expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The â—greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliamâ—â—to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which
of Covenanting The particle Such seems to carry it to the quality of the Covenant in respect of the matter covenanted which afterward is particularly and in its proper place excepted against But the words of the Covenant suggested by this exception to be false do relate unto the act of covenanting as we have now at last for the preservation of our Religion determined to enter into a not such a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant And the place of this exception is in the beginning of their exceptions unto the Preface which may be said to be no part of the Covenant and therefore admits not an exception to the quality of such a Covenant Moreover the next exception puts it out of doubt that these words relate to the act of Covenanting in which they profess they finde not in our Histories any footsteps of a sworn Covenant on any occasion whatsoever So that it seems to be the Act of covenanting by Oath which they cannot conceive to be a lawful proper and probable means to preserve Religion from ruine Surely then Sir the weather was very misty about Oxford and made their minds very muddy that they could not conceive entring into Covenants and Solemn Leagues dictated by the light of nature and directed by the Law of God pursued and practised by all Nations and by Israel in the cases of their Religion as the utmost of humane policy and highest of security to their priviledges endangered as a method detecting concealed enmity debarring fraud expressing affection engaging conscience and animating resolution to be a lawful proper and probable meanes of security If it be good and safe as to our Civil I hope it is no less probable in our Religious concernments If Sir I had been to deale with one single student I must have told him That he started this exception more like a Sophistical Disputant than a conscientious Dubitant Fourthly They could not believe the entring into this Covenant to be according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms 4th Exception in the Oxford Reasons or the example of Gods people in other Nations for that they found not the least footstep in our Histories of a sworne Covenant ever entred into by the people of this Kingdom upon any occasion whatsoever nor could they readily remember any commendable example of the like done in any other Nation but are rather told by the Defenders of the Covenant that the world never saw the like before Whither Sir Answer will not prejudice carry men I cannot but wonder to finde the Masters Students c. of Oxford so much unacquainted with Histories as neither to finde in our own or other Histories a commendable example of Entring into Covenant I may not mind them of the Covenant made by the Nobles and people of Scotland among themselves and with Queen Elizabeth of England under and against the Papal might executed by the then Queen Regent nor of the Netherlands confederacy and Covenant These will not seem commendable in their sight now though so judged when England became their protection and encouraged nay defended them in them Let me therefore enquire whether they knew Israel to have been Gods people of another Nation and that they entered into Covenant in the time of the Judges in the dayes of Joash Josiah Hezekiak and Nehemiah in times of danger and defection in their Civil and Religious concernments And was their practice commendable 2. Did our Gentlemen of Oxford never finde any footsteps in our Histories concerning the Barons of Stamford Anno 1225. assembled not only without but against the Kings consent and covenanted each with other to demand the restitution of their Liberties whereupon a Parliament was holden at Northampton to give them satisfaction And again did they never finde in our Histories how in Anno 1258. they Assembled at Oxford agreed on Articles viz. The confirmation of the Charter de Foresta 2. The establishing of a Lord Chief Justice who might judge them by Law 3. The driving Aliens and Strangers out of England and the like and that they confederated by Oath and gave their hands and mutual faith one to the other Matth. Paris Hist Aug. p. 940 941 952 653. that they would not desist to prosecute their purpose for loss of money or Lands nor love nor hate no nor yet for life of them or theirs till they had cleared England of Strangers and procured laudable Laws And under this Covenant they brought the Kings Brother Richard King of Romans and Earle of Cornwall and caused him to sweare upon the Holy Gospels this formal Covenant Hear all men that I Richard Earle of Cornwal swear upon the Holy Gosples to be faithful and forward with you to Reforme the Kingdom of England hitherto by the counsel of wicked men so much deformed and I will be an effectual coadjutor to expell the Rebels and troublers out of the same Both these our Histories say were in the time and without the consent of King Henry the 3d. Not to trouble our Reader with the like in the time of King John King Richard the 2d and other Princes I must desire the Gentlemen of Oxford to tell us whether these were not people of England and these be not visible foot-marks of some Covenant of the people of England on some occasion And if they shall question whether they be commendable examples let them please to observe the commendable Epethite our Historian gives upon the last of these Covenanters calling them Angliae Republicae Zelatores But the defenders of the Covenant told them that the world never saw the like before I but they did not tell them that there are no footsteps of any Covenant made on any occasion whatsoever And if they had were the Masters and Students in Oxford resolved into such an implicite Faith as to believe an Enemy But I wonder these Masters of Reason had so little Reason as to conclude a general from the concession of a special Their Margent explaineth the concession of the defenders of the Covenant in these termes Such an Oath for matter persons and other circumstances the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we reade of in Sacred or humane Stories Know they not that there is a vast difference between the general form of an Oath or Covenant and those special Qualifications which may circumstance it and that a dissimilitude in the last will not conclude that there never was a Sworn Covenant on any occasion but sit verbum sat sapienti Thus Sir notwithstanding these learned Suggestions of the falsehood of the Preface and in it of the assertory part of the Covenant it yet continueth lawful because true and is our encouragement and assurance that the promissory part will be answerable For as in rational conclusions so I hope in Religious resolutions we shall find à veris vera sequuntur Subsectio Tertia The promissory part of the Covenant is in these six Articles I. THat we shall sincerely
he thus breaths against the Covenant Not to take advantage of the preposterous order in setting down the parts of this Covenant wherein he that runneth may read a double Solecism for in it the Church of Scotland precedeth the Church of England and the Liberty of the Subject is set before the Royal Prerogative and Imperial Dignity of the Prince Sir admit we this Is it not an high crime and bespeaks it not a sober serious spirit in Dr. Featly a Member of the Assembly of Divines who by a motion might have had this order inverted as easily as he obtained to have Prelacy specified in the second Article of the Covenant after it was past to pick a quarrel in the order of the words although we deny not That such a sacred and venerable evidence of fidelity is the Covenant that matter manner phrase and order ought to have as I presume they were been maturely advised yea I wish line and period word and syllable which might be the Printers Errata had been so scanned that a captious Momus might not find a Colon or Comma at which he might boggle and please his humour yet it is but a poor advantage from the punctilio's of order and honour to argue against matters of moment duties and exercises of Religion and by misplaced words to make an Oath or Solemn League illegal I but do I not run too fast he tells us he will not take the advantage an honest man is indeed as good as his word but I cannot trust him for his ninth Argument This Covenant is derogatory to the Honour of the Church and Kingdom of England Page 28. is thus proved The Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England I like not that mans grace that with the same breath will remit and retort an indiscretion yet Sir I cannot but enquire whether the preferring of the pompous gay-cloath'd Church of England before the poor Church of Scotland look not like a species of that impious partiality condemned by the Apostle James Chap. 2.1 2 3 4 5. Can we think this Dr. had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons or was acted by such a spirit of contradiction No this language was spoken after he was dead 2. But these Solecisms are not to me so obvious I stand still and cannot read them though I read the Covenant with all observation and regard yet I confess I find the Church of Scotland set before the Church of England and the liberty of the Subject before the Prerogative of the King but they are propounded with Relation to different Acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed I hope it is no Solecisme to put the factum before the fieri and to swear the preservation of good acquired before an endeavour to obtain the same or better or to prefix the pattern to what is to be thereunto confirmed when this Authors second thoughts had observed this salvo to his suggested * Page 29. Solecisme he grudges that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England for which he had little Reason if venerable Beda speak true in that he reports That * Mira divinae factum constat dispensatione pietatis quod gens illa quae noverat scientiam divinae cognitionis libenter sine invidia populo Anglorum communicare curavit Bed Eccl. His Gen. Ang. l. 5. c. 23. that Nation did at first communicate the Science of Divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England I hope it is no Solecisme to propound them as a pattern of Reformation who have first obtained it and from whom Christianity it self was at first to us transmitted The second supposed Solecisme is no more visible than this first for if the liberty of the people be the end and excellency of the Prerogative of the King as all wise Statists and Politicians do affirm he sure will admit to be the first in intention and endeavour although the last in execution and enjoyment and the rather for that it is so directed and dictated by the Maxime of His late glorious Majesty declared at the passing of the Petition of Right The peoples liberty strengthens the Kings Prerogative and the Kings Prerogative is to defend the peoplâ—â— liberty I am sure more serious and publick Statesmen than he or I shall ever make have judged it a Solecisme in Parliaments to support the Kings Prerogative by supply of moneys before the oppressions and burdens of the people have been relieved and their liberties secured and I believe I could prove that this is not the first Covenant made in England preferring the Peoples liberty before the Kings Prerogative without which the King may Tyrannize over slaves not Rule over free-ment which last is and will be His greatest honour The second thing in respect of which the Covenant is blemished and reproached as to the manner of making it 2. The nature and name of the Covenant vindicated Oxford Reasons Sect. 2. pag. 3. relates unto the nature thereof and the name is the noration of its nature and it is called a Solemn League and Covenant against which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do except stumbling at the name Covenant they were learned men and must a little stand on the propriety of words they therefore except against this denomination because imposed with a penalty which imposition say they is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant which being a contract implieth a voluntary mutual consent of the contracters whereunto men are to be induced by perswasion not compelled by power pactum est duorum pluriumve in idem placitum consensus To this Sir I grant that a Covenant in the strict acceptation of it must be an agreement by mutual consent yet I must enquire of these learned men whether the Magisterial imposing of absolute duty or actions otherwise indifferent by Superiours upon their Inferiours and that under a penalty may not be called a Covenant What think they of that injunction to Mankind in Adam Of the Tree of good and evil thou stalt not eat for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death we read not of any stipulation in Adam And Divines tell us it was neither necessary nor proper he being bound to accept the conditions his Creatour would put upon him I am sure this is generally judged a Covenant and that we commonly call the Covenant of Works Again In the Primitive Times of the Church adult persons did answer certain queftions propounded as bredis credo abrenuncias abrenuncio 1 Pet. 3.21 Beza in Loc. to which the Apostle Peter is though to refer his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza renders Stipulatio bâ—nae conscientiae apud Deum and from this order Tertullian concludes Anima non lavatione sed responsione sancitur Do these learned men as the Anabaptists think the Covenant of Grace is not passed between God and
their former Protestation if rightly understood in sundry the most material Branches of it Unto this Sir I must say that I know not what did appear to them to have been the power of the imposers and challenged in former times only unto me and many others it did appear not to he the meer natural Power of the People preposterously and in a tumultuous manner assembled who yet do appear to have a power to impose on themselves an Oath and to whom I find Soveraignty it self to speak it with due Reverence in some measure subjected and its obligation superseded if not made void clearly barred from execution if but by the impossibility put thereon as it was in the case of Jonathans Rescue which I shall only report in the words of Bishop Hall Saul hath sworn Jonathans death the people contrarily swear his preservation Halls Contem. p. 1038. his Kingdom was not so absolute yet more absolute than Englands that he could run away with so unmerciful a justice their Oath which savoured of disobedience prevailed against his Oath which savoured of too much cruelty and so long as his heart was not false to his Oath he could not be sorry Jonathan should live I do not in any case justifie the preposterous and tumultuous Assemblings and Assumptions of the People whereby they lay on themselves Bonds which must not be broken and cannot well without much difficulty be kept yet I cannot but observe many times whereby the Vox populi is Vox Dei as in the very change of the Government of Israel on which Dr. Hall Notes It was Gods ancient purp se to raise up a King to his People Page 10.24 how doth he take occasion to do it by the unruly desires of Israel but blessed be God this was not the case of the Covenant the imposers did not assemble on their own heads and by violence and disorder assume unto themselves an unusual power The power imposing this Covenant was a Parliament the Collective Body of the Kingdom Duly Summoned Regularly Elected and returned Rightly Constituted and Readily Embraced by King and Kingdom and animated with more than ordinary Parliamentary power by the Bill for their continuance against all Casualties so as not to be Prorogued Adjourned or Dissolved without their own consent And can any True-born English man in any measure acquainted with the constitution of this Kingdom or the Authority of the High Court of Parliament deny these to be a just and lawful Authority to resolve order and enjoyn yea and execute their Resolves Orders and Injunctions during the being of their power though not to establish Lawes to be executed when they were dissolved and gone Sir I cannot without sad thoughts remember the unhappy difference between His late Majesty and the late long Parliament which occasioned the unhappy opposition of the Peoples Liberty and the Kings Prerogative as I cannot but wish they had been acted so conjunctly that they might have seem'd to vulgar apprehension to have been but one so I cannot but judge it prudence that a period be put to the dispute thereof upon the now Happy Re-union of his most Sacred Majesty and these too long distracted Kingdomes I am clearly of opinion with Aristotle that Prince of Politians Aristot Polit. lib. 5. c. 10 11. That Regal Government is best established where the Princes and People do participate of it and that Theopompus the Spartan in transmitting some of his Prerogative to his Ephori Princes might well maintain the encrease of his Dominion whilst he made it longer by making it less I think therefore that the wisest men and best Subjects will rather think then assert a Prerogative in the King above His Parliament and I for my part should be content to find in the Parliament a sufficient power to impose an Oath on the Subject without the Kings consent rather than to assert their Superiority unto Him in all points and particulars And when Sir I consider the power even over and against their King in the Princes and the Collective Body of the People Recorded in Scripture as in making War Josh 22. Judg. 20. Changing the Government 1 Sam 8. Choosing and establishing not only their first but succeeding Kings though immediately appointed and sometimes anointed by God as in the case of David Solomon and Rehoboam and others in removing from the King Favourites and Counsellors as David was against the mind of Achish the King dismissed by the Princes of the Philistines 1 Sam. 29. in restraining the Kings purpose of destruction confirmed by an Oath once and again as in the case of Jonathan or of protection as in the case of Jeremiah the Prophet concerning whom Zedekiah the King said He is in your hands the King is not he that can do any thing against you Jer. 38.5 In these and the like cases Josephus tells us Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 18. the King might not do any thing without or against the sentence of the Senate or Congregation Methinks a divine defence may be well made for the power of the Parliament in this case acted and admitted though without and against the consent of the King And when I consider what is Dogmatically asserted by Polititians and no mean Lawyers in reference to the power of general Councils and Conventions of Kingdoms in general Foxe Acts and Monuments p. 616. as of Englands Parliaments in particular as in the Council of Basil against the Pope the whole Realm hath more Authority than the King The same asserted by Marius Salamonius who by many Arguments doth defend it De principatu lib. 1. p. 17 18. he was a Roman Lawyer and Philosopher Hollingshead and Vowel in their Description of England declare concerning the Parliament That this Court hath the most high and absolute power of the Realm and that not only without but against the King by it offenders are punished and corrupt Religion reformed or disannulled and that whatever the people of Rome might do centuriatis comitiis or tribunitiis Vot 1. cap. 1. p. 173. which I am sure was to impose an Oath the same is and may be done by Parliament unto which may be added what is spoken to the same effect and almost in the same words by Sir Thomas Smith Secretary of State to King Edward the sixth and Queen Elizabeth and a Doctor of the Law in his Common-wealth of England and Horne an Eminent Lawyer in Edward the first his Reign in his Mirrour of Justice cap. 1. p. 7 8 9. and Fortescue Lord Chancellor to Henry the sixth in his Book de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 9. and Bracton quoted by these learned men who certainly affirms more than they can approve Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item curiaem suam viz. Comites Barones c. Et ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno debent ei fraenum imponere and above all the Soveraign Powers
of Parliaments judiciously defended in our very case by that profound Lawyer Mr. William Prynne approved no less Loyal to and Zealous for the Kings Prerogative than Loving to the Peoples Liberties I see not how we can avoid this Conclusion That the Votes Orders and Ordinances of the Lords and Commons in Parliament even without or against the Kings personal command is to be obeyed and observed Lastly When I observe the Transactions of Parliament in the times of Vortiger Sigebert Ofred Beornerde Edwin and Edgar and other Saxon Kings Deo dictante annuente populo the power of Parliaments in the times of King John King Henry the third Richard the second and other Kings of England refusing to assemble at the Kings Call assembling without the Kings Writ establishing Laws correcting Vice and Misdemeanour executing Justice and entring into Oaths and Covenants without and against the Kings consent and when I observe in all Parliaments a power of regulating the Kings Court and Council of restraining limiting and enlarging the Kings power of Jurisdiction and Prerogative nay of making void or valid a Title unto the Succession to the Crown as in the times of Henry the eighth in case of his many marriages and that during the Session of Parliament all Laws are under covert at their feet to be by them established or destroyed and are by any Vote or Order superseded before a formal Repeal and that in all Ages and on all sides it is confessed and cannot be denied that the authority of Parliament is exercis'd in al Votes Orders and Ordinances of the two Houses unto the decision of present controversies upon Appeal from other Courts of Judicatory wherein they can and may authorize Examinations on Oath and make a final judgement unto the ease and relief of the Subject not otherwhere relievable unto the enforcement of any Act to be at present done and executed for the good of the Kingdom or any particular persons or society thereof without so much as desiring the Kings consent and concurrence and if this power should be denied what could the freuqency of Parliaments provided for by the old Law of King Alfred and after by the Statutes of 4. Ed. 3.4.36 Edw. 140. twice or at least once every year on this very ground that the people might receive right by holy judgment such was the judgment of Parliament deemed and that the mischiefs and grievances which daily happen might be redressed if need be on which account Proclamation was wont to be made in the open Palace before the breaking up of Parliament Whether there be any that have delivered a Petition to the Parliament and not received answer thereunto And this power removed what will avail the Triennial Parliaments conceded by His late Majesty or of what benefit was the continuation of this late long Parliament against all Casualties whatsoever that might fall out to dissolve them Can it be rationally imagined that their being should be continued and secured to sit within those Walls in Council and Debate without any power to order or execute the Emergent Affairs of the Nation These things well considered I s y I see not how the imposing an Oath can be an assuming or the people swearing an acknowledging of a greater power than hath in former times been challenged If these Gentlemen will consult our own Histories in the cases before touched they will find a power much greater not only challenged but assumed and exercised the which the season and present state of Affair do forbid me to recite in hopes that there will be no need to rip up our wounds newly healed and these generals may I hope sufficiently justifie the sufficiency of that authority which brought us into Covenant But these learned men suggest an inconsistency of this power with their former Protestation in sundry material Branches Methinks Sir they should have specified those Branches and the rather because material and many The Protestation contains not many Branches and those few seem to be fully conform to this Covenant in all the particulars and wherein they have supposed a contrariety we have before evidenced only a dissonancy at the most and that Ratione not Re in the manner of expression not the thing sworn they then protested to preserve the power and priviledges of Parliament and should not covenant any more nay scarce so much in this Oath for they herein promise to preserve the Rights and Priviledges which is something softer than power and I wonder they that then saw a power to be preserved could not now see a right I will only enquire whether they thought the Parliament had a power to impose that Oath and not a right to impose this There was no Act of Parliament nor Assent of the King to that I observe the King in His Messages to the Houses doth note it to be their own Protestation as if He had no hand in it nor consent unto it and if by power they should mean natural strength not political authority it hath been urged by many as their grievance and by these Gentlemen themselves in the foregoing Exceptions that they had too much of that It is the unhappiness of a scrupulous conscience to run it self on contradiction in actions as well as assertions to swear as lawfully called at one time but not to dare to swear an Oath containing the same matter though called by the same authority another time But that which was the greatest doubt with these learned men was Pag. ibid. 4. the King by His Proclamation Octob. 9.19 Carol. had expressely forbidden the entring into this Covenant it being in His power to make void the same That such an Interdict had been published by His late Majesty we cannot deny League Illegal p. 16. but not as Dr. Featly his ghost supposeth on pain of Treason for no Proclamation of the Kings of England did claim the formality of a Law so far as to fasten Treason on the non-observance of what is thereby enjoyned 2. I am not satisfied how regularly His Majesty did issue forth the said Proclamation which is not usually done but by the advice of His Council who are vailed by the Session of Parliament and all Proclamations then usually run by the Advice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled and if at any time the Lords and Commons or either of them during their Sessions give out Orders not only relating to the Estate they represent but to any others the Subjects of this Realm it hath not been usual for the King by the Authority of His Proclamation to thwart oppose and void them and in a case of this nature a good observer may find the Parliament have judged the Kings opposing or taking notice of any thing by them debated or ordered before it is regularly propounded to Him by themselves to have been a breach of priviledge and so to have been acknowledged and as such retracted by His late Majesty the little pleasure I have
the Preachers defended even in the University from censure for them nay these were Printed in several Books of the same Authors licensed and allowed by the Archbishop and his Chaplains and many of them asserted in the visitation Articles of some Bishops and yet were not established in the Church of England As in Doctrine so in worship many corruptions were innovated and exercised As Bowing at the Name of Jesus The turning Communion-Tables into Altars or Altarwise and Railing them in furnishing them with Candlesticks and Tapers Tying the Gospel the blessing and other parts of the publick service to that place enclosed and bowing to these Altars The making Crucifixes and Canopies pictures of God Christ the Holy Ghost Virgin Mary and other Saints in our Church-windows Consecration of Churches Fonts Bells and the like All which and many such were first innovated to the Chappel at Lambeth and ferried over to White-hall and so transmitted to all Cathedral and almost all Parish Churches and yet were not established by Law though enforced by the corruption of Discipline in the Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren Bishop Mountague Bishop Peircy Bishop Lindsey and Bishop Skinner and others in their several Diocesses and by the silencing suspension excommunication and imprisonment and High Commission vexation of Mr. Chauncey Vicar and Mr. Parker an Inhabitant of Ware Mr. Burros of Colchester and many others Nor was Government any more pure if we consider how it was exercised in the High Commission and Star-Chamber with all rigor cruelty and injustice and in Visitations Citations Probate of VVills Letters of Administration and Excommunication in the name and under the Seal of the Bishops themselves never authorized thereunto All which were evidently needful to be reformed as having been so publickly exercised and potently defended and might well enforce a covenanted endeavor to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England I well know Sir that the change of Religion makes a great sound in the world especially if established I cannot be insensible of the noise made by it against our first Reformation and must expect the Eccho to follow all after acts and degrees thereof for all changes are scandalous and many very dangerous If therefore these Masters and Scholars of Oxford could rationally conceive the Covenant to bind them to endeavor a change of Religion in the substance matter and essential parts and form thereof then I must confess their exception is very important for we cannot deny that our Bishops Martyrs and Learned Divines have by Suffering and Writing testified it to have been agreeable to the Word of God And that to resolve that into the power and pleasure of a Parliament who may direct and authorize the profession but not prescribe the matter or form were to make it a Parliamentary Religion and the change thereof must needs condemn our Laws and the punishment of Papists not joyning with us as unjust and so justifie Papist and Separatist the one in his recusancy and the other in his separation But Sir when I consider the Religion of Scotland to be preserved as the concomitant and provocation the VVord of God to be the Rule and the best reformed Churches professing the same substantial Religion though differing in administration and order propounded as the pattern I see not how right reason can render any such sence of it and the rather for that Reformation not alteration of Religion is the formal act which presupposeth the continuation of the subject about which it is conversant But Sir if they as they needs must by Religion understand the order and annexed Ceremonies appendant to Religion whether established as was the Cross in Baptism holinesse of dayes and order of the Liturgy and the like or only exercised and enforced by Prelates power and countenance as the corruptions before mentioned then we must say their exception is of no weight not the reason any thing worth for this change can be no such scandal as is conceived for we deny them to have been testified by our Bishops Martyrs and learned men by any Sufferings or Writings untill of late by the persons and such like before mentioned as agreeable to the Word of God and must put them to the proof of it we think we are able to produce Tindal Latimer Hooper Ridley Farrar and many other Martyrs by laying down their Bishopricks and other contests and sufferings to have testified against them and Mr. Cartwright Baines and many Devonshire Cornwal and Lincolnshire Ministers and others ever since the Reformation by Writing Petition Remonstrance Apology and Sufferings to have testified against not only the corruptions exercised against which our Jewel Fulk Whitaker Archbishop Parker Dr. Ward Dr. Brownrigge Dr. Bancroft and all sound and learned Divines not devoted to return to Rome have written but even the very Order and Ceremonies established as being not agreeable to the Word of God And if these learned Gentlemen had pleased to observe the Visitation and high Commission proceedings they might have found Prynn Burton Bastwick Layton Workman Langley Hind Nichols Ball and many others known learned men who were silenced suspended imprisoned stigmatized and in much Sufferings testified these appendants to our Religion whether established or exercised to be no way agreeable to the Word of God and I know not whom they can ment on as a Martyr for them unless it be Lawde the late Archbishop the grand Innovator of our Church 2. If therefore our Religion be by Papists or Prelates reproached as a Parliamentary Religion we will rejoyce in our reproach and bless God we had a Parliament that had zeal to improve their power about those things that were properly subject thereunto 3. Nor can this Reformation justifie the recusancy of the Papists because these things never became a Reason for their recusancy further than they occasioned their obduracy by assuring their hopes of Englands return to them Nor the Separation of the Separatists for that the corruptions established were never made such essential parts of worship as to make a sufficient ground for separation Witness Cartwrights defence of the Church service The Masters and Scholars of Oxford cannot have been so little observant as not to know that the sober zealous Non-conformists who groaned under the burden of these corruptions and for this Reformation were grieved by and greatly contended against the * Mr. Geree his Vindiciae ecclesiae Anglicanae shewing necessity of reformation not Separation And Mr. Balls two Books against Mr. Cann Separation as that which was without sufficient ground yet like Jesus Christ their Master kept Communion with a Church whose Doctrine and Worship was very much in need of Reformation and taught men so to do granting There was something in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of England not agreeable to the Word of God and yet not enough to lay a ground for separation 4. Much less doth this endeavor judge the Law against and punishment of Papists as unjust which
never had these pieces of Religion for their ground or reason You see Sir that the first ground of these learned mens dissatisfaction as to the covenanted endeavor of Reformation of Religion in England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government is clearly groundless supposing a change and suggesting a scandal not to be rupposed Let us try the strength of their second reason for this exception And that is They could not covenant this Reformation without wrong to themselves 2 Reason for this exception their consciences reputation and estates in bearing false witness against themselves and sundry other wayes swearing to endeavor to reform that as corrupt and vitious which they had by their personal subscription approved as agreeable to the Word of God and for which they had not been condemned of their own hearts nor convinced by their brethren that therein they did amiss 2. Which they are in conscience perswaded were not against the Word of God as they stand established by law 3. Which they believe to be in sundry respects much better more agreeable to the Word of God and pactice of the Catholick Church than that to be preserved in Scotland 4. To which all Clerks admitted to any Benefice are required to assent To these reasons Sir I should have answered 1. Credit is indeed a matter of concerment and Reputation is to be regarded and our Estate by all just prudent meanes duely preserved but they are not equivalent to the purity of Gospel administrations nor must be admitted barres to duy or stays from the endeavour of a necessary Reformation when called for 2. We are at a loss to understand their terms the establishment by Law is not expressed in the Covenant and many corruptions we have noted were exercised not established The endeavour of a Reformation of them though not them only was and is required and it is very doubtful how or where to find and prove an establishment by law to which they so much cleave yet I hope the defect in proof thereof will be no just demurre to the endeavour of a Reformation of what is really vitious and corrupt whether established or only exercised We must also entreat a comment on these words the practice of the Catholick Church It is well known that Rome doth engross and monopolize this Epithite nor can the Worship Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England admit it to be predicated of any so well as that for all reformed Churches do in their practice differ and I presume it will be hard to prove the agreement of the Primitive Churches in these particulars which were first derived from Apostate Rome and have ever since continued as the dregs of their Catholick practices not more to the grief of the Reformed Churches abroad and Non-conformists at home then joy and exultation of the Children of that Church as a plain evidence of their continued possession and encouragement to expect and endeavor a full recovery of England into her bosom But as to their Argument 3 The Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government might be vitious and corrupt notwithstanding their apprehension and assent to the contrary or the subscription of others required by the Law We well know that the Reformation of the Church in England was begun on more * Henry the 8th his discontent at the Pope Political than pious principles which did easily consent to a retaining of what was justly discharged in other Rerormed Churches embracing the administration of the Gospel in its simplicity for the sake of its naked self might consist with those Publick ends which did provoke it and Policy being the principle predominant in the first hath strugled against piety unto this last act and is not yet mastered and I presume the Scholars and Masters of Oxford will not plead an immunity from policy passion and prejudice when they are to pass judgment against their credits reputation and estates as in the case of this Covenant they apprehend they were to do and that these prirciples will provoke us to yield our own and exact from others an assent to things as agreeable to the Word of God which in themselves are vitious and corrupt no serious man or Christian can or will deny It is wel if we find this Reason stated under a more cautious vigilant and pious frame of spirit 4. But I must confess I wonder not so much to hear these Gentlemen to profess They had by their personal subscription approved the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of England as agreeable to the Word of God which might be an act of rashness an effect of ignorance an event of some distressed condition or distemper of mind fear of losing or hope of gaining preferment as to hear them say That this was enjoyned by law to them and all that were admitted to benefices That the Doctrine of the Church was to be assented unto I grant is by Law established but the assent to Worship Discipline and Government I observe not to be enjoyned by any full and formal Law I find indeed something relating to Discipline in the ordering of Deacons and Priests Bishops and Archbishops and the Churches power about traditions and Rites or Ceremonies inserted into the 39. Articles but how or by what Law they are established 13. Eliz 12. I know not The Statute requiring Ministers assent doth not specifie the Articles particulary and the general Note whereby to know them laid down in the Statute is this Articles of Religion which ONLY concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments This particle ONLY is in my judgment exclusive to Discipline and Government and how these came into the Articles I know not only I find the Epistle to His late Majesty before the * A Book supposed to have be on written by Mr. William Frynn Quench-Coal to charge corruption and forgery to have been acted about these Articles and earnestly implores justice against the Forgers and Obtruders thereof and untill the Legality of the Canons of 1603. and sence thereof be clearly asserted and fully vindicated from the * Necessity for Reformation p. 56 57 58 59. exceptions which are urged against them we must be at a loss for their establishment for if the King had not authority by vertue of the Statute pretended or the matter of them be repugnant to standing Statutes as is suggested the establishment of Worship Discipline and Government by law must abide very doubtful but the University of Oxford might make a Law unto themselves to which these Gentlemen might refer But 5. Whether established or exercised I think it very strange to see these learned men on serious thoughts to profess their own hearts did not condemn them nor had their brethren convinced their judgements they had done amiss by their personal subscription to approve the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of England to be agreeable to the Word of GOD but
and excommunicating of the best of men for meer trifles things indifferent so judged by themselves at the least nay many times for opposing profaness and superstition yea for performing their duties in praying and preaching and the like evils which did attend it though I should say but accidentally by the corruption of Montague Laude Wren Pierce and their Companions be written in such sensible Acts and legible Characters that England might feel and the World read them I think there need not be much of Reason offered to shew not only the expediency but necessity of extirpation of a Government though in it self good yet capable of such enormities unlesse it be of an immediate and undoubted divine right But Sir Had not Oxford their numbers in Parliament and did they not trust them with their understandings or must a Parliament offer Reasons of the necessity and expediency of every Act they impose on the Subject before the Subject yield obedience and yet the Vote of the House of Commons past the 10th of June 1641. viz. That this Government hath been found by long experience to be a great impediment to the perfect reformation and growth of Religion and very prejudicial to the Civil State together with the learned Speeches of many Members in the House printed to offer Reason without as well as within doors might have laid something before the judgments of these Gentlemen I presume Sir the Subjects obedience must not in the judgment of this University be suspended untill the Reasons of State producing the resolution be known to and and apprehended by every person and society 2. If this Prelacy judged thus evil were but contemporary with Popery Superstition Heresie Schisme and Prophaness though we should presume it good I hope it may be ranked amongst its fellows and taken upon suspition it may be a grief but no wrong to stay an honest man found in company with Thieves when he hath cleared himself justice will let him go But Sir if this Prelatical Government be in the formality of it a plain and clear Papacy as the deriving it from Rome and its standing on no basis but the constitutions of the Church when Popish and institution of the Pope not Christ or any Christian Magistrate nor General Assembly of the Ministers of the Church of God in this Kingdom the owning of Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury Papam alterius mundi the content all Papists find in the same could they but continue it in dependance on Rome for Consecration and Investiture pure circumstances not of the essence of the Government and principally its springing from the same principles standing on the same Basis the indulgence of Princes and being supported by the self-same Arguments and Authorities which are urged by Bellarmine and the Council of Trent History of the Council of Trent Edit 3. p. 589 590. to p. 616. for the defence of the Papacy in all which respects it must needs appear that the difference between an universal Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop is in degrees and limits not in kind for is there not the same reason for Arch-bishops over Bishops to receive their Oath of Obedience as for Juridical Bishops over Presbyters and so the same for Cardinals over Arch-bishops and Popes over Cardinals do suggest it to be and if it were the Foot-stool or Stirrup of the Papacy as Salmasius doth at large demonstrate in his Apparatus ad Papatum and as Beza doth affirm when he tells us Episcopi Papam pepererunt Beza Epist 79. I hope it can be no great wrong to ranck it with Popery which might be its proper name though through use of a larger signification And if Sir its Rule whereby to square it and Reason of sustentation be that which is not more openly Canted by some then indeed generally practised viz. No Ceremonies no Bishop whereby the Cross in Baptism the Altar the Surplice and other matters innovated into the worship of God the use of which how edifying soever to the Church of God is a formal Superstition it cannot be much abused to call Superstition its companion And if it have been found to indulge Heresie by publishing and printing cum priveligio all Heretical Notions and silencing the Pulpit and stopping the Press from all possibility of Confutation or if by innovation of Superstition into worship and obtrusion of Error in Doctrine on the souls of men it hath provoked Schism I hope there is no great cause of complaint for putting these together with it And if it have been approved a protection and promotion of Revels Church-ales Clerks-ales The seventy two Ministers of Somersetshire in their unanimous consent to the continuance of Revels Church-ales c. Sports and Pastimes on the Lords day so that its Deans and Chapters or other Colledge and Conventions have proved like unto Bishop Pierce his Septuagint in their Agreement against Justice Richardson's order for suppressing of these and the like profaness certified in a letter to the late Arch-bishop dated the fifth of November 1633. and suppressing all Ministers that refuse to stir up such licentiousness as did the visitations of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Bishop Pierce and others it sure can be no great wrong to rank it with profaness and intimate it to have in it some contrariety to the power of godlinesse to which whatever some few very few Bishops might do the current of Episcopacy did never yield much countenance or speak much amity Sir in these and the like respects the extirpation hereof must be endeavoured by all that will not partake of other mens sins and I must be free to tell them that in their Parallel case propounded which yet will not square the alteration yea extirpation of the Civil Government of the City capable of such proximity unto Treason Murder Advltery Theft Cousenage and the like would be by all ingenuous men judged both just and reasonable but I insist too long in abatement of their affection who offer Arguments by which they were perswaded to adhere unto their object let us therefore weigh them severally Subsectio Octava This Preface being past they proceed to the Reasons why they cannot Covenant an endeavour to extirpate Prelacy that is to say The Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours or Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-deacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy And they propound five Reasons two relate unto the Government the third and fifth unto their own capacity and the fourth unto the estate of the Church according to this order I shall consider them And 1. Oxford first and second exception to the extirpation of Prelacy They tell us They are not satisfied how they can with a good conscience swear to extirpate Episcopal Government which say they we think to be if not Jure Divino in the strictest sense by express command yet of Apostolical institution that is to say was established in the Churches by the Apostles according to the mind
conclusion so weighty is a very considerable opposition directly repugnant to their confidence of an universal uninterrupted exercise of this Form of Government for now had Epiphanius more warrantably and on better grounds called this an Heresie I should not much regard it nor will their assurance of this Argument avail to establish this kind of Prelacy or to anticipate the promise on Oath of a due endeavour to extirpate it We see Sir there is nothing of weight in the Government either on the supposed Apostolical Institution or ancient universal uninterrupted practice that could bar from taking much lesse bind unto the breaking of this second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant let us consider what is in the state of the Church of England Oxford fourth exception to the second Article of the Covenant which may bind the perpetuation of this Government or be of force to bar the extirpation thereof and that in their fourth exception to this Article wherein they tell us In respect of the Church of England they cannot swear to extirpate this Government for three Reasons 1. The Inconveniences which attend all change in Government and in this is like to be great it being deeply rooted in the Laws and of strong influence on the Civil State 2. Repugnant to the Declaration of the Commons-in Parliament 3. And a striking at the foundation of this Famous Church of England Unto all which I cannot but briefly say That the two first seem in my thoughts very little to respect the Church for the alteration which might ensue in the Civil State might consist with and conduce unto the being and well-being of the Church and the declared purposes of the House of Commons might be contradicted without any great reflection on the Church 2. Jealousies of inconvenient effects must not intercept a duty These effects may be accidental the duty positive and it is the prudence of Legislators to fore-see and prepare against such incoveniences as may happen on the alteration of Lawes and Forms of Government I question how far the care thereof lieth on private persons or societies And if these jealousies were of weight for continuation of Episcopacy now why not at the destruction of Monasteries and Abbies and exclusion of the Popes Supremacy which was the root to which Prelacy is but a Branch since continued in conjunction with and influence on the Civil State by Magna Charta the grant of the glorious King Saint Edward and most of the ancient Lawes from which this Government doth at this day draw its sap and strength 3. The Delaration of Parliament pleaded as a Bar to this extirpation doth offer Reasons for its alterations which I think are of weight viz. its strenuous study and endeavour to effect a conjunction between Papists and Protestants in Doctrine Discipline and Worship being before agreed in judgement its Tyrannical imposing a Liturgy in Scotland and enforcing it after an happy pacification by his late Serene Majesty with the Bellum Episcopale its violence and cruelty to Religion and Religious men in the Star Chamber and High Commission Courts and what themselves observe its influence on the Civil State which made this Prelacy odious in all Ages and was a very likely provocation to its extirpation in England as in Denmark and if they will but please to consider that sinful superiority over the Ministers of the Gospel which is the anima animans very form of it and cannot be capable of any remedy but by its ruine all which having been published in print by many Petitions to Speeches in and Declarations from the Parliament might have offered Reasons for the extirpation to counterpoise nay weigh down all feared inconveniences which might arise had these learned men pleased to have observed them so that if the House of Commons did any way declare the continuance of it it was from their indulgence and willingness by all fair means if possible to regulate it rather than any merit of the Government it self 4. But the supposed repugnancy of this branch of the Covenant unto the Declaration of the House of Commons is not to me so visible these Gentlemen refer us unto the Remonstrance of December the fifth 1641. and tell us That the House of Commons Remonstrated that it was far from their purpose or desire to abolish the Church-government but rather that all the Members of the Church of England should be regulated by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament Which words by the variation of the character I imagined to be the words of the Remonstrance but on search and second reading of the Remonstrance I find no such sentence in the same some parts of the sentence in the Remonstrance themselves have transcribed in the Margin and it is this They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all Church-government which Text will not justifie or allow their inference for it proclaims not the Parliaments purpose but Malignants policy not that it was far from their purpose or desire to extirpate this kind of Government but that the malice of their enemies did infuse they would abolish all Government Surely Sir prejudice was very prevalent in these learned men of Oxford which made them read instead of a complaint of grievance a Declaration of purpose and from the complaints of a general charge to intend to abolish all Government to infer a purpose of preservation of this specifical Government as if all Government were included in it had they pleased to have read the whole sentence they would have seen that the words were much more general abolish all Government and leave every man to his own fancy for the service and worship of God which they might not do and yet extirpate the Prelacy and late Episcopal Government of England no marvel that this mistake makes them imagine and insert into the Reason a rather that all the Members should be regulated c. which desire is not therein expressed but only a profession of their knowledge That His Majesty was under God entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament I think Sir a profession of his Majesties Prerogative is vastly different from a Parliamentary proportioning of the Prelates preheminence and the Kings Supremacy may be acknowledged when the Bishops are degraded and set among their proper Peers And now Sir this repugnancy between the Covenanted extirpation and Parliaments purpose of perpetuation appeareth a think so of like nature with the Apostolical Institution of this Episcopacy and it would be enquired whether it be more malignity to suggest to the people a purpose in the Parliament by them never declared and so make them obnoxious to the charge of self-contradiction or infuse into the people the verity and plainness of their meaning not to abolish all Government but to extirpate this kind which through the whole
Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dangerous if they will evade the influence compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case I dare secure them from it in reference to the second 5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England is her foundation which if it be removed what shall the Righteous do And these serious Casuists do tell us That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England and they proved it by the Law for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation and Christ an enemy to Prelacy the corner stone and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profess They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy strike at the foundation of the Church which they are bound to uphold Truly Sir their care of the Church and its foundation is commendable but how comes it to pass that this Form of Government must be made the foundation of the Church without any danger of Schism by them to whom Scotlands making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church did seem so much tending to Schism Must the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion the very esse of the Church and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction Turpe est doctori c. Sir we cannot deny the proofs cited and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies propounding doubts professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied so much to content themselves and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies such Sophisme as better beseems the Logick than Divinity Schools and common Halls than the Regent house Two things are to be explained What they mean by holy Church and what foundation this is to which the Statutes relate These learned men wel know that by holy Church in the acceptation of that Age and of those very Acts the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile and the Statute of Edward the third was meant the Pompous Popish Ecclesiastical State whereof Abbies and Priories were no small Members as in Magna Charta and other Grants of Kings which had then such influence on the Civil State as that no Act of Parliament could bind or be deemed valid without the ratifying censure of holy Church whose manner was by her authority to curse all that should not keep such Lawes as were agreed I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out and tell us whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church or that the Church of Christ may not yea do not subsist in England now holy Church is driven out the Church simply Christian is very different from the pompous popish holy Church Again Sir the foundation mentioned in these Statutes is sutable to the Fabrick Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 22. holy Churches viz. the temporal endowments whereby she was made so pompous the Lands Mannors and large Revenues given by the King or Nobles of the Land as the question occasioning the same doth plainly evidence which was Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies and all Benefices in England and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement were just and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare providing for the advousance and disposal of all Benefices and the profits thereof in manner as the founders that is first donors had established and so the Prelacy in which it was founded is an Independency as to Rome and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free and within her self in respect of which in the very words of the Statutes themselves it is said The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores of such Possessions and Benefices doth give and grant the same to Aliens which did not and Cardinals which might not dwel in England as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the said Benefices as he was not of right after the Law of England so that this Prelacy is purely Political and the foundation more profitable than pious could these learned men be so absurd as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons Possessons and Presentations and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation and by vertue of this Political Prelacy the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishopricks to their Chancellours Treasurers Secretaries Kinsmen meer Lay-persons for increase of their means Pryns Catalogue of Testimonies for the parity of Presbyters and Bishops p. 16 17 18. and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void for 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15 20. and sometimes 30. years together by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist when her Prelates her foundation in their sense was wanting or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Christ because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy Ecclesiastical Prelacy like the Petrae and Rupes as in the time of King Henery the third have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church and in the State that they have constrained the Kings and Parliament of England as of all other Nations in all Ages to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds and at last to Covenant the extirpation thereof wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe we not only pull an old house about our ears but destroy the very Church if we have not wit enough to see how they would cosen us by the Law of man instead of the Law of God and a false gloss on fair words Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Government by Episcopacy of the estate of the Church of England we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government yet that little we shall consider and it relates unto their personal capacities in their third exception or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception In reference to their personal capacities they say They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice ingenuity or humanity to require the extirpation of this Government Oxford Reasons third exception against extirpation of Prelacy unless it had been proved unlawful what Sir if it had been proved inexpedient it would have been consistent with Saint Pauls Justice Humanity and
by a spirit of Prelacy will it not bespeak that Government prejudicial to the Civil State which condemneth Conventicles in acts of piety but admits Families the Subjects houses the places and natural affection to be the protection of Treasonable Seditious Conspiracies But they adde against this Article that it binds to suffering punishment by an arbitrary power without Law or Merit contrary to the liberty of the Subject declared for by the House of Commons Let us Sir but read the words of the Covenant and that will evidence a contradiction to the Parliaments Declaration of the same nature with those we have before observed the words are these That they may be brought to publick Tryal and receive condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall deserve or the Supreme Judicatories of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient If Sir condigne punishment on publick Tryal according to the degree of the offence be without law or merit and Judicatory Supream Judicatory be Arbitrary High Courts of Justice and their proceedings will be Just and Regular and the liberty of the Subject for I think them to be more Opposites than the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant Unto the fifth Article of this Covenant Oxford Exceptions to the fifth Article of the Covenant they profess a readiness to confederate but they pretend to a double Remora 1. They do not see the happiness of such a blessed peace between the three Kingdoms Ireland being at War within it self To which I should have said no more than this Gentlemen where are your eyes and what obstructs your sight when you sware the Protestation you sware By all just and honourable wayes to endeavour to preserve the union and peace of the three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Was not Ireland then at War within it self Or have you forgotten that it was so or is not the Peace now concluded by both Parliaments and confirmed by this Covenant a greater happiness of settlement than was then obtained Sure some strong passion acted these learned men to make Mountains against the Covenant what were Mole-hills wssen they swore the Protestation But their second Remora is That no peace can be firm and well-grounded which is not bottomed on justice whose proper and adequate act is jus suum cuique unless the respective Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire To this I should say no more then this Specifie the defect of this Covenant as to these particulars for I cannot read or understand if they be not all secured by the same Suggestions without plain Demonstration do proclaim jealousie and prejudice but make no Argument or good Apology against required duty Unto the sixth and last Article Oxford Exceptions to the sixth Article of the Covenant being an Obligation of adherence to this Covenant against all opposition they say no more then what must be expected that untill they be satisfied in the Premises stated in the foregoing Articles of the Covenant they could not su scribe to this Conclusion which we must needs admit them hoping that a more cool serious survey of the Covenant second thoughts on their Exceptions thereunto may satisfie their consciences and lead them to bewail their unhappiness in throwing such stumbling blocks before their weak Brethren under the Name and Authority of a Famous and Learned University and for their groundless dissent and refusal of an enjoyed duty relating to the Honour of God Reformation and defenct of Religion Honour and Happiness of the King Peace and Safety of the Kingdoms in a Solemn League and Covenant which Sir we find notwithstanding these so much admired Exceptions approves it self lawful in respect of the matter therein sworn to be preserved or pursued and will the better stand under all defects and miscarriages in point of manner and form of making it which is the next thing to be considered Sectio quarta Proposition 4. The Form and Manner of making the Solemn Leagne and Covenant was good and allowable IN the Consideration of this Position I intend not to consider the Form constituting it an Oath which is evident and known to all to have been a Solemn Calling to God to witness and avenge the violation or neglect thereof in respect of which its obligation is established against whatever defects and miscarriages did attend the agitation thereof from which nevertheless I would desire it as much may be acquitted for it is pity so good matter should be blemished by the circumstances which attended it Nor shall I insist on an Historical Narration of the publick Assemblies in which it was taken the Solemnity thereof in respect of the quality of persons the Parliament both Lords and Commons the Commissioners of Scotland the Assembly of Divines making the first Assembly that entred into it nor the Order by Solemn Humiliation and Prayer and serious Instruction and Exhortation which attended it nor the universal alacrity joy and content of the most serious in England and Scotland which accompained this first Act of making the Covenant nor the after particular Solemnities both for number quality and disposition of persons and religious composed order in which it was taken in the City of London the several Counties and Congregations of England then which I may boldly say no publick Act ever passed by and among the people of England more solemnly or more religiously which though it be now darkned and despised doth set a lustre on this Covenant to abide under the greatest contempt and reproach cast upon it and will most strongly bind in the presence of God and men But my intentions are to defend those actions as good I do not say necessary and allowable which were and might be done without any sin or any debilitation of the Covenant against which I find the Exceptions of the Enemies to the Covenant most strongly bent that thereby they might represent it vile if not render it void and these are either 1. The order of the words 2. Nature of the thing 3. Authority which enjoyned it 4. Or the action and gesture of the body used in the swearing of this Covenant All which I humbly conceive will be found such as might well suit so solemn an Act as is a National Covenant yet I find some late opposition thereunto and in special by the Oxford Reasons and the League Illegal I shall briefly try their strength 1. Sir As to the order of the words I find Dr. 1. The order of the words vindicated against Dr. Featliey League Illegal Pag. 14. Featlies ghost in the League Illegal like some hellish fury representing the Dr. to have been a man so haughtily devoted to the punctilio's of order and honour as not to brook or keep his hands from tearing a List Catalogue or Register wherein they who were below him should be ranked above and named before him in sense whereof
in the story forbids instances hoping general hints may answer the learned and sober 3. Nor am I convinced that it was in His power by the equity of the Law Numb 32. they mean 30.2 to annull and make void the Covenant for admitting the equity of that Law by Analogy to reach us I hope no adult child shall on observation of irregularities in the Government of a Family be barred from vowing in his place and calling to his power and capacity sincerely really and constantly to endeavor the Reformation thereof viz. Quenquam qui gaudet usu rationis ita plene sub alterius potestate esse quin ut sit quantum ad aliqua saltem sui juris is Dr. Sanderson's Rule though the effect may yet the lawful endeavour cannot be out of the childs reach De Turam if the child or wife swear nothing but positive duty or what is within their power and so limit their vow I hope the Superiours interdiction will favour more of passionate mistake than strength to avoid the vow Yet I must confess I am not clear that the equity of that Law will reach our case I was ever willing to yield His Majesty the Reverence due to a Political Parent but in this case of conscience wherein He is abstracted from and opposed unto the Parliament I find a defect which makes me fear the simile will not square and though I can own Him as a Parent to be by Him corrected and disposed yet methinks the Parental power is placed in others at least conjunct with Him viz. the Parliament I am sure Legislation is Paternal power and Execution more proper to the other Parent and that the Lords and Commons have a share if not the greatest share in Legislation no true Englishman nay no ordinary Polititian can or will deny when I observe the King sworn to Rule according to the Laws quas populas clegerit which the people shall choose and the Writ for their Election to require that they be furnished and have plenam sufficientem potestatem pro se communitate c. ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem de communi in consilidicti Regni nostri contigerint ordinari ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi c. dicta negotia infecta non remaneant Paternal Authority power to consent and make Laws in the great Affairs of the Kingdom as the Family and when I observe Polititians and Lawyers even English-men generally to conclude the forma informans form animating the Law to be the consent or choice of the people whence Marius Salamonius that great Lawyer defining the Law saith it is Expressa Civium Conventio and makes this the Reason of their obligation Ligatur populus legibus suis De principatu lib. 1. p. 35 36. Instin Cod. 1. Tit. 17. Lex 8. quasi pactis conventis quae verae sunt leges whence Theodosius the Emperour writing to the Senate of Rome doth declare consensus universorum to be the formality of those Laws that he would establish to which our Hollingshead and Sir Thomas Smith before mentioned doth fully assent and concur as likewise Fortescue who makes the King to be as the Minister in Marriage who may establish and declare it but the consent of parties gives it being and the common Dialect of our own Statutes being the Assent of the Lords and Commons and Authority of Parliament wich no less frequency than the Assent of the King and that the contriving debating fully forming by frequent reading serious consideration and full disputes is the peculiar work of the two Houses whilst a Ministerial Declaration though in a Dialect and form of Majesty is the proper and only work of a King though I deny not a Parental power and Prerogative to the King I cannot but judge it more than probable that the proper Paternal power is in the Parliament or at the least in the three Estates and then Sir we are under this unhappy question Whether to obey father or mother when they falling out command different nay contrary things this I confess is not more the distraction than the confusion of the Family yet certainly in such an unhappy chance prudent and rational children must and will cleave to the principal legislative party who hath a confessed authority and power to extend or restrain augment or diminish the Prerogative and Ministerial power of the other bound to act according to their appointments Sir Dr. Gaudens Appeal to the Oxford Reasons hath led me to this Discourse and unwilling distinction but my prayer is and hence-forward shall be that England may honour father and mother and know no difference for the Case is now altered and this Argument is of no force as I thought I had sufficiently hinted in my last for His late Majesty forbade the Act but never assumed an Authority to void the Obligation and His most Sacred Majesty by His own subjection to it Declaration for it and Oath to endeavour the Establishment thereof hath as is before noted made it valid and I hope such as call Him Father will weigh the equity of this Law Numb 30.2 and not only acknowledge their brethren bound by it but themselves become subject to the same bond which had before a lawful and sufficient but now hath a compleat and perfect Auhority 4. 4. The gesture in making the Covenant vindicated The fourth and last particular in the manner of making the Solemn League and Covenant is The action or gesture of the body used in the swearing thereof to declare the assent of the minde by which prophane spirits do endeavour to reproach it for that it was not sworn after the ordinary manner used among us by laying the hand on the Bible but by lifting up the hand towards heaven Amongst those who have of late appeared against the Covenant I find none speaking against this gesture League Illegal p. 21. save only Dr. Featlies ghost who like it self more scurrilously than seriously pretends to Answer one Text of Scripture which he supposeth to be the only one for defence of this gesture Rev. 10.15 The Angel lifted up his hand and sware c. Unto which he saith That might be a fit gesture for an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world which yet may not be thought so fit a gesture for men entring into an holy League for the preservation of two Kingdoms If they can as the Angel stand upon the earth and the sea at the same time let them imitate the Angels in lifting up their hands when they make their Covenant Howsoever I think it a fitter gesture in taking this Oath than after the usual manner to lay the hand on the Bible for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that Book and the lifting up of the hand very well expresseth the purport of the Covenant which is a lifting up their hands against the Lords Anointed and his