this Poem; yet from the Circumstances of his being compared to Sir Samuel Luke, Part 1. Cantor. line. 906,&c. it is fcarce probable, that he was intended, it being an uncommon thing to compare a Perfon to himself: that the Scene of Action was in Western Clime; whereas Bedfordshire is North of London; and that he was credibly inform'd by a Bencher of Grays-Inn, who had it from an Acquaintance of Mr. Butler's, that the Perfon intended, was Sir Henry Rosewell of Ford-Abbey in Devonshire. Thefe indeed would be probable Reafons, to deprive Bedforshire of its Hero, did not Mr. Butler in his Memoirs of 1649. give the fame Defcription of Samuel Luke; and in his Dunftable Downs exprefly ftyle Sir Samuel Luke, Sir Hudibras. And from the fham Second Part, publifh'd 1663. it appears, that the Bear-baiting was at Brentford, which is Weft of London, and this might induce him to fay, Part 1. Canto 1. v. 677.

In Western Clime there is a Town, &c.

The defign of the Author in writing this Poem, was to expose the Hypocrify and Wickedness of thofe, who began and carried on the Rebellion, under a Pretence of promoting Religion and Godliness; at the fame time that they acted against all the precepts of Religion. But in order to understand the feveral Difputes between the Knight and Squire, it may be proper to give an abstract of their Forms of Church, Government and Worship, which may be a Clue to guide us through feveral parts of the Poem, which to the generality of Readers may be thought not a little intricate. And firft, to give fome account of the Prefbyterian Scheme of Church Government, as they endeavoured to have it fet up here: and likewife of the Independent Scheme, (whom the Anabaptifts alfo, fuch as Ralph was, agreed with in this Point, though they differ'd about Infant Baptism, who were also for a fort of Church Government, but very different from That of the Prefbyterians.) I think This. the more neceffary, because little of it is to be found in our Hiftories of thofe Times: and without fome knowledge

A 3

knowledge of their feveral Schemes, many things, particularly the Rubs the Squire gives the Knight in this Poem, and the Difputes between them, are not to be understood.

According to the Prefbyterian Scheme, every Parifh was to have a Paftor or Minifter, and Two Ruling Elders, who were Lay-Men, to be chofen by the Parishioners, and one or more Deacons to be chofen in the fame manner, who were to receive the Alms collected at the Church Doors, and to distribute them as directed by the Minifter, and Ruling Elders: and they had a Scribe to regifter what they did. It was a ftanding Maxim, That in all cafes, there fhould be Two Ruling Elders to One Minifter, and thefe governed by the whole Parish in Matters relating to Church Difcipline. And if the Parish was small, as fome Country Parishes are, and had not Two Perfons in it fit to be Ruling Elders, it was immediately to be under the Government of the Claffis. The Claffis confifted of a Number of Parishes to be united for that purpofe; the Minifters and Elders fo united, being the Ecclefiaftical Governours of all within that Precinct, having the fame Power thus met in a Claffis, over all Perfons within that Precinct, that each Minifter, and his Elders, had over the several Parishes: Then there was a Provincial Synod, or an Affembly of all the Claffes in a whole Country; to which Synod each Claffis fent Two Minifters, and Four Ruling Elders and above thefe, there was to be a National Synod, to which the Provincial Synods were to fend their Deputies; amongst which there were always to be Two Ruling Elders to One Minifter: but what number every Province was to fend to this National Synod is not fet down in any Ordinance, I have yet seen.

The Congregational, or Parochial Eldership or Af fembly, were to meet once a Week, or oftner, and were empower'd by an Ordinance of the Two Houses, dated Die Luna 20 October, 1645. to examine any Perfon complain'd of, for any Matter of Scandal recited in that Ordinance, fuch as Adultery, Fornication,

Drunken

nefs, Curfing, Swearing, Gaming on the Lord's Day, or travelling on that Day without juft occafion; with a multitude of other Matters, filling up one page of a book clofe printed in 4. "This Eldership (fays the "Ordinance) fhall examine upon Oath fuch Witneffes, "as fhall be produced before them, either for acquitting or condemning the Party fo accused, of any "of the Scandalous Crimes aforefaid, not Capital, upon the Testimony of two credible Witneffes at "leaft: and if they are prov'd Guilty of the Crimes they are charged with, then is the Eldership to fufpend them from the Lord's Supper, and Satif"faction shall be given to the Eldership of every

66

Congregation by a fufficient Manifeftation of the "Offender's Repentance, before a Perfon lawfully "convicted of fuch Matters of Scandal, as aforefaid, "and thereupon fufpended from the Sacrament of "the Lord's Supper, be admitted thereto. If any "Man fufpended from the Lord's Supper fhall find "himself griev'd by the Eldership of any Congregation, he fhall have liberty to appeal to the Claffical Eldership, and from thence to the Provincial Affembly, from thence to the National, and from "thence to the Parliament. The Claffical Eldership "was appointed to meet once a Month, the Provincial

66

Affembly twice in a Year, and the National Affembly, when the Parliament pleased to call them. "Thus the Parliament kept the Prefbyterians here, "under their own Rule; but in Scotland, the Nati"onal Affembly would acknowledge no Superior, in " what they thought fit to call Spirituals."

The Independents were fo called, because they maintain'd, that every Congregation was a compleat Church within itfelf, and ought to have no Dependency as to Matters relating to Religion, or any other Aflembly, Claffical, Provincial, or National, nor on any Civil Magiftrate. They chofe their own Minifter, and That choice gave him fufficient Authority to preach without any Ordination: whereas, the Pref byterians

byterians required, that every Minifter fhould be Ordain'd by laying on the Hands of the Presbytery: The Independents alfo allow'd any Gifted Brother, that is, any one who thought himself qualified, to preach and pray in their Affemblies himself: and though Independent Teachers got Parish Churches, and Good Livings as well as the Presbyterians, preached in them, and receiv'd the Profits of them; yet all their Parifhioners were not properly their Congregation: they were their Hearers indeed, that is, fuch as might hear them preach, but not fuch unto whom they would adminifter Sacraments: They had a felect Company for that purpose out of feveral Parishes, who enter'd a Covenant with Him they chofe for their Minifter, and with one another, to walk by fuch Rules as they thought proper to agree upon, and to appoint Elders, who together with their Minifters were to have a fort of Rule over the Congregation: I fay, a Sort of Rule, because I think, there lay an Appeal to the whole Congregation. In this Covenant the Rulers promised in the prefence of Chrift, to rule faithfully, diligently, and couragioufly in the Faith, and in the Fear of God, &c. and the Ruled promised to obey their Rulers, and submit to them according to the Word of God. Thefe Covenants have dif ferent Terms in different Congregations, for, as they are all Independent one from an other, no Congregation can impofe a Form upon an other. There is a long Covenant of this kind which was entered into by the Congregation of Mr. Richard Davis of Rothwell in Northamptonshire, printed in the year 1700. And Mr. Daniel Williams, a famous Independent Minifter (who as the News Paper faid, died worth Fifty Thousand Pounds) in a Letter which he wrote to a rich Widow who had left his Congregation, puts her in mind of the Covenant fhe entered into, faying,, "Did not you before God "and his Angels, renew your Baptifmal Covenant "and accept Me as your Paftor, and folemnly en

66 gage

'

66

gage to walk in Subjection to Chrift's Appoint"ment? If you have forgotten it, yet know it is "recorded on High, and not forgotten by God. "And how often have you witneffed it at the Table "of the Lord! Does not Chrift who appointed a special "Relation between People and their Paftors, ac"count you to be related to me as your Pastor; "and does he not therefore command you to obey me, as having the Rule over you; and to fubmit your felf to me according to His Word?" There is a great deal more to the fame purpofe. This Letter with Remarks upon it by Mr. Dorrington, was printed for Henry Clements, 1710. Thus the Independent Minifters, though they plead ftrenuously for Liberty of Confcience, yet take care to hamper the Confciences of all that joyn with them, by impofing upon them a Covenant of Their own contriving. And that fuch a Covenant was ufed by the Independents when they firft began to fhew themselves, in the Times of which Mr. Butler writes, we learn, from a small Pamphlet printed in the year 1647. the Title of which is, What the Independents would have: written by John Cooke of Gray's Inn, Barrister, which I take to have been John Cooke, who was afterward the Regicide. There he fays, p. 4. concerning an Independent, "He thinks no Man will be Godly, "unless he promises to be fo, therefore wonders, "that any Christian should speak against a Church "Covenant, which is no more, than to promife to "do that by God's Affiftance, which the Gofpel re"quires of Him." of Him." This is a full Proof that the

Independents at that time, ufed what they called, A Church Covenant, as well as they have done it fince, and I fuppofe continue to do fo ftill. They admit all Perfons to be their Hearers, but account none to be properly of their Church or Congregation, how conftantly foever they attend their Prayers or Sermons, and contribute to the Maintenance of their Ministers, except they alfo fign that Covenant.

The