assure and declare by my solemn Oath in the presence of the Almighty God my allowance and approbation of the National Covenant and of the solemn League and Covenant above-written and faithfully oblige my self to prosecute the ends thereof in my station and calling and that I for my self and successors shall consent and agree to all Acts and Ordinances enjoyning the National Covenant the solemn League and Covenant and fully establish Presbyterial Government the Directory for worship Confession of Faith and Catechism in the Kingdom of Scotland as they are approved by the General Assemblies of this Kirk and Kingdom and that I shall give my Royal assent to Acts and Ordinances of this Parliament passed or to be passed enjoyning the same in my other dominions and that I shall observe these in mine own practice and family and never make opposition to any of those or endeavour any change thereof In this Oath it is worth observation that the Royal assent is given unto the solemn League and Covenant and Directory for worship Confession of Faith and Catechism and Presbyterial Government as things done in pursuit thereof 2. That the Royal assent is declared unto and assured to be given in formality unto Acts and Ordinances of this Parliament supposed to be then in being in his other dominions passed by them for the Covenant and other things of Religion specified 3. That this he was pleased to do as King of Great Britain France and Ireland his most Royal and publick capacity and that for himself and his successors upon these considerations I could be glad to receive the judgment of the learned in the Law whether the Royal assent any way or by any expressions or Act publickly made known be not sufficient to make an Act of Parliament a perfect and compleat Law the equity of the statute of 33. Henrie the third 21. Rendring the Kings assent under his seal expressed to be as valid and effectual to all intents in Law as if he had been personally present doth suggest a ground for this enquiry for I conceive an assent by solemn Oath to be a more Real Royal political presence than the transubstantiation or his Real Presence under his Seal but that I may keep within my sphear I presume none will deny this to be Jure civili and divino before God and men an establishment of the Solemn League and Covenant to oblige the Subject and the rather if it be observed that it was done deliberately Declaration from Dunfirling Aug. 16. 1650. and so professed and enforced by a most pious Declaration of His Royal pleasure conjuring the enmity against the Covenant conceived in any His Subjects in any His Dominions to cease His Majesty being resolved to have no friends but the friends of the Covenant Grotius layeth us down two cases wherein the Act of the King doth bind His Subjects they both square with this our case in reference to the Covenant the one Contractus Regentium obligat subditos si probabilem habeant rationem if the Covenant carry a probable reason let such as plead His Majesty had no probable way to come to His right and be enjoyed by His Subjects but by yielding to the Covenant which God indeed hath used as the principal means to that effect now graciously accomplished tell us whether it was a most probable reason of good to the Nation The other case was this Grotius de jur bel pa. lib. 2. cap. 14. 235. si adsit populus ipse vult obligari quo casu sui juris esse inceperit successores ut populi capita obligabuntur nam quid populus liber contraxisset obligaretur is qui postea regnum plenissimo jure acciperet where the people are willing to be bound of which in our case let the agitations of both Parliaments in both Kingdoms witness It will Sir nothing relieve this Act of His Majesty to plead It was below His Royal Prerogative to Covenant with His own Subjects had it been with an enemy we admit and confess we were bound by His Act but by His Royal Power He may absolve Himself from so vile an Obligation made to His Subjects In this câ—se I must indeed confess His Royal Prerogative may priviledge His Majesty from a coaction unto performance of what He hath sworn the state of Subjects leaving them void of power to compel but jure civili and divino He is bound to performance and the Subject may by humble supplication pray and demand performance of the Covenant for the condescension voluntary hath left an obligation on the conscience before God and the world So Grotius tells us Dicimus ex promisso contracta Regis quam cum subditis iniit Grotius de jur belli pa. l. c. 14. p. 233. nasci veram ac propriam obligationem quae jus det ipsis subditis the Oath of a King covenanting with his Subjects hath God for its witness and he is more eminently engaged to avenge it because there is no humane power that may do it Nor is it of any more force to plead that His Majesty was in an exiled estate and not in the possession of the Kingdom and therefore could not as King make any Covenant for or against his people Unto this Plea the Answer is obvious and it is and must be acknowledged no case or place can destroy his Royal capacity for it abideth and the alteration of his seat of residence will not render his Family an individuum vagum as Lucan noteth of the Roman Senate Non unquam perdidit or do mutato sua jura loco and Grotius hath ruled this case Lib. 2. cap. 16. p. 257. and concludes the same Cum rege initum foedus manet etiamsi Rex idem aut successora subditis sit pulsus jus enim Regni penes ipsum manet utcunque possessionem amiserit I hope there is jure civili the same right and power to give as to receive and then let the King be where he will his Covenant binds for or against his Subjects and to the sworne form of Worship and Discipline in His Family Nor is it of any more strength or advantage to say His Majesty was under force and thorough the straits of His condition did condescend to such unworthy terms which He cannot with honour make good The which so much as once to suggest to the World is an high disservice and reproach unto His Majesty lessening His Royal Reputation and the apprehension of Piety amongst His Religious Subjects If Doctor Sanderson's notion be right Divinity as certainly it is Pius esse nequit qui non est fortis He cannot be godly who is cowardly and his esteem amongst men by the rule of the Heathen Poet. Justum ac tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium Non vultus instantis tyranni Mente quatit solida Horace lib. 3. ode 3. Serious men will stoutly withstand the importunities of impudence
can order determine direct and by Parliamentary Authority enforce a present execution of those Determinations and Orders directed to the Subject as we know is and ordinarily hath been practised without the consent of the King And whether the people are not subject to the same as being Parliamentary Authority before they formally pass into Laws or Acts to be established Rules when their being a Parliament ceaseth And so whether an Act done Sedente Parliamento at their Appointment and by their present Order being in its own nature permanent and abiding never to be discharged as is the Obligation of an Oath be not valid though it never pass into a Formal Act of Parliament and standing Statute 3. Whether an extraordinary and unusual Proclamation of the King against the Determinations of both Houses of Parliament be according to the constitutions of this Kingdom a full and formal supersedeas to any act required to be done by the authority of the Parliament then sitting 4. Whether his late Majesty in his Proclamation of the 9th of Octob. 19. Carol. did by his Royal Authority declare void and null the Obligation which should be laid on any of his people against his consent Or by his Parental care onely admonish his Subjects of its evil and the danger he conceived in it and so warn a forbearance of it For Parental Admonition and Authoritative Annulling Inhibition are distinct Acts and the last was in this case necessary because the Collective Body of the Kingdom had sworn this Covenant on the 25th of September before 5. Whether the Kings after-assent and admonition unto a right understanding and Religious keeping of the Covenant do not establish it and make its obligation unavoidable And whether after the interdiction of the Act his Majesties Declaration That as things now stand good men shall least offend God and Me by keeping their Covenant by honest and lawful ways since I have the Charity to believe the chief end of the Covenant in such mens intention was to preserve Religion in purity and the Kingdoms in peace Be not a subsequent allowance sutable to the equity of that Law in Numb 30. and sufficient to make the Covenant valid and an indispensable vow 6. Whether an endeavour in our places and callings be not so far sui Juris to the Subject that it may be safely sworn without the consent of the Soveraign and shall bind the conscience notwithstanding His declared dissent thereunto Lastly Whether the Approbation of His most Gracious Majesty that now is unto the Solemn League and Covenant and the Assent unto the Ordinances of Parliament enjoyning the same declared by Solemn Oath and Publick Declaration be not a full compleat and formal Authority supplying all supposed defect and fastning its obligation by a full Theological if not formally Political Act of Parliament And so hath varied the case and all fancy of the non-obligation of the Covenant occasioned by the unhappy dispute concerning the Authority conversant about it When Sir these enquiries are seriously and on solid Reasons resolved in the Negative we shall confess there may be some doubt of a discharge of the Obligation of the Covenant and untill then it lieth on our consciences and must be carefully regarded and performed lest the judgments of God come upon us and we fall under the guilt of perjury Now Sir the matter of the Covenant being just and possible the Authority establishing it full and sufficient and dispensation from the Obligation of an Oath concluded to be a Popish Vanity what can hinder our conclusion that the Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant is permanent never to be discharged Yet Sir Dr John Gauden notwithstanding his ill success in loosing St. Peters Bonds hath made an Essay for his full release though not immediately by himself who can say no more then what he said at first and therefore saith it over again in his Epistle to the Doubts and Scruples before noted yet by his profound allowance and judicious testimony to the discourse of Mr. John Russel of Chinkford in Essex the which is made authentick and acceptable to the world as good Casuistical Divinity and a clear resolution of this case of conscience by this stamp on the Title page Attested by John Gauden D. D. So that Sir I should be dis-respective to my Antagonist if I make not a little stay to consider what is said by his learned Chaplain though I must confess it is so simple and shatter'd a discourse it is not worth reading much less the least of Answer but I remember my promise at the beginning That I would weigh what he could alledge to void the Covenant which is his aim and professed end and therefore his Title page affirmeth The Solemn League and Covenant discharged or St. Peters Bonds not onely loosed but annihilated An honourable design an high undertaking an hard enterprise to release the conscience from the bond of an Oath It is well if the attempt give us not cause to see Fronti nulla fides and that the Title is stuffed with proud swelling words of vanity yet he applieth himself to the work with some agility as if accustomed to evade holy Bonds and with ease to resolve the most weighty cases of consciences I will not say by a nimble profaneness to break Religious Prisons and therefore in page 2 of his Book he states the question and telleth us I shall grant by way of supposition we will be content with such a grant all that the most rigid Covenanters can desire of me excepting one point I shall suppose the same to be imposed by compleat and lawful Authority to be no ways defective in circumstances to be clear and free from ambiguity to be perfect in the form to be sound and lawful in the matter to be pious in the end fair in the manner of imposing that there was no fraud or violence used but that all men took it with due deliberation and free consent by all which means it became a very strong Bond and Obligation upon the consciences of men Sir This is I confess a very fair grant if notwithstanding all this he can discharge the Covenant by my consent he shall never more be brought into durance but what is that one point he denieth to grant us It is this That the Solemn League and Covenant is such a Bond on the consciences of men that it cannot be released by any humane act or power And in opposition thereto he affirmeth That the same specifical power or an higher than that which imposed this Vow upon us may release us from the same either tacitely or expresly This Sir is easily affirmed with confidence but so simply and slenderly proved that the Doctor hath shewed us little of judgment in his attestation to this work as in his own Analysis and must needs make men observe his desire of Release is so fervent as to allow and approve any thing that doth but pretend to discharge the
putting on it a sense agreeable to their purpose which is repugnant to the plain and express Letter of the Covenant in the point of Episcopacy correcting their infirmity graviori peccato with a more grievous impiety mending rash swearing by plain perjury and after a sober admonition and refutation pertinaciously retain their resolution by publishing the very same pleas for breach of Covenant and braving it to the world with a bold asserting Dr. Gaudens Epistle to the doubts and scruples about taking the Covenant No sacred Oath or Promise can bind the soul of man from its just freedom which is rational civil moral legal and religious nor can it be bound to execute or fulfil any such when it is willingly or by inadvertency or malice formally engaged by them but not really to them I wish Sir that this Doctor would attend Doctor Halls Divinity with as much diligence as he seems to me to affect his Dialect What a preposterous and immethodical course do the Divines of our time take to discharge the obligation of the Covenant by scandalizing the same with the irregularities which attended the first taking of it That many miscarriages occasioned by the commotion and turbulency of those martial days in which it was digested and propounded to the people did accompany the Covenant when tendred and first taken I can easily consent but not so great as they seem in the multiplyidg-glass of passion and prejudice by which they are now suggested much less were they so great as to discharge the bond of it I confess the Covenant ought not to have been the effect of Scottish importunities or English compliances nor to have been brought forth by the midwifry of tumults and engaged enraged Armies parties and factions nor its convictions and perswasions to have been by sequestrations and imprisonments as Dr. Gauden in his Analysis suggesteth but I on grounds urged in my Analepsis cannot yield it was yet grant it will these things avail to the discharge of its binding force and make it void Nothing less Nay League in the Illegal Sir should I consent and subscribe unto the verity of the Arguments urged by Dr. Featley his Ghost and admit what I shall hereafter deny 1. The supposed Solecism and mistaken order of the words in the Covenant 2. The supposed end and aim of the Contrivers of the Covenant 3. The wants of authority in the Imposers 4. The ambiguity and seeming contradictions of many expressions 5. That many took it not in Truth Righteousness and Judgment 6. That it wants warrant in Scripture and is onely bottomed on the basis of Natural Policy 7. That it is derogatory to Englands honour 8. Taken without important cause and urgent necessity and so was faulty in these and the like circumstances which call for Repentance in Imposers and Takers yet it must be a Solecism in Divinity to awake this book and send abroad these exceptions against the Act of making and swearing the Covenant in hope that a review of them may make us repent and be wise and to confirm men the Apostates in their aversion pretended conversion from he Covenant and draw others from it by the strength of conviction I will grant his Maxime Deliberandum est diu quod statuendum est semel And though I believe the determination of the Covenant was on due advice yet we will consent unto him to repent and confess these mistakes But I must tell his Majesties Chaplain that Dr. Saunderson will not upon all this give us leave to cast off the Covenant but constrains our consciences to revive it Juramentum de re non illicita sit aliunde illicitum Sanderson de juramento prael 2 a. p. 55. ex aliquo externo defectu propter aliquam indebitam circumstantiam respectu actus jurandi possit obligare jurantem ad implendum quod promisit An Oath lawful in the matter unlawful in external undue circumstances in the act of swearing binds to accomplishment This Sir hath the more influence upon me because it is Oxford Divinity conceived to be read on the occasion of this Covenant We confess with Augustine David juravit temere sed non implevit majori pietate David sware rashly but with piety repented and retracted because the matter self-revenge in Nabal's ruine was wicked Which is not our case when the matter of the Covenant appears to be manifest sin we must retract it till then we will repent rashnesse unadvisednesse in the act but retain its obligation lest we patch up sinne by sinne Now I deal with His Majesties Chaplain may I Sir make bold to whisper another notion of Divinity in his ear he may have occasion and opportunity to use it Sir it is this That a Peoples imposing on their Prince and binding him to terms and bringing him under an Oath not onely for themselves but all their fellow-subjects in all or any the Kings Dominion for which act the Scots are much censured and could I have advised should have been more innocent savours something of disorder tumult irregularity and vulgar violence And yet Grotius determines the matter being lawful it obligeth the Prince so sworn because God is invocated and the King was voluntarily subjected Though he doubt the power of Co-action of a Princes performance by men yet he affirms the obligation befor God Crotius de jure belli pacis l. 2. c. 14. p. 233. His conclusion is this on the discussion of the Question Dicimus ergo ex promisso contractu regis quem cum subditis iniit nasci veram ac propriam obligationem quae jus det subditis The promise or Covenant into which the King shall enter with his subjects doth engender a true and proper obligation and conser on the Subjects a right whereon to demand performance I will not justifie all past actions but can scarce refrain from adding to the Letany From contrary Coronation-Oaths good Lord deliver us Lastly How far wide do they shoot who direct the private doubts and particular scruples of private persons or societies against the taking the Solemn League and Covenant to discharge its obligation Men print and re-print the Oxford Reasons and make a great noise with them in the world and yet they are meet private reasons professedly relating to their own refusal of the Covenant and they never tell us whether they or any of the persons concerned received satisfaction to their reasons Not to judge the consciences of others but to clear our selves before God and the world from all suspicion of obstinacy Oxford Reasons Pref. p. 1. and after submitted to the taking of the Covenant nor is it considered the Reasons do profess an Apology and pray a personal excuse of themselves from the Act but do not so much as pretend to acquit the bond of the Covenant to such as had taken it Now granting that these Reasons might have that force that the Authors of them could not without sin conform to
of God in the sense there intended is at this time encreased To which Sir I should have then answered 1. Answer Their ability to say it is of little moment nor could we well judge it for whether they were under any natural wilfull violent or judicial incapacity is not our part to determine Others were able to say it and if these reverend Fathers and Students did know it though they were not able to say it it was for us sufficient And therefore may I be bold further to enquire 2. Whether they were able to read the whole Sentence expressing the sense Of the enemies of God whose rage power and presumption was at this time encreased here intended and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true Religion and Professors thereof in all places especially in these three Kingdoms ever sinte the Reformation of Religion and how much their rage power and presumption are of late and at this time encreased whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England and the dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland are present and publick testimonies Are not these full expressions of the sense in which the enemies of God whose raâ—â— power and presumption were encreased are to be understood And is it rational or religious to enquire after and suspend a duty on jealousie of a sense intended when we have the sense plainly expressed Is not this repugnant to the end of Speech the Interpreter of the mind 3. Were the Masters Scholars and other Members and Officers of the University of Oxford such strangers in the Protestant Israel as not to know the Papists and Popishly affected were enemies of God against true Religion and the Professors thereof in all places Or so unacquainted at home as not to know their plots conspiracies attempts and practices were especially against these three Kingdoms the most publick and potent professors of true Religion ever since the Reformation Had they no notion of the Rebellions against King Edward the sixth Of the Treasons Plots Conspiracies Roaring Bulls and Raging Spanish Armado against Queen Elizabeth Of the Gunpowder-Treason and other plots against King James Of the Colledge of Propagators of the Catholick cause erected in Rome under the Government of Cardinal Barbarin and designed against these Kingdoms Or of the grand Plot agitated by Con or Cuneus the Popes Nuncio in England discovered by Andreas ab Habernefield first to Sir William Boswel His Majesties Resident in Flanders and by him unto Laud late Archbishop of Canterbury and since fully cleared and laid open by Mr. William Prynn in his Romes Master-piece published in 1643. four years before their reasons and might have been profitable to their eye-sight 4. Did not this learned University judge it to be an high encrease of their Rage Power and Presumption to distribute their Jesuits into such several Orders as should be capable in any place or profession to propagate their plots To press upon the late King and Archbishop for a publick profession of union with Rome To boast openly of Englands returning to Popery To tender a Cardinals Hat to the late Archbishop To poison our Fountains the Universities and our very people with Arminian and Popish doctrines publickly preached and printed and Popish pictures publickly sold and bound up with our Testaments and Bibles To provoke the High-Commission cruelties and Puritans discontents To plot a plain Popish Service-book with very little variation oâ— from the Mass-book and procure it to be by force and violence imposed on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland to the raising Mutinies and stirring up the Bellum Episcopale with pretence to yoke them and intention to destroy the King and Protestant cause To rebell openly in Ireland and with rage and cruelty to murder and massacre the Protestants To divide between King and Parliament in England and possess themselves of his Majesties Garrisons and Armies as under their command To abet advise and effect the most barbarous murther of his late Majesty and our since confusions All which and many the like to have been the atchievements and accomplishments of these enemies of God to true Religion He that is in any measure observant of our affairs can run and read And are not these expressions of rage power and presumption let right reason judge 2. Oxford Reasons second exception They cannot truly affirm that they had used or given consent to any supplication or remonstrance to the purposes therein expressed To this Sir consider That although they cannot affirm it yet others can do it in truth and with joy 2. What are the purposes therein expressed not as before intended shall we judge it from the Preface It is the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honor and happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity the publick liberty peace and safety of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included For the End is the Argument which is urged to enforce the constancy to the Covenant and in Article the sixth it is expressed to be the glory of God good of the Kingdoms and the honour of the King and these are the onely purposes expressed in these particular acts propounded for the production of them and shall we be so uncharitable as to think the Gentlemen of Oxford to have been so void of piety towards God love to their Country or loyalty toward their King as not to have used or given consent to Supplication or Remonstrance to these purposes therein expressed Must we think them so speechless as not to pray to God nor speak to men for the effecting of these purposes expressed No! I will rather presume them modest and not willing to publish their piety and zeal to good purposes or passionately prejudiced against some one expedient propounded to the effecting of these purposes expressed and thereby acted to confound the purpose and pursuing meanes But 3. Had not the University of Oxford Representees in Parliament If they did not sit were they violently excluded Or did they give their No to the Supplications or Remonstrances to the purposes expressed in the Covenant and if they did were not these Supplications and Remonstrances carried by the Majority of Votes And is not the Negative so swallowed therein that all persons and bodies corporate through the Nation did thereunto consent When we finde Oxford excepted we will say they could not truly affirme they gave consent But 3dly Oxford Reasons third exception they did not conceive the entring into such a League and Covenant to be a lawful proper and probable means to preserve our selves and our Religion from ruine and destruction To this Sir we must enquire into the conceipt of these Gentlemen and desire to know whether it relate unto the quality of the Covenant or the act
and Archbishops of the essence and formality of the true Reformed Protestant Religion Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism than Scotlands supposed making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church As denying the Reformed Churches beyond the Sea to have attained to the true Reformed Protestant Religion which yet they handed over to us But what reason had these Gentlemen of Oxford to understand the Doctrine of the Church of England in such a latitude when the sence of it is limited by them who were then known to be Legislators and a power sufficient to prescribe an Oath unto which themselves subjected and were the best expositors thereof viz. the House of Commons who thus declared Whereas some doubts have been raised concerning the meaning of these words The true Reformed Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine This House doth declare that by these words was and is meant only the publick Doctrine professed in the said Church so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovations And that the said words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of Worship Discipline and Government nor of any the Rites and Ceremonies of the said Church of England By which these Gentlemen might have understood 1. The Realm and Church of England were two different Subjects the one professing Doctrine in the other wherein also there was Doctrine tending to Popery and Popish Innovation 2. There were in the Doctrines professed by the Church of England some adjuncts of Rites Ceremonies Government or some special order of Worship which might need Reformation and were not view'd to be maintained So that according to this sence of them who prescribed both there is more of consistency than contradiction between the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant So that the manifest perjury they feared hath not so much as a seeming ground And as for the supposed contradiction of this Branch of the Covenant unto the Oath of Supremacy it will on examination vanish as an apparition a thing which so seemed but cannot be so proved For if they will not hiss me out of their Schools I will grant them their Proposition in the Oath and assumption in the Statute by them quoted and yet find a way to avoid the conclusion because a meer non sequitur on their premises and this if they will have the Argument logically resolved by denying the consequence of their major Proposition for I will grant unto them that the Oath of Supremacy doth bind us to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted and belonging to the Kings Highness his heirs and successors or united and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm And assume with them That the King had the whole power and Authority for Reformation Order and Correction of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c. and yet deny the sequel viz. That we may not endeavour in our places and callings to reform Religion For the defence of the Kings power is no way repugnant with the duty of our particular capacity I hope a Minister may by his preaching or a Divine by his disputation in the Schools endeavour the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresie Schism or Superstition and yet not intrench on his Majesties Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so interfer with their Oath of Supremacy Yea in reference to judicial and authoritative Correction and Reformation which we will suppose can only be done by the King mens endeavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel Proposal Remonstrance Petition Supplication and the like to procure His Majesties consent and authority to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and then Sir where is the Contradiction Yet Sir if I were to dispute with a single though Senior Sophister of Oxford I would deny both Propositions the major as to its sequel or consequence as before and the assumption as that which the Statute doth not prove viz. The whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for Correction and Reformation is annexed to the King and Imperial Crown of this Realm For the power by that Statute is special and particular not general and universal as themselves have cited it is viz. such Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Preheminences Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any c. and as the Statute proceeds Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for Visitation of any Ecclesiastical State or Persons and for Reformation c. So that the power given to the King is such a powor as Bishops Cardinals or Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Jurisdicton in themselves over both Church and Crown enjoyed and exercised This power was purely executive not Legislative over persons and particular Societies not over the Kingdom and whole Realm I presume the Gentlemen of Oxford were not ignoront of the power and Legislative Authority which the Parliaments of England ever held over their Bishops and the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical estate of this Land tying them in all their administrations of Discipline and Government to the Customs and Statutes of this Realme as they may read at large in the Statute of the Submission of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 wherein they confess many of their Canons and Constitutions be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whereby they did not only Restrain the exorbitancies and from time to time Reform the abuses of the Church but also extend the Prerogative and Jurisdiction of the King as in that Statute 1 Elizab. and Limit Restrain and Repeal it as in the case of this individual specifical power granted in the words of the Statute quoted by the Statute 17 Caroli entituled An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 10 Elizab. concerning Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical which clause repealed is part of this very recited Paragraph and immediately annexed unto and dependent on this very grant of power and authority Nor are these Masters and Scholars of Oxford insensible that there is a vast difference between Executive and Legislative power and authority and that as no Ecclesiastical persons did ever enjoy however the Pope and his Bishops did contend for it so no King of England did ever pretend or lay claim unto the Legislative power further than allowed by Act of Parliaments who were ever Dictators of a general Reformation in the Land Church and Kingdom as at this time in the Reformation covenanted Nor can they be ignorant that it is very bad Logick from such Jurisdictions and Specifical Executive Authority to infer that the whole power of Reformation is so in the King that the Parliament may not propose or the people covenant in their places and callings to endeavor a Reformation
Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dangerous if they will evade the influence compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case I dare secure them from it in reference to the second 5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England is her foundation which if it be removed what shall the Righteous do And these serious Casuists do tell us That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England and they proved it by the Law for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation and Christ an enemy to Prelacy the corner stone and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profess They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy strike at the foundation of the Church which they are bound to uphold Truly Sir their care of the Church and its foundation is commendable but how comes it to pass that this Form of Government must be made the foundation of the Church without any danger of Schism by them to whom Scotlands making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church did seem so much tending to Schism Must the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion the very esse of the Church and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction Turpe est doctori c. Sir we cannot deny the proofs cited and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies propounding doubts professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied so much to content themselves and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies such Sophisme as better beseems the Logick than Divinity Schools and common Halls than the Regent house Two things are to be explained What they mean by holy Church and what foundation this is to which the Statutes relate These learned men wel know that by holy Church in the acceptation of that Age and of those very Acts the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile and the Statute of Edward the third was meant the Pompous Popish Ecclesiastical State whereof Abbies and Priories were no small Members as in Magna Charta and other Grants of Kings which had then such influence on the Civil State as that no Act of Parliament could bind or be deemed valid without the ratifying censure of holy Church whose manner was by her authority to curse all that should not keep such Lawes as were agreed I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out and tell us whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church or that the Church of Christ may not yea do not subsist in England now holy Church is driven out the Church simply Christian is very different from the pompous popish holy Church Again Sir the foundation mentioned in these Statutes is sutable to the Fabrick Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 22. holy Churches viz. the temporal endowments whereby she was made so pompous the Lands Mannors and large Revenues given by the King or Nobles of the Land as the question occasioning the same doth plainly evidence which was Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies and all Benefices in England and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement were just and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare providing for the advousance and disposal of all Benefices and the profits thereof in manner as the founders that is first donors had established and so the Prelacy in which it was founded is an Independency as to Rome and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free and within her self in respect of which in the very words of the Statutes themselves it is said The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores of such Possessions and Benefices doth give and grant the same to Aliens which did not and Cardinals which might not dwel in England as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the said Benefices as he was not of right after the Law of England so that this Prelacy is purely Political and the foundation more profitable than pious could these learned men be so absurd as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons Possessons and Presentations and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation and by vertue of this Political Prelacy the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishopricks to their Chancellours Treasurers Secretaries Kinsmen meer Lay-persons for increase of their means Pryns Catalogue of Testimonies for the parity of Presbyters and Bishops p. 16 17 18. and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void for 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15 20. and sometimes 30. years together by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist when her Prelates her foundation in their sense was wanting or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Christ because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy Ecclesiastical Prelacy like the Petrae and Rupes as in the time of King Henery the third have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church and in the State that they have constrained the Kings and Parliament of England as of all other Nations in all Ages to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds and at last to Covenant the extirpation thereof wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe we not only pull an old house about our ears but destroy the very Church if we have not wit enough to see how they would cosen us by the Law of man instead of the Law of God and a false gloss on fair words Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Government by Episcopacy of the estate of the Church of England we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government yet that little we shall consider and it relates unto their personal capacities in their third exception or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception In reference to their personal capacities they say They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice ingenuity or humanity to require the extirpation of this Government Oxford Reasons third exception against extirpation of Prelacy unless it had been proved unlawful what Sir if it had been proved inexpedient it would have been consistent with Saint Pauls Justice Humanity and
Ingenuity for to him All things might be lawful but were not expedient was a Rule but their Reasons might restrain these learned men and they are five in number 1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government 2. Received orders from their hands 3. Petitioned the continuance thereof 4. Htld their Livelyhood under such titles and in the exercise of that Government or some part thereof 5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same Vnto all which I shall say very briefly 1 It is worth their enquity whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially and so gave their approbation to this Government we grant that in the 39. Articles commonly published there is one viz. the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God I find not in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before mentioned and so misread them both but suppose the Article had so affirmed it had laid no bar to the alteration or extirpation of this Government for it might be as indeed all our Stattues do suggest a meer Political Civil constitution and so though an Adiaphoron not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God and alterable at the pleasure of Englands Parliaments and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of ordering Priests and Deacons and Consecration of Bishops and Archbishops did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God for I not believe nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture or ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons for I find no Priests in the new Testament and conceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denominations of the same order and make not different orders any more than Pastours Teachers Stewards Angels Stars and the like and if there were these orders yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God to add a fourth Arch-bishops and if they be not an order how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops a contended for order of the Ministry and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience neither the one nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence the Speaker of the Parliament or Lord Chief Justice hath no such like Solemnity I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant and not the other nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism and assistance at the Communion the Scripture specially points them to the poor and to serve Tables I question whether mute service in a publick solemn Assembly be not contrary to the Word of God where all as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost peculiar to Christ who did it in reality be not contrary to the Word of God or according to the words of the Article Superstitious and ungodly And whether Ministers swearing Caronical obedience to the Bishop or Bishops to the Arch-bishops be not plainly Papal and ungodly If these learned men considered and were convinced of the consonancy of these and the like things with the Word I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously yet I must enquire how judicially I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article for the Articles thereby enjoyned 13. Eliz. 13. do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments and this particle only is exclusive to Discipline and Government which by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti at the pleasure of the Magistrate and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed shall not be shut out of the Christian Church Now Sir were there any force in this exception to the Covenant I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts yet it is as ponderous as the next They received Orders from their hands and should ill requite them for laying their hands on them to lay to their hands to root them up and cannot tell for what That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them was not required they might continue Men Ministers it is like better Christians and more painful Preachers when they were not Bishops I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other and our question is of the thing not person in which degradation was the worst they could do them who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169. That a certain Monster heavier than the whole World stood eminently aloft upon his breast from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered than alone to have all the goods of the World when he waked he thought this was nothing but the Bishoprick of Dublin and so forthwith renounced it Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus Elected Arch-bishop of Florence who refused on fear of hazarding his salvation to accept it and when thundred into it by the counsel of his friends frowns of the Magistrates and the Popes Bull kept only eight persons no stately furniture in his house no Coach and Horses and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family saying They should do him a special favour to thrust him fram his Bishoprick wherein he continued with very great Regret They would acknowledge a kindness done unto them and yet were it an unkindness these Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude they have petitioned their continuance and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiors on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did depend nor had they been without Parallel if not a plea of Justice For the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England Rochester excepted in the time of Henry the eighth had voluntarily without the command of the King or Parliament sworn to root up the Pope the Apex of this Episcopacy from whom they had received their Palls Properties Power Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 564. 565 566 567. I had almost said Papacy Their third Reason I pass as an
expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The â—greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliamâ—â—to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which
he thus breaths against the Covenant Not to take advantage of the preposterous order in setting down the parts of this Covenant wherein he that runneth may read a double Solecism for in it the Church of Scotland precedeth the Church of England and the Liberty of the Subject is set before the Royal Prerogative and Imperial Dignity of the Prince Sir admit we this Is it not an high crime and bespeaks it not a sober serious spirit in Dr. Featly a Member of the Assembly of Divines who by a motion might have had this order inverted as easily as he obtained to have Prelacy specified in the second Article of the Covenant after it was past to pick a quarrel in the order of the words although we deny not That such a sacred and venerable evidence of fidelity is the Covenant that matter manner phrase and order ought to have as I presume they were been maturely advised yea I wish line and period word and syllable which might be the Printers Errata had been so scanned that a captious Momus might not find a Colon or Comma at which he might boggle and please his humour yet it is but a poor advantage from the punctilio's of order and honour to argue against matters of moment duties and exercises of Religion and by misplaced words to make an Oath or Solemn League illegal I but do I not run too fast he tells us he will not take the advantage an honest man is indeed as good as his word but I cannot trust him for his ninth Argument This Covenant is derogatory to the Honour of the Church and Kingdom of England Page 28. is thus proved The Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England I like not that mans grace that with the same breath will remit and retort an indiscretion yet Sir I cannot but enquire whether the preferring of the pompous gay-cloath'd Church of England before the poor Church of Scotland look not like a species of that impious partiality condemned by the Apostle James Chap. 2.1 2 3 4 5. Can we think this Dr. had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons or was acted by such a spirit of contradiction No this language was spoken after he was dead 2. But these Solecisms are not to me so obvious I stand still and cannot read them though I read the Covenant with all observation and regard yet I confess I find the Church of Scotland set before the Church of England and the liberty of the Subject before the Prerogative of the King but they are propounded with Relation to different Acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed I hope it is no Solecisme to put the factum before the fieri and to swear the preservation of good acquired before an endeavour to obtain the same or better or to prefix the pattern to what is to be thereunto confirmed when this Authors second thoughts had observed this salvo to his suggested * Page 29. Solecisme he grudges that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England for which he had little Reason if venerable Beda speak true in that he reports That * Mira divinae factum constat dispensatione pietatis quod gens illa quae noverat scientiam divinae cognitionis libenter sine invidia populo Anglorum communicare curavit Bed Eccl. His Gen. Ang. l. 5. c. 23. that Nation did at first communicate the Science of Divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England I hope it is no Solecisme to propound them as a pattern of Reformation who have first obtained it and from whom Christianity it self was at first to us transmitted The second supposed Solecisme is no more visible than this first for if the liberty of the people be the end and excellency of the Prerogative of the King as all wise Statists and Politicians do affirm he sure will admit to be the first in intention and endeavour although the last in execution and enjoyment and the rather for that it is so directed and dictated by the Maxime of His late glorious Majesty declared at the passing of the Petition of Right The peoples liberty strengthens the Kings Prerogative and the Kings Prerogative is to defend the peoplâ—â— liberty I am sure more serious and publick Statesmen than he or I shall ever make have judged it a Solecisme in Parliaments to support the Kings Prerogative by supply of moneys before the oppressions and burdens of the people have been relieved and their liberties secured and I believe I could prove that this is not the first Covenant made in England preferring the Peoples liberty before the Kings Prerogative without which the King may Tyrannize over slaves not Rule over free-ment which last is and will be His greatest honour The second thing in respect of which the Covenant is blemished and reproached as to the manner of making it 2. The nature and name of the Covenant vindicated Oxford Reasons Sect. 2. pag. 3. relates unto the nature thereof and the name is the noration of its nature and it is called a Solemn League and Covenant against which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do except stumbling at the name Covenant they were learned men and must a little stand on the propriety of words they therefore except against this denomination because imposed with a penalty which imposition say they is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant which being a contract implieth a voluntary mutual consent of the contracters whereunto men are to be induced by perswasion not compelled by power pactum est duorum pluriumve in idem placitum consensus To this Sir I grant that a Covenant in the strict acceptation of it must be an agreement by mutual consent yet I must enquire of these learned men whether the Magisterial imposing of absolute duty or actions otherwise indifferent by Superiours upon their Inferiours and that under a penalty may not be called a Covenant What think they of that injunction to Mankind in Adam Of the Tree of good and evil thou stalt not eat for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death we read not of any stipulation in Adam And Divines tell us it was neither necessary nor proper he being bound to accept the conditions his Creatour would put upon him I am sure this is generally judged a Covenant and that we commonly call the Covenant of Works Again In the Primitive Times of the Church adult persons did answer certain queftions propounded as bredis credo abrenuncias abrenuncio 1 Pet. 3.21 Beza in Loc. to which the Apostle Peter is though to refer his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza renders Stipulatio bâ—nae conscientiae apud Deum and from this order Tertullian concludes Anima non lavatione sed responsione sancitur Do these learned men as the Anabaptists think the Covenant of Grace is not passed between God and
the Infants of believing Parents in their Baptisme who are not capable of such consent and stipulation but were dedicated by the Authority and Interest of the Parent and are accepted by the extent of the Covenant or is confirmation an essential part of the Sacrament and necessary supplement of Baptisme I find a like case in Scripture called a Covenant Gen. 17.13 My Covenant shall be in your flesh the stipulation of Godfathers and Godmothers will not relieve the case unless they be deputed by the Infants though they were which doth not appear commissioned by the Lord so that some Covenants are imposed and pass withour mutual consent 2. May not an agreement between two different Nations passed by the mutual consent of the Princes or Body Politick be for further security sake imposed by the Authority of each Nation on the individual Subjects thereof and that under a penalty which may be a good perswasion against their peevishness and pertinacy who by their private interest may obstruct the more general and publick good and yet be properly denominated a Covenant as suppose between England and Spain which the Merchants of both are bound to keep and I see no cause why they may not be compelled to swear I hope the case will not differ between Scotland and England who are distinct Nations though under the same King it is Sir no hard matter to make this the case of the Covenant But these learned men do except against the Authority enjoyning the Covenant 3. The Authority imposing the Covenant Vindicated which is the third particular in the manner of making the Covenant supposed to be miscarried and herein Dr. Featlie's Ghost doth follow them but so very weakly and with such palpable contradiction that I shall not spend time and paper in observing the same but specially take notice of what is urged by the Oxford Reasons from which he borroweth his strength Here Sir I shall desire it may be noted that I do not affirme the authority to be full and compleat but to have been lawful and sufficient to impose an Oath and thereby bind the people wherein notwithstanding they should have been defective and fallacious yet this will not discharge the obligation laid as I have in my Analepsis pag. 13. and before in Pag. 23.21 this Tract observed against it therefore as such I shall endeavour to weigh the Exceptions The first whereof is Oxford Reasons Sect. 2. pag. 3. That this imposing of this Oath was contrary to the liberty of the Subject expressed in the Petition of Right to which liberty the imposition of a new Oath other than is established by Act of Parliament is thereby declared contrary Unto this Sir I say I cannot but observe what strength of prejudice acted these learned men in making to themselves these Doubts and Reasons against the Covenant which leads them almost throughout their Book to infer generals from specials as I have before noted in our Arguments so in this the words themselves do quote out of the Petition of Right are these Whereas many of them have had an Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realme they do humbly pray that no man hereafter be compelled to take such an Oath according to which words it appears to be some speciall Oath that was complained of and unto which the relative doth refer the which if they would please to observe the connexion of the words will be found to have been a particular and specifical Oath the words in the Plaint run thus Petition of Right By means whereof Your People have been in divers places assembled and required to lend certain moneys unto Your Majesty and of them upon their refusal so to do have had an Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm so that it appears to have been an Oath of discovery of their Estate upon refusal to lend moneys or some Oath ex officio unto self-accusation beyond the Statute of the 25th Henry the third which is in this point complained of as violated and the prayer of that Petition doth no less specifie this Oath by the Relative SVCH which referreth unto the quality of the Oath complained against so doth also the concatenation of the prayer which proportionally to the Plaint is That no man be compelled to make gift or loan c. or be called to make answer or take such Oath so that this was an Oath to make answer unto the damage of a mans own Estate Life or Liberty which is repugnant to Nature and herein aggravated as not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm a more full description whereof these Gentlemen might have received in the Statute 17. Caroli concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical Now Sir from this special to argue against all Oaths that pass not by Act of Parliament is a plain non seuquitur and unjust inference the Companies in London or it may be some Colledges in Oxford are constituted by the Kings Charter or Patent and the Master and Wardens of the one or President and Fellows of the other give an Oath to all that become Members thereof and expect to participate in their priviledges will these learned men say that these Oaths not imposed or prescribed by Act of Parliament were contrary to the Petition of Right which never complained of or prayed against such Oaths I do not think these men would have had us to think that the Oath Caetera enjoyned in the Canons of 1640. was against the Petition of Right which certainly would bespeak the Bishops something prejudicial to the Civil State and yet it was never passed by Act of Parliament Moreover these learned men subscribed and swear to the Protestation of May 1641. they did not sure then think that submitting to swear that Oath they did violate or betray the liberties of the people expressed in the Petition of Right they should do well to tell us by what Act I do not say Authority of Parliament it was established I humbly conceive that there is a vast difference between an Oath of exaction self-discovery or accusation which is wicked in its nature and more wicked when without warrant from the Law and an Oath for establishment of publick and general good imposed by the Authority though not established by Act of Parliament it is not the simple taking an Oath without consent of Parliament but the taking such an Oath as may impeach the persons or endanger the Estates of the Subject which was the Peoples grievances not is it the formality of an Act but the full consent of the people in Parliament makes an Oath lawful and preserveth their liberties in the imposing of it But these Masters and Scholars of Oxford fear Ibid. by owning this Covenant they should own a power in the imposers thereof then for ought that appeareth to them hath been challenged in former times or can consist with
their former Protestation if rightly understood in sundry the most material Branches of it Unto this Sir I must say that I know not what did appear to them to have been the power of the imposers and challenged in former times only unto me and many others it did appear not to he the meer natural Power of the People preposterously and in a tumultuous manner assembled who yet do appear to have a power to impose on themselves an Oath and to whom I find Soveraignty it self to speak it with due Reverence in some measure subjected and its obligation superseded if not made void clearly barred from execution if but by the impossibility put thereon as it was in the case of Jonathans Rescue which I shall only report in the words of Bishop Hall Saul hath sworn Jonathans death the people contrarily swear his preservation Halls Contem. p. 1038. his Kingdom was not so absolute yet more absolute than Englands that he could run away with so unmerciful a justice their Oath which savoured of disobedience prevailed against his Oath which savoured of too much cruelty and so long as his heart was not false to his Oath he could not be sorry Jonathan should live I do not in any case justifie the preposterous and tumultuous Assemblings and Assumptions of the People whereby they lay on themselves Bonds which must not be broken and cannot well without much difficulty be kept yet I cannot but observe many times whereby the Vox populi is Vox Dei as in the very change of the Government of Israel on which Dr. Hall Notes It was Gods ancient purp se to raise up a King to his People Page 10.24 how doth he take occasion to do it by the unruly desires of Israel but blessed be God this was not the case of the Covenant the imposers did not assemble on their own heads and by violence and disorder assume unto themselves an unusual power The power imposing this Covenant was a Parliament the Collective Body of the Kingdom Duly Summoned Regularly Elected and returned Rightly Constituted and Readily Embraced by King and Kingdom and animated with more than ordinary Parliamentary power by the Bill for their continuance against all Casualties so as not to be Prorogued Adjourned or Dissolved without their own consent And can any True-born English man in any measure acquainted with the constitution of this Kingdom or the Authority of the High Court of Parliament deny these to be a just and lawful Authority to resolve order and enjoyn yea and execute their Resolves Orders and Injunctions during the being of their power though not to establish Lawes to be executed when they were dissolved and gone Sir I cannot without sad thoughts remember the unhappy difference between His late Majesty and the late long Parliament which occasioned the unhappy opposition of the Peoples Liberty and the Kings Prerogative as I cannot but wish they had been acted so conjunctly that they might have seem'd to vulgar apprehension to have been but one so I cannot but judge it prudence that a period be put to the dispute thereof upon the now Happy Re-union of his most Sacred Majesty and these too long distracted Kingdomes I am clearly of opinion with Aristotle that Prince of Politians Aristot Polit. lib. 5. c. 10 11. That Regal Government is best established where the Princes and People do participate of it and that Theopompus the Spartan in transmitting some of his Prerogative to his Ephori Princes might well maintain the encrease of his Dominion whilst he made it longer by making it less I think therefore that the wisest men and best Subjects will rather think then assert a Prerogative in the King above His Parliament and I for my part should be content to find in the Parliament a sufficient power to impose an Oath on the Subject without the Kings consent rather than to assert their Superiority unto Him in all points and particulars And when Sir I consider the power even over and against their King in the Princes and the Collective Body of the People Recorded in Scripture as in making War Josh 22. Judg. 20. Changing the Government 1 Sam 8. Choosing and establishing not only their first but succeeding Kings though immediately appointed and sometimes anointed by God as in the case of David Solomon and Rehoboam and others in removing from the King Favourites and Counsellors as David was against the mind of Achish the King dismissed by the Princes of the Philistines 1 Sam. 29. in restraining the Kings purpose of destruction confirmed by an Oath once and again as in the case of Jonathan or of protection as in the case of Jeremiah the Prophet concerning whom Zedekiah the King said He is in your hands the King is not he that can do any thing against you Jer. 38.5 In these and the like cases Josephus tells us Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 18. the King might not do any thing without or against the sentence of the Senate or Congregation Methinks a divine defence may be well made for the power of the Parliament in this case acted and admitted though without and against the consent of the King And when I consider what is Dogmatically asserted by Polititians and no mean Lawyers in reference to the power of general Councils and Conventions of Kingdoms in general Foxe Acts and Monuments p. 616. as of Englands Parliaments in particular as in the Council of Basil against the Pope the whole Realm hath more Authority than the King The same asserted by Marius Salamonius who by many Arguments doth defend it De principatu lib. 1. p. 17 18. he was a Roman Lawyer and Philosopher Hollingshead and Vowel in their Description of England declare concerning the Parliament That this Court hath the most high and absolute power of the Realm and that not only without but against the King by it offenders are punished and corrupt Religion reformed or disannulled and that whatever the people of Rome might do centuriatis comitiis or tribunitiis Vot 1. cap. 1. p. 173. which I am sure was to impose an Oath the same is and may be done by Parliament unto which may be added what is spoken to the same effect and almost in the same words by Sir Thomas Smith Secretary of State to King Edward the sixth and Queen Elizabeth and a Doctor of the Law in his Common-wealth of England and Horne an Eminent Lawyer in Edward the first his Reign in his Mirrour of Justice cap. 1. p. 7 8 9. and Fortescue Lord Chancellor to Henry the sixth in his Book de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 9. and Bracton quoted by these learned men who certainly affirms more than they can approve Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item curiaem suam viz. Comites Barones c. Et ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno debent ei fraenum imponere and above all the Soveraign Powers
serious surveigh of the Solemn League and Covenant I cannot but observe and see clearly that first the matter therein Covenanted is publike and national relating to the Kingdom under its Civil Religious and reformed consideration or capacity being the reformation and defence of Religion under a national profession and the honour and happinesse of the King priviledges of Parliament and liberties of the Subjects and the like concernments no way proper for personal and individual private Oaths 2. These matters and this form of security to them were consul ed agitated debated determined concluded and agreed unto by two distinct Nations agreeing in the general capacities which did relate unto the matter thereof and that in their most publike capacities and by the indisputable most full and formal collective bodies of both Kingdoms the Parliament though defective in that part which was most necessary to establish a Law then indent a Covenant which did most eminently consist in the consent of the people and body of the Nations 3. The termes shewing the capacity in which it was sworn are general and National as in the very words of the Preface We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts of the Kingdome of England c. by the providence of God living under one King and being of one reformed Religion so that all ranks and orders of men however dignified or distinguished among themselves yet united in this publike capacity the subjects of one King and of one reformed Religion and in that union universally sware the Covenant 4. The end and scope of this Covenant was Real National and Publike and only Personal in relation thereunto as is evident by the professed grounds thereof as having before our eyes the true publique liberty peace and safety of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included a sence of the deplorable distressed dangerous estate in which the Kingdoms then were and by the ends propounded almost in every Article thereof which relate to the Kingdoms and our Posterity and cannot be secured if the Oath be not National as in Article the First that we and our Posterity after us may as Brethren live in faith and love in Article the Second that the Lord may be one and his Name one in the three Kingdoms In Article the Third that the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland may remain conjoyned in a firme peace and union to all Posterity And by the Sixth Article it is declared to contain in it a cause which much concerned the good of the Kingdoms and in the conclusion thereof is a profession of sence and sorrow for the sin of these Kingdoms distinct from our own sins the which do loudly proclaime the scope and intent thereof to have been Nationall and publique 5. This Covenant was sworn by the Nation or Kingdom 1. Collectively by the body of the Nations regularly assembled and constituted in the most full and compleat Assembly that could and ever did represent the same in all acts and agâ—tations truly Real and National viz. The Parliament consisting of Lords and Commons that in their publique capacity as a Parliament the House of Commons Assembled in their House in the formality of the body of the Nation with their speaker before them went unto St. Margarets Church in Westminster and there with the greatest solemnity imaginable Ordinance of Feb. 5. 1643. did as the representative body of the Kingdom swear this Covenant which as a further testimony that it was a National Covenant they caused to be printed with their names subscribed and to be hanged up in all Churches and in their own House as a compass whereby in conformity to right Reason and Religion to steer their then debates and to dictate to all that should succeed into that place and capacity what obligation did before God lie upon the body of this Nation 2. It was universally sworn by the people of this Kingdom solemnly Assembled in their particular places of convention all over the Kingdom all manner of persons from eighteen years old and upward and that not at their own will and giddy humour but at the Command and by the Authority of Parliament Vid. ordinance enjoyning the taking of the Covenant who in their place and in the behalf of this Nation having judged it a fit and excellent means to acquire the favour of God towards the three Kingdoms did order it to be universally sworne and certainly whosoever will but well weigh the directions given and duly executed in the tendring of the Covenant in all Counties and Parishes by every individual Minister to every individual Congregation and taken by all persons religious military or civil enforced with arguments which might convince conscience in the ingenuous or constraine the act from the peevish or perverse and accompained with the greatest extention concomitant imaginable he cannot but see a much more then the fourth part of the Nation did swear the Covenant If the several Rolls within the several Parishes and Precincts of this Kingdom in which the several Names of such as did swear the Solemn League and Covenant were engrossed may be produced It will be found notwithstanding the many singulars who may now renounce and say they did not take the Covenant it was sworn by the universality of the Nation And I hope we who have ever been judged a free people tied by no bonds but such as we lay upon our selves may be allowed to bind our selves by an Oath De jure bel ex par 256. and so make it Real and National according to that Rule and Reason of Grotius Si quidem populo liberto actum sit dubium non est quin quod promittitur sui natura reale sit 3. The solemn League and Covenant hath been ratified and rendred National by his most sacred Majesty unto all such who apprehend the constitution of this Nation to be merum imperium an absolute Monarchy wherin the King hath supremam protestatem whose professed loyalty leads them to subject themselves to all manner his Majesties concessions and conclusions and that by a series of multiplied acts as his Majesties agreement with the Scots at Breda where he graciously condescended to his Subjects by Solemn Oath to publish testifie his approbation of the solemn League Covenant and at his first arrival into Scotland was pleased to subject unto the same bond in which his Subjects were engaged and to swear the same solemn League and Covenant And again at his royal Coronation at Scoon in Scotland on the first of January 1651. was Graciously pleased over and above the ordinary and solemn Oath peculiarly belonging to him as King of Scotland in his most publique capacity The History of Charles the second 75 76 77. to swear the solemn League and Covenant and this Oath in behalf of himself and his successors I Charles King of great Brittain France and Ireland do