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by law but this very Statute I cannot apprehend but that the work is done and all Objections to the contrary for ever superseded 15.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
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
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
therein though the King himself should forbid Though the King should deny his Assent and declare his most express Dissent and threats against it yet they would persist therein all the dayes of their lives 13. Yea though King and Parliament as is now come to pass should make Laws against it they must be zealous and constant in this common Cause so little regard will the Covenant allow to this day to the Kings Consent 14. Yet heed what follows against all Opposition and promote the same against all lets and impediments whatsoever give me leave to say though this Opposition these lets and impediments be from the King himself as you know they were at this very same time This being imposed by the two Houses and taken by the people and the King himself in Arms to defend his own and the Churches Government 15. Pray resolve where then was the King Consent or if the King please to be understood in the Covenant 16. Moreover doth not this Article which is the close and perfection of the rest plainly engage to such endeavours as carry opposition too Be your selves the judges the words are against all opposition how can you be engaged to endeavour against all opposition but by opposition against all opposition but by opposing all oppositions even that which the King himself should make or rather indeed did make 17. Now how you can oppose the King or the opposition made by him and his commission and yet understand his consent in the same matter I think you will not go about to inform me 18. Once more that the endeavours of the Covenant carry force and opposition in them according to the Grammatical Construction and Logical resolution of the same appears in that Power is engaged to our Power and Power in order to the suppressing and overcoming the opposers for it is added and what we are not able our selves to suppress c. by our own power and on the other hand we shall assist and Defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof 19. Which expressions I should abhor to infer it did not my Argument force it do beyond all capacity of Contradiction engage the Covenanters in a party to live and dy together in an hostile way of Opposition against the King and his Armies and Friends in a pursuit of the ends of the Covenant 20. Which cannot consist with the places of Subjects or lawful endeavours or Possibly suppose the Kings consent 21. I cannot rejoyce to conclude that this meaning of the Covenant was expressed at first by the prime inventors and contrivers of the Covenant such words as these you find in a Declaration called the Declaration of the convention of Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland 22. To our knowledg say they upon swearing and subscribing of this League and Covenant the opposite Malignant partie will rage and Tumultuate more then ever and therefore unless we will either betray our Religion Liberties and Law and all that we and ours do possess and suffer our selves to be cut off and massacred by the bloody and barbarous cruelty of those our enraged enemies There is a necessity of taking Arms for mutual defence 23. Lastly That the Kings Consent was little intended or understood in the Covenant is yet more manifest if it be considered that it was not only made and published and pressed without notice given him and at such a time too and condition of affairs as had served the King from the Covenanting party but it was still carried on against the Kings dislike and express dissent and prohibition of it in a timely and solemn Proclamation against it SECT 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenant 1. THe King was pleased upon the first hearing of the Covenant published in Print by the Order of the Commons which I conceive was sometime before the Order of the Lords and Commons for the tendring and taking of it to issue out his Proclamation from his Court at Oxford entituled His Majesties Proclamation forbidding the tendring and taking of the Covenant called the solemn League and Covenant for Reformation 2. The Vse of this Proclamation in the present controversie is two-fold First it Demonstrates beyond all contradiction that the intention of the Covenanters did not regard the consent of the King which runs clearly against the Kings Supremacy Secondly It renders the Covenant void even from its creation before ever it was ordered to be taken For Datur irritatio Juramenti aliquando per superiores si in illa ipsa materia sâ—nt superiores cirea quam Juramentum versatur 3. Now so far as the Goverâ—ment of the Church cannot be altered but by Law it is under the power of the King at least not to alter it He having a Negative upon both Houses and the Kings Proclamation having denied his Assent thereunto and proclaimed his prohibition of it thereby voided it long agon according to the Rule 4. A Rule never disputed grounded evidently upon Scripture and Natural Reason and indeed I find not that your selves do question the Proposition though I confess you put me to a task that I little expected by doubting the Assumption 5. You say It remaineth upon you a doubt whether there ever were any such Proclamation you desire me to help you to a Copy of this Proclamation and inform you where to find the Original Concluding that the Obligation without it cannot be voided 6. I hope you do hereby intimate that upon the sight of this Proclamation you will be satisfied that the Obligation of the Covenant was voided at the first therefore I am much encouraged to transcribe it and to inform you where you may find it 7. It is indeed in Print in more books then one of unquestionable credit particularly you have it in a Book called Bibliotheca Regia in terminis thus p. 332. 8. Whereas there is a Printed paper entituled A solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and defence of Religion the Honour and happiness of the King and the Peace and safety of the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Pretended to be ordered by the Commons in Parliament on the 21. day of September last to be Printed and published which Covenant though it seems to make specious pretences of Piety and Religion is in Truth nothing else but a Traiterous and Seditious Combination against us and the established Religion and Laws of this Kingdome in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavours to bring in Forreign forces to invade this Kingdom We do therefore straitly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said Seditious and Traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary to their utmost and extreamest perils Given at our Court at Oxon Oct.
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
gaining or increasing of grace or peace our prayers are a means not onely of asking but of effecting the same but to alter law and government is a thing of that nature that we can onely ask it we can Act no further towards it all the work for the effecting of it belongs to our Governours put any Familiar Instance with your selves and resolve the double will you say that the Childe desiring his Father to wind up his Watch is the Childs Endeavouring the winding it up or to wind it up 4. I can easily Consent that Conatus is not effectus yet you acknowledge it is a motion towards the Effect which you call a Natural power and I doubt not we agree that Conatus hath essentially in it a Natural tendency and operation towards the effect Endeavoured 5. Now simple and bare Petition or submiss supplication hath not so it hath indeed a verbal motion for the thing desired but no real Operation or Natural Motion towards the effecting of it 6. The subject by Petition doth desire it but the Parliament in all those legal methods of debating veting committing engrossing c. do properly endeavor the Abolition of any thing legally established 7. Truly I soberly discern this distinction of Petition and Endeavour both in the Covenant and in the Act of Vniformity 8. The Covenant saith we shall Endeavour the Extirpation of Prelacy not desire or perswade but Endeavour it Neither can you possibly perswade your selves that such as then imposed and took the Covenant did at first intend such Endeavors as you mean who took other courses you well know to effect the same 9. It is added Constantly and zealously must we be always zealous and hot in our Petitions must we perpetually sollicite King and Parliament with our supplications this will hardly consist with submiss Supplication 10. Indeed it is plainly Seditions in it self take Endeavour in your own sence publikely to engage by Covenant zealously and constantly to Petition the Alteration of Government this is to declare to the World that we will never be quiet under it 11. Thus also it is in the Act we are to declare there lies no Obligation to Endeavour a change it is not said that we shall not Petition that others may Endeavour it 12. Rational Endeavour implies that the persons endeavouring have probably a power to effect but it is certain before hand that without the Supream Legislative Power the Subjects cannot effect the Extirpation of Episcopacy therefore they cannot rationally or lawfully endeavour it therefore if they promise or Covenant so to do it is sinful and they may lawfully declare they are not obliged unto it that is to endeavour what they have no power by Law to do neither can the Act be thought to intend any more Stultum est Conari quod nequeas efficere 13. Lastly If submiss supplication be yet thought to have any spice of endeavor in it it cannot be rationally thought to be intended in the word endeavour in the Act you observe that Endeavour in the Act and in the Covenant are of one measure and it is too evident there was more in endeavour in the Covenant then meer Petition and submiss supplication which ran us upon those sad consequences that in all reason the Intention of this new Act is but to secure us from you say to make Laws against simple Endeavor is certainly destructive to the Liberty of the Subject and Priviledge of Parliament Methinks then you should not apprehend such a simple and bare endeavour is to be disclaimed as is essential in your own Judgements to the liberty of the Subject and priviledge of Parliament SECT 6. Whether to endeavour c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject c. 1. I Cannot yet consent that to endeavor to alter the overnment of the Church is at all times or at this time sui Juris to every or to any Subject or indeed to any person in the Nation to speak home 2. The King is the proper Judge of what Government is fittest for the Church both as he is Supream Governour over it and as he is the Head of the Parliament 3. As he is supream Governor over the Church of England he is supream Judge in all Causes into whom the last Appeal resolves and consequently he is supream Judge in this of the fitness of the Government of the Church unto whom the last Appeal for a final definitive sentence and determination is only to be made 4. Again as he is Head of the Parliament he is no less For though the 2 Houses be also Judges of the fitness of the Government yet still with submission and reservation to the highest Judge thereof their Sovereign Lord the King who hath a Negative upon both Houses and gives life or death with his own word to any Bill tendred to him 5. So that in matters Legally existing the King hath this great advantage above his 2 houses the King hath power of himself to continue the existence of any such thing without his two houses that is whether they will or not and they cannot remove or abolish any such thing without the King or whether he will or no. 6. Suppose it be granted that the people may petition both houses may proceed so far as to frame a Bill against a Government absolutely considered and without respect to any Prior Obligations by Oath or otherwise upon the King and tender this unto the King in Order to the extirpation of the same yet if the King refuse to pass the Bill that Bill so once rejected cannot be revived during that Parliament neither may any person in either house so much as move it any more by the laws of Parliament which nothing can warrant against but the necessity of the things so to be revived upon the Word of God 7. The same Reason perswades me that when both King and Parliament have by fresh law declared their dissent to alter the Government against all endeavours used to that end and so they have done by the late Statutes for its restauration then we the Subjects cannot be bound any longer to endeavour it if we were bound before 8. To be bound still to vex the King and Parliament with perpetual repetition of Petitions to remove a Government which they have still do signifie they will not remove yea which they do signally own and ratifie so much the more is to be bound to go contrary to authority as well as Law to trouble the peace of Church and State and the Government over us and indeed to endeavour or labour in vain all hopes of prevailing being taken away at postquam palam desperata est constat fieri non posse cessat obligatio ex jam dicto fundamento quod Nemo Teneatur ad impossibile 6. This must needs pass without all controll if we add to the consideration that the King is known to be born to and bound to take an Oath by
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