, p. 5dulneſſe, covetouſneſſe, and tyranny of Biſhops, whilſt the preheminence, prerogative, paternal power, and juridical authority, aſſumed by them as diſtinct from and above all other Miniſters of the Goſpel, as the only immediate Succeſſours of the Apoſtles, and enforced by their High Commiſſion and ſtarchamher with other imperial Courts, Officers, and proceedings are continued and eſtabliſhed; nor muſt he think by his Sophiſtical compariſon, to deceive and delude the conſcience, telling us, page 17, 18. That, they that Covenanted againſt Popery, cannot think they did abjure, or muſt abhorre all thoſe ſaving truths, and duties of Chriſtianity; which are mixed with Popery; for whatſoever is formal popery, though it be an Engliſh Maſſe or Altar, that, all that, though only that, muſt be abhorred; and I conceive it yet remains to be proved that the paternal authority of Epiſcopacy is a ſaving truth or Chriſtian duty, or not of the formality of prelacy, and that government covenanted againſt. It is no hard caſe of conſcience to reſolve whether a man may uſe the good and ſubſtantial materials of a deſtroyed Fabrick; but I conceive it an high fallacy, from thence to impoſe the very form reſolved againſt.

You ſee Sir at what uncertainty we are left, whilſt the object of the obligation is propounded under a general term, whoſe proper, primitive, and genuine ſignification, ſuggeſts one thing, and the vulgar and long-uſed acceptation ſuggeſts another: and our reſolution is darkned by the multitude of expreſſions, concluding ſometimes one, and ſometimes the other thing; which of theſe ſhall a conſcientious Covenanter embrace? You cannot Sir but know, the work of a Caſuiſt, is, to be full, and clear in the diſcovery of the Ratio formalis, thing or matter; concerning which the conſcience conceiveth it ſelf obliged; and that it is a great unhappineſs in an Interpreter, and much greater in a Caſuiſt, to reſolve obſcura per obſcuriora.

But, Sir, that I may teſtifie my willingneſs to underſtand him, and cement, what in me lieth, the ſad differences in the Church: Shall I intreat you, will pleaſe to provoke the Dr. and his Anti-covenant brethren, ſuch as ſeem to advance and promote an Epiſcopacy ſcrupled by Covenanters; to ſpeak out and clearly to declare, whether they will admit the removal of the Government p. 6by Arch-Biſhops, and that late Hierarchy; which he concludes, page 18 is dead, and muſt riſe in another quality; and (according to what is ſuggeſted in the Reduction by him urged) conſent to the eſtabliſhment of Congregational, Claſſical, Provincial, and National Aſſemb…ies, o… Synods of Church-Officers;Presbytarial Epiſcopacy admitted. Communi concilio Presbyteror…m, to debate and determine the affairs of the Church, and exerciſe all Acts of diſcipline and Eccleſiaſtick power: In each of which if there be Ignatius his Angel, Tertullian his Summus ſacerdos, or Armagh's Biſhop or Super-intendent, for order-ſake to call Aſſemblies, propound queſtions, gather ſuffrages, require Order and compoſure in audience, and debate, pronounce ſentence, and ſign Decrees, and to be fixed in that place, enjoying all the dignities thereto belonging, and to be diſtinguiſhed by ſome ſpecial denomination from his Chorepiſcopi or Colleagues; they ſhall not only enjoy my conſent (who I hope make conſcience of the Covenant) but alſo endeavour (which I think will not much need) that all the Covenanted Miniſters may joyne with them in a Petition to His Majeſty, that by a Synod (by His Majeſties Authority) called, it may be ſpeedily conſulted and concluded on; under which I doubt not but the Peace of the Church will be preſerved, and power, truth, and godlineſs promoted.

But if nothing will ſerve them but Biſhops, diſtinct in Office from Presbyters, and exerciſing over them a paternal authority; appropriating to themſelves the power of ordaining Miniſters, Domineering Prelacy refuſedand the ſucceſſion ro the Apoſtles, and the Juriſdiction before noted; we muſt intreat him to produce thoſe clear, pregnant, and conſtant beams of right reaſon, and true Religion, which ſhineth in the brightneſs and ſtability of Divine and Humane Laws; which may be the pillars of this truth, firm ſupports of duty, ſure bounds of obedience, and ſafe repoſe of conſcience in this point; greatly darkned by the many diſputes of Biſhops and Presbyters; Papiſts and Proteſtants; nay, by the poſitive aſſertions of both Papiſts and Proteſtant Divines, and determinations of Schoolmen, who have concluded Biſhops and Presbyters to be Miniſters ejuſdem ordinis, equal in Office and authority, and in this very caſe of government; all which his very Reduction propoſed doth not obſcurely ſuggeſt. Sir, the p. 7conſcience is by him confeſſed, to be more tender, than to be deluded with Sophiſtry, or ſilenced by a pretence of Regulation and Moderation, which intends no other, ſave a Reduction of Epiſcopacy to its priſtine and corrupt eſtate, not unto Preſbytery.

Thus Sir I have noted the firſt Rock, and the Doctor's unhappy daſhing againſt it; which muſt needs render ineffectual, whatever he after writeth.

The inadvertency of his expreſſions will appear no leſs evident,Inadvertency of expreſſion. than his ambiguous ſtate of the Scruple, and its reſolution; if we either obſerve its fierceneſs or falſehood: The fierceneſs of it is much manifeſted in thoſe multiplied invectives uttered againſt the Covenant and authority which did enjoyn it; and perſons who did compoſe it; in theſe and the like intemperate terms, a ſtratagem of State, a flag of Faction, an engine framed of purpoſe to batter down Epiſcopacy,Fierce expreſſions. p. 13. Covenanting complements, and Reformings of bungling Reformers, page 24. The petty compoſition of a few politick men, Subjects, not Princes, and very mean Subjects too, ſome of them, either as Lawyers or Miniſters, a great part of whom, I and others well know to be no very great Clerks, or Stateſmen, fitter for a Countrey cure, than to contrive Solemn Leagues and Covenants; whoſe heads, rather than their hearts; and their State correſpondencies, more than their conſciences brought forth the Covenant, pa. 11. The effect of Scottiſh importunities, Engliſh compliances, and Presbyterian inſolencies, page 5. brought forth by the Midwifery of Tumults, and Armies, engaged and enraged parties, and factions; whoſe wrath and policy were not probable to work the righteouſneſs of God; evil Angels turning our waters into blood, page 6, 7. Theſe and many the like Railing, Taunring, and Intemperate terms, much below the expected ſobriety of a ſo publickly profeſſed healer; yet as an evidence of his fury, he falſely chargeth the Covenant with moſt ſad and unbleſt effects, and to have been the cauſe of all the havocks in Church and State, improſperities, diſorders,Falſe charge. confuſions, contempts, wars, ſpoyles, bloodſhed, upon all eſtates, and degrees, contempt of Religion, and neglect of Sacraments, page 7. One of the great rocks p. 8for the King's ſhipwrack, no leſs than the Churches and States; and that it was watered with the King's blood. pag. 8. I cannot but wonder to finde Dr. Gawden thus audacter calumniare! for can any conſiderate Reader, or competent obſerver of the tranſactions of our Nations in theſe laſt years, reade theſe reproachful ſpeeches, and not conclude them a moſt poſitive and publick calumny? Let the Covenant it ſelf be conſidered, and can it, by reaſon of any tendency in it ſelf, be charged to be the proper cauſe of ſuch prodigious effects? Is it not the moſt fervent profeſſion of piety towards God, Loyalty to the King, and Juſtice towards men, that can be made? Is it not the moſt firm tie to Religion that can be faſtned? and the fulleſt ſecurity of all kinde of Intereſts, the prerogative of the King, the priviledges of Parliament, and Liberty of the Subject, which can be given? can any thing but ill-will repreſent to the world ſuch unbleſt effects as the natural products of it? and if ſome perſons engaged in it, have engaged in and acted ſuch horrid impieties, inhumane and barbarous actions, under the falſe cry of the Covenant, ſhall a man of juſtice, charge the baſtard-brood of ſuch prophaneneſs, to be the natural iſſue of ſo Solemn and Sacred an Oath!

But Sir, will not an obſervation of the time, when theſe ſad and unbleſt effects fell upon us, acquit the Covenant from being in the leaſt acceſſary unto the production of them? If my obſervation fail me not, and I be not miſtaken in my account, the throwing ſtools at the heads of the Biſhops in Scotland, Confuſion before the Covenant.the pulling down the Star-Chamber and High Commiſſion Courts (thoſe grand ſupports of Prelatical power) the taking away the Biſhops Votes and Seſſion in Parliament: The preparations againſt Scotland, (by Biſhop Peirce his Bellum Epiſcopale) the tumults about Lambeth, the impriſonment of the Biſhops in the Tower, the tumults about Whitehall and Weſtminſter, with his late Majeſties departure from the two Houſes, the ſetting up his Majeſties Standard, the alarums of War, with many battels and blood-ſhed; the violence of the vulgar againſt the Liturgy, Croſſes, and Altars, with all that confuſion and diſorder which attended our firſt unhappy differences, are of ſome years date before the Covenant was impoſed; or ſo much as deviſed, or digeſted; all p. 9which were not only begun, but carried to ſome conſiderable progreſs before it had its being; how then could theſe be the black ſhadows of its appearing and prevailing in England?

Some have obſerved, that from the time of the taking of the Covenant, ſucceſs fell on the ſide of the Parliament, and things did thenceforward grow into a tendency to peace, and reſted not untill it effected the Reſolves that His Majeſties Conceſſions were ſatisfactory and ſufficient ground of peace: And here let it be noted that it was ſo far from being watered with the King's blood, that when the debate (relating to His Majeſty) engaged the Conteſts in the Houſe, which run the Armies on thoſe high inſolencies againſt the Parliament, as to pull out violently 120. Members, who in conſcience of the Covenant, did purſue and ſtruggle for His Majeſties Reſtitution with honour and happineſſe: Covenant conteſt againſt the King's death.And the Covenant was by that perfidious pack openly declared uſeleſs, an Almanack out of date, and violated with the higheſt impiety imaginable, to make way to that execrable murther of His moſt Sacred Majeſty: Nay Sir, can the clamours of the Covenant which were ſo loud in Preſs and Pulpit, by the Miniſters of London in their Repreſentation to the Armies at Saint Albans (before they perpetrated their horrid deſignes) in their publick Vindication Printed with their names ſubſcribed, witneſſing to the World the inconſiſtency of that Barbarous proceeding with the Solemn League and Covenant, be ſo far out of the Doctor's remembrance, as to charge the Covenant (ſo Eminently approved the pillar of witneſs againſt it) to have been the Rock of the King's ſhipwrack, and watered with his blood: Your Caſuiſt was willing to have all the world to know**Reprinting his own proteſt againſt it. his innocency as to that inhumane wickedneſs; methinks Sir, he ſhould not quite over-look others no leſs innocent than himſelf.

Moreover Sir, many that are no Rigid Bigots, or virulent ſpirits,The more likely cauſe of our late confuſions. and have conſidered the concurrence of affairs in this Church and Kingdom, think, that without breach of charity or ſobriety, they may conclude the arrogancy of Prelates, the alterations of publi…k worſhip, the innovated Ceremonies and Superſtitions, the Oath (with its etcaetera) binding to Canonical obedience, the excommunications, baniſhments, ſtigmatizing, Confiſcations, impriſonments, and high Commiſſion-Cenſures p. 10againſt pious Non-conformists, with the ſilencing and ſuſpending painful, powerful, and pious Preachers, with the Arbitrary, Illegal impoſition of the new Service-Book in Scotland, look much more like the natural parent, and proper cauſe of our late Confuſions, Commotions, War, and Bloodſhed, then doth the Solemn League and Covenant; but I intend not to retort or recriminate.

I ſhall Sir, leave wiſe men to judge, how unlikely a courſe it is, by ſuch unadviſed expreſſions, to ſatisfie conſcience; which is ſo tender and tickle, that all offences ſhould be avoided; paſſion is not only a perturbation to the mind, but alſo a prejudice to the underſtanding of what is propounded; the anſwer had need be clear, and arguments convincing, that follow ſuch provocations unto prejudice; which would make a ſober (much more a ſcrupulous) conſcience turn aſide and reade no further; when conſcience is ſo tender that reaſon is ready to pinch it into paſſion, how little need is there to provoke it by Railings and reflexion of juſt miſcarriages? (much leſs unjuſt calumnies) Though Ironies and Satyrs may become Oratours in reproof; they beſeem not Caſuiſts in the reſolution of conſcience-doubts.

But I proceed to conſider his anſwer and Arguments,The imbecillity of his anſwer and arguments the third Rock of conſcience-reſolution. purpoſing, by Gods grace, to yield to the power of Reaſon that is in them, though they come under ſo great diſadvantages as have been noted.

His Anſwer is as himſelf ſuggeſteth, double, indirect, and direct.

His firſt Anſwer is indirect, an oblique ſtroak at the whole body of the Covenant,His indirect anſwer conſidered. which work, how prudently it is undertaken, conſidering the univerſal obligation of the Covenant on all men f…om His Sacred Majeſty, to the meaneſt Subject, let wiſe men judge? and how proper to him; who (if my information faile not) is himſelf engaged in it. It is indeed a notable piece of policy under pretence of Reconciling the Covenant in one Article to Epiſcopacy, to invalidate the whole, and expoſe it to vulgar contempt; but if it be ſinful, let it go: His Rhetorick is Angelical, but let us try the ſtrength of his Reaſons, unto the looſing of St. Peters bonds.

p. 11The main ſtrength of what he doth ſuggeſt againſt the Covenant,The general ſcope of his arguments. lieth in the miſcarried Circumſtances which do relate unto the impoſing, and taking of it; (viz.) its defect in point if impoſing power; the terrour and tumults with which it was enforced; the policy and humour from whence it did ariſe; and the novel…y or unacquaintedneſſe of it as to our Engliſh Laws and Conſtitutions, or the like: Unto all which I ſhall only deſire the Dr. on ſerious and ſecond thoughts, to give a candid, clear, rational, and Scriptural reſolve, to this general caſe of conſcience; (viz.) if an Oath, Vow, or Covenant, containing in it matter good and lawful (though not neceſſary and poſitive duty) be impoſed by fraude (as was that of the Gibeonites) or force, and factions, Army, and tumults (as that of Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar) without any formal authority, other than a mans or peoples own voluntary Act and ſubmiſſion, which is new unto, and unacquainted with the Laws and Conſtitutions accuſtomed in the place, and to the people, be by reaſon of any, or all theſe miſcarried Circumſtances, void and null? I am much miſtaken if he croſs not the common reſolution of Divines and Caſuiſts, if he conclude the affirmative; but let us conſider his ſuggeſtions ſingly, and ſo we ſhall beſt try their ſtrength.

And his firſt on-ſet begins with an I might ſhrewdly batter the Covenant, Firſt argument, the Covenants defectiveneſs as to authority. page 6.and ſo he aſſaults it with that, which (I muſt conſeſs) is indeed a battering Ram; and being admitted, will endanger to beat down all that hath been done in this Kingdom ſince 1641. arraigning, cenſuring, and condemning all the proceedings of the two Houſes of Parliament; in which, I ſhall leave his prudence and diſcretion to be judged, by ſuch, as are ſenſible, how far His Majeſties Honour, the Kingdoms ſatiſfaction, and eſtabliſhment in the deſired peace, is endangered by ſo much as a diſpute thereof: But the ſtrength of it lieth in this, the def…ctiveneſs of (and ſo the invalidity of the Covenant) as to any lawful, conſtant, or compleat authority; capable to binde the Sub…ects, and people of England, in any Court of Con…cience or Judicature, in which, nothing can have any permanent bond, or tie in Law, except Gods Word; as the vow of a ſervant, ſon, daughter or wife, &c.

p. 12This I muſt confeſs is a fierce aſſault, and ſpecious argument; yet methinks I finde a Covenanter fortified againſt its force, by the Wool-ſacks of theſe conſiderations.

Firſt,Anſwer to it. The The two Houſes of Parliament (and thoſe two had more than ordinary power) are co-ordinate, and ſharers in the Legiſlation of England; and ſo a conſtant, lawful authority: It is Sir, worth you obſervation, how warily in p. 18. your Caſuiſt binds the King, to protect and preſerve his Epiſcopacy, but barres His change of it, without the counſel and deſire of the two Houſes whom he judgeth Propitious to it.

Secondly. This Covenant was ordered by the Parliament during their Seſſion: And although I will not determine, that an Order or Ordinance of one, or both Houſes, can have the force, and permanent tie of a law (which yet among us will admit a diſpute by the ableſt Lawyers, and many purchaſers will plead for with vigour) yet I think, it will not be ordinarily denied, that it may lay the Subjects under a permanent bond; and I conceive, theſe are terms very different; that is a bond on Conſcience, which is not a Law and Tie in Judicature: Orders of Parliament, directing an Act preſently to be executed, will not I hope be denied obedience; or the execution be voided by the after-diſſolution of it, eſpecially where it is in its own nature permanent and abiding. An Oath is in it ſelf, naturâ Rei, a permanent bond; once laid it ever binds; a Parliament are a power ſufficiently compleat to impoſe and enjoyn it; if they ſee cauſe to bring a Colledge or Corporation under any ſpecial Oath, by an Order during their Seſſion, I hope no Engliſhman will queſtion their Authority; nor Divine deny the Obligation of the Oath; nor the one or other determine this tie to be diſcharged, when the Parliament is diſſolved.

Thirdly, The ſuppoſed defect hath been ſince ſupplied; and His Majeſties conſent or aſſent fully expreſſed, by His ſwearing the ſame Solemn League, and by Oath promiſing His Royal aſſent to all Acts and Ordinances enjoyning the ſame; and by His Royal Declaration of the 16 ^th of Auguſt, 1650. declaring His full perſwaſion of the juſtice and equity of every the Heads and Articles of the Solemn League and Covenant; and ſo far, p. 13juſtifying the taking of it by His Subjects, that He graciouſly profeſſeth to know no friends but the friends of the Covenant; and no enemies but the enemies of the Covenant: Hereby, whatever defect was in the firſt impoſing of it, is fully made up to faſten it on the people now it is taken; ſo that by reaſon of this ſubſequent Act, I may ſay▪ if by Moſes he will be judged, to Moſes he ſhall go; and admitting his parallel (which ſome doubt, will not in this caſe ſquare) if the Father, Maſter, Husband, in the day that he heareth the vow of the Wife, Child, or Servant, and hold his peace, (contradict it not) much more if He juſtifie, allow, and commendit, as His moſt Sacred Majeſty, hath done, on moſt ſerious and deliberate though in a moſt publique and ſolemn Declaration, it ſhall ſtand, and be eſtabliſhed.

But Sir, ſuppoſe the Dr. can pull down this defence, and manage his battery, ſo as to make a breach on the Covenant; yet before he enter, I muſt ſound a parlee with him; and deſire him to tell us whether the quod fieri non debuit, factum valet, pleaded to defend the wanton Baptiſme of Children, and haſty Baptiſme of Women, be not more really pleadable in our caſe: To make the worſt of it, a tumultuous Aſſembly convene, and come before us with ſword and Scepter, and ſay they are a Parliament, and have lawful, conſtant, and compleat authority, to command us; and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us; and ſilly, inconſiderate we, are not ſo well skill'd in politicks, or acquainted with the conſtitutions of our Countrey, to detect their fallacy, but think all authority is within thoſe walls, and obedience muſt be yielded to what is there commanded, and ſo we are beguiled into the Oath; May we thence cry out A Cheat? and ſo caſt off the Covenant? and conclude it cannot binde? I doubt ſuch Doctrine embraced, will expoſe us to a three yeares Famine.

His firſt battery was ſo fiercely made, that it recoileth with a more than ordinary Rumour; and makes him enforce it, pa. 6. with an I might Eccho (as indeed he hath, for I find no certain ſound in what he ſaith) the violence and noiſe of thoſe times in which it was hatched in England, and brought forth by p. 14the midwifry of tumults, and Armies, of engaged, yea, enraged parties and factions; All which, it is well known, was not ſo great or loud, but that the Lords and Commons in Parliament, the Commiſſioners of the Kirk and Kingdom of Scotland, Violence of times.with an Aſſembly of Grave and Learned Divines, did after Solemn Humiliation, and ſeeking God, ſerious conſultation, and ſober debates, digeſt and determine the Covenant; and both matter and form doth beſpeak it to have been no raſh or prepoſterous product of fancy: But ſuppoſe the worſt; will the violence of the times, put a nullity and non-obligation on the Oath? how comes the ſentence to be ſo ſevere againſt Zedekiah? He hath despiſed the Oath, and broken the Covenant, he ſhall not eſcape, Ezek. 17. 18. Was not this Oath extorted by Armies without, and tumults within? and yet is it ſo auſterely binding? whatever Turks, Papiſts, or Politicians ſay, ſhall a Chriſtian and Proteſtant ſuggeſt a nullity of the Oath, becauſe of the violence of the times in which it was taken?

His next ſuggeſtion is a ſound no leſs uncertain; he ſaith he might urge the novelty and partiality of the Covenant as to the Engliſh Laws and Genius: His third indirect anſwer to the Covenant.That he might, and might when he hath urged it, explain it; for the matter of it is neither new, nor partial; it hath been often heard, and endeavoured in England; in the very point of Epiſcopacy, the removal of Englands Hierarchy hath been ſued for from**Wi…neſs Dr. White's Epiſtle to Lawde before his Treatiſe of the Sabbath. Queen Elizabeths time, downward unto this day: and the Covenant ſecures all Intereſts without partiality; his ſurmiſe of forraign influence, inv…ntion, and obtruſion, calls for proof; and then it will but little relieve him; for an Oath enforced by forraign Con…ueſt, or couzenage; new to the Nation, and contrary to its Laws, binds the conſcience; and the ſuppoſed contrariety of the Law, is of no force to them, who conclude a power in the Parliament to put a period to thoſe Laws; and a Solemn Oath or Covenant ſworne by the Legiſlators, and by them put on the people, ſeem to be the moſt full diſcharge of all ſeeming-contrary Laws that can be imagined; eſpecially when the Royal aſſent is publiquely given to it.His fourth ſuggeſtion in his indirect anſwer

He proceeds, It might ſeem odious, to reflect upon the Covenant, as to the effects, and unbleſt conſequences, which like black ſhadows, have attended its appearing p. 15and prevailing in England; what havocks improſperities, &c. as before we have noted: This Reflection I confeſs, cannot but ſeem odious; but not to the Covenant, unleſs theſe ſad effects, and unbleſt conſequences, be found to attend it, as its proper brood and natural iſſue, not accidental ſequels; produced by its genuine tendency to them, not by wicked mens reluctancy to order and piety, or perfidy as to what they had covenanted; but the odium will of its own accord reflect on him who is a Covenanter, and yet expoſeth his Solemn League and Covenant to vulgar ſcorn and contempt; who is a man of juſtice and ſobriety, and yet calumniateth the Covenant with thoſe ſad effects which had their being and progreſs before the Covenant it ſelf. Sure he dreams, that ſeeth the ſhadow, before the ſubſtance is in being; and who is a Divine deteſting the plea of ſucceſs as the Judge or Rule of any cauſe, and yet maketh it the meaſure of the Solemn League and Covenant.

Nor can his next ſuggeſtion be conſidered unto the encreaſe of his credit; 5th Suggeſtion in his indirect anſwer. p. 7.in which he tells us, He will not inſiſt on the bafflings of the Covenant, before it was adult or many yeares old; how it was ſoon made a Nehuſhtan, and reduced to nothing, by counter and croſs engagements after it had ſerved as one of the great Rocks for the King's ſhipwrack, and been water'd with the King's blood, &c.

Truly Sir, had I been at your Doctors elbow when he wrote this, I would have adviſed him to have been ſo far from inſiſting, that he ſhould not have inſerted this, which he calls Baffling of the Covenant: For Sir, will not every one cry ſhame, that ſhall hear him ſay the Covenant was one of the great Rocks which ſhipwrackt the King? and the Covenant was watered with the King's blood? Who can conſider the King's reluctancy to the Covenant was not ſo much as inſerted into His charge, nor once taken notice of by Bradſhaw, amongſt thoſe many reaſons by him produced, to juſtifie that moſt execrable Sentence pronounced againſt Him? Who obſerveth the Reſolves of the Parliament, that His Majeſties Conceſſions (though He refuſed the Covenant) were ſatisfactory? and that untill the faithful Covenanters were pulled out of the Houſe by military violence, and the Band of the Covenant broken by the raging luſts of p. 16ſome proud perjured Apoſtates, there neither was nor could be the leaſt proceeding againſt His Moſt Sacred Majeſty, and yet conclude Him ſhipwrackt by the Covenant? becauſe ſome that had taken the Covenant did perpetrate that wickedneſs, will any Rules of Juſtice or Religion charge it on the Covenant? becauſe the Covenant was violated by force, ſuppreſſed by power, and ſlighted by policy, was it therefore vacated? when? by whom? or with what Arguments of Right reaſon, or Religion, was it ever bafled? was not its vigour made viſible by the London Miniſters Repreſentation and Ʋindication? and its bond on conſcience made legible by the Lancaſhire and Cheſhire plea for Non-ſubſcribers? and the teſtimonies of the Miniſters in the ſeveral Counties of England, publiſhed with their names ſubſcribed, and indeed Imprinted by the invaſion and divaſtation of Scotland? the Sequeſtrations and Sufferings even unto impriſonment and death of many in England, purſuing His Majeſties reſtitution on the account of the Covenant? How can the Doctor confeſs, Doubtleſſe the ſence of the Covenant hath lately quickned many mens conſciences in their allegiance to the King, ſo as to bring Him (as David) home with infinite joy and triumph, page 25. and yet here complain that it was ſo eaſily vacated in point of its expreſs Loyalty for the King's preſervation? If it were ever vacated, when, or how was it renewed and re-inforced? If I may ſpeak it without vanity, had not the firm bond of the Covenant vigorouſly contended in the point of Loyalty, againſt the violent powers which bare it down, His late Majeſties Martyrdom had not broken forth with ſuch luſtre; not His now Majeſty (whom God long preſerve) been reſtored to that eſtate of Honour in which we now enjoy Him; ſo that the Antecedent of this ſuggeſted Argument will be moſt poſitively denied.

But if we ſhould admit it, I cannot but wonder to hear a Divine ſay and inferre upon it; If it were ſo eaſily vacated in point of Loyalty, I do not ſee, how it can be ſo binding againſt Epiſcopacy: I think it to be no good Logick, and worſe Divinity, from ſome mens evaſion, and violation, to infer a vacation and non-obligation; or from a vacation of it in one point, to infer its non-obligation as to others; ſin, indeed is apt, but it muſt not be allowed to engender ſin; by Gods grace gradual p. 17violation ſhall not effect in me a total rejection of the Covenant.

His ſixth ſuggeſtion ſeems indeed to be of more force than the former (viz. 6th Suggeſtion in his indirect anſwer. p. 8.) The Covenant (if ſo interpreted) muſt needs grate ſore upon, and pierce to the quick thoſe former lawful Oaths, which had prepoſſeſſed the ſouls and conſciences of most of us in England; not only of Subjects, as thoſe of Allegiance and Supremacy, beſides that of Miniſterial, Canonical obedience to our lawful Superiours, but even the conſcience of the late King, as bound by his Coronation-Oath, &c. From which Oaths, as we know no abſolution, ſo neither can there be any ſuperfetation of ſuch a contradictory vow and Covenant without apparent perjury: To all which I offer to conſideration, That the diſſatisfaction of His late Majeſty of Bleſſed Memory, (and in nothing more bleſſed, than in the conſcience He made of the Oath of God upon Him, and the charge He hath left His now glorious Majeſty, That if God brought Him to His own Right on hard conditions, He ſhould be careful to performe what He ſhould promiſe) that is now beyond diſpute; and His Majeſty that now is, not only free from thoſe Fetters which reſtrained His Royal Father, but alſo is engaged in the ſame League and Covenant, and this ſuppoſed contradiction caſt out of doors; and as to the contradiction of the Covenant to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, non conſtat, it appeares not; nor would it ever (as it hath done) have quickned the hearts of ſome, to ſuffer for, and to ſtruggle under their Loyalty, untill His Majeſties Honourable Reſtitution, if it were ſo repugnant to them: Let its contradiction in this point be noted, and we ſhall ſpeak to it: and as to that of Canonical obedience to our lawful Superiors, its contradiction is ſuggeſted with an If it be ſo interpreted; Let the interpretation be cleared, before the contradiction be concluded and argued; for if that Oath did bind an obedience to Biſhops as inveſted with paternal authority, and as a diſtinct and ſuperior order of Miniſtry, and its unexplained etcaetera included more; a grating upon, and piercing to the quick this Oath, was no other but duty; and then the Argument is of no more force, ſave to ſpeak the fretting of their ſpirits, who fooliſhly ſware they know not what, and now deſire to maintain it, more for fancy, than p. 18conſcience; for it is not yet proved that ſuch are lawful ſuperiors in Church or State,

His ſeventh Anſwer or Argument, is ab incommodo, the inconvenience (which muſt be very great and viſible if it diſcharge an Oath) And here he tells us, It muſt needs run us upon a great Rock of not only Novelty but Schiſme, &c. unto which I deſire Sir, you will pleaſe to obſerve

1. The loſs we are at by the uncertainty of the object; he urgeth this Argument with his univerſal diſcretive, all Epiſcopal order and government. We muſt Sir, have a clear Notion of Epiſcopal Order and Government, before we can with care ſhun the Schiſm; nor is it explained to us by the general terms of Practice and Judgement of the Catholick Church in all ages and places till of later dayes; for we know, that ſuperiority and paternal power over other Biſhops and Miniſters did too ſoon appear, and too univerſally ſpread after the Apoſtles days, unto the advancement of the man of ſin, though it prevailed not without great reluctancy, and its removal hath been aimed at and endeavored by the Reformation.

Again, muſt we take it for granted, that conformity is eſſential to communion with the Church? and agreement in diſcipline unavoidally neceſſary to union? Certai…ly if ſo, we muſt make the very form of Diſcipline an Article of our Creed: And truly Sir, the jus divinum, or Apoſtolical inſtitution of the form he ſeems to plead for, lieth too much in the dark for ſuch a concluſion; and therefore the moſt himſelf tells us of, it is, That it looks like an immediate inſtitution of Chriſt, preceptive and explicite, or tacite and exemplary, pag. 13. but he knows not whether; yet well knows, ſimile non est idem; and therefore he here calls it but an ancient tradition and univerſal obſervation; and then the 34th Article of the Church of England ſecureth us from this Rock of Schiſme, whilſt it teacheth us,39 Articles of Religion in the Convocation, held 1562. It is not neceſſary that traditions be in all places one and utterly alike, &c. In Politicks (we well know) different forms of Adminiſtration are conſiſtent with union in the ſame Kingdome, and Communion in the ſame Government; It is no ſtrange thing to ſee Corporations in England governed by their twelve Jurors, without a Mayor and Court of Aldermen, but it would be thought very ſtrange from thence to p. 19charge them with ſedition! and it muſt be a jus divinum, and immediate inſtitution, not Apoſtolical tradition, or Univerſal obſervation, muſt bar us from the priviledges, any more than the dictated properties common to all policy.

Moreover Sir, if this form of Diſcipline (which he noteth ſome few Reformed Churches of later dayes want, though they do not contemne, but approve and venerate in others) be ſo neceſſary a Nerve, that the abjuration and excluſion of it runs us on ſuch a Rock of Schiſme, I ſee not how thoſe Churches (though their want be through neceſſity of times, and diſtreſs of affairs, put upon them) can be owned in the union of the Catholique Church; for eſſentials unto union muſt not only be reverenced in others, but enjoyed by themſelves.

It is Sir, worth enquiry, what he means by the Catholique Church; for beſides the vulgar appropriation of it to Rome, and affection our late Prelates had to that term, his Note That the aboliſhing of Epiſcopacy, is no ſmall wall of partition newly ſet up to keep all Papists from due Reformation, makes me jealous the Caſſandrian accommodation is yet in the Biſhops intention and endeavour; upon which they would not put that reproach, ſcandal, ſcruple, or affront, as to be without Biſhops of paternal authority; but if ſo, happy is that Church whoſe Reformation carrieth them furtheſt off Romes Superſtition, in diſcipline, and worſhip, as well as doctrine.

His eighth Anſwer or Suggeſtion is a Rhetorical ſwada, and inſinuating plea, which hath wholly loſt its force by the uncertainty of the object: If conſcience be erroneous, we ſhall eaſily grant that it is equal, and ingenuous, Loyal, and Religious, to red…ce and confine it; Erroneous conſcience muſt be rectified.which yet muſt not, and will not be ſtraiter than the proper and genuine ſence of the Covenant will admit; but as for that extravagant, diſloyal, unlawful, enormous, and Schiſmatical ſence, againſt which he declaimes, in which it could neither be lawfully taken, nor honeſtly kept; it muſt be determined by an Explication of his All Epiſcopacy, and full demonſtration of a ſence ſo qualified, before there can be any more ſtrength in his Rhetorick, than in his Reaſons: I muſt Sir, be free to tell him, the Covenant doth expreſſely binde againſt the Fabrick, and very form of the late Hierarchy in England, not its abuſes, excceſſes, or defects only: though not p. 20againſt the uſe of any thing which was good, and fit to be uſed in the ſucceeding form to be eſtabliſhed; nor do I underſtand it to be ſuch an unreaſonable and irreligious (Ametrie) tranſport for men to Covenant againſt all the right uſe of things that are good (but not neceſſary) becauſe of the abuſe incident to them, as he doth ſuggeſt, though the Covenant is not guilty of ſuch obligation: But more of this in his direct Anſwer.

Having aſſaulted the Covenant with his fierce battery, and alarummed it with his frightful Ecchoes,The Covenant authority proved; not only pretended by examples in the old Teſtament. he proceeds to level to the ground all thoſe faire, but fallacious pretences (as he deems them) drawn to fortifie the Covenant from Scriptures examples, wherein the Jewes ſometimes ſolemnly renewed Covenant with God, &c. And the main and only Morterpiece he lets flie, is, That it was that expreſs Covenant which God himſelf had firſt made with them in Horeb and Mount Sinai, punctually preſcribed by God to Moſes, and by Moſes (as their Supream Governour or King) impoſed upon them; this they ſometime renewed after they had broken it by their Apoſtacy to falſe and ſtrange gods: Unto the enforcement whereof, we muſt deſire the Doctor to demonſtrate, That the Law of Moſes or Covenant in Horeb was not only the Rule and Dictate of what matter they ſhould Covenant, but the expreſs Covenant which was, or did conſiſt in the exact recital, and Repetition of that Law of the ten Commandements, as the very form thereof; ſo as that they never varied or altered it, according to their ſpecial defections, in the particular points of their l…ves; and that this was the formal Covenant between God and the people in the times of Joſhuah, and before Iſraels defection on from God; or that this was the Covenant between God, the people, and King, and between the people and their King, in the dayes of Jehoiadah: Or that this was the expreſs Covenant made in the point of the Sabbath, and the putting away ſtrange wives in the times of Nehemiah. Theſe ſeveral occaſions, and ſpecial obligations, do beſpeak them to have been Covenants, conformed as to the matter of them, to ſome part of the ten Commandements; but as to their forme and manner of expreſſion, to have been ſquared by themſelves.

p. 21But whatever was the matter or forme of their Covenanting, I imagine it will not be denied, that the taking or renewal thereof was their own political Act, done by their own will and power at the time, and on the occaſion their own condition did require and dictate; and ſo our Covenant (warranred for matter by the Word of God) is by their example juſtified, to have been a pious and prudent action within our own power to performe; though for the form of it, it be not any Divine dictate, or Soveraign preſcription, yet better to be eſteemed, than the petty compoſition of a few politick men: Nor is there any ſtrength in that; we were not Apoſtatized to falſe and ſtrange gods; unleſs he will affirm no defection ſhort of Apoſtacy from the true, to falſe gods, is a ſufficient ground or occaſion on which to renew Covenant; which I think neither right reaſon or Religion will allow; ſhall not gradual defections be reſtrained, and total Apoſtacy be ſuperſeded by a ſeaſonable Solemne League and Covenant? Surely then Joſhuah was too prepoſterous, in working Iſrael into Covenant with God, on a jealouſie or rational conjecture of their future Apoſtacy; and had England no need to Covenant, when they were poſting in doctrine, eſpecially in worſhip and diſcipline, to Romes Superſtition and Tyrannie? Can any man conſider the corruptions continued in England ſince the Reformation, and ſo defended, that nothing but a ſoveraign Remedy could remove them? nay, the very Retrogradations of the Reformation, by a return of many expelled Rites, and Prelatical power, and ſay, becauſe ſhe yet owned the true God, ſhe had no need to Covenant? If covenanting be an Act within mans own power and choice; and defection from God and his wayes inchoated or ſuſpected be a juſt ground and occaſion, Englands covenanting is fully fortified by Scripture and Reaſon, and the pretences thereof no way found fallacious.

His laſt Suggeſtion in his indirect Anſwer is of no force; for admit that there is no precept or pattern for ſuch a Covenant in all the New Teſtament (which directs us as Chriſtians, and leaveth us to the D…ctates of Nature, and diſcoveries of the Old Teſtament, in more publique and political Acts which concern us as a Kingdome, or Church National) or in the ſucceeding ages of the Church: Will it therefore follow, that ſuch covenanting p. 22is ſinful? the Primitive Churches never were of ſuch extent in the enjoyment of ſuch power, under ſuch publique defections, and in ſuch capacitie of covenanting as we have been. Muſt we enquire what hath been done in the Chriſtian Churches, to do that and no more, without regard to what may be done, the condition of the Church requiring it? may not the very Ligue de Saint in France, and Oath et caetera in England, though ſinful in their matter, be good Spurres and Directions in Chriſtian-policy? May not the ſame means uſed to corroborate impiety, be lawfully and prudentially uſed to ſtrengthen true Religion and Reformation? Why may not Popiſh policy teach Proteſtants to combine by Covenant, as Proteſtant piety and prudence did dictate to them a Confirmation in Religion by Chatechiſing? Courſes common to men are not to be condemned, becauſe uſed by wicked men to wicked ends.

None Sir, do deny the Covenant made in Baptiſme to be the only new evangelical Covenant tò all Chriſtians, broken by wilful and preſumptuous ſins, and renewed by repentance, and the participation of the Lords Supper: But it ſeems unto me a ſtrange tranſport of ſo grave and ſerious a Divine, to oppoſe it unto the Solemn League and Covenant (that piece of policy, rather than piety, Baptiſmal Covenant, no bar to the Solemne League and Covenant.as he is pleaſed to term it) The inconſiſtency of them I muſt confeſs is not to me viſible; ſure I am Baptiſmal Vows are no bar, but may be provocations to Solemn covenanting to and with God; Let the matter of this Covenant be exactly ſcanned, and if it be in any one Article found repugnant to, or different from the Covenant made in Baptiſm, we will renounce the whole: I hope it will not be denyed, that Baptized Nations and Churches may (in their publique and politique capacities) renew and amplifie that Covenant which was made in Baptiſme: And truly Sir, the Solemn League and Covenant ſeems to me ſo little to differ from our Baptiſmal Covenant, that it is no hard matter to reſolve it into thoſe three grand Heads we are (inſtructed) were promiſed in our names when we were Baptized; and then all the difference will be in this; the Baptiſmal Covenant was perſonal and private; this publique and politique. p. 23But I pray let us note his ſpecification of the difference he ſuggeſteth, and the Reaſons of this inconſiſtency he urgeth; which he ſuppoſeth to be a foreign, crying out How vaſtly different from this Sacred covenant this late piece of policy, more than piety is; and how little the true Covenant of a Chriſtian binds him by his Baptiſme or Repentance, or the Euchariſt againſt all Epiſcopal government, I leave all ſober-minded Chriſtians to judge. Truly Sir, his univerſal particle All, may make ſomething look like a vaſt difference, if we could but underſtand the ſpecies he would pitch upon, as excepted by his diſcretive term; but the uncertainty of the object is that we cannot but ſtumble at in all the concluſions of his ſuggeſted anſwers: Methinks ſuch an out-cry of vaſt difference ſhould have been warranted by a clear antitheſis; Oppoſites cannot appear but by their oppoſition; and yet he ſpecifies no one Article different from our Baptiſmal Covenant; but ſophiſtically evades with an How little do Baptiſmerepentance, or the Euchariſt, bind againſt all Epiſcopal government: Theſe may Sir, very little binde againſt it, and yet the Covenant and they be at no vaſt difference; for the queſtion is not, how little the true Covenant in them agitated binds againſt all Epiſcopal government; but how much it binds to any? He is the firſt Divine I have found to plead our Baptiſme as the bond of Canonical obedience, and defence of Epiſcopacy; I never did imagine Diſcipline and order to be the expreſs poſitive condition of Baptiſme, and the Chriſtian-Covenant thereby made qua Chriſtian, the only new Evangelical Covenant; but eſpecially this ſpecies of it, Epiſcopacy. I hope his jus divinum will be made as clear as the Doctrine of the Trinity, whil'ſt it is and muſt be owned as the abſolute condition of Baptiſme, and nerve of union with the Church: Yet Sir, give me leave to tell the Doctor, if the late Hierarchy or Epiſcopacy of England (which he ſeems to advance as the late honour of the Miniſtry, and encouragement of Learning and Religion) be (as on an eaſie diſcuſſion it may be) found to be of the pomps and vanities of this wicked world; we are not only a little, but very much bound againſt it; for our God-fathers and God-mothers did promiſe in our behalf, That we ſhould forſake them, as the Devil and all his works; and then he may well imagine, all ſober-minded p. 24Chriſtians muſt judge, there is a vaſt difference between Baptiſme and ſuch Epiſcopacy, and that he is acted with a ſtrong zeal that will by our Baptiſme binde unto it, who yet declared it to be but a tradition and univerſal obſervation.

But he addes a reaſon to enforce it, and that is, Since both the power of ordaining Miniſters, and by them to conſecrate and celebrate both Sacraments, Of the power of ordination by Biſhops.was ever derived from, and by Biſhops of the Church, as the chief Conſervaters, Ciſterns, and Conduits of all Eccleſiaſtical authority, and Miniſterial power, from the very Apoſtles the firſt Biſhops of the Church, Acts 1, &c. But Sir, is it determined and agreed on without controverſie, that the power of ordination was ever derived by and from Biſhops (in his ſence, paternal Biſhops) above, and diſtinct from Presbyters? that ſo it muſt be concluded No ordination by Biſhops, no Miniſter, no conſecration or celebration of either Sacrament? and ſo where theſe Conſervators, Conduits, Ciſterns, were never laid, or have been any way cut off, Eccleſiaſtical authority and Miniſterial power never came, or is removed and quite gone; for without doubt this water muſt run in its own Pipes: Were it not for that ſubordination and dependance of ordinary Miniſters, Shepherds, and Rulers unto and upon the Angels, Preſidents, and chief Fathers of his Epiſcopal authority; he at after noteth, I ſhould by his adjunct Chief, have conceived that he would grant, Some ſmall Pipes had run from the Apoſtles times in union with Christ our chief Biſhop, and drived Eccleſiaſtical authority and Miniſterial power in the vacancy of his Biſhops: which, if he deny, the Church of Rome will triumph in his Epiſcopal union with her; but the Reformed Churches can give him little thanks for this Church annihilating Notion.

Again is it cleare that Epiſcopal and Apoſtolical Miniſtry is idem ordo, the ſame kinde, diſtinct from that of Paſtors and Teachers? it muſt be imagined ſo to be, whil'ſt Biſhops only as Biſhops, lay ſo much claim to the immediate ſucceſſion of the Apoſtles: That the Apoſtles had an Epiſcopacy, we cannot deny, for we reade of it in Acts 1. 20. Nor I think can it be reaſonably denyed that the feeding-Ruling Elders at Epheſus were Biſhops; for ſo Saint Paul called them, as conſecrated by the Holy Ghoſt. Acts 20. 28. and immediate ſucceſſors to p. 25the Apoſtles; yet it is not evident that they were all Angels, Preſidents, and chief Fathers; and ſuch as ſet Timothy over them as their Biſhop, muſt needs deny them ſo to have been; and then Sir, ſome that wanted this paternal authority, muſt be confeſſed Ciſterns of Miniſterial power, and Eccleſiaſtical authority, and immediate ſucceſſors to the Apoſtles: and ſo the Bond of Baptiſme binds to Gospel-Miniſters, as the explicite and preceptive inſtitution of Chriſt; whil'ſt Epiſcopal order can claim no more but tradition; and that very diſputable; the Prelatical Divines of our Nation would not be thus tyed to the obſervation of the Lords day; nor I to the obſervation of Eaſter; yet both theſe (eſpecially the firſt) look as like an immediate inſtitution of Chriſt, preceptive and explicite, or tacite and exemplary, as any order or kinde of Epiſcopacy he ſuggeſteth to be upheld by the bond of baptiſme.

As to what the Doctor addeth concerning the ſignal and intolerable injuries offered to the perſons of ſuch excellent Biſhops as England lately had, and ſtill may have, and the abatement of the honour of this whole Church and its Miniſtry, &c. I wiſh it may be conſidered, That the Covenant is not levelled againſt any Real Excellency in the Biſhops, but an unwarrantable greatneſs, power, and authority, aſſumed by them, or attributed to them; which conferred an unfitting honour on the Church, and then the excluſion of it is no injury; and the mighty abatement thereof is a poſitive duty: I cannot think but that learning, and the due honour of the Church, may and will be beſt encouraged by the vailing of that pompous, worldly ſtate, and wicked ſuperiority her Governours had obtained; the Churches perſpicuity ſeems not to me ſo neceſſary, that it muſt needs ſhine in Lawn Sleeves, and ſucceſſion of Biſhops of paternal authority over their brethren; nor know I to what Churches, ſave thoſe of Rome (who make the Succeſſion of their Biſhops the ſole and ſingular Note of the true Church) a Superſedeas of ſuch Epiſcopal order (how ancient or venerable ſoever it be deemed) can be ſo ſcandalous as is ſuggeſted; I am ſure few of the Reformed Churches ſee cauſe ſo to judge it; and then Sir, we finde little force in this his complicated Anſwer.

Thus Sir, I have made bold to conſider the Doctors indirect anſwer and arguments, wherein he endeavoureth to ſhake and p. 26ſubvert the whole fabrick of the Solemn League and Covenant, and in them (to my judgement) there is ſo little ſtrength of Reaſon, or true Religion, that it affords but a poor ground for his inſulting and triumphant diſcharge in page 13. Theſe things being thus premiſed, are ſufficient (as I conceive) to abate the Edge and Rigour of the Covenant, and to ravel that cabel and bond of Religious obligation: For Sir, notwithſtanding his ſuppoſal (aſſerted) in good earneſt there is neither Law of God or man requiring, impoſing, or comprobating any ſuch Covenant: The Boanergeſses will finde cauſe to thunder out terrour againſt Covenant-breaking, leſt Rhetorical flouriſhes without ſtrength of Reaſons, ſhould releaſe the conſciences of the vulgar from the power of religious bonds.

It may be Sir, we ſhall finde more ſtrength in the Doctors down-right ſtroaks,His direct anſwer. than in his back-blows: His batteries in his indirect anſwers attempted, have beſpoken his purpoſe to break in ſunder the Sacred bond of the Covenant: His power to effect it in point of Epiſcopacy, muſt appear in his direct Anſwer: wherein (we thank him) he looks on the Covenant in the ſofteſt ſence that can be made, as it is a voluntary vow, or Religious bond, which private men spontaneouſly took upon themſelves, &c. But yet he ſuggeſteth it was taken by very few, not one fourth part of the Nation now living; and thoſe few made to take it by the terrors of priſon, plunder, ſequeſtration, and the like wracks: Unto which (before we obſerve his particular reconciling Anſwers, relating to the ſpecial point of Epiſcopacy) I propound to conſideration, that

The paucity of Covenantets will not diſcharge its obligation; be there never ſo few, I hope thoſe few may be free in aſſerting, and muſt be faithful in adhering to the Covenant; in which their confidence may be the greater, for that His moſt Sacred Majeſty comes in to make up the number.

But if the Doctor ſaw with my eyes, he would not ſuppoſe the number to be ſo ſmall; if all Tables were as legible as thoſe of the Lords and Commons, I believe their number would be found many more than the fourth part of the Nation. But can any conſiderable obſerver take notice the Covenant was impoſed on, and ſubmitted unto, by all ſorts and degrees of men, in all Counties, Cities, and Towns tendred (and ſince teſtified by their p. 27publique ſubſcriptions) by the moſt Miniſters in the ſeveral Counties, unto their individual Congregations; and that under the ſucceſs of War, which uſually extendeth a Covenant unto all who come under its influence, and yet (without the ſuppoſal of a very great mortality) imagine, not the fourth part of the Nation to have taken the Covenant? The Doctor ſure judgeth by ſuch with whom he converſeth; and I eaſily believe they are not a fourth part of the Nation; yet methinks he himſelf being to be reckoned into the number, might well conjecture them to be more.

But again Sir, the capacity of the Covenanters, is more conſiderable than the number; and will make it a queſtion well worth conſideration, Whether it be not obligatory to the whole Nation? When I conſider the Lords and Commons in Parliament aſſembled, and under that notion and capacity ſwearing the Covenant, as the collective body of the Nation, though not near a fourth part in number, I am apt to think it looks very like a National Obligation: For I know not how they can take pardons, if they may not make promiſes in our names; eſpecially when the aſſent of His Moſt Sacred Majeſty is made ſo legible by His Royal Subjection to the ſame Solemn League and Covenant. I am much miſtaken if the Oath of Zedekiah and the Princes (without popular delegates) did not binde the people of Iſrael: I hope the Doctor will be more warie, than to plunge the whole Kingdome into perjury: That there was any ſuch Logick as Priſons, Plunder, and Sequeſtrations, to enforce the Covenant, I am not well-pleaſed; I hope he had more fortitude than to ſuffer his Reaſon and Religion to be ſo captivated; he knoweth the will cannot be compelled; and I imagine he will not make extortion by force, any more than fraude abſolve the Obligation, and warrant the receſſion or violation of an Oath; he knows that Nature and Scripture do teach the contrary, whatever was Cicero's affection to him, he knows wherein he commends Pomponius the Tribune as to his extorted Oath; nor will a Caſuiſt deny, Juramentum metu extorium, to bind; greater force can beſiege none to the making of an Oath; nor greater fury from God follow any for breaking the oath ſo forced, than that which befell Zedekiah to the King of Babylon.

p. 28But let us ſee by what ſtrength of Reaſon he worketh out releaſe from this voluntary vow, that we may be alſo free-men; and it is produced by ſeveral ſuggeſtions; where of

The firſt is a clear ſophiſm or charm to vulgar conception;Words in oaths do bind. They are not (ſaith he) the bare words of the Covenant, which as charmes, can binde any mans conſcience to, or againſt any thing: It is very true; for they may be hiſtorically read, or repeated by ſuch who are not capable of, or concerned in the obligation: But Sir, if (as in our caſe) the words be uttered as expreſſions of the mind, and declarations of the purpoſe and reſolve of the heart to engage God and men to expectation of performance, I hope they then binde; and that, not only becauſe the matter is juſt, true, and good, but alſo becauſe declared: Is not engagement of expectation in others unto the Obligation of our ſelves the end of ſpeech in Promiſes and Oaths? whence elſe is that Caution of Caſuiſts, That the words of an oath be plaine, and clear, and commonly uſed and underſtood, that the fallacy thereof may fall? I wonder at the Doctors Antitheſis of words unto the Reaſon, Juſtice, Truth, Religion, and Duty, which we deny not morally and really to oblige men either by Gods generalor particular precepts: but yet I cannot believe them to be as Iron or Adamantine bands to chuſe good and do it; to hate evil and eſchew it, long before the Withs and Cords of mans combining or tying are put upon them by themſelves or others: This ſounds in my ears like new Divinity, and morality too; oh the folly of Nations, who confide more in the Withs and Cords of words, promiſes, Covenants, than in the Iron and Adamantine bonds of Truth, Juſtice, and Duty! I muſt confeſs, I was ſo fooliſh, as to fancy my ſelf bound to an Act, becauſe good, iuſt, true, duty; but much faſter bound, becauſe promiſed or ſworne; and I have known many men boggle at an Oath or Promiſe, and fear to break it, who would make no bones of Reaſon, Truth, Justice, Duty, but ſnap them in ſunder like a ſingle tie; and methinks the Scripture placeth a great deale of firength in the words of a Vow or Oath, Deut. 23. 23. That which is gone out of thy lips thou ſhalt keep and performe; as thou hast vowed it willingly unto the Lord thy God; for thou haſt ſpoken it with thy mouth: And ſure there was moſt Adamantine ſtrength in the words of Jephtah, which put him p. 29into that agony, and conſtrained that Out-cry, I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back! Judges 11. 35. If Oaths and Promiſes are but withs and cords, I marvel at the courſe and cuſtoms of Nations to lay them each on other as the only grounds of confidence; and I much more wonder, mens faith ſhould be more fixed in Gods promiſes than properties; and God, though under the Iron bonds of his own mercy, juſtice, truth, yet, for aſſurance-ſake, ſhould bring himſelf under the withs and cords of Promiſe and Oath, and then tell us by two immutable things wherein it is impoſſible Gods ſhould ly; we ſhould have ſtrong conſolation, Heb. 6. 18.

His ſecond ſuggeſtion is to me no leſs ſtrange than the firſt,Every mans oath binds by his own imagination. (viz.) Nor can any ſuch Covenant binde any man in any conſcienti us bond, meerely by the power of a mans own imagination: I am ſure it can never binde him by the power of another mans imagination: Oaths ought to be in words ſignificant, whoſe ſence may be obvious to every common capacity; ſhuffling and ſhifting the ſence, and ſignification of an Oath, is the ſnare and perplexity of conſcience, policy of Hell, and Sophiſtry of the Devil: Men muſt be careful to underſtand every Religious tie, and bond; and not liſt to conceive by prejudice and preſumption; yet if his own imagination be not that which muſt guide and binde him, I am miſtaken; I expect men to ſee with their own eyes, and be ſaved by their own faith; and did ever conceive diſcourſe, interpretation, inſtruction, and argumentation, to intend, not a Magiſterial impoſition, but information of the minde, which might engender a right imagination for men to follow. I know not Sir, what your Caſuiſt may make of an erroneous conſcience, but Dr. Ames hath taught us Conſcientia quamvis errans, ſemper ligat; & ille peccat qui aegit contra conſcientiam; an erroneous conſcience doth alwayes bind, ſo that he ſins who acts contrary thereunto; which cannot be, unleſs the Covenant bind by the power of a mans own imagination.

His third Anſwer I do confeſs is drawn with ſome conſiderable ſtrength;Oaths bind not to the injury of another for no Covenant can binde us to the injurie of anothers right, liberty, power, or lawful authority, private or publique; except ſuch as are ſui juris, involved in himſelf, and ſo per accidens are hindred, and hurt in and by them, which I p. 30believe he underſtands: for Sir, it loſeth its ſtrength in the aſſumption; for it appears not that the xtirpation of Prelacy as it is expreſſed in the Covenant, doth take away the liberty▪ power, and lawfull authority of King, Biſhops, or Parliament; himſelf tells us, the Covenant was levelled againſt the deſpoticum tyrannicum Regimem; and I have before noted, that it is the unwarrantable pomp and power, and unlawful authority, and ſuperiority of the Biſhops above other Miniſters, which is excluded, and to be extirpated by the Covenant, untell the Object is agreed on, the force of this Argument may well fall.

Yet give me leave to tell the Doctor, it is worth his enquiry, whether the power of the King for reſtitution, and of the Biſhops for execution and adminiſtration of Epiſcopacie (lately acted in England, and now endeavoured to be reſtored) be not fully, and actually, by a juſt, lawfull, and compleat Authority, aboliſhed and taken away by the ſtatute of 17 Caroli, repealing that whole branch of the ſtatute primo Elizabethae, which authorized the juriſdiction of Epiſcopacy; and barreth his moſt ſacred Majeſty from giving Commiſſions thereunto, and forbidding all Ranks and Orders Eccleſiaſtical from acting upon any ſuch Commiſſion, in any matter or thing whatſoever: Sir, moſt men think that this power was lawful, and the Hierarchy of England was ſui juris too, and within the power of King, Lords, and Commons; and this diſcharge of Epiſcopacy to have been no injury, and to have been acted long before the Covenant did exiſt; and ſo the Covenant was but an enforcement of this Law; and then Sir, if there be a Parliament which may look upon Biſhops and Epiſcopacy with a more propitious eye, than thoſe who beheld it through the Presbyterian ſpectacles, it will be worth enquiry, whether the Covenant (as is before noted) be not a National Covenant, and bindeth not the Parliament from propounding, and praying, and his moſt ſacred Majeſty from aſſenting unto the re-eſtabliſhment thereof? and ſo whether the preſent actings of ſome Biſhops and Deans be not without Legal and juſt authority; and the impoſing or endeavouring to return that (by Statute) aboliſhed, and (by Covenant) excluded Fabrik, be not a tranſgreſſion of the Law, and plunging the Nation into perjury? which how conſiſtent it is with the honour of King or Kingdom, let wiſe men judge.

p. 31The Doctors fourth, fifth, and eighth Suggeſtions do relate unto the good of Epiſcopacie; concerning which, he ſuppoſeth a good, which I muſt confeſs I am not clear to admit; as for that good in this, which is common to all Governments (viz.) the Principles and proportions of Order, The good neſſe of Eplſcopacy denied.Subordination, and Government, we ſhall not deny it, only conceive it is not here pleadable; for, it may he continued in the Government which ſhall be eſtabliſhed; but as to that of good in it, by Scriptural Precepts and Patterns in the Jewiſh Church, Apostolique conſtitution, and Primitive uſe of Eccleſiastical cuſtome, and holy mens general approbation, and univerſal imitation, it is under diſpute, and not yet obvious, and ſo not of force to conclude for it; and as to Englands experience of the much good done by it, ſince the Reformation, it is very obſcure, whil'ſt the beſt of benefit imaginable to have been reaped by it, hath been to preſerve the Reformation in the ſtate and degree in which King Edward the ſixth, and Queen Elizabeth left it; for wherein hath Epiſcopacie promoted it? nay rather wherein hath not Epiſcopacie (by its ſilencing and ſuſpending zealous Miniſters, excommunicating, impriſoning, baniſhing, and ſtigmatizing pious Chriſtians, for no fault at all ſave endeavonring it) retarded the progreſs and perfection of the Reformation? nay, hath not Epiſcopacie (by its turning our Chancels into railes inſancta ſanctorums, our Communion-tables into adored Altars, our glaſs windows into popiſh pictures, and changing our common and eſt abliſhed Liturgy into a more compleat conformity to the Popiſh Maſs-book for form of adminiſtration, Order of worſhip, Rites and Ceremonies) brought the Reformation into a moſt palpable and apparent Retrogradation? and hath not then your Doctor cauſe to tell us it were extream folly, and madneſs, prophaneneſs, and blaſphemy to cry it down as evill, and engage in Covenant againſt it as ſuch? truly Sir, to all his ſuppoſed good whereby it is ſo beneficial (in his eye) to the being compleat, and regular being of any Church, and none more than England, I ſhall only oppoſe that one evill, for which (were there in it no more) it deſerveth to be decried, and extirpated by the Covenant, and that evill I find ſo inherent to Epiſcopacy, that this very moderate man cannot divide them, (viz.) the not only degrading all ordinary Paſtors and Miniſters in the ſight of the people (making their Miniſtery greatly ineffectual) but alſo diveſting them of all authority, and ſuperiority over the people, preferring the people to, and above them, as their equals and ſuperiousr; whereby all their adminiſtrations whil'ſt in black Coats, are repreſented to be meer Cyphors, to p. 32which the Biſhops Lawn ſleeves muſt be the only figure ſignificant: Sir, can it be leſs than duty, to extirpate that which doth engroſs to its ſelf, and ſo enervate in others, all Goſpel Miniſtery? if Cephas and Apollo be not Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt, as well as Paul the Apoſtle, I ſee no cauſe to chide the Corinthians for their Schiſme; but paſſing his Hypotheſis, let us try the ſtrength of his Propoſitions by which he would bind the Covenanter to his Epiſcopacy, and they ſound very ſtrangely in my ears.

1. A Covenant can bind no man in conſcience againſt any thing that is in its nature good, or not Morally evil, for this were to bind a mans ſelf and others beyond Gods eternal righteouſneſs; this is unto me a leſſon of new Divinity;Oaths may bind againſt good indiffe. ent. for Sir, be pleaſed to note, that the good he ſpeaks of is natural, not moral, much leſs Theological good; it is a good which is not in it ſelf neceſſary, but may be neceſſary in its time and place; ſo that it is a plain Adiaphoron, a thing indifferent: that to bind men to what is morally evil, is a Covenant of hell, I can eaſily be convinced; but, that to bind them againſt what is allowed of God as good and lawful (but not duty neceſſary untill circumſtanced with time and place) ſhou'd be ſo, is ſure but one Doctors opinion. I did ever conceive Adiaphorous to be ſubject to the Magiſtrates command, and a mans own Covenant, and ſo diſtinct from Divine preſcription; the eating of fleſh is in its nature good, and not morally evil; the Apoſtle is apt to Covenant with a weak brother never to eat fleſh; is this to bind himſelf beyond Gods eternal bonds of righteouſneſs, or in a Covenant with hell? I miſtake ſuch Caſuiſts as I have read, if they conclude not the contrary.

2. No man may vow or Covenant, much leſſe keep any ſuch Covenant as he hath taken intentionally againſt the evil, corruption or abuſe of any thing, Oaths againſt evil hindring the uſe of ſome good, do binde.ſo as to involve the good and uſefulneſs of it, and to condemn that to deſtruction and extirpation. Truly Sir, I muſt confeſs not only judicial (ſuch as is his inſtance of the Jndge of all the earth in his righteous deſtribution towards Sodom, and ſo impertinent to his caſe) but alſo rational, and Religious diſcrimination of objects is good, and neceſſary, but that a Covenant involving good and uſefulneſs, whil'ſt it is intended againſt evil and abuſe, is therefore void, and not to be kept, I cannot believe: I have read, Juramentum non eſſe illicitum aut obligandi vim non amittere praeciſe ab hoc, Sanderſon de juramen to praelect. 3. Sect. 12.quod videtur eſſe impeditivum majeris boni, an oath is not therefore void, becauſe it hinders a greater (that is, more than ſimple) good: I ſhall willingly wiſh men may not be ſo tranſported as to ſwear againſt a good when it can be ſeparated from p. 33the evil; nor yet to diſcharge the Oath, becauſe the good (which might have been divided) is involved: It is a mans duty to diſtinguiſh between the Superſtructures of men, and foundation of Chriſt and his Apoſtles (of which order his Epiſcopacy doth not yet appear:) And it is a mans liberty to reſtrain himſelf from the thing that is in its own nature good and uſeful, when attended with plain and poſitive, nay, accidental evil. I knew a man paſſing through an old rotten houſe, got a knock on his pate, and in his paſſion, ſware he would pull it down and burn it every ſtick; his work-men adviſed him to uſe ſome of the materials good and uſeful in his new Fabrick; the good man is conſcious of his Oath (though raſh and unadviſed) Will the Doctor pleaſe to reſolve his conſcience? Or again, Hezekiah obſerves the brazen ſerpent (the ſometimes means, and now Memorial of Iſraels remedy, and type of the Redeemer) abuſed to Idolatry, ſweareth he will deſtroy it, and accordingly executes his Oath: Suppoſe it at that time (as it had its good) to be as uſeful as before, it will puzzle me to charge him with iniquity for ſo doing.

Thirdly, No man can in conſcience be bound by any ſuch Covenant againſt that which may upon ſecond thoughts and after-view, He that ſweareth to his own hurt, is bound.and better information, appear to be good and uſeful to him; he is here bound not to keep his Coveuant in the latitude of his miſtakes and preſumptions, nor to act according to his prejudices and former ſuppoſals; but rather to retract his raſhneſſe and unadviſedneſſe in taking it at firſt, and to act according to his preſent evidence of what is true, juſt, good, lawful, and uſeful even in Epiſcopacy, &c. Truly Sir, this is to me ſuch ſtrange divinity, that I cannot but wonder D. D. ſhould be attendant on the aſſertor of it; I am ſure if it be admitted, one reaſon produced by no mean Caſuiſt to defend the Obligation of an Oath extorted by fear,Sander. de Juram. Lect. 4. Sect 15. muſt fall to the ground, Elegit id quod tunc viſum eſt ſibi melius, he choſe that which he then conceived to be the beſt; but according to our Caſuiſt, he might on an after-view diſcern hurtful, and ſo retract: How happy and cheering would ſuch a reſolution as this have been unto Jephtah in his anguiſh and out-cry, I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back! Why man, can you not on ſecond thoughts and an afterview ſee the goodneſs and uſefulneſs of your daughter? Retract the raſhneſſe and unadviſedneſſe of thy vow; and act according to thy preſent evidence; Nay, how advantagious had this reſolution been to Iſrael, when Joſhuah and the Princes preſerved the Gibeonites to be pricks in the eyes, and thornes in the ſide of Iſrael? To what end do they plead, We have ſworne unto p. 34them by the Lord, now therefore we may not touch them? Why, muſt they needs act to the latitude of their preſumptions and mistakes? could they not on ſecond thoughts and an after-view diſcover their craft, and diſcern them to be of the people commanded by God to be deſtroyed, dangerous to diſturb their peace, and divert them from their Religion? How ſad was the fate of the ſons of Saul in the want of ſuch a ſolution as this which might have ſaved them all from hanging? for the Scripture witneſſeth, That Saul ſlew the Gibeonites in his zeale to the children of Iſrael and Judah, 2 Sam. 21. 2. Without doubt on ſecond thoughts and an after-view of the good which might enſue on the violation of that Covenant caught by fraude, I hope our Prelates will take care in the next Impreſſion of the Common-Prayer-Book, to make the words in Pſalm 15. ver. 5. conform to Pſalm 105. verſ. 28. it is but the expunction of a Negative particle, and for diſobedient, we reade obedient; and for repenteth not, we reade repenteth; and ſo the Character of a man for heaven ſhall be conform to our Caſuiſts reſolution and Scripture-Text, He that ſweareth to his own hurt, and repenteth: I cannot but commend the correction of this verſe to the Drs. care; for as it is now read, it is not only different from the Original, but alſo diſſonant to his doctrine whilſt it is read in the Old CommonPrayer-Book, He that ſweareth to his neighbour, and diſappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance.

Thus Sir, I have tryed the ſtrength of the Drs. Arguments; and find in them very little force to rectifie conſcience, releaſe St. Peter, and reconcile the Covenant with Epiſcopacy. Truly Sir, were Epiſcopacy in it ſelf never ſo good, yet it muſt appear neceſſary before it break through the bond of the Covenant: It is now indeed high time to learn righteouſneſs and wiſdom; the which works not more in any thing, than a conſcientious cleaving to the Covenant, and paying the vows made to God in the day of affliction: I freely conſent with him, that the cautious and conſcientious covenanter take a calmer view, and exacter meaſure than perhaps he did at the firſt. But methinks he ſhould not leave them to rules of ſo great latitude, that will not only diſcharge the Covenant, but all Sacred Religiousties: What Oaths can bind, if words are of no force, or but withs and cords? his own imagination of no influence? no good may be excluded or involved? and ſecond thoughts diſcovering uſefulneſs will diſcharge it? where ſhall be the certainty of humane contracts or force of Religious bonds, if theſe principles be admitted? who ſhall ever ſcruple to make, or care to keep a Covenant, if other mens interpretations muſt direct it, and our own retraction p. 35on ſence of raſhneſs, may diſcharge it? If Sir, theſe propoſitions be the Doctors props for Epiſcopacy, it will appear too prophane for pious men to meddle with.

Sir, I doubt not but he and all men ſhall find every conſcientious Covenanter enjoy the comfort of his accompliſhed oath, when in his place he hath ſeaſonably adviſed, humbly petitioned, and lawfully endeavoured, to remove Englands old Hierarchy; and to reſtore ſuch an Epiſcopacy, to be exerciſed by the Officers of the Church in Common, and good order, as is ne…ſt the Scripture, primitive practice and perſwaſion of ſober, grave, pious, and learn… men, ſuch as was the late Primate of Armagh; but if either His Moſt Sacred Majeſty, or any other in authority fail in the exerciſe of their capacity (as he ſeems to hope) to effect the ends of the Covenant, I hope it ſhall be no offence to mourn for their iniquity, and the iniquity of the Land▪ nor will it be inconſiſtent to that humble ſubmiſſion, active or paſſive, I confeſs we all owe unto His Moſt Sacred Majeſty: whatever ſhall be the eſtabliſhment in the Church (though never ſo corrupt, yet) whilſt conſiſtent with ſalvation, though it may occaſion to me ſuffering, and a ſuſpence of my Miniſtry, by Gods grace it ſhall not effect in me, or ſuch on whom I have an influence, Schiſm from the Church, or Reſiſtance of His Majeſties juſt Right and Authority; for whom as I have not ſuffered the leaſt, ſo if God ſhould ſo far leave Him (which God forbid) I am ready, by Him, to ſuffer the utmoſt, in adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant, untill it be diſcovered a band of iniquity, a ſnare and gin for ſchiſme and ſedition to act by to the diſhonour of God, and reproach of Reformed Religion: Yet I cannot but moſt heartily pray for the honeſt and ingenuous Reformation of Epiſcopacy beyond the former defective or exceſſive Conſtitution or execution of it, which I doubt not will effect the corruption and extirpation covenanted.

I confeſs every conſcientious Covenanter oweth this Juſtice and duty

1. To God, to approve, love, deſire, and uſe what is good, not being within his own power, and excluded by his oath or covenant; may, and muſt, are things very different.

2. To obey the King as chief Governour of Church and State, enjoyning things lawful and honeſt (ſo not covenanted againſt) though not the very beſt.

3. To pity the Biſhops and Fathers of the Church, who have been there too injurious, or injuriouſly uſed, and pull down all proud Prelates and paternal authoritie over Presbyters, which abuſe their brethren, and debaſe their Miniſtry, becauſe in a black Coat.

4. To encourage Miniſters, and endeavour the reſcue of them from dividing factions and popular inſolencies which have befaln them for want of the King, and Eccleſiaſtical order, but may be enjoyed without a Biſhop advanced in power above his Brethren.

5. Love to the Church, in endeavouring its unity, peace, and proſperity in the ruine of Prelacy and eſtabliſhment of an Epiſcopacy and over-ſight duely conſtituted and carefully executed.

6. Care to his own ſoul, inward and eternal peace, not to be couzened by gloſſes, courted by Rhetorical flouriſhes, nor cudgelled out of his Covenant by moſt bitter ſufferings, but to cleave unto it with care, conſtancy, and diligence, and take heed of all ſophiſtical ſolutions, and ſubtle reconciliations, which endeavour to baffle the Covenant, and break in pieces the very power of all Religious bonds.

p. 36Sir, Knowing how under and dclicate a thing Conſcience is, yet fearing it might be baftled and deluded by Sophiſtry and ſcovered; I have preſumed to ſurveigh your Doctors Solution of the Covenant, and give an account of my apprehenſions of it; Covenant-breaking is ſo direful a God-provoking ſin, that I tremble to think of Englands leaſt tendencie to it; whatever men fancie to themſelves of the Covenant being the Rock of his late Majeſties ſhipwrark, it is viſible that the violation of it hath been the deſtru…ion of our late Ilſurpers, who laid i aſide that▪ they might leap into their Chair o… State: and it cannot be denied to have beene the chief and only means of his Majeſties moſt juſt and honourable Reſtitution; and an adherencie to it (I doubt not) will prove the eſtabliſhment of his Royal Throne; I cannot therefore but be grieved to finde contempt poured on the Covenant, not only by the vulgar, but ſuch whoſe ranck and gravity ſhould make them more ſenſible of the weight and worth of an Oath.

When Sir your Doctors Solution came firſt into my hands, the Speech of Julian Cardinal of Saint Angelo concerning the League of uladiſlaus King of Hungary with Amurath the Turk, came into my memory; and one obſervation ſeems too much alike unto it (I pray you pardon the compariſon) the pretended principle of the one was Zeale for the Church, Hiſtory of the Turks, p. 290, 291 292.and love of Religion, and ſo of the other; the ſcope of the one was to diſcharge the Oath, and ſo of the other: the method of the one was to abſolve by colour and pretence of binding under the Oath; ſo of the other: the Arguments of the one were defect of authority from Gods Vicar on earth, conſent of Confederates, contrariety to former Covenants, excluſion of greater good, expoſal to reproach and ſcandal, raſhneſſe and unadviſedneſſe in making, and the like; and ſuch are the arguments of the other: the one was by a man of eminencie; and eſteeme, and engaged in the ſame Oath; ſo is the other▪ ſuch is Sir the agreement in every point, that it would much better have become a Jeſuite or Popiſh Cardinal than a Proteſtant Doctor. I cannot but pray they may not agree in their intended end, the breach of the Covenant; leſt God make them agree in the miſerable effect, the loſſe of the Chriſtian Cauſe, ruine of King and people, and their perpetual infamy.

I ſhall Sir trouble you no longer, ſave to tell you this anſwer was diſpatched in two days; and had waited on you much ſooner, but that I hoped ſome more eminent and able pen would have pleaded the Cauſe of the Covenant, and matched the Doctor ſuitably to himſelf; ſuch as it is you now have it; I deſire it may be weighed in the ballance of Reaſon and Religion, without reſpect unto the perſon; who by his meanneſſe and many calumnies (which yet he weareth as his crown) is obnoxious to no little prejudice; but if he prove a Taylors Gooſe, hot and heavie, but blinde and dark, will be contented to wear the Cap: whilſt reſolved to approve himſelf no leſſe zealous in the Religious than he hath appeared in the Political or Civil part of the Solemne League and Covenant; and make it his care to give God the things that are Gods, as Caeſar the things that are Caeſars.

July 8th.1660. SIR, Farewell, be faithful.

End of the text · Zachary Crofton, Saint Peters Bonds Abide (1660)