Israel had sworn unto them and Saul sought to slay them in zeal to the children of Israel Therefore in the Septuagint we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Saul and upon his house Injustitia in morte sanguinum ejus pro eo quod morti tradidit Gibeonitas for that he delivered the Gibeonites to death Injustice it is not said Perjury but injustice and blood is laid upon him and his house and so severely punished 22. Secondly the Covenant was sworn say you in Mr. Croftons words by those P. 45. Real capacities Noble Men Knights Gentlemen Citizens Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts which pass and will pass to our Successours whilest England is England and therefore it is Juramentum reale and obligeth the whole Nation for ever 23. But it is to be remembred before we conclude so confidently that though the Proem runs thus We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses and Ministers of the Gospel as well as Commons of all sorts have so Resolved and Determined yet most Noblemen Barons Knights Citizens Burgesses Ministers and Commons of all sorts had not thus Resolved and Determined when the Covenant was penn'd or publish'd 24. For it was brought from Seotland and by a few men at first a little altered in England and then by an Order of some of the Commons printed and published 25. Now if this be to make a Real and National Covenant three or four private persons may as easily write over these great words and as easily oblige the whole Nation and Posterity for ever but this is ridiculous 26. Again 't is certain that many individual Persons from the King the Nobles Barons Knights Burgesses Citizens Ministers and Commons of all sorts never took the Covenant but ever as occasion was offered declared their abhorrency of it 27. Yea the Popish the Milignant and the Prelatical Parties which certainly were then no mean part of the Nation if not the greatest are supposed in the Covenant it self to be enemies to it and are indeed sworn against it And are these obliged by the same Covenant and their Posterities after them Are they sworn to oppose and destroy themselves You will not say it 28. Again if these words can create a Real Covenant in your sence not only Scotland who framed it and England who knew not of it for the most part till it was taken but Ireland too and its Posterity are obliged by it and all the Rebels there are taken into Confederation and thousands of people there that never saw it or perhaps never heard so much as that there was any such thing in the world for divers years after this their pretended Obligation by it 29. Truly I thought the Covenanting Party would not have entred into so Solemn a League with a Prelatical Malignant Party much less with Papists and Irish Rebels yet such is the consequence of your Notion of a Real Covenant 30. Moreover this Argument is confuted in the very Proem of the Covenant it self so plainly and evidently that I must needs wonder that so many quick and perceiving eyes should not have discovered it Wherein it saith speaking of the form and manner of giving and taking the Covenant wherein we all subscribe therefore no more do take the Covenant then do subscribe it and beyond all contradiction adds and each one of us for himself then no one for another much less for so many thousands as your Real Notion would infer 31. Therefore the pressers of the Covenant durst not trust your Logick but would have not only Parents but their Children not only Masters but Servants not only Tutors but Pupils and such as were under the tuition of others to subscribe for themselves according to the phrase Every one for himself 32. But to conclude if it be against the very Nature and Essence of an Oath to be any more then personal to binde succession or posterity or to be National and Real as you pretend alas what can words do more then to make a noise to trouble mens minds and to beget trouble in the Church by needless Disputation But that it is so I hope our Casuist whom your selves and all men else admire hath put it out of doubt to your full satisfaction SECT 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters 1. THe third Principle which you intimate I take for granted is That all Persons that took the Covenant are in the same capacity with our selves You say you cannot yield unto it 2. I have laboured to find out your meaning and cannot discover any thing but the exception of the single person that you can stand upon 3. But if you please to review what I said from pag. 93. to pag. 97. you will see your oversight and grant that I did not take it for granted 4. And until you give Answer to the reason there offered as also in some other places of my Book I think I am not at all concerned to trouble you further about it but shall now take up my shield and appear in defence of my particular Arguments CASE VIII Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King CASE IX Whether to violate the Kings Right be not sinful 1. YOu well observe that these two Cases contain my first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful My major Proposition you say is determined in the second of these Cases This you grant in Mr. Crofton's words The proper and adequate Act of Justice is Jus suum cuique the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and People 2. The minor then contained in the first of these Cases is the thing in Controversie viz. whether the Covenant engaging against the Government of the Church or to endeavour to extirpate the same do not violate the Kings Right 3. This I affirm for by such Endeavours the King is injured first as he is the Executor of the Law and in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical Supreme Governour both with respect to his Officers and to his Government secondly as Legislator SECT 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws 1. I Do still affirm That the King is the Supreme Executor of the Law and all inferiour Officers are his Commissioners to execute that Government under him in which he is alone the Supreme Governour as we swear him to be in Church and State for Reges saâ—ro oleo uncti faut capaces spiritualis Juâ—isdictionis 2. Now I say take away the Body of Governours and the Head must fall and if all inferiours be removed where will the Supreme be 3. For Answer hereunto you onely desire my clear Answer to two Enquiries The first of your Queries is in these words 4. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King 5. To this I return my clear Answer No. Yet they are plainly essential to his being a Supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons
Bishops and thus Episcopacy is established by Law 36. But are there not State-Officers that had not their original in the Statute-Laws but only in the Common-Law of this Land as hundred-Constables and Crownets c. will any say that these are not established by law These were before the known written statute Laws and so were Bishops in England before any Christian Laws 37. Indeed methinks the very Concessions of your selves Mr. Crofton yea and of the two Houses of the Long Parliament is as much as my Argument and the Government of the Church can stand in need of 38. You grant in one place of your P. 28. 19. Book your selves that the Government of the Church by Prelacy is not onely limited restrained regulated but directed yea in some things authorized by the Kings Laws I think you will hardly say Usury is so or that any thing Authorized by law can be destroyed but by law And that sufficeth my Argument 39. Again methinks Mr. Crofton decides the Controversie against himself in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 25. There he chargeth the late Bishop of Exon because he pleaded for the Jus Divinuin of Episcopacy that he did confront King and Parliament in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and constitution even from the Statutes of Carlile and the 25. of Ed. 3. declaring against the Pope that Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation Power and Authority 40. Now I conceive this was never said of Usury or indeed of any thing not established by Law For how is this Donation Power and Authority put forth in framing this Creature and Constitution of Parliaments but in Acts of Parliament that is the laws of the land 41. If there be any doubt what judgment the two Houses that imposed the Covenant had touching the Legality of the Government of the Church of England we are satisfied of that by their Applications to his Majesty for the extirpation of it at the I le of Wight 42. Their words are these for the Abolishing of Episcopacy we take leave to say that it is not the Apostolical Bishop which the Bill desired of your Majesty intends to remove but that Episcopacy formerly was established by law in this Kingdom Again onely to put down him by law who was set up by law 43. Note first that the Long Parliament did not doubt but that Episcopacy was establish'd by Law Secondly that the imposens of the Covenant did extend the sence of the Covenant against that which was established by law Thirdly that yet in their own Judgment that which is set up by law is not to be puld down without law These things they saw at last though their many years practice before had contradicted them vid. Biblioth Regi p. 350. CASE XII Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 1. YOu deny that Episcopal Government hath received any more express Establishment by the Acts of Parliament since the Kings Return then it had before but I cannot find that you say it hath received no Establishment thereby onely that its establishment is not more express in the new laws then it was in the Old but that I need not dispute 2. The Establishment of Episcopacy was express enough in my judgment before and if the new laws be found to establish it at all my Argument is not interrupted 3. And truly methinks after 20. years shaking and almost Ruinating we may fairly count the laws that restore this Government upon its leggs again and not only to its quiet and safety but to its liberty and power of exercise should deserve the name of Establishing laws and the Government be thought to be Established by them though it stand upon au elder Bottom which I never denied 4. Besides for a law so far to encourage and Countenance of Government that was troden under foot so long together as to punish all kind of disobedience to it is plainly to re-establish the same 5. I might add we see the King according to law and his own Supremacy hath fill'd the Church again with all the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers and hath set again the whole Frame of Government in the very terms of the Conant over us and thus the Government is Established by law diametrically against the Covenant and then surely the Engagement of the Covenant is as opposite to the law as it is to Episcopacy 6. Consequently whether the Act of Vniformity doth precisely prohibit Endeavours against this Government or not upon which Argument I cannot but acknowledge you are very ingenuous Other laws require obedience to it that were indeed made of old but are now renewd and reinforced by these new laws 7. Therefore the Covenant cannot oblige us against this Government but it doth equally oblige us against these new laws which to do I have at large proved to be sinful and you have said nothing at all to disparage my Arguments 8. You intimate your labour is saved in that point and you need not discuss how far an Oath may bind against law But truly to me this seems to be your proper work and that you have questioned the wrong Proposition all this while I cannot satisfie my self that what ever you pretend that you doubt the legality of Episcopal Government 9. The Exceptions of the Antagonists you mention are answered before and I have no more to do upon this Case but to note one Expression of your own in the close of it 10. You seem to fear Atheism in that which only serves to Vindicate God against our selves His Authority in his Sovereign pre-obligations upon us against and after-Obligations contracted by our selves though by way of Oath and Covenant to the contrary 11. I cannot but believe that Gods preobligation upon us to obey Authority in lawful things is so firm and indissoluble that no Covenant of ours to the contrary can make those things unlawful or warrant disobedience therein 12. This I assert though our Covenant precede the laws requiring such lawful things which needs must pass with abundant Evidence If these after-laws as you affirm do only revive and reinforce those Ancient laws that had obliged us to the same things before we Covenanted to the contrary 13. Now this methinks should have more Piety to God shining in it upon the eyes of such as read and consider then to be capable of the suspition of Atheism or Irreligion though I charge not the contrary with what you fear Treason or Sedition 14. There is nothing said by you on the thirteenth and fourteenth Cases that doth not either consent with me or is not answered already I pass to the fifteenth Case CASE XV. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 1. TOuching the word Endeavour I conceive you ought to have sweat more for though you find much fault with my endeavours about it yet I can find very little correction or amendment
willing to pardon Give me leave to conclude with those notable words of Famous Doctor Collet in his Sermon p. 28. which I desire to do with the same Spirit that he spake them if peradventure it be thought that I have passed my Bounds or have said anything out of temper forgive it me and ye shall forgive a man speaking out of meer zeal a man heartily lamenting the Decay of the Church and consider the thing it self not regarding my foolishness Consider the miserable end and State of the Church and endeavour your selves with all your Souls and Abilities as he to reform it so I to save it Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace alwayes and by all means Job 29 2. and O that you were as in moneths past My dear Brethren Farewell THE CONTENTS CASE 1. WHether it be lawsul to declare in the words of the first Declaration Page 1 CHAP. 1. Touching the Book of Ordination 1. CHAP. 2 Touching the Book of Common-Prayer 13 SECT 2. Of let us beseech him c. 16 SECT 3. Of popular Responds 21 SECT 4. Of the Holy Table 22 SECT 5. Of the old Translation of the Psalmes 28 SECT 6. Of the Salvation of Infants 30 SECT 7. Of Assent and Consent unfeigned 35 SECT 8. Of the phrase in the Act the use of all things c. 43 CASE 2. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the words of the second Declaration 51 CASE 6. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation on me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church or State 52 CASE 7. Whether any private or single person may lawfully endeavour the Alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 51 SECT 1. Of the dissolving the long Parliament 59 SECT 2. Of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant 66 SECT 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters 68 CASE 8. Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King 76 CASE 9. Whether to violate the Kings Right be not sinful 77 SECT 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws 78 SECT 2. Of the King Right in the Government of the Church 79 SECT 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator 80 SECT 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenent 89 CASE 10. Whether the Covenant to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopacy be against the Laws and consequently sinful 95 CASE 11. Whether the present Church-Government was established by Law before the Covenant was taken 99 SECT 1. Church Government is fixed by Law ibid SECT 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law 100 SECT 3. Church-Government is established by Law 102 CASE 12. Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 114 CASE 15. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 118 SECT 1 Endeavour is distinguished 120 SECT 2. Of the Acts of Endeavour justified by my Brethren 122 SECT 3. Of Endeavour by popular groans and complaints 127 SECT 4. Of Endeavour by Disputations 128 SECT 5. Whether to petition be to Endeavour properly and in the Act. 131 SECT 6. Whether to Endeavour c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject c. 135 CASE 16. Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 143 CASE 17. Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 145 SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 146 SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against former Oaths and Promises 152 SECT 3. Whether the Covenant can oblige to the laying down of the Ministry 155 CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the words of the first Declaration CAP. I. Touching the Book of Ordination 1. I Find my self inclined whether from the easiness of my Nature or a love of Peace to all just means of a good accommodation especially with Brethren And confess in a Temptation upon me to use such Mediums as in my own observation are least disputed by my opponents because it is the easiest way to encounter and the likeliest to reconcile them For the nearer I am to my adversary the fairer is my advantage to lay hold upon him and when we are agreed in the premises I cannot but hope for a good Conclusion 2. Such as are friends to Conformity could not choose but discover this peaceable design of my last Book viz. the Grand-Case c. Though give me leave to Note that you my dissenting Surveyers of it seem not to apprehend it by your great mistake even of the first Argument therein improved by which mistake alone you labour to avoid the Consequence of it 3. I distribute the first of the Declarations into two parts The first part concerns the Liturgy The second the Book of Ordination I begin with this second part touching the Book of Ordination and determine thus 4. It is lawful to declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the form and manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons and I do indeed conclude this partly from the practice of many of your selves who had formerly subscribed as much in â—our subscriptions to the 39. Articles 5. This you say is an Argument à facto ad jus and not concluding and if it be absolutely considered as it is by you I confess as much but if it be Argumentum ad homines and bear open respect to the persons with whom I dispute as I plainly intended it methinks it carrieth force enough 6. For in Charity we reckon that such as did formerly subscribe did it in judgement and Conscience neither have we râ—â—son to believe that they are dissatisfied with their former subscriptions in point of Conscience until they have told the world so much and given us the grounds of such their Conviction and till then why may we not conclude à facto ad jus against such as have formerly subscribed what they now refuse Viz. That by their former practice not yet disclaimed as against their Conscience themselves conceive this part of the declaration to be lawful and that they may lawfully declare accordingly 7. Most have done a thing therefore all may lawfully do it is indeed bad Logick But that which you judge you may lawfully do you cannot say you may not do it Now I only assume that you judge you may lawfully do that which you have formerly done and if this fail I think it yet lies upon you to shew us and the world the reason why 8. But a little more plainly my Argument lay thus Those that have subscribed this part of the Declaration already in the 39. Articles and read their allowance of it openly to their several Congregations and that are convinced that had not this been required in the new Declaration no Conformity
better entertainment with you 4. You observe I make my first onset by Doctor Sanderson's distinction of Juramentum illicitum de se per accidens You farther say I grant that the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful you intimate that I hold it only sinful by accident 5. My dear Brethren I cannot forbear to tell you that you make too much haste stumble at the threshold you fall both upon that Reverend Person and my self with too plain mistakes 6. The Bishops distinction which you intend is not that of illicitum per se vel per accidens I do not here use that distinction I do not grant that the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful much less that the matter of the Covenant is sinful per accidens only The truth is both the Bishop and my self in the very places your words refer to do more then once say quite contrary to what you affirm in all which will you but take the pains to read over again that Chapter in Doctor Sanderson's Book and in mine that are here concern'd your own eyes shall judg betwixt us 7. The place you intend in Bishop Sanderson's Book is Pag. 71 72. Sect. 9. the Case is Deâ—â—re illicitâ Secundariò wherein indeed he is so directly against you that it is much so many eyes should not observe it 8. A thing saith he is unlawful secundarîo when it is not so in its own nature or to all persons Sed quibusdam tantùm pro conditione fuarum personarum prout sunt membra alioâ—jâ—â— câ—mmuâ—â—tatis anâ—â—ins certo aliqua vitae genere versanturie illicitum enim idque ex se non ex accidente tantùm his qui sunt membra alicujus communitatis quicquid legibus illius communitatis repugnat His reason there is because it is forbidden by God though not primario yet secundariò that is in the command of obedience to our Governours and consequently the Laws of the Land 9. Now that your discourse of this distinction intends this very place of the Bishops Book you give us a full demonstration in your next words following 10. You say you must make bold to mind me that the Learned Casuist hath determined the Case with an Ordinariè Haec juramenta ordinariè non obligant meaning such Oaths as are taken to do a thing that is thus evil not simply absolutely or to all persons but to us that by reason of our places are not allowed to do it they ordinarily do not bind 11. I acknowledg he subjoyns though nothing to your advantage Ordinariè dico quia fortasse possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari si non debuerit suscipi susceptum tamen potest obligari 12. You add That the Advocates of the Covenant think they may bring the Covenant within our Casuist's exception but upon an unbiassed reading our Casuist's following explication of himself there is nothing more evident then the contrary herein also your selves shall be Judges 13. Yet first give me leave to note our Casuist's Caution is with a fortassis perhaps such a Case may be he never thought you know he never said the Case of the Covenant was such yea his videtur adds no strength to the exception that is when the Oath seems but seems to be against the Laws of Community but that he might leave no room for the scruple he hath explained himself in his own Instance in a disjunctive penal Law 14. His Case is this Let the Law of the City be saith he that no man being chosen to the Office of a Pretor shall refuse it or if he do he shall find such a sum of Mony Caius swears he will never be Pretor but after his Oath he is chosen to that Office The Question our Casuist puts hereupon is Whether Caius be bound to keep his Oath or not and answer it thus he ought not to have sworn but having sworn he ought to keep his Oath and pay the Fine 15. Now how far this is from the Case of the Covenant in it self I need not say and how far it was so in the judgement of our great casuist his following Discourse doth sufficiently Demonstrate 16. I would here saith he be understood Praecisè in quantum adversatur legi Civitatis Nam respectu finis aut alterius causae imo respectu ipsius etiam Materiae quatenus est impeditiva majoris boni publici aut aliunde potest justa subesse ratio quae Obligationem tollat 17. Now admitting this exception of the Rule it is not possible to apply it to the Covenant however if the Covenant could be granted by some thing extraordinary in it to be excepted also yet you see the Casuist hath provided several other Topicks to render it non-obliging from the end or the very matter it self if it may hinder a greater publick good aut aliunde potest justa subesse ratio quae obligationem tollat 18. Give me leave also to remember you that I made my meaning touching the said distinction plain enough I did not distinguish as you assert I did That the thing sworn might be illicitum per se vel per accidens but I rather distinguish'd of illicitum per se as to the matter of the Covenant and that was either simply and primarily evil or secondarily and quoad nos when though it be not sinful in the primary consideration of it yet to such and such persons it is sinful that is forbidden by God as I did sufficiently explain my self 19. I did further conclude that a thing thus sinful quoad nos as being some way or other prohibited us to meddle with is illicitum per se secundariò and therefore not only so per accidens Thâ—se are my words To them to whom a thing is forbidden it is as it were unlawful in it self as the Apple to our first Parents and as it is unlawful for us it goes into the matter of the Covenant which we take and by consequence that which is only unlawful to us if sworn doth make that Oath unlawful in it self that is in the very matter of it 20. So that the Consequence being granted if this be proved that it is unlawful in either sence either simply or quoad nos to endeavour the Extirpation of Church-Government we may bring the difference to an happy conclusion 21. But I rather chose to argue upon the latter branch that to alter the Government of the Church is unlawful quoad nos and that because it is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledges of Parliament the Liberty of the Subject and the former Obligations that lay upon the Nations all which I am bound to defend CASE VII Whether any private or single person may lawfully endeavour the Alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 1. TO that which I have said upon this
Ecclesiastical 6. Supream doth necessarily suppose and respect Inferiours and Supream Governour Inferiour Governours 7. Your second Query is this Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Archbishops Bishops c. taken away the head must needs fall 8. To this I hope I may clearly Answer that the removing of the inferiour Governours hath a Natural tendency to the falling of the Head as such that is the Head of them or the Supreme but hath no natural ordination to the substitution of other kind of Governours 9. There is nothing in the pulling down of the walls that goeth into the support of the roof nothing in pulling down Arch-bishops and Bishops c. that serves to uphold the Supremacy of the King in governing the Church but to destroy it as the twenty years experience past doth sadly demonstrate SECT 2. Of the Kings Right in the Government of the Church 1. THe second Medium I use to prove that endeavours to extirpate Episcopal Government you observe to be this that thus to endeavour is not only against the Kings Right as Executor of the Laws by opposing and seeking to destroy his Commissioners but his very government it self and this is the express sence of the Covenanters that according to the Covenant they are bound in the whole course of their lives against that Government which they know is the Kings Ecclesiastical Government 2. This you grant only you say the Covenanters do not mean such endeavours as I mention Again you plead that some others deny the Government of the Church to be the Kings Government because they find it not established by the Laws of the Land whereof it is his Right to be Executor and this is all you say only touching these things here you refer their discussion to their proper places where I intend God willing to meet them again SECT 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator 1. AGain you note that I argue to endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Kings Right as Legislator as the maker as well as the Executor of the laws as appears by that sence of the Covenant which the practice of the Covenanters hath put upon it 2. To this you answer that the terms do so condition it that it doth not appear to engage us to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy without the Kings Consent 3. Here I must have leave to remember you that though it be true the terms of the Covenant which you specifie are soft and mild viz. through the grace of God in our places and callings yet there are other expressions visible in it that do more then seem to exact such proceedings as were veâ—y inconsistent with our places and callings or the grace of God viz. to our power and with our lives and fortunes 4. What need was there then of our power or lives and fortunes to be exposed in such endeavours but in opposing the King and his Army and how could that possibly be done in the present matter of endeavour to extirpate Prelacy but by Acting therein without the Kings consent and against his express mind to the contrary so that take a true measure of the Covenant by all such terms together as in fair reasoning we must needs do and it is too too evident that it puts us on endeavours that have no regard to the Kings consent at all 5. Besides if the true extent of endeavour covenanted be yet in doubt you would force me to resolve it by that black Comment of the state of things when the Covenant was press'd at first from the occasion of it which as the King sadly observ'd was that fatal confederacy with the Scots for their invading this Kingdome with Arms. The obvious and declared judgement of the Scots that created it touching the place and power of publick conventions and private persons in such matters The sudden course which the two Houses took to demolish this Government and that by virtue of the Covenant and to bring in another 6. These things I say soberly considered and pondered upon methinks should rationally and satisfactorily Evince to such sober persons as I am Treating with that endeavour in the sence of the Covenant it self and the prime Covenanters doth intrench souly upon the Kings Prerogative and Crown Notwithstanding those other small saint and after endeavours with the King to ratifie what they had laboured with all their power in a way of Hostility so long together to do without him and against his most signal express dissent so often reiterated 7. Which little endeavours to procure his consent I imagine you would hardly have mentioned had you had in your mind that at the same time the King was at least quasi a prisoner and was denied by the same persons that treated him the liberty to repair to the place where according to the Order of the Kingdom he useth to add his fiat to the making of Laws I mean the Parliament House 8. Further I am loth to remember that even then when the King at the I le of Wight and his two Houses were neerest to an accommodation the force of such endeavours as the Covenant exacted provoked them to reply to his Majesties papers that they were yet unsatisfied as to an agreement with and reception of his Majesty because he would only grant them a suspension of Episcopal-Government for 3. yeers and not an eternal extirpation of it for which they had covenanted vid. Biblioth Reg. p. 153. 9. But to return to the Covenant it self the close of it doth effectually conclude that in its prime and native intention it least of all regarded the Consent of the King and as to any such thing it was utterly desperate 10. The words are these We shall all the dayes of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever and what we are not able our selves to suppress or over come we shall râ—veal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed 11. Now I beseech you to consider here is a promise to continue in this cause which refers no doubt to the whole or the main matter of the Covenant Now as the Author of the Covenanters plea observes the main scope of the Covenant is against Church-Government to which all other things seem subordinate Therefore this same last Article repeats the beads of this common cause and begins it with Religion that is the Reformation of Doctrine Worship and Discipline and the extirpation of Episcopal Government The words are this common Cause of Religion Liberty and peace of the Kingdomes 12. Now in this Cause observe They swear to continue zealously and constantly all the dayes of their lives and what is the plain sence of that the King being known to be then in the fields and in arms agaâ—nst the Covenanters I say what can the plain sence be but that they would continue
therein though the King himself should forbid Though the King should deny his Assent and declare his most express Dissent and threats against it yet they would persist therein all the dayes of their lives 13. Yea though King and Parliament as is now come to pass should make Laws against it they must be zealous and constant in this common Cause so little regard will the Covenant allow to this day to the Kings Consent 14. Yet heed what follows against all Opposition and promote the same against all lets and impediments whatsoever give me leave to say though this Opposition these lets and impediments be from the King himself as you know they were at this very same time This being imposed by the two Houses and taken by the people and the King himself in Arms to defend his own and the Churches Government 15. Pray resolve where then was the King Consent or if the King please to be understood in the Covenant 16. Moreover doth not this Article which is the close and perfection of the rest plainly engage to such endeavours as carry opposition too Be your selves the judges the words are against all opposition how can you be engaged to endeavour against all opposition but by opposition against all opposition but by opposing all oppositions even that which the King himself should make or rather indeed did make 17. Now how you can oppose the King or the opposition made by him and his commission and yet understand his consent in the same matter I think you will not go about to inform me 18. Once more that the endeavours of the Covenant carry force and opposition in them according to the Grammatical Construction and Logical resolution of the same appears in that Power is engaged to our Power and Power in order to the suppressing and overcoming the opposers for it is added and what we are not able our selves to suppress c. by our own power and on the other hand we shall assist and Defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof 19. Which expressions I should abhor to infer it did not my Argument force it do beyond all capacity of Contradiction engage the Covenanters in a party to live and dy together in an hostile way of Opposition against the King and his Armies and Friends in a pursuit of the ends of the Covenant 20. Which cannot consist with the places of Subjects or lawful endeavours or Possibly suppose the Kings consent 21. I cannot rejoyce to conclude that this meaning of the Covenant was expressed at first by the prime inventors and contrivers of the Covenant such words as these you find in a Declaration called the Declaration of the convention of Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland 22. To our knowledg say they upon swearing and subscribing of this League and Covenant the opposite Malignant partie will rage and Tumultuate more then ever and therefore unless we will either betray our Religion Liberties and Law and all that we and ours do possess and suffer our selves to be cut off and massacred by the bloody and barbarous cruelty of those our enraged enemies There is a necessity of taking Arms for mutual defence 23. Lastly That the Kings Consent was little intended or understood in the Covenant is yet more manifest if it be considered that it was not only made and published and pressed without notice given him and at such a time too and condition of affairs as had served the King from the Covenanting party but it was still carried on against the Kings dislike and express dissent and prohibition of it in a timely and solemn Proclamation against it SECT 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenant 1. THe King was pleased upon the first hearing of the Covenant published in Print by the Order of the Commons which I conceive was sometime before the Order of the Lords and Commons for the tendring and taking of it to issue out his Proclamation from his Court at Oxford entituled His Majesties Proclamation forbidding the tendring and taking of the Covenant called the solemn League and Covenant for Reformation 2. The Vse of this Proclamation in the present controversie is two-fold First it Demonstrates beyond all contradiction that the intention of the Covenanters did not regard the consent of the King which runs clearly against the Kings Supremacy Secondly It renders the Covenant void even from its creation before ever it was ordered to be taken For Datur irritatio Juramenti aliquando per superiores si in illa ipsa materia sâ—nt superiores cirea quam Juramentum versatur 3. Now so far as the Goverâ—ment of the Church cannot be altered but by Law it is under the power of the King at least not to alter it He having a Negative upon both Houses and the Kings Proclamation having denied his Assent thereunto and proclaimed his prohibition of it thereby voided it long agon according to the Rule 4. A Rule never disputed grounded evidently upon Scripture and Natural Reason and indeed I find not that your selves do question the Proposition though I confess you put me to a task that I little expected by doubting the Assumption 5. You say It remaineth upon you a doubt whether there ever were any such Proclamation you desire me to help you to a Copy of this Proclamation and inform you where to find the Original Concluding that the Obligation without it cannot be voided 6. I hope you do hereby intimate that upon the sight of this Proclamation you will be satisfied that the Obligation of the Covenant was voided at the first therefore I am much encouraged to transcribe it and to inform you where you may find it 7. It is indeed in Print in more books then one of unquestionable credit particularly you have it in a Book called Bibliotheca Regia in terminis thus p. 332. 8. Whereas there is a Printed paper entituled A solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and defence of Religion the Honour and happiness of the King and the Peace and safety of the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Pretended to be ordered by the Commons in Parliament on the 21. day of September last to be Printed and published which Covenant though it seems to make specious pretences of Piety and Religion is in Truth nothing else but a Traiterous and Seditious Combination against us and the established Religion and Laws of this Kingdome in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavours to bring in Forreign forces to invade this Kingdom We do therefore straitly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said Seditious and Traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary to their utmost and extreamest perils Given at our Court at Oxon Oct.
the very constitution of the Kingdom to maintain and defend the Government iv question as he is King 10. It hence irresistably follows that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome and there is an Obligation upon him to defend and to swear to defend before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Episcopacy 11. Yea the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy by any such previous Oath seeing such endeavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath to protect and defend the Bishops and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath against the Bishops it is void ipso facto for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown and bound as King to take it 12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular it is enough that it is not yet altered and that it cannot be Legally altered but by Act of Parliament I am sure you will not say the King much less before he is Crowned hath power of himself or with any others besides his Parlament to make or diminish or alter any known Law especially that which so much concerns his peoples interest security in the oath to be taken at his Coronation 13. Pray therefore observe weigh this Consequence if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand doth void the Coronation Oath required by Law then the King by a private Oaâ—â— may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament the liberty of the Subject and the other great concerns of Magna Charta as well as to extirpate Episcopacy and his Coronation Oath taken afterwards would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land I argue not now from the necessity of the things but from the Obligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them 14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it as Subjects for if we allow its violation in any one part we let go our security in all the rest 15. Moreover 't is certain that though where the Conscience judgeth the matter of a former Oath lawful the Conscience is bound against any future Oath to the contrary yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience 16. Now it is open and plain to all the world that seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bishops passed those Bills for the protection and preservation of Episcopal Government and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature his Conscience will not suffer him to destroy Episcopacy but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful 17. Surely the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience more then to you against yours much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath the bond of his Fidelity and peoples security this hath taken hold upon him and invincibly tieth him under such conviction to preserve his Conscience and his oath and Episcopal Government 18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this appearance and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government against all the evidence He hath given us of it 19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition and seeing we are not to declare whaâ— things are in themselves but what we judg them to be who can possibly stick to declare That he holds the single Person is not bound by to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government 20. Now for any other Person whether the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects how can they or any of them be bound think ye to endeavour to make the King sin and in so high a manner as to violate His Conscience and His solemn sacred Coronation Oath without which he cannot consent as His Royal Father proved with His Life to the extirpation of Episcopal Government 21. Consent I say much less Enact it and yet without both it cannot be legally done neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way but by desiring and labouring to perswade the King thus to Consent and Enact against Oath and Conscience 22. But lest it should be doubted whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding at the Coronation so far as it relates to our Argument and I have done with this great part of my Task 23. I find the Account thus wherein I think I am not Mis-informed 24. After the many other gracious promises which the King makes to his People One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People concerning the Canonical priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protector of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government The King Answereth in these words with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge All Canonical priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power by the Assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 25. Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People to Observe the premises and laying his hand upon the Book saith the things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the contents of this Book 26. Now who can think himself or any other person bound by any Obligation whatsoever to Necessitate so far as in them lies His Sacred Majesty to Violate His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His Inâ—uguration CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 1. I Must still assert the Liberty of the Subject was apparently violated by the Ordinance for the Covenant seeing the Free-holds of so many Several persons and famous Corporations were thus invaded while the Persons and Corporations so deeply concerned had none to Represent them in either house of Parliament when that Ordinance passed 2. This was the Emphasis of my Argument which you little observe and much less answer 3. I am still of the mind in my coldest blood that without Respect to some proportionable demerit it is not sui Juris to the King or Parliament to destroy any person or publique Corporation or to
deprive them of their legal Freeholds especially whilst their Representatives are kept out of Parliament it being against common Justice and the Liberty of the Subject in Magna Charta 4. To conclude admit Mr. Crofton do truly Recite the words in the Petition of Right whereas many of them have an Oath administred to them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm yet my Assertion stands firm enough that the Covenant is against the Petition of Right 5. For it is not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whether you consider the manner of imposing and taking or the very matter of it as hath fully appeared before 6. 'T is true Oaths are given by Colledges and Corporations but are they not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm if not I am not afraid to infer that such as impose them run thereby into a premunire if they are then my argument passeth untouch'd 7. Indeed these particular Oaths are not in so many words found in the Statutes yet who doubts but that the King hath power by the Laws of the Land to grant such Charters and to give Authority to Colledges and Corporations to Administer such Oaths 8. Again who can or dare lay claim to such a power but the King or Administer such Oaths without power from the King much less against his Express will and Proclamation CASE XVII Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 1. I Conclude it is so and therefore void the force of the Consequence cannot be resisted in those excellent words of our great Casuist Obligation Antecedens impedit effectum Juramenti Subsequentis ne possit Obligare Semper enim Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori Irritum facit omnem Actum inductivum novae Obligationis sibi Contrariae 2. I assume there were three strong Cords and bonds of God upon us to the Contrary before ever the Covenant was taken or thought of to Obey Authority to keep our Oaths and promises to Serve the Church in Our Generations which we shal now review in their order SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 1. YOu would perswade us that I affirm this onely upon my former Principles because the Covenant is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledge of Parliament and the Liberty of the Subjects which you conceive are all laid in the dust 2. Perhaps you may find these Principles more potent and vigorous in their Resurrection however though I had a General Reflection upon these former Arguments yet I added a particular force to the present Argument which having raised a Dust it seems you did not see in these words 3. More particularly God first Obligeth us to be Subject and to obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage us to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church the Covenant would discharge us of our obedience and oblige us to Resistance Contrary to Gods express obligation upon us which cannot be 4. God doth immediately by his Word and likewise by the Mediation and interposition of Civil Authority command us to obey to be subject and not to resist our Spiritual Governours the Covenant would engage to break all at once and at once to violate the Laws of God the King and the Church and all Authority 5. Our duty is positive to be subject 2. Negative not to Resist whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God Wherefore we must needs be subject for conscience sake Rom. 13. Now both these are broken by the Covenant the one by omission the other by commission 6. First Our positive duty of obedience and subjection carrieth in it by Universal Consent to defend preserve to honour observe and to be faithful to our Governours now how these are consistent with Endeavours to Extirpate I cannot see 7. Again Our Negative part or Non-resistance is transgressed too by the Apostles Logick not to be subject is to Resist whosoever Resisteth wherefore we must needs be Subject however to Endeavour to Extirpate is too plainly to Resist 8. For Endeavours to Extirpate a Government are both far beyond the compass of Subjection they being no part either of Active or Passive Obedience and deep in the Nature of Resistance most properly taken 9. Endeavours to Extirpate have Action in them and are therefore more then passive Obedience their Action also is Diametrically opposite to Active Obedience 10. Again Endeavours to Extirpate do formally carry Resistance in them yea they are the formal Act of high Resistance not of the Law onely but of the Government it self not in the Action onely but in the very being of it for Extirpation is the end and utmost of Resistance and therefore Endeavour to Extirpate is properly resistance 11. Pray resolve me to what part of our Duty to our Parents will you reduce Endeavours to Extirpate their Government over us or how can such Endeavours square and Conform to the Commands of God and-the Laws of the Land Not to Resist but to be Subject to our Governours Ecclesiastical and Civil 12. 'T is vain to say we are bound to obey he laws yet we may Endeavour to have them changed It is not safe to Argue from the Laws which are but the Rule to our Governours who are the object of our obedience 13. If this consequence be Good upon an Oath taken of the like Nature against the civil power we may hold our selves bound to Endeavour to Extirpate both King and Parliament 14. For Government by Monarchy and the Constitution of Parliaments you will not say they are in themselves Necessary to our civil State and if because Episcopacy is doubted to be Jure Divino you conclude it lawful to swear against it or having so sworn to Endeavour to Extirpate it I dare not undertake to find a way for the civil Government to escape the danger the Inference is easie from Government to Government though the one be in the Church and the other in the State especially seeing we cannot resist the one and not disobey the other SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against Former Oaths and Promises 1. THis I also affirm and consequently that the Covenant was prevented by such Prior Obligations the Case is fully stated in these words of our Reverend Casuist Si cui Juramentum suscipiendum defereratur continens aliquid quod Obligationi priori sive Naturali sive adquisitae adversatur ut si adversetur officio quod parenti debetur aut principi vel si repugnet ei quod Ante liciè juratum fuit vel promissum ejusmodi Juramentum non potest à quoquam salvâ conscientiâ vel praestari vel praestitum ad impleri qui utrumvis fecerit pejeraverit 2. I assume that the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and the Protestation of May 5. 1641. were taken by the Nation before any of the Nation took the Covenant and that the Covenant
in the Second Article is Repugnant to them all 3. In all these you say I was fully prevented by Mr. Crofton and seeing this is all you say against me in these particulars I shall only return you to one who in all of them did as fully prevent Mr. Crofton many years agon 4. He leads us on thus as his Majesty hath sworn expresly to maintain and defend the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. So have we his Subjects implicitely sworn the same as many of us as have taken the Oaths Supremacy of Allegiance and the late Protestation 5. For first his Majesty having sworn so solemnly to maintain and preserve this Government of the Church if any Attempts or Conspiracies should be made against it we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance to maintain and defend his Majesty to the utmost of our power in his endeavouring to make good that his oath of maintaining defending that Government of the Church and the Rights and Priviledges of these Governours against all those Conspiracies and Attempts 6. Secondly we have sworn in our Oath of Supremacy that the Kings Highness is the only Supream of this Realm as well in spiritual things and causes as Temporal and that we shall to our power assist and defend all Jurisdiction Priviledge and Authority granted or elonging to the Kings Highness the Government of the Church being such an Ecclesiastical thing and Cause as that next to the Doctrine of the Church there is not any Ecclesiastical thing or Cause of nearer concernment to the King and whole Kingdome and the Regulating and ordering thereof belonging to his Jurisdiction Priviledge Preheminence and Authority we are obliged by that Oath not only to acknowledge his Majesty to be the Supream Governour in that thing and Cause but also to our power assist and defend that Jurisdiction Priviledge Preheminence and Authority and not to Assay or Endeavour ought concerning the Altering much less the rooting out of that Government without the Kings Consent and Approbation 7. Lastly we having sworn in our late Protestation to maintain and defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and one Article of that Doctrine which the Papists mainly Oppose viz. six and thirty together with several other parts thereof approving and Justifying the Government of this Church it must be granted that we are by this Oath bound so far to maintain and defend that Government as to approve and justifie the lawfulness thereof both in it self and in its Constitution here among us 8. Besides we swore expresly in the same Protestation to maintain and defend the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subject and every person that made that Protestation and therefore in that respect until we are convinced either that Arch Bishops and Bishops c. are no Subjects or that their Right of Governing this Church is not lawful we are bound by that Branch of the Oath not only not to Endeavour the Extirpation of the Government of the Church by them but to the utmost of our power to maintain and defend them in that their Right of Government and every person that took the Protestation in whatsoever he hath since done or shall hereafter do in the maintenance and defence â—thereof Ante-confederacy P. 51. 52. Printed 1644. 9. You believe Mr. Crofton will not stick to allow the Nationality of the Protestation and then the whole Nation was under the Obligation of the Protestation before the Covenant was taken and consequently in those things before recited the Covenant was superseeded and Master Croftons Imaginary Reality and Nationality of the Covenant is thrown to the ground by Mr. Croftons Logick his Position undermined by his Supposition 10. Give me leave also to remember that both in the Oath of Supremacy and the Protestation it was sworn to maintain the Kings Honor as well as his Authority but the Covenant is to endeavour to make the King break his Oath which is plainly contrary to Endeavours to save his Honour 11. The King hath sworn to defend and maintain this Government It is not a necessary Duty from the Word of God to destroy it there is nothing more dishonourable in a King then to break his Faith with his Subjects yea his Oath to them his Oath to defend and protect them and in so deep a measure too by his Extirpation and rooting them out Lastly the Covenant is to endeavour to prevail with the King thus to break his Faith and Oath with his Subjects in a thing in your own judgements not necessary upon him from the Word of God Now avoid the Consequence if you can SECT 3. Whether the Covenant can oblige us to the laying down of our Ministery 1. THirdly I assert we are first obliged to serve the Church in the work of the Ministery and the Obligation of the Covenant can no way disoblige us or discharge us of it 2. The Argument in short is thus No man hath power to put a Bar by any self-contracted Obligation about a thing not necessary in the way of his duty to God or his Church the reason is God hath first in Nature and Scripture obliged him to his duty Est illicitum quicquid bono publico adversatur aut paci Ecclesiast politicae Domesticae Sand. Actus unius non debet praejudicare juri alterius Our own private Act ought not to prejudice the right of another much less God the Church 3 But now to leave our Ministerial office because we will not renounce this part of the Covenant as required by law is to put a Bar in the way of our duty to God and his Church from a self-contracted-obligation about a thing in it self not necessary 4. I spent above 8. pag. in the book surveigh'd by you in the prosecution of this Argument Pray read them over again judge whether you have soil'd much less as you speak of my other Arguments laid it in the dust indeed you have not touched it with one of your fingers 5. This Argument may grant or rather give that it was lawful not to renounce the obligation of the Covenant before this Act was made but now the Act requires it as the condition of continuing in the Ministery the Case is otherwise 6. For the Covenant could not be taken in a matter not â—necessary without such a condition that the performing of it or the non-renouncing of it do not afterwards prove a bar to our duty be understood The Rule is known rebus sic stantibw vel si in eodeÌ„ statu res permanserint upon condition that no sin hereafter be to be committed no injury done no duty omitted by keeping our Oath or any thing truly consequential thereunto 7. There is a Case in Bishop Sanderson that brings us very neer our own Si Filius familias c. If a Son saith he swear to do a thing that is in it self lawful and his father not knowing what his son hath sworn commands
the salvation of baptized Children dying before they commit actual sin Now this is granted to be true of some else the Promise is of none effect to the Children and Baptisme of no efficacy and if it be said to be necessary it must be true of all and you need not doubt to Assent unto it in a universal Proposition 14. Thus Jesus Christ the Text saith Came into the world to save sinners This is a true Proposition whether the matter be necessary or not because it it is certain that he came into the world to save some sinners 15. For if the matter be necessary then it is Universally true if not necessary then it is indefinitely true if he came with a purpose to save all he came to save sinners and if he came not with a purpose to save all yet he came to save some sinners and therefore sinners 16. Once more that Baptisme is for the Remission of sins is a certain Truth or an undoubted proposition grounded on the Scripture be Baptized for Acts â— the Remission of sâ—â—â— 17. This is a Proposition of an indefinite Nature if the matter of it be necessary it is true as I have said Universally where its efficacy is not impeded by the incapacity of the Subject as it is not in Children but if the matter be not necessary the Proposition is still true that is indefinitely 18. To conclude either all such Children are saved or some only in either sendâ— the Proposition being but indefinite is true if all such Children are saved then the Matter is necessary and the Proposition equipollent with an Universal Proposition if some only then the Matter is not necessary and consequently there is no necessity yea no liberty left us to stretch the Proposition which is indefinite both in its Form and Matter unto an Universal signification SECT 7. Of Assent and Consent unfeigned 1. HAving dispatcht your exceptions against the Objects of your Assent and Consent required by the Act. viz. The book of Ordination and the book of Common-Prayer 2. We proceed to review these Acts themselves this unfeigned Assent and Consent upon which a greater stress of Controversie yet remains 3. An Objection that I proposed and Answered in my last book seemed if not to create yet to provoke and very much to heighten this part of the quarrel 4. The Objection that I proposed was this I suppose it might be said by some that though we could use the things it is only for Peace sake and in Obedience to Authority not that we would choose or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves 5. Hereunto I answered as you well note that we may approve a thing absolutely or comparatively or respectively and consequently so give our Assent and Consent unto it and that the Act cannot be thought so strict as to allow of no Assent or Consent but such as ariseth from an absolute approbation of the things themselves without any other extrinsiek considerations that may move and sway us to such an Approbation 6. The Act requires but an unfeigned Assent and Consent and an unfeigned Assent and Consent may arise from such a comparative Approbation as a man may unfeignedly Assent and Consent to his Childs Marriage though he like not the Match very well for the avoiding of some greater inconveniencies that otherwise might happen 7. I further observed that to interpret the Act into such an absolute approbation is against charity to our selves and our Governours and against common reason seeing it is a moral impossibility that all men should be exactly of one minde in so many particulars required of us seeing also the grounds of this Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act but left to our selves and lastly seeing that the very Act it self brings motives with it to perswade us â—o Conformity which would signifie nothing if no consideration of the Case besides the absolute goodness of the things themselves is allowed any force to prevail upon us 8. I therefore conclude that we are left at liberty by the said Act to compare the Consequences of obedience with those of dibedience and accordingly to approve so and declare or not 9. Now let us examine what you say to these things 1. To my argument from charity you answer it only with less Charity 2. To my augment that the grounds of Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act but left to our selves you answer nothing because you mistake it 10. You observe well that I say the grounds of this Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act But how strangely do you Comment upon it 11. If by ground say you I mean the reasons inducing the Legislators to require such an Assent and Consent you must be bold to deny what I affirm Then you shew the grounds in the Act for enjoyning such a declaration of Assent and Consent And this is all you answer 12. Now had I meant as you suppose I confess you had answered me But if my words could not signifie any such thing as upon review you will be easily convinced you have answer'd your selves and not me at all 13. Pray then Consider is there not a difference betwixt the grounds of Assent and Consent and the grounds of the Governours to enjoyn a declaration of Assent and Consent could the scope of my argument or the very words of my proposition intend the latter or not the former 14. The grounds of enjoyning such a declaration are in the Legislators and are the grounds of the Act requiring these indeed are specified in the Act of uniformity But the grounds of Assent and Consent or of declaring the same are in the Subjects and are properly the grounds of obedience to that Act which I must still say are not at all specified in it 15. To my other argument taken from the motives which the Act it self affords us you only say that such Arguments as the avoiding a severe penalty a legal opportunity of serving the Church not shewing our selves crosse to authority c. are bad inducements to an unfeigned Assent and Consent 16. But upon second thoughts I cannot believe you will maintain the Quarrel with such motives as these which have doubtless a divine sanction what more familiar with the Spirit of Scripture then to use such Topicks of wrath threats curses death and Hell it self to disswade from sin and to move towards Heaven and yet I hope the Assent and Consent wrought hereupon is not alwayes feigned or alwayes a faint unfeigned Assent and Consent 17. Neither can I believe that you are tenacious in this because you say it might somwhat satisfie us if we had assurance from our Legislators that such a comparative approbation would satisfy the Law For I conclude from hence that what ever you say there is not even in your apprehensions any inconsistency or contradiction betwixt such a comparative approbation and an unfeigned Assent and Consent Though I can see no
that this term against Law in one Proposition hath not the same sence with against Law in the other and there are four terms in the Argument and nothing concluded as yet against my plain distinction 11. Give me leave to be plain and the sum is this It is not against Law that is it is not unlawful to endeavour against Law therefore to endeavour against Law is not to endeavour against Law and then my distinction of endeavouring against that which is established by Law or against that which cannot be abolished without the alteration or abolition of Law is a poor distinction 12. But you call me off to prove That such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was Covenant-ed was against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent this done you say would much avail but you expect my evidence CASE XI Whether the present Church-Government was established by Law before the Covenant was taken THe sum of what I said upon the Resolution of this Case is reducible to three heads SECT 1. Church-Government is fixed by Law 1. First there is no need that we prove the Government to be established by Law in such a manner as the Covenanters seek for while we find it beyond all controversie that this Form is legal and established in the Laws though no express Statute should be found appointing it and it is so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 2. Now until this be questioned to what end do we trouble our selves any further All that is more then this is exubundanti and hath no necessary place left in the Argument 3. Yet of this whereon the very hinge of the Controverfie turns you have spared the pains to take any notice at all SECT 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law 1. IN the second place I intimated that it seems to me unreasonable to expect such proof That the Government of the Church should be established by Law in such a manner as you seek for That it should have its Original Establishment in Law 2. For before and at the first making of Christian Laws in this Kingdom this Government was found existing and to have first destroyed this Government and then again to have established the same by Law would have been plainly ridiculous which yet must have been done in order to such an establishment as you require proof of 3. It is acknowledged by Mr. Fox Act. Mon. Tom. 1. pag. 148. that in Elutherius his time An. Dom. 180. when this Realm was first converted to Christianity there were appointed in the same three Archbishops and twenty eight Bishops and since that time the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops c. hath been further established by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed above 30 times by Parliament and by the Statute called Confirmatio Chartarum still in force it was ordained that all Laws contrary to that Charter should be void and that Bishops twice every year should excommunicate all that did either do or advise contrary to it 4. The Government of the Church was at first founded in Prelacy therefore so far as we are a Christian Nation and governed by Christian Laws Episcopal Government goes into our foundation 5. I mean only it is so of the foundation as to be from and in the beginning of Church-Government and Christian Laws among us I do not say so of the foundation as to be unalterable yet others do however it is not yet actually altered and that is as much as the Argument requires and to warrant that expression which I thought augmentative though you pass it by unnoted viz. that there is the less reason to expect that the Power Office or Government of Bishops should have their origen from the Laws of the Land or that the Child should beget the Father SECT 3. Church-Government is established by Law 1. THirdly I laboured to prove that so far as a Government that was prae-existing before the Laws concerning it could be reasonably expected to be established by Law the present Church-Government is established by Law For 2. First the Laws of this Land since they were Christian have ever allowed it and taken it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions not only by those special Laws that particularly relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the Consent of the Lords Spiritual 3. Here you only catch at the weakest part about the Consent of the Lords Spiritual to the Acts of Parliament leaving the strength of the Argument grounded in those many special Laws which relate to this Government and apparently allow and continue it without any exception or observation 4. Yet I am not at all satisfied that the allowance and recording of their Consent to every Law by the King Peers and Commons is not a plain acknowledgement of Episcopal Power and Government 5. Secondly I affirm That the present Government is established by Law though not in its Office which was before the Law yet in its Political Power and the Exercise of it in this Kingdom 6. Therefore the several Legal Names of Prelatical Governours with their distinct Jurisdictions and the Crimes punishable by them and the Authority allowed so to punish and the Fees of their Courts and the Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops are found and founded in the Laws of the Land 7. In your Recital of this Argument you only mention the Exercise of this Government and take no notice of its Political Power given by Law and therefore your Answer is short 8. But that this Political Power of Ecclesiastical Governours is setled and authorized by the Laws of the Land is most evident in that of the 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Eliz. An. 1. 2. 9. By 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Jurisdiction touching Matrimony Wills Tithes Oblations c. is expresly given them and it is added that all such Spiritual Causes shall be from henceforth heard examined discuss'd and cleerly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the natures of the Causes shall require 10. Note That if the Temporal Courts have any Authority given them by this Statute so also have the Spiritual they are joyned together such Courts Spiritual and Temporal 11. The point of Appeals is also established by the said Statute and Bishops are expressy authorized to receive Appeals from Arch-Deacons Courts and the Arch-Bishops from the Bishops with Authority hereby given them or established in them to put a final end to all such Controversies You may reade tho Statute at large 12. Yet I conceive that of Eliz. 1. c. 2. is more precise to our purpose Where it is Ordained and Enacted that all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellours
Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastiel Jurisdiction shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act as well to inquire in their Visitations Synods and elsewhere to take Accusations and Informations of all and every the things above mentioned within the Limits of their Jurisdiction and to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestratien or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like Form as heretof ore hath been used in like Cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws 13. Here we cannot but see not only the legal Names of Ecclesiastical Governours mentioned but their political Power and Authority allowed yea formally invested and establish't in them to inquire and to punish To punish with Admonition Excommunication Sequestration and Deprivation and all this by Virtue of this Act. 14. Had we nothing more to prove Episcopal Government to be established by law but this very Statute I cannot apprehend but that the work is done and all Objections to the contrary for ever superseded 15. Is here only a liberty to exercise a power given them is it not express that Power and Authority is also given them 'T is not declared that they have Power and Authority by Virtue of their Office or any other way but it is enacted that they have Power and Authority to inquire and punish c. by Virtue of this very Act. 16. Yea though it is intimated that the same Course had been used formerly it is not enacted only that this shall continue but as if such a kind of Objection had been in prospect it is enacted that by Virtue of this Statute all these Ecclesiastical Governours shall have full Power and Authority to proceed in like Form as heretofore bath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical laws 17. While I read the Statute so express and punctual in the Case I know you will not blame me if I wonder at your so frequent comparing the Government of the Church with Usury and her Governours with Usurers 18 I do not know of any Statute that gives so much countenance to Usury and Usurers as to say be it enacted that power and Authority be given to Vsurers or that makes them a politick body and invests them with Government over so much as their own Tribe and in Cases peculiar to their own way abuses and faults of Usury Do not reflect so unbeseemingly 19. Thirdly I affirm that should we yield unto you that there is no express Statute immediatly Authorizing Ecclesiastical Governours yet immediately it it cannot be denied to be established by Law I mean such Law as impowers the King to Commission and Authorize the Governours in the Church 20. That the King hath such a power in him is manifest from the Oath of Supremacy For being supream Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical he is so over all persons Ecclesiastical as to Commissionate all his inferiour Governours therefore they all either mediately or immediately receive their Commissions from him which is no doubt Legal in the Judgement of all that understand these Protestant Laws that revolve the power usurped by the Pope upon Henry the Eighth and all his successours in the Crown of England for ever v. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. Eliz. 1. where you reade thus 21. All Jurisdictions heretofore lawfully exercised by any Ecclesiastical power or Authority for Visitation Reformation c. are united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm and that your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall have full power and Authority by virtue of this Act by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England to Assign Name and Authorize persons to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions and to Visit Reform Redress c. 22. Your Answer is this at most concludes but for the Governours and not for the Frame of Government 23. But do you not hereby grant as much as my Argument needs For if the Governours of the Church are Authorized by Law you ow them Obedience and the Law in them and your Covenant provokes you to disobedience 24. Again How can all the Governours be Authorized by Law and not the Frame of Government too He that by Law Commissionates all the Governours doth he not thereby establish the Frame of Government 25. Yea where will you look for the Frame of Government but in the Seat of Governours and that according to the Covenant it self You there engage against Prelacy that is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops c. Viz. the several Governours of it 26. You add the Kings Supremacy may exist in and operate by other Church Covernours as well as these 27. I answer easily that admit what you say yet as no other sort of Governours can be Legally so until the King Commissionate them as he hath done these so this kind viz. Episcopal Government must of necessity continue to be Legal until the King shall Commissionate others of another Method or at least withdraw his Commission from these in the present form of Church-Government if he hath power to do it by Law 28. Lastly I urge you that this Government is plainly established by Common Law 29. To this you say that Prescription is a poor Fence to Vsurpation Usury hath prescription 30. But how doth it appear that the present Government is an Usurpation so weighty a charge deserves proof 31. Church Governours are the Kings Ecclesiastical Officers they have their power and authority to Govern given them by Act of Parliament this appears but that their Government is Usurpation appears not 32. To make good your charge two things require proof First that Episcopal Covernment was an Usurpation at first Secondly that it is so still and that it hath not obtained a good Title in law all this while The Statutes now mentioned prove the present Title of it And Magna Charta is a sufficient Evidence that so long agon it had Legal Authority and was no Usurpation 33. I rather mention Magna Charta here because it is accounted Common Law and adds much strength to my Argument thence and from long continuance Especially seeing there is much for the Church and Bishops but nothing for Usurers and Usury to be found in it 34. The Plea that Magna Charta is in behalf of the Abhots at well as Bishops hath nothing at all against us For Abbots were since abolished by law so were not Bishops We are not arguing that nothing confirmed by Magna Charta can be lawfully altered but that Episcopal Government confirmed by Magna Charta is established by that Law and not removed by any other 35. Yea this Objection answers it self and all the rest of its Company and yields us an Argument that might pass for an Instar omnium Abbots and Bishops were both confirmed by the Law of this Land Abbots are removed by Law and not Bishops and in the Law exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis and therefore the Law that removed the Abbots did establish the
to no other just exception we are agreed For then you may declare there lies no Obligation to such Endeavours as are not de non ente non est Obligatio 9. Now we are so near suffer me to reach you with a word or two of serious advice that you would bestow a few thoughts upon the following inquiries 1. Whether if the Government of the Church be not sinful by the Word of God it be not necessary to us by the laws of the land the Oath of Supremacy and secundariò by the Laws of God 2. Hereupon it is further worthy our inquiry what Endeavours to extirpate this Government thus necessary are sui Juris to every Subject I do not say to Reform but to extirpate it 3. Thirdly Admitting the Moderate sence of some Covenanters that the Covenant doth not intend an Extirpation but a Regulation of this Government whether the Declaration be not reconcilable with the Obligation hereunto seeing there we declare that we are not obliged to change or alter not to reform this Government 4. Lastly take the sence of the Object how you please it may be queried whether you have not done your endeavour after so long and strenuous Endeavours against it almost 20 years before and several years since the happy Restauration we find the King the Peers and People of England in Parliament have sufficiently declared that it shall not be extirpated So that to reason there now appears no further hope of effecting our endeavours and consequently the Obligation thereunto ceaseth by the Rule Nemo Tenetur od impossibile 10. Pardon this digression so fairly occasioned and I now hasten to examine those several Acts of Endeavour which you have in the Name of the Covenanters proposed and Judged to be lawful Theological disputation submiss supplication popular groans and complaints of grievantes by and under it of them in Order SECT 3. Of Endeavour by popular groans and complaints 1. IN order to a true Judgement of the lawfulness of these Acts of Endeavour let us take a glance of the objectâ— of them as you have proposed it you do not say the Government it self but grievances by and under it 2. First then for grievances under it they may be redressed without the utter Extirpation of the Government it self 3. Again we are not required to declare that we are not bound to endeavour to remove them it is a change of Government in the Act and Extirpation you say in the Covenant and notes a Reformation or Redress of grievances onely 4. Secondly for grievances by it I Ask whether you intend such grievances as flow from the Nature or such onely as happen upon the abuse or Male-administration of this Government if you say such as flow from the Nature of it then you must prove Episcopal Government to be evil in Se which I think you will not undertake but if such as flow from Abuse onely you are not held from Endeavouring against them 5. If you yet doubt whether you may not Endeavor against the Government it self let us proceed to Examine particularly the Acts of Endeavour specified by you Disputation supplication groans or complaints 6. For the last sort groans and complaints I cannot understand how these can be provoked but where there is burden and grievance to be groaned under or complained of 7. That the Government it self is so you do not say much less evince if it be found so by Male-administration Complain for me and spare not so you do it regularly and not tumultuously 8. Yet I must needs observe that groans and complaints under a Government must carry sedition in the manner of them or else they cannot properly or without very much straining be called acts of Endeavor for the extirpation of it SECT 4. Of Endeavour by disputations 1. A Second sort of Acts of Endeavour specified by you are Theological Disputations but these Neither are Endeavours properly and directly so called as to the end intended 2. For in such Disputations who knows not but as Opponents we may dispute for Popery or any other Heresie by such ventilation the truth believed in the Church of England is intended to be vindicated and not destroyed 3. Neither are such disputations any Motion towards the Extirpation of Episcopacy with the persons that have power to do it seeing our Governours receive no Applications or Impressions by them 4. Neither is it the proper Intention of such Scholastick Disputations to work upon our Governours to that end who are no way concerned to take notice of them 5. Yet admit they were let me beseech you to propose after what manner these publique Disputations are to be managed as Endeavours for this end 6. Consider what will you dispute against the Lawfulness of the Government I am confident you do not believe it to be unlawful either by the Word of God or the Laws of the Land for you say you bear affection to Episcopacy yea such affection to it as that you would have passed by the Object of this Covenanted Act. 7. Give me leave again what will you dispute for the Extirpation of Episcopacy how can this Consist with your Affection to it or what Arguments what weapons will your Affection to it strike it with to Ruine and destroy it 8. Besides when such Disputation appears to design and endeavour the Extirpation of the Kings Ecclesiastical Government who see 's not Manifest Sedition in it to say no Worse 9. Especially when the Supream Government hath openly and freshly even just now declared Their Will to the Contrary by Restoring this Government in all it's Officers to it 's former Authority and Priviledges against all Endeavours for it's Extirpation Lastly would you dispute onely for a Reformation of it this is not a change or Extirpation and not concern'd in the Declarâ—tion as I have often noted 13. But you are ready to say there is a Submiss Supplication and this is properly Endeavour and sui Juris to every Subject 11. Upon both these branches I must demur a little for indeed here lies the stress of this Controversie and the strength Sampson but it must be better proved 1. That Petition is Properly Endeavour and in the sence of the Act and 2. That Petition to Extirpate Government is sui Juris to every Subject I shall Examine them distinctly and seriously for if either of these fail your hair is off SECT 5. Whether to Petition be to Endeavour properly and in the Act. 1. I Cannot so easily grant it as you take it for granted that to Petition another to do a thing is to endeavor to do it 2. We know that Petition or prayer to God is Ordinarily distinguish'd from Our own Endeavours for the same thing we pray for 3. Neither is there more reason to confound our Petitions or prayers to such men as are called Gods with our Own Endeavours especially considering that the things we Ask of God are capable of our Own Endeavours yea if it be for