Sectio Tertia.

Proposition 3. The matter sworn in the Solemn League and Covenant, is just and lawful to be maintained and pursued.

---

That we may discover the lawfulness of the matter of this Covenant, we must observe that in respect thereof, it is partly assertory, and partly promissory.

The assertory part of the Covenant.

Assertory in the Preface of it, viz. We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Ireland; by the providence of God, living under one King, and being of one Reformed Religion, having before our eyes the glory of God, and advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty, and His Posterity, and the true public Liberty, Safety, and Peace of the Kingdoms, wherein every ones private condition is included; and calling to mind the treacherous plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of God against the true Religion, and Professors thereof in all places, especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the Reformation, and how much their rage, power, and presumption are of late, and at this time increased and exercised; whereof the deplorable

[Page 22]

deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland; the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England; and the dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: We have now at last, after other means of supplication, Remonstrance, Protestation, and suffering, for preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times, and the example of the people of God in other Nations after mature deliberation resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do swear.

Though this Preface may seem and be said to be no part of the Covenant, yet it being a Solemn profession of the grounds and reasons on which the Covenant was made, and was declared in the very Act of swearing the Covenant, by all that swore it, we shall own it as a part thereof.

The Covenant is further assertory in the Conclusion, viz. And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God and his Sonne Jesus Christ, as is manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; We profess and declare before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sin, and for the sins of these Kingdoms, especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof, and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts, and to walk worthy of him in our lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much abounding among us; and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavour for our selves, and all others under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in a real Reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these Churches and Kingdoms in truth and peace. And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at the great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed: Most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by

[Page 23]

his Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success, as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the Yoke of Antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association, and covenant to the glory of God, and enlargement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility of Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths.

This Covenant is promissory in the six Articles thereof.

Falsehood in the Preface, but not the obligation of the promise.

Concerning the assertory part of the Covenant it must be noted; That although it should have been unlawful, because untrue in the grounds or reasons pretendedly inducing to it, and so hypocritical and fallacious in the humility, zeal, and resolution in the Conclusion professed: whereby the takers in deceiving others, may have deceived their own soul, and bound themselves under a certain expectation of the wrath of that God of truth and jealousy, who hath been called as a Witness of such wickedness: yet this fallacy will not discharge the obligation of the Covenant: For an Oath binds according to expression, not the takers reserved intention; and therefore Grotius [de jure belli & pacis. l. 2. p. 278.] telleth us; That if a man in his assertory Oath do ψευδορκεῖν [to commit perjury], swear falsely, this will be no warrant for his ἐπιορκεῖν [to violate his oath], for not performing what he promised; and concludes, Siquis volens jurare se pollicitus erit, non eo minus obligatur [If anyone has voluntarily promised under oath, he is no less bound on that account]; none but Jesuits will say that a man swearing, and in the act purposing not to bind his soul, and thereof making a secret appeal to God, is free; and not bound by his Oath: For this is expressly against the nature of an Oath; whose obligation is inseparable from its Act: And therefore the same Author [de Juramento lect. 5. p. 160.] saith, Siquis deliberato protulerit verba jurantia, animo tamen non jurandi obligatur [If anyone has deliberately uttered oath-words, yet with a mind not intending to swear, he is nevertheless bound]; and this is no other than Oxford Divinity, Siquis ex aliqua dolosa intentione velit putari jurasse, habebit apud ipsum omnem obligandi effectum [If anyone, from some deceitful intention, wishes to be thought to have sworn, it will have upon him the full effect of binding]; a man is bound by the action of swearing even beyond and contrary to his own intention; and this is evident in Joshua, and his Oath with the Gibeonites; obtained by fraud, and founded in falsehood; against which they had entered an express Caveat, it being far from his intention to make a League with a Canaanite, yet he and all Israel were bound by it; as in the former Proposition it hath been cleared.

[Page 24]

But why do I stand to establish the obligation of the promissory part of the Covenant, against the falsehood of the assertory part of it, whilst no such falsehood appears? As for the Conclusive protest, it lieth out of human cognizance, and is only obvious to the searcher of hearts: And to me he must be strangely blinded by passion or prejudice, that seeth, and subscribeth not to every part of the Preface as true; yet some there are, who, (though they could not speak out,) are willing to suggest a Lye chargeable on the same; and therefore the Covenant must be in this point vindicated against their exceptions, pretended Doubts and Scruples urged against the taking of the Covenant: Give me leave a little to weigh them.

The assertory part of the Covenant vindicated.

The first I shall take notice of, is, the Anonymous Doubts and Scruples recommended to the world by Dr. Gauden, and offered Sir, to your and my consideration; and his Quarrel, (I should say,) Scruple, is against the Title of the Covenant, which is certainly no part of it; which he thus frameth:

Exception of Doubts and Scruples.

I have not met with any Declaration to assure us, that Commissioners of each Kingdom respectively, and especially of Ireland, have been chosen and assembled together, had power, or did agree upon this League and Covenant, without which, or some such equivalent proceedings, we cannot possibly know that it was the joint consent, resolutions, and desires of the three kingdoms to enter into such a League, &c.

Answer.

Whoever Sir, were the Author of these Scruples, he sure was of a very tender conscience, that must be satisfied in the very Title and Denomination of the Covenant, and cannot do his own duty, or a just act, enjoined him by the Superiors of the Kingdom, of which he is a member and Subject, until he be assured, that all to whom it may extend, do desire and consent thereunto.

2. There might be such a Declaration, though he met not with it. Must private persons suspend required duties, until they meet with Declarations of the regular agitation of State affairs? Must all the arcana imperii [the secrets of empire] which relate to other Kingdoms, be opened before the Subject give his faith to keep the conditions concluded by their Governors?

3. Did he meet with any Declaration which told him Ireland was in a general Rebellion against the Crown of England,

[Page 25]

to which it had been subjugated, and was wholly dependent on the English Interest for its rescue and reduction? And must England stay its Covenant, till Ireland’s Rebels send Commissioners and consent? Or, may they not without their consent, covenant for the good of their vassal Kingdom which they must again recover by force?

4. But the title of the Covenant gives no ground for this Doubt; for though it be entitled, A Covenant for the peace and safety of the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, yet is it not entitled A Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms? And I hope, they may be the Objects, who are not Authors or Abettors of an Oath: And if they be offended for our intention and endeavors of good to them, let them bear it; Charity will not always stay for the consent or desire of its object.

Second exception out of doubts and scruples.

His next Scruple is like unto this, occasioned by those words of one Religion, which he doubts the Irish Papists open Rebels, against whom it was made, and Popish party in England, and Independents may not be of one Religion; yet by the 7th instruction it is to be proffered to all Inhabitants.

Answer.

But Sir, it doth not appear that it is to be proffered to the Irish Papists.

2. Because proffered, is it therefore taken? The words are professed by them that take the Covenant; may it not be a test, and note of discrimination for discovery of the Popish party, which lay lurking among us, and none as Papists, or indeed as Independents could take the Covenant?

3. May not the majority denominate the whole? The Protestant Religion is the only one Religion owned and professed in these Nations; nor doth he deny the Independents to be professors of it.

Sir, must not Dr. Gauden commend his discretion in commending to the world such perplexing Scruples as have not a Scruple of Reason in them? and shall not I appear as wise to spend time to consider them, (if of weight,) after the Covenant hath been taken? but he affirms them as agreeable to the Oxford reasons; which is a just Chius ad Choum [i.e., two things which fit badly together], Harp and Harrow; yet hereby he puts us on the consideration of them which have passed thus long unanswered; partly for the dread of their name, no

[Page 26]

private person being a fit Antagonist, or proper Casuist to resolve the Doubts of an University; and partly for that they were presented Apologetically, as private grounds of dissatisfaction, and for excuse from the Act required, not as interdictions or condemnation of other men’s Act as themselves profess; much less as Arguments for absolution from the bond of the Covenant now it hath been generally taken by Prince and People; to which end they are now Reprinted, and by every foolish Pamphlet are anew urged; and therefore necessitate the consideration of their weight; which, (I confess,) I in reverence to their Name, was willing to decline; but by the worth of truth, and weight of the Oath of God [Subsectio 1a.] upon our Land, am, (though a private, obscure, and unfit person,) constrained thereunto.

Their exceptions to the Preface of the Covenant, maketh no positive charge, yet suggesteth sundry falsehoods therein asserted: which they witness they could not acknowledge; As,

1 Exception by Oxford Reason.

First, They were not able to say, that the rage, power, and presumption of the enemies of God, in the sense there intended, is at this time increased.

Answer.

To which, Sir, I should have then Answered,

1. Their ability to say it is of little moment; nor could we well judge it: For whether they were under any natural, wilful, violent, or judicial incapacity, is not our part to determine: Others were able to say it; and if these Reverend Fathers and Students did know it, though they were not able to say it, it was for us sufficient: And therefore may I be bold further to enquire

2. Whether they were able to read the whole sentence expressing the sense, (Of the enemies of God, whose rage, power, and presumption was at this time increased), here intended? and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of God, against the true Religion, and Professors thereof in all places, especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the Reformation of Religion; and how much their rage, power, and presumption, are of late, and at this time increased: whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland, the distressed state of the Church and Kingdom of England, and the

[Page 27]

dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies. Are not these full expressions of the sense in which the enemies of God, whose rage, power, and presumption, were increased, are to be understood? and is it rational or religious, to enquire after, and suspend a duty on jealousy of a sense intended, when we have the sense plainly expressed? Is not this repugnant to the end of Speech, the Interpreter of the mind?

3. Were the Masters, Scholars, and other members and Officers of the University of Oxford, such strangers in the Protestant Israel, as not to know the Papists, and Popishly affected, were enemies of God, against true Religion, and the professors thereof in all places? Or so unacquainted at home, as not to know their plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices, were especially against these three Kingdoms, (the most public and potent Professors of true Religion), ever since the Reformation? Had they no notion of the Rebellions against King Edward the 6th? Of the Treasons, Plots, Conspiracies, Roaring Bulls, and Raging Spanish Armada against Queen Elizabeth? Of the Gun-powder-treason, and other plots against King James? Of the College of Propagators of the Catholick Cause erected in Rome, under the Government of Cardinal Barbarin, and designed against these Kingdoms? Or of the Grand Plot agitated by Con, or Cuneus the Pope’s Nuncio in England, discovered by Andreas ab Habernfeld, first to Sir William Boswel His Majesty’s Resident in Flanders, and by him unto Laude late Archbishop of Canterbury, and since fully cleared and laid open by Mr. William Prynne in his Romes Masterpiece published in 1643. four years before their reasons, and might have been profitable to their eye-sight?

4. Did not this learned University judge it to be an high increase of their Rage, Power, and Presumption, to distribute their Jesuits into such several orders, as should be capable in any place or profession to propagate their plots? To press upon the late King and Archbishop for a public profession of union with Rome? To boast openly of England’s returning to Popery? To tender a Cardinal’s Hat to the late Archbishop? To poison our Fountains the Universities, and our very people with Arminian and Popish doctrines publicly preached and printed, and Popish

[Page 28]

pictures publicly sold, and bound up with our Testaments and Bibles? To provoke the High Commission cruelties, and Puritans discontents? To plot a plain Popish Service-Book, with very little variation of it from the Mass-Book, and procure it to be by force and violence imposed on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, to the raising mutinies, and stirring up the Bellum Episcopale [the Bishops’ War; i.e., 1639-40], with pretence to yoke them, and intention to destroy the King and Protestant cause? To rebel openly in Ireland, and with rage and cruelty to Murther and Massacre the Protestants? To divide between King and Parliament in England, and possess themselves of His Majesty’s Garrisons and Armies, as under their command? To abet, advise, and effect the most barbarous Murder of His late Majesty [i.e., Charles I.], and our since confusions? All which, and many the like, to have been the achievements and accomplishments of these enemies of God to true Religion. He that is in any measure observant of our affairs, can run and read. And are not these expressions of Rage, power, and Presumption? let right reason judge.

Oxford Reasons second exception.

2. They cannot truly affirm, that they had used or given consent to any supplications or remonstrance to the purposes therein expressed.

To this Sir, consider,

That although they cannot affirm it, yet others can do it in truth, and with joy.

2. What are the purposes therein expressed? not as before intended, shall we judge it from the Preface? It is the glory of God, and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty, and His Posterity, the public Liberty, Peace, and Safety of the Kingdoms, wherein every ones private condition is included: For the End is the Argument which is urged to enforce the constancy to the Covenant; and in Article the sixth, it is expressed to be the glory of God, good of the Kingdoms, and the honour of the King; and these are the only purposes expressed in these particular acts propounded for the production of them: and shall we be so uncharitable, as to think the Gentlemen of Oxford to have been so void of piety towards God, love to their Country, or Loyalty toward their King, as not to have used or given consent to supplication or Remonstrance to these purposes therein ex-

[Page 29]

pressed? Must we think them so speechless, as not to pray to God, nor speak to men for the effecting of these purposes expressed? No! I will rather presume them modest, and not willing to publish their piety and zeal to good purposes: or passionately prejudiced against some one expedient propounded to the effecting of these purposes expressed, and thereby acted to confound the purpose and pursuing means: But

3. Had not the University of Oxford Representatives in Parliament? If they did not sit, were they violently excluded? Or, did they give their No to Supplications or Remonstrances to the purposes expressed in the Covenant? And if they did, were not these Supplications and Remonstrances carried by the Majority of Votes? And is not the Negative so swallowed therein, that all persons and bodies corporate through the Nation, did thereunto consent? When we find Oxford excepted, we will say they could not truly affirm, they gave consent.

Oxford Reasons third exception.

But 3dly they did not conceive the entering into such a League and Covenant, to be a lawful, proper, and probable means to preserve our selves and our Religion from ruin and destruction.

To this Sir, we must enquire into the concept of these Gentlemen, and desire to know whether it relate unto the quality of the Covenant, or the act of covenanting? The particle Such, seems to carry it to the quality of the Covenant, in respect of the matter covenanted; which afterward is particularly and in its proper place excepted against: But the words of the Covenant suggested by this exception to be false, do relate unto the act of covenanting, as we have now at last for the preservation of our Religion, determined to enter into a not such a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant: And the place of this exception is in the beginning of their exceptions unto the Preface, which may be said to be no part of the Covenant, and therefore admits not an exception to the quality of such a Covenant: Moreover the next exception puts it out of doubt, that these words relate to the act of covenanting, in which they profess they find not in our Histories any footsteps of a sworn Covenant on any occasion whatsoever. So that it seems to be the Act of covenanting by Oath, which they cannot conceive to be a lawful, pro-

[Page 30]

per, and probable means to preserve Religion from ruin: Surely then Sir, the weather was very misty about Oxford, and made their minds very muddy, that they could not conceive entering into Covenants, and Solemn Leagues, dictated by the light of nature, and directed by the Law of God, pursued and practised by all Nations, and by Israel in the cases of their Religion, as the utmost of human policy, and highest of security to their privileges endangered, as a method detecting concealed enmity, debarring fraud, expressing affection, engaging conscience, and animating resolution, to be a lawful, proper, and probable means of security. If it be good and safe as to our Civil, I hope it is no less probable in our Religious concernments. If Sir, I had been to deal with one single Student, I must have told him, That he started this exception more like a Sophistical Disputant, than a conscientious Dubitant [doubter].

4th Exception in the Oxford Reasons.

Fourthly, They could not believe the entering into this Covenant to be according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms, or the example of God’s people in other Nations: for that they found not the least footstep in our Histories of a sworn Covenant ever entered into by the people of this Kingdom upon any occasion whatsoever; nor could they readily remember any commendable example of the like done in any other Nation, but are rather told by the Defenders of the Covenant, that the world never saw the like before.

Answer.

Whether Sir, will not prejudice carry men? I cannot but wonder to find the Masters, Students, &c. of Oxford, so much unacquainted with Histories, as neither to find in our own, or other Histories, a commendable example of Entering into Covenant: I may not mind them of the Covenant made by the Nobles and people of Scotland among themselves, and with Queen Elizabeth of England, under and against the Papal might, executed by the then Queen Regent; nor of the Netherlands confederacy and Covenant. These will not seem commendable in their sight now, though so judged when England became their protection, and encouraged, nay, defended them in them.

Let me therefore enquire whether they knew Israel to have been God’s people of another Nation, and that they entered into Covenant in the time of the Judges, in the days of Joash, Josiah, Hezekiah, and Nehemiah, in times of danger and defecti-

[Page 31]

on in their Civil and Religious concernments; And was their practice commenable?

2. Did our Gentlemen of Oxford never find any footsteps in our Histories concerning the Barons of Stamford, Anno 1225. assembled not only without, but against the King’s consent, and covenanted each with other to demand the restitution of their Liberties; whereupon a Parliament was holden at Northampton to give them satisfaction? And again, did they never find in our Histories, how in Anno 1258. they assembled at Oxford, agreed on Articles, viz. The confirmation of the Charter de Foresta.

(2.) The establishing of Lord Chief Justice, who might Judge them by Law.

(3.) The driving Aliens and Strangers out of England, and the like: and that they confederated by Oath, and gave their hands and mutual faith one to the other [Math. Paris Hist. Ang. p. 940, 945, 952, 953.], that they would not desist to prosecute their purpose for loss of money or Lands, nor love, nor hate, no nor yet for life of them, or theirs, till they had cleared England of Strangers, and procured laudable Laws: And under this Covenant they brought the King’s Brother, Richard King of Romans, and Earl of Cornwall, and caused him to swear upon the Holy Gospels this formal Covenant:

Hear all men, that I Richard Earl of Cornwall, swear upon the Holy Gospels, to be faithful and forward with you, to Reform the Kingdom of England, hitherto by the counsel of wicked men so much deformed; and I will be an effectual coadjutor, to expel the Rebels and troublers out of the same: Both these our Histories say, were in the time, and without the consent of King Henry the 3d. Not to trouble our Reader with the like in the time of King John, King Richard the 2d, and other Princes; I must desire the Gentlemen of Oxford to tell us, whether these were not people of England? and these be not visible footmarks of some Covenant of the people of England on some occasion? And if they shall question whether they be commendable examples, let them please to observe the commendable Epethete our Historian gives upon the last of these Covenants, calling them Angliæ Reipublicæ Zelatores: But, the defenders of the Covenant told them, that the world never saw the like before: I but, they did not tell them, that there are no footsteps of any Covenant made on any occasion whatsoever: And if they had

[Page 32]

were the Masters and Students in Oxford resolved into such an implicit Faith, as to believe an Enemy? But I wonder these Masters of Reason had so little Reason, as to conclude a general, from the concession of a special: Their Margent explaineth the concession of the defenders of the Covenant in these terms, Such an Oath for matter, persons, and other circumstances, the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we read of in Sacred or human Stories. Know they not that there is a vast difference between the general form of an Oath or Covenant, and those special Qualifications which may circumstance it? and that a dissimilitude in the last, will not conclude that there never was a Sworn Covenant on any occasion? but sit verbum sat sapienti [let a word be enough for the wise].

Thus Sir, notwithstanding these learned Suggestions of the falsehood of the Preface, and in it of the assertory part of the Covenant, it yet continueth lawful, because true; and is our encouragement and assurance, that the promissory part will be answerable: For as in rational conclusions, so I hope in Religious resolutions, we shall find à veris verum sequitur [from truths, truth follows].

The promissory part of the Covenant, is in these six Articles.

I.

Subsectio 2da. Containing exceptions to the first Article of the Covenant.

That we shall sincerely, 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, en-

[Page 33]

deavor 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, Heresy, Schism, Profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men’s 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, reality and constancy, in our several Vocations, endeavor with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Parliaments, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s 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 Majesty’s just power and greatness.

IV.

We shall also with all faithfulness endeavor the discovery of all such as have been, or shall be Incendiaries, Malignants, or evil Instruments, by hindering 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 public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the Supreme 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 settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavor that they may remain conjoined in a firm Peace and Union to all posterity: And that Justice may be done upon the willful opposers thereof, in man-

[Page 34]

ner 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 Kingdoms, 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, persuasion or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed Union 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 honor of the King; but shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are not able our selves to suppress 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 Judicious Divines, who were to discover sin, and make men to discern between good and evil; I cannot but retain a strong conjecture, that it is all good and lawful: And when I consider His Late Majesty’s 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 lawfulness 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 into 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 descried the sinfulness of the matter if to be found: But when I weigh the par-

[Page 35]

ticulars 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 King’s Prerogative, and people’s 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 far 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 far is this Covenant from a repugnancy to our baptismal Covenant, as our Dr. hath suggested in his Analysis [Page 12.], that as I have in my Analepsis [Page 22.], 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 God’s Commandments, I must pursue pure Worship, and Religion towards God; and Loyalty, Love, and Unity towards men: And if I must renounce the Devil and all his works, I must extirpate Popery, and Papal Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy, Schism, with 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 baptism: 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 a profaning of an Oath; yet, will abide a question, whether it do not bind?

But I presume, none will be so childish, as to say or think the Purity of Religion, Honor and Authority of the King, Privileges of Parliament, Liberty of the Subject, and Unity of the Kingdoms, are trifles; than which, no matters can be more weighty and needful to us, as men or Christians: Nor is it of any force to say, These were secured by Laws and Professions of a lawful and Religious King; whilst these did not expel the spirit of Jealousy, the matter was of that weight, as to render an oath and covenant necessary.

[Page 36]

Secondly, An Oath is unlawful when the matter of it is impossible; for ad impossibile Nemo teneatur [], whether the impossibility be in the nature of the thing, or action conversant about it; but our Solemn League and Covenant is free from any appearance of impossibility in the nature of the things covenanted: I hope the Reformation of Religion, and preservation of human order, peace, and unity, will be owned as possibilities beyond the Learning of an Ass: Very little ground is there for that Scruple which is urged by our Drs. Anonymous friend [Scruples and Doubts about taking the Covenant. p. 7, 8.], That Extirpation is the immediate work of God in the heart; as if it were no way a human Act within men’s power, in reference to the exercise and profession of a principle or practice in the Kingdom.

Nor is there any impossibility chargeable on the Act, which is all along limited unto an endeavor according to our several places and callings: which might methinks have satisfied the same Questionists; that though Banishment or Death be extirpating Acts, yet they might be out of his place and calling, and other Acts did to him peculiarly belong.

Let it here be noted, that though the Law were, as some suppose, against something sworn in this Covenant, yet this puts not a moral impossibility upon the same; for that the thing sworn may be effected by a meek and humble endeavor in our places and callings, to have that Law voided, and repealed.

And as to what impossibility did seem to lie upon the extirpation of some things in this Covenant sworn to be extirpated by reason of the Coronation Oath of His late, (conscientious), Majesty, it was greater in appearance than in reality: For, the Oath of a Prince may be vacated by the impossibility put on it by the contrary Oath of the people, though tumultuously sworn, as it was in the rescue of Jonathan from King Saul’s Oath [1 Sam. 14.46.]: I justify not, nay, I pray God prevent the insurrection of the natural against the political power; but I cannot but take notice that God sometimes suffers it, and produceth his own will by it: as in this case, and in the casting off Samuel, and changing the government; and amongst us, (Horresco referens [I shudder as I tell it]), in suffering the madness of the people to prevail against His late Majesty, not only to the contradiction of His Oath, but cutting off His Royal Person, and

[Page 37]

so clearing the impossibility that did appear between this Covenant, and His Coronation Oath: and in bringing His Majesty that now is, under the same Sacred Bonds, to endeavor in His Royal place and calling to effect the same things: And in this case it is to be remembered, that the impossibility being removed, the Oath becomes obliging, and the act sworn, a duty.

Let such as pretend an impossibility on any part of the Covenant, because of the prevalency of men, affection of the people, countenance of Authority, and the like, learn to distinguish between the effect and endeavor; there may be an impossibility of effect, and yet possibility of endeavor; and Dr. Saunderson concludes, that the thing once sworn, the covenanter must endeavor to make the effect possible: Indeed we have in the Covenant sworn with very much Caution, not to effect, but in our places and calling, to endeavor; but this must not be by a wish for purity, and then welcome corruption; a consent to Reformation, and then compliance in Superstition; a saint refusal, and then free reception of the estate to be extirpated: No, it must be a stout and strenuous endeavor with all force and fervor, as Dr. Saunderson [de Juram. prælect. 3. Sect. 4. p. 64.] in this case well noteth, Obligat hoc genus Juramenti non ad effectum, quem supponimus esse impossibilem; sed ad conatum quamdiu superat spes ulla; imo quo plures, & majores objiciuntur difficultates, eo obnixius conandum & fortioribus animis obnitedum [This kind of oath does not bind to the effect itself, which we suppose to be impossible, but to the endeavour, so long as any hope remains; indeed, the more numerous and greater the difficulties objected, the more earnestly must one strive, and with stronger courage press on]. I wish, Sir, that our Soft Covenanters, Speedy Compliants, and Temporizing Turn-Coats, would seriously study this lesson.

Thirdly, An Oath is in respect of the matter unlawful, when it is impious, and expressly against God’s Word and Command; being so in it self, and the nature of the thing; and then the Rule must be admitted; Pacta quæ turpem causam continent non sunt observanda [Agreements which contain a shameful/unlawful cause are not to be kept], An Oath must not be the Bond of iniquity.

Here Sir, be pleased to observe, that though I could not consent to the Drs. opposing of Truth, Justice, Reason, Religion, and Duty to God or man as Iron Adamantine bonds unto the weak Withs and Cords of an Oath, which is directly contrary to the nature thereof; yet I acknowledge in them such a power as no Oath can bind against: If he or any will assume and make good the assumption, That the matter of the Covenant is of its self and own nature contrary to Truth, Justice, Reason, Religion, or duty to

[Page 38]

God and man; I will admit the sequel, and conclude it doth not oblige: But I have yet found none that have herein charged it, some indeed oppose to some part of the Covenant, an Apostolical tradition, but no divine institution or direction to any part thereof.

The unlawfulness which I find charg’d on the matter of the Covenant, is usually accidental in some circumstances conversant about the Act, more than the matter sworn, and hath been produced as a just barre to the taking of the Covenant, but is in vain now produced to break its bond laid upon us, as I have before noted. I easily grant that the Oath which is not sworn in truth, in justice, and in judgement, is very profanely sworn, yet affirm, it may be strongly binding; and so hereupon I might discharge this Section as running into the former: but because simple men seem startled by that unlawfulness of matter in the Covenant, which is suggested in the Oxford Reasons, for their non-confederacy with the rest of the Nation, and do commonly produce them as the present only plea, to discharge the Oath of God; I shall make bold to weigh the same, and see what more strength is in their Scruples as to the matter promised, than was in reference to the matter asserted; and whether an intelligent Casuist would not have easily resolved their doubts, and enlarged their consciences.

The Masters, Scholars, and other Officers and Members of the University of Oxford [Subsectio 2da.], in their Apology for not taking the Covenant, urge their Reasons against the same as unlawful not in the matter it self simply considered, but by accident, in respect of some circumstances attending themselves, and discapacitating them unto the Act, and they offer their exceptions unto the Articles severally and distinctly.

Oxford Reasons Sect. 3. p. 4.

Unto the first Article they except against the Preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, and Worship, Discipline, and Government: and then against the Reformation of England in those particulars.

1 Except.

Unto the first they tell us, They are not satisfied how they can in judgement swear to endeavor to preserve the Religion of another Kingdom.

[Page 39]

To which I answer in General, it is but reason they suspend the Act until they can swear in judgment; though such as have rashly in ignorance profaned the Oath by swearing it, must in sense of its Sacred Obligation inform their judgements, that they may perform it, and not cast it off: but what hindereth their judgement in this required Act?

They urge four obstructive reasons: As

1 Reason of this exception.

First, As it did not concern them to have very much, so they profess they had very little understanding thereof.

In which reason it is to be noted,

1. They had some understanding of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland; and that little might so far enlighten their judgement, as lawfully to swear the preservation thereof: I presume many Citizens have little, and but general notion of the Liberties they swear to preserve, yet are judged to swear in judgement.

2. I wonder an University, and Protestant University conversing in all Books, (and I must imagine), meeting with the two Books of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, their Confession of Faith, and Form of Worship, entertaining Schoolmen and Bishops, thence fled, by reason of the same; and openly oppugning and disputing against the same, should profess they had thereof little understanding; but it may be they minded not to study these things.

3. Some understanding in the Religion of another Kingdom was necessary to them as Christians and Protestants, by virtue of the Communion of the Church; and some, as an University, and Protestant School of Learning, where the true Religion of the Reformed Churches was to be defended, doubts dissolved, and errors oppugned and contradicted; and some was necessary to them as Subjects, required to swear the preservation thereof; for the injunction could not but provoke an enquiry after the matter to be preserved: I wonder therefore how these men could profess it did not concern them to have much, who, (if I mistake not), ought to know as much as all the Nation besides: but from what they know, they add the next Reason, (viz.)

2d Reason of this exception.

In three of the four specified particulars; (viz.) Worship, Discipline, and Government, it is much worse; and in the

[Page 40]

fourth; that of Doctrine, not at all better than our own to be reformed.

I wonder Sir, what account of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland was by the occurrents of those unhappy times, brought unto the knowledge of the University of Oxford? I hope they were more wise and just than to take it from Mr. John Maxwel, pretended Bishop of Ross, a man excommunicated by the Church, and censured by the State of that Kingdom, a professed Enemy, and enraged Delinquent, cursing his very judges, whom I find about that time at Oxford, writing his Issachar’s Burden, a most railing, reproachful discovery of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland: and the rather, for that the heat of expectation and ostentation of many, in reference to that book, was cooled by a providential fire which seiz’d on the Printing-House, and burned the Copies ready to be published the next day, as Mr. [Robert] Baylie in his [Historical] Vindication of the Government of that Church, which these Gentlemen might have met with, doth testify.

Yet Sir, had these men of reading regarded what more sober and impartial men have said and written, they would have had another Character of this Church: I may not mind them of the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford, in the time of King James preferring the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of Scotland, before that of England; or of their Philadelphian purity, who did not only keep the Doctrine of Salvation pure and free from corruption, but doth also deliver it in writing, and exercise in practice that sincere manner of government, whereby men are made partakers of salvation, mentioned by Mr. Brightman our Countryman [on Apocalyps. 3.]; they will possibly tell us, these were Separatists, to whom Scotland is no friend, or Puritans: Yet methinks Beza * may call for a little audience and respect from this Learned Assembly: and he told us long since, This is the great gift of God, that you have brought into Scotland together, pure Religion, and good order, which is the bond to hold fast the Doctrine; and I heartily pray and beseech you for God’s sake hold fast these two together, and always remember, that if one be lost, the other cannot long remain: And no less venerable, I presume, is the Corpus Con-

_____

* Magnum hoc Dei munus quod una & religionem puram & εὐταξίαν doctrinæ, viz. retinendæ vinculum in Scotiam intulistis. Sic obsecro & obtestor utraque simul retinete, ut uno amisso alterum diu permanere non posse semper memineritis [This is a great gift of God, that you have brought into Scotland together both pure religion and the good order (εὐταξίαν) of doctrine, that is, the bond by which it is to be retained. Therefore I beseech and solemnly charge you: retain both together, always remembering that, if the one is lost, the other cannot long remain]. Beza Epist. 79.

[Page 41]

fessionum, the Harmony of Confessions of all the reformed Churches; and yet therein they have an account of the Church of Scotland, which might render it more acceptable, and worthy to be preserved. For thus it is reported by the Collector, who much rejoiced in the providence that brought their Confession into his hand: It is the rare privilege of the Church of Scotland before many, in which respect her name is famous even among strangers, that about the space of fifty and four years without Schism, yea or Heresy, she hath holden fast unity, with purity of Doctrine; the greatest help of this unity by the mercy of God was, that with the Doctrine, the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles, as it is prescribed in the Word of God, was by little and little together received, and according to that Discipline so near as might be, the whole government of the Church was disposed; the Lord God of his infinite goodness grant unto the King’s Majesty, and to all the Rulers of the Church, that according to the Word of God they may perpetually keep that unity, and the purity of Doctrine.

Unto these might be added the testimony of Arundel, Hutton, and Matthews, three English Archbishops, approving the Order of the Church of Scotland; and the joy of King James professed in the Assembly 1590. That He was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world. All which might have brought to their knowledge a better account: but they looked not so far back, but take it up by occurrents of those unhappy times; in which I fear Scotland was not more full of perplexities, than Oxford of passion and prejudice.

3. But in what particulars are the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, much worse than that of England? They should specify these bad things; for generalia non pungent [generalities do not prick]; I confess in a Notion of Philosophy, or question in Divinity, the Say so of a University is of some Authority; but of none in the case of an accusation which must be particular, and plainly

_____

* Et illud ecclesiæ Scoticanæ privilegium rarum præ multis, in quo etiam Nomen apud exteros fuit celebre, quod circiter annos plus minus 54. sine Schismate nedum Hæresi, unitatem cum puritate doctrinæ servaverit & retinuerit; hujus unitatis adminiculum ex Dei misericordia maximum fuit quod paulatim cum doctrina, Christi & Apostolorum Disciplina sicut ex verbo Dei præscriptum est, una fuit recepta, & quam proxime fieri potuit secundum eam totum ecclesiæ regimen fuit administratum. Det Dominus Deus pro immensa sua bonitate Regiæ Majestati, omnibusque Ecclesiarum gubernatoribus, ut ex Dei verbo illam unitatem & Doctrinæ puritatem perpetuo conservent [And this was a rare privilege of the Scottish Church above many others, in which her name was also celebrated among foreigners: that for about fifty-four years, more or less, she preserved and retained unity with purity of doctrine, without schism, much less heresy. The greatest support of this unity, by the mercy of God, was this: that gradually, together with doctrine, the discipline of Christ and of the Apostles, as it is prescribed from the Word of God, was received also; and, as nearly as could be done, the whole government of the church was administered according to it. May the Lord God, of his immense goodness, grant to the King’s Majesty and to all governors of the churches, that from the Word of God they may perpetually preserve that unity and purity of doctrine]. Corpus Confess. p. 6.

[Page 42]

proved, if England’s Doctrine be doubtful and defective in respect of its clearness and certainty, or sophisticated by the obtruded fancies and terms of private men, as Mr. Prynne hath plainly charged in his Epistle to the late King, prefixed to his Quench-coal, and as the Ministers of sundry Counties in their Reasons for Reformation have suggested; and Mr. Hamilton in his modest answer to Dr. Peirson, hath clearly demonstrated; it will be found as much better than the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland, as its Worship, Discipline, and Government, is worse than this of England: And I hope, if the one be as good, though nothing better than the other, there can be no great Scruple, to swear to endeavor the preservation of it: But to proceed,

3d Reason of this exception referred to the fifth Section of this Treatise.

Their third Reason is a supposed contradiction in this first Article of the Covenant. This shall be considered under another Head.

4th Reason of this exception.

The fourth Reason why they could not swear the preservation of the Religion in Scotland is this, Wherein we already find some things, to our thinking, tending towards Superstition and Schism, which call for Reformation.

Here Sir, they seem to specify what in the 2d reason they had suggested in general terms: But let it be observed,

1. That they find not in the Church of Scotland any formal Superstition or Schism, but at the most something tending toward them: I imagine many Oxford Masters will not willingly admit a Reformation, or be denied a preservation of many things apparently tending towards Popery, but not popery it self.

2. The things they find, do but to their thinking, tend towards Superstition or Schism; but they have no certainty of it; Must conjecture stand against the Covenant and conclusions of others? Methinks Superstition and Schism should be so well known to the Scholars of Oxford, that they might be able to conclude what things tend thereunto.

3. What are the things they find in the Church of Scotland which tend, in their thinking, to Superstition and Schism? They point us unto the Margin, and there we find, (viz.) in accounting Bishops Antichristian, and indifferent Ceremonies lawful, this they refer to Superstition: And, (viz.) in making their Discipline and Government a mark of the true Church,

[Page 43]

and the setting up thereof the erecting of the Throne of Jesus Christ; and this they refer to Schism. Sure Sir, they were in a great strait, that made a shift to specify these sad corruptions: but yet they do not tell us, where they find these laid down as the Doctrines of the Church of Scotland; whether in their Confession, or form of Discipline: Whilst in their Confession of Faith [Corpus Confess. Conf. Scot. Art. 20. p. 120, 121.] they give unto general Assemblies authority about Ceremonies, I cannot think they deem indifferent Ceremonies unlawful; nor do I find that they, (as England hath done), do anywhere make their Discipline a part of their faith; that so they might damn Bishops as Antichristian: I find indeed [Artic. 18. p. 118.], that they make Discipline rightly administered as is prescribed in the Word of God, the note of a true Church; but they do not appropriate it to their Discipline and Government, as these learned men would have us read it. I know indeed, that the Scotch Divines do account English Bishops Antichristian, and English, Popish Ceremonies unlawful; but they deny them to be indifferent; but these are specials, and far from the generals charged on them; nor can these specials be condemn’d in them, until Calderwood’s Altare Damascenum, and Mr. Gillespie’s Dispute against the English-Popish Ceremonies, which have passed with much approbation through all the Reformed Churches, and I presume, missed not Oxford, be fully answered.

4. But wherein lieth the tendency of these principles to Superstition and Schism, that these learned men think of? As to their nature they are negative and exclusive; and I deem a denial of any of God’s appointments to be profaneness, not Superstition. I am apt to think Superstition to be a positive innovation and erection of some new matter and action into the worship of God on man’s mere will and invention, without God’s institution. I remember Mr. Blake denieth the baptizing of bells, or the Horse in Huntingdonshire, to be Superstition, and damns it as a profane misapplication of God’s Ordinance: How then the exclusion, neglect, or profane esteem of Bishops and Ceremonies can tend to Superstition, I confess I see not. Think you Sir, the Learned men of Oxford did deem Bishops and indifferent Ceremonies to be such immediate institutions and essential parts of Divine worship, that they think a profane contempt of them might tend by exclusion thereof, to make way for some innovation in

[Page 44]

their room; then I also will think they tend towards Superstition, but must think they are not indifferent.

I wish Sir, they have not mistaken the Scotch notion of a true Church, which is opposed as well to a corrupt, as falsely constituted Church; the Magdeburgencer [Cent. 2da. c. 2. col. 109.] do so oppose it in the very same case, Vera enim ecclesia, &c. For, a true Church, as it retains pure Doctrine, so also it keeps simplicity of Ceremonies; but an hypocritical Church for the most part, changeth the Ceremonies instituted by God, and multiplieth its own traditions. And Bishop Hall’s Vere and vera Ecclesia [], is no stranger at Oxford; and if then Scotland, concluding her Government to be according to the Word of God, should say, De specie, It is the sign of a true, that is, a pure, Church best Reformed, because the erecting of the Throne of Christ, doth it not tend more to provoke Reformation of Churches truly constituted but not completed, than to stir up Schism? For they do not, nor ever did deny communion with Churches herein defective, and under male-administration of Discipline and Government.

We see Sir, very little ground to stumble at the preservation of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland; let us try the strength of their exceptions against the endeavor of the Reformation of these in the Kingdom of England: And to this they tell us,

Subsectio tertia. Oxford exceptions to Reformation of England.

They are not satisfied how they can swear to endeavor the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, which without making a change therein, cannot be done. For this they urge three grounds of reasons, which seem to be of weight.

1. Reason for this exception.”

The first whereof, is,

Without giving manifest scandal to the Papist and Separatist, By yielding the cause, which our godly Bishops, and Martyrs, and all our learned Divines, ever since the Reformation, have both by their writings and sufferings, maintained; who have justified against them both the Religion established in the Church of England, to be agreeable to the Word of God.

2. Justifying the Papists reproach and scorn, We know not where to stay, what is our Religion, and that it is a Parliamentary Religion.

[Page 45]

3. A tacit acknowledgement, that there is something both in Doctrine, and Worship, (whereunto their conformity hath been required), not agreeable to the Word of God, and so justifying the recusancy [refusal to conform] of the one, and separation of, the other.

4. An implied Confession that the laws and punishments of Papists for not joining in that form of Worship, which our selves, (as well as they), do not approve of were unjust.

A very fair and specious exception! To which, Sir, I say,

1. That it is well, Scandal is at length become an Argument of any force: Had it been regarded when rightly pleaded by the Nonconformists, (enemies to separation, as well as Popery), there might not have been a Solemn League and Covenant to constrain its plea in a case wherein, (under correction), it seems to have lost its force: For if, Sir, we have through ignorance practised, or willfulness persisted in any sinful Superstitious course, concerning which we have been admonished by some, and declined by others, and yet being armed with power did constrain a compliance with us, so that a Recession from the same must be our shame, and their scandal to whom we would not hearken: I hope we must not, for fear thereof, go on in sin, and refuse so much as to endeavor a Reformation: If in this case scandal had been of any force, how, or when had Protestant Religion been effected by such who had burned for Heretics, all that were but suspected of inclining to it? Were not the Papists then as much and more scandalized as now? Is Scandal of any more force in the following degrees of Reformation, than in the first act thereof? Though it is a stop to sin, and stay of violence in imposing things indifferent, must it be of any strength to barre duty in the endeavors of Reformation? I believe Sir, professors of Physick [medicine], and Surgery, will not consent ill humors to go unpurged, or festered, incurable members uncut off, because some will be scandalized, that their advice was not sooner minded, and others at the past, real, and now-seeming cruelty acted by the present change.

2. It is to me strange, to see Papists and Separatists conjoined as objects of the same scandal: I am sure the reason and ground must be directly contrary; Continuance of corruption to the one; and Removal thereof to the other; the Separatist is

[Page 46]

offended that there were so many Popish Ceremonies retained, and that so long, when by him too rigidly refused: The Papist that there were so few, and likely to be gone so soon: But I presume, they are supposed in aliquo tertio convenire [to agree/meet in some third thing], to agree in some other capacity; The things are now to be Reformed, for non-observance of which they were both afflicted; and then Sir,

3. The Scandal seems to be a mere fancy springing from a fallacy in these words, The Religion established in the Church of England; which these serious Casuists, (with reverence may I note it), do to me seem sophistically to understand in a sense different from the words of the Covenant, which are these, The Reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government.

It must therefore be observed, that Religion as it denoteth the matter, substantial parts, and essential form of divine Worship, is different from the Circumstances, Order, and Ceremonies annexed thereunto, and only as appendants thereof deemed Religious, which are conversant about, and separable from Religion, liable to alteration as the prudence of men doth direct, and none but ignorant Idiots will deem the change of them a change of Religion: for these are different in the Reformed Churches, whom yet, I hope the University of Oxford will own to be of the same Protestant Religion with the Church of England, agreeing in the same faith, though not subscribing the same formal Articles; administering the same worship, though not in the same order, and with the same Ceremonies.

Again Sir, we must distinguish between what is established, and what is exercised in the Kingdom of England: Though we do not justify, nay, believe a necessity of Reformation in many particulars in the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government established; yet we know in all these particulars, many gross and absurd corruptions brought in, and continued by a strong hand, were exercised in the Kingdom of England: and that in reference to all these particulars:

(1.) For Doctrine, as that auricular confession and penance was necessary and profitable for Christian men, and in Christ’s Church; That Christians must have Altars, and bow to them as towards God’s mercy-seat, and the place of Christ his real presence on earth: That Jesus Christ

[Page 47]

and his passion are offered up as a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Altar: That Crucifixes, Images, and Pictures of Christ, God, and Saints, may be lawfully and profitably used and set up in Churches: That the Pope or Papacy is not Antichrist: That there are Canonical hours of prayer which ought to be observed: That Churches, Altars, Chalices, and Church-yards, ought to be consecrated: That men had free-will of themselves to believe and repent: That men might totally and finally fall from grace: That Sunday is no Sabbath: That Bishops have a Superiority of Order and Jurisdiction above other Ministers, and that by Divine Right: Nor can there be a true Church, where there are not such Bishops: These and many such like, (it is yet well known), were publicly preached by Mountague, Cozens, Pocklington, Shelford, Dow, Reeves, Adams, and others, and the Preachers defended even in the University from censure for them; nay, these were Printed in several Books of the same Authors, licensed and allowed by the Archbishop and his Chaplains, and many of them asserted in the visitation Articles of some Bishops, and yet were not established in the Church of England. As in Doctrine, so in Worship, many corruptions were innovated and exercised: As, Bowing at the Name of Jesus: The turning Communion-Tables into Altars, or Altarwise, and Railing them in, furnishing them with Candlesticks and Tapers: Tying the Gospel, the blessing, and other parts of the public service to that place enclosed, and bowing to these Altars: The making Crucifixes and Canopies, pictures of God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, Virgin Mary, and others Saints in our Church-windows: Consecration of Churches, Fonts, Bells, and the like: All which, and many such, were first innovated to the Chapel at Lambeth, and ferried over to White-Hall, and so transmitted to all Cathedral, and almost all Parish Churches; and yet were not established by Law, though enforced by the corruption of Discipline in the Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren, Bishop Mountague, Bishop Peircy, Bishop Lindsey, and Bishop Skinner, and others in their several Dioceses; and by the silencing, suspension, excommunication, and imprisonment, and High Commission vexation of Mr. Chauncey Vicar, and Mr. Parker an Inhabitant of Ware, Mr. Burros of Colchester, and many others: Nor was Government any more pure, if we consider

[Page 48]

how it was exercised in the High Commission, and Star-Chamber, with all rigor, cruelty, and injustice; and in Visitations, Citations, Probate of Wills, Letters of Administration and Excommunication in the name, and under the Seal of the Bishops themselves, never authorized thereunto: All which were evidently needful to be reformed, as having been so publicly exercised, and potently defended, and might well enforce a covenanted endeavor to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England.

I well know Sir, that the change of Religion makes a great sound in the world, especially if established: I cannot be insensible of the noise made by it against our first Reformation, and must expect the Echo to follow all after-acts and degrees thereof; for all changes are scandalous, and many very dangerous: If therefore these Masters and Scholars of Oxford could rationally conceive the Covenant to bind them to endeavor a change of Religion in the substance, matter, and essential parts and form thereof; then I must confess their exception is very important; for we cannot deny that our Bishops, Martyrs, and Learned Divines, have by Suffering and Writing testified it to have been agreeable to the Word of God: And that to resolve that into the power and pleasure of a Parliament, who may direct and authorize the profession, but not prescribe the matter or form, were to make it a Parliamentary Religion; and the change thereof must needs condemn our Laws, and the punishment of Papists not joining with us as unjust, and so justify Papist and Separatist, the one in his recusancy [refusal to conform], and the other in his separation.

But Sir, when I consider the Religion of Scotland to be preserved as the concomitant and provocation, the Word of God to be the Rule; and the best Reformed Churches professing the same substantial Religion, though differing in administration and order, propounded as the pattern; I see not how right reason can render any such sense of it; and the rather, for that Reformation, not alteration of Religion, is the formal act which presupposeth the continuation of the subject about which it is conversant.

But Sir, if they, (as they needs must), by Religion understand the order and annexed Ceremonies appendant to Religion, whether established, as was the Cross in Baptism, holiness of

[Page 49]

days, and order of the Liturgy, and the like; or only exercised and enforced by Prelates power and countenance, as the corruptions before mentioned; then we must say their exception is of no weight, nor the reason any thing worth; for this change can be no such scandal, as is conceived; for we deny them to have been testified by our Bishops, Martyrs, and learned men, by any Sufferings or Writings, (until of late by the persons and such like before mentioned), as agreeable to the Word of God; and must put them to the proof of it; we think we are able to produce Tindal, Latimer, Hooper, Ridley, Farrar, and many other Martyrs, by laying down their Bishopricks, and other contests and sufferings to have testified against them, and Mr. Cartwright, Baines, and many Devonshire, Cornwall, and Lincolnshire Ministers, and others, ever since the Reformation by Writing, Petition, Remonstrance, Apology, and Sufferings to have testified against not only the corruptions exercised, (against which our Jewels, Fulks, Whitakers, Archbishop Parker, Dr. Ward, Dr. Brownrigge, Dr. Bancroft, and all sound and learned Divines, not devoted to return to Rome, have written), but even the very Order and Ceremonies established, as being not agreeable to the Word of God: And if these learned Gentlemen had pleased to observe the Visitation and High Commission proceedings, they might have found Prynne, Burton, Bastwick, Layton, Workman, Langley, Hind, Nichols, Ball, and many others, (known learned men), who were silenced, suspended, imprisoned, stigmatized, and in much Sufferings testified, these appendants to our Religion, whether established or exercised, to be no way agreeable to the Word of God; and I know not whom they can mention as a Martyr for them, unless it be Laud the late Archbishop, the grand Innovator of our Church.

2. If therefore our Religion be by Papists or Prelates reproached as a Parliamentary Religion, we will rejoice in our reproach, and bless God we had a Parliament that had zeal to improve their power about those things that were properly subject thereunto.

3. Nor can this Reformation justify the recusancy [refusal to conform] of the Papists, because these things never became a Reason for their recusancy [refusal to conform], further than they occasioned their obduracy by assuring their hopes of England’s return to them: Nor the Separation

[Page 50]

of the Separatists; for that the corruptions established, were never made such essential parts of worship, as to make a sufficient ground for separation.* The Masters and Scholars of Oxford cannot have been so little observant, as not to know that the sober zealous Non-conformists who groaned under the burden of these corruptions, and for this Reformation were grieved by, and greatly contended against the Separation,* as that which was without sufficient ground; yet like Jesus Christ their Master, kept Communion with a Church, whose Doctrine and Worship was very much in need of Reformation, and taught men so to do: granting, There was something in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of England not agreeable to the Word of God, and yet not enough to lay a ground for separation.

4. Much less doth this endeavor judge the Laws against, and punishment of Papists as unjust, which never had these pieces of Religion for their ground or reason.

You see Sir, that the first ground of these learned men’s dissatisfaction, as to the covenanted endeavor of Reformation of Religion in England, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, is clearly groundless, supposing a change, and suggesting a scandal not to be supposed: Let us try the strength of their second reason for this exception: And that is,

2. Reason for this exception.

They could not covenant this Reformation without wrong to themselves, their consciences, reputation, and estates, in bearing false witness against themselves, and sundry other ways swearing to endeavor to reform that as corrupt and vitious, which they had by their personal subscription approved as agreeable to the Word of God, and for which they had not been condemned of their own hearts, nor convinced by their brethren that therein they did amiss.

2. Which they are in conscience persuaded, were not against the Word of God as they stand established by law.

3. Which they believe to be in sundry respects much better, more agreeable to the Word of God, and practice of the Catholic Church, than that to be preserved in Scotland.

4. To which all Clerks admitted to any Benefice, are required to assent.

_____

* Witness Cart-wright’s defence of the Church-service.

* Mr. Geree his Vindiciæ ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, shewing necessity of reformation, not Separation. And Mr. Balls two Books against Mr. Cann.

[Page 51]

To these reasons Sir, I should have answered,

1. Credit is indeed a matter of concernment, and Reputation is to be regarded, and our Estate by all just, prudent means duly preserved; but they are not equivalent to the purity of Gospel administrations, nor must be admitted bars to duty, or stays from the endeavor of a necessary Reformation when called for.

2. We are at a loss to understand their terms; the establishment by Law is not expressed in the Covenant; and many corruptions we have noted, were exercised, not established: The endeavor of a Reformation of them (though not them only) was, and is required; and it is very doubtful how or where to find and prove an establishment by law, to which they so much cleave; yet I hope the defect in proof thereof, will be no just demur to the endeavor of a Reformation of what is really vitious and corrupt, whether established, or only exercised.

We must also intreat a comment on these words, the practice of the Catholic Church. It is well known, that Rome doth engross and monopolize this Epithet: nor can the Worship, Doctrine, and Discipline of the Church of England admit it to be predicated of any so well as that; for all reformed Churches do in their practice differ (and I presume it will be hard to prove the agreement of the Primitive Churches) in these particulars, which were first derived from Apostate Rome, and have ever since continued as the dregs of their Catholic practices, not more to the grief of the Reformed Churches abroad, and Non-conformists at home, then joy and exultation of the children of that Church, as a plain evidence of their continued possession, and encouragement to expect and endeavor a full recovery of England into her bosom: But as to their Argument;

3. The Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government might be vitious and corrupt, notwithstanding their apprehension and assent to the contrary, or the subscription of others required by the Law. We well know, that the Reformation of the Church in England, was begun on more Political than pious principles;* which did easily consent to a retaining of what was justly discharged in other Reformed Churches, embracing the administration of the Gospel in its simplicity, for the sake of its

_____

* Henry the 8th his discontent at the Pope.

[Page 52]

naked self) might consist with those Politick ends which did provoke it; and Policy being the principle predominant in the first, hath struggled against piety unto this last act, and is not yet mastered; and I presume the Scholars and Masters of Oxford will not plead an immunity from policy, passion and prejudice, when they are to pass judgement against their credits, reputation, and estates, as in the case of this Covenant, they apprehend they were to do; and that these principles will provoke us to yield our own, and exact from others an assent to things as agreeable to the Word of God, which in themselves are vitious and corrupt, no serious man or Christian can or will deny: It is well if we find this Reason stated under a more cautious, vigilant, and pious frame of spirit.

4. But I must confess, I wonder not so much to hear these Gentlemen to profess They had by their personal subscription approved the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England as agreeable to the Word of God; which might be an act of rashness, an effect of ignorance, an event of some distressed condition, or distemper of mind, fear of losing, or hope of gaining preferment, as to hear them say, That this was enjoined by Law to them, and all that were admitted to benefices: That the Doctrine of the Church was to be assented unto, I grant is by Law established; but the assent to Worship, Discipline, and Government, I observe, not to be enjoined by any full and formal Law: I find indeed, something relating to Discipline in the ordering of Deacons and Priests, Bishops and Archbishops, and the Churches power about traditions, and Rites, or Ceremonies, inserted into the 39. Articles; but how, or by what Law they are established, I know not: The Statute [13. Eliz. 12.] requiring Ministers assent, doth not specify the Articles particularly; and the general Note whereby to know them laid down in the Statute, is this, Articles of Religion which ONLY concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments. This particle ONLY, is, in my judgement, exclusive to Discipline and Government; and how these came into the Articles, I know not: only I find the Epistle to His late Majesty, before the Quench-Coal, * to charge corruption and forgery to have been acted about these Articles, and earnestly implores justice against the Forgers and Obtruders thereof, and until the Legality of the

_____

* A Book supposed to have been written by Mr. William Prynne.]

[Page 53]

Canons of 1603, and fence thereof be clearly asserted, and fully vindicated from the exceptions which are urged against them, * we must be at a loss for their establishment; for if the King had not authority by virtue of the Statute pretended, or the matter of them be repugnant to standing Statutes as is suggested, the establishment of Worship, Discipline, and Government by law, must abide very doubtful; but the University of Oxford might make a Law unto themselves, to which these Gentlemen might refer.

5. Whether established or exercised, I think it very strange to see these learned men on serious thoughts to profess their own hearts did not condemn them, nor had their brethren convinced their judgements they had done amiss, by their personal subscription to approve the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England to be agreeable to the Word of GOD, but that thereof they were still persuaded.

Sir, what effect had been wrought on their consciences, I cannot tell: I will hope they were not seared, or shut up by a resolution of non-persuasion to the contrary; yet had I been amongst them (with submission) I must have expostulated with them, and enquire,

Enjoined to be subscribed by every Minister before he be ordained, in Canons of 1603. Ca. 36.

Whether they had not subscribed to the use of the Common Prayer, and form in the said Book prescribed in public prayer, and NONE OTHER. Did none of these Masters publicly pray in St. Mary’s in Oxford, and other Churches, before and after their Sermons? Were not such prayers public prayer? Did they at such times use the Common Prayer? If not, did not their consciences mind them of their subscribed promise solemnly made in entering on so holy a calling? Are not NONE OTHER, words as fully exclusive of their own forms extemporary or premeditate, as can be expressed? Admit we this Common Prayer to be lawful, yea necessary, is not this exclusive subscription a plain limitation of the Spirit, rejection of the gift of prayer, and robbing the Church of Ministerial parts unto prayer, as well as preaching to the edification thereof? Did Christ, when he prescribed the most perfect prayer, tie his Disciples to use that and None other? Can any rationally-religious man, subscribe this promise, and approve it to be agreeable to the Word of God,

_____

* Necessity for Reformation. p. 56, 57, 58, 59.]

[Page 54]

and stand persuaded it is not contrary thereunto?

Secondly, Is it agreeable to the Word of God to affix a sentence of man’s conception and framing to divine service, and denominate it a sentence of Scripture? In the Rubric of the Common Prayer, the Priest is appointed to read one of these sentences of Scripture which follow. The very first of which, is, At what time soever a sinner repenteth him of his sin from the bottom of his heart, I will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the Lord: the which is referred in the Margin (as are the following sentences to their places) * unto Ezek. 18. 21, 22 (to say nothing of the effect, though accidental of this supposed Scripture) how many have been deceived, really believing it to be a sentence of Scripture, when it is not found in all the Bible? Methinks these men should have observed how our late Masters had corrected this gross and obvious fault in the Scotch Liturgy, before they had thus confidently told the world, They were persuaded there is nothing in the worship of England, which is not agreeable to the Word of God.

Thirdly, In the Worship of England much of Canonical Scripture is omitted, and never to be read (a fault complained of by the first Compilers of the Common-Prayer-Book [Vide. The Preface of it.]) and much of the Apocrypha, vain, false, and ridiculous, is appointed to be publicly read; the great Bible-Translation of the Psalms, is thrust out, and a most corrupt Translation of them, omitting some whole sentences, adding whole verses [The titles of the Psalms. Psa. 72. Psa. 14. Psa. 105. 28.]; and falsely translating many places and Texts, is affixed unto the Common-Prayer-Book, and made part of it: Some part of Scripture is dignified above other parts thereof; the Gospel must be honored with the standing up of the people, the Epistle (no way different in the matter, Christ crucified, but only in the name and manner of Revelation from the Gospel) is slighted: Will the Gentlemen of Oxford say this is agreeable to the Word of God? They must prove it; for we shall not believe them; and the rather, for that this gross abuse is palliated by this false profession in the Preface to this Book, That nothing is ordained to be read, but the pure Word of God, the holy Scriptures, or that which is evidently grounded thereupon; and the rather, for that we find the Common-Prayer-Book condemned (in respect of these particulars) by Dr. Spark [Vide. The Anatomy of the Service-book. p. 18.], no mean Son of the Church.

_____

* As is Dr. Boyes in his Exposition of the Liturgy. p. 1.

[Page 55]

Fourthly; Will these Masters and Scholars stand persuaded, that the extraordinary Solemn Worship appointed by the Common-Prayer-Book unto holy days and their Eves, is agreeable to the Word of God, wherein every particular holy-day hath its distinct and particular Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, as its Solemn Service appointed: not to insist on the supposed influence of that reputed sanctity on the Six or Seven days following, directing the same service to be impertinently continued; as in the Feast of the Nativity, Easter, Whitsuntide, Ascension, and others; nor the unwarrantable preeminence given to some parts of Scripture above others; or the irrational denomination of some Prophetical and Historical portions of Scripture Epistles; all which are well urged by many Non-conformists. I would enquire, what part of Sacred Writ stamps Sanctity on Wednesday and Fridays, more than the other four days of the week, and sets them into a parity with Sunday (to retain their Dialect *) that the same more Solemn service shall be read on those days, as on that day? By what Scripture-warrant, mediate or immediate, are other days, besides the Lord’s day, made holy, or sanctified in honor of the Saints, so as in their nature to interdict men’s labour in their lawful callings, engage men to the exercises of Religion as oft as they return, and become Subjects of that Solemn Service, which may not on other days be offered unto God? Is not a Religious owning, and observation of some time, as (not appointed by the God of our time, whose sole Prerogative it is to make it) solemn and Holy time, to be Religiously employed, a plain and formal Superstition repugnant to Gospel-Rules? Gal. 4. 10. Coloss. 2. 16. I am not ignorant that some holy-days have been of ancient and universal observation in the Church, and have laid claim to Apostolical tradition, and occasioned much controversy in the Church; but I stand unsatisfied in their institution: I deny not the just authority of the Church or Christian Magistrate over our time; but I think there is a vast difference between time as the subject, and as the adjunct of Religion; God only can make it the first; human authority may appoint holy Fasting, and holy Feasting (those transient acts of Worship dependent on, and subservient unto God’s dispensations of providence to his people) and so may determine (the second) time (like the days of Purim) as a necessary

_____

* [The word “dialect” refers to the word “Sunday”. Crofton is noting that the use of that term, “Sunday”, instead of “Lord’s day”, as he himself uses immediately after, is the “dialect” of men who have no problem with holy days of man’s appointment.]

[Page 56]

adjunct to those acts of Worship; but to make holy-days Subjects of Solemn, Sacred service, I have not seen any Commission that doth authorize the Church thereunto: Eminent Saints call for the esteem of the Church; but the keeping of them in a Calendar, and appointing them their several holy-days, sets them a pitch too high, and shews the Church partial, respecters of persons, having some in admiration, and slighting others no less deserving, or subjects thereunto an intolerable burden, by necessitating every day to be Holy: The Nativity, Circumcision, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord and Saviour, are all mysteries or matters of reverence, esteem, and admiration to the Church, to be duly and distinctly considered; yet (under correction of better judgements) the several holy days appointed to the memorial of them, is in my thoughts no less irrational than irreligious: I say irrational; because though some of them be great Mysteries, yet they are not simply and in themselves mercies to the Church, but as they relate unto, and center in the work of Mans Redemption, to which they do relate as several distinct acts of that complete and individual Blessing or Mercy; and right reason doth direct commemoration of all the parts in the mercies by them perfected and completed. Irreligious it seems to me, as without any divine Warrant, nay redundant to God’s own institution, who hath appointed the first day of the week as the day for the commemoration of the worlds Restitution by mans Redemption: If this be the cause of the change of the Sabbath (as we have been commonly taught) doth it not supersede the appointment of the Church? God doth not mediately, what he doth immediately, or by Commission, what is done in his own person. I well know, some in their Contests for holy-days, make the Sabbath changeable at the Churches pleasure; and if these several acts of Redemption be commemorated in their distinct holy-days, I see not how we can avoid a return to the Jews Sabbath; for the fourth command must needs be moral; and this method takes away the reason of the alteration of the day. Now Sir, if the holy-days, the foundation, be Superstitious, sure Oxford will not say the Superstructure, or Solemn, Special service, is agreeable to the Word of God.

[Page 57]

Fifthly, Again Sir, will the Masters and Scholars of Oxford say, the very order and method of the Common-Prayer is agreeable to the Word of God? How do they ground their persuasion concerning the Versicles [i.e., short liturgical sentences, usually said by the minister or reader], Popular Responds [responses made by the people; i.e., responsive readings in the liturgy], Intermixtures [i.e., things mixed in among the prayers, readings, chants, or ceremonies], Abbreviations [i.e., shortened or compressed forms], Abruptions [i.e., abrupt breaks, broken-off portions, interruptions, or disjointed fragments], and stops, and present postings on again, with a Let us pray, when nothing but prayer is in hand, that they are agreeable to the Word of God? * I observe the first Compilers of this Book, to leave a blot on this method, by taking away many Verses, Responds, Anthems, and the like, which did interrupt the duty of reading the Scriptures together, and that for this very reason, but a quatenus ad omne valet consequential [insofar as to all the consequence is valid]:* The number is not only to be abated, but all things of this nature, obstructive to, and inconsistent with the Solemn, and serious, entire performance of any particular Act or Duty of Religion, ought to be abolished: Doth the Word of God allow mute service, or private devotion in the public Assembly? What warrant is there in the public service of the Church for a silent space of time, that the secret prayers of the people may be sent to heaven, as is directed at the Ordination and Consecration of Priests and Bishops? The reason therein declared, is, That Jesus Christ prayed all night, before He sent out His Disciples; and the Church of Antioch prayed, when they sent out Paul and Barnabas; but they do not tell us whether Christ were in an Assembly when he prayed alone; or whether the Church of Antioch had a silent space in which they secretly prayed; nor whether the prayer of the one or of the other, were mental or vocal; but I observe it was joined with Fasting, in which our order agreeth not, whilst any Sunday or Holy-day, and a short space thereof will be an opportunity sufficient for such a work.

What Text of either Old or New Testament, allots to the people other portion of public prayer, save to say Amen? In respect of which prayer is prescribed to be in a known tongue to their understanding [1 Cor. 14. 15.]. How shall we make the peoples vocal responds, salutation, supplication for mercies, deprecation of miseries, merely and only recited by the Ministers, agreeable to the word of God? Must it be by the salutation of Boaz and his Reapers? or Mary and Elizabeth, to which Dr. Boyes [Exposition of the Liturgy. p. 40.] referred it? it must then be proved, that Boaz was in the public Assem-

_____

* So do the very Papists, Antiphonæ responsoria, versiculi, & ejusmodi minuta; non videntur necessaria; impediunt enim cursum piæ & utilis lectionis [Responsive antiphons, versicles, and little things of that kind do not seem necessary; for they hinder the course/progress of pious and useful reading]. Spalat. l. 17. c. 22. Art. 96. Versiculos, responsoria & capitula omittere idcirco utile est, quoniam lectiones sæpe morantur [It is therefore useful to omit versicles, responsories, and capitula, because they often delay the readings]. Card. Quignonius.

* [What follows from a thing precisely as such follows from every instance of that thing. ED.]

[Page 58]

bly, and celebrating divine service; and so for Mary and Elizabeth; and that it was not a civil complement, expressed in Religious words on an occasional meeting each with other, as becomes Christian friends; and that such pieces of civil respect witnessing reciprocal affection, are parts of Solemn Worship to pass between the Pastor and people in the celebration thereof.

I shall not deny sighs, and short ejaculations, to be ardent expressions of the mind and affection, and find acceptance with God; but question the suitableness thereof to standing, solemn, and public Worship. I yield to Dr. Boys, that the Publican did affectionately dart out his Lord be merciful to me a sinner! and the Woman of Canaan, her Have mercy on me, O Lord! and blind Bartimeus, O Son of David, take pity on me! But (by his leave) I must say these were personal, not public; occasional, not fixed, ordinary Worship; extemporary on the occasion, not premeditated, much less prescribed: nay, I will grant what he saith Augustine Reports of the Christians in Egypt, and which History mentioneth of other Churches: Yea, I could be easily convinced, that in the very first Age of the Gospel, many Christians did in the Assembly utter their short expressions, and darting prayers; preces raptim quodammodo ejaculatas [prayers in some manner hastily shot forth/suddenly uttered]: But yet it would be noted they were ejaculations personal, expressed in a Sacred rapture, on the sudden ebolution [bubbling up] of the Spirit, which without doubt wrought in prayer, as in Prophecy and in Psalms, the heat whereof required the Apostles restriction and regulation [1 Cor. 14.], affection leading into confusion; and so can be no warrant for such premeditated, ejaculative expressions, to be prescribed in set and public prayer, wherein all things by a Rule restraining this very method under the fervency of the Spirit, Let all things be done decently and in order, are to be regulated; that therefore might be admitted and exercised in the Church, and acceptable to God, in private, and personally expressed, or on the immediate ebolition [bubbling up], or boiling up of the Spirit, and in the heat of affection, in the infancy of the Church, which will not be so in the public and prescribed prayers of the Church in her Adult estate, in which she must appear more serious and composed; and so will not render this Order of Worship agreeable to the Word.

[Page 59]

Sixthly, Will the Masters and Scholars of Oxford say that the Rites and Ceremonies annexed to the Worship of God, are agreeable to the Word of God, viz. The Cross 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 in 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 stir 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 God’s Worship; but not constitute or ordain new matter, though never so much tending to edification, against which she is expressly 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 ancient 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, which Tertullian mentioneth [Coron. mil. pa. 449. contra Marcion. lib. 7. p. 155.] 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 profane Maxim, 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?

[Page 60]

Seventhly, 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 Lord’s 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 alter the Title into Presbyters in the Scotch Liturgy? Is it 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 Chief Ministers? 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 swear, 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 form 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 Chief Priest-Hood among the Jews? I am at a loss in Civil or Religious Policy, to find a warrant for so Sacred a form in an advancement to a degree; yet I will not deny the formalities of the Chair: 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

[Page 61]

less 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, 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 domestic 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 [Canons of 1603. Can. 72.] 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 Cornwall, the Ministers within the Diocese of Lincoln, 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 judgements, 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.

7ly. 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 were 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 A G R E E A B L E  T O  T H E  W O R D  O F  G O D: 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

[Page 62]

Throne of Christ; as things tending towards Superstition and Schism, and the worst things in the Church of Scotland, which called for Reformation, rather than Preservation.

Lastly, the Hazard of their estates doth seem indeed to be their great stumbling block in their way to the Covenant: All Clerks are by the Laws yet in force, required to give their assent unto what by this Covenant is required to be reformed, and that on pain of losing their Benefice: Which Sir, we shall admit (though it would admit a dispute in reference to many, if not all the particulars mentioned;) yet how should this demur to the taking of the Covenant? Because the Law requires our assent, it will not therefore follow, they need not reformation; nor it is not lawful for us to endeavor their reformation: Many men have assented to the Law, who could never give the assent required by the Law; and by suffering, shewed that the Law is their burden, binding them to suffer, whilst it requireth what they in truth and good Conscience cannot yield. But must good men continue under this burden, and take no care to ease themselves? Is it a sin for men to covenant in their places to endeavor the removal of a burdensome Law? Or might not the Reformation covenanted, be so endeavoured?

Nay Sir, on the consideration of the whole Reason, can such endeavor be any wrong to men’s consciences, reputation, or estate? and then there is no strength in this 2d Reason of Oxford against the covenanting such an endeavor. But we proceed to their 3d Reason of this Exception.

3d Reason of this exception.

The third Reason on which the Masters, Scholars, &c. of Oxford stand dissatisfied concerning the Covenant, or Reformation of England in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, is indeed the most weighty and considerable, if but clearly proved: and it is,

Their manifest danger of perjury; the Covenant in this point seeming directly contrary to the former Solemn Protestation. (I presume they mean that of May 5. 1641.) which they had sworn neither for hope or fear, or other respect ever to relinquish: or the Oath of Supremacy, which according to the Laws of this Realm, and the Statutes of this University, they had sworn.

[Page 63]

Unto this Reason I easily grant, that contradictory Oaths do run the soul on manifest perjury; and if the first were lawful, the last must needs be sinful; neither to be sworn at first, nor obliging at last, if it be sworn.

2. But the contradiction must be manifest and clear; not seeming, and conjectural, which may spring by passion and prejudice, to the fancy of such as are willing to suppose it; (as all things look yellow to Jaundiced eyes) and is not in reality such to impartial Readers. It seems this contradiction between this Covenant and those Oaths, was, to the men of Oxford, but seeming, though to their best understandings (in their then capacity I presume) and it must pass into a certainty, before it discharge the bond to such as are under it, though seeming so to be, might suspend the act of them to whom it so seemed.

3. But let us see wherein seems this contradiction: It is well if it amount not to as much as the Scotch Notions before specified, which seemed to tend to Superstition and Schism.

First then of the contradiction to their protestation, which I imagine can be no other but that of May 5. 1641. and so far as it concerns Religion, runneth thus, I A. B. do in the presence of Almighty God, vow and protest to maintain and defend as far as lawfully I may with my life, power, and estate, 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.

The Solemn League and Covenant in the Article under consideration, runneth thus; That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, according to the Word of God, and example of the best reformed Churches.

Contraria contrariis juxta apposita magis elucescunt [Contraries set beside contraries shine forth more clearly]. Let any impartial eye read these two Oaths thus opposed, and shew me wherein seems the contradiction to lie: They may indeed seem different in their sound and manner of expression, but Oxford well knoweth, that all diversa [diverse things], are not opposita [opposite things]; all diffe-

[Page 64]

rence amounts not to a contradiction; diversa & opposita æque dissentanea sunt, sed non æque dissentiunt [Things diverse and things opposite are equally different/disagreeing in kind, but they do not disagree equally]; they differ indeed, but not with the same difference: I wish that on second thoughts they will please to tell us whether the difference be Re, or Ratione only; the same thing being protested in the first (though not in the same words, and after the manner) which was covenanted in the last: But they specify the contradiction, (viz.) The Doctrine they vowed to maintain by the name of the true Protestant Religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, they took to be the same now to be reformed and altered.

But Sir, were they not, in taking it so to be, much mistaken? The Covenant binds to Reform Doctrine in the Kingdom of England; was there no such Doctrine openly divulged in the Court Sermons and Printed books of Mountague, Reeve, Heylen, Dowe, Cozens, Pocklington, and others before mentioned? In Mountague, Apello ad Cæsarem: originum Ecclesiasticarum, 2 parts: Anti-diatribe: Pocklington’s Sunday no Sabbath; Altare Christianum: Heylen’s Coal from the Altar; History of the Sabbath: Sales his Introduction to a devout life: Shelford’s five Treatises: Dowe against Mr. Burton: Cozen’s his Hours of Prayer: and many other licensed books publicly sold in the Kingdom; and in the Visitation Articles of Bishop Mountague, Bishop Peirce, and Bishop Wren (on which many good men were vexed;) which was distinct, and different, (if I may not say) expressly contrary to the Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England: And did not these need Reformation? And is not the duty of every good Subject and Protestant in maintenance of this Religion, to endeavor a Reformation, alteration, and total expunction of such Doctrine, and so to covenant? And then Sir, where is the contradiction? In this sense the Protestation and Covenant do plainly coincidere [coincide, or correspond], and agree in one and the same thing.

But Sir, let us allow them their sense, That the Doctrine protested to be maintained, is the same covenanted to be reformed: Are Maintenance and Reformation incompatible? Is there not a possibility of some adjuncts unto the substance of the Doctrine of the Church of England expressing the true Reformed Protestant Religion, and separable without the destruction there-

[Page 65]

of? Or may not the Doctrine of the Church of England be reformed as to the scant, general, dubious, and difficult manner of expression, and yet the matter thereof be maintained and defended? Are those Articles which concern the Government of the Church, and Consecration of the Bishops and Archbishops, of the essence and formality of the true Reformed, Protestant Religion? Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism, than Scotland’s 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 sense 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 public 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 vowed to be maintained.

[Page 66]

So that according to this sense 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 mere non sequitur [it does not follow] 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, Privileges, Preeminences, 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, endeavor the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresy, Schism or Superstition, and yet not intrench on His Majesty’s Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and so interfere 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) men’s endeavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel, Proposal, Remonstrance, Petition, Supplication, and the like, to procure His Majesty’s 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 ma-

[Page 67]

jor, 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, Privileges, Superiorities, and Preeminences, 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 power as Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes had used, not such as Parliaments (who ever retained a Jurisdiction 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 ignorant 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 Realm, 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, entitled, An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 1° 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 con-

[Page 68]

tend for it) so no King of England did ever pretend, or lay claim unto the Legislative power, further than allowed by Acts 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 Logic, 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; but they must clash with the Kings Prerogative, and contradict the particular Supremacy they have granted and bounded themselves to defend.

And now Sir, I must desire to know (whilst the Oath affords not the Proposition, nor the words of the Statute the assumption) how they will do to establish the Conclusion, and clear their manifest perjury from premises, which, on trial, prove but seemingly contrary, and really consistent with the Oaths they had before sworn?

We see Sir, notwithstanding the dissatisfactions of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford, the first Article of the Solemn League and Covenant contains in it nothing but what is good and lawful; nay, so just, that in it self it is a duty, and therefore may be sworn; and their serious exceptions will scarce suffice to Apologize their refusal, which could not be Religiously refused by such as desire purity of Religion, and uniformity in the Church, whilst the Word of God is propounded as the Rule, and the best Reformed Churches as the pattern of this Reformation covenanted; and will not any thing avail, to acquit the obligation where it is laid, affording sufficient ground to establish the judgement of him that sware, without any apparent reason of scandal or hazard to Reputation, Estate, or Conscience; the perjury supposed to be manifest, appearing at best to be but seeming; and that on a fancied contrariety, that amounts only to a difference in the manner, not matter of the opposed Oaths.

Subsectio 4ta. Considereth the 2d Article of the Solemn League and Covenant.

Reformation cannot proceed without a removal of what is repugnant and obstructive thereunto: the second Article of the Covenant, doth therefore bind us to the extirpation of certain evils; we must then consider in the next place, the justice and lawfulness thereof, and the weighty exceptions made against it.

[Page 69]

In this Article we are to consider the Act covenanted, An endeavour of extirpation; and the matter about which that Act is conversant, viz. Popery, Prelacy, Errour, Heresy, Schism, Superstition, and Profaneness.

As to the Act, it is not objected against by any, save Dr. Gauden’s Nephew No Body, who in his (new born) Doubts and Scruples (midwiv’d into the World by the Drs. Epistle [Page 7. 8.]) would suppose himself by an endeavour of Extirpation, to be sworn into God’s Throne, whose only and immediate Act it is to extirpate the lusts, and principles of these impieties out of the heart of man; or mounted into the Magistrates Chair, who only may by Bonds or Banishment, or Mulct, or Death, extirpate the open exercise, and public profession of those evils, and the promoters of them; as if Extirpation were no way a human Act, or within the capacity of private men, though not to effect, yet by Moral Persuasion, Rational Discourse, Scripture Conviction, Submissive Petition, and the like, so much as to endeavour it with sincerity, reality and constancy; the very recital of this exception is a sufficient confutation, and resolution that folly, or some melancholy fancy, more than conscience did start this doubt, and stand perplexed at this scruple without a grain of Reason.

And as to the matter covenanted to be endeavoured to be extirpated, none that are seemingly Protestants, and religious, will make question of Popery, Errour, Heresy, Schism, Superstition, and Profaneness, or whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine, or the power of godliness: these are such spreading Weeds, disgraceful to the Church (Christ his Garden) and destructive to the principles and practices of all Religion, that almost all men will appear the foremost in an endeavour to extirpate them; and on this account Dr. Gauden in his late Epistle to the Doubts and Scruples, would divert our endeavour for extirpation of the Prelacy, Covenanted against, by directing the same unto Schism and Superstition: But Sir, by his leave, as we cannot own him as our Master, to be at his pleasure, appointed our work further than our own prudence will guide us; so we must tell him, that every Plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, must be rooted out; that some weeds are more visible and spreading than others, and as they need more speed and diligence, so they call for more strength and labour to remove them, being deeply rooted by their long

[Page 70]

continuance; and therefore the extirpation of them must be plied with endeavour, whilst the Earth is loose, and they unsettled, and it is more than probable, that many of the others, if not all, may come up with this one, which either occasioneth Schism, or by its shade defendeth Superstition and Profaneness, if I may not say Popery: But stay Sir, the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do pluck me by the Ears, and tell me I am mistaken, if I deem Prelacy a weed, which is undoubtedly the fairest flower in the Garden of Christ his Church, according to whose language I find Dr. Featley’s Ghost Canting in his League illegal: but Sir,

Oxford Exception by a general term fallacious.

I shall desire to let them know that Prelacy in its general and genuine acceptation, is undoubtedly a very fair flower, and far from being weeded up; and therefore in the Solemn League and Covenant it is specified, and a particular kind of Prelacy sprung up, and over-spreading the Church of England, is Covenanted to be extirpated: I shall be willing to give the honour of this restriction and specification to the speech of Dr. Daniel Featley, occasioned by the over-hot pressing of some (truly zealous for Reformation of what was amiss) that Prelacy in general (it having by appropriation to one kind obtained a vulgar evil acceptation) should be extirpated: only I cannot acquit his acute Executor from the dishonour of misapplying his Uncles speech, (when dead) as speaking against that which it had effected; (viz.) an express mention of the species, and particular kind of Prelacy to be extirpated; that is, the Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy; whereby the general term Prelacy is limited and restrained; so that I shall expect their exceptions to lie against the extirpation of this species and kind of Prelacy, unto which the Covenant doth bind us; for we well know, dolus versatur in generalibus [deceit moves/works in generalities], Crafty men do deceive the Vulgar by an Out-cry of extirpation of things in their general nature good, but in this or that special kind evil; I shall therefore especially consider the exceptions of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford against this second Article, so far as it relateth to the Prelacy therein specified to be extirpated; as those on which I observe others depend, from which others have derived theirs, and to which on all occasion they do retreat as to their impregnable Fortress.

[Page 71]

They therefore in the fourth Section of their Reasons for not swearing the Solemn League and Covenant [Page 7.], do preface their exception with an expression of their affection to that Government to be extirpated, and first present us with this fair Encomium of it, viz.

Oxford Commendation of Prelacy considered.

That Ancient Form of Church-government under which our Religion was at first so orderly, 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 England’s 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 Epithets to engage the admiration of the Vulgar: But Sir,

1. Antiquity may be no Argument of its glory, verity, or goodness; 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 England’s 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 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 Pope’s Supremacy (supposed by all the Bishops unto a præmunire [legal penalty]) to have sprung in Henry the eighth, from discontent at the Pope’s 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 enforcement 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 o-

[Page 72]

thers I find not opposing) And when I observe the Line which first ruled in Henry the eighth his days, to be retained and run thorough 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 days given them to see, and set up in its lustre and power, the square and right Rule of Reformation) I cannot but say God’s power is much more manifest in the first Reformation of England, than was man’s order; and yet what order was, History [Foxe, Acts and Monuments. p. 959.] witnesseth to have been, though under, yet without, yea, against the Bishops: 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 præmunire [legal penalty], doth proclaim their opposition at the first: The thirty two 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 Marie, 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 [i.e., empty noise, like trumpets without substance] murmur of the Lincoln-shire and York-shire men in their rebellions, headed by Dr. Mackerel, 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, Cornwall, and other Counties, against the Reformation by King Edward the sixth, doth signify unto me that the Reformation was not at first more prosperous, 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,

Tanta molis erat Romanam evertere sedem.

[So great a labor it was to overthrow the Roman seat]

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 Re-

[Page 73]

ligion 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 observer of it, I durst undertake to make it good, that Religion had sparkled and flourish’d with more honour and happiness in an higher degree of Reformation, than it yet doth, if not retarded, and sometimes retrograded by England’s 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 efficacy, to the order and quiet of Reformation, that may not be found in another Form of Government; for that only is of the essence, and so must be the Emphasis of this Episcopacy.

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 understandings, for which it should be thought necessary or expedient so to do.

2. Ranked with Popery, Superstition, Heresy and Profaneness.

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:

Their grounds of affection and amazement at Extirpation of Prelacy examined.

1. That if the constant strugglings of this Government with the civil power and encroachment, on the Royal Authority in all Ages, having not kept its bounds, but by 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 sworn, as in the Canons of 1640. the Bishops of both Provinces did presume to do; if its innovation, defence and propagation of erroneous Do-

[Page 74]

ctrines 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 excommunicating of the best of men for mere trifles, things indifferent, so judged by themselves at the best; nay, many times for opposing profaneness and superstition; yea, for performing their duties in praying and preaching; and the like evils which did attend it, though (I should say) but accidentally, by the corruption of Montague, Laude, Wren, Pierce, and their Companions, be written in such sensible Acts, and legible Characters, that England might feel, and the World read them; I think there need not be much of Reason offered to shew, not only the expediency, but necessity of extirpation of a Government, though in it self good, yet capable of such enormities, unless it be of an immediate and undoubted divine right.

But Sir, Had not Oxford their numbers in Parliament? and did they not trust them with their understandings? or must a Parliament offer Reasons of the necessity and expediency of every Act they impose on the Subject, before the Subject yield obedience? and yet the Vote of the House of Commons past the 10th of June, 1641. viz. That this Government hath been found by long experience to be a great impediment to the perfect reformation and growth of Religion, and very prejudicial to the Civil State; together with the learned speeches of many Members in the House, printed; to offer Reason without, as well as within doors, might have laid something before the judgments of these Gentlemen. I presume Sir, the Subjects obedience must not (in the judgment of this University) be suspended until the Reasons of State producing the resolution be known to, and apprehended by every Private person and society.

2. If this Prelacy judged thus evil, were but contemporary with Popery, Superstition, Heresy, Schism and Profaneness; though we should presume it good, I hope it may be ranked amongst its fellows, and taken upon suspicion; it may be a grief, but no wrong to stay an honest man found in company with Thieves; when he hath cleared himself, justice will let him go.

[Page 75]

But Sir, if this Prelatical Government be the formality of it, a plain and clear Papacy, as the owning of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, Papam alterius mundi [a pope of another world], the content all Papists find in the same, could they but continue it in dependance on Rome, for Consecration and Investiture, pure circumstances, not of the essence of the Government; and principally its springing from the same principles, standing on the same Basis, the indulgence of Princes, and being supported by the self-same Arguments and Authorities which are urged by Bellarmine, and the Council of Trent [History of the Council of Trent, Edit. 3. p. 589, 590. to p. 616.], for the defence of the Papacy (in all which respects it must needs appear, that the difference between an universal Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop, is in degrees and limits, not in kind; for is there not the same reason for Arch-bishops over Bishops, to receive their Oath of Obedience, as for Juridical Bishops over Presbyters; and so the same for Cardinals over Arch-bishops, and Popes over Cardinals?) do suggest it to be, and if it were the Foot-stool or Stirrup of the Papacy, as Salmasius doth at large demonstrate in his Apparatus ad Papatum; and as Beza doth affirm, when he tells us, Episcopi Papam pepererunt [The bishops brought forth the Pope]. Beza. Epist. 79. I hope it can be no great wrong to rank it with Popery, which might be its proper name, though through use of a larger signification.

And if Sir, its Rule whereby to square it, and Reason of sustentation be that which is now more openly Canted by some, then indeed generally practised; (viz.) No Ceremonies, no Bishop, whereby the Cross in Baptism, the Altar, the Surplice, and other matters innovated into the worship of God, the use of which (how edifying soever to the Church of God) is a formal Superstition; it cannot be much abused to call Superstition its companion.

And if it have been found to indulge Heresy, by publishing and printing cum privilegio [with privilege/permission], all Heretical Notions, and silencing the Pulpit, and stopping the Press from all possibility of Confutation; or if by innovation of Superstition into worship, and obtrusion of Errour in Doctrine on the souls of men, it hath provoked Schism, I hope there is no great cause of complaint for putting these together with it.

And if it have been approved a protection and promotion of Revels, Church-ales, Clerks-ales, Sports and Pastimes on the

[Page 76]

Lord’s day; so that its Deans and Chapters, or other College and Conventions, have proved like unto Bishop Pierce his Septuagint in their Agreement against Justice Richardson’s order for suppressing of these and the like profaneness, certified in a letter to the late Arch-bishop, dated the fifth of November, 1633.* and suppressing all Ministers that refuse to stir up such licentiousness, as did the visitations of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Bishop Pierce, and others; it sure can be no great wrong to rank it with profaneness, and intimate it to have in it some contrariety to the power of godliness; to which (whatever some few, very few, Bishops might do) the current of Episcopacy did never yield much countenance, or speak much amity. Sir, in these and the like respects, the extirpation thereof must be endeavoured by all that will not partake of other men’s sins; and I must be free to tell them, that in their Parallel case propounded (which yet will not square) the alteration, yea, extirpation of the Civil Government of the City, capable of such proximity unto Treason, Murder, Adultery, Theft, Cozenage [fraud], and the like, would be by all ingenuous men judged both just and reasonable; but I insist too long in abatement of their affection, who offer Arguments by which they were persuaded to adhere unto their object; let us therefore weigh them severally.

This Preface being past, they proceed to the Reasons why they cannot Covenant an endeavour to extirpate Prelacy; that is to say, The Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, or Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy: And they propound five Reasons; two relate unto the Government, the third and fifth unto their own capacity, and the fourth unto the estate of the Church; according to this order I shall consider them: And,

Oxford first and second exception to the extirpation of Prelacy.

1. They tell us, They are not satisfied how they can with a good conscience swear to extirpate Episcopal Government; which, say they, we think, to be, if not sure Divine, in the strictest sense by express command, yet of Apostolical institution; that is to say, was established in the Churches by the Apostles according to the mind, and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ, and that by virtue of their ordinary power and authority deri-

_____

* The seventy two Ministers of Somersetshire, in their unanimous consent to the continuance of Revels, Church-ales, &c.]

[Page 77]

ved 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 Independents 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 Heretic.

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 conscientious 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 years; 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 uninterrupted 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 ancient Records,

[Page 78]

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 [the formal reason/aspect of the object], the thing to be extirpated, as in my last with Dr. Gauden [Saint Peters Bonds abide. p. 2, 3.]. 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, concerning the Divine Right of Episcopal Superiority [History of the Council of Trent, Edit. 3. p. 591, 592.], 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 the common council of the presbyters], by all Ministers in the Church, who are the very true undoubted Scripture-Bishops; unto which, or whom there may be ordinis causa [for the sake of order], for method sake, a Superintendent Moderator or Chair-man; and this Episcopal Government is undoubtedly of Divine Institution, and ancient 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 synonymous, 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, eo nomine [on that account], 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

[Page 79]

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, sometimes by himself, sometimes by his Chancellor or Commissary, his Surrogates, Deans and Arch-deacons, with all Officers of State and Power within such prefixed bounds and limits, which is called his peculiar Diocese; 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 Chancellors, 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 virtue of their ordinary power and authority derived from Christ, as 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 God’s 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 there committed, so the Deacons may preach and baptize, but not consecrate the Lord’s 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 respect; who receiveth the same ordination, and is charged with the same duty, and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God, with the Bishop, and none

[Page 80]

other) is an order distinct from, and subjected 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.

The force of Prelacy covenanted against.

That certain particular Priests or Deacons should be constituted a College or Cathedral Council to the Bishop, to advise with him, and rule under him, by the name of Deans, Deans and Chapter, 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 Diocese; and be by virtue 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 Catholic 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. cap. 14.]; and who can deny a quatenus ad omne [from ‘insofar as’ to ‘all’], &c?

Lastly, That Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel may exercise their Office and Function by Vicegerents and Deputies, Commissaries or Chancellors; 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 joining unto themselves Professours and Students of the Civil Law, keep Courts, on which Proctors, Apparitors, and the like are dependent; and so judicially rule and govern in these cases.

[Page 81]

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 virtue 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, not to be gain-said without high profaneness; or with-stood and destroyed without sacrilege, formally existing in Arch-bishops, superiour Princes to Bishops; Bishops, Sovereign 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 Chancellors and Commissaries; and so ruling with all state, and pompous attendants; not only the profession of Religion, but propriety of enjoyments, is Covenanted to be extirpated. I hope Sir, that these serious men would not cozen their own conscience, 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 University, will never lay us down this Form of Government in the Church of Ephesus (though I should grant Timothy to have been a Bishop therein) Antioch, Philippi, Crete, 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 God’s 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

[Page 82]

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 his Kingdom, and dictated parity of his Ministers.

Sir (with Reverence may I speak it) I think it had been very suitable 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 Nicolas hath affirmed, Omnes sive Patriarchæ cujuslibet apicem, sive Metropolitan primatus, aut Episcopatum Cathedras, vel Ecclesiarum, sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem, instituit Romana Ecclesia [The Roman Church instituted all things—whether the summit/rank of any patriarch, or metropolitan primacies, or episcopal chairs, or churches, or the dignity of whatever order]. That Rome appointed all Ecclesiastical Dignities of Bishops, Arch-bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, &c. And Pope Lucius and Clement [Apud Gratian. Dist. 22. cap. 1.], with whom agreeth Peter Lombard [Distinct. 80. lib. 4. dif. 24.], and our own Historians, That King Lucius instituted three Arch-bishopricks, and 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 compass, 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 Author of the Church being within the time of the Apostles, that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power, Order, or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves, or between the Bishops themselves; but that they were all equal in Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction; and that there is now, and since the time of the Apostles, such difference among the Bishops, it was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholic Church; and that either by the consent and authority, or else by the permission and suffering of the Princes and civil power for the time ruling, the said Fathers considering the infinite multitude of Christians so greatly increased, taking examples from the Old Testament, thought

_____

* Brit. Hist. lib. 4. pag. 106. Polichro. lib. 4. c. 16. fol. 163. Pagets Christianography. Foxe saith, 28. chief Priests, called Flammens; Acts and Monuments. p. 96. Fol. 59, 60.

[Page 83]

it expedient to make degrees among Bishops, and to limit their several Dioceses, 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, but by, under, and from the King’s Royal Majesty;* and Patrick Adamson, Arch-bishop of Saint Andrew’s in Scotland, Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife, professed sincerely, ex animo [from the heart], That Bishops and Ministers are by the Word of God equal, and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Bishop, nullo nititur verbi fundamento [it rests on no foundation of the Word]: And I think it had been but Reason some satisfactory answer had been given to Gersom Bucer his Dissertationes de Gubernatione Ecclesiæ; Didoclavius [Calderwood] his Altare Damascenum; Cartwright’s Exceptions; Paul Bains’ his Diocesan Tryal, Smectymnuus; and especially Mr. William Pryn’s Public and Positive Challenge, in the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, which I think will be ad Græcas Calendas, before the 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 pretention, 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 England’s 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! Who ever deemed Presbytery a Democracy? Or on what colourable ground can

_____

* 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.]

[Page 84]

it be so deemed? doth not this form fix the Government in the Seniores and Inferior 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 Whitaker’s Thesis [oper. Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Quest. 1a. de Origin. Eccles.], That Regimen Ecclesiæ non est Monarchicum, nec Aristocraticum, nec Democraticum, sed Democratica Monarchia Aristocratica [The government of the Church is not monarchical, nor aristocratic, nor democratic, but an aristocratic democratic monarchy]; 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 respicere, fuit semper Ecclesiæ Regimen Monarchicum; si Ecclesiæ Presbyteros, qui in Doctrina & Disciplina summas partes agunt Aristocraticum; si totum corpus Ecclesiæ quatenus in Electione Episcoporum & Presbyterorum, suffragia ferat; ita tamen ut εὐταξία, semper Presbyteris servaretur Democraticum [If we wish to consider Christ himself, the government of the Church has always been monarchical; if we consider the presbyters of the Church, who bear the chief parts in doctrine and discipline, it is aristocratic; if we consider the whole body of the Church, insofar as it gives votes in the election of bishops and presbyters—yet so that good order is always preserved to the presbyters—it is democratic]; which Cartwright [first Reply to Whitaker’s gift. page 35.] 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 towering 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 to-

[Page 85]

gether, 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 moderate Authours 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 runs into an assurance of universal uninterrupted succession of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Christians, 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 Heretic.

The Antiquity of England’s Prelacy observed.

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, 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 then that they should be done and continue.

It is well if their certain assurance in matter of Fact, be any better bottomed, than their think so, in point of Divine Right. I know not what might be their undoubted testimony of ancient Records, and later Histories, for they mention none; and therein their faith must be unto themselves; but by such Ancient or Modern Histories as I have observed, it is very difficult to find this Form of Government (which must relate unto that to be extirpated by the Covenant, or else it is vain) to have been either universal, or uninterrupted in all Kingdoms that have been called Christians, for half fifteen hundred years; for if they account backward from the time of their writing, they will find a violent interruption, and indeed extirpation of this Form of Government by Christian the King of Denmark, in the year 1537. as contrary to Christ his institution; and then they will lose more then one of their fifteen hundred years without interruption, and that in a Kingdom called Christian; and this Sir was to sense, whatever it was to reason, a more considerable opposition then that of Aerius; not to mention the interruptions and extirpation in Scotland; which I presume may be to them of little weight, that people in their eye scarce appearing Christian.

[Page 86]

And if they will account forward, from the Nativity of our Lord, their fifteen hundred years of universal, uninterrupted, Episcopal Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, will rise very heavily; for let it be considered, that the division and distribution of Churches into Parishes and Dioceses, came not into the World for more than two hundred and sixty years; and until that time, small Towns and Villages had their Bishops, and all Bishops were before and after that chosen by the people, not by their Princes [Polid. Virg. Invent. l. 4. c. 9.]; and so long there could be no Metropolitan or Archiepiscopal seat, nor Cathedral Episcopal Diocese: And will they give an Irish man leave to tell them, that Saint Patrick sent into Ireland by Eleutherius, more than two hundred years after Christ, did consecrate as many Bishops, as he did constitute Churches in that Kingdom, three hundred and sixty five of each? and that from his time, to the coming in of Johannes Papirio, the Pope’s Legate, Anno 1152. * there were no Arch-bishopricks in that Kingdom, and yet it was called Christian; and if the instance may not offend them, I would mind them, that Bishop Usser, the late Primate of Armagh, in his Treatise, De Primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum, pag. 800. doth affirm out of John Major, De Gestis Scotorum, That in ancient times, the Scots were instructed in the Christian Faith by the Priests and Monks, and had no Bishops, before the coming of Palladius into their Country; and after that Palladius made Bishops, they had no Diocese until Malcolm, the third King of Scotland; but every Bishop did exercise his Episcopal Function wherever he came; who citeth also John Fordon, Scotichronicon, lib. 3. cap. 8. on the same account; * so that then we shall not find this Form of Government by Diocesan Bishops, Cathedral Churches, and by Arch-bishops to have been received in some Kingdoms half fifteen hundred years; and what then becomes of the assurance of these learned men?

Moreover, though the opposition of Aerius seem in their eye an inconsiderable one, yet it is such as stated a principle, which being once admitted (as it cannot be denied) and obtained but liberty to be improved to the direction of the Government to be

_____

* Archiepiscopi vero in Hibernia nulli fuerant; sed tantum se invicem Episcopi consecrabant donec Johannes Pophyro Romanæ sedis legatus advenit. Hic 4 Pallia in Hiberniam portavit. [But there had been no archbishops in Ireland; rather, the bishops only consecrated one another, until John Paparo, legate of the Roman See, arrived. He brought four pallia into Ireland]

* Girald. Camb. Topograph. Hiber. distinct. 3. cap. 17. Vid. The Religion professed by the Ancient Irish in an Epistle to the late Primate Usher, by Sir Christopher Sipthorpe, Knight, pag. 58.

[Page 87]

practised, will subvert the foundation, and pull down the superiority of Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, and the like; for if all Ministers, Presbyters and Bishops be of the same order, office and authority; we cannot but infer, who are ye that advance your selves in the house of God, and Lord it over your Brethren, and God’s heritage? and notwithstanding that this principle be clouded by the occasion on which it was divulged by him, the man’s discontent; we must say that Discontent is a better Dictator than Judge; and God knoweth how to make men’s grudges grind out the knowledge of his truth, mind and will: I hope it will be deemed but a poor defence of the Popes Supremacy in England, to say that King Henry the eighth in a discontented humour did cast it off, and was for it excommunicated; and here the Reason is the same; a great noise is made, and advantage taken, that Aerius was reputed an Heretic, for affirming the parity of Presbyters with Bishops; and yet Sir, it would be well noted by whom, and by what authority he was branded as an Heretic; it was not by any Council, or Primitive Fathers; but by one only man, Epiphanius, though to be Reverenced in the Church; yet by this administers little cause of regard: I think many in Oxford will be loath to have Arminian notions (more opposite to the grace of God, than Aerius notions to good order) publicly damned as Heresy, which yet were condemned by the Synod of Dort; and though that were not a general Council, it wins more Authority than the censure of Epiphanius; Saint Augustine [de hæresibus. cap. 53.] therefore repeating the opinion of Aerius, as recited by Epiphanius, doth more modestly denominate it, Proprium Dogma; and others repeating the Heresies of Aerius, make no mention of this among them; nor indeed was there Reason, if in the Council of Trent, Michael of Medina [History of the Council of Trent, p. 591.] were deservedly chiden [chided], for saying, Hierom and Austin fell into the Heresy of Aerius, and affirmed the degree of a Bishop, was no greater than the degree of a Priest: I hope that is not Heresy in Aerius, which is Orthodox in Austin, Jerome, and others: truly Sir I think the ingenuity of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford, might have led them to have considered, and indeed publicly contradicted*, the Catalogue of testimonies in all Ages, evidencing Bishops and Presbyters to be one equal, and the same in Jurisdiction, Dignity, Order and Degree; whereby in five several squadrons, Christ and his Apostles,

_____

* Collected by Mr. William Prynne, as an Appendix to his unbishoping Timothy and Titus.

[Page 88]

Ignatius, Policarpus, Anacletus, Justin Martyr, and many of the Ancient Fathers; Peter Lombard, Gratian, Hugo Cardinalis, and many other Canonists and Schoolmen; the Waldenses, Alphonsus, Castro, Gersomus Bucer, and a multitude of Foreign Divines and Churches; our own, Sedulius, Anselm, Beda, Occam, Fulke, Jewel, Reynolds, Whitaker, and almost who not, in every place and age, are produced, as thinking the same thing, which in Aerius is called Heresy; for certainly so general a consent to a conclusion so weighty, is a very considerable opposition directly repugnant to their confidence of an universal uninterrupted exercise of this Form of Government; for now had Epiphanius more warrantably, and on better grounds called this an Heresy, I should not much regard it; nor will their assurance on this Argument avail, to establish this kind of Prelacy, or to anticipate the promise on Oath of a due endeavour to extirpate it.

We see Sir there is nothing of weight in the Government, either on the supposed Apostolical Institution, or ancient universal uninterrupted practice, that could bar from taking, much less bind unto the breaking of this second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant; let us consider what is in the state of the Church of England, which may bind the perpetuation of this Government, or be of force to bar the extirpation thereof; and that in their fourth exception to this Article, wherein they tell us:

Oxford fourth exception to the second Article of the Covenant.

In respect of the Church of England, they cannot swear to extirpate this Government, for three Reasons.

1. The inconveniencies which attend all Change in Government; and in this is like to be great, it being deeply rooted in the Laws, and of strong influence on the Civil State.

2. Repugnant to the Declaration of the Commons in Parliament.

3. And a striking at the foundation of this Famous Church of England.

Unto all which I cannot but briefly say, That the two first seem in my thoughts very little to respect the Church; for the alteration which might ensue in the Civil State, might consist with, and conduce unto the being, and well-being of the Church;

[Page 89]

and the declared purposes of the House of Commons might be contradicted without any great reflexion on the Church.

2. Jealousies of inconvenient effects, must not intercept a duty; These effects may be accidental, the duty positive; and it is the prudence of Legislatours to fore-see, and prepare against such inconveniences, as may happen on the alteration of Laws, and Forms of Government; I question how far the care thereof lieth on private persons or societies: And if these jealousies were of weight for continuation of Episcopacy now, why not at the destruction of Monasteries and Abbies, and exclusion of the Popes Supremacy? (which was the root, to which Prelacy is but a Branch since continued) in conjunction with, and influence on the Civil state; by Magna Charta, the grant of the glorious King Saint Edward, and most of the ancient Laws from which this Government doth at this day draw its sap and strength.

3. The Declaration of Parliament pleaded as a Bar to this extirpation, doth offer Reasons for its alterations, which I think are of weight; (viz.) its strenuous study and endeavour to effect a conjunction between Papists and Protestants, in Doctrine, Discipline and Worship, being before agreed in judgment: its Tyrannical imposing a Liturgy on Scotland, and enforcing it after an happy pacification by his late Serene Majesty, with the Bellum Episcopale [the Bishops’ War]; its violence and cruelty to Religion, and Religious men, in the Star Chamber, and High Commission Courts; and what themselves observe, its influence on the Civil State, which made it Prelacy odious in all Ages, and was a very likely provocation to its extirpation in England, as in Denmark; and if they will but please to consider, that sinful superiority over the Ministers of the Gospel, which is the anima animans [the soul animating], very form of it, and cannot be capable of any remedy, but by its ruin; all which having been published in print, by many Petitions to, Speeches in, and Declarations from the Parliament, might have offered Reasons for the extirpation to counterpoise, nay, weigh down all feared inconveniencies which might arise, had these learned men pleased to have observed them; so that if the House of Commons did any way declare the continuance of it, it was from their indulgence and willingness by all fair means, if possible, to regulate it, rather than any merit of the Government it self.

[Page 90]

4. But the supposed repugnancy of this branch of the Covenant, unto the Declaration of the House of Commons, is not to me so visible; these Gentlemen refer us unto the Remonstrance of December the fifth, 1641. and tell us, That the House of Commons Remonstrated, that it was far from their purpose or desire, to abolish the Church-government, but rather that all the Members of the Church of England should be regulated by such Rules of Order and Discipline, as are established by Parliament: Which words, by the variation of the character I imagined, to be the words of the Remonstrance; but on search, and second reading of the Remonstrance, I find no such sentence in the same; some parts of the sentence in the Remonstrance, themselves have transcribed in the Margin, and it is this, They infuse into the people, that we mean to abolish all Church-government; which Text will not justify or allow their inference; for it proclaims not the Parliaments purpose, but Malignants’ policy; nor that it was far from their purpose or desire to extirpate this kind of Government; but that the malice of their enemies did infuse they would abolish all Government: Surely Sir, prejudice was very prevalent in these learned men of Oxford, which made them read instead of a complaint of grievance, a Declaration of purpose; and from the complaints of a general charge, to intend to abolish all Government, to infer a purpose of preservation of this specifical Government, as if all Government were included in it; had they pleased to have read the whole sentence, they would have seen that the words were much more general, abolish all Government, and leave every man to his own fancy, for the service and worship of God; which they might not do, and yet extirpate the Prelacy, and late Episcopal Government of England: no marvel that this mistake makes them imagine, and insert into the Reason, a rather that all the Members should be regulated, &c. which desire is not therein expressed, but only a profession of their knowledge, That His Majesty was under God 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: I think Sir, a profession of his Majesty’s Prerogative, is vastly different from a Parliamentary proportioning of the Prelates’ preeminence; and the King’s Supremacy may be acknowledged, when the Bishops are degraded, and set among

[Page 91]

their proper Peers: And now Sir, this repugnancy between the Covenanted extirpation, and Parliaments purpose of perpetuation, appeareth a think so, of like nature with the Apostolical Institution of this Episcopacy; and it would be enquired whether it be more malignity to suggest to the People a purpose in the Parliament by them never declared, and so make them obnoxious to the charge of self-contradiction, or infuse into the people the verity and plainness of their meaning, not to abolish all Government, but to extirpate this kind, which through the whole Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dangerous; if they will evade the influence, compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case, I dare secure them from it in reference to the second.

5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England, is her foundation; which if it be removed, what shall the Righteous do? And these serious Casuists do tell us, That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy, within the Realm of England, and they proved it by the Law; (for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it, that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation, and Christ (an enemy to Prelacy) the corner stone) and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile, 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed. 3. on which they profess, They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy, strike at the foundation of the Church, which they are bound to uphold.

Truly Sir, their care of the Church, and its foundation is commendable; but how comes it to pass that this Form of Government must be made the foundation of the Church, without any danger of Schism by them, to whom Scotland’s making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church, did seem so much tending to Schism? Must the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion, the very esse of the Church? and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction? Turpe est doctoris [It is shameful for a teacher], &c. Sir, we cannot deny the proofs cited, and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy; but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies, propounding doubts, professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied; so much to consent themselves, and cozen [deceive] their Readers with plain fallacies; if such

[Page 92]

Sophism as better beseems the Logic, than Divinity Schools; and common Halls, than the Regent house.

Two things are to be explained. What they mean by holy Church? and what foundation this is, to which these Statutes relate?

These learned men well know, that by holy Church, in the acceptation of that Age, and of those very Acts, the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile, and the Statute of Edward the third, was meant the Pompous, Popish Ecclesiastical State, whereof Abbies and Priories were no small Members, as in Magna Charta, and other Grants of Kings, which had then such influence on the Civil State, as that no Act of Parliament could bind, or be deemed valid, without the ratifying censure of holy Church, whose manner was by her authority, to curse all that should not keep such Laws as were agreed; I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out, and tell us, whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church? or that the Church of Christ may not, yea, do not subsist in England, now holy Church is driven out; the Church simply Christian, is very different from the pompous popish, holy Church.

Again Sir, the foundation mentioned in these Statutes [Foxe, his Acts and Monuments. p. 322.], is suitable to the Fabrick, holy Churches; viz. the temporal endowments whereby she was made so pompous; the Lands, Manners, and large Revenues given by the Kings, or Nobles of the Land, as the question occasioning the same, doth plainly evidence; which was, Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies, and all Benefices in England, and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement, were just? and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25 Edward 3d. doth plainly declare; providing for the advousance, and disposal of all Benefices, and the profits thereof, in manner as the founders, that is, first donors had established; and so the Prelacy, in which it was founded, is an Independency as to Rome, and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free, and within her self, in respect of which, in the very words of the Statutes themselves, it is said, The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores [lordships] of such Possessions and Benefices, doth give and grant the same to Aliens, which did not, and Cardinals which might not dwell in England; as if he had been Patron or Advowe [or holder of the right] of the said Benefices, as he was not of right

[Page 93]

after the Law of England; so that this Prelacy is purely Political, and the foundation more profitable than pious; could these learned men be so absurd, as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation? were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons, Possessions and Presentations? and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the Places to which they are affixed? This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the Fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation; and by virtue of this Political Prelacy, the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishoprics to their Chancellors, Treasurers, Secretaries, Kinsmen, mere Lay-persons for increase of their means, and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void, for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 20, and sometimes 30. years together;* by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist, when her Prelates party of her foundation in their sense was wanting? or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost, or the Reformed Churches, never had the being of a Church of Christ, because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy? Ecclesiastical Prelacy (like the Petræ and Rupes [Rock and its precipice], as in the time of King Henry the third) have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church, and in the State, that they have constrained the Kings and Parliaments of England, as of all other Nations, in all Ages, to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds; and at last to Covenant the extirpation thereof; wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe, we not only pull an old house about our ears, but destroy the very Church; if we have not wit enough to see how they would cozen [deceive] us by the Law of man, instead of the Law of God, and a false gloss on fair words.

Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Government by Episcopacy, or the estate of the Church of England, we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves, against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government; yet that little we shall consider, and it relates unto their personal capacities in their third exception, or more public Obligations in their fifth exception.

In reference to their personal capacities, they say, They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice, ingenuity or humani-

_____

* Pryn’s Catalogue of Testimonies for the parity of Presbyters and Bishops. p. 16, 17, 18.

[Page 94]

ty, to require the extirpation of this Government, unless it had been proved unlawful; what Sir, if it had been proved inexpedient? it would have been consistent with Saint Paul’s Justice, Humanity, and Ingenuity; for to him, All things might be lawful, but were not expedient, was a Rule; but their Reasons might restrain these learned men, and they are five in number.

Oxford Reasons, third exception against extirpation of Prelacy.

1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government.

2. Received orders from their hands.

3. Petitioned the continuance thereof.

4. Held their Livelihood under such titles, and in the exercise of that Government, or some part thereof.

5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities, liberties and profits of the same.

Unto all which I shall say very briefly:

1. It is worth their enquiry, whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially, and so gave their approbation to this Government; we grant, that in the 39. Articles commonly published, there is one (viz.) the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops, &c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, I find not, in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen; these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before mentioned, and so misread them both; but suppose the Article had so affirmed, it had laid no bar to the alteration, or extirpation of this Government; for it might be (as indeed all our Statutes do suggest) a mere Political, Civil constitution, and so (though an Adiaphoron) not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God, and alterable at the pleasure of England’s Parliaments; and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article, I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoined by Parliament.

Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of ordering Priests and Deacons, and Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops, did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God;

[Page 95]

for I not believe, nor is it evident to me by holy Scripture, or ancient Authours, that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons; for I find no Priests in the New Testament; and conceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denominations of the same order; and make not different orders any more than Pastours, Teachers, Stewards, Angels, Stars, and the like; and if there were these orders, yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God, to add a fourth, Arch-bishops; and if they be not an order, how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops (a contended for order of the Ministry) and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience? neither the one, nor the other is common to a gradual preeminence; the Speaker of the Parliament, or Lord Chief Justice, hath no such like Solemnity.

I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry, and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant, and not the other; nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism, and assistance at the Communion; the Scripture specially points them to the poor, and to serve Tables.

I question whether mute service in a public Solemn Assembly be not contrary to the Word of God; where all, as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification.

I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost (peculiar to Christ, who did it in reality) be not contrary to the Word of God? or according to the words of the Article, Superstitious and ungodly.

And whether Ministers swearing Canonical obedience to the Bishop, or Bishops to the Arch-bishops, be not plainly Papal and ungodly?

If these learned men considered, and were convinced of the consonancy of these, and the like things with the Word, I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously; yet I must enquire how judicially? I imagine the Statute of Queen Elizabeth [13. Eliz. 12.] will not be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article; for the Articles thereby enjoined, do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith, and Doctrine of the Sacraments; and this particle only is exclusive to Discipline and Government; which

[Page 96]

by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature, & only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti [by reason of the object], and at the pleasure of the Magistrate; and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith; I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed, shall not be shut out of the Christian Church.

Now Sir, were there any force in this exception to the Covenant, I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts; yet it is as ponderous as the next.

They received Orders from their hands, and should ill requite them for laying their hands on them, to lay to their hands to root them up, and cannot tell for what.

That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them, was not required; they might continue Men, Ministers; it is like better Christians, and more painful Preachers, when they were not Bishops; I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable; that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other; and our question is of the thing, not person; in which degradation was the worst they could do them; who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin, “That a certain Monster, heavier than the whole World, stood eminently aloft upon his breast, from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered, than alone to have all the goods of the World; when he waked, he thought this was nothing but the Bishopric of Dublin, and so forthwith renounced it.” Or had they enjoyed the spirit of Antonius, Elected Arch-bishop of Florence, “who refused (on fear of hazarding his salvation) to accept it; and when thundered into it by the counsel of his friends, frowns of the Magistrates, and the Pope’s Bull, kept only eight persons, no stately furniture in his house, no Coach and Horses, and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family, saying, They should do him a special favour to thrust him from his Bishopric, wherein he continued with very great Regret.” They would acknowledge a kindness done unto them; and yet were it an unkindness, these Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude; they have petitioned their continuance, and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiours, on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did

_____

* The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan. pag. 169.

[Page 97]

depend; nor had they been without Parallel (if not a plea of Justice) “For the Arch-bishops, and Bishops of England (Rochester excepted) in the time of Henry the eighth, had voluntarily (without the command of King or Parliament) sworn to root up the Pope (the Apex of this Episcopacy) from and among whom they had received their Palls, Properties, Power;* I had almost said Papacy.

Their third Reason I pass as an expression of their affection, only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason; yet confess petitioning is every man’s liberty.

And for the fourth and fifth.

That they held their Livelihoods 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 public, (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. 3d. in which they are conjoyned.

Their fifth exception is,

Oxford Reasons, fifth Exception to the 2d. Article of the Covenant.

In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King, 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 agreeableness 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

_____

* Foxe, his Acts and Monuments. p. 564. 565, 566, 567.

[Page 98]

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 King’s 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 King’s 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 Supreme 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, Methodicâ Majestatis Causa [for the sake of orderly majesty], apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Sovereign 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 Supreme Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical (Ratione objecti, or circa Ecclesiam [with respect to the object, or concerning/about the Church]) the Executive Administration about, not in the Church, within His Dominions, in opposition to all Papal and Foreign Power, no Free-born Subject, Good Christian, or Protestant will deny; but that He is so Supreme, as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political, but belonging to the Church; such as is the public National profession of Christian Faith, in such a Form and Method of Articles; such a National uniform and public 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 Parlamento [while Parliament was in session], 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 af-

[Page 99]

firm; 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 enjoining 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 Foreign power, not to the Parliament;* and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction, Superiority and Preeminences 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 Traitors at the Old Baily, did declare the King to be Supreme, 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 Laws, quas populus elegerit [whom/which the people shall have chosen], as the people shall choose; so that His Majesty’s Supremacy is not denied, when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabeth, (so as it contradicted 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 empowered 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,

_____

* That is to say, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons, born within Her Majesty’s Dominions or Countries, of what Estate soever, Ecclesiastical or Temporal, so as no foreign power shall, or ought to have any superiority over them. Admon. Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy, quinto Elizabeth primo [in the fifth year of Elizabeth the First].

[Page 100]

as to this or that particular, and in this or that species inconsistent with, or destructive to the King’s Supremacy rightly understood.

And on these Considerations let it be observed that the King’s Coronation Oath to grant, keep, and confirm the Laws, Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy, by the glorious King Saint Edward; and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical privileges, &c. which these learned men do cite, is limited unto the Laws of the Land, which the People in Parliament assembled shall choose; according to which the King is bound to Rule; for otherwise this Coronation Oath will not only bind the perpetuation of this Government by Prelacy; but also to the Restitution of the Abbies and Monasteries demolished, and the Popes Supremacy expelled; all which were granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward.

But admit we these learned men the sense they seem to put upon the King’s Supremacy; methinks the modest expressions of the Covenant might have anticipated this exception, it only binding us within our Places and Callings (which might be by humble advice and supplication to the King, by virtue of His Supreme Authority to effect it) to endeavour the extirpation of this Prelacy; that is, the Government by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, and the like; but such was their affection to it, that they could not desire; nay, they could not but beg of God that he would not suffer the King to assent thereunto; which affection we must not think to abate, until their judgements be better inform’d.

3. As to the benefit which did redound to the Crown by the Collations of Bishoprics and Deanaries, by their first fruits, and yearly tenths, and profits in vacancies; though some question the Kings propriety, not in respect of the Law of the Land, but of the Law of God; I shall not insist on that; only say, That the constant enjoyment of the full possessions of them, will make a much greater revenue, and maintain to the King a greater Honour and Estate, than the first fruits, tenths and profits of vacancies, although such vacancies as the Kings of England have by virtue of this Argument continued for the space of 5, 10, 15, 20. or sometimes thirty years together, taking the profits to themselves, or bestowing them on their attendants; and undoubtedly there is

[Page 101]

the same capacity to extirpate the whole Government, as some Episcopal Seas; and to enlarge the Revenues of the Crown by the Reversion of all the profits of this Government, and the abolishment thereof, as to continue so long vacancies; moreover, I would desire to know what is in this Argument more prevalent for Arch-bishops, Bishops, and their Cathedral Churches, than for Abbots and Priors their Monasteries and Houses.

4. As to the agreeableness of this Government in the Church to the Civil constitution of the Kingdom; I only say that I question whether the Lord Christ, who declared his Kingdom not to be of this World, will allow, or do appoint the Governments of the World to be the square of Government in his Church; and I confess I can hardly reconcile it to his Regal Power, and Faithful Administration in his House; and I must have a better Comment on the Text than I have yet met withal, if it be not prohibited in these terms: The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they are great, and exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and whosoever will be Chief among you, let him be your servant, Matth. 20. 25, 26, 27. Mark 10. 42, 43, 44. Luke 22. 23, 24. The sense whereof made Pope Gregory write himself Servus Servorum Dei [Servant of the servants of God]; Whitehead, and others, refuse; Coverdale, and many others, decline their Bishoprics, as having in them aliquid commune cum Antichristo [something common with Antichrist]; I think the Clown his question to the Bishop of Cullen, were worth considering, What will become of the Bishops, when the Dukes be damned?

Yet the agreeableness of Prelacy with England’s ill Government, hath not been so obvious to others, as these Gentlemen suppose; the vigilant eye, and strong hand, wherewith in all Ages it hath been restrained; these Petræ and Rupes [Rock and precipices], Winchester and Rivallis in the time of King Henry the 3d, were judged very dangerous when they constrained a Covenant without and against the Kings consent, to remove them as evil Counselors. Matthew Paris our old Historian, “notes Bishops to have ever been “the Make-bates between the King and People, screwing up the “Kings Prerogative beyond the constitutions of the Kingdom, “and liberties, yea, safety of the Subjects; and chargeth all the “Wars, Broiles, Mischiefs and Evils of the Barons Wars, to have

[Page 102]

“sprung from, and been acted by the Bishops: And when King “Philip lay on His death-bed, He charged His son, If He would Rule by His Nobles, He must keep His Bishops low.

The præmuniries [legal penalties] by which they have ever been awed, and their late High Commission, authorizing them to act any appellation, provocation, privilege, exemption, proclamation, law, statute, whatsoever notwithstanding; and their bold Usurpation in their own name and authorities, and under their own seals to issue forth Process, Excommunications, Censures, and other Judgements, and their Imperial Canons in 1640. do bespeak them prejudicial to the Civil Government and Constitution of the Kingdom; and I think a private society should with very much of modesty affirm the agreeableness of this Government, after the Parliament on mature deliberation and debate, as most proper Judges, had voted this Government to have been found by long experience very prejudicial to the Civil State of the Kingdoms. [Vote of the 10th. of June.]

Now Sir, as to the so often Canted Aphorism of King James, No Bishop, No King; with which the Prelates and their Priests do so much strive to rivet their Government unto the Crown; I must be free to say, that it is more politick than pious; and of no more warrant or authority, than the Spaniards one universal Emperour, and one Pope, or universal Bishop; and when the Scots loyal adherence to, and advancement of His most Sacred Majesty, unto the Ruin of their Kingdom, Loss of their Lives and Estates, Exile and Imprisonment of their Nobles, and Conquest of their Land; together with the uncessant [incessant] strugglings of the Covenant interest, under Sequestration, Imprisonments, Banishments, and death of many; not ceasing till they had (by God’s blessing) effected the Happy and Honourable Restitution of King and Kingdom, be well considered, I hope these learned Masters and Scholars of Oxford will see some proceedings that may at least weaken their belief in this political Maxim.

We have seen Sir the strength of these learned exceptions unto the second Article of the Covenant, the great eye-sore of our Age; and find little or nothing therein, to charge the matter thereof with falsehood or injustice; but that notwithstanding the grudging of proud and profane men, it stands in this respect established; they have herein been long, and constrained me to

[Page 103]

stay too long in consideration of what they urge; but as they, so I shall be more brief and contracted in their following exceptions, wherein they suggest many to be great ones, but profess to take up with few, which we must needs imagine not to be of the least weight.

Unto the third Article [subjectio quinta (the fifth subject)] they except nothing as to the matter of the promise, only they stumble at those words relating to the defence and preservation of the King’s 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 do endeavour to justify 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 Subjects 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;* 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 Kingdom, shall endeavour to preserve the Kings Majesty’s Person and Authority; it will therefore that it may be observed, That these 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 Privileges of Parliaments, 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

_____

*Oxford Reasons, Exceptions to the 3d. Article of the Covenant. Sectio quinta [the fifth section]. p. 12, 13, 14.

* 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.

[Page 104]

consonant to principles of right Reason and true Religion, but also the Declarations 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 Majesty’s just power and greatness; 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 wives, by appeaching [accusing] them of Malignancy, the better to effectuate their unlawful intentions and designs?

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 wickedness? 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

[Page 105]

disclose and make known unto His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, all Treasons, and Traitorous 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 Gentlemen’s 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 therewithal? These Gentlemen pleaded the protestation of the 5th. of May, 1641. as a bar to the swearing this Covenant, and tell us often they swore 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 means endeavour to bring to condign punishment all such as shall either by force, practise, 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 pursue 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 bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other God’s, &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 more 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?

[Page 106]

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 add 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 public Trial, and receive condign 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, condign punishment on public Trial, according to the degree of the offence, be without law or merit, and Judicatory, Supreme 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.

Oxford Exceptions to the fifth Article of the Covenant.

Unto the fifth Article of this 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 ways to endeavour to preserve the union and peace of the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.

[Page 107]

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 when they swore the Protestation.

But their second Remora [hindrance] 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 [to each his own right], unless the respective Authority, Power and Liberty of King, Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire.

To this I should say no more than this; Specify 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 jealousy and prejudice, but make no Argument or good Apology against required duty.

Oxford Exceptions to the sixth Article of the Covenant.

Unto the sixth and last Article, being an Obligation of adherence to this Covenant against all opposition; they say no more then what must be expected, that until they be satisfied in the Premises stated in the foregoing Articles of the Covenant, they could not subscribe to this Conclusion; which we must needs admit them, hoping that a more cool and serious survey of the Covenant, & second thoughts on their Exceptions thereunto, may satisfy 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 enjoined duty, relating to the Honour of God, Reformation and Defence 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.

NEXT