The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
The Abſolvers Plea for the irritation of the Covenant, from the ſuppoſed Contradictions in it ſelf, Confuted: and the Covenant (notwithſtanding this ſuggeſtion) proved valid, and obligatory.
§. 1. HAving reconciled the Covenant to former Oathes, it is time that we ſhould reconcile it to it ſelf: for, as through its fighting with its elders and betters, 'tis poſſible an Oath may ſo loſe its ſtrength, that it cannot hold a ſoul; ſo by hard conflictings within it ſelf too, 'tis poſſible it may contract that weakneſs; no man being bound to do things contradictory, which indeed were impoſſible, at leaſt in this caſe which we have before us. And this ſeems a task reaſonable for us, conſidering that the Adverſaries of the Covenant, have arraigned it of this before the world, and pronounced ſentence againſt it.
§. 2. I ſhall onelyonly premiſe this, That where a man by an Oath, Vow, Covenant, obligeth himſelf unwarily to doe many things, though afterwards he finds that two of theſe things are contradictory, and the contradiction of them diſchargeth his obſervance, yet he will ſtand bound to doe the other thing contained in that bond. An Oath may be unlawfull in ſome part, and yet Obligatory; unlawfull as to ſome part, and yet obligatory as to other parts.Dr. Sanderſon de Jur. prom. prael. 3. ſect. 5. Aq. 22. q. 89. Aquinas of old, and Dr. Sanderſon tell us, that in caſe a man hath ſworn to things which he finds impoſſible to be performed, yet he is obliged, ad faciendum quantum poteſt, to perform as much of it as he can. So that thoſe who would diſcharge people from the obligation of the Covenant, as to the extirpation of Prelacy, muſt ſhew us, that there is ſomething in the Covenant contradictory to that particular, or elſe they ſay nothing to our purpoſe. By reaſon of other allegations the firſt taking of the Covenant might be unlawfull, but (being taken) as to this, it will be found obliging.
§. 3. Both for this, and the other Branches of the Covenant, we muſt confeſs our ſelves to have ſo much reverence for the Lords and Commons then aſſembled in Parliament, for the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines, for the Parliament and Church of Scotland, for all thoſe Miniſters, and judicious Chriſtians in England, who ſo freely took the Covenant, that we are not eaſie to beleeve, that an Oath upon mature deliberation, could have been ſwallowed and impoſed by them, guilty of ſo palpable a fault, as contradicting it ſelf in any thing. But as to this particular (which is onelyonly our concern to examine) Thoſe that plead this, muſt produce another branch of the Covenant, obliging us to preſerve and maintain, or at leaſt not to oppoſe the Government of the Church in England by Prelacy of Arch-Biſhops, and Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Prebends, &c. which for our part we cannot find, but beleeve there is no ſuch thing (as not in the letter of it, ſo neither) by any juſt conſequence to be concluded.
§. 4. Whereas Doctor Featly aſſigns this ſeeming contradiction, in that, the firſt branch bindeth us to a Reformation of the Church according to the Word of God, and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches. The ſecond branch bindeth us, to the Extirpation of Schiſm as well as Prelacy. And the third, to preſerve and defend his Majeſties Perſon and Authority, without any diminution of his juſt Power and Greatneſs; and to preſerve the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdom. And then he tels us, that Bilſon, Downham, Armagh, and others (never anſwered by any) have proved Epiſcopacy to be moſt conformable to the Word of God. 2. That Prelacy is a means, if not the only means to extirpate Schiſm: And thirdly, That the Government of Arch-Biſhops and Biſhops, are compriſed (with the Rights and Liberties of the Church) both in Magna Charta, and in the Petition of Right, the two great Records of Engliſh Liberties.
The anſwer to all this we think is very eaſie.
§. 5. To the firſt; what the Doctor meant by anſwering Bilſon, &c. we cannot tell; all the world knows there have been many have called their Writings Anſwers to them. However, Bilſon's, and the others Arguments have been anſwered many times over. Beſides that, 'tis one thing to ſay Epiſcopacy (againſt which the Covenant is not directed) is conformable to the Word of God: Another thing to aſſert, that our Engliſh Prelacy was. If any will undertake to prove the latter, The Government of the Church moſt conformable to the Word of God, or direct us to any who hath pretended to a Scriptural proof of it, we dare undertake he ſhall be anſwered, or the Covenant (by all ſober men) confeſſed null and voyd. But this is an hard task.
§. 6. Suppoſing Prelacy were a means to extirpate Schiſm (which good effect of it we never yet ſaw) yet if it were an unlawfull, or inexpedient mean, and there were better might be uſed, and more agreeable to the Word of God, we might as well ſwear againſt that means, and for the extirpation of Schiſm, as againſt the Spaniſh Inquiſition (if it were amongſt us) which yet will knock down Schiſm by as good Club-law as ever Prelacy did. As to our caſe now, the advancing of it will certainly make as great a Schiſm as ever was in any Church, and thoſe judged Schiſmaticks muſt live with it, or elſe the moſt bloody perſecution of innocent ſoules muſt follow, that ever any Chriſtian Nation knew. The aſſerting of Prelacy, as the onelyonly means (by the Doctor) is not onelyonly gratis dictum, not proved at all, but moſt falſly ſaid, witneſs the Church of Scotland, which under Presbytery hath had fewer Schiſms than we in England under Prelacy have had, or are like to have.
§. 7. For the laſt allegation: It is true, we have ſworn to defend his Majeſties Rights, the Parliaments Priviledges, and the Subjects Liberties. But,
1. Surely they muſt be judges (we mean the King and Parliament) both of their own Rights, and Priviledges, and alſo of our Liberties.
2. They have alſo power to diſclaim their Rights, and give away our Liberties (we being included in them.) And if they will pleaſe to give away, or part with their own Rights and Priviledges, and to diſclaim for ſome of us, ſome particular Liberties, and then impoſe an Oath upon us; for ought we know, we are bound up by ſuch Oath, nor is there any contradiction to be found here. Nor can we find the Government of the Church by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Prebends, Chancellors, Commiſſaries, Archdeacons, either in Magna Charta, or the Petition of Right, aſſerted as pieces of the Liberties of England: Nor were they ſuch Liberties. Certain it is, Dr. Layton, Dr. Baſtwick, Mr. Prin, and many others, had no reaſon to judge ſo, no more had any other perſon indeed, witneſs the proceedings in the High Commiſſion, and Starchamber, their frequent Excommunications of perſons for not paying a tythe Gooſe;See the Oath prefixed to Dr. Wrens and to Dr. Montagnes Articles, &c. not appearing at their Courts, their Oath ex officio (their Churchwardens Oath, impoſſible to be kept by any that took it) with many other things. God be mercifull to the poor people of England, if theſe horrid things be appurtenances to their Liberties: If theſe be the things they have petitioned for, in their deſires ſo often renewed for the confirmation of Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right. But let thoſe who make this Plea, write out the words of Magna Charta, &c. upon which they inſiſt, when they tell us ſuch pretty ſtories as theſe, and then we ſhall ſhape a more particular anſwer to that cavil.