of Covenanting The particle Such seems to carry it to the quality of the Covenant in respect of the matter covenanted which afterward is particularly and in its proper place excepted against But the words of the Covenant suggested by this exception to be false do relate unto the act of covenanting as we have now at last for the preservation of our Religion determined to enter into a not such a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant And the place of this exception is in the beginning of their exceptions unto the Preface which may be said to be no part of the Covenant and therefore admits not an exception to the quality of such a Covenant Moreover the next exception puts it out of doubt that these words relate to the act of Covenanting in which they profess they finde not in our Histories any footsteps of a sworn Covenant on any occasion whatsoever So that it seems to be the Act of covenanting by Oath which they cannot conceive to be a lawful proper and probable means to preserve Religion from ruine Surely then Sir the weather was very misty about Oxford and made their minds very muddy that they could not conceive entring into Covenants and Solemn Leagues dictated by the light of nature and directed by the Law of God pursued and practised by all Nations and by Israel in the cases of their Religion as the utmost of humane policy and highest of security to their priviledges endangered as a method detecting concealed enmity debarring fraud expressing affection engaging conscience and animating resolution to be a lawful proper and probable meanes of security If it be good and safe as to our Civil I hope it is no less probable in our Religious concernments If Sir I had been to deale with one single student I must have told him That he started this exception more like a Sophistical Disputant than a conscientious Dubitant Fourthly They could not believe the entring into this Covenant to be according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms 4th Exception in the Oxford Reasons or the example of Gods people in other Nations for that they found not the least footstep in our Histories of a sworne Covenant ever entred into by the people of this Kingdom upon any occasion whatsoever nor could they readily remember any commendable example of the like done in any other Nation but are rather told by the Defenders of the Covenant that the world never saw the like before Whither Sir Answer will not prejudice carry men I cannot but wonder to finde the Masters Students c. of Oxford so much unacquainted with Histories as neither to finde in our own or other Histories a commendable example of Entring into Covenant I may not mind them of the Covenant made by the Nobles and people of Scotland among themselves and with Queen Elizabeth of England under and against the Papal might executed by the then Queen Regent nor of the Netherlands confederacy and Covenant These will not seem commendable in their sight now though so judged when England became their protection and encouraged nay defended them in them Let me therefore enquire whether they knew Israel to have been Gods people of another Nation and that they entered into Covenant in the time of the Judges in the dayes of Joash Josiah Hezekiak and Nehemiah in times of danger and defection in their Civil and Religious concernments And was their practice commendable 2. Did our Gentlemen of Oxford never finde any footsteps in our Histories concerning the Barons of Stamford Anno 1225. assembled not only without but against the Kings consent and covenanted each with other to demand the restitution of their Liberties whereupon a Parliament was holden at Northampton to give them satisfaction And again did they never finde in our Histories how in Anno 1258. they Assembled at Oxford agreed on Articles viz. The confirmation of the Charter de Foresta 2. The establishing of a Lord Chief Justice who might judge them by Law 3. The driving Aliens and Strangers out of England and the like and that they confederated by Oath and gave their hands and mutual faith one to the other Matth. Paris Hist Aug. p. 940 941 952 653. that they would not desist to prosecute their purpose for loss of money or Lands nor love nor hate no nor yet for life of them or theirs till they had cleared England of Strangers and procured laudable Laws And under this Covenant they brought the Kings Brother Richard King of Romans and Earle of Cornwall and caused him to sweare upon the Holy Gospels this formal Covenant Hear all men that I Richard Earle of Cornwal swear upon the Holy Gosples to be faithful and forward with you to Reforme the Kingdom of England hitherto by the counsel of wicked men so much deformed and I will be an effectual coadjutor to expell the Rebels and troublers out of the same Both these our Histories say were in the time and without the consent of King Henry the 3d. Not to trouble our Reader with the like in the time of King John King Richard the 2d and other Princes I must desire the Gentlemen of Oxford to tell us whether these were not people of England and these be not visible foot-marks of some Covenant of the people of England on some occasion And if they shall question whether they be commendable examples let them please to observe the commendable Epethite our Historian gives upon the last of these Covenanters calling them Angliae Republicae Zelatores But the defenders of the Covenant told them that the world never saw the like before I but they did not tell them that there are no footsteps of any Covenant made on any occasion whatsoever And if they had were the Masters and Students in Oxford resolved into such an implicite Faith as to believe an Enemy But I wonder these Masters of Reason had so little Reason as to conclude a general from the concession of a special Their Margent explaineth the concession of the defenders of the Covenant in these termes Such an Oath for matter persons and other circumstances the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we reade of in Sacred or humane Stories Know they not that there is a vast difference between the general form of an Oath or Covenant and those special Qualifications which may circumstance it and that a dissimilitude in the last will not conclude that there never was a Sworn Covenant on any occasion but sit verbum sat sapienti Thus Sir notwithstanding these learned Suggestions of the falsehood of the Preface and in it of the assertory part of the Covenant it yet continueth lawful because true and is our encouragement and assurance that the promissory part will be answerable For as in rational conclusions so I hope in Religious resolutions we shall find à veris vera sequuntur Subsectio Tertia The promissory part of the Covenant is in these six Articles I. THat we shall sincerely
of God in the sense there intended is at this time encreased To which Sir I should have then answered 1. Answer Their ability to say it is of little moment nor could we well judge it for whether they were under any natural wilfull violent or judicial incapacity is not our part to determine Others were able to say it and if these reverend Fathers and Students did know it though they were not able to say it it was for us sufficient And therefore may I be bold further to enquire 2. Whether they were able to read the whole Sentence expressing the sense Of the enemies of God whose rage power and presumption was at this time encreased here intended and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true Religion and Professors thereof in all places especially in these three Kingdoms ever sinte the Reformation of Religion and how much their rage power and presumption are of late and at this time encreased whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England and the dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland are present and publick testimonies Are not these full expressions of the sense in which the enemies of God whose raâ—â— power and presumption were encreased are to be understood And is it rational or religious to enquire after and suspend a duty on jealousie of a sense intended when we have the sense plainly expressed Is not this repugnant to the end of Speech the Interpreter of the mind 3. Were the Masters Scholars and other Members and Officers of the University of Oxford such strangers in the Protestant Israel as not to know the Papists and Popishly affected were enemies of God against true Religion and the Professors thereof in all places Or so unacquainted at home as not to know their plots conspiracies attempts and practices were especially against these three Kingdoms the most publick and potent professors of true Religion ever since the Reformation Had they no notion of the Rebellions against King Edward the sixth Of the Treasons Plots Conspiracies Roaring Bulls and Raging Spanish Armado against Queen Elizabeth Of the Gunpowder-Treason and other plots against King James Of the Colledge of Propagators of the Catholick cause erected in Rome under the Government of Cardinal Barbarin and designed against these Kingdoms Or of the grand Plot agitated by Con or Cuneus the Popes Nuncio in England discovered by Andreas ab Habernefield first to Sir William Boswel His Majesties Resident in Flanders and by him unto Laud late Archbishop of Canterbury and since fully cleared and laid open by Mr. William Prynn in his Romes Master-piece published in 1643. four years before their reasons and might have been profitable to their eye-sight 4. Did not this learned University judge it to be an high encrease of their Rage Power and Presumption to distribute their Jesuits into such several Orders as should be capable in any place or profession to propagate their plots To press upon the late King and Archbishop for a publick profession of union with Rome To boast openly of Englands returning to Popery To tender a Cardinals Hat to the late Archbishop To poison our Fountains the Universities and our very people with Arminian and Popish doctrines publickly preached and printed and Popish pictures publickly sold and bound up with our Testaments and Bibles To provoke the High-Commission cruelties and Puritans discontents To plot a plain Popish Service-book with very little variation oâ— from the Mass-book and procure it to be by force and violence imposed on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland to the raising Mutinies and stirring up the Bellum Episcopale with pretence to yoke them and intention to destroy the King and Protestant cause To rebell openly in Ireland and with rage and cruelty to murder and massacre the Protestants To divide between King and Parliament in England and possess themselves of his Majesties Garrisons and Armies as under their command To abet advise and effect the most barbarous murther of his late Majesty and our since confusions All which and many the like to have been the atchievements and accomplishments of these enemies of God to true Religion He that is in any measure observant of our affairs can run and read And are not these expressions of rage power and presumption let right reason judge 2. Oxford Reasons second exception They cannot truly affirm that they had used or given consent to any supplication or remonstrance to the purposes therein expressed To this Sir consider That although they cannot affirm it yet others can do it in truth and with joy 2. What are the purposes therein expressed not as before intended shall we judge it from the Preface It is the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honor and happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity the publick liberty peace and safety of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included For the End is the Argument which is urged to enforce the constancy to the Covenant and in Article the sixth it is expressed to be the glory of God good of the Kingdoms and the honour of the King and these are the onely purposes expressed in these particular acts propounded for the production of them and shall we be so uncharitable as to think the Gentlemen of Oxford to have been so void of piety towards God love to their Country or loyalty toward their King as not to have used or given consent to Supplication or Remonstrance to these purposes therein expressed Must we think them so speechless as not to pray to God nor speak to men for the effecting of these purposes expressed No! I will rather presume them modest and not willing to publish their piety and zeal to good purposes or passionately prejudiced against some one expedient propounded to the effecting of these purposes expressed and thereby acted to confound the purpose and pursuing meanes But 3. Had not the University of Oxford Representees in Parliament If they did not sit were they violently excluded Or did they give their No to the Supplications or Remonstrances to the purposes expressed in the Covenant and if they did were not these Supplications and Remonstrances carried by the Majority of Votes And is not the Negative so swallowed therein that all persons and bodies corporate through the Nation did thereunto consent When we finde Oxford excepted we will say they could not truly affirme they gave consent But 3dly Oxford Reasons third exception they did not conceive the entring into such a League and Covenant to be a lawful proper and probable means to preserve our selves and our Religion from ruine and destruction To this Sir we must enquire into the conceipt of these Gentlemen and desire to know whether it relate unto the quality of the Covenant or the act
and Archbishops of the essence and formality of the true Reformed Protestant Religion Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism than Scotlands supposed making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church As denying the Reformed Churches beyond the Sea to have attained to the true Reformed Protestant Religion which yet they handed over to us But what reason had these Gentlemen of Oxford to understand the Doctrine of the Church of England in such a latitude when the sence of it is limited by them who were then known to be Legislators and a power sufficient to prescribe an Oath unto which themselves subjected and were the best expositors thereof viz. the House of Commons who thus declared Whereas some doubts have been raised concerning the meaning of these words The true Reformed Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine This House doth declare that by these words was and is meant only the publick Doctrine professed in the said Church so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovations And that the said words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of Worship Discipline and Government nor of any the Rites and Ceremonies of the said Church of England By which these Gentlemen might have understood 1. The Realm and Church of England were two different Subjects the one professing Doctrine in the other wherein also there was Doctrine tending to Popery and Popish Innovation 2. There were in the Doctrines professed by the Church of England some adjuncts of Rites Ceremonies Government or some special order of Worship which might need Reformation and were not view'd to be maintained So that according to this sence of them who prescribed both there is more of consistency than contradiction between the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant So that the manifest perjury they feared hath not so much as a seeming ground And as for the supposed contradiction of this Branch of the Covenant unto the Oath of Supremacy it will on examination vanish as an apparition a thing which so seemed but cannot be so proved For if they will not hiss me out of their Schools I will grant them their Proposition in the Oath and assumption in the Statute by them quoted and yet find a way to avoid the conclusion because a meer non sequitur on their premises and this if they will have the Argument logically resolved by denying the consequence of their major Proposition for I will grant unto them that the Oath of Supremacy doth bind us to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted and belonging to the Kings Highness his heirs and successors or united and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm And assume with them That the King had the whole power and Authority for Reformation Order and Correction of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c. and yet deny the sequel viz. That we may not endeavour in our places and callings to reform Religion For the defence of the Kings power is no way repugnant with the duty of our particular capacity I hope a Minister may by his preaching or a Divine by his disputation in the Schools endeavour the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresie Schism or Superstition and yet not intrench on his Majesties Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so interfer with their Oath of Supremacy Yea in reference to judicial and authoritative Correction and Reformation which we will suppose can only be done by the King mens endeavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel Proposal Remonstrance Petition Supplication and the like to procure His Majesties consent and authority to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and then Sir where is the Contradiction Yet Sir if I were to dispute with a single though Senior Sophister of Oxford I would deny both Propositions the major as to its sequel or consequence as before and the assumption as that which the Statute doth not prove viz. The whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for Correction and Reformation is annexed to the King and Imperial Crown of this Realm For the power by that Statute is special and particular not general and universal as themselves have cited it is viz. such Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Preheminences Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any c. and as the Statute proceeds Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for Visitation of any Ecclesiastical State or Persons and for Reformation c. So that the power given to the King is such a powor as Bishops Cardinals or Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Jurisdicton in themselves over both Church and Crown enjoyed and exercised This power was purely executive not Legislative over persons and particular Societies not over the Kingdom and whole Realm I presume the Gentlemen of Oxford were not ignoront of the power and Legislative Authority which the Parliaments of England ever held over their Bishops and the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical estate of this Land tying them in all their administrations of Discipline and Government to the Customs and Statutes of this Realme as they may read at large in the Statute of the Submission of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 wherein they confess many of their Canons and Constitutions be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whereby they did not only Restrain the exorbitancies and from time to time Reform the abuses of the Church but also extend the Prerogative and Jurisdiction of the King as in that Statute 1 Elizab. and Limit Restrain and Repeal it as in the case of this individual specifical power granted in the words of the Statute quoted by the Statute 17 Caroli entituled An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 10 Elizab. concerning Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical which clause repealed is part of this very recited Paragraph and immediately annexed unto and dependent on this very grant of power and authority Nor are these Masters and Scholars of Oxford insensible that there is a vast difference between Executive and Legislative power and authority and that as no Ecclesiastical persons did ever enjoy however the Pope and his Bishops did contend for it so no King of England did ever pretend or lay claim unto the Legislative power further than allowed by Act of Parliaments who were ever Dictators of a general Reformation in the Land Church and Kingdom as at this time in the Reformation covenanted Nor can they be ignorant that it is very bad Logick from such Jurisdictions and Specifical Executive Authority to infer that the whole power of Reformation is so in the King that the Parliament may not propose or the people covenant in their places and callings to endeavor a Reformation
their former Protestation if rightly understood in sundry the most material Branches of it Unto this Sir I must say that I know not what did appear to them to have been the power of the imposers and challenged in former times only unto me and many others it did appear not to he the meer natural Power of the People preposterously and in a tumultuous manner assembled who yet do appear to have a power to impose on themselves an Oath and to whom I find Soveraignty it self to speak it with due Reverence in some measure subjected and its obligation superseded if not made void clearly barred from execution if but by the impossibility put thereon as it was in the case of Jonathans Rescue which I shall only report in the words of Bishop Hall Saul hath sworn Jonathans death the people contrarily swear his preservation Halls Contem. p. 1038. his Kingdom was not so absolute yet more absolute than Englands that he could run away with so unmerciful a justice their Oath which savoured of disobedience prevailed against his Oath which savoured of too much cruelty and so long as his heart was not false to his Oath he could not be sorry Jonathan should live I do not in any case justifie the preposterous and tumultuous Assemblings and Assumptions of the People whereby they lay on themselves Bonds which must not be broken and cannot well without much difficulty be kept yet I cannot but observe many times whereby the Vox populi is Vox Dei as in the very change of the Government of Israel on which Dr. Hall Notes It was Gods ancient purp se to raise up a King to his People Page 10.24 how doth he take occasion to do it by the unruly desires of Israel but blessed be God this was not the case of the Covenant the imposers did not assemble on their own heads and by violence and disorder assume unto themselves an unusual power The power imposing this Covenant was a Parliament the Collective Body of the Kingdom Duly Summoned Regularly Elected and returned Rightly Constituted and Readily Embraced by King and Kingdom and animated with more than ordinary Parliamentary power by the Bill for their continuance against all Casualties so as not to be Prorogued Adjourned or Dissolved without their own consent And can any True-born English man in any measure acquainted with the constitution of this Kingdom or the Authority of the High Court of Parliament deny these to be a just and lawful Authority to resolve order and enjoyn yea and execute their Resolves Orders and Injunctions during the being of their power though not to establish Lawes to be executed when they were dissolved and gone Sir I cannot without sad thoughts remember the unhappy difference between His late Majesty and the late long Parliament which occasioned the unhappy opposition of the Peoples Liberty and the Kings Prerogative as I cannot but wish they had been acted so conjunctly that they might have seem'd to vulgar apprehension to have been but one so I cannot but judge it prudence that a period be put to the dispute thereof upon the now Happy Re-union of his most Sacred Majesty and these too long distracted Kingdomes I am clearly of opinion with Aristotle that Prince of Politians Aristot Polit. lib. 5. c. 10 11. That Regal Government is best established where the Princes and People do participate of it and that Theopompus the Spartan in transmitting some of his Prerogative to his Ephori Princes might well maintain the encrease of his Dominion whilst he made it longer by making it less I think therefore that the wisest men and best Subjects will rather think then assert a Prerogative in the King above His Parliament and I for my part should be content to find in the Parliament a sufficient power to impose an Oath on the Subject without the Kings consent rather than to assert their Superiority unto Him in all points and particulars And when Sir I consider the power even over and against their King in the Princes and the Collective Body of the People Recorded in Scripture as in making War Josh 22. Judg. 20. Changing the Government 1 Sam 8. Choosing and establishing not only their first but succeeding Kings though immediately appointed and sometimes anointed by God as in the case of David Solomon and Rehoboam and others in removing from the King Favourites and Counsellors as David was against the mind of Achish the King dismissed by the Princes of the Philistines 1 Sam. 29. in restraining the Kings purpose of destruction confirmed by an Oath once and again as in the case of Jonathan or of protection as in the case of Jeremiah the Prophet concerning whom Zedekiah the King said He is in your hands the King is not he that can do any thing against you Jer. 38.5 In these and the like cases Josephus tells us Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 18. the King might not do any thing without or against the sentence of the Senate or Congregation Methinks a divine defence may be well made for the power of the Parliament in this case acted and admitted though without and against the consent of the King And when I consider what is Dogmatically asserted by Polititians and no mean Lawyers in reference to the power of general Councils and Conventions of Kingdoms in general Foxe Acts and Monuments p. 616. as of Englands Parliaments in particular as in the Council of Basil against the Pope the whole Realm hath more Authority than the King The same asserted by Marius Salamonius who by many Arguments doth defend it De principatu lib. 1. p. 17 18. he was a Roman Lawyer and Philosopher Hollingshead and Vowel in their Description of England declare concerning the Parliament That this Court hath the most high and absolute power of the Realm and that not only without but against the King by it offenders are punished and corrupt Religion reformed or disannulled and that whatever the people of Rome might do centuriatis comitiis or tribunitiis Vot 1. cap. 1. p. 173. which I am sure was to impose an Oath the same is and may be done by Parliament unto which may be added what is spoken to the same effect and almost in the same words by Sir Thomas Smith Secretary of State to King Edward the sixth and Queen Elizabeth and a Doctor of the Law in his Common-wealth of England and Horne an Eminent Lawyer in Edward the first his Reign in his Mirrour of Justice cap. 1. p. 7 8 9. and Fortescue Lord Chancellor to Henry the sixth in his Book de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 9. and Bracton quoted by these learned men who certainly affirms more than they can approve Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item curiaem suam viz. Comites Barones c. Et ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno debent ei fraenum imponere and above all the Soveraign Powers
discharged Of these then particularly and in their order And first of the first of them Sectio Prima Proposition The asserting of the Solemn League and Covenant and its obliging force is a duty indispensably incumbent on every man in his place but especially on the Ministers of the Gospel WHilst we consider this Proposition and frame this Link of our Chain we must take the Covenant in its abstracted form as it is a Solemn Compact confirmed by an Oath in which God is witness or party or both And at present take it for granted that the matter of it is true just and lawful which yet will hereafter in its appointed place be discussed And as such I say the asserting of the Covenant and its obliging force unto the exacting of performance and rebuke of negative or positive breach of it in not doing or in doing contrary to what is covenanted is a duty indispensably incumbent on all men in their places viz. in their publick or private capacities wherein they are to express themselves and expect others to be acted as men and Christians by the dictates and directions of conscience in order whereunto the Covenants in which they bind themselves each to other or joyntly to God as well as divine counsel must be their compass to guide their course past dangers and destruction Conform hereunto was the commendable carriage of Gyth the younger brother but faithful Counsellor to Harold King of England who considering the state of the Quarrel between him and William Conqueror gave the King this warning Cambd. Brit p. 149 150. In case you have made promise to William of the Kingdom withdraw thy person out of the Battel for surely all thy forces shall not secure thee against God and thy own conscience who will require punishment for breach of faith and promise Every man is in charity bound to be an Angel to an unmindful Jacob in point of his vow to God and Monitor to his back-sliding brother but it especially belongs to Gospel-Ministers who being Gods Watchmen against sin and his peoples Remembrancers unto duty are not onely by common Charity but also by special Office bound to give warning against approaching evil contracting guilt and impending judgments of God Ezek. 3.16 17 18 19 20 33.7 8 9 and that as they will acquit themselves from the blood of those immortal souls who slip into and perish by their sin On this account the word of the Lord cometh unto his Prophets with a Say unto them Thus saith the Lord I will give the men which have transgressed my Covenant which have not performed my Covenant even the Princes of Judah and the Princes of Jerusalem and Zedekiah the King into the hand of their enâ—mies Jer. 34.18 19 20 21 c. And therefore the censure of being contentious or danger of being cast into prison as seditious and losing all their comforts must not deterre the Ministers of God from coming to the King and crying out in the Name of the Lord Shall he break the Covenant and be delivered shall he do such things and prosper and escape Ezek. 17.15 for in case of silence the sin will be on their heads and the stones in the street will cry out This is a principle so common and clear The duty urged from piety towards God that none professing Reason or Religion dare deny it and the reason of it is written in such legible Characters that all may run and read it viz. The Covenant is an Oath the highest appeal to God who must not will not be mocked or made a witness to His own dishonour but will punish the breach thereof as a most heinous sin Therefore the Ministers of God standing in his stead must with all zeal exact the accomplishment of it as the practice of piety dependant on such a piece of worship Remembring God hath strictly charged That if a man vow a vow and bind his soul he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth Numbers 30.2 So that in piety to God the Covenant must be kept and its obligation be asserted Loyalty to the King is no little swasive to this duty 2. Loyalty to the King for that leads to all fidelity in discharges and prevention of every thing destructive and dishonourable to his Majesty Perjury most odious to God and man is abominable in any and most conspicuous in a Prince Who can without dread remember the fierceness of Gods fury against Zedekiah for breaking the Oath into which he was forced by the straitest Siege Or observe the Odium that abideth on Albert the Emperor Almerick King of Jerusalem Vladislaus King of Hungary and the Christian-Princes for breaking their Covenants with the Turk and the obloquy indelible which lieth on Eugenius and Silvester Popes and Julian Cardinal of S. Angelo and the Order of Templars for abetting and advising by the same Arguments urged against our Covenant the breach thereof Can any true English-man and Liege Subject without horror call to mind the perjury of King Harold which let in William Conqueror to our Land and how King John was made odious and deserted by this out-cry Withdraw your selves from a perjured King and not in sence thereof be stirred up with zeal to assert the Covenant which broken will load with shame and subject to the displeasure of that God who can destroy both us and our King so happily restored to each other True Loyalty is no less studious to establish the Kings Throne in Righteousness than obsequious to the Royal expressions of His Pleasure Yet to such as center Loyalty in the last I would advise that they would seriously consider That howsoever His late Majesty of Honorable Memory for the conscience of his Oath was acted by the misapprehension of the Covenant to interdict it yet he was more sensible of its obliging force when taken than to attempt the discharge thereof and therefore in His Solitudes He adviseth His Subjects unto the Keeping of the Covenant in all honest and just ways The contemplation on the Covenant as thinking the chief end of the Covenant in many the takers intention was to preserve Religion in purity and the Kingdom in peace And as one under the awe of the Oath of God chargeth His most Sacred Majesty that now is That if God bring Him to His own on hard corditions He should be careful to perform what he should promise And His most Sacred Majesty as a most obedient Son to a Father so piously prudent having Himself sworn the Solemn League and Covenant and the establishment of it in all his Dominions by His Royal Declaration of August 16. 1650. from Dumfirmling professeth Himself deeply humbled for His Fathers opposition to the Covenant and that on full perswasion of the justice and equity of all the Articles thereof He had sworn and subscribed the Solemn Leagne and Covenant of the three Kingdoms and that he was fully resolved
Subsectio quarta The Master Scholars and other Officers and Members of the University of Oxford in their Apology for not taking the Covenant urge their Reasons against the same as unlawful not in the matter it self simply considered but by accident in respect of some circumstances attending themselves and discapacitating them unto the Act and they offer their exceptions unto the Articles severally and distinctly Unto the first Article they except against the Preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Oxford Reasons Sect. 3. pag. 4. and Worship Discipline and Government and then against the Reformation of England in those particulars Unto the first they tell us 1 Except They are not satisfied how they can in judgment swear to endeavour to preserve the Religion of another Kingdom To which I answer in General it is but reason they suspend the Act untill they can swear in judgment though such as have rashly in ignorance prophaned the Oath by swearing it must in sence of its Sacred Obligation inform their judgments that they may performe it and not cast it off but what hindreth their judgment in this required Act They urge four obstructive reasons As First As it did not conc rn them to have very much 1 Reason of this exception so they profess they had very little understanding thereof In which reason it is to be noted 1. They had some understanding of the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland and that little might so farre enlighten their judgment as lawfully to swear the preservation thereof I presume many Citizens have little and but general notion of the Liberties they swear to preserve yet are judged to swear in judgment 2. I wonder an Vniversity and Protestant Vniversity conversing in all Books and I must imagine meeting with the two Books of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland their Confession of Faith and Form of Worship entertaining Schoolmen and Bishops thence fled by reason of the same and openly oppugning and disputing against the same should profess they had thereof little understanding but it may be they minded not to study these things 3. Some understanding in the Religion of another Kingdom was necessary to them as Christians and Protestants by vertue of the Communion of the Church and some as an Vniversity and Protestant School of Learning where the true Religion of the Reformed Churches was to be defended duobts dissolved and errors oppugned and contradicted and some was necessary to them as Subjects required to swear the preservation thereof for the injunction could not but provoke an enquiry after the matter to be preserved I wonder therefore how these men could profess it did not concern them to have much who if I mistake not ought to know as much as all the Nation besides but from what they know they adde the next Reason viz. In three of the four specified particulars viz. Worship 2 Reason of this exception Discipline and Government it is much worse and in the fourth that of Doctrine not at all better than our own to be reformed I wonder Sir what account of the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland was by the occurrences of those unhappy times brought unto the knowledge of the University of Oxford I hope they were more wise and just than to take it from Mr. John Maxwel pretended Bishop of Ross a man excommunicated by the Church and censured by the State of that Kingdom a professed Enemy and enraged Delinquent cursing his very Judges whom I find about that time at Oxford writing his Issachars Burden a most railing reproachful discovery of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland and the rather for that the heat of expectation and ostentation of many in reference to that book was cooled by a providential fire which seiz'd on the Printing-House and burned the Copies ready to be published the next day as Mr. Baylie in his Vindication of the Government of that Church which these Gentlmen might have met with doth testifie Yet Sir had these men of reading regarded what more sober and impartial men have said and written they would have had another Character of this Church I may not mind them of the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford in the time of King James preferring the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of Scotland before that of England or of their Philadelphian purity Bright man on Apocalyps 3. who did not only keep the Doctrine of Salvation pure and free from corruption but doth also deliver it in writing and exercise in practice that sincere manner of government whereby men are made pertakers of Salvation mentioned by Mr. Brightman our Countreyman they will possibly tell us these were Seperatists to whom Scotland is no friend or Puritans Yet methinks * Magnum hoc Dei munus quod una religionem puram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrinae viz. retinendae vinculum in Scotiam intulistis Sic obsecro obtesto haec duo simul rebinet ut uno amisso alterum diu permanere non posse semper memineritis Beza Epist 79. Beza may call for a little audience and respect from this Learned Assembly and he told us long since This is the great gift of God that you have brought into Scotland together pure Religion and good order which is the bond to hold fast the Doctrine and I heartily pray and beseech you for Gods sake hold fast these two together and alwayes remember that if one be lost the other cannot long remain And no less venerable I presume is the Corpus Confession the Harmony of Confessions of all the reformed Churches and yet therein they have an account of the Church of Scotland which might render it more acceptable and worthy to be preserved For thus it is reported by the Collector who much rejoyced in the providence that brought their Confession into his hand * Est illud ecclesiae Scoticanae privilegium rarum prae multis in quo etiam Nomen apud exteros suit celebre quod circiter aut nos plus minus 54. sine Schismate nedum Haeresi unitatem cum puritate doctrinae prevaverit retinuerit hujus unitatis adminiculum ex Dei misericordia maximum fuit quod paulatim cum doctrina Christi Apostolorum Disciplina sicut ex verbo Dei praescripta est una suit recepta quam proxime fieri potuit secundum eam totum ecclesiae regimen fuit administratum Dâ—t Dominus Deus pro immensa sua bonitate Regiae Majestati omnibusque Ecclesiarum gubernatoribus ut ex Dei verbo illam unitatem Doctrinae puritatem perpetuo conservat Corpus Confess p. 6. It is the rare priviledge of the Church of Scotlaod before many in which respect her name is famous even among strangers that about the space of fifty and four years without Schisme yea or Heresie she hath holden fast unity with
Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dangerous if they will evade the influence compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case I dare secure them from it in reference to the second 5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England is her foundation which if it be removed what shall the Righteous do And these serious Casuists do tell us That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England and they proved it by the Law for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation and Christ an enemy to Prelacy the corner stone and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profess They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy strike at the foundation of the Church which they are bound to uphold Truly Sir their care of the Church and its foundation is commendable but how comes it to pass that this Form of Government must be made the foundation of the Church without any danger of Schism by them to whom Scotlands making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church did seem so much tending to Schism Must the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion the very esse of the Church and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction Turpe est doctori c. Sir we cannot deny the proofs cited and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies propounding doubts professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied so much to content themselves and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies such Sophisme as better beseems the Logick than Divinity Schools and common Halls than the Regent house Two things are to be explained What they mean by holy Church and what foundation this is to which the Statutes relate These learned men wel know that by holy Church in the acceptation of that Age and of those very Acts the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile and the Statute of Edward the third was meant the Pompous Popish Ecclesiastical State whereof Abbies and Priories were no small Members as in Magna Charta and other Grants of Kings which had then such influence on the Civil State as that no Act of Parliament could bind or be deemed valid without the ratifying censure of holy Church whose manner was by her authority to curse all that should not keep such Lawes as were agreed I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out and tell us whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church or that the Church of Christ may not yea do not subsist in England now holy Church is driven out the Church simply Christian is very different from the pompous popish holy Church Again Sir the foundation mentioned in these Statutes is sutable to the Fabrick Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 22. holy Churches viz. the temporal endowments whereby she was made so pompous the Lands Mannors and large Revenues given by the King or Nobles of the Land as the question occasioning the same doth plainly evidence which was Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies and all Benefices in England and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement were just and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare providing for the advousance and disposal of all Benefices and the profits thereof in manner as the founders that is first donors had established and so the Prelacy in which it was founded is an Independency as to Rome and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free and within her self in respect of which in the very words of the Statutes themselves it is said The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores of such Possessions and Benefices doth give and grant the same to Aliens which did not and Cardinals which might not dwel in England as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the said Benefices as he was not of right after the Law of England so that this Prelacy is purely Political and the foundation more profitable than pious could these learned men be so absurd as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons Possessons and Presentations and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation and by vertue of this Political Prelacy the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishopricks to their Chancellours Treasurers Secretaries Kinsmen meer Lay-persons for increase of their means Pryns Catalogue of Testimonies for the parity of Presbyters and Bishops p. 16 17 18. and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void for 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15 20. and sometimes 30. years together by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist when her Prelates her foundation in their sense was wanting or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Christ because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy Ecclesiastical Prelacy like the Petrae and Rupes as in the time of King Henery the third have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church and in the State that they have constrained the Kings and Parliament of England as of all other Nations in all Ages to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds and at last to Covenant the extirpation thereof wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe we not only pull an old house about our ears but destroy the very Church if we have not wit enough to see how they would cosen us by the Law of man instead of the Law of God and a false gloss on fair words Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Government by Episcopacy of the estate of the Church of England we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government yet that little we shall consider and it relates unto their personal capacities in their third exception or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception In reference to their personal capacities they say They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice ingenuity or humanity to require the extirpation of this Government Oxford Reasons third exception against extirpation of Prelacy unless it had been proved unlawful what Sir if it had been proved inexpedient it would have been consistent with Saint Pauls Justice Humanity and
expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The â—greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliamâ—â—to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which
these learned men do cite is limited unto the Laws of the Land which the People in Parliament assembled shall choose according to which the King is bound to Rule for otherwise this Coronation Oath will not only bind the perpetuation of this Government by Prelacy but also to the Restitution of the Abbies and Monasteries demolished and the Popes Supremacy expelled all which were granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward 2. But admit we these learned men the sense they seem to put upon the Kings Supremacy methinks the modest expressions of the Covenant might have anticipated this exception it only binding us within our places and callings which might be by humble advice and supplication to the King by vertue of His Supream Authority to effect it to endeavour the extirpation of this Prelacy that is the Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters and the like but such was their affection to it that they could not desire nay they could not but beg of God that he would not suffer the King to assent thereunto which affection we must not think to abate untill their judgements be better inform'd 3. As to the benefit which did redound to the Crown by the Collation of Bishopricks and Deanaries by their first fruits and yearly tenths and profits in vacancies though some question the Kings propriety not in respect of the Law of the Land but of the Law of God I shall not insist on that only say That the constant enjoyment of the full possessions of them will make a much greater revenue and maintain to the King a greater Honour and Estate than the first fruits tenths and profits of vacancies although such vacancies as the Kings of England have by vertue of this Argument continued for the space of 5 10 15 20. or sometimes thirty years together taking the profits to themselves or bestowing them on their attendants and undoubtedly there is the same capacity to extirpate the whole Government as some Episcopal Seas and to enlarge the Revenues of the Crown by the Reversion of all the profits of the Government and the abolishment thereof as to continue so long vacancies moreover I would desire to know what is in this Argument more prevalent for Arch-bishops Bishops and their Cathedral Churches than for Abbots and Priors their Monasteries and houses 4. As to the agreeableness of this Government in the Church to the Civil constitution of the Kingdom I only say that I question whether the Lord Christ who declared his Kingdom not to be of this World will allow or do appoint the Governments of the World to be the square of Government in his Church and I confess I can hardly reconcile it to his Regal Power and Faithful Administration in his House and I must have a better Comment on the Text than I have yet met withall if it be not prohibited in these terms The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they are great and exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your M nister and whosoever will be Chief among you let him be your servant Matth. 20.25.29 27. Mark 10.42 43 44. Luke 22.23 24. The sense whereof made Pope Gregory write himself Servus Servorum Dei Whitehead and others refuse Coverdalle and many others decline their Bishopricks as having in them aliquid commune eum Antichristo I think the Clown his question to the Bishop of Cullen were worth considering What will become of the Bishops when the Dukes be damned Yet the agreeableness of Prelacy with Englands ill Government hath not been so obvious to others as these Gentlemen suppose the vigilant eye and strong hand wherewith in all Ages it hath been restrained these Petrae and Rupes Winchester and Rivallo in the time of King Henry the 3d. were judged very dangerous when they constrained a Covenant without and against the Kings consent to remove them as evil Counsellours Matthew Paris our old Historian notes Bishops to have ever been the Make-bates between the King and People screwing up the Kings Prerogative beyond thee onstitutions of the Kingdom and liberties yea safety of the Subjects and chargeth all the Wars Broiles Mischiefs and Evils of the Barons Wars to have sprung from and been acted by the Bishops And when ngKi Philip lay on his death-bed He charged His son If He would Rule by his Nobles He must keep his Bishops low The premuniries by which they have ever been awed and their late High Commission authorizing them to act any appellation provocation priviledge exemption proclamation law statute whatsoever notwithstanding and their bold Usurpation in their own name and authorities and under their own seals to issue forth Process Excommunications Censures and other Judgements and their Imperial Canons in 1640. do bespeak them prejudicial to the Civil Government and Constitution of the Kingdom and I think a private society should with very much of modesty affirm the agreeableness of this Government after the Parliament on mature deliberation and debate as most proper Judges Vote of the 10th of June had voted this Government to have been found by long experience very prejudicial to the Civil State of these Kingdoms Now Sir as to the so often Canted Aphorisme of King James No Bishop No King with which the Prelates and their Priests do too much strive to rivet their Government unto the Crown I must be free to say that it is more politick than pious and of no more warrant or authority than the Spaniards one universal Emperour and one Pope or universal Bishop and when the Scots loyal adherence to and advancement of His most Sacred Majesty unto the Ruine of their Kingdom Loss of their lives and Estates Exile and Imprisonment of their Nobles and Conquest of their Land together with the uncessant struglings of the Covenant Interest under Sequestration Imprisonments Banishments and death of many not ceasing till they had by Gods blessing effected the Happy and Honourable Restitution of King and Kingdom be well considered I hope these learned Masters and Scholars of Oxford will see some proceedings that may at least weaken their belief in this political Maxime We have seen Sir the strength of these learned exceptions unto the second Article of the Covenant the great eye-sore of our Age and find little or nothing therein to charge the matter thereof with falshood or injustice but that notwithstanding the grudging of proud and profane men it stands in this respect established they have herein been long and constrained me to stay too long in consideration of what they urge but as they so I shall be more brief and contracted in their following exceptions wherein they suggest many to be great ones but profess to take up with few which we must needs imagine not to be of the least weight Unto the third Article they except nothing as to the matter of the promise Subjectio quinta
he thus breaths against the Covenant Not to take advantage of the preposterous order in setting down the parts of this Covenant wherein he that runneth may read a double Solecism for in it the Church of Scotland precedeth the Church of England and the Liberty of the Subject is set before the Royal Prerogative and Imperial Dignity of the Prince Sir admit we this Is it not an high crime and bespeaks it not a sober serious spirit in Dr. Featly a Member of the Assembly of Divines who by a motion might have had this order inverted as easily as he obtained to have Prelacy specified in the second Article of the Covenant after it was past to pick a quarrel in the order of the words although we deny not That such a sacred and venerable evidence of fidelity is the Covenant that matter manner phrase and order ought to have as I presume they were been maturely advised yea I wish line and period word and syllable which might be the Printers Errata had been so scanned that a captious Momus might not find a Colon or Comma at which he might boggle and please his humour yet it is but a poor advantage from the punctilio's of order and honour to argue against matters of moment duties and exercises of Religion and by misplaced words to make an Oath or Solemn League illegal I but do I not run too fast he tells us he will not take the advantage an honest man is indeed as good as his word but I cannot trust him for his ninth Argument This Covenant is derogatory to the Honour of the Church and Kingdom of England Page 28. is thus proved The Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England I like not that mans grace that with the same breath will remit and retort an indiscretion yet Sir I cannot but enquire whether the preferring of the pompous gay-cloath'd Church of England before the poor Church of Scotland look not like a species of that impious partiality condemned by the Apostle James Chap. 2.1 2 3 4 5. Can we think this Dr. had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons or was acted by such a spirit of contradiction No this language was spoken after he was dead 2. But these Solecisms are not to me so obvious I stand still and cannot read them though I read the Covenant with all observation and regard yet I confess I find the Church of Scotland set before the Church of England and the liberty of the Subject before the Prerogative of the King but they are propounded with Relation to different Acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed I hope it is no Solecisme to put the factum before the fieri and to swear the preservation of good acquired before an endeavour to obtain the same or better or to prefix the pattern to what is to be thereunto confirmed when this Authors second thoughts had observed this salvo to his suggested * Page 29. Solecisme he grudges that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England for which he had little Reason if venerable Beda speak true in that he reports That * Mira divinae factum constat dispensatione pietatis quod gens illa quae noverat scientiam divinae cognitionis libenter sine invidia populo Anglorum communicare curavit Bed Eccl. His Gen. Ang. l. 5. c. 23. that Nation did at first communicate the Science of Divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England I hope it is no Solecisme to propound them as a pattern of Reformation who have first obtained it and from whom Christianity it self was at first to us transmitted The second supposed Solecisme is no more visible than this first for if the liberty of the people be the end and excellency of the Prerogative of the King as all wise Statists and Politicians do affirm he sure will admit to be the first in intention and endeavour although the last in execution and enjoyment and the rather for that it is so directed and dictated by the Maxime of His late glorious Majesty declared at the passing of the Petition of Right The peoples liberty strengthens the Kings Prerogative and the Kings Prerogative is to defend the peoplâ—â— liberty I am sure more serious and publick Statesmen than he or I shall ever make have judged it a Solecisme in Parliaments to support the Kings Prerogative by supply of moneys before the oppressions and burdens of the people have been relieved and their liberties secured and I believe I could prove that this is not the first Covenant made in England preferring the Peoples liberty before the Kings Prerogative without which the King may Tyrannize over slaves not Rule over free-ment which last is and will be His greatest honour The second thing in respect of which the Covenant is blemished and reproached as to the manner of making it 2. The nature and name of the Covenant vindicated Oxford Reasons Sect. 2. pag. 3. relates unto the nature thereof and the name is the noration of its nature and it is called a Solemn League and Covenant against which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do except stumbling at the name Covenant they were learned men and must a little stand on the propriety of words they therefore except against this denomination because imposed with a penalty which imposition say they is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant which being a contract implieth a voluntary mutual consent of the contracters whereunto men are to be induced by perswasion not compelled by power pactum est duorum pluriumve in idem placitum consensus To this Sir I grant that a Covenant in the strict acceptation of it must be an agreement by mutual consent yet I must enquire of these learned men whether the Magisterial imposing of absolute duty or actions otherwise indifferent by Superiours upon their Inferiours and that under a penalty may not be called a Covenant What think they of that injunction to Mankind in Adam Of the Tree of good and evil thou stalt not eat for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death we read not of any stipulation in Adam And Divines tell us it was neither necessary nor proper he being bound to accept the conditions his Creatour would put upon him I am sure this is generally judged a Covenant and that we commonly call the Covenant of Works Again In the Primitive Times of the Church adult persons did answer certain queftions propounded as bredis credo abrenuncias abrenuncio 1 Pet. 3.21 Beza in Loc. to which the Apostle Peter is though to refer his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza renders Stipulatio bâ—nae conscientiae apud Deum and from this order Tertullian concludes Anima non lavatione sed responsione sancitur Do these learned men as the Anabaptists think the Covenant of Grace is not passed between God and
of Parliaments judiciously defended in our very case by that profound Lawyer Mr. William Prynne approved no less Loyal to and Zealous for the Kings Prerogative than Loving to the Peoples Liberties I see not how we can avoid this Conclusion That the Votes Orders and Ordinances of the Lords and Commons in Parliament even without or against the Kings personal command is to be obeyed and observed Lastly When I observe the Transactions of Parliament in the times of Vortiger Sigebert Ofred Beornerde Edwin and Edgar and other Saxon Kings Deo dictante annuente populo the power of Parliaments in the times of King John King Henry the third Richard the second and other Kings of England refusing to assemble at the Kings Call assembling without the Kings Writ establishing Laws correcting Vice and Misdemeanour executing Justice and entring into Oaths and Covenants without and against the Kings consent and when I observe in all Parliaments a power of regulating the Kings Court and Council of restraining limiting and enlarging the Kings power of Jurisdiction and Prerogative nay of making void or valid a Title unto the Succession to the Crown as in the times of Henry the eighth in case of his many marriages and that during the Session of Parliament all Laws are under covert at their feet to be by them established or destroyed and are by any Vote or Order superseded before a formal Repeal and that in all Ages and on all sides it is confessed and cannot be denied that the authority of Parliament is exercis'd in al Votes Orders and Ordinances of the two Houses unto the decision of present controversies upon Appeal from other Courts of Judicatory wherein they can and may authorize Examinations on Oath and make a final judgement unto the ease and relief of the Subject not otherwhere relievable unto the enforcement of any Act to be at present done and executed for the good of the Kingdom or any particular persons or society thereof without so much as desiring the Kings consent and concurrence and if this power should be denied what could the freuqency of Parliaments provided for by the old Law of King Alfred and after by the Statutes of 4. Ed. 3.4.36 Edw. 140. twice or at least once every year on this very ground that the people might receive right by holy judgment such was the judgment of Parliament deemed and that the mischiefs and grievances which daily happen might be redressed if need be on which account Proclamation was wont to be made in the open Palace before the breaking up of Parliament Whether there be any that have delivered a Petition to the Parliament and not received answer thereunto And this power removed what will avail the Triennial Parliaments conceded by His late Majesty or of what benefit was the continuation of this late long Parliament against all Casualties whatsoever that might fall out to dissolve them Can it be rationally imagined that their being should be continued and secured to sit within those Walls in Council and Debate without any power to order or execute the Emergent Affairs of the Nation These things well considered I s y I see not how the imposing an Oath can be an assuming or the people swearing an acknowledging of a greater power than hath in former times been challenged If these Gentlemen will consult our own Histories in the cases before touched they will find a power much greater not only challenged but assumed and exercised the which the season and present state of Affair do forbid me to recite in hopes that there will be no need to rip up our wounds newly healed and these generals may I hope sufficiently justifie the sufficiency of that authority which brought us into Covenant But these learned men suggest an inconsistency of this power with their former Protestation in sundry material Branches Methinks Sir they should have specified those Branches and the rather because material and many The Protestation contains not many Branches and those few seem to be fully conform to this Covenant in all the particulars and wherein they have supposed a contrariety we have before evidenced only a dissonancy at the most and that Ratione not Re in the manner of expression not the thing sworn they then protested to preserve the power and priviledges of Parliament and should not covenant any more nay scarce so much in this Oath for they herein promise to preserve the Rights and Priviledges which is something softer than power and I wonder they that then saw a power to be preserved could not now see a right I will only enquire whether they thought the Parliament had a power to impose that Oath and not a right to impose this There was no Act of Parliament nor Assent of the King to that I observe the King in His Messages to the Houses doth note it to be their own Protestation as if He had no hand in it nor consent unto it and if by power they should mean natural strength not political authority it hath been urged by many as their grievance and by these Gentlemen themselves in the foregoing Exceptions that they had too much of that It is the unhappiness of a scrupulous conscience to run it self on contradiction in actions as well as assertions to swear as lawfully called at one time but not to dare to swear an Oath containing the same matter though called by the same authority another time But that which was the greatest doubt with these learned men was Pag. ibid. 4. the King by His Proclamation Octob. 9.19 Carol. had expressely forbidden the entring into this Covenant it being in His power to make void the same That such an Interdict had been published by His late Majesty we cannot deny League Illegal p. 16. but not as Dr. Featly his ghost supposeth on pain of Treason for no Proclamation of the Kings of England did claim the formality of a Law so far as to fasten Treason on the non-observance of what is thereby enjoyned 2. I am not satisfied how regularly His Majesty did issue forth the said Proclamation which is not usually done but by the advice of His Council who are vailed by the Session of Parliament and all Proclamations then usually run by the Advice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled and if at any time the Lords and Commons or either of them during their Sessions give out Orders not only relating to the Estate they represent but to any others the Subjects of this Realm it hath not been usual for the King by the Authority of His Proclamation to thwart oppose and void them and in a case of this nature a good observer may find the Parliament have judged the Kings opposing or taking notice of any thing by them debated or ordered before it is regularly propounded to Him by themselves to have been a breach of priviledge and so to have been acknowledged and as such retracted by His late Majesty the little pleasure I have
se olbigande p r se aut per majorem sui partem Thus was Israel bound by the Oath of the Princes passed unto the Gibeonites so that although the people knowing it muttered and murmured against the Oath no one durst offer violence unto a Gibeonite and when Saul in a well meant zeal did presume to do it the Faith of Israel was violated and avenged by a Famine in the time of David an innocent person until expiated by the hanging Sauls sons three hundred years after the Oath was made and when many generations who consented not unto it had returned 3. Or Whether it be done by any single person as the King but in the name and on the account of the Kingdom so that as King of such a Kingdom he makes the Oath or Covenant and so obligeth the faith of the Kingdom and so the people are included in it and the Covenant doth not become personal according to that Rule At si cum rege contractum sit non statim personale erit censendum foedus plerumque persona pactum inseritur non ut personale pactum fiat sed ut demonstretur cum quo pactum factum est If the Covenant be made with the King it is not therefore personal for a person may be inserted to shew with whom the Covenant is made as a Covenant is passed by the King of England to declare England is bound as it was in the case of the Rrman Empire Imperator foedus percussit videtur populus percussisse Romauus foedere continetur The Emperour sware the people were included in the Covenant and such also was the Oath passed by Zedekiah the King of Israel unto the King of Babylon which bound Israel to performance and brought them under the guilt and punishment of the breach thereof Sir An Oath or Covenant is best discovered by the enquiry and caution made given by Justin in the case of the tributary Cities which had obtained terms of the Medes before the Empire was to them transferred Spectandum an in conventione fidem Medorum elegissent Whether they had engaged the faith of the Medes and if the Covenant were so sworn in a publick and National capacity that the faith of the Nation were engaged all persons and all ages so long as it continueth a Nation are obliged by it and must carefully perform it or expect to plunge themselvs under the guilt and punishment of perjury the Oath Regal being founded in sua natura a subjectum permanens a subject which ceaseth not however it succeedeth unto and is administred by different persons so that in this case as in the case of the holy wars it was generally granted every League with Christians did bind Christians who did not personally confederate because the faith of the Christians was engaged so every Covenant of England engaging the faith of England doth bind all present and future people in England whilst England abides a Nation and cannot be avoided though obtained by fraud as that of the Gibeonites or by force as that of Zedekiah which we have before noted nor will it avail any thing as to their excuse or apology for not preserving and pursuing the things promised in the Covenant to plead I took it not or my Father indeed took it but the Generation is dead and gone who sware it unless they can divide themselves from the Nation and bury the Nation in the Tombs of their Progenitors nay though there should be a mutation of the form of the Government and Administration thereof yet if it abide a Nation its National Oath will bind according to the Reason Grotius layeth us down De jure bel ex par lib. 2. cap. 16. pa. 256 Etiamsi status Civitatis in Regnum mutetur manebit foedus quia manet idem Corpus etsi mutato capite the same body politique doth yet continue unto such as suppose the death of persons to make void the Covenant I would tell them what Livie said in the case of the Romans they sware when P. Valerius was Consul they would assemble at the command of the Consul he being dead L. Quintius was made Consul and called the Assembly they begin to cavil and question whether they are bound by their Oath he being dead to whom they made it Et nondum haec quae nunc tenet seculum negligentia Deum venerat nec interpretandi sibi quisque jus jurandum leges aptas faciebant sed suos potius mores ad ea accommodabant This negligence of God hath not long possessed this Christian world that men should make unto themselves the interpretation or rules of obligation of an Oath unto which they should rather square their conversation whilest if it be a real publick and National Oath the persons swearing and sworn unto may passe away and yet as in the case of the Gibeonites the obligation passe to all posterity Sir I am sufficiently convinced that if private men and individual persons who have sworn the Covenant will make conscience of the Oath of God upon them there can be no probability of a return and re-stablishment within the compasse of this age of the evils we have sworn to extirpate they being locked under a moral impossibility of re-admission or continuance by that publick Parliamentary capacity into which many who have sworn the Covenant are at this time resolved and in which they cannot but know themselves bound to endeavour in their places and callings with all sincerity reality and constancy to extirpate the same and for that others and those not a few as Ministers of the Gospel are bound to the same in their capacity I am sure the Ministerial rebukes and confutations of the one and publick Parliamentary debates of the other will lay a very great remora unto their return and his most Sacred Majesty to speak it with due dread being in his place bound from his Royal assent thereunto I presume will not only aw from proposing to him any Laws that may restore any of them but put an absolute moral impossibility on the present passing of any Law to that purpose Yet Sir when I observe many carnal Politicians carelesse Preachers Court Divines and temporising Covenanters suggesting a nullity on the Covenant and speaking out that it is void and non-obliging by the reason of the paucity which they suppose not to be a fourth part of the Nation who sware it or at least unto such as never took it which may not only be many persons now living but the whole Generation since springing up or that the Power and Authority of the Nation whom they do not a little provoke thereunto may by their publick Edict make it void I see it to be a plain case of conscience and necessary to be resolved whether the Solemn League and Covenant be private and personal only binding individuals or real publique and National binding the power and body politick of the Nation And Sir on second thoughts and a