Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastiel Jurisdiction shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act as well to inquire in their Visitations Synods and elsewhere to take Accusations and Informations of all and every the things above mentioned within the Limits of their Jurisdiction and to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestratien or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like Form as heretof ore hath been used in like Cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws 13. Here we cannot but see not only the legal Names of Ecclesiastical Governours mentioned but their political Power and Authority allowed yea formally invested and establish't in them to inquire and to punish To punish with Admonition Excommunication Sequestration and Deprivation and all this by Virtue of this Act. 14. Had we nothing more to prove Episcopal Government to be established by law but this very Statute I cannot apprehend but that the work is done and all Objections to the contrary for ever superseded 15. Is here only a liberty to exercise a power given them is it not express that Power and Authority is also given them 'T is not declared that they have Power and Authority by Virtue of their Office or any other way but it is enacted that they have Power and Authority to inquire and punish c. by Virtue of this very Act. 16. Yea though it is intimated that the same Course had been used formerly it is not enacted only that this shall continue but as if such a kind of Objection had been in prospect it is enacted that by Virtue of this Statute all these Ecclesiastical Governours shall have full Power and Authority to proceed in like Form as heretofore bath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical laws 17. While I read the Statute so express and punctual in the Case I know you will not blame me if I wonder at your so frequent comparing the Government of the Church with Usury and her Governours with Usurers 18 I do not know of any Statute that gives so much countenance to Usury and Usurers as to say be it enacted that power and Authority be given to Vsurers or that makes them a politick body and invests them with Government over so much as their own Tribe and in Cases peculiar to their own way abuses and faults of Usury Do not reflect so unbeseemingly 19. Thirdly I affirm that should we yield unto you that there is no express Statute immediatly Authorizing Ecclesiastical Governours yet immediately it it cannot be denied to be established by Law I mean such Law as impowers the King to Commission and Authorize the Governours in the Church 20. That the King hath such a power in him is manifest from the Oath of Supremacy For being supream Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical he is so over all persons Ecclesiastical as to Commissionate all his inferiour Governours therefore they all either mediately or immediately receive their Commissions from him which is no doubt Legal in the Judgement of all that understand these Protestant Laws that revolve the power usurped by the Pope upon Henry the Eighth and all his successours in the Crown of England for ever v. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. Eliz. 1. where you reade thus 21. All Jurisdictions heretofore lawfully exercised by any Ecclesiastical power or Authority for Visitation Reformation c. are united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm and that your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall have full power and Authority by virtue of this Act by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England to Assign Name and Authorize persons to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions and to Visit Reform Redress c. 22. Your Answer is this at most concludes but for the Governours and not for the Frame of Government 23. But do you not hereby grant as much as my Argument needs For if the Governours of the Church are Authorized by Law you ow them Obedience and the Law in them and your Covenant provokes you to disobedience 24. Again How can all the Governours be Authorized by Law and not the Frame of Government too He that by Law Commissionates all the Governours doth he not thereby establish the Frame of Government 25. Yea where will you look for the Frame of Government but in the Seat of Governours and that according to the Covenant it self You there engage against Prelacy that is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops c. Viz. the several Governours of it 26. You add the Kings Supremacy may exist in and operate by other Church Covernours as well as these 27. I answer easily that admit what you say yet as no other sort of Governours can be Legally so until the King Commissionate them as he hath done these so this kind viz. Episcopal Government must of necessity continue to be Legal until the King shall Commissionate others of another Method or at least withdraw his Commission from these in the present form of Church-Government if he hath power to do it by Law 28. Lastly I urge you that this Government is plainly established by Common Law 29. To this you say that Prescription is a poor Fence to Vsurpation Usury hath prescription 30. But how doth it appear that the present Government is an Usurpation so weighty a charge deserves proof 31. Church Governours are the Kings Ecclesiastical Officers they have their power and authority to Govern given them by Act of Parliament this appears but that their Government is Usurpation appears not 32. To make good your charge two things require proof First that Episcopal Covernment was an Usurpation at first Secondly that it is so still and that it hath not obtained a good Title in law all this while The Statutes now mentioned prove the present Title of it And Magna Charta is a sufficient Evidence that so long agon it had Legal Authority and was no Usurpation 33. I rather mention Magna Charta here because it is accounted Common Law and adds much strength to my Argument thence and from long continuance Especially seeing there is much for the Church and Bishops but nothing for Usurers and Usury to be found in it 34. The Plea that Magna Charta is in behalf of the Abhots at well as Bishops hath nothing at all against us For Abbots were since abolished by law so were not Bishops We are not arguing that nothing confirmed by Magna Charta can be lawfully altered but that Episcopal Government confirmed by Magna Charta is established by that Law and not removed by any other 35. Yea this Objection answers it self and all the rest of its Company and yields us an Argument that might pass for an Instar omnium Abbots and Bishops were both confirmed by the Law of this Land Abbots are removed by Law and not Bishops and in the Law exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis and therefore the Law that removed the Abbots did establish the
Bishops and thus Episcopacy is established by Law 36. But are there not State-Officers that had not their original in the Statute-Laws but only in the Common-Law of this Land as hundred-Constables and Crownets c. will any say that these are not established by law These were before the known written statute Laws and so were Bishops in England before any Christian Laws 37. Indeed methinks the very Concessions of your selves Mr. Crofton yea and of the two Houses of the Long Parliament is as much as my Argument and the Government of the Church can stand in need of 38. You grant in one place of your P. 28. 19. Book your selves that the Government of the Church by Prelacy is not onely limited restrained regulated but directed yea in some things authorized by the Kings Laws I think you will hardly say Usury is so or that any thing Authorized by law can be destroyed but by law And that sufficeth my Argument 39. Again methinks Mr. Crofton decides the Controversie against himself in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 25. There he chargeth the late Bishop of Exon because he pleaded for the Jus Divinuin of Episcopacy that he did confront King and Parliament in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and constitution even from the Statutes of Carlile and the 25. of Ed. 3. declaring against the Pope that Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation Power and Authority 40. Now I conceive this was never said of Usury or indeed of any thing not established by Law For how is this Donation Power and Authority put forth in framing this Creature and Constitution of Parliaments but in Acts of Parliament that is the laws of the land 41. If there be any doubt what judgment the two Houses that imposed the Covenant had touching the Legality of the Government of the Church of England we are satisfied of that by their Applications to his Majesty for the extirpation of it at the I le of Wight 42. Their words are these for the Abolishing of Episcopacy we take leave to say that it is not the Apostolical Bishop which the Bill desired of your Majesty intends to remove but that Episcopacy formerly was established by law in this Kingdom Again onely to put down him by law who was set up by law 43. Note first that the Long Parliament did not doubt but that Episcopacy was establish'd by Law Secondly that the imposens of the Covenant did extend the sence of the Covenant against that which was established by law Thirdly that yet in their own Judgment that which is set up by law is not to be puld down without law These things they saw at last though their many years practice before had contradicted them vid. Biblioth Regi p. 350. CASE XII Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 1. YOu deny that Episcopal Government hath received any more express Establishment by the Acts of Parliament since the Kings Return then it had before but I cannot find that you say it hath received no Establishment thereby onely that its establishment is not more express in the new laws then it was in the Old but that I need not dispute 2. The Establishment of Episcopacy was express enough in my judgment before and if the new laws be found to establish it at all my Argument is not interrupted 3. And truly methinks after 20. years shaking and almost Ruinating we may fairly count the laws that restore this Government upon its leggs again and not only to its quiet and safety but to its liberty and power of exercise should deserve the name of Establishing laws and the Government be thought to be Established by them though it stand upon au elder Bottom which I never denied 4. Besides for a law so far to encourage and Countenance of Government that was troden under foot so long together as to punish all kind of disobedience to it is plainly to re-establish the same 5. I might add we see the King according to law and his own Supremacy hath fill'd the Church again with all the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers and hath set again the whole Frame of Government in the very terms of the Conant over us and thus the Government is Established by law diametrically against the Covenant and then surely the Engagement of the Covenant is as opposite to the law as it is to Episcopacy 6. Consequently whether the Act of Vniformity doth precisely prohibit Endeavours against this Government or not upon which Argument I cannot but acknowledge you are very ingenuous Other laws require obedience to it that were indeed made of old but are now renewd and reinforced by these new laws 7. Therefore the Covenant cannot oblige us against this Government but it doth equally oblige us against these new laws which to do I have at large proved to be sinful and you have said nothing at all to disparage my Arguments 8. You intimate your labour is saved in that point and you need not discuss how far an Oath may bind against law But truly to me this seems to be your proper work and that you have questioned the wrong Proposition all this while I cannot satisfie my self that what ever you pretend that you doubt the legality of Episcopal Government 9. The Exceptions of the Antagonists you mention are answered before and I have no more to do upon this Case but to note one Expression of your own in the close of it 10. You seem to fear Atheism in that which only serves to Vindicate God against our selves His Authority in his Sovereign pre-obligations upon us against and after-Obligations contracted by our selves though by way of Oath and Covenant to the contrary 11. I cannot but believe that Gods preobligation upon us to obey Authority in lawful things is so firm and indissoluble that no Covenant of ours to the contrary can make those things unlawful or warrant disobedience therein 12. This I assert though our Covenant precede the laws requiring such lawful things which needs must pass with abundant Evidence If these after-laws as you affirm do only revive and reinforce those Ancient laws that had obliged us to the same things before we Covenanted to the contrary 13. Now this methinks should have more Piety to God shining in it upon the eyes of such as read and consider then to be capable of the suspition of Atheism or Irreligion though I charge not the contrary with what you fear Treason or Sedition 14. There is nothing said by you on the thirteenth and fourteenth Cases that doth not either consent with me or is not answered already I pass to the fifteenth Case CASE XV. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 1. TOuching the word Endeavour I conceive you ought to have sweat more for though you find much fault with my endeavours about it yet I can find very little correction or amendment
the salvation of baptized Children dying before they commit actual sin Now this is granted to be true of some else the Promise is of none effect to the Children and Baptisme of no efficacy and if it be said to be necessary it must be true of all and you need not doubt to Assent unto it in a universal Proposition 14. Thus Jesus Christ the Text saith Came into the world to save sinners This is a true Proposition whether the matter be necessary or not because it it is certain that he came into the world to save some sinners 15. For if the matter be necessary then it is Universally true if not necessary then it is indefinitely true if he came with a purpose to save all he came to save sinners and if he came not with a purpose to save all yet he came to save some sinners and therefore sinners 16. Once more that Baptisme is for the Remission of sins is a certain Truth or an undoubted proposition grounded on the Scripture be Baptized for Acts â— the Remission of sâ—â—â— 17. This is a Proposition of an indefinite Nature if the matter of it be necessary it is true as I have said Universally where its efficacy is not impeded by the incapacity of the Subject as it is not in Children but if the matter be not necessary the Proposition is still true that is indefinitely 18. To conclude either all such Children are saved or some only in either sendâ— the Proposition being but indefinite is true if all such Children are saved then the Matter is necessary and the Proposition equipollent with an Universal Proposition if some only then the Matter is not necessary and consequently there is no necessity yea no liberty left us to stretch the Proposition which is indefinite both in its Form and Matter unto an Universal signification SECT 7. Of Assent and Consent unfeigned 1. HAving dispatcht your exceptions against the Objects of your Assent and Consent required by the Act. viz. The book of Ordination and the book of Common-Prayer 2. We proceed to review these Acts themselves this unfeigned Assent and Consent upon which a greater stress of Controversie yet remains 3. An Objection that I proposed and Answered in my last book seemed if not to create yet to provoke and very much to heighten this part of the quarrel 4. The Objection that I proposed was this I suppose it might be said by some that though we could use the things it is only for Peace sake and in Obedience to Authority not that we would choose or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves 5. Hereunto I answered as you well note that we may approve a thing absolutely or comparatively or respectively and consequently so give our Assent and Consent unto it and that the Act cannot be thought so strict as to allow of no Assent or Consent but such as ariseth from an absolute approbation of the things themselves without any other extrinsiek considerations that may move and sway us to such an Approbation 6. The Act requires but an unfeigned Assent and Consent and an unfeigned Assent and Consent may arise from such a comparative Approbation as a man may unfeignedly Assent and Consent to his Childs Marriage though he like not the Match very well for the avoiding of some greater inconveniencies that otherwise might happen 7. I further observed that to interpret the Act into such an absolute approbation is against charity to our selves and our Governours and against common reason seeing it is a moral impossibility that all men should be exactly of one minde in so many particulars required of us seeing also the grounds of this Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act but left to our selves and lastly seeing that the very Act it self brings motives with it to perswade us â—o Conformity which would signifie nothing if no consideration of the Case besides the absolute goodness of the things themselves is allowed any force to prevail upon us 8. I therefore conclude that we are left at liberty by the said Act to compare the Consequences of obedience with those of dibedience and accordingly to approve so and declare or not 9. Now let us examine what you say to these things 1. To my argument from charity you answer it only with less Charity 2. To my augment that the grounds of Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act but left to our selves you answer nothing because you mistake it 10. You observe well that I say the grounds of this Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act But how strangely do you Comment upon it 11. If by ground say you I mean the reasons inducing the Legislators to require such an Assent and Consent you must be bold to deny what I affirm Then you shew the grounds in the Act for enjoyning such a declaration of Assent and Consent And this is all you answer 12. Now had I meant as you suppose I confess you had answered me But if my words could not signifie any such thing as upon review you will be easily convinced you have answer'd your selves and not me at all 13. Pray then Consider is there not a difference betwixt the grounds of Assent and Consent and the grounds of the Governours to enjoyn a declaration of Assent and Consent could the scope of my argument or the very words of my proposition intend the latter or not the former 14. The grounds of enjoyning such a declaration are in the Legislators and are the grounds of the Act requiring these indeed are specified in the Act of uniformity But the grounds of Assent and Consent or of declaring the same are in the Subjects and are properly the grounds of obedience to that Act which I must still say are not at all specified in it 15. To my other argument taken from the motives which the Act it self affords us you only say that such Arguments as the avoiding a severe penalty a legal opportunity of serving the Church not shewing our selves crosse to authority c. are bad inducements to an unfeigned Assent and Consent 16. But upon second thoughts I cannot believe you will maintain the Quarrel with such motives as these which have doubtless a divine sanction what more familiar with the Spirit of Scripture then to use such Topicks of wrath threats curses death and Hell it self to disswade from sin and to move towards Heaven and yet I hope the Assent and Consent wrought hereupon is not alwayes feigned or alwayes a faint unfeigned Assent and Consent 17. Neither can I believe that you are tenacious in this because you say it might somwhat satisfie us if we had assurance from our Legislators that such a comparative approbation would satisfy the Law For I conclude from hence that what ever you say there is not even in your apprehensions any inconsistency or contradiction betwixt such a comparative approbation and an unfeigned Assent and Consent Though I can see no
of Common-prayer and to the things themselves as they are practicable or proposed to be used or as before with respect to their use in the worship of God 13. Hence appears the difference betwixt the two Declarations easily enough In the first we consent to the use and the things to be used in the Second we move then Consent we promise that we our selves will use them or conform unto them 14. Give me leave to subjoyn two advantages which offer themselves from this interpretation towards a good accommodation betwixt us 15. 1. Then if there be any such thing found in the book of Common-prayer as is not of a practical Nature as a port of a publick Liturgy or capable of use in publick Worship and I humbly offer whether that touching Children dying Baptized is not such it need not be concerned in our Declaration or Subscription 16. 2. Things with respect to their use are properly and more immediately to be considered as fit not as good in themselves but as fit for the services for which they are intended yea it is not necessary that this filness be referred to the things to be used but rather the person that is to use them and our use of them 17. So that upon the just weighing of all Circumstances if we can consent that for the avoyding of certain great inconveniences the use of these things not sinful in themselves is a thing to be chosen that this Conformity is to be practised we have sufficient ground according to the Act to declare our Assent and Consent thereunto 18. What remains but that we are yet allowed thus to reason Here is such a Declaration required by Law and such a severe Penalty annexed for all that disobey it though I could rather have liked the book of Common-prayer if such and such things had been altered yet rather then lose my Living and therewith all legal Opportunity of serving the Church rather then shew my self cross and disobedient to Authority in lawful things rather then Ruine my self and Family for a thing indifferent though in it self I judge it inconvenient I do choose to be obedient and conformable and in order thereunto upon these grounds I declare my Assent and Consent unfeignedly to every thing to be conformed unto 19. Give me leave to add the Objection of others which you mention not They say if it had been said that we must assent to all things prsecribed only it might have served my interpretation well enough but it is all things contained as well as prescribed must be consented unto 20. I answer First it is contained and prescribed Not prescribed and contained so that prescribed seems to bound contained 2 't is contained and prescribed not or prescribed so that what is contained if not also prescribed we need not give our assent unto it it must be both contained and prescribed 21. But if there yet remain any doubt about the legal meaning of these words the Act it self explains it beyond all dispute You see in the words before cited that both the words Contained and Prescribed are referred to the use of the things to the use of all things contained and prescribed so that the Objection is nice and verbal only and thus vanisheth 22. If you should desire to have your own sence yet more secured I humbly conceive there would be no offence done to the law if you express your selves after this manner Having read the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the Book of Common-Prayer at the times thereby appointed and being required by the Act of Parliament after such reading thereof openly and publiquely before the Congregation to declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to the Vse of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these following words and no other Accordingly I do declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to the Vse of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I. A. B. do here declare c. 23. What possible Exception can lie against such a recital of the words of the Act which are set immediatly before the Declaration in order to the making and subscribing of it while we add no words of our own nor take any from the Act or from the Declaration 24. If it be said you fear that a Declaration will not be accepted that is thus exclaimed and conditioned 25. Give me leave to say I cannot but believe there is no reason to doubt it or to desire it as a favour from any seeing you add no words nor put any sence upon the Declaration only reciting the words of the Act requiring and declaring according as is required in these words of the Declaration and none other 26. However suppose that that is not to be supposed that such a Declaration should be refused and that without such a kind of explaining your self you are resolved not to declare or subscribe at all Yet consider by so doing though not accepted you are not the worse or further off from your Living then you were before and now you may fit down quiet with this reflection that however you have done your utmost to satisfie the Law the World and your own Conscience CASE the Second Whether it be lawful to Declare in the words of the second Declaration 1. YOu consent to the distribution I made of the second Declaration into 3 parts That which concerns the taking Arms against the King Conformity and the Oath called the solemn League and Covenant 2. The two Cases arising from the first part taking Arms against the King you say do not much concern you and give me leave to return that I am not concerned to answer others 3. To the Case about Conformity arising from the second-part you add nothing out seem in haste to get into your strong hold in the last part of this Declaration touching the Covenant and thither I am ready to attend you and to engage with you 4. We are therefore fallen upon the main Case which was the sixth in order in my last book it is CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation on me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church or State 1. THis I affirm and undertook to prove it by an Argument taken from the matter of the Covenant as is here specified not with respect to the Government of the Kingdom there we are agreed but with respect to that of the Church wherein we differ 2. You also grant my Consequence that if this part of the matter of the Covenant appear to be sinful the Covenant is so far void of it self 3. The very Question then is Whether to endeavour a change of Church-Government be sinful or not I affirm it and give you my Arguments once again for it and heartily wish they may find in their new attire
deprive them of their legal Freeholds especially whilst their Representatives are kept out of Parliament it being against common Justice and the Liberty of the Subject in Magna Charta 4. To conclude admit Mr. Crofton do truly Recite the words in the Petition of Right whereas many of them have an Oath administred to them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm yet my Assertion stands firm enough that the Covenant is against the Petition of Right 5. For it is not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whether you consider the manner of imposing and taking or the very matter of it as hath fully appeared before 6. 'T is true Oaths are given by Colledges and Corporations but are they not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm if not I am not afraid to infer that such as impose them run thereby into a premunire if they are then my argument passeth untouch'd 7. Indeed these particular Oaths are not in so many words found in the Statutes yet who doubts but that the King hath power by the Laws of the Land to grant such Charters and to give Authority to Colledges and Corporations to Administer such Oaths 8. Again who can or dare lay claim to such a power but the King or Administer such Oaths without power from the King much less against his Express will and Proclamation CASE XVII Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 1. I Conclude it is so and therefore void the force of the Consequence cannot be resisted in those excellent words of our great Casuist Obligation Antecedens impedit effectum Juramenti Subsequentis ne possit Obligare Semper enim Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori Irritum facit omnem Actum inductivum novae Obligationis sibi Contrariae 2. I assume there were three strong Cords and bonds of God upon us to the Contrary before ever the Covenant was taken or thought of to Obey Authority to keep our Oaths and promises to Serve the Church in Our Generations which we shal now review in their order SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 1. YOu would perswade us that I affirm this onely upon my former Principles because the Covenant is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledge of Parliament and the Liberty of the Subjects which you conceive are all laid in the dust 2. Perhaps you may find these Principles more potent and vigorous in their Resurrection however though I had a General Reflection upon these former Arguments yet I added a particular force to the present Argument which having raised a Dust it seems you did not see in these words 3. More particularly God first Obligeth us to be Subject and to obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage us to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church the Covenant would discharge us of our obedience and oblige us to Resistance Contrary to Gods express obligation upon us which cannot be 4. God doth immediately by his Word and likewise by the Mediation and interposition of Civil Authority command us to obey to be subject and not to resist our Spiritual Governours the Covenant would engage to break all at once and at once to violate the Laws of God the King and the Church and all Authority 5. Our duty is positive to be subject 2. Negative not to Resist whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God Wherefore we must needs be subject for conscience sake Rom. 13. Now both these are broken by the Covenant the one by omission the other by commission 6. First Our positive duty of obedience and subjection carrieth in it by Universal Consent to defend preserve to honour observe and to be faithful to our Governours now how these are consistent with Endeavours to Extirpate I cannot see 7. Again Our Negative part or Non-resistance is transgressed too by the Apostles Logick not to be subject is to Resist whosoever Resisteth wherefore we must needs be Subject however to Endeavour to Extirpate is too plainly to Resist 8. For Endeavours to Extirpate a Government are both far beyond the compass of Subjection they being no part either of Active or Passive Obedience and deep in the Nature of Resistance most properly taken 9. Endeavours to Extirpate have Action in them and are therefore more then passive Obedience their Action also is Diametrically opposite to Active Obedience 10. Again Endeavours to Extirpate do formally carry Resistance in them yea they are the formal Act of high Resistance not of the Law onely but of the Government it self not in the Action onely but in the very being of it for Extirpation is the end and utmost of Resistance and therefore Endeavour to Extirpate is properly resistance 11. Pray resolve me to what part of our Duty to our Parents will you reduce Endeavours to Extirpate their Government over us or how can such Endeavours square and Conform to the Commands of God and-the Laws of the Land Not to Resist but to be Subject to our Governours Ecclesiastical and Civil 12. 'T is vain to say we are bound to obey he laws yet we may Endeavour to have them changed It is not safe to Argue from the Laws which are but the Rule to our Governours who are the object of our obedience 13. If this consequence be Good upon an Oath taken of the like Nature against the civil power we may hold our selves bound to Endeavour to Extirpate both King and Parliament 14. For Government by Monarchy and the Constitution of Parliaments you will not say they are in themselves Necessary to our civil State and if because Episcopacy is doubted to be Jure Divino you conclude it lawful to swear against it or having so sworn to Endeavour to Extirpate it I dare not undertake to find a way for the civil Government to escape the danger the Inference is easie from Government to Government though the one be in the Church and the other in the State especially seeing we cannot resist the one and not disobey the other SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against Former Oaths and Promises 1. THis I also affirm and consequently that the Covenant was prevented by such Prior Obligations the Case is fully stated in these words of our Reverend Casuist Si cui Juramentum suscipiendum defereratur continens aliquid quod Obligationi priori sive Naturali sive adquisitae adversatur ut si adversetur officio quod parenti debetur aut principi vel si repugnet ei quod Ante liciè juratum fuit vel promissum ejusmodi Juramentum non potest à quoquam salvâ conscientiâ vel praestari vel praestitum ad impleri qui utrumvis fecerit pejeraverit 2. I assume that the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and the Protestation of May 5. 1641. were taken by the Nation before any of the Nation took the Covenant and that the Covenant
in the Second Article is Repugnant to them all 3. In all these you say I was fully prevented by Mr. Crofton and seeing this is all you say against me in these particulars I shall only return you to one who in all of them did as fully prevent Mr. Crofton many years agon 4. He leads us on thus as his Majesty hath sworn expresly to maintain and defend the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. So have we his Subjects implicitely sworn the same as many of us as have taken the Oaths Supremacy of Allegiance and the late Protestation 5. For first his Majesty having sworn so solemnly to maintain and preserve this Government of the Church if any Attempts or Conspiracies should be made against it we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance to maintain and defend his Majesty to the utmost of our power in his endeavouring to make good that his oath of maintaining defending that Government of the Church and the Rights and Priviledges of these Governours against all those Conspiracies and Attempts 6. Secondly we have sworn in our Oath of Supremacy that the Kings Highness is the only Supream of this Realm as well in spiritual things and causes as Temporal and that we shall to our power assist and defend all Jurisdiction Priviledge and Authority granted or elonging to the Kings Highness the Government of the Church being such an Ecclesiastical thing and Cause as that next to the Doctrine of the Church there is not any Ecclesiastical thing or Cause of nearer concernment to the King and whole Kingdome and the Regulating and ordering thereof belonging to his Jurisdiction Priviledge Preheminence and Authority we are obliged by that Oath not only to acknowledge his Majesty to be the Supream Governour in that thing and Cause but also to our power assist and defend that Jurisdiction Priviledge Preheminence and Authority and not to Assay or Endeavour ought concerning the Altering much less the rooting out of that Government without the Kings Consent and Approbation 7. Lastly we having sworn in our late Protestation to maintain and defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and one Article of that Doctrine which the Papists mainly Oppose viz. six and thirty together with several other parts thereof approving and Justifying the Government of this Church it must be granted that we are by this Oath bound so far to maintain and defend that Government as to approve and justifie the lawfulness thereof both in it self and in its Constitution here among us 8. Besides we swore expresly in the same Protestation to maintain and defend the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subject and every person that made that Protestation and therefore in that respect until we are convinced either that Arch Bishops and Bishops c. are no Subjects or that their Right of Governing this Church is not lawful we are bound by that Branch of the Oath not only not to Endeavour the Extirpation of the Government of the Church by them but to the utmost of our power to maintain and defend them in that their Right of Government and every person that took the Protestation in whatsoever he hath since done or shall hereafter do in the maintenance and defence â—thereof Ante-confederacy P. 51. 52. Printed 1644. 9. You believe Mr. Crofton will not stick to allow the Nationality of the Protestation and then the whole Nation was under the Obligation of the Protestation before the Covenant was taken and consequently in those things before recited the Covenant was superseeded and Master Croftons Imaginary Reality and Nationality of the Covenant is thrown to the ground by Mr. Croftons Logick his Position undermined by his Supposition 10. Give me leave also to remember that both in the Oath of Supremacy and the Protestation it was sworn to maintain the Kings Honor as well as his Authority but the Covenant is to endeavour to make the King break his Oath which is plainly contrary to Endeavours to save his Honour 11. The King hath sworn to defend and maintain this Government It is not a necessary Duty from the Word of God to destroy it there is nothing more dishonourable in a King then to break his Faith with his Subjects yea his Oath to them his Oath to defend and protect them and in so deep a measure too by his Extirpation and rooting them out Lastly the Covenant is to endeavour to prevail with the King thus to break his Faith and Oath with his Subjects in a thing in your own judgements not necessary upon him from the Word of God Now avoid the Consequence if you can SECT 3. Whether the Covenant can oblige us to the laying down of our Ministery 1. THirdly I assert we are first obliged to serve the Church in the work of the Ministery and the Obligation of the Covenant can no way disoblige us or discharge us of it 2. The Argument in short is thus No man hath power to put a Bar by any self-contracted Obligation about a thing not necessary in the way of his duty to God or his Church the reason is God hath first in Nature and Scripture obliged him to his duty Est illicitum quicquid bono publico adversatur aut paci Ecclesiast politicae Domesticae Sand. Actus unius non debet praejudicare juri alterius Our own private Act ought not to prejudice the right of another much less God the Church 3 But now to leave our Ministerial office because we will not renounce this part of the Covenant as required by law is to put a Bar in the way of our duty to God and his Church from a self-contracted-obligation about a thing in it self not necessary 4. I spent above 8. pag. in the book surveigh'd by you in the prosecution of this Argument Pray read them over again judge whether you have soil'd much less as you speak of my other Arguments laid it in the dust indeed you have not touched it with one of your fingers 5. This Argument may grant or rather give that it was lawful not to renounce the obligation of the Covenant before this Act was made but now the Act requires it as the condition of continuing in the Ministery the Case is otherwise 6. For the Covenant could not be taken in a matter not â—necessary without such a condition that the performing of it or the non-renouncing of it do not afterwards prove a bar to our duty be understood The Rule is known rebus sic stantibw vel si in eodeÌ„ statu res permanserint upon condition that no sin hereafter be to be committed no injury done no duty omitted by keeping our Oath or any thing truly consequential thereunto 7. There is a Case in Bishop Sanderson that brings us very neer our own Si Filius familias c. If a Son saith he swear to do a thing that is in it self lawful and his father not knowing what his son hath sworn commands
him to do something which hinders him from doing that which he had sworn to do doth not for bid him to do it but commands him to do that quod impediat id fieri quod juratum est He resolv's the case filius non tenetur juramento his reason is quia lege divina Naturali tenetur parere imperio Patris 8. Thus admit that you swore a lawful thing in the Covenant your Civil Parent commands you to do that which hinders the performing your Covenant the Renouncing of the Obligation of it in the Second Article But how much greater force is added to the Argument if you consider the effect of your disobedience to this Command of Authority your ceasing to work any longer in the Ministry and disobedience to God that called you to it 9. Cause Causae est Causa Causati the Cause of your ceasing to do your duty to God the Law and the Church is your Non-Subseription the cause of your Non Subscription is the Covenant Therefore the Covenant is the cause of ceasing to do your duty and therefore sinful and not obliging Supream Authority hath doubtless power to make any conditions of our serving the Church within its Dominions in things not sinful according to its own reason of State the Covenant cannot hold us from performing such condition for then it hinders us from doing our duty by hindering from performing the condition upon which alone we are suffer'd to keep our places and to serve the Church and to which we have a pre-obligation of God upon us not to be so easily broken by our own hands 11. Therefore my dear Brethren in the fear of the great God whose Servants we all are let me request you once again seriously to consider that though for your oaths sake you ought to quit your own Interest yet the Churches and the States you cannot 12. Pray enquire who gave you power to expose your selves to an Incapacity of serving the Church in the high and holy Calling of the Ministry to which God hath called you and for which he hath qualified you and in which he expects you should be constant and faithful by such a Covenant as the renouncing thereof is now made the condition of our station and the discharge of our Office 13. Ask your selves was not the Law of God requiring all that should be received into the Ministry to preach the Gospel to watch for souls not to look back c. of force before the Covenant how then can you plead the Covenant for the voiding of it in such things too as are certainly no conditions of Gods Commands 15. I do not well know what you mean by the last note of your Surveigh which onely remains to be taken notice of your words are these We conceive the best of Actions may be as capable of an Impedit boni by the intervenient inhibiting Decree of Caesar and we are to be satisfied that in that case the guilt of non-service to the Church is chargable on our soul We may not sin that good should come thereof 16. So far as I apprehend this Objection it is most easily answered 17. First by yielding that the best of your Actions must be performed whether Caesar inhâ—bite or not 18. Secondly by denying endeavours to extirpate Episcopal Government to be of the best sort of your Actions or the not endeavouring the same or the renouncing the obligation of the Covenant so far to be fin 19. I have often said that thus to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government is not in it self a duty many of your Actions are so and particularly the discharge of your offices and places therefore if it so fal out that through the command of Caesar you cannot both discharg your necessary duties and also hold your selves bound not to do a thing that in it self is not necessary that which would oblige you not to perform such condition of your duties ceaseth so far to oblige you and that is the Covenant 20. Otherwise by your own Act about an object not in it self a duty you would supersede the Authority of Caesar in things indifferent clip the power which God hath given him by extending the effect of your Covenant with God to Caesars injury Injuriam alteri facit qui quasi Jure suo statuit de iis quae sunt juris alieni Liberavi animam meam FINIS