by the Covenant Case 9th Pa. 32.33 be sinful 1. THese two Cases contain your first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful and unlawful An Antagonist would much quarrel at your method management and terms in his discourse but we seeking satisfaction pursue your scope and pass by such Peccadilloes 2. Your major Proposition is determined in your second case viz. that to endeavour against the Right of the King as oblieged thereunto by the Covenant is sinful 3. In this Sir we shall not dissent from you we find Mr. Crofton grant it candidly conceding to the Oxford Reasons that no peace can be firm and well grounded which is not bottomed in Justice whose proper and adaequate act is Ius suum cuique unless the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire he therefore cryeth out Specifie the defect in this Covenant as to these particulars I cannot read or understand if they be not all secured by the same Truly Sir we cannot but do the Covenant that right as to observe it bindeth its Subject to preserve the Authority as well as the Person of the King and we cannot easily believe it bindeth in any thing against the Kings Right 3. We hope Sir we may without offence observe the Kings Right of Prerogative is ill pleaded by such who themselves despise and disregard it disobeying the directions of his Royal Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs dictated by his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes they give cause to be suspected to throw it in the way of Antagonists as a stumbling stone on which to break their legs or necks who use it as a stepping stone in the way of their unwarrantable rigour and severity 4. Sir we are so heartily devouted to the service of the King that we dare not in the least detract from his Royal Prerogitive we well know England hath its Statute de Prerogativa Regis as Rome had her Lex Regia we unfeignedly wish this were amplified and made as legible as other Statutes yet Sir the severe censures passed in Parliament upon Dr. Manwaring and Sibthorp do loudly proclaim a possibility for Church-men to scrue the Prerogative of the King beyond its due pitch and the proportion of Englands Constitution 5. Your Major proposition allowed we might weigh your proof of the Minoâ— viz. your Eighth Case To endeavour to alter the Government of the Church is against the Right of the King 6. To the proofe of this you tell us it is against the Right of the King as Executor of the Law and you assign for your first Reason Church-Officers are the Kings Commissioners they taken away the head must fall Good Sir give us a cleare Answer to these two Enquiries 1. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King No Bishop no King hath been an Eventnal but is it a Moral truth Were there no Kings where there was no Bishops Were not Kings in Nations when all Church Government was in the Pope and his Substitutes Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical may add to the glory but not the being of the King Erastus himse would not say Kings cease to be King if they minde meddle not with Church-affaires we are not-yet perswaded that a Royal head must needs stand on Religious Shoulders and fall when these are withdrawn 2. Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Arch-Bishops Bishops c. taken away this Head must fall May not National Privincial and Classical Presbyteries become the Kings Commissioners in the slead of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Commissaries Chancellors c May not the Kings Supremacy exsist in and be executed over and by them subsistuted thereunto 7. Your first Medium seemeth to be of little force to prove To endeavour after Church Government is against the Kings Right as Executor of the Law your next is more general viz. Conâ—… to endeavour to eâ—…pate the Government of the Church doth directly oppose the whole comse of our lives against the Kings Government and that lay you is the sense of the Covenanters themselves 8. Sir If you had said To endeavour to exstitpate doth oppose us ni to this Government the whole course of our affections you had indeed spoken the Covenanters sense yet they will not slick to extend it to the whole course of our lives under those limitations Acts lawful In our places and Callings through the grace of God But Sir they will tell you These are Acts of endeavour for exstirpation other then what you mention such are theological disputation submiss supplication popular Groans or Complaints of greivances by and under it which are consistent with submission to it whilst existent thus it may be in all Corperations and the Church is not excepted 9. But Sir some do and will deny this Government to be the Kings Government Established and animated by the Laws whereof it is his Right to be Executor this you attempt to prove and in its time and place we shall consider At present let it be observed this Government was not at first animated by the Kings authority Acted not in the Kings name but challenged somtimes a forinsecal but ever a Divine intrinsecal power for its principle distinct from yea opposite to the Kings Authority its subjects were with much difficulty and the pinch of Premunire brought to the submission of the Clergie after which the Kings Laws have indeed limited restrained regulated directed and in some things authorized ' these Governours who yet Acting in their name and under their own Seds and affirming themselves to be the upholding Essential animation to Regality by their Cry No Bishops no King make Covenanters conceive they yet think scorn to oâ—… this Government as animated by the King and his Laws though they object it as a stone on which they wish to see their Opposers run their heads until they dash out their brains 10. You further urge To endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Right of the King as Legislator Pa. 30. the Covenant binding to do without the Kings consent whether he would or no. 11. Sir to this we must tell you we do not finde in the Covenant any such words as that we shall endeavour to exstirpate or alter the Government without the Kings consent not do we finde in it any words which by a fair and genuine construction can bear any such sense and we finde the Covenanters do deny it Mr. Crofton whom you most assault doth own the King as chief Ana leps Ana lepth Pa. 98.99 though not sole Legislator and allots Acts of endeavour to procure the Kings consent to which the Covenant he saith doth oblige 12. Truly that limitation on the Covenant is so just ful and legible viz. Through the grace of God in our places and Callings that we cannot but yeild to Mr. Crofton the defence of the Kings power is not repugnant to the dutys of our particular Callings and
review of these and the like expressions finde our assent and consent is required to those Words which Without forming an edge to wound our selves do contain and prescribe things to which no rational man in his right minde can declare the same 20. We now proceed to consider another Objection which you slate and resolve in this Case viz. Though we could Use the things Pa. 7. Objection 2 it is only for peace sake and in obedience to Authority and not that we would chuse or can absolutely approve of these things indifferent To this Sir you tell us we may not approve Absolutely but Comparatively The first you say in Charity to our Governours we conceive to be required in the Declaration Pag 8 because it is impossible all men should in so many perticulars and various Circumstances be of one minde But Sir 21. We humbly conceive we do not break Charity to our Governors if we conclude that they knowing all men could not in so many perticulars and various circumstances be of one minde and believing Unanimity to be the bond of Uniformity did determine to knock off from publique Ministration in the Church all who were not of the same minde and who would not Declare the same in such words as were by them prescribed 22. Truly Sir we see very little cause to believe the Act will allow such a Comparitive approbation of the Common Prayer book as you do expiers It might somthing satisfy us if we had our assurance from our Legislators that such a Comparative approbation would satisfy the Law but they are herein silent and the Law giveth not sufficient Reason on which we may conclude it 23. You say the Grounds of this Assent and consent are not specified in in the Act if by the Grounds you mean the Reasons inducing the Legislators to require such an assent and consent we must be bold to deny what you â—ff mâ—…nd intreate you to let us know what you make there words in the Act Now in regard that nothing conduceth to the setling to peace in this Nation which is desired by all good men not to the honour of our Religion and the propagation thereof then an Universal agreement in the publick worship of Almighty God and to the end Uniformity may be effected it is enacted c. Sir we know not how to understand an Engglish Law if Universal Agreement and Uniformity to be effected be not declared Grounds for enjoying such a Declaration of Assent and Consent 24. Such a Comparitive Assent and Consent Pa. 9 10 as you assert will not well pass as unfeigned avoiding a severe Penalty securing a good Living and a Legal opportunity of serving the Church not shewing our selves cross to Authority and delivering our Family from ruine are bad enducements to an unfeigned Assent and Consent all men will understand them Temptations to a Faint unfeigned Assent and Consent let what will be required if this comparison may bear weight it shall not pass without an unfeigned Assent and Consent 25. Sir we see with little cause you have to quarrel Pa. 10. that it is reported the Assent and Consent declared must be Free For Sir this Freedome is necessary and Essential to unfeigned An Act Extorted will never be judged unfeigned but suspected of Hypocrisie if any report it to be expressed in the Declaration let them beare their blame but truely we think it is unavoidably implyed 26. Sir To remove all scruples from us for ever Pa. 11. you offer us the Act for the interpretation of it self It would to some of us be worth some hundreds by the year if you could lend us your understanding also we grant to you that the words immediately forgoing the Declaration are these Every Minister shall declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and none other But what then 27. We agree with you we must declare our unfeigned Assent and Consent but to what To all things with respect to their use and that in these words and no other But Sir that this refereth our Assent and Consent to the using Act and That only we cannot see these Acts have for their Object All things contained prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer c. And the use thereof is the End of this Assent and Consent so that the Act puts this plain Interpretation on the required Declaration Every Minister shall Uniformely use the book but unanimity being the spur and bond of Uniformity they shall declare an Unfeigned Assent and Consent to all things contained and prescribed in and by the book So that we must Use the Book with a Minde perswaded of the Truth and Goodness of the things to be used 28. This Sense of the Law we are induced to receive because 1. This Declaration Respecteth the use of the Comomon Prayer and is the Security of Unfeignedness in that Act the use of it without a Minde fully Assenting to the things contained and Freely consenting to the things prescribed in and by this Book would be but formal forced and feigned we are confident our Legislators intended to obviate all haltings in Conformity and this is only done by requiring an unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use upon an unfeigned Assent and consent to all and every thing therein contained and prescribed 2. The Use of the book is not once mentioned in the Declarations as the Object of the Assent and consent but the Things therein contained and prescribed are ever expressed in the Declaration and the Use of it is exptessed in the Law only as the End secured by the Declaration 3. Universal agreement in the publick Worship of Almighty God is declared to be the ground of this Law and Uniformity is the end thereof both which can be only effected by the unanimity of the Administrators in the things to be by them uniformely used 4. The using Act is provided for promised and secured by the next following Declaration in these tearms I do declare that I will Conforme to the Liturgie of the Church of England as it is now Established by Law Conforme what is that to a Minister But that I will Use it and the the things contained and prescribed in and by it This is Sir your own sense of Conformity and sure Sir you will not say this second Declaration doth Actum agere do over what was done in the first Declaration these two must differ each from other That Declareth Assent and Consent to the Matter and Things This to the Act and Use thereof Sir until your sense of the Declaration be cleared from these exceptions or declared by the Legislators give us leave to tell you We could do some things directed in the Rubrick but cannot Assent or Consent to the direction We could at the Communion commend the poor to the Charity of the people but we understand not their other Devotions to
be then gathered the affected title Offertorie maketh it look like something exploded at our first Reformation from Popery We could receive the Collection from the Deacons or Church-Wardens and place it on the Table but we understand not the humble presenting and placing it on the holy Table it hereby soundeth like a Sacrifice we could Eate and Drink the remaines of Bread and Wine with some of the Communicants but we know no distinction Communion ended between Consecrated and unconsecrated Elements nor see we on what ground to Consent and Assent that the one be Eaten at the Holy Table by the Preist and Communicants and the other Taken home to the Curates House We could hansomely cover the Bread with a Napkin but we understand not what is meant by Reverent placing them on the Holy Table and covering them with a Linnen Cloath nor can we Assent or Consent thereunto 29. Reverend Sir Our Fathers were and our selves might be content in some things to Symbolize with Rome when our face was from hers but we cannot unfeignedly Assent and Consent unto such Simbolizing with her Now most men think and Nonconformists boldly affirme our face is towards her yet we pray for the peace and Glory of Englands Church that the Gospel may in her Flourish in Power and Purity Case II. VVhether it be lawful declare in the words of the second Declaration Case 2th Pa. 13 14 1. SIr we must tell you The many words in this Declaration affright us not yet we cannot but be affected to observe the persons who quarreled at the Covenant to impose an Oath or Declaration Tantamount so full of words Turpe est Doctori 2. But we consent to attend your motion in taking this Declaration in peices and you distribute it into three parts that which concerns the Taking Armes against the King Conformity and the Oath called the Solemne League and Covenant in each of which we shall consider your resolution and Reasons The first part you divide into these two Cases Case III. 1. Case 3. Pa. 15 Whether it be lawful for us to delare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Case IV. 2. Case 4. Pa. 16.17 Whether it be lawful to declare that we abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or those that are Commissioned by him 1. SIr These two you conclude in the Affirmative on so sharp promises that none dare or in prudence can speak the Negative or withstand you Tower and Tyburne are terrible places 2. This part of the Declaration doth not much concern us out opposition to the late Rebellion against the King our resistance of the Armes taken against him our constancy of Loyalty under the Cross do Iondly witness you and we cannot be in this particular at any great distance yet we know some Loyal hearts who stumble for whose sake we wish you had more thoroughly argued those Cases by some Medium which they might venture to meet you at we will tell you what we have heard whispered by men of Loyal hearts 3. Some say this Declaration is the personal affection of a present private opinion which being changeable can give no security and so reacheth not the end for which it is exacted these men in zeal to his Majesty could pass a Promissory Oath that they would not take Armes against the King for they conceive their Act is fully within their power though the stronger reasons they may meet with in men or books may alter their present opinions though declared under the most sacred Oath 4 Some say this Declaration is Dogmatical by persons whose Opinion cannot end the Political strife which hath been and is in the World about it and so it cannot reach the end of so solemn Declaration These stumble that the tearms are so indefinite as to render the Position applycable to every Kingdome 5. Some say the tearms are dubious if not false it being indefinitely inserted It is not lawful to take Armes against the King on any pretence what soever These think though this may be true and square to the Lawes of this Kingdome the constitution of other Kingdomes may make it contrary and although our King is and we hope ever will be so qualified that in reference to him it may be true yet it is not impossible for a King Regis personam exuere in a natural or moral madness or Phrensie to turn Tyrant yea Beast waving his Royal Place violently extrajudicially extramagisterially to assault his Subject as Saul did David In this case men think Nature doth dictate it and Scripture doth justifie a man Se defendendo vim vi repellere to take Armes though by rallying the men of Belialâ— not to resist yet to restrain the King and those who are Commissioned by him until they make good their retreat and more safely run out of his reach And this Sir is some pretence on which to speak of the Law of Nature is not as you affirme a Subterfuge and in answer to your what saith the Scripture they say it seemeth to be their Sheild this pretence being square to and consistent with professed obedience 6 To some it soundeth harsh to declare it a trayterous Positian to take Arms by the Kings authority against the Kings person or those Commissioned by him these will not be perswaded that if Queen Elizabeth had by vertue of the broad Seal brought to her in Sanctuary by the then Arch-Bishop of York arrayed and armed men against Richard Duke of Glocester possessing the person of King Edward the 5th she had thereby become a Traytor these men think it not impossible for England again to see a perfidious Protector of the person of an Infant-King and tremble to think that this Declaration may become the basis of Treason and Guard of Rebellion if some Russians should which God defend seize the person of a King he is a man from whom Commissions may be by fear extorted whereby true Loyalty must be on their side and Treason on the part of the Kings Counsel Kindred Ministers of State if Arming against his Person by his Authority though on such a pretence quo posito absurdum sequens non est ponendum But Sir these are a Noli me tangere which we shall not defend Case V. Whether it be Lawful to declare that we will Conforme Case 5th .. Pa. 19 20 to the Litturgie of the Church of England as it is now by Law Established THis Sir is the second part of the Declaration to which you have said little and we shall say less only mind you that this declaring Our Assent and Consent to the use of the Liturgie the foregoing Declaration doth determine Our unfeigned Assent and consent to the Things and Matters to be used that unanimity is the spring and spurr ground and guard of this promised Uniformity 2. But Sir we hasten after you to the Consideration of the