performance of what is sworn is like to hinder a greater good that might be attained by not keeping the Oath that in that case an Oath bindeth not at all Protestant Casuists as Bishop Sanderson do deny this principle without limitation thus expressed yet do grant that it is true when there concurreth some other thing as usually there doth which may render the Oath void or the keeping of it unlawfull or looseth from it the impeditiveness of greater good there hath weight But we may say albeit other things did not concur to the nulling or voiding of an Oath yet if the standing to it be found impeditive of a greater good to which we are bound by a prior obligation then the Oath being an obstacle of such a greater good ceaseth to bind the swearer If a man should swear never to go near such a river or water having once been in hazard there yet where he seeth at some distance from it his brother like to perish in the water and it is probable to him that he could be able to save his life the prior and greater bond of charâ—ty and of God's Law commanding that bindeth him to go help his brother and looseth him from his Oath And as to our case besides what hath been said for the clearing upon other grounds of the non-obligation of the Covenant in that second Article the matter thereof still supposed as indifferent and Episcopacy not forbidden by any divine Law may we not clearly see that there is by adhering to that Oath as still binding an obstacle put to the attainment of a greater good and of greater necessity and to the seeking after that greater good which we are pre-obliged by former Bonds to labour after Is not that great duty of preaching the Gospel of peace lying upon Ministers wo to us if we preach not and lying upon many Ministers antecedently to the â—aking of this Covenant and upon adhering to that Covenant in the second Article proveth a hindrance to that greater duty whereto we are pre-obliged shall it still be thlought to bind so that rather then we will acknowledge God's loosing us by a former obligation to a greater duty we will by adhering to it put our selves in incapacity according to Law to serve any longer in the Ministry Do there not also ly upon us all pre-pre-obligations to obey the Magistrate in things not against God's Law such as now Episcopacy is supposed to be to procure the publick peace and good of Church and State and prevent horrid confusions which as matters go cannot be avoided by sticking at that Article in the Covenant Shall not the peace of conscience that shall arise from tendring these great interests be as much and more then any peace of conscience pretended to be in keeping the Oath which though we should not be ready to judge any may perhaps upon examination be found rather a piece of satisfaction to the will then peace of the conscience God having loosed and set free conscience from that Bond in hoc rerum statu But to the second thing which we observed anent Oaths or Covenants it would be remembred that a Covenant or Oath though lawfull and binding even in the strict interpretation of it yet doth not bind in the rigid interpretation which some either through weakness or scruples or design may put upon it Sometimes souls may make snares of Oaths to themselves by overstretching them and so do run themselves into the perplexities they needed not Concerning the Covenant different interpretations and senses have been given of it according to the several interests of persons of contrary judgments combined in it But as to the second Article now in question it may be doubted if it be broken by submission to or owning the present Episcopacy established by Law in Scotland or whether it be not an over-rigid straining of that Covenant to bend it against the present Episcopacy established in Scotland For clearing of which it would be considered first that at the time of the taking of that solemn League and Covenant there were no such Church-offices in Scotland as are mentioned in that Article there needed not as to Scotland a swearing to extirpat Offices that were not in it at that time and some Offices there mentioned never were in it 2. It would be remembred that an Oath is to be interpreted according to the sense of the givers of it Timorcus pag. 16. giveth us assurance that the Parliament of England intended nothing less in imposing the Covenant then the extirpation of all kinds of Prelacy and Bishops in the Church and that it was resolved in Parliament with consent of the Brethren of Scotland that it was only intended against Episcopacy as then established in England and Prâ—f p. 23. we do not saith he think the Covenant to be against the primitive Episcopacy which there he descrives to be a presidency of one Minister over others so that without him nothing is to be done in matters of Ordination and Jurisdiction and when he explaineth the second Article of the Covenant he saith it is only tyrannical Bishops that are covenanted against which Baxter also calls the sinfull species of Prelacy in his Preface to the Disputations of Church-government which he sayes was abjured only and not Episcopacy And in that same dispute pag. 4. he declareth that most of the godly Ministers since the Reformation did judge Episcopacy some of them lawfull and some of them most fit and addeth that almost all of these that are of the late Assâ— at Westminster and most throughout the Land did conform to Episcopal Government as not contrary to the Word of God and that he believs that many of them are yet so far reconciliable to it moderated that if it were only established they would submit to it as they did for he heareth as he saith but of few of them who have made recantation of their former conformity and contrarily hath known divers of them professing a reconciliableness as aforesaid as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his Books profess his judgment Thus Mr Baxter by whom we may see their error or folly who think there can be no godly Ministers owning Episcopacy and also how reconciliable godly Divines in the Ass were to a regulated Episcopacy So that it seemeth the great grievance aim'd at in the Covenant to be redressed was the Bishops claim of a sole Ordination and Jurisdiction and the multitudes of Courts of lay Chancellors c. set over Ministers in matters of Government and not the Office of Bishops concurring with Synods of Ministers and their presiding and being Superiors in Church-meetings If it be said that every one of the particular Offices mentioned under the name of Prelacy in the Covenant are abjured and therefore Bishops are abjured Mr. Vines in his Considerations upon the Kings Concessions at the Isle of Wight will for loosing this tell us of a sense of the Covenant which he inclines to viz. that as to
The seasonable CASE of Submission to the Church-government As no◠re-established by Law briefly stated and determined By a Lover of the peace of this CHURCH and KINGDOM 1 Sam. Chap. 15. 22. Behold to obey is better then sacrifice Confess Suec Cap. 14. Civilibus legibus quae cum pietate non pugnant eò quisque Christianus paret promptiùs quò fide Christi est imbutus pleniùs Published by Order EDINBURGH Printed by Evan Tyler Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty 1662. The Case anent submission to the present Church-government re-established by Law stated and considered THe exceeding great bitterness of the continued and increasing sad distractions amongst the people of God to the hindrance of their edification in faith and a godly life with charity and peace amongst themselves should put all the Ministers of Christ to most serious thoughts in considering how far they may under the present dispensations of God without sin accommodate in following unquestionable duties with and under the established Government of the Church And although as to a cordial allowance of the present change they cannot yet attain something remaining whether of scruple or affection which maketh it unpleasing and their concurrence with it to ly heavy upon their spirits yet if there be found no manifest transgression in concurring under the same in matters of unquestionable duty they would wisely put difference between gravamen spiritus and ligamen conscientiae something in the will that rendreth them averse and the prevailing clear light of a well-informed conscience to which how uneasie it is to attain in this point of controversie they can tell who have truly tryed it binding them up from concurrence as a thing in it self unlawfull Men who walk in the fear of God and are zealous of His honour had need to be very jealous of their own zeal that it carry them not to the rejecting of a real duty which to their apprehension sits too near a sin Ministers whom sober-mindedness doth greatly become would look to it that the censure of a grave Divine upon the spirits of our countrey-men praefervidum Scotorum ingenium do not too much touch them It is their duty to advert lest at this time too great animosity contribute to the laying of the foundation of a wofull division to be entailed to the generations to come the evil whereof will preponder all the good that any one form of Church-government can of it self produce viz. the dishonour of God the weakning of the cause of the true protestant Religion against the common adversaries thereof the destroying of true charity and love amongst the people of God the hinderance of their profiting under the several Ministries they live under and the creating continual confusions and distractions in the Common-wealth the ordinary fruit of schism in the Church as too lamentable experience whereof we carry the sad marks to this day hath taught us 1. That there may and ought to be a brotherly accommodation and concurrence in matters of practice which are undoubted duty albeit Brethren be of different judgments anent the constitution of Meetings or capacity of persons that act in these duties grave and learned men have put it out of question It is well known that in the Assembly of Divines at London accommodation was mainly laboured for and far carried on between Presbyterians and Independents that they might concur in common Actings for regulating the Church with a reserve of liberty of their own several principles The Independents thought the Presbyterians had no judicial Authority in these Meetings The Presbyterians though accounting this an errour yet were willing in common unquestionable duties to concur with them Also several of the most eminent Presbyterians in England as Mr. Viner Mr. Baxter and others accounting of un-preaching Elders as of an humane device as now the Office of a Bishop is accounted of by many Brethren Yet not being able to attain to the exercise of presbyterial Government without the intermixture of these yea of them double the number to preaching Presbyters in each Meeting which gave them an overswaying power in the Government notwithstanding they did concur with them in matters of unquestionable duty Is it not also well known that amongst our selves in this Church Brethren did ordinarily concur in Synods and Presbyteries in doing their duties with these whom they charged with a sinfull schisme a thing as much against the Covenant as that which is now pretended for withdrawing from the Meetings of Synods and Presbyteries And when Brethren thus charged did withdraw their concurrence in some duties by several passages in that Paper entituled A Representation of the rise progress and state of the Divisions in the Church of Scotland how that practice of theirs was constructed of pag. 21. it is affirmed that they homologate with the tenet and practice of Separatisme denying the lawfulness of concurrence in a lawfull necessary duty because of the personal sin of fellow-actors in it And pag. 28. speaking of their refusing to own the Judicatories as lawfull because the men whom they judged to be in a course of defection the Commissioners of the Church they meant were admitted to sit there it is said by the Representer that it is a principle that draweth very deep for saith he by parity of reason they must not joyn with any inferiour Judicatories where they are nor in any lawful act of Religion or Worship more then in an Assembly May not much of this be applyed to the present Withdrawers from concurrence in necessary duties Mutato nomine de te c. It will be said there is a great disparity between those Commissioners and the Bishops who are looked on as new unwarranted Officers in the Church and therefore albeit there may be now reason for withdrawing from Meetings where they are there was no reason for withdrawing from Assemblies where these Commissioners sate But not to divert to a dispute here whether the Office of a Bishop be new or unwarrantable or lesse warrantable then the Office of these Commissioners which wise men looked upon as very like episcopal there is herein a parity that as these now are judged so the other were judged by the Excepters against them to be in a course of defection and unlawfully officiating as members of the Assembly And yet were these Quarrellers reproved for withdrawing from the general Assembly upon that account Should not that reproof be taken home in the present case by such as withdraw from Meetings of the Chruch why should there be divers weights and divers measures used in such parity of cases Again it is asserted pag. 37. to be a divisive principle that men will not concur in lawfull duties because these with whom they joyn will not come up to their judgment in all other things Ibid. They challenge them for refusing to joyn in an uncontroverted duty because the direction to it flowed from the authority of an Assembly which they could not own It
command to come is only in order to the required concurrence which they cannot give as they say Is this rational that where two commands of the Magistrate are joyn'd the one undoubtedly lawful to be obeyed the other doubted of that Subjects should disobey the Magistrate in that which is clearly lawfull because they have a doubt or unclearness anent obeying him in the other command Doth it not become Subjects to go as far on in obedience to lawfull Authority as they see they may without sin against God Then it is time to stop when any thing is put to them by vertue of the Kings Command which they clearly see they cannot do without sin Had they come to the place it would pro tanto have shewed their respect to Authority albeit they had humbly declared themselves bound up from acting by their doubts And yet it may be they will in end find that they might lawfully have concurred in unquestionable duty that there was no ground to refuse this and that they might have sufficiently salved their Conscience by a humble signification of their scruple as was said and yet not refused to concur in undoubted duties for the personal fault as they apprehend of any member of the Assembly 3. What ground could they have for separation from the Synod Is it the want of liberty to choose a Moderator Or Is it that he that presides is a Bishop and claims more power then they can allow more then they think is due as of a negative voice Or Is it the want of unpreaching Elders in the Meeting As to the 1. Are they able to shew that every ecclesiastical Meeting or Judicatory hath by a dvine scriptural Right a priviledge to choose their own Moderator Where is there any Precept for this or any example of such election in Scripture If all Meetings of ecclesiastical Judicatories have this priviledge then also their Sessions where they take upon them to be constant Moderators have this also which belike will not please them well that any of the Meeting but themselves should be chosen there to preside or can they say that every ecclesiastical Meeting or Judicatory hath this priviledge by a divine natural right If so no civill Society or Judicatory should want it but all claim power to choose their own Presidents which were evil doctrine under a Monarchy where power is in the Prince to elect and name Presidents for Council Session c. Or are they able to demonstrate that it is not lawful for the Christian Magistrate upon whom the external ordering of all the Judicatories in his His Dominions depends to nominate out of a Meeting of Ministers conveen'd by him one grave and godly Minister of the number to order the actions of the Meeting and by his Authority to controll the unruly Can it be made evident that the ancient Christian Councils general or provincial though they had ecclesiastick Presidents did alwayes formerly choose their own President Presides ecclesiastici in vetustis Conciliis nonnunquam nominati ab Imperatore saith Zepperus Eccles Pol. p. 742 As to the second The great exception is at the power of the Presidents of the Synods they being Bishops claim in undue power as if Authority solely resided in them at least they claim a negative voice Ans 1. Were it so and were this a fault yet it were not their fault who concur the personal fault of another cannot be any good ground for Brethrens withdrawing from their necessary duty especially it being considered what might be allowed them for easing the scruple of their Conscience as was above said If I be only admitted to consult in regulating the affairs of the Church in a Meeting where I think I should have equal authority with any that sits there Can it be sin in me to go so far in my duty as I am permitted to do to testifie against sin to give my best counsel for suppressing thereof and for advancement of holiness If I be abridged and restrain'd as to that authority which I think is due to me it is the sin if there be any of these who do restrain me and not mine shall I do no part of my duty because I cannot do all that I think I ought to do being as to some part of it restrain'd by another But Secondly Is it not granted by most judicious Divines that Presbyters having a power in several cases to suspend the exercise of their own just authority when the suspension of it tenderh to a publick good may for the peace of the Church resolve to give to one person of their number a negative voice in Government so as to do nothing without him Baxt. Church gover pag. 18. And excellent Mr. Vines when at the Isle of Wight the King could not be brought off that that in Meetings of Presbyters there should be one under the name of Bishop with a negative voice did counsel both Presbyterians and Independents to accept of the concession as they would not have all the blood miseries and confusions that after might ensue laid at their door See his considerations on the Kings Concessions Whatever may be said of that negative voice the law of the land putting Bishops into a stated presidency and yet Presbyters being admitted to rule with Bishops judicious and sober men would not lay so great weight on it as to refuse their concurrence in common and uncontroverted duties upon that account But yet one thing would be remembred that Brethren are at a very clear disadvantage in withdrawing from presbyterial Meetings where they know the Moderator doth not nor can claim more power then any of themselves All the ground of their not concurring with these Meetings must be that they do not choose the Moderator in their particular Presbyteries But he is nominate by the Bishop 〈◊〉 the Synod and yet in all reason the authority and consent of Bishop and Synod should conclude any particular Presbytery Do not Brethren remember that in time of the Commission of the Kirks ruling there were restraints laid upon Presbyteries in matters far higher and weightier concernment then that and little dinn about the same But thirdly if the Brethren refuse to concur with the Synods for want of unpreaching Elders there whose Office they account of divine institution they would remember that great Divines of the presbyterian way Blondel Vines Baxter and many others look upon these as an humane device and their reasons moving them are weighty But let them be as they are imagin'd by the Brethren yet can the removal of these without out their fault render it unlawful for them to concur in a Synod of Ministers where these are not Can the absence or removal of these supposed Church-officers render a Synod of Ministers with their President unlawful and not to be joyned with because other men are debarred from their duty they are supposed to have right to shall we run from our duty especially this being done without our fault A
maintains that the Ministers who of old took the canonical Oath did not swear the contradictory thereto when they took the Covenant whence it will follow necessarily that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that Oath if they should take the Oath of canonical Obedience and indeed it will be hard to find out a contradiction either in termes or by necessary consequence But if the obligation of the Covenant as to that second article shall be found to cease whereof afterward the lawfulness of the other Oath will be clearer 3. It would be considered that the Reverened Persons intrusted by Law to call for that Promise from Ministers do not search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power all they seek is obedience to them in things lawfull and honest as being presently in power being by Law ordinary Overseers of the Ministry in their duties and chief Ordainers of them who enter into the Ministry But it is said where obedience is promised there is an acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Power Office and Authority because obedience formally cannot be but to a lawfull Authority therefore he that in his conscience thinketh a Bishops Office unlawfull cannot so much as promise obedience to him in things lawfull and honest lest by his taking such an Oath he make himself guilty of establishing that which he accounts unlawfull But 1. it is not obedience under a reduplication and as formally obedience they call for if it be obedience materially Ministers doing their duties in things really lawfull they are satisfied 2. Suppose it were so that obedience as formally obedience were required yet it were hard to say it could not be promised or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any lawfull Authority for waving the consideration of any ecclesiastical Office wherein they may pretend to be superiour to other Ministers and giving but not granting that as Church-ministers their Office and superiority were unlawful yet looking upon them as the Kings Majesties Commissioners in Causes ecclesiastical for regulating the external order of the Church in their several bounds and impowred by the law of the land so to do they being also Presbyters and having power with others in Ordination and Jurisdiction ecclesiastical it will be hard to say that their power is not lawfull and that obedience is not due to them The strictest Presbyterians will not find ground to disown their Office in that consideration There are three things mainly which bear off Brethren of both these sorts and ranks from submitting to and concurring in their duties under the present Government 1. Their fears of future evils 2. Their present thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop over Presbyters in the Church 3. Their former Engagements by the bond of the Covenant which they conceive still binds them As to the first their fears there can be no sufficient ground in these to bear them off from that which for the present is found to be their duty If evils feared should come and Brethren in conscience toward God not able to comply with them then suffering might be the more comfortable but the gracious providence of God watching over his Church the goodness and wisdom of our Soveraign and of Rulers under him considering the temper of this Nation may make all these fears vain and disappoint them and it is not for us to be too thoughtful or to torment our selves with fears before the time In the mean time it would be well considered by Brethren that bear off from concurrence if they do well in withdrawing their counsels from their Brethren and in doing that which tendeth to the loss of their enterest in and respect with persons in present Authority in regard whereof they might be exceedingly instrumental to prevent any thing that is feared 2. As to their thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop something hath been said of the lawfulness of their concurrence in unquestion'd duties even upon that supposition something also hath been said of the acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Office looking upon them as Presbyters commissionated by the King for external ordering of Church-affairs in their severall bounds and of the lawfulness of obedience to them as in that capacity It is not the purpose of this Paper to dispute much for their Church-capacity or Rule over Presbyters or anent the Office of Bishops as an order of Church-ministers Only as to this three things would be seriously pondred by Brethren 1. Where they are able to find in all Christs Testament any precept for meer Presbyters preaching and unpreaching in a full equality of power to rule the Church of Christ to give Ordination to Ministers to judge in all controversies of Religion ministerially and do all acts of Government in the Church or where they can find any example of such a Presbytery doing these acts without some superiour Officer acting with them or directing them in their actings or where there is any inhibition either expresse or by necessary consequence that no Gospel-minister should in any case have superiority in power over others in Church-affairs 2. Let it be considered if descending from the Scripture times it can be found in any Writer who lived in the first two or three ages after Christ or in any History or Record relating to these times not to speak of after-ages it can be found that there was any such Church-officer as an unpreaching Elder joyned in full equality of power with Preaching-elders in acts of Ordination of Ministers from which if they be necessary parts and members of the Presbytery they cannot be excluded and in all other acts of Jurisdiction or if there be any mention of the names or power of any such persons Or if it can be from these Writers found that there was ever any Ordination of Ministers or exercise of Jurisdiction ecclesiastical by Ministers i. e. by meer Preaching-presbyters without some one stated President over them under the name of Bishop who was to go before them in these actions and without whom nothing was to be done in these Shall not the practice of that primitive Church which followed the Apostles as it were at the heels be most able to shew us which way they went and what was their practice It is too horrid a thing to imagine and that which a modest Christian can hardly down with that immediately after the Apostles times the whole Church of Châ—â—â—t should agree to so substantial an alteration of the Government of the Church suppos'd to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles as to exclude one sâ—â—t of Officers of his appointment and to take in another not appointed by him And that it should be done so early Statim post tempora Apostolorum aut eorum etiam tempore saith Molinaeus Epist 3. ad Episcop Winton Bishops were set up in the time when some of them especially John were living viventibus videntibus non
another all pretending the Covenant there being no distinct specifical termes in the Covenant whereupon some could implead others as guilty of breach and did not the Sectarian Armie when they invaded Scotland pretend the Covenant and keeping of it and thereupon there were high appeals made to heaven Will not all or most of them own the letter of the Covenant which only seems clear against Popery and Prelacy and for a violent extirpation of this Then there was no security in that Covenant for preserving Presbytery in Scotland the Presbytery not being once named only the matter is wrapped up in a general We shall preserve the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government against our common enemies reformed Religion and against common enemies No Independent or Separatist but might say he would preserve the Reformed Religion c. in Scotland albeit he thought not Presbytery to be any part of Reformed Religion or Government and although he minded to do against it himself only if he would preserve it it should be to hold off what he apprehended worser he would preserve it against the common enemies Neither is there security in that Covenant for reforming England according to the pattern as was desired by us Was there not more policy then piety in this to endeavour the soldering and holding fast of so many several parties united against Episcopacy yet sorting amongst themselves like the iron and clay toeâ— of Nebuchadnezar's image and ready to break one upon another all under pretence of the Covenant as it clearly came to passe and is still like to be such is the vanity of humane policies unsound wayes of uniting tending to the begetting in end of greater distractions And the Covenant being of purpose framed in general terms for the most part that several parties might be fast united against Prelacy owned by the King if it should be still owned would prove no better then a perpetual seminary of diverse Parties all pleading their keeping of their Covenant and yet no party agreeing one with another in the specifical sense thereof and some of the wayes of these several parties might be found much worse in the judgment of right discerners then Prelacy is or may be thought to be by some It would be seriously pondred whether this way of a studied indistinctness generality and homonymie in the terms of the Covenant for strengthning a party against some one thing was acceptable to God And whether the blood of our Countrey-men should have been cast away in such uncertain terms It will be said The Covenant is clear enough against Episcopacy let us keep it in the clear and true sense of it whatever doubtfulness be otherwayes But to say nothing of this that we have shewed above how unclear it is against the Episcopacy established now in Scotland however clear it be as intended against the English frame were it not better to lay aside when now it is disclaimed by King and Parliament and all persons of trust in the Land an humane form which in respect of the Composure of it is apt to be hath been and is like to be a seminary of varieties of parties all pleading it and worse evils then Prelacy is imagin'd to be then still to own it when as authentick exponers of the sense of it who might reprove false pretenders to the keeping of it cannot be had neither while they were in being could agree amongst themselves anent the sense of it as may be seen in the Parliament of Englands baâ—ling the Scotish Commissioners Declaration anno 1647. and other Papers God hath given the children of men work enough to be exercised in his holy Word which certainly in his intendment hath but one true sense howbeit mans blindness often perceiveth it not It is a needless labour to be taken up with humane forms purposely contrived in general terms for taking in parties of known contrary sense and judgment which will if own'd prove apples of contention in the present and succeeding Generations But 3. Let sober and godly men consider if it was dutifully done to swear the preservation of the Kings person and Authority conditionally and with a limitation In the preservation and defence of the true Religion Mr. Crofton indeed denyeth that in that third Article of the Covenant there is any limitation of our loyalty in defending the King or that this is the sense that we are only bound to defend Him while He defends Religion he asserts that clause to be only a predication of their present capacity who engage to defend the King's Person to this sense we being in defence of Religion c. shall defend the King's Person But to say nothing how strain'd-like this looketh the words in the sense of judicious men looking as a clear limitation of our duty to Him as if otherwise we owed Him no duty of that sort Belike the General Ass of the Church of Scotland should understand the sense of the Covenant somewhat better then Mr. Crofton to say nothing of their stating their opposition to Authority of Parliament in the matter of the Engagment 1648. upon this as the main hinge â— our conditional duty to the King They in their Declaration 1649. declare that the King was not to be admitted to the exercise of His royal Power before satisfaction as to the matter of Religion they meant mainly that particular mode of Church-government by Presbytery for that was it that went under the name of Religion the substance of the protestant Religion being never under question between the King and them they plead for a ground the Covenant where their duty in defending the King's Person and Authority is said to be subordinate to Religion and therefore it is concluded that without manifest breach of Covenant they cannot admit Him to reign till in that they be satisfied It is clear they look'd on it as a limitation of their duty and that His owning of Presbytery c. was conditio sinè quà non of His reigning amongst them and of their paying duty to Him and so indeed the transactions in the Treaties at Breda and the Hague and what followed thereupon expounded their mind Now was this right that where our Alleagiance binds us to duty in a greater latitude this should be held out to people as the only standard of their loyalty and duty to the King Was it sound Doctrine to insinuat to the sense of intelligent men that we were not otherwise bound to defend Him Was it well by such a clause to givâ— occasion to wicked men as the Sectaries take it in their Declaration before the late King's death to think they were no further obliged to Him then He should defend that which they accounted Religion yea that they were obliged by Covenant to destroy Hiâ— Person they finding as they say in that Declaration that His Safety and Religions are inconsistent And was it the duty of thâ—se who were Commissioners from this