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 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
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
their certain assurance in matter of Fact be any better bottomed than their think so in point of Divine Right I know not what might be their undoubted testimony of ancient Records and later Histories for they mention none and therein their faith must be unto themselves but by such Ancient or Modern Histories as I have observed it is very difficult to find this Form of Government which must relate unto that to be extirpated by the Covenant or else it is vain to have been either universal or uninterrupted in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for half fifteen hundred years for if they account backward from the time of their writing they will find a violent interruption and indeed extirpation of this Form of Government by Christian the King of Denmark in the year 1537. as contrary to Christ his Institution and then they will lose more then one of their fifteen hundred years without interruption and that in a Kingdom called Christian and this Sir was to sense whatever it was to reason a more considerable opposition than that of Aerius not to mention the interruptions and extirpation in Scotland which I presume may be to them of little weight that people in their eye scarce appearing Christian And if they will account forward from the Nativity of our Lord their fifteen hundred years of universal uninterrupted Episcopal Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters will rise very heavily for let it be considered that the division and distribution of Churches into Parishes and Diocesses came not into the world for more than two hundred and sixty years Polid. Virg. Invent l. 4. c. 9. and untill that time small Towns and Villages had their Bishops and all Bishops were before and after that chosen by the people not by their Princes and so long there could be no Metropolitan Archiepiscopi vero su Hibernia nulli fuerunt sed tantum se invicem Episcopi consecrabant donec Johannes Papyrio Romanae sedis legatus ad venit Hic 4. Pallia in Hiberniam portavit Archiepiscopal seat nor Cathedral Episcopal Diocess And will they give an Irish man leave to tell them that Saint Patrick sent into Ireland by Eleuth rius more than two hundred years after Christ did consecrate as many Bishops as he did constitute Churches in that Kingdom three hundred and sixty five of each and that from his time to the coming in of Johannes Papyrio the Popes Legate Anno 1152. Girald Cambr. Topograph Hiber destinct 3. cap. 17. Vid. The Religion professed by the Ancient Irish in an Epistle to the late Primate Usher by Sir Christopher Sipthorpe Knight pag. 58. there were no Arch-bishopricks in that Kingdom and yet it was called Christian and if the instance may not offend them I would mind them that Bishop Usher the late Primate of Armagh in his Treatise De Primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum pag. 800. doth affirm out of John Major De Gestis Scotorum That in ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian Faith by the Priests and Monks and had no Bishops before the coming of Palladius into their Countrey and after that Palladius made Bishops they had no Diocess untill Malcolme the third King of Scotland but every Bishop did exercise his Episcopal Function wherever he came who citeth also John Fordon Scotichronicon lib. 3. cap. 8. on the same account so that then we shall not find this Form of Government by Diocesan Bishops Cathedral Churches and by Arch-bishops to have been received in some Kingdoms half fifteen hundred years and what then becomes of the assurance of these learned men Moreover though the opposition of Aerius seem in their eye on inconsiderable one yet it is such as stated a principle which being once admittee as it cannot be denyed and obtained but liberty to be improved to the direction of the Government to be practised will subvert the foundation and pull down the superiority of Arch-bishops Bishop Deans and the like for if all Ministers Presbyters and Bishops be of the same order office and authority we cannot but infer Who are ye that advance your selves in the house of God and Lord it over your Brethren and Gods heritage and notwithstanding that this principle be clouded by the occasion on which it was divulged by him the mans discontent we must say that Discontent is a better Dictator than Judge and God knoweth how to make mens grudges grind out the knowledge of his truth mind and will I hope it will be deemed but a poor defence of the Popes Supreamacy in England to say that King Henry the eighth in a discontented humour did cast it off and was for it excommunicated and here the Reason is the same a great noise is made and advantage taken that Aerius was reputed an Heretick for affirming the parity of Presbyters with Bishops and yet Sir it would be well noted by whom and by what authority he was branded as an Heretick it was not by any Council or Primitive Fathers but by one only man Epiphanius though to be Reverenced in the Church yet by this administers little cause of regard I think many in Oxford will be loth to have Arminian notions more opposite to the grace of God than Aerius notions to good order publickly damned as Heresie which yet were condemned by the Synod of Dort and though that were not a general Council it wins more Authority than the censure of Epiphanius Saint Augustine therefore repeating the opinion of Aerius as recited by Epiphanius doth more modestly denominate it Proprium Dogma August de haeresibus cap. 53. and others repeating the Heresies of Aerius make no mention of this among them nor indeed was there Reason if in the Council of Trent Michael of Medina were deservedly chidden for saying History of the Council of Trent p. 591. Hierom and Austin fell into the Heresie of Aerius and affirmed the degree of a Bishop was no greater than the degree of a Priest I hope that is not Heresie in Aerius which is Orthodox in Austin Jerom and others truly Sir I think the ingenuity of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford might have led them to have considered and indeed publickly contradicted * Collected by Mr. William Prynne as an Appendix to his unbishoping Timothy and Titus the Catalogue of testimonies in all Ages evidencing Bishops and Presbyters to be one equal and the same in Jurisdiction Dignity Order and Degree whereby in five several squadrons Christ and his Apostles Ignatius Policarpus Anacletus Justin Martyr and many of the ancient Fathers Peter Lombard Gratian Hugo Cardinalis and many other Canonists and Schoolmen the Waldenses Alphonsus Castro Gersomus Bucer and a multitude of Forraign Divines and Churches our own Sedulus Anselme Beda Occham Fulk Juel Reynolds Whitaker and almost who not in every place and age are produced as thinking the same thing which in Aâ—rius is called Heresie for certainly so general a consent to a
Ingenuity for to him All things might be lawful but were not expedient was a Rule but their Reasons might restrain these learned men and they are five in number 1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government 2. Received orders from their hands 3. Petitioned the continuance thereof 4. Htld their Livelyhood under such titles and in the exercise of that Government or some part thereof 5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same Vnto all which I shall say very briefly 1 It is worth their enquity whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially and so gave their approbation to this Government we grant that in the 39. Articles commonly published there is one viz. the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God I find not in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before mentioned and so misread them both but suppose the Article had so affirmed it had laid no bar to the alteration or extirpation of this Government for it might be as indeed all our Stattues do suggest a meer Political Civil constitution and so though an Adiaphoron not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God and alterable at the pleasure of Englands Parliaments and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of ordering Priests and Deacons and Consecration of Bishops and Archbishops did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God for I not believe nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture or ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons for I find no Priests in the new Testament and conceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denominations of the same order and make not different orders any more than Pastours Teachers Stewards Angels Stars and the like and if there were these orders yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God to add a fourth Arch-bishops and if they be not an order how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops a contended for order of the Ministry and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience neither the one nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence the Speaker of the Parliament or Lord Chief Justice hath no such like Solemnity I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant and not the other nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism and assistance at the Communion the Scripture specially points them to the poor and to serve Tables I question whether mute service in a publick solemn Assembly be not contrary to the Word of God where all as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost peculiar to Christ who did it in reality be not contrary to the Word of God or according to the words of the Article Superstitious and ungodly And whether Ministers swearing Caronical obedience to the Bishop or Bishops to the Arch-bishops be not plainly Papal and ungodly If these learned men considered and were convinced of the consonancy of these and the like things with the Word I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously yet I must enquire how judicially I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article for the Articles thereby enjoyned 13. Eliz. 13. do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments and this particle only is exclusive to Discipline and Government which by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti at the pleasure of the Magistrate and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed shall not be shut out of the Christian Church Now Sir were there any force in this exception to the Covenant I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts yet it is as ponderous as the next They received Orders from their hands and should ill requite them for laying their hands on them to lay to their hands to root them up and cannot tell for what That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them was not required they might continue Men Ministers it is like better Christians and more painful Preachers when they were not Bishops I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other and our question is of the thing not person in which degradation was the worst they could do them who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169. That a certain Monster heavier than the whole World stood eminently aloft upon his breast from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered than alone to have all the goods of the World when he waked he thought this was nothing but the Bishoprick of Dublin and so forthwith renounced it Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus Elected Arch-bishop of Florence who refused on fear of hazarding his salvation to accept it and when thundred into it by the counsel of his friends frowns of the Magistrates and the Popes Bull kept only eight persons no stately furniture in his house no Coach and Horses and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family saying They should do him a special favour to thrust him fram his Bishoprick wherein he continued with very great Regret They would acknowledge a kindness done unto them and yet were it an unkindness these Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude they have petitioned their continuance and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiors on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did depend nor had they been without Parallel if not a plea of Justice For the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England Rochester excepted in the time of Henry the eighth had voluntarily without the command of the King or Parliament sworn to root up the Pope the Apex of this Episcopacy from whom they had received their Palls Properties Power Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 564. 565 566 567. I had almost said Papacy Their third Reason I pass as an
ΑÎΑΛΗΨΙΣ ΑÎΕΛΗΦΘΗ The Fastning of St. PETRRS FETTERS By SEVEN Links or Propositions OR The Efficacy and Extent of the Solemn League and Covenant asserted and vindicated against The Doubts and Scruples of Dr. John Gauden's Anonymous Questionist St. Peters Bonds not only loosed but annihilated by Mr. John Russell Attested by John Gauden D. D. The League Illegal falsly fathered on Dr. Daniel Featley AND THE Reasons of the University of Oxford for not taking now pleaded to discharge the obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant By Zech. Crofton Minister of the Gospel at S. Botolphs Algate LONDON Jer. 34.15 Ye were now turned and had don right in my sight and ye had made a Covenant before me in the House which is called by my Name Ver. 16. But ye turned and polluted my Name Ver. 18 20. I will give the men that have transgressed my Covenant which have not performed the words of the Covenant which they made before me I will even give them into the hand of their enemies Error cui non resistitur approbatur veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur negligere quippe cum possis deturbare perversos nihil est aliud quam fovere nec caret scrupulo societatis occultae qui manifesto facinori cum potest desinit obviate Innocent London Printed for Ralph Smith at the sign of the Bible in Cornhill near the Royal Exchange 1160. The Epistle to the READER Courteous Reader I Am not insensible that the subject matter of these papers and the season of their publication may expose them and their Author to the censure of the Committee of Discretion which if they do I cannot but let thee know this will not be the first time I have fallen under their correction For such was my loyalty to the Kings Majesty in His late unjust exile and the cogency of the Covenant on my conscience that my preached Sermons and printed Papers were very frequently under the examination of this Committee constituted not onely of my envious enemies desirous to discover in me a rashness which might prove my ruine but also my trembling friends and timerous brethren in the Ministry who thought any who stept before them in duty thrust themselves into present danger and yet no judgment could pass against me save onely this The state of affairs might have made him more politick but that it is truth he spake and a Ministers duty to speak it could never be denied I presume men to whom I am in any measure known will not judge me such a fool as not to discern the current of the times countenance of the Court clamors of the Countrey contradictions of rising persons in the Church Commonwealth to what is herein asserted the compliance and connivance of many my brethren in the Ministry under the same Oath herein vindicated and the cooled courage of the first Composers earnest Instigators and zealous Promoters of the Solemn League and Covenant and that in dissenting from them and opposing my private apprehensions to their more prudent affections I must needs expose my self to the reproach of singularity inconsiderate heat peevishness of spirit and contract on my self the frowns of men in power and frettings of my complying brethren and fellow-confederates and fail the expectations of my own preferment which my courage and constancy for His Majesties just interest in the worst of oppressing times and utmost of opposition wherein many who now vilifie the Covenant durst not speak nay did basely comply and promise to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth of England as it was then established without a King and House of Lords had heightned in both my friends and foes against which when I reason with flesh and blood and consult a proud heart within and numerous family without me I find sufficient Arguments according to the dictates of nature to determine folly against my self but I hope I have not so learned Christ True piety doth suggest and convince me that wisdom towards God is folly to the world and the Watchmans prudence is to proclaim an approaching evil whilst at a distance capable of diversion and escape and that the most wise of Gods Ministers in all ages judged it their duty to oppose Gods Word to mens prevailing lust and present propensity unto wickedness Elijah-like to stand alone and speak the mind of God when for so doing they may be branded as the troublers of Israel when indeed their sin not the preachers speach doth cause the commotion with Micaiah to denounce the danger of Ahabs design though 400 Prophets encourage it and King and the Court encline to it and with Jeremiah to say to the King Keep thy Oath and thou shalt be delivered when Princes and Prophets perswade the breach thereof and himself must down into the Dungeon as a preacher of sedition Few men will deny that Roger Bacon in his plain preaching to King Henry 3. that if he did not remove his malignant counsellors Peter Bishop of Winchester and Peter de Rivallis he could never be at quiet played a wiser part than did the Bishop who to please the Kings humor preached up the Kings prerogative to such a pitch as brought himself under an Anathema from which he was forced to appeal to Rome for relief And all good Protestants will conclude Cranmer was much wiser in alone withstanding King Council Parliament Lords temporal spiritual in the case of K. Henry 8. his six Popish Articles than in that Court-compliance which caused that doleful complaint in the midst of the fire This my unworthy right hand Magnanimity is a vertue not the least necessary to a man but most necessary to a Christian and most of all to a Minister who should like his Steeple stand in all storms raised under and by the variations of human affairs and not like the Weather cock turn with every wind I am ashamed to think with what vigour some asserted the Obligation of the Covenant in reference to Religion when the civil part thereof was clouded and broken and now would vindicate the civil part thereof whilst Religion is specially concerned Like wise Archers level at the mark because of spectators observation but resolve to shoot fair and far off whilst others wholly couch it are ready to cast it off or by false glosses and frivolous interpretations evade it and study how to charm others into the same silence I had almost said sin It is worth remembrance that Religion and its Reformation never was nor must now be expected to be the result of an ordinary measure of resolution It is needlesse to recite the boldness of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers against the contradiction of the Pagans Alexander and Athanasius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Arrian Empire in promoting and defending the true Religion or Wickliff Hus and Luther and others in the first reformation and the conflicts of Englands Non-conformists against the remainders of corruption and Romish Reliques in our Church
the Act of taking the Covenant yet they be of no force at all to weaken or dissolve its bond Let me therefore say Sir to these who offer to your and my consideration their doubts and scruples against taking the Covenant and scatter abroad papers of this nature that they manifest their malice and profane enmity against the Covenant by subjecting it to vulgar scorn and laying open their own nakednesse as if it were the nakedness of the Covenant and run away railing against the Covenant as of no force or obligation as void and null on a meer Petitio principii base-begging the question and taking it for granted That what makes the act of swearing sinful makes the Oath void And supposing a weight which is very little in their exceptions to words method form order of the Covenant and the imposing it on the people which might have kept some men from swearing to be sufficient to discharge all that are sworn If they will indeed batter the Covenant they should pierce into the body of it and prove the matter of it unlawful and then will I also shake off the Covenant for ever Till then I answer in the Negative to my own enquiry in Saint Peters bonds abide pag. 13. to make the worst of it a tumultuous Assembly come before us with Sword and Scepter say they are a Parliament and have lawful constant and compleat Authority and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us And silly inconsiderate we are not so well-skill'd in Politicks or acquainted with the Constitutions of our Country to detect their fallacy but think all Authority is within those walls and obedience must be yielded to what is there commanded and so we are beguiled into the Oath nor are we so hardy as to endure their violence but by fear are forced into the Covenant is it therefore void for we have opened our mouthes unto the Lord and cannot go back Sectio Tertia Proposition 3. The matter sworn in the Solemn League and Covenant is just and lawful to be maintained and pursued THat we may discover the lawfulness of the matter of this Covenant we must observe that in respect thereof it is partly Assertory and partly Promissory Assertory in the Preface of it viz. We Noblemen Barons The Assertory part of the Covenant Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts in the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland by the providence of God living under one King and being of one reformed Religion having before our eyes the glory of God and advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity and the true publick Liberty Safety and Peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included and calling to mind the treacherous 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 since the reformation and how much their rage power and presumption are of late and at this time increased and exercised 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 We have now at last after other means of Supplication Remonstrance Protestation and Sufferings for preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruine and destruction according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times and the example of the people of God in other Nations after mature deliberation resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant wherein we all subscribe and each one of us for himself with our hands lifted up to the most High God do swear Though this Preface may seem and be said to be no part of the Covenant yet it being a Solemn profession of the grounds and reasons on which the Covenant was made and was declared in the very Act of swearing the Covenant by all that swore it we shall own it as a part thereof The Covenant is further assertory in the Conclusion viz. And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God and His Sonne Jesus Christ as 't is manifest by our present distresses and dangers the fruits thereof We professe and declare before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sin and for the sins of these Kingdoms especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts and to walk worthy of Him in our lives which are the causes of other sinnes and transgressions so much abounding among us And our true and unfeigned purpose desire and endeavour for our selves and all others under our power and charge both in publick and in private in all duties we owe to God and man to amend our lives and each one to go before another in a real Reformation that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation and establish these Churches and Kingdoms in truth and peace And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the searcher of all hearts with a true intention to perform the same as we shall answer at the great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed Most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the Yoke of Anti-christian tyranny to joyn in the same or like Association and Covenant to the glory of God and enlargement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the peace and tranquillity of Christian Kingdoms and Common-Wealths The Covenant is promissory in the six Articles thereof Concerning the assertory part of the Covenant it must be noted That although it should have been unlawful because untrue in the grounds or reasons pretendedly inducing to it and so hypocritical and fallacious in the humility zeal and resolution in the Conclusion protested whereby the takers in deceiving others may have deceived their own souls and bound themselves under a certain expectation of the wrath of that God of truth and jealousie who hath been called as a Witness of such wickedness Falshood in the Preface bars not the obligation of the promise Yet this fallacy will not discharge the obligation of the Covenant For an Oath binds according to expression not the takers reserved intention And therefore Grotius telleth us That if a man in his assertory Oath do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 swear falsly this will be no warrant for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not
purity of Doctrine the greatest help of this unity by the mercy of God was that with the Doctrine the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles as it is prescribed in the Word of God was by little and little together received and according to that Discipline so near as might be the whole government of the Church was disposed the Lord God of his infinite goodness grant unto the Kings Majesty and to all the Rulers of the Church that according to the Word of God they may perpetually keep that unity and the purity of Doctrine Unto these might be added the testimony of Arundel Hutton and Matthews three English Archbishops approving the order of the Church of Scotland and the joy of King James professed in the Assembly 1590. That He was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world All which might have brought to their knowledge a better account but they looked not so farre back but take it up by occurrents of those unhappy times in which I fear Scotland was not more full of perplexities than Oxford of passion and prejudice 3. But in what particulars are the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government much worse than that of England They should specifie these bad things for generalia non pungunt I confess in a Notion of Philosophy or question in Divinity the Say so of a University is of some Authority but of none in the case of an accusation which must be particularly charged and plainly proved if Englands Doctrine be doudtful and defective in respect of its clearness and certainty or sophisticated by the obtruded fancies and terms of private men as Mr. Prynn hath plainly charged in his Epistle to the late King prefixed to his Quench-coal and as the Ministers of sundry Counties in their Reasons for Reformation have suggested and Mr. Hamâ—lton in his modest answer to Dr. Peirson hath cleerly demonstrated it will be found as much better than the Doctrine of the Church of Sco land as its Worship Discipline and Government is worse than that of England And I hope if the one be as good though nothing better than the other there can be no great Scruple to swear to endeavour the preservation of it 3 Reason of this exception referred to the fifth Section of this Treatise 4th Reason of this exception But to proceed Their third Reason is a supposed contradiction in this first Article of the Covenant This shall be considered under another Head The fourth Reason why they could not swear the preservation of the Religion in Scotland is this Wherein we already find some things to our thinking tending towards Superstition and Schism which call for Reformation Here Sir they seem to specifie what in the 2d reason they had suggested in general terms But let it be observed 1. That they find not in the Church of Scotland any formal Superstition or Schisme but at the most something tending towards them I imagine many Oxford Masters will not willingly admit a Reformation or be denied a preservation of many things apparently tending towards Popery bua not Popery it self 2. The things they find do but to their thinking tend towards Superstition or Shisme but they have no certainty of it Must conjecture stand against the Covenant and conclusions of others Methinks Superstition and Schism should be so well known to the Scholars of Oxford that they might be able to conclude what things tend thereunto 3. What are the things they find in the Church of Scotland which tend in their thinking to Superstition and Schism They point us unto the Margine and there we find viz. in accounting Bishops Antichristian and indifferent Ceremonies unlawful this they refer to Superstition And viz. in making their Discipline ad Government a mark of the true Church and the setting up thereof the erecting of the Throne of Jesus Christ and this they referre to Schism Sure Sir they were in a great strait that made a shift to specifie these sad corruptions but yet they do not tell us where they find these laid down as the Doctrines of the Church of Scotland whether in their Confession or form of Discipline Whilst in their Confession of Faith they give unto general Assemblies authority about Ceremonies Corpus Confessi Conf. Scot. Art 20. p. 120 121. I cannot think they deem indifferent Ceremonies unlawful nor do I find that they as England hath done do any where make their Discipline a part of their faith that so they might damn Bishops as Antichristian I find indeed Artic. 8. p. 118. that they make Discipline rightly administred as is prescribed in the Word of God the note of a true Church but they do not appropriate it to their Discipline and Government as these learned men would have us read it I know indeed that the Scotch Divines do account English Bishops Antichristian and English Popish Ceremonies unlawful but they deny them to be indifferent but these are specials and far from the generals charged on them nor can these specials be condemn'd in them until Catherwoods Alâ—are Damascenum and Mr. Gillespies Dispute against the English-Popish Ceremonies which have passed with much approbation through all the Reformed Churches and I presume missed not Oxford be fully answered 4. But wherein lieth the tendency of these principles to Superstition and Schism that these learned men think of As to their nature they are negative and exclusive and I deem a denial of any of Gods appointments to be prophanenesse not superstition I am apt to think Superstition to be a positive innovation and erection of some new matter and action into the worship of God on mans meer will and invention without Gods institution I remember Mr. Blake denieth the baptizing of Bells or the Horse in Huntingtonshire to be Superstition and damns it as a prophane misapplication of Gods Ordinance How then the exclusion neglect or prophane esteem of Bishops and Ceremonies can tend to Superstition I confesse I see not Think you Sir the Learned men of Oxford did deem Bishops and indifferent Ceremonies to be such immediate institutions and essential parts of Divine worship that they think a profane contempt of them might tend by exclusion thereof to make way for some innovation in their room then I also will think they tend towards Superstition but must think they are not indifferent I wish Sir they have not mistaken the Scotch notion of a true Church Gent. 2da c. 2. col 109. which is opposed as well to a corrupt as falsely constituted Church the Magdeburgences do so oppose it in the very same case Vera enim ecclesia c. For a true Church as it retains pure Doctrine so also it keep simplicity of Ceremonies but an hypocritical Church for the most part changeth the Ceremones instituted by God and multiplieth to its own traditions And Bishop Halls Vere and vera Ecclesia is no stranger at Oxford and if then Scotland concluding her Government to be according to the
the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power authority and jurisdiction and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles such difference among the Bishops it was devised by the antient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholick Church and that either by the consent and authority or else by the permission and suffering of the Prince and civil power for the time ruling the said Fathers considering the infinite multitude of Christians so greatly encreased taking examples from the Old Testament thought it expedient to make degrees among Bishops and to limit their several Diocesses bounds of Jurisdiction and Power And then Sir this Form of Government will seem to be more Jewish Papal Paganish or at best political and civil than Apostolical the last of which the Statutes of our Kingdom do declare it to be affirming that the Arch-bishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiastical persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical 26. Hen 8. cap. 26.31 Henr. 8. cap. 9 10.37 Hen 8 cap. 17. 1. Ed. 6 cap. 2 1 5 8. Eliz c. 1. but by under and from the Kings Royal Majesty and Patrick Adamson Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews in Scotland Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife professed sincerely ex animo That Bishops and Ministers are by the Word of God equal and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Bishops nullo nititur verbi fundamento And I think it had been but Reason some satisfactory answer had been given to Gersom Bucer his Dissertationes de Gubernatione Ecclesiae Didoclavius his Altare Damascenum Cartwright's Exceptions Paul Bains his Diocesan Tryal Smectymnus and especially Mr. William Pryns publick and positive Challenge in the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus which I think will be ad Grecas Calendas before they think so of an University had been published as a stumbling Block to the peoples swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant when thereunto called by Parliament But it may be Sir I run too fast methinks their think so of Divine Right and Apostolical establishment is asserted very faintly and therefore it is restrained and limited with an Episcopal Aristocracy hath a fairer pretension and may lay a juster title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterian Democracy or Independent Yet I must say fair pretension and comparative claims are very weak props against Parliamentary Resolves and the power of an Oath it must be plain and undeniable Divine Right must stand against them But what is that they call Episcopal Aristocracy Are not these learned men mistaken in their terms hath not Englands Episcopacy been ever deemed a Monarchy and of the same kind but lower degree with Papacy How can it be conformable to the Government of the Nation which these very men tell us is Merum Imperium an Empire Monarchy p. 11 and establish that Maxim no Bishop no King if it be an Aristocracy Whoever deemed Presbytery a Democracy Or on what colourable ground can it be so deemed doth not this Form fix the Government in the seniores and illustrior pars populi The Officers of the Church ordering all and ruling the whole Church excluding the Congregation from all Acts of Government save a shewing their just exception to any Order Office or Censure If Presbytery be a Democracy what can Independency be judged I find these learned men by the nicety of this distinction at a loss for its name as well they might and so I shall leave it and suppose a willingness in the University of Oxford to assent to Doctor Whitakers Thesis That Regimen Ecclesiae non est Monarchicum nec Aristocraticum nec Democraticum sed Democratica Monarchica Aristocratica That the Government of the Church is a Formal Aristocracy qualified with something of Monarchy which he means not to be the superiority of Prelates and Democracy by which is not meant the ruling power of the people let but this learned Doctor explain himself and Mr. Thomas Cartwright expound nay translate his words and we shall find a Government which will lay a very fair claim unto a Divine Right Si velimus Christum ipsum respiscere fuit semper Ecclesiae Regimen Monarchicum Whitak oper Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Quest 12. de Origin Eccles Cartwrights first Reply to Whitakers gift page 35 si Ecclesiae Presbyteros qui in Doctrina Disciplina suas partes agebant Aristocratioun si totum corpus Ecclesiae quatenus in Electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia ferebat ita tamen ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper Presbyteris servatur Democraticum which Cartwright thus renders The Church is governed with that kind of Government the Philosophers have affirmed to be the best for in respect of Christ the head not his Vicar or Superiority of single Prelates it is a Monarchy in respect of the Ancients and Pastours that govern in common all the Presbytery with like Authority among themselves not a Superiority over them it is an Aristocracy and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest unto exception in Church-matters it is a Democracy If then these men will take down the towring power of Prelates and turn their Magisterial Throne into a Ministerial Chair and bring into the Cathedral Council of Deans and Chapters all the Presbyters and let these lofty persons stand amongst their Fellows till by common consent for common order one of them be set in the Chair to gather Suffrages regulate the Assembly declare their sentence and see to the execution of their Decrees and summon them together they shall constitute a Government which I think will not only fairly pretend unto but plainly appear to have an Apostolical Institution and Establishment and there are very many both ancient and moderne Authors of my opinion and then we need no more dispute the matter of extirpation of Prelacy for in this sense the Covenant will rather establish it Their think so of Divine Right turns into an assurance of universal uninterrupted succession of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together without any considerable opposition save that of Aerius which sprang from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick This is Sir the old only and usual guard of Prelacy I will not deny Antiquity its due Reverence though I put not on it The Antiquity of Englands Prelacy observed nor consent unto it an authority equal with or as the Papists Idolize it above the Scriptures I confess in matters of Fact it may give a clearer conviction than direction and assert things past done rather than that they should be done and continue It is well if
conclusion so weighty is a very considerable opposition directly repugnant to their confidence of an universal uninterrupted exercise of this Form of Government for now had Epiphanius more warrantably and on better grounds called this an Heresie I should not much regard it nor will their assurance of this Argument avail to establish this kind of Prelacy or to anticipate the promise on Oath of a due endeavour to extirpate it We see Sir there is nothing of weight in the Government either on the supposed Apostolical Institution or ancient universal uninterrupted practice that could bar from taking much lesse bind unto the breaking of this second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant let us consider what is in the state of the Church of England Oxford fourth exception to the second Article of the Covenant which may bind the perpetuation of this Government or be of force to bar the extirpation thereof and that in their fourth exception to this Article wherein they tell us In respect of the Church of England they cannot swear to extirpate this Government for three Reasons 1. The Inconveniences which attend all change in Government and in this is like to be great it being deeply rooted in the Laws and of strong influence on the Civil State 2. Repugnant to the Declaration of the Commons-in Parliament 3. And a striking at the foundation of this Famous Church of England Unto all which I cannot but briefly say That the two first seem in my thoughts very little to respect the Church for the alteration which might ensue in the Civil State might consist with and conduce unto the being and well-being of the Church and the declared purposes of the House of Commons might be contradicted without any great reflection on the Church 2. Jealousies of inconvenient effects must not intercept a duty These effects may be accidental the duty positive and it is the prudence of Legislators to fore-see and prepare against such incoveniences as may happen on the alteration of Lawes and Forms of Government I question how far the care thereof lieth on private persons or societies And if these jealousies were of weight for continuation of Episcopacy now why not at the destruction of Monasteries and Abbies and exclusion of the Popes Supremacy which was the root to which Prelacy is but a Branch since continued in conjunction with and influence on the Civil State by Magna Charta the grant of the glorious King Saint Edward and most of the ancient Lawes from which this Government doth at this day draw its sap and strength 3. The Delaration of Parliament pleaded as a Bar to this extirpation doth offer Reasons for its alterations which I think are of weight viz. its strenuous study and endeavour to effect a conjunction between Papists and Protestants in Doctrine Discipline and Worship being before agreed in judgement its Tyrannical imposing a Liturgy in Scotland and enforcing it after an happy pacification by his late Serene Majesty with the Bellum Episcopale its violence and cruelty to Religion and Religious men in the Star Chamber and High Commission Courts and what themselves observe its influence on the Civil State which made this Prelacy odious in all Ages and was a very likely provocation to its extirpation in England as in Denmark and if they will but please to consider that sinful superiority over the Ministers of the Gospel which is the anima animans very form of it and cannot be capable of any remedy but by its ruine all which having been published in print by many Petitions to Speeches in and Declarations from the Parliament might have offered Reasons for the extirpation to counterpoise nay weigh down all feared inconveniences which might arise had these learned men pleased to have observed them so that if the House of Commons did any way declare the continuance of it it was from their indulgence and willingness by all fair means if possible to regulate it rather than any merit of the Government it self 4. But the supposed repugnancy of this branch of the Covenant unto the Declaration of the House of Commons is not to me so visible these Gentlemen refer us unto the Remonstrance of December the fifth 1641. and tell us That the House of Commons Remonstrated that it was far from their purpose or desire to abolish the Church-government but rather that all the Members of the Church of England should be regulated by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament Which words by the variation of the character I imagined to be the words of the Remonstrance but on search and second reading of the Remonstrance I find no such sentence in the same some parts of the sentence in the Remonstrance themselves have transcribed in the Margin and it is this They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all Church-government which Text will not justifie or allow their inference for it proclaims not the Parliaments purpose but Malignants policy not that it was far from their purpose or desire to extirpate this kind of Government but that the malice of their enemies did infuse they would abolish all Government Surely Sir prejudice was very prevalent in these learned men of Oxford which made them read instead of a complaint of grievance a Declaration of purpose and from the complaints of a general charge to intend to abolish all Government to infer a purpose of preservation of this specifical Government as if all Government were included in it had they pleased to have read the whole sentence they would have seen that the words were much more general abolish all Government and leave every man to his own fancy for the service and worship of God which they might not do and yet extirpate the Prelacy and late Episcopal Government of England no marvel that this mistake makes them imagine and insert into the Reason a rather that all the Members should be regulated c. which desire is not therein expressed but only a profession of their knowledge That His Majesty was under God 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 I think Sir a profession of his Majesties Prerogative is vastly different from a Parliamentary proportioning of the Prelates preheminence and the Kings Supremacy may be acknowledged when the Bishops are degraded and set among their proper Peers And now Sir this repugnancy between the Covenanted extirpation and Parliaments purpose of perpetuation appeareth a think so of like nature with the Apostolical Institution of this Episcopacy and it would be enquired whether it be more malignity to suggest to the people a purpose in the Parliament by them never declared and so make them obnoxious to the charge of self-contradiction or infuse into the people the verity and plainness of their meaning not to abolish all Government but to extirpate this kind which through the whole
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
the Infants of believing Parents in their Baptisme who are not capable of such consent and stipulation but were dedicated by the Authority and Interest of the Parent and are accepted by the extent of the Covenant or is confirmation an essential part of the Sacrament and necessary supplement of Baptisme I find a like case in Scripture called a Covenant Gen. 17.13 My Covenant shall be in your flesh the stipulation of Godfathers and Godmothers will not relieve the case unless they be deputed by the Infants though they were which doth not appear commissioned by the Lord so that some Covenants are imposed and pass withour mutual consent 2. May not an agreement between two different Nations passed by the mutual consent of the Princes or Body Politick be for further security sake imposed by the Authority of each Nation on the individual Subjects thereof and that under a penalty which may be a good perswasion against their peevishness and pertinacy who by their private interest may obstruct the more general and publick good and yet be properly denominated a Covenant as suppose between England and Spain which the Merchants of both are bound to keep and I see no cause why they may not be compelled to swear I hope the case will not differ between Scotland and England who are distinct Nations though under the same King it is Sir no hard matter to make this the case of the Covenant But these learned men do except against the Authority enjoyning the Covenant 3. The Authority imposing the Covenant Vindicated which is the third particular in the manner of making the Covenant supposed to be miscarried and herein Dr. Featlie's Ghost doth follow them but so very weakly and with such palpable contradiction that I shall not spend time and paper in observing the same but specially take notice of what is urged by the Oxford Reasons from which he borroweth his strength Here Sir I shall desire it may be noted that I do not affirme the authority to be full and compleat but to have been lawful and sufficient to impose an Oath and thereby bind the people wherein notwithstanding they should have been defective and fallacious yet this will not discharge the obligation laid as I have in my Analepsis pag. 13. and before in Pag. 23.21 this Tract observed against it therefore as such I shall endeavour to weigh the Exceptions The first whereof is Oxford Reasons Sect. 2. pag. 3. That this imposing of this Oath was contrary to the liberty of the Subject expressed in the Petition of Right to which liberty the imposition of a new Oath other than is established by Act of Parliament is thereby declared contrary Unto this Sir I say I cannot but observe what strength of prejudice acted these learned men in making to themselves these Doubts and Reasons against the Covenant which leads them almost throughout their Book to infer generals from specials as I have before noted in our Arguments so in this the words themselves do quote out of the Petition of Right are these Whereas many of them have had an Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realme they do humbly pray that no man hereafter be compelled to take such an Oath according to which words it appears to be some speciall Oath that was complained of and unto which the relative doth refer the which if they would please to observe the connexion of the words will be found to have been a particular and specifical Oath the words in the Plaint run thus Petition of Right By means whereof Your People have been in divers places assembled and required to lend certain moneys unto Your Majesty and of them upon their refusal so to do have had an Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm so that it appears to have been an Oath of discovery of their Estate upon refusal to lend moneys or some Oath ex officio unto self-accusation beyond the Statute of the 25th Henry the third which is in this point complained of as violated and the prayer of that Petition doth no less specifie this Oath by the Relative SVCH which referreth unto the quality of the Oath complained against so doth also the concatenation of the prayer which proportionally to the Plaint is That no man be compelled to make gift or loan c. or be called to make answer or take such Oath so that this was an Oath to make answer unto the damage of a mans own Estate Life or Liberty which is repugnant to Nature and herein aggravated as not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm a more full description whereof these Gentlemen might have received in the Statute 17. Caroli concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical Now Sir from this special to argue against all Oaths that pass not by Act of Parliament is a plain non seuquitur and unjust inference the Companies in London or it may be some Colledges in Oxford are constituted by the Kings Charter or Patent and the Master and Wardens of the one or President and Fellows of the other give an Oath to all that become Members thereof and expect to participate in their priviledges will these learned men say that these Oaths not imposed or prescribed by Act of Parliament were contrary to the Petition of Right which never complained of or prayed against such Oaths I do not think these men would have had us to think that the Oath Caetera enjoyned in the Canons of 1640. was against the Petition of Right which certainly would bespeak the Bishops something prejudicial to the Civil State and yet it was never passed by Act of Parliament Moreover these learned men subscribed and swear to the Protestation of May 1641. they did not sure then think that submitting to swear that Oath they did violate or betray the liberties of the people expressed in the Petition of Right they should do well to tell us by what Act I do not say Authority of Parliament it was established I humbly conceive that there is a vast difference between an Oath of exaction self-discovery or accusation which is wicked in its nature and more wicked when without warrant from the Law and an Oath for establishment of publick and general good imposed by the Authority though not established by Act of Parliament it is not the simple taking an Oath without consent of Parliament but the taking such an Oath as may impeach the persons or endanger the Estates of the Subject which was the Peoples grievances not is it the formality of an Act but the full consent of the people in Parliament makes an Oath lawful and preserveth their liberties in the imposing of it But these Masters and Scholars of Oxford fear Ibid. by owning this Covenant they should own a power in the imposers thereof then for ought that appeareth to them hath been challenged in former times or can consist with
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
very manner of making this Covenant is no less justifiable than the matter therein sworn and being seriously considered will not avail to reproach much less to discharge the Solemn League and Covenant Sectio Quinta Fifth Prop. The Ambiguities and Contradictions in the words of the Solemn League and Covenant are imagined not real SO Sacred is the nature of an Oath and so strict the obligation thereof that I freely confess simplicity of expression and sincerity of intention should continually attend it and ambiguous or contradictory terms do destroy the very nature thereof deceive men and blaspheme God in making him the Witness of a fallacy yet these ambiguities and contradictions must be real and in the very words of the Covenant not in the fancy or imagination of such as in prejudice do decline the Oath nor in the intention of him that sweareth not willing to be bound for if the words be clear and plain in their proper signification or vulgar acceptation the apprehension of the confederates or the due drift and scope of the Oath the Oath obligeth De juram prael 6. Sect. 22.11 p. 173 195. and must be carefully observed as Dr Sanderson Grotius and many others in this case do teach Some there are who charge the Solemn League and Covenant with ambiguities and contradiction in its terms and therefore have declined to swear it these having had a care to their passion and prejudice I cannot but commend confessing that whilst they but seem such to their imagination they might well be a remora to their act of swearing and spur unto the study of the Oath to be sworne but others plead them as an Argument to make void the Oath and such had need to see that there is no possibility of understanding the terms in a sound sence and making them to agree among themselves lest they be found Students unto perjury Forasmuch as the last have recourse unto the first let us consider what seemed to the one and are since alledged by the other to be ambiguous and contradictory that the one may be justified and the other acquitted if found real or both condemned if found imagined 1. Ambiguity Oxford Reasons Sect. 6 p. 17. League Illegal p. 27. The ambiguities that are urged are these 1. Those words in the first Article of the Covenant the common enemies the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do charge with ambiguity but assign no cause or reason for the same and Dr. Featley his ghost following their exception enquireth whether by common enemies are meant the world the flesh or the devil enemies to all true Religion or Papists and Independents enemies to the Discipline of the Scotch Church Unto this exception Sir I answer The words common enemies are words in their own nature and signification plain and cleer to be understood nor do I know them to be darkned by any variety of acceptation they are indeed relative terms to be specified or particularly assigned by their objects things or persons so that the Kingdom of England or professors of true Religion being annexed to common enemies as objects of that enmity doth make its sence plain and obvious to every capacity If then common enemies had been mentioned in the Covenant without an object assigned it might have been an individuum vagum and so ambiguous as not to be understood But they are not left so general for they are limited with this possessive our The words run thus The preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland in doctrine worship discipline and government against OVR COMMON enemies This Relative OVR doth limit and explâ—in COMMON ENEMIES and if they will consider the antecedent which can be no other than the Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses and Commons of all sorts c. living under one King being of one reformed religion having before our eyes c. and men described by these and the like qualities and in special by one that is fully exegetical to these terms in the Preface of the Covenant and discharge all imaginable ambiguity in them viz. Calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots and conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors thereof in all places but especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the reformation they will find that an ordinary Grammarian would easily read this Riddle and tell them common enemies limited by this possessive OUR must mean the enemies of England Scotland and Ireland as living under one King in the profession of one reformed Religion wherein some had made a progress to be preserved others were in pursuit of a greater degree of reformation but all opposed by the plots conspiracies c. of known enemies to true religion especially the professors thereof in these three Kingdoms Now whilst this enmity was not seen by the Masters and Scholars of Oxford it is no wonder if they imagined an ambiguity in these words Common Enemies and Dr. Featley his Ghost might hereby have assured himself that both the flesh the world and the devil are enemies to all true religion and so to reformation and Papists professed enemies to the reformed Religion were here intended and Independents though scarcely then known by that name by their enmity to the discipline and government of Scotland parts of the true reformed Religion might be accidentally accounted into the number of the Common enemies so far as the qualifications before mentioned in reference to the antecedent objects of this common enmity will include them And so Sir the words can be of no very dark or doubtful construction to the one or to the other there being no real ambiguity in them 2. The next words charged with Ambiguity The second Ambiguity charged on the Covenant are in the same Article the best Reformed Churches concerning which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford enquire which they be but by their leave that is not necessary to be resolved in or before the taking of the Covenant yet the words are of a plain and clear construction making this sence obvious to the meanest capacity in endeavouring the Reformation of the Church of England the Word of God shall be our Rule and forasmuch as many Churches are reformed some more and better some worse and less the best Reformed Churches shall be our pattern so that the Covenant asserts not which are the best reformed Churches but binds the Covenanter to the observation of whatever Church shall appear and be found the best Reformed as the example to which he shall endeavour England may be conformed The next words imagined to be so ambiguous as to impede the swearing the Covenant in judgement are in the second Article The third Ambiguity charged on the Covenant League Illegal p. 27. and profoundly stated by Dr. Featley's Ghost who enquires what is meant by Church-Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans c. as if it were not so particularly specified that every ordinary
capacity may run and read it if he know any thing of the late Hierarchy in this Church Dr. Gauden hath appeared no less willing to suppose and suggest the same Ambiguities in his Analysis to which I have before Answered in my Analepsis and he that hath but half an eye cannot but see that the very and whole frame of Government by Arch-deacons Prebends Chapters Deans Bishops and Arch-bishops whereby all Government which belongs to Presbyters in Common was engrossed by a few pretended Ministers to Cathedral Churches and a Superiority of Office and Order above Presbyters not ordained by God or consented to by themselves was exercised is utterly to be abolished the which is so clearly expressed that it can admit of no evasive Salvoes The next Ambiguity is imagined by the Masters and Scholars of Oxford to be in the fourth Article in the word Malignants The Fourth Ambiguity charged on the Covenant and they enquire who are to be accounted Malignants as if it were left in its latitude to be understood by every mans private fancy whilst it is expressely limited and explained in the Article it self such as have been or shall be Malignants by hindring Reformation of Religion dividing the King from his people or one Kingdom from another so that the Malignity predicated is described and specified by the formality of it but those learned men know not how farre the hindring Reformation of Religion may be extended To which I say it matters not unto the discovery of a Malignant for they will not deny both these to admit majus and minus if Reformation be hindred it is Malignity which is in degree more or less according to the measure of that obstruction which is made Again they know not what are meant by the Supream Judicatories of both Kingdoms sure they will not pretend to ignorance in the signification they know well what a Judicatory is and wherein Supream almost every Englishman knoweth the sence of these Roman terms I believe their doubt was which be the Supream Judicatories and the words can be construed no otherwise than to mean those to which the other Courts of Judgement are subject and from which there is no appeal if they please to ask Lawyers I presume they will tell them it is the Parliament yet this is not necessary to be known to the expounding of the words of the Covenant These are Oxford Reasons sect 6. p. 17 18. Sir the ambiguous terms which in the judgment of these learned men are of a dark and doubtful construction whether really and in themselves let rational men judge others they do stick at but profess the use men have made thereof doth occasion it they well know false glosses male interpretations and a strained sence may by wicked men be put on the plainest text yet it doth not lose its genuine and proper signification especially in an Oath wherein some men are willing to wrest it with rigour beyond its scope others to writh themselves out of its just obligation I shall be free to tell them that no Rules of right Reason will justifie the rigorous sence put on the third Article in the Case of the King by Mr. Challoner though in a speech in Parliament nor the Laxe sence put on the second Article in the Case of Prelacy by Dr. John Gauden though unto the Loosing of St. Peters bonds nor will the words of the Covenant warrant the one or the other But such ambiguities are made according to mens wills minds fancies and lusts not found in the words which are clear and plain to every common capacity These supposed ambiguities are not more visible to have been imagined without any real ground in the words of the Covenant than the suggested contradictions in it self the learned men of Oxford do charge the Covenant to be an Oath in which one part is contradictory to another but with Reverence may I tell them one part is confined to their breasts or to such to whom they shew it Oxford Reasons sect 6. p. 16. for it goeth not abroad with the Covenant as will appear in the very naming of their supposed suggested contradictions which are these 1. To preserve as it is without change 1. Contradiction charged on the Covenant and yet to reform and alter and not to preserve one and the same Reformed Religion In what Articles of the Covenant this contradiction lieth they do not tell us nor can I see it the Reformed Religion in Scotland is to be preserved and Reformation of Religion in England endeavored Are these opposites and contraries were there not Doctrins Worship Discipline and Government in England which were no part of the Reformed Religion and cannot these be altered and abolished whilst that is preserved where then is the contradiction 2. Absolutely and without exception to preserve 2 Contradiction charged on the Covenant and yet upon supposition to extirpate the self-same thing viz. the present Religion of the Church of Scotland I want Sir their eyes to read this contradiction the first part to preserve is legible in the Covenant but to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland I read not Oh but they tell us it is on a supposition but I suppose that supposition must be expressed in plain terms in the Covenant to make a contradictory part thereof The Extirpation covenanted relates to Popery Prelacy Errour Heresie Schisme c. which of those can we suppose the present Religion of Scotland to be they will bring good Compurgators for every of them I know the University did suppose * Reason sect 4 p. 4. there were some things in the Church of Scotland which to their thinking did tend to schism and superstition yet they dare not charge it do but suppose it and that not to be but tend toward superstition and schism and they do not affirm them neither to be the Religion of Scotland such supposed extirpation may suppose a contradiction justly deserving to be charged to be a suppositum non supponendum Their next Contradiction is as clear a supposition as this 3. Contradiction charged on the Covenant to reform Church-Government in England and Ireland according to the Word of God and yet to extirpate that we are perswaded is according to the Word of God here it is visible the contradiction is between the Covenant and their perswasion not one part against another part of it self how well-grounded their perswasion is we have before enquired I shall therefore only tell them it is not fair play to beg the question and on their own perswasion to arraign the Covenant as an Oath contradictory to it self yet The next is of the very same nature 4. Contradiction charged on the Covenant to extirpate heresie schismes and prophaneness and yet to extirpate the Government we conceive the want of which is the chief cause of all evils and the restoring and continuance of which the proper and effectual remedy Sure
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
serious surveigh of the Solemn League and Covenant I cannot but observe and see clearly that first the matter therein Covenanted is publike and national relating to the Kingdom under its Civil Religious and reformed consideration or capacity being the reformation and defence of Religion under a national profession and the honour and happinesse of the King priviledges of Parliament and liberties of the Subjects and the like concernments no way proper for personal and individual private Oaths 2. These matters and this form of security to them were consul ed agitated debated determined concluded and agreed unto by two distinct Nations agreeing in the general capacities which did relate unto the matter thereof and that in their most publike capacities and by the indisputable most full and formal collective bodies of both Kingdoms the Parliament though defective in that part which was most necessary to establish a Law then indent a Covenant which did most eminently consist in the consent of the people and body of the Nations 3. The termes shewing the capacity in which it was sworn are general and National as in the very words of the Preface We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts of the Kingdome of England c. by the providence of God living under one King and being of one reformed Religion so that all ranks and orders of men however dignified or distinguished among themselves yet united in this publike capacity the subjects of one King and of one reformed Religion and in that union universally sware the Covenant 4. The end and scope of this Covenant was Real National and Publike and only Personal in relation thereunto as is evident by the professed grounds thereof as having before our eyes the true publique liberty peace and safety of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included a sence of the deplorable distressed dangerous estate in which the Kingdoms then were and by the ends propounded almost in every Article thereof which relate to the Kingdoms and our Posterity and cannot be secured if the Oath be not National as in Article the First that we and our Posterity after us may as Brethren live in faith and love in Article the Second that the Lord may be one and his Name one in the three Kingdoms In Article the Third that the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland may remain conjoyned in a firme peace and union to all Posterity And by the Sixth Article it is declared to contain in it a cause which much concerned the good of the Kingdoms and in the conclusion thereof is a profession of sence and sorrow for the sin of these Kingdoms distinct from our own sins the which do loudly proclaime the scope and intent thereof to have been Nationall and publique 5. This Covenant was sworn by the Nation or Kingdom 1. Collectively by the body of the Nations regularly assembled and constituted in the most full and compleat Assembly that could and ever did represent the same in all acts and agâ—tations truly Real and National viz. The Parliament consisting of Lords and Commons that in their publique capacity as a Parliament the House of Commons Assembled in their House in the formality of the body of the Nation with their speaker before them went unto St. Margarets Church in Westminster and there with the greatest solemnity imaginable Ordinance of Feb. 5. 1643. did as the representative body of the Kingdom swear this Covenant which as a further testimony that it was a National Covenant they caused to be printed with their names subscribed and to be hanged up in all Churches and in their own House as a compass whereby in conformity to right Reason and Religion to steer their then debates and to dictate to all that should succeed into that place and capacity what obligation did before God lie upon the body of this Nation 2. It was universally sworn by the people of this Kingdom solemnly Assembled in their particular places of convention all over the Kingdom all manner of persons from eighteen years old and upward and that not at their own will and giddy humour but at the Command and by the Authority of Parliament Vid. ordinance enjoyning the taking of the Covenant who in their place and in the behalf of this Nation having judged it a fit and excellent means to acquire the favour of God towards the three Kingdoms did order it to be universally sworne and certainly whosoever will but well weigh the directions given and duly executed in the tendring of the Covenant in all Counties and Parishes by every individual Minister to every individual Congregation and taken by all persons religious military or civil enforced with arguments which might convince conscience in the ingenuous or constraine the act from the peevish or perverse and accompained with the greatest extention concomitant imaginable he cannot but see a much more then the fourth part of the Nation did swear the Covenant If the several Rolls within the several Parishes and Precincts of this Kingdom in which the several Names of such as did swear the Solemn League and Covenant were engrossed may be produced It will be found notwithstanding the many singulars who may now renounce and say they did not take the Covenant it was sworn by the universality of the Nation And I hope we who have ever been judged a free people tied by no bonds but such as we lay upon our selves may be allowed to bind our selves by an Oath De jure bel ex par 256. and so make it Real and National according to that Rule and Reason of Grotius Si quidem populo liberto actum sit dubium non est quin quod promittitur sui natura reale sit 3. The solemn League and Covenant hath been ratified and rendred National by his most sacred Majesty unto all such who apprehend the constitution of this Nation to be merum imperium an absolute Monarchy wherin the King hath supremam protestatem whose professed loyalty leads them to subject themselves to all manner his Majesties concessions and conclusions and that by a series of multiplied acts as his Majesties agreement with the Scots at Breda where he graciously condescended to his Subjects by Solemn Oath to publish testifie his approbation of the solemn League Covenant and at his first arrival into Scotland was pleased to subject unto the same bond in which his Subjects were engaged and to swear the same solemn League and Covenant And again at his royal Coronation at Scoon in Scotland on the first of January 1651. was Graciously pleased over and above the ordinary and solemn Oath peculiarly belonging to him as King of Scotland in his most publique capacity The History of Charles the second 75 76 77. to swear the solemn League and Covenant and this Oath in behalf of himself and his successors I Charles King of great Brittain France and Ireland do
unto a Solemn Covenant for their extirpation Zeal courage and constancy suit not any act so well as the asserting the Obligation of a Sacred Oath to which King and Kingdom are the subjects and of which God is Object and Avenger so that in hanc arenam descendere to enter a controversie in defence thereof is pro aris focis certare to fight for God and our Country that the one be not dishonoured or the other destroyed by perjury Dr. Sanderson notes courage as a necessary Bar to the swearing of a forced Oath De juram prael 4. Sect. 14. pag. 123. I am sure it is much more such to the breaking of it when sworn he makes it essential to piety Viro forti id est pio pius enim esse nequit qui non est fortis To him I must needs subscribe whilst Solomon seems to have been his Dictator The righteous are bold as a Lion but the sluggard crieth There is a Lion in the way and fools wait wind and weather to the losing seed-time and harvest I deny not wisdom to watch and wait opportunity of action but that general distaste and dissent direct contradiction or declared inhibition of some luke-warm declention of others danger and difficulty unto an improbability of effect should demurre to a positive duty such as is ministerial exaction of the Oath of God is plain folly and to divert it is praedominate iniquity ob dubia quae se offerunt nemo à bene faciendo cessare debeat is a Divine rule most fit for Divines to practice in religious discharges Cicero de Officiis lib. 3. p. 404 Regulus is no little renouned for his fidelity to his forced Oath Cum vigilando necabatur erat in meliore causa quam si domi senex captivus perjurus consularis remanisset And me-thinks the dying profession of Mr. Christopher Love Speech on the Scaffold in reference to this very Covenant I had rather die a Covenant-keeper than live a Covenant-breaker should yet have some influence on London-Ministers Let men count me fool and firebrand or what they please my record is above and witness is on high I must tell thee as no perswasion of my friends threats of foes losse of estate danger of liberty declension of brethren could constrain my silence in the civil part of the Covenant which concerned Caesar so I cannot but speak unto the religious part of it which concerneth God and his Church the things therein sworn to be extirpated being generally evil and the best viz. Answer to the Remonstrant p. 30 31. Episcopacy which Smectymnus tells us In its best and primitive institution was of diabolical occasion and meer humane not Apostolical prescription a remedy uneffectual to its designed end and only became a stirrup to Antichrist which I hope none of them will be perswaded to hold is onely good in that particular which is common to other Governments and not divine or necessary but within human power to be discharged or continued And in conscience of its obligation I have this once and again put pen to paper whereby if I may do God and his Church the King and Kingdom any service I shall be glad like unto Alexanders souldier to be found in the fashion of a fool being resolved in the discharge of duty to seek dignity according to old Strato's direction by turning my back on the rising Sun and withstand S. Peters temporizing to the stumbling of the weak and strengthning of the wicked unto his very face for he will be found worthy to be blamed Let mens spirits be composed the case of conscience be candidly discussed the bond of the Covenant be by right and religious reason discharged none shall more chearfully submit than my self but if the Covenant be sleighted as of no use by Jesuitical Sophisms made void by violence violated or by false glosses and interpretations evaded faithfulnesse unto it and the zeal of a Minister bound to speak in Gods Name that his anger may be silent and love and loyalty to King and Kingdom studious of what may profit more than please will constrain an out-cry and constant call Oh regard the Covenant the Solemn League and Covenant The degrees of reformation obtained before this Covenant was made were matter of joy to the Church and ground of praise to God but not of content and full satisfaction whilst higher degrees were desirable and to be pursued and though we now should obtain another step to what we then had but yet not only short of but inconsistent with the degree covenanted or sworn I deny it not to be materially good yet cannot but judge it to be a formal evil I fear a breach of the Covenant unless we can find a medium between perjury and non-performance quoad captum of the thing sworn to God I can chearfully embrace every degree of good but not triumph in that good which falls short of engagement unto God Reformation is not more joyous than the retrogradation thereof is grievous to a serious spirit that the child stick in the birth is dangerous but its return into the womb is so apparent an hazard to mother and child it admits no moderation in midwife or assistants but provoketh earnest and utmost diligence for delivery I tremble to think what may yet become of the Reformed Churches if Englands reformation after so long and sad a travel be returned backward and that against the strength of a Solemn League and Covenant I pray God we be not courted into the Cassandrian accommodation into which Englands Prelates could not cudgel us It bodes no good when sacred Oaths are conceived to be Court-complements State-stratagems to be once used to effect a present design so laid aside to be no more regarded or like riders knots with which men at pleasure play fast and lose I am not so rigorous as to extort the sense of an Oath beyond what its genuine construction will bear nor can I allow a signification more laxe than the scope Grammatical exposition and Logical resolution of the words will admit Some wits can find or rather fancy starting-holes in the strictest and plâ—â—â—â—est bonds Proteus-like turning any thing into any shape thereby thinking to speak the weakness of an Oath they shew themselves notoriously wicked Mille adde catenas Effugiet tamen haec sceleratus vincula Proteus Hor. lib. 2. Satyr 3. But the words of this Covenant are plain and clear to every common capacity and in no part more clear than in that under present controversie viz. Refo mation of Religion wherein the Word of God is made the lanthorn to direct our course and best Reformed Churches our lanched boighs to detect our dangers in every time of Doubt In the evils to be removed that which might occasion the greatest doubt is made most plain by the description of the object and denomination of the act The Object is expressed by a term Prelacy though general in its
Gloucester 57 in the County of Salop and 73 in the County of Devon who give their testimony and call it the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms and in the sense of the National Obligation they give this testimony and thus plead We find the Covenant is antiquated and banished as intended to be of force during the time of our intestine Warres we confess we are amazed at this quirk we pray the Wars may cease for ever which yet there is fear may too soon be recalled by God Pag. 27. for this treacherous dealing in his Covenant but we believe no honest understanding heart can be perswaded the Covenant was intended as a Truce made with God for three or four years but we shall labour to stop this Gap with some few strong stakes cut out of the Covenant and so passing through the several Articles of the Covenant they advise those terms may be viewed constantly Pag. 28 29. all the dayes of our life our posterity the Lord may dwell in the midst of us and good of the Kingdoms whereupon they conclude these are not for a few years but for ever and affectionately cry out to the Nation Oh England turn not Harlot break not Covenant with thy God and the Lord keep England from this Covenant-breaking and his vengeance from his people Unto this give me leave to add this passage out of the Testimony of the York-shire Ministers It cannot be unknown to the Churches abroad Pag. 8. that all the three Kingdoms stand engaged by vertue of a Solemn League and Covenant sworn with hands lifted up to the most High God sincerely really and constantly by the grace of God to endeavour in our several places the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and example of the best Reformed Churches I shall Sir add but one more and it is that in which we have all the rest their 's being little else but a concurrence with this and that is the Testimony of the Ministers of our own City of London and they profess thus Pag. 26. In order to the Reformation and Defence of Religion within these three Kingdoms we shall never forget how solemnly and chearfully the Sacred League and Covenant was sworn with hands lifted up to the most High God wherein the three Kingdoms stand engaged joyntly and severally c. Yet we cannot but observe to the great grief of our heart that this Solemn Covenant of God hath been and is daily neglected slighted vilified reproached and opposed even by too many who have entred into it and endeavours have been used wholly to evade it and render it useless and that it hath been manifestly violated to the dishonour of God to the prejudice of a real Reformation the sadning of the hearts of Gods people and pulling down his dreadful judgments upon us and upon the whole Kingdom Sir I will say no more Pag. 28. but I pray God London Ministers may retain or recover their first love and Englands Watchmen may remember the loud Alarums they have sometimes sounded and the grounds thereof Sectio semptima Prop. 7. The Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant is permanent and abiding never by any humane act or power to be absolved or discharged SIR By the permanency of the Obligation of the Covenant we mean the continuance of its Bond on the mind and consciences of men so that the Subjects thereof are and for ever will be bound to pursue and perform the things and matters therein promised nor is it in the power of any man or humane authority to release acquit or discharge them from the same but that when and howsoever the Solemn League and Covenant is slighted laid aside or violated by any the Subjects thereof they shall be liable unto the guilt and punishment of perjury in the breach thereof This permanency of obligation and impossibility of discharge doth spring from a double cause 1. The nature of an Oath which is a solemn and serious Appeal to and invocation of God as Witness and Avenger of the thing sworn and sincerity of the Subject swearing so as in case of dissimulation falshood or non-performance of the thing covenanted we shall be liable unto the guilt and punishment of perjury to be inflicted by the God who judgeth righteously And 2ly From the Manner and Form of the Covenant which is absolute and without a condition which might at any time fail and so cause a Cessation of the Bond of the Covenant thereupon dependent and is expressely exclusive to all manner of discharge or release by any humane Act or Power whatsoever by an express protest That this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the Searcher of all hearts with a true intention to perform the same as we shall answer at that great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed and by a peculiar provision That we shall never suffer our selves directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination perswasion or terrour to be divided or withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction whether to make defection to the contrary part or to give up our selves to a detestable neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the Glory of God Good of the Kingdoms and Honour of the King but shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein So that the matter of this Covenant being as I have before asserted good and lawful because just and possible if there were in the World any power or persons entrusted with that divine Prerogative to discharge the Obligation of an Oath we could not receive it because it is actually and expresly disclaimed We Sir live amongst Protestants who by their very profession do protest against all Papal Dispensations and Jesuitical Commutation thereupon dependent and therefore I need not stand to make any defence in this cause against the same which would be to suggest some Protestant Divines to be so Popishly affected as to have recourse to Rome for relief against St. Peters Restraint I presume Sir Englands Bishops would not be reputed Popish and other ways to discharge the Obligation of the Covenant we have none save the release of Superiors which alwayes must be in such cases and manner as are peculiar unto them and proper to their cognizance I am not insensible that some suppose to themselves and suggest to others a nullity or non-obliging force of the Covenant by reason that His late Majesty of glorious Memory did interdict the Act concerning which it is necessary to be enquired Whether by the Light of Nature Law of Nations or Rule of Scripture the Prince the Political Parent have such full compleat Parental Authority over His Kingdom collectively or distributively considered as by His interdict to make void the Oath they put upon themselves 2. Whether the Parliaments of England both or either House
can order determine direct and by Parliamentary Authority enforce a present execution of those Determinations and Orders directed to the Subject as we know is and ordinarily hath been practised without the consent of the King And whether the people are not subject to the same as being Parliamentary Authority before they formally pass into Laws or Acts to be established Rules when their being a Parliament ceaseth And so whether an Act done Sedente Parliamento at their Appointment and by their present Order being in its own nature permanent and abiding never to be discharged as is the Obligation of an Oath be not valid though it never pass into a Formal Act of Parliament and standing Statute 3. Whether an extraordinary and unusual Proclamation of the King against the Determinations of both Houses of Parliament be according to the constitutions of this Kingdom a full and formal supersedeas to any act required to be done by the authority of the Parliament then sitting 4. Whether his late Majesty in his Proclamation of the 9th of Octob. 19. Carol. did by his Royal Authority declare void and null the Obligation which should be laid on any of his people against his consent Or by his Parental care onely admonish his Subjects of its evil and the danger he conceived in it and so warn a forbearance of it For Parental Admonition and Authoritative Annulling Inhibition are distinct Acts and the last was in this case necessary because the Collective Body of the Kingdom had sworn this Covenant on the 25th of September before 5. Whether the Kings after-assent and admonition unto a right understanding and Religious keeping of the Covenant do not establish it and make its obligation unavoidable And whether after the interdiction of the Act his Majesties Declaration That as things now stand good men shall least offend God and Me by keeping their Covenant by honest and lawful ways since I have the Charity to believe the chief end of the Covenant in such mens intention was to preserve Religion in purity and the Kingdoms in peace Be not a subsequent allowance sutable to the equity of that Law in Numb 30. and sufficient to make the Covenant valid and an indispensable vow 6. Whether an endeavour in our places and callings be not so far sui Juris to the Subject that it may be safely sworn without the consent of the Soveraign and shall bind the conscience notwithstanding His declared dissent thereunto Lastly Whether the Approbation of His most Gracious Majesty that now is unto the Solemn League and Covenant and the Assent unto the Ordinances of Parliament enjoyning the same declared by Solemn Oath and Publick Declaration be not a full compleat and formal Authority supplying all supposed defect and fastning its obligation by a full Theological if not formally Political Act of Parliament And so hath varied the case and all fancy of the non-obligation of the Covenant occasioned by the unhappy dispute concerning the Authority conversant about it When Sir these enquiries are seriously and on solid Reasons resolved in the Negative we shall confess there may be some doubt of a discharge of the Obligation of the Covenant and untill then it lieth on our consciences and must be carefully regarded and performed lest the judgments of God come upon us and we fall under the guilt of perjury Now Sir the matter of the Covenant being just and possible the Authority establishing it full and sufficient and dispensation from the Obligation of an Oath concluded to be a Popish Vanity what can hinder our conclusion that the Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant is permanent never to be discharged Yet Sir Dr John Gauden notwithstanding his ill success in loosing St. Peters Bonds hath made an Essay for his full release though not immediately by himself who can say no more then what he said at first and therefore saith it over again in his Epistle to the Doubts and Scruples before noted yet by his profound allowance and judicious testimony to the discourse of Mr. John Russel of Chinkford in Essex the which is made authentick and acceptable to the world as good Casuistical Divinity and a clear resolution of this case of conscience by this stamp on the Title page Attested by John Gauden D. D. So that Sir I should be dis-respective to my Antagonist if I make not a little stay to consider what is said by his learned Chaplain though I must confess it is so simple and shatter'd a discourse it is not worth reading much less the least of Answer but I remember my promise at the beginning That I would weigh what he could alledge to void the Covenant which is his aim and professed end and therefore his Title page affirmeth The Solemn League and Covenant discharged or St. Peters Bonds not onely loosed but annihilated An honourable design an high undertaking an hard enterprise to release the conscience from the bond of an Oath It is well if the attempt give us not cause to see Fronti nulla fides and that the Title is stuffed with proud swelling words of vanity yet he applieth himself to the work with some agility as if accustomed to evade holy Bonds and with ease to resolve the most weighty cases of consciences I will not say by a nimble profaneness to break Religious Prisons and therefore in page 2 of his Book he states the question and telleth us I shall grant by way of supposition we will be content with such a grant all that the most rigid Covenanters can desire of me excepting one point I shall suppose the same to be imposed by compleat and lawful Authority to be no ways defective in circumstances to be clear and free from ambiguity to be perfect in the form to be sound and lawful in the matter to be pious in the end fair in the manner of imposing that there was no fraud or violence used but that all men took it with due deliberation and free consent by all which means it became a very strong Bond and Obligation upon the consciences of men Sir This is I confess a very fair grant if notwithstanding all this he can discharge the Covenant by my consent he shall never more be brought into durance but what is that one point he denieth to grant us It is this That the Solemn League and Covenant is such a Bond on the consciences of men that it cannot be released by any humane act or power And in opposition thereto he affirmeth That the same specifical power or an higher than that which imposed this Vow upon us may release us from the same either tacitely or expresly This Sir is easily affirmed with confidence but so simply and slenderly proved that the Doctor hath shewed us little of judgment in his attestation to this work as in his own Analysis and must needs make men observe his desire of Release is so fervent as to allow and approve any thing that doth but pretend to discharge the