bound to keep it The most therefore of Dr. Featly's and the Oxford Reasons against the Covenant signifie nothing to our present case Dr. Gawden's late Arguments signifie as little many of them were considerable before the taking of the Covenant but argue insufficiently for the violation or irritation of it but as to that Point are clearly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 10. It is agreed by the eminently Learned and Reverend Dr. Sanderson and all Casuists That an Oath may be unlawful respectu rei juratae De Jur. prom prael 2. Sect. 14. or respectu actus jurandi with respect to the thing sworn i. e. the matter of it or in respect of the Act of swearing What Oath soever a man takes unlawful in the first sense doth not oblige But an Oath unlawful in the second sense when once taken doth oblige Our question is not about the lawfulness of taking the Covenant but the necessity of keeping of it by such as have no desire to seal up their souls to damnation and sacrifice their honour to a reproach before the world For Perjurii poena divina est exitium humana dedecus saith Tully § 11. Dr. Gawden and one Mr. Rowland have expresly spoken or at least pretended to speak to the true question but with what success the first hath done it will be discerned by that excellent Answer which Mr. Crofton hath given him which might have superseded any further pains if there had been no cause to add somthing to some Pleas made or further improved by others and to second Mr. Crofton with the Suffrages of Casuists and especially of Dr. Sanderson in the case and for the other we judge him not worthy our notice § 12. It was Augustines opinion that although Pelagius was fully answered yet every one should write against such a common enemy of the Gospel It is our Opinion that those who any waies contribute to bring souls under the dreadful guilt of swearing falsly are such common enemies to Christianity yea to mankind an Oath being the common security of the Sons of men that those who go about to invalidate it having their hands against all men deserve to have all mens hands against them as doing that which is not pleasing to God and contrary to all men § 13. We cannot but admire the Religion of our Late Famous Soveraign Ch. the First a man of much sorrow and Afflictions and to whom it was continually suggested that the Covenanting Party of the Nation were the Causers of them though indeed some of the Prelates were the true and proper cause by exasperating his Subjects by their illegal and enormous actions yet in the midst of these sufferings he is found thus speaking in his Meditations upon the Covenant As things now stand 〈…〉 pag 86. good men shall least offend God or me by keeping their Covenant in good and lawful waies since I have the Charity to think that the chief end of the Covenant in such mens intentions was to preserve Religion in purity and the Kingdoms in peace § 14. By which expression not only your Honours and all sober men may judge what an insufficient Plea in conscience they bring to absolve us from the Covenant who plead his Majesties dissent at first declared and afterwards continued as to the imposing of it upon others But you may also discern that his Sacred Majesty had more Charity for those of your Honours who took that Covenant than our late Absolvers have who can see no end in the giving or taking of it but Faction and Rebellion and we know not what As also that his Majesty had more Godly jealousie for the soules of his people ingaged in it that they might not be destroyed by Perjury than some late Casuists whose proper Office it should be to watch over soules The Lord lay not their sin to their charge § 15. But Right Honourable above all things that they talk there is nothing considered as a Reproach more intollerable unto us or considered as an Argument more ridiculous to all that shall hear of it than what they urge in order to the absolution of their credulous Proselites from the high presumptions of those who having engaged in the same Covenant with us so horridly violated the Oath of God in the murder of his Majesty of Glorious Memory c. § 16. His Majesty in the midst of his Exile was pleased in his Instructions to him who is now Lord Chancellor when he was sent Ambassador for him into Spain to do the Nation of England that Justice as to declare those Actions 〈◊〉 Actions only of an inconsiderable Faction of Miscreants and your Honours have been pleased to take 〈◊〉 of his Majesties justice in it as likewise in your first 〈◊〉 to his Majesty to declare That if the Parliament the Covenant-imposing Parliament had not been broken by a mutinous Army those things could never have been done Our Brethren know that divers of those who took the Covenant sacrificed their lives unto death in opposition to the violaters of the Covenant That for their adherence to it the House of Lords was broken up 200 Members of the House of Commons were secluded that of those who remained the number was very few that consented to those horrid actions that our Brethren of Scotland offered their lives and liberties in that Sacrifice that the Ministry of England openly declared against it to that height which caused the ruine of some of them made their whole Party odious to the Usurpers and such as they would never own or trust And therefore we cannot but think it a great want of Truth and Charity in our Brethren to charge those things so generally upon the Covenanting Party of the Nation who we humbly conceive have done more in order to the Ends of the Covenant relating to his Majesties Concernments in the day wherein the Covenant was to be pleaded on their behalf than any of those did who now are so free to lay these things to their charge § 17. It is a piece of new Divinity to us that if five hundred take an Oath and five of them violate it the rest are all absolved from the Obligation of it Yet the disproportion is far greater betwixt those who took that Covenant and those who so violated it both as to their number and quality § 18. The Oath of God Right Honourable is upon us and we are afraid because of it we have sworn to endeavour the Reformation of the Church of God in England in Doctrine Worship and Discipline according to the example of the word of God the best Reformed Churches To endeavour the extirpation of Popery Prelacy If this Oath be Obligatory we cannot break it without the highest presumption of wickedness and therefore must be Sufferers under the old Constitution of Ecclesiastical Government and Forms of Worship in England if it be restored We know your Honours will be tender of enforcing any to suffer for
Conscience sake and therefore humbly beg that you would weigh our Answers to the slighty and Atheological Pleas of those who pretend to prove the Covenant void and not obligatory What they say appears to us to be against Scripture Reason and the judgment of all sober Casuists and we believe will so appear to you § 19. The Princes of the greatest Congregation of England Right Honourable i. e. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament were those who sware and who engaged us to swear If our Adversaries may be believed the design of the Oath was to engage the Scots in the Parliaments quarrel His Majesty then living as we said before had more charitable thoughts sure it is that it was a mutual stipulation between the Scots and us Casuists say that my Oath doth not bind my Heir which is true in some cases but they as generally agree the real obligation of an Oath as to the person to whom we swear for their advantages We are sure the Jews which were punished with three years Famine in Saul's time were none of those who had personally sworn to the Gibeonites in the time of Joshuah yet God revengeth their Breach of their Fathers Oath upon them It may be worthy of your Honours consideration whether the Obligation contracted by Oath by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament 1643 1644. do not bind the Noble Lords with your selves who this day make up those Honourable Assemblies though personally you never were engaged in it § 20. However we know and believe that your Honours will be so jealous for the Glorious Name of God so tender of the Souls of the People in these Nations engaged in that Sacred Bond and so afraid of the wrath of God revealed in his Word and by his Providence against those who have made others Sufferers for righteousnesse sake and so careful for the Honour of the Nation that you will not by any Act of yours contribute to any of these ends which will all be the certain consequents of the violation of that Sacred Oath § 21. For as it cannot be imagined but that your Honours Authority establishing any thing contrary to that Oath will be a temptation to many to break that sacred Bond so it can as little be thought but that there will be many thousands in England who will believe that nothing can discharge their Consciences from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon them and therefore will be obliged to go chearfully into the Prisons which shall be provided for them and to suffer any thing rather than to sin against the Lord by such a presumptuous transgression § 22. Besides this we most humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the things endeavoured to be restored have upon former experience proved or may probably be judged like to prove of such advantage either to the civil or religious interests of England as may be fit to be laid in the Ballance with the laying aside so many hundreds if not thousands of Godly Ministers and the sufferings and undoing of so many peaceable and godly people as will be laid a side and made sufferers by the restoring of things in the Church to their formes state after an Oath taken to the contrary § 23. Many of your Honours we know have not yet forgotten how many hard things were suffered in former times by many Godly people in this Nation because in Conscience they could not submit to these things how many of the Kings Subjects were to the weakning of the Nation driven into Forreign Lands to the undoing of themselves and their Families how by this means divers Mysteries of Trades of manufacture in which the wealth of this Nation much lay were communicated to other People all which things formerly were judged worthy of Parliamentary Consideration § 24. We humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the same persons in most places of England be not again endeavouring to be possessed if they be not already invested with the same power and whether after twenty years suffering it be probably to be conceived that they are less full of rage Let enquiry be made at Oxford Cambridge Peterborough c. than formerly And if any hath so much Charity as to think that their sufferings have taught them more moderation we desire your Honours would enquire what specimens they have any where already given of it This we humbly move to your Honours that you may represent it to his Majesty whose Royal Grandfather was such a Zealous Defender of the free Grace of God against Arminians and who himself hath declared such a Zeal against vitious prophane and debauched persons that we cannot but believe him not truly informed either concerning the Principles or conversations of divers persons to whom advantages are given against their Brethren § 25. We are not Right Honourable against the use of an unimposed Lyturgy nor against Primitive Episcopacy we can submit to both we do not think the Covenant was intended against either of these But we are against the divine Right of Archbishops Bishops c. We believe that in the Primitive Church there might be Episcopus praeses a Grave Minister President over his Brethren living within a Circuit proportionate to his Ability for inspection and that without him nothing was ordinarily done in Ordination or Jurisdiction But that he alone could do any thing in either we utterly deny We are sure that in the Primitive Church there was no Archbishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons We are against those Forms of Worship contained in the Service-Book ordinary to be had We believe they are not established by the Lawes of the Land as we have heretofore in a Book for that purpose published made evident to your Honours We are sure that we have lifted up our hands to God that we will endeavour a Reformation in that Point We know that they are offensive in an high degree to the generality of godly and sober men that there are many things in those Books not to be justified in Divinity We are not against the 39 Articles which is usually called the Doctrine of the Church of England We are ready to subscribe all of them so far as they concern matters of Doctrine But we are against Arminianism against which not only King James of Glorious Memory gave an open testimony but the Parliament of England hath also heretofore openly declared And in regard the Patrons of those Points take advantage of some doubtful terms in those Articles as patronizing those their Tenets though the Kings and Parliaments of England have heretofore declared their detestation of those Points We could heartily wish a further explanation of them We are against moral and significant Ceremonies such as the Surplice the Cross in Baptism Bowing at the Name of Jesus Cringing to Altars c. We believe that these things are not only scandalous and unprofitable things that perish with the using but also
Majesties chusing the 32 persons to view the old Canons was the reason why King Edward did not do it King Hen. 8. being dead till a new Act was made to the same purpose to which latter Act K. Edw. 6. in his Letters Patents refers not to that of 25 Hen. 8. Nor is it yet determined whether a Kings confirmation of Canons makes them Law according to that Statute of 25 Hen. 8. supposing that K. Hen. 8. his Heirs and Successors as well as himself were intended in the Statute any longer than his Majesties Person lives who so ratifies and confirms them So that it is far from being so clear that we may adventure the violation of an Oath upon it that we have this day any Canons or constitutions Ecclesiastical of force either by the Lawes of God or of the Nation § 24. But admit this where shall we find any such Canon as this That the Government of the Church of God in England is and shall be by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Arch-Deacons so that it shall be unlawful either for the People of England in their callings and places to endeavour the extirpation of that Form of Government or for the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England to move for or to Vote the alteration of it and to engage People against it by an Oath Somthing of this nature must be proved before the Covenant will be proved contrary to the Lawes of the Church of England and if such a Canon could be shewed it is no Law for it is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation giving power to the Parliaments of England to repeal or alter any Lawes Statutes c. And all Canons contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of the Nation are aforehand declared void and null by the Statute 25 Hen. 8. § 25. By what hath been said appears the vanity of their Plea who plead that the Covenant is null and void because against the Lawe of the Church Let us come now to consider whether they speak more sense or truth who pretend it is void because contrary to the just Lawes of the Nation § 26. It being apparent from the former discourse that there was no Canon-Law of England in any force at the time of the composing imposing and taking of the Covenant the question only lies concerning the civil Lawes of the Nation which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. must give all the obligatory vertue which any Ecclesiastical deliberations can have amongst us The Lawes of our Nation are usually distinguished into The Common Law and the Statute Law The first is not written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncertain as may appear from the different senses of Judges in their Book-cases its matter and form is no other than the ancient Customs and Usages of the English Nation which having been retained for many years have been so familiarized with the People of the Nation that by a common consent they have passed and do pass for Law till they are cotrolled by Statute Our Statute Law is made up of the several Acts of about 260 Parliaments and yet is capable of daily augmentation § 27. If those who plead the Covenant contrary to the Lawes of the Nation mean The Common Law of England their sense is no more than this That by the constant usage of the Nation of England the Government of the Church in that Nation hath been by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Prebends Chancellours Commissaries c. and an Oath imposed by the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament taken by the People tending to the destruction of that ancient usage is void and null yea though the King of England disliking the first imposing of it yet afterwards approveth his Subjects taking of it and himself joynes with them and also taketh it Yet neither will this evidence the matter of the Covenant contrary to Law For in the Covenant we have sworn to endeavour the extirpation c. The Law which must be contrary to this must say You shall not endeavour c. Now we appeal to all the Lawyers in England whether there be any piece of the Common Law of England which saies to the Lords and Commons assembled in a Legal Parliament or to the People of England concerning any custom or usage in the English Nation You shall not endeavour in your callings and places the extirpation and alteration of it If there be sure we are the Statute 25 Hen. 8.21 doth control it declaring a full power in the Parliament of England with his Majesties consent to dispense abrogate null diminish amplifie any Lawes c. But there can no such thing be alledged § 28. So that here 's no contrariety to the Common Law Here is only The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament by his Majesties Writ legally taking notice that the external Form of Ecclesiastical Government amongst us according to a long usage of the Nation in the times of Popery viz. from about the year 600. till the time of reformation in the Reign of Hen. 8. and since that time after some regulation of it by Statutes was upon experience found at least very disconvenient to the reformed state of the Church amongst us and having power in them with the Kings consent to be afterwards had to abrogate null diminish or amplifie any English Lawes usages c. agreeing to extirpate this usage and swearing and causing the People of England to swear with them that they would in their callings and places endeavour to extirpate it Whether the King pleased to consent or no certainly they had power in their callings and places to endeavour such a thing The Covenant engageth no further We cannot understand any contrariety in this to the Common Law of England § 29. For the Statute-Law of England we shall only say this That the Statute-Law which must be contrary to the Covenant must speak to this effect The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament upon a Legal Summons shall not swear themselves nor make others swear to endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy i. e. the Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. Where to find such a Law we cannot tell No nor yet such a Statute as positively determines That the Government of the Church in England is and shall be by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Prebends Chancellors Commissaries c. It is true we often in the Statutes meet with these Names and we find the Statutes supposing them Ecclesiastical Officers and telling us That the Kings of England formerly founded this Church in Prelacy what kind of Prelacy and with what circumstances they say not but we are at a loss for any other save this implicit establishment by any Statute Law And we further believe that the Spiritual Lords before the time of K. Hen. the 8 would have taken it in foule scorn that any secular powers should have gone about by a civil Law to establish
unlawful and against the purity and simplicity of Gospel-worship and such against which we are highly engaged by the Oath of God which we have taken § 26. We humbly beseech your Honours to compassionate the many thousands of Souls in England who must be Sufferers to the undoing of their Persons their Wives and Children if these things be restored again amongst us We acknowledge our selves obliged if these things be established by your Act passively to obey and rather to seek our bread in a howling wilderness than any waies to contribute to the disturbance of civil Authority Prayers and Tears are our only weapons But oh let not the Cry of the Innocents be against the Parliament of England because God hath said he will hear their cry and help them If our Brethren think that no Government may be set up in the Church of God in England but the ancient Form and that the whole Nation is not concerned in the Covenant for which we plead and themselves be not personally engaged in it let them enjoy their humors But oh Let them not by your Honours be cloathed with power to suspend silence excommunicate deprive godly Ministers and people who are faithful Subjects to his Majesty and pray daily for him and for your Honours because they cannot comply with them in these things expresly contrary to the Oath of the Lord which is upon them § 27. We here lay at your Honours feet our Answers to their pitiful Pleas against us by which they would cajole us into Perjury If our Brethren have any more strong Arguments let them bring them forth only let us say with Dr. Featly Audiamus non phalerata sed fortia we have had enough gay words If notwithstanding all which hath been said our Brethren by misrepresentations to his Majesty or to your Honours shall obtain any power against us and shall make their old Furnace yet seven times hotter in which we yet trust his Sacred Majesty and your Honours will fail their expectations We know that the God whom we serve is able to deliver us But whether he shall please to do it or no we dare not deal falsly in our Covenant with him § 28. But give us leave to plead with your Honours as somtimes the Psalmist did with God Psal 30.9 What profit is there in our blood Suppose we should with our Wives and Families be driven from our Possessions and Countreys to seek our Bread in other Lands Suppose that the Prisons erected for Thieves and Murderers should be filled with Conscientious Christians lying there because they durst not forswear themselves what profit would his Sacred Majesty or your Honours have from the bloud of Innocents What pleasure in the ruine and undoing of so many thousand Souls only because in the matters of their God they differ from some mens sense What loss would his Sacred Majesty have by pleasing all the more sober part of his Subjects by a new unimposed Form of Prayer void of all offence by multiplying the Bishops of England so that they may be able to do their work by restraining them from their sole Jurisdiction not to be justified by any Scripture Reason Antiquity or the example of any Reformed Church § 28. We humbly leave our Groans before your Honours begging the Spirit of Wisdom and Government for every Soul in your great Assemblies professing our selves ready to hear any strong Arguments which our Brethren have yet to bring to prove the Covenant not obligatory and humbly desiring that in so Grave an Assembly where hitherto not obstreperous Clamours but Religion and Reason have ruled we may not be condemned for not doing that which we profess we dare not do because of that Bond wherewith at the Command of the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Parliament of England we are bound unto the Great and Holy God who hath said I will not hold him guiltless that takes my Name in vain CIPPUS Titulus Perjurium Carmen Steliteuticum Cromwellii Carmen Protrepticum Patriae O Faedus ô fides sacra O Nomen Numen Dei Rerum columna publicarum Tutela pacis militum concordia Regumque civiumque nuptialis arrha Et hostium studentium diversa par metus Quem nemo fecit irritum aut facturus est Te pactus ille victor ille dux ducum Dextrâ ter ad coelos levatâ Quid non patravit arduum Post haec sed idem conscio sub aethere Dextrâ ter in Scotos levata Rem gessit haud bonam benè 3. Septembris Et Imperavit Obiit diem suum An ideo Fortis Vafer lusit Deum Te sprevit a te spretus est Te rupit a te ruptus est Pessundedit te pessum est a te datus Cum stirpe totâ Oliva putris perfidus Cromwellius Infame nomen in futura secula Gentes per has exteras Injusta vota justus improbat Deus In vota justa seu vocetur Jupiter Seu Mahometes sive Belus Nebo Adest Jehova poscit ratam fidem Hinc Sedeciam cepit Assyrius levem Templumque mundi sedit in cineres decus Hoc fulminantem vertit Annibalem retro Nec pejeratus Jupiter lapis tulit Hoc Vngarorum fregit infidam manum Regnique florem Turca falce messuit Ducente Christo non suos contra suos Nec vis nec artes numen eludent sagax Quodcunque Christo teste pactum sanximus Missum per auras carpit irredux iter Et implet aures invocati Judicis Noctes diesque murmur aeternum ciens Ut nec subintrent bis ter horarum preces Ah! nequis in se vertat has Iras nocens Neu tam tremendo fulmini subdat caput An laedat idem reddat surdum Deum In pejerantes queis cubat sub pectore Alenda vulpes ipsa vel Clementia * III Decalogi Preceptum Diras minatur sed nec exorabilis Miseris supersunt vota felices probant Suscepta curis saepè sollicitos levant Neglecta rursus saepè securos premunt Sol ante liquidi jura dediscet poli Facemque nocti commodabit mutuam Nos quà m negemus Carolis pactam fidem Satis superque vidimus fraudes pias Vt Trojae Laomedonta perjurum luit Cromwellium sceleris insons Anglia Poenas tributo duodecennali dedit Tangamus Aras sanctius Plebs patres Profana regni si qua pars adhuc manet At nulla regni pars soluta foedere est Tenemur omnis Ordo Pastor Greges Et nasciturum spes in aureas genus Juremus omnes quod tamen juravimus Sacrae potentem Vindicem fidei Deum Qui regis uncti texit Augustum caput Semper daturos Caesari quae Caesaris Vt daturos esse quae Dei Deo THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE ancient and just reverence of Oaths evinced from the light of Nature the revelation of Scriptures the contempt of Perjury arguing Atheism worse than that of Pagans Page 1. CHAP. II. The
only which had they been first known had made the entring into such sacred bond unlawful Filiucii Qu. m. tr 25. cap. 8. ratione materiae inhabilis ad producendam obligationem in regard of the matter being such to which an obligation could not be created Filiucius tels us that an Oath must be interpreted according to the nature of the act to which it is annexed because he who sweareth intendeth to swear only that which he promiseth in the same manner and under the same conditions as he promiseth We much doubt the truth of this which dependeth upon another question Whether an oath may not bind a man beyond his intention when he swears Undoubtedly an Oath may oblige a man beyond his private intention and in this we think all Protestant Casuists agree That other Rule therefore given by Casuists is better Juramenti obligatio est strictè Juris That an Oath must be strictly interpreted quoad materia verba permiserint as strictly as the matter and words will bear and thus Filiucius agrees at last and Suarez with him And it were a woful shame for us Christians to dispute this when Tully tels us Cicero de Offic. lib. 3. that an Oath must be kept in that sense sicut verbis concipitur more nostro Yet Divines here ordinarily distinguish betwixt spontaneous arbitrary Oaths and such as are by others imposed upon us and concerning each determine thus 1. That such Oaths as we voluntarily take must be interpreted ex ipsius jurantis mente by our selves best Judges of our own sense 2. But such as are imposed by others must be by us interpreted according to the sense of those that imposed them upon us Thus Dr. Sanderson rightly determineth and quoteth Augustine in the case Ep. 224 225. He adds this irrefragable reason Because the end of imposing Oaths upon others is to create or beget to the Imposers an assurance from him or those that take them that they will fulfil what they swear or promise which assurance none can have who imposeth an Oath upon another if he that takes the Oath have a Latitude of interpretation left unto him with a liberty to abound in his own sense § 4. Yet both these rules must be limited so that neither our private sense of our Spontaneous Oathes nor yet the sense of those that impose Oathes upon others must be other then will comport with the just signification of the words or phrases in the Oath Vow or Covenant for this were to destroy the simplicity necessary to every Oath and indeed not to interpret but to coin an Oath or new Obligation § 5. We must conclude then That the sense of the Covenant being at the will of others imposed upon us for their security that we would do as we there promised must be no other then what comporting with the significancy of the words in which it was conceived was the sense of the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament concerning it And from a strict Obligation to the performance of it in their sense we see nothing can discharge the soul unless some publick Declaration at the taking of it we say publick for otherwise there was a deliberate voluntary deceiving the expectation of those that imposed it and we think Augustine speaketh a great deal of reason when he tels us that Whosoever deceiveth the expectation of him to whom he swears can be no less then a perjured person Which passage Dr. Sanderson quoteth out of him § 6. Nor that Parliament being now extinct can we imagine how we should better conclude their sense then by considering the words themselves in which they expressed this obligation and taking a view so far as we can of their precedent and subsequent Acts or Ordinances The words of the Covenant so far as concerns our purpose are found in the 2d Article thus That we shall in like manner without respect of persons endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy i.e. Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending upon that Hierarchy Superstition Haeresie Schism Prophaness and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness lest we partake in other mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues and that the Lord may be one and his Name one in these three Kingdoms § 7. The thing here Covenanted for is an Indeavour to extirpate Popery and Prelacy That we might the better understand what they meant by Prelacy they tell us It is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending upon that Hierarchy Certainly he that runs may read and here is no great need of an Interpreter We have not Covenanted against Bishops every Minister is a Bishop but against the Prelacy of Bishops but in regard that the Prelacy of Bishops is of several kinds there possibly may remain a question What Prelacy the Lords and Commons intended in the Covenant § 8. There is a 1 Prelacy of Jurisdiction and 2 a Prelacy of meer order The Prelacy of Jurisdiction is of two kinds for distinction sake we may call the first Pontifical the second Paternal The first is such a Prelacy where the single Prelate assumes to himself a sole power in Ordination and Jurisdiction and though it may be in a complement he cals in a Presbyter or two to his assistance yet it is ex abundanti what he judgeth not himself obliged to do It is not reasonable to imagine that the Parliament intended only the extirpation of this Prelacy Bilson de Gub. Eccl. cap. 13. for although Bilson and some others tell us that the Presbyters joyning with the Bishop in the imposing hands upon Presbyters was rather ad consensum than consecrationem Field of the Church l. 5. cap. 56. yet Dr. Field speaks more soberly and tels us There ought to be a concurrence of other Ministers hands as well as the Bishops in Ordinations they having an equal Ministry and power of order with him Nor had any such Prelacy as this ever any footing in England other then what the arrogance of some single persons gave it § 9. We call that a Paternal Prelacy where the Colledge of Presbyters hath a Prelate who must concur with them ordinarily in Ordinations and acts of Jurisdiction This say the most sober men was all the Prelacy which ever was allowed in the Church of England we are sure this is all for which there can be the least pretence of any divine or Apostolical authority § 10. The Prelate of meer order nothing differs from a continued Moderator having no more power than his brethren in Ordination or Jurisdiction but for order sake praesiding amongst them § 11. There being no question but that the Covenant is to be interpreted against the first the question only remains
Divine Providence nor yet each with other but also to discharge them from their useless employment in seeking knots in so even a rush by proving that none can be found so that they must be forced to cut this Gordian knot because it cannot be untied § 3. As to the material cause The matter of every Oath of Covenant being either necessary unlawful or indifferent And each of these again being possible or certain or impossible or uncertain If the matter of the Oath to which we are speaking be necessary as commanded us by the Word of God or indifferent where Gods Word hath left us at a liberty except it be impossible we are certainly bound to the performance of it by our Oath in the judgment of all Divines that we ever yet met with From whence every conscientious Christian by the way must needs conclude thus 1. If the Officers as to the external administration of the Church of Christ under the Gospel be so determined by the Word of God That no Church under Heaven nor any other powers can make any alteration in them but only ratifie and confirm what God hath there appointed Then unless we can find that Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons are the Officers appointed by Gods Word for the Government of his Church we are most certainly obliged by our Oath to endeavour their extirpation The reason is because although we had not sworn yet we are bound as Christians to endeavour in our place and calling that the Church to which we belong have in it no Plants which are not of our Heavenly Fathers planting and according to our former rule what we are bound to do without an Oath we are much more having sworn obliged to 2. Suppose the Government of the Church be not so determined by the Word of God as to the external Administrators of it but it be in the power of the Magistrate or the Church to add some Officers not there mentioned or to chuse what Form they please yet we having sworn against this Form of Government and against these Officers we cannot set them up nor own them but must if they be imposed upon us suffer under them The reason is because the matter of the Oath was indifferent libera and Juramentum tollit libertatem we having sworn it is to us no longer free § 4. No one can challenge the Covenant as giving an uncertain sound at least not as to this Branch of it What we sware to was not the general will of another nor the unknown Rights Statutes and Priviledges of a Society yet many Oaths of that kind are judged lawful by Casuists and generally judged obligatory though not without some exceptions but the thing in this Oath is expressed Prelacy and the particular species of Prelacy set down as plainly as can be imagined so that there can be no escape for any soul that feareth an Oath § 5. It remaineth therefore that those who plead the non-obligation of this Oath and have set up this new trade of absolving souls from it must assert the matter of it unlawful either primarily or secondarily either in its own nature or in respect of some accident § 6. Dr. Sanderson tels us that an Oath as to the matter of it is unlawful in its own nature primarily when it is contrary to the Word of God Secondarily When it is contrary to the just Lawes of any community in which we are involved That an Oath may as to the matter of it be unlawful ex accidenti when it hinders some good or occasioneth some evil to our selves or to others when a man 's own Conscience judgeth it unlawful Others add when it is contradictory to it self or to some former Oaths c. § 7. But the Casuists generally agree that every unlawful Oath is not presently void if once taken it will be necessary therefore not only to examine whether the Covenant as to the matter of it were unlawful but whether it were so unlawful that it doth not now being taken oblige which unquestionably it was if as some pretend it were contrary to the Word of God in this particular for no soul can be by an Oath bound to sin against God according to that known Rule Juramentum non potest esse vinculum iniquitatis § 8. But those who plead the Obligation of the Covenant upon this account null will easily understand that they will stand concerned to prove from the Word of God That God hath somewhere determined that either his Church Catholick or his particular Church in England should inalterably be governed by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Arch-Deacons c. Which when they have done we will freely grant them that the Covenant in that Point doth not oblige But this is such a task as none we have met with durst undertake § 9. That therefore which they chiefly insist upon is that the matter of the Covenant was secondarily unlawful as contrary to the Lawes of the Church or State-communities in which we are involved where we have two things to do 1. To examine Whether what they say be truth And 2. To examine whether it be conclusive § 10. The Church is either Catholick and Universal or particular Either Entitive Ministerial or Organical When we speak of a Church supposed to be in a capacity to make Lawes obliging others we must understand an organnical representative Church either Catholick or National or Provincial § 11. The Catholick Church in this sense must consist of a due proportion of Members sent from all particular Churches in the world who meeting in a Synod shall determine or have determined such and such things and we do confess though we dare not assert such Lawes universally obliging to all Christian People to the worlds end that we have and should have a great reverence for such constitutions But we do not believe that ever any such an Assembly met upon the earth nor do we believe the world in a capacity to convene such an one we have indeed read of some Councils called General Councils but besides that we find no such Law made by them neither do we believe them to have been such Assemblies strictly considered § 12. They must therefore understand the National Church of England Which may be taken as we said before entitively or organically In the first sence The Church of England is the whole number of Christian people in England professing the Christian Faith But when we speak of a Church making Lawes we must not understand Church in this Notion but must understand it considered as organical and then their power of making Constitutions or Canons obligatory to others must be derived either from the Word of God or from the Civil Magistrate What power can be pretended from the Word of God must be bottomed upon Acts 15. From whence all that is possible to be concluded is this That particular Churches of
Christians have a power given them by the Word of God to chuse fitting Messengers which being so chosen and met together may consult and determine in some Ecclesiastical cases But certain it is there was never such a National Convention in England so that we need not enquire the matter of Fact nor the force and power of such decrees how far and in what cases they do oblige either present or future Generations § 13. The power which any Synod Convocation or Convention met at any time in England can pretend to have had must be either from the Pope before the Reformation in the time of King Hen. the 8th or by vertue of some Act of Parliament since that time § 14. Our Absolvers talk so much of the Church of England and the Lawes of the Church and Sons of the Church by which they mean the Hierarchy though it will be hard for them interpreting the Church in that notion to answer the Papists asking them where our Church was before Luther for I am sure we had no Protestant Prelacy before that time that it will not be amiss for us to take a view of the Church of England under this Notion and consider what power she had and from whom derived to make any Ecclesiastical Lawes that should be this day so obligatory that an Oath taken against them must be forthwith void § 15. We are indeed told by some Ecclesiastical Writers of King Lucius who about the year 170. was an Instrument of planting the Gospel in England and that he in stead of the Paganish Arch-Flamins and Flamins established 28 Archbishops and Bishops but the evidence of it is so feeble that we find few giving any credit to it much less was the Nation so early christianized so far as to have any Synod so full as to make Lawes obliging the whole Nation Nor indeed is there any Authentick Records of any considerable English Synod till near the year 600 then Pope Gregory sent over Augustine the Monk to convert the Brittains and he made hast in his work baptizing 10000 in a day This doubtless was the man who first founded Prelacy in England himself being the first Arch-Bishop in conformity to the Order of the Romish Church whence he came we know that it is said by some that when he came her found here one Archbishop and seven Bishops but no such thing appears in his Letters not are their Names or places of residence expressed § 16. This Augustine by Authority derived from the Pope appointeth Bishops calleth a Synod and enacteth Lawes c. From that time which was the year 586. to the year 1205. we have no Record of any Ecclesiastical Lawes made in England the Christians here were doubtless governed by the Popish Canon Law Although in that time there were 43 Archbishops of Canterbury if we may believe Chronologers yet have we no Record of any obligatory Canons were made by them § 17. Betwixt 1205. and 1414. were 14 Archbishops of Canterbury beginning with Steph. Langton and ending with H. Checkly these all made some Provincial Lawes which are gathered together and put into some method by Lindwood Within that time the Pope sending over two Legates Otho in the year 1226. 11 Hen. 3. and Othobonus in the year 1248. which was the 32 Hen. 3. They also each of them made parcels of Canons which were after collected by Johannes de Aton and were all the Lawes of the Church of England as they call it in force Nor do we read of any more done till the 25 Hen. 8. which was the year 1533. Till this time the Church of England was lost in the Popish rubbish according to our Brethrens sense of Church for the Prelates there was none other no not one § 18. In that year the Reformation of the Church was begun by Parliament who made an Act printed in our Statute Book forbidding any of the Clergy from that time to presume to attempt alledge claim or to put in ure any constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons or to enact promulge or execute any such Canons c. or assemble to enact them without the Kings Writ calling them together and the Kings Highness his consent ratifying them c. So that from that day no Laws made by the Church could oblige us unless K. Hen. 8. first called the Church-men together and then ratified what they Decreed § 19. As to all former Church-laws the Parliament in that Act gave power to K. Hen. 8. to call together 32 persons to review all old Canons and to collect a body of Canons out of them being not contrary to the Laws of God nor the Laws of the Land which when they had done K. Hen. 8. was to confirm them and immediatly upon the review of the old Canons they were all by than Act abrogated and nulled and so all Canons also after to be made contrary to the Laws of the Nation c. § 20. Before these 32 persons could be called and meet and finish their work K. Hen. 8. dieth The former Act not giving power to the King his Heirs and Successors to call the 32 persons K. Edw. 3 4 Ed. 6. cap. 11. did not do it till the Parliament meeting in the 3d and 4th year of his Reign by a new Act gave him also power with the advice of his Council within three years to name the 32 persons which his father should have named § 21. King Edw. the 6. by his Letters Patents bearing date at Westminster 11 Nov. in the 5th year of his Reign authorizeth the 32 Persons whose Names and Powers may be seen by the Copy of those Letters Patents prefixed to a Book called Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum They met and within the three years time reviewed all and compiled that Book called as aforesaid upon which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. The old Canon Lawes were utterly abrogated but before King Edward had confirmed this new Book he died So that there was no Lawes of the Church of England left in any force § 22. Q. Mary succeeds she revives the old Popish Canon Law Q. Eliz. after her reviveth the Reformation In her time several Injunctions and Canons were made After her time K. James summoned a Synod Anno 1603. which made 141 Canons but as Qu. Elizabeths to our knowledge were never confirmed so much as by the Royal assent so the latter were never yet confirmed by Act of Parliament by which alone we are told that our Consciences can be obliged is perfect Lawes § 23. It is observeable That in the Statute 25 Hen. 8. authorizing such Canons as should hereafter be made in Convocations assembled by the Kings Writ being first confirmed by the King It is not said by the Kings Majesty his Heirs or Successors though in other parts of the same Act those words are added It is very probable that the want of those words in the following part of the Act concerning his
them We have read of the heavy stir in King John's time when the King of England did but pretend to the Nomination of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to what a base degree of condescention the Pope and his children here in England humbled their Sovereign for that offer § 30. The truth is no more than this The Parliament of England in the beginning of our Reformation being engaged in prudence to drive no further nor faster in Reformation than the Lambs could go the present state of the Nation could bear which at that time was but very little the Popish party being then the greatest by far the Reformed Party such as did but see men like trees imperfectly discerning the things that differ in Religion were pleased to proportion the Reformation accordingly so as neither the newly Reformed Party might be lost by too much seeming innovation nor the remaining Popish party exasperated too far Hence in matter of Doctrine nothing was agreed till the year 1562. which was the 4 of Eliz. not ratified by Parliament till 1571. viz. 13 Eliz. near thirt years after the first beginning of Reformation Hence in the matter of Worship the same Lyturgy was continued which was used in the Popish Mass only leaving out the Prayers to Saints and for the Pope and the second Edition of the Common-Prayer Anno 5 6 Edw. 6. was much amended in many things from that 2 Edw. only in the business of Kneeling at the Sacrament Didoclavius observeth it was left at liberty by the Common-Prayer-Book 2 Edw. but commanded in the Edition of it 5 6 Edw. 6. yet not without an excellent Rubrick to expound the usage of it still to be seen in the Common-Prayer-Book Edit 5 6 Edw. 6. viz. Anno 1552. but left out in our ordinary Books for what Reasons let any one read and judge As to the Form of Church-Government the reforming Parliaments in the time of Hen. 8. found one in being and the persons exercising it in great power they therefore thought fit not to dispute that Point only to regulate that power which the former usages of the Nation and the Canon-Law had invested them with requiring them to seal with the Kings Arms in their Seales to do nothing without his Writ V. Stat. 5 Eliz. 23. c. Other Parliaments since have denied them any assistance from the civil power to back their censures but in some particular cases and forbade them to administer any Oath to fine amerce 17 Car. or imprison any of the Kings Subjects removing the Bishops out of the Parliament-House c. This is all the establishment we can find that the ancient Hierarchy of England had by any Law of England § 31. But suppose they were so established do our Brethren take it for such an undoubted Gospel-Maxim that an Oath taken against the Lawes of a Nation of what kind soever written or not written consonant to or dissonant from the Law of God is forthwith null and void and no waies obliging Do they believe this such a truth that men may venture the damnation of their soules upon it and venture the curse of God cleaving to their house till it hath consumed the timber thereof and the stones thereof Zech. 5.3 upon the truth of it They may talk thus in drollery to their friends or credulous Proselytes they may to shew their grandiloquence and liberty of phrase in laxe discourses thus speak in Pamphlets but we are so well perswaded of some of their skill in divinity and of their other Learning too that we believe they know that no Scripture no reason no creditable authority will justifie any such thing and they would be loath that their crime in these swelling words of vanity by which the soules of people are ensnared should be expiated by that slight penance of any of their standing two or three daies in any of our schooles to defend such an atheological maxim against what Arguments would be brought against it nor would we desire fairer play in our case § 32. 1. In the first place they will certainly grant that it is false if the Lawes of the Nation to which an Oath pretended contrariant be contrary to the Lawes of God For the contrary assertion were to set up one Higher than the Highest So that if he who hath taken the Covenant doth believe that the Government of the Church in England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries be contrary to Gods Word suppose that it be established by Law or were so established the Oath doth bind against the Law And certainly if Gods Word establisheth any Form it is so for there is in it ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of Deans Prebends Archbishops Chancellors c. § 33. 2. In the second place Our Brethren will certainly grant that in case the King had immediatly consented with his Parliament and imposed the Covenant though it had been expresly apertly positively against any Law or Lawes of the Nation yet the Oath had obliged because they altogether had a power to suspend annul and abrogate any Law It is true this Oath was only imposed by Lords and Commons the King at present not consenting We are no Lawyers nor can we tell how far the power of Lords and Commons extends as to the suspending of the exercise of Lawes or giving of Oaths But we have heard that 2 parts of the legislative power of England lies in the Lords and Commons and that they have of themselves given Oaths in many cases in what cases we know not After this his Majesty declares That those who had taken the Oath should least offend God and him in keeping of it His Majesty that now is takes the same Oath declares his approbation c. Shall it yet be told us that the Oath is void because against the Lawes when all 3 States to whom the legislative power belongs have approved of it Certainly they must have an easie Faith that part with it to such kind of Assertions § 34. 3. But suppose there had been no such thing but the Oath had been meerly spontaneous Our Brethren speak without their books in discharging mens Soules upon this Plea Dr. Sanderson will tell them that if the Law be poenal and hath in it an election either of doing the thing or suffering the penalty an Oath will bind against the active part Fortassis possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari et si non debuerit suscipi De juram prom prael 3. §. 9. susceptum tamen potest obligare ut exempli causa in lege poenali disjunctivâ He puts the case concerning the Law of a City That he who is chosen Mayor by the Freemen shall hold in case he refuseth he shall pay 100 lb. Suppose such a Law and this Law respecting this City established by Act of Parliament A particular Citizen hath taken a private
Oath that he will never bear the Office of Mayoralty in that City this man is chosen by the Freemen What shall he do Not hold saith Dr. Sanderson but pay his money his Oath will bind here against the active part of the Law So that if there were 40. penal Lawes which might seem to establish the Hierarchy against which the Covenant is directed the Covenant will bind us against them all thus far viz to suffer the penalty annexed for not owning them rather than to own and acknowledge them But yet further § 35. 4. Let us examine the reason why an Oath should not bind against Law There can be no other pretended but the dominion which God hath reserved to Superiors over their Inferiors So that if this which we call Law be not clearly an establishment of our Superiors to whom legistative power belongs which meer usage and custom is not arguing no more than permission of Superiors or if the Law be an exercise of dominion in things ubi non habent dominium where Gods Word allows them no such dominion an Oath will certainly bind against such pretended Lawes Hence Azorius well notes that boni mores sunt varii i.e. Azor. mor. qu. l. 11. cap. 6. good manners or customs are various some commanded by the written Law of God some by the written Canon Law some by the Civil Law And saith he that maxim that Juramentum contra bonos more 's non obligat An Oath against good manners customs lawes doth not oblige is to be understood if it be contra bonos more 's juris naturalis vel divini Scripti vel Canonici secus autem est si juramentum sit contra bonos more 's jure civili institutos i. e. against good Lawes or manners commanded by the divine Law of God written or by the Canon Law but 't is otherwise if those good manners be only commanded by Civil Lawes Sanches l. 3. cap. 9. Suarez l. 2. de jur cap. 21. Layman tract mor. l. 4. cap. 6. To the same purpose determine Sanchis Layman and many other Casuists The reason why they add the Canon-Law is because they believe their Church cannot erre so that an Oath against their Church Canons is to them equivalent with an Oath against the Law of God § 36. 5. Yet it must be granted that Oaths in some cases against Civil Lawes may be void but it is far from being granted to be an universal Truth Abbas Sylvester Azorius Molina Lessius Layman Sanches Suarez all agree that an Oath will bind against any civil Law if the Law doth obligare ad paenam non ad culpam necessariò i. e. oblige not necessarily to sin in case of refusal but to punishment which is what we said before nay the most of them add further that it will bind against them ubi materia legibus opposita sine peccato sieri potest i.e. where the matter of it can without sin be performed being not contra jus naturale aut divinum 6. Bartolus Bartolus de fide jussor the great Lawyer gives several Rules in the case 1. He saies an Oath taken against the Civil Lawes of a Nation made chiefly for a publick good will not oblige which Rule yet Azorius doth not think proved by Covarruvias or Imolas the friends of Bartolus in the case 2. An Oath taken to confirm a Bargain which Bargain is contrary to the Law will saith he bind till the Church absolves As if one swears to pay an Usurer more than the Law alloweth the Usurer to take or to pay a Thief a Summe of Money to redeem his life supposing a Law to make such a Contract void yet the Oath would bind Sayri claevis regia l. 11. ca. 13. Upon this case Gregor Sayrus determines That supposing a Law that all contracts for the payment of money won by play shall be void yet if one have sworn to pay his Fellow-gamester he is bound to pay it He quotes with him in this opinion Navarrus Bannez Salon Lopez Med na c. A third Rule he gives is this 3. If the Oath be only contrariant to a civil Law made only for the advantage of him that sweareth the Oath will bind against the Law We dare not justifie all these Rules But we will put a case or two to our Brethren who are so free of their pardons and absolutions in this case All know that it is against the Law of England that a woman under Covert Baron should dispose of her estate which she hath in Joynture Suppose now her husband proves a Bankrupt or be imprisoned for debt or suppose the woman her self wants money and she to furnish her self or deliver her husband borrowes a sum of money swearing to him of whom she borrows it that if God lets her live to enjoy her Joynture some Deed which she makes against Law for the security of the Creditor shall be made good though against Law Shall not her Oath bind her The Law of England expresly forbids giving above 6lb per cent for Interest Suppose one swears in his necessity to give 8lb per cent Will not this Oath bind think we in short Azorius determines bluntly Quando contractus est solum jure civili interdictus jurejurando confirmatur That an Oath will bind to fulfil a contract only forbidden by a civil Law § 37. We are not altogether satisfied in the Popish Casuists reasons for this determination we judge this question cannot be well resolved without the resolution of another very weighty question viz. How far humane Lawes bind the Conscience We do believe that all such humane Lawes as do necessarily tend to preserve the Government and tranquility of a civil state because they are confirmed by the Law of nature and the divine Law revealed do apertly bind the Conscience so that an Oath taken against them is forthwith void But for Lawes not plain and certain and express nor having such necessary tendency to the being of a civil state nor being so conformable to the Law of Nature or written Law of God whether they lay such an hold on the Conscience as to make void an Oath we think deserves our Absolvers second thoughts possibly the taking of such Oaths might be at first inadvised and unlawful but being taken that they are voided by second thoughts that the matter of them was against Law we cannot but a little doubt and believe our Brethren have few Casuists or other Divines of their minds in the case § 38. Nor yet is this our case where the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament to whom though not solely the legislative power belongs do themselves take and require others to take an Oath to endeavour the extirpation of a Form of Government which they apprehended inconvenient which it is true was established by the usage of a long tract of time but no positive Law was existent directing it as the Government of the Church in England though
several indeed supposed it that an Oath so directed and imposed doth not oblige against such a pretended imperfect legal establishment is we confess a piece of divinity the depth of which we cannot fathom nor yet believe that there is any truth in it If any of our Brethren in earnest think otherwise they should do well to bring forth their strong Reasons or to tell us what one Divine Ancient or Modern is of their minds till that time it is sufficient for us out of a reverence to the sacred Name of God to dissent from them in this notion proved as yet by no Scripture no reason nor any creditable authority § 39. For what some tell us that this Covenant was against Magna Charta the Petition of Right c. they appear to us scarce to have read either The latter saith not a word of the Government of the Church In the former there is only this general Article We have granted to God Magna Charta cap. 1. and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and our heirs for ever That the Church of England shall be free and have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable And may she not be so though Prelacy by extirpated Are Archbishops and Bishops c. more concerned in Magna Charta than Abbots and Priors Yet what are become of their Liberties Was not the priviledge of Sanctuary of making Canons c. some of those Rights Yet are they not taken away by Act of Parliament Surely so may the Church-Governours mentioned in the Covenant CHAP. VII The Absolvers Plea from Schisme considered The nature of Schisme No guilt of Schisme by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy Their Plea also from the supposed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant to the matter of former Oaths particularly the Coronation Oath the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and Canonical Obedience answered and found vain § 1. OUR Absolvers foreseeing these easie Answers to their afore-mentioned Pleas or at least being aware that if Prelacy be left to stand only upon a Parliamentary Foundation it will be liable to extirpation by succeeding Parliaments have not rested here but raised their Plea higher telling us That Episcopacy hath no Original but from the Apostles and looks very like an immediate institution of Christ's either preceptive and explicit or tacit and exemplary so that to abjure it runs us upon a Rock of Schism and dasheth us both in Opinion and practise against the judgment and custom of the Catholick Church in all places and ages till of later daies from the Apostles daies with whom we ought to keep communion in all things of so ancient tradition and universal observation In these words or to this sense they speak all § 2. It is very observable that if there were any truth in this Plea it would not only conclude all our Brethren of the Reformed Churches in France Holland Geneva Scotland N. England most parts of Germany Schismaticks For that is nothing with those with whom we have to do but it would also supersede all civil power 's thoughts for ever medling with the Government of the Church for fear of violating an Institution of Christ and the order of the whole Catholick Church and being posted up for Schismaticks § 3. But is it so indeed Or is this the noise of those who thunder thus because they cannot hope with any solid Arguments to do much let us a little consider these big phrases and see what they signifie The Papists have so enured us to this suffering under the reproach of Schismaticks for breaking off from the order of their Catholick Church that we begin not so much to regard the Charge or at least not to believe every one who calls out Schism and Schismaticks when they have nothing else to say § 4. Schism properly signifies a Rent or Breach which when it is from or in the community of a Church is very sinful both because against the Command of God directly and interpretatively but it must be from the Communion of a Church walking according to the Divine Rule otherwise if the Churches deviation especially be great there 's no great fear of any guilt by Schism in departing from it § 5. If indeed God by his Word hath any where appointed that the Government of his Universal Church shall be by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Chancellours Commissaries c. and the Church hath alwaies walked in that order we confess then that out Oath against it is Schismatical But we desire our Brethren to prove this § 6. Nay if God hath left the Church to its liberty to set up what Form of Government she pleases and the Universal Church hath at any time met in a perfect General Council and determined this inalterable Form or by an universal practise hath kept to such a Form there may be some colour to charge us but neither shall our Brethren prove this to us § 7. We challenge all the friends of Prelacy to make it good from any authentick Record that for three hundred years after Christ there were any such Creatures known in the Church of God as Archbishops Archdeacons Prebends Commissaries Chancellors Pope Stephen indeed in the 3 Century is called the chief Bishop of Rome in the fabulous decretal Epistles but Cyprian writing to him cals him no more than his Colleague In the 4 Century we read of Bishops Elders and Deacons Ambrose mentions them Dionisius and Optatus mention no more in this age Hierom in his Epistle to Nepotianus tels us l. de Dign Sacerdot that Bishops and Presbyters were the same only the latter were the younger men Ambrose tels us they had one and the same Ordination Indeed towards the end of the 4 Century which was 400 years after Christ they began to multiply Ecclesiastical Officers then came in Readers and Exorcists Subdeacons Archdeacons and Archbishops c. But we have already forsook the Order of the Church at that time when it was wofully declined from its Primitive Purity and shall be no more guilty of Schism in going a little further § 7. We said before that we find in Ecclesiastical story early mention of Bishops but not of such as ours were in England Our Bishops 1. Lay claim to a sole and single power in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. They are not chosen by the People nor Clergy 3. They are attended with Deans and Prebends Archdeacons c. 4. They execute their power by Lay Chancellours Commissaries c. 5. They have used to exercise a power in depriving Ministers suspending silencing excommunicating for trivial cases not paying a Tythe Goose or Pig c. Let our Brethren shew us such an Episcopacy before Antichrist was up in his Throne if they can if not they vainly charge us with Schism in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of such a Prelacy for which is no foundation in the practise either of the Primitive or any Reformed Church § 8. We are further told how truly
Argument for the Absolution of any The Question is here viz. Whether he that hath subscribed that the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops Bishops c. expressed in the Common-Prayer book contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God and who hath promised Obedience to his Ordinary and sworn to it may not after this take an oath in his calling to endeavour the extirpation of the Government by Arch-Bishops c. § 14. First suppose that upon mature deliberation the Ministers that subscribed and took that Oath of Canonical Obedience find that it was an unlawfull Oath or Subscription as obliging them to the acknowledgement of such a power in the Church as is by no means allowed in the Word of God they are in such a case onely obliged to be humbled for their rash subscription and taking of that Oath and their Second Oath against them will hold valid Nay secondly suppose that that Oath of Canonical Obedience was imposed without authority of Parliament And the Parliament as soon as they took notice of it declared their dissent to it and to all Oathes imposed without their authority Certainly this should go far with them who make the like plea against us as to the Obligation of the Covenant § 15. But thirdly we will for once suppose the Oath materially good and lawfull as to the efficient cause yet certainly the Oath is irritated and made voyd by the Parliaments taking away of the matter of it Nor do we understand how any person by a promise or an oath to be obedient in things lawfull and honest to this or that Governour doth oblige himself whatever evil he seeth in such a Governour either through want of just title or male-administration of his trust never to endeavour to free himselfe from that servitude If indeed we had sworn in the Oath of Canonical Obedience never to have endeavoured the Extirpation of the Government then to have taken the Covenant had been to have sworn to contradictions and the first Oath would have made the latter voyd unless the matter of the first had been proved to have been unlawfull and so the first Oath had been Vinculum iniquitatis But we shall need add no more in answer to this Plea which if it were good could absolve very few § 16. The next Oath to which they pretend the Covenant to be contradictive is the Oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation We must confess we are not so fit to speak to this being no Lawyers onely thus much at first offers its self 1. That his Majesty who now is hath not taken it as yet but hath taken the Covenant 2. We cannot find that the King doth swear to maintain and uphold the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops and never to consent to an Act of Parliament for the extirpation of them there is certainly no such thing Ah but he swears to defend the rights of the Church they will say and Episcopacy is one of the rights of the Church The Oxford men quote the passages of the Coronation Oath which they conceive the Covenant contradicting Thus He swears That he will keep grant and confirm the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King See this Case of Conscience about the Kings Coronation Oath excellently resolved by M John Geree St. Edward And that he will grant and preserve unto the Bishops and to the Churches committed to their charge all Canonical priviledges due Law and Justice And that he will protect and defend them as every good King in his Kingdom ought to be protectour and defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government § 17. We doubt whether both these clauses be to be found in any Coronation Oath which our Princes have taken If Mr. Prin gives us a true relation neither of them were promised by Edw. 6. We find them indeed both the first in the Oath which King James took at his Coronation in England the second in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in Scotland they might for ought I know be put together in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in England where there was certainly an alteration made in the forms of prayer lately used some were added which were omitted ever since Hen. 6. time Reign of King Charles p. 20. saith Mr. Le-Strange the same Gentleman avows there was no alteration made in the Oath 2. It seems strange to us that the Reverend Bishops should put the King to swear the Confirmation of the Liberties and Rights granted to the Church by Edward the Confessor many of which were before taken away by Act of Parliament as may be seen by comparing the Acts of Parliament since the time of Hen. 8. with the Records of those Grants of Edw. the Confessor which the Reader may find in the close of Sir H. Spilmans Concilia Pambrittanica § 18. However it is certaine that one thing which the King also sware was the Government of the Nation according to the Laws of the Land made or to be made so that his Oath for confirming the Churches Rights and Priviledges must be interpreted as to those Rights which were and should continue ratified by the Laws of the Land otherwise there was a manifest contradiction in the Oath as to those two passages § 19. For the Kings Oath to maintain the Bishops and their Churches it contradicts not the Covenant which strikes at nothing but Prelacy of Bishops Arch-bishops Chancellors Deans Prebends c. Bishops and their Churches may be preserved in England though these be extirpated But no more need be said as to our present case for the Oath which any former King of England took concerned onely himself Obligatio juramenti est personalis non realis as I think all Casuists agree His Majesty that now is is obliged by no such Oath § 20. For the Contradiction which Doctor Featly assignes in the Covenant to the Protestation by which we sware to preserve the Liberties of Subjects out of which number Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters are not to be excepted it is not worthy of an answer for by the same Argument after that Protestation taken the Parliament could not have questioned any one Minister of State or any other person at least not annull their office which certainly none will assert since their Liberties as Subjects might be preserved sure and yet their Liberties as Prelates abridged CHAP. VIII The Absolvers Plea for the irritation of the Covenant from the supposed Contradictions in it self Confuted and the Covenant notwithstanding this suggestion proved valid and obligatory § 1. HAving reconciled the Covenant to former Oathes it is time that we should reconcile it to it self for as through its fighting with its elders and betters 't is possible an Oath may so lose its strength that it cannot hold a soul so by hard conflictings within it self too 't is possible it may contract
that weakness no man being bound to do things contradictory which indeed were impossible at least in this case which we have before us And this seems a task reasonable for us considering that the Adversaries of the Covenant have arraigned it of this before the world and pronounced sentence against it § 2. I shall onely premise this That where a man by an Oath Vow Covenant obligeth himself unwarily to doe many things though afterwards he finds that two of these things are contradictory and the contradiction of them dischargeth his observance yet he will stand bound to doe the other thing contained in that bond An Oath may be unlawfull in some part and yet Obligatory unlawfull as to some part and yet obligatory as to other parts Dr. Sanderson de Jur. prom prael 3. sect 5. Aq. 22. q. 89. Aquinas of old and Dr. Sanderson tell us that in case a man hath sworn to things which he finds impossible to be performed yet he is obliged ad faciendum quantum potest to perform as much of it as he can So that those who would discharge people from the obligation of the Covenant as to the extirpation of Prelacy must shew us that there is something in the Covenant contradictory to that particular or else they say nothing to our purpose By reason of other allegations the first taking of the Covenant might be unlawfull but being taken as to this it will be found obliging § 3. Both for this and the other Branches of the Covenant we must confess our selves to have so much reverence for the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament for the Reverend Assembly of Divines for the Parliament and Church of Scotland for all those Ministers and judicious Christians in England who so freely took the Covenant that we are not easie to beleeve that an Oath upon mature deliberation could have been swallowed and imposed by them guilty of so palpable a fault as contradicting it self in any thing But as to this particular which is onely our concern to examine Those that plead this must produce another branch of the Covenant obliging us to preserve and maintain or at least not to oppose the Government of the Church in England by Prelacy of Arch-Bishops and Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends c. which for our part we cannot find but beleeve there is no such thing as not in the letter of it so neither by any just consequence to be concluded § 4. Whereas Doctor Featly assigns this seeming contradiction in that the first branch bindeth us to a Reformation of the Church according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches The second branch bindeth us to the Extirpation of Schism as well as Prelacy And the third to preserve and defend his Majesties Person and Authority without any diminution of his just Power and Greatness and to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and the Liberties of the Kingdom And then he tels us that Bilson Downham Armagh and others never answered by any have proved Episcopacy to be most conformable to the Word of God 2. That Prelacy is a means if not the only means to extirpate Schism And thirdly That the Government of Arch-Bishops and Bishops are comprised with the Rights and Liberties of the Church both in Magna Charta and in the Petition of Right the two great Records of English Liberties The answer to all this we think is very easie § 5. To the first what the Doctor meant by answering Bilson c. we cannot tell all the world knows there have been many have called their Writings Answers to them However Bilson's and the others Arguments have been answered many times over Besides that 't is one thing to say Episcopacy against which the Covenant is not directed is conformable to the Word of God Another thing to assert that our English Prelacy was If any will undertake to prove the latter The Government of the Church most conformable to the Word of God or direct us to any who hath pretended to a Scriptural proof of it we dare undertake he shall be answered or the Covenant by all sober men confessed null and voyd But this is an hard task § 6. Supposing Prelacy were a means to extirpate Schism which good effect of it we never yet saw yet if it were an unlawfull or inexpedient mean and there were better might be used and more agreeable to the Word of God we might as well swear against that means and for the extirpation of Schism as against the Spanish Inquisition if it were amongst us which yet will knock down Schism by as good Club-law as ever Prelacy did As to our case now the advancing of it will certainly make as great a Schism as ever was in any Church and those judged Schismaticks must live with it or else the most bloody persecution of innocent soules must follow that ever any Christian Nation knew The asserting of Prelacy as the onely means by the Doctor is not onely gratis dictum not proved at all but most falsly said witness the Church of Scotland which under Presbytery hath had fewer Schisms than we in England under Prelacy have had or are like to have § 7. For the last allegation It is true we have sworn to defend his Majesties Rights the Parliaments Priviledges and the Subjects Liberties But 1. Surely they must be judges we mean the King and Parliament both of their own Rights and Priviledges and also of our Liberties 2. They have also power to disclaim their Rights and give away our Liberties we being included in them And if they will please to give away or part with their own Rights and Priviledges and to disclaim for some of us some particular Liberties and then impose an Oath upon us for ought we know we are bound up by such Oath nor is there any contradiction to be found here Nor can we find the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons either in Magna Charta or the Petition of Right asserted as pieces of the Liberties of England Nor were they such Liberties Certain it is Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Prin and many others had no reason to judge so no more had any other person indeed witness the proceedings in the High Commission and Starchamber their frequent Excommunications of persons for not paying a tythe Goose See the Oath prefixed to Dr. Wrens and to Dr. Montagnes Articles c. not appearing at their Courts their Oath ex officio their Churchwardens Oath impossible to be kept by any that took it with many other things God be mercifull to the poor people of England if these horrid things be appurtenances to their Liberties If these be the things they have petitioned for in their desires so often renewed for the confirmation of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right But let those who make this Plea write out the words
will not be pleaded in Bar to the lawfulness of endeavour in this case that it is not lawful to endeavour if the contrary shall by a Law be established For it was never thought yet unlawful lawfully to endeavour the annulling and regular repeal of a Law which was found grievous to the Subjects outward concern much less to his Conscience as any Law must be after an Oath to the contrary as to the matter of the Law This being foreprized our Brethren and we are agreed as to this Limitation And we freely acknowledge ourselves obliged either actively to do what Lawes require or like Christians to suffer the penalties which they inflict Than which nothing more was ever pleaded as the duty of good Subjects § 4. We do therefore conclude professing that we do believe it the duty of every conscientious private Christian who hath taken the Covenant when once he hath endeavoured what in him lies in all things lawful to be done by him for the obtaining the ends of the Covenant as to the Reformation of the Church If at last he should be so unhappy as to see all his endeavours frustrated and to put the case at the worst which we hope will never be he should at last see Popery set up i. e. the highest corruption in Ecclesiastical Administrations to sit down and mourn before the Lord for it but not to make any resistance to the Lawful Magistrate because he is the Ordinance of God We hope none would say in such a case he were obliged to own Popery or that he might do it but he is unquestionably bound to suffer as a wel-doer rather than to disturb the Civil Peace What hath Peter to do with the Sword And if this be our sense of his duty in so high a case every one will conclude us we hope of that mind in case of the old Prelacy which we are told is the great Bar to Popery whatever else is to be said against it CHAP. XVII Wherein is a sleighty notice taken of a Late Pamphlet wrote by one Mr. Russel called The Covenant discharged and it is proved that in stead of his finding the Snare broken as be saith he hath but resolved to break the Bonds and to cast the Cords behind him § 1. WE had thought our work had been done and sufficient Answer given not only to what our Absolvers had said but also to what they reasonably could say But while these sheets were in the Press we have seen a new Pamphlet Qualem proculdubio mundus literatus nunquam prius vidit nec unquam posthac visurus est The Author hath done well to tell us it was wrote from his Study at Chinkford in Essex we should else have been so uncharitable as to have thought it had come from some other place but he hath neglected to tell us what Books are in that Study for we cannot in any of our Studies find any wrote either by Jews or Gentiles Greeks or Barbarians whose Divinity will agree with the Authors Positions § 2. We do not think our selves beholden to the Author for his promised forbearance of Passion for besides that he now and then bestows upon us a prophane Scoffe according to the proportion of his faculty that way as where he tels us that the Faith of removing and setling Mountains are two Gifts the latter of which we want c. In very deed the Author hath consulted himself in not being too free with his passion according to the Poets Caution Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua intending to publish such a piece as this to the world he stood concerned to take heed what measure he meted to others least it should be meted to him again we think he is liable enough to have it even pressed down and running over § 3. In divers things we confess he hath spoken truth 1. As to himself in what he saies p. 57. intending to batter the Covenant he hath made his approaches at a reasonable indeed unreasonable distance such a distance that no shot hath come near it 2. As to the matter as where he saith 1. That none can release a Civil Contract but the Parties with whom it is contracted That where an Oath is made to God so that he is Judge and Party only God can absolve it p. 14. And p. 15. He would not be thought to plead for a Papal power in any to discharge men from Oaths c. which would be enough for us who have already proved that the Covenant was Sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei a Vow made though at the Command of others to God as to the things which concern God and giving unto God a right to exact the performance from us as also That it was a mutual stipulation with our Brethren in Scotland and England with our King and Parliament and according to Mr. Russel's own Doctrine if there were nothing of a Vow in it yet all Parties must release So that what he saies more is to no purpose because he argues ex ignoratione Elenchi and lamentably mistakes the nature of the thing of which he speaks § 4. But because though he seems to grant this yet up and down his Book he scatters suggestions of another nature and indeed maintains such Positions as we are sure Dr. Gawden durst not justifie and runs into so abominable mistakes as if once believed by others would make all Oaths no stronger than strawes we will add a few animadversions upon what he saith intreating our Brethren hereafter to bring forth other Champions who may bring more credit to the Church of England than we conceive this Author in a capacity to do if we may guess at Leonem ex ungue § 5. As to our Brother Crofton whom he mentions in his Epistle we conceive him of age and therefore shall only desire the Reader to take notice 1. That the Author can produce no Vote of Parliament in his terms viz. That the Kings Concessions were sufficient to establish a well-grounded Peace The Vote passed Die Martis 5 Dec. 1648 in these terms Resolved upon the Question That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a GROUND for the Houses to proceed upon for the setling the Peace of the Kingdom What is this to sufficient to establish But suppose this Absolver had not stumbled here but the Vote had been as he would have it Why then if you will believe him the same power that established the Covenant tacitly discharged it For The continuation of Bishops was included in those Concessions we suppose This is again a most impudent falshood For the King in termes granted as follows And we will likewise for three years confirm by Act of Parliament the Form of Church-government you have presented to be used for the Churches of England and Ireland and Dominion of Wales The Kings Concessions printed 1648. pag. 2. Provided that his Majesty and those of his Judgement or any
design he had to send him for a Wife for his Son and for security of his faithfulness that he intended to put an Oath upon him that he should not take a Canaanite but one of Abraham's Kindred The Servant fearing the Oath of God desires before he sware fully to know his sense that he might not swear a thing either impossible or unlawful it might have been impossible to have brought her without her consent to be sure it had been unlawful for two words must go to make the lawfulness of such bargains Abraham tells him that in that case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt be free from the Oath i. e. My design is not to engage thee in such a case nor indeed could he engage him After this the Servant takes the Oath § 12. Now Reader what dost thou think this should prove That which it naturally proves is this That an Oath doth not oblige contrary to the declared sense of the imposers before it is taken But what is this to the thing in question 'T is brought by this Casuist to prove that Abraham had power to discharge his Servant of his Oath when he had taken it yea and this is again and again and again repeated and made the foundation of all the discourse by vertue of the Authors quodlibetical abilities when as there is not a tittle in the text looking this way the passage being only an explication of the sense of an Oath before it was taken we cannot but believe that either the Printer or the Author hath abused the World in telling it that such lamentable stuff as this is was attested by Dr. Gawden We are ashamed to think what opinion will by such scriblings as these be begot in the World of the Church of England We shall need say no more we hope to any thing he urgeth upon this foundation He tells us Jacob might have discharged Esau too of his Oath nor though he hath not proved it will we deny it it being only made to a man and for his advantage which is nothing as to our case he promised us more examples but p. he tells us he hath none Yet p. 7. he hath found out such a one as it is and tells us but take heed of believing him good Reader That Mr. Crofton saith that we had our first president for the Covenant from the Holy League He that will read a little in Grimstons translation of the French History p. 823 824. will quickly understand the nature of the Holy League And though this Gentleman betrayeth no such depth of Judgement yet we know our Brother Crofton is able to distinguish betwixt a League made by a pack of Popish Nobles not lawfully Convened and that for the raising of a war against their lawful Soveraign and whoever else should oppose their ungodly designs And a Solemn Covenant made by the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament for the reformation of Religion according to the Word of God c. For his instance in Scotland his question how the Scots came to be released needs no answer till he hath proved they were released at all § 13. In the next place he argues from the abuse of the Covenant here he tells us of the abolishing the Brazen Serpent the destruction of the Temple c. when they were abused he should have done well to have told us of the abolishing of a Vow taken because some that took it did not keep it then he had said something to the purpose we shall not meddle with his quibling about the unblest effects of the Covenant we are sure that it hath had some blest effects and we are sure that his talk of abolishing the obligation of an Oath lawful as to its matter c. is a parcell of unblest Divinity if it be good sense § 14. For his next Argument fetcht from Eccl. 7.16 Be not righteous overmuch c. if he had understood that Scripture with the Context he would have spared that instance where Solomon having instituted a Dialogue between his flesh and spirit brings in the flesh giving him that saving advice we are yet to learn how any can be Righteous overmuch Solomon tells us there what his heart said unto him in the daies of his vanity not what is our duty § 15. We see nothing more in his Tract till he comes to his notion in which he highly triumpheth That an Oath is no more than a Bond where are parties and a witness The taking of the Oath he saies p. 14. is a bringing of the trial into Gods Court Here he tells us that in some Oaths God is a party and a Judge too And from such Oaths he is so just as to tell us none but God can release us But he will have the Covenant to be such an Oath where God is only a Judge he forgot his being a witness too not a party and it must be so because he saies so for he adds not a word to prove it To omit his impertinent discourse of Assertory Oaths p. 15. which is wild enough He tells us p. 16. That in promisory Oaths such as he confesseth the Covenant to be the Party sworn stands continually in Gods Court and is upon continual trial till he or they that put him upon trial are willing to withdraw and so he saies we are at this time released from the bond of the Covenant Question How doth this appear The same powers that imposed it are willing to put us upon no further trial p. 18. He distinguisheth between making a Covenant before God and with God and tells us there are but two waies now of making a Covenant with God 1. In the Sacraments 2. By Vows p. 19. He distinguisheth betwixt taking an Oath willingly and taking it spontaneously p. 19 20. To resolve the question How the Parliament men who have taken it shall be released He wipes the Enquirers mouth with an Egge shell telling us That every Parliament man hath a private as well as publike capacity and if the Parliament repeal the Ordinance for the Covenant it is then Void and Conscience is discharged c. To all which a short answer will serve the turn § 16. Casuists say that an Oath is Lex privata a private Law which Creatures lay upon themselves or upon one another The transgression of which is indeed highly cognoscible before the Judge of the whole Earth who in every Oath is invoked as a witness and as a Judge and Revenger of our violation of our faith 2. In Oaths which are meerly to assert truths or confirm contracts between man and man wherein we make no bargain with God to do ought which immediately concerns his worship and glory God indeed is only invoked as a swift witness and as a severe judge but is not a party we only promise to men for their advantage 3. We deny the Covenant to be meerly such it was partly a Vow partly a Covenant and that both with God
comes next to be examined that the Covenant was void because the matter of it contradicted former Oaths They mention four of Allegiance Supremacy of Canonical obedience and that taken by the Kings of England at their Coronation If this be true it is unquestionably void for Juramentum prius prejudicat posteriori But considering that the Covenant was agreed and taken by the Members of the gravest Convention of the Nation and by so many Reverend Divines it will not be amiss to enquire whether of a truth it be so or no that if we find it true both King and Parliament and People may all do obeisance to Prelacy as having unwarily suffered their grave and sacred ears to be nailed to the doors of its house and obliged themselves to be its Servants for ever § 9. As to the Oath of Allegiance there is no mention of Archbishops nor Bishops in it we have only sware Faith and Allegiance to his Majesty which we hope we may give and yet endeavour in our callings to extirpate Popery and Prelacy c. If any one say What if he shall command the setting of it up We would fain know of our Brethren what we should do if Popery should be hereafter by any Prince commanded But to speak directly 1. We believe that Prelacy had no just footing in England but what it had by Authority of Parliament 2. We believe it in the power of King and Parliament to suspend or abrogate any Lawes and to engage people by Oaths for ever obliging against the matter of them 3. We know both King and Parliament by their Act 17 Car. did take away much of the Prelates jurisdiction 4. We know that the two Houses of Parliament did suspend all other power of Arch-Bishops c. and engage the people of England by Oath against the restoring of it * We assert the truth of this no further then as we have received it by printed Narrations VVhich Oath his sacred Majesty afterwards ratified and confirmed for ever We beleeve none can absolve us from an Oath but God onely Our Allegiance therefore can onely in case of such commands be shewed in our patient humble submission to such penalties as shall be inflicted upon us for not yielding active Obedience contrary to our Oaths § 10. So that a man might and may bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and yet take an Oath to endeavour in our callings the Extirpation of Episcopacy or Prelacy in two cases 1. In case our Allegiance to God required such an endeavour of us in our places 2. In case his Majesties command of submission to that Prelacy comes after my Oath to the contrary ratified by himself And I can find no more in that Oath which can be pretended as contradictory to the Covenant § 11. The next Oath which they mention is that of Supremacy This Oath was established by the Statute 1 Eliz. 1. being devised to secure the Subjects of England to the Supreme Civil Magistrate of England from acknowledging the forreign jurisdiction of the Pope VVhat can be fetched from this Oath must be either from the first part where having declared that we do in conscience beleeve the King is the onely Supreme Governour in England as well in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as Civil in opposition to any forreign Prince person Prelate State or Potentate and thereupon we renounce such pretended forreign Jurisdiction and promise Faith and Allegiance Or else it must be in the latter clause where we promise to assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges c. annexed to the Imperial Crown of England For the former part we are not able to understand what in the Covenant is contrary to it The Covenant allows the King the supreme moderation of all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual causes if Gods word will allow it for there 's nothing any can pretend against it except they plead that then our Reformation cannot be according to the word of God which for our parts we think very false The Covenant doth not in the least acknowledge the Jurisdiction of any forreign Princes Prelates c. For the latter part where we promise to assist and defend the Jurisdictions and Priviledges annexed to the Imperial Crown So saith the Covenant his Majesties Person Honour and Authority Ah! but the second Article must be contrary to this Oath because it is the Right of the Crown to chuse Bishops c. How this Plea will stand with their Episcopacy of Apostolical right let them consider I would fain to make the business short know whether some of these Rights of the Crown may not by consent of the King be parted with and whether his Majesty when he took the Covenant did not part with them We had before only sworn to endeavour the extirpation of these Officers in all our callings by lawfull means and wayes Such now as Petitioning the King c. His Majesty that now is at the entreaty of his Subjects in Scotland parts with this Right by swearing to extirpate those Officers to the nomination of which he before had a right May not we now keep the Oath of Supremacie and the Covenant too Nor can that general terme oblige us any further than to a defence and maintaining all such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Rights annexed to the Imperial Crown which are not contrary to the Word of God But there needs no more be urged against this vain plea especially considering that very few men in England of those that took the Covenant had ever taken the Oath of Supremacy which onely belonged to Ecclesiastical persons Graduates in Universities and publique Officers Which did not make the hundredth part of those who took the Covenant in England § 12. The third Oath to which it is pretended the Covenant is contrary is the Oath of Canonical Obedience which concerns no more than such as were made Ministers before 1641. or at least very few so that much need not be said to it now Indeed all those or at the least most of those that have been in the Ministry twenty yeares when they were Ordained did promise Reverently to Obey their Ordinary And after this by what Law I cannot tell did swear at least when they had Institution granted them by the Bishop to any living that they would obey him in things lawfull and honest And also did subscribe the 39 Articles where the 36. Article doth approve of the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops Bishops Here now is 1. a Promise of Obedience to the Ordinary 2. An Oath to the same purpose 3. A Subscription that the form of the Consecration of Arch-Bishops c. contains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God Now it is said that he who took the Covenant bound himself in a contrary bond which latter bond by that reason is voyd ipso facto § 13. But besides that this Plea will absolve very few as we said before we are not able to fathom the depth of this