the Act of taking the Covenant yet they be of no force at all to weaken or dissolve its bond Let me therefore say Sir to these who offer to your and my consideration their doubts and scruples against taking the Covenant and scatter abroad papers of this nature that they manifest their malice and profane enmity against the Covenant by subjecting it to vulgar scorn and laying open their own nakednesse as if it were the nakedness of the Covenant and run away railing against the Covenant as of no force or obligation as void and null on a meer Petitio principii base-begging the question and taking it for granted That what makes the act of swearing sinful makes the Oath void And supposing a weight which is very little in their exceptions to words method form order of the Covenant and the imposing it on the people which might have kept some men from swearing to be sufficient to discharge all that are sworn If they will indeed batter the Covenant they should pierce into the body of it and prove the matter of it unlawful and then will I also shake off the Covenant for ever Till then I answer in the Negative to my own enquiry in Saint Peters bonds abide pag. 13. to make the worst of it a tumultuous Assembly come before us with Sword and Scepter say they are a Parliament and have lawful constant and compleat Authority and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us And silly inconsiderate we are not so well-skill'd in Politicks or acquainted with the Constitutions of our Country to detect their fallacy but think all Authority is within those walls and obedience must be yielded to what is there commanded and so we are beguiled into the Oath nor are we so hardy as to endure their violence but by fear are forced into the Covenant is it therefore void for we have opened our mouthes unto the Lord and cannot go back Sectio Tertia Proposition 3. The matter sworn in the Solemn League and Covenant is just and lawful to be maintained and pursued THat we may discover the lawfulness of the matter of this Covenant we must observe that in respect thereof it is partly Assertory and partly Promissory Assertory in the Preface of it viz. We Noblemen Barons The Assertory part of the Covenant Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts in the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland by the providence of God living under one King and being of one reformed Religion having before our eyes the glory of God and advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity and the true publick Liberty Safety and Peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included and calling to mind the treacherous plots conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors thereof in all places especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the reformation and how much their rage power and presumption are of late and at this time increased and exercised whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England and the dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland are present and publick testimonies We have now at last after other means of Supplication Remonstrance Protestation and Sufferings for preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruine and destruction according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times and the example of the people of God in other Nations after mature deliberation resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant wherein we all subscribe and each one of us for himself with our hands lifted up to the most High God do swear Though this Preface may seem and be said to be no part of the Covenant yet it being a Solemn profession of the grounds and reasons on which the Covenant was made and was declared in the very Act of swearing the Covenant by all that swore it we shall own it as a part thereof The Covenant is further assertory in the Conclusion viz. And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God and His Sonne Jesus Christ as 't is manifest by our present distresses and dangers the fruits thereof We professe and declare before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sin and for the sins of these Kingdoms especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts and to walk worthy of Him in our lives which are the causes of other sinnes and transgressions so much abounding among us And our true and unfeigned purpose desire and endeavour for our selves and all others under our power and charge both in publick and in private in all duties we owe to God and man to amend our lives and each one to go before another in a real Reformation that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation and establish these Churches and Kingdoms in truth and peace And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the searcher of all hearts with a true intention to perform the same as we shall answer at the great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed Most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the Yoke of Anti-christian tyranny to joyn in the same or like Association and Covenant to the glory of God and enlargement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the peace and tranquillity of Christian Kingdoms and Common-Wealths The Covenant is promissory in the six Articles thereof Concerning the assertory part of the Covenant it must be noted That although it should have been unlawful because untrue in the grounds or reasons pretendedly inducing to it and so hypocritical and fallacious in the humility zeal and resolution in the Conclusion protested whereby the takers in deceiving others may have deceived their own souls and bound themselves under a certain expectation of the wrath of that God of truth and jealousie who hath been called as a Witness of such wickedness Falshood in the Preface bars not the obligation of the promise Yet this fallacy will not discharge the obligation of the Covenant For an Oath binds according to expression not the takers reserved intention And therefore Grotius telleth us That if a man in his assertory Oath do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 swear falsly this will be no warrant for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not
of Covenanting The particle Such seems to carry it to the quality of the Covenant in respect of the matter covenanted which afterward is particularly and in its proper place excepted against But the words of the Covenant suggested by this exception to be false do relate unto the act of covenanting as we have now at last for the preservation of our Religion determined to enter into a not such a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant And the place of this exception is in the beginning of their exceptions unto the Preface which may be said to be no part of the Covenant and therefore admits not an exception to the quality of such a Covenant Moreover the next exception puts it out of doubt that these words relate to the act of Covenanting in which they profess they finde not in our Histories any footsteps of a sworn Covenant on any occasion whatsoever So that it seems to be the Act of covenanting by Oath which they cannot conceive to be a lawful proper and probable means to preserve Religion from ruine Surely then Sir the weather was very misty about Oxford and made their minds very muddy that they could not conceive entring into Covenants and Solemn Leagues dictated by the light of nature and directed by the Law of God pursued and practised by all Nations and by Israel in the cases of their Religion as the utmost of humane policy and highest of security to their priviledges endangered as a method detecting concealed enmity debarring fraud expressing affection engaging conscience and animating resolution to be a lawful proper and probable meanes of security If it be good and safe as to our Civil I hope it is no less probable in our Religious concernments If Sir I had been to deale with one single student I must have told him That he started this exception more like a Sophistical Disputant than a conscientious Dubitant Fourthly They could not believe the entring into this Covenant to be according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms 4th Exception in the Oxford Reasons or the example of Gods people in other Nations for that they found not the least footstep in our Histories of a sworne Covenant ever entred into by the people of this Kingdom upon any occasion whatsoever nor could they readily remember any commendable example of the like done in any other Nation but are rather told by the Defenders of the Covenant that the world never saw the like before Whither Sir Answer will not prejudice carry men I cannot but wonder to finde the Masters Students c. of Oxford so much unacquainted with Histories as neither to finde in our own or other Histories a commendable example of Entring into Covenant I may not mind them of the Covenant made by the Nobles and people of Scotland among themselves and with Queen Elizabeth of England under and against the Papal might executed by the then Queen Regent nor of the Netherlands confederacy and Covenant These will not seem commendable in their sight now though so judged when England became their protection and encouraged nay defended them in them Let me therefore enquire whether they knew Israel to have been Gods people of another Nation and that they entered into Covenant in the time of the Judges in the dayes of Joash Josiah Hezekiak and Nehemiah in times of danger and defection in their Civil and Religious concernments And was their practice commendable 2. Did our Gentlemen of Oxford never finde any footsteps in our Histories concerning the Barons of Stamford Anno 1225. assembled not only without but against the Kings consent and covenanted each with other to demand the restitution of their Liberties whereupon a Parliament was holden at Northampton to give them satisfaction And again did they never finde in our Histories how in Anno 1258. they Assembled at Oxford agreed on Articles viz. The confirmation of the Charter de Foresta 2. The establishing of a Lord Chief Justice who might judge them by Law 3. The driving Aliens and Strangers out of England and the like and that they confederated by Oath and gave their hands and mutual faith one to the other Matth. Paris Hist Aug. p. 940 941 952 653. that they would not desist to prosecute their purpose for loss of money or Lands nor love nor hate no nor yet for life of them or theirs till they had cleared England of Strangers and procured laudable Laws And under this Covenant they brought the Kings Brother Richard King of Romans and Earle of Cornwall and caused him to sweare upon the Holy Gospels this formal Covenant Hear all men that I Richard Earle of Cornwal swear upon the Holy Gosples to be faithful and forward with you to Reforme the Kingdom of England hitherto by the counsel of wicked men so much deformed and I will be an effectual coadjutor to expell the Rebels and troublers out of the same Both these our Histories say were in the time and without the consent of King Henry the 3d. Not to trouble our Reader with the like in the time of King John King Richard the 2d and other Princes I must desire the Gentlemen of Oxford to tell us whether these were not people of England and these be not visible foot-marks of some Covenant of the people of England on some occasion And if they shall question whether they be commendable examples let them please to observe the commendable Epethite our Historian gives upon the last of these Covenanters calling them Angliae Republicae Zelatores But the defenders of the Covenant told them that the world never saw the like before I but they did not tell them that there are no footsteps of any Covenant made on any occasion whatsoever And if they had were the Masters and Students in Oxford resolved into such an implicite Faith as to believe an Enemy But I wonder these Masters of Reason had so little Reason as to conclude a general from the concession of a special Their Margent explaineth the concession of the defenders of the Covenant in these termes Such an Oath for matter persons and other circumstances the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we reade of in Sacred or humane Stories Know they not that there is a vast difference between the general form of an Oath or Covenant and those special Qualifications which may circumstance it and that a dissimilitude in the last will not conclude that there never was a Sworn Covenant on any occasion but sit verbum sat sapienti Thus Sir notwithstanding these learned Suggestions of the falsehood of the Preface and in it of the assertory part of the Covenant it yet continueth lawful because true and is our encouragement and assurance that the promissory part will be answerable For as in rational conclusions so I hope in Religious resolutions we shall find à veris vera sequuntur Subsectio Tertia The promissory part of the Covenant is in these six Articles I. THat we shall sincerely
and Archbishops of the essence and formality of the true Reformed Protestant Religion Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism than Scotlands supposed making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church As denying the Reformed Churches beyond the Sea to have attained to the true Reformed Protestant Religion which yet they handed over to us But what reason had these Gentlemen of Oxford to understand the Doctrine of the Church of England in such a latitude when the sence of it is limited by them who were then known to be Legislators and a power sufficient to prescribe an Oath unto which themselves subjected and were the best expositors thereof viz. the House of Commons who thus declared Whereas some doubts have been raised concerning the meaning of these words The true Reformed Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine This House doth declare that by these words was and is meant only the publick Doctrine professed in the said Church so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovations And that the said words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of Worship Discipline and Government nor of any the Rites and Ceremonies of the said Church of England By which these Gentlemen might have understood 1. The Realm and Church of England were two different Subjects the one professing Doctrine in the other wherein also there was Doctrine tending to Popery and Popish Innovation 2. There were in the Doctrines professed by the Church of England some adjuncts of Rites Ceremonies Government or some special order of Worship which might need Reformation and were not view'd to be maintained So that according to this sence of them who prescribed both there is more of consistency than contradiction between the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant So that the manifest perjury they feared hath not so much as a seeming ground And as for the supposed contradiction of this Branch of the Covenant unto the Oath of Supremacy it will on examination vanish as an apparition a thing which so seemed but cannot be so proved For if they will not hiss me out of their Schools I will grant them their Proposition in the Oath and assumption in the Statute by them quoted and yet find a way to avoid the conclusion because a meer non sequitur on their premises and this if they will have the Argument logically resolved by denying the consequence of their major Proposition for I will grant unto them that the Oath of Supremacy doth bind us to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted and belonging to the Kings Highness his heirs and successors or united and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm And assume with them That the King had the whole power and Authority for Reformation Order and Correction of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c. and yet deny the sequel viz. That we may not endeavour in our places and callings to reform Religion For the defence of the Kings power is no way repugnant with the duty of our particular capacity I hope a Minister may by his preaching or a Divine by his disputation in the Schools endeavour the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresie Schism or Superstition and yet not intrench on his Majesties Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so interfer with their Oath of Supremacy Yea in reference to judicial and authoritative Correction and Reformation which we will suppose can only be done by the King mens endeavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel Proposal Remonstrance Petition Supplication and the like to procure His Majesties consent and authority to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and then Sir where is the Contradiction Yet Sir if I were to dispute with a single though Senior Sophister of Oxford I would deny both Propositions the major as to its sequel or consequence as before and the assumption as that which the Statute doth not prove viz. The whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for Correction and Reformation is annexed to the King and Imperial Crown of this Realm For the power by that Statute is special and particular not general and universal as themselves have cited it is viz. such Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Preheminences Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any c. and as the Statute proceeds Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for Visitation of any Ecclesiastical State or Persons and for Reformation c. So that the power given to the King is such a powor as Bishops Cardinals or Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Jurisdicton in themselves over both Church and Crown enjoyed and exercised This power was purely executive not Legislative over persons and particular Societies not over the Kingdom and whole Realm I presume the Gentlemen of Oxford were not ignoront of the power and Legislative Authority which the Parliaments of England ever held over their Bishops and the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical estate of this Land tying them in all their administrations of Discipline and Government to the Customs and Statutes of this Realme as they may read at large in the Statute of the Submission of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 wherein they confess many of their Canons and Constitutions be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whereby they did not only Restrain the exorbitancies and from time to time Reform the abuses of the Church but also extend the Prerogative and Jurisdiction of the King as in that Statute 1 Elizab. and Limit Restrain and Repeal it as in the case of this individual specifical power granted in the words of the Statute quoted by the Statute 17 Caroli entituled An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 10 Elizab. concerning Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical which clause repealed is part of this very recited Paragraph and immediately annexed unto and dependent on this very grant of power and authority Nor are these Masters and Scholars of Oxford insensible that there is a vast difference between Executive and Legislative power and authority and that as no Ecclesiastical persons did ever enjoy however the Pope and his Bishops did contend for it so no King of England did ever pretend or lay claim unto the Legislative power further than allowed by Act of Parliaments who were ever Dictators of a general Reformation in the Land Church and Kingdom as at this time in the Reformation covenanted Nor can they be ignorant that it is very bad Logick from such Jurisdictions and Specifical Executive Authority to infer that the whole power of Reformation is so in the King that the Parliament may not propose or the people covenant in their places and callings to endeavor a Reformation
Ingenuity for to him All things might be lawful but were not expedient was a Rule but their Reasons might restrain these learned men and they are five in number 1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government 2. Received orders from their hands 3. Petitioned the continuance thereof 4. Htld their Livelyhood under such titles and in the exercise of that Government or some part thereof 5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same Vnto all which I shall say very briefly 1 It is worth their enquity whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially and so gave their approbation to this Government we grant that in the 39. Articles commonly published there is one viz. the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God I find not in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before mentioned and so misread them both but suppose the Article had so affirmed it had laid no bar to the alteration or extirpation of this Government for it might be as indeed all our Stattues do suggest a meer Political Civil constitution and so though an Adiaphoron not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God and alterable at the pleasure of Englands Parliaments and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of ordering Priests and Deacons and Consecration of Bishops and Archbishops did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God for I not believe nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture or ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons for I find no Priests in the new Testament and conceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denominations of the same order and make not different orders any more than Pastours Teachers Stewards Angels Stars and the like and if there were these orders yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God to add a fourth Arch-bishops and if they be not an order how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops a contended for order of the Ministry and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience neither the one nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence the Speaker of the Parliament or Lord Chief Justice hath no such like Solemnity I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant and not the other nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism and assistance at the Communion the Scripture specially points them to the poor and to serve Tables I question whether mute service in a publick solemn Assembly be not contrary to the Word of God where all as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost peculiar to Christ who did it in reality be not contrary to the Word of God or according to the words of the Article Superstitious and ungodly And whether Ministers swearing Caronical obedience to the Bishop or Bishops to the Arch-bishops be not plainly Papal and ungodly If these learned men considered and were convinced of the consonancy of these and the like things with the Word I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously yet I must enquire how judicially I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article for the Articles thereby enjoyned 13. Eliz. 13. do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments and this particle only is exclusive to Discipline and Government which by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti at the pleasure of the Magistrate and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed shall not be shut out of the Christian Church Now Sir were there any force in this exception to the Covenant I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts yet it is as ponderous as the next They received Orders from their hands and should ill requite them for laying their hands on them to lay to their hands to root them up and cannot tell for what That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them was not required they might continue Men Ministers it is like better Christians and more painful Preachers when they were not Bishops I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other and our question is of the thing not person in which degradation was the worst they could do them who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169. That a certain Monster heavier than the whole World stood eminently aloft upon his breast from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered than alone to have all the goods of the World when he waked he thought this was nothing but the Bishoprick of Dublin and so forthwith renounced it Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus Elected Arch-bishop of Florence who refused on fear of hazarding his salvation to accept it and when thundred into it by the counsel of his friends frowns of the Magistrates and the Popes Bull kept only eight persons no stately furniture in his house no Coach and Horses and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family saying They should do him a special favour to thrust him fram his Bishoprick wherein he continued with very great Regret They would acknowledge a kindness done unto them and yet were it an unkindness these Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude they have petitioned their continuance and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiors on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did depend nor had they been without Parallel if not a plea of Justice For the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England Rochester excepted in the time of Henry the eighth had voluntarily without the command of the King or Parliament sworn to root up the Pope the Apex of this Episcopacy from whom they had received their Palls Properties Power Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 564. 565 566 567. I had almost said Papacy Their third Reason I pass as an
these learned men do cite is limited unto the Laws of the Land which the People in Parliament assembled shall choose according to which the King is bound to Rule for otherwise this Coronation Oath will not only bind the perpetuation of this Government by Prelacy but also to the Restitution of the Abbies and Monasteries demolished and the Popes Supremacy expelled all which were granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward 2. But admit we these learned men the sense they seem to put upon the Kings Supremacy methinks the modest expressions of the Covenant might have anticipated this exception it only binding us within our places and callings which might be by humble advice and supplication to the King by vertue of His Supream Authority to effect it to endeavour the extirpation of this Prelacy that is the Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters and the like but such was their affection to it that they could not desire nay they could not but beg of God that he would not suffer the King to assent thereunto which affection we must not think to abate untill their judgements be better inform'd 3. As to the benefit which did redound to the Crown by the Collation of Bishopricks and Deanaries by their first fruits and yearly tenths and profits in vacancies though some question the Kings propriety not in respect of the Law of the Land but of the Law of God I shall not insist on that only say That the constant enjoyment of the full possessions of them will make a much greater revenue and maintain to the King a greater Honour and Estate than the first fruits tenths and profits of vacancies although such vacancies as the Kings of England have by vertue of this Argument continued for the space of 5 10 15 20. or sometimes thirty years together taking the profits to themselves or bestowing them on their attendants and undoubtedly there is the same capacity to extirpate the whole Government as some Episcopal Seas and to enlarge the Revenues of the Crown by the Reversion of all the profits of the Government and the abolishment thereof as to continue so long vacancies moreover I would desire to know what is in this Argument more prevalent for Arch-bishops Bishops and their Cathedral Churches than for Abbots and Priors their Monasteries and houses 4. As to the agreeableness of this Government in the Church to the Civil constitution of the Kingdom I only say that I question whether the Lord Christ who declared his Kingdom not to be of this World will allow or do appoint the Governments of the World to be the square of Government in his Church and I confess I can hardly reconcile it to his Regal Power and Faithful Administration in his House and I must have a better Comment on the Text than I have yet met withall if it be not prohibited in these terms The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they are great and exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your M nister and whosoever will be Chief among you let him be your servant Matth. 20.25.29 27. Mark 10.42 43 44. Luke 22.23 24. The sense whereof made Pope Gregory write himself Servus Servorum Dei Whitehead and others refuse Coverdalle and many others decline their Bishopricks as having in them aliquid commune eum Antichristo I think the Clown his question to the Bishop of Cullen were worth considering What will become of the Bishops when the Dukes be damned Yet the agreeableness of Prelacy with Englands ill Government hath not been so obvious to others as these Gentlemen suppose the vigilant eye and strong hand wherewith in all Ages it hath been restrained these Petrae and Rupes Winchester and Rivallo in the time of King Henry the 3d. were judged very dangerous when they constrained a Covenant without and against the Kings consent to remove them as evil Counsellours Matthew Paris our old Historian notes Bishops to have ever been the Make-bates between the King and People screwing up the Kings Prerogative beyond thee onstitutions of the Kingdom and liberties yea safety of the Subjects and chargeth all the Wars Broiles Mischiefs and Evils of the Barons Wars to have sprung from and been acted by the Bishops And when ngKi Philip lay on his death-bed He charged His son If He would Rule by his Nobles He must keep his Bishops low The premuniries by which they have ever been awed and their late High Commission authorizing them to act any appellation provocation priviledge exemption proclamation law statute whatsoever notwithstanding and their bold Usurpation in their own name and authorities and under their own seals to issue forth Process Excommunications Censures and other Judgements and their Imperial Canons in 1640. do bespeak them prejudicial to the Civil Government and Constitution of the Kingdom and I think a private society should with very much of modesty affirm the agreeableness of this Government after the Parliament on mature deliberation and debate as most proper Judges Vote of the 10th of June had voted this Government to have been found by long experience very prejudicial to the Civil State of these Kingdoms Now Sir as to the so often Canted Aphorisme of King James No Bishop No King with which the Prelates and their Priests do too much strive to rivet their Government unto the Crown I must be free to say that it is more politick than pious and of no more warrant or authority than the Spaniards one universal Emperour and one Pope or universal Bishop and when the Scots loyal adherence to and advancement of His most Sacred Majesty unto the Ruine of their Kingdom Loss of their lives and Estates Exile and Imprisonment of their Nobles and Conquest of their Land together with the uncessant struglings of the Covenant Interest under Sequestration Imprisonments Banishments and death of many not ceasing till they had by Gods blessing effected the Happy and Honourable Restitution of King and Kingdom be well considered I hope these learned Masters and Scholars of Oxford will see some proceedings that may at least weaken their belief in this political Maxime We have seen Sir the strength of these learned exceptions unto the second Article of the Covenant the great eye-sore of our Age and find little or nothing therein to charge the matter thereof with falshood or injustice but that notwithstanding the grudging of proud and profane men it stands in this respect established they have herein been long and constrained me to stay too long in consideration of what they urge but as they so I shall be more brief and contracted in their following exceptions wherein they suggest many to be great ones but profess to take up with few which we must needs imagine not to be of the least weight Unto the third Article they except nothing as to the matter of the promise Subjectio quinta
and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop so to be ruled by him and not to exercise his Office but by the Bishops License and at his pleasure and that the Presbyter is bound to swear obedience to the Bishop as his Ordinary That certain particular Priests or Deacons shuld by Papal constitution and Princely indulgence without the counsel and common suffrages of the Colledge of Presbyters bespeaking their conset or consent of the common people The force of Prelacy covenanted against be constituted a Colledge or Cathedral Council to the Bishop to advise with him and rule under him by the name of Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-deacon and Prebends to Elect the Bishop in vacancy and hold Courts constitute Canons and exercise all Jurisdiction over all Churches and Ministers not being so much as chosen by them or having their consent much less commission so to do That any one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the Congregations and Pastors of them in one County or many Counties making one Diocess and be by vertue of office bound to the inspection and pastoral Correction and Government of them and that the several Bishops of a Kingdom be themselves subject to one Metropolitan Church and Arch-bishop to whom they shall swear obedience and shall be subject to be by him overseen ordered and corrected sure if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universal Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Arch-bishops as the Arch-bishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters for these are not differences of kind but of degree nor is there pleaded for Divine Right or Apostolical Institution of the one in the Church of England what is not pleaded for the other by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and by Bellarmine that Cardinal Popes Champion Bellarm. de Clericis lib. 1.5 cap. 14. and who can deny a quatenus ad omne c Lastly That Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel may exercise their Office and Function by Vicegerents and Deputies Commissaries or Chancellours or that by any Apostolical direction they may and have authority to Commissionate any such or that the determination and disposal of Civil Affairs Matters of Marriage and Administrations belong to them that they must by themselves or joyning unto themselves Professors and Students of the Civil Law keep Courts on which Proctors Apparitros and the like are dependent and so judicially rule and govern in these cases This is the Form of Government these learned Casuists must think is if not of Divine Right by immediate precept from God yet established by the Apostles according to the mind and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ and that by vertue of their power and authority as deputed Governours of the Church or otherwise their thoughts are very vain and impertinent for not an Episcopal Government wherein all the Bishops Ministers of the Church within any City Country or Kingdom invested with equal authority and dignity being all of the same Order do by common Council govern the Church but this specifical Prelacy presuming it self to be an Hierarchy or holy Government and chief Priest-hood not to be gain-sayed without high profaness or with-stood and destroyed without sacriledge formally existing in Arch-bishops super our Princes to Bishops Bishops Soveraign Lords to all Ministers or Presbyters and enjoying the standing Cathedral Council and subordinate Judges Deans Arch-deacons Deans and Chapter and transmitting their power and Episcopal authority to Chancellours and Commissaries and so ruling with all state and pompous attendants not only mens profession of Religion but their propriety of civil enjoyments is Covenanted to be extirpated I hope Sir that these serious men would not cozen their own Consciences and cheat the World by their observation the Covenant would bind us against Episcopacy and Bishops in general and not take notice how it is limited to one particular kind and then Sir I must be free to tell them That the Divine Right or Apostolical Institution of this Episcopal Government is but a think so of no more value than a dream for I not only think but am sure the libraries of learning in all that famous Univesity will never lay us down this Form of Government in the Church of Ephesus though I should grant Timothy to be a Bishop therein Antioch Philippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia supposing their Angels to have been Bishops in all which I deny not a Government by Bishops and those made by the Holy Ghost to whom I will presume to think had I then lived and been invested with that Ministerial authority I now by Gods grace enjoy poor simple I might have stood up as a Peer or at least Bishop Suffragan and if they give not some Scripture instance I think Ecclesiastical story will never prove the Apostles established this Form of Government in the Church or at least not by their Apostolical power and authority as deputed by Christ governours of the Church and I am sure not after the example nor according to the mind of Jesus Christ their Master it being directly inconsistent with the quality of this Kingdom and dictated parity of his Ministers Sir with Reverence may I speak it I think it had been very sutable to the learning and gravity of this learned Assembly to have laid down in this case of conscience some clear Reasons for their conjecture of this Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and Establishment And the rather for that Pope Nicholas hath affirmed Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem sive Metropolean primatus aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Eccl siarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem instituit Romana Ecclesia That Rome appointed all Ecclesiastical Dignities of Bishops Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons c. And Pope * Apud Gratian. Dist 22. cap. 1. Lucius and Clement with whom agreeth Peter Lombard and our own Historians That King Lucius instituted three Arch-bishopricks and * Distinct 80. lib. 4. dif 24. Brit Hist lib. 4. pag. 126. Polichro lib. 4. c. 16. fol. 163. Pagets Christianography Foxe saith 28. chief Priests called Flammens Acts and Monuments p. 96. Fol. 59 60. twenty five Bishopricks in the room and stead of the three Archflamens and twenty five flamens And that Devotus the Bishop of Winchester falling into the seat of the flamen thereof had all the possessions within twelve Miles cmopass containing thirty two Villages conferred on him and his Clergy And the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy of England in their Institution of a Christian man dedicated to Henry the eighth have told all the World It is out of all doubt that there is no mention made neither in the Scripture neither in the Writings of any authentical Doctor or Auctor of
the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power authority and jurisdiction and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles such difference among the Bishops it was devised by the antient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholick Church and that either by the consent and authority or else by the permission and suffering of the Prince and civil power for the time ruling the said Fathers considering the infinite multitude of Christians so greatly encreased taking examples from the Old Testament thought it expedient to make degrees among Bishops and to limit their several Diocesses bounds of Jurisdiction and Power And then Sir this Form of Government will seem to be more Jewish Papal Paganish or at best political and civil than Apostolical the last of which the Statutes of our Kingdom do declare it to be affirming that the Arch-bishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiastical persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical 26. Hen 8. cap. 26.31 Henr. 8. cap. 9 10.37 Hen 8 cap. 17. 1. Ed. 6 cap. 2 1 5 8. Eliz c. 1. but by under and from the Kings Royal Majesty and Patrick Adamson Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews in Scotland Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife professed sincerely ex animo That Bishops and Ministers are by the Word of God equal and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Bishops nullo nititur verbi fundamento And I think it had been but Reason some satisfactory answer had been given to Gersom Bucer his Dissertationes de Gubernatione Ecclesiae Didoclavius his Altare Damascenum Cartwright's Exceptions Paul Bains his Diocesan Tryal Smectymnus and especially Mr. William Pryns publick and positive Challenge in the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus which I think will be ad Grecas Calendas before they think so of an University had been published as a stumbling Block to the peoples swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant when thereunto called by Parliament But it may be Sir I run too fast methinks their think so of Divine Right and Apostolical establishment is asserted very faintly and therefore it is restrained and limited with an Episcopal Aristocracy hath a fairer pretension and may lay a juster title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterian Democracy or Independent Yet I must say fair pretension and comparative claims are very weak props against Parliamentary Resolves and the power of an Oath it must be plain and undeniable Divine Right must stand against them But what is that they call Episcopal Aristocracy Are not these learned men mistaken in their terms hath not Englands Episcopacy been ever deemed a Monarchy and of the same kind but lower degree with Papacy How can it be conformable to the Government of the Nation which these very men tell us is Merum Imperium an Empire Monarchy p. 11 and establish that Maxim no Bishop no King if it be an Aristocracy Whoever deemed Presbytery a Democracy Or on what colourable ground can it be so deemed doth not this Form fix the Government in the seniores and illustrior pars populi The Officers of the Church ordering all and ruling the whole Church excluding the Congregation from all Acts of Government save a shewing their just exception to any Order Office or Censure If Presbytery be a Democracy what can Independency be judged I find these learned men by the nicety of this distinction at a loss for its name as well they might and so I shall leave it and suppose a willingness in the University of Oxford to assent to Doctor Whitakers Thesis That Regimen Ecclesiae non est Monarchicum nec Aristocraticum nec Democraticum sed Democratica Monarchica Aristocratica That the Government of the Church is a Formal Aristocracy qualified with something of Monarchy which he means not to be the superiority of Prelates and Democracy by which is not meant the ruling power of the people let but this learned Doctor explain himself and Mr. Thomas Cartwright expound nay translate his words and we shall find a Government which will lay a very fair claim unto a Divine Right Si velimus Christum ipsum respiscere fuit semper Ecclesiae Regimen Monarchicum Whitak oper Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Quest 12. de Origin Eccles Cartwrights first Reply to Whitakers gift page 35 si Ecclesiae Presbyteros qui in Doctrina Disciplina suas partes agebant Aristocratioun si totum corpus Ecclesiae quatenus in Electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia ferebat ita tamen ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper Presbyteris servatur Democraticum which Cartwright thus renders The Church is governed with that kind of Government the Philosophers have affirmed to be the best for in respect of Christ the head not his Vicar or Superiority of single Prelates it is a Monarchy in respect of the Ancients and Pastours that govern in common all the Presbytery with like Authority among themselves not a Superiority over them it is an Aristocracy and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest unto exception in Church-matters it is a Democracy If then these men will take down the towring power of Prelates and turn their Magisterial Throne into a Ministerial Chair and bring into the Cathedral Council of Deans and Chapters all the Presbyters and let these lofty persons stand amongst their Fellows till by common consent for common order one of them be set in the Chair to gather Suffrages regulate the Assembly declare their sentence and see to the execution of their Decrees and summon them together they shall constitute a Government which I think will not only fairly pretend unto but plainly appear to have an Apostolical Institution and Establishment and there are very many both ancient and moderne Authors of my opinion and then we need no more dispute the matter of extirpation of Prelacy for in this sense the Covenant will rather establish it Their think so of Divine Right turns into an assurance of universal uninterrupted succession of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together without any considerable opposition save that of Aerius which sprang from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick This is Sir the old only and usual guard of Prelacy I will not deny Antiquity its due Reverence though I put not on it The Antiquity of Englands Prelacy observed nor consent unto it an authority equal with or as the Papists Idolize it above the Scriptures I confess in matters of Fact it may give a clearer conviction than direction and assert things past done rather than that they should be done and continue It is well if