The Fastening of Saint Peters Fetters, Tract · Section 3 · Subsection 5
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 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 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 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 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 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 exceptiontheir 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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? 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, 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 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.