Covenant bound to offer violence to their persons we pray may be observed by those who have taken this Covenant or shall hereafter enter into it for us who are so perswaded as we have expressed it would have been a greater satisfaction if we should have been to swear to bring the persons of any who have offended to a just and legal triall so that their Office might have been continued then to extirpate the Office with an intimation only that we are not necessitated to offer violence to their persons That which follows is to take off the onely scruple which they would suppose to remain the oath of Canonicall obedience wherein Clergy-men have sworn to obey the Bishops in licitis honestis we will propound their Arguments 1. They which have sworn obedience to the Laws of the Land may yet endeavour their abolition in a lawfull way Therefore they which have sworn to obey the Bishops may endeavour the abolition of Bishops We do not see this consequence from the Law to the Law-giver or the Authority it self from whence the Law is derived It follows upon this Hypothesis that they who have sworn to obey the injunctions of Bishops may endeavour in a lawfull way the alteration or abolition of those injunctions but to infer their conclusion the Hypothosis must have been that notwithstanding our Oath made to obey the Laws made by the King and the two Houses of Parliament we may endeavour to abolish the King and both Houses of Parliament Their second Argument is this 2. If Ministers or others have entred into any Oath not warranted by Gods Word and the Laws of the Land such Oaths call for repentance not pertinacy in them Ergo notwithstanding the Oath of Canoxicall obedience Ministers may endeavour the extirpation of Bishops We believe that to have cleared this consequence they ought to have proved that the Oath of Canonicall obedience is not warranted by the Word of God or the Laws of the Land which seeing they have not done the scruple notwithstanding this Argument will still remain Having thus done with Episcopacy they proceed to such scruples of conscience as they suppose may arise from that which concerns His Majesty And there the design is to prove that this Covenant may be taken notwithstanding the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance already taken and notwithstanding the want of His Majesties consent 1. This Oath binds all and more strongly engageth them to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms therefore It doth not crosse the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance We answer 1. The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance were ordained against those who would not have denied to swear in these very words To preserve and defend His Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms Therefore notwithstanding this Argument this Covenant may crosse the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance 2. That this Oath may be taken without His Majesties consent they would prove by examples either Modern or out of Scripture as 1. The Protestation May 5. was taken without His Majesties consent We did not think we took it without his Majesties consent and one reason we will expresse in their words of the same Paragraph Because His Majesty did not except against it or give any stop to the taking of it albeit he was then resident in person at Whitehall 2. Ezra and Nehemiah Ezra 10. Nehem. 9. Neh. 1. being vassals and one of them meniall servant to Artaxerxes drew all the people into a Covenant without the speciall Commission of the Persian Monarchs The Covenant into which Ezra drew the people is expressed Ezra 10. 3. to have been to put away all the strange wives and such as were born of them according to the counsell of the Lord and of those that tremble at the Commandement of God and that according to the Law And that of Nehemiah Nehem. 9. 10. 29. is expressed to have been a Curse and an Oath to walk in Gods Law which was given by Moses the servant of God and to observe and do all the Commandements of the Lord and his Iudgements and his Statutes The Commission of Nehemiah besides what is mentioned Nehemiah 2. cannot be denied to be the same which Ezra had obtained which is expressed Ezra the 7. In the 7 of Ezra v. 26. we find this as a part of his Commission Whosoever will not do the Law of thy God and the Law of the King let judgement be executed speedily upon him whether it be unto death or banishment or to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment Wherefore we cannot but extreamly wonder that these Covenants here mentioned should be said to have been entered into without the consent of the Persian Monarchs an Assertion to us so exceedingly inconsiderate that our apprehension of the failings in it cannot in a few words be expressed As for that of Hezekiah which follows at some distance we might answer that it is not nor can it be proved out of the Scripture that the keeping of the Passover was not consented to by Hoshea King of Irael However if the revolt of the ten Tribes were indeed a rebellion as it is believed by many of the most famous Divines a then why might not Hezekiah justly send Proclamations to them to joyn with him in a Covenant although the King of Israel should positively have dissented But not to insist upon negative Answers or any thing which may be controverted we answer 1. That act of Hezekiah was a bare invitation 2. That to which he invited them was not a League or Covenant but that which the Law of God enjoyned the observation of the Passover which was some yeeres after the Covenant mentioned 2 Chro. 29. 3 That it was at that time when Israel had not the face of a Kingdom their King being in captivity under the King of Assyria Which two latter answers are joyntly proved by this following Discourse The Covenant was made in 1mo Hezekiae 2 Chron. 29. the Passover was not celebrated till after the captivity 2 Chron. 30. 6. There was no captivity mentioned till after this first yeer of Hezekiah Therefore the Covenant and Passover were not kept in the same yeer and therefore also Hoshea was in captivity before this invitation of Hezekiah The last of the premisses which onely can be doubted is thus proved because the first time expressed which we read in Scripture of Salmanasers comming up against Israel is the fourth yeer of King Hezekiah 2 King 18. 9. It no wise followeth therefore from this act of Hezekiah and the men of Israel that it is lawfull to impose or enter a Covenant without the consent of the King Now after these instances of Scripture they betake themselves to modern examples from whence they would infer more then a bare lawfulnes to enter a Covenant
our Church-government as it now stands in aggregate whether might this Oath be taken had they also been included Lastly is not their practise for whose satisfaction this Covenant should be taken a added to the common sense of mankind in the like manner of speaking or understanding such speeches evidence enough to us that we cannot take this Oath and Covenant unlesse we will swear to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops If this be so we desire to know first whether it be lawfull for subjects to swear such a Covenant as directly contradicts the oath of their Soveraigne at his Coronation as this second branch of the Covenant doth binding us to endeavour the extirpation of the government of our Church by Bishops For that our Soveraign hath taken as contradictory Oath is evidently manifest by the last clause of the oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation when after many other gracious promises wch the King makes to his people one of the Bishops reading to the King before the people concerning the Canonicall priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protectour and Defender of the Bishops the Churches under their government the King answereth in these words With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge all canonicall priviledges and due Law and Iustice and that I will be your Pretectour and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a solemn Oath in the presence of the people to observe the premisses and laying his hand upon the book saith The things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep so help me God and the contents of this Book How can this Oath then for the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops be consistent with the Oath or Honour of our Soveraign which we have so solemnly protested to defend in the late Protestation How can we with a solemn Oath enter into such a Covenant to which we may neither swear without our Soveraigns consent nor yet can lawfully desire nor have his consent How sad were our condition were the King willing of himselfe to violate this Oath But what should we have to answer should we by taking such a Covenant this way necessitate so far as in us lies His sacred Majesty to violate his Oath so solemnly sworn at his Inauguration Secondly that to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops is a sin against Divine Law all those Arguments and Authorities convince which prove that Bishops are of Apostolicall institution and unalterable and consequently Divine which we shall unfold in these Propositions First that their institution stands grounded upon our Saviours own Action and Institution of the Apostles Secondly that Christ and his holy Spirit by his Apostles appointed Bishops Thirdly that Christ the Sonne of God and the Holy Ghost afterward confirmed and approved Bishops and their Commission and power which the Apostles had appointed For the first we say their institution is grounded upon our Lords own instituting and ordaining twelve Apostles above seventy Disciples who saith to these his Apostles As my Father hath sent me even so send I you a St. Joh. 20. 21. As in other ends of his mission so how not in this which we know they did according to his pattern As he was sent by his Father therefore to ordain one order of Teachers of the Gospell superiour to another which we know because he did so ordain So also sent he his Apostles to ordain which accordingly they did and whatsoever they did by Christs example therein they did by his Commission here given in an imparity Bishops succeeding the Apostles above Presbyters subordinate as the seventy a That Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the ordinary part of their function as it is the judgement of the most ancient godly Fathers b that Bishops we say as contradistinct to Presbyters were the successours of the Apostles so is it manifest from Scripture since power Episcopall as it is now taken in this dispute which we shall prove to have been given by the Apostles to Bishops and to them onely after the Apostles was undeniably in the Apostles and for a while held in their own hands without communicating it to others That the Bishops were afterwards instituted by the Apostles themselves which so many ancient Authous have averred c And namely by the Apostolicall Authority of St. Paul and their institution part of holy Scripture is made good in that the power and Office of a Bishop as the word is now taken in the Ecclesiasticall notion is prescribed in the three Epistles of St. Paul to those two famous Church-governours Timothy and Titus particularly the Office and power of a Bishop as it is now taken contradistinctly to the Office of a Presbyter in these Texts 1 Tim. 1. 3. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22. 2. Tim. 1. 6. Tit. 1. 5 11. Tit. 3. 9. 10 and some others and these Texts thus interpreted by Antiquity d And as the office prescribed there is Episcopall so these two appointed to this prescribed office of a Bishop by St. Paul himselfe 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Tit. 1. 5. Yea by the holy Ghost say Chrysost. Theophyl Oecumenius by divine Revelation saith Theodoret of Timothy And that these two were Bishops according to the Ecclesiasticall notion of the word now used ancient Fathers plentifully witnesse b Moreover this superiority to office Episcopall to have been fixed and continued to the day of death is evident as from Church-history so also from 1 Tim. 6. 14. where {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the same with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the beginning of the Epistle 1 Tim. 1. 18. and includes in it the whole charge given by St. Paul to Timothy in this Epistle c From which Text also it is manifested that his Office prescribed was not personall onely but to descend by succession unto the comming of Christ d Thirdly this Office and power Episcopall that it was afterward approved and confirmed by the Sonne of God himselfe immediately and by the holy Ghost will be proved from Revel. c. 1. 2. 3. Where by the seven Stars the Angels of the seven Churches according to all reason from the Text it selfe and by the testimony of Antiquity e are seven Bishops of those seven Churches understood which Ecclesiasticall story mentions to have been in the Church long before this time as so many Angels and Apostles f of the Churches such as was Polycarp the Angell the Bishop of the Church of Smyrna made Bishop of that place by the Apostles themselves thirteen
without the Kings consent viz. an allowance of Subjects joyning in Arms against their Soveraign which they would warrant from the actions of Q Elizabeth K. James and our gracious Soveraign Here we must indeed ingenuously professe that we have not been sufficiently exercised in passages of State to give a full satisfaction in all these particulars wherefore we shall not of our selves interpose at all onely briefly speak to their instances 1. As concerning the assistance of and the confederacy with the united Provinces we shall transcribe for satisfaction a part of a Declaration of Q. Elizabeth who first entered upon their Assistance the Declaration is entituled A Declaration of the causes moving the Q. of England to give ayd to the defence of the people afflicted and oppressed in the low Countries This Declaration was put sorth 1585. and in the 8 9. pages it hath these words And furthermore as a good loving Sister to him and a naturall good Neighbour to his Low Countries and people we have often and often again most friendly warned him that if he did not otherwise by his wisdom and Princely clemency restrain the Tyranny of his Governours and cruelty of his men of war we feared that the people of his Countrys should be forced for safety of their lives and for continuance of their native Countrey in their former state of their liberties to seek the protection of some other forraign Lord or rather to yield themselves wholy to the Soveraignty of some mighty Prince as by the ancient Laws of their Countreys ' and by speciall priviledges granted by some of the Lords and Dukes of the Countries to the people they do pretend and affirm that in cases of such generall injustice and upon such violent breaking of their priviledges they are free from their former Homages and at liberty to make choice of any other Prince to be their Prince and Head The proof whereof by examples past is to be seen and read in the ancient Histories of divers alterations of the Lords and Ladies of the Countries of Brabant Flanders Holland and Zealand and other Countries to them united by the States and People of the Countries And that by some such alterations as the Stories do testifie the Duke of Burgundy came to his Title from which the King of Spains interest is derived Upon these principles it it evident that then the Queen and Kings of England in joyning to the assistance of or confederacy with the low Countries have not joyned with Subjects in Arms either against or without the consent of their true undoubted Monarch 2. As touching the assistance of the French Protestants of Rochell by our gracious Soveraign that now is we shall onely reply not insisting upon the Charter of Rochell granted to them by Lewis the 11. that we are fully satisfied that no argument can be drawn from thence except by those who would raise a dispute of His Majesties Title and Interest in the Kingdom of France 3. As for the Scots we expected that all further mention of their former actions should have been prevented by the Act of Oblivion Yet seeing these men have undertaken to make an advantage against His sacred Majesty even out of His acts and expressions of Grace and Clemency we answer That forms of Pacification and reconciliation are not to be interpreted any further then to the reputation of the party to whom the reconciliation is made you have not done so or so i.e. you shall be to me as if you had not so as out of His Majesties expressions in the late pacification with the Scots to conclude his approbation of the course then taken by them or to take a warrant for their present undertaking seems to be alike as if they should conclude that it was lawfull for other Churches to use St. Paul as the Galathians had done by accounting him their enemy because by his own confession they had done him no injury and should gather that out of his Act of pacification with them Gal. 4. 12. Brethren I beseech you be as I am I am as ye are ye have not injured me at all The sum of all is this The Assembly of Divines in their exhortation have neither concluded any thing positive for a lawfulnesse or necessity of taking this Covenant nor taken away any of those scruples which they propounded to themselves they have neither proved that Bishops must or may be extirpated nor taken off the scruple from the Oath of Canonicall obedience They have neither cleared the objection from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy nor proved by any example recorded in Scripture or by any undoubted warrantable practise that it is lawfull in any case whatsoever without the Kings consent to enter into any whatsoever League and Covenant So far have they been from proving that it is necessary or lawfull to enter into this League the state of the question being such as we in the beginning have evinced it to be So that should we enter into this covenant it would be impossible to conclude our innocency therein from the innocency of Mordecai and the lewes here mentioned out of Esther 9. Their innocency was clear indeed but how would ours be so in that they resisted not the higher power or the Arms commanded by him otherwise then by Fasting and Prayer untill the King granted them leave to gather themselves together and to stand for their lives which before they did not assume for no want of sufficient strength to have defended themselves as is usually in the like cases objected which is evident from their after sufficient strength by themselves to defend themselves cap. 9. Thus having examined the strength of their Reasons and Allegations we think it still true not onely pretended as the Exhortation hath it that Clergy men above all others may not covenant to extirpate Church government by Bishops both because of their Oath as hath been proved and simply considering the nature of the thing in respect of the Reasons already by us alledged and because Presbyters if here they erre they erre most dangerously and arrogantly swearing in effect to endeavour to extirpate all order of spirituall Church Governours above themselves to endure none such if they can help it superiour to themselves The danger we had rather such should hear from St. Cyprian Epist. 10. Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini Iudicium neque nunc sibi praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub Antecessoribus factum est cum contumelia contemptu praepositi totum sibi vendicent What also will they think of that ancient and reverend Canon the 35. among those 50. commonly called The Canons of the Apostles {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} If any one ordained Bishop be not received not through his own will but through the wickednesse of