Vindication of the True Sense of the National Covenant, Part
He gives us the ground of his Cenſure.Pag. 2.
THe Proteſtation is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, ſo far as it is oppoſite to Popery, which they do not performe, ſo long as they retaine and maintain the impoſition of the Liturgy, 2 the Diſcipline, 3 the Government, 4 the Ceremonies.
Anſ. In his very firſt Argumentation there is a moſt palpable fallacy, which is ſo obvious, that its wonder to me, that any man that would undertake to write a Booke in a matter of this conſequence, ſhould either not himſelfe ſee, or ſhould imagine that ſo many cleere eyes that it muſt needs touch, would not moſt eaſily diſcerne, and diſcover it; for the Argument muſt be framed thus.
He that hath ſolemnly vowed to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, ſo far as it is oppoſite to Popery, muſt renownce all Popery, and particularly the impoſition of the Liturgy, &c. or elſe he breakes his vow, and is a foole &c. But the Miniſters and people have proteſted to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, ſo far as it is oppoſite to Popery. Therefore they muſt renownce all Popery, and particularly the impoſition of the Liturgy &c. or elſe they breake their vowes and are fooles, in whom GOD hath no pleaſure.
Now what a manifeſt fallacy is here, a dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter, from that which is ſpoken in ſome reſpect, to that which is ſpoken abſolutely; for the Proteſtation is not againſt Popery abſolutly; but as this Author expreſſeth it, ſo far forth, as it is againſt the Doctrine of the Church of England: what Popery then the Doctrine of the Church of England doth not condemne this Proteſtation doth not include, being onelyonly to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England againſt Popery, and Popiſh Innovations. But then ſome will demand is not the Doctrine of the Church of England, againſt all Popery. I anſwere, ad hominem. If the things here objected be Popery, then the Doctrine of the Church is not againſt all Popery, for theſe things ſo far as they may be termed Doctrinall, are yet according to the Doctrine of the Church of England; unleſſe you will ſay that the Doctrine of the Church of England is contrary to the practiſe of the Church of England, whence then thus I Argue: Either the Doctrine of the Church of England is not againſt all Popery, or elſe the impoſition of the Liturgy, Ceremonies, Diſcipline, Government, are not Popery; for the Doctrine of the Church of England is not againſt them. If the Doctrine of the Church of England is not againſt all Popery, he that vowes to maintaine that Doctrine againſt all Popery, vowes not againſt Popery abſolutly, but only as it is againſt that Doctrine: and then this Authors inference from this vow againſt Popery, with this reſtraint, that we muſt therefore oppoſe all Popery abſolutly, is a manifeſt inconſequence: on the other ſide, if the Liturgy &c. be not Popery, as they muſt not be, if the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND be compleate againſt it, then they are not abjured: So however it be, the Covenanter is free from breach and folly: And this I conceive is ſo cleare, that it needs no further confirmation: yet a little more to evince the abſurdity of it, by other particulars in the Proteſtation, we proteſt to maintaine every perſon that maketh this Proteſtation, in whatſoever he ſhall do in the lawfull purſuance of it. If a man ſhould thence inferre, that we muſt defend him whatſoever he ſhall doe in the purſuance of it, if hee ſhall move ſedition or the like, were not this a violation of the ſenſe of this Covenant? and is not the ſame, when we ſtretch the oppoſing of Popery ſo far as it is oppoſite to the Doctrine of the Church of England; to be meant againſt all Popery whatſoever? though it be granted, it be maintained in the Church of England? His foundation then is moſt rotten, and what firmneſſe can be in the building?
But he makes the objection, Page 2. which he indeavors to anſwere aſwell as he can: The Objection is, that theſe things are eſtabliſhed by the Law, therefore we may not caſt them off till the Law be abrogated, and we proteſt againſt Popery, to caſt it out ſo far as lawfully we may.
Thus the Proteſtor, where in he hath objected, what he hath not well anſwered, though all be don very rawly. For firſt he ſhould have framed the Argument thus, Thoſe things are eſtabliſhed by the Lawes of England, where the Doctrine of the Church of England is eſtabliſhed, and therefore according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, theſe things cannot be interpreted to be Popery; and ſo not within the Verge of that Proteſtation, which is againſt Popery, as it is oppoſite to the Doctrine of the Church of England: which objection if he ever anſwere, erit mihi magnus Apollo. The Objection which he hath made, he ſtrengthens from the words of the Proteſtation, that we proteſt to caſt out things as far as lawfully we may, which clauſe doth not at all reſpect the matter proteſted againſt, but the meanes and manner of purſuance, that we ſhall not doe it in any tumultuous or ſeditious or illegall way, but by honeſt and lawful meanes. A thing needfull to be taken notice of by many reſpective Readers of this Booke, who while they learne of him that they muſt oppoſe the things mentioned, as parts of Popery, from them ſelves infer, that it ought to be done in a violent way, without waiting for the direction of Authority, which in private perſons is not to oppoſe lawfully, but illegally, and ſeditiouſly.
But now let us heare his Anſwer. Firſt ſaith he, All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intention and end. Now the Law for reformation never intended to allow or ſet up Popery in the Church of England.
Anſ. This rule for the interpretation of Laws, in the (a)There is a twofold intention of Lawes, one generall ariſing from mens goodneſſe, and that may be to remove whatſoever is evill, the other ſpeciall ariſing from mens light, and that is to remove ſuch particulars as are diſcovered to be evil the latter intention is the rule of interpreting Laws, not the former, and this Author ſpeakes of the former.ſenſe he takes it, is a device of his owne, that hath neither authority nor reaſon, for the confirmation of it. Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law-giver, which the Grammaticall ſenſe of the words doth uſually diſcover. Indeed in matters doubtfull, where the words are capable of a double ſenſe, the intention of the Law may there cleere, what ſenſe is moſt Genuine: but that the generall intention of of the Law ſhall give a ſenſe contrary to the letter of the Law, is without doubt, a groundleſſe and dangerous fancy. Its true, the Law never intended to ſet up Popery, but the queſtion is, whether it be deſtructive of all Popery. The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers, who if they ſaw not all Popery, could not by their Lawes condemne all, nor did, if the things in Queſtion be Popery. Lex Currit cum praxi. The generall practiſe eſpecially of thoſe that are regular diſcovers the mind of the Law, and the practiſe hath been to maintaine theſe things, therefore its not the meaning of the Law to condemne them, nor of this Proteſtation to abjure them.
Secondly he ſaith, If humane Lawes be found to be contrary to Gods word, they are invalid and void ipſo facto.
Anſ. This rightly underſtood is in part a truth, but here miſapplied, we are ſubjected to all Terrene ſuperiours by the Lord and under the Lord, when they then command any thing contrary to GOD, the Laws have noe binding power, becauſe by a ſuperiour Law we are bound to the contrary: But yet ſuch Lawes are not Ipſo facto void, or if void, yet they are void in foro conſcientiae, in the Court of Heaven, not in foro politico, in Courts on Earth, though we are not bound to obey them, yet we are without reſiſtance to ſubmit to ſuch penalties, under the danger of Sedition, which were there noe Lawes, we were free from. Againe, this Theſis of his is miſapplied, for thence he infers. Thirdly, that having made this Proteſtation, we ought to have no communion with the aforeſaid particulars, notwithſtanding they be confirmed by Law, which inference is therfore faulty, becauſe the Proteſtation is onelyonly againſt Popery as it is againſt the Doctrine of the Church, and that which is confirmed by our law, though it be Popery, yet it is not Popery oppoſite to the Doctrine of the Church of England. If the Lawes of the Land, and the Doctrine of our Church, had their eſtabliſhment in different Courts, then that which is eſtabliſht by Law, might be againſt the Doctrine of the Church; but the Doctrine of the Church, and the Laws of the Lands, having both their eſtabliſhment in Parliament, what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery againſt the Doctrine of the Church, and therefore this Authors arguing muſt needs be irrationall.
But now we are furniſhed with a ſecond Objection which we are to conſider of, and whether this Author hath with any better ſucceſſe taken of, then he hath the former, what ſaith hee, If the Parliament did not by Popery underſtand the Liturgy, Ceremonies, Government of our Church, and he gives good reaſon to conceive they did not, for then many of them would not have taken it. What ſhal we do then? that is his Quaere, now heare his Anſwers. Firſt ſaith he; we are ſure they intended it againſt all Popery. To which I Anſwere; that its moſt cleare, and ſo he himſelfe expreſſeth in the former Page, they only intend it againſt Popery, as it is oppoſite againſt the Doctrine of the Church of England, and ſuch Popery the mentioned things cannot be. Secondly ſaith he, They expreſſe, that the words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any forme of Worſhip, Diſcipline, or Ceremonies in the ſaid Church: What doth he thence inferre, why forſooth? that therefore we may not Proteſt for the maintenance of theſe; why, was that the Queſtion whether we ſhould be bound to maintaine them, or whether we are bound to aboliſh them? What ridiculous diſputing then is this? But hence I Argue: If the Proteſtation do not include them for confirmation, becauſe they are no parts of Doctrine; it doth not exclude them for abolition, but leaves them for determination to another opportunity. Thirdly ſaith he, Suppoſe that at the firſt making of the Proteſtation, that theſe particulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery, yet no good Chriſtian can or will deny, that the Houſe of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever ſhould pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof. This Author is very good at bold aſſertions, but all as bad in confirmations, for what a good Chriſtian may do in weakneſſe, I will not determine; but no wiſe Chriſtian, as far as I can conceive, can judge, that what ever ſhall be found to be Popery, is included in this Proteſtation, but what ever is found to be Popery againſt the Doctrine of the Church of England, which is the terme limiting Popery in the Proteſtation. Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament, of ſuch a Reformation, as will not deſerve the name of Reformation, if all Popery be not made to be packing. I joyne with him in all comfortable hopes from this Honourable Houſe, but what is this to his matter in hand? All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament, is not expected by this Proteſtation, this is one degree to reforme whatever Popery or Innovation is againſt Law eſtabliſhed, this done, the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation, by removing corruptions eſtabliſhed by Law. Fiftly, Suppoſe ſaith he, that it could be imagined by any reaſonable man, that the Houſe of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foreſaid things in the fardell of Popery: ſhall private and particular Chriſtians knowing theſe to be Popery, and Antichriſtian, being bound by their ſolemne Vow and Proteſtation, never reforme themſelves &c. I Anſwere no man can; if (as he is rationall) he deale rationally. But ſuppoſe that theſe things were not included in the Proteſtation according to the intention of the Houſe of Commons, which may appeare by unanſwerable grounds.
1. Becauſe the expreſſe words be againſt that Popery which is againſt the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND, which theſe things mentioned, eſtabliſhed by Law in our Church cannot be.
Secondly, Since the generall taking, and firſt making of this Proteſtation, the Government and Diſcipline of the Church hath been in ſtrong diſpute whether it ſhould continue or no, which had it been Proteſted againſt, there had been no place for diſpute, which yet doth neither take off the friends of that ſide from aſſerting, nor is uſed by the oppoſites to Prelacy, to overbeare their Antagoniſts, which had been the eaſieſt and ſpeedieſt way of victory, if this Authors fancy had had truth in it.
Thirdly, Under favour, though (as I ſhall make it appeare) I am no friend to the foreſaid things, yet it was not rationall that the Parliament ſhould include theſe things in their PROTESTATION; for theſe things being eſtabliſht by Law, and fixt in many of the members hearts aſwell as Laws, to deſire men preſently to abjure them, before a full debating of them, ſeemes a point of ſuch raſhneſſe, yea Tyranny, as will not conſiſt with the tranſcendent wiſdom, and Iuſtice of that Honourable Court.
Fourthly, Nay further I conceive (under favour) that it would not have ſtood with the duty of that Houſe to their Soveraigne (of which I know they are moſt tender) nor that reſpect that they owe to the Lawes of the Land, to proteſt againſt things eſtabliſhed by Law, till the Law it ſelfe be abrogated, for none may Proteſt in ſuch a caſe further then they are free: Subjects can challeng no more freedom then the Laws allow them, where and while Laws do tye them, they are in ſubjection: and therefore could not in point of duty Proteſt againſt ſuch things, in ſuch a manner, to which the Lawes binds them. The power of the Houſe of Commons (where this Proteſtation was framed) is no doubt great, far beyond my apprehenſion, yet in this caſe I conceive their power over Laws is with the conſent of the Lords, and his Majeſty, to aboliſh them, but not Proteſt againſt them, while they are in force. By all which Arguments its manifeſt that the Parliament neither did really, nor could rationally, intend in the Proteſtation to Proteſt againſt theſe things eſtabliſhed by Law, and if we ſuppoſe truly they intended it not, this Author doth ſuppoſe ſtill falſely, that we are by our Proteſtation bound to reject and oppoſe them, for its an old ſound rule, Oathes, and Proteſtations, are to be expounded according to the meaning of the framer and giver, not of the taker, elſe by a diſhoneſt aequivocation, any thing almoſt may be cluded; therfor what the Proteſtation meant not, we in the taking are not tied to. And if this diſputer ſhould thinke this ſhould bind us in the things mentioned, though the Parliament intended no ſuch thing, but the contrary: He may as well affirme that we are bound to maintaine his impendant Churches, for whereas we Proteſt to maintaine the lawfull Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and every perſon that maketh this Proteſtation; he may infer, but independancy is in his judgment, a right and liberty of all Chriſtians entring into this Covenant, therefore we are tyed to maintaine it: This inference hath leſſe diſſonancy from the letter of the Covenant, then that of his about the particulars queſtioned; yet though I beleeve hee hath as good a will to this as the former; he dare not be ſo bold as to draw ſuch a concluſion, becauſe though the letter may beare it, yet the judgment of the compilers makes it manifeſt, it was far from their meaning, which reaſon likewiſe might have kept him from including the particulars in hand.
But now laſtly, he comes in with other quaeries, What then, ſhall men never reforme themſelves, but live and die Communicants, &c.
Anſ. How doth this follow, may not men Reforme themſelves in theſe things, unleſſe they do it by vertue of this Proteſtation; did not all that held theſe unlawfull, before this Proteſtation was formed, in their owne practiſe withdraw from theſe things, ſo far as they held them unlawfull, and againſt the word of GOD, and ſo may and ought to do ſtill, though they be not included in the Proteſtation? But to proceed, this Author next brings in his Schollers, queſtioning how it may appeare, that the forementioned particulars are branches of Popery. And he faines them, ſpeaking, that if their Conſciences were convinced thereof by the word of GOD, then by their Proteſtation, as well as by GODS word, they were bound to renownce them:
Anſ. But by his leave he makes them ſpeake what many will not, and none ought to ſpeake. If theſe things be Popiſh, then by the word of GOD we ought to renownce them indeed, but by this Proteſtation we ought not, unleſſe they be Popery oppoſite to the Doctrine of the Church of England. I my ſelfe muſt needs account theſe things, or the moſt of them of the ſame alloy with many things by the Doctrine and Lawes of our Church already condemn'd and aboliſht, elſe I ſhould not have been nor continued, as in part I doe, a ſufferer for witneſſing againſt them: And I doe as earneſtly deſire Reformation of them as of any thing; that little grace that I have, doth aſmuch Act that way to wraſtle with the Lord, for the rooting up of thoſe plants which our heavenly Father hath not planted, as any way, but nothing ingaged by this Proteſtation, but only by that allegiance which I owe to Chriſt and his word. But ſome may ſay, If you be againſt thoſe things, why doe you pleade for them?
Anſ. Miſtake not, I plead not for them, but to cleare the ſenſe of the Proteſtation, that it may not be wreſted to include them, as it is by this Author, of which wreſting I ſee and feare manifeſt inconveniences.
Firſt the Honourable Houſes of Parliament are by it wronged, and are thereby like to grow more oppoſite to the removing of the things here pleaded againſt, and ſo (as it is uſually) this making haſt will hinder the work it aymes to further, unleſſe this conceit be ſeaſonably corrected.
Secondly, This miſinterpretation will hinder many from entring this Proteſtation, which remora of ſo good a worke, had need be removed, which this Anſwere may further.
Thirdly, Many that have taken it, are partly troubled, becauſe ſuch things are yet ſuffered that they think they have Proteſted againſt; which they think they ſhould not only omit to Act, but alſo by all meanes oppoſe; partly I ſee men are taken off for praying for the abolition of ſuch things, as they conceive are already caſt off by Proteſtation, and are inclined by carnall violence under this pretence, to do that in the Church, which by a ſpirituall violence they ſhould indeavor to prevaile for with GOD, that ſo they may be prevailers with men, to have publique corruptions purged by publique authority, which is a ſafe, comfortable, and honorable way.
Laſtly, Some that think ſomethings in themſelves lawfull and tolerable, I find by this Proteſtation Proteſted, to conceive them unlawfull, as againſt the Proteſtation though in themſelves indifferent. As to inſtance, though they thinke and juſtly, That the uſe of the Liturgy in the whole forme of it, as a compleate ſervice of GOD to be many waies vitious, yet they think the uſe of ſome of the formes there, which are without exception, and moſt ſuited to the peoples wants, to be in themſelves lawfull. Notwithſtanding though not for his Arguments, to prove them Popiſh, yet for the expoſition of the Proteſtation they refuſe them, and not only refuſe them, but lay imputation on thoſe that uſe them, as breakers of their Vow and Proteſtation. Now as I have proved, no uſe of the Service-Book is againſt the Proteſtation, ſo nor the uſe of ſome prayers in ſuch a manner out of the Booke, can as I conceive, be juſtly termed Popiſh: for ſuppoſe that the forme we uſe be in the Maſſe-Book, why may we not aſwell ask the ſame Chriſtian Graces, that Papiſts and we both conceive to be neceſſary to a Chriſtian ſoule, as expreſſe the ſame faith touching the Trinity or any other point wherein we agree in the ſame words, and that without the guilt or imputation of Popery? And againe, he that doth thus uſe the Booke, not according to the whole frame of it, but ſelecting what is moſt holy, nor according to the ſet words of it, but with liberty of correcting the expreſſions, which to our times ſeeme harſh, and unſutable, doth hereby as I conceive, avoid his ſecond Argument, the impoſition makes it not Popiſh to him, becauſe he uſeth it with liberty of conſcience; To this we may add further, There is I conceive a true and uſefull diſtinction to be made of humane conſtitutions: ſome are helps, and ſo are in genere boni, good in their kind, the other have no ground, but meere impoſition, and ſo are in genere mali, in their kind evill. Now formes of Prayer are humane helps, and ſo good in their kind: Prayer is an Ordinance of GOD, it requires a forme of words, eſpecially in publique; all men are not able to conceive a forme, and therefore a compoſed forme to them is an helpe, The forme of words in Prayer is not the ſervice, but modus, the manner of ſerving God in that Ordinance.and ſo good in its kind. Now for the Governors of the Church where there is need of a form, to tye to one forme which they conceive pure, of purpoſe to exclude others, which they conceive corrupt, is I conceive no uſurpation upon Chriſt. And this was the end of our Godly reformers in appointing this Prayer Booke: Now though many men need not this helpe, and it may be can conceive better expreſſions, yet being that formes are human helps, and not in themſelves evill: I conceive we may uſe ſome of the Prayers without ſin, for though its often ſaid, that we may not do evill that good may come thereon, yet I never heard it proved, that we may not ſometime do a leſſe good, and not the greater, for peace and order, and to enjoy the greater good at other times, more fully and freely? This giveth me ſatiſfaction, and I beleeve many godly, and ſo prevents diviſion from the Church Aſſemblies, which is deſirable, for breaches if they be not neceſſary are juſtly ſcandalous. If any diſſent from us, we ſhall be more ready to contend with GOD then them; with God (I ſay) that he would move the Parliament to remove this forme ſo excepted againſt, and corrupt in the generall compoſure of it, and what ever other they preſcribe not exactly to tie the well guifted to it, but leave a liberty to vary as God ſhall enable them, as I have heard it hath been in our deare Siſter Church of Scotland: Or if they tie them to any forme, that they will rather tie them to the matter, then the words, to prevent the broaching of errors in Prayers, which ſome thinke was the firſt occaſion of ſet formes. There be Haereticall Prayers as well as Sermons: A Socinian may vent his Haereſy againſt the perſon of Chriſt, or the grace of Chriſt. An Anabaptiſt may vent his Haereſy againſt the Magiſtrates of Chriſt, or Ordinances of Chriſt, in his Prayer as well as Preaching, therefore the Governors may juſtly tie them to ſet heads of Prayer, though they leave a liberty to the able, to uſe their own expreſſions; ſo Haereſy ſhalbe prevented, and no breach of liberty juſtly pretended: but this I refer to the wiſdome of that Honorable Court.
Another Evill of this Treatiſe, which needed cure, it hath bred in ſome, and nouriſht in others, an opinion, that our Churches are not Churches, nor our Miniſters true Miniſters, nor our Sacraments to be participated without ſinne, whereby ſome are drawne to, and others confirmed in a neglect of the ſervants, and ſervice of God, which is no ſmall evill, that deſerveth cure. Give me leave therefore a little to examine his grounds. His firſt aſſay againſt our Churches, is in the cloſe of the proofe of his third point, the Diſcipline of our Church to be Antichriſtian, whence he concludes we want Diſcipline: and from the Book-prayer, and pell mell admiſſion to the Sacrament, he affirmes in his judgment, we want true Sacraments, and that the Preaching of the word, be generally corrupted, then it wants a third marke of a Viſible Church: for anſwere, I conceive a diſtinction ſuggeſted by the aſſertor of the Scotch Diſcipline to be very true, and here pertinent. P. 196. A Ʋiſible Church may be conſidered, either Metaphyſically, or politically. It is one thing to conſider men as living Creatures, indued with reaſon, another thing to conſider them as Magiſtrates, Maſters, Fathers, ſervants, &c. So it is one thing to conſider a Viſible Church in her eſſentialls, as a Society of men and women, ſeparated from the blind world, by divine vocation, and profeſſing together the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt, another thing to conſider it as a compleate politicall body, in which the power of Spirituall government and juriſdiction is exerciſed, ſom governing, ſome governed. Now a Church that wants government, or hath one that is corrupt, may be a true Church in the former ſenſe, though not in the latter, & being a tru Church in the former ſenſe, her mēbers may communicat together in theſe holy things, which fall under the power of order, which may be called Sacra myſtica, as word, prayer, Sacraments, though not inſuch things as are under the power of juriſdiction.
For his objections about Sacraments, the firſt I hope hath received already ſufficient anſwere.
For his ſecond objection of Pell mell admiſſion to the Sacrament, if he diſpute againſt the Church of England in generall, he muſt conſider what her Lawes are, not what the practiſe of ſome is: Its true, the Law enjoynes all to come, but its as true, that the ſame Law forbids thoſe that are in contention, or are otherwiſe offenſive to the Congregation, to be admitted till ſatiſfaction given: So the command is generall, that men may, not be let alone in prophanenes, and the admiſſion is reſtrained, that men may not be ſuffered to be prophaners.
And for his Third, The Preaching of the word generally corrupted, that ſhewes a mind to cavill, rather then any cauſe, ſeeing that corrupting of the Word, was againſt the Churches Lawes, by particular perſons, and all ſuch decrees againſt Laws are declared invalid: But in this he hath an if at the miniſtery which he further propoſeth in his Fourth particular in theſe words.
And to theſe Curates conſideration I refer it, whether they be able truely out of good premiſses to conclude themſelves the Miniſters of Chriſt lawfully called, when all of them doe immediatly derive their Miniſtry from the Antichriſtian Hierarchy, as the ſole foundation thereof; and under the name of Curates, he comprehends all the Godly, and learned Paſtors in the Church, and dare he ſay, that the ſole foundation of their Miniſtry is the Antichriſtian Hierarchy? Are the precious guifts and graces that Chriſt Jeſus hath beſtowed upon them, and bleſſed and honoured with the converſion of many ſoules, no part of the foundation of their Miniſtry? Is the free choice of their people, deſiring them to take the overſight of them, no part of the foundation of their Calling? Will not theſe in ſome mens judgments, and it may be of this diſputers, ſerve the turne without any thing elſe? Have they any thing from the Biſhops, but as it were, an externall authoriſing, to exerciſe their guifts in a publique way amongſt their people? which if it be in ſom reſpects corrupt, ſhall this corrupt complement make void the call of God, & of the people? God forbid! undoubtedly Chriſt would never ſo ordinarily worke by them as he doth, were they not his Miniſters, but Antichriſts: Beſides I beleeve this diſputer knowes, that by Law the Biſhop ought to have divers grave Preſbyters with him, and then the impoſition of hands is by the Presbytery, as was Timothies, not of Epiſcopacy only.
But having anſwered his Objections Printed, its needfull I anſwere ſome others occaſioned by him.
Object. Oh but ſay ſome, if theſe things be not included in the Proteſtation, of what uſe then is the Proteſtation.
Anſ. Very great; Is it not a great matter to fulfill that great charge laid upon the Church of Thyatira, Rev. 14. Hold faſt that which thou haſt: God hath given this Church ſome light, whereby almoſt all the erroneous Doctrines, and ſuperſtitions of Popery are removed, which light by the audaciouſneſſe and corruption of ſome Innovators, hath beene greatly obſcured, our Churches Doctrine in matter of Iuſtification, Free-will, Free Grace; Gods eternall decrees, &c. hath beene almoſt utterly overthrowne: Altars, Images, &c. brought in, and the adverſaries were as great as nought, and had proceeded far to worke diſturbance in the preſent proceedings: whereupon it pleaſed God to move our wiſe and Religious Parliament (ever bleſſed be his name for it) to make this Proteſtation to maintaine the truths and purity by Law eſtabliſhed, which was an excellent meanes to hold faſt that they had, and prevent apoſtacy, give me leave to illuſtrate this by an homely compariſon: When men are lifting up a thing of great weight, or Horſes are drawing ſome great burthen up a ſteep hill, when either are at a ſtand, wiſdome teacheth them to under-prop the burthen and ſtay it where it is, till breath is taken, or more help added to raiſe it to a deſired pitch. So was it with our worthy Reformers, they were tugging to heave an heavy weight, and were at a dead lift; This Proteſtation to defend our Doctrine that is pure, was an underpropping, that things might not goe backwards, till they could add more ſtrength to raiſe things higher, which God be bleſt, they are buſily indeavoring, and if men will but waite, I hope they ſhall ſee the Reformation raiſed as high as the Doctrines of Scriptures, which ought to be the only rule, and I doubt not but is theirs.
Q. But if they were in the Proteſtation, ought we not with violence to pull them downe, and ſo deale with all ſuperſtitious Pictures, &c.
A. To the conſideration of the matters Proteſted againſt, we muſt joyne the manner how we proteſt to oppoſe them, and that is lawfully. This Proteſtation gives men no leave to breake their Ranks, it puts not a ſword of authority into every private mans hand, but every thing is to be don in a lawfull way, without breach of that order that God hath appointed in the world, or our Laws have ordered in our Land. To anſwere this then diſtinctly: Things Proteſted againſt, are either private things, or publique, as for inſtance, ſome Crucifixes, and other inperſtitious Pictures, are our owne, at our own full diſpoſe, ſome are in publique places and as it were of publique intereſt, things that are private in a private mans power, this Proteſtation doth bind him to a preſent Reformation of without further leave from any. But for things that are publique, private perſons are to make their addreſſe to Magiſtracy, and intreat them to proceed, and then the private perſons may follow as Aſſiſtants.
Againe, Some corruptions are in our owne perſons, as our owne bowing to, or before the Altar: ſome are in others; that in our owne we are preſently to Reforme, but if another continue corrupt practiſes, we may admoniſh them, Proteſt againſt them, but not lay violent hands on them, but detect them to the Magiſtrate, who by his Proteſtation, will be bound to puniſh and Reforme them; thus Gods worke will be done in Gods way, with more beauty, ſafety, and certainty, and ſuteable to the mature Iudgments of the wiſe Compilers of this uſefull Vow.
After he hath done thus with the Proteſtation, he proceedes to other objections, to overthrow all ſubordination in the particular Churches of a Nation, not only to one another, which was never dreamt of, but to any generall government by Officers gathered out of all, and ſo ſet over all, and ſo he laies a ground for independant Separate Churches, which he deſires may be erected in this Nation: but this taske of his is undertaken and performed with better order and ſtrength, by another Author in the Presbyteriall Government Examined. And yet that hath received a ſolid Anſwere by the Aſſertor of the Scotch Government, and that not only in the generall, by the grounds there layd downe: but by a particular view and anſwere to the Arguments of the examiner, and therefore thither I ſhal remit the Reader that wil-take paines for ſatiſfaction in thoſe points. The full diſcuſſing of theſe things, is alſo beſides my purpoſe, who do only undertake the Anſwere of it, in reference to what is ſayd, touching the miſinterpretation of the Covenants, as impeaching the Doctrine that in the preceding Sermons I deſired to publiſh, yet becauſe I perceive many are much unſettled (and that even of thoſe to whom I have ſome relation) with the things that are ſcattered in this diſcourſe, I will indeavor briefly to run over the things here that are materiall, eſpecially ſuch as have not a full anſwere in the aboue-mentioned Treatiſe.
In this Authors Anſwers to his owne Quaery, what ſhall be ſubſtituted inſtead of Prelacy, Liturgy, and Ceremonies, many things deſerve examination. Firſt whereas he ſaith, conſidering the Church of England to be none other then a National Church, its uncapable of conſtitution. This word Nationall Church, I finde often uſed, and much put upon it, and yet neither is it a Scripture phraſe, nor do any give us a certaine expoſition of it, if by it they underſtand a Church that hath ſome common Nationall Worſhip, by ſome common Paſtor, at ſome common place, as all the Jewes had the ſame High Prieſt, and Temple, and all the Males were to meete thrice a yeare at the place which God ſhould chooſe; In which reſpect I conceive the Church of the Iewes was properly termed a Nationall Church; in this ſenſe Chriſtians have no Nationall Churches. But he ſeemes to make a National Church to be when an whole Nation is taken into a Viſible Church, or Churches, having all of them the outward profeſſion of Religion, which he ſaith, is impoſſible now, becauſe particular Ʋiſible Churches conſiſt of none but Ʋiſible living members, and viſible Saints under Chriſt the King of Saints. But here I would faine know the reaſon why it is neceſſary that the members in a particular Church, ſhould be of better mettall then the members of a Nationall Church: doth not God require by his precepts, as much of a Nationall Church, and ſay as much of them, as of a particular Church? See Exodus 19.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. how often is that Prieſt on the Nationall Church of the Iewes, Be yee holy or Saints, for I am holy: The very ſame charge that is preſt on Chriſtians, 1 Pet. 1.14, 15, 16. where no more is required of the members of Chriſtian particular Churches, then of the members of the Iewiſh Nationall Church, and are not the members of the Iewiſh Nationall Church called holy or Saints, aſwell as be commanded to be ſo? How often is this reaſon given by the Lord, for you are an holy people: See Deut. 7.6, & 14…, 21, & 26, 19. And many otherglorious things are ſpoken of the church of the Iewes. Ie. 2, 5. Pſ. 135, 4. And was not Chriſt their King? Pſa. 44, 4. If he were ſlayne from before the Foundation of the world, and the Redeemer of the Church under the Law, was he not their King too? What difference then doth Scriptures make betweene the members of a Nationall and particular Church, and who dares diſtinguiſh where the Scripture doth not? If they Anſwere that the Nationall Church of the Iewes were holy in Profeſſion, or are called holy in regard of ſome that were ſo indeed, the denomination being from the better part; will not, nay muſt not that anſwere ſerve us? were all the members of the Apoſtolicall Churches Viſible Saints, otherwiſe then by profeſſion? what thoſe that were carnal in Corinth? Cap. 3. and defrauders and ſcandalous contenders too? C. 6. Thoſe that were drunk whē they came to the Sacrament too? Thoſe that denyed the Reſurrection too? 1 Cor. 15, 12. and thoſe that had not repented of their uncleanneſſe, fornication, and Laſciviouſneſſe too? 2 Cor. 12, 21. And thoſe that traduced the Apoſtle too. Cap. 11. Then what ſhall deny the viſibility of a Saint, or a living member? So I might aske touching ſome in the Ancient holy Church of Rome, Romans 16, 17, 18. And the like of ſome in the Church of Philippi. Cap. 3.18.19. So likewiſe in the Church of Sardis, Revel. 3, 1, 4. and Laodicea. Revel. 3, 16, &c. Can theſe be ſayd to conſiſt of Saints, or holy people any more then the Iewes, muſt they not have the Title of Saints, in regard of their Profeſſion? or the denomination from the better part? Can Sardis in any other reſpect have the name of a Colden Candleſtick? And then I would know againe, for what reaſon it ſhould be more diſhonorable to Chriſt to be the head of a Congregation that are not all Viſible Saints, further then by profeſſion and outward conformity, then to be the head of a Nation, where all are not Viſible Saints, or why Chriſtians ſhould be in more danger, for being one by Profeſſion in a Congregationall body, then Chriſt and Prophets, for being one with ſuch as were not Viſible Saints in a Nationall body, theſe I confeſſe are Riddles to mee: Nay I conceive that though all that doe profeſſe holyneſſe and life ſhould in-duty be ſo, yet Chriſt in the parable of the Tares and wheate, ſhowes it will not be ſo, and a generall ſeperation is not to be attempted till the end of the world, for the Tares ſignifie the workers of Iniquitie that grow & are to be gathered out of the Kingdome of him who is ſtiled the King of Saints; and out of what Kingdome but the Kingdome parabolized, The Kingdome of Heaven. Math. 13, 24, 41. and theſe Tares were not ſecret Hypocrits, for the Servants did diſcerne them, and tell the Maſter of them, and not the Maſter the Servants: nor doth it any way croſſe us that the field is interpreted the world, as though the wicked and Godly ſhould be in the world together, but in diſtinct ſocieties. For this cannot be? Why ſhould the Servants wonder to ſee the wicked in the world? how could the Tares come after the wheat, as they are ſaid to doe, ſeeing the wicked were in the world, before the Godly in the Church? ſee verſes 25, 27: Why ſhould the Servants conſult about the wicked in the World? What have they to do with thoſe that are without? yea if the whate and the Tares be thus interpreted, there muſt by this parable be nothing but wheate in the Church, no Chaffe, no Judas, no hypocrite, for all but the tares are righteous, and ſhall ſhine as the Sun in the Kingdome of the Father. verſes 41.43. But why then is the Field interpreted to be the world?
A. For good reaſons, becauſe the viſible Church was not to be limited to Judea, but extended to the whole world that would entertaine it. Secondly, the word of this Kingdome, ver. 19. was to be Preached in the world and by the word of this Kingdome, this Kingdome was to be gathered in the world, in which Kingdome ſhould appeare the Tares with the Wheat. Theſe things are ſo ſuitable to Chriſts words & ſcop, that I do not at al doubt but that this is the true expoſition of this parable. Nor doth the Argument ſo confidently held out againſt it, any whit overthrow it: if you thus interpret the parable ſay ſome, you muſt of neceſſity exclude all Church Genſures, and ſo croſſe other plaine Scriptures.
A. There is no ſuch neceſſity in it, neither, for its a rule in interpreting parables, we muſt not extend them beyond their ſcope, now we muſt know wicked men are of two rankes; one ordinary, that though they have no grace viſible, yet they are formal Profeſſors, not guilty of Crimes, others that are guilty of notorious crimes, as the inceſtuous perſon &c. Anſwerably there may be conceived a two fold ſeparation: One generall of all the wicked, the other ſpeciall of thoſe that are ſcandalous. This Parable treates of a generall Separation of all the wicked from the godly, which is here denyed to belong to the State of the Church in this world not of the particular Separation of the evill ſcandalous by ſome crime which elſewhere is required to be done by Church cenſures. And in this Anſwere I am fully confirmed by this Argument, Church cenſures are an Ordinance that is to be uſed not only for the ſeparating of Tares, but Wheate for a time, nay ſometimes of Wheate, not Tares, for excommunication is for thoſe that are ſcandalous, now a man may be in the judgment of charity, godly in regard of his eſtate in generall, and yet in ſome particular ſcandalous, and ſo need, and deſerve excommunication. And a man may be ſo meerly formall, that in the judgment of charity, hee cannot be deem'd godly, and yet he may be faire-conditioned, without crime, and without ſcandall, here the Tares will ſcape, and the Wheate undergoe Separation, and therefore ſith the Separation here inquired of, is of another nature, then that which is effected by Church cenſures, to exclude Church cenſures by it, is to rack it and wreſt it, beyond its ſcope. I have ſtuck the longer in this, becauſe this is the Cardo Controverſiae, the Hing on which the reſt is turned, now I proceed. He after makes great complaint of the State of our Church, to which I ſo far conſent, that I could wiſh with Ieremy, my head waters, and mine eyes fountaines, to ſend forth rivers of teares, for the breakers of Gods Law. But he takes up afterward, and tells us, that like Sardis, we have a few names which have not defiled their garments, and the way of reformation he preſcribes it by ſeparating theſe few names into a new Church, for which he cites 2 Cor: 6, 17.
But ſtay, is this Chriſts way? doth he ſo counſell the Church of Sardis? if ſo, I will yeeld: if not, is not this way of his humane preſumption exalted againſt the wiſdome of Chriſt? Now Chriſts Counſell is to repent of the evill, hold faſt the good, ver. 3. to ſtrengthen the things that are ready to die, ver 2. but not a word of ſeparating the few. How dare any then preſume to do it? I have often ſought, and long, a reſolution of this doubt, but could never yet finde it, but this Author thinkes he hath found a command 2 Cor. 6, 17. Come out from among them, and be yee ſeparate. A ſtrange thing (ſaith he) be yee ſeparate; but a ſtrange proofe ſay I, That a command to Chriſtians, to come out from among Heathen Idolaters, and not to touch any ſinfull thing ſhould be thought to prove it the duty of Chriſtians to be ſeparate from formall prophane Chriſtians, and not to touch any holy thing with them? what proportion is here for an inference? And for my part, I muſt confeſſe, I have wondred to ſee men ſo ſtrict in this, that they will not joyne in holy duties with the Prophane, which yet I ſee make no ſcruple to joyne in following vaine faſhions with them which was wont to be counted an uncleane thing: But this is further confirmed by a direction to Ieremy, Ier. 15, 20. If thou take forth the precious from the vile, but this is likewiſe as unfit a ſhaft for his Bow, for Ieremy lived in a Nationall Church, in which ſuch a Separation as here this diſputer ſtrives for, he confeſſeth is not requiſite, nor was it practiſed by Iſaiah 8, 18. though he had occaſion, or by any other. I marvaile then that this Author, or any other, ſhould bring this place of Ieremy, to prove their Separation: There is a Doctrinall Separation which is required in every Miniſter, if he divide the word of truth aright, and that we are bound to as well as Ieremy, and the Godly Miniſters do carefully performe: but for ſuch a Separation as this Proteſtor requires, here can be no ground for, which they affirme was not required from the Church of the Iewes: But it is further affirmed, that after ſuch an Apoſtacy as ours, Churches muſt be gathered anew, as when the Apoſtles planted Churches where the Goſpell had not been Preacht, this is onelyonly dictated without proofe, and yet is neither true nor probable, there being ſo wide a difference betweene our Nation now, and when Ioſeph of Arimathea firſt planted the Goſpell in it, when it was purely Paganiſh: beſides, If this were requiſite, then muſt God alſo give Miniſters qualified to gather Churches, and not only to goe on in the ordinary worke of the Miniſtry: that is, Miniſters indued with extraordinary guifts having immediate callings, to Preach where they will, without the leave of men, with extraordinary aſſiſtance, without which ordinarily no liberty can be expected to gather Churches, till therefore I ſee the like guifts and callings, in ſome meaſure, I ſhall not beleeve the like worke or duty to lye on Miniſters now.
But ſome may aske what ſhall then be done?
A. Can we have better Counſell then was given to Sardis, by Chriſt Ieſus our bleſſed Lord and Prophet? and that is to repent of what hath beene amiſſe; publik humiliation, may fit publike tranſgreſſion, which the Parliament may be intreated to apply to this malady, and then not ſeparate from, but labour to ſtrengthen and rectifie that which is ready to die. The Parliament are about a great and good worke of removing erroneous and ſcandalous Miniſters, and ſeting up godly and learned lights every where, and withall, giving or confirming rather power to the godly Paſtors, to keepe off thoſe that are unfit for the Sacrament by groſſe ignorance, or ſcandalous life, by which meanes, Pariſhes that are already taught, may be quickly brought into for better order, and thoſe that are not, may by teaching be brought to ſome good meaſure of underſtanding, and deſire of the Sacrament, and ſome at leaſt outward Reformation before they be required or admitted to Communion in the Sacramēt. But here we have another Quaere what we ſhall doe, where prophane and ignorant perſons are permitted Pell, Mell, to which he Anſwers, that if Gods Ordinance be Prophane (as they are) by ignorant and prophaned perſons coming to the Lords Table) then others alſo that Communicate with them, are guilty of the ſame prophanation. What is this ſo without any exception? prophane and ignorant perſons prophane the Word, and Prayer, and Faſting, and theſe are Gods Ordinances, cannot we performe this with them, but bee guilty? this is new doctrine. In the Church of Sardis to which he did compare us, were the few names guilty of that prophanation which the reſt muſt needes doe? doe not the Scriptures ſhew the contrary? Revel. 3, 4. their Garments were undefiled, is there no other way to keep our ſelves free from pollution, but ſeparation? what if we endeavor to remove the prophane? is not that a better courſe? and that which was the burthen ſtill layd upon the god…y? but never that in this caſe they ſhould ſeparate themſelves, or if they cannot ſeparate the wicked, but do their part, diſcovering them, & deſiring their ejection, will not that free them from guilt? I thinke it will: and if not, I beleeve he muſt not long keepe in any of his new Churches. But the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Cor. 5, 6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, ſo thoſe that are corrupt will leaven all. A. That is, If they be acceſſory to the corru…tions of others, not elſe: againe, how doth leaven leaven the lump, but by diffuſing a reall quality into it? now there being two things in ſinne, the guilt which is a relation, and in this caſe muſt come by imputation, and the ſtaine or vitiouſneſſe which is a quality, and in this reſpect the corrupt will leaven only thus, when he is ſuffered and countenanced, he is apt to infect others with his ill qualities, Thus this ſentence muſt be expounded, Gal. 5, 9. in regard of infection with the ſame evils.from which they ſhall be ſafe enough that bewaile and diſtaſt his ill qualities, though they be at the Sacrament with him, yet if they can get aſſiſtance, one effect of their diſtaſt ſhould be excommunication: But the Apoſtle applies it to mixt Communion, ver. 8 but he miſapplies that Text which others more ſuitably interpret of leading our lives, not eating the Sacrament. And for that verſe the 9. not to company with fornicators, its meant of familiarity, not of the Sacrament. For you may ſee by the two following verſes, ſuch an accompanying is there forbidden to a Brother which is allowed with an heathen, and therefore cannot be meant of Communion in the Sacrament. But I hope by the pietie of our Parliament, every godly Miniſter wilbe enabled to keepe off all that be guilty of ſuch crimes, if that will ſerve the turne, and remove that objection. The place Epheſ. 5, 5, 7. Be not partakers with them, is clearely meant in regard of their ſinnes, not the Sacrament, as appeares by the following verſe.
In Anſwering the next objection, he brings two places to prove that the holy thing of God ſhould not be prophaned, but againſt what adverſary? whoſoever taught ſo? but that the prophaning of them by one, ſhould prophane then to others, its denyed: his place Iſa 1, 1…. will only prove that God rejected their ſervice, whoſe hands were full of blood, not the ſacrificers of the good, elſe how will he excuſe Iſaiahs Communion with that Church? or Chriſt Ieſus after him, when they were as bad? or where is his inference made or practiſed by the Prophets or Chriſt from this place, of neceſſity of ſeparation where the prophane be?
In anſwering his next quaere, he tells us that to Communicate with evill doers is to partake of their evill deeds. This is affirmed, but not proved, nor doe I thinke it ever will, that my doing a good action well upon command of God, with one that doth the ſame good Action will make me guilty of his ſinne; ſure I am, then Chriſt and his Prophets, and Apoſtles, were all ſorely defiled. His proofe 2 Theſ. 3, 6. is quite miſapplied, for its ſpoken of withdrawing from him in regard of company and reſpect which is free and Arbitrary, not of the Sacrament, wherein they were not to withdraw from him, but if the quality of the offence did require it, were to put him away.
In his next Anſwere he affirmes that no Communion can be had in our Pariſh Aſſemblies poſſibly, without ſetting up new Churches: But I hope in this he is much deceived as in the reſt. He compares us to Sardis formerly, yet I hope there Communion might be had without this medicine of new Churches. Nay let there be ſhown any example or any precept in the Scripture that in our caſe new Churches ſhould be erected, and not the old repaired, and brought back to the rule from which they have ſwerved, and we will yeeld the cauſe: but if there be no ſuch precept nor example, then in vaine are all ſuch pleas as he uſeth, for things which Chriſt hath neither left precept nor patterne of. And when we ſee God hath heard the Prayers, and bleſt the Nation for the prayers of the godly in our Churches, as now they ſtand, and hath made us a people ſaved by the Lord, who is the ſhield of our helpe, and the ſword of our excellency, more we ſhal not expect by his new Churches, unleſſe he convince the neceſſity of them, by better evidence out of the word, which when he hath proved, we will never put him to trouble to anſwere inconveniences, but will with him buckle our ſelves to digeſt them; but we will not caſt our ſelves, nor will the wiſdom of the ſtate ſuffer it to be caſt on inconveniencies for good mens fanſies without Chriſts command.
Nor wil we ever object it to be too ſtrickt, pure or perfect, if the rule for it be convinced, but we will affirme that being its ſtrayter then the counſell which Chriſt gave to Sardis, and different from it too, the pretence of purity and perfection is not to be hearkned to, for it is not ſuch in truth, but ſhew, becauſe it is not after Chriſt. Col. 2, 8. The like we ſay for envying at them, we will blame them that envy at them, if they diſcover the rule for what they doe, but till then we ſhall cenſure them we hope by this Parliament. The Diſcipline of Chriſt wil be ſet up in every Congregation, and this will be a better or weaklier managed, as the Miniſters and members are growne in Chriſt: if then any Chriſtian be where great ſcandalls are, they may remove to other Congregations that have attained a better degree of Reformation, and this without any breach.
His next quaere is what Nationall government ſhalbe ſet up by the Parliament, for which he heartily prayes, that God would direct them in ſo glorious a work, and bleſſeth God for ſuch inſtruments, for ſuch a worke I thanke him for his affection, but yet if his Doctrine of the independancy of Churches be ſound, this prayer cannot be of faith, for a man cannot pray in faith that men ſhould meddle with that which is not within their ſphaere or Calling, and ſure if independancy be a liberty of Chriſt, all the Parliament hath to doe, is to aſſert this liberty, and what is more, is but uſurpation. Then he tells us that the government of a Nationall Church hath no patterne in the word: the full anſwere of that I refer to the aſſertion of the government of the Church of Scotland, which I doubt not but will give good ſatiſfaction to the indifferent Reader. Afterward he diſcovers (me thinkes) too much uncharitableneſſe and ſelfe love. When he affirmes, let them have their liberty, and do for the reſt what they will, tis indifferent to them, a litle more care of the ſoules of Chriſtians might better ſuite with thoſe that ſo far tranſcend others in outward reformation.
His laſt objection is inconveniency of independant Churches, if they erre as they may, they want meanes of reclayming, which is better ſet on by the Scotch Aſſertor, yet he hath ſaid more, then he hath well anſwered, for having named all the meanes which their independancy is capable of, and being conſcious it ſeemes that they were too weake. He adds 2 other that quite deſtroy the independancy. As firſt that other Churches may excommunicate them, how are they independant, if under the Iuriſdiction of other Churches? or how can they be excommunicated by thoſe under whoſe Iuriſdiction they are not? ſure this is worſe dependance then under the Preſbytery, where a part is only ſubiected to the whole, but here a part is ſubiected to a part.
And this ſecond is no better, for if they be under the Magiſtrate for any Haereſy, why not for all? thoſe that are guilty will not confeſſe any of their Haereſies, for knowne Haereſies, but aſſert them for truth, and ſo chalenge exception for them, aſwell as any, and if that be a known hereſy, which is ſuch to the judgment of the Magiſtrat, thē for all hereſy they are to be ſubject to cēſure, & their indepēdācy is a nullity. Thus have I gon through this whole diſcourſe without indeavouring to ſtifle, but rather ſincerely to ſearch out what is truth in every particular. It is my deſire and prayer, that I might doe nothing againſt, but for the truth, rather would I deſire that God ſhould bring me forth to the ſevereſt ſufferings for the truth, then leave me though in ſimplicity of heart, to oppoſe any the leaſt trueth. What remaines but that while we that minde the ſame things, Chriſts honour in the ſalvation of his people, and right performance of his Ordinances, and differ only in the way, labour to keepe Vnity of heart, till we have unity of judgment, and let our Prayers be united at the Throne of Grace, though our perſons be in different Societies, that God may perſwade the wanderers into the Tents of thoſe, to whom he hath vouchſafed the better light: That God may have the more honour, and we the more ſtrength, & comfort by our free and ſcruple-leſſe conſociation: Which mercy the Lord vouchſafe for Jeſus Chriſt his ſake, by the helpe of the Spirit of truth, leading into al truth, to whom be glory for ever,
Amen.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Geree, Vindication of the True Sense of the National Covenant (1641)