Israel had sworn unto them and Saul sought to slay them in zeal to the children of Israel Therefore in the Septuagint we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Saul and upon his house Injustitia in morte sanguinum ejus pro eo quod morti tradidit Gibeonitas for that he delivered the Gibeonites to death Injustice it is not said Perjury but injustice and blood is laid upon him and his house and so severely punished 22. Secondly the Covenant was sworn say you in Mr. Croftons words by those P. 45. Real capacities Noble Men Knights Gentlemen Citizens Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts which pass and will pass to our Successours whilest England is England and therefore it is Juramentum reale and obligeth the whole Nation for ever 23. But it is to be remembred before we conclude so confidently that though the Proem runs thus We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses and Ministers of the Gospel as well as Commons of all sorts have so Resolved and Determined yet most Noblemen Barons Knights Citizens Burgesses Ministers and Commons of all sorts had not thus Resolved and Determined when the Covenant was penn'd or publish'd 24. For it was brought from Seotland and by a few men at first a little altered in England and then by an Order of some of the Commons printed and published 25. Now if this be to make a Real and National Covenant three or four private persons may as easily write over these great words and as easily oblige the whole Nation and Posterity for ever but this is ridiculous 26. Again 't is certain that many individual Persons from the King the Nobles Barons Knights Burgesses Citizens Ministers and Commons of all sorts never took the Covenant but ever as occasion was offered declared their abhorrency of it 27. Yea the Popish the Milignant and the Prelatical Parties which certainly were then no mean part of the Nation if not the greatest are supposed in the Covenant it self to be enemies to it and are indeed sworn against it And are these obliged by the same Covenant and their Posterities after them Are they sworn to oppose and destroy themselves You will not say it 28. Again if these words can create a Real Covenant in your sence not only Scotland who framed it and England who knew not of it for the most part till it was taken but Ireland too and its Posterity are obliged by it and all the Rebels there are taken into Confederation and thousands of people there that never saw it or perhaps never heard so much as that there was any such thing in the world for divers years after this their pretended Obligation by it 29. Truly I thought the Covenanting Party would not have entred into so Solemn a League with a Prelatical Malignant Party much less with Papists and Irish Rebels yet such is the consequence of your Notion of a Real Covenant 30. Moreover this Argument is confuted in the very Proem of the Covenant it self so plainly and evidently that I must needs wonder that so many quick and perceiving eyes should not have discovered it Wherein it saith speaking of the form and manner of giving and taking the Covenant wherein we all subscribe therefore no more do take the Covenant then do subscribe it and beyond all contradiction adds and each one of us for himself then no one for another much less for so many thousands as your Real Notion would infer 31. Therefore the pressers of the Covenant durst not trust your Logick but would have not only Parents but their Children not only Masters but Servants not only Tutors but Pupils and such as were under the tuition of others to subscribe for themselves according to the phrase Every one for himself 32. But to conclude if it be against the very Nature and Essence of an Oath to be any more then personal to binde succession or posterity or to be National and Real as you pretend alas what can words do more then to make a noise to trouble mens minds and to beget trouble in the Church by needless Disputation But that it is so I hope our Casuist whom your selves and all men else admire hath put it out of doubt to your full satisfaction SECT 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters 1. THe third Principle which you intimate I take for granted is That all Persons that took the Covenant are in the same capacity with our selves You say you cannot yield unto it 2. I have laboured to find out your meaning and cannot discover any thing but the exception of the single person that you can stand upon 3. But if you please to review what I said from pag. 93. to pag. 97. you will see your oversight and grant that I did not take it for granted 4. And until you give Answer to the reason there offered as also in some other places of my Book I think I am not at all concerned to trouble you further about it but shall now take up my shield and appear in defence of my particular Arguments CASE VIII Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King CASE IX Whether to violate the Kings Right be not sinful 1. YOu well observe that these two Cases contain my first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful My major Proposition you say is determined in the second of these Cases This you grant in Mr. Crofton's words The proper and adequate Act of Justice is Jus suum cuique the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and People 2. The minor then contained in the first of these Cases is the thing in Controversie viz. whether the Covenant engaging against the Government of the Church or to endeavour to extirpate the same do not violate the Kings Right 3. This I affirm for by such Endeavours the King is injured first as he is the Executor of the Law and in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical Supreme Governour both with respect to his Officers and to his Government secondly as Legislator SECT 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws 1. I Do still affirm That the King is the Supreme Executor of the Law and all inferiour Officers are his Commissioners to execute that Government under him in which he is alone the Supreme Governour as we swear him to be in Church and State for Reges saâ—ro oleo uncti faut capaces spiritualis Juâ—isdictionis 2. Now I say take away the Body of Governours and the Head must fall and if all inferiours be removed where will the Supreme be 3. For Answer hereunto you onely desire my clear Answer to two Enquiries The first of your Queries is in these words 4. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King 5. To this I return my clear Answer No. Yet they are plainly essential to his being a Supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons
Ecclesiastical 6. Supream doth necessarily suppose and respect Inferiours and Supream Governour Inferiour Governours 7. Your second Query is this Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Archbishops Bishops c. taken away the head must needs fall 8. To this I hope I may clearly Answer that the removing of the inferiour Governours hath a Natural tendency to the falling of the Head as such that is the Head of them or the Supreme but hath no natural ordination to the substitution of other kind of Governours 9. There is nothing in the pulling down of the walls that goeth into the support of the roof nothing in pulling down Arch-bishops and Bishops c. that serves to uphold the Supremacy of the King in governing the Church but to destroy it as the twenty years experience past doth sadly demonstrate SECT 2. Of the Kings Right in the Government of the Church 1. THe second Medium I use to prove that endeavours to extirpate Episcopal Government you observe to be this that thus to endeavour is not only against the Kings Right as Executor of the Laws by opposing and seeking to destroy his Commissioners but his very government it self and this is the express sence of the Covenanters that according to the Covenant they are bound in the whole course of their lives against that Government which they know is the Kings Ecclesiastical Government 2. This you grant only you say the Covenanters do not mean such endeavours as I mention Again you plead that some others deny the Government of the Church to be the Kings Government because they find it not established by the Laws of the Land whereof it is his Right to be Executor and this is all you say only touching these things here you refer their discussion to their proper places where I intend God willing to meet them again SECT 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator 1. AGain you note that I argue to endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Kings Right as Legislator as the maker as well as the Executor of the laws as appears by that sence of the Covenant which the practice of the Covenanters hath put upon it 2. To this you answer that the terms do so condition it that it doth not appear to engage us to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy without the Kings Consent 3. Here I must have leave to remember you that though it be true the terms of the Covenant which you specifie are soft and mild viz. through the grace of God in our places and callings yet there are other expressions visible in it that do more then seem to exact such proceedings as were veâ—y inconsistent with our places and callings or the grace of God viz. to our power and with our lives and fortunes 4. What need was there then of our power or lives and fortunes to be exposed in such endeavours but in opposing the King and his Army and how could that possibly be done in the present matter of endeavour to extirpate Prelacy but by Acting therein without the Kings consent and against his express mind to the contrary so that take a true measure of the Covenant by all such terms together as in fair reasoning we must needs do and it is too too evident that it puts us on endeavours that have no regard to the Kings consent at all 5. Besides if the true extent of endeavour covenanted be yet in doubt you would force me to resolve it by that black Comment of the state of things when the Covenant was press'd at first from the occasion of it which as the King sadly observ'd was that fatal confederacy with the Scots for their invading this Kingdome with Arms. The obvious and declared judgement of the Scots that created it touching the place and power of publick conventions and private persons in such matters The sudden course which the two Houses took to demolish this Government and that by virtue of the Covenant and to bring in another 6. These things I say soberly considered and pondered upon methinks should rationally and satisfactorily Evince to such sober persons as I am Treating with that endeavour in the sence of the Covenant it self and the prime Covenanters doth intrench souly upon the Kings Prerogative and Crown Notwithstanding those other small saint and after endeavours with the King to ratifie what they had laboured with all their power in a way of Hostility so long together to do without him and against his most signal express dissent so often reiterated 7. Which little endeavours to procure his consent I imagine you would hardly have mentioned had you had in your mind that at the same time the King was at least quasi a prisoner and was denied by the same persons that treated him the liberty to repair to the place where according to the Order of the Kingdom he useth to add his fiat to the making of Laws I mean the Parliament House 8. Further I am loth to remember that even then when the King at the I le of Wight and his two Houses were neerest to an accommodation the force of such endeavours as the Covenant exacted provoked them to reply to his Majesties papers that they were yet unsatisfied as to an agreement with and reception of his Majesty because he would only grant them a suspension of Episcopal-Government for 3. yeers and not an eternal extirpation of it for which they had covenanted vid. Biblioth Reg. p. 153. 9. But to return to the Covenant it self the close of it doth effectually conclude that in its prime and native intention it least of all regarded the Consent of the King and as to any such thing it was utterly desperate 10. The words are these We shall all the dayes of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever and what we are not able our selves to suppress or over come we shall râ—veal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed 11. Now I beseech you to consider here is a promise to continue in this cause which refers no doubt to the whole or the main matter of the Covenant Now as the Author of the Covenanters plea observes the main scope of the Covenant is against Church-Government to which all other things seem subordinate Therefore this same last Article repeats the beads of this common cause and begins it with Religion that is the Reformation of Doctrine Worship and Discipline and the extirpation of Episcopal Government The words are this common Cause of Religion Liberty and peace of the Kingdomes 12. Now in this Cause observe They swear to continue zealously and constantly all the dayes of their lives and what is the plain sence of that the King being known to be then in the fields and in arms agaâ—nst the Covenanters I say what can the plain sence be but that they would continue
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