and order of so solemn an ordinance. 2. The people in the text might
have made the same objection; it lay as strong against the work, to
which they encourage one another: for surely, this was not the first
time they engaged themselves to God by way of covenant; but having
broken their former covenants, they thought it their privilege, and not
their burden to renew it again, and to make it more full, stable, and
impregnable than ever; "a perpetual covenant that shall not be
forgotten"; which hints 3. And that is, there was never yet so full and
strict a covenant tendered to us since we were a people. Former
covenants have had their defect and failings, like the best of God's
people: but I may say of this in reference to other covenants, as
Solomon of his good house-wife, in reference to other women; "Other
daughters have done well, but thou hast exceeded them all." Other
covenants have done well, but this hath exceeded them all; like Paul
among the apostles, it goes beyond them all, though it seems to be born
out of due time. Now, if your leases and covenants among men be either
lame or forfeited; need men persuade you to have them renewed and
perfected? Of how much greater concernment is this, between God and us,
O! ye of little faith? 4. You receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper
once a month, and some will not be kept off, tho' they have no part, nor
portion in that mystery, say the ministers of Christ what they can; and
the sacrament is but the seal of the covenant; consider it, and be
convinced.
_Object._ 2. But secondly, it is objected there be some clauses in this
covenant, that serve rather to divide us farther from God, than join us
nearer to Him; as binding us to inquire the way to Zion of men rather
than of God; to receive the law of reformation from Scotland, and other
churches, and not from the lips of the great prophet of the churches.
In the article, we swear first to maintain the religion, as it is
already reformed in Scotland, in doctrine, government, and discipline;
wherein, first, the most shall swear they know not what; and secondly,
we swear to conform ourselves here in England, to their government and
discipline in Scotland which is presbyterial, and for ought we know, as
much tyrannical, and more antichristian than that of prelacy, which we
swear to extirpate; yea, some have not been afraid to call it the
Antichrist that is now in the world.
_Answ._ 1. To whom I first answer, beseeching them in the bowels of
compassion, and spirit of meekness, to take heed of such rash and
unchristian censures, least God hear, and it displease Him; and they
themselves possibly be found to commit the sin and incur the woe of them
that "call evil good, and good evil." 2. Whereas they object that many
shall swear they know not what, the most being totally ignorant of the
discipline of Scotland, and very few understanding it distinctly. I
would have these remember and consider two examples in Scripture the one
of king Josiah, the other of the women and children in Nehemiah's time.
Josiah (as the text tells us) not being above eight years of age, "While
he was yet young, began to seek after the Lord God of David his father;
and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem." And this
purging and reformation he did by covenant, wherein he swore, to "walk
after the Lord, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and
His statutes." Which surely, at that age, we cannot conceive he did
distinctly and universally understand; no more could all the men, their
wives and their sons, and their daughters, that took the covenant (in
Nehemiah's time) understand all things in particular to which that
covenant did bind them; since they did enter into a curse, and an oath,
not only to refuse all intermarriages with the heathen, but also to walk
in God's law, which was given by Moses, and to observe and do all the
commandments of the Lord, and His judgments, and His statutes.
Surely there were in this multitude, not an inconsiderable number that
were not acquainted with all the moral precepts, judicial laws, and
ceremonial statutes, which God commanded the people by the hand of
Moses.
There be two things I know, that may be replied against these instances.
1. That of those women and children in Nehemiah, it is said in the same
place, they were of understanding, "Every one having knowledge, and
having understanding; they clave unto their brethren, their nobles, and
entered into a curse." 2. That there is a great difference between the
laws and statutes to which they swore, and this government and
discipline to which we swear in this covenant. Those laws and statutes
were ordained immediately of God Himself; and therefore being infallibly
right, unquestionably holy, and just, and good, Josiah and the people
might lawfully swear observance to them with an implicit faith; but not
so in a government and discipline set up by man, by a church, be it
never so pure and holy: for their light being but a borrowed light, and
they not privileged with an infallible Spirit (as the apostles) their
resolutions and ordinances may be liable to mistake and error; and
therefore, to swear observance to them by an implicit faith, is more
than comes to their share, and as unwarrantable as it is unsafe for a
people or person to do, who are yet ignorant or unsatisfied in the
whole, or in any particular.
To these objections I rejoin: _first_, that that description of the
covenanters in Nehemiah, that "they were of understanding, and
knowledge," supposeth not a distinct actual cognizance of every
particular ordinance, judgment, statute, and provision, in all the three
laws, moral, judicial, ceremonial, in every one that took the covenant;
that being not only needless but impossible; but it implies only a
capacity to receive instruction and information in the things they swore
unto, tho' at present they were ignorant of many of the severals
contained in that oath. And so far this rule obtains among us; children
that are not yet come to understanding, and fools, being not admitted to
this service, as not capable of instruction.
_Answ._ 2. To the second (tho' more considerable) yet the answer is not
very difficult: for,
_First_, We do not swear to observe that discipline, but to preserve it:
I may preserve that, which in point of conscience I cannot observe, or
not, at least, swear to observe. _Second_, We swear to preserve it, not
in opposition to any other form of government that may be found
agreeable to the Word, but in opposition against a common enemy, which
is a clause of so wide a latitude, and easy a digestion, as the
tenderest conscience need not kick at it; this preservation relating not
so much to the government, as to the persons or nation under this
government; not so much to preserve it as to preserve them in it,
against a prelatical party at home, or a popish party abroad, that
should attempt by violence to destroy them, or to force another
government upon them, that should be against the Word of God; under
which latitude, I see not but we might enter into the like covenant with
Lutherans, or other reformed churches, whose government, discipline, and
worship, is yet exceedingly corrupted with degenerate mixtures.
_Third_, Neither in the preservation of their government, nor in the
reformation of ours, do we swear to any thing of man's; but to what
shall be found to be the mind of Christ. Witness that clause, article 1:
"According to the word of God:" so that upon the matter, it is no more
than Josiah and the people in Nehemiah swore to; namely, "what shall
appear to be the statutes and laws which Christ hath left in His Word,
concerning the regimen of His church?"
_Fourth_, Nay, not so much; for we are not yet called to swear the
observation of any kind of government, that is or shall be presented to
us, but to endeavour the reformation of religion in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, according to the Word of God.
In the faithful and impartial search and pursuit whereof, if Scotland,
or any of the reformed churches, can hold us forth any clearer light
than our own, we receive it not as our rule, but as such an help to
expound our rule, as Christ Himself hath allowed us. In which case, we
are bound to kiss not the lips only, but the very feet of them that
shall be able to shew us "the way to Zion."
So that still, it is not the voice of the churches but of Christ in the
churches, that we covenant to listen to, in this pursuit; that is to
say, that we will follow them, as they follow Christ: and when all is
done, and a reformation (through the assistance and blessing of the Lord
Jesus Christ, that great king and prophet of His church) resolved on
according to this rule thus interpreted, under what notion or obligation
the observation of it shall be commended to us, _sub judice lis est_,
it is yet in the bosom and breast of authority; we are as yet called to
swear to nothing in this kind. So much in reference to the instances.
_Answ._ 3. I answer further to the satisfying of this second doubt, that
by this covenant, we are bound no more to conform to Scotland, than
Scotland to us: the stipulation being mutual, and this stipulation
binding us not so much to conform one to another, as both of us to the
Word; wherein, if we can meet, who would not look upon it, as upon the
precious fruit of Christ's prayer: "That they might be one, as we are
one?" and the beauty and safety of both nations, and of as many of the
churches as the Lord our God shall persuade to come into this holy and
blessed association?
_Object._ 3. A third objection falls upon the second article or branch
of this covenant; wherein it is feared by some, that we swear to
extirpate that which, for ought we know, upon due inquiry, may be found
the way to Zion, the way of evangelical government, which Christ and His
apostles have set up in the church.
_Answ._ Where lies that, think you? In what clause or word of the
article? Who can tell? Surely not in popery; or if there be any that
think that the way, I would wish their persons in Rome, since their
hearts are there already. Is it in superstition? Nay, superstition
properly consisteth in will-worship, "teaching for doctrine the
traditions of men;" this cannot be the way to Zion, which Christ hath
chalked out to us in His word. No more can heresy, which is the
opposition to sound doctrine; nor schism, which is the rent of the
church's peace; nor profaneness, the poison of her conversation. None
but superstitious heretics, schismatics, profane persons, will call
these the way to Zion; nor these neither, under the name and notion of
superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness; for the heretic will not call
his doctrine heresy; nor the superstitious, his innovation superstition;
nor the schismatic, his turbulent practices schism; nor lastly, the
profane person, his lewdness profaneness; tho' they love the thing, they
hate the name.
And this, before we go further, occasions another objection, which you
must give me leave both to make and answer in a parenthesis, and then I
will return.
_Object._ How can we swear the extirpation of these, since, who shall be
judge? While some will be ready to call that schism and superstition,
which is not; and others deny that to be heresy, superstition, schism,
which is?
_Answ._ 1. To which I answer, By the same argument, we ought not to
covenant against popery and drunkenness, sabbath-breaking, nor any other
sin whatsoever, there being nothing so gross but it will find some
friends to justify, and plead for it; which if we shall not condemn till
all parties be agreed on the verdict, we shall never proceed to
judgment, while the world stands. 2. The word must be the rule and the
judge, say men what they please, _pro_ or _con_. 3. And if the matter be
indeed so disputable, that it lies not in my faculty to pronounce
sentence, I have my dispensation to suspend, till the world determine
the controversy.
I now return; if then in none of these, the doubt must of necessity lie
in that word prelacy. And is that indeed the way of gospel government?
Is that it indeed which bears away the bell of _jure divino_? What is it
then that hath destroyed all gospel order, and government and worship,
in these kingdoms, as in other places of the Christian world, even down
to the ground? Hath it not been prelacy? What is it that hath taken down
a teaching ministry, and set up in the room a teaching-ceremony? Is it
not prelacy? What is it that hath silenced, suspended, imprisoned,
deprived, banished, so many godly, learned, able ministers of the
gospel; yea, and killed some of them with their unheard of cruelties,
and thrust into their places idol, idle shepherds; dumb dogs that
cannot bark (unless it were at the flock of Christ; so they learned of
their masters, both to bark and bite too) greedy dogs that could never
have enough, that did tear out the loins and bowels of their own people
for gain, heap living upon living, preferment upon preferment; swearing,
drunken, unclean priests, that taught nothing but rebellion in Israel,
and caused people to abhor the sacrifice of the Lord: Arminian, popish,
idolatrous, vile wretches, such as, had Job been alive, he would not
have set with the dogs of his flock; who, I say, brought in these? Did
not prelacy? What hath hindered the reformation of religion all this
while in doctrine, government, and worship? Prelacy, a generation of men
they were, that never had a vote for Jesus Christ; yea, what hath
poisoned and adulterated religion in all these branches, and hath let in
popery and profaneness upon the kingdom like a flood, for the raising of
their own pomp and greatness, but prelacy? In a word, prelacy it is,
that hath set its impure and imperious feet, one upon the church, the
other upon the state, and hath made both serve as Pharaoh did the
Israelites, with rigour. Surely, their government hath been a yoke which
neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.
Now, that which hath done this, and a thousand times more violence and
mischief to Christ and His people, than the tongue or pen of man is able
to express; can that be the way of or to Zion? Can that be the
government of Christ and His Church?
_Object._ Aye, but there be that will tell us, these have been the
faults of the persons, and not of the calling?
_Answ._ 1. So cry some indeed, that ye like the men, as well as their
calling, and would justify the persons as well as the office, but that
their wickedness is made so manifest that impudency itself cannot deny
it. But is it indeed only the fault of the men, not of the calling? What
meant then that saying of queen Elizabeth, "That when she had made a
bishop, she had spoiled a preacher?" Was it only a jest? 2. And I wish
we had not too just cause to add, the man too. Surely of the most of
them we may say, as once Arnobius spake of the Gentiles, _apud vos
optimi censentur quos comparatio pessimorum sic facit_. Give me leave to
vary it a little: he was a good bishop, that was not the worst man; but
if there were some of a better complexion, who yet, _apparent rari
nantes in gurgite vasto_, were very rarely discovered in their episcopal
see; yet, 3. Look into their families, and they were for the most part
the vilest in the diocese, a very nest of unclean birds; and, 4. If you
had looked into their courts and consistories, you would have thought
you had been in Caiaphas' hall, where no other trade was driven but the
crucifying of Christ in His members. 5. But fifthly, produce me one in
this last succession of bishops (I hope the last) that had not his hands
imbrued more or less in the blood of the faithful ministry, (I say not
ministers, but ministry) produce a man amongst them all, that durst be
so conscientious as to lay down his bishoprick, rather than he would lay
violent hands upon a non-conforming minister, though he had failed but
in one point of their compass of ceremonies, when their great master,
the pope of Canterbury, commanded it, although both for life, learning,
and orthodox religion, their consciences did compel them to confess with
Pilate, "we find no fault in this just person." I say, produce me such a
bishop amongst the whole bunch, in this latter age, and I will down on
my knees, and ask them forgiveness. Oh! it was sure a mischievous
poisoned soil, in which, whatsoever plant was set did hardly ever thrive
after. 5. But yet further, was not the calling as bad as the men? You
may as well say so of the papacy in Rome, for surely the prelacy of
England, which we swore to extirpate, was the very same fabric and model
of ecclesiastical regimen, that is in that Antichristian world; yea,
such an evil it is that some divines, venerable for their great
learning, as well as for their eminent holiness, did conceive sole
episcopal jurisdiction to be the very seat of the beast, upon which the
fifth angel is now pouring out his vial, which is the reason that the
men of that kingdom "gnaw their tongues for pain, and blaspheme the God
of heaven."
_Object._ Aye, but it is therefore pleaded further against this clause,
that although it may be prelacy with all its adjuncts and accidents of
archbishops, chancellors, and commissaries, deans, &c., may have haply
been the cause of these evils that have broken in upon us, and perhaps
Antichristian; yet should we therefore swear the extirpation of all
prelacy, or episcopacy whatsoever; since there may be found perhaps in
scripture an episcopacy or prelacy, which, circumcised from these
exuberant members and officers, may be that government Christ hath
bequeathed His church in the time of the gospel?
_Answ._ Now we shall quickly close this business. For, 1. It is this
prelacy, thus clothed, thus circumstanced, which we swear to extirpate;
read else the clause again, prelacy, that is, church government by
archbishops, bishops, their chancellors. Not every, or all kinds of
prelacy; not prelacy in the latitude of the notion thereof. 2. And
secondly, let us join issue upon this point, and make no more words of
it; if there be an episcopacy or prelacy found in the Word, as the way
of gospel-government, which Christ hath bequeathed the churches, and
this be made appear, we are so far from swearing to extirpate such a
prelacy, as that rather we are bound by virtue of this oath to entertain
it, as the mind and will of Jesus Christ. And this might suffice to
warrant our covenanting to extirpate this prelacy, save that only.
Yet some seem conscientiously to scruple this in the last place.
_Object._ That they see not what there is to warrant our swearing, to
extirpate that which is established by the law of the land, till the
same law have abolished it. To which I answer, 1. If the law of the land
had abolished it, we need not swear the extirpation of it. 2. In this
oath, the parliaments of both kingdoms go before us, who, having the
legislative power in their hands, have also _potestatem vitæ et necis_,
over laws, as well as over persons, and may as well put to death the
evil laws that do offend against the kingdom and the welfare of it, as
the evil persons that do offend against the laws. 3. Who therefore,
thirdly, if they may lawfully annul and abolish laws that are found to
sin against the law of God, and the good of the kingdom may as lawfully
bind themselves by an oath, to use the uttermost of their endeavours to
annul and abolish those laws; their oath being nothing else but a solemn
engagement to endeavour to perform what they have warrantably resolved
upon; and with the same equity may they bind the kingdom to assist them
in so doing. 4. Which is all that the people are engaged to by this
covenant. Not to outrun the parliament in this extirpation, but to
follow and serve them in it, by such concurrence as they may expect from
each person in their stations and callings; for that clause, expressed
in the first and third article, is to be understood in all.
_Object._ If it be yet objected, that the members of parliament have, at
one time or other, sworn to preserve the laws; and therefore to swear to
endeavour the extirpation of prelacy, which is established by law, is to
contradict their own oath and run the hazard of perjury: it is easy for
any one to observe and answer. 1. That by the same argument, neither may
king and parliament together change or annul a law, though found
destructive to the good of the kingdoms, since his majesty, as well as
his subjects, are bound up under the same oath at his coronation. 2. But
again, there is a vast difference between the members of parliament,
simply considered in their private capacities, wherein they may be
supposed to take an oath to maintain the laws of the land; and that
public capacity of a parliament, whereby they are judges of those laws,
and may, as I said before, endeavour the removal of such as are found
pernicious to the church or state, and make such as will advantage the
welfare of others; his majesty being bound by his coronation-oath, to
confirm these laws, which the commons shall agree upon and present unto
his majesty.
_Object._ Aye, but it seems this objection lies full and strong upon
them that stand in their single private stations. I answer, that if
there be any such oath, which yet I have never seen nor heard of, unless
the objection mean that clause in the late parliament protestation,
wherein we vow and protest to maintain and defend the lawful rights and
liberties of the subject; surely, neither in that nor this, do we swear
against a lawful endeavour to get any such laws or clause of the law
repealed and abolished, which is found a wrong, rather than a right, and
the bondage, rather than the liberty of the subject, as prelacy was. Had
we indeed taken the bishop's oath, or the like, never to have given our
consent to have the government by episcopacy changed or altered, we had
brought ourselves into a woful snare; but, blessed be God, that snare is
broken, and we are escaped; while, in the mean time without all doubt,
the subject may as lawfully use all lawful means to get that law
removed, which yet he hath promised or sworn to obey, while it remains,
when it proves prejudicial to the public safety and welfare; as a poor
captive, that hath peradventure sworn obedience to the Turk, (while he
remains in his possession) may notwithstanding use all fair endeavours
for an escape or ransom. Or a prentice that is bound to obey his master;
yet, when he finds his service turned into a bondage, may use lawful
means to obtain his freedom.
But once more to answer both objections; it is worth your inquiry,
whether the plea of a legal establishment of this prelacy, sworn against
in this covenant, be not rather a tradition, than any certain or
confessed truth. Sure I am, we have it from the hands of persons of
worth and honour; the ablest secretaries of laws and antiquities in our
kingdom, that there is no such law or statute to be found upon the file,
among our records. Which assertion, if it cannot find faith, we will
once more join issue with the patrons or followers of this prelacy, upon
this point, that when they produce that law or statute which doth enact
and establish prelacy, as it is here branched in the article, we will
then give them a fuller answer, or yield the question.