SHORT STRICTURES OR ANIMADVERSIONS On so much of Mr crofton's [Fastening St Peter's Bonds] As concern the REASONS OF THE UNIVERSITY of OXFORD Concerning the Covenant.  
By Tho. Tomkins Mr. of Arts, and Fellow of All-Souls Coll. in Oxon.  
LONDON: Printed by E. C. for A Seile over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1661.   

To the Reverend JOHN MEREDITH Doctor of Divinity, and Warden of All-Souls College in Oxford.  
Honoured Sir,  
BEfore I presume to beg your Patronage, I must bespeak your Pardon. You might indeed justly wonder, how I should think myself able to judge what were material in this weighty Controversy; did I not live in an age of so much Light, that there are two things we are all able to do: viz. to Reform a Church, and Model a State. There is a Fault (I must confess) in Our (as in All) Governments, which as some men are resolved never to Pardon, so I have no hope ever to see mended, viz. That all are not uppermost.  
There is an Objection will be made against this Innocent Treatise, that it is wrote against Conscientious men. I cannot deny but that the concerned Gentlemen are admirably furnished with Consciences for every occasion. To prevent this Cavil, my appeal is to You who know what conscience is; having suffered so much to preserve a good one: A trial, those Gentlemen were never very forward to undergo, nor (if my Augury fail me not) ever mean to be. That sacred thing (or what was mistaken for it, or at least called by that Name) hath done strange things in this Nation, which it highly concerns some to inquire whether it will justify. We read in Scripture of Obeying for conscience; but not one word of Rebelling for it. And yet men can do it, and at the same time make the written Word the rule of their Action. It first distinguished between the King's Person and His Power, and next between his head & his shoulders. And truly, they who once divide the King's Person and Power are concerned that they never unite again.  
Because men do daily disobey Laws upon the score of conscience, and for that reason take themselves, and are taken by others, for Innocent; I shall beg your leave to ask this Question, Whether following Conscience is a sufficient Plea to quit us from sin, even where it is so indeed? (To say nothing of those Universal Pretenders, Artifice and Melancholy.) The Scripture maketh mention of seared Consciences, reprobate minds, which sure are no great perfections; and of strong delusions, which though they be new lights are but flashes of hellfire. And St. Paul reckons himself the greatest of sinners, for what he did out of the dictates of conscience [I myself thought verily that I ought to do many, etc.] These are competent grounds of rendering that Tenent suspicious.  
I ask therefore briefly, Hath the conscience any rule besides itself, or no? If not; How is the written Word of God the rule of Action? If it have; Whether it be possible for it to swerve from its Rule, or no? If not; then every man is infallible, there can be no such thing as strong delusions, believing a lie, etc. If it be possible for conscience to swarve from its Rule; whether its swarving be its Innocency? For if it be not so, it is no sufficient ground for men to conclude themselves innocent, when they disobey Authority, because it is their conscience so to do, because the Word of God (to which Conscience as well as other Faculties ought to be subject, and sins when it is not) prescribes obedience to Governors in the most universal terms imaginable. I could not but say thus much; because, [This is our conscience] was the old non-conformists first plea, and the latter (in name only different) Enthusiasts only plea; and if it be a sufficient one, it must hold in all cases as well as any: because the reason is equal in all. It may justify those many who killed the King, and those many more who killed our Saviour.  
My want of years and judgement I shall not at all excuse, but urge as my fitness for this employment; It were a disparagement to the University of Oxford, if such an Antagonist could not be answered by one of the meanest who can plead relation to so Renowned a Body.  
The many weaknesses you will find in these papers are so many evidences that I came to Oxford in times of Reformation, when Learning was counted little less than an enemy to Grace, as indeed it was to what they called so.  
Our Imperfections (Honoured Sir) we blush not to discover to you whose goodness will not see them but only to remove them: whose business is, not so much to preside, in a College, as to reform it; to be our Warden, as Example. Like the Sun who when he rules the world, enlightens it too, when he shines he cherishes; so that its most spendid Majesty is but Love in all its glory: So your Commands are so many boons, and injunctions endearments: so that you do not rule but assist and oblige us; and have now abundantly satisfied the Obligation the Founder laid upon you of promoting the good of the College to your uttermost, by vouchsafing to take us into your particular care. So that how mean soever this Present is, from yourself I am assured to learn how, in time to come, I may make a better: And in the mean time glory that I can account myself,  
Honoured Sir, Your most devoted and obliged Servant, THO. TOMKINS. All Souls Coll. Oxon Sept. 26.   

To the Reader.  
READER,  
I Very well foresee, that many (who are conscious to themselves, that such things are possible) will laugh and scorn at the Author of this Treatise, as one who meant to write the sense of the Times, rather than his own. In the beginning therefore, I bar all who have been themselves guilty of what they only suppose to be, viz. Our late Complyers, whose consciences have been in this sense tender, that they might be bent any way. And now, I hope, I have prevented my most numerous and severe Accusers. But, now I think on it, I will release them too; let them employ all their art and passion, in telling the World, how unworthy such Proceedings (while they have been their own) are. For why should I hinder such men from laughing at themselves? The worst all those can say of me is, I am like them; and that were bad enough, if it were true.  
This Account is civil enough for these men: I should gladly afford them another, if I had any reason to think so well of them, that their Principles would not fail them: if it should once happen, that they would consist with their duty; and that their beloved Rule, Obey the present Power, whatever it be (Blasphemously called following Providence) had not this one, and that the only, Exception, Provided it be not the Lawful Power. And sure there is too much Reason so to guests, when those whose Consciences scrupled nothing under an Usurper; scruple indifferent things under their King: when Perjury, nay Covenant-Breaking, Sacrilege, and Treason, were easier in those days swallowed; then a Ceremony in these.  
My own faults, in the Performance, are so many, that I would not willingly be obliged to answer for any more than mine own; viz. The Ill-timing, etc. But how to assure those men (I before spoke of) of the truth of any thing I shall assert, about my own intentions in that, or any thing else; I profess I am utterly Ignorant: since they, out of their own experience of themselves, very well know, that the most Solemn Oaths and Imprecations, are not sufficient Evidences of ones sincere meaning.  
But there are others, who are capable of, and therefore deserve, a better account; who as they abhorred Time-serving in themselves, are loath to suspect it in another: it being very hard for him who doth no ill himself, to think, without great cause, Ill of another. To them I say thus:  
Whoever thinks this time unseasonable for a Treatise of this Nature, my opinion is so perfectly the same with his, that, had it been in mine own choice, I should not have needed to have told the World so. And this I insisted upon in several Letters to one of that place and prudence (whose commands it was scarce manners for me to dispute) more pressingly then many others (perhaps the most censorious) would.  
I urged that the Contest was about the Covenant, which had been already answered by the Parliament; The only way it deserved to be considered. And to compose such a Treatise, would be but to produce evidence against one who was executed the week before. But this Objection doth not, I confess, reach the case so fully as I apprehended it would, before I had exactly read over Mr. Cr. Book; because Mr. Cr. sometimes in pursuit of his Argument, oftener in running away from it, doth insert Principles no way relating to the Covenant, then as they may be subservient to the main (though disowned) end of the Composers of it, viz. Anarchy in Church and State, as several notions about the King's Prerogative, Liberty, Propriety, the Original of Government, Sacrilege, Will-worship, the Power of the Church, Holidays, Superstition, Scandal, etc. Which according to his explication (who to say the truth, speaks out all) the Covenanters were more wary, then professedly to own. Now I suppose, there is no Reason why Errors, because they are, in a Book, wrote in defence of the Covenant should be privileged from Confutation: this were to invest the Covenant in the Grave, with the same Power it exercised in the Throne.  
There are two Reasons (Reader) which I have prevented thee from using; which, had they seemed sufficient to One who is better able to judge than I, or possibly, thyself canst pretend to be, thou hadst miss of that sport, thou thinkest thyself to make with them.  
Which yet I cannot deny, but that there is some ground of suspicion for; when I consider the practices of some in, and the opinions (thence drawn) others have of, the Place I live in: For it may be thought first, That I write now against the Covenant, upon the same score in these times, upon which I would have wrote for it in others: Tenants as well as clothes, changing with the Fashion. As to this, I only say this: Of those few that do know me, many can witness me to be innocent in this particular, even when they dare not say themselves have been so.  
But if not this, it may (perhaps) be thought, that this is a sage Contrivance of a sneaking Scholar, who being resolved to write against some body, chose one who durst not answer. I must confess this would have troubled me, had this been my first attempt: It is well known, I appeared as to the civil part (and to the Covenant, as it referred to that) when the Press was open enough, since which, all Mr. Cr. Books on that subject, have been writ.  
There was one thing more which dissuaded me from, and hindered me in, the finishing this; and that alone would have me have suppressed, now it is done; which I to that end proposed to that Reverend Person who engaged me in it, viz. A fear that it might displease the judicious Royalists, as being an occasion to multiply the number of (what is already too great) Seditious Pamphlets, it being not probable, that of those numerous Abettors of Mr. Cr. and his cause he brags of, not one should offer to assert either. But I do assure all those worthy persons, I received a Negative as to this too, from one, in whose judgement they would readily acquiesce; and desired me to go on, for that the Times did require (what sure this Book did not) an Answer to Mr. Cr. This Book, I must confess, comes out late against the Covenant; I wish some men had more honesty, or less countenance, that this may be the last; or if not so, That there may never be need of other weapons, besides Pens against it. If thou wilt yet be satisfied (Reader) that I was only passive in the Publishing, I am glad; if not, I am resolved not to be sorry.   

The Introduction.  
EIther the Covenant is in its sense as Loyal, and in its obligation as indispensable as it is at present thought convenient to be asserted; or, it is not. If not; why is there such a do made about that, which if in any circumstances of affairs, certainly in these, obligeth not? But if it is; How came it to pass, that it was totally forgot by themselves, when the Rump, or the Cromwel's appeared to be in good earnest against it. Sure I am, the very Covenanters thrived by contrary Oaths and practices. Sure I am, that whole party, (very, very few particulars excepted) have been such base complyers with, nay flatterers of, every thing, but their lawful Prince; take as unworthy conditions from an unlawful Power, as themselves would fain have imposed upon the one only lawful one. That they have discovered hitherto no other use of their conscience, but in scrupling at things indifferent, and that too, when it brought along with it gain and credit. Be turned out of a Benefice of 30 l. a year, when to be a silenced Minister was worth a 100 The instances of other sufferers are not very numerous; nor when trial comes to be made, will, I suppose, be. Where was their Allegiance to King Charles in Queen Richard's days? Him they courted upon these two accounts, He was an Usurper, and so obliged to secure them in other men's estates, Qualis Rex, talis Grex. And secondly, he was an easy fool, and so apt to be ruled by crafty Knaves. Nor did they trouble Him with their Covenant; because they were sure to enjoy what they intended by it, viz. other men's Estates: No matter for the Scotch Government, when without it they can securely keep English Livings. Nor was it of any great Concern to have this Church reform according to their principles, when the best endowed Churches were reform into their possession. He who endeavours to persuade me to an Oath, himself in cases of danger or profit broke, takes me a Fool, and engages me to take him for a Knave.  
If the Covenant be a National Obligation, obliging all, even those who took it not, as well as those who took it, and Posterity into the bargain, (as Mr. Cr. in the sixth Section throughout) none are more guilty than those who imposed and asserted it, because none have acted more contrary to it, according to that loyal sense which is now put on it. The truth is, it is penned so ambiguously, that (like their Consciences) it might suit all times. They swear in the third Article [To preserve the King's Person and Authority, etc.] By preserving the King's person, their practice teaches me to understand preserve, i. e. keep safe▪ i. e. in custody, i. e. in Prison: As for his Authority, that was preserved too; where, as things than stood, they could have been content it should have been continued: That they would have preserved the King's Authority, I shall not deny but in whose hands let themselves speak. They told us pretty fair at the beginning of the War, See 19 Propositions: All the King's Privy Council to be approved by them, take such an Oath as they pleased; so likewise the Chancellor, judges, the Steward, etc. all the great public Officers; so likewise Peers, the whole Militia at their disposal, and the marriage of the King's Children, all who had stood for the King, to be at the mercy of the Parliament. Their other Proposals were much at the rate of these, I therefore pass them over all, and so I shall their Votes of Non-Addresse, with their Declaration upon them, because shame hath made them buy them all up, so that upon ordinary enquiry they are not to be had, and themselves revoked them when they knew not well how to help it, but were fain to make a virtue of Fear and Spite, and call it Loyalty, at the Isle of Wight-Treaty, where the King's Party must be first acknowledged guilty of the blood shed in the War, in the Preface, and accordingly treated in the Articles; the Militia, Law-making, Officers, etc. all in them solely for twenty years, all Peers made by the King since the Great Seal went to him, null; their Great Seal approved, etc. with much more to be seen in the Articles: And after all this, for fear some Regalia, some shadow of Authority should have escaped their observation, they only Voted his Concessions a fit ground for establishing a peace, so that if they could think of any thing else which looked like Authority, they were resolved to have it, for the Agreement was only begun, not made.  
As to the King's Person, I do not find they can acquit themselves much better; I very well know, that in the actual cutting off the King's Head, and some other attendant violences, the Army did not suffer the Presbyterian party to have the whole share of the benefit: but I suppose that will not free them from the whole share of the guilt; except, when two join in an unlawful design, he who is outwitted, is presently innocent.  
First, I inquire, whose Army it was? who raised them, furnished them with opportunity (not at present to say, Principles?) Had there been no more, they could not have been easily acquitted; for a man is responsible for the consequents of his unwarrantable actions, especially if they are foretold, and he will not desist: In that case he can scarce say, He did not intend those consequences, not at all pretend he did not produce them.  
In our Law, if a man in his lawful calling, doth an act, though without his intent or knowledge, by which a man is unawares to him killed, the punishment is severe, though morally he cannot be supposed to help it: As a Mason throwing stones or timber from the top of a House, a Man going by, by chance is killed; but if such a Man doth such an act out of his Calling, it is Death, and that deservedly: So the two Houses, had they professed no hostility to the King, they not being in their employment, the power of the Sword not at all being by our Laws vested in them, nor can they make out which way they came by, or who gave them, that Authority; whatever is the consequent of their so doing, they are guilty of it, be it what it will: And truly it is reasonable, that they who will usurp employment, should be obliged to see the Ills of it not to be greater than those which before perhaps they did but fancy.  
He who forces me out of the security of the Law, and by violence confines me to another protection, is obliged to see that that be not less. And this would have been so, suppose the King to have had the rights barely of a private person: He who without authority of Law, but solely upon the grounds (real or imaginary) of expediency, will commission, enrage, and arm men against me, and after their having made them my mortal Enemies, make them my Lifeguard, commit my life to the keeping of those, themselves had often represented me to, as not fit to live; he before God and Man is answerable for my life, without whom those others could have had neither power, nor pretence, nor, in all probability, would have a will to take my life from me.  
But (alas) how small a part of the Presbyterian Parliaments guilt is this, from whom they received not only opportunity, but principles and example? They not only enabled, but taught the Army by doctrine and practice. Imprisoning the King, our Law, and common sense too, calls compassing his Death: For in that case, his life, as to the public, can be nothing but a capacity of taking away theirs, and they all that while are in a fair probability of being hanged. After the imprisonment of a King, suppose him like to escape, and head a numerous party, did he not deserve to be farther proceeded against? and would not their own security require it? Would they have ever restored the King to the Exercise of any power, till he had assented to what they should please or no? If no, I desire to know first what the Army did more than that? Secondly, what a King he were, who had nothing to do in the Government, but only gro●n under it? And thirdly, why may not they who have Authority to depose a King, and have just grounds, viz the security of the public, may not for the assurance of that security, put him to death. If they would have restored the King, though he had not tamely said Yes to every Demand, yielded his Crown to save his Head, let them say so for shame, if they can.  
What they did, and owned from the beginning, and it may be too justly concluded from the no remorse we find in them, would own again, were it not for fear and shame, will justify the Army from any thing but being their servants, who understood, and only acted their Commandment. In the first Reason for a War, [The King was but a Trustee, and had broken his trust, which tended to the Dissolution of Government.] That was fair to begin with, [Tended to, etc.] i. e. The relation of King and Subjects was fairly going, and why, if but a Trustee, and the Trust broken, it may not be reseized; I could almost tell them, I see no cause: Sure it would sufficiently show their intentions in case of the King, but not at all better their own claim: I would not have the House of Commons triumph too soon; because, as is very evident, they had received their whole power and trust; so both, in the Judgement of him who called them, and those who sent them, they had basely betrayed it.  
Again, the King was not King in his personal, but political capacity, i. e. themselves, against whom therefore to wage War was Treason, according to this, the cutting off the King's Head cannot be Treason. I shall not deal farther in this, but only desire all those of them who would persuade themselves of their own innocency, that they are at least thus far concerned, that they employed and empowered those men, who but for them, never would have been able to accomplish, nor in all likelihood to contrive that black Act; and that after the King had often by rational and convincing Arguments showed it to be the necessary result of their principles and proceedings: And truly the Army were almost obliged, in their own defence to pull down the King and Laws, they had so much offended, that they could scarce hope for pardon, nor at all be secured of it, the King being once restored, any farther than they were assured of the King's regard to Honour and Conscience, a thing the two Houses had very unworthily often declared to be none at all.  
I cannot but observe how the Parliament thought to order the King, by employing such men as would do their work throughly. They could not in discretion trust the King, but could an Army, and so betrayed themselves with a great deal of wariness, as it is very ordinary for men to ruin their own Interest by preferring it before their Duty: And in that case the question is this, Who knows what is fittest to be done, God who commanded this, or themselves who contrived that: And sure it cannot be otherwise expected, but that God should declare those who take upon them to be wiser than him, to be very Fools. But in our case, they did not more sacrifice their Religion and Allegiance to Craft and Interest, than they did sacrifice that Craft and Interest to Passion and Humour; and truly it frequently happens, that they who change Government, do neither mend it as to the People's advantage, nor enjoy it as to their own. The chief Instruments of prosperous Rebellion, are usually the Avengers of it, at once expound and chastise the vice, set up a power which is indeed Arbitrary both in the rules and exercise of it, when that they had pulled down one, which was only called so, it fared so with us. The people had as little need to be fond of their Patriots, as they of their Army: Neither of us have cause to complain of any but ourselves: It was just with God to permit us our ruin, when we were fond of it, that after we had complained without a cause, we should have cause to complain.  
The Parliament and People both say they were unhappy, let us see whether they were not as unwise, beside the being dishonest.  
We employed Mercenary Soldiers, to secure our Liberties, we expected that a victorious Army, i.e. Legions of Indigent persons armed with power and want, should secure propriety; after having pulled down their Prince submit to their fellow-subjects; having ventured Lives and Fortunes, and their Souls too, to get a Conquest; having got it, intent only to be called Good Boys, and then very mannerly retire to their old Trades and Beggary: This was not very probable, that after having beaten their Enemies, their Friends should Vote them down.  
Let the Parliament (as they did) tell them of duty, themselves had employed against it, they will obey their command by your own Example, act according to the declared sense of the Houses interpreted by their practice: And in earnest (were it not that Sin and Vengeance are not laughing matters) it would make one smile to hear a Rebel earnestly tell others of their Duty to him, conscientiously state the obligation of an Oath to those himself had employed in breaking all.  
Sir john Hotham told his Majesty, he would obey his Commands signified by both Houses of Parliament, when the Army afterwards thought they had been Rebels long enough for other men's sakes and advantages, it was time now to be so for themselves: Had they then said, they would obey the Resolves of the two Houses delivered by his Majesty, could the most desperate Villain in that Assembly have retorted any thing but a Blush. Is there any disparity here but what is to the disadvantage of the two Houses, the King being their Head; nor can they oblige at all without his consent, when as to Militia Affairs, the King needs not their Authority at all.  
We would willingly forget their former Actions if they would suffer us, but their desire to begin again appears by resuming (now all other marks of distinction are worn out) their so long laid aside Original Mark and Bond, whereby to discern and engage their Party, to know their strength, and how to use it: The nature of which being abundantly laid open by the Oxf. Reasons; there needs no more to be said as to the strength of those Reasons, and innocency of the Covenant, then briefly to consider some passages in both, which Mr. Crofton was willing to mistake.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 8. line 21. read whom the Carthaginians could not beat. p. 10. l. 17. r. could not do till then. p. 12. l. 19 add, Our Representes in Parliament, as to the exercise of that Power the Law vests in them, (which every one that knows the constitution of England, knows to have bounds) do legally bind us: because we chose them, and gave them authority for that purpose, To consent for us. But if they usurp any other Power, (as the Milicia, Reforming the Caurch in spite of the King, etc.) the conclude not us at all. We neither entrusted them, with any such Power, nor know of any such Power inherent in ourselves to trust them with. This being very clear to any but those that will not see; in this sense I grant, They by, etc. p. 12. l. 21. r. do consent: and that. p. 13. l. 9 r. that if he. l 13. add, Good Doctrine for the Rump. p. 20. l. 4. r. and then to one which— p. 24 l. 10 r. A Tenent, which the Army raised upon the score of this Covenant learned so well. p. 32. l. 2. f. what, r. which. l. 8. f. to, r. so. p. 42. l. 14 after questioned, add, it as to that. p. 43. l. 6. aft. nothing, add, of it. p. 45. l. 14. deal that. p. 46. l. 15. f. very be, r. be very. p. 84. l. 3 Consider them though but as so many single persons, the Covenant bending. p. 85. l. 1. r. Which being a former bond, no man's Allegiance was. p. 145. l. 10. r. persuaded the Nobles that Prelates.   

SHORT Strictures or Animadversions on so much of Mr. Croftons' [Fastening S. Peter bonds] as concerns The Reasons of the University of Oxf. concerning the Covenant.  
THE Oxford men say, They could not swear (as not being able to say) That the Rage, Power, and Presumption of the Enemies of God was (in the sense there intended) increased, p. 1. Which was no more than this, They durst not mock God and the World by solemnly pretending to call to mind (as the phrase there is) what they did not believe to be at all. To which Mr. Cr. p. 26. Their ability to say so, is of little moment, etc. Is it a small Consideration in an Oath, that I am not Able to say the thing I swear, to be true; nay, believe and think myself Able to prove false? Others were able to say it. Though this with the former, being wrote in another Character, may obtain our Notice, though not Assent; May I Swear upon another man's Knowledge? Must all the Church of Rome's bad Tenants be reform into worse practices? Doth our not assenting, by implicit Faith qualify for swearing upon implicit belief?  
The Oxf. men say, That this way of Imposing an Oath, intrenches upon the King's Prerogative; and surely Mr. Cr. Censures upon the Refusers of it, intrenches upon Gods. The judicial Incapacity, etc. he there suggests, is (because without ground) without Charity. The best of it is, it is easier to vote Malignants, then make Reprobates. The Visitours, who could by a vote turn men out of Oxford, could not do any more than barely wish them out of heaven. I cannot but tell the resolved Covenanters (those I mean who glory in, and so are far from shaking off, this Bond of Iniquity) that there is something in themselves, which looks more like what is, or may end in judicial incapacity, than any thing which can be pretended against the Oxf. men, viz. A resolution never to be persuaded otherwise. As the 
* By whatever Combination, Persuasion, etc.  Sixth Article enjoins, i. e. They must never more consider, (or, if they do, it must be only to show they dare despise) whatever Reason or Religion can say against those courses they are beforehand resolved of. Which thing, though it might make me despair to deal with them, doth itself encourage me. Sure I shall easily persuade men, that there is something very suspicious in that Cause, which will not endure any of its Proselytes should attend to what can be said against it. Mr. Cr. hath yet another Answer to this, If they did know it, though they were not able to say it, it was for us sufficient. Words which shall not be answered, till they are explained. Words, as well as Men, may scape by being in the dark: to be unintelligible is security against being confuted. I perceive it is good Policy to write some nonsense, that we may be sure that that at least will remain unanswered.  
The two next Paragraphs are proofs of what the University professes not to be convinced of; the increase of the Rage, Power, Presumption of the enemies of God, being increased in the sense intended, which were, The troubles the three Kingdoms were at present in, the Spanish Armado, the Gunpowder Treason, the College of Propagators, Cuneus his plot discovered to Sir William Boswel, and by him to Archbishop Laud, laid open in Rome's Masterpiece.  
First, I observe by this and other Treatises referred to, (particularly, The Sovereign Power of Parliaments; wrote, as Mr. Cr. says, solidly by Mr. Prynn, and some will not stick to say, as solidly by him since confuted) it is too apparent, That Presbyterians, those I mean who plead for the Covenant, want nothing but Opportunity to play over their old Game. Contending so earnestly for old Premises, can be nothing but an earnest desire to infer the same Conclusion. Methinks they should not desire the King to forget what themselves will not. But all this is far from proving the Rage, Presumption of the enemies of God to be increased in the intended sense, as appears thus:  
The Covenant was made against that Party the King headed: who, for those and such like Reasons, were the [Open enemies] Which name they deserved either because they propagated Popery, or because others did it. The latter will not (though practised) be asserted; nor the former proved. First, I hope the old Plots, the Spanish Armado, the Gunpowder Treason, do not evince the King and his Party, to have been Popish: and for that later one of Cuneus, that it was discovered to the Archbishop, is no demonstration at Oxon. that he drove it on. If the Archbishop was a Papist, I would willingly be resolved, whether the Jesuit Fisher was a Protestant.  
The Scotch Service Book, is an argument much used by those, who never saw, or least considered it. Retaining Forms and Ceremonies used in the Church of Rome, which were Ancient, Useful, and Innocent, is of great use: as to demonstrate our conformity with the Primitive Church; and to convince Rome, we would not leave her, but where she left herself. Which is to prove our Reformation to be the result of Reason and Conscience, not Spite and Humour. Nor is this an evidence of, but a bar from, our return to Rome; For they who will not separate but upon, and no farther than there are, weighty Causes; are not like to return till those weighty Causes are removed: whereas they who separate in an Humour, may in a Humour unite again. Nay, they who are but partly guilty; who will abstain from actions otherwise innocent, because some they think ill of use them, acknowledge themselves guilty of separating more than there is cause for: that is, as I understand it, out of Spite, be the name it bears never so solemn. A deportment, Christians (of all men in the world) much more Christian Churches, should not use one toward another.  
To Object our readiness to return to Rome upon so incompetent a ground, at the best was Weakness: but to Object it now, when all those, the ruin of whom this Book endeavours, have been resolute examples of our averseness from Rome, notwithstanding the sore temptations which (by means of this Covenant) they have been exercised with, can be nothing but Malice. Unless we will suppose, that those, who would not part with a good cause, when God seems to forsake it; should throw it away, now he appears to own it.  
They tendered a Cardinal's cap to the Archbishop. It is no new trick, to be rid of a most dangerous adversary, to make him suspected, and so not used, by his own party. Hannibal quickly understood Fabius, and as quickly foresaw his own speedy ruin, unless the Romans discarded that General. The Carthaginians could not beat him: therefore he was so maliciously kind to him, as not to injure him. The silly vulgar suspected, and the crafty knaves proclaimed him, to be a Confederate of Hannibal's: Nor was that error discovered till there was reason to repent it. Timeo Danaos vel dona ferentes. Had there been less ability and resolution to oppose Rome in that head, it might in all probability have stood longer upon its own shoulders.  
Mr. Cr. wonders at that expression [In the intended sense] without which words the Oxf. men would never have denied the Rage, etc. of the enemies of God, and Religion to be at that time increased: because they saw and felt it. And truly on which side they were, Mr. Cr. shall witness, even where he is professedly handling the Argument, p. 28. Who abetted the murder of the late King. Which Army did that, needs no dispute. Who commissioned the men that did that; furnished them with Principles and opportunity; in prosecution of whose avowed Declarations and Resolves, that Act might be justified: The men of Oxf. saw then as clearly, as all the World do easily now. If the King's death was, as Mr. Cr. urges, a design of the Papists; the King, the Bishops, and the Royal Party were not sure their only Factors. You see, Sir, one may believe the presumption of the enemies of God, to have been at that time increased; and yet, not in that sense. That Papists rejoiced at our Troubles is granted: and withal, that they have not at all discovered their sorrow (their joy they have) that this Covenant pulled down that Church, which themselves by strength of Arguments and Armies, could not do.  
Oxf. Second Reason is,  
They could not truly say, That they had used or given consent to any Supplication or Remonstrance to the purpose therein expressed.  
The force of this is plainly thus, They durst not swear they had done what they knew they never did. To which Mr. Cr. p. 29. Had not they Representees in Parliament? did they give No to such Supplications? or, if they did, were they not carried by the major Vote? and is not the Negative swallowed therein, that all persons and bodies Corporate did thereunto consent?  
This a strange piece of sense. Whatever the Parliament upon other men's Supplications Vote, though of such a nature as many men from their very souls abhor the thought of; it is for that sole reason true, that they supplicated for it: and they may swear it, though they know they did not. On the other side, I conceive I may be bound to submit to many Laws, as proceeding from a competent Authority, which I may truly affirm I neither did, nor was at all bound to desire. Had the Parliament, when they first voted No-Addresse, in 1647. Voted the King's death, (which they might have done by the same law of Reason, nor could their ablest defenders ever answer Goodwin and others upon that Head) did every man in England therefore supplicate for it? But for Him we need not be solicitous, seeing at the very beginning of the War, he was declared but a Trustee, who had shamefully betrayed his Trust, etc. But if this Logic be good, there is a worse story behind, even this Blessed Covenant hath lost its ablest defender, (not to say at one blow it hath lost them all,) seeing the Parliament have voted the Covenant burned: and Mr. Cr. himself may swear he hath supplicated for it. Sure he will find a way to evade this special piece of Law so applied. That by the Parliament all Persons and Towns Corporate did consent; that in things belonging to their cognisance, the Majority concludes the whole House, and they the Nation; I believe true and account it reasonable. But Mr. Cr. good friend Mr. Baxter tells us another story, and endeavours to prove it in the enlargement of his 179. Thesis', of the Efficient and Conveying causes of Power, p. 185, 186. The Minor part, if it be the better and wiser, are not concluded; and if they have any advantage as strength, etc. they may use it. I suppose that he thinks with the Minor, he will persuade them, who will be not unapt to believe it of themselves, that they are the wiser and better.  
The next thing considerable is, p. 30. an answer to the fourth Reason: which is, that they apprehended it not to be according to the Commendable practice of these Kingdoms, or the example of God's people in other Nations; nay, the Defenders tells us, The world never saw the like before. To which M. Cr. tells us, That Israel did in the days of joash, josiah, etc. The only difference is, in short, one of the greatest reasons, for which this Covenant was expressly and frequently refused and refuted: Those were with, This expressly against, him in whom that Obligatory Power lay, the Prince.  
In his Reconciling these words with those of Mr. Nye, Mr. Cr. grants what is abundantly enough to prove what he denies [That for Matter, Persons, and other Circumstances, the like had not been in Any age or Oath we read of in Sacred or Profane Stories]. Whence I thus argue, If there is so much in this Covenant distinct from what was ever in any before, and that so considerable, as to make a distinct Argument to commend this Covenant to the world, more than any other ever could pretend to; That for Matter and Persons, i. e. The thing sworn, and persons swearing, besides other circumstances, there had never been the like before. It is not imaginable this should be warranted by former examples, when neither in Matter nor Persons, the thing sworn, or persons swearing, besides other attendant circumstances, the like had ever been before. It seems it was done after, and warranted by the example of a thing nothing like it.  

According to Mr. Cr. method we proceed to The First ARTICLE.  
First exception is, They are not satisfied how they can in judgement Swear to preserve the Religion of another Kingdom.  
To which Mr. Cr. p. 39 'tis but Reason they suspend their act till they can swear in judgement.  
If so, the Visitors, the tender-conscienced Visitors, turned the Oxf. Heads out of their places (and by the way put themselves in) for not doing what in Mr. Cr. judgement, they ought not to have done. But neither hath he given or offered any thing to satisfy us, How and where Christ bound us to Swear the Reformation of another Kingdom by fire and sword. God's people, sure we are, Jewish and Christian, had Idolators in the Regions round about them: yet we do not find them Covenanting to pull down the Idols of silver and gold, that they might put the silver and gold in their own Pockets. If the Scots may Covenant to reform England and Ireland, why not France and Spain? Doth Religion forbid them violence in its cause against all but their own Prince? or is Rebellion never sanctified till it is against him, to whom we owe particular Allegiance?  
But besides the general unwarrantableness of such courses; the Oxf. men render several Reasons peculiarly relating to Themselves and that Cause. As first, That as it did not concern them to have much, so they professed to have very little understanding of it. Which, though Mr. Cr. is pleased to wonder at; another man possibly may not at all think it strange, that wisemen should not trouble themselves with what did not concern them. When he says, They should know as much as all the Nation besides; I desire to know his opinion of those Gentlemen who came into their places.  
The next thing of moment is, p. 42. in answer to the Fourth Reason; where, the Oxf. men find in Scotland, several things tending toward Superstition and Schism; as accounting Bishop's Antichristian, and Indifferent Ceremonies unlawful. Where, first, he catcheth at those Phrases, tending toward; and, to our thinking: where he triumphs thus, Methinks, Superstition and Schism should be so well known at Oxf. that they might be able to conclude what things tend thereunto. Modesty of Expression, is no more a sign of Ignorance; then Bold peremptoriness, is an infallible evidence of Knowledge. When St. Paul says, I Think, I have the Spirit of God; should a witty Sophister retort, What? the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who magnifies so his Office, but Think, he should know whether he hath the Spirit, or no? Nay, this grave Corrector, in this very place, useth the same expression he carps at, Methinks, Superstition, etc.  
The Charge is this, They account Bishops Antichristian, and Indifferent Ceremonies unlawful, and make their Discipline a Mark of the true Church, and the setting up thereof the erecting the Throne of jesus Christ There is but one way to excuse this from Schism, and that too many Non-conformists have taken, which is to say, They do not divide from a Church; because, where these fancies are not received, there are no Churches; not considering, they have by that means un-Churched all the World, that any History gives an account of. And that for so many ages, that if this be true, the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, as soon as themselves can pretend it made the first attempt. But this Mr. Cr. would willingly salve. They give Assemblies Authority about Ceremonies, ergo, do not deem Indifferent Ceremonies unlawful. If so, Ceremonies not commanded in the Word of God may be enjoined.  
They make Discipline rightly administered, as is prescribed in the Word of God, the Note of a true Church, but do not appropriate it unto theirs. Either their Discipline is prescribed in the Word of God, or not. If not; they did well to swear and fight down Ours, for not being in the Word of God prescribed, to make way for another, which itself is not there. If it be there prescribed, and yet this Title [Prescribed in the Word of God, which is the Note of a true Church] be not appropriate to it, but may belong to another; and that which either is not in the Word of God, which is the former inconvenience; or, which is in the Word of God as well as theirs: and then there be two several Disciplines prescribed in the Word of God. A Doctrine, I suppose, our Scotch-Masters would not once have liked.  
They deem indeed English-Popish-Ceremonies unlawful; but deny them to be Indifferent, p. 43.  
Are they unlawful because used in Popish-Churches, or for any other Reason? If for any other Reason; that should have been expressed, or at least intimated, so as we might have guessed at it. If for that reason alone, (as seems, being alone alleged, The appellation, Popish:) I do not apprehend, how another man's using a thing, can make it unlawful for me to use it. For sin is nothing else but the transgression of a Law. What then, by the laws of God, and my just Superiors is not prohibited me; it is not imaginable, how a Heathen, Turk, jew, or (which some make worse) a Papist, can by doing it make it unlawful for me to do. For seeing the Laws of God and Man have left it free; he or I, either or both, in doing such a thing do but use our indulged Liberty, that which is left free for us to do. Now, how it comes to pass, That his using his lawful liberty, should deprive me of mine, I would gladly know. The Question seems to me this, How it can be criminal in me, to imitate other men (suppose Papists, whom, I hope, I may reckon Men) in those cases in which they are confessedly Innocent? for so, in this present Case, Papists confessedly are; seeing they transgress no law of God or Man. For had it been otherwise; not its being used by Papists, but the law, against which the action is, should have been urged as the Reason of the sin of it.  
The jews, who crucified Christ in his person, and persecuted Him in his members, were certainly as great enemies to Christ, as Papists can in modesty be supposed to be. Yet, St. Paul (whose trade was not to gain by Factions) would do actions upon that very score, to be like them; complied with them in Ceremonies which he knew to be abolished. To the jew he became a jew in that sort. I know it is said, He did it to win over the jews, and it is not likely we should win over the Papists. A Discourse dictated not by Reason, but Malice, which makes it blind, and (the blow missing its Adversary) throws itself. St. Paul was far from being ignorant how the spirit of obduration, was in a very great measure gone out upon that People; he yet durst not omit all possible condescension. Their being stubborn, was no warrant to Him to be morose. To endeavour was his duty, and he did it. What use they would make of it, he left to them; what effect it should have, to God.  
His last Salvo, is p. 44. The distinction between verè and vera Ecclesia. The Scots do not un-church all others for want of their Discipline, Because a True Church is opposed to a Corrupt, as well as falsely constituted.  
I demand here, Whether a Church may be a Church of Christ without the Scotch-Discipline, or no? If No, the Distinction is impertinent; not to say, crafty: serving to hide their meaning, till there is opportunity of discovering it. If it may, then there was no need of a Covenant and attending-violences to force in that, without which we may be a Church of Christ; and so, without it, The Lord might have dwelled among us, as the phrase of the Covenant is. Or if, for all that Grant, it is yet necessary to bring that Discipline in, in such a manner; than it is not enough to be a Church of Christ, unless we be a Church of Scotland too: and Wars are necessary, not only till a Church is a true one; but till every one acknowledgeth it the best imaginable. Atenent, the Army raised upon the score of this Covenant; and learned it so well, that they quickly taught their Scotch-masters the meaning and consequents of it.  
The second ground of the Oxf. men's Refusal, is, They are not satisfied, How they can swear to reform the Doctrine, Discipline, etc. Because it cannot be changed without manifest scandal to the Papist and Separatist.  
1. By yielding the Cause, our godly Bishops have by writings and sufferings maintained.  
2. By justifying the Papists, in calling Ours, A Parliamentary Religion.  
3. By acknowledgement, that something to which conformity is required, is not agreeable to the Word of God, and so justifying Recusancy and Separation.  
4. A confession that our punishing of Papists was unjust, because it was for not joining with Us in a form of worship, which ourselves approve not of as well as they.  
To all which, Cr. bravely retorts, much at the rate of City-Logick, p. 45. 'tis well, Scandal is at length become an Argument of some force, had it been regarded from the Non-conformists, etc. Here is a triumph when there is not only no victury, but no fight. When the true sense of an Argument is not to be avoided or endured; some can entertain themselves and some Readers, with putting on it a sense, they can answer. Scandal in the Reason and in the Reply are no otherwise akin, then that the English words answerable to them, may upon an occasion be drawn to make a quarter quibble. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is translated [Offence] Therefore every one who is offended in a different sense, i. e. angry, is forsooth scandalised. A Doctrine, which hath brought greater Scandals, than those it pretended to remove were ever fancied to be. It hath been itself a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a stumbling-block whereat many have fallen. I shall discover and remove it.  
Offence, which in Scripture (as hath by many learned men, beyond all exception been proved; and will demonstrate itself to any, that will but consult the places where that word is used) is, any action of Ours by which a Brother may be led on to sin. And that; either by misunderstanding an Action of Ours (which was the case of eating meat offered to Idols, which might have been interpreted as in honour to the Idol; and so one who thought well of us, might be induced to do it indeed) or else, something directly criminal, which we by word or example encourage others to. The other notion of the word Offence, which the Nonconformist urged, and Mr. Cr. revives, That whatever another is pleased to be angry at, is a sin for me to do; is in itself absurd, and in its consequence intolerable. For then the rule of my actions should not be the Law of God, and the commands of my Superior, not repugnant to them, both which the Scripture expressly obligeth me to, if it doth to any thing at all, but every peevish fellow's humour and melancholy: and, contrary to our Saviour's rule, If my Brother were angry with me without a cause, not he, but I should be in danger of the judgement.  
Nor could our consciences be any longer satisfied in any action, than they were assured there were no mistaken or humorous well-meaning men in the world. St. Paul tells us, If meat make my Brother offend, I will eat no meat while I live. If this mistaken sense of Scandal, in this and such like cases were true, and we obliged upon such penalties as are assigned in Scripture, to men guilty of that sin: Christianity were a bondage greater than that which. Christ came to remove, and free us from. Should a sect of well-meaning ignorants arise, who thought all Flesh and Wine abominable, (and some such there have been) are we all bound upon pain of hell to forbear? Because they are angry; is it therefore true that we sinned, because they upon no ground thought so? Do Erroneous conceits alter the nature of things? Do false opinions by being stiffly held become true? A Surplise must not be used in Divine Service, nor worn, because a godly brother is angry! The same Reason will conclude for a black Gown. For Sectaries were once (and possibly are esteemed aga●●) Godly, and Brethren. This palpable mistake, I have the longer stood upon, not only because it occasioned Triumph; but, because I could not easily apprehend it, other than wilful. Because the Reasons have expressed it so plain, as to prevent all possible misunderstanding. In these words they have showed wherein the Scandal did consist, viz. [In justifying the Recusancy of One, and Separation of the Other] i. e. in helping them to a reason to encourage, and so continue their sin; not in making them angry, but pleasing them too well. Nor is it likely for him who is offended in the vulgar sense, to be offended in the Scripture-sense. He who is angry with me for doing a thing, is not like to do it because I do it; to imitate me in that for which he doth abominate me.  
But here I cannot but observe, that Reason in this Section should be acknowledged, when, by being so, it overthrows their whole cause. The Reasons are indeed so pressing, and the words so uncapable of a sinister interpretation; that the Covenant itself must undergo one to avoid their reach. Where, after the droling Preface of, These serious Casuists, with reverence may I note it, understand the Words of the Covenant Sophistically, p. 46. He than presents us with this Notion, Religion, as it denotes the Matter, etc. is different from the Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies annexed and appendent, and none but ignorant Idiots will deem the change of them the change of Religion, p. 46.  
This is the first Salvo. The Oxf. Arguments are not concluding, because nothing of the Religion, but Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies were to be changed; which was not that, our Martyrs suffered for. What ignorant Idiots, as Mr. Cr. calls them, are these Oxford Scholars, who must understand words in their true, plain, literal meaning? What a silly University this was? Give me Mr. Cr. there is a man indeed, can find out a meaning of words, they are in no wise capable of! By the Reformation in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, is meant, in Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies. If this be the meaning, the words were very ill chosen to express it. But withal, Mr. Cr. hath not at all mended the matter, by informing us plainly, That they will use such violent proceedings, when only Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies are the Debate.  
But the vanity of the former Plea being (possibly to himself) apparent; The next salvo is, p. 46, 47, 48, 49. We must make a distinction between what is Established, and what is Exercised in Engl. etc.  
Because all the Declaiming is about the latter, What is cal●ed the Religion exercised? I shall not flourish; that is, use many words, not to express what I would say, but to hide my having nothing to say; but ask directly, because I would be answered to, where I suspect juggling. They have Sworn to reform the Doctrine, Worship, etc. in England, according to several (not at present to say inconsistent) Rules; the Word of God, the Church of Scotland, the best Reformed Church. I ask then. Do they mean to alter the established Doctrine; or No? If yes; the distintion is vain and crafty: A sleight instead of an answer. If no; doth reforming according to those rules, that is, (as I understand it) bringing in the Doctrine of Scotland, etc. signify, Doing some new act to continue the established Doctrine in England; or to let it alone as it is? If either of these, let that word have the same meaning in all parallel places, and this Controversy is at an end: But, how we shall be brought to the same Confession of Faith, Directory, etc. which is also sworn, without altering the established Doctrine, Worship, Government, which are different, is not very clear.  
As to the Doctrines themselves here called, The Religion exercised, Though it is no Demonstration at Oxon, that they are false, because the Scotch Army made them a Pretence to get Money with: yet, being they are, as Mr. Cr. acknowledges, private men; he must also acknowledge, it concerns only those private men to defend them. But, from that Answer of his, I shall conclude a little farther, and overthrow it by its own self; prove what it denies, out of what it grants. For, it is in itself very clear, seeing the Quarrel was at the Religion exercised, not established; Those Opinions, called the exercised Religion, ought only to have been discarded, and the established Doctrine have been made the Rule to reform by; by which they might have had the Law, and their Adversaries too, on their side. But, because they name another Rule, It is plain, they mean to alter that too; and, so are liable to those inconveniencies Mr. Cr. endeavours to free them from, by a strained Interpretation, which their words and actions are no way capable of. Though it is a pretty strange account of bringing England's established Religion to the Scotish mode, by Allegations out of Authors, which are contended for, to be no part of that Religion so established.  
Mr. Cr. doth indeed set several Doctrines, and name Authors, many of which have been eminently useful to this Church, and therefore hated by Rome, and Scotland: but being there are no references to any part of their Works; with what sincerity it is done, I am not able to say: But I may guests it to be done with very little, if I may conclude by one which I single out: because that sort of people have so little shame or conscience as to Preach it down to the people as Arminianism. It is p. 47. That men had free will of themselves to believe and repent he may justly say, The University was poisoned with Arminianism, if this horrid Tenent was owned and there countenanced. Arminians need not be angry, that they are slandered; for that is a tacit Confession: there is not truth enough to object against them. Men must belly them, to make them odious; part with their own Innocency to darken theirs. But I much wonder Mr. Cr. should tell the Masters of Oxf. That, This Tenent among others was defended by them from censure. Though people are apt to believe any thing of Papists & Arminians; yet the Oxf. men are not so apt to believe any story of themselves. They challenge all the world to tell when, and by whom they defended that horrid Doctrine from censure. The utmost ground of this accusation, is, some men in Oxf. might possibly affirm, they understood not what it was to be made willing whether we would or no; how freedom and force, liberty and necessitation, were the same thing. This is far enough from the purpose. But censure is there a judicial word. I demand therefore, Whether the University defended the men he means from the censure of these who had authority to censure them; or from those who had nothing to do in the matter. If from the former, I desire to know, How it was possible for them to do it, and when they did it? If from the later, those who had nothing to do with it; sure the harm is not great.  
If I should grant all the Tenants he reckons up to be false, because it were perhaps too hard to prove them so to one who would deny it; I do not apprehend the considerable advantage he would get by it toward his Cause, because they are only particular men's. He will not sure think himself concerned in all we can prove preached in Camp, and City, and the men not only defended against the King and the Laws; but encouraged, applauded, and preferred. Might not men safely preach at London, Believers to be above all Ordinances, but those of the two Houses. Was any more care taken at London (even when the Covenant was Triumphant, and set up in Churches instead of the Lords Prayer, and Ten Commandments) of what Opinions men were of, any more than of what Country, if they would but fight against the King? Was there any Heresy, but Loyalty? or Common Enemy, but the King? Might not those take the Scripture in any or no sense, who would take the Laws in equitable sense? It is altogether as reasonable to pull down Presbytery, because there were Independents in the Parliaments Army; as they to Covenant us into the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland, because some men preached what their ablest Defender acknowledges no part of the Doctrine of the Church of England. And this is equal, supposing those Doctrines false, which as yet are only said to be so.  
But at last comes an Attempt to answer those Arguments, the force of which Mr. Cr. hath hitherto evaded by pretences, which I have proved (and perhaps himself perceived) groundless. It will not (saith he, p. 49.) justify the Recusancy of the Papists, because these things were never a reason of it.  
This answer is none at all: because, if those things to which their conformity was required were really sins, we cannot at all blame, nor justly punish them for refusing to be partakers in them; It is not easy to think of any thing which would more please them in, or justify them for, disobeying our established Laws, than our proclaiming them thus to be grossly horrid, so apparently abominable, as there was an unavoidable necessity of using the worst of remedies, a Civil War; and the worst of dangers, hazarding our souls in the most suspicious of actions, the defiance of our Prince; to remove them. It is from hence, (if this be once granted,) clear, we have all along punished Papists, for not conforming to what it is a Christians duty not to conform to. And this is, sure, a competent ground for not assenting to this part of the Covenant; for, be the grounds of sinfulness what it will, ourselves by this should own that to be sin which we punished them for not joining in: the concession of which would be so pleasing to them, that I wonder to see those men plead for it, who make spite to Rome the only rule they walk by.  
As to the second part of the scandal, justifying the Separatists, Mr. Cr. answers not much better. p. 50. Neither can such an acknowledgement justify the Separatists: For, that the corruptions established, were never made such Essential parts of the Worship, as to make a sufficient ground for separation; and the godly Non-conformists contended against separation. This seems to me a very pretty Argumentation. There was no necessity to separate from the Church as it was by Law established in Discipline, Ceremonies, etc. yet there was a necessity to pull it down [lest we be partakers of other men's sins, and so of their plagues, etc.] with other such like phrases as the Covenant expresses it. Sure I am, if there was no sufficient ground for separation, there was no sufficient ground for a Covenant to reform in so violent a way; and, to pull down that Church, from which there was sufficient reason in your own judgement to separate. If, as you truly urge, Our Saviour kept Communion with a Church much in need of Reformation, and taught men so to do; I would willingly learn, Who taught men to take up Arms, to destroy what you acknowledge to be only such a Church. If there was no necessity for even those, who did not approve the Worship and Ceremonies, to separate; as you do, and say the godly Non-conformists always did: What imaginable necessity could there be for these English men, who were subjects, and the Scots strangers, to compel by force Prince and People, who approve of both, to swear it down.  
Now come (p. 53.) some Endeavours to prove the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church to be not agreeable to the Word of God. First, Can. 36. enjoins Common Prayer, and no other, which they had broke by Praying at St. mary's, and is itself, a limitation of the Spirit, etc.  
To the first, That the Church ever intended to bind men to say those Prayers in the Pulpit before Sermon, is not true; but contrary to her own Laws and practice. Those universal words must (as all others of that sort are to be) be referred ad subjectam materiam. The Liturgy was made for (what indeed it is, and hath approved itself to be, so far as skill and malice never questioned, but carped only at particular phrases,) it was made I say, only, for a Complete Form of Public Prayer, comprehensive of all our common needs imaginable; from whence, none could pretend upon that score, reason to vary. But it was never intended to banish occasional Prayers, (of which nature those before Sermons are: for▪ which, a peculiar Canon is provided, and that penned in words which admit of latitude, I suppose, because they are looked upon as occasional, and so may better endure to be various.  
Limitation of the Spirit, is a phrase equally admired by those who understand nothing, as laughed at by those who do: It is vulgarly granted, but upon what reasons I could never yet learn; That [Praying by the Spirit] signifies in Scripture [To pray Ex tempore] Though to me it seems rather a sign of a voluble tongue then inspired heart; and to pray without considering, is rather, I should think, boldness then grace. But if that be the import of that phrase, as Women and Lecturers generally hold; the Prayer of Christ is least said by the Spirit of Christ; and so the most unacceptable Prayer we can put up to him in all the world is his own.  
But now I begin to think on that phrase, I profess myself unable to understand it; which makes me think, the reason many do not apprehend when the Argument drawn from thence is answered, is, Because they do not know what it means. It would be no inconsiderable damage to the Puritan Cause, if they would explain those terms, Limitation of the Spirit. I will pawn my Credit on it, the very admiring Rout shall laugh at it the very same moment they understand it; the whole force of it consisting like that of a charm, in being unintelligible. Whatever I can guests it to be according to those principles and purposes it is used for, amounts clearly to this; He limits the Spirit in himself, who gives over while he hath one word left to say: and he limits it in another, when he suffers any body to hear him; because he confines him to his words, when the Spirit might possibly suggest to him different. And this is really so in every Auditory, unless we can suppose that every man there, (were he called to exercise) would use the same matter and words, which he who carrieth on the work of the day doth make use of.  
But some men have ventured to say and prove too, (which I wonder Mr. Cr. took no notice of it, if he thought it possible to answer it) That the Directory itself was guilty of this evil, viz. Limiting the Spirit (if it be an evil) which it was intended to remove. That Directory prescribed matter, and in most cases the very order of Praying. Seeing it prescribes the matter; the only excellency whereby it differs, is, it gives weak and careless that men (which are by much the major part) leave to choose words unapt to express that matter itself prescribes. It hath then all the real inconveniences of unprescribed Prayers, and that one fancied one of prescribed.  
The second Exception of his (p. 54.) is very Tragical and vaunting▪ In comes great zeal and little wit, and tells us of a fault so very gross, that the very plain Popish, Scotch Service-Book, shall be commended for not being guilty: The very first sentence (so called) of Scripture is not there; At what time soever a sinner doth repent, etc.  
I persuade myself, Mr. Cr. hath read in the New-Testament of proofs alleged out of the Old, barely according to the sense, the express words whereof are no where to be found; the instances are various, I mention but one, Mat. 2.6. taken out of Micah 5.2. But what need I stand to prove, that some men can very be angry when there is little cause for it?  
Nor scape we so: and therefore Thirdly, In the last we did read that which is not Scripture; now we do not read what confessedly is. Much of the Canonical Scripture is omitted, Apocrypha read, some parts of the Scripture dignified above others, as the Gospel by standing, etc.  
Many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture not being read in course, was one of the mighty faults the wise Assembly took upon them to mend, and it amounted to this. When the vulgar people came to Church to hear the Law of God according to which they must frame their lives; a considerable part of the year they caused to be spent in Genealogies, or less Edifying History, which could not but have had the same effect upon the people read in Hebrew, as English; or else the Ceremonial Law, which at this day concerns no body, and never did concern them at all. This was so apparently absurd, that no imaginable account can be given of it, besides that (not very Christian) resolution of spite and singularity; or that politic Art of not receiving Pay, Preferment, and Applause, without seeming to do something for it.  
Our Dignifying (as they phrase it) some parts of Scripture above other, as the Gospel by standing, is a thing which provokes their anger; and Mr. Cr. like an angry Disputant confutes himself. Is that our fault, that we show a peculiar respect to that part of it, which peculiarly concerns our Saviour, his Words and Works? Our particular obligation assures us, it were ill if it were otherwise. Outward Reverence (provided we do not let it serve in stead of, but use it to signify and promote inward) cannot in that case be a crime. But if to dignify some parts of Scripture above others be a crime, themselves are guilty: as doing so to the Psalms of David, (only they are not david's, but Sternholds) by singing them before every Sermon, a thing in Scripture no where commanded. But so have I seen a distempered person in spite to another beat himself.  
The next thing considerable, is, (p. 55, 56.) Christmas, Easter, etc. and the holidays, are superstitious, plainly repugnant to Gal. 4.10. Col. 2.16.  
If the Feasts there mentioned, were evidently not Christian Festivals: I suppose, I may safely conclude Christian Festivals not to be plainly forbid in that place, where they are not so much as spoke of. The Text in the Galatians mentions expressly Months and Years, proportions of Time; no way to be accommodated to Christian Festivals, or then, or now. That in the Colossians is so plain, that it must be a worse Principle than Inconsideration, which occasioned the mistake; not only, because it expresses New Moons; (a thing not established by Christian Authority:) but, in the words following the 17. verse, gives a clear account of the unlawfulness of those Feasts, of the Observance of which he there complains, [which are a shadow of things to come, but the Body is Christ]. Those Feasts therefore were not reproved, as having been commanded by any Christian Church, (which, it is clear, they were not:) but, because they had in them not only a general malignity, as being kept in Obedience to the jewish Law, and so must suppose that to be still in force; but had besides a peculiar malignity in their nature; being (and for that very reason reproved) a shadow of Christ to come, and so consequently denied His coming. Now then, all which can be gathered from this place, is, Christians must not keep Feasts which prefigured Christ to come; Ergo, they may not keep Feasts in remembrance that He is come.  
There is a pretty piece of Divinity (p. 56.) to enforce the former Conclusion, which no doubt would be admirable, if it were but sense. To observe the Nativity, Circumcision, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, severally; is irrational and irreligious: irrational, because they are not in themselves Mercies to the Church, but as they centre in Man's Redemption; irreligious, because without Divine warrant. That none of all these signal condescensions of Divine goodness, should be esteemed in themselves Mercies, or worth giving thanks for, when Edge-Hill, and Nasby Battles, though but in order to the undoing of the King, were so accounted; argues a more passionate esteem and concernment for the Covenant of Scotland, than that of Grace.  
That it is irreligious, because without Divine warrant, is said, but not proved; For a thing becomes unlawful, only by being against some Law; that is, by being forbidden, not barely by being not commanded. Our Saviour Christ, we are sure, observed Feasts, which had not such Institution, notwithstanding that prohibition, which was as strict to the jews, whose Authority instituted those Feasts, and in obedience to which He kept them, as it can possibly be to us. Ye shall not add etc. Christ did indeed abolish the Ceremonial Law of the jews, (and, that was all He did abolish, so as to make unlawful.) From hence men gather, That it is ● sin for us to imitate them in any thing we find done by them according to the Principles and Dictates of Nature, Gratitude, etc. as Feasts of Commemorations clearly are. Though this is a Proposition sufficiently distant; upon this pitiful ground (without any more ado) do men put off all, which can be fetched out of the Old Testament; whereas though Christ abolished the Ceremonial Law, he left all other Laws and Rules as he found them. But, as Christ observed Feasts not instituted by divine Authority; so possibly doth Mr. Cr: the command in Scripture for Sunday being not so very clear, that Mr. Cr. cannot but doubt to be Irreligion and Will-worship in his notions of those terms. No man can ground it on the fourth Commandment, that doth not take the seventh and first to be the same day, i. e. Seven and one to be the same number. If he will interpret the Seventh-day to signify one in seven: I desire to know, whether the jews might have observed which of the seven days they pleased; and whether then the Reason of the fourth Commandment was not strangely impertinent to the Matter of it. That being expressed to be (For in the Seventh day God rested, etc.) seeing that was the very seventh, and no other; and a command in the New-Testament for it, I suppose, is not to be found.  
The next three leaves 57, 58, 59 are spent in proving what none ever denied, That, There are several things in the Form of our Service and Discipline not commanded in the Word of God. A thing comes to be unlawful▪ sure, by being forbid; not by being uncommanded. Seeing this is the only fault; I ask, Is the Directory, the Form there prescribed, in the Word of God? I desire a direct Answer to that. Can that pretend to anything but to be the result of Prudence and Authority? Both Directory and Common-Prayer agree in that, which the Directory was made to differ from the Liturgy in; both were made by Men. The only imaginable difference is; the one was made by those who had Authority, the other by those who had none.  
That the Scripture is a complete Rule of Faith. And what cannot be proved thereby, as it is interpreted by that Original and unquestionable Tradition, by which we receive the Scripture itself, is not to be believed as a revealed Article of Faith. We not only assert, but in the defence of this Practice of ours, whereby we are said to overthrow the Scriptures being a complete Rule, we contend for it as an advantageous Truth in this Cause: Because, this Doctrine, Nothing is to be in Discipline, or Order, but what we find in Scripture, is a Doctrine in Scripture no where to be found. So, that the very Accusation is the same Crime it would be thought to reprove. And, what is clear concerning this Principle, is as clear concerning their Practice; Till the Form and Order in the Directory prescribed, be showed to be so in the Bible too. The demand of the Written Word for every particular of Order and Discipline is hugely plausible and senseless. I will not throw away Reason upon unreasonable men, to show the vanity of that admired tenant; That whatever (though but of Order, Decency, Discipline,) is not in the Written Word, which is a complete Rule for all, is Will-Worship, etc. I shall, for quiets sake, grant the Scripture to be so; and, that the Directory, or any other beloved way, is plainly in terminis in the Bible. But then, I shall require this in return, that they would show me whereabouts, for I would willingly read it there; and truly, this is but reasonable. They, who when we obey the Church, though in matters of Order and Decency, tell us, We hang our Faith upon the Church's sleeve, (though, by the way, the word [Faith] is not very properly applied to such matters); They of all men should not require us to hang our eyes upon their sleeves; believe that Form to be plainly in Scripture, which we who know ourselves able to read, know not to be there; let them but show it us there, and we will believe. Themselves approve not, they tell us, Believing by an implicit Faith, and we as little like to see with implicit eyes.  
That things indifferent are not unlawful to be used, because commanded, we need no other Principle but their own; That Humane Commands alter not the Nature of things, Ergo, They do not become unlawful by it; Ergo, they may even then be used without sin; and if so, Whether then it be not a duty, I leave to him to consider, who remembers Obedience to all Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical to be enjoined in the terms of the greatest latitude? Those general Commands signify something: sure, the general Rule of Decency and Order were not intended for nothing. St. Paul reproved the irregularities at Corinth, upon other Principles than would admit the wild extravagancies of any thing that might be mistake for, or called, Tender Conscience. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. So then, to plead Christian Liberty against the Customs of the Church, is indeed spiritual Pride, Faction, Singularity, though it may be called Conscience. There was a disorder in the Church of Corinth, as we read, Chap. 14. v. 23. St. Paul rectified it by the Rules of Decorum, the Principles of Reason, without any reference to the revealed Will of God. [Will they not say, Ye are mad?] In the 26. of that Chapter, he tells them, One had a Psalm, another a Doctrine, a third a Revelation, etc. Every one after his own way: as, if there be no common Authority which hath power to restrain, what can hinder? It is very probable, it was upon this very mistake of the Liberty given by Christ, as appears in the close of the Discourse, ver. 33. God is not the Author of Confusion, etc. i.e. They mistake the matter quite, Christ indeed abolished the Laws of Moses, but never told them he did those of Decency: He never instituted Ordinances of disorder, or Sects of rudeness. And, if there must be Decency, and Order, no confusion: If Authority must not judge what is so, but every private man for himself; then I would fain know, how Order differs from Disorder. Though this is clear in the nature of the thing; yet I shall show out of Scripture itself, allowed Instances of the Church's Authority exercised over, and altering of, Institutions confessedly immediate of divine Institution. At the Institution of the Pass-over, Exod. 12.11. it is commanded expressly, they should eat it in that manner, with their loins girt, shoes on their feet, staves in their hands: yet our Saviour according to the allowed and accustomed practice of that Church, eat it in a Table-posture, His loins not girt, nor His staff in his hand. Now what account can be given of this matter by those who allow the Church in matters of this nature no Power, but declaratory what the written Word in this case (which every Cobbler who can read, hath) let themselves tell us? The practice of the Kings in varying, as occasion served, in such cases from the Law is mentioned and commended in Scripture, and hath been often urged in this case. The Truth, as well as the Practice, is clear; That the nature of Government can no more be devested of this Power, than it can of being what it pretends to be. This power of varying with occasions from the very express Letter of Scripture, the Presbyterians as well as all the rest of the world allow and practise. The Eucharist was not instituted to be in the morning, nor at the Public Service. The Decree Act. 15. of things strangled, and blood, though made by the authority and direction of God Himself, and in peremptory terms, is not observed; and he who says, The Reason of that Command ceases, doth not answer, but confirm my Argument, That in change of Times we may alter what is established in Scripture: much more Power, sure, we have over what is not at all mentioned there. The Order of Widows, treated of in the fifth Chap. of the 1. of Timothy, no where now. The famous Love-Feasts, every where ceased. Let them not delude the World with a show of Scripture-Discipline, when of that little part which is come to our knowledge, themselves retain nothing. Though how according to their Principles who allow no Authority in the Church, but confine it to the Written Word, be our Times never so different, they can omit or add any tittle without the most horrid Impiety, I ununderstand not.  
There is a Query, p. 59 which they are very happy in, having taken generally for granted. Sure I am, They cannot say one word of sense to prove it. Whether the Instituting significant Ceremonies be not the very Formality of Superstition? I am very confident, were not our Ceremonies significant, they would be styled silly and useless; and now they are significant, they are Impious. To the Query I say this; The word Superstition (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is used several times in Scripture: but in what place they can pretend it to have that meaning, I wish they would consider first, and tell us afterward. The Critics, I suppose, will not befriend them with such a notion of it in the learned Authors. I find St. Paul charging the Athenians, Act. 17.22. downright with this crime, Ye are too superstitious. I suppose Mr. Cr. will not prove the very formality of their fault, to be significant Ceremonies. I find in Scripture a significant Ceremony, viz. The Holy kiss. If it was instituted by the Apostles as they were Ordinary Governors of the Church, in that capacity they were to have Successors while there is a Church or World; and so it proves the Church's Power to institute significant Ceremonies. If they did it as Apostles, it concerns us now.  
The most material Objection is, p. 60. How comes it to pass, that the work of the Ministry is divided in Ordination, Deacons Baptise but administer not the Lord's Supper?  
That the Church should give power to Deacons to Baptise, though not to administer the Sacrament some account may be given from the different natures of both Sacraments. Both of them, it is confessed, are equally Holy, yet were always looked upon with some difference: that of Baptism as of greater necessity; that of the Lords Supper, as of greater solemnity, and consequently requiring greater preparation. Yet Baptism always so esteemed, as not to be administered by a Deacon, but in the absence of a Priest. The great clamour amounts to this then, The Sacrament of Baptism, because of the sudden occasions which may often require haste, hath therefore been thought fit by the wisdom of the Church (rather than the administration thereof in case of danger should be omitted) to be permitted to be performed by a Deacon, in case a Priest be not at hand to perform it. The case in the Lord's Supper is clear otherwise; because, that is not usually administered without public notice given to the People some convenient time before, when it shall be done; at which time, it is presumed, the Priest who gave the notice, will be present to attend the service. There is a clear disparity in the Natures of the two Sacraments; those Reasons which Apologise for Permission in case of the one, will by no means reach the other. Nor do we want evidence for the Deacons, power to Baptise, out of Scripture itself. In the 8. of the Acts, we read, that Philip the Deacon (ver. 12.) Baptised; that it was that Philip, not the Apostle, appears, because we find Peter and john sent to lay hands on those he preached to, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, and accordingly we read, that they two did lay their hands; but no manner of intimation, that he did join with them: which he would certainly have done, had he been an Apostle. In the 21. of the Acts, where his being one of the seven, i e. a Deacon, is expressly mentioned, he is there owned an Evangelist, though but a Deacon. He who will say, he was a Presbyter, ought well to consider how to prove it.  
The next of the Oxf. Reasons, is; That in taking this Oath, they should break another. And, what security can they expect by an Oath, who themselves teach men to break them? By this Covenant they swear to alter what they had by the Parliaments Order sworn to maintain, in the Protestation 5. of May, 1641. Which Mr. Cr. thus reconciles, p. 65. The House of Commons, the then known Legislators, explained the Protestation, to be meant only so far as is opposite to Popery. That is to say, The House of Commons are Legislators distinct from King and Peers: For in that capacity they made that interpretation of an Oath, which, sure, they were not solely to interpret, because they were not the sole Imposers, and they declared the Lords meaning contrary to their Lordships express protest to the contrary, that that was not their meaning. Their being sole Legislators in defiance of King and Peers, (for so it was in that case;) is very pretty Doctrine, which I would have been glad to have seen one Law to have proved. I wonder Mr. Cr. should think it would be taken for granted. But indeed, Mr. Cr. hath one expression which could not have been well spared, The House of Commons were then known to be, etc. I must confess, there were many pretty things then known to be, though no man knew why. The words of the Protestation, [The Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, etc.] Now what is in the 39 Articles, is, I suppose, The Doctrine of the Church of England: and then if the Covenant be contrary to any of those, these are contradictory Oaths. The 36. Article, which declares, that there is nothing, in the Book of Consecration, superstitious or ungodly, is hardly reconcileable to the second Article of the Covenant. Sure, the meeting of the Assembly is irreconcilable with the 21. Article, if we suppose His Majesty was a King at that time. As to the explication of it, by the House of Commons, notwithstanding the Lords express descent; it was an arrogating of the whole Parliamentary Power (and more) to themselves solely, and so a breach of the Fundamental Constitution of that Assembly. And then declaring none fit to bear Office but those who would except of that explication, and so concur with, and assist them in that violence; was against the Liberty of the Subject, as depriving Men of what they had no way legally forfeited. Where the Legislative Power resides, I do not here mean to decide: But certainly, according to the worst Principles than owned, The Commons were not the sole Legislators; and then, sure, not the sole Interpreters: and therefore the Oxf. Men had very little cause to accept of their meaning for Authentic. That Man is little obeyed, whose words must be taken in the sense that another (and he, as frequently in our case, his declared Enemy) shall put upon them.  
The next is, The consistency of the Covenant with the Oath of Supremacy, which binds us to defend all jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminencies, granted, or belonging, united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: of which in the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19 this is one; That the Clergy are not to Enact, Promulge, etc. any new Canons, Constitutions, etc. or by whatever Name they shall be called, unless the KING'S ROYAL Assent first be had to make, promulge, etc. Now the very meeting of the Assembly, and this Covenant▪ was a defiance to this His Prerogative: unless the Votes of the two Houses be the KING'S ROYAL Assent.  
Mr. Cr. answer to this, is, (p. 67.) in short, High Treason. That the Power given to the King, is such a Power, as Bishops, Cardinals, Popes had used, not such as Parliaments; who ever retained a jurisdiction in themselves over Church and Crown. As I understand words, Your Majesty's humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament, signifies not your Lords and Masters. How comes Treason to be against the King, and not against them, if they are Supreme? How come they to have ever retained a jurisdiction over the Crown; when our Law so often owns all jurisdiction to flow from the Crown? How comes the King's Masters to be so absolutely at His disposal, as to be turned out as easily as it is possible for him to say so? How comes England, in our own and other Chronicles, and Laws, to be styled a Monarchy, an Imperial Crown? How comes it to pass that we neither pay nor promise Allegiance to these our true Sovereigns? The King is expressly called sole Supreme Governor in the Oath of Supremacy; and yet he hath Superiors. Sharing in the Supremacy with the King was all, I had thought, would have been required: not retaining jurisdiction over him. I wonder, if this be true▪ That Mr. Cr. did so prevaricate with his Brethren, when he pleaded (as he calls it) for the King: when it was indeed only against the Sectaries; and so was not Loyalty, but Spite. But, why did he, if this be true, urge Precepts for, and Examples of, Obedience out of Scripture, and the Primitive Church (though by the way, they were such as themselves had before taught them to slight or answer)? Why did he urge them, when they reached not the case? For those Princes were confessedly Supreme. Our King it seems is not: not God's Vicegerent, but the People's Officer; from whom he received his Power, and is but Tenant at Will at best. They still retaining jurisdiction over him, may abridge it at pleasure. He is a stranger in England, that doth not know all Land to be held of the Crown; and every one of us pays acknowledgement that we received it from thence: and all manner of jurisdiction to be owned in Law to proceed from the King, without the least concurrence of the two Houses. In England, when any doth Homage, Fealty, etc. in their Oath they perpetually have a Salvo, of saving their Faith to other Lords. In the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, we find no such salvo of our Faith to the two Houses. No nor if any of us take them during their Session, do we promise any equal Allegiance. But the very Members do promise Allegiance to the King: inasmuch as no Member, though never so fairly elected, can sit without taking those Oaths. But, according to this Doctrine of jurisdiction over the King, never any Laws in the World were so sottishly penned as the English: to place all Marks of Sovereignty, where it is not; and none at all where it is. Nay, that the very two Houses, when they send to the King, as in that capacity, should Petition their Inferior; and acknowledge themselves Humble, Loyal, and Obedient Subjects to him, over whom they ever retained jurisdiction. Ever retained! O the brave English Monarchy of the two Houses of Parliament! This is a strange concealed jurisdiction of the two Houses, which never any King owned, or Parliament claimed. When King james came in, he should have recognized them, not they him: Nor was that Parliament faithful either to King or Country, in concealing so important a concernment. I will cite but one Law, and that not Ancient; for none, I think, can doubt its Opinion in this point, but one. When the assent of the two Houses to Law-making was required; and after those words (so much, to serve some men's turns, wrested beyond their import) Be it Enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons came in fashion. It is Anno 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Whereas by sundry old Authentic Histories, it is manifestly expressed, That this Realm of England, is an Empire governed by One Supreme Head and King, having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the IMPERIAL Crown of this Realm; unto whom a Body Politic compact of all sorts and degrees of People, and divided in terms, and by names, of Spiritualty & Temporalty been bound, and aught to bear, next to God, a natural and humble Obedience. If the King is next to God; what jurisdiction the two Houses have over Him, I profess myself unable to comprehend: or how, owning natural and humble Obedience signifies retaining jurisdiction over Him. But those who are not of this wild Opinion, do yet embrace the ground of it, and stand stiff for a share in the Government. These two grounds Mr. Cr. often insists upon, That their Assent is necessary to the making and repealing Laws: and that the King receiving his Power from them, they reserved a considerable part of it to themselves. The former I have spoken to in [The Rebels Plea] That that doth not at all evince any such thing: and it is also false in Experience; for the Monarches of the East, whom none ever supposed to have sharers in the Government, could not alter all their Laws at pleasure, etc. And I there referred to an Author who had so admirably stated that Point in Law and Reason, in that Incomparable Treatise [The Case of our Affairs], that nothing can be added on that Head, it is there done so fully and clearly. I think, it is not easy to show such a King, whose Laws are as ambulatory as his pleasure; and yet, sure, there are some whose Subjects are not Partners in the Sovereignty. And certainly, so long as Kings are but single men, and not naturally stronger than all their Subjects; they must rule by the help and advice either of Gentlemen, or janissaries. The former way is (I think) more honourable for the King, and better for his People. There can be no way of proving this Proposition; unless it carries its own Evidence: which though generally granted, I do not apprehend why. The Prince promises not to exercise such a part of his Power, without the consent of his People, Ergo, They share with him in it, is a consequence far from Necessary. When Tenants get Rights by Promise, Grant, or Custom; do they presently share in the Dominion? Is none a perfect Landlord that cannot turn out all his Tenants, as easily as say so? Can no man make another a firm Estate in the Tenancy, but eo ipso he makes him his Co-Landlord? Is it the same to have sharers in the Authority, and to be limited in the exercise of it? This is perfectly the case: The King hath granted to us, that he will not alter our old Laws, or make new, till by common consent it is represented to him expedient for the Public good: from hence alone we gather that we share with him in the making of them.  
As to the other Point, That Princes received their Power by Election, is a very plausible Impossibility. Let us consider a rude scattered multitude, (as Men are supposed to have been, when they chose their first Governors,) living sine Lege, sine Lare; to meet together about a business of that nature, where could not but be many, who apprehended it their Interest to use Violence. Can we suppose them all to carry it fairly, and prudently, and equally? A thing, which certainly we could not expect from the most civilised Commonwealth this day in the World. There could not want bold Villains, who would make it their business, to usurp Dominion over their well-meaning neighbours. There could not but be many, who would think themselves wise enough to Rule. Nor could there want enough, to make their title good by strong hand, by the Combination though of a very few; and the Combination of a very few, could not but have overpowred a very great undisciplined Rabble. Surely those men were not of the same species with us; where a whole People meet together without any force over them; every one gives his Vote freely; every one names his man; every one acquiesces. It were certainly a pretty sight, when all the World was wise and innocent; and, had it been so still, they would have sound no want of vernment. If the Original of Government, had been a fair and free Election; it is not at all probable, that the most ancient Governments would have been Monarchies. Not only for that to have made more than one, would have been a very good exdient to reconcile competitors: But because it seems, also at the first sight, better to trust more than One. Or if they had been so; it is not like they would have been so absolute. Arbitria Frincipum pro-legibus was a trust that would have seemed too dangerous: and▪ that unlimited Power, scarce fit to have been exercised over those who made him what he was. Whereas we find the most Ancient Governors, still the most absolute. The ancient Historians who tell us that Government at first came in this way of Election; because they do not tell us in particular, but in general only: They dream to us, That Governors were of old days chose for virtue, (the Best was made the Greatest;) not as now, by Fraud, Violence, and Money, etc. Wherein there is a manifest spice of weakness, in doting upon those who lived a great while ago; as if they were better than others: As old Men use to tell us, what brave times there were, when they were boys. When the Scripture (which may at least have the credit of a History with us) assures us, that before the times they so much applaud, The earth was filled with violence. How they should come to suppose so much Innocency in mankind, they never had experience of; might possibly be (as all errors are founded in some truth) some obscure Tradition of Adam in his innocency. I know, it is ordinarily said, We are all Men, and a King is but so: We are all born free; and what He is more than us, is by our own Act. Whereas the ground of this arguing, we are born free, is itself a contradiction; insomuch that whoever is born, is eo ipso not free, as having a Father to whom he is obliged for all that he hath, or is. By him we were begot, and nourished: and he who gave us our life, had anciently (before Principalities grew large) the sole power of taking it away. That this Paternity was the original of Power in England; it is no obscure Evidence, That those to whom the greatest share of the Administration is committed, are to this day under the style of the King's Cousins [Cognato nostro] so in the Writ whereby the Lords are called to Parliament) as if their Proximity in blood, were their title to their Power. If any tell me, That I devise a title for Princes, that cannot be of any use; they not being able to show their right to be Political Parents, by proving themselves the true Heir to the Natural one of a whole Nation. To this, I say, I have showed a title, to which any other can as little pretend to, and so they are not at all the worse. And no man can pretend right, that cannot show himself that very person, whose very place I show them to possess: and it is a rule in Law and Reason, That he who is in possession, hath a right against all the World, but him who hath the very right. The very right, if the present Princes have not, none can pretend to; and if any have, they have: if any other had, they have certainly relinquished it by so long a Non-claim. And to set up any other Person, or other Form of Government, for a People to pretend, that because they were brought to that consent by force, and so not obliged any longer than the force continueth; is absurd: and their consent and submission is obligatory; because it was free, though forced. Free, I say, though forced; I am not ashamed to own that expression: For, no outward force can constrain us to promise Obedience further than we ourselves please. For it is a truth known by all who understand Ethics, or themselves; That whatever I do to avoid a greater danger, I do willingly: and as I judge it in that state of affairs, (as taking it to be the lesser evil,) I may rationally; and it is clear, I do freely, because I do actually, choose it. If I part with my liberty; nay, with my conscience, to gratify him who hath de facto a power to kill me: in this later case as it is certain I sin; It is as certain I do it voluntarily: because all sins are so. For, if he de facto may kill me; and, that he may not use that power, I promise him to do this, or that: I have quid pro quo; my life for my subjection. He who might kill me, and so prevent all the harm it were possible for me to do, and upon my promise of obedience, lets me live; trusts me: and then if I am false, I break my trust. Though he had no right to force me to make the promise; yet he hath an unquestionable tye upon me to the thing promised, even my own promise.  
If it be here replied, according to this; All who were forced to take the Covenant, or engaged to the late Power, etc. are by this obliged to keep it.  
I answer, First, I do not mean to make an excuse for any who did either. But secondly, I deny the Consequence: Because, though I say, That our own Act, may deprive us of our own Rights; I neither say, nor think, that it can deprive a third person of his: which was the case, as to the King, and all the Bishops, and Deans and prebend's. Consider though but as so many single persons of the Covenant, it binding us to deprive them of their livelyhoods, they had not been legally convict of crimes to forfeit the same: nor only doth it bind to destroy their Rights, but all the Royal Party; nay, all who had done any thing, which at any time was, or might be voted malignity, though it were but in living where the King took Contribution, when they had no where else to live. And these to be judged, not according to any Rule; but as, (according to the fourth Article) The Supreme judicatories, or Committees from them should think convenient]. Though I affirm a man's own act may prejudice his own right: yet no man had such a right over others concernments as to subject them to committee-men's pleasure: and that will reach the case of the Oath of Allegiance, it was not at his own dispose to give it to any late Powers. I have contended against the Government being by compact, by having submitted to the King: for be it Paternity, or Conquest in a War, just or unjust; it overthrows that Doctrine, of Parliaments Ever retaining a jurisdiction over Church and Crown. But should I grant the Original of Government to have been compact; it would not infer our retaining jurisdiction: because we might have submitted absolutely. If parliaments have such a power; they receive it from the King, or People. Not from the King, sure; but if they have, let them show it. Not from the People, as their Representatives; for so the Lords are not at all concerned. If the Commons have it, they must show when the People gave it them, (if they had it to give). Their Writ expresseth no such thing; and by Grant they must have it. For Assemblies are not born but constituted: their whole Being, or Authority, is purely derivative: and if they will say by grant; let them produce it.  
But after all this, the Covenant is not justifiable, though the Parliament had such a transcendent and unheard of Authority. For, being it is professed in the Conclusion to be an encouragement to Foreign Churches, to enter into the like Association and Covenant, etc. where there is no such pretence of Parliamentary Power: the Covenant consequently must needs be scandalous, as inviting to downright Rebellion; if there be a possibility for any such thing as Rebellion; and so to sin, if Rebellion be a sin: and if it be not: I would fain know what is? And for the same reason, except the two Houses be Supreme in Ireland too; they cannot oblige us to reform that, where they as well as we have no Authority. Though Ireland is under the Crown of England; I suppose the Crown is not theirs.   

The second Article of the Covenant.  
As an inducement to like well of Episcopal Government, the Antiquity and Universality of it is considered: an Argument worth considering at least; certainly of moment, with any but those who will not be persuaded, that there ever were pious or prudent men, who sought God, or were directed by Him, till the Scottish Army came into England. It is, certainly, free from that prejudice which lies against the Covenant; that Bishop's Lands were Antichristian assoon as their Calling was. Men had got a very fair Title to Bishop's Lands, by swearing the Bishops should not keep them; as if wrong ceased to be wrong, when men entered into a League to do it. How the Parliament came to the power of disposing of Church Lands; I am, (and believe they are too,) very ignorant. The Bishops received their Lands from them who were the right owners; and therefore certainly, had it in their power to give it to whom they would: nor were they by any Law disabled from giving it to that particular use. And I presume that that place in Scripture is not easily produced, Where whatever is given to the Church, is declared forfeited to the State. For the weight (I suppose) in the Argument, drawn from the Antiquity of Episcopal Government, is hardly avoided by that Text, Redeemed from the vain conversation received by Tradition from their fathers.  
In his Answer to the Oxf. Reasons, Mr. Cr. urges The Bishop's constant struggle with, and encroaching on the Royal Authority, etc. p. 73. The struggling of Bishops which he means, was in behalf of Papal, not Episcopal Authority. Sure, he hath forgot the Practice and Principles of the Scottish Presbyters: and the English Promoters of this Covenant were, certainly, very great encroachers upon the Royal Authority; if ROYAL relates to the KING. Their Brethren in Scotland, whom they Covenant to be the same with; have stood in (and owned the) Defiance of King and Parliament, & claim a coactive Power Independent on either. The Convocations in England acknowledge themselves to have no power to Enact or Promulge any new Canons, without the King's leave. Which of the two are the Encroachers then, it is not hard to determine. Si fur displice at Verri, etc. The Disciplinarian Calvinists, objecting disloyalty to Bishops, is like as the Doctrinal ones accused the Arminians of making God the Author of sin, and damning men for what Himself had necessitated them to do. 'Tis a good way of hanging others for our own faults.  
The next Crime is, Punishing the best men for things indifferent. i e. Disobedience to such commands it could not be unlawful to obey in: because the things were indifferent, i. e. such as were not unlawful. If they were, as Mr. Cr. says, mere trifles: it is no sign of the best men to be contentious about such things, about trifles. Some little prejudices against, or rather mistakes about, Episcopacy, of no moment, I pass over, and come to the Capital Objection, p. 75. Episcopacy is a plain and clear Popery, etc. So say Salmasius and Beza, Episcopi Papam pepererunt. I do here very much question, whether the Gentleman believes himself: and that not only, because of the notoriousness of the contrary evidencing those two Governments, to all who understand the Constitution of them, to be not only different, but inconsistent. But also because the granting of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy would overthrow unavoidably that of the Papacy. And this is even by Mr. Cr. himself, before he thought on it, acknowledged, when (p. 82.) in summing up his Authors, he brings none who speak so clearly for him as a Pope. He tells us, that Pope Nicolas declared (we acknowledge their Desire and Interest it should be so thought) Episcopatuum Cathedras instituit Romana Ecclesia, etc.  
It seems, Sir, Popery is no friend to the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy. And p. 78, Mr. Cr. tells us, That the Pope's Legate interdicted the Dispute in the Council of Trent, concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy; or directed it in such general and uncertain debates, that there might be no determination of it.  
Is the Pope so much his own Enemy; as not to endure the determination of that which is his best support? Doth the Pope so much dread his best plea, as not to endure to hear, it, or let any own it? Sure, they had other thoughts of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy at Rome: which, sure I am, is as much abhorred there as at Geneva.  
And truly they have Reason for it: and they know it. Hence proceeded that violent Opposition and fearful Outcries against that Tenent, we read of in Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, p. 497. Lan●rius a Jesuit tells them, Meram esse contradictionem, Velle Pontificem esse caput Ecclesiae, velle regimen esse Monarchicum; & tamen affirmare, Esse aliquam Potestatem non derivatam ab ipso, sed aliunde acceptam. So that Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ, destroys his Holiness from being the Spiritual Monarch: because he is not then, the fountain of all Power. It seems, this Learned Romanist understood very well, that these Tenants, which pass at Lectures for one and the same; are irreconcilable Contradictions: and that which is called Popery in England, quite destroys that which is so at Rome. This plain and clear Papacy pulls down the Pope. And the Reasons are summed up to our hands, by that incomparably judicious Historian, Ind enim colligebant Claves non fuisse soli Petro datas, & Concilium esse supra Papam: fiebantque Episcopi aequales Pontifici; cui nihil relinquebatur nisi quaedam prae aliis Praerogativa. Thence would follow, if Episcopal Authority were by Divine Right, immediately derived from Christ, without dependence on the See of Rome: It would follow, that the Keys were not only given to St. Peter, and consequently the disposal of them not solely in his successor; then a Council, as consisting of men whose Authority was as immediately divine, as his own, would be above the Pope; every Bishop was the Pope's equal as to that, who would then by Divine Right have nothing but a primacy of Order. These are amongst other consequences, from the Divine Right of Episcopacy once granted, as impossible to be avoided; as unlike to be approved at Rome. The clearing of this should, in all Reason, commend Episcopacy to those men, who make opposition to Rome the rule of their Faith. But oh the intolerable (though holy) villainy of those godly Cheats, who Preached up this Tenent for Popery: which all, who understand what Popery means, know to be the bane of it; and was at Trent, by the See of Rome's most skilful Advancers discarded as such. It seems some not esteemed Jesuits can lie for God; and pious frauds can be used, and railed at.  
It is said by the Oxf. men in their third ground of their first exception, That they are not satisfied of that Phrase in the Covenant [Lest we be partakers of other men's sins]. They do not apprehend how they are guilty of those sins (suppose them to be sins, which is not yet proved) unless they endeavour by fire and sword to root them out. To which Mr. Cr. Replies, p. 76. That they are so guilty, but hath not one word to prove it. That Saints in Scripture did weep for other men's sins, I read: But that they esteemed them to be made their own, if they did not fight them down, I do not read. There were Kings of Israel who were Idolaters, and the Law was general, that they who were such should be put to death: yet, I do not find the Prophets telling the People, that it was the same thing for them not to stone the King, as it was for him to worship stones. And yet this is the Import of that expression; Those are our sins, we are partakers of them, if we do not pull them down: The Foundation of the second Article of the Covenant, is harder than all the Laws of God besides, (if itself be one). It binds us to the extirpation of all Superstition, Heresy, Schism, Profaneness, or whatever shall be found contrary to the Power of Godliness; and this they make to be every man's duty, and swear him to it, under no milder expressions than these; [Lest we be partakers of other men's sins, and so in danger to receive their plagues]. And here, if we consider the way of endeavouring this Covenant practised and required, viz. Fire and Sword; and with this their Invitation to Foreign Churches, where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Government, so that they must only be looked upon as so many private men; on whom yet this duty is incumbent: It teaches us this by that Engagement, [Lest we partakers of other men's sins, etc.] That a godly man can never be at peace with himself, till he be at war with every one he knows or thinks wicked. He must perpetually expect God's vengeance on himself, when he is not executing it upon another.  
The first thing of moment against this Article, is p. 78. That the Universal alleged Practice of 1500 years will more weaken then strengthen the Divine Right; for, the most pure estate was before that in the first 140. years. I shall not at all insist upon the Catalogues of Bishops, in unquestionable Histories to be had even from the beginning. But only say this, That all Christian Churches in those days should deviate from the Primitive pattern, and all the same way, no common cause imaginable inducing them to err the same way, is a thing highly incredible. As to that which is ordinarily urged, viz. Ambition, it could not, if we consider the Persons, or Times, have been universal; nor, if we consider the thing, have been at all. Being a Bishop, having only the privilege of being burnt next.  
Mr. Cr. in the following Pages makes demands for Texts. Though the Article insists only on Practice, and so is not concerned. Which if not granted good, National, Parochial Churches, The Canon of the Scripture, and the Lordsday, are lost. Nor is this Truth utterly passed by in Scripture: though if it had, considering that the intent was to deliver to us Doctrine, not the precise Form of Discipline, we might rationally have appealed to Antiquity in that Point, i. e. to the Practice of those from whom we receive the Canon of the Scripture, and without whose Suffrage, were it once questioned, it were not possible without immediate Revelation to have it sufficiently attested to be what it pretends to be.  
Mr. Cr. tells us, that Bishops and Presbyters are entrusted with the same Power of Governing. But I cannot be satisfied in this particular: since I find Timothy and Titus being single men, are without any intimation of others being equal with them, directed how to receive accusations, and to rebuke and censure. Evidences, in my apprehension, pregnant enough of sole jurisdiction.  
To disprove the Universal alleged Practice, he tells us, That the King of Denmark in the year 1537. exstirpated it, and so did the Scots since. Goodly, goodly! And so did those he pleads for, the long Parliament. I cannot apprehend but that either he droles, or is utterly ignorant of the nature of Tradition, as taking it to be, what none ever contradicted; a notion of it, which they that understand what it means, have not. Sure I am, at that rate, the Deity of Christ, cannot approve itself to be Catholic Doctrine, because there were Arians of old, and are Socinians now.  
The mutual correspondence by Letters which was at that time used in the Church forbade any Church to be ignorant of what all the Churches do hold; so that Innovations could not but be discovered: And to suppose, that the same Imposture should be imposed upon all the Churches together in those early days, as an Apostolic Tradition, upon so many various Countries, and Inclinations upon men, whose choicest care was in delivering, and dying for that Faith they had once received from the Apostles; is to suppose all the World to be out of their wits together. If they tell us, It was the ambition of Pastors, that introduced that Order; no account can be given how this should be universal, and yet not perceived, or resisted: and this is as strange as to the Exemplar Piety of those Times. And yet more, in the nature of the thing it is absurd: For their ambition in that case, could tend to nothing but a more quick and severe Martyrdom, to be sooner burnt then their fellows. The Heathens spite was at the Bishops as well as the Presbyterians.  
Aerius being called a Heretic, for promoting that Opinion himself glories in, he qualifieth with this; That Austin only calleth it Proprium dogma, p. 87. Which term in St. Austin's esteem signifieth nothing less. In his judgement, for a private man to oppose his own private Opinion, dictated by discontent (as some late ones are known to have been for not being Bishops themselves) in a matter of fact against all Records, Histories, and the owned Practice of all the Churches, was Spiritual Pride and Folly. And St. Austin in that case, would (if pertinaciously held) not at all have sticked to have called it Heresy. If the expression he useth do not import as much.  
In the Answer to the fourth Exception handled (I know not why) before the third, I find nothing material, only p. 92. in answer to that acknowledgement, That the Holy Church was founded in Prelacy, because the Church, when that Statute was made, was Popish, he insinuates that it was so when it was first founded in Prelacy. A thing which the Romanists have long in vain laboured to prove; and if Mr. Cr. will at last do it effectually, the Pope will (no doubt) acknowledge his good sevice with many thanks.  
The third of the Oxf. Reasons is now considered, Why it was not in its own turn considered, I know not, unless this Book was wrote by a Club, and he to whose lot this fell, was not timely provided.  
The first was this, The Oxf. men allege, That they had, as they were by Law required, testified their approbation to that Government as agreeable to the Word of God, which they are now required to swear down as contrary to it.  
To which Mr. Cr. (if not, for the above mentioned Reason, his fellow-helper) tells us, The Article might only intend it to be a Political Civil Constitution, as indeed all our Statutes do suggest, and so an adiaphoron, etc. p. 94.  
This is the best Salvo to reconcile this Oath with the Subscription, and this Mr. Cr. himself refutes, p. 95. By telling us, That in the Book Ordering Priests, etc. It is directly affirmed, That it is evident by the Holy Scriptures, etc. That from the Apostles, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, etc. Which words declare their intent to found that Government upon the Word of God, not the Law of the Land; and so that Interpretation of his is false: and the Oxf. men's Reason good, and the Covenant irreconcilable with the Subscription.  
The Oxf. mens second Reason is, They had received Orders from Bishop's Hands, and therefore could not so ill requite them, as to lay to their hands to pull them down. To which Mr. Cr. Replies, p. 96. In so doing, they would do the Bishops a real kindness, of which he gives us this satisfactory account. Richard Havering Archbishop of Dublin, dreamt that a Monster heavier than the whole world stood upon him, and when he waked, thought it to be his Bishopric, and renounced it. Sure Mr. Cr. was scarce awake, when he thought to answer the University with a dream.  
The fourth Reason is this, They held their livelyhoods by such Titles, etc. And, sure, being not convict of any crime, were not to be bound to undo themselves, and were to the contrary sworn. Cr. p. 97. They held their Estates at the pleasure of the Parliament, whose Pow●r is over the enjoyment of all public (much more particular) Societies, against whose Laws, no Domestic Laws, or Oaths could bind them.  
We have already showed how this Covenant destroys the King's Prerogative: this Doctrine teaches us in what a high degree it asserts the Proprieties and Liberties of the Subject. The Power of Parliaments over our Estates, so as to dispose of some part in Taxes according to our several Proportions, is indeed clear and legal. (To prevent wilful mistakes, I do not mean to justify the Taxes the Long Parliament imposed. For they may dispose of the Subjects money to the King: They have no pretence of right to dispose of it to themselves). But this Power of Parliaments which Mr. Cr, pleads for, is equally groundless and unreasonable: a power so unlimited both in regard to their King and Country; as it is not fit in regard of either they should have, nor doth it at all appear how, or when, they came to have it. It can never be made appear to be one of the due privileges of Parliament: unless we suppose, whatever it is possible for them to Vote, to be so, though against all the Laws and the King; and than what a pretty Animal is his Majesty of England.  
But in earnest, if it be considered by any, but those who no otherwise are like to get Estates; or can justify what they have already got; That the two Houses may dispose at pleasure of all the Lands of public and particular Societies (and sure, then private mens; for so, beside that other capacity, are those who are interessed in Public Lands) though convict of no crime; That they may cancel all Oaths: is, what I never till now thought to be, one of the Liberties of the Kingdom. If their Power and Trust be so great, I would we had not at least, the security of an Oath, that they would use it well. By this Doctrine, they may even strike up a bargain, and share all amongst themselves. And, call you this Securing Propriety?  
A Monarchy may possibly be founded in Nature, and so in himself retain all rights he hath not parted with. But such a thing as an Assembly, as our Parliaments, can have no pretence to any thing (as I before have observed) but what they have by Grant from him who calls them, or compact with those who send them. Whatever therefore they cannot thus show, they are not to pretend to; for Assemblies are not born, but made.  
As to Lands that the two Houses have any thing to do, further than by Established Laws they are enabled, which receive all force from the King's assent; I cannot imagine ground for.  
Our Lands we all receive from, and hold of, the KING; as Sir Edward Cook in the first part of his Instit. and, as I remember, in the very beginning: but that we at all depend upon the two Houses for them, He (though a great adorer of that Assembly) affirmeth not. But if we had received them partly from the two Houses, (of which there is not the least shadow or colour,) yet that would not justify this Doctrine, They may dispose of them at pleasure; as Mr. Cr. prodigiously affirms to the Oxf. men, who allege, That they were not convict of any crime, because they had not broke the conditions upon which they received them. Did they, at the same time, give them, and keep them, at their own dispose? And upon this ground it is, that His Majesty could not, without injustice, and consequently without sin, should He have agreed to the Houses in that particular; (though in the Courts of Earth, it might have had the effect of a Law; yet in that of Heaven, it would have passed for Iniquity established by a Law:) because by giving it to another, he passed away that interest from himseif, when he gave it away. The Dominium utile I mean, and in this, I think, consists the propriety of the Subject. But Mr. Cr. hath placed this All-disposing Power in the two Houses, when they were in hostile opposition to the King: and so makes us as great Slaves, as Earth hath any; to our fellow-Subjects. And much greater slaves are all we freeborn People of England, made by the assertors of our Liberties; then Villains were among ourselves. For I remember, though not the page, and have not the book by me, that Sir Edw. Cook in his Chap. of Villeinage, affirms, That whatever the slave had, was his Lords; yet if the Villain passed any thing to another before the Lord seized or claimed it, such a passage was valid: and if the Lord himself had made the Villain any fixed Estate, he was so far from retaining any power over it, that it enfranchised his Villain. In both these cases, we are worse than Villains, though never so much freeborn. For after the first owner, i. e. their founders, hath passed the Land away, (as in the Oxf. men's case) the Houses Power remains as good as ever: which the Lords of the Villains did not. And in the second, let our Estate be never so fixed, it is, as Mr. Cr. assures us, p. 97. but at the pleasure of the Parliament; and by that too, he means, the two Houses. And this is securing Propriety: but so they secured the King at Holmby, and the Isle of Wight. Certainly, this Scottish Doctrine would never have been pleaded for by any, but those whom the two Houses had assured, they should have a considerable share in the next scamble. But I marvel the People should like this Doctrine; they have (sure I am) no Reason, but because it is called Securing Propriety. And thus it is true of us, what Charles the Fifth, is said, by Strada, to report of the Dutchmen, Nullos esse populos qui servitutis nomen magis execrentur magis, patiantur. We cannot endure to be called, Slaves, slaves; but will earnestly contend to be so. And truly, the effect would have been the same in both, had our Noble Patriots been uninterrupted Victors; who fought against Taxes, till we came to pay the greatest in all the World.  
All this which hath been hitherto urged in this Point, hath been in their behalf only as men which equally concerns all the Nation. There is something yet for them, in that capacity, to be urged, which is peculiar to it. How? If besides the interest the Oxf. men had in them as theirs; God had an interest in them as His. Sure I am, if God doth accept of any thing from men under the Gospel: He hath such an interest in those Lands; because they were granted to God, by King and Parliament; and when they were in a National capacity, and so according to Mr. Cr. Divinity, p. 145. That obligation not to divert them to other uses, lies upon us while we are a Nation. By that National Act, each man is barred, even those who are not by a Personal. This is Mr. Cr. own Divinity throughout his whole Sixth Section; particularly in p. 145, 146, etc. The Covenant swears us to that we were before obliged not to do. That that was one alteration Christ brought into the World; That God would henceforth accept of no fixed Estate in any thing from men, to the use of those who were employed in the Sacred Function: is a part of the Gospel not at all revealed in Scripture. That whatever is given to the Church, is forfeited to the State, (though given before the Civil Law had prohibited it;) is a strange Statute of Mortmain. The Money Ananias his Lands were sold for, God is said (Acts 5.) to have an Interest in: Would He not have had an Inrest in the Land too, had it not been sold? This is a very strange Evasion; but only men must say something. When the only reason why God had an Interest in the money, was, because it was the price of his own Land. Whence can my title come to the money, for which such Land was sold, co nomine, as the Price of it, if I have no interest in that Land? That because God doth not command our Lands, therefore he will not accept them; the so much derided Oxford Casuists know to be a pitiful lame consequence. The Supreme Authority, where ever residing, is every where the same equally absolute. Suppose, had the Supreme Authority disposed of Ananias his Money; had they not in that Case rob God? Sure then, by the very same Reason, our Parliaments may do so too. If you say, The case is different; (our Magistrates are Christians, theirs not:) this is not to the purpose. For Civil Authority is not founded in the truth of our Religion. And 'tis a pretty nicety, That it is a great sin for any to rob God, but those who believe him to be a God. This were a most admirable plea for a Rebel; who owned him whom he fought against, to be his lawful Prince. If I should urge examples out of the Old Testament; the answer is ready: Whatever is there to be found, if men have not a mind to it, is part of the Ceremonial Law abolished at the coming of Christ Though why any thing should be counted part of that Law, which Moses doth not set down as such; nor I, nor they, can give any tolerable account. They must, to begin, say, Moses his description is imperfect. But that this is one of the differences of the Priesthood of the Law, and the Ministry of the Gospel; that in the Lands of the former God had an Interest, and not in those of the latter: is, I think, not from Scripture to be found. What I cite out of the jewish story in this matter, is answered; They were jews: what out of other stories; They were Heathens. If I should cite the example of the Patriarch under the Law of Nature, and show them to have always esteemed God interested in such Lands: Then their answer is, themselves know not well what; but at last, all the Patriarches actions, were Figures of things to come, the body is Christ And that, as the rest, was Typical. If I ask, Typical of what? I must be fain to tell them myself; Priests all along being capable of Land in Gods Right before the Gospel, was Typical of this, That those under the Gospel should not be so capable. Believe it, a most special and proper Type it is. If God hath an interest in those Lands, I hope the Parliaments jurisdiction, (though very much improved of late) is not over Him too. I verily persuade myself, had the Committee of Safety pulled down Tithes; some men would have found such a sin as Sacrilege to be possible to be committed in the times of the Gospel, though there be no command in the Gospel for them.  
But after all this, there is a material thing in this Exception, not taken notice of by Mr. Cr. which is, The Iniquity of this Article, in obliging the Oxf. men to pull down those, by whose titles many of them hold their livelihoods, i. e. to bind them, (even before they are convicted of any crime) to undo themselves. The wildly large power of Parliaments alleged, is not large enough to reach this. For, though they have power to dispose of my Estate at pleasure; yet, to bind me sincerely, to the utmost of my power, to endeavour to assist them in ruining myself, is a thing far different. Where there is a just Power, and deserved sentence (both which were in this case wanting) though I may be obliged to submit; yet sure, not sincerely and to the utmost of my Power to endeavour to have it executed upon me.  
In the 101 page, He considers that Argument used in behalf of Episcopal Government, viz. The agreeableness of it to the civil constitution of the Kingdom, which he proves to be no Argument by two Mediums. The first is, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, Ergo. The second is this, Christ hath a Regal Power, and is faithful in the Administration of his house: ergo, The agreement of a Church Government to the Civil constitution of the State, is no Argument for such a Church Government.  
As to the later Argument, I shall not answer it at all; but desire the Reader to consult the place, that he may see that the Argument is his own: and then ask him, Whether in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; ergo, The agreeableness of, etc. were not altogether as conclusive.  
As to the former, though a slighted Argument, I say it is a material one: and it is none of the least commendations of Christian Religion, that it provides even for the temporal security of men and states; and, were they obeyed universally, we should have a kind of heaven before we came thither. But had Mr. Cr. but read over the whole verse, he argues from, and but considered the occasion of its being delivered; he would sure not have used it in this Argument. He could not have avoided a Doctrine, which sets a clear distinction between the Church of Christ, and that of Scotland; it is this, My Kingdom is not of this World, else would my servants fight: i. e. His Kingdom which was not of this world, was not to be promoted by the way of this World. That Cause which refused the assistance of Legions of Angels, scorned the aid of Armies of Rebels.  
Against Bishop's superiority over Presbyters, and their meddling in Temporal Affairs, there is a Prohibition brought out of Scripture, The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion, etc. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and whoever will be Chief among you, let him be your Servant, Matth. 20.25, 26, 27. Mark. 10.42, 43, 44. Luk. 22.23, 24.  
The Impertinency of this place is clear at first sight. For it proves nothing of this nature, or too much: concludes not against us, unless against them too: For it concludes for an absolute equality, if any thing in this Point; and so Superintendents are as bad as Bishops, and the sin of Temporary Moderators is coeval to their Office. The only difference which is to be between all Christians, especially Clergymen, (if the sense of the words be this alleged) is, Who shall be most humble. But sure, Christ's Precept and Practice, did not so much differ: The Twelve and the Seventy were, sure, not equal. Timothy and Titus were Superiors to those whom they were to rebuke, to judge. The Angel of each Church in this Revelation had some authority, sure, over those he was threatened for not inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures upon. If this be the Import of the place, there is no manner of Authority in one Churchman over another, (if there be of any Christian over another); so that every Synod may be reproved with, Ye take too much upon you, etc. if one single Presbyter descent, and they punish him. But the truth is, These words do rather teach Superiors how to behave themselves, then deny any to be so; and suppose, rather than forbid, some to be greater and more chief than others: He who is great, etc. He who is chief.  
By the usual Application of this Mistake, it is also concluded (I suppose) from the first words, The Princes, etc. exercise Dominion, etc. But it shall not be so among you, etc.) unlawful for Clergymen to be endowed with any Civil Authority: and Mr. Cr. p. 101. hath stated the Question, What will become of the Bishops, when the Dukes be damned?  
That Clergymen may not meddle with Temporal Affairs, (if a truth) is such a one, which, the Presbyterian Ministers are the most unfit people in the world to plead for: of whose guilt in this particular, these Nations, and almost all Europe, are public and bloody Testimonies. Nor did they procure the least share they have had by the pretence of having none, and disclaiming to have any. Here I might be copious, but to omit others, I shall peculiarly stick to the business in hand, and only intimate the self-condemnation they brought upon themselves, in relation to this Tenent, and the Oxf. men. To be Head of a College, is certainly a Civil Authority: and this, sure, they did not refuse; but contend for with War, fraud, and violence. Did they not very godlily Visit themselves into what a godly Minister dares not be, as being uncapable? To be a Vicechancellor as so, and in that right to be a justice of Peace, are Authorities, (I think) not purely spiritual. And to be a Schoolmaster is so too. And to take the other Argument used in this case; The Ministry requires the whole man: this takes up more time from his Function Ministerial than to be a Peer of the Realm. And this last instance brings in another, To be Master of a Family is a Civil Authority; Correction, there not purely spiritual.  
But the truth, though urged in behalf of both these Presbyterian Tenants, signifies nor of, nor on, to either. They are an Answer to a Question; they are the deciding (or rather taking away the Foundation of) a Controversy. We shall therefore endeavour to attain their true meaning, by that sure and easy and neglected Method; considering the occasion upon which those words were delivered. For it is not citing, but profaning Scripture, to urge it as a proof of what it was never intended to concern: But such shifts those men are unavoidably brought to, who first resolve upon Conclusions and Practices, and then are necessitated to seek Principles to make them good; those men must make the best of such as they can get.  
The Occasion of those words must needs be the same with the Quarrel he thereby appeased: unless we will suppose our Saviour to have spoke besides the business He spoke to; and the Disciples satisfied with nothing to the purpose: which Disputes about being made great, seldom are. Which was this; The jews had an Opinion of the Messias as of a temporal Prince; and the Disciples were not free from that Error: and in this sense it was, they thought he should restore the Kingdom to Israel. Upon this account, they thought their Religion entitled them to Secular Grandeur, & were sharing the great Offices. And that this was it Christ reproved, and that this was the very mistake; is as often evident, as there are discourses of theirs about Christ's Kingdom: The not through purging out of which Tenent, was the cause, that one branch of it occasioned the Millenarian Error in the first Ages. Christ had indeed promised them they should reign with Him in his Kingdom: But let them not nourish carnal pride, for His Kingdom was not to be here. All which can be gathered from hence, is, That Christians, as such, cannot claim Secular Honours: or, if they have them, they are not by reason of them to be supercilious toward, but more useful to, those who want them; not to scorn, but to help their Brethren. This doth not all prove, That if the Civil Magistrate, at whose disposal Honours are, will dignify Clergymen, they may not accept it; when it may be the concernment and the welfare of Church and State: which are no such Enemies as that they cannot be administered to by the same Persons. I wonder, how so much is so securely built on this Text, when it cannot be made out, that Christ spoke these words to the Apostles as in the capacity of Clergymen. That Clergymen, either as so, or as Christians, have not an eternal Right to Secular Honours, I grant. Christ bequeathed no such thing: but that He any where made them uncapable, if the Civil Magistrate (who is the Fountain of Honour,) bestows any upon them, I no where read. He left those things as he found them: to be bestowed as he whose right it was to dispose of them should see cause. Christ would, certainly, have sharply and plainly reprehended such an Universal Custom, had he intended to remove it. But seeing He and his Apostles said nothing against it, they certainly intended it to remain as before.  
The Exception to the third Article, is, That there is a limitation put upon an absolute duty. [To defend the King's Person and Authority, in the preservation of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdom]. Though the King is really bound to those things: yet his neglect of his duty, doth not discharge us of ours. To this Mr. Cr. replies, Those words are not a limitation of duty; but a predication of the capacity the Parliament and People were in, and so the meaning is; We being in the preservation of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom, shall endeavour to preserve the King, etc. An Interpretation not to be made good by Grammar: To which (I must needs confess this though) it may as easily be reconciled, as to their Actions. All Declarations and Sermons were but Satyrs against the King; they represented Him equally an Enemy to God and Man, Religion and Liberty; upon which score, they justified Violences, as great as they would have his Crimes thought. In short, they had this pretence, to deprive him of all power, and that he was not fit to be trusted with any. Let any man but ask himself, what case the King was in, what usage he had, or might expect in those days; he would readily grant this Interpretation of Mr. Cr. (which is indeed as far from the sense of their words, as truth of their actions) to show them to be as Loyal, as he should be thought by Mr. Cr. friendly; who should revile and persecute him all ways imaginable for Nonconformity; and then should thus manifest to all the world his tenderness to him, should engage multitudes of his powerful and enraged Enemies, in a Covenant to defend Mr. Cr. in defence of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England. A Parenthesis would be in Mr. Cr. Eye, a slender ground of our good will toward him. This is not only the natural and practised meaning of that phrase, but the confessed and owned one, Mr. Cr. Legislators, the Commons, in Answer to the Scotch Commissioners 28. November 1646. p. 21. acknowledge and plead for this sense of those dangerous words, [They are to preserve the King, etc. Relatively, viz. In the preservation of, etc.] And frequently in that Declaration, blame the Scots, for mentioning the Preservation of the King, and omitting that clause upon which they were bound to defend him. This being then the natural and confessed meaning of those words, and, in Mr. Cr. own judgement, sinful, p. 103. Because, as he truly there urges, Allegiance, and so the preserving the King's Person and Authority, is an absolute duty founded in the Relation, without regard to the Quality, Piety or Impiety of the Person, etc. And this is a duty we are bound to God to perform. If there were no more against the Covenant than this, Mr. Cr. must acknowledge the Covenant to be as to the matter, unlawful; and so in his own esteem obliging to nothing but Repentance: because it endeavours to bind us to to what he owns to be sin. But if this which Mr. Cr. is ashamed to own, (either because he takes it not to be true, or else not seasonable) be not the true meaning of those words, and the King for misusing his Authority is not to be deprived; nay, even than they swear to preserve it. I will not say, What meant that Resolve pleaded in the aforesaid Answer to the Scots, p. 65. That until satisfaction and security be given to both Kingdoms, the King was not to be admitted to come to them with Honour, Freedom, and Safety. If to dispose of every thing in the Nation without, and against his command, be to preserve his Authority, I wish They had been so preserved. What mean the Votes of Non-Address, 1647. (Recalled, I confess; but let us consider, it was when Affairs were so much changed, that the Army was ready to give them the same Law they had given the King, to defend them just so:) Nay, I shall go on; What means the Loyalty they so much brag of now, The Isle of Wight Treaty? All Offices, Civil Military, Peers, Counselors, judges, Marriage of his own Children; in effect, all the Regalia: Call you this preserving his Authority? Those horrid words are in themselves clear: and, if they had not been so, their Opinions had made them so.  
In the conclusion of this third Article, p. 104. After the supposed Jeer of serious Casuists; he tells us, They must grant, that where the words of an Oath seemingly doubtful may, they must be taken in a good sense. The Oxf. men were in this case of another mind; where an Oath is so doubtful, I am rather to refuse, for fear it should engage me upon a sin, and so I might be engaged to dishonour God for his own sake. An Oath is to be taken in the sense of him that gives it; otherwise it is no security, but a cheat. Shall I then strain a sense upon an Oath which the words offer not, (not to say, will not admit), and the Authors, I am sure, pursue not.  
To the fourth Article, The Exception is, It will protect Impiety, and necessitate Barbarism; it lays a necessity on the Son to accuse his Father, etc. and makes way for those who are sick of their Fathers, etc.  
To which the Reply is, p. 104. All penal Statutes for Felony, Treason, The Oath of Allegiance, Supremacy, the Protestation, the Law Deuteronomy, 13.6.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. do the same. As to the Law of the Land; it looks upon the harbour Criminals receive from near Relations in some cases, as duty: which it would severely and might justly punish in others not so related, as a crime. But not to stand on that, at the very first reading, this Article suggests a considerable difference, from all the abovementioned Instances. In those I am only obliged to discover present guilt, and endeavours; which if not prevented, may go on to the high dishonour of God, and disturbance of the Public. Considerations if sincere, much above any private, or particular Obligements. But this Covenant obliges to discover all who have been Malignants; no consideration that the design is prevented, or repent of: and therefore serves not at all for Public Security; but may, for private Ambition, or Revenge.  
There is another Exception, which though Mr. Cr. pleases to slight, I will be bold to say, all the Earth cannot answer it, viz. That it betrays inevitably, The Liberty of the Subject. We there swear to maintain in setting up an Arbitrary Power, when all the Rule they are to go by, is, [As they think convenient] which Mr. Cr. answers by saying nothing to it. He repeats indeed the other words, [As the Supreme judicatories, or others from them, etc.] But saith not one word in answer to that expression, wherein the malignity lies, [As they shall judge convenient]. Words fit only for those men to use, who knew they had no Law on their side. It might here (not unseasonably) be asked, Who are the Supreme judicatories? Certainly, the two Houses distinct from the King, are so far from being the Supreme, that they are no Court at all; nor is there in Law any style or form of their joint Acts.  
To the fifth Article, It is said first, That there is a false Assertion, These Kingdoms (if Ireland be one, as in the former Parliaments it is) are not at Peace, nor dare the men of Oxf. abusively thank God for a blessing they do not all believe, and Mr. Cr. proves by no better Argument, then that England & Scotland entered in Covenant. As to the Peace which was between England and Scotland, made by both Parliaments, I ask, If the Power of War and Peace be not solely the Kings? If so, here is another of the King's Prerogatives, this Covenant preserved.  
As to the second Remora, Mr. Cr. asks where this Covenant is defective towards the King's Rights & c? I might rather ask, where it is not; where it left him the Authority (I do not say Name, but Power) of a King, or the freedom of a Gentleman?  
The very design of all their Proceedings, which this Covenant was a main Engine to effect, was perfect dethroning him, when they made what the Law, what their Wit, the foundation of all their Power: called, but his Counsel, his Controllers. And this is a Truth so clear, that they durst not for shame but call themselves his Subjects; even when they exercised all but the Name of his Sovereign. When they raised Armies to compel; even than they made a resemblance of their duty by sending Petitions to beseech. They could not be Rebels, but in the style of Your Majesty's Humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament. Let Mr. Cr. show me any thing that Law or Reason call a Right, or Prerogative of the King; and I shall quickly make it appear, how they took it from the King: and Mr. Cr. himself, p. 98. hath proved the truth of the Maxim he so much rails at, No Bishop, no King, by giving us just such a King as he hath allowed us Bishops. To the Bishops he will allow the formality of the Chair; and the KING, for aught I perceive, shall have no more. The Lords and Commons (Melthodi & Majestatis causa) apply themselves to him. Well said! though I would the Law had been cited for it. The King, poor Gentleman, may sit uppermost, whilst he is mannerly: his assent shall be asked if he will first secure us, he will never refuse: If he doth, he shall then be reminded where the Reason of the Kingdom, nay and King too, resides. As in the Declaration about Hull, in 1642. p. 36.  
I am so far reconciled to this absolute depriving the King of his Authority, that I like it much better than the pretty knack of sharing it between him and two equal Houses, which would be the worst Government in the world. It is in our Saviour's judgement, Hard to serve two Masters. But this Nation should have served three coordinate Enemies; whose Interests, and consequently commands were thwarting. Every Convention would be a wrestling match, where each his business was to give another a fall.  
The Contradictions the Oxf. men assign, are so clear, as nothing more; I shall therefore say little to them, because they best appear, when they are nakedly considered. One Ambiguity I shall pitch upon, because it is the most considerable part of this Mystery of Iniquity.  
The Oxf. men demand [Which be the best Reformed Churches?] Because before they swear to make those Churches their pattern, it were well, certainly, that they knew them. To which Mr. Cr. p. 129. The Covenant asserts not which are the best reformed Churches; but binds the Covenanter to the observation of whatever shall appear, and be found the best reform, as the example to which he shall endeavour England may be conf●rmed. Very well Sir, The Covenant asserts not which is the best reformed Church, but binds me to reduce England, to what shall appear the best reformed Church. That possibly may appear to me either that already established in Old England, or that devised for New England. Possibly I may not find Classes, or other canting knacks in the Word of God; and then tell you in your own language, I dare not own that for the Sceptre of Christ: which I believe, nay can prove, to be an Humane Institution. I can tell where and when it came first up: and that Policy was the very best, (and if any was, that was, the only justifiable) Ingredient in all its constitution. How shall I then reform England according to the Word of God, and the best reformed Churches; and yet according to the Scotch mode, which I know to be neither? Or if I am not bound to the Scottish pattern; How shall I bring the three Kingdoms to Uniformity, not only in Confession of Faith, but Form of Church-Goverment, Directory for Worship and Catechising; and how preserve that in Scotland, which I swear to do, and yet set up another in England, which in that case I am sworn to also?  
But because Mr. Cr. tells us, p. 129. The Covenant hath not determined which is the best reformed Church, etc. I would fain know, whether these three terms we are equally sworn to, [The Word of God, the best Reformed Churches, Uniformity with Scotland] are three expressions of the same Rule, or of different ones. If of the same; than it is not true, what Mr. Crofton being put to his shifts, says, because it is expressly determined, viz. Scotland. If of different; With what Conscience can we swear to all, when by keeping our Oath to any one, we do necessarily break that part of it which was taken to another? and in all probability, observing in it any one, is breaking it to both the other? The Covenant obligeth us to reform England according to the best Reformed Church, but determines not which it is, as Mr. Cr. acknowledges. The reason of which is clear; because by that reservedness, they engaged all Sects to them, when, by declaring their meaning, they had engaged but one: every one by this means; who was for the Covenant, the Covenant was for him; and such ambiguity sure is not an Oath, but a juggle. But from this proceeds another Ambiguity, Who are the common Enemies? etc. How shall I know, who are Enemies to the best Reformed Church, if I know not which is so? Can I prosecute any as an Enemy to the best reformed as such, and know it not? or, shall I tell him, I know him to be an Enemy to I know not what? Mr. Cr. p. 128. waves this Plea, and assures us, That the words plainly run to the Church of Scotland, etc. and Independents by their enmity to the Church of Scotland are our common Enemies.  
This Explication I must needs say, fits the meaning of the Covenanters, and the no meaning of the Covenant. In different Pages, it is as in different States of Affairs: one while the best Reformed Church is not determined; another while it is plainly Scotland. If Independents were common Enemies, sure it was from the Presbyterians, they received Arms and Authority. There is a Contradiction alleged by the Oxf. men, which I thought not to have considered, which because Mr. Cr. professes not to see, I shall show it him out of himself. It is,  
We are bound absolutely, and without exception to preserve, and yet, upon supposition, to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland. To which Mr. Cr. p. 131. That Supposition must be plainly expressed in the Covenant to make it a contradictory Oath, which is not done.  
The best way of proving a Contradiction, is, to lay the Propositions contended so to be, together; which will clearly (if they are so) show themselves.  
Thus then,  
We are absolutely bound to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline, etc. of Scotland.  
We are to bring the three Kingdoms (of which Scotland is one) to Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline.  
We are to reform 2. England and Ireland according to the best Reformed Church. See the first Article of the Covenant.  
The Covenant asserts not which are the best Reformed Churches; but binds the Covenanters to reform England whatever shall appear to be the best Reformed Church. Cr. p. 129.  
Thus then,  
The first Proposition binds us to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland absolutely. The second to bring the English Church, and the Scottish Church, to an Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline. The third to reform England according to the best Reformed Church. The fourth assures us, that the Covenant asserts not Scotland to be the best Reformed Church; but binds to reform England according to whatever shall appear to be so. Now then, if Scotland doth not appear to be the best Reformed Church; the third Proposition binds me to alter what the first binds me absolutely to maintain. If I am obliged to make the same thing exactly after several Patterns; if they happen not to be exactly the same, I must necessarily, in following one, differ so much from the other, as I follow that which differs; for to agree with what differs, is sure so far to differ.  
I perceive the Covenant is, as it was at first, urged to several men, so as to comply with their several humours, and interests. The well-meaning and undiscerning Populacy they now (as they did formerly, before things were ripe) engage to the Covenant, and tell them those horrid Consequences deduced from it, belong not to it; but afterwards engage men to them by virtue of the Covenant they have taken, whose Obligation never fully appears till due season. Their first aim is at that part, which is least guarded, Religion: which being that wherein most are least concerned, is their first attempt. Because the Church would not pull down the State; the State must pull down the Church. But what followed? They who persuaded that the Nobles, & Prelates, were nor good enough to be their Equals; made it out, that Cobblers and Draymen were good enough to be their Masters. And besides the Grandees who acted in that change, the whole Party were as forward to own the other House, as ready at any time to take the other Oath. I very well know, many will not, in spite of Reason and Experience, be persuaded, but that reforming the Church is the sole aim of the Covenanters. In the new sense of reforming, the Church-Lands being already in their opinion disposed of, Reformation must begin at the State: and surely, it is great pity, but, they who will not beware by the examples of others, should be made examples to others.  
The second Article of the Covenant is only talked of: and that being the concernment of the Church; others think themselves not interessed in. But he who considers, that they are in the sixth Article sworn, never to be wrought off, no, not so much as to an indifferency or neutrality; but zealously and constantly in despite of all impediments, pursue all they have sworn: And that in the fourth Article, they swear to bring all to punishment, who have been Malignants (Which words signify what they please,) and expressly all who have acted contrary to the Covenant; and they to be punished as the Supreme judicatories (i. e. no doubt the two Houses, who are no Court at all) or others from them shall think fit: will find the Cavaliers in an ill case; nay, all who at any time did any thing which was ever Voted Malignancy by the two Houses. The rigour of whose Sentence (they not being in a now capacity to pardon being dissolved) must be now executed upon the first opportunity; nor must they at all question the reasonableness or legality, because the Rule is, As they, or any from them (i. e. their Committees) shall think convenient. One thing I shall observe, that though the Parliament may be trusted to act arbitrarily, beside or against the Law, (which they are not); yet that they may delegate such an extravagant power, over Lives and Fortunes, as is here mentioned, to oothers (though men of such Principles, and Fortunes, as our Committees were) who were to make Offenders by whom they might thrive, having nothing to grow rich with, but an ill Conscience and other men's faults, is such a Liberty of the Subject as destroys all the trust. Besides, it is a rule in Law and Reason, Offices of confidence and trust (by our Representatives in Parliament) are not, cannot be delegated; because that trust is only personal.  
I have before observed, That that Invitation in the conclusion to foreign Churches, (where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Power,) must be to them confessedly as Subjects: whom notwithstanding they absolve from their Allegiance. Though it is not delivered in Scripture, that freedom from a Master or Prince who is a Heathen, is any part of that liberty wherein Christ hath installed us; and so is seditious. Having showed it to be against Duty, I will in a word show it to be against our Interest.  
It engages us to pursue (by the way of the Sword, as their Practice and the Invitation in the conclusion shows) all we have sworn to, all our days: which is, [Whatever is contrary to the power of Godliness]. So then, Every man is to slay his brother, who commits any sin that deserves it: so many Covenanters, so many Commissioned Officers. There is a Tribunal in every breast to condemn and execute both. And if their Oath obligeth them to any thing, it doth to this; they being equally sworn to all the other Articles, though that alone takes up all their thoughts. What horrid effects there would follow hence, themselves would quickly feel: should they thus begin to assert the Covenant, themselves would quickly find its edge: They who set a house on fire, themselves be soon made a part of that fire. It is not then more dishonourable to God, injurious to the King, and the Nation: than it would, if pursued, be quickly found to be to its most violent assertors. All that is desired of them, is, they would either pursue the Covenant in all things, or none: that is, deal equally and sincerely; show that they act out of the sense of an Oath, not of a party: or rather let the Covenant be buried, placed in the Regions of Rottenness and Forgetfulness; and let them be quiet, and suffer others to be so.  
If any Reproofs seem in these Papers too sharp; I wish the unreasonableness of those expressions may thus appear, that few deserve them. But then, as few are concerned in them, I should willingly make a distinction between those of the Presbyterian judgement, and those of the Presbyterian Party: (and I hope themselves will concur with me in it, by making it appear, that there are those who may approve that way of Government, yet abhor the usual way of promoting it.) The former may possibly be reclaimed by rational discourses; the latter by nothing but severe Laws.   
FINIS.