The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
The Abſolvers Plea from Schiſme conſidered. The nature of Schiſme. No guilt of Schiſme, by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy. Their Plea alſo from the ſuppoſed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant, to the matter of former Oaths, particularly, the Coronation Oath, the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Canonical Obedience, anſwered, and found vain.
§. 1. OUR Abſolvers foreſeeing theſe eaſie Anſwers to their afore-mentioned Pleas, or at leaſt being aware, that if Prelacy be left to ſtand only upon a Parliamentary Foundation, it will be liable to extirpation by ſucceeding Parliaments, have not reſted here, but raiſed their Plea higher; telling us, That Epiſcopacy hath no Original but from the Apoſtles, and looks very like an immediate inſtitution of Chriſt's, either preceptive and explicit, or tacit, and exemplary, ſo that to abjure it, runs us upon a Rock of Schiſm, and daſheth us both in Opinion, and practiſe, againſt the judgment and cuſtom of the Catholick Church, in all places and ages (till of later daies) from the Apoſtles daies, with whom we ought to keep communion in all things of ſo ancient tradition, and univerſal obſervation.
In theſe words, or to this ſenſe they ſpeak all.
§. 2. It is very obſervable, that if there were any truth in this Plea, it would not only conclude all our Brethren of the Reformed Churches, in France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland, N. England, moſt parts of Germany, Schiſmaticks: (For that is nothing with thoſe with whom we have to do) but it would alſo ſuperſede all civil power's thoughts for ever medling with the Government of the Church, for fear of violating an Inſtitution of Chriſt, and the order of the whole Catholick Church, and being poſted up for Schiſmaticks.
§. 3. But is it ſo indeed? Or is this the noiſe of thoſe who thunder thus, becauſe they cannot hope with any ſolid Arguments to do much; let us a little conſider theſe big phraſes, and ſee what they ſignifie.
The Papiſts have ſo enured us to this ſuffering under the reproach of Schiſmaticks, for breaking off from the order of their Catholick Church, that we begin not ſo much to regard the Charge, or at leaſt, not to believe every one who calls out Schiſm and Schiſmaticks; when they have nothing elſe to ſay.
§. 4. Schiſm properly ſignifies, a Rent or Breach, which when it is from or in the community of a Church, is very ſinful, both becauſe againſt the Command of God directly, and interpretatively; but it muſt be from the Communion of a Church walking according to the Divine Rule, otherwiſe (if the Churches deviation eſpecially be great) there's no great fear of any guilt by Schiſm, in departing from it.
§. 5. If indeed God by his Word, hath any where appointed, that the Government of his Univerſal Church, ſhall be by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Archdeacons, Chancellours, Commiſſaries, &c. and the Church hath alwaies walked in that order, we confeſs then that out Oath againſt it, is Schiſmatical: But we deſire our Brethren to prove this.
§. 6. Nay if God hath left the Church to its liberty, to ſet up what Form of Government ſhe pleaſes, and the Univerſal Church hath at any time met in a perfect General Council, and determined this inalterable Form, or by an univerſal practiſe hath kept to ſuch a Form, there may be ſome colour to charge us, but neither ſhall our Brethren prove this to us.
§. 7. We challenge all the friends of Prelacy, to make it good from any authentick Record, that for three hundred years after Chriſt, there were any ſuch Creatures known in the Church of God, as Archbiſhops, Archdeacons, Prebends, Commiſsaries, Chancellors. Pope Stephen indeed in the 3 Century, is called the chief Biſhop of Rome (in the fabulous decretal Epiſtles) but Cyprian writing to him, cals him no more than his Colleague. In the 4 Century, we read of Biſhops, Elders and Deacons, Ambroſe mentions them. Dioniſius and Optatus mention no more in this age. Hierom (in his Epiſtle to Nepotianus, tels us,l. de Dign. Sacerdot. that Biſhops and Preſbyters were the ſame, only the latter were the younger men. Ambroſe tels us they had one and the ſame Ordination. Indeed towards the end of the 4 Century (which was 400 years after Chriſt) they began to multiply Eccleſiaſtical Officers, then came in Readers and Exorciſts, Subdeacons, Archdeacons, and Archbiſhops, &c. But we have already forſook the Order of the Church at that time, when it was wofully declined from its Primitive Purity, and ſhall be no more guilty of Schiſm in going a little further.
§. 7. We ſaid before, that we find in Eccleſiaſtical ſtory early mention of Biſhops, but not of ſuch as ours were in England.
Our Biſhops, 1. Lay claim to a ſole and ſingle power in Ordination and Jurisdiction.
2. They are not choſen by the People nor Clergy.
3. They are attended with Deans and Prebends, Archdeacons, &c.
4. They execute their power by Lay Chancellours, Commiſſaries, &c.
5. They have uſed to exerciſe a power in depriving Miniſters, ſuſpending, ſilencing, excommunicating, for trivial caſes, not paying a Tythe Gooſe or Pig, &c. Let our Brethren ſhew us ſuch an Epiſcopacy, (before Antichriſt was up in his Throne) if they can; if not, they vainly charge us with Schiſm, in ſwearing to endeavour the extirpation of ſuch a Prelacy, for which is no foundation, in the practiſe, either of the Primitive or any Reformed Church.
§. 8. We are further told (how truly comes next to be examined) that the Covenant was void, becauſe the matter of it contradicted former Oaths. They mention four: of Allegiance, Supremacy, of Canonical obedience, and that taken by the Kings of England, at their Coronation. If this be true, it is unqueſtionably void, for Juramentum prius prejudicat poſteriori: But conſidering, that the Covenant was agreed and taken, by the Members of the graveſt Convention of the Nation, and by ſo many Reverend Divines, it will not be amiſs to enquire whether of a truth it be ſo or no, that if we find it true, both King and Parliament and People, may all do obeiſance to Prelacy, as having unwarily ſuffered their grave and ſacred ears to be nailed to the doors of its houſe, and obliged themſelves to be its Servants for ever.
§. 9. As to the Oath of Allegiance, there is no mention of Archbiſhops nor Biſhops in it, we have only ſware Faith and Allegiance to his Majeſty; which we hope we may give, and yet endeavour in our callings to extirpate Popery and Prelacy, &c. If any one ſay, What if he ſhall command the ſetting of it up? We would fain know of our Brethren, what we ſhould do, if Popery ſhould be hereafter by any Prince commanded? But to ſpeak directly. 1. We believe that Prelacy had no juſt footing in England, but what it had by Authority of Parliament. 2. We believe it in the power of King and Parliament, to ſuspend or abrogate any Lawes, and to engage people by Oaths for ever obliging, againſt the matter of them. 3. We know both King and Parliament by their Act 17 Car. did take away much of the Prelates juriſdiction. 4. We know that the two Houſes of Parliament did ſuſpend all other power of Arch-Biſhops, &c. and engage the people of England by Oath againſt the reſtoring of it. *We aſſert the truth of this no further then as we have received it by printed Narrations.VVhichWhich Oath his ſacred Majeſty afterwards ratified and confirmed for ever. We beleeve none can abſolve us from an Oath but God onelyonly. Our Allegiance therefore can onelyonly (in caſe of ſuch commands) be ſhewed, in our patient, humble ſubmiſſion to ſuch penalties, as ſhall be inflicted upon us, for not yielding active Obedience, contrary to our Oaths.
§. 10. So that a man might, and may bear Faith, and true Allegiance to his Majeſty, and yet take an Oath to endeavour in our callings, the Extirpation of Epiſcopacy or Prelacy, in two caſes.
1. In caſe our Allegiance to God, required ſuch an endeavour of us in our places.
2. In caſe his Majeſties command of ſubmiſſion to that Prelacy, comes after my Oath to the contrary (ratified by himſelf.) And I can find no more in that Oath which can be pretended as contradictory to the Covenant.
§. 11. The next Oath which they mention, is that of Supremacy, This Oath was eſtabliſhed by the Statute 1 Eliz. 1. being deviſed to ſecure the Subjects of England to the Supreme Civil Magiſtrate of England, from acknowledging the forreign juriſdiction of the Pope. VVhat can be fetched from this Oath muſt be either from the firſt part; where having declared, that we do in conſcience beleeve the King is the onelyonly Supreme Governour in England, as well in things Spiritual and Eccleſiaſtical as Civil, in oppoſition to any forreign Prince, perſon, Prelate, State, or Potentate; and thereupon we renounce ſuch pretended forreign Juriſdiction, and promiſe Faith and Allegiance. Or elſe it muſt be in the latter clauſe, where we promiſe to aſsist and defend all juriſdictions, priviledges, &c. annexed to the Imperial Crown of England. For the former part we are not able to underſtand what in the Covenant is contrary to it? The Covenant allows the King the ſupreme moderation of all Eccleſiaſtical and Spiritual cauſes (if Gods word will allow it) for there's nothing any can pretend againſt it, except they plead that then our Reformation cannot be according to the word of God (which for our parts we think very falſe.) The Covenant doth not in the leaſt acknowledge the Juriſdiction of any forreign Princes, Prelates, &c. For the latter part, where we promiſe to aſsiſt and defend the Juriſdictions and Priviledges annexed to the Imperial Crown. So ſaith the Covenant;—his Majeſties Perſon, Honour, and Authority—. Ah! but the ſecond Article muſt be contrary to this Oath, becauſe it is the Right of the Crown to chuſe Biſhops, &c. (How this Plea will ſtand with their Epiſcopacy of Apoſtolical right let them conſider.) I would fain (to make the buſineſs ſhort) know, whether ſome of theſe Rights of the Crown may not by conſent of the King be parted with? and whether his Majeſty when he took the Covenant did not part with them? We had before only ſworn to endeavour the extirpation of theſe Officers, in all our callings by lawfull means and wayes: (Such now as Petitioning the King, &c.) His Majeſty that now is, at the entreaty of his Subjects in Scotland, parts with this Right, by ſwearing to extirpate thoſe Officers, to the nomination of which he before had a right. May not we now keep the Oath of Supremacie, and the Covenant too?
Nor can that general terme oblige us any further, than to a defence, and maintaining all ſuch Juriſdictions, Priviledges, and Rights, annexed to the Imperial Crown, which are not contrary to the Word of God.— But there needs no more be urged againſt this vain plea; eſpecially conſidering that very few men in England of thoſe that took the Covenant had ever taken the Oath of Supremacy, which onelyonly belonged to Eccleſiastical perſons, Graduates in Univerſities, and publique Officers. Which did not make the hundredth part of thoſe who took the Covenant in England.
§. 12. The third Oath, to which (it is pretended) the Covenant is contrary, is the Oath of Canonical Obedience, which concerns no more than ſuch as were made Miniſters before 1641. or at leaſt very few, ſo that much need not be ſaid to it now. Indeed all thoſe, or at the leaſt moſt of thoſe that have been in the Miniſtry twenty yeares, when they were Ordained, did promiſe, Reverently to Obey their Ordinary: And after this (by what Law I cannot tell) did ſwear (at leaſt when they had Inſtitution granted them by the Biſhop to any living) that they would obey him in things lawfull and honeſt. And alſo did ſubſcribe the 39 Articles, where the 36. Article doth approve of the form of Conſecration of Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops.
Here now is 1. a Promiſe of Obedience to the Ordinary.
2. An Oath to the ſame purpoſe.
3. A Subſcription, that the form of the Conſecration of Arch-Biſhops, &c. contains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God. Now it is ſaid, that he who took the Covenant, bound himſelf in a contrary bond, which latter bond by that reaſon is voyd ipſo facto.
§. 13. But (beſides that, this Plea will abſolve very few, as we ſaid before) we are not able to fathom the depth of this Argument, for the Abſolution of any. The Queſtion is here, viz. Whether he that hath ſubſcribed, that the form of Conſecration of Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, &c. expreſſed in the Common-Prayer book, contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God; and who hath promiſed Obedience to his Ordinary, and ſworn to it, may not (after this) take an oath in his calling to endeavour the extirpation of the Government by Arch-Biſhops, &c.
§. 14. Firſt, ſuppoſe that upon mature deliberation, the Miniſters that ſubſcribed, and took that Oath of Canonical Obedience, find that it was an unlawfull Oath or Subſcription, as obliging them to the acknowledgement of ſuch a power in the Church, as is by no means allowed in the Word of God, they are in ſuch a caſe onelyonly obliged to be humbled for their raſh ſubſcription and taking of that Oath, and their Second Oath againſt them will hold valid.
Nay, ſecondly; ſuppoſe that that Oath of Canonical Obedience was impoſed without authority of Parliament: And the Parliament as ſoon as they took notice of it, declared their diſſent to it, and to all Oathes impoſed without their authority: Certainly this ſhould go far with them, who make the like plea againſt us, as to the Obligation of the Covenant.
§. 15. But, thirdly; we will for once ſuppoſe the Oath materially good and lawfull as to the efficient cauſe; yet certainly the Oath is irritated and made voyd by the Parliaments taking away of the matter of it. Nor do we underſtand how any perſon by a promiſe or an oath to be obedient in things lawfull and honeſt, to this or that Governour, doth oblige himſelf whatever evil he ſeeth in ſuch a Governour, either through want of juſt title, or male-adminiſtration of his truſt, never, to endeavour to free himſelfe from that ſervitude. If indeed we had ſworn in the Oath of Canonical Obedience, never to have endeavoured the Extirpation of the Government, then to have taken the Covenant, had been to have ſworn to contradictions, and the firſt Oath would have made the latter voyd, unleſs the matter of the firſt had been proved to have been unlawfull, and ſo the firſt Oath had been Vinculum iniquitatis. But we ſhall need add no more in anſwer to this Plea, which if it were good, could abſolve very few.
§. 16. The next Oath, to which they pretend the Covenant to be contradictive, is the Oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation: We muſt confeſs we are not ſo fit to ſpeak to this (being no Lawyers) onelyonly thus much at firſt offers its ſelf.
1. That his Majeſty who now is, hath not taken it as yet, but hath taken the Covenant.
2. We cannot find, that the King doth ſwear, to maintain and uphold the Government of the Church by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and never to conſent to an Act of Parliament for the extirpation of them, there is certainly no ſuch thing. Ah but he ſwears to defend the rights of the Church (they will ſay) and Epiſcopacy is one of the rights of the Church.—The Oxford men quote the paſſages of the Coronation Oath, which they conceive the Covenant contradicting: Thus He ſwears,
That he will keep, grant, and confirm the Laws, Cuſtoms, and Franchiſes granted to the Clergy by the glorious King, See this Caſe of Conſcience about the Kings Coronation Oath excellently reſolved by M John Geree.St. Edward: And that he will grant and preſerve unto the Biſhops, and to the Churches committed to their charge, all Canonical priviledges, due Law and Juſtice. And that he will protect and defend them, as every good King in his Kingdom ought to be protectour and defender of the Biſhops and the Churches under their Government.
§. 17. We doubt whether both theſe clauſes be to be found in any Coronation Oath which our Princes have taken. If Mr. Prin gives us a true relation, neither of them were promiſed by Edw. 6. We find them indeed both, the firſt in the Oath which King James took at his Coronation in England: the ſecond in the Oath which K. Charles the firſt took in Scotland, they might (for ought I know) be put together in the Oath which K. Charles the firſt took in England; where there was certainly an alteration made in the forms of prayer lately uſed (ſome were added which were omitted ever ſince Hen. 6. time,Reign of King Charles p. 20. ſaith Mr. Le-Strange) the ſame Gentleman avows there was no alteration made in the Oath. 2. It ſeems ſtrange to us that the Reverend Biſhops, ſhould put the King to ſwear the Confirmation of the Liberties and Rights granted to the Church by Edward the Confeſſor, many of which were before taken away by Act of Parliament, as may be ſeen by comparing the Acts of Parliament ſince the time of Hen. 8. with the Records of thoſe Grants of Edw. the Confeſſor, which the Reader may find in the cloſe of Sir H. Spilmans Concilia Pambrittanica.
§. 18. However it is certaine that one thing which the King alſo ſware, was the Government of the Nation, according to the Laws of the Land made, or to be made, ſo that his Oath for confirming the Churches Rights and Priviledges muſt be interpreted, as to thoſe Rights which were, and ſhould continue ratified by the Laws of the Land; otherwiſe there was a manifeſt contradiction in the Oath, as to thoſe two paſſages.
§. 19. For the Kings Oath, to maintain the Biſhops and their Churches, it contradicts not the Covenant, which ſtrikes at nothing but Prelacy of Biſhops, Arch-biſhops, Chancellors, Deans, Prebends, &c. Biſhops and their Churches may be preſerved in England, though theſe be extirpated. But no more need be ſaid as to our preſent caſe; for the Oath which any former King of England took concerned onelyonly himſelf. Obligatio juramenti est perſonalis non realis, (as I think all Caſuiſts agree.) His Majeſty that now is, is obliged by no ſuch Oath.
§. 20. For the Contradiction which Doctor Featly aſſignes in the Covenant to the Proteſtation (by which we ſware to preſerve the Liberties of Subjects (out of which number Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters are not to be excepted) it is not worthy of an anſwer; for by the ſame Argument (after that Proteſtation taken) the Parliament could not have queſtioned any one Miniſter of State, or any other perſon (at leaſt not annull their office) which certainly none will aſſert, ſince their Liberties, as Subjects, might be preſerved ſure, and yet their Liberties as Prelates, abridged.