Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	king_n	law_n	supremacy_n	3,288	5	10.6148	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85826	The Covenanters plea against absolvers. Or, A modest discourse, shewing why those who in England & Scotland took the Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their consciences discharged from the obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the Oxford men; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others. In which also several cases relating to promisory oathes, and to the said Covenant in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, reason, and the joynt suffrages of casuists. Contrary to the indigested notions of some late writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson. Written by Theophilus Timorcus a well-wisher to students in casuistical divinity.	Timorcus, Theophilus.; Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654, attributed name.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656, attributed name.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing G314; Thomason E1053_13; ESTC R202125	85,431	115

Christians have a power given them by the Word of God to chuse fitting Messengers which being so chosen and met together may consult and determine in some Ecclesiastical cases But certain it is there was never such a National Convention in England so that we need not enquire the matter of Fact nor the force and power of such decrees how far and in what cases they do oblige either present or future Generations § 13. The power which any Synod Convocation or Convention met at any time in England can pretend to have had must be either from the Pope before the Reformation in the time of King Hen. the 8th or by vertue of some Act of Parliament since that time § 14. Our Absolvers talk so much of the Church of England and the Lawes of the Church and Sons of the Church by which they mean the Hierarchy though it will be hard for them interpreting the Church in that notion to answer the Papists asking them where our Church was before Luther for I am sure we had no Protestant Prelacy before that time that it will not be amiss for us to take a view of the Church of England under this Notion and consider what power she had and from whom derived to make any Ecclesiastical Lawes that should be this day so obligatory that an Oath taken against them must be forthwith void § 15. We are indeed told by some Ecclesiastical Writers of King Lucius who about the year 170. was an Instrument of planting the Gospel in England and that he in stead of the Paganish Arch-Flamins and Flamins established 28 Archbishops and Bishops but the evidence of it is so feeble that we find few giving any credit to it much less was the Nation so early christianized so far as to have any Synod so full as to make Lawes obliging the whole Nation Nor indeed is there any Authentick Records of any considerable English Synod till near the year 600 then Pope Gregory sent over Augustine the Monk to convert the Brittains and he made hast in his work baptizing 10000 in a day This doubtless was the man who first founded Prelacy in England himself being the first Arch-Bishop in conformity to the Order of the Romish Church whence he came we know that it is said by some that when he came her found here one Archbishop and seven Bishops but no such thing appears in his Letters not are their Names or places of residence expressed § 16. This Augustine by Authority derived from the Pope appointeth Bishops calleth a Synod and enacteth Lawes c. From that time which was the year 586. to the year 1205. we have no Record of any Ecclesiastical Lawes made in England the Christians here were doubtless governed by the Popish Canon Law Although in that time there were 43 Archbishops of Canterbury if we may believe Chronologers yet have we no Record of any obligatory Canons were made by them § 17. Betwixt 1205. and 1414. were 14 Archbishops of Canterbury beginning with Steph. Langton and ending with H. Checkly these all made some Provincial Lawes which are gathered together and put into some method by Lindwood Within that time the Pope sending over two Legates Otho in the year 1226. 11 Hen. 3. and Othobonus in the year 1248. which was the 32 Hen. 3. They also each of them made parcels of Canons which were after collected by Johannes de Aton and were all the Lawes of the Church of England as they call it in force Nor do we read of any more done till the 25 Hen. 8. which was the year 1533. Till this time the Church of England was lost in the Popish rubbish according to our Brethrens sense of Church for the Prelates there was none other no not one § 18. In that year the Reformation of the Church was begun by Parliament who made an Act printed in our Statute Book forbidding any of the Clergy from that time to presume to attempt alledge claim or to put in ure any constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons or to enact promulge or execute any such Canons c. or assemble to enact them without the Kings Writ calling them together and the Kings Highness his consent ratifying them c. So that from that day no Laws made by the Church could oblige us unless K. Hen. 8. first called the Church-men together and then ratified what they Decreed § 19. As to all former church-Church-laws the Parliament in that Act gave power to K. Hen. 8. to call together 32 persons to review all old Canons and to collect a body of Canons out of them being not contrary to the Laws of God nor the Laws of the Land which when they had done K. Hen. 8. was to confirm them and immediatly upon the review of the old Canons they were all by than Act abrogated and nulled and so all Canons also after to be made contrary to the Laws of the Nation c. § 20. Before these 32 persons could be called and meet and finish their work K. Hen. 8. dieth The former Act not giving power to the King his Heirs and Successors to call the 32 persons K. Edw. 3 4 Ed. 6. cap. 11. did not do it till the Parliament meeting in the 3d and 4th year of his Reign by a new Act gave him also power with the advice of his Council within three years to name the 32 persons which his father should have named § 21. King Edw. the 6. by his Letters Patents bearing date at Westminster 11 Nov. in the 5th year of his Reign authorizeth the 32 Persons whose Names and Powers may be seen by the Copy of those Letters Patents prefixed to a Book called Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum They met and within the three years time reviewed all and compiled that Book called as aforesaid upon which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. The old Canon Lawes were utterly abrogated but before King Edward had confirmed this new Book he died So that there was no Lawes of the Church of England left in any force § 22. Q. Mary succeeds she revives the old Popish Canon Law Q. Eliz. after her reviveth the Reformation In her time several Injunctions and Canons were made After her time K. James summoned a Synod Anno 1603. which made 141 Canons but as Qu. Elizabeths to our knowledge were never confirmed so much as by the Royal assent so the latter were never yet confirmed by Act of Parliament by which alone we are told that our Consciences can be obliged is perfect Lawes § 23. It is observeable That in the Statute 25 Hen. 8. authorizing such Canons as should hereafter be made in Convocations assembled by the Kings Writ being first confirmed by the King It is not said by the Kings Majesty his Heirs or Successors though in other parts of the same Act those words are added It is very probable that the want of those words in the following part of the Act concerning his

Majesties chusing the 32 persons to view the old Canons was the reason why King Edward did not do it King Hen. 8. being dead till a new Act was made to the same purpose to which latter Act K. Edw. 6. in his Letters Patents refers not to that of 25 Hen. 8. Nor is it yet determined whether a Kings confirmation of Canons makes them Law according to that Statute of 25 Hen. 8. supposing that K. Hen. 8. his Heirs and Successors as well as himself were intended in the Statute any longer than his Majesties Person lives who so ratifies and confirms them So that it is far from being so clear that we may adventure the violation of an Oath upon it that we have this day any Canons or constitutions Ecclesiastical of force either by the Lawes of God or of the Nation § 24. But admit this where shall we find any such Canon as this That the Government of the Church of God in England is and shall be by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Arch-Deacons so that it shall be unlawful either for the People of England in their callings and places to endeavour the extirpation of that Form of Government or for the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England to move for or to Vote the alteration of it and to engage People against it by an Oath Somthing of this nature must be proved before the Covenant will be proved contrary to the Lawes of the Church of England and if such a Canon could be shewed it is no Law for it is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation giving power to the Parliaments of England to repeal or alter any Lawes Statutes c. And all Canons contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of the Nation are aforehand declared void and null by the Statute 25 Hen. 8. § 25. By what hath been said appears the vanity of their Plea who plead that the Covenant is null and void because against the Lawe of the Church Let us come now to consider whether they speak more sense or truth who pretend it is void because contrary to the just Lawes of the Nation § 26. It being apparent from the former discourse that there was no Canon-Law of England in any force at the time of the composing imposing and taking of the Covenant the question only lies concerning the civil Lawes of the Nation which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. must give all the obligatory vertue which any Ecclesiastical deliberations can have amongst us The Lawes of our Nation are usually distinguished into The Common Law and the Statute Law The first is not written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncertain as may appear from the different senses of Judges in their Book-cases its matter and form is no other than the ancient Customs and Usages of the English Nation which having been retained for many years have been so familiarized with the People of the Nation that by a common consent they have passed and do pass for Law till they are cotrolled by Statute Our Statute Law is made up of the several Acts of about 260 Parliaments and yet is capable of daily augmentation § 27. If those who plead the Covenant contrary to the Lawes of the Nation mean The Common Law of England their sense is no more than this That by the constant usage of the Nation of England the Government of the Church in that Nation hath been by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Prebends Chancellours Commissaries c. and an Oath imposed by the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament taken by the People tending to the destruction of that ancient usage is void and null yea though the King of England disliking the first imposing of it yet afterwards approveth his Subjects taking of it and himself joynes with them and also taketh it Yet neither will this evidence the matter of the Covenant contrary to Law For in the Covenant we have sworn to endeavour the extirpation c. The Law which must be contrary to this must say You shall not endeavour c. Now we appeal to all the Lawyers in England whether there be any piece of the Common Law of England which saies to the Lords and Commons assembled in a Legal Parliament or to the People of England concerning any custom or usage in the English Nation You shall not endeavour in your callings and places the extirpation and alteration of it If there be sure we are the Statute 25 Hen. 8.21 doth control it declaring a full power in the Parliament of England with his Majesties consent to dispense abrogate null diminish amplifie any Lawes c. But there can no such thing be alledged § 28. So that here 's no contrariety to the Common Law Here is only The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament by his Majesties Writ legally taking notice that the external Form of Ecclesiastical Government amongst us according to a long usage of the Nation in the times of Popery viz. from about the year 600. till the time of reformation in the Reign of Hen. 8. and since that time after some regulation of it by Statutes was upon experience found at least very disconvenient to the reformed state of the Church amongst us and having power in them with the Kings consent to be afterwards had to abrogate null diminish or amplifie any English Lawes usages c. agreeing to extirpate this usage and swearing and causing the People of England to swear with them that they would in their callings and places endeavour to extirpate it Whether the King pleased to consent or no certainly they had power in their callings and places to endeavour such a thing The Covenant engageth no further We cannot understand any contrariety in this to the Common Law of England § 29. For the Statute-Law of England we shall only say this That the Statute-Law which must be contrary to the Covenant must speak to this effect The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament upon a Legal Summons shall not swear themselves nor make others swear to endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy i. e. the Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. Where to find such a Law we cannot tell No nor yet such a Statute as positively determines That the Government of the Church in England is and shall be by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Prebends Chancellors Commissaries c. It is true we often in the Statutes meet with these Names and we find the Statutes supposing them Ecclesiastical Officers and telling us That the Kings of England formerly founded this Church in Prelacy what kind of Prelacy and with what circumstances they say not but we are at a loss for any other save this implicit establishment by any Statute Law And we further believe that the Spiritual Lords before the time of K. Hen. the 8 would have taken it in foule scorn that any secular powers should have gone about by a civil Law to establish

them We have read of the heavy stir in King John's time when the King of England did but pretend to the Nomination of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to what a base degree of condescention the Pope and his children here in England humbled their Sovereign for that offer § 30. The truth is no more than this The Parliament of England in the beginning of our Reformation being engaged in prudence to drive no further nor faster in Reformation than the Lambs could go the present state of the Nation could bear which at that time was but very little the Popish party being then the greatest by far the Reformed Party such as did but see men like trees imperfectly discerning the things that differ in Religion were pleased to proportion the Reformation accordingly so as neither the newly Reformed Party might be lost by too much seeming innovation nor the remaining Popish party exasperated too far Hence in matter of Doctrine nothing was agreed till the year 1562. which was the 4 of Eliz. not ratified by Parliament till 1571. viz. 13 Eliz. near thirt years after the first beginning of Reformation Hence in the matter of Worship the same Lyturgy was continued which was used in the Popish Mass only leaving out the Prayers to Saints and for the Pope and the second Edition of the Common-Prayer Anno 5 6 Edw. 6. was much amended in many things from that 2 Edw. only in the business of Kneeling at the Sacrament Didoclavius observeth it was left at liberty by the Common-Prayer-Book 2 Edw. but commanded in the Edition of it 5 6 Edw. 6. yet not without an excellent Rubrick to expound the usage of it still to be seen in the Common-Prayer-Book Edit 5 6 Edw. 6. viz. Anno 1552. but left out in our ordinary Books for what Reasons let any one read and judge As to the Form of Church-Government the reforming Parliaments in the time of Hen. 8. found one in being and the persons exercising it in great power they therefore thought fit not to dispute that Point only to regulate that power which the former usages of the Nation and the canon-Canon-Law had invested them with requiring them to seal with the Kings Arms in their Seales to do nothing without his Writ V. Stat. 5 Eliz. 23. c. Other Parliaments since have denied them any assistance from the civil power to back their censures but in some particular cases and forbade them to administer any Oath to fine amerce 17 Car. or imprison any of the Kings Subjects removing the Bishops out of the Parliament-House c. This is all the establishment we can find that the ancient Hierarchy of England had by any Law of England § 31. But suppose they were so established do our Brethren take it for such an undoubted Gospel-Maxim that an Oath taken against the Lawes of a Nation of what kind soever written or not written consonant to or dissonant from the Law of God is forthwith null and void and no waies obliging Do they believe this such a truth that men may venture the damnation of their soules upon it and venture the curse of God cleaving to their house till it hath consumed the timber thereof and the stones thereof Zech. 5.3 upon the truth of it They may talk thus in drollery to their friends or credulous Proselytes they may to shew their grandiloquence and liberty of phrase in laxe discourses thus speak in Pamphlets but we are so well perswaded of some of their skill in divinity and of their other Learning too that we believe they know that no Scripture no reason no creditable authority will justifie any such thing and they would be loath that their crime in these swelling words of vanity by which the soules of people are ensnared should be expiated by that slight penance of any of their standing two or three daies in any of our schooles to defend such an atheological maxim against what Arguments would be brought against it nor would we desire fairer play in our case § 32. 1. In the first place they will certainly grant that it is false if the Lawes of the Nation to which an Oath pretended contrariant be contrary to the Lawes of God For the contrary assertion were to set up one Higher than the Highest So that if he who hath taken the Covenant doth believe that the Government of the Church in England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries be contrary to Gods Word suppose that it be established by Law or were so established the Oath doth bind against the Law And certainly if Gods Word establisheth any Form it is so for there is in it ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of Deans Prebends Archbishops Chancellors c. § 33. 2. In the second place Our Brethren will certainly grant that in case the King had immediatly consented with his Parliament and imposed the Covenant though it had been expresly apertly positively against any Law or Lawes of the Nation yet the Oath had obliged because they altogether had a power to suspend annul and abrogate any Law It is true this Oath was only imposed by Lords and Commons the King at present not consenting We are no Lawyers nor can we tell how far the power of Lords and Commons extends as to the suspending of the exercise of Lawes or giving of Oaths But we have heard that 2 parts of the legislative power of England lies in the Lords and Commons and that they have of themselves given Oaths in many cases in what cases we know not After this his Majesty declares That those who had taken the Oath should least offend God and him in keeping of it His Majesty that now is takes the same Oath declares his approbation c. Shall it yet be told us that the Oath is void because against the Lawes when all 3 States to whom the legislative power belongs have approved of it Certainly they must have an easie Faith that part with it to such kind of Assertions § 34. 3. But suppose there had been no such thing but the Oath had been meerly spontaneous Our Brethren speak without their books in discharging mens Soules upon this Plea Dr. Sanderson will tell them that if the Law be poenal and hath in it an election either of doing the thing or suffering the penalty an Oath will bind against the active part Fortassis possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari et si non debuerit suscipi De juram prom prael 3. §. 9. susceptum tamen potest obligare ut exempli causa in lege poenali disjunctivâ He puts the case concerning the Law of a City That he who is chosen Mayor by the Freemen shall hold in case he refuseth he shall pay 100 lb. Suppose such a Law and this Law respecting this City established by Act of Parliament A particular Citizen hath taken a private

comes next to be examined that the Covenant was void because the matter of it contradicted former Oaths They mention four of Allegiance Supremacy of Canonical obedience and that taken by the Kings of England at their Coronation If this be true it is unquestionably void for Juramentum prius prejudicat posteriori But considering that the Covenant was agreed and taken by the Members of the gravest Convention of the Nation and by so many Reverend Divines it will not be amiss to enquire whether of a truth it be so or no that if we find it true both King and Parliament and People may all do obeisance to Prelacy as having unwarily suffered their grave and sacred ears to be nailed to the doors of its house and obliged themselves to be its Servants for ever § 9. As to the Oath of Allegiance there is no mention of Archbishops nor Bishops in it we have only sware Faith and Allegiance to his Majesty which we hope we may give and yet endeavour in our callings to extirpate Popery and Prelacy c. If any one say What if he shall command the setting of it up We would fain know of our Brethren what we should do if Popery should be hereafter by any Prince commanded But to speak directly 1. We believe that Prelacy had no just footing in England but what it had by Authority of Parliament 2. We believe it in the power of King and Parliament to suspend or abrogate any Lawes and to engage people by Oaths for ever obliging against the matter of them 3. We know both King and Parliament by their Act 17 Car. did take away much of the Prelates jurisdiction 4. We know that the two Houses of Parliament did suspend all other power of Arch-Bishops c. and engage the people of England by Oath against the restoring of it * We assert the truth of this no further then as we have received it by printed Narrations VVhich Oath his sacred Majesty afterwards ratified and confirmed for ever We beleeve none can absolve us from an Oath but God onely Our Allegiance therefore can onely in case of such commands be shewed in our patient humble submission to such penalties as shall be inflicted upon us for not yielding active Obedience contrary to our Oaths § 10. So that a man might and may bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and yet take an Oath to endeavour in our callings the Extirpation of Episcopacy or Prelacy in two cases 1. In case our Allegiance to God required such an endeavour of us in our places 2. In case his Majesties command of submission to that Prelacy comes after my Oath to the contrary ratified by himself And I can find no more in that Oath which can be pretended as contradictory to the Covenant § 11. The next Oath which they mention is that of Supremacy This Oath was established by the Statute 1 Eliz. 1. being devised to secure the Subjects of England to the Supreme Civil Magistrate of England from acknowledging the forreign jurisdiction of the Pope VVhat can be fetched from this Oath must be either from the first part where having declared that we do in conscience beleeve the King is the onely Supreme Governour in England as well in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as Civil in opposition to any forreign Prince person Prelate State or Potentate and thereupon we renounce such pretended forreign Jurisdiction and promise Faith and Allegiance Or else it must be in the latter clause where we promise to assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges c. annexed to the Imperial Crown of England For the former part we are not able to understand what in the Covenant is contrary to it The Covenant allows the King the supreme moderation of all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual causes if Gods word will allow it for there 's nothing any can pretend against it except they plead that then our Reformation cannot be according to the word of God which for our parts we think very false The Covenant doth not in the least acknowledge the Jurisdiction of any forreign Princes Prelates c. For the latter part where we promise to assist and defend the Jurisdictions and Priviledges annexed to the Imperial Crown So saith the Covenant his Majesties Person Honour and Authority Ah! but the second Article must be contrary to this Oath because it is the Right of the Crown to chuse Bishops c. How this Plea will stand with their Episcopacy of Apostolical right let them consider I would fain to make the business short know whether some of these Rights of the Crown may not by consent of the King be parted with and whether his Majesty when he took the Covenant did not part with them We had before only sworn to endeavour the extirpation of these Officers in all our callings by lawfull means and wayes Such now as Petitioning the King c. His Majesty that now is at the entreaty of his Subjects in Scotland parts with this Right by swearing to extirpate those Officers to the nomination of which he before had a right May not we now keep the Oath of Supremacie and the Covenant too Nor can that general terme oblige us any further than to a defence and maintaining all such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Rights annexed to the Imperial Crown which are not contrary to the Word of God But there needs no more be urged against this vain plea especially considering that very few men in England of those that took the Covenant had ever taken the Oath of Supremacy which onely belonged to Ecclesiastical persons Graduates in Universities and publique Officers Which did not make the hundredth part of those who took the Covenant in England § 12. The third Oath to which it is pretended the Covenant is contrary is the Oath of Canonical Obedience which concerns no more than such as were made Ministers before 1641. or at least very few so that much need not be said to it now Indeed all those or at the least most of those that have been in the Ministry twenty yeares when they were Ordained did promise Reverently to Obey their Ordinary And after this by what Law I cannot tell did swear at least when they had Institution granted them by the Bishop to any living that they would obey him in things lawfull and honest And also did subscribe the 39 Articles where the 36. Article doth approve of the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops Bishops Here now is 1. a Promise of Obedience to the Ordinary 2. An Oath to the same purpose 3. A Subscription that the form of the Consecration of Arch-Bishops c. contains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God Now it is said that he who took the Covenant bound himself in a contrary bond which latter bond by that reason is voyd ipso facto § 13. But besides that this Plea will absolve very few as we said before we are not able to fathom the depth of this

part of the Churches Revenue to be consumed in such a way as is not like to be much profitable while it is so little acceptable And when His Majesty shall truly understand by His faithful Ministers of State that the retaining the Ceremonies in Colledges makes many sober learned and consciencious young men leave the Universities at furthest as soon as they can but get a degree and many of His Subjects resolve against breeding their Children there as not thinking those Ceremonies lawful His Sacred Majesty who hath thus far expressed so great a tenderness to his People will as to these reserved Cases also further provide for them In the mean time though we must some of us profess our selves to be of the number of those who dare not submit our Children to an Education in our Universities under those circumstances yet we humbly submit to his Majesties pleasure So we may sit in our houses and worship God in peace according to his Will we shall be content to purchase that our liberty with the denial of our Children the liberty of ingenuous breeding or at least paying for it in some other places hoping that his Sacred Majesty will in time also take this thing into his mature deliberation But we must profess that if His most excellent Majesties gracious Declaration had in every tittle fully answered the utmost of our desires we should have yet seen a need of some such Discourses as these are for these Reasons 1. To recover to our God the due Reverence which the World hath had and ought to have for his Sacred Name The Violation of Oaths is in Scripture called A prophaning of the Name of the Lord Num. 30. 2. That the World may know that all the Divines in England are not so meanly versed in Divinity as to assert or believe those Principles concerning the dissolving the bonds of Oaths which some have lately vented amongst us and are we are sure to be justified by no Father School-man Casuist or Textuary that ever we heard of in the World 3. For the security of his Majesty and all Princes and Christian Magistrates for we believe that it will be evident to all that duly consider it that promisory Oaths from their Subjects will be of little use to establish their Thrones if once their People believe that they are discharged from their Oaths 1. If their Oaths were against The Laws of the Church Or 2. If they hinder greater good Or 3. If they sware through fear of losing their Estates else c. Or 4. For an evil end Or 5. That the same Power or a greater than that which commanded them to swear can in all Cases discharge them The Papist shall be free from the Oath of Supremacy by Principle because against the Laws of his Church and as soon as seditious Subjects can but perswade themselves that a greater good will come by Rebellion than by Obedience and that the maintaining of a Monarchical Government is finis turpis he shall plead his Oath of Allegiance was a forced Oath and there 's an end of his duty and his erroneous practice is justified by these erroneous Principles 4. Finally to say nothing of the Vindication of our selves from our Antagonists reproaches for the maintaining of humane Society and keeping the bonds of truth between man and man in their perfect strength Of what use as to this assertory and promisory Oaths are every one knows and we leave it to every reasonable Christian to judge of how little use they will be found to be if these Principles be once throughly drank in We shall only add that since we read his Majesties Declaration we are troubled that we have had any occasion so much as to mention His Majesties Declaration in Scotland though it was never in our secret thoughts to do it with any reflection upon his Majesty the sheets being some of them printed we could not blot out what was written what is said was in the simplicity of our hearts That paper was commonly exposed to sale without any check as we knew not the Circumstances of his Majesties first signing it so neither knew we of the Printing of it nor any thing but that it was free for any to buy or read it We are of the number of those we confess who cannon think our consciences discharged from the Covenant Our Brethren who have undertaken to absolve us continually alledge that the Covenant being taken without his Majesties consent is void There is a great shew in this Argument if 1. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament have not a power in any cases to require an Oath upon people except 2. His Majesty or his Successors at first dissenting did not afterwards consent In either of these Cases our Brethren know that Argument is of no value We not knowing the powers and priviledges of Parliament nor willing to dispute them though to engage us to swear we were told they had such a power were not willing to insist upon that Plea which must be made good by Presidents or Law principles not proper for Divines and therefore chose to mention the latter as sufficient to enervate that Argument for our Brethren whatever they say will not stand to justifie that Juramentum metu extortum non obligat we heartily wish our Brethren would insist upon that Plea no more they know they have a full answer to it Having good Reader thus far advertized thee we have nothing to say but only to pray that God would give thee a good understanding in all things and keep thee in awe of Oaths as knowing that when once as to the Religion of them thou hast got a mastery over thy Conscience nothing will remain sacred to thee and the strongest ligament of humane Society is broken And this we dare aver That he who feareth not an Oath but can take every slight pretence to quit himself of the bond of it can neither be a good Servant to God nor a good Subject to his Prince nor a good man to his Neighbour Blessed therefore is he who feareth alwaies though the simple pass on and are punished FINIS WE are credibly informed that when his late Majesty was Prisoner in the Isle of Wight he was under some fears that Violence should there be offered to his Sacred Person and he should be secretly murthered which fear was no other quàm qui poterat cadere in virum fortem prudentem considering the Principles and Complexion of the men in whose Custody he was Hereupon he sends for the Minister of the place to which Carisbrook Castle belonged by name Mr. Jeremiah French acquaints him with the danger apprehended and desired to know of him whether he would be willing to endeavour his rescue if such an attempt should be He told him yes he would willingly lose his life to preserve his Majesties only he desired his Majesty to direct what way he should serve him in His Majesty replied that the way he conceived as most probable to do the work was to prepare and engage the People before hand that if any such thing should be attempted by that part of the Army that was upon the place the People might rise to his rescue and to that end he advised to do no more but Preach the Covenant and press the Covenant upon the People Mr. French did so and thereupon was apprehended and brought up Prisoner to London and for some time endured very ill handling This Story we had not from Mr. French himself he living above 100 Miles from us but we had it from divers credible Witnesses to whom Mr. French told it many years before the return of His Majesty that now is to the possession of his Throne And by this it appears how fully His Majesty was perswaded that the Covenant was one of the greatest securities of his precious Life and that those of his Subjects would be most faithful to him who were most faithful to the Covenant

concerning the two latter Whether together with the Popish Prelacy of sole and single Jurisdiction it was not the design of the Lords and Commons then assembled to oblige the people of England to extirpate also that Paternal Prelacy for which some plead yea both the name and thing of Prelacy though meerly respecting order in Ecclesiastical Conventions That we may make up a just judgement in the case let us take a view of their preceding and subsequent Acts. § 12. Anno 1641. They had by an Act wherein the King joyned with them taken from the Hierarchy all powers of inflicting Penalties Fines Amercements Imprisonments or any corporal punishment upon any of the Kings subjects for any matter or thing whatsoever as also all power of administring Oaths to any persons in any case belonging to Ecclesiastical cognisance In the year 1643. the Covenant is made and imposed in the terms before expressed In the year 1646. they first establish the Presbyterian Government for three years by their Ordinance which 1648. they renew again and make it sine Die In the year 1646. They by their Ordinance abolish the Name Title Stile and Dignity of all Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales We must confess we should have been very inclinable to have judged that the sense of the Parliament imposing the Covenant was against all manner of Prelacy and that they designed no less than the engaging of the whole Nation upon the highest security imaginable to endeavour the total extirpation of all the kinds of it had we not been informed that at that time the scruple was made by some Members in Parliament and resolved with the consent of our Brethren in Scotland that it was only intended against Episcopacy as then established in England which gives us a Latitude for a Prelacy of meer order as a civil constitution § 13. In the mean time the Covenant apertly obligeth us against Arch-Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-Deacons Chancellors Commissaries c. there is no ambiguity in those terms And 2. Against all such exercise of Prelacy as is by any single person arrogating to himself sole and single Jurisdiction or sole and single power in Ordinations 3. Against all such exercise of Prelatical power as is taken away by the Statute of 17 Caroli for the taking away the High-Commission-Court As to all these the Parliaments sense is clear enough and can admit of no dispute Nor is this a rigid interpretation of the Covenant but as favourable as the words of it can bear or reason allow upon the view of what hath been already urged to evince the sense of the Imposers § 14. We conclude then That our solemn Covenant was the highest security wherein it was possible that the Eternal God could have us engaged to him or which the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament or our Brethren in Scotland could then take of us That we would in our Callings and Places endeavour to root out that Prelatical form and exercise of Church-Government which was exercised in England by Archbishops tyrannical Bishops their Chancellors Arch-Deacons Commissaries c. From which every reasonable Christian must conclude that if we fail in the performance by establishing that Government again or desiring the establishment of it by promoving owning or countenancing of what we have thus solemnly sworn to extirpate Not only our Brethren will have an Action in the case against us for the violation of our truth to them But the Righteous God will also have a just action against us for the irreverence shewed to his most Sacred Name And if ever any of our Brethren with whom we are engaged who possibly shall not be able so easily to obtain a discharge of their Consciences shall be brought into a suffering state by those whom we contrary to our solemn Oath shall help to set up they will doubtless have a just occasion to prefer a sad Bill of complaint against us to the just Judge of the whole Earth who useth to hear the cry of the Afflicted And whatsoever we may now think or talk in the distempers of our mind in the rantings of our foolish passions whensoever the day of Gods vengeance shall come upon us according to his Word Zech. 5.3 4. Or whensoever we shall have recovered our wits again and we can give our Consciences awaked out of sleep leave to speak freely to us it will be very hard to relieve them unless we can assign such an errour in the Covenant and that too as to the matter sworn as will be allowed by the Divine Law as a sufficient discharge as to our observance and leave us nothing to do but to humble our soules before the Lord for our taking of it It will therefore be the just concernment of every Soul bound in that sacred Bond to sit down and advisedly think before they resolve upon the violation of such an Oath whether there were any such errours And if those who think they have found them would avoid the Infamy which else will fall upon them they will stand concerned to set down these errours and publish them to the world in plain words of truth and soberness not in the insignificant figures of wanton Rhetorick wofully blurred too with foolish passion which may possible satisfie such as were before resolved to be satisfied and make a Bumble sufficient for the eyes of some silly souls and give the wiser sort of people opportunity to make themselves merry but can never stop the mouth or darken the light of a waky and well-informed Conscience CHAP. VI. The Absolvers pretended Errours in the Covenant examined in part The Covenant as to the matter of it so far as respecteth Prelacy not contrary to the Word of God The Plea of its contrariety to the Lawes of the Church or State examined and proved insufficient for the irritation of it § 1. VVE said before that whoso fancieth an escape for his soul from the obligation of the Covenant once taken must be put to the trouble to assign some errour sufficient to discharge him the sufficiency of which must be also judged by the Word of God because from that an Oath derives its Obligatory vertue That there may be such errours in Oaths that we have taken is granted whether in this Oath there be or no is the question If there be any we must find it either in the formal or material or efficient or final cause For we shall hardly find any in any appendant circumstance which will be of such force § 2. And verily there is a variety found out relating to the three latter Causes by such as have spent their time to seek them They have sought false witnesses against the Covenant to put it to death but we hope before we have done to prove not only that they have found none for their testimonies have neither agreed to the Propositions of the Covenant nor yet to the matters of fact relating to

that weakness no man being bound to do things contradictory which indeed were impossible at least in this case which we have before us And this seems a task reasonable for us considering that the Adversaries of the Covenant have arraigned it of this before the world and pronounced sentence against it § 2. I shall onely premise this That where a man by an Oath Vow Covenant obligeth himself unwarily to doe many things though afterwards he finds that two of these things are contradictory and the contradiction of them dischargeth his observance yet he will stand bound to doe the other thing contained in that bond An Oath may be unlawfull in some part and yet Obligatory unlawfull as to some part and yet obligatory as to other parts Dr. Sanderson de Jur. prom prael 3. sect 5. Aq. 22. q. 89. Aquinas of old and Dr. Sanderson tell us that in case a man hath sworn to things which he finds impossible to be performed yet he is obliged ad faciendum quantum potest to perform as much of it as he can So that those who would discharge people from the obligation of the Covenant as to the extirpation of Prelacy must shew us that there is something in the Covenant contradictory to that particular or else they say nothing to our purpose By reason of other allegations the first taking of the Covenant might be unlawfull but being taken as to this it will be found obliging § 3. Both for this and the other Branches of the Covenant we must confess our selves to have so much reverence for the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament for the Reverend Assembly of Divines for the Parliament and Church of Scotland for all those Ministers and judicious Christians in England who so freely took the Covenant that we are not easie to beleeve that an Oath upon mature deliberation could have been swallowed and imposed by them guilty of so palpable a fault as contradicting it self in any thing But as to this particular which is onely our concern to examine Those that plead this must produce another branch of the Covenant obliging us to preserve and maintain or at least not to oppose the Government of the Church in England by Prelacy of Arch-Bishops and Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends c. which for our part we cannot find but beleeve there is no such thing as not in the letter of it so neither by any just consequence to be concluded § 4. Whereas Doctor Featly assigns this seeming contradiction in that the first branch bindeth us to a Reformation of the Church according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches The second branch bindeth us to the Extirpation of Schism as well as Prelacy And the third to preserve and defend his Majesties Person and Authority without any diminution of his just Power and Greatness and to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and the Liberties of the Kingdom And then he tels us that Bilson Downham Armagh and others never answered by any have proved Episcopacy to be most conformable to the Word of God 2. That Prelacy is a means if not the only means to extirpate Schism And thirdly That the Government of Arch-Bishops and Bishops are comprised with the Rights and Liberties of the Church both in Magna Charta and in the Petition of Right the two great Records of English Liberties The answer to all this we think is very easie § 5. To the first what the Doctor meant by answering Bilson c. we cannot tell all the world knows there have been many have called their Writings Answers to them However Bilson's and the others Arguments have been answered many times over Besides that 't is one thing to say Episcopacy against which the Covenant is not directed is conformable to the Word of God Another thing to assert that our English Prelacy was If any will undertake to prove the latter The Government of the Church most conformable to the Word of God or direct us to any who hath pretended to a Scriptural proof of it we dare undertake he shall be answered or the Covenant by all sober men confessed null and voyd But this is an hard task § 6. Supposing Prelacy were a means to extirpate Schism which good effect of it we never yet saw yet if it were an unlawfull or inexpedient mean and there were better might be used and more agreeable to the Word of God we might as well swear against that means and for the extirpation of Schism as against the Spanish Inquisition if it were amongst us which yet will knock down Schism by as good Club-law as ever Prelacy did As to our case now the advancing of it will certainly make as great a Schism as ever was in any Church and those judged Schismaticks must live with it or else the most bloody persecution of innocent soules must follow that ever any Christian Nation knew The asserting of Prelacy as the onely means by the Doctor is not onely gratis dictum not proved at all but most falsly said witness the Church of Scotland which under Presbytery hath had fewer Schisms than we in England under Prelacy have had or are like to have § 7. For the last allegation It is true we have sworn to defend his Majesties Rights the Parliaments Priviledges and the Subjects Liberties But 1. Surely they must be judges we mean the King and Parliament both of their own Rights and Priviledges and also of our Liberties 2. They have also power to disclaim their Rights and give away our Liberties we being included in them And if they will please to give away or part with their own Rights and Priviledges and to disclaim for some of us some particular Liberties and then impose an Oath upon us for ought we know we are bound up by such Oath nor is there any contradiction to be found here Nor can we find the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons either in Magna Charta or the Petition of Right asserted as pieces of the Liberties of England Nor were they such Liberties Certain it is Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Prin and many others had no reason to judge so no more had any other person indeed witness the proceedings in the High Commission and Starchamber their frequent Excommunications of persons for not paying a tythe Goose See the Oath prefixed to Dr. Wrens and to Dr. Montagnes Articles c. not appearing at their Courts their Oath ex officio their Churchwardens Oath impossible to be kept by any that took it with many other things God be mercifull to the poor people of England if these horrid things be appurtenances to their Liberties If these be the things they have petitioned for in their desires so often renewed for the confirmation of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right But let those who make this Plea write out the words

and no Obligation can arise from it it being against reason that from a wrong any should raise up to themselves a right any more than a meer passivity in a rape can oblige her that is so forced to marry him who hath so abused her § 2. As to his Sacred Majesty how truly any say this we cannot tell neither knowing whether his Majesty did indeed take the Covenant in Holland before he came under the Scottish power nor how he was treated in Scotland If when his Majesty came into Scotland the Covenant were by them imposed upon his Majesty he having not in Holland promised to take it Or supposing that if the Scots used any rough and disloyal Arguments to fright his Majesty into the taking of it though indeed our Allegiance and reverence for his Majesty constrains us to think that according to Dr. Sanderson's determination of the duty of a good and valiant man in such cases no fear could ever have wrought upon his Majesty so far as to have engaged him in any thing which his Conscience told him was sinful and unlawful yet the Scots are not to be excused in point of Loyalty and good manners to their Soveraign For many in England there is no doubt but many Ministers and people though not all nor the major part engaging took it in such a fright But we will at present suppose all viz. That both his Majesty and many of the people took it as being feared to it The Question still is whether such Oaths once taken however sinfully offered and imposed do not oblige those who took them to a just performance § 3. Divines in this case do distinguish betwixt simple promises and Oaths betwixt natural and divine Law and Civil and Ecclesiastical Law and betwixt metus levis gravis a light fear and fright and a solid and weighty case of fear as where a man is threatned with the loss of his life c. in case he take not the imposed Oath Hence saith Baldwin it is that Divines and Civilians differently determine the case with respect to the difference of Natural and Divine Law Bald win cas l. 2. c. 9. cas 12. and that which is purely Civil and Ecclesiastical And Divines here speak to many cases As that of a promise or an Oath made to a Thief upon the Road when for fear of a mans life he promiseth the Thief a Sum of money Whether he that is imprisoned justly or unjustly and goeth out upon his Parol swearing to return be bound by his Oath to do it though his returne shall certainly or may probably cost him his life c. § 4. Divines also do here distinguish betwixt such Oaths if imposed by Lawful Powers and if administred by Usurpers Sanchez saith 't is no question but such Oaths do oblige Sanches l. 3. cap. 9. if the powers imposing have a just authority over us and we suppose none will deny this for there are very few Oaths imposed by lawful Magistrates upon people but policy directs them to annex a penalty in case of refusal which as it is more or less ingendreth a lesser or greater degree of fear And indeed to deny this were to take away all possibility of Magistrates securing themselves by the Oaths of their Subjects For it were no more but for the Subject to say he sware his Allegiance out of fear and according to such new divinity he hath absolved himself So that although the Scots had no power to impose any such Oath upon their Soveraign under a penal fright unless he had first given them that power yet as to all the People of England in case the Lords and Commons of England legally assembled in Parliament have any such priviledge to impose an Oath upon the people although the King doth not consent we say which we profess our selves not to know in case they have any such lawful power the Argument from force signifieth nothing at all in the case § 5. But allowing our Absolvers all advantage possible supposing that the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Parliament of England legally have no such power but did injuriously impose it The Question is whether it being taken at this disadvantage doth not yet oblige all that took it to a just and religious observation of it To which we say § 6. The Third Commandment saies Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his Name in vain This Commandment is further interpreted by divers Scriptures You shall not swear by my Name falsly neither shalt thou prophane the Name of the Lord thy God Lev. 19.12 If a man vow a Vow unto the Lord or swear an Oath to bind his soul with a Bond he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that hath proceeded out of his mouth Numb 30.2 It was said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths Mat. 5.33 And as to the penalty I will be a swift witness against the Sorcerers and against the Adulterers and against the False swearers Mal. 3.5 And again The Curse of God shall enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly by the Lords name and it shall remain in the midst of his house and shall consume it with the timber thereof and with the stones thereof Zech. 5.3 It is the observation of Filiucius that the Precept is negative and therefore no pretence of force can discharge us from our obedience to it Not to dispute the force of his Argumentation It is plain from those Texts that every man is severely obliged to perform his Oaths and the express obligation of an Oath appearing from Divine Institution so highly onerosa as the Casuists speak loading the Soul with curses that neglecteth it It cannot but to every sober Christian appear highly reasonable that before we conclude That Oaths extorted by fear are not obligatory we should find either from Scriptural Precepts or Presidents a plain discharge from the obligation of them Which we think will be very hard to find § 7. Yet if we mistake not we shall find some Scriptural Instances which appear to us strong evidences to the contrary We shall instance but in two That concerning the Spies sent by Joshua to Jericho whose story we read Josh 2. 5. and that of Zedekiah which we have recorded 2 Kings 24. Ezek. 17 c. § 8. As to the former we read Josh 2. That he sent two men to spie out Jericho The King of Jerichò by some of his Ministers of State gaines intelligence that they were come and to what end they were come and that they were lodged at the house of Rahab he sends Messengers to Rahab to deliver them she acknowledgeth that such were come but saies they were gone again while in the mean time they were hidden in the top of her house she comes to them before they went to