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
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
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
Oxford Reasons Exceptions to the 3d. Article of the Covenant Sectio quinta p. 12 13 14. only they stumble at those words relating to the defence and preservation of the Kings Majesty Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom which they conceive to be a limitation of our absolute duty by a condition not allowable Though some endeavour to justifie these words as a condition put upon our duty by the power of Parliament who may limit the Prerogative of the King as well as extend it and think it will abide a Dispute I am not of their opinion for I do profess my self convinced that our allegiance and so the preservation of the Kings Person and Authority is an absolute duty founded in the Relation without Regard to the Quality Piety or Impiety of the Person who is bound also to His duty but not on the condition of the Subj cts duty both King and People owe a Reciprocal duty each to other and are bound to God to perform it but the duty of the one is no limiting condition to the other and therefore in all those contests for the Covenant in behalf of the King which not only I but other Ministers have undergone in the opposition of the late sinful Engagement Vid. The Exercitation concerning usurped powers Vindication of the Oath of Allegiance by the same Authour Lancashire and Cheshire Plea for non-subscribers to the late Engagement These words have been understood to be a predication of the capacity in which the Kingdom Parliament and People then were under the opposition of Malignants who divided the King from the People and so the meaning of it is thus We being in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms shall endeavour to preserve the Kings Majesties Person and Authority I wish therefore that it may be observed That the words fall into a plain parenthesis and the sentence is entire without them and they are fixed at the end of the Obligation which relates unto the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and liberties of the Subject as well as the preservation of the King and yet these cannot be limited and this sense is not only consonant to principles of right Reason and true Religion but also the Declaration of the Parliament in their then proceedings and the scope of this Covenant and this very Article which closeth with a most Solemn Appeal to the World to bear witness of our loyalty and that we have no thoughts to diminish His Majesties just power and greatnesse and I hope these serious Casuists will grant that where the words of an Oath seemingly doubtful may they must be understood in a good and just sense and then their exceptions to such a limitation in the Covenant do vanish with the Hypothesis on which they are built and inferred Unto the fourth Article of the Covenant these Masters and Scholars of Oxford do suggest something in Politicks which soundeth as strangely in my ears as their past Divinity indeed they determine it not but only desire it may be considered 1. Whether this Article lay not a necessity on the son to accuse his father and pursue him to destruction in case he should be an Incendiary Malignant or evil Instrument as is in this Article described which they conceive to be contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity 2. Whether the swearing this Article do not open a ready way to children and husbands that are sick of their fathers and w ves by appeaching them of Malignancy the letter to effectuate their unlawful intentions and designes To these I should have only desired it may be considered 1. Whether all penal Statutes in point of Treason and Felony open not as ready a way for children and husbands to be rid of their fathers and wives and the danger of concealment be not a very fair Apology for the same are they therefore contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity Have they never heard of such wickednesse know they not that there is an impossibility of fence against malicious accusations mischievously managed Must therefore these Statutes be voided as wicked and the like be prevented for time to come 2. Did not these learned men take the Oath of Allegiance and therein sware That they will to the best of their endeavour disclose and make known unto His Majesty His Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Trayterous Conspiracies which they should know or hear of to be against Him or any of Them May natural affection interdict this duty or are natural Relations exempt from this discovery may not mischievous men find open a ready way to appeal such as stand between them and their desires or did these Gentlemens learning and loyalty lead them to conclude the Oath of Allegiance is against Religion Nature and Humanity 3. May one time make contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity that kind of promise which at another time may be consistent therewithall These Gentlemen pleaded the protestation of the 5th of May 1641. as a bar to the swearing this Covenant and tell us often they sware that and therein they sware in this Form of words To my power and as far as lawfully I may I will oppose and by all good meanes endeavour to bring to condigne punishment all such as shall either by force practice counsels or conspiracies or otherwise do any thing to the contrary of any thing in this present protestation contained will they please to tell us whether these words be not as directly contrary to the fourth as the fore-going promise of this protestation was unto the first Article of this Covenant or doth not this Protestation lay as great necessity and give as fair an occasion for the son to accuse the Father and persue him to destruction and so appear as much against Religion Nature and Humanity as doth the Solemn League and Covenant 4. I should have prayed the judgment of these learned men on that Law prescribed by Moses to Israel in Deut. 13.6 7. 8 9 10. If thy brother the son of thy Mother or thy son or thy daughter or the wife of thy bosome or thy friend which is as thine own soul entice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other gods c. thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine eye pity him neither shalt thou spare neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterwards the hand of all the people c. and all Israel shall hear and fear and shall do no mere so wickedly did not this Law bind to the same act give the same occasion lay the same necessity which is laid by this Article of the Covenant And was it contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity Did these Gentlemen think we expect to be preferred by this notion of Policy or if they suggested this exception
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