The HISTORY of the PuRITANS. VoL. II. K. Charles I. " As to his majefty's confenting to put down epifcopacy in Scotland ~4~ " he wonld fay nothing, though be knew his majefty's prefent thoughts " upon that fubject. But he obferved that the ki ng was further obliged " in this kingdom than in the other; that in Ensland he was tied by his " coronation oath, to maintain the rights of the church, and that this " fi ngle engagement was a rdlraint upon his majefty's confcience, not to " confent to the abolition of epifcopacy, or the alienation of chu rch " la nds." Ru!hw. p. Mr. Henderfon and Mr. lvfarjhal decl ared it it to be f alfe in f aC!, and S4H. a Jcqemrigbt impqjition upon tbe commijjioners, that tbeforeign protrftants la– mented tbe want ifepijcopacy, and ifteemed our conjlitution more pn:feC! tban their own. They th en ran out into a high commendation ofprejbyeria! go– vernment, as that which had the only claim to adivine right. Upon which the marquis of Heriford fpoke to this effect. My L ords, '• H E R E is much G1id concerning church government in '' the general; the reverend doctors on the king's part afli rm, " that epifcopacy is jure dicuino; the reverend miniilers on the other part " affirm, that pre!bytery is jure divino; for my part, I think neither the " one nor the other, nor any government whatfoever to be jure divino ; '' and I delire we may leave this argument, and proceed to debate on the " particular propofals." Dr. Steward de fired they might difputeJjllogijlically, as became fcho– lars, to which Mr. Henderfon readily agreed; in that way they proceeded about two days; the points urged by the king's doctors were ft rongly op– pofed by Mr. Henderjon, Mr. Marjhal, and Mr. VInes, and very learned– ly replied to by his majefiy's divines, who feverally declared their j udg– ments upon the apo!l:olical inftitution of epifcopacy; but neither party were convinced or fatisfied . When the debate concerning religion came on a feco nd time, his ma– jefty's commiffioners delivered in their anfwer to the parliament's demands in writing, with their reafqns why they could not confent to the bill for aboli!bing epifcopacy, and efiabliiliing the direCtory in the room of the common-prayer, nor advife his majefiy to take the cove nant; but for the uniting and reconciling all differences in matters of religion, and procu– ring a bleffed peace, they were willing to confent, King's &on-, ttjjions. R ulhw. ( r.) " That freedom be left to all perfons, of what opinion foever, in t:~~es~~- " matters of ceremony, and that all the penalties of the laws and cuf780. ' '' tomi which enjoin thofe ceremonies be fu fpended. (z.) " That
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=