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
in Baptism Surplice in divine service supposed to be established Or those since pressed as the Bowing at the Name of Jesus Turning Tables into Altars and Bowing to them and placing on them Candlesticks and Tapers The Consecration of Churches and the like though I should which I confess I cannot admit what is pretended in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book that they are apt to stirre up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified yet I must enquire by what authority are they appointed the highest pretended is the Church and I see no Commission the Church hath to appoint such things If I mistake not the power of the Church is declarative executive and Ministerial not judicial and magisterial She may publish the matter and prescribe the Order of Gods Worship but not constitute or ordain new matter though never so much tending to edification against which she is expresly barr'd by the 2d Commandment And if she hath power to continue our Ceremonies because significant why or how shall those be excluded which are more antient and significant Such as were the baptizing for the Dead putting Cream and Honey into the mouth of the baptized insufflation and spitting at the Devil and the World and coming to baptism in a white Garment which was left behind and profitably produced as a pledge against Elpidophorus when Apostatized from the Faith in which he had been baptized and many such like Tertul Coron mil. pa. 449. Contra Marcion lib. 7. p. 155. which Tertullian mentioneth as used in the Church in the Year of our Lord 62. in the times of the Apostles than which the use of the Cross cannot be more ancient nor is it indeed so ancient If then the Church have not a power to ordain them on what basis do all our Ceremonies stand save that prophane Maxime No Ceremonies no Bishop Before it be determined that these Ceremonies are agreeable to the Word of God I wish it may be determined whether the appointment and Religious exercise of matter significant and so in it self tending to edification not instituted by Jesus Christ be not the very formality of Superstition Seventhly and Lastly Is it agreeable to the Word of God in ordination to divide the work of the Ministry and give authority to apply one of the Sacraments and not the other to baptize but not administer the Lords Supper otherwise than as Assistant to him who hath ministerial power of consecration as it is done in the Ordering of Deacons Again is it agreeable to the Word to denominate Gospel Ministers Priests which properly relate to a Sacrifice and Altar If so why did our late Masters altar the Title into Presbyters in the Scotch Liturgy It is agreeable to the Word that the Ministers of Jesus Christ swear or Solemnly promise obedience unto their fellow Ministers under the notion of an ordinary and Cheif Minister It is reason they keep order and be subject to the Assembly but parity of Office and Authority admits not of obedience Is it agreeable to the Word that Bishops sweare or Solemnly promise obedience unto the Archbishops If so why not Archbishops to Cardinals or Patriarchs and they to the Pope Is it because the Sea bounds our Papacy Is it in the forme of ordination agreeable to the Word that the Bishop ordaining do Magisterially repeat the words of Jesus Christ who had a power and did effect it viz. Receive thou the Holy Ghost Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained as actually giving the Holy Ghost as a qualification for that Office and after this to give authority of administration with a Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments Is it agreeable to the Word of God by a special Solemn and Religious act to Consecrate unto a degree convenient and only necessary for the method and Order of an Assembly as if it were and indeed however others think by reason of the variation of the word I believe it was intended to be an actual Ordination to a distinct Office of Ministry in the Church like the Cheif Priest-hood among the Jews I am at a loss in Civil or Religious Policy to finde a warrant for so Sacred a forme in an advancement to a degree yet I will not deny the formalities of the Chaire Is it agreeable to the Word of God that excommunication the last and greatest of Censures do proceed without admonition and be inflicted ipso facto before obstinacy the proper and only ground of it be detected much lesse convicted and that so dreadful a Censure be denounced on the non-observance of Rites and Ceremonies declared indifferent and other light and frivolous occasions nay on the very discharge of duty As suppose an exercise in a Market-Town Canons of 1603. Can. 72. or a Fast kept in the Parish Church on the occasion of some special exigency of that Parish or by a Minister in a private family whose domestick concernments may call for the house and family to mourn apart and intreat the assistance of their special particular friends in prayer and yet in all these cases it is directed in the Canons made by the Convocation in London of which the Bishop of London sate President Anno 1603. Sir these things and such like in the Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of England are obvious and have been often urged as needing Reformation and as Reasons Apologizing for the Non-subscription of the Sober Learned and Pious Non-conformists ever since the Reformation as by Mr. Thomas Cartwright the Ministers of Devonshire and Cornwal the Ministers within the Diocess of Lincolne and many others whose Printed Books could not but have been seen by at least some of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford and might have convinced their judgments that they had done amiss by their personal subscription to approve that all things in the four specified particulars were agreeable to the Word of God Sixthly Their confidence that all things in these four specified particulars are agreeable to the Word of God and need no Reformation may well engage them to conclude that they are much better than those of Scotland which they wear to swear to preserve For the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland differeth in all the particulars mentioned and so must needs be dissonant if these be AGREEABLE TO THE WORD OF GOD Yet Sir methinks the good grounds on which they thought so might for their clearer Apology and satisfaction of other souls called to swear the same Covenant have been specified and declared the rather for that they seemed to be in a strait when they pointed unto the accounting of Bishops Antichristian and indifferent Ceremonies unlawful the making their Discipline the mark of a true Church and the setting up thereof the erecting of the
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
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
Containing exceptions to the first Article of the Covenant really and constantly through the Grace of God endeavor in our several places and callings the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government against our common Enemies The Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches And shall endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion Confession of Faith Form of Church-Government Directory for Worship and Catechizing That we and our posterity after us may as Brethren live in Faith and Love and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us II. That we shall in like manner without respect of persons endeavor the extirpation of Popery Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops their Chancellors and Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy Superstition Heresie Schisme Profaneness and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness lest we pertake 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 the three Kingdoms III. We shall with the same sincerity reallity and constancy in our several Vocations endeavor with our estates and lives mutually to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments and the Liberties of the Kingdoms and to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms that the world may bear witness with our Consciences of our Loyalty and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesties just power and greatness IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavrr the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants or evil Instruments by hindring the Reformation of Religion dividing the King from His people or one of the Kingdoms from another or making any faction or parties amongst the people contrary to this League and Covenant that they may be brought to publick trial and receive condign punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the supream Judicatories of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed Peace between these Kingdoms denied in former times to our progenitors is by the good providence of God granted unto us and hath been lately concluded and setled by both Parliaments we shall each one of us according to our place and interest endeavor that they may remaine conjoyned in a firm Peace and Vnion to all posterity And that Justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof in manner expressed in the precedent Articles VI. We shall also according to our places and callings in this common cause of Religion Liberty and Peace of the Kingdom assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof and shall not suffer our selves directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination perswasion or terror to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed Vnion and Conjunction whether to make defection to the contrary part or to give our selves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdoms and the honour of the King but shall all the dayes of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all lets and impediments whatsoever and what we are not able our selves to suppresse or overcome we shall reveal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed All which we shall do as in the sight of God When I consider the matter of these several promises to have been propounded by a Parliament on advice had with an Assembly of Grave Learned and Judicions Divines who were to discover sin and make men to discerne between good and evil I cannot but retain a strong conjecture that it is all good and lawful And when I consider His late Majesties dissatisfaction expressed in His Contemplations to be more in respect of the manner than the matter my conjecture is much confirmed And when I observe His most Sacred Majesty at His late Coronation to have by Solemn Oath testified His allowance and approbation of the Solemn League and Covenant and by His Royal Declaration from Dumfirmling to have professed That on mature deliberation and being fully satisfied of the lawfulnesse and equity of the Solemn League and Covenant and every the Articles thereof Himself had sworn it and conjureth all his Subjects to lay aside their opposition to it Loyalty leads my conjecture unto a conclusion For such serious scrutiny by so sage and conscientious persons and that under the afflicting hand of that God who will not be mocked could not but have described the sinfulnesse of the matter if it be found But when I weigh the particulars promised and find them to be the Preservation of Religion and Reformation wherein it is corrupted and removal of what is thereunto obstructive as to the religious part of it and the preservation of the Kings Prerogative and peoples liberty and Nations unity and removal of the enemies thereof as to the civil part of it my conclusion is established and I find it so farre from unlawful that it binds us not to any thing which in the nature of it is not on us a positive duty though not bound by this most Sacred Bond and so farre is this Covenant from a repugnancie to our baptismal Covenant as our Dr. hath suggested in his * Page 12. Analysis that as I have in my * Page 22. Analepsis noted It is no hard matter to resolve it into the three heads of our baptismal promise taught by our Church For if I must believe the Articles of the Creed I must preserve sound Doctrine and reform to my power what is corrupt If I must keep Gods Commandments I must pursue pure worship and Religion towards God and Loyalty Love and unity towards men And if I must renounce the Divel and all his works I must extirpate Popery and Papal Prelacy Superstition Heresie Schisme will all incendiaries and evil instruments hinderers of Reformation And now I shall pray Dr. Gauden will shew us wherein this Covenant is so vastly different from the Covenant made in Baptisme Yet I shall consider once more the matter of the Covenant by those Rules which resolve the matter of an Oath unlawful and if it be therein chargeable I shall consent to the discharge of this Holy Bond. An Oath is in reference to the matter of it determined unlawful when it is unnecessary and about trifles and that is the prophaning of an Oath yet will
viz. That Ancient form of Church-government under which our Religion was at first so orderly Oxford Commendation of Prelacy considered without violence or tumult and so happily reformed and hath since so long flourished with truth and peace to the honour and happiness of our own and envy and admiration of other Nations But Sir good wine needs no bush it is well if the Arguments be as cogent to the mind as this glorious description of Englands Church-government is captivating to the affections I hope Sir serious Casuists in stating their Scruples do not set a lustre on the object by glorious Epithites o engage the admiration of the vulgar But Sir 1. Antiquity may be no Argument of its glory verity or goodnesse these learned men know this is the loud and common cry of Pagans for their Idolatry and Papists for their Superstition and Papacy which will in point of Age appear the Elder Brother to Englands Prelacy Pope Gregory being before Austin the Monk the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury and yet is not owned as any addition to their glory or demonstration of their verity for as true Religion is first received so it is after corruption reformed by the Redeemed from the vain Conversation received by tradition from their fathers 2. Order is indeed very amiable in any Act but what they mean by the orderly proceeding of the first Reformation I know not sure I am that the precedency of the Laity unto the Clergy in a work of this nature in which they should have been Dictators was more just than regular And when I consider the first step of Reformation in the expulsion of the Popes Supremacy supported by all the Bishops unto a premunire to have sprung in Henery the eighth from discontent at the Popes dealing in the business of Queen Katharine rather than conscience of its sinfulness to have been steered by policy not piety to stand consistent with a retention and fiery inforcement of Popish Doctrine and Worship unto the persecution and burning of Tyndal Lambert and others and imposing of the six Articles in which I must confess Cranmer quit himself like a faithful Bishop but others I find not opposing And when I observe the Line which first ruled in Henery the eighth his dayes to be retained and run-through the Reformation of King Edward the sixth and was too much regarded in the time of Queen Elizabeth who both acted from a more pious principle had but their Counsellors captivated their policy and the little knowledge of those reforming dayes given them to see and set up in its lustre and power the square and right Rule of Reformation I cannot but say Gods power is much more manifest in the first Reformation of England than was mans order and yet what order was History witnesseth to have been though under yet without yea against the Bishops Foxe Acts and Monuments p. 959. The hundred and eighteen thousand eight hundred and forty pounds paid by the Bishops of the two Provinces Canterbury and York for their pardon from the praemunire doth proclaim their opposition at the first The thirty persons chosen out of the Parliament to consider and conclude Articles of Religion and Cranmer and Ridleys Politick plea against pious Prince Edward the sixth for the Mass of his Sister Mary and the after-conclusions in their Convocations do not speak much of forwardness at the last whilst in the one or in the other they went not any faster than driven by the Kings injunctions 3. No marvel that they who could not see in this Reformation any disorder could not hear any noise of tumults attend it and yet if I mistake not the Tarratantara-murmur of the Lincoln-shire and York-shire men in their rebellious holy pilgrimage headed by Dr. Makeree denominated Captain Cobler and abetted by many of the Clergy not that I find resisted or quieted by any Episcopal influence in the time of Henry the eighth and the like insurrections of Suffolk York-shire Oxford-shire Devon-shire Cornwal and other Counties against the Reformation by King Edward the sixth doth signifie unto me that the Reformation was not at first more preposterouss than violent and tumultuous though not in the Authors yet in the opposition and reluctancy of its subjects occasioning this note to be left upon it Tantae molis erat Romanum evertere sedem Yet I must not by reason of the one or other deny it to have been happy but I desire freely to acknowledge that this Reformed Religion in the degree attained hath since happily flourished unto the honour of our own and envy of other Nations only I see not wherein this Government the extirpation of which is Covenanted to be endeavoured did either occasion or add unto the happiness and honour thereof I am sure it is noted by others and were I the first observe of it I durst undertake to make it good That Religion had sparkled and flourish'd with more honor and happiness in an higher degree of Reformation than it yet doth if not retarded and sometimes retrogaded by Englands Episcopal Prelates who have made it so much pompous unto sense and the Worlds admiration but so little powerful to the spirit But Sir I love not to recriminate or reproach things or persons I shall therefore pass this applause of our late Prelacy with this Request That the Masters and Scholars of Oxford or any other will please to tell us what there is in this Government so special and peculiar for its efficacie to the order and quiet of Reformation that may not be sound in another Form of Government for that only is of the essence and so must be the Emphasis of this Episcopacy Subsectio Septima The apprehension of the worth of this Government had Sir its full influence on the affections of these learned men they therefore profess themselves 1. Affected with grief and amazement to see it endeavoured to be extirpated without any reasons offered to their understanding for which it should be thought necessary or expedient so to do 2. Ranked with Popery Superstition Heresie and Profaness 3. Intimated to be some way or other contrary to sound Doctrine or the power of godliness Unto all this I shall say in brief 1. That if the constant struglings of this Government Their grounds of affection and amazement at Extirparion of Prelacy examined with the Civil power and encroachment on the Royal Authority in all Ages having not kept its bounds but hy exercising absolute independent Authority in their own Names and under their own Seals in a Legislative Declaration of what is Treason and by an Imperial power to prescribe Oaths to be sworne as in the Canons of 1640. the Bishops of both Provinces did presume to do if its innovation defence and propagation of erroneous Doctrines and Superstition if its suppression of Truth and true Religion by silencing suspending faithful Preachers if its violence irregularity and injustice in High Commission Censures banishing imprisoning confiscating stigmatizing
and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ and that by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from him as deputed by him Governours of his Church Or at least that Episcopal Aristocracy may lay a more just title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterial Democracy and Independants by particular Congregations or gathered Churches 2. We are assured by the undoubted testimony of Ancient Records and later History that this Form of Government hath been continued with such an universal uninterrupted unquestioned succession in all the Churches and in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together that there never was in all that time any considerable opposition against it that of Aerius was the greatest which grew from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick From which antiquity to depart they fear by this extirpation to give advantage to the Papists by contempt of antiquity and should diminish the Authority due to the consentient judgement and practice of the universal Church c. Sir this is a very fair and specious exception for Divine Institution and ancient universal practice are very strong bars against any Oath and strong conjecture of the one and certain assurance of the other do forcibly supersede any mans acting to the contrary yet Sir I wonder that these learned men do but think of a Divine Institution and yet are assured of ancient universal practice uninterrupted for fifteen hundred year methinks the last should rather have remained doubtful for conscience can only be satisfied in the certainty of the former A think so in a Divine Warrant is both sinful and dangerous and I think the universal uniterrupted practice of the Church for fifteen hundred years might well run back unto the times of our Lord and Saviour and at least the Acts of his Apostles and the Sacred as well as Ecclesiastical Story might make mention of this Government and so create an undeniable certainty for the one is a very uncertain ground of assurance without the other But stay Sir I forgot the year in which these learned men wrote it was 1647. and so indeed one hundred and forty years might return before Episcopal Government appeared in the World and yet they may by antient Records and later Histories find the practice of it fifteen hundred years but this will more weaken than strengthen the Divine Right for without doubt the most primitive and pure estate of the Church was in the first one hundred and forty years 2. Their Argument loseth its force by the ambiguity of their terms for I am Sir at the same loss with them for the Ratio formalis objecti Saint Peters Bonds abide p. 2 3. the thing to be extirpated as in my last with Dr. Gauden They tell us of an Episcopal Government and an Episcopal Aristocracy but do not describe it it is no marvel that the Popes Legates should interdict the dispute in the Council of Trent History of the Council of Trent Edit 3. p. 591 592. concerning the Divine Right of Episcopal Superiority or direct it into such general and uncertain debates that there might be of it no determination but Sir I think it very strange that a Protestant University professedly seeking satisfaction to their conscience should so sophistically by general terms of an uncertain acceptation maintain to themselves doubts to which they desire resolution They well know Episcopal Government may denominate the Government Communi Concilio Presbyterorum by all Ministers in the Church who are the very true undoubted Scripture-Bishops unto which or whom there may be ordinis causa for method sake a Superintendent Moderator or Chair-man and this Episcopal Government is undoubtedly of Divine Institution and antient practice prescribed by the Holy Ghost and propounded in the sacred story of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 20.28 where as in other Scriptures Bishops and Presbyters are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same Office and Authority and enjoying the same qualifications and by common consent ruling the Church of Christ and then Sir we must tell them this is not to be endeavoured to be extirpated nor doth the Covenant so propound it which if it do I consent to reject it But if by Episcopal Government they mean that special Form and Frame of Government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministry above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an Authority peculiar to him eonomine as Bishop of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction unto whom all other his Fellow-Ministers are Subjects and must swear to him obedience who must have a Council denominated Deans Deacons Prebends Chapters and the like over and among whom he sits as Lord and yet over him acknowledgeth a more superiour order under the title of Arch-bishop to whom he oweth and sweareth obedience and in this superiour order and lordly manner he ruleth all Pastours and People somtimes by himself somtimes by his Chancellor or Comissary his Surrogates Deans and Arch-deacons with all Officers of State and Power within such prefixed bounds and limits which is called his peculiar Diocess and either they must mean this or mistake the meaning of the Covenant which yet doth very plainly describe the Prelacy to be extirpated to be a Government by Arch-bishops Bishops their Chancellours Commissaries Deans c. And then Sir I must deny not that they think for I must believe the profession of their thought though I think it strange but that there is any good ground for such thoughts and the opinion of an University will not without good demonstration in this point beget such thoughts in me That the Apostles by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from Christ and deputed Governours of his Church did ever establish this Episcopal Government or that it was according to the mind and after the example of Jesus Christ who himself did never exercise a Pompous and Princely power over his Disciples but conversed with them as his Peers and Equals and gave them in charge that they should not affect Superiority one over another or Princely power over Gods Heritage I must put these Masters and Scholars of Oxford to prove by plain and pregnant Scripture That the Office of the Ministry may in Ordination be divided and only some part of it be thereby committed so as that the Deacons may preach and baptize but not consecrate the Lords Supper That there are more orders of the Ministry than one the Bishop or Presbyter or more Officers in the Church than Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their Apostolical Authority who have only described their qualification and directed the Ordination of these two and no more That the Presbyter in whom is required the same qualification to whom is to be yielded the same obedience subjection and respest who receiveth the same Ordination and is charged with the same duty
expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The â—greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliamâ—â—to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which
Oxford Reasons Exceptions to the 3d. Article of the Covenant Sectio quinta p. 12 13 14. only they stumble at those words relating to the defence and preservation of the Kings Majesty Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom which they conceive to be a limitation of our absolute duty by a condition not allowable Though some endeavour to justifie these words as a condition put upon our duty by the power of Parliament who may limit the Prerogative of the King as well as extend it and think it will abide a Dispute I am not of their opinion for I do profess my self convinced that our allegiance and so the preservation of the Kings Person and Authority is an absolute duty founded in the Relation without Regard to the Quality Piety or Impiety of the Person who is bound also to His duty but not on the condition of the Subj cts duty both King and People owe a Reciprocal duty each to other and are bound to God to perform it but the duty of the one is no limiting condition to the other and therefore in all those contests for the Covenant in behalf of the King which not only I but other Ministers have undergone in the opposition of the late sinful Engagement Vid. The Exercitation concerning usurped powers Vindication of the Oath of Allegiance by the same Authour Lancashire and Cheshire Plea for non-subscribers to the late Engagement These words have been understood to be a predication of the capacity in which the Kingdom Parliament and People then were under the opposition of Malignants who divided the King from the People and so the meaning of it is thus We being in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms shall endeavour to preserve the Kings Majesties Person and Authority I wish therefore that it may be observed That the words fall into a plain parenthesis and the sentence is entire without them and they are fixed at the end of the Obligation which relates unto the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and liberties of the Subject as well as the preservation of the King and yet these cannot be limited and this sense is not only consonant to principles of right Reason and true Religion but also the Declaration of the Parliament in their then proceedings and the scope of this Covenant and this very Article which closeth with a most Solemn Appeal to the World to bear witness of our loyalty and that we have no thoughts to diminish His Majesties just power and greatnesse and I hope these serious Casuists will grant that where the words of an Oath seemingly doubtful may they must be understood in a good and just sense and then their exceptions to such a limitation in the Covenant do vanish with the Hypothesis on which they are built and inferred Unto the fourth Article of the Covenant these Masters and Scholars of Oxford do suggest something in Politicks which soundeth as strangely in my ears as their past Divinity indeed they determine it not but only desire it may be considered 1. Whether this Article lay not a necessity on the son to accuse his father and pursue him to destruction in case he should be an Incendiary Malignant or evil Instrument as is in this Article described which they conceive to be contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity 2. Whether the swearing this Article do not open a ready way to children and husbands that are sick of their fathers and w ves by appeaching them of Malignancy the letter to effectuate their unlawful intentions and designes To these I should have only desired it may be considered 1. Whether all penal Statutes in point of Treason and Felony open not as ready a way for children and husbands to be rid of their fathers and wives and the danger of concealment be not a very fair Apology for the same are they therefore contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity Have they never heard of such wickednesse know they not that there is an impossibility of fence against malicious accusations mischievously managed Must therefore these Statutes be voided as wicked and the like be prevented for time to come 2. Did not these learned men take the Oath of Allegiance and therein sware That they will to the best of their endeavour disclose and make known unto His Majesty His Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Trayterous Conspiracies which they should know or hear of to be against Him or any of Them May natural affection interdict this duty or are natural Relations exempt from this discovery may not mischievous men find open a ready way to appeal such as stand between them and their desires or did these Gentlemens learning and loyalty lead them to conclude the Oath of Allegiance is against Religion Nature and Humanity 3. May one time make contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity that kind of promise which at another time may be consistent therewithall These Gentlemen pleaded the protestation of the 5th of May 1641. as a bar to the swearing this Covenant and tell us often they sware that and therein they sware in this Form of words To my power and as far as lawfully I may I will oppose and by all good meanes endeavour to bring to condigne punishment all such as shall either by force practice counsels or conspiracies or otherwise do any thing to the contrary of any thing in this present protestation contained will they please to tell us whether these words be not as directly contrary to the fourth as the fore-going promise of this protestation was unto the first Article of this Covenant or doth not this Protestation lay as great necessity and give as fair an occasion for the son to accuse the Father and persue him to destruction and so appear as much against Religion Nature and Humanity as doth the Solemn League and Covenant 4. I should have prayed the judgment of these learned men on that Law prescribed by Moses to Israel in Deut. 13.6 7. 8 9 10. If thy brother the son of thy Mother or thy son or thy daughter or the wife of thy bosome or thy friend which is as thine own soul entice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other gods c. thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine eye pity him neither shalt thou spare neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterwards the hand of all the people c. and all Israel shall hear and fear and shall do no mere so wickedly did not this Law bind to the same act give the same occasion lay the same necessity which is laid by this Article of the Covenant And was it contrary to Religion Nature and Humanity Did these Gentlemen think we expect to be preferred by this notion of Policy or if they suggested this exception
by a spirit of Prelacy will it not bespeak that Government prejudicial to the Civil State which condemneth Conventicles in acts of piety but admits Families the Subjects houses the places and natural affection to be the protection of Treasonable Seditious Conspiracies But they adde against this Article that it binds to suffering punishment by an arbitrary power without Law or Merit contrary to the liberty of the Subject declared for by the House of Commons Let us Sir but read the words of the Covenant and that will evidence a contradiction to the Parliaments Declaration of the same nature with those we have before observed the words are these That they may be brought to publick Tryal and receive condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall deserve or the Supreme Judicatories of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient If Sir condigne punishment on publick Tryal according to the degree of the offence be without law or merit and Judicatory Supream Judicatory be Arbitrary High Courts of Justice and their proceedings will be Just and Regular and the liberty of the Subject for I think them to be more Opposites than the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant Unto the fifth Article of this Covenant Oxford Exceptions to the fifth Article of the Covenant they profess a readiness to confederate but they pretend to a double Remora 1. They do not see the happiness of such a blessed peace between the three Kingdoms Ireland being at War within it self To which I should have said no more than this Gentlemen where are your eyes and what obstructs your sight when you sware the Protestation you sware By all just and honourable wayes to endeavour to preserve the union and peace of the three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Was not Ireland then at War within it self Or have you forgotten that it was so or is not the Peace now concluded by both Parliaments and confirmed by this Covenant a greater happiness of settlement than was then obtained Sure some strong passion acted these learned men to make Mountains against the Covenant what were Mole-hills wssen they swore the Protestation But their second Remora is That no peace can be firm and well-grounded which is not bottomed on justice whose proper and adequate act is jus suum cuique unless the respective Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire To this I should say no more then this Specifie the defect of this Covenant as to these particulars for I cannot read or understand if they be not all secured by the same Suggestions without plain Demonstration do proclaim jealousie and prejudice but make no Argument or good Apology against required duty Unto the sixth and last Article Oxford Exceptions to the sixth Article of the Covenant being an Obligation of adherence to this Covenant against all opposition they say no more then what must be expected that untill they be satisfied in the Premises stated in the foregoing Articles of the Covenant they could not su scribe to this Conclusion which we must needs admit them hoping that a more cool serious survey of the Covenant second thoughts on their Exceptions thereunto may satisfie their consciences and lead them to bewail their unhappiness in throwing such stumbling blocks before their weak Brethren under the Name and Authority of a Famous and Learned University and for their groundless dissent and refusal of an enjoyed duty relating to the Honour of God Reformation and defenct of Religion Honour and Happiness of the King Peace and Safety of the Kingdoms in a Solemn League and Covenant which Sir we find notwithstanding these so much admired Exceptions approves it self lawful in respect of the matter therein sworn to be preserved or pursued and will the better stand under all defects and miscarriages in point of manner and form of making it which is the next thing to be considered Sectio quarta Proposition 4. The Form and Manner of making the Solemn Leagne and Covenant was good and allowable IN the Consideration of this Position I intend not to consider the Form constituting it an Oath which is evident and known to all to have been a Solemn Calling to God to witness and avenge the violation or neglect thereof in respect of which its obligation is established against whatever defects and miscarriages did attend the agitation thereof from which nevertheless I would desire it as much may be acquitted for it is pity so good matter should be blemished by the circumstances which attended it Nor shall I insist on an Historical Narration of the publick Assemblies in which it was taken the Solemnity thereof in respect of the quality of persons the Parliament both Lords and Commons the Commissioners of Scotland the Assembly of Divines making the first Assembly that entred into it nor the Order by Solemn Humiliation and Prayer and serious Instruction and Exhortation which attended it nor the universal alacrity joy and content of the most serious in England and Scotland which accompained this first Act of making the Covenant nor the after particular Solemnities both for number quality and disposition of persons and religious composed order in which it was taken in the City of London the several Counties and Congregations of England then which I may boldly say no publick Act ever passed by and among the people of England more solemnly or more religiously which though it be now darkned and despised doth set a lustre on this Covenant to abide under the greatest contempt and reproach cast upon it and will most strongly bind in the presence of God and men But my intentions are to defend those actions as good I do not say necessary and allowable which were and might be done without any sin or any debilitation of the Covenant against which I find the Exceptions of the Enemies to the Covenant most strongly bent that thereby they might represent it vile if not render it void and these are either 1. The order of the words 2. Nature of the thing 3. Authority which enjoyned it 4. Or the action and gesture of the body used in the swearing of this Covenant All which I humbly conceive will be found such as might well suit so solemn an Act as is a National Covenant yet I find some late opposition thereunto and in special by the Oxford Reasons and the League Illegal I shall briefly try their strength 1. Sir As to the order of the words I find Dr. 1. The order of the words vindicated against Dr. Featliey League Illegal Pag. 14. Featlies ghost in the League Illegal like some hellish fury representing the Dr. to have been a man so haughtily devoted to the punctilio's of order and honour as not to brook or keep his hands from tearing a List Catalogue or Register wherein they who were below him should be ranked above and named before him in sense whereof
their former Protestation if rightly understood in sundry the most material Branches of it Unto this Sir I must say that I know not what did appear to them to have been the power of the imposers and challenged in former times only unto me and many others it did appear not to he the meer natural Power of the People preposterously and in a tumultuous manner assembled who yet do appear to have a power to impose on themselves an Oath and to whom I find Soveraignty it self to speak it with due Reverence in some measure subjected and its obligation superseded if not made void clearly barred from execution if but by the impossibility put thereon as it was in the case of Jonathans Rescue which I shall only report in the words of Bishop Hall Saul hath sworn Jonathans death the people contrarily swear his preservation Halls Contem. p. 1038. his Kingdom was not so absolute yet more absolute than Englands that he could run away with so unmerciful a justice their Oath which savoured of disobedience prevailed against his Oath which savoured of too much cruelty and so long as his heart was not false to his Oath he could not be sorry Jonathan should live I do not in any case justifie the preposterous and tumultuous Assemblings and Assumptions of the People whereby they lay on themselves Bonds which must not be broken and cannot well without much difficulty be kept yet I cannot but observe many times whereby the Vox populi is Vox Dei as in the very change of the Government of Israel on which Dr. Hall Notes It was Gods ancient purp se to raise up a King to his People Page 10.24 how doth he take occasion to do it by the unruly desires of Israel but blessed be God this was not the case of the Covenant the imposers did not assemble on their own heads and by violence and disorder assume unto themselves an unusual power The power imposing this Covenant was a Parliament the Collective Body of the Kingdom Duly Summoned Regularly Elected and returned Rightly Constituted and Readily Embraced by King and Kingdom and animated with more than ordinary Parliamentary power by the Bill for their continuance against all Casualties so as not to be Prorogued Adjourned or Dissolved without their own consent And can any True-born English man in any measure acquainted with the constitution of this Kingdom or the Authority of the High Court of Parliament deny these to be a just and lawful Authority to resolve order and enjoyn yea and execute their Resolves Orders and Injunctions during the being of their power though not to establish Lawes to be executed when they were dissolved and gone Sir I cannot without sad thoughts remember the unhappy difference between His late Majesty and the late long Parliament which occasioned the unhappy opposition of the Peoples Liberty and the Kings Prerogative as I cannot but wish they had been acted so conjunctly that they might have seem'd to vulgar apprehension to have been but one so I cannot but judge it prudence that a period be put to the dispute thereof upon the now Happy Re-union of his most Sacred Majesty and these too long distracted Kingdomes I am clearly of opinion with Aristotle that Prince of Politians Aristot Polit. lib. 5. c. 10 11. That Regal Government is best established where the Princes and People do participate of it and that Theopompus the Spartan in transmitting some of his Prerogative to his Ephori Princes might well maintain the encrease of his Dominion whilst he made it longer by making it less I think therefore that the wisest men and best Subjects will rather think then assert a Prerogative in the King above His Parliament and I for my part should be content to find in the Parliament a sufficient power to impose an Oath on the Subject without the Kings consent rather than to assert their Superiority unto Him in all points and particulars And when Sir I consider the power even over and against their King in the Princes and the Collective Body of the People Recorded in Scripture as in making War Josh 22. Judg. 20. Changing the Government 1 Sam 8. Choosing and establishing not only their first but succeeding Kings though immediately appointed and sometimes anointed by God as in the case of David Solomon and Rehoboam and others in removing from the King Favourites and Counsellors as David was against the mind of Achish the King dismissed by the Princes of the Philistines 1 Sam. 29. in restraining the Kings purpose of destruction confirmed by an Oath once and again as in the case of Jonathan or of protection as in the case of Jeremiah the Prophet concerning whom Zedekiah the King said He is in your hands the King is not he that can do any thing against you Jer. 38.5 In these and the like cases Josephus tells us Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 18. the King might not do any thing without or against the sentence of the Senate or Congregation Methinks a divine defence may be well made for the power of the Parliament in this case acted and admitted though without and against the consent of the King And when I consider what is Dogmatically asserted by Polititians and no mean Lawyers in reference to the power of general Councils and Conventions of Kingdoms in general Foxe Acts and Monuments p. 616. as of Englands Parliaments in particular as in the Council of Basil against the Pope the whole Realm hath more Authority than the King The same asserted by Marius Salamonius who by many Arguments doth defend it De principatu lib. 1. p. 17 18. he was a Roman Lawyer and Philosopher Hollingshead and Vowel in their Description of England declare concerning the Parliament That this Court hath the most high and absolute power of the Realm and that not only without but against the King by it offenders are punished and corrupt Religion reformed or disannulled and that whatever the people of Rome might do centuriatis comitiis or tribunitiis Vot 1. cap. 1. p. 173. which I am sure was to impose an Oath the same is and may be done by Parliament unto which may be added what is spoken to the same effect and almost in the same words by Sir Thomas Smith Secretary of State to King Edward the sixth and Queen Elizabeth and a Doctor of the Law in his Common-wealth of England and Horne an Eminent Lawyer in Edward the first his Reign in his Mirrour of Justice cap. 1. p. 7 8 9. and Fortescue Lord Chancellor to Henry the sixth in his Book de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 9. and Bracton quoted by these learned men who certainly affirms more than they can approve Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item curiaem suam viz. Comites Barones c. Et ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno debent ei fraenum imponere and above all the Soveraign Powers
of Parliaments judiciously defended in our very case by that profound Lawyer Mr. William Prynne approved no less Loyal to and Zealous for the Kings Prerogative than Loving to the Peoples Liberties I see not how we can avoid this Conclusion That the Votes Orders and Ordinances of the Lords and Commons in Parliament even without or against the Kings personal command is to be obeyed and observed Lastly When I observe the Transactions of Parliament in the times of Vortiger Sigebert Ofred Beornerde Edwin and Edgar and other Saxon Kings Deo dictante annuente populo the power of Parliaments in the times of King John King Henry the third Richard the second and other Kings of England refusing to assemble at the Kings Call assembling without the Kings Writ establishing Laws correcting Vice and Misdemeanour executing Justice and entring into Oaths and Covenants without and against the Kings consent and when I observe in all Parliaments a power of regulating the Kings Court and Council of restraining limiting and enlarging the Kings power of Jurisdiction and Prerogative nay of making void or valid a Title unto the Succession to the Crown as in the times of Henry the eighth in case of his many marriages and that during the Session of Parliament all Laws are under covert at their feet to be by them established or destroyed and are by any Vote or Order superseded before a formal Repeal and that in all Ages and on all sides it is confessed and cannot be denied that the authority of Parliament is exercis'd in al Votes Orders and Ordinances of the two Houses unto the decision of present controversies upon Appeal from other Courts of Judicatory wherein they can and may authorize Examinations on Oath and make a final judgement unto the ease and relief of the Subject not otherwhere relievable unto the enforcement of any Act to be at present done and executed for the good of the Kingdom or any particular persons or society thereof without so much as desiring the Kings consent and concurrence and if this power should be denied what could the freuqency of Parliaments provided for by the old Law of King Alfred and after by the Statutes of 4. Ed. 3.4.36 Edw. 140. twice or at least once every year on this very ground that the people might receive right by holy judgment such was the judgment of Parliament deemed and that the mischiefs and grievances which daily happen might be redressed if need be on which account Proclamation was wont to be made in the open Palace before the breaking up of Parliament Whether there be any that have delivered a Petition to the Parliament and not received answer thereunto And this power removed what will avail the Triennial Parliaments conceded by His late Majesty or of what benefit was the continuation of this late long Parliament against all Casualties whatsoever that might fall out to dissolve them Can it be rationally imagined that their being should be continued and secured to sit within those Walls in Council and Debate without any power to order or execute the Emergent Affairs of the Nation These things well considered I s y I see not how the imposing an Oath can be an assuming or the people swearing an acknowledging of a greater power than hath in former times been challenged If these Gentlemen will consult our own Histories in the cases before touched they will find a power much greater not only challenged but assumed and exercised the which the season and present state of Affair do forbid me to recite in hopes that there will be no need to rip up our wounds newly healed and these generals may I hope sufficiently justifie the sufficiency of that authority which brought us into Covenant But these learned men suggest an inconsistency of this power with their former Protestation in sundry material Branches Methinks Sir they should have specified those Branches and the rather because material and many The Protestation contains not many Branches and those few seem to be fully conform to this Covenant in all the particulars and wherein they have supposed a contrariety we have before evidenced only a dissonancy at the most and that Ratione not Re in the manner of expression not the thing sworn they then protested to preserve the power and priviledges of Parliament and should not covenant any more nay scarce so much in this Oath for they herein promise to preserve the Rights and Priviledges which is something softer than power and I wonder they that then saw a power to be preserved could not now see a right I will only enquire whether they thought the Parliament had a power to impose that Oath and not a right to impose this There was no Act of Parliament nor Assent of the King to that I observe the King in His Messages to the Houses doth note it to be their own Protestation as if He had no hand in it nor consent unto it and if by power they should mean natural strength not political authority it hath been urged by many as their grievance and by these Gentlemen themselves in the foregoing Exceptions that they had too much of that It is the unhappiness of a scrupulous conscience to run it self on contradiction in actions as well as assertions to swear as lawfully called at one time but not to dare to swear an Oath containing the same matter though called by the same authority another time But that which was the greatest doubt with these learned men was Pag. ibid. 4. the King by His Proclamation Octob. 9.19 Carol. had expressely forbidden the entring into this Covenant it being in His power to make void the same That such an Interdict had been published by His late Majesty we cannot deny League Illegal p. 16. but not as Dr. Featly his ghost supposeth on pain of Treason for no Proclamation of the Kings of England did claim the formality of a Law so far as to fasten Treason on the non-observance of what is thereby enjoyned 2. I am not satisfied how regularly His Majesty did issue forth the said Proclamation which is not usually done but by the advice of His Council who are vailed by the Session of Parliament and all Proclamations then usually run by the Advice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled and if at any time the Lords and Commons or either of them during their Sessions give out Orders not only relating to the Estate they represent but to any others the Subjects of this Realm it hath not been usual for the King by the Authority of His Proclamation to thwart oppose and void them and in a case of this nature a good observer may find the Parliament have judged the Kings opposing or taking notice of any thing by them debated or ordered before it is regularly propounded to Him by themselves to have been a breach of priviledge and so to have been acknowledged and as such retracted by His late Majesty the little pleasure I have
in the story forbids instances hoping general hints may answer the learned and sober 3. Nor am I convinced that it was in His power by the equity of the Law Numb 32. they mean 30.2 to annull and make void the Covenant for admitting the equity of that Law by Analogy to reach us I hope no adult child shall on observation of irregularities in the Government of a Family be barred from vowing in his place and calling to his power and capacity sincerely really and constantly to endeavor the Reformation thereof viz. Quenquam qui gaudet usu rationis ita plene sub alterius potestate esse quin ut sit quantum ad aliqua saltem sui juris is Dr. Sanderson's Rule though the effect may yet the lawful endeavour cannot be out of the childs reach De Turam if the child or wife swear nothing but positive duty or what is within their power and so limit their vow I hope the Superiours interdiction will favour more of passionate mistake than strength to avoid the vow Yet I must confess I am not clear that the equity of that Law will reach our case I was ever willing to yield His Majesty the Reverence due to a Political Parent but in this case of conscience wherein He is abstracted from and opposed unto the Parliament I find a defect which makes me fear the simile will not square and though I can own Him as a Parent to be by Him corrected and disposed yet methinks the Parental power is placed in others at least conjunct with Him viz. the Parliament I am sure Legislation is Paternal power and Execution more proper to the other Parent and that the Lords and Commons have a share if not the greatest share in Legislation no true Englishman nay no ordinary Polititian can or will deny when I observe the King sworn to Rule according to the Laws quas populas clegerit which the people shall choose and the Writ for their Election to require that they be furnished and have plenam sufficientem potestatem pro se communitate c. ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem de communi in consilidicti Regni nostri contigerint ordinari ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi c. dicta negotia infecta non remaneant Paternal Authority power to consent and make Laws in the great Affairs of the Kingdom as the Family and when I observe Polititians and Lawyers even English-men generally to conclude the forma informans form animating the Law to be the consent or choice of the people whence Marius Salamonius that great Lawyer defining the Law saith it is Expressa Civium Conventio and makes this the Reason of their obligation Ligatur populus legibus suis De principatu lib. 1. p. 35 36. Instin Cod. 1. Tit. 17. Lex 8. quasi pactis conventis quae verae sunt leges whence Theodosius the Emperour writing to the Senate of Rome doth declare consensus universorum to be the formality of those Laws that he would establish to which our Hollingshead and Sir Thomas Smith before mentioned doth fully assent and concur as likewise Fortescue who makes the King to be as the Minister in Marriage who may establish and declare it but the consent of parties gives it being and the common Dialect of our own Statutes being the Assent of the Lords and Commons and Authority of Parliament wich no less frequency than the Assent of the King and that the contriving debating fully forming by frequent reading serious consideration and full disputes is the peculiar work of the two Houses whilst a Ministerial Declaration though in a Dialect and form of Majesty is the proper and only work of a King though I deny not a Parental power and Prerogative to the King I cannot but judge it more than probable that the proper Paternal power is in the Parliament or at the least in the three Estates and then Sir we are under this unhappy question Whether to obey father or mother when they falling out command different nay contrary things this I confess is not more the distraction than the confusion of the Family yet certainly in such an unhappy chance prudent and rational children must and will cleave to the principal legislative party who hath a confessed authority and power to extend or restrain augment or diminish the Prerogative and Ministerial power of the other bound to act according to their appointments Sir Dr. Gaudens Appeal to the Oxford Reasons hath led me to this Discourse and unwilling distinction but my prayer is and hence-forward shall be that England may honour father and mother and know no difference for the Case is now altered and this Argument is of no force as I thought I had sufficiently hinted in my last for His late Majesty forbade the Act but never assumed an Authority to void the Obligation and His most Sacred Majesty by His own subjection to it Declaration for it and Oath to endeavour the Establishment thereof hath as is before noted made it valid and I hope such as call Him Father will weigh the equity of this Law Numb 30.2 and not only acknowledge their brethren bound by it but themselves become subject to the same bond which had before a lawful and sufficient but now hath a compleat and perfect Auhority 4. 4. The gesture in making the Covenant vindicated The fourth and last particular in the manner of making the Solemn League and Covenant is The action or gesture of the body used in the swearing thereof to declare the assent of the minde by which prophane spirits do endeavour to reproach it for that it was not sworn after the ordinary manner used among us by laying the hand on the Bible but by lifting up the hand towards heaven Amongst those who have of late appeared against the Covenant I find none speaking against this gesture League Illegal p. 21. save only Dr. Featlies ghost who like it self more scurrilously than seriously pretends to Answer one Text of Scripture which he supposeth to be the only one for defence of this gesture Rev. 10.15 The Angel lifted up his hand and sware c. Unto which he saith That might be a fit gesture for an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world which yet may not be thought so fit a gesture for men entring into an holy League for the preservation of two Kingdoms If they can as the Angel stand upon the earth and the sea at the same time let them imitate the Angels in lifting up their hands when they make their Covenant Howsoever I think it a fitter gesture in taking this Oath than after the usual manner to lay the hand on the Bible for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that Book and the lifting up of the hand very well expresseth the purport of the Covenant which is a lifting up their hands against the Lords Anointed and his
Church The very transcription of this is a sufficient confutation Who can read it and not run and read a most malicious heart venting it self by a most weak head Sounds not this Argument like Dr. Featley Sure his Executor thought his name enough to make acceptable the dullest notions could drop from his own brain I shall desire it may be considered 1. No particular gesture is necessary and appointed of God to be used by men in making Oaths and Covenants and therefore men have chosen what gesture of the body to them seemed good to declare the assent of the mind as Abraham and Jacob the putting the hand under the hallow of the thigh our Countrey ordinarily useth the laying the hand on the Bible and kissing the Book but other Countreys the holding up of the right hand May not the Magistrate prescribing an Oath prescribe what gesture seems him good They must needs be eager bent who will fight with a shadow 2. Is the lifting up of the hand a gesture peculiar to an Angel only used in menacing and when he stands on sea and land at the same time Did this man never read nor hear it used in other places of Scripture and on other occasions or was it the vehemency or verity of the threatning and doom denounced which was witnessed by it What thinks he of Abraham in Gen. 14.22 I have lift up my hand to God I will not take any thing that is thine He was no Angel nor threatning any judgement nor did he stand on sea and land at the same time Or what thinks he of Ezek. 20.5 I lifted up my hand unto the seed of the House of Jacob God was not an Angel nor then menacing any fatal doom but promising the greatest blessings which Israel could enjoy If he had pleased to consult any Expositors on these or the like Texts he should find that the lifting up of the hand was the usual gesture in swearing any Oaths and Covenants He would make the World believe the Covenanters were in an hard strait to find an instance of this gesture in Scripture and therefore they flie to the Angel in the Revelation 3. Hath the Solemn League and Covenant no ground or foundation in Scripture Suppose the matter of it be no more than he here suggesteth viz. The preservation of two Nations hath this no ground in Scripture Did he never read therein of two Nations joyned in one Covenant for the good one of another But further hath the preservation of the true Reformed Religion and reformation according to the Word of God no foundation in Scripture are there no Historical Relations of Covenants of this matter hath the preservation of the Kings Honour and Happiness no ground or foundation in Scripture hath unity and uniformity in Religion no ground in Scripture and are not these the matter of the Covenant Can any thing but horrid impudence say It was not fit for them to lay their hands on the Bible for this Covenant hath no ground or foundation in that Book This Authour might have well forborne this charge who himself concedes that punctilio in the manner of making this Covenant which many and himself would deny to have ground in Scripture viz. the making it without the Kings consent For he grants that a Covenant to remove a scandal League Illegal p. 20. and fulfill the express command of God may be made not only without but against the consent of the Prince If this Covenant fall not under one of these nay both these qualifications I have lost my reason 4. With what face can this fury say the purport of this Covenant was the lifting up of their hands against the Lords Anointed and his Church whilst its professed inscription is A Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defence of Religion the Honour and Happiness of the King Answerable whereunto are the grounds inducing to make it Having before our eyes the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the Honour and Happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity and accordingly promiseth the preservation and reformation of Religion according to the Word of God and to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority that the world may bear witness with our consciences that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesties just Power and Greatness Whatever may have been the practises of some wicked men who sware this Covenant it is as clear as the Sun That the lifting up of the hand for the good of the Church Honour and Safety of the Lords Anointed was the purport of the Covenant it self And the violent rejection of the Covenant as an Almanack out of date before the horrid violence done unto His late Majesty is a manifest testimony of it together with the protest of the covenanted Secluded Members of Parliament and of the Ministers of London against those perjurious proceedings As likewise the publick testimonies of the Ministers of the Gospel to the Solemn League and Covenant of almost all the Counties in England do declare it and the divastation and captivity of Scotland the Sequestrations Imprisonments and death of many in England and contests with all zeal faithfulness and constancy against all difficulties and dangers unto the very effecting of the Happy Return of His most Sacred Majesty and that in conscience of this very Covenant do loudly sound it through the world if the same malice do not deafen the ear in hearing the comment that darkned the eye in reading the Text. Now Sir I must tell him the lifting up of the hand might be a most proper gesture to the taking of this Covenant not only as a gesture usual in swearing and expedient because expeditious in an Oath universally sworn by whole Assemblies but as a sign of special suit and earnest supplication for divine grace and assistance Lam. 2.19 Of Solemn adoration and worship of God praising his goodness that had enclined the heart of the Governors of his people to bring them into such a Covenant Neh. 8.6 Or of joy and alacrity in so Sacred a Bond unto such absolute duties tending to the honour of God happiness of the King and safety of true Religion Ps 119.48 And in these respects it is a gesture no less suitable to men than Angels and the standing on earth not sea and earth at the same time performing a duty and promising things required in Scripture and praying mercies and blessings not menacing a fatal doom Yet I will not deny that it imprecated Gods direful judgements to fall on the heads of such as should violate this Solemn League and Covenant which our eyes have seen accomplished on such as slighted its obligation in the Civil part thereof And I cannot but tremble to think what must needs attend such as not only slight but set against and violently break through these holy bonds in that part which immediately concerneth God and true Religion whilst we see the