AN ANSVVERE TO THE PROTESTATION PROTESTED.

THE very Title seemes to me a riddle, see­ing nothing in the Treatise to answere it, this being not an avowing, but a glos­sing, or rather a glosing of the Protesta­tion, as will appeare by the sequell: But least we should stumble at the threshold, he hath hang'd out a light, adding, Or a short Remon­strance, &c.

THe Author first laies us downe a text of Scripture, from consideration of which, compared with this Protestation, he is made to tremble at the small account [Page]that many make of so solemne a vow, under which guilt by his exposition he concludes the most of the best Mi­nisters, and people of this Kingdome, who have entred this Protestation; wherein thus far we willingly agree with him. A vow to GOD is a straight and sacred Band, that should not be entred into rashly, but with serious deliberation, Eccles. 5, 2. else in stead of an help, it may become a snare, and be so far from acceptation, that it prove an abomination, as in Iephtaes case, Ludges 11.30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39. After avow is taken, there ought to be as much tendernesse to observe it, as caution be­fore we undertake it, else we shall but double our guilt, and increase GODS displeasure against us. What we vow is in it selfe good, and so caries with it an engage­ment to performance. Our Vow is second ingage­ment super-added to the first, if after it we be negligent, we breake more bonds, and so must needs be more guil­ty: Its not to be doubted but many enter this Protesta­tion rather for company then conscience, and so will make too little account of keeping it, and need admo­nition to observe, as well as to enter this Covenant. But that this neglect should be so generall, as to include the generality of the Godly, as this Expositor doth make it, that I dare not assent unto, the Psalmist hath taught me more tendernesse, Ps. 73, 15. If I will speake thus, behold I should offend against the generation of thy Children. To condemne the godly was such a thing to this blessed Psalmist, that he would renownce sense, and reason, and set upon a serious review, rather then dash upon it: In whose steps had this Author troden, hee would not have been so rash, to have put the foole upon them: He might with lesse adoe then the Psalmist have freed himselfe from needlesse Horrour, and the godly from unjust censure. But now to the point.

THe Protestation is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, so far as it is opposite to Popery, which they do not performe, so long as they retaine and main­tain the imposition of the Liturgy, 2 the Discipline, 3 the Government, 4 the Ceremonies.

Ans. In his very first Argumentation there is a most palpable fallacy, which is so obvious, that its wonder to me, that any man that would undertake to write a Booke in a matter of this consequence, should either not himselfe see, or should imagine that so many cleere eyes that it must needs touch, would not most easily discerne, and discover it, for the Argument must be framed thus.

He that hath solemnly vowed to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, so far as it is opposite to Popery, must re­nownce all Popery, and particularly the imposition of the Li­turgy, &c. or else he breakes his vow, and is a foole &c. But the Ministers and people have protested to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, so far as it is opposite to Popery. Therefore they must renownce all Popery, and par­ticularly the imposition of the Liturgy &c. or else they breake their vowes and are fooles, in whom GOD hath no pleasure.

Now what a manifest fallacy is here, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, from that which is spoken in some respect, to that which is spoken absolutely; for the Protestation is not against Popery absolutly; but as this Author expresseth it, so far forth, as it is against the Doctrine of the Church of England: what Popery then the Doctrine of the Church of England doth not con­demne this Protestation doth not include, being onely to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and Popish Innovations. But then some will [Page]demand is not the Doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popery. I answere, ad hominem. If the things here objected be Popery, then the Doctrine of the Church is not against all Popery, for these things so far as they may be termed Doctrinall, are yet accord­ing to the Doctrine of the Church of England; unlesse you will say that the Doctrine of the Church of England is contrary to the practise of the Church of England, whence then thus I Argue: Either the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery, or else the imposition of the Liturgy, Ceremonies, Discipline, Govern­ment, are not Popery; for the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against them. If the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery, he that vowes to maintaine that Doctrine against all Popery, vowes not against Popery absolutly, but only as it is a­gainst that Doctrine: and then this Authors inference from this vow against Popery, with this restraint, that we must therefore oppose all Popery absolutly, is a ma­nifest inconsequence: on the other side, if the Liturgy &c. be not Popery, as they must not be, if the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND be compleate against it, then they are not abjured: So however it be, the Covenanter is free from breach and folly: And this I conceive is so cleare, that it needs no further con­firmation: yet a little more to evince the absurdity of it, by other particulars in the Protestation, we protest to maintaine every person that maketh this Protestation, in whatsoever he shall do in the lawfull pursuance of it. If a man should thence inferre, that we must defend him whatsoever he shall doe in the pursuance of it, if hee shall move sedition or the like, were not this a violati­on of the sense of this Covenant? and is not the same, when we stretch the opposing of Popery so far as it is [Page]opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England; to be meant against all Popery whatsoever? though it be granted, it be maintained in the Church of England? His foundation then is most rotten, and what firmnesse can be in the building?

But he makes the objection, Page 2. which he indea­vors to answere aswell as he can: The Objection is, that these things are established by the Law, therefore we may not cast them off till the Law be abrogated, and we protest against Popery, to cast it out so far as lawfully we may.

Thus the Protestor, wherein he hath objected, what he hath not well answered, though all be don very raw­ly. For first he should have framed the Argument thus, Those things are established by the Lawes of England, where the Doctrine of the Church of England is esta­blished, and therefore according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, these things cannot be interpreted to be Popery; and so not within the Verge of that Pro­testation, which is against Popery, as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England: which objection if he ever answere, erit mihi magnus Apollo. The Objection which he hath made, he strengthens from the words of the Protestation, that we protest to cast out things as far as lawfully we may, which clause doth not at all respect the matter protested against, but the meanes and man­ner of pursuance, that we shall not doe it in any tumul­tuous or seditious or illegall way, but by honest and lawful meanes. A thing needfull to be taken notice of by many respective Readers of this Booke, who while they learne of him that they must oppose the things mentio­ned, as parts of Popery, from themselves infer, that it ought to be done in a violent way, without waiting for the direction of Authority which in private persons is [Page]not to oppose lawfully, but illegally, and seditiously.

But now let us heare his Answer. First saith he, All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intenti­on and end. Now the Law for reformation never in­tended to allow or set up Popery in the Church of Eng­land.

Ans. This rule for the interpretation of Laws, in the (a) There is a twofold intenti­on of Lawes, one generall arising from mens good­nesse, and that may be to remove whatsoever is e­vill, the other speciall arising from mens light, and that is to re­move such parti­culars as are dis­covered to be evil the latter intenti­on is the rule of interpreting Laws, not the for­mer, and this Au­thor speakes of the former. sense he takes it, is a device of his owne, that hath neither authority nor reason, for the confirmation of it. Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law giver, which the Grammaticall sense of the words doth usually discover. Indeed in matters doubtfull, where the words are capable of a double sense, the intention of the Law may there cleere, what sense is most Genuine: but that the generall intention of of the Law shall give a sense contrary to the letter of the Law, is without doubt, a groundlesse and dange­rous fancy. Its true, the Law never intended to set up Popery, but the question is, whether it be destructive of all Popery. The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers, who if they saw not all Pope­ry, could not by their Lawes condemne all, nor did, if the things in Question be Popery. Lex Currit cum praxi. The generall practise especially of those that are regu­lar discovers the mind of the Law, and the practise hath been to maintaine these things, therefore its not the meaning of the Law to condemne them, nor of this Pro­testation to abjure them.

Secondly he saith, If humane Lawes be found to be con­trary to Gods word, they are invalid and void ipso facto.

Ans. This rightly understood is in part a truth, but here misapplied, we are subjected to all Terrene superi­ours by the Lord and under the Lord, when they then command any thing contrary to GOD, the Laws have [Page]noe binding power, because by a superiour Law we are bound to the contrary: But yet such Lawes are not Ip­so facto void, or if void, yet they are void in foro conscien­tiae, in the Court of Heaven, not in foro politico, in Courts on Earth, though we are not bound to obey them, yet we are without resistance to submit to such penal­ties, under the danger of Sedition, which were there noe Lawes, we were free from. Againe, this Thesis of his is misapplied, for thence he infers. Thirdly, that having made this Protestation, we ought to have no com­munion with the aforesaid particulars, notwithstand­ing they be confirmed by Law, which inference is ther­fore faulty, because the Protestation is onely against Po­pery as it is against the Doctrine of the Church, and that which is confirmed by our law, though it be Popery, yet it is not Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England. If the Lawes of the Land, and the Doctrine of our Church, had their establishment in dif­ferent Courts, then that which is establisht by Law, might be against the Doctrine of the Church; but the Doctrine of the Church, and the Laws of the Lands, having both their establishment in Parliament, what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery against the Doct­rine of the Church, and therefore this Authors arguing must needs be irrationall.

But now we are furnished with a second Objection which we are to consider of, and whether this Author hath with any better successe taken of, then he hath the former, what saith hee, If the Parliament did not by Po­pery understand the Liturgy, Ceremonies, Government of our Church, and he gives good reason to conceive they did not, for then many of them would not have taken it. What shal we do then? that is his Quaere, now heare his Answers. First saith he, we are sure they intended in a­gainst [Page]all Popery. To which I answere; that its most cleare, and so he himselfe expresseth in the former Page, they only intend it against Popery, as it is opposite a­gainst the Doctrine of the Church of England, and such Popery the mentioned things cannot be. Secondly saith he, They expresse, that the words are not to be exten­ded to the maintaining of any forme of Worship, Discipline, or Ceremonies in the said Church: What doth he thence in­ferre, why forsooth? that therefore we may not Pro­test for the maintenance of these; why, was that the Question whether we should be bound to maintaine them, or whether we are bound to abolish them? What ridiculous disputing then is this? But hence I Argue: If the Protestation do not include them for confirmation, because they are no parts of Doctrine; it doth not ex­clude them for abolition, but leaves them for determi­nation to another opportunity. Thirdly saith he, Sup­pose that at the first making of the Protestation, that these par­ticulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery, yet no good Christian can or will deny, that the House of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever should pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof. This Author is very good at bold assertions, but all as bad in confirmations, for what a good Christian may do in weaknesse, I will not deter­mine; but no wise Christian, as far as I can conceive, can judge, that what ever shall be found to be Popery, is included in this Protestation, but what ever is found to be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, which is the terme limiting Popery in the Protesta­tion. Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament, of such a Reformation, as will not deserve the name of Reformation, if all Popery be not made to be packing. I joyne with him in all comfor­table hopes from this Honourable House, but what is [Page]this to his matter in hand? All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament, is not expected by this Protestation, this is one degree to reforme whatever Po­pery or Innovation is against Law established, this done, the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation, by removing corruptions established by Law. Fiftly, Suppose saith he, that it could be imagi­ned by any reasonable man, that the House of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foresaid things in the far­dell of Popery: shall private and particular Christians know­ing these to be Popery, and Antichristian, being bound by their solemne Vow and Protestation, never reforme themselves &c. I Answere no man can; if (as he is rationall) he deale rationally. But suppose that these things were not in­cluded in the Protestation according to the intention of the House of Commons, which may appeare by unanswe­rable grounds.

1. Because the expresse words be against that Pope­ry which is against the Doctrine of the Church of ENG­LAND, which these things mentioned, established by Law in our Church cannot be.

Secondly, Since the generall taking, and first mak­ing of this Protestation, the Government and Discipline of the Church hath been in strong dispute whether it should continue or no, which had it been Protested a­gainst, there had been no place for dispute, which yet doth neither take off the friends of that side from assert­ing, nor is used by the opposites to Prelacy, to overbeare their Antagonists, which had been the easiest and spee­diest way of victory, if this Authors fancy had had truth in it.

Thirdly, Under favour, though (as I shall make it appeare) I am no friend to the foresaid things, yet it was not rationall that the Parliament should include [Page]these things in their PROTESTATION; for these things being establisht by Law, and fixt in many of the members hearts aswell as Laws, to desire men presently to abjure them, before a full debating of them, seemes a point of such rashnesse, yea Tyranny, as will not consist with the transcendent wisdom, and Iustice of that Ho­nourable Court.

Fourthly, Nay further I conceive (under favour) that it would not have stood with the duty of that House to their Soveraigne (of which I know they are most ten­der) nor that respect that they owe to the Lawes of the Land, to protest against things established by Law, till the Law it selfe be abrogated, for none may Protest in such a case further then they are free: Subjects can chal­leng no more freedom then the Laws allow them, where and while Laws do tye them, they are in subjection: and therefore could not in point of duty Protest against such things, in such a manner, to which the Lawes binds them. The power of the House of Commons (where this Protestation was framed) is no doubt great, far be­yond my apprehension, yet in this case I conceive their power over Laws is with the consent of the Lords, and his Majesty, to abolish them, but not Protest against them, while they are in force. By all which Argu­ments its manifest that the Parliament neither did re­ally, nor could rationally, intend in the Protestation to Protest against these things established by Law, and if we suppose truly they intended it not, this Author doth suppose still falsely, that we are by our Protestation bound to reject and oppose them, for its an old sound rule, Oathes, and Protestations, are to be expounded according to the meaning of the framer and giver, not of the taker, else by a dishonest aequivocation, any thing al­most may be eluded; therfor what the Protestation meant [Page]not, we in the taking are not tied to. And if this dis­puter should thinke this should bind us in the things mentioned, though the Parliament intended no such thing, but the contrary: He may as well affirme that we are bound to maintaine his impendant Churches, for whereas we Protest to maintaine the lawfull Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and every person that mak­eth this Protestation; he may infer, but independancy is in his judgment, a right and liberty of all Christians en­tring into this Covenant, therefore we are tyed to main­taine it: This inference hath lesse dissonancy from the letter of the Covenant, then that of his about the par­ticulars questioned; yet though I beleeve hee hath as good a will to this as the former; he dare not be so bold as to draw such a conclusion, because though the letter may beare it, yet the judgment of the compilers makes it manifest, it was far from their meaning, which reason likewise might have kept him from including the particulars in hand.

But now lastly, he comes in with other quaeries, What then, shall men never reforme themselves, but live and die Communicants, &c.

Ans. How doth this follow, may not men Reforme themselves in these things, unlesse they do it by vertue of this Protestation; did not all that held these unlawfull, before this Protestation was formed, in their owne practise withdraw from these things, so far as they held them unlawfull, and against the word of GOD, and so may and ought to do still, though they be not included in the Protestation? But to proceed, this Author next brings in his Schollers, questioning how it may appeare, that the forementioned particulars are branches of Popery. And he faines them, speaking, that if their Consciences were convinced thereof by the word of GOD, then by their [Page]Protestation, as well as by GODS word, they were bound to renownce them:

Ans. But by his leave he makes them speake what many will not, and none ought to speake. If these things be Popish, then by the word of GOD we ought to re­nownce them indeed, but by this Protestation we ought not, unlesse they be Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England. I my selfe must needs account these things, or the most of them of the same alloy with many things by the Doctrine and Lawes of our Church already condemn'd and abolisht, else I should not have been nor continued, as in part I doe, a sufferer for wit­nessing against them: And I doe as earnestly desire Re­formation of them as of any thing; that little grace that I have, doth asmuch Act that way to wrastle with the Lord, for the rooting up of those plants which our heavenly Father hath not planted, as any way, but no­thing ingaged by this Protestation, but only by that al­legiance which I owe to Christ and his word. But some may say, If you be against those things, why doe you pleade for them?

Ans. Mistake not, I plead not for them, but to cleare the sense of the Protestation, that it may not be wrested to include them, as it is by this Author, of which wrest­ing I see and feare manifest inconveniences.

First the Honourable Houses of Parliament are by it wronged, and are thereby like to grow more opposite to the removing of the things here pleaded against, and so (as it is usually) this making hast will hinder the work it aymes to further, unlesse this conceit be seasonably corrected.

Secondly, This misinterpretation will hinder many from entring this Protestation, which remora of so good a worke, had need be removed, which this Answere may further.

Thirdly, Many that have taken it, are partly trou­bled, because such things are yet suffered that they think they have Protested against; which they think they should not only omit to Act, but also by all meanes oppose; partly I see men are taken off for praying for the abolition of such things, as they conceive are alrea­dy cast off by Protestation, and are inclined by carnall violence under this pretence, to do that in the Church, which by a spirituall violence they should indeavor to prevaile for with GOD, that so they may be prevailers with men, to have publique corruptions purged by pub­lique authority, which is a safe, comfortable, and hono­rable way.

Lastly, Some that think somethings in themselves law­full and tolerable, I find by this Protestation Protested, to conceive them unlawfull, as against the Protestation though in themselves indifferent. As to instance, though they thinke and justly, That the use of the Liturgy in the whole forme of it, as a compleate service of GOD to be many waies vitious, yet they think the use of some of the formes there, which are without exception, and most suited to the peoples wants, to be in themselves lawfull. Notwithstanding though not for his Argu­ments, to prove them Popish, yet for the exposition of the Protestation they refuse them, and not only refuse them, but lay imputation on those that use them, as breakers of their Vow and Protestation. Now as I have proved, no use of the Service-Book is against the Protestation, so nor the use of some prayers in such a manner out of the Booke, can as I conceive, be justly termed Popish: for suppose that the forme we use be in the Masse-Book, why may we not aswell ask the same Christian Graces, that Papists and we both conceive to be necessary to a Christian soule, as expresse the same [Page]faith touching the Trinity or any other point wherein we agree in the same words, and that without the guilt or imputation of Popery? And againe, he that doth thus use the Booke, not according to the whole frame of it, but selecting what is most holy, nor according to the set words of it, but with liberty of correcting the expressions, which to our times seeme harsh, and unsuta­ble, doth hereby as I conceive, avoid his second Argu­ment, the imposition makes it not Popish to him, be­cause he useth it with liberty of conscience; To this we may add further, There is I conceive a true and use­full distinction to be made of humane constitutions: some are helps, and so are in genere boni, good in their kind, the other have no ground, but meere imposition, and so are in genere mali, in their kind evill. Now formes of Prayer are humane helps, and so good in their kind: Prayer is an Ordinance of GOD, it requires a forme of words, especially in publique; all men are not able to conceive a forme, and therefore a composed forme to them is an helpe, The forme of words in Prayer is not the service, but modus, the manner of ser­ving God in that Ordinance. and so good in its kind. Now for the Governors of the Church where there is need of a form, to tye to one forme which they conceive pure, of pur­pose to exclude others, which they conceive corrupt, is I conceive no usurpation upon Christ. And this was the end of our Godly reformers in appointing this Prayer Booke: Now though many men need not this helpe, and it may be can conceive better expressions, yet being that formes are human helps, and not in them­selves evill: I conceive we may use some of the Prayers without sin, for though its often said, that we may not do evill that good may come thereon, yet I never heard it proved, that we may not sometime do a lesse good, and not the greater, for peace and order, and to enjoy the greater good at other times, more fully and freely? [Page]This giveth me satisfaction, and I beleeve many godly, and so prevents division from the Church Assemblies, which is desirable, for breaches if they be not necessary are justly scandalous. If any dissent from us, we shall be more ready to contend with GOD then them; with God (I say) that he would move the Parliament to remove this forme so excepted against, and corrupt in the gene­rall composure of it, and what ever other they prescribe not exactly to tie the well guifted to it, but leave a li­berty to vary as God shall enable them, as I have heard it hath been in our deare Sister Church of Scotland: Or if they tie them to any forme, that they will rather tie them to the matter, then the words, to prevent the broaching of errors in Prayers, which some thinke was the first occasion of set formes. There be Haereticall Prayers as well as Sermons: A Socinian may vent his Haeresy against the person of Christ, or the grace of Christ. An Anabaptist may vent his Haeresy against the Magistrates of Christ, or Ordinances of Christ, in his Prayer as well as Preaching, therefore the Governors may justly tie them to set heads of Prayer, though they leave a liberty to the able, to use their own expressions; so Haeresy shalbe prevented, and no breach of liberty justly pretended: but this I refer to the wisdome of that Honorable Court.

Another Evill of this Treatise, which needed cure, it hath bred in some, and nourisht in others, an opinion, that our Churches are not Churches, nor our Ministers true Ministers, nor our Sacraments to be participated without sinne, whereby some are drawne to, and others confirmed in a neglect of the servants, and service of God, which is no small evill, that deserveth cure. Give me leave therefore a little to examine his grounds. His first assay against our Churches, is in the close of the [Page]proose of his third point, the Discipline of our Church to be Antichristian, whence he concludes we want Discipline: and from the Book-prayer, and pell mell admission to the Sacrament, he affirmes in his judgment, we want true Sacraments, and that the Preaching of the word, be generally corrupted, then it wants a third marke of a Visible Church: for answere, I conceive a dis­tinction suggested by the assertor of the Scotch Disci­pline to be very true, and here pertinent. P. 196. A Ʋisible Church may be considered, either Metaphysically, or po­litically. It is one thing to consider men as living Crea­tures, indued with reason, another thing to consider them as Magistrates, Masters, Fathers, servants, &c. So it is one thing to consider a Visible Church in her essen­tialls, as a Society of men and women, separated from the blind world, by divine vocation, and professing to­gether the Gospell of Iesus Christ, another thing to con­sider it as a compleate politicall body, in which the power of Spirituall government and jurisdiction is ex­ercised, som governing, some governed. Now a Church that wants government, or hath one that is corrupt, may be a true Church in the former sense, though not in the latter, & being a tru Church in the former sense, her mēbers may communicat together in these holy things, which fall under the power of order, which may be cal­led Sacra mystica, as word, prayer, Sacraments, though not insuch things as are under the power of jurisdiction.

For his objections about Sacraments, the first I hope hath received already sufficient answere.

For his second objection of Pell mell admission to the Sacrament, if he dispute against the Church of Eng­land in generall, he must consider what her Lawes are, not what the practise of some is: Its true, the Law en­joynes all to come, but its as true, that the same Law for­bids [Page]those that are in contention, or are otherwise of­fensive to the Congregation, to be admitted till satisfa­ction given: So the command is generall, that men may not be let alone in prophanenes, and the admission is re­strained, that men may not be suffered to be prophaners.

And for his Third, The Preaching of the word generally corrupted, that shewes a mind to cavill, rather then any cause, seeing that corrupting of the Word, was against the Churches Lawes, by particular persons, and all such decrees against Laws are declared invalid: But in this he hath an if at the ministery which he further propo­seth in his Fourth particular in these words.

And to these Curates consideration I refer it, whether they be able truely out of good premisses to conclude themselves the Ministers of Christ lawfully called, when all of them doe im­mediatly derive their Ministry from the Antichristian Hie­rarchy, as the sole foundation thereof; and under the name of Curates, he comprehends all the Godly, and learned Pastors in the Church, and dare he say, that the sole foun­dation of their Ministry is the Antichristian Hierarchy? Are the precious guifts and graces that Christ Jesus hath bestowed upon them, and blessed and honoured with the conversion of many soules, no part of the foun­dation of their Ministry? Is the free choice of their peo­ple, desiring them to take the oversight of them, no part of the foundation of their Calling? Will not these in some mens judgments, and it may be of this disputers, serve the turne without any thing else? Have they a­ny thing from the Bishops, but as it were, an externall authorising, to exercise their guifts in a publique way amongst their people? which if it be in som respects cor­rupt, shall this corrupt complement make void the call of God, & of the people? God forbid! undoubtedly Christ would never so ordinarily worke by them as he doth, [Page]were they not his Mimsters, but Antichrists: Besides I beleeve this disputer knowes, that by Law the Bishop ought to have divers grave Presbyters with him, and then the imposition of hands is by the Presbytery, as was Timothies, not of Episcopacy only.

But having answered his Objections Printed, its need­full I answere some others occasioned by him.

Object. Oh but say some, if these things be not included in the Protestation, of what use then is the Protestation.

Ans. Very great; Is it not a great matter to fulfill that great charge laid upon the Church of Thyatira, Rev. 14. Hold fast that which thou hast: God hath given this Church some light, whereby almost all the erroneous Doctrines, and superstitions of Popery are removed, which light by the audaciousnesse and corruption of some Innovators, hath beene greatly obscured, our Churches Doctrine in matter of Iustification, Free-will, Free Grace; Gods eternall decrees, &c. hath beene al­most utterly overthrowne: Altars, Images, &c. brought in, and the adversaries were as great as nought, and had proceeded far to worke disturbance in the present pro­ceedings: whereupon it pleased God to move our wise and Religious Parliament (ever blessed be his name for it) to make this Protestation to maintaine the truths and purity by Law established, which was an excellent meanes to hold fast that they had, and prevent apostacy, give me leave to illustrate this by an homely compari­son: When men are lifting up a thing of great weight, or Horses are drawing some great burthen up a steep hill, when either are at a stand, wisdome teacheth them to under-prop the burthen and stay it where it is, till breath is taken, or more help added to raise it to a de­sired pitch. So was it with our worthy Reformers, they were tugging to heave an heavy weight, and were at a [Page]dead lift; This Protestation to defend our Doctrine that is pure, was an underpropping, that things might not goe backwards, till they could add more strength to raise things higher, which God be blest, they are busily indeavoring and if men will but waite, I hope they shall see the Reformation raised as high as the Doctrines of Scriptures, which ought to be the only rule, and I doubt not but is theirs.

Q. But if they were in the Protestation, ought we not with violence to pull them downe, and so deale with all superstitious pictures, &c.

A. To the consideration of the matters Protested a­gainst, we must joyne the manner how we protest to op­pose them, and that is lawfully. This Protestation gives men no leave to breake their Ranks, it puts not a sword of authority into every private mans hand, but every thing is to be don in a lawfull way, without breach of that order that God hath appointed in the world, or our Laws have ordered in our Land. To answere this then distinctly: Things Protested against, are either private things, or publique, as for instance, some Cruci­fixes, and other superstitious Pictures, are our owne, at our own full dispose, some are in publique places and as it were of publique interest, things that are private in a private mans power, this Protestation doth bind him to a present Reformation of without further leave from any. But for things that are publique, private persons are to make their addresse to Magistracy, and intreat them to proceed, and then the private persons may fol­low as Assistants.

Againe, Some co [...]ruptions are in our owne persons, as our owne bowing to, or before the Altar: some are in others; that in our owne we are presently to Re­forme, but if another continue corrupt practises, we [Page]may admonish them, Protest against them, but not lay violent hands on them, but detect them to the Magi­strate, who by his Protestation, will be bound to pun­ish and Reforme them; thus Gods worke will be done in Gods way, with more beauty, safety, and certainty, and suteable to the mature Iudgments of the wise Com­pilers of this usefull Vow.

After he hath done thus with the Protestation, he pro­ceedes to other objections, to overthrow all subordina­tion in the particular Churches of a Nation, not only to one another, which was never dreamt of, but to any generall government by Officers gathered out of all, and so set over all, and so he laies a ground for indepen­dant Separate Churches, which he desires may be ere­cted in this Nation: but this taske of his is undertaken and performed with better order and strength, by ano­ther Author in the Presbyteriall Government Examined. And yet that hath received a solid Answere by the As­sertor of the Scotch Government, and that not only in the generall, by the grounds there layd downe: but by a particular view and answere to the Arguments of the examiner, and therefore thither I shal remit the Reader that wil take paines for satisfaction in those points. The full discussing of these things, is also besides my purpose, who do only undertake the Answere of it, in reference to what is sayd, touching the misinterpretation of the Covenants, as impeaching the Doctrine that in the pre­ceding Sermons I desired to publish, yet because I per­ceive many are much unsettled (and that even of those to whom I have some relation) with the things that are scattered in this discourse. I will indeavor briefly to run over the things here that are materiall, especially such as have not a full answere in the aboue-mentioned Treatise.

In this Authors Answers to his owne Quaery, what shall be substituted instead of Prelacy, Liturgy, and Ce­remonies, many things deserve examination. First where­as he saith, considering the Church of England to be none other then a National Church, its uncapable of con­stitution. This word Nationall Church, I finde often u­sed, and much put upon it, and yet neither is it a Scrip­ture phrase, nor do any give us a certaine exposition of it, if by it they understand a Church that hath some common Nationall Worship, by some common Pastor, at some common place, as all the Jewes had the same High Priest, and Temple, and all the Males were to meete thrice a yeare at the place which God should choose; In which respect I conceive the Church of the Iewes was properly termed a Nationall Church; in this sense Christians have no Nationall Churches. But he seemes to make a National Church to be when an whole Nation is taken into a Visible Church, or Churches, ha­ving all of them the outward profession of Religion, which he saith, is impossible now, because particular Ʋisible Churches consist of none but Ʋisible living members, and vi­sible Saints under Christ the King of Saints. But here I would faine know the reason why it is necessary that the members in a particular Church, should be of better mettall then the members of a Nationall Church: doth not God require by his precepts, as much of a Natio­nall Church, and say as much of them, as of a particular Church? See Exodus 19.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. how often is that Priest on the Nationall Church of the Iewes, Be yee holy or Saints, for I am holy: The very same charge that is prest on Christians, 1 Pet. 1.14, 15, 16. where no more is required of the members of Christian particular Churches, then of the members of the Iewish Nationall Church, and are not the members of the Iewish Natio­nall [Page]Church called holy or Saints, aswell as be com­manded to be so? How often is this reason given by the Lord, for you are an holy people: See Deut. 7.6, & 14 [...], 21, & 26, 19. And many other glorious things are spoken of the church of the Iewes. Ie. 2, 5. Ps. 1354 And was not Christ their King? Psa. 44, 4. If he were slayne from before the Foun­dation of the world, and the Redeemer of he Church under the Law, was he not their King too? What difference then doth Scriptures make betweene the members of a Na­tionall and particular Church, and who dares distin­guish where the Scripture doth not? If they Answere that the Nationall Church of the Iewes were holy in Profession, or are called holy in regard of some that were so indeed, the denomination being from the better part; will not, nay must not that answere serve us? were all the members of the Apostolicall Churches Visible Saints, otherwise then by profession? what those that were carnal in Corinth? Cap. 3. and defrauders and scan­dalous contenders too? C. 6. Those that were drunk whē they came to the Sacrament too? Those that denyed the Resurrection too? 1 Cor. 15, 12. and those that had not repented of their uncleannesse, fornication, and Las­civiousnesse too? 2 Cor. 12, 21. And those that tradu­ced the Apostle too. Cap. 11. Then what shall de­ny the visibility of a Saint, or a living member? So I might aske touching some in the Ancient holy Church of Rome, Romans 16, 17, 18. And the like of some in the Church of Philippi. Cap. 3.18.19. So likewise in the Church of Sardis, Revel. 3, 1, 4. and Laodicea. Revel. 3, 16, &c. Can these be sayd to consist of Saints, or ho­ly people any more then the Iewes, must they not have the Title of Saints, in regard of their Profession? or the denomination from the better part? Can Sardis in a­ny other respect have the name of a Golden Candle­stick? [Page]And then I would know againe, for what rea­son it should be more dishonorable to Christ to be the head of a Congregation that are not all Visible Saints, further then by profession and outward conformity, then to be the head of a Nation, where all are not Visi­ble Saints, or why Christians should be in more danger, for being one by Profession in a Congregationall body, then Christ and Prophets, for being one with such as were not Visible Saints in a Nationall body, these I con­fesse are Riddles to mee: Nay I conceive that though all that doe professe holynesse and life should in duty be so, yet Christ in the parable of the Tares and wheate, showes it will not be so, and a generall seperation is not to be attempted till the end of the world, for the Tares signifie the workers of Iniquitie that grow & are to be gathered out of the Kingdome of him who is stiled the King of Saints; and out of what Kingdome but the Kingdome parabolized, The Kingdome of Heaven. Math. 13, 24, 41. and these Tares were not secret Hypocrits, for the Servants did discerne them, and tell the Master of them, and not the Master the Servants: nor doth it any way crosse us that the field is interpreted the world, as though the wicked and Godly should be in the world together, but in distinct societies. For this cannot be? Why should the Servants wonder to see the wicked in the world? how could the Tares come after the wheat, as they are said to doe, seeing the wicked were in the world, before the Godly in the Church? see verses 25, 27: Why should the Servants consult about the wicked in the world? What have they to do with those that are without? yea if the wheate and the Tares be thus interpreted, there must by this parable be nothing but wheate in the Church, no Chaffe, no Judas, no hypocrite, for all but the tares are righteous, and shall shine as the Sun in the [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page]Kingdome of the Father. verses 41.43. But why then is the Field interpreted to be the world?

A. For good reasons, because the visible Church was not to be limited to Judea, but extended to the whole world that would entertaine it. Secondly, the word of this Kingdome, ver. 19. was to be Preached in the world and by the word of this Kingdome, this Kingdome wa [...] to be gathered in the world, in which Kingdome should appeare the Tares with the Wheat. These things are so suitable to Christs words & scop, that I do not at al doubt but that this is the true exposition of this parable. Nor doth the Argument so confidently held out against it, any whit overthrow it: if you thus interpret the parable say some, you must of necessity exclude all Church Cen­sures, and so crosse other plaine Scriptures.

A. There is no such necessity in it, neither, for its a rule in interpreting parables, we must not extend them beyond their scope, now we must know wicked men are of two rankes; one ordinary, that though they have no grace visible, yet they are formal Professors, not guil­ty of Crimes, others that are guilty of notorious crimes, as the incestuous person &c. Answerably there may be conceived a two fold separation: One generall of all the wicked, the other speciall of those that are scanda­lous. This Parable treates of a generall Separation of all the wicked from the godly, which is here de­nyed to belong to the State of the Church in this world not of the particular Separation of the evill scandalous by some crime which elsewhere is required to be done by Church censures. And in this Answere I am fully confirmed by this Argument, Church censures are an Ordinance that is to be used not only for the separating of Tares, but Wheate for a time, nay sometimes of Wheate, not Tares, for excommunication is for those [Page]that are scandalous, now a man may be in the judgment of charity, godly in regard of his estate in generall, and yet in some particular scandalous, and so need, and de­serve excommunication. And a man may be so meer­ly formall, that in the judgment of charity, hee cannot be deem'd godly, and yet he may be faire-conditioned, without crime, and without scandall, here the Tares will scape, and the Wheate undergoe Separation, and therefore sith the Separation here inquired of, is of a­nother nature, then that which is effected by Church censures, to exclude Church censures by it, is to rack it, and wrest it, beyond its scope. I have stuck the long­er in this, because this is the Cardo Controversiae, the Hing on which the rest is turned, now I proceed. He after makes great complaint of the State of our Church, to which I so far consent, that I could wish with Ieremy, my head waters, and mine eyes fountaines, to send forth rivers of teares, for the breakers of Gods Law. But he takes up afterward, and tells us, that like Sardis, we have a few names which have not defiled their garments, and the way of re­formation he prescribes it by separating these few names into a new Church, for which he cites 2 Cor: 6, 17.

But stay, is this Christs way? doth he so counsell the Church of Sardis? if so, I will yeeld: if not, is not this way of his humane presumption exalted against the wis­dome of Christ? Now Christs Counsell is to repent of the evill, hold fast the good, ver. 3. to strengthen the things that are ready to die, ver 2. but not a word of separating the few. How dare any then presume to do it? I have often sought, and long, a resolution of this doubt, but could never yet finde it, but this Author thinkes he hath found a command 2 Cor. 6, 17. Come out from among them, and be yee separate. A strange thing (saith he) be yee separate; but a strange proofe say I, That a command [Page]to Christians, to come out from among Heathen Ido­laters, and not to touch any sinfull thing should be thought to prove it the duty of Christians to be separate from formall prophane Christians, and not to touch a­ny holy thing with them? what proportion is here for an inference? And for my part, I must confesse, I have wondred to see men so strict in this, that they will not joyne in holy duties with the Prophane, which yet I see make no scruple to joyne in following vaine fashions with them which was wont to be counted an uncleane thing: But this is further confirmed by a direction to Ieremy, Ier. 15, 20. If thou take forth the precious from the vile, but this is likewise as unfit a shaft for his Bow, for Ieremy lived in a Nationall Church, in which such a Se­paration as here this disputer strives for, he confesseth is not requisite, nor was it practised by Isaiah 8, 18. though he had occasion, or by any other. I marvaile then that this Author, or any other, should bring this place of Ieremy, to prove their Separation: There is a Doctrinall Separation which is required in every Mini­ster, if he divide the word of truth aright, and that we are bound to as well as Ieremy, and the Godly Ministers do carefully performe: but for such a Separation as this Protestor requires, here can be no ground for, which they affirme was not required from the Church of the Iewes: But it is further affirmed, that after such an Apostacy as ours, Churches must be gathered anew, as when the Apostles planted Churches where the Gos­pell had not been Preacht, this is onely dictated with­out proofe, and yet is neither true nor probable, there being so wide a difference betweene our Nation now, and when Ioseph of Arimathea first planted the Gospell in it, when it was purely Paganish: besides, If this were requisite, then must God also give Ministers qualified to [Page]gather Churches, and not only to goe on in the ordina­ry worke of the Ministry: that is, Ministers indued with extraordinary guifts having immediate callings, to Preach where they will, without the leave of men, with extraordinary assistance, without which ordinari­ly no liberty can be expected to gather Churches, till therefore I see the like guifts and callings, in some mea­sure, I shall not beleeve the like worke or duty to lye on Ministers now.

But some may aske what shall then be done?

A. Can we have better Counsell then was given to Sardis, by Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Prophet? and that is to repent of what hath beene amisse; publik humiliation, may fit publike transgression, which the Parliament may be intreated to apply to this malady, and then not separate from, but labour to strengthen and rectifie that which is ready to die. The Parliament are about a great and good worke of removing erroneous and scandalous Ministers, and seting up godly and lear­ned lights every where, and withall, giving or confirm­ing rather power to the godly Pastors, to keepe off those that are unfit for the Sacrament by grosse igno­rance, or scandalous life, by which meanes, Parishes that are already taught, may be quickly brought into for better order, and those that are not, may by teaching be brought to some good measure of understanding, and desire of the Sacrament, and some at least outward Reformation before they be required or admitted to Communion in the Sacramēt. But here we have another Quaere what we shall doe, where prophane and igno­rant persons are permitted Pell, Mell, to which he An­swers, that if Gods Ordinance be Prophane (as they are) by ignorant and prophaned persons coming to the Lords Table) then others also that Communicate with them, are guilty of the same prophanation. What is this so without any excep­tion? [Page] prophane and ignorant persons prophane the Word, and Prayer, and Fasting, and these are Gods Or­dinances, cannot we performe this with them, but bee guilty? this is new doctrine. In the Church of Sardis to which he did compare us, were the few names guilty of that prophanation which the rest must needes doe? doe not the Scriptures shew the contrary? Revel. 3, 4. their Garments were undefiled, is there no other way to keep our selves free from pollution, but separation? what if we endeavor to remove the prophane? is not that a bet­ter course? and that which was the burthen still layd upon the god [...]y? but never that in this case they should separate themselves, or if they cannot separate the wick­ed, but do their part, discovering them, & desiring their ejection, will not that free them from guilt? I thinke it will: and if not, I beleeve he must not long keepe in any of his new Churches. But the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 5, 6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, so those that are corrupt will leaven all. A. That is, If they be acces­sory to the corru [...]tions of others, not else: againe, how doth leaven leaven the lump, but by diffusing a reall qua­lity into it? now there being two things in sinne, the guilt which is a relation, and in this case must come by imputation, and the staine or vitiousnesse which is a quality, and in this respect the corrupt will leaven only thus, when he is suffered and countenanced, he is apt to infect others with his ill qualities, Thus this sen­tence must be ex­pounded, Gal. 5, 9. in egard of in­fection with the same evils. from which they shall be safe enough that bewaile and distast his ill qualities, though they be at the Sacrament with him, yet if they can get assistance, one effect of their distast should be ex­communication: But the Apostle applies it to mixt Communion, ver. 8 but he misapplies that Text which others more suitably interpret of ieading our lives, not eating the Sacrament. And for that verse the 9. not to company with fornicators, its meant of familiarity, not of [Page]the Sacrament. For you may see by the two following verses, such an accompanying is there forbidden to a Brother which is allowed with an heathen, and there­fore cannot be meant of Communion in the Sacrament. But I hope by the pietie of our Parliament, every godly Minister wilbe enabled to keepe off all that be guilty of such crimes, if that will serve the turne, and remove that objection. The place Ephes. 5, 5, 7. Be not partakers with them, is clearely meant in regard of their sinnes, not the Sacrament, as appeares by the following verse.

In Answering the next objection, he brings two pla­ces to prove that the holy thing of God should not be prophaned, but against what adversary? whosoever taught so? but that the prophaning of them by one, should prophane then to others, its denyed: his place Isa 1, 1 [...]. will only prove that God rejected their ser­vice, whose hands were full of blood, not the sacrificers of the good, else how will he excuse Isaiahs Communi­on with that Church? or Christ Iesus after him, when they were as bad? or where is his inference made or practised by the Prophets or Christ from this place, of necessity of separation where the prophane be?

In answering his next quaere, he tells us that to Com­municate with evill doers is to partake of their evill deeds. This is affirmed, but not proved, nor doe I thinke it ever will, that my doing a good action well upon com­mand of God, with one that doth the same good Action will make me guilty of his sinne; sure I am, then Christ and his Prophets, and Apostles, were all sorely defiled. His proofe 2 Thes. 3, 6. is quite misapplied, for its spoken of withdrawing from him in regard of com­pany and respect which is free and Arbitrary, not of the Sacrament, wherein they were not to withdraw from him, but if the quality of the offence did require it, were to put him away.

In his next Answere he affirmes that no Communi­on can be had in our Parish Assemblies possibly, without setting up new Churches: But I hope in this he is much deceived as in the rest. He compares us to Sardis former­ly, yet I hope there Communion might be had without this medicine of new Churches. Nay let there be shown any example or any precept in the Scripture that in our case new Churches should be erected, and not the old repaired, and brought back to the rule from which they have swerved, and we will yeeld the cause: but if there be no such precept nor example, then in vaine are all such pleas as he useth, for things which Christ hath neither left precept nor patterne of. And when we see God hath heard the Prayers, and blest the Nation for the prayers of the godly in our Churches, as now they stand, and hath made us a people saved by the Lord, who is the shield of our helpe, and the sword of our excellency, more we shal not expect by his new Churches, unlesse he convince the necessity of them, by better evidence out of the word, which when he hath proved, we will never put him to trouble to answere inconveniences, but will with him buckle our selves to digest them; but we will not cast our selves, nor will the wisdom of the state suffer it to be cast on inconveniencies for good mens fansies without Christs command.

Nor wil we ever object it to be too strickt, pure or per­fect, if the rule for it be convinced, but we will affirme that being its strayter then the counsell which Christ gave to Sardis, and different from it too, the pretence of purity and perfection is not to be hearkned to, for it is not such in truth, but shew, because it is not after Christ. Col. 2, 8. The like we say for envying at them, we will blame them that envy at them, if they discover the rule for what they doe, but till then we shall censure them [Page]we hope by this Parliament. The Discipline of Christ wil be set up in every Congregation, and this will be a bet­ter or weaklier managed, as the Ministers and members are growne in Christ: if then any Christian be where great scandalls are, they may remove to other Congre­gations that have attained a better degree of Reforma­tion, and this without any breach.

His next quaere is what Nationall government shalbe set up by the Parliament, for which he heartily prayes, that God would direct them in so glorious a work, and blesseth God for such instruments, for such a worke I thanke him for his affection, but yet if his Doctrine of the independancy of Churches be sound, this prayer cannot be of faith, for a man cannot pray in faith that men should meddle with that which is not within their sphaere or Calling, and sure if independancy be a liber­ty of Christ, all the Parliament hath to doe, is to assert this liberty, and what is more, is but usurpation. Then he tells us that the government of a Nationall Church hath no patterne in the word: the full answere of that I refer to the assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland, which I doubt not but will give good satis­faction to the indifferent Reader. Afterward he dis­covers (me thinkes) too much uncharitablenesse and selfe love. When he affirmes, let them have their liber­ty, and do for the rest what they will, tis indifferent to them, a litle more care of the soules of Christians might better suite with those that so far transcend others in outward reformation.

His last objection is inconveniency of independant Churches, if they erre as they may, they want meanes of re [...]yming, which is better set on by the Scotch Asser­tor, yet he hath said more, then he hath well answered, for having named all the meanes which their indepen­dancy is capable of, and being conscious it seemes that [Page]they were too weake. He adds 2 other that quite destroy the independancy. As first that other Churches may ex­communicate them, how are they independant, if under the Iurisdiction of other Churches? or how can they be excommunicated by those under whose Iurisdiction they are not? sure this is worse dependance then under the Presbytery, where a part is only subiected to the whole, but here a part is subiected to a part.

And this second is no better, for if they be under the Magistrate for any Haeresy, why not for all? those that are guilty will not confesse any of their Haeresies, for knowne Haeresies, but assert them for truth, and so cha­lenge exception for them, aswell as any, and if that be a known heresy, which is such to the judgment of the Ma­gistrat, thē for all heresy they are to be subject to cēsure, & their indepēdācy is a nullity. Thus have I gon through this whole discourse without indeavouring to stifle, but rather sincerely to search out what is truth in every par­ticular. It is my desire and prayer, that I might doe no­thing against, but for the truth, rather would I desire that God should bring me forth to the severest sufferings for the truth, then leave me though in simplicity of heart, to oppose any the least trueth. What remaines but that while we that minde the same things, Christs honour in the salvation of his people, and right performance of his Ordinances, and differ only in the way, labour to keepe Vnity of heart, till we have unity of judgment, and let our Prayers be united at the Throne of Grace, though our persons be in different Societies, that God may per­swade the wanderers into the Tents of those, to whom he hath vouchsafed the better light: That God may have the more honour, and we the more strength, & comfort by our free and scruple-lesse consociation: Which mercy the Lord vouchsafe for Jesus Christ his sake, by the helpe of the Spirit of truth, leading into al truth, to whom be glory for ever, Amen.