The lawfulness of the sixth article

1. Because the whole article stands upon a supposition, which we could never find supported with any solid reasoning. disproved. The thing taken for granted is, that this covenant of mutual defence engaged in for carrying on the late war, "is the common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, and has a great tendency to promote the glory of God, and the honour of the king."

Rom. iii.

The scandalous prayer in

the conclusion of the covenant.

2. Granting this supposition was clear enough to command our assent, yet we cannot see which way our consciences could get through the remainder of the article, unless it could be farther demonstrated that the means used in maintenance of this clause were unquestionably lawful. For since “evil is not to be done that good may come on it:" we are not at present sufficiently convinced that the "interest of religion, the glory of God, the public repose, the good of these kingdoms, and the honour of the king," can always be promoted by methods unsuitable to the ends pretended; and which, as far as we understand, have no manner of countenance, either from the laws of God, or those of the realm.

Lastly, We cannot read the conclusion without astonishment for here the Covenanters beg of God Almighty, "that all other Christian Churches may be encouraged by their example to join in the same or like association and covenant, for delivering themselves from the yoke of Antichristian tyranny.

Now, not to mention our knowing nothing of the Antichristian yoke these kingdoms lie under, or of our being delivered from this grievance by the covenant and civil war, waiving our ignorance of this matter, we cannot at present discover any such blessings consequent upon this covenant, as to make it part either of our prayers or wishes, that other churches should follow the precedent.

To put up our petitions to God Almighty for this purpose, would, in our opinion, be in effect to pray :

First, That God would inspire the Church with the spirit of animosity and discord; bring war and confusion upon Christendom, and banish peace and good correspondence from the face of the earth.

Secondly, That the reformed religion, and the very name of Protestancy, may be hated and hissed through the universe.

I.

Thirdly, That all the princes of Europe may be cautioned CHARLES to treat the Protestants with rigour, or rather to expel them their dominions; for that otherwise it is impracticable for crowned heads to sit safe upon the throne.

And to despatch their conclusion, supposing the Antichristian yoke should be put upon the subjects' neck by their lawful princes; in this case we are not to throw it off by applying to force this would be "resisting the ordinance of God:" on the other hand, such an affliction ought to be undergone with Christian fortitude. We must boldly confess the truth, "endure the cross," and maintain our conscience with passiveness and submission to the government.

After this disproof of the lawfulness of the covenant, the university proceeds to charge the articles with contradiction, obscurity, and farther dangerous meaning. And in the close they return an answer to the arguments usually made use of in defence of this engagement: and here they expose the Covenanters' fallacies with all imaginable clearness, and shew the insignificancy of the subterfuges they retire to.

The convocation having done with the covenant, go on to the "Negative Oath," which stand thus :

oath.

"I, A. B., sincerely swear, that during this war, I will The negative neither directly nor indirectly adhere to, or voluntarily assist the king against the parliament; or contribute to the service or assistance of any forces whatsoever, which shall be levied without a warrant from both houses of parliament. I likewise swear to resign myself to the power and protection of the parliament, and to a submission to that authority, without any intention or reserve which may be prejudicial to the present parliament, or their interest. And all this I swear without any command from the king, without any communication or concert with him, or advice of the king, his council, or other ministers whatsoever. So help me God, through Jesus Christ, preached in this holy Gospel."

This oath, we are afraid, (say the university) cannot be Reasons taken without throwing up that liberty, which by prior obliga- against it. tions we are engaged to maintain: for forcing an oath upon the subject, without any warrant from law, is, as we think, plainly subversive of this liberty,

VOL. VIII.

853.

And against the Presbyterian discipline and Directory.

2. This negative engagement is a direct breach of that duty a subject naturally owes to his prince, and evidently counter to the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, already taken by us. By all which solemn ties we are bound to defend the king to the utmost of our power. Whereas by this negative oath we must swear, and swear heartily, we will not defend his majesty, nor afford him any assistance.

Farther, we cannot come under this new obligation without falling foul on the third article of the covenant, and diminishing his majesty's just power and greatness in a very remarkable manner that is, by owning an authority in either, or both houses of parliament, in opposition to his majesty. Whereas we frankly declare, it is farther than we understand, that any lawful authority unsubordinate to the crown, can be exercised in this kingdom.

As to the provision for settling the Church discipline and the Directory; the university are not satisfied of their being at liberty to, obey an ordinance of the two houses, not confirmed with the royal assent: especially, considering these ordinances command things contrary to the statutes of the realm and which looks still somewhat more surprising, declare an authority in the two houses, for repealing the laws and statutes passed by king, lords and commons. Now since making and unmaking is a property peculiar to the same authority, the university cannot understand, an inferior power or jurisdiction, can null the acts of a superior.

With reference to ecclesiastical discipline, they cannot submit to the ordinance touching that matter, without consenting to the abolition of an establishment, so much recommended by antiquity, so firmly settled by law, and so well accommodated to the civil government. And here, after some exceptions to the Presbyterian scheme, they proceed to the ordinance for the Directory. By this ordinance the Common Prayer is suppressed the university therefore declare, their consciences will by no means allow them to consent, for the following reasons. 1. Because the greatest part of them have subscribed their approbation of the Common Prayer: solemnly promising, that they would make use of no other form in the public service: that pursuant to their promise and subscription, they had all along officiated by this book to their great comfort and benefit. And farther, they

I.

do not believe there are any passages really exceptionable in CHARLES the Liturgy. Nothing but what has been sufficiently defended: nothing but what they believe themselves able to maintain against all cavil, and opposition whatsoever. After this, they insist upon the obligation they lie under for officiating by the Common Prayer, from several statutes provided for this purpose but these I have had occasion to mention already.

inconcussæ

This resolution upon the covenant, the negative oath, &c. after having been considered in the colleges, passed smoothly in convocation. It was carried by an universality; one member excepted, who came from Geneva. This, considering the circumstances they were under, was a bold piece of honesty, a noble defence of the Church and constitution. The town was now garrisoned with parliament forces. The visitors, they knew, must take their apology for an open defiance. Tam spectaHowever, they had the courage to assert their principles and tæ fidei et face a victorious rebellion. They chose rather to abandon constantie their fortunes and risk their lives, than suffer in their science, tarnish their honour, and submit to a criminal pliance'. Neither the assembly divines, nor any others of that party, Hist. et had the courage to return an answer to this apology. To Antiq. Unifinish this matter, I shall break through the regards of time lib. 1. and observe, that after the restoration of king Charles II., when the parliament sat at Oxon, the commons ordered thanks should be returned the university, for having made so learned and noble a stand. The order runs thus:

con

documentum frustra quiscom- quam ex

tra Oxonium quæsiverit. Wood's

vers. Oxon.

p. 385.

"Martis, 31 Octob. 1665.

The parlia

ment at

"Resolved,

Oxon re

chancellor

"That the thanks of this house be returned to the chan- turn the cellor, master and scholars of the university of Oxon, for and students thanks for their remarkable loyalty to his majesty's father of happy the book memory, in the late rebellion: especially for that extraordinary called," The Judgment of instance of their duty, in making a bold opposition to the the Univerrebellious visitors, and refusing to submit to their league and covenant and lastly, for the illustrious performance they

1 This apology of the Oxford university in favour of the Establishment is certainly a very admirable composition, rendered interesting in the highest degree by the circumstances of the case.

sity."

Wood, ibid.

Wood.

Lord Clarendon.

Cambridge

rebellion.

printed, entitled, 'The Judgment of the University;' in which they have learnedly maintained the justice of the king's cause."

As to the visitors, what they could not deal with in argument, they answered by force; and turned out the heads and most of the members of the university for refusing the covenant, and the other novel and rebellious engagements.

And here it may not be amiss to give a brief account of The loyalty what the university of Cambridge suffered, during the course and sufferings of the of this unnatural war. To begin in the year 1641, the university of masters and fellows of all the colleges sent their plate to the during the king then at York. This piece of loyalty was interpreted encouraging the war, and made a great crime by the two houses at Westminster: and to fright the university from assisting the king any farther, Dr. Beale, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Stern, masters of St. John's, Queen's, and Jesus colleges, were sent guarded up to London, and imprisoned in the Tower, for their forwardness in the plate business. The next year Dr. Holdisworth was seized, and put in the Tower for executing the king's command, and printing his declarations at Cambridge. About the same time, the vice-chancellor and heads of houses summoned to meet in the consistory, were required to contribute to the assistance of the parliament: for such a compliance would set them right in the opinion of the two houses, and wipe off the imputation of malignancy. But they refused to gratify the rebels; and frankly told them, that contributing to such purposes was not to be reconciled to true religion and a good conscience. For this handsome declaration some of them were afterwards imprisoned. About this time the earl of Manchester was sent down by the two houses to purge the university of malignant members, as they called them. To give light into this matter, and make their scrutiny more significant, an oath of discovery was put. This test obliging them to inform against their friends, tutors, and masters, and betray the interest of their societies, was universally refused: it was likewise contrary to their statutes, viz. "Non revelabis aliquod secretum collegii, nec malum aut damnum inferes cuilibet sociorum." Not long afterwards, the members of the university were all ordered to appear within twelve days, and take the covenant. This, not to mention the thing, was thought a great hardship with respect to the short warning. And therefore Ash, one of the lord Manchester's

Querela Cantabrigiensis,

p. 20.

Id.