<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2015-01-12</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Susie Lorand</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x Add DIV TYPEs, validate x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x Proof title page(s) x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE x Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initials, space between &amp;c. [and in blackletter, abper, abpro, abis, abus, aber, abrum...] x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE ABBR GAP x Check q; startq endq Q Correct errors from proofsheet Correct illegibles from proofsheet x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs x Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ 35 ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A92828">
<STC T="W">S2320</STC>
<STC T="T">E72_8</STC>
<STC T="C">R14063</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99859605</BIBNO>
<VID>111697</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>The &s;econd Part OF THE UN-DECEIVER: Tending to the DISCOVERY Of &s;ome <HI>PRELATICALL</HI> AND <HI>ANTINOMIAN</HI> ERROVRS; <HI>AND THE</HI> Clearing of that part of the late COVENANT OF THE THREE KINGDOMS Which concerns Both.</P>
<P><HI>LONDNON,</HI> Printed for SAMUEL GELLIBRAND, at the Bra&s;en-Serpent in <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard, 1643.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="part">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>THE SECOND PART OF THE Undeceiver: Tending to the Di&s;covery of &s;ome <HI>Pre|laticall</HI> and <HI>Antinomian</HI> Errours, and the clearing of that part of the late <HI>Covenant</HI> of the three Kingdomes which concernes both.</HEAD>
<P>_THere are two weighty Points commended to our &s;adde&s;t thoughts in the&s;e &s;ad times, namely, how to procure fir&s;t a Reformation, and then a Pacifi|cation; <HI>Iohn</HI> the Bapti&s;t was &s;ent in the Spirit of <HI>Elias</HI> to procure both, <HI>Luke</HI> 1.17. to turne the hearts of the Fathers towards the Children, (there's a Pacification) and the di&s;obedient to the wi&s;dome of the ju&s;t, ther's a Reformation. Now there are two &s;orts of men that oppo&s;e a thorow-Reformation, and therefore hinder a Rationall and Chri&s;tian Pacification. The fir&s;t &s;ort are carried away with Prelaticall errours, the &s;econd &s;ort are carried away with Antino|mian errours.</P>
<PB N="2" REF="3">
<P>For the fir&s;t of the&s;e, we mu&s;t con&s;ider how they have Idolized the Prelates, and Canonized the Service-book, or (if you will) Canonized the Prelates and Idolized the Service-book.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t for the Prelates, they are by this time known to be U&s;ur|pers, and Seducers; now the Rule is, That an <HI>Ancient &V;&s;urpation is rather a cau&s;e of confu&s;ion then a ground for pre&s;cription:</HI> It is certaine that the Primitive Church had the be&s;t Di&s;cipline, and therefore the re&s;toring of the Primitive Di&s;cipline cannot be denied to be a Reformation, and <HI>the Reformation of the Church cannot bring de&s;olation upon the State;</HI> becau&s;e Chri&s;t will ble&s;&s;e his own Ordi|nance, and defend his own Di&s;cipline by his own power.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> But the King hath &s;worn to maintaine Prelacy, and the Mini&s;ters have &s;worn to yeeld Canonicall obedience.</P>
<P><HI>Sol.</HI> The Law of Nations frames this An&s;wer, <HI>In omni Iuramento &s;emper excipitur authoritas Majoris.</HI> If you look upon the Church of <HI>England</HI> as a Nationall Church, which hath all the Rights, Priviledges, and Immunities, (which by the Word of God are con|ferred upon every true Church) confirmed unto it and &s;ettled upon it by the grand Charter of the Kings of <HI>England,</HI> it is clear and evi|dent, that neither the King nor the Mini&s;ters, can be obliged to give any thing to the Prelates (by vertue of an Oath) which is denied unto the Prelates by Gods Word, (there's <HI>Authoritas Majoris</HI>) and the grand Charter, there's <HI>Authoritas Majorum:</HI> The words of the great Charter are known, yet I will take the paines to tran|&s;cribe them, <HI>Conce&s;&s;imus Deo &amp; hac praefeuti Chart&acirc; confirmavi|mus pro nobis &amp; haeredibus no&s;tris in perpetium qu&ograve;d</HI> Eccle&s;ia Angli|cana libera &s;it; <HI>&amp; habeat omnia jura &s;ua integra &amp; libertates &s;uas illae&s;as, &amp;c. vide Mag. Chart. c.</HI> 1. This is the Grant of the Kings of <HI>England</HI> which binds them and their Heires for ever, to pre|&s;erve all the Rights, Liberties, and Priviledges, (of and in the Church of <HI>England</HI>) which belong to a free Church, and without which a Church cannot bee a free Church. Now the Church of <HI>England</HI> cannot be a free Church, if the Prelates be &s;uffered to Lord it over the Mini&s;ters and People of God in <HI>England,</HI> and therefore the King is bound according to the Grand Charter to extirpate Prelacy in <HI>England,</HI> as hee hath already done in <HI>Scotland.</HI> We mu&s;t bee more carefull of Spirituall then Temporall liberty, we are very tender of the per&s;onall liberty of every Subject in particular,
<PB N="3" REF="3"> but we mu&s;t be mo&s;t tender of the liberty of the whole Communi|ty of true Prote&s;tants as they make one Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall body, or Society, and it doth not lie in the power of any one or more members of that Body, <HI>to &s;weare away</HI> the liberty of the whole Society or Church, I &s;ay Church, for all the &s;incere Prote&s;tants who doe now enter into this Nationall Covenant are a Na|tionall Church by vertue of this Covenant; nay, all the Co|venanters in all the three Kingdomes are hereby made one Church, though they cannot in per&s;on meet collectively in one Congregation, but in regard of their Multitudes are forced to meet di&s;tributively in &s;everall Congregations, or el&s;e Repre&s;en|tatively, in &s;uch Guides who are cho&s;en Delegates or Commi&s;|&s;ioners, to propound, rea&s;on, or treat in their behalfe in &s;ome Generall A&s;&s;embly; but that by the way.</P>
<P>We an&s;wer farther, if a man have &s;inned by taking an unlawfull Oath, each Child (that hath learnt his Catechi&s;me) knowes that as &s;oone as hee is convinced of his &s;inne, he is bound to repent of it, and cannot be engaged in point of con&s;cience to commit a &s;e|cond &s;inne rather then to repent of his former &s;inne. It would be &s;trange Divinity to affirme that a man is bound in con&s;cience to &s;inne, and forbid to repent; whether it is better to goe on in a &s;inne, or repent of a &s;inne, wee may &s;afely let them judge, <HI>&mdash;qui nondum aere lavantur:</HI> Hee that hath &s;worn ra&s;hly, mu&s;t repent deliberately, and not performe his oath wickedly af|ter he is convinced of the &s;infulne&s;&s;e of his oath; for after convicti|on, it is a greater &s;inne to keep his oath, then it was before conviction to take the oath, becau&s;e the fir&s;t was a ra&s;h &s;inne, and a &s;inne of ignorance and weakne&s;&s;e, the &s;econd is a deliberate &s;inne again&s;t judgement and con&s;cience.</P>
<P>We need not in the&s;e times di&s;pute the point whether the Pre|lates be of an <HI>Antichri&s;tian Order,</HI> it is &s;ufficient that they are of the <HI>Anti-chri&s;tian Faction,</HI> for the Prelates in <HI>England</HI> are confe|derate with the Papi&s;ts in <HI>England, Ireland;</HI> I might adde <HI>Spaine</HI> and <HI>Italy;</HI> and the Prelates have engaged their owne lives and for|tunes, the lives and fortunes of all their Hierarchy (as they call it) from the Deane to the Apparitor, nay, the lives and fortunes of all the Prelaticall party, to promote the blacke and bloody De|&s;igne of the whole <HI>Anti-chri&s;tian Faction;</HI> &s;o that now we are put
<PB N="4" REF="4"> upon the&s;e &s;traights, that either we mu&s;t root out Prelacy, or wee cannot root out Popery, and if we do not root out Popery, the Pa|pi&s;ts will root out Prote&s;tanti&s;me, that is, true Chri&s;tianity; un|le&s;&s;e then we will lo&s;e our Religion, and our Civill right freely to exerci&s;e our Religion, unle&s;&s;e we will go over to the Anti-chri&s;ti|an party, or which is wor&s;e, profe&s;&s;e Chri&s;t, and &s;erve Anti-chri&s;t, we are compelled to prote&s;t again&s;t the Prelaticall Hierarchy, and to endeavour to take away root and branch. Bi&s;hop <HI>Hall</HI> made too high a claime, and I beleeve he and his party will repent it. <HI>Bi|&s;hops,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>mu&s;t be men of an &V;pper Hou&s;e, the Peeres of the Church p.</HI> 88. Of his divine Right of Epi&s;copacy; or as he &s;tret|ches <HI>Hieromes</HI> expre&s;&s;ion to ju&s;tifie the tyranny of &s;ome Bi&s;hops, <HI>A Bi&s;hop mu&s;t be as a Generall in an Army, who hath power both to Mar|&s;hall all the Troopes, and to command the Captaines and Colonels, and to execute Mar&s;hall-Law upon Officers. p.</HI> 120. Oh you &s;ee what the Bi&s;hops affect, beware, beware in the&s;e bloudy times, le&s;t the Bi|&s;hops execute Mar&s;hall Law upon you, if you will not li&s;t your &s;elfe in &s;ome of their Troopes, and fight under their Colours, the <HI>Black-Cro&s;&s;e</HI> di&s;played in <HI>Aceldama</HI> a field of blood; Sure &s;uch conceits as the&s;e of executing Mar&s;hall-Law, &amp;c. never entred in|to Saint <HI>Hieroms</HI> phanta&s;ie, while&s;t he was awake. What ever this Bi&s;hop can take together out of &s;u&s;pected; nay, illegitimate pa&s;&s;a|ges fathered upon ancient and famous Authors, all that he urges up|on us to a&s;&s;ent and &s;ub&s;cribe unto, in favour of our <HI>Lord-Prelates,</HI> wee mu&s;t beleeve (when wee are at lea&s;ure) that <HI>Ignatius</HI> the Martyr &s;aid<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, that a <HI>Bi&s;hop beares the re&s;emblance of God the Father, that hee is &s;uperiour to all Principality and Power, and therefore we mu&s;t be &s;ubject to the Bi&s;hop as unto the Lord, and to the Prie&s;ts as to the Apostles.</HI> And <HI>what proportion is there</HI> (&s;aith Bi&s;hop <HI>Hall) betwixt the re&s;pects we owe to God and to man&punc; p.</HI> 136. But do you heare <HI>Lord Prelate,</HI> is not this bla&s;phemy? And mu&s;t a Bi&s;hop be ac|knowledged Superiour to all principality and power (I will give you leave to put in what you have left out) in cau&s;es Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|call? Is not this a denyall of the Kings Supremacy in cau&s;es Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall? Doe you not maintaine that <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> mu&s;t obey the Bi|&s;hop? <HI>pag.</HI> 142. and is not that your meaning al&s;o, <HI>p.</HI> 143. when you &s;ay, <HI>Princes mu&s;t yeeld their necks to the yoke of Chri&s;t? &amp;c.</HI> You &s;&s;hould fir&s;t have proved that the yoke which the Bi&s;hops have of
<PB N="5" REF="4"> late impo&s;ed on Princes, and their people, is the yoke of Chri&s;t. Sure I am if Presbyters &s;hould u&s;e the &s;ame &s;peeches to Princes which the Martyred Saints u&s;ed to their Heathen per&s;ecutors, you would have accu&s;ed them of trea&s;on, but it &s;eemes Bi&s;hops may u&s;e them, and make as bold with Kings, as <HI>&V;alentinian</HI> and <HI>Traian</HI> did with <HI>Va|lens;</HI> but Bi&s;hops cannot be accu&s;ed of Trea&s;on, becau&s;e they are in your opinion Superiour to all Principality and Power: or as <HI>Jere|mie Taylor</HI> hath it, <HI>The Bi&s;hop is in a Peerele&s;&s;e, an incomparable Au|thority, and all the whole Dioce&s;&s;e are his Subjects, in Regimine Spiri|tuali:</HI> Epi&s;copacy a&s;&s;erted, <HI>p.</HI> 213. and 214. and the &s;ame Ma&s;ter <HI>Taylour</HI> con&s;trues that of <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> to the great advantage of the Bi&s;hops, <HI>Pa&s;ce oves meas, unde regendae &s;acerdotibus contraduntur, m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|rito Rectoribus &s;uis &s;ubdi dicuntur,</HI> and the &s;heep are delivered <HI>to Bi|&s;hops, as to Rulers, and are made their Subjects, p.</HI> 213. Another man would have &s;aid no more, but that the &s;heepe or people are un|der their Rectors, for &s;o ordinary Pa&s;tours are u&s;ually entituled; but the&s;e Factors for Prelacy mu&s;t in &s;tead of feeding the &s;heepe feed the pride, and excu&s;e the tyranny of the Prelates. I know Do|ctor <HI>Hall,</HI> and <HI>Ieremy Taylour,</HI> pretend to reduce Epi&s;copacy to the Primitive Con&s;i&s;tence, but they take &s;ome forged te&s;timonies for Primitive te&s;timonies: witne&s;&s;e tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages of <HI>Ignatius</HI> formerly mentioned, which are foy&s;ted in by Interpolation; witne&s;&s;e tho&s;e Canons, which they call the Canons of the Apo&s;tles; and witne&s;&s;e tho&s;e Apo&s;tolicall Con&s;titutions, as they terme them, under the name of Saint <HI>Clement,</HI> Nay, Ma&s;ter <HI>Taylour</HI> will adventure as farre as the decretall Epi&s;tles, and builds much upon the confor|mations of Saint <HI>Rembert,</HI> and Saint <HI>Malchus</HI> ratified by miracles, Saint <HI>Clements</HI> Epi&s;tle to Saint <HI>Iames,</HI> tran&s;lated by <HI>Ruffinus;</HI> I need &s;ay nothing of <HI>S. Diony&s;ius, Dorotheus</HI> and the re&s;t. Ma&s;ter <HI>Taylors</HI> Booke is exceedingly cryed up, and it is publi&s;hed by his Maje&s;ties command, but truly I &s;ee nothing new in it, but what &s;tinkes of <HI>Prelaticall Popery;</HI> his argument drawne from Epi&s;copall <HI>confir|mation, con&s;ignation, Chri&s;mation,</HI> is new, becau&s;e newly tran&s;lated out of Popi&s;h Authors, and if the Prelaticall party had not been po&s;ting towards <HI>Rome,</HI> he dur&s;t not have urged it. The giving of the Holy Gho&s;t by impo&s;ition of the Apo&s;tles hands, was not, &s;aith Ma&s;ter <HI>Taylor,</HI> for a Miraculous gift, but an ordinary grace, which ordinary grace is to be &s;till conferred upon the Church; but it
<PB N="6" REF="5"> cannot be conferred by Presbyters, therefore it is nece&s;&s;ary that there &s;hould be Bi&s;hops, Prelates, in the Church to conferre this grace of Con&s;igning or Confirmation. The Mini&s;tery of the Spi|rit (which hee &s;aith) is the ordinary Office of giving the Holy Gho&s;t by Impo&s;ition of hands, is proper and peculiar to Pre|lates, read his Epi&s;copacy a&s;&s;erted from <HI>p.</HI> 28. to 35. He would have new baptized people to be brought to the Bi&s;hop, that by <HI>Impo&s;i|tion of his hands, they may obtaine the Holy Gho&s;t, and &s;o have a &s;upply made of what was wanting after Bapti&s;me, p.</HI> 34.</P>
<P>And he concludes that it was the <HI>beliefe of Chri&s;tendome that the Holy Gho&s;t was by no ordinary Mini&s;tery given to faithful people after Bapti&s;me,</HI> but onely by Apo&s;tolicall or Epi&s;copall Con&s;ignation and impo&s;ition of hands, in the &s;ame 34. page. But it were worth the while, to enquire what this Epi&s;copall Con&s;ignation is which the man contends for, it belongs he &s;aith <HI>to the ordinary office of Apo|&s;tle&s;hip, an office above Presbyters, but an office to be continued in the Church, and therefore there mu&s;t be Prelates in the Church,</HI> that this &s;o nece&s;&s;ary an office may be performed, pag. 35. But you mu&s;t turn a great many leaves before hee will acquaint you with the &s;ecret, and therefore to &s;ave you a labour, I will point you to the places you mu&s;t ob&s;erve out of him, that there <HI>is a three-fold Chri&s;mation;</HI> the fir&s;t is in Bapti&s;me, wherein the Prie&s;t doth <HI>con|&s;igne the forehead of the child with oyntment in the forme of a Cro&s;&s;e</HI> (for he tells you, that <HI>Con&s;ignari</HI> is u&s;ed in Antiquity for <HI>any &s;ign|ing with the Cro&s;&s;e or annealing,</HI> pa. 206.) and this may, by the leave and favour of the Bi&s;hop, be done by a Prie&s;t or Presbyter; But this Chri&s;me or <HI>oyntment mu&s;t be compo&s;ed and con&s;ecrated by the Bi|&s;hop,</HI> and fetcht from the Bi&s;hop by the Deacons for the u&s;e of all Churches, <HI>Chri&s;ma confectum ab Epi&s;copo,</HI> pag. 207. <HI>Con&s;ecratum ab Epi&s;copo,</HI> pag. 208. But you mu&s;t conceive that this Chri&s;me in the fore-head is a ceremony of Bapti&s;me, and not of Confirmation, for Confirmation is peculiar to the Prelate, pag. 206. And Unction or Chri&s;mation is e&s;pecially to be u&s;ed in Confirmation after Bap|ti&s;me, <HI>Sacramentum Chri&s;matis</HI> is the u&s;uall word for Confirmation, pag. 205. <HI>Behold a new Sacrament for to make &s;upply of what was wanting in Bapti&s;me, and this &s;upply can be made onely by a Prelati|call Con&s;ignation:</HI> But le&s;t the glo&s;&s;e upon the Canon Law &s;hould be le&s;&s;e popi&s;h then Mr. <HI>Taylour,</HI> he remembers that the Presbyters
<PB N="7" REF="5"> may confirme their Auditors by Confirmation of Faith, but the Prelates onely by Con&s;ignation of Chri&s;me, pag. 203. <HI>Well, give us the Confirmation of Faith, and let them take the Con&s;ignation of Chri&s;me,</HI> the members of the di&s;tinction are &s;urely oppo&s;ite; it &s;eems then that <HI>the Bi&s;hops doe confirme men without Confirmation of their Faith,</HI> they confirm men in Rite and my&s;tery, the presbyters in Faith and Doctrine by their preaching, pag. 203. Bi&s;hops in|deed have not u&s;ed to preach of late, but &s;tay, is not this <HI>Confirma|tion in faith by the Mini&s;tery of the Spirit?</HI> and is it not a confirmati|on after Bapti&s;me? why, &s;ure then <HI>we need not to have any Bi&s;hops to con&s;igne or anneale the Baptized people,</HI> and then what is become of this goodly argument? Nay farther, Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> confe&s;&s;es, that there was a long di&s;pute between the Greek and Latine Churches, whether per&s;ons confirmed by Presbyters &s;hould be reconfirmed, pag. 201. I ha&s;ten to the third Chri&s;mation, and that is in plaine Engli&s;h, extreame Vnction, which is the <HI>annealing of a dying body, and a part of Reconciliation</HI> (that's Engli&s;h) which in ca&s;e of ex|tream nece&s;&s;ity is permitted to Presbyters, pag. 206, 207. I be|leeve the Church of Chri&s;t may enjoy the Mini&s;tery of the Spirit by the powerfull preaching, &amp;c. of Presbyters without any one of the&s;e three kinds of Chri&s;mation; and therefore the Church may flouri&s;h without Prelates.</P>
<P>Behold Mr. <HI>Taylours</HI> grand Argument lyes &s;peechle&s;&s;e, but hee hopes to &s;et up the Prelates higher yet, by conferring upon them a <HI>Legi&s;lative Power,</HI> that he may the better e&s;tabli&s;h their Authority of <HI>Cognition</HI> of cau&s;es, and <HI>Coertion</HI> of per&s;ons, whether Lay-men or Clergy-men. The Presbyters, and Clergy, and Laity mu&s;t obey, (&s;aith Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI>) therefore the Bi&s;hop mu&s;t <HI>govern and give them Lawes,</HI> pag. 220. It is, if you will beleeve him, <HI>a great part of Chri&s;tianity to honour and obey the Bi&s;hops,</HI> pag. 214. <HI>It is a fault to remaine in Virginity without the Bi&s;hops leave,</HI> pag. 216. it &s;eemes Virginity is of <HI>Prelaticall Cognizance.</HI></P>
<P>The Presbyters are hardly u&s;ed, but the Lay-men are much more abu&s;ed. The Presbyters (hee &s;aith) at the mo&s;t can but rule in conjunction and a&s;&s;i&s;tance, but ever in &s;ubordination to the Bi|&s;hop, the Laity mu&s;t obey <HI>de Integro;</HI> (be wholly &s;ubject to the Bi&s;hop) For that is to keep them in that &s;tate, in which God hath placed them, pag. 219. Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> cannot deny but that the
<PB N="8" REF="6"> Presbyters were termed &sgr;&ugr;&ngr;&eacugr;&dgr;&rgr;&egr;&ugr;&tgr;&agr;&igr; &kgr;&agr;&igr; &sgr;&uacugr;&mgr;&bgr;&ogr;&ugr;&lgr;&ogr;&igr; &tgr;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&ngr; &Egr;&pgr;&igr;&sgr;&kgr;&oacugr;&pgr;&ohgr;&ngr;, Coun&s;ellours and A&s;&s;e&s;&s;ours with the Bi&s;hop in <HI>Igna<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ius</HI> his time and yet he would faine re&s;erve the Superio<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ity of Iuri&s;diction to the Bi&s;hop, and that <HI>Ab&s;olutely and Independently of conjunction with the Presbytery,</HI> pag. 225. It &s;eemes the Bi&s;hops affect an <HI>inde|pendencie,</HI> and therefore are &s;o angry with tho&s;e Mini&s;ters who are termed <HI>Independents.</HI> He talkes much of <HI>Cyprian,</HI> but it is clear and evident that <HI>Cyprian</HI> did not affect that Ab&s;olute Independency which Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> contends for; it is true that <HI>Cyprian</HI> being cho&s;en <HI>Pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">po&s;itus</HI> or Pre&s;ident of the Presbytery, he took it to heart that they contemned and reviled him whom they had cho&s;en to be their <HI>Praepo&s;itus,</HI> Provo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> or Pre&s;ident, and that the Presbyters did challenge the whole Authority and re&s;erve it to them&s;elves; where|as they were not a Presbytery without their Pre&s;ident; <HI>Quod nun|quam omnino &s;ub Antece&s;&s;oribus factum e&s;t, ut cum contumelia &amp; contemptu Pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">po&s;ititotum &s;ibi vendicent Presbyteri:</HI> The&s;e are <HI>Cypri|ans</HI> words, and what is there here to prove that a Bi&s;hop, Provo&s;t, Pre&s;ident is Independent upon a Presbytery? Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> urges a great many pa&s;&s;ages out of the Acts of &s;everall Councels; but who over denyed that Bi&s;hops did magnifie their owne Authority? or who that is wi&s;e would make them Iudges in their owne cau&s;e? Truly it is ridiculous to endeavour to prove what was the <HI>con&s;tant practi&s;e of Primitive Chri&s;tendome</HI> out of the Canons of Councels; and to &s;ay that provinciall Councels are made Catholike by adop|tion, and in&s;erting them into the <HI>Code of the Catholike Church</HI> is to out-&s;peake the Ie&s;uites them&s;elves, and yet the&s;e are Mr. <HI>Taylours</HI> expre&s;&s;ions, pag. 234. And I wonder much that Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> hath &s;o little forehead to affirme that he can finde no presbyters joyning either in Commi&s;&s;ion or Fact, in power or exerci&s;e with Bi&s;hops, but that Cen&s;ures are appropriated to Bi&s;hops. Hee &s;peakes more to the purpo&s;e when he &s;aith that the Canons of Councels were con|firmed by &s;ecular Authority, as appeares in the Imperiall Con&s;ti|tutions, pag. 235. and then from all his allegations he may in|deed inferre this conclu&s;ion, that prelates were e&s;tabli&s;hed between three and foure hundred yeares after Chri&s;t by &s;ecular Authority; but what is this to the point in hand, namely, to &s;hew the <HI>con&s;tant practi&s;e of Primitive Chri&s;tendome?</HI> or to &s;hew that Prelacie is <HI>Iure Divino?</HI> But becau&s;e Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> hath laid &s;o much weight
<PB N="9" REF="6"> upon the ancient Canons (as he calls them) let us, if you will, &s;ee what is that Canonicall power conferred upon Bi&s;hops. The an|cient Canons (&s;aith he) a&s;&s;erting the Bi&s;hops power <HI>in cognitione cau&s;arum</HI> &s;peake in mo&s;t large and comprehen&s;ive tearmes, &kgr;&agr;&igr; &ogr;&isagr; &tgr;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &thgr;&eacugr;&lgr;&ohgr;&sgr;&igr;&ngr; &esmogr;&xgr;&ogr;&ugr;&sgr;&iacugr;&agr;&ngr; &esagr;&kgr;&ogr;&ugr;&sgr;&igr;, <HI>They have power to doe what they li&s;t, their Power is as large as their Will,</HI> pag. 235. Behold an Arbitrary Go|vernment, Bi&s;hops may doe what they li&s;t in the determining of all controver&s;ies which concern Church affaires, and judging of all cau&s;es that are of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cognizance; Now <HI>tho&s;e things which chri&s;tianity</HI> (as it pre&s;cinds from the intere&s;t of the Com|monwealth) <HI>hath introduced, all them and all the cau&s;es emergent from them, the Bi&s;hop is Judge of, &s;uch as are cau&s;es of Faith, Mini|&s;tration of Sacraments and Sacramentalls, Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their &s;uperiour, cen&s;ures, Irregularities, Orders Hierarchi|call, Rites and ceremonies, Liturgies and publike formes of Prayer, Di&s;pen&s;ation of Church-ve&s;&s;els, Ornaments and goods, receiving and di&s;po&s;ing of the Patrimony of the Church,</HI> and what&s;oever is of the &s;ame con&s;ideration, p. 237. Here's ample power indeed, the Bi&s;hop may doe what he plea&s;es in all the&s;e and the like matters, for he is in the language of the Ie&s;uites <HI>our Superiour,</HI> and therefore Mr. <HI>Tay|lour</HI> talkes of the <HI>Subordination of the Inferiour Clergy to their Supe|riour,</HI> the Bi&s;hop mu&s;t be acknowledged, as <HI>Leontius</HI> was called, &orougr; &kgr;&agr;&ngr;&ohgragr;&ngr; &tgr;&eecirgr;&sfgr; &Egr;&kgr;&kgr;&lgr;&eegr;&sgr;&iacugr;&agr;&sfgr;, the Canon or rule of the Church; what need we then to have Canonicall Scripture for our rule? I cannot &s;tand to reckon up all the &s;welling Titles of the Prelates. All pow|er (&s;aith Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI>) is derived from Chri&s;t, now Kings are Chri&s;ts Vicars in his Regall power, but Bi&s;hops are Chri&s;ts Vicars in his Sacerdotall and propheticall power, pag. 245. Sure I am he hath not &s;et the Kings Throne very fa&s;t on this foundation, for Chri&s;t &s;aith, his Kingdome was not of this World, mu&s;t the King conclude from hence, that he mu&s;t have no Kingdome in this world? And it is not very &s;ure that Prelates are Chri&s;ts Vicars in his prie&s;t|ly Office, unle&s;&s;e they will &s;ay that they are prie&s;ts after the Order of <HI>Melchi&s;edech,</HI> or that Chri&s;t had a changeable and no eternall prie&s;thood, or finally are willing that Prelates &s;hould be crucified as Chri&s;t was. But though Lord-prelates have &s;uch preheminence, yet Mr. <HI>Taylour</HI> tells us that the Presbyter challenges an higher power, becau&s;e the Booke of Order of Excommunication in <HI>Scot|land</HI>
<PB N="10" REF="7"> a&s;&s;ures him, that the Presbytery doth cen&s;ure men for Murther, Trea&s;on, Witch-craft, &amp;c. Nay, they think <HI>every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable &s;inne, pag</HI> 250. Nay, they nullifie all Courts and Iudicatories be&s;ides their own, <HI>Ib.</HI> &s;ure he tran&s;cribed the&s;e two la&s;t accu&s;ations out of &s;ome Ie&s;uite; doth Mr <HI>Taylour</HI> think any action performed by us in the &s;tate of imperfection to be perfectly pure as it comes from us? is there no culpable defect adherent to our be&s;t actions? and yet we doe not excommunicate any man for &s;uch defects. It may be Mr <HI>Taylour</HI> hath a farther reach, and thinks &s;ome &s;innes are not <HI>mortall,</HI> but in their own nature <HI>veniall.</HI> I will not expatiate any farther le&s;t I follow him in his digre&s;&s;ions, but becau&s;e he &s;coffes &s;o much at Presbyterie wee will examine whether there may not be more &s;aid for Presbyteriall Government, then he or any other can &s;ay again&s;t it.</P>
<P>In that Apo&s;tolicall Li&s;t of Church Officers, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. and <HI>Phi|lip.</HI> 1. either Prelates are left out, or preaching Presbyters: but it is cleare and evident that the Apo&s;tle doth every where allow of preaching Presbyters, therefore the Prelates are left out. I hope we may urge <HI>Philip.</HI> 1.1. though I know it was urged by <HI>Aerius,</HI> the place is cleare to prove that the Church did then con&s;i&s;t of <HI>Saints, Deacons,</HI> and <HI>Presbyters,</HI> and it is &s;o cleare that <HI>Epiphanius</HI> who condemned <HI>Aerius,</HI> was forced to acknowledge that there was no Bi&s;hop at the fir&s;t placed in that and other Churches; St <HI>Hierome</HI> &s;aith the &s;ame, and <HI>Saravia</HI> confe&s;&s;es that <HI>Epiphanius</HI> is mi&s;taken more then once in tho&s;e po&s;itions which he layes down in&s;tead of an&s;wers to the arguments of <HI>Aerius, vide Saraviam de diver&s; grad. cap.</HI> 22. If a Bi&s;hop hath &s;o great a power, as the Pre|laticall men &s;ay he hath, then we need only prove that in the lan|guage of the Apo&s;tle a Presbyter and a Bi&s;hop are both one, and therefore they are of equall Authority. But this you will &s;ay, is the here&s;ie of <HI>Aerius.</HI> I an&s;wer fir&s;t, that reverend <HI>Beza</HI> doth defend <HI>Aerius</HI> again&s;t <HI>Epiphanius</HI> in this point: Secondly, learned <HI>Iewel,</HI> though a Bi&s;hop, defends <HI>Aerius</HI> again&s;t <HI>Harding:</HI> What &s;aith Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewel,</HI> is it &s;o horrible an here&s;ie to &s;ay, that by the Scriptures of God, a Bi&s;hop and a Prie&s;t (or Presbyter) are all one? Thirdly, Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewel</HI> cites <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome, Hierome, Augu&s;tine, Ambro&s;e,</HI> and &s;aith, the&s;e, and many more holy Fathers together with
<PB N="11" REF="7"> St. <HI>Paul</HI> the Apo&s;tle for thus &s;aying, mu&s;t by Ma&s;ter <HI>Harding's</HI> ad|vice, be condemned for Heretiks. <HI>Iewels Def. Apolog. part.</HI> 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 202. <HI>Medina</HI> addes <HI>Prima&s;ius, Oecumenius, Sedulius, Theodoret,</HI> and <HI>Theophylact. Medin l.</HI> 1. <HI>de &s;acrorum hominum origine &amp; continentia, cap.</HI> 5. <HI>Chy&s;o&s;tome,</HI> con&s;idering that place, <HI>Philip.</HI> 1.1. &s;aith there were not many Bi&s;hops in one City, &asmogr;&lgr;&lgr;&agragr; &tgr;&ogr;&ugragr;&sfgr; &pgr;&rgr;&egr;&sgr;&bgr;&ugr;&tgr;&eacugr;&rgr;&ogr;&ugr;&sfgr;, he called the Presbyters, Bi&s;hops: Some cite that of St <HI>Hierome,</HI> to put a difference between Bi&s;hops and Presbyters, <HI>Quid enim facit except&acirc; ordinatione Epi&s;copus quod Presbyter non faciat?</HI> But the&s;e men mu&s;t not &s;tand to this rule, unle&s;&s;e they will lo&s;e their Juri&s;diction, while&s;t they contend for Ordination. Be&s;ides, this Re&s;ervation was a meer U&s;urpation, for the Presbyters did ordain by Impo&s;ition of hands in the time of the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. <HI>By the hands of the Presbytery; Beza</HI> ob&s;erves that &s;ome would faine turne &pgr;&rgr;&egr;&sgr;&bgr;&ugr;&tgr;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&rgr;&igr;&ogr;&ngr; into <GAP DESC="foreign">&pgr;&igr;&ogr;&kgr;&ogr;&pgr;&egr;&icirgr;&ogr;&ngr;, nay the hands of the Presbytery into the hands of the Prelate, for the Prelate challenges &s;ole Ordi|nation. Mr. <HI>Taylor</HI> &s;tands much upon <HI>Cyprians</HI> authority in this point; Now what <HI>Cyprian</HI> meant by Presbytery is &s;o cleare in his third Book, <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 11. that <HI>Saravia</HI> confe&s;&s;es <HI>Cyprian</HI> under|&s;tood &pgr;&rgr;&egr;&bgr;&ugr;&tgr;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&rgr;&igr;&ogr;&ngr; to be an A&s;&s;embly of Presbyters; <HI>Fateor Cypria|num Presbyterii voce &s;ignifica&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">,</HI> Confe&s;&s;um Presbyterorum, <HI>vide Sarav. de grad. Mini&s;tr. cap.</HI> 22. <HI>pag.</HI> 213. <HI>Aerius</HI> then was un|ju&s;tly condemned for &s;aying that Presbyters might ordaine; this place of <HI>Timothy</HI> in the judgement of <HI>Cyprian</HI> and many Ancients more, proves that Presbyters may ordaine: Be&s;ides, we have a|nother in&s;tance for it in the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> there were certain Prophets and Teachers, who laid their hands upon <HI>Saul</HI> and <HI>Barna|bas,</HI> and &s;eparated them to the work of the Mini&s;tery whereunto God called them, &amp; they did ordain <HI>Saul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> by the command of the Holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Act.</HI> 13.1.2.3. who dares deny that this Ordi|nation was complete? and yet there was no Apo&s;tle nor Prelate pre|&s;ent at this Ordination: And what are the Mini&s;ters in the Refor|med Churches (where there are no Prelates) no Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e they are ordained without a Prelate? The Canon Law which our Prelates would faine have e&s;tabli&s;hed, doth permit an Abbat to Ordaine if he be a Presbyter, that's all the Law requires, <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 69. <HI>c. Quoniam,</HI> (let them leave citing the Decretall Epi&s;tles, if they will not admit of that Canon Law) <HI>Abbati manuum impo&s;itio con|ceditur
<PB N="12" REF="8"> dum con&s;tet illum e&s;&s;e Presbyterum:</HI> But enough of that, I pa&s;&s;e to Iuri&s;dicton, and here wee &s;hall have our Prelaticall men citing the Decretall Epi&s;tles thick and threefold, but <HI>Duarenus de Benef. Eccle&s;. in Prooemio</HI> ob&s;erves that mo&s;t of the Decretall Epi&s;tles which concerne Iuri&s;diction were written to Engli&s;h Prelates, and therefore they are but &s;o many Catholike complements, not Dog|maticall Re&s;olutions, as Mr <HI>Taylor</HI> would have them: But you'l &s;ay they cite many Fathers in this argument; Fir&s;t, we know that ma|ny Fathers have erred in matters of faith, and it is more likely they &s;hould erre in matters of Fact, becau&s;e we doe rely upon humane te&s;timony (which is very deceitfull) for matter of Fact. If any one that is reverenced for Antiquity and Piety hath been too credulous, and hath taken up &s;ome relations upon tru&s;t without due examina|tion, that one man may deceive an hundred, and then if we will reckon right, the hundred te&s;timonies of &s;ucceeding Writers is virtually and in a rationall account, but the Te&s;timony of that one man, upon who&s;e credit all their Relations doe depend. Secondly, it is well known that when the Fathers ar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> in their Rhetoricall veine, they u&s;e many <HI>Hyperbole's</HI> which will not hold weight with|out a graine or two of favourable allowance. I remember <HI>Hieromes</HI> excu&s;e, <HI>Rhetoricati &s;umus, &amp; in modum declamatorium paululum lu&s;i|mus, Hieronym. adv. Helvidium</HI>&mdash;ludicious <HI>Rivet</HI> in his tract <HI>de Patrum Authoritate pag.</HI> 67. pa&s;&s;es this grave cen&s;ure, <HI>Rhetorican|tur interdum Patres vehementius vel in exhortationibus, vel in Favorem aliorum;</HI> if they are apt to over-la&s;h in favour of others, certainly they are mo&s;t apt to exceed in favour of them&s;elves, or at lea&s;t them of their own ranke and order. Thirdly, the Fathers &s;eldome entred into a controver&s;ie, but they ranne too farre from their Adver&s;ary, and left the truth in the middle between them and their Adver&s;ary. Now the Fathers who lived in the time of <HI>Aerius</HI> and &s;ince, have in oppo&s;ition to <HI>Aerius</HI> extolled Bi&s;hops more highly then they ought. Fourthly, that of learned <HI>Ca&s;aubon</HI> is very con&s;iderable, the Fathers handle &s;ome things &dgr;&igr;&dgr;&agr;&kgr;&tgr;&igr;&kgr;&ohcirgr;&sfgr;, and &s;ome &osmogr;&igr;&kgr;&ogr;&ngr;&ogr;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2+ letters">&ohgr;&sfgr;, <HI>dum propo&s;ito &s;uo &s;erviunt vide Ca&s;aub. Annot. ad Epi&s;t. G. Ny&s;&s;. ad Amb &amp; Ba&s;. pag.</HI> 88. <HI>&amp;</HI> 89. Now that &s;ome of the Fathers did <HI>propo&s;ito &s;uo in&s;ervire,</HI> in handling the cau&s;e of Bi&s;hops, is out of doubt, and others might be ea&s;ily drawn into the &s;ame di&s;&s;imula|tion, as good <HI>Barnabas</HI> once was, <HI>Galat.</HI> 2.13. And yet I reverence
<PB N="13" REF="8"> Antiquity as highly as the mo&s;t reverend Fathers de&s;ire mee to re|verence it; Concerning the Catologue of Bi&s;hops, &s;ee <HI>Augu&s;tines</HI> Epi&s;tle, 15<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>ad Genero&s;um;</HI> Give me leave to begin with Scripture, and I will &s;h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w enough out of Antiquity in the clo&s;e. The Prelati|call men talke much of the Angels in the Revelation, much might be &s;aid, but I think this &s;ufficient, the Angell of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was no Prelate, for all the Presbyters of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> are &s;tiled Bi&s;hops, <GAP DESC="foreign"> is the word, and had power of Government given them by the Holy Gho&s;t, if <GAP DESC="foreign"> import Government, as the Pre|laticall men &s;ay it doth, read <HI>Act.</HI> 20.28. St <HI>Hierom</HI> proves from this place and three more, that a Bi&s;hop and a Presbyter are the &s;ame in name and power. When St <HI>Peter</HI> &s;peaks of that ordi|nary power in which the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel &s;ucceed the Apo|&s;tles, he calls him&s;elfe a Presbyter, and exhorts the Presbyters in high language, <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 5.1.2. and he would not have them <GAP DESC="foreign">, v. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. they might have re|plyed, had there been any Prelates over them in tho&s;e dayes, Alas, alas, the Prelates are more likely to Lord it over us and the people, give this coun&s;ell to the Prelates, they &s;tand in more need of it.</P>
<P>I wonder that men that have been bred in an Univer&s;ity &s;hould explode and &s;coffe at a Collegiate Government by a Colledge of Pa&s;tours and a Pre&s;ident. Againe, I admire that men &s;hould fancie that to erect a Presbytery, is to &s;et up a Government which is more Prelaticall then the Prelacy it &s;elfe; for in a Presbytery there is a Priority of Order in the Pre&s;ident to avoid confu&s;ion, but no Prelaticall Authority to avoid Tyranny, <HI>there is no chaire for Diotrephes there.</HI> Finally, wee utterly di&s;avow the maintaining of the <HI>Independency of a Presbyteriall Church,</HI> becau&s;e we main|taine the u&s;e of Synods to be lawfull and nece&s;&s;ary, nor doe wee maintain an <HI>Independancy of Synods, for the word is their Rule.</HI> It is clear and evident by the light of nature, <HI>that the part mu&s;t be in &s;ub|jection to tho&s;e who command the whole,</HI> all the Members of this Con|gregation mu&s;t be &s;ubject to the Guides, Governours, &amp; Over&s;eers of this Congregation, &amp; all the Members of this &amp; the Si&s;ter-Congre|gations are &s;ubject to the Presbytery, many Presbyteries &s;ubject to a Provinciall A&s;&s;embly, &amp; all the Provinces of the Nation &s;ubject to a Nationall Synod, and the Synod &s;ubject to the holy Gho&s;t &s;peaking in the word; is not here order, equity, decency? Why do men then
<PB N="16" REF="9"> talk of Anarchy, or dream of a popular Government by the ma|ny-headed multitude, as if all &s;hould runne into confu&s;ion, and there &s;hould be an ab&s;olute Parity, and no Order, or decency at all if Prelacy be extirpated? Away with &s;uch vaine conceits, it is evi|dent by what hath been &s;aid, <HI>that di&s;tances will be ob&s;erved, &s;ecundum &s;ub &amp; &s;upra, &s;till;</HI> But the great objection is that Prelacy was at fir&s;t in&s;tituted to &s;uppre&s;&s;e Schi&s;mes, and therefore if once Prelacy be extirpated, all manner of Sects and Schi&s;mes will ari&s;e in the Church: I an&s;wer, wee know by &s;ad experience, that the Prelates have been the <HI>Ring-leaders of an Antichri&s;tian Schi&s;me:</HI> and we know by good experience, that the Church and Kingdome of <HI>Scotland</HI> is more firmly united under the Presbyteriall Government, then <HI>Eng|land</HI> hath been under the Prelaticall; no &s;ooner doth a Sect or a Schi&s;matique peep out in <HI>Scotland,</HI> but pre&s;ently they are nipt by the Presbytery: And if Prelacy was fir&s;t invented and Bi&s;hops prefer|red to hinder Schi&s;me, &s;urely &s;ince Prelates are become the greate&s;t Schi&s;matiques, Incendiaries, Prelacy may be aboli&s;hed (&s;ince nothing el&s;e will &s;erve the turn) that the Schi&s;m which the Prelates them&s;elves have made &amp; &s;trengthned, may be timely quelled. The power of the Keyes in the hand of a Presbytery or Synod is &s;ufficient to quell both Hereticks and Schi&s;matiques: if a Schi&s;me hath rent a Pro|vince or a Nation to pieces, that Province and Nation is bound by the Word of God, the Dictates of &s;ound rea&s;on and Chri&s;tian pru|dence to &s;tand to the Decrees of a Provintiall or Nationall Synod, &s;o farre forth as the&s;e Decrees are agreeable to the Word of God, for &s;o farre and no farther doe they bind. Let Mr <HI>Taylor</HI> con&s;ider that of St <HI>Cyprian</HI> in his third Book and 19^t^h Epi&s;tle, and then hee will confe&s;&s;e with <HI>Cyprian,</HI> that one Prelate is not &s;ufficient to cure a Provinciall Schi&s;me: <HI>Quae res c&ugrave;m omnium no&s;trum con&s;ilium &amp; &s;ententiam &s;pectet,</HI> praejudicare ego, &amp; &s;ol&ugrave;m mihi rem com|munem vendicate non audeo. And let him con&s;true that of <HI>Augu&s;tine, Peregrinus</HI> Presbyter &amp; Seniores <HI>Eccle&s;iae Mu&s;ticanae regionis, &amp;c. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>contra Cre&s;conium, cap.</HI> 56. Or that of <HI>Tertulli|an, Cum Pre&s;byterii ordine prae&s;ident probati qui&abque; Seniores honorem i&s;tum non pretio &s;ed te&s;timonio adepti. Apolog cap.</HI> 39. There is a two|fold &thgr;&egr;&rgr;&agr;&pgr;&egr;&iacugr;&agr;, or Mini&s;try, &s;aith <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus,</HI> &bgr;&egr;&lgr;&tgr;&igr;&ohgr;&tgr;&igr;&kgr;&eegragr; and &uacugr;&pgr;&eegr;&rgr;&egr;&tgr;&igr;&kgr;&eegragr;: the fir&s;t he &s;aith belongs to Presbyters, the &s;econd to Deacons; now &bgr;&egr;&lgr;&tgr;&igr;&ohgr;&tgr;&igr;&kgr;&eegragr;, being oppo&s;ed to &uacugr;&pgr;&eegr;&rgr;&egr;&tgr;&igr;&kgr;&eegragr;, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;ari|ly
<PB N="15" REF="9"> imply an Authoritative juri&s;diction: he &s;aith nothing of a third kind of Mini&s;tery; this &thgr;&egr;&rgr;&agr;&pgr;&egr;&iacugr;&agr; &bgr;&egr;&lgr;&tgr;&igr;&ohgr;&tgr;&igr;&kgr;&eegragr; was to <HI>better the people, not onely by per&s;wa&s;ion, but by juri&s;diction,</HI> for he &s;aith the Deacons were to attend upon the Presbyters, as children upon their Parents, as ordinary men upon Governours. <HI>Vide Clem Alexand. Stromat. l.</HI> 7. <HI>non procul ab initio p</HI> 700. Bi&s;hop <HI>Hall</HI> acknowledges that it doth appeare by the ob&s;ervations of <HI>Iustellus,</HI> and the two learned <HI>Ca|&s;aubons,</HI> that there were <HI>Seniores Eccle&s;ia&s;tici</HI> in the Church of old, and he is forced to confe&s;&s;e that they were not onely <HI>Seniores Popu|li,</HI> as Magi&s;trates or Aldermen of Incorporate Townes and Cities, but <HI>Seniores Eccle&s;iae,</HI> or <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tici;</HI> and his conceit is ridiculous to dream that &s;uch men &s;o renowned were but Church-wardens, he is glad to adde, or Ve&s;try-men at the highe&s;t, &amp; &s;o doth in effect grant the whole que&s;tion concerning Ve&s;try-Elders, read his Reply to <HI>Smectymnuus, pag.</HI> 146. What will they &s;ay to <HI>Cyprians</HI> di&s;tinction betweene Presbyters and Seniors, when he complaines that the Presbyters were too &s;upercilious, taking upon them to doe &s;o much <HI>ab&s;que con&s;en&s;u Seniorum?</HI> I beleeve it will trouble them to an&s;wer that que&s;tion: but they will be more troubled to an&s;wer all tho&s;e Ancient Records which are pre&s;&s;ed home by that learned Antiqua|ry <HI>Salma&s;ius.</HI> I will not enter into that di&s;pute, whether there be a twofold power of the Keyes, <HI>pote&s;tas concionalis,</HI> and <HI>pote&s;tas Di&s;ci|plinaria?</HI> or whether it be a Pa&s;torall Act to define or determine any thing in Synods and Councels? or whether there be not a diffe|rence betweene Pa&s;torall teaching, and Synodicall teaching? whether a Lay-man being Elected a Commi&s;&s;ioner to propound, Rea&s;on, and Vote in a Synod, in the behalfe of &s;ome Congregation, be not a kind of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall per&s;on, in regard of that Office whereunto he is elected and deputed? and finally, whether if a whole&s;ome con&s;titution &s;hould be carryed and decreed by the Vote of &s;uch a per&s;on, helping to make the major part in a Synod, that whole&s;ome Decree doth not bind the people Eccle&s;ia&s;tically in re|gard of the Authority of them who compo&s;ed it, as well as Mate|rially, or rather Morally, becau&s;e the matter of the Decree is agree|able to the Word of God? I mu&s;t wave the&s;e que&s;tions and divers others, &amp; pa&s;&s;e to the next Prelaticall errour, Their Canonizing or Idolizing of that Service-booke, which the mo&s;t judicious Divines of the Reformed Churches have ever looked upon as a Pageant
<PB N="16" REF="10"> tricked up with tolerable, or (as others) <HI>intolerable fooleries, a Ma&s;&s;e of Super&s;tition, a Magazine of Ceremonies, the lazy Church-mans Pillow, the blind-Church-maens Spectacles, the lame Church-mans Crutches, and the Common peoples Idol.</HI> Nay, &s;ome Ma&s;&s;e mongers among&s;t us to te&s;tifie their compliance with <HI>Rome,</HI> have not been a|fraid to &s;peake out in the reigne of <HI>Canterbury,</HI> and call it <HI>Ma&s;&s;e in Engli&s;h,</HI> witne&s;&s;e <HI>Cozens, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ecklington, Mountague&punc;</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nd others. I need &s;ay nothing of the letter o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Pope <HI>Pius</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e 4. for the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">onfirmation of the Service booke, you may &s;ee enough in <HI>Br<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;towes</HI> Motives or <HI>Carriers</HI> Con&s;iderations; Nor need I take notice of the Letter of King <HI>Edward</HI> the 6. to the Papi&s;ts of <HI>Cornwall</HI> and <HI>Devon&s;hire,</HI> written by the advice of his <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ouncell; the&s;e things have beene largely in&s;i&s;ted on by others. But I would fain have any man prove that when men began to call upon the Name of the Lord at the fir&s;t in the dayes of <HI>Enos, Gen.</HI> 4.26. that then they had a Set-forme im|po&s;ed upon them; Now certainly the Spirit of Supplication &s;ince the A&s;cen&s;ion of the Lord Ie&s;us is more plentifully powred forth upon the Church, &amp; therfore if men be forced <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o read a Dead-form, and pray by Booke in the&s;e dayes of light and glory, there will &s;ad effects and con&s;equences follow upon &s;uch a rigorous Impo&s;ition &amp; con&s;traint. It is evident by lamentable experience that divers Mi|ni&s;ters of happy parts and excellent gifts by the u&s;e of this Dead-forme in the Service-Booke, have beene utterly di&s;abled to pray af|ter a Spirituall manner upon &s;olemne, but unexpected occa&s;ions; their parts have beene dryed up, and withered, their gifts bla&s;ted, their &s;pirit &s;traitned in &s;uch a fearefull manner, as may well de|ter any man from tying him&s;elfe to a Service-Booke, and neglecting tho&s;e parts and gifts which God hath out of his free bounty be|&s;towed upon him, le&s;t God puni&s;h his neglect and unthankfulne&s;&s;e, after &s;uch a remarkeable manner as may make him an example to all po&s;terity. I pre&s;ume no man will defend that order in the Com|mon Prayer Booke, for the reading of <HI>Apocrypha,</HI> and omitting di|vers parts of Canonicall Scripture; it is a &s;inne that cryes to Heaven for vengeance upon this Nation, that wee have by &s;uch a &s;olemn Order preferred the <HI>Apocrypha</HI> before the Word of God, as if the inventions and (to &s;ay truth) the fooleries of men did tend <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">e to edification then the Scriptures, which were written by the Divin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> in&s;piration of the Holy Gho&s;t. Nor is it po&s;&s;ible to excu&s;e
<PB N="17" REF="10"> many ridiculous pa&s;&s;ages in that Tran&s;lation of Scripture which is retained in the Common-Prayer. Book; witne&s;&s;e that Pa&s;&s;age, <HI>And Easter a Fea&s;t of the Iewes was nigh;</HI> and that of <HI>Galat.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.20. where <HI>they make zeale a fruit of the fle&s;h,</HI> which perchance is the rea&s;on, why the Prelaticall men have been &s;o con&s;tantly obey|ed by the common people when they have inveighed again&s;t zeale; &s;ure the common people have taken this Tran&s;lation for the Word of God, and looked upon zeale as a fruit of the fle&s;h which would pollute and defile them, and therefore there is &s;o little zeale in tho&s;e Countreys where they have had no other &s;ervice, then what is con|tained in this Service Book. Moreover, they have in the Epi&s;tle for the Sunday after Chri&s;tma&s;&s;e-day fal&s;ly, if not bla&s;phemou&s;ly and Heretically tran&s;lated <HI>Galath.</HI> 4.5. <HI>That we through Election</HI> might <HI>receive the Adoption that belongs to naturall Sonnes,</HI> an arrant con|tradiction, and as we u&s;e to call it, a <HI>Bull,</HI> for no naturall Sonne can be &s;aid to be adopted, nor is any adopted &s;onne a naturall &s;onne; Nothing but Generation can make a man a naturall &s;on. Now none but the Lord <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;us is the naturall Sonne of God. The true Tran&s;lation is, <HI>That we might receive the Adoption of Sonnes.</HI> Now the adopted Sonnes of God are in that very ver&s;e oppo&s;ed to his naturall Sonne &s;poken of in the former ver&s;e, God hath &s;ent forth his own Sonne, ver&s;. 4. that is, his naturall Sonne; but enough of that; And they might have followed a better Tran&s;lation of <HI>Galat.</HI> 5.19.20. which runnes thus, The works of the fle&s;h are manife&s;t, &amp;c.&mdash;hatred, variance, <HI>emulations,</HI> wrath, &s;trife, &s;editions, <HI>here&s;ies;</HI> and not as they read in their Epi&s;tle for the 14^t^h Sunday after Trinity&punc; The deeds of the fle&s;h are manife&s;t, &amp;c. <HI>Hatred, va|riance, zeale,</HI> wrath, &s;trife, &s;editions, <HI>Sects, in &s;tead of Here&s;ies;</HI> our <HI>Arminians</HI> tell us, that Hereticks are pious and innocent men, and therefore not puni&s;hable. They follow the Ma&s;&s;e book in Tran&s;la|ting <HI>Luke</HI> 1.28. Haile thou that art <HI>full of grace,</HI> in &s;tead of Haile thou that art <HI>highly favoured:</HI> and &s;o <HI>Luk.</HI> 1.48. Hee hath regar|ded <HI>the lowline&s;&s;e,</HI> in &s;tead of the <HI>low e&s;tate;</HI> as if the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin had merited to be the Mother of God by her humility and lowli|ne&s;&s;e of minde; the Word in the Originall is <GAP DESC="foreign">, and not <GAP DESC="foreign">. I cannot omit their Tran&s;lation of <HI>P&s;alm.</HI> 105.28. <HI>They were not obedient to his word,</HI> but the Holy Gho&s;t declares the contrary, and &s;aith, <HI>they rebelled not again&s;t his word.</HI> In the Go&s;pel
<PB N="18" REF="11"> for St <HI>Luke</HI>'s day, they Tran&s;late <HI>Luk.</HI> 10.1. The Lord <HI>appointed other &s;eventy and two,</HI> whereas the holy Gho&s;t &s;aith the Lord <HI>appointed other &s;eventy,</HI> th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y take the boldne&s;&s;e to adde two more then the holy Gho&s;t &s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ks of. Now this fault is the more inexcu|&s;able becau&s;e there is a purer Tran&s;lation of the Scriptures, pub|li&s;hed by Authority, and yet the Prelates have &s;till retained the&s;e gro&s;&s;e corruptions.</P>
<P>I wonder that they &s;hould all this while connive at &s;uch an intolerable di&s;agreement between the Tran&s;lations, I will give but one in&s;tance more, in the P&s;almes in the Common-Prayer-Book, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 58.8. we read, <HI>&s;o let indignation vex him <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ven as a thing that is raw,</HI> in &s;tead of the&s;e words, <HI>He &s;hall take them away as with a whi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lwind both living and in his wrath,</HI> as you may &s;ee by com|paring it with our new Tran&s;lation; but ob&s;erve that it is the ninth ver&s;e in the New-Tran&s;lation. Be&s;ides, there is no &s;en&s;e in that Liturgicall Tran&s;lation, <HI>Or ever your pots be made hot with thorns, &s;o let indignation vex him even as a thing that is raw.</HI> The com|mon people (hearing that there is only a directory for Wor&s;hip in|tended, as appears by the late Covenant) conceive that they &s;hall be deprived of what&s;oever is in the Common-Prayer-Book; but they &s;hould con&s;ider that the Common-Prayer-Book containes things of very different natures, Creeds, Commandments, P&s;alms, Prayers, &amp;c. Now the Parliament never intends to take away the P&s;almes, Commandments, or tho&s;e parts of Scripture which are called Epi&s;tles and Go&s;pels, but the people &s;hall enjoy the&s;e in a more faithfull Tran&s;lation in their Bibles, and have them familiarly ex|pounded and powerfully applyed to their con&s;ciences by able and con&s;cionable Mini&s;ters; for the Parliament daily &s;eeks for &s;uch to in&s;truct the people, but the Prelates would never allow of any &s;uch Tran&s;lation in the <HI>Service-Book,</HI> or &s;uch an exerci&s;e as the expoun|ding of the Commandments, &amp;c. <HI>They counted that as bad as Preaching.</HI> Nay, the Parliament intends not to take away the Creeds, for though they be not parts of Scripture, yet becau&s;e the &s;um and &s;ub&s;tance of them was collected out of Scripture, the Creeds &s;hall be retained, and tho&s;e ob&s;cure phra&s;es which might occa&s;ion a mi&s;take, namely, the De&s;cent into Hell, &amp;c. &s;hall be ex|plained agreeable to the Word of God, and the Analogy of faith. Moreover, we mu&s;t put a great deale of difference between the Lords
<PB N="19" REF="11"> Prayer, and Prayers compo&s;ed by man; <HI>The Parliament will not take away the Lords prayer, nor forbid the u&s;e of it;</HI> and if &s;ome prayers (compo&s;ed by men &s;ubject to mi&s;takes) which are many of them rather <HI>good wi&s;hes then Prayers,</HI> be omitted, there will be no great want of them, con&s;idering fir&s;t, that though there are many <HI>Chri|&s;tian prayers,</HI> in regard of the expre&s;&s;ions, yet the whole body of them hath ever by the Prelaticall party been de&s;igned <HI>to an Anti|chri&s;tian u&s;e,</HI> namely to nouri&s;h an ignorant lazy and ambitious Clergy, for the Non-Re&s;idents by this meanes doe only pay for a Reading Curate, and are allowed to bee Non-Re&s;idents: Secondly, that they were compo&s;ed in times of ignorance, for the help of Mini&s;ters almo&s;t as ignorant as the common people: Third|ly, that God hath now furni&s;hed his Church with men of excel|lent parts and gifts, <HI>Who are able to pray as well as preach upon all occa|&s;ions,</HI> and it were as great pity to hinder the exerci&s;e of the&s;e mens gifts by making a <HI>Prayer for them, as by making a Sermon for them;</HI> the one is as great a &s;hame to them and damp to their Spirits as the other: and the State may as well forbid them to preach a Sermon of their own &s;tudying, and tye them to read Homilies, as to forbid them to u&s;e a prayer of their own compo&s;ing, and command them who are truly <HI>Iudicious, Practically holy</HI> and <HI>Experimentally Devout,</HI> to read a prayer out of a book, more like a Schoole-Boy then Re|verend Pa&s;tours of the Church of Chri&s;t. Nay, if an ingenious School-boy would bee a&s;hamed to read a Declamation compo&s;ed by another, when he is called to perform that exerci&s;e, &s;ure a Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t will bee more a&s;hamed to have a prayer made for him by Bi&s;hops or Arch-Bi&s;hops, when the Arch-Shepheard &amp; Bi&s;hop of his Soul hath left him, <HI>A pattern of prayer, a rule of prayer, and a Spirit of prayer to help his infirmities, and ble&s;&s;e him with abilities for this great duty of prayer.</HI> It concernes Mini&s;ters in this point to imitate the Apo&s;tles, <HI>Act.</HI> 6.4. to give <HI>them&s;elves continually to prayer,</HI> as well as to the Mini&s;try of the Word; <GAP DESC="foreign"> is the full expre&s;|&s;ion of the holy Gho&s;t in that place. Can the Prelates teach us to pray better then the holy Gho&s;t? Now the holy Gho&s;t teacheth us <HI>both what and how to pray;</HI> We know not <HI>what to pray</HI> for, <HI>as wee ought,</HI> we are ignorant of <HI>matter and manner;</HI> the holy Gho&s;t helps our infirmities in both, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.26. And if the holy Gho&s;t doth af|ford &s;uch a&s;&s;i&s;tance to ordinary Chri&s;tians, &s;ure much more to
<PB N="20" REF="12"> Pa&s;tours whom he hath commanded to give them&s;elves to prayer, and to whom he hath given variety of Pa&s;torall gifts that they may di&s;charge all Pa&s;torall duties. Chri&s;t hath &s;ent &s;ome <HI>Pa&s;tours, &s;ome</HI> Teachers <HI>for the perfecting of the Saints,</HI> for the <HI>work of the Mini|&s;try,</HI> that the Saints <HI>may be no more Children, Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11.12.14. Now doth God &s;end Pa&s;tours, &s;end them for the work of the Mi|ni&s;try? and doth hee not inable them for the work of the Mi|ni&s;try? or is not prayer a work of the Mini&s;try? Is the Pa&s;tour &s;ent by God to perfect the Saints, and will not God perfect the Pa&s;tour for the performance of pa&s;torall duties, that the Saints may be perfected? Hath God &s;ent Pa&s;tours to in&s;truct the Saints that the <HI>Saints may no longer be children,</HI> and mu&s;t the Pa&s;tours &s;till <HI>remaine children, and bee &s;et to read prayers out of book, like very children?</HI> Away with &s;uch ridiculous and vaine conceites. But if the common people who have been nur&s;ed up in ignorance and &s;uper&s;tition, will not part with their old cu&s;tomes, and are re&s;olved to keep this Service-Book, let it bee then con&s;idered whether the <HI>Queen and the Prelates and the Romane Catholique-&s;ubjects,</HI> (I mu&s;t not &s;ay <HI>Rebels, Engli&s;h and Iri&s;h, now after the Iri&s;h Pacification,</HI> whom the Queen and the Bi&s;hops have &s;tirred up) are likely to plea&s;ure the people in this particular? It is well known that the <HI>great Prelates doe not like this Common-Prayer-Book,</HI> they com|po&s;ed one a great deale wor&s;e, and &s;ent it into <HI>Scotland;</HI> I am per&s;waded the mo&s;t ignorant people would <HI>lo&s;e their deare&s;t bloud rather then receive that Common-Prayer-Book which was &s;ent into Scotland,</HI> and they mu&s;t expect that or a wor&s;e, if the <HI>Bi&s;hops may have their will.</HI> And &s;ure if the Queen may prevaile with the Bi|&s;hops, or the <HI>Je&s;uits with the Queen,</HI> the common people &s;hall not have, no not that Common-Prayer-Book (which was &s;ent into <HI>Scotland</HI>) in <HI>Engli&s;h;</HI> they mu&s;t have it, or the very <HI>Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> in Latine, <HI>that's plaine Engli&s;h;</HI> nay, believe it good people, the Queen and her party are likely to take <HI>away not only this Common-Prayer-Book, but even the Bible al&s;o, and not leave you &s;o much as the Word of God in Engli&s;h.</HI> Oh, but if the Common-Prayer-Booke bee taken away, what Religion &s;hall wee have? Why &s;ure, that Religion, which Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles had before there was any Common-Prayer-Book, for they left us none, and Chri&s;tians had none for the fir&s;t 300 yeeres; Your Religion is many hundred
<PB N="21" REF="12"> yeeres more ancient then this Common-Prayer-Book, the Pri|mitive Religion is the old Religion. Bee content then with a Di|rectory, and if any man pray non-&s;en&s;e, bla&s;phemy, &amp;c. hee &s;hall bee puni&s;hed for not ob&s;erving the pious and prudent directions given.</P>
<P>But though <HI>this Forme</HI> pre&s;cribed in the Service-Book be a <HI>Dead Form,</HI> yet for their &s;akes who compo&s;ed it, <HI>let it be honourably buried.</HI> I need &s;ay no more of the Prelaticall errours; all that they have to plead now, is the Law of the Land, and that is much in&s;i&s;ted on by &s;ome. Fir&s;t, I wonder they &s;hould now come to plead <HI>Ius humanum,</HI> who have bragged &s;o much that they were <HI>Iure Divino,</HI> and given out that they would not hold their Bi&s;hopricks an houre, if they could not prove that they held them by <HI>Divine Right.</HI> Secondly, Thi&s; ca&s;e being propounded to a great Lawyer and Antiquary in th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> Kingdome, it was re&s;olved by him, <HI>That the Hierarchy ab|iured in this Covenant, was never e&s;tabli&s;hed by Law in England.</HI> Third|ly, though there w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s a Prelacy forged by the Canon-Law, and that Law too much received in time of Popery, yet by the &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion of the Clergy in the 25^t^h of <HI>Henry</HI> the 8^t^h, that Law was clearely aboli&s;hed, and con&s;equently all Arch-Bi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops, Arch-Deacons, &amp;c. depending upon the Authority, and drawn from the grounds and rules of the Canon-Law, are aboli&s;hed. Fourthly, the Bi&s;hops have had power to exerci&s;e Iuri&s;diction in <HI>England</HI> by ver|tue of the High-Commi&s;&s;ion, but the Act pa&s;&s;ed again&s;t the exerci&s;e of that power in the High-Commi&s;&s;ion, hath made their Commi&s;&s;i|on void, and their Authority of none effect. Fiftly, that Statute of provi&s;o's which they brag of, wil not advantage them, for by that it appeares that they were &s;et up <HI>to informe the people of the Law of God&punc; and to make Ho&s;pitalities, and Almes, and other works of Charity,</HI> and this they may do &s;till according to their ability. This ca&s;e be|ing propounded to a great State&s;man, whether the Prelates, who have engaged them&s;elves in this Antichri&s;tian warre, &s;hould not have a legall tryall? His an&s;wer was, <HI>We give Law to an Hare, but we give a polt to a polt-cat.</HI> Dr <HI>Hall</HI> (as hath been &s;hewn) &s;aith the Bi&s;hops <HI>might give Mar&s;hall law:</HI> and now it &s;eemes they mu&s;t <HI>&s;uffer Mar&s;hall law.</HI> Sure a Prelate in Armes, and a Prelate Confederate with the <HI>Iri&s;h Rebels of the Spani&s;h faction,</HI>
<PB N="22" REF="13"> may thank him&s;elfe if he get a polt, and will de&s;erve but part of Cardinall <HI>Richelieu</HI> his Epitaph, if he get a victory.</P>
<Q LANG="lat"><L>Hic jacet</L>
<L>Sacerdos in Ca&s;tris;</L>
<L>Theologus in Aul&acirc;;</L>
<L>Epi&s;copus &s;ine grege;</L>
<L>Cardinalis &s;ine galero;</L>
<L>Rex &s;ine nomine;</L>
<L>Qui &s;pirare de&s;iit, &amp; Timeri,</L>
<L>Quo migravit Sacramentum e&s;t.</L></Q>
<P>So much for Prelates; <HI>Even &s;o let all thine enemies peri&s;h O Lord, but let them that love thee, bee as the Sunne when he goeth forth in his might, that England and Ireland, and all the Reformed Churches may have re&s;t,</HI> Amen, Amen. <HI>Judg.</HI> 5.31.</P>
<P>But a word or two at this time to the <HI>Antinomians;</HI> for cer|tainly they have very little rea&s;on to cry out again&s;t this Cove|nant, unle&s;&s;e they are offended with the Go&s;pel, as well as with the Law; for the &s;innes &s;pecified in this Covenant are &s;innes directly again&s;t the Go&s;pel, and will they deny that we are too humbled for &s;innes again&s;t the Go&s;pel al&s;o? who is there who hath not good cau&s;e to cry guilty, and acknowledge that he hath not as he ought, <HI>valued the ine&s;timable benefit of the Go&s;pel?</HI> Oh! the under-valuing of the Go&s;pel of the Lord Ie&s;us is a crying &s;inne, our <HI>&s;inne will cry, if we doe not.</HI> O let us loath our &s;elves becau&s;e wee have not laboured <HI>for the purity and power of the Go&s;pel,</HI> that wee have not endeavoured to <HI>receive Christ</HI> in our hearts, nor to <HI>walk worthy</HI> of him in our lives: The&s;e, the&s;e, are <HI>&s;inning &s;innes,</HI> the cau&s;es of other &s;innes and tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions &s;o much abounding among&s;t us. Doe we not in the clo&s;e of the Covenant be&s;eech the Lord to &s;trengthen us by his holy Spirit, that we may be enabled to keep this Covenant? <HI>as that a Legall prayer?</HI> O but we &s;wear to pre&s;erve the Di&s;cipline and Government in the Church of <HI>Scotland;</HI> True, but we &s;weare <HI>only to pre&s;erve it again&s;t our common enemies.</HI> and &s;ure the <HI>Antinomians</HI> will grant that the Di&s;cipline of the Church of <HI>Scotland</HI> is farre bet|ter then <HI>Engli&s;h Prelacy,</HI> or down right Popery. But are there no defects in that Di&s;cipline? admit there be, yet neverthele&s;&s;e <HI>&s;o farre
<PB N="23" REF="13"> forth as they have attained, let it bee pre&s;erved:</HI> If the Moone have &s;pots, mu&s;t it bee plucked from the Firmament? and if a Church have defects, mu&s;t wee &s;uffer it to be ruined by an Antichri&s;tian faction, which &s;eeks the ruine of all Churches which de&s;ire a thorow-Reformation. Finally, the Church of <HI>Scotland</HI> is willing to &s;ee her defects, if you can &s;hew them, they will give you thanks, and reforme ac|cording to their Covenant; they de&s;ire that all three King|domes may bee brought to the neere&s;t conjunction and uniformity in Religion and Forme of Church Govern|ment according to the Word of God. It is confe&s;&s;ed on all &s;ides, that as the E&s;&s;entials of Government are pre&s;cri|bed, In&s;tituted, and Con&s;tituted in the Word: &s;o there are divers circum&s;tances which are to bee ordered by the generall Rules in the Word, the <HI>particular Ca&s;es mu&s;t be Referred to Chri&s;tian prudence.</HI> Wee have in this Co|venant many motives &s;et before our eyes; <HI>The glory of God, the advancement of Chri&s;ts Kingdome, the honour and happine&s;&s;e of the Kings Maje&s;ty and his Po&s;terity, the due publike Liberty, &s;afety and Peace of the Kingdomes.</HI> The glory of God which is fir&s;t named is the la&s;t and ut|mo&s;t end, the re&s;t are but &s;ubordinate ends, or rather meanes to procure that la&s;t end: Come then, agree for &s;hame, if the glory of God doe not move thee, thou den ie&s;t thy &s;elfe to be a <HI>creature,</HI> for thou art not moved with that which was the end of thy creation, the glory of God; if the advancement of Chri&s;ts Kingdom doth not move thee, thou denye&s;t thy &s;elfe to bee a <HI>Chri&s;tian;</HI> if the honour and happine&s;&s;e of the King and his Po&s;terity doth not move thee, thou denye&s;t thy &s;elfe to bee a <HI>Subject;</HI> if publike liberty doth not invite thee, thou art a <HI>&s;lave;</HI> if &s;afety doth not per&s;wade thee, thou art <HI>de&s;perate;</HI> if peace cannot charme thee, thou art <HI>Implacable.</HI> Come then, you that have any <HI>Faith</HI> in God, any <HI>love</HI> to God, any <HI>zeale</HI> for God, any <HI>loyalty</HI> to your King, any <HI>naturall affection</HI> to your Countrey, any <HI>charity</HI> for <HI>Ireland, Scotland,</HI> &amp;c.
<PB N="24" REF="14"> any <HI>Prudence and Providence</HI> for Po&s;terity, any <HI>&s;en&s;e of Religion,</HI> any beliefe that there is a God, and that there will bee a day of Iudgement, I be&s;eech you, I be&s;eech you, as you will an&s;wer it at that day, deale hone&s;tly with the Searcher of hearts, and expre&s;&s;e your &s;incerity, zeale, and con&s;tancy, in making, and in keeping this Covenant with the Lord of Hoa&s;ts.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="imprimatur">
<P>Librum hunc cui titulus <HI>(The Second Part of the Un-deceiver)</HI> perlegi, nec quicquam in eo reperio quo minus cum &s;umm&acirc; utilitate Imprimatur.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Ia. Cranford.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
<PB REF="14">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
