35 36 39. After avow is taken there ought to be as much tendernesse to observe it as caution before we undertake it else we shall but double our guilt and increase GODS displeasure against us What we vow is in it selfe good and so caries with it an engagement to performance Our Vow is second ingagement super-added to the first if after it we be negligent we breake more bonds and so must needs be more guilty It s not to be doubted but many enter this Protestation rather for company then conscience and so will make too little account of keeping it and need admonition to observe as well as to enter this Covenant But that this neglect should be so generall as to include the generality of the Godly as this Expositor doth make it that I dare not assent unto the Psalmist hath taught me more tendernesse Ps 73 15. If I will speake thus behold I should offend against the generation of thy Children To condemne the godly was such a thing to this blessed Psalmist that he would renownce sense and reason and set upon a serious review rather then dash upon it In whose steps had this Author troden hee would not have been so rash to have put the foole upon them He might with lesse adoe then the Psalmist have freed himselfe from needlesse Horrour and the godly from unjust censure But now to the point He gives us the ground of his Censure Pag. 2. THe Protestation is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery which they do not performe so long as they retaine and maintain the imposition of the Liturgy 2 the Discipline 3 the Government 4 the Ceremonies Ans In his very first Argumentation there is a most palpable fallacy which is so obvious that its wonder to me that any man that would undertake to write a Booke in a matter of this consequence should either not himselfe see or should imagine that so many cleere eyes that it must needs touch would not most easily discerne and discover it for the Argument must be framed thus He that hath solemnly vowed to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery must renownce all Popery and particularly the imposition of the Liturgy c. or else he breakes his vow and is a foole c. But the Ministers and people have protested to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery Therefore they must renownce all Popery and particularly the imposition of the Liturgy c. or else they breake their vowes and are fooles in whom GOD hath no pleasure Now what a manifest fallacy is here a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter from that which is spoken in some respect to that which is spoken absolutely for the Protestation is not against Popery absolutly but as this Author expresseth it so far forth as it is against the Doctrine of the Church of England what Popery then the Doctrine of the Church of England doth not condemne this Protestation doth not include being onely to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and Popish Innovations But then some will demand is not the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery I answere ad hominem If the things here objected be Popery then the Doctrine of the Church is not against all Popery for these things so far as they may be termed Doctrinall are yet according to the Doctrine of the Church of England unlesse you will say that the Doctrine of the Church of England is contrary to the practise of the Church of England whence then thus I Argue Either the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery or else the imposition of the Liturgy Ceremonies Discipline Government are not Popery for the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against them If the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery he that vowes to maintaine that Doctrine against all Popery vowes not against Popery absolutly but only as it is against that Doctrine and then this Authors inference from this vow against Popery with this restraint that we must therefore oppose all Popery absolutly is a manifest inconsequence on the other side if the Liturgy c. be not Popery as they must not be if the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND be compleate against it then they are not abjured So however it be the Covenanter is free from breach and folly And this I conceive is so cleare that it needs no further confirmation yet a little more to evince the absurdity of it by other particulars in the Protestation we protest to maintaine every person that maketh this Protestation in whatsoever he shall do in the lawfull pursuance of it If a man should thence inferre that we must defend him whatsoever he shall doe in the pursuance of it if hee shall move sedition or the like were not this a violation of the sense of this Covenant and is not the same when we stretch the opposing of Popery so far as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England to be meant against all Popery whatsoever though it be granted it be maintained in the Church of England His foundation then is most rotten and what firmnesse can be in the building But he makes the objection Page 2. which he indeavors to answere aswell as he can The Objection is that these things are established by the Law therefore we may not cast them off till the Law be abrogated and we protest against Popery to cast it out so far as lawfully we may Thus the Protestor wherein he hath objected what he hath not well answered though all be don very rawly For first he should have framed the Argument thus Those things are established by the Lawes of England where the Doctrine of the Church of England is established and therefore according to the Doctrine of the Church of England these things cannot be interpreted to be Popery and so not within the Verge of that Protestation which is against Popery as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England which objection if he ever answere erit mihi magnus Apollo The Objection which he hath made he strengthens from the words of the Protestation that we protest to cast out things as far as lawfully we may which clause doth not at all respect the matter protested against but the meanes and manner of pursuance that we shall not doe it in any tumultuous or seditious or illegall way but by honest and lawful meanes A thing needfull to be taken notice of by many respective Readers of this Booke who while they learne of him that they must oppose the things mentioned as parts of Popery from themselves infer that it ought to be done in a violent way without waiting for the direction of Authority which in private persons
is not to oppose lawfully but illegally and seditiously But now let us heare his Answer First saith he All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intention and end Now the Law for reformation never intended to allow or set up Popery in the Church of England Ans This rule for the interpretation of Laws in the a There is a twofold intention of Lawes one generall arising from mens goodnesse and that may be to remove whatsoever is evill the other speciall arising from mens light and that is to remove such particulars as are discovered to be evil the latter intention is the rule of interpreting Laws not the former and this Author speakes of the former sense he takes it is a device of his owne that hath neither authority nor reason for the confirmation of it Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law giver which the Grammaticall sense of the words doth usually discover Indeed in matters doubtfull where the words are capable of a double sense the intention of the Law may there cleere what sense is most Genuine but that the generall intention of of the Law shall give a sense contrary to the letter of the Law is without doubt a groundlesse and dangerous fancy It s true the Law never intended to set up Popery but the question is whether it be destructive of all Popery The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers who if they saw not all Popery could not by their Lawes condemne all nor did if the things in Question be Popery Lex Currit cum praxi The generall practise especially of those that are regular discovers the mind of the Law and the practise hath been to maintaine these things therefore it s not the meaning of the Law to condemne them nor of this Protestation to abjure them Secondly he saith If humane Lawes be found to be contrary to Gods word they are invalid and void ipso facto Ans This rightly understood is in part a truth but here misapplied we are subjected to all Terrene superiours by the Lord and under the Lord when they then command any thing contrary to GOD the Laws have noe binding power because by a superiour Law we are bound to the contrary But yet such Lawes are not Ipso facto void or if void yet they are void in foro conscientiae in the Court of Heaven not in foro politico in Courts on Earth though we are not bound to obey them yet we are without resistance to submit to such penalties under the danger of Sedition which were there noe Lawes we were free from Againe this Thesis of his is misapplied for thence he infers Thirdly that having made this Protestation we ought to have no communion with the aforesaid particulars notwithstanding they be confirmed by Law which inference is therfore faulty because the Protestation is onely against Popery as it is against the Doctrine of the Church and that which is confirmed by our law though it be Popery yet it is not Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England If the Lawes of the Land and the Doctrine of our Church had their establishment in different Courts then that which is establisht by Law might be against the Doctrine of the Church but the Doctrine of the Church and the Laws of the Lands having both their establishment in Parliament what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church and therefore this Authors arguing must needs be irrationall But now we are furnished with a second Objection which we are to consider of and whether this Author hath with any better successe taken of then he hath the former what saith hee If the Parliament did not by Popery understand the Liturgy Ceremonies Government of our Church and he gives good reason to conceive they did not for then many of them would not have taken it What shal we do then that is his Quaere now heare his Answers First saith he we are sure they intended in against all Popery To which I answere that its most cleare and so he himselfe expresseth in the former Page they only intend it against Popery as it is opposite against the Doctrine of the Church of England and such Popery the mentioned things cannot be Secondly saith he They expresse that the words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any forme of Worship Discipline or Ceremonies in the said Church What doth he thence inferre why forsooth that therefore we may not Protest for the maintenance of these why was that the Question whether we should be bound to maintaine them or whether we are bound to abolish them What ridiculous disputing then is this But hence I Argue If the Protestation do not include them for confirmation because they are no parts of Doctrine it doth not exclude them for abolition but leaves them for determination to another opportunity Thirdly saith he Suppose that at the first making of the Protestation that these particulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery yet no good Christian can or will deny that the House of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever should pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof This Author is very good at bold assertions but all as bad in confirmations for what a good Christian may do in weaknesse I will not determine but no wise Christian as far as I can conceive can judge that what ever shall be found to be Popery is included in this Protestation but what ever is found to be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church of England which is the terme limiting Popery in the Protestation Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament of such a Reformation as will not deserve the name of Reformation if all Popery be not made to be packing I joyne with him in all comfortable hopes from this Honourable House but what is this to his matter in hand All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament is not expected by this Protestation this is one degree to reforme whatever Popery or Innovation is against Law established this done the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation by removing corruptions established by Law Fiftly Suppose saith he that it could be imagined by any reasonable man that the House of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foresaid things in the fardell of Popery shall private and particular Christians knowing these to be Popery and Antichristian being bound by their solemne Vow and Protestation never reforme themselves c. I Answere no man can if as he is rationall he deale rationally But suppose that these things were not included in the Protestation according to the intention of the House of Commons which may appeare by unanswerable grounds 1. Because the expresse words be against that Popery which is against the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND which these things mentioned established
by Law in our Church cannot be Secondly Since the generall taking and first making of this Protestation the Government and Discipline of the Church hath been in strong dispute whether it should continue or no which had it been Protested against there had been no place for dispute which yet doth neither take off the friends of that side from asserting nor is used by the opposites to Prelacy to overbeare their Antagonists which had been the easiest and speediest way of victory if this Authors fancy had had truth in it Thirdly Under favour though as I shall make it appeare I am no friend to the foresaid things yet it was not rationall that the Parliament should include these things in their PROTESTATION for these things being establisht by Law and fixt in many of the members hearts aswell as Laws to desire men presently to abjure them before a full debating of them seemes a point of such rashnesse yea Tyranny as will not consist with the transcendent wisdom and Iustice of that Honourable Court Fourthly Nay further I conceive under favour that it would not have stood with the duty of that House to their Soveraigne of which I know they are most tender nor that respect that they owe to the Lawes of the Land to protest against things established by Law till the Law it selfe be abrogated for none may Protest in such a case further then they are free Subjects can challeng no more freedom then the Laws allow them where and while Laws do tye them they are in subjection and therefore could not in point of duty Protest against such things in such a manner to which the Lawes binds them The power of the House of Commons where this Protestation was framed is no doubt great far beyond my apprehension yet in this case I conceive their power over Laws is with the consent of the Lords and his Majesty to abolish them but not Protest against them while they are in force By all which Arguments its manifest that the Parliament neither did really nor could rationally intend in the Protestation to Protest against these things established by Law and if we suppose truly they intended it not this Author doth suppose still falsely that we are by our Protestation bound to reject and oppose them for its an old sound rule Oathes and Protestations are to be expounded according to the meaning of the framer and giver not of the taker else by a dishonest aequivocation any thing almost may be eluded therfor what the Protestation meant not we in the taking are not tied to And if this disputer should thinke this should bind us in the things mentioned though the Parliament intended no such thing but the contrary He may as well affirme that we are bound to maintaine his impendant Churches for whereas we Protest to maintaine the lawfull Rights and Liberties of the Subject and every person that maketh this Protestation he may infer but independancy is in his judgment a right and liberty of all Christians entring into this Covenant therefore we are tyed to maintaine it This inference hath lesse dissonancy from the letter of the Covenant then that of his about the particulars questioned yet though I beleeve hee hath as good a will to this as the former he dare not be so bold as to draw such a conclusion because though the letter may beare it yet the judgment of the compilers makes it manifest it was far from their meaning which reason likewise might have kept him from including the particulars in hand But now lastly he comes in with other quaeries What then shall men never reforme themselves but live and die Communicants c. Ans How doth this follow may not men Reforme themselves in these things unlesse they do it by vertue of this Protestation did not all that held these unlawfull before this Protestation was formed in their owne practise withdraw from these things so far as they held them unlawfull and against the word of GOD and so may and ought to do still though they be not included in the Protestation But to proceed this Author next brings in his Schollers questioning how it may appeare that the forementioned particulars are branches of Popery And he faines them speaking that if their Consciences were convinced thereof by the word of GOD then by their Protestation as well as by GODS word they were bound to renownce them Ans But by his leave he makes them speake what many will not and none ought to speake If these things be Popish then by the word of GOD we ought to renownce them indeed but by this Protestation we ought not unlesse they be Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England I my selfe must needs account these things or the most of them of the same alloy with many things by the Doctrine and Lawes of our Church already condemn'd and abolisht else I should not have been nor continued as in part I doe a sufferer for witnessing against them And I doe as earnestly desire Reformation of them as of any thing that little grace that I have doth asmuch Act that way to wrastle with the Lord for the rooting up of those plants which our heavenly Father hath not planted as any way but nothing ingaged by this Protestation but only by that allegiance which I owe to Christ and his word But some may say If you be against those things why doe you pleade for them Ans Mistake not I plead not for them but to cleare the sense of the Protestation that it may not be wrested to include them as it is by this Author of which wresting I see and feare manifest inconveniences First the Honourable Houses of Parliament are by it wronged and are thereby like to grow more opposite to the removing of the things here pleaded against and so as it is usually this making hast will hinder the work it aymes to further unlesse this conceit be seasonably corrected Secondly This misinterpretation will hinder many from entring this Protestation which remora of so good a worke had need be removed which this Answere may further Thirdly Many that have taken it are partly troubled because such things are yet suffered that they think they have Protested against which they think they should not only omit to Act but also by all meanes oppose partly I see men are taken off for praying for the abolition of such things as they conceive are already cast off by Protestation and are inclined by carnall violence under this pretence to do that in the Church which by a spirituall violence they should indeavor to prevaile for with GOD that so they may be prevailers with men to have publique corruptions purged by publique authority which is a safe comfortable and honorable way Lastly Some that think somethings in themselves lawfull and tolerable I find by this Protestation Protested to conceive them unlawfull as against the Protestation though in themselves indifferent As to instance though
for that we joy not in The denying or prolonging of the desire is harsh but the granting of it is as the tree of life most refreshing and strengthening Pro. 13 12. All then that have had so much goodnesse as to desire it and pray for it must needs rejoyce in it Now if you inquire what a Nationall Covenant is it is a Bond wherein a Nation joynes together to bind themselves to God and one another for the promoting of any publique good Now this is done in divers formes sometimes by way of single vow promise and Protestation sometimes there is added an Oath as here there was for that which is called a Covenant ver 12 is here termed an Oath ver 15. Yea sometimes there is further expressed a curse against those that will not enter or fulfill it Nehem. 9 29. All kinds kind firmly they differ only in degree Heb. 6 17 18. Word and Oath are sayd to be two things which for God to break is impossible and then for man to breake either must be dishonest and damnable Thus for proofe 1. This is usefull first for information and it may informe us of 2 things 1 What cause we have in this Nation of joy yea of great joy May not I as the messenger of the Lord of Hosts say unto you as the Angells Luk 2 11. Feare not for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people for in our Nation now is formed a Nationall Covenant against corruptions and for Reformation A Nation is either Collective or Representative The Parliament is the Nation representative and so the whole Nation hath taken it not one of the house of Commons or Peeres who were present refusing The Peeres also subscribing it with their hands according to that expression Esay 44 Nehem. 9 38. 5. or as in Nehemiahs time they set to their seales And this they have published partly for our consolation partly for our imitation and have we not in this cause to rejoyce May not Israel rejoyce in those that made it and the Children of Syon be joyfull in their Parliament who have begun so good a worke 2. This may shew us that it is our duty to enter into this Covenant That as this Covenant is already by the Act of the Parliament Nationall representative so it may be Nationall Collective by the Act of every subject in particular Ought we not to do that which is matter of joy to the Godly Jf it be so bad to make the hearts of the godly sad and of the wicked glad Eze. 13 22. Is it not very good to make the godly glad and damp the wicked Our entring into Covenant will doe it Nehem. 10 28 29. When the Nobles went before all that were of understanding entred into Covenant after them Our Nobles have gone before both noble in blood and in Office and ought not we now to follow he that joyes not at the Covenant is condemned by this text and he that joyes and joynes not will be condemned of himselfe Obiect But it may be some out of ignorance of the nature of this worke may scruple touching the lawfulnesse of this present bond for whose satisfaction these Arguments following may suffice 1. That which is set before us in the approved examples of Scriptures and hath been in use in famous Churches and Common-wealths that may lawfully be undertaken by Christian people But such is this Protestation for the maintenance of true Religion therefore it is lawfull In the dayes of Asa 2 Chro. 15 12. and of Iosiah 2 Chro. 34 31 32. of Ezra cap 10.3 and 5 of Nehemia 9 38. In all these times they made a Covenant for the maintenance of Religion in its purity according to the word So in the Kingdom of Scotland 1680 and 81. So in our Kingdom to maintaine the privileges of Magna Charta Therefore this present bond hath good ground for it Ob. The Covenants of Scripture flowed from the King Ans Not all as that in Ezra's time and Nehemiahs when they were under foraine power yet they Covenanted his inconsultis Secondly Num. 30. we read vowes may be made by those under Authority only superiors have power at the first notice of them to reverse them But their silence is consent so our Soveraignes suffering is approving and confirming besides it cannot be imagined that such things as are so unanimously consented to by both Houses should not be approved by the King and the Protestation it selfe is Printed by the Kings Printer 2. A Covenant or vow is an Ordinance of God for the helpe of humane frailty to keepe us fast to the performance of any necessary duty which we have or are prone to recede from whence thus I argue an Ordinance of God undertaken by fit persons on just occasion is lawfull but such is this vow or Protestation therefore it is lawfull Persons fit for a vow must be such as are sui Iuris that is free or at least sui juris in regard of the thing vowed Ob. But here the doubt ariseth how Subjects that are under a King can be sui Iuris and so be free to Covenant especially in such a thing wherein there is possibility that their King may be their opponent by such evill advise as hath of late been given Ans One may be sui Iuris free in one respect which is not so absolutly as a servant that hath an estate free to himselfe though he be not sui iuris in respect of his person and so cannot make a vow to ingage it yet he is sui Juris free in regard of his estate and may by vow ingage that Now though we be Subjects we be free Subjects under the protection of Laws which measure our subiection and our Soveraignes dominion according to which the King is bound by oath and equity to governe receiving his Crowne on these termes whereby it appeares that though the Subjects of England be not sui Iuris absolutly yet are they so in what the Lawes tye them not to subjection Now in this Protestation we Covenant only to maintaine things established by Law and that in legall wayes and to ressist illegall pressures and therefore in these things we are free to make a vow or Covenant besides it is to be observed that this Covenant is made by the Houses of Parliament the highest Court in the Land who have power to consult and decree what ever is according to Law for publike weale and by them we are though not commanded yet permitted yea invited to enter into this Covenant and therefore have freedome to enter into it And as the persons are fit so are the occasions just for what is a just occasion of a vow or Covenant to performance of any thing but humane frailety and corruption manifested in former violation as in Hezekiahs and Josiahs time the Apostacy to Idolatry occasioned the Covenant against it so likewise in Ezra and Nehemiahs time former