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
that this term against Law in one Proposition hath not the same sence with against Law in the other and there are four terms in the Argument and nothing concluded as yet against my plain distinction 11. Give me leave to be plain and the sum is this It is not against Law that is it is not unlawful to endeavour against Law therefore to endeavour against Law is not to endeavour against Law and then my distinction of endeavouring against that which is established by Law or against that which cannot be abolished without the alteration or abolition of Law is a poor distinction 12. But you call me off to prove That such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was Covenant-ed was against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent this done you say would much avail but you expect my evidence CASE XI Whether the present Church-Government was established by Law before the Covenant was taken THe sum of what I said upon the Resolution of this Case is reducible to three heads SECT 1. Church-Government is fixed by Law 1. First there is no need that we prove the Government to be established by Law in such a manner as the Covenanters seek for while we find it beyond all controversie that this Form is legal and established in the Laws though no express Statute should be found appointing it and it is so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 2. Now until this be questioned to what end do we trouble our selves any further All that is more then this is exubundanti and hath no necessary place left in the Argument 3. Yet of this whereon the very hinge of the Controverfie turns you have spared the pains to take any notice at all SECT 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law 1. IN the second place I intimated that it seems to me unreasonable to expect such proof That the Government of the Church should be established by Law in such a manner as you seek for That it should have its Original Establishment in Law 2. For before and at the first making of Christian Laws in this Kingdom this Government was found existing and to have first destroyed this Government and then again to have established the same by Law would have been plainly ridiculous which yet must have been done in order to such an establishment as you require proof of 3. It is acknowledged by Mr. Fox Act. Mon. Tom. 1. pag. 148. that in Elutherius his time An. Dom. 180. when this Realm was first converted to Christianity there were appointed in the same three Archbishops and twenty eight Bishops and since that time the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops c. hath been further established by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed above 30 times by Parliament and by the Statute called Confirmatio Chartarum still in force it was ordained that all Laws contrary to that Charter should be void and that Bishops twice every year should excommunicate all that did either do or advise contrary to it 4. The Government of the Church was at first founded in Prelacy therefore so far as we are a Christian Nation and governed by Christian Laws Episcopal Government goes into our foundation 5. I mean only it is so of the foundation as to be from and in the beginning of Church-Government and Christian Laws among us I do not say so of the foundation as to be unalterable yet others do however it is not yet actually altered and that is as much as the Argument requires and to warrant that expression which I thought augmentative though you pass it by unnoted viz. that there is the less reason to expect that the Power Office or Government of Bishops should have their origen from the Laws of the Land or that the Child should beget the Father SECT 3. Church-Government is established by Law 1. THirdly I laboured to prove that so far as a Government that was prae-existing before the Laws concerning it could be reasonably expected to be established by Law the present Church-Government is established by Law For 2. First the Laws of this Land since they were Christian have ever allowed it and taken it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions not only by those special Laws that particularly relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the Consent of the Lords Spiritual 3. Here you only catch at the weakest part about the Consent of the Lords Spiritual to the Acts of Parliament leaving the strength of the Argument grounded in those many special Laws which relate to this Government and apparently allow and continue it without any exception or observation 4. Yet I am not at all satisfied that the allowance and recording of their Consent to every Law by the King Peers and Commons is not a plain acknowledgement of Episcopal Power and Government 5. Secondly I affirm That the present Government is established by Law though not in its Office which was before the Law yet in its Political Power and the Exercise of it in this Kingdom 6. Therefore the several Legal Names of Prelatical Governours with their distinct Jurisdictions and the Crimes punishable by them and the Authority allowed so to punish and the Fees of their Courts and the Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops are found and founded in the Laws of the Land 7. In your Recital of this Argument you only mention the Exercise of this Government and take no notice of its Political Power given by Law and therefore your Answer is short 8. But that this Political Power of Ecclesiastical Governours is setled and authorized by the Laws of the Land is most evident in that of the 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Eliz. An. 1. 2. 9. By 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Jurisdiction touching Matrimony Wills Tithes Oblations c. is expresly given them and it is added that all such Spiritual Causes shall be from henceforth heard examined discuss'd and cleerly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the natures of the Causes shall require 10. Note That if the Temporal Courts have any Authority given them by this Statute so also have the Spiritual they are joyned together such Courts Spiritual and Temporal 11. The point of Appeals is also established by the said Statute and Bishops are expressy authorized to receive Appeals from Arch-Deacons Courts and the Arch-Bishops from the Bishops with Authority hereby given them or established in them to put a final end to all such Controversies You may reade tho Statute at large 12. Yet I conceive that of Eliz. 1. c. 2. is more precise to our purpose Where it is Ordained and Enacted that all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellours
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