Case you only return a discovery of three Principles which you affirm I take for granted though they are denied by my Adversaries 1. That the Long Parliament is dissolv'd 2. That the Covenant is only private and personal 3. That each single person is concluded by my subsequent Arguments These you call ungranted Principles but if they may not be granted though they are Principles I shall endeavour that they may be proved though I hope very few of the people of England need satisfaction in such points as these SECT 1. Of the dissolution of the long Parliament 1. TOuching the Dissolution of the Long Parliament I could not dream that so ingenuous persons had any scruple I would fain hope that you want a Refuge when I find you in so bad a Sanctuary 2. Yet when I read your words so warily conditioned in this great particular I find some small encouragement to think that though you now stumble at this stone if every other stone were removed you would stumble over it You say it hath been said you dare not say it and in obedience to present laws you are submissively silent 3. Are you indeed Obedient to what to the present Lawes Who made them the Parliament How comes this to be a Parliament if the Long Parliament be not dissolv'd 4. If the Long Parliament be yet in being the Present is none their Laws are none your Obedience is none if you acknowledge the present Laws you acknowledge the present Parliament and thereby you are over the stone of stumbling before you are aware for you acknowledge the Long Parliament dissolv'd 5. Now there are but two ungranted principles for one you have granted upon a better Argument then I had thought of your own Obedience to the present Laws 6. Truly I took you to be so ingenuous before hand and therefore I presumed to take this for granted and thought I might do it without offence For it is not only the ground of Obedience to the present Laws but the Foundation of our Peace our Liberty our Pardon our Lives and indeed of all we are worth in this world and such a stone not of stumbling but of the Comer that it is hardly safe to touch it though with an intent to fasten it But blessed be God it is fast enough already in our constitution and I hope not much loosned in your opinions 7. Yet if you are in doubt of what disease that great body died I refer you to Judge Jenkins and Mr. Prin who though in other things they differed too much agree very well in this great point 8. Indeed the Name Parliamâ—â—t which signifies to consult and treat together with the Writ whereby the two Houses are Assembled are a full Demonstration of its departure or dissolution long agon They are thereby called to consult and treat with the King therein it signified that Rex est habiturus Colloquium Tractatum cum praelatis magnatibus proceribus Rex in hoc individuo 9. Hence Judge Jinkins argues that the Parliament dissolved upon the Kings being forced from them and put into an incapacity of Treating with them however at his death they died on course 10. The King dying with whom they are to Treat and for which end they have their being the end of their assembling and consequently of their being is gon with him and they are no longer a Parliament A Parliament is a Relative term the Relate and Correlate die together Therefore the King in our Laws is Principium Caput finis Parliamenti 11. It may be said the Act secured them against the Kings death 12. 'T is plainly otherwise indeed it secured themselves from any violence to be done to that end by the King himseâ—f there is no such clause in the Act that they should not be capable of dissolving any other way much less in particular by the Kings death no security to save the Body when the Head was off 13. But a Parliament may be dissolved or dissolve die or be kill'd the Act secured them from being dissolved by the Kings power without their Consent not against the law of Mortality or their dissolving on course at his decease 14. This is very evident in ull Parliaments if the Kings favour shall continue a Parliament his whole time that Parliament hath all that the long Parliament desired or obtained by the Act specified yet upon the Kings death such a Parliament dissolves according to the nature of the thing and the constitution of the Nation 15. Who can be so fond as to imagine that it was ever intended either by the King or both Houses especially if the Reasons be weighed with which this Act was prosecuted that the constitution of the Nation or the nature of a Parliament should be altered by it or more then that the King should not dissolve them by violence that is without their own consent 16. 'T is as frivolous to mention that the King never dies in this respect For 〈◊〉 is evident that as the King is the Head of the Parliament the Relate Reasons of a particular Parliament so he doth die For as was said a Parliament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolv'd by the King in his life time dissolves of it self at his death and why but because in this sence the King dies 17. I never heard such Arguments as these following answered though indeed we need them not They are Judge Jenkin's He affirms that the Act for the continuance of the long Parliament is Repugnant to those for Annual and Triennial Parliaments which being all Acts of one Session are all Acts of one day and repugnant to common Right and common Reason and impossible by the Kings Mortality and maintains that when an Act of Parliament is thus against common Right and Reason and repugnant and impossible to be performed the common Law shall control and adjudge such an Act to be void and that these are the words of the Law 1. Par. D. Downhams Case fol. 11S 8E 3. 3. 30. 33. E. Cessavit 32. 37. H. O. Annuity 41. 1. Eliz. Dier 313. 18. I hope you will not demand who shall judge of such a Case since all parties have practically resolved this long agon 19. The Rump thought that Parliament too long the whole Nation were offended at the Rump The long-Long-Parliament men themselves when they were together again in order to the blessed Restauration of the King had a desire to be dissolv'd and did what they could themselves to do it and you know that both King Lords and Commons have since made a Law to which you say you yield Obedience that brandeth it for an high offence for any to say that the Long Parliament is not dissolv'd 20. But my dear brethren because you intimate that you are not fully satisfied in this point out of my hearty desire to do you any service I have advised with a very learned Sergeant in the Laws from whom I received these 3. Reasons every one
that this term against Law in one Proposition hath not the same sence with against Law in the other and there are four terms in the Argument and nothing concluded as yet against my plain distinction 11. Give me leave to be plain and the sum is this It is not against Law that is it is not unlawful to endeavour against Law therefore to endeavour against Law is not to endeavour against Law and then my distinction of endeavouring against that which is established by Law or against that which cannot be abolished without the alteration or abolition of Law is a poor distinction 12. But you call me off to prove That such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was Covenant-ed was against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent this done you say would much avail but you expect my evidence CASE XI Whether the present Church-Government was established by Law before the Covenant was taken THe sum of what I said upon the Resolution of this Case is reducible to three heads SECT 1. Church-Government is fixed by Law 1. First there is no need that we prove the Government to be established by Law in such a manner as the Covenanters seek for while we find it beyond all controversie that this Form is legal and established in the Laws though no express Statute should be found appointing it and it is so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 2. Now until this be questioned to what end do we trouble our selves any further All that is more then this is exubundanti and hath no necessary place left in the Argument 3. Yet of this whereon the very hinge of the Controverfie turns you have spared the pains to take any notice at all SECT 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law 1. IN the second place I intimated that it seems to me unreasonable to expect such proof That the Government of the Church should be established by Law in such a manner as you seek for That it should have its Original Establishment in Law 2. For before and at the first making of Christian Laws in this Kingdom this Government was found existing and to have first destroyed this Government and then again to have established the same by Law would have been plainly ridiculous which yet must have been done in order to such an establishment as you require proof of 3. It is acknowledged by Mr. Fox Act. Mon. Tom. 1. pag. 148. that in Elutherius his time An. Dom. 180. when this Realm was first converted to Christianity there were appointed in the same three Archbishops and twenty eight Bishops and since that time the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops c. hath been further established by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed above 30 times by Parliament and by the Statute called Confirmatio Chartarum still in force it was ordained that all Laws contrary to that Charter should be void and that Bishops twice every year should excommunicate all that did either do or advise contrary to it 4. The Government of the Church was at first founded in Prelacy therefore so far as we are a Christian Nation and governed by Christian Laws Episcopal Government goes into our foundation 5. I mean only it is so of the foundation as to be from and in the beginning of Church-Government and Christian Laws among us I do not say so of the foundation as to be unalterable yet others do however it is not yet actually altered and that is as much as the Argument requires and to warrant that expression which I thought augmentative though you pass it by unnoted viz. that there is the less reason to expect that the Power Office or Government of Bishops should have their origen from the Laws of the Land or that the Child should beget the Father SECT 3. Church-Government is established by Law 1. THirdly I laboured to prove that so far as a Government that was prae-existing before the Laws concerning it could be reasonably expected to be established by Law the present Church-Government is established by Law For 2. First the Laws of this Land since they were Christian have ever allowed it and taken it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions not only by those special Laws that particularly relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the Consent of the Lords Spiritual 3. Here you only catch at the weakest part about the Consent of the Lords Spiritual to the Acts of Parliament leaving the strength of the Argument grounded in those many special Laws which relate to this Government and apparently allow and continue it without any exception or observation 4. Yet I am not at all satisfied that the allowance and recording of their Consent to every Law by the King Peers and Commons is not a plain acknowledgement of Episcopal Power and Government 5. Secondly I affirm That the present Government is established by Law though not in its Office which was before the Law yet in its Political Power and the Exercise of it in this Kingdom 6. Therefore the several Legal Names of Prelatical Governours with their distinct Jurisdictions and the Crimes punishable by them and the Authority allowed so to punish and the Fees of their Courts and the Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops are found and founded in the Laws of the Land 7. In your Recital of this Argument you only mention the Exercise of this Government and take no notice of its Political Power given by Law and therefore your Answer is short 8. But that this Political Power of Ecclesiastical Governours is setled and authorized by the Laws of the Land is most evident in that of the 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Eliz. An. 1. 2. 9. By 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Jurisdiction touching Matrimony Wills Tithes Oblations c. is expresly given them and it is added that all such Spiritual Causes shall be from henceforth heard examined discuss'd and cleerly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the natures of the Causes shall require 10. Note That if the Temporal Courts have any Authority given them by this Statute so also have the Spiritual they are joyned together such Courts Spiritual and Temporal 11. The point of Appeals is also established by the said Statute and Bishops are expressy authorized to receive Appeals from Arch-Deacons Courts and the Arch-Bishops from the Bishops with Authority hereby given them or established in them to put a final end to all such Controversies You may reade tho Statute at large 12. Yet I conceive that of Eliz. 1. c. 2. is more precise to our purpose Where it is Ordained and Enacted that all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellours
better entertainment with you 4. You observe I make my first onset by Doctor Sanderson's distinction of Juramentum illicitum de se per accidens You farther say I grant that the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful you intimate that I hold it only sinful by accident 5. My dear Brethren I cannot forbear to tell you that you make too much haste stumble at the threshold you fall both upon that Reverend Person and my self with too plain mistakes 6. The Bishops distinction which you intend is not that of illicitum per se vel per accidens I do not here use that distinction I do not grant that the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful much less that the matter of the Covenant is sinful per accidens only The truth is both the Bishop and my self in the very places your words refer to do more then once say quite contrary to what you affirm in all which will you but take the pains to read over again that Chapter in Doctor Sanderson's Book and in mine that are here concern'd your own eyes shall judg betwixt us 7. The place you intend in Bishop Sanderson's Book is Pag. 71 72. Sect. 9. the Case is Deâ—â—re illicitâ Secundariò wherein indeed he is so directly against you that it is much so many eyes should not observe it 8. A thing saith he is unlawful secundarîo when it is not so in its own nature or to all persons Sed quibusdam tantùm pro conditione fuarum personarum prout sunt membra alioâ—jâ—â— câ—mmuâ—â—tatis anâ—â—ins certo aliqua vitae genere versanturie illicitum enim idque ex se non ex accidente tantùm his qui sunt membra alicujus communitatis quicquid legibus illius communitatis repugnat His reason there is because it is forbidden by God though not primario yet secundariò that is in the command of obedience to our Governours and consequently the Laws of the Land 9. Now that your discourse of this distinction intends this very place of the Bishops Book you give us a full demonstration in your next words following 10. You say you must make bold to mind me that the Learned Casuist hath determined the Case with an Ordinariè Haec juramenta ordinariè non obligant meaning such Oaths as are taken to do a thing that is thus evil not simply absolutely or to all persons but to us that by reason of our places are not allowed to do it they ordinarily do not bind 11. I acknowledg he subjoyns though nothing to your advantage Ordinariè dico quia fortasse possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari si non debuerit suscipi susceptum tamen potest obligari 12. You add That the Advocates of the Covenant think they may bring the Covenant within our Casuist's exception but upon an unbiassed reading our Casuist's following explication of himself there is nothing more evident then the contrary herein also your selves shall be Judges 13. Yet first give me leave to note our Casuist's Caution is with a fortassis perhaps such a Case may be he never thought you know he never said the Case of the Covenant was such yea his videtur adds no strength to the exception that is when the Oath seems but seems to be against the Laws of Community but that he might leave no room for the scruple he hath explained himself in his own Instance in a disjunctive penal Law 14. His Case is this Let the Law of the City be saith he that no man being chosen to the Office of a Pretor shall refuse it or if he do he shall find such a sum of Mony Caius swears he will never be Pretor but after his Oath he is chosen to that Office The Question our Casuist puts hereupon is Whether Caius be bound to keep his Oath or not and answer it thus he ought not to have sworn but having sworn he ought to keep his Oath and pay the Fine 15. Now how far this is from the Case of the Covenant in it self I need not say and how far it was so in the judgement of our great casuist his following Discourse doth sufficiently Demonstrate 16. I would here saith he be understood Praecisè in quantum adversatur legi Civitatis Nam respectu finis aut alterius causae imo respectu ipsius etiam Materiae quatenus est impeditiva majoris boni publici aut aliunde potest justa subesse ratio quae Obligationem tollat 17. Now admitting this exception of the Rule it is not possible to apply it to the Covenant however if the Covenant could be granted by some thing extraordinary in it to be excepted also yet you see the Casuist hath provided several other Topicks to render it non-obliging from the end or the very matter it self if it may hinder a greater publick good aut aliunde potest justa subesse ratio quae obligationem tollat 18. Give me leave also to remember you that I made my meaning touching the said distinction plain enough I did not distinguish as you assert I did That the thing sworn might be illicitum per se vel per accidens but I rather distinguish'd of illicitum per se as to the matter of the Covenant and that was either simply and primarily evil or secondarily and quoad nos when though it be not sinful in the primary consideration of it yet to such and such persons it is sinful that is forbidden by God as I did sufficiently explain my self 19. I did further conclude that a thing thus sinful quoad nos as being some way or other prohibited us to meddle with is illicitum per se secundariò and therefore not only so per accidens Thâ—se are my words To them to whom a thing is forbidden it is as it were unlawful in it self as the Apple to our first Parents and as it is unlawful for us it goes into the matter of the Covenant which we take and by consequence that which is only unlawful to us if sworn doth make that Oath unlawful in it self that is in the very matter of it 20. So that the Consequence being granted if this be proved that it is unlawful in either sence either simply or quoad nos to endeavour the Extirpation of Church-Government we may bring the difference to an happy conclusion 21. But I rather chose to argue upon the latter branch that to alter the Government of the Church is unlawful quoad nos and that because it is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledges of Parliament the Liberty of the Subject and the former Obligations that lay upon the Nations all which I am bound to defend CASE VII Whether any private or single person may lawfully endeavour the Alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 1. TO that which I have said upon this
Ecclesiastical 6. Supream doth necessarily suppose and respect Inferiours and Supream Governour Inferiour Governours 7. Your second Query is this Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Archbishops Bishops c. taken away the head must needs fall 8. To this I hope I may clearly Answer that the removing of the inferiour Governours hath a Natural tendency to the falling of the Head as such that is the Head of them or the Supreme but hath no natural ordination to the substitution of other kind of Governours 9. There is nothing in the pulling down of the walls that goeth into the support of the roof nothing in pulling down Arch-bishops and Bishops c. that serves to uphold the Supremacy of the King in governing the Church but to destroy it as the twenty years experience past doth sadly demonstrate SECT 2. Of the Kings Right in the Government of the Church 1. THe second Medium I use to prove that endeavours to extirpate Episcopal Government you observe to be this that thus to endeavour is not only against the Kings Right as Executor of the Laws by opposing and seeking to destroy his Commissioners but his very government it self and this is the express sence of the Covenanters that according to the Covenant they are bound in the whole course of their lives against that Government which they know is the Kings Ecclesiastical Government 2. This you grant only you say the Covenanters do not mean such endeavours as I mention Again you plead that some others deny the Government of the Church to be the Kings Government because they find it not established by the Laws of the Land whereof it is his Right to be Executor and this is all you say only touching these things here you refer their discussion to their proper places where I intend God willing to meet them again SECT 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator 1. AGain you note that I argue to endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Kings Right as Legislator as the maker as well as the Executor of the laws as appears by that sence of the Covenant which the practice of the Covenanters hath put upon it 2. To this you answer that the terms do so condition it that it doth not appear to engage us to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy without the Kings Consent 3. Here I must have leave to remember you that though it be true the terms of the Covenant which you specifie are soft and mild viz. through the grace of God in our places and callings yet there are other expressions visible in it that do more then seem to exact such proceedings as were veâ—y inconsistent with our places and callings or the grace of God viz. to our power and with our lives and fortunes 4. What need was there then of our power or lives and fortunes to be exposed in such endeavours but in opposing the King and his Army and how could that possibly be done in the present matter of endeavour to extirpate Prelacy but by Acting therein without the Kings consent and against his express mind to the contrary so that take a true measure of the Covenant by all such terms together as in fair reasoning we must needs do and it is too too evident that it puts us on endeavours that have no regard to the Kings consent at all 5. Besides if the true extent of endeavour covenanted be yet in doubt you would force me to resolve it by that black Comment of the state of things when the Covenant was press'd at first from the occasion of it which as the King sadly observ'd was that fatal confederacy with the Scots for their invading this Kingdome with Arms. The obvious and declared judgement of the Scots that created it touching the place and power of publick conventions and private persons in such matters The sudden course which the two Houses took to demolish this Government and that by virtue of the Covenant and to bring in another 6. These things I say soberly considered and pondered upon methinks should rationally and satisfactorily Evince to such sober persons as I am Treating with that endeavour in the sence of the Covenant it self and the prime Covenanters doth intrench souly upon the Kings Prerogative and Crown Notwithstanding those other small saint and after endeavours with the King to ratifie what they had laboured with all their power in a way of Hostility so long together to do without him and against his most signal express dissent so often reiterated 7. Which little endeavours to procure his consent I imagine you would hardly have mentioned had you had in your mind that at the same time the King was at least quasi a prisoner and was denied by the same persons that treated him the liberty to repair to the place where according to the Order of the Kingdom he useth to add his fiat to the making of Laws I mean the Parliament House 8. Further I am loth to remember that even then when the King at the I le of Wight and his two Houses were neerest to an accommodation the force of such endeavours as the Covenant exacted provoked them to reply to his Majesties papers that they were yet unsatisfied as to an agreement with and reception of his Majesty because he would only grant them a suspension of Episcopal-Government for 3. yeers and not an eternal extirpation of it for which they had covenanted vid. Biblioth Reg. p. 153. 9. But to return to the Covenant it self the close of it doth effectually conclude that in its prime and native intention it least of all regarded the Consent of the King and as to any such thing it was utterly desperate 10. The words are these We shall all the dayes of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever and what we are not able our selves to suppress or over come we shall râ—veal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed 11. Now I beseech you to consider here is a promise to continue in this cause which refers no doubt to the whole or the main matter of the Covenant Now as the Author of the Covenanters plea observes the main scope of the Covenant is against Church-Government to which all other things seem subordinate Therefore this same last Article repeats the beads of this common cause and begins it with Religion that is the Reformation of Doctrine Worship and Discipline and the extirpation of Episcopal Government The words are this common Cause of Religion Liberty and peace of the Kingdomes 12. Now in this Cause observe They swear to continue zealously and constantly all the dayes of their lives and what is the plain sence of that the King being known to be then in the fields and in arms agaâ—nst the Covenanters I say what can the plain sence be but that they would continue
Bishops and thus Episcopacy is established by Law 36. But are there not State-Officers that had not their original in the Statute-Laws but only in the Common-Law of this Land as hundred-Constables and Crownets c. will any say that these are not established by law These were before the known written statute Laws and so were Bishops in England before any Christian Laws 37. Indeed methinks the very Concessions of your selves Mr. Crofton yea and of the two Houses of the Long Parliament is as much as my Argument and the Government of the Church can stand in need of 38. You grant in one place of your P. 28. 19. Book your selves that the Government of the Church by Prelacy is not onely limited restrained regulated but directed yea in some things authorized by the Kings Laws I think you will hardly say Usury is so or that any thing Authorized by law can be destroyed but by law And that sufficeth my Argument 39. Again methinks Mr. Crofton decides the Controversie against himself in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 25. There he chargeth the late Bishop of Exon because he pleaded for the Jus Divinuin of Episcopacy that he did confront King and Parliament in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and constitution even from the Statutes of Carlile and the 25. of Ed. 3. declaring against the Pope that Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation Power and Authority 40. Now I conceive this was never said of Usury or indeed of any thing not established by Law For how is this Donation Power and Authority put forth in framing this Creature and Constitution of Parliaments but in Acts of Parliament that is the laws of the land 41. If there be any doubt what judgment the two Houses that imposed the Covenant had touching the Legality of the Government of the Church of England we are satisfied of that by their Applications to his Majesty for the extirpation of it at the I le of Wight 42. Their words are these for the Abolishing of Episcopacy we take leave to say that it is not the Apostolical Bishop which the Bill desired of your Majesty intends to remove but that Episcopacy formerly was established by law in this Kingdom Again onely to put down him by law who was set up by law 43. Note first that the Long Parliament did not doubt but that Episcopacy was establish'd by Law Secondly that the imposens of the Covenant did extend the sence of the Covenant against that which was established by law Thirdly that yet in their own Judgment that which is set up by law is not to be puld down without law These things they saw at last though their many years practice before had contradicted them vid. Biblioth Regi p. 350. CASE XII Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 1. YOu deny that Episcopal Government hath received any more express Establishment by the Acts of Parliament since the Kings Return then it had before but I cannot find that you say it hath received no Establishment thereby onely that its establishment is not more express in the new laws then it was in the Old but that I need not dispute 2. The Establishment of Episcopacy was express enough in my judgment before and if the new laws be found to establish it at all my Argument is not interrupted 3. And truly methinks after 20. years shaking and almost Ruinating we may fairly count the laws that restore this Government upon its leggs again and not only to its quiet and safety but to its liberty and power of exercise should deserve the name of Establishing laws and the Government be thought to be Established by them though it stand upon au elder Bottom which I never denied 4. Besides for a law so far to encourage and Countenance of Government that was troden under foot so long together as to punish all kind of disobedience to it is plainly to re-establish the same 5. I might add we see the King according to law and his own Supremacy hath fill'd the Church again with all the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers and hath set again the whole Frame of Government in the very terms of the Conant over us and thus the Government is Established by law diametrically against the Covenant and then surely the Engagement of the Covenant is as opposite to the law as it is to Episcopacy 6. Consequently whether the Act of Vniformity doth precisely prohibit Endeavours against this Government or not upon which Argument I cannot but acknowledge you are very ingenuous Other laws require obedience to it that were indeed made of old but are now renewd and reinforced by these new laws 7. Therefore the Covenant cannot oblige us against this Government but it doth equally oblige us against these new laws which to do I have at large proved to be sinful and you have said nothing at all to disparage my Arguments 8. You intimate your labour is saved in that point and you need not discuss how far an Oath may bind against law But truly to me this seems to be your proper work and that you have questioned the wrong Proposition all this while I cannot satisfie my self that what ever you pretend that you doubt the legality of Episcopal Government 9. The Exceptions of the Antagonists you mention are answered before and I have no more to do upon this Case but to note one Expression of your own in the close of it 10. You seem to fear Atheism in that which only serves to Vindicate God against our selves His Authority in his Sovereign pre-obligations upon us against and after-Obligations contracted by our selves though by way of Oath and Covenant to the contrary 11. I cannot but believe that Gods preobligation upon us to obey Authority in lawful things is so firm and indissoluble that no Covenant of ours to the contrary can make those things unlawful or warrant disobedience therein 12. This I assert though our Covenant precede the laws requiring such lawful things which needs must pass with abundant Evidence If these after-laws as you affirm do only revive and reinforce those Ancient laws that had obliged us to the same things before we Covenanted to the contrary 13. Now this methinks should have more Piety to God shining in it upon the eyes of such as read and consider then to be capable of the suspition of Atheism or Irreligion though I charge not the contrary with what you fear Treason or Sedition 14. There is nothing said by you on the thirteenth and fourteenth Cases that doth not either consent with me or is not answered already I pass to the fifteenth Case CASE XV. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 1. TOuching the word Endeavour I conceive you ought to have sweat more for though you find much fault with my endeavours about it yet I can find very little correction or amendment
gaining or increasing of grace or peace our prayers are a means not onely of asking but of effecting the same but to alter law and government is a thing of that nature that we can onely ask it we can Act no further towards it all the work for the effecting of it belongs to our Governours put any Familiar Instance with your selves and resolve the double will you say that the Childe desiring his Father to wind up his Watch is the Childs Endeavouring the winding it up or to wind it up 4. I can easily Consent that Conatus is not effectus yet you acknowledge it is a motion towards the Effect which you call a Natural power and I doubt not we agree that Conatus hath essentially in it a Natural tendency and operation towards the effect Endeavoured 5. Now simple and bare Petition or submiss supplication hath not so it hath indeed a verbal motion for the thing desired but no real Operation or Natural Motion towards the effecting of it 6. The subject by Petition doth desire it but the Parliament in all those legal methods of debating veting committing engrossing c. do properly endeavor the Abolition of any thing legally established 7. Truly I soberly discern this distinction of Petition and Endeavour both in the Covenant and in the Act of Vniformity 8. The Covenant saith we shall Endeavour the Extirpation of Prelacy not desire or perswade but Endeavour it Neither can you possibly perswade your selves that such as then imposed and took the Covenant did at first intend such Endeavors as you mean who took other courses you well know to effect the same 9. It is added Constantly and zealously must we be always zealous and hot in our Petitions must we perpetually sollicite King and Parliament with our supplications this will hardly consist with submiss Supplication 10. Indeed it is plainly Seditions in it self take Endeavour in your own sence publikely to engage by Covenant zealously and constantly to Petition the Alteration of Government this is to declare to the World that we will never be quiet under it 11. Thus also it is in the Act we are to declare there lies no Obligation to Endeavour a change it is not said that we shall not Petition that others may Endeavour it 12. Rational Endeavour implies that the persons endeavouring have probably a power to effect but it is certain before hand that without the Supream Legislative Power the Subjects cannot effect the Extirpation of Episcopacy therefore they cannot rationally or lawfully endeavour it therefore if they promise or Covenant so to do it is sinful and they may lawfully declare they are not obliged unto it that is to endeavour what they have no power by Law to do neither can the Act be thought to intend any more Stultum est Conari quod nequeas efficere 13. Lastly If submiss supplication be yet thought to have any spice of endeavor in it it cannot be rationally thought to be intended in the word endeavour in the Act you observe that Endeavour in the Act and in the Covenant are of one measure and it is too evident there was more in endeavour in the Covenant then meer Petition and submiss supplication which ran us upon those sad consequences that in all reason the Intention of this new Act is but to secure us from you say to make Laws against simple Endeavor is certainly destructive to the Liberty of the Subject and Priviledge of Parliament Methinks then you should not apprehend such a simple and bare endeavour is to be disclaimed as is essential in your own Judgements to the liberty of the Subject and priviledge of Parliament SECT 6. Whether to endeavour c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject c. 1. I Cannot yet consent that to endeavor to alter the overnment of the Church is at all times or at this time sui Juris to every or to any Subject or indeed to any person in the Nation to speak home 2. The King is the proper Judge of what Government is fittest for the Church both as he is Supream Governour over it and as he is the Head of the Parliament 3. As he is supream Governor over the Church of England he is supream Judge in all Causes into whom the last Appeal resolves and consequently he is supream Judge in this of the fitness of the Government of the Church unto whom the last Appeal for a final definitive sentence and determination is only to be made 4. Again as he is Head of the Parliament he is no less For though the 2 Houses be also Judges of the fitness of the Government yet still with submission and reservation to the highest Judge thereof their Sovereign Lord the King who hath a Negative upon both Houses and gives life or death with his own word to any Bill tendred to him 5. So that in matters Legally existing the King hath this great advantage above his 2 houses the King hath power of himself to continue the existence of any such thing without his two houses that is whether they will or not and they cannot remove or abolish any such thing without the King or whether he will or no. 6. Suppose it be granted that the people may petition both houses may proceed so far as to frame a Bill against a Government absolutely considered and without respect to any Prior Obligations by Oath or otherwise upon the King and tender this unto the King in Order to the extirpation of the same yet if the King refuse to pass the Bill that Bill so once rejected cannot be revived during that Parliament neither may any person in either house so much as move it any more by the laws of Parliament which nothing can warrant against but the necessity of the things so to be revived upon the Word of God 7. The same Reason perswades me that when both King and Parliament have by fresh law declared their dissent to alter the Government against all endeavours used to that end and so they have done by the late Statutes for its restauration then we the Subjects cannot be bound any longer to endeavour it if we were bound before 8. To be bound still to vex the King and Parliament with perpetual repetition of Petitions to remove a Government which they have still do signifie they will not remove yea which they do signally own and ratifie so much the more is to be bound to go contrary to authority as well as Law to trouble the peace of Church and State and the Government over us and indeed to endeavour or labour in vain all hopes of prevailing being taken away at postquam palam desperata est constat fieri non posse cessat obligatio ex jam dicto fundamento quod Nemo Teneatur ad impossibile 6. This must needs pass without all controll if we add to the consideration that the King is known to be born to and bound to take an Oath by
the very constitution of the Kingdom to maintain and defend the Government iv question as he is King 10. It hence irresistably follows that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome and there is an Obligation upon him to defend and to swear to defend before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Episcopacy 11. Yea the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy by any such previous Oath seeing such endeavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath to protect and defend the Bishops and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath against the Bishops it is void ipso facto for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown and bound as King to take it 12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular it is enough that it is not yet altered and that it cannot be Legally altered but by Act of Parliament I am sure you will not say the King much less before he is Crowned hath power of himself or with any others besides his Parlament to make or diminish or alter any known Law especially that which so much concerns his peoples interest security in the oath to be taken at his Coronation 13. Pray therefore observe weigh this Consequence if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand doth void the Coronation Oath required by Law then the King by a private Oaâ—â— may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament the liberty of the Subject and the other great concerns of Magna Charta as well as to extirpate Episcopacy and his Coronation Oath taken afterwards would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land I argue not now from the necessity of the things but from the Obligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them 14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it as Subjects for if we allow its violation in any one part we let go our security in all the rest 15. Moreover 't is certain that though where the Conscience judgeth the matter of a former Oath lawful the Conscience is bound against any future Oath to the contrary yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience 16. Now it is open and plain to all the world that seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bishops passed those Bills for the protection and preservation of Episcopal Government and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature his Conscience will not suffer him to destroy Episcopacy but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful 17. Surely the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience more then to you against yours much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath the bond of his Fidelity and peoples security this hath taken hold upon him and invincibly tieth him under such conviction to preserve his Conscience and his oath and Episcopal Government 18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this appearance and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government against all the evidence He hath given us of it 19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition and seeing we are not to declare whaâ— things are in themselves but what we judg them to be who can possibly stick to declare That he holds the single Person is not bound by to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government 20. Now for any other Person whether the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects how can they or any of them be bound think ye to endeavour to make the King sin and in so high a manner as to violate His Conscience and His solemn sacred Coronation Oath without which he cannot consent as His Royal Father proved with His Life to the extirpation of Episcopal Government 21. Consent I say much less Enact it and yet without both it cannot be legally done neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way but by desiring and labouring to perswade the King thus to Consent and Enact against Oath and Conscience 22. But lest it should be doubted whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding at the Coronation so far as it relates to our Argument and I have done with this great part of my Task 23. I find the Account thus wherein I think I am not Mis-informed 24. After the many other gracious promises which the King makes to his People One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People concerning the Canonical priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protector of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government The King Answereth in these words with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge All Canonical priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power by the Assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 25. Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People to Observe the premises and laying his hand upon the Book saith the things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the contents of this Book 26. Now who can think himself or any other person bound by any Obligation whatsoever to Necessitate so far as in them lies His Sacred Majesty to Violate His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His Inâ—uguration CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 1. I Must still assert the Liberty of the Subject was apparently violated by the Ordinance for the Covenant seeing the Free-holds of so many Several persons and famous Corporations were thus invaded while the Persons and Corporations so deeply concerned had none to Represent them in either house of Parliament when that Ordinance passed 2. This was the Emphasis of my Argument which you little observe and much less answer 3. I am still of the mind in my coldest blood that without Respect to some proportionable demerit it is not sui Juris to the King or Parliament to destroy any person or publique Corporation or to
deprive them of their legal Freeholds especially whilst their Representatives are kept out of Parliament it being against common Justice and the Liberty of the Subject in Magna Charta 4. To conclude admit Mr. Crofton do truly Recite the words in the Petition of Right whereas many of them have an Oath administred to them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm yet my Assertion stands firm enough that the Covenant is against the Petition of Right 5. For it is not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whether you consider the manner of imposing and taking or the very matter of it as hath fully appeared before 6. 'T is true Oaths are given by Colledges and Corporations but are they not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm if not I am not afraid to infer that such as impose them run thereby into a premunire if they are then my argument passeth untouch'd 7. Indeed these particular Oaths are not in so many words found in the Statutes yet who doubts but that the King hath power by the Laws of the Land to grant such Charters and to give Authority to Colledges and Corporations to Administer such Oaths 8. Again who can or dare lay claim to such a power but the King or Administer such Oaths without power from the King much less against his Express will and Proclamation CASE XVII Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 1. I Conclude it is so and therefore void the force of the Consequence cannot be resisted in those excellent words of our great Casuist Obligation Antecedens impedit effectum Juramenti Subsequentis ne possit Obligare Semper enim Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori Irritum facit omnem Actum inductivum novae Obligationis sibi Contrariae 2. I assume there were three strong Cords and bonds of God upon us to the Contrary before ever the Covenant was taken or thought of to Obey Authority to keep our Oaths and promises to Serve the Church in Our Generations which we shal now review in their order SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 1. YOu would perswade us that I affirm this onely upon my former Principles because the Covenant is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledge of Parliament and the Liberty of the Subjects which you conceive are all laid in the dust 2. Perhaps you may find these Principles more potent and vigorous in their Resurrection however though I had a General Reflection upon these former Arguments yet I added a particular force to the present Argument which having raised a Dust it seems you did not see in these words 3. More particularly God first Obligeth us to be Subject and to obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage us to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church the Covenant would discharge us of our obedience and oblige us to Resistance Contrary to Gods express obligation upon us which cannot be 4. God doth immediately by his Word and likewise by the Mediation and interposition of Civil Authority command us to obey to be subject and not to resist our Spiritual Governours the Covenant would engage to break all at once and at once to violate the Laws of God the King and the Church and all Authority 5. Our duty is positive to be subject 2. Negative not to Resist whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God Wherefore we must needs be subject for conscience sake Rom. 13. Now both these are broken by the Covenant the one by omission the other by commission 6. First Our positive duty of obedience and subjection carrieth in it by Universal Consent to defend preserve to honour observe and to be faithful to our Governours now how these are consistent with Endeavours to Extirpate I cannot see 7. Again Our Negative part or Non-resistance is transgressed too by the Apostles Logick not to be subject is to Resist whosoever Resisteth wherefore we must needs be Subject however to Endeavour to Extirpate is too plainly to Resist 8. For Endeavours to Extirpate a Government are both far beyond the compass of Subjection they being no part either of Active or Passive Obedience and deep in the Nature of Resistance most properly taken 9. Endeavours to Extirpate have Action in them and are therefore more then passive Obedience their Action also is Diametrically opposite to Active Obedience 10. Again Endeavours to Extirpate do formally carry Resistance in them yea they are the formal Act of high Resistance not of the Law onely but of the Government it self not in the Action onely but in the very being of it for Extirpation is the end and utmost of Resistance and therefore Endeavour to Extirpate is properly resistance 11. Pray resolve me to what part of our Duty to our Parents will you reduce Endeavours to Extirpate their Government over us or how can such Endeavours square and Conform to the Commands of God and-the Laws of the Land Not to Resist but to be Subject to our Governours Ecclesiastical and Civil 12. 'T is vain to say we are bound to obey he laws yet we may Endeavour to have them changed It is not safe to Argue from the Laws which are but the Rule to our Governours who are the object of our obedience 13. If this consequence be Good upon an Oath taken of the like Nature against the civil power we may hold our selves bound to Endeavour to Extirpate both King and Parliament 14. For Government by Monarchy and the Constitution of Parliaments you will not say they are in themselves Necessary to our civil State and if because Episcopacy is doubted to be Jure Divino you conclude it lawful to swear against it or having so sworn to Endeavour to Extirpate it I dare not undertake to find a way for the civil Government to escape the danger the Inference is easie from Government to Government though the one be in the Church and the other in the State especially seeing we cannot resist the one and not disobey the other SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against Former Oaths and Promises 1. THis I also affirm and consequently that the Covenant was prevented by such Prior Obligations the Case is fully stated in these words of our Reverend Casuist Si cui Juramentum suscipiendum defereratur continens aliquid quod Obligationi priori sive Naturali sive adquisitae adversatur ut si adversetur officio quod parenti debetur aut principi vel si repugnet ei quod Ante liciè juratum fuit vel promissum ejusmodi Juramentum non potest à quoquam salvâ conscientiâ vel praestari vel praestitum ad impleri qui utrumvis fecerit pejeraverit 2. I assume that the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and the Protestation of May 5. 1641. were taken by the Nation before any of the Nation took the Covenant and that the Covenant
A REVIEW OF THE GRAND CASE OF THE Present Ministry Whether they may Lawfully Declare and Subscribe as by the late Act of Vniformity is required In Reply to a Book Entituled A Short Surveigh of the Grand Case c. Wherein all their Objections against both the Declarations are Considered and Answered By the same Hand Job 4. 2. If we assay to commune with thee wilt thou be grieved but who can withold himself from speaking London Printed for T. Dring and are to be sold at the George in Fleet-street and by M. Mitchel at the first Shop in Westminster Hall 1663. THE PREFACE To my Reverend Brethren the Surveighers of the Grand Case 1. I Find some Learned Men have observed Jackson on the Creed both an Equivalency of Errours throughout most Ages and Nations and also an Equivalency of means to evince and to vindicate the truth by the wisdom of God so proportion'd to the diversity of times as no Age could have better then the present 2. May I observe that our present Age and the differences of it are of that strange and singular Humour that they need an Exception from that Learned Intimation in both Respects 3. As for the things in Controversie betwixt us though haply they may be reduced to some Ancient Topicks yet the Matâ—â—â— of ouâ— Cases as they now arisâ— from the force of the New Law the Act for Uniformity they have much of peculiarity and newness in them and whilst the Burthen of Resolving them remaines upon so weak a shoulder the means â—aâ— justly be Censured as inequivalent what so ever the blessing of God may be 4. Yet considering the Discussion of the present Debates depends more upon a due examining of Rationall Consequences then upon Authority's of Antiquity or any other Learning that requires long Experience and Observation I am not much discouraged yea seeâ—ng upon the Review you have occasioned me to make I my self do discern some things betwixt us more clearly then before I take encouragement to hope as I heartily wish that you my Brethren may do so too 5. I am sure my Aim is good as I I know 't is great I could not hope to hit it at the first or second shoot but through your Invitation I venture again that if possible by any means I might at length attain it However I shall reckon the sucâ—ess far more worthy then all my abours if I onely gain a little ground in what I prosecute and come nearer and nearer to my desired end for my Breâ—hrens sake and the peace of Jerusalem 6. You do quicken this expectation in me while you modestly indeed as you say signifie to me that though my Resolution of the Grand Case hath not made on you that impression nor produced that effect I might Rationally promise to my Self yet your selves cannot but observe it hath effected it in many others What you think I might rationally expect before I hope I may more chearfully pray for now For without Arrogance I presume to commend to your own reason whether most if not all of your main exceptions are not blown quite off by this Second Ventilation of the matters in difference 7. I cannot doubt but that you will easily be satisfied that a Comparative Approbation is a sufficient ground for unfeigned Assent and Consent according to the Act. 8. Also that seeing you intimate you could â—ear the particulars you except against in the Common-Prayer Book which cannot be without some Assent and Consent and seeing that no Assent and Consent cannot be other then Real and seeing all Real Assent and Consent is therefore unfeigned that you will not find further reason to scruple to give your unfeigned Assent and Consent to the same 9. For the matter of the Govenant I hope you will better consider that the great hinge upon whicâ— that Controversie turnes is not the necessity of Episcopall Government but the lawfulness of it For though you think it not necessary in it self or by the Word of God yet if it be lawful that is not sinful it becomes necessary upon us by the Laws of the Land and may not be sworn against 10. Moreover I would fain believe that the great stones of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant it being essentiall to Oaths in the judgement of the Reverend Casuist Bishop Sanderson to be personal and to bind but the Takers onely as also that about Church-Government established by Law and the dissolution of the long-Long-Parliament are perfectly removed out of your way 11. But I shall not Anticipate I leave the Book to your Christian and candid perusal accounting it no mean felicity that it hath to do with persons Ingenuous and Learned and truly desirous of satisfaction 12. Yet I must tell you it much troubled me that you took those expressions of felones sures proditores de â—e so tenderly to your selves 13. I told you they were the words of Dr. Donne and wish'd they were not applicable in our Case Indeed it was far from me to conclude all dissenters with them nor dare I say you deserved the charge in the least degree 14. Yet I dare say you will not plead for all dissenters yea that you do concur with Cassianus that some men he saith many are carried to desire sufferings by humane respects by the Spirit either of their Parents or the Spirit of Levity or the Spirit of Liberty or as I may add the Spirit of a party Yea it is storied of one Eulalia a Maid of 12 years old that came from her Fathers house declared her self to be a Christian spit in the Judges face and provoked him to execute her 15. Now no doubt my Brethren the same Spirit oâ— â—eal may work irregularly in any and in our Age especially when an opinion that all the Godly must suffer persecution is spread over the people 16. It is noted by Bodin that Christians in Tertullians time were so pleased with suffering that sometimes Edicts wore made by their very persecutors that no more Christians should be executed because they perceived that the Martyâ—s delighted in dying and my Dear Brethren if Christian Magistrates must be persecutors and the effect of the Law persecution and if the readiness of your numbers to suffer or any other confideration should prevail for a like Edict to stop your sufferings I beseech you do not think I should be against it I would not be thought your enemy because I would â—ell you the truth and earnestly perswade you to do your duty and not to suffer when you need not 17. I would rather stroak you with the seather then prick you with the pen â—â—cept to provoke you to good works and to mind you of your danger Indeed I feared at the time I wrote my last Book that many of my worthy Brethren were falling and I was in my Epistle somewhat earnest to save them and that I hope was all my Crime and no more then Ingenuous persons are
willing to pardon Give me leave to conclude with those notable words of Famous Doctor Collet in his Sermon p. 28. which I desire to do with the same Spirit that he spake them if peradventure it be thought that I have passed my Bounds or have said anything out of temper forgive it me and ye shall forgive a man speaking out of meer zeal a man heartily lamenting the Decay of the Church and consider the thing it self not regarding my foolishness Consider the miserable end and State of the Church and endeavour your selves with all your Souls and Abilities as he to reform it so I to save it Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace alwayes and by all means Job 29 2. and O that you were as in moneths past My dear Brethren Farewell THE CONTENTS CASE 1. WHether it be lawsul to declare in the words of the first Declaration Page 1 CHAP. 1. Touching the Book of Ordination 1. CHAP. 2 Touching the Book of Common-Prayer 13 SECT 2. Of let us beseech him c. 16 SECT 3. Of popular Responds 21 SECT 4. Of the Holy Table 22 SECT 5. Of the old Translation of the Psalmes 28 SECT 6. Of the Salvation of Infants 30 SECT 7. Of Assent and Consent unfeigned 35 SECT 8. Of the phrase in the Act the use of all things c. 43 CASE 2. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the words of the second Declaration 51 CASE 6. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation on me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church or State 52 CASE 7. Whether any private or single person may lawfully endeavour the Alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 51 SECT 1. Of the dissolving the long Parliament 59 SECT 2. Of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant 66 SECT 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters 68 CASE 8. Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King 76 CASE 9. Whether to violate the Kings Right be not sinful 77 SECT 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws 78 SECT 2. Of the King Right in the Government of the Church 79 SECT 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator 80 SECT 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenent 89 CASE 10. Whether the Covenant to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopacy be against the Laws and consequently sinful 95 CASE 11. Whether the present Church-Government was established by Law before the Covenant was taken 99 SECT 1. Church Government is fixed by Law ibid SECT 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law 100 SECT 3. Church-Government is established by Law 102 CASE 12. Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 114 CASE 15. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 118 SECT 1 Endeavour is distinguished 120 SECT 2. Of the Acts of Endeavour justified by my Brethren 122 SECT 3. Of Endeavour by popular groans and complaints 127 SECT 4. Of Endeavour by Disputations 128 SECT 5. Whether to petition be to Endeavour properly and in the Act. 131 SECT 6. Whether to Endeavour c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject c. 135 CASE 16. Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 143 CASE 17. Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 145 SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 146 SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against former Oaths and Promises 152 SECT 3. Whether the Covenant can oblige to the laying down of the Ministry 155 CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the words of the first Declaration CAP. I. Touching the Book of Ordination 1. I Find my self inclined whether from the easiness of my Nature or a love of Peace to all just means of a good accommodation especially with Brethren And confess in a Temptation upon me to use such Mediums as in my own observation are least disputed by my opponents because it is the easiest way to encounter and the likeliest to reconcile them For the nearer I am to my adversary the fairer is my advantage to lay hold upon him and when we are agreed in the premises I cannot but hope for a good Conclusion 2. Such as are friends to Conformity could not choose but discover this peaceable design of my last Book viz. the Grand-Case c. Though give me leave to Note that you my dissenting Surveyers of it seem not to apprehend it by your great mistake even of the first Argument therein improved by which mistake alone you labour to avoid the Consequence of it 3. I distribute the first of the Declarations into two parts The first part concerns the Liturgy The second the Book of Ordination I begin with this second part touching the Book of Ordination and determine thus 4. It is lawful to declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the form and manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons and I do indeed conclude this partly from the practice of many of your selves who had formerly subscribed as much in â—our subscriptions to the 39. Articles 5. This you say is an Argument à facto ad jus and not concluding and if it be absolutely considered as it is by you I confess as much but if it be Argumentum ad homines and bear open respect to the persons with whom I dispute as I plainly intended it methinks it carrieth force enough 6. For in Charity we reckon that such as did formerly subscribe did it in judgement and Conscience neither have we râ—â—son to believe that they are dissatisfied with their former subscriptions in point of Conscience until they have told the world so much and given us the grounds of such their Conviction and till then why may we not conclude à facto ad jus against such as have formerly subscribed what they now refuse Viz. That by their former practice not yet disclaimed as against their Conscience themselves conceive this part of the declaration to be lawful and that they may lawfully declare accordingly 7. Most have done a thing therefore all may lawfully do it is indeed bad Logick But that which you judge you may lawfully do you cannot say you may not do it Now I only assume that you judge you may lawfully do that which you have formerly done and if this fail I think it yet lies upon you to shew us and the world the reason why 8. But a little more plainly my Argument lay thus Those that have subscribed this part of the Declaration already in the 39. Articles and read their allowance of it openly to their several Congregations and that are convinced that had not this been required in the new Declaration no Conformity
of Common-prayer and to the things themselves as they are practicable or proposed to be used or as before with respect to their use in the worship of God 13. Hence appears the difference betwixt the two Declarations easily enough In the first we consent to the use and the things to be used in the Second we move then Consent we promise that we our selves will use them or conform unto them 14. Give me leave to subjoyn two advantages which offer themselves from this interpretation towards a good accommodation betwixt us 15. 1. Then if there be any such thing found in the book of Common-prayer as is not of a practical Nature as a port of a publick Liturgy or capable of use in publick Worship and I humbly offer whether that touching Children dying Baptized is not such it need not be concerned in our Declaration or Subscription 16. 2. Things with respect to their use are properly and more immediately to be considered as fit not as good in themselves but as fit for the services for which they are intended yea it is not necessary that this filness be referred to the things to be used but rather the person that is to use them and our use of them 17. So that upon the just weighing of all Circumstances if we can consent that for the avoyding of certain great inconveniences the use of these things not sinful in themselves is a thing to be chosen that this Conformity is to be practised we have sufficient ground according to the Act to declare our Assent and Consent thereunto 18. What remains but that we are yet allowed thus to reason Here is such a Declaration required by Law and such a severe Penalty annexed for all that disobey it though I could rather have liked the book of Common-prayer if such and such things had been altered yet rather then lose my Living and therewith all legal Opportunity of serving the Church rather then shew my self cross and disobedient to Authority in lawful things rather then Ruine my self and Family for a thing indifferent though in it self I judge it inconvenient I do choose to be obedient and conformable and in order thereunto upon these grounds I declare my Assent and Consent unfeignedly to every thing to be conformed unto 19. Give me leave to add the Objection of others which you mention not They say if it had been said that we must assent to all things prsecribed only it might have served my interpretation well enough but it is all things contained as well as prescribed must be consented unto 20. I answer First it is contained and prescribed Not prescribed and contained so that prescribed seems to bound contained 2 't is contained and prescribed not or prescribed so that what is contained if not also prescribed we need not give our assent unto it it must be both contained and prescribed 21. But if there yet remain any doubt about the legal meaning of these words the Act it self explains it beyond all dispute You see in the words before cited that both the words Contained and Prescribed are referred to the use of the things to the use of all things contained and prescribed so that the Objection is nice and verbal only and thus vanisheth 22. If you should desire to have your own sence yet more secured I humbly conceive there would be no offence done to the law if you express your selves after this manner Having read the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the Book of Common-Prayer at the times thereby appointed and being required by the Act of Parliament after such reading thereof openly and publiquely before the Congregation to declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to the Vse of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these following words and no other Accordingly I do declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to the Vse of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I. A. B. do here declare c. 23. What possible Exception can lie against such a recital of the words of the Act which are set immediatly before the Declaration in order to the making and subscribing of it while we add no words of our own nor take any from the Act or from the Declaration 24. If it be said you fear that a Declaration will not be accepted that is thus exclaimed and conditioned 25. Give me leave to say I cannot but believe there is no reason to doubt it or to desire it as a favour from any seeing you add no words nor put any sence upon the Declaration only reciting the words of the Act requiring and declaring according as is required in these words of the Declaration and none other 26. However suppose that that is not to be supposed that such a Declaration should be refused and that without such a kind of explaining your self you are resolved not to declare or subscribe at all Yet consider by so doing though not accepted you are not the worse or further off from your Living then you were before and now you may fit down quiet with this reflection that however you have done your utmost to satisfie the Law the World and your own Conscience CASE the Second Whether it be lawful to Declare in the words of the second Declaration 1. YOu consent to the distribution I made of the second Declaration into 3 parts That which concerns the taking Arms against the King Conformity and the Oath called the solemn League and Covenant 2. The two Cases arising from the first part taking Arms against the King you say do not much concern you and give me leave to return that I am not concerned to answer others 3. To the Case about Conformity arising from the second-part you add nothing out seem in haste to get into your strong hold in the last part of this Declaration touching the Covenant and thither I am ready to attend you and to engage with you 4. We are therefore fallen upon the main Case which was the sixth in order in my last book it is CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation on me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church or State 1. THis I affirm and undertook to prove it by an Argument taken from the matter of the Covenant as is here specified not with respect to the Government of the Kingdom there we are agreed but with respect to that of the Church wherein we differ 2. You also grant my Consequence that if this part of the matter of the Covenant appear to be sinful the Covenant is so far void of it self 3. The very Question then is Whether to endeavour a change of Church-Government be sinful or not I affirm it and give you my Arguments once again for it and heartily wish they may find in their new attire
Israel had sworn unto them and Saul sought to slay them in zeal to the children of Israel Therefore in the Septuagint we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Saul and upon his house Injustitia in morte sanguinum ejus pro eo quod morti tradidit Gibeonitas for that he delivered the Gibeonites to death Injustice it is not said Perjury but injustice and blood is laid upon him and his house and so severely punished 22. Secondly the Covenant was sworn say you in Mr. Croftons words by those P. 45. Real capacities Noble Men Knights Gentlemen Citizens Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts which pass and will pass to our Successours whilest England is England and therefore it is Juramentum reale and obligeth the whole Nation for ever 23. But it is to be remembred before we conclude so confidently that though the Proem runs thus We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses and Ministers of the Gospel as well as Commons of all sorts have so Resolved and Determined yet most Noblemen Barons Knights Citizens Burgesses Ministers and Commons of all sorts had not thus Resolved and Determined when the Covenant was penn'd or publish'd 24. For it was brought from Seotland and by a few men at first a little altered in England and then by an Order of some of the Commons printed and published 25. Now if this be to make a Real and National Covenant three or four private persons may as easily write over these great words and as easily oblige the whole Nation and Posterity for ever but this is ridiculous 26. Again 't is certain that many individual Persons from the King the Nobles Barons Knights Burgesses Citizens Ministers and Commons of all sorts never took the Covenant but ever as occasion was offered declared their abhorrency of it 27. Yea the Popish the Milignant and the Prelatical Parties which certainly were then no mean part of the Nation if not the greatest are supposed in the Covenant it self to be enemies to it and are indeed sworn against it And are these obliged by the same Covenant and their Posterities after them Are they sworn to oppose and destroy themselves You will not say it 28. Again if these words can create a Real Covenant in your sence not only Scotland who framed it and England who knew not of it for the most part till it was taken but Ireland too and its Posterity are obliged by it and all the Rebels there are taken into Confederation and thousands of people there that never saw it or perhaps never heard so much as that there was any such thing in the world for divers years after this their pretended Obligation by it 29. Truly I thought the Covenanting Party would not have entred into so Solemn a League with a Prelatical Malignant Party much less with Papists and Irish Rebels yet such is the consequence of your Notion of a Real Covenant 30. Moreover this Argument is confuted in the very Proem of the Covenant it self so plainly and evidently that I must needs wonder that so many quick and perceiving eyes should not have discovered it Wherein it saith speaking of the form and manner of giving and taking the Covenant wherein we all subscribe therefore no more do take the Covenant then do subscribe it and beyond all contradiction adds and each one of us for himself then no one for another much less for so many thousands as your Real Notion would infer 31. Therefore the pressers of the Covenant durst not trust your Logick but would have not only Parents but their Children not only Masters but Servants not only Tutors but Pupils and such as were under the tuition of others to subscribe for themselves according to the phrase Every one for himself 32. But to conclude if it be against the very Nature and Essence of an Oath to be any more then personal to binde succession or posterity or to be National and Real as you pretend alas what can words do more then to make a noise to trouble mens minds and to beget trouble in the Church by needless Disputation But that it is so I hope our Casuist whom your selves and all men else admire hath put it out of doubt to your full satisfaction SECT 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters 1. THe third Principle which you intimate I take for granted is That all Persons that took the Covenant are in the same capacity with our selves You say you cannot yield unto it 2. I have laboured to find out your meaning and cannot discover any thing but the exception of the single person that you can stand upon 3. But if you please to review what I said from pag. 93. to pag. 97. you will see your oversight and grant that I did not take it for granted 4. And until you give Answer to the reason there offered as also in some other places of my Book I think I am not at all concerned to trouble you further about it but shall now take up my shield and appear in defence of my particular Arguments CASE VIII Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King CASE IX Whether to violate the Kings Right be not sinful 1. YOu well observe that these two Cases contain my first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful My major Proposition you say is determined in the second of these Cases This you grant in Mr. Crofton's words The proper and adequate Act of Justice is Jus suum cuique the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and People 2. The minor then contained in the first of these Cases is the thing in Controversie viz. whether the Covenant engaging against the Government of the Church or to endeavour to extirpate the same do not violate the Kings Right 3. This I affirm for by such Endeavours the King is injured first as he is the Executor of the Law and in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical Supreme Governour both with respect to his Officers and to his Government secondly as Legislator SECT 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws 1. I Do still affirm That the King is the Supreme Executor of the Law and all inferiour Officers are his Commissioners to execute that Government under him in which he is alone the Supreme Governour as we swear him to be in Church and State for Reges saâ—ro oleo uncti faut capaces spiritualis Juâ—isdictionis 2. Now I say take away the Body of Governours and the Head must fall and if all inferiours be removed where will the Supreme be 3. For Answer hereunto you onely desire my clear Answer to two Enquiries The first of your Queries is in these words 4. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King 5. To this I return my clear Answer No. Yet they are plainly essential to his being a Supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons
therein though the King himself should forbid Though the King should deny his Assent and declare his most express Dissent and threats against it yet they would persist therein all the dayes of their lives 13. Yea though King and Parliament as is now come to pass should make Laws against it they must be zealous and constant in this common Cause so little regard will the Covenant allow to this day to the Kings Consent 14. Yet heed what follows against all Opposition and promote the same against all lets and impediments whatsoever give me leave to say though this Opposition these lets and impediments be from the King himself as you know they were at this very same time This being imposed by the two Houses and taken by the people and the King himself in Arms to defend his own and the Churches Government 15. Pray resolve where then was the King Consent or if the King please to be understood in the Covenant 16. Moreover doth not this Article which is the close and perfection of the rest plainly engage to such endeavours as carry opposition too Be your selves the judges the words are against all opposition how can you be engaged to endeavour against all opposition but by opposition against all opposition but by opposing all oppositions even that which the King himself should make or rather indeed did make 17. Now how you can oppose the King or the opposition made by him and his commission and yet understand his consent in the same matter I think you will not go about to inform me 18. Once more that the endeavours of the Covenant carry force and opposition in them according to the Grammatical Construction and Logical resolution of the same appears in that Power is engaged to our Power and Power in order to the suppressing and overcoming the opposers for it is added and what we are not able our selves to suppress c. by our own power and on the other hand we shall assist and Defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof 19. Which expressions I should abhor to infer it did not my Argument force it do beyond all capacity of Contradiction engage the Covenanters in a party to live and dy together in an hostile way of Opposition against the King and his Armies and Friends in a pursuit of the ends of the Covenant 20. Which cannot consist with the places of Subjects or lawful endeavours or Possibly suppose the Kings consent 21. I cannot rejoyce to conclude that this meaning of the Covenant was expressed at first by the prime inventors and contrivers of the Covenant such words as these you find in a Declaration called the Declaration of the convention of Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland 22. To our knowledg say they upon swearing and subscribing of this League and Covenant the opposite Malignant partie will rage and Tumultuate more then ever and therefore unless we will either betray our Religion Liberties and Law and all that we and ours do possess and suffer our selves to be cut off and massacred by the bloody and barbarous cruelty of those our enraged enemies There is a necessity of taking Arms for mutual defence 23. Lastly That the Kings Consent was little intended or understood in the Covenant is yet more manifest if it be considered that it was not only made and published and pressed without notice given him and at such a time too and condition of affairs as had served the King from the Covenanting party but it was still carried on against the Kings dislike and express dissent and prohibition of it in a timely and solemn Proclamation against it SECT 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenant 1. THe King was pleased upon the first hearing of the Covenant published in Print by the Order of the Commons which I conceive was sometime before the Order of the Lords and Commons for the tendring and taking of it to issue out his Proclamation from his Court at Oxford entituled His Majesties Proclamation forbidding the tendring and taking of the Covenant called the solemn League and Covenant for Reformation 2. The Vse of this Proclamation in the present controversie is two-fold First it Demonstrates beyond all contradiction that the intention of the Covenanters did not regard the consent of the King which runs clearly against the Kings Supremacy Secondly It renders the Covenant void even from its creation before ever it was ordered to be taken For Datur irritatio Juramenti aliquando per superiores si in illa ipsa materia sâ—nt superiores cirea quam Juramentum versatur 3. Now so far as the Goverâ—ment of the Church cannot be altered but by Law it is under the power of the King at least not to alter it He having a Negative upon both Houses and the Kings Proclamation having denied his Assent thereunto and proclaimed his prohibition of it thereby voided it long agon according to the Rule 4. A Rule never disputed grounded evidently upon Scripture and Natural Reason and indeed I find not that your selves do question the Proposition though I confess you put me to a task that I little expected by doubting the Assumption 5. You say It remaineth upon you a doubt whether there ever were any such Proclamation you desire me to help you to a Copy of this Proclamation and inform you where to find the Original Concluding that the Obligation without it cannot be voided 6. I hope you do hereby intimate that upon the sight of this Proclamation you will be satisfied that the Obligation of the Covenant was voided at the first therefore I am much encouraged to transcribe it and to inform you where you may find it 7. It is indeed in Print in more books then one of unquestionable credit particularly you have it in a Book called Bibliotheca Regia in terminis thus p. 332. 8. Whereas there is a Printed paper entituled A solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and defence of Religion the Honour and happiness of the King and the Peace and safety of the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Pretended to be ordered by the Commons in Parliament on the 21. day of September last to be Printed and published which Covenant though it seems to make specious pretences of Piety and Religion is in Truth nothing else but a Traiterous and Seditious Combination against us and the established Religion and Laws of this Kingdome in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavours to bring in Forreign forces to invade this Kingdom We do therefore straitly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said Seditious and Traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary to their utmost and extreamest perils Given at our Court at Oxon Oct.
9. in the 19. year of our Reign 9. If you will cast the Controversie upon the sight of the very Original I do not despair to effect it for you provided I may know whom I may pleasure with it and where for it is not possible I should print the Original 10. However I shall offer you such Evidence that this is a true copy that I verily believe ingenuous persons will receive it as next to demonstration 11. Note first that the Covenant was ordered to be printed by the Commons Sep. 21. An. Dom. 1643. This Proclamation is said to be issued Oct. 9. 1643. and I have a learned book by me called the Anticonfederacy that was printed the very next year viz. 1644. that labours to invalidate the said Covenant with the said Proclamation 12. He does not indeed transcribe the whole Proclamation as I have done yet so much of it and of the most material passages of it as you cannot chuse but know it to be the same and to say that he should feign such parts of a Proclamation at such a time as that or that the King should not be as quick to proclaim against the Covenant as he had been a little before against the Assembly of Divines June 22. 1663. are both unreasonable and ridiculous to any sober man 13. The words of that book mentioned are these The true scope and aim of this League speaking of the Covenant as it is declared by our most gracious King and we cannot receive it from a better hand is in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavour to bring in Forreign Forces to invade this Kingdome and is therefore by his Majesty justly sentenced notwithstanding its specious expressions of Piety and Religion to be nothing else in Truth but a Traiterous and seditious Combination against him and against the established Religion â—nd Laws of this Kingdome which are the very words of the Proclamation it self 14. I hope you will now no longer doubt whether there were indeed any such Proclamation or whether it be of force to void the Covenant 15. You say you allow that Rule of Ames datur irritatio aliquando per superiores but you note it must be si in illa ipsa materia sint superiores circa quaâ—â—ersatur Juramentum 16. But let me recommend it to your second thoughts whether endeavour simply considered or endeavour with its object extirpation of Prelacy be the matter of the Covenant and whether the King in this very matter of extirpation of Prelacy or endeavours to do it be not allowed to be our Superiour 17. Admit there were a Covenant taken by private persons to Endeavor to bring in forreign forces endeavor indeed is to every man sui juris but that this endeavour and consequently such a Covenant is not in a matter subordinate to the King I think you will not dispute 18. Lastly you seem to wonder that I make it a Probleme whether supposing the Proclamation had voided the Covenant at first the Kings after-consent could revive it 19. If you understand my words with respect to the first engagement actually made and voided by the Proclamation I think yopu need not much wonder if I should have affirmed whereas I onely quaeried Whether the same Act made void could be made in force again I am not afraid to write over the words once more I think it may well be a Problem Whether the Kings after-consent could revive it if it had indeed been dead and buried sop many years before 20. For the Covenant being voided by the Kings protest against it and the Parliament dissolved that promoted it I think you would wonder more at it if I should affirm That the King hath power without a Bill to that purpose from the two Houses by His own single Act to revive a matter of so high a nature to His Subjects so long time after CASE X. Whether the Covenant to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopacy be against the Laws and consequently sinful 1. I Proceed to argue That seeing the standing Laws of the Land are the express and fix'd consent of the King and Supream Authority and this extirpation of Prelacy cannot be effected but by offering violence to the Laws of the Land which cannot be lawfully done without the Consent and Act of the King and supream Authority it is sinful to swear to endeavour it without submission to their will and pleashres 2. This is evident by the former Arguments by the rules of all Casuists and particularly of Mr. Perkins who conckludes That a Covenant taken against the Laws of the Land is void of it self 3. To apply this Argument to our Case I observe The great Objection of Mr. Crofton the Covenanters-Plea and you my Surveyors is this That Episcopal Government is not established by Law in England 4. This Objection I labour first to avoid by a distinction in general and then I argue the point particularly That this Government is established by Law in England 5. My distinction is this We may endeavour against the Laws and swear accordingly two ways either when the thing we swear against is expresly established by plain Law or when the thing we swear against cannot be abolished without the abolition or alteration of Law Hence I argue That admit there were no express Law appointing this Form of Government sworn against yet how doth this clear the Covenanters from swearing against Law when they swear to extirpate that Government which cannot be extirpated without the alteration of many Laws So that this evasion I think is perfectly obstructed 6. All that you answer is levelled against this distinction you ask Is it against Law to endeavour the alteration yea the abrogation of some Laws and things thereby established 7. Now I beseech you consider whether you have any thing at all in these words to enervate or avoid my distinction or to render it poor as well as plain as you seem to glory notwithstanding your confidence your ingenuity shall judge betwixt us 8. Consider therefore the end for which I proposed it and you will confess you have not evaded it was it not in express terms to obstruct the Objection of Mr. Crofton and the Author of the Covenanters Plea viz. That Episcopal Government is not established by Law to which I said That it is all one whether it be established by express Law or cannot be abolished without the alteration of Law Now to this use of my distinction you have yet answered nothing at all 9. Besides in your Querie Whether it be against Law to endeavour to abrogate Law Unless you discover a double meaning in acting against Law you contradict your selves and if you do discover it you also discover a plain way for me to escape your Answer and to defend and justifie my plain distinction 10. Surely to endeavour the abolition or destruction of Law is to endeavour against Law Now if you affirm That it is not against Law thus to endeavour what remains but
Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastiel Jurisdiction shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act as well to inquire in their Visitations Synods and elsewhere to take Accusations and Informations of all and every the things above mentioned within the Limits of their Jurisdiction and to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestratien or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like Form as heretof ore hath been used in like Cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws 13. Here we cannot but see not only the legal Names of Ecclesiastical Governours mentioned but their political Power and Authority allowed yea formally invested and establish't in them to inquire and to punish To punish with Admonition Excommunication Sequestration and Deprivation and all this by Virtue of this Act. 14. Had we nothing more to prove Episcopal Government to be established by law but this very Statute I cannot apprehend but that the work is done and all Objections to the contrary for ever superseded 15. Is here only a liberty to exercise a power given them is it not express that Power and Authority is also given them 'T is not declared that they have Power and Authority by Virtue of their Office or any other way but it is enacted that they have Power and Authority to inquire and punish c. by Virtue of this very Act. 16. Yea though it is intimated that the same Course had been used formerly it is not enacted only that this shall continue but as if such a kind of Objection had been in prospect it is enacted that by Virtue of this Statute all these Ecclesiastical Governours shall have full Power and Authority to proceed in like Form as heretofore bath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical laws 17. While I read the Statute so express and punctual in the Case I know you will not blame me if I wonder at your so frequent comparing the Government of the Church with Usury and her Governours with Usurers 18 I do not know of any Statute that gives so much countenance to Usury and Usurers as to say be it enacted that power and Authority be given to Vsurers or that makes them a politick body and invests them with Government over so much as their own Tribe and in Cases peculiar to their own way abuses and faults of Usury Do not reflect so unbeseemingly 19. Thirdly I affirm that should we yield unto you that there is no express Statute immediatly Authorizing Ecclesiastical Governours yet immediately it it cannot be denied to be established by Law I mean such Law as impowers the King to Commission and Authorize the Governours in the Church 20. That the King hath such a power in him is manifest from the Oath of Supremacy For being supream Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical he is so over all persons Ecclesiastical as to Commissionate all his inferiour Governours therefore they all either mediately or immediately receive their Commissions from him which is no doubt Legal in the Judgement of all that understand these Protestant Laws that revolve the power usurped by the Pope upon Henry the Eighth and all his successours in the Crown of England for ever v. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. Eliz. 1. where you reade thus 21. All Jurisdictions heretofore lawfully exercised by any Ecclesiastical power or Authority for Visitation Reformation c. are united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm and that your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall have full power and Authority by virtue of this Act by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England to Assign Name and Authorize persons to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions and to Visit Reform Redress c. 22. Your Answer is this at most concludes but for the Governours and not for the Frame of Government 23. But do you not hereby grant as much as my Argument needs For if the Governours of the Church are Authorized by Law you ow them Obedience and the Law in them and your Covenant provokes you to disobedience 24. Again How can all the Governours be Authorized by Law and not the Frame of Government too He that by Law Commissionates all the Governours doth he not thereby establish the Frame of Government 25. Yea where will you look for the Frame of Government but in the Seat of Governours and that according to the Covenant it self You there engage against Prelacy that is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops c. Viz. the several Governours of it 26. You add the Kings Supremacy may exist in and operate by other Church Covernours as well as these 27. I answer easily that admit what you say yet as no other sort of Governours can be Legally so until the King Commissionate them as he hath done these so this kind viz. Episcopal Government must of necessity continue to be Legal until the King shall Commissionate others of another Method or at least withdraw his Commission from these in the present form of Church-Government if he hath power to do it by Law 28. Lastly I urge you that this Government is plainly established by Common Law 29. To this you say that Prescription is a poor Fence to Vsurpation Usury hath prescription 30. But how doth it appear that the present Government is an Usurpation so weighty a charge deserves proof 31. Church Governours are the Kings Ecclesiastical Officers they have their power and authority to Govern given them by Act of Parliament this appears but that their Government is Usurpation appears not 32. To make good your charge two things require proof First that Episcopal Covernment was an Usurpation at first Secondly that it is so still and that it hath not obtained a good Title in law all this while The Statutes now mentioned prove the present Title of it And Magna Charta is a sufficient Evidence that so long agon it had Legal Authority and was no Usurpation 33. I rather mention Magna Charta here because it is accounted Common Law and adds much strength to my Argument thence and from long continuance Especially seeing there is much for the Church and Bishops but nothing for Usurers and Usury to be found in it 34. The Plea that Magna Charta is in behalf of the Abhots at well as Bishops hath nothing at all against us For Abbots were since abolished by law so were not Bishops We are not arguing that nothing confirmed by Magna Charta can be lawfully altered but that Episcopal Government confirmed by Magna Charta is established by that Law and not removed by any other 35. Yea this Objection answers it self and all the rest of its Company and yields us an Argument that might pass for an Instar omnium Abbots and Bishops were both confirmed by the Law of this Land Abbots are removed by Law and not Bishops and in the Law exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis and therefore the Law that removed the Abbots did establish the
of which he affirms demonstrates that Parliament to be dissolv'd in sua arte credend c. and I hope you will be fully satisfied with them they are these 21. 1. By the death of the King there being nothing in the Act of continuance that doth or can secure them against that 2. Because every Court in England dissolves on course if it rises without adjourning or doth not meet again at the time and place appointed 3. Because when a Parliament Recedes and the Electors chuse new Representatives the first are dissolv'd thereby I need not apply these Rules onely if you yet doubt the force of them and desire as I know you will do more full satisfaction you will certainly without my advice confer with some able Lawyer whom you may safer in your own apprehensions conâ—ide in In such a case we must take things upon trust and if we will be satisfied we must trust some body choose your Friend SECT 2. Of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant 1. IN the second place you intimate that I take it for granted that the Covenant was personal and not Real or National But Master Crofton hath affirmed it is real and National Obliging all the Nation and all after Generations side Anglorum thereby engaged This you say he hath enforced beyond all capacity of Contradiction 2. Truly I confess I did not imagine however confident I find you to the contrary that such a principle had needed proof with such as I proposed to deal with but I see the Foundations are yet out of Course 3. Much less could I divine that whether the Covenant be personal or reâ—l it could any way concern me in my present Design to trouble myself seeing it was my work only to prove that the matter of the Covenant was sinful and then whether it be a real or a personal Covenant I think it comes all to one viz. A sinful Covenant and not Obliging 4. Besides upon your second Survey you will easily discern that I distinguished single and private persons from the Parliament and not from the Nation and considered both Members of my distinction as taking the Covenant And did not find my self obliged to say that some not but rather that none at all were so far bound by vertue of it as to endeavour any alteration or change of Government so that your exception here If it have any weight it is impertinent and ill placed 5. But seeing I must be assaulted with Mr. Crostons authority give me leave to oppose it with Authority as valid I hope without any disparagement to him in your own apprehensions it is that Reverend Casuist Bishop Sanderson 6. Bishop Sanderson asserts that it is essential to an Oath to be personal and consequently that there is no such thing as Juramentum reale such a Real Oath as you have pretended 7. Non tantùm inquit ille vir Magnus tenetùr Haeres vi Juramenti defuncto praestiti It a ut si non solverit injustus tantùm sit non item perjurus cujus ratio est quia Juramentum est vinculum personale inducit Obligationem Spiritualem tantùm c. At in personalibus nemo ligatur fine proprio consensu p. 115. 8. Again he adds At non potest quis alteri inducere Obligationem nisi ipse quoque volverit proinde non potest Actu suo spiritualiter nisi seipsum tantùm Obligatio Juramenti non transit ad successores p 117. 118. nothing can be more plain 9. Therefore I must have leave to demand what Casuist Authour of Note or Learned Man uninterested in the present Controversie hath used or allowed this distinction besides Master Croston Thus his authority is matcht what reasons you hint for it I proceed to give reason to Answer 10. You add no reasons in this place yet because I shall make but one work of it I shall gather the reasons that serve to this purpose from the other parts of your book where I find them they are but two to the best of my Observation both received from Master Crofton and I presume the best he hath for that you improve no other 11. The first I find upon Case the 14. by way of Expostulation thus Was the law of Saul the Princes of Israel against the Gibeonites to be justified Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of Joshua and the Princes with him 12. The answer is at hand in the Reverend Bishops words Saul Injustus tantùm sit non item perjurus Pauls sin was cruelty and injustice and not perjury Not the Oath of Joshua immediately but the Law of Righteousness bound Saul to the contrary 13. If any Obligation lay upon Saul rom Joshua's Oath it was not formalier but effectivè only not as an Oath but in the effects of it which was to preserve and maintain Justice and every mans right even that right of the Gibeonites which they had obtained by vertue indeed of their Covenant with Joshua long before 14. Methinks it may thus be resembled a Parliament in England is not obliged to continue all the Acts of precedent Parliaments but hath power to alter them as they think fit yet no Parliament can void an Act of pardon made by any former Parliament 15. The Reason is not that one Parliament hath not power to undo what another hath done abstractly confidered but because a Parliament it self may not be unrighteous and do injustice 16. But why is it injustice from a Parliament to void an Act of pardon the Reason seems to be this An Act of pardon hath its effect the first day of its being and gives actual Right to every one concerned in the mercy granted they are actually pardoned and the offence forgiven and done away And now if this pardon should be taken off again Right is violated and punishment inflicted where there is no Crime 17. Thus was it in the Case of the Gibeonites they had received an Act of pardon long before a Legal restitution to the priviledges they enjoy'd by virtue of the Oath of Joshua and the Princes of Israel and the violation of their Rights so long after with the taking away of their lives by Saul was iniquity and cruelty in him and most justly though severely punished by the God of Righteousness 18. This Answer is plainly gathered from the Holy Scripture whence the Objection it self is framed 19. The Famine saith the Lord to David is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21. 11. 20. It is rendred in several of the Oriental Tongues House of bloods and so it is in the Hebrew it was not perjury but blood fill'd his house because he slew the Gibeonites and broke the Act of Pardon not the Oath of Joshua formally considered 21. It is said that the children of Israel had sworn to them v. 2. but not Saul yea the children of Israel in opposition to Saul the children of