would take it for granted that the Government of the Church by Prelacy as it is in England is so but neither they nor any other can ever prove it 4. Neither dare they say that either lawful Authority may not establish what Government they judge to be most convenient if not against the Scripture or that it is lawful for Subjects publickly to swear that without submission to the pleasure of their Governours they will endeavour to extirpate such Government as is not contrary to the Word of God Or that such a Covenant is binding upon the people to endeavour against it or not to submit unto it 5. Much lesse can it bind the people against such Government if lawful in it self and such also as cannot be altered without change of the Law which lies not in the power of the people to do without the King especially if the Government sworn against be established by Law 6. The matter is so plain as Mr. Perkins Cases of Consc hath decided it That a Covenant taken against the Laws of the Land is void of it self that it hath put the Declaration before the Covenant and Mr. Crofton and especially the Author of the Covenantters plea upon a task impossible viz. to make good that the Government of the Church as in practice in England is not established by Law I shall labour on purpose to satisfie this doubt presently in the mean time the present turn is apparently served with a plain distinction We may be said to endeavour against the Laws and to swear against them two wayes Either when the thing we swear against is expresly established by plain Law or when the thing we swear against cannot be abolished without the Alteration or Abolition of Law 8. Now admit that there be no express Law appointing this form of Government Covenanted against yet how doth this clear the Covenanters from swearing against Law when they swear to extirpate that which cannot be extirpated without the violation and alteration of many very many Laws So that this evasion I think is perfectly obstructed 9. A little more distinctly seeing as I humbly conceive there is much strength in this Argument to weaken yea to void the Covenants Obligation in this particular 10. I doubt not to assert that such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was covenanted is against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent such Laws as were in force before the Covenant was taken and such Law as by full and just Authority was enacted since And to conclude that if the endeavours to extirpate Prelacy according to the Covenant be indeed against the Law in either of these sences they are plainly sinful and no obligation of the Covenant can hold us to them First then let the Question be put CASE XI Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant Resol 1. I Have no insight into the Laws yet there is so much in the very Surface of them for this form of Government that as I cannot but wonder at the doubt so I am easily encouraged to encounter it 2. Yet give me leave in the first place to stumble at the fallacious use and too weak improvement that I find made of this expression Established by Law as if nothing could be legal or opposed as such that is not positively appointed in some Statute on purpose if this be heeded the advantage hence which at most is small utterly fails the design of the Covenant 3. To what poor satisfaction hath the learned Author of the Covenanters plea run through the Canon Law the Civil Law the Statute law and the Common Law to find such an establishment with so much industry while I think none will dare to question but this form is legal and that it is established in the law though no express Statute be found appointing it and so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws as that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 4. Is it not pretty to observe that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice to question whether Episcopacy be established by Law when Episcopacy hath so long even for a thousand years together as Sir Henry Spelman observes had a great hand in establishing yea making the Law it self 5. Truly methinks seeing the power of the Bishops was before the Laws so many hundred years before our Parliaments as now they are and before our Norman Laws I mean as ours And seeing also that they were still a main cause of the Laws there is the less reason to expect their Power or their Office or their Government from them or that the child should beget the father that begot it 6. However give me leave to venture a little without my Line and to offer a distinction or two that haply may cause my Brethren that are troubled with this scruple to take better heed to their words and to take a better course to vindicate their Cause then by such a wild adventure to disturb every thing 1. The Law may establish a thing two ways either by appointing it de novo or by allowing it and taking it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church not only by those special Laws that relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spiritual 2. Church-Government may be supposed to be established by Law either in its Office thus we need not say the present form is established by Law for its Office was before ever the Laws of the Land medled with Church-Government or secondly in its political power and the exercise of it thus the present Government none can doubt to be established by Law where we may read many times over the several legal names with their distinct Jurisdictions and the crimes punishable by them and Authority allowed them so to punish and the fees of their Courts yea and the very form and manner of consecrating the Bishops established by Law 3. Thirdly Church-Government is establishable by Law either immediately or mediately Immediately when by an express Statute such a form is appointed mediately when a Statute impowers a person or persons to Commissionate Governours for the Church and he or they by virtue of such power do settle a Government in the Church accordingly 7. Suppose the present Government be not established by Law in the first t is plainly so in the second sence there is Statute Law declaring the King to be Supream Governour over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiastical and there is Statute Law that gives him Power and Authority or rather according to my Lord Cooke declares him to have power to appoint and impower his Commissioners in Ecclesiastical matters And we know Church-Governours derive their political power and the exercise of it
of the Covenanters plea would faine say something to weaken this Conclusion of the Bishop supposing the matter of the Oath to be lawful in it self and onely appearing to be evill to him that swears it but though he make a flourish towards it if we apply his discourse to our present Case of the Covenant it vanishech into aire 19. For though it be true that an erring Conscience doth not obligare it cannot be denied but it doth ligare and consequently suspend the performance of the thing sworn so long as the party apprehends the matter to be sinful whether it be indeed so or not That is no one is bound by the Covenant to endeavour to extirpate the Government of the Church by Prelacy while he is perswaded that so to do is sinful and to the injury of the Church 20. And it is all one whether the Conscience of the party as I have said did thus judge the thing unlawful when he swore it or is since so convinced for we may not aggravate a rash Oath with unlawfull practice that is against Conscience 21. But if the matter of the Covenant be unlawful in it self as hath amply appeared in such a Case truly there is no dispute for here Conscience dictates nothing but Truth and Duty and it were sad adventure for a King himself to second Herod and to fulfill a wicked Oath by a more wicked Act against his Conscience and his Brother and his God too Si facere intendit bis peccat ex Tolet. Cas Con. intentione quam habet peccandi ex Juramento supra rem injustam The Case of Abbots in Henry the Eights time is too weakly compared with the Case of the Bishops in ours unlesse it be proved that the Abbots were as usefull in the Church as the Bishops c. That the Bishops c. are declared to have run into a proemunire as the Abbots were That the Abbots had none to represent them in the Parliment as the Bishops had not and especially that the King was not Active or any way consenting to the Act for the destruction of the Abbots as he was not to the Covenant for the Extirpation of the Bishops which are not to be undertaken CASE XVII Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations and consequently sinfull Resol THe first Spring of all Obligation is in God Laws bind us Love binds us Oathes and Covenants bind us but how as God in Nature or Scripture binds us he requires us to love our Neighbour as our selves and not to wrong him To obey Authority and observe their commands to pay our vows and fulfill the Oath that is gon out of our Lipps 2. It is a sure Rule that as God himself is ever the same so his Moral Obligations upon us change not Neither can any Act of ours take off or weaken our Obligations to him 3. Hence it eternally follows that a latter Obligation against a former is of no force but void of it self because the former Obligation being from God and of a Moral Nature it is eternal as God is and fixt and not to be broken 4. There seem to be three Bonds or Cords of God to have had force upon us before the Covenant was taken or thought of all which the Covenant is against and endeavours to break in the Second Article of it to Obey Authority to keep our Oathes and Promises and to serve the Church in our Generation 1. First God hath first both by Law of Nature and holy Scripture bound us by his Soveraigne indispensable command to honour our parents to obey them that have the Rule over us to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as supreame or to those that are sent and Commission'd by him and of necessity to be subject not only for wrath but Conscience sake because the powers that be are ordained by God ordained to be Ministers of God whosoever therefore resisteth resisteth the Ordinance of God and consequently God himself 2. Were not these Obligations upon us even on our very Consciences before the Covenant was taken did not the Covenant find these barrs within us was not the Conscience thus prepossessed against it and lock't up from it 3. But how was the Covenant contrary to these Obligations yea rather how was it not it being imposed and taken against the Kings Lawes and the matter of it as we have shew'd being against the Rights both of King and Parliament and the Government of the Church set over us by the King and Laws made both before and since the Covenant 4. More particularly God first obligeth us to be subject and obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church it would discharge us of our Obedience and oblige us to resistance contrary to Gods express Obligatiâ—â— upon us which cannot be 5. Again the Civil Authority requires us to obey our Ecclesiastical Governours The Civil Authority by Acts of Parliament requires us to declare that we are not obliged to resist them to endeavour to extirpate them to this also we oppose the Covenant though God first hath bound us to obey our Rulers which cannot be 6. I have spoken to this under another Argument before I shall here therefore onely add the plain but very weighty and Authentick testimony of Mr. Perkins who very distinctly foresaw Cases of Conse our Case 7. He laies down two Rules among others that methinks might decide our Controversie 1. If an Oath be taken against the Laws of the Land or Country whereof a man is member it binds not he doth not say that it was sinfully taken onely but it binds not at all he gives the very reason for it which I am now improving because on the contrary Gods Commandement binds us to keep the good Lawes of men 8. Therefore the Covenant so far as it is against the just Laws of the Kingdom that is such Laws as are not unjust or evil in the matter of them can not bind at all because God hath first commanded us and bound us to the contrary 9. 2. Again saith Mr. Perkins if at the first the matter of the Oath were lawful and afterwards by some means becomes either impossible or unlawful it binds not the conscience when it begins to be unlawful it ceaseth to bind saith he because the binding virtue is only from the word of God 10. Thus also had there been no Law to render the matter of the Covenant unlawful when it was taken yet it being now unlawful to endeavour to change the Government sworn against yea it being a duty to declare that we hold our selves not bound by the Covenant so to do the Covenant cannot oblige either thus to endeavour which is forbidden or not thus to declare which is required for the one is a sin of Omission the other of Commission but
by the pre-Obligation of God to our Necessary duty and notwithstanding the Covenant we be to us if we preach not the Gospell 6. Upon this ground I stand and assert that the Argument ab impeditivo boni is not so sleight as the Reverend Author of the Covenanters plea would render it Neither doth that Author himself say that in no Case the Argument will hold yea at last he seems to concur with other Casuists in the Allowance of it with these four graines or conditions it must be a greater good that is hindred this greater good must be attainable no otherwise but by the violation of the Oath This good must be certain and the Oath must be onely made to God 7. Having laid down these Rules the said Author bids a challenge to his Absolvers to apply them to the Case of the Covenant and though the stress of the Argument lies not here I humbly accept it 1. I dare affirm that greater good would accrew to themselves and to the Church of God and their Native Country by not endeavouring the extirpation of Episcopacy or the present Church-government and by declaring that ye are not bound so to do and thereby continuing your employment in the Church then by any sober and reasonable man can possibly be imagined as things and Laws now are by such endeavours 2. What fruit can you look for from such crosse proceedings to Government and Law but the losse of your place your capacities to dispence your trust to imploy and improve your Talents and if so many fall together as is feared the distraction of the Nation the discontent of the people the griefe of our King and the great hazard and loss of the Church 3. On the other side how great advantage must needs follow upon a general conformity notwithstanding the Covenant to the Church and State how great satisfaction to our Governours especially to our most gracious King whose indulgence you yet rejoyce in and he yet continues as the space of your repentance and obedience after two years patience and long suffering How much Right would you thus do the Laws your selves your families and your several Congregations yea how much encouragement you that are Leaders might you hereby give to your Brethren your non-conforming Brethren who depend on you and wait your motions whom you have as it were power to save or destroy your conforming Brethren who are scandalized by your means before the people and made the scorn and reproach of such as count themselves extraordinary Saints for your sakes saying We will do any thing to save our Livings but such and such are the only faithful and conscientious Ministers they will not conform How might you it is much in your power how might you thus allay our stormes still the noise of the people and in a short while leave nothing amongst us but peace and unity and amity and all blessed advantages of profiting souls of destroying Heresies of reforming abuses and crushing that spirit of profanesse you so much and continually complain of but are running from the only visible remedy of it in the world Consider what I say and the Lord give you to understand it 2. Give me leave therefore in the second place to say also that these goods cannot be attained by us any other way for by the Laws Ministers cannot discharge or attend upon their Offices neither can the people if they are bound by the Covenant not to own but to resist the Government of the Church concenter together in the peace and settlement of Church or State they must not own the Government nor conforme to the proceedings of it nor the Laws about it and yet the civill Authority will stand by it defend it protect it second its Decrees and Acts with the severe penalties the Law hath provided and what weeping and complaining what wasting and ruining of Estates and Families what publique distraction and confusion must needs follow 3. Which thirdly is as certain as our King and Parliament by Statute Law can make it Neither can any sober man and one that expects not the fruits of Rebellion and Treason for a Reformation imagine how things can alter without a Miracle we have as much certainty both Logicall and Moral as wise men know the Nature of the Case will bear 4. Lastly this Oath was made at least in this Article to God only to say the Scots were parties in the first Article hath some colour but not in the second for what were they concerned in our Government while it is was covenanted not to meddle with theirs How ever both the parties promised what they had no power or right to do as I suppose is now past the Controversie with both Nations And my dear Brethren in the Ministry of the Gospel let me seriously request you to consider that though for your Oaths sake you ought to quit your own interest yet the Churches or the States you cannot Pray satisfie your selves in this one thing 1. Before you lay down who gave you power to expose your selves to an incapacity of serving God and his Church in your high and holy calling and give her up to the hazards and ruines you say you foresee by covenanting against that which is now made as you know by Law the condition of your station and discharge of Laz. Seyman your office 2. 'T was the sentence of a learned Presbyterian that the Edification of the Church must proceed as providence makes way And who hath warranted you to plead your Covenant in things not necessary for the obstruction of it 3. Ask your selves was not the Law of God requiring all that should be received into the Office of the Ministry to Preach the Gospel to be a faithful Steward of the Mysteries of God to Watch for Souls in a constant distribution of all Ordinances to their several Congregations ask your selves I say were not these Laws of force before your Covenant how comes it to passe then that you plead your Covenant to the voiding of them in such things too as certainly are no conditions of Gods commands CASE XVIII Whether the matter of the Covenant be not sinfull though taken and imposed by the two Houses of Parliament Resol 1. HItherto we have considered the Covenanters as so many private and single persons and found that it is not lawful for such to endeavour a change of Church-Government against the Law 2. Let us now look on them as united and examine what validity that addes to the Covenant or what legality to such endeavours 3. It is said and much insisted on that the two Houses of Parliament and the generality of the people took the Covenant But indeed though this may much alleviate the fault of the vulgar and particular private persons in the grosse it addes weight to the transgression for so great a body of Covenanters without their head casts no shadow upon that action other then to darken and put out all colour of
cannot either with charity to our selves or our Governours or with any colour of reason conceive to be the intention of the Declaration required Seeing it is a moral impossibility that all men in so many particulars and various circumstances should be exactly of one mind And seeing much less will serve the ends of Government and the designe of the Act for Uniformity 2. It is therefore a comparative or respective approbation that is here required or rather in the milder words of the Act assent and consent the grounds thereof are not specified in the Act but left to our selves and whatsoever the grounds and motives are if they are effectual to prevail upon us to assent and consent unfeignedly to the Book of Common-Prayer our Governours expect no more for their Act hath its end 3. Thus we are left free to compare the effects and consequences of our conformity and Non-conformity of obedience to the Act and our disobedience and if we can but comparatively approve of conformity that is with respect to its conveniencies above Non-conformity and consequently of every thing to be conformed to upon the like grounds we may safely declare our assent and consent to the same in the sence of the Act. 4. For doubtless our Governours intended we should use those means they offer us for the same end themselves proposed Seeing therefore by the Act they intend and require uniformity and seeing also that they threaten such as will not thus assure them that they will conform with the loss of their Livings c. and lastly seeing all such penalties are annexed to Law on purpose to move us to active obedience what remains but that we are allowed thus to reason Here is such a Declaration required by Law and such a severe penalty annexed for all that disobey it though I could rather have liked the Book of Common-Prayer if such and such things had been altered yet rather then lose my living and therewith all legal opportunity of serving the Church rather then shew my self cross and disobedient to Authority in lawful things rather then ruine my self and family for a thing indifferent though in it self I judge it is inconvenient I do chuse to be obedient and conformable and in order thereunto upon these grounds I declare my assent and consent unfeignedly to every thing to be conformed unto 5. Indeed had the word Free been in the Act instead of unfeigned there had been more colour of this Objection Therefore out of a vile design I fear of some male-contents that can more freely consent to our common calamities then our common Prayers it is buz'd up and down perhaps not without feigning that our Free assent and consent is required And that thus we are to declare that we chuse these things for themselves and of our own accord Whereas the word Free is not at all mentioned and so the whole ground of the exception faileth 6. But for the perfect removal of any such scruple for ever let the Act interpret it self The words immediately forgoing this Declaration are these Every Minister shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Vse of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other they are the words of this Declaration Mark we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent To what not simply to all things but to all things with respect to their use to the use of all things in the said Book But in what words must we declare for the use of all things in the said Book in these words and no other and they are as was said the words of the Declaration 7. The plain meaning of the Act appears therefore to be but this while we declare in these words viz. of the Declaration we do but declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of Common-Prayer which if we can lawfully use we do but declare that if we do conform we do nothing against our consciences or that we do unfeignedly assent and consent to the use of that which we our selves either do or can use And as if our Governours had purposed to make this their meaning as plain as the Sun they have at least twice more given us the same interpretation of those words In page 74. such as are hereafter inducted must declare their unfeigned assent and consent To what why to the use of all things therein that is in the Book of Common-Prayer contained and prescribed But how and after what manner why according to the Form before appointed that is in the Declaration The like we have again page 83. 9. Of that which hath been said this is the Summe the Act in this first Declaration requires that we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of every thing in the Common-Prayer and the Form of Making Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons We suppose the brethren we now reason with to have purposed to use the Book of Common-prayer had not these Declarations been required and the Form of Making Bishops Priests and Deacons they have or must have subscribed and read their assent and consent unto it had this Declaration never been required Therefore I hope there is nothing of Conscience remaining in these my brethren to check any longer at this Declaration I shall therefore passe on unto the other CASE II. Whether is it lawfull to declare in the words of the second Declaration Resol 1. WHen Alcibiades a young Gentleman of Athens was afraid to speak before the Multitude Socrates to put him in heart ask'd him fear you such a one and names one of the Multitude to him no saith Alcibiades be is but a Trades-man fear you such a one saith he and names a second no for he is but a Peasant or such a one and names a third no for he is but an ordinary Gentleman Now saith Socrates of such as these doth the whole Multitude consist 2. I confess there are an heap of several things required in this second Declaration And perhaps their multitude may somewhat scare us Yea hence I have reason to believe that some are offended that hardly ever read much lesse examined the particulars of it 3. But be not afraid draw neer and take the Declaration into its parts and consider of them one by one its possible they may not be so formidable as we are apt of our selves or as others would have us to fancy It s possible we may thus receive encouragement with Alcibiades and finde a way to escape the Temptation This Declaration concerns three general heads Taking Armes against the King conformity to the Liturgy and the Oath called the Solemn League and Covenant 5. In the first part of this Declaration concerning the taking Armes against the King we are required to declare First that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Secondly that we abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority
this It may be thought that God by the virtue of the Covenant hath the first obligation upon us how then can the Law of man made afterwards take that off Answ This is prevented in the very Rule it self for we cannot be bound by any Covenant about such mutable things without this condition be understood and whatever we think we give unto him God will accept no bond from us without this condition that it be to the prejudice of none much less of Superiours 2. And who sees not how great a prejudice this must needs effect to Authority if an Oath taken by Subjects about things mutable should have power to suspend all future Laws to the contrary for ever 3. Indeed God hath the first obligation upon us but we mistake wherein not by the Covenant mentioned by his own Law and the Covenant we enter as Christians that we will honour our father and mother obey every Ordinance of man and those that Rule over us and submit our selves unto the higher powers 4. This is such a pre-obligation as no future Covenant can possibly dissolve so that such as make a Covenant that shall bind them against the lawful commands of Authority do thereby break their Covenant with God which if they desire to renew again they have no course left but to break off the sin of their unlawful Covenant by timely repentance 5. Seriously considering that we promised in the Covenant that which we have now at least no power to do we had not the leave of future Governours in taking and we see their Laws and Rights will be manifestly violated in the keeping of the Covenant 6. We offered that which was not our own which Authority alone hath right and power to dispose of thus we offered to God what we stole from our neighbour or rather affronted and mocked him with a pretence of giving him more then we had for we have not in us to swear that we will do that for God which afterwards we cannot do without breach of Laws and offence to Authority 7. Certainly the first Table is never to be kept by a breach of the second God will not be righted by the injury of our brother or glorified by dishonouring our Father and Mother our unrighteousness cannot work the righteousness of God nor can we fear God by dishonouring the King 8. This I conceive to be the true reason of the former Rule as well as a full answer to the present Objection and a sufficient proof of the present Argument Gods unalterable law is to obey our superiours in things lawful Things that are now lawful may be forbidden us by Authority and then those things that before were lawful become unlawful the state of things of this nature is mutable and how they will change we know not onely this we know we must be subject for conscience sake and submit to Authority for the Lords sake 9. Therefore God having the first obligation upon us and that being unalterable no Promise or Oath afwards can discharge us from that and consequently all Promises and Covenants about things that are thus mutable may be made or if made can bind no further then with this condition if things so continue and no command from Authority be to the contrary But I have something behind that I hope may give full satisfaction 10. There was a famous Case betwixt us and the Jesuites much disputed in King James his days that doth fully in all due circumstances answer ours 11. It was usual then as appears by the controversie for Jesuites to go out of this Land and take an Oath at Rome according to a certain constitution of the Pope to that purpose that they would return into England and publickly preach the Catholick Faith here 12. Now because that some went out of the Land and took this Oath before the Laws prohibiting this practice were made and some after there arose into controversie two notable Cases of Conscience the first respecting such persons as took such Oath against the laws before made to the contrary was this Whether that Oath to preach publickly the Romish Faith did binde the persons so sworn against the Laws before in force to the contrary The second respecting such as took that Oath before the laws to the contrary were made was this whether the laws made against that which before they had sworn to do did not render the Oath though made before to the contrary void 13. Both these Cases are so parallel to ours they justly require us to take special notice how they were decided 14. And in earnest what do our best Divines conclude about them To the first it is answered that the laws prohibiting that which they swore to do being Antecedent to their Oath the Oath was unjust from the beginning Sair Thes Cas Cons c. 7. for which is quoted those words of their own Casuists a law which forbids upon pain of loss of goods death banishment or such like binds a man upon pain of mortal sin and thence our Divines conclude that no Vow can justifie the breach of it 15. But suppose the Oath be first taken what say they then here also they positively and without Hesitancy say that an Oath cannot bind against a law though the law be made after the Oath is taken Thus saith a very Learned man in answer to the Jesuits as to this Case if these Laws which take hold of you when you return hither had been made between the time of your Vow and your returning yet naturally they would work the same effect upon this Vow of yours that is as if the Law had been made before their Vow and make it void He also adds the same reason why which before we have used because saith he something was now interposed which may Justly yea Ought to change your purpose 16. But the Jesuits seemed to complaine that the Laws were made on purpose to interrupt and hinder the performance of their vow and to make them break their Oath And hence a third notable Case issued viz. 17. Whether the Evil Intention of those that make the Laws namely to make mens previous Oathes void doth not weaken the force of such Laws as to the discharging of such Oathes The Answer that was given to this consisted of two branches 1. That it could not be any evill intention in the Legis-lators but clearly the necessities of Church and State that provoked these Laws 2. However though the Laws had been made on purpose to preclude the performance of the vow yet would they naturally work the same effect and void the Vow urging that Alphon. Castr. de potest leg Doc. 1. their own men teach that the Laws of Princes are not therefore necessarily unjust and void because the Prince had an ill intention in the making of them All this saith that Learned man if Vid. Dr. Don pseudomartyr p. 156 157 The Application is too easie the Lawes be Just is evident and
not a publick Oath to alter Government of another Order for Subjects to swear to endeavour this against the Laws of the land the expresse dissent of the supream Governour and to hold themselves obliged hereunto contrary to an expresse prohibition of lawful Authority Truly methinks it is also against both Divine and Naturall Law against Reason and Scripture which seem to dictate as with a beam of the Sun that for publick security Order and Peace Subjects acquiesce in the present Government and not rise up either to swear or endeavour against it contrary to Law CASE XIV Whether to Endeavonr the Extirpation of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Laws to the Contrary be not against the Priviledge of Parliament and consequently sinful Resol 1. WE have already shewed the sinfulnesse of the matter of the Covenant in the second Article as against the Rights of the King and the Lawes of the Land we come now to consider whether it invade not the Priviledge of Parliaments and be not sinfull also in that regard 2. We find it a Rule with all Casuists in omni Juramento excipitur Authoritas Superioris i. e. quando agitur de super esse Superioris for it is confessed they add secùs si non de superesse superioris sed privatorum That is in all Oathes about such things as lie under the power of our Superiours their Authority is excepted 3. Nor their Authority already exerted in Laws made before the Oath onely but as it may de futuro and afterwards be put forth in any New Law contrary to our Oath Therefore D. Jacob gives this instance in the Case Jurans non exire domo c. A man Decision Area p. 173. swears not to go from home yet if he commanded by the Judge to appear before him or by the King to go into the warrs by obeying these commands he is not perjured 4. Again if a man promise another that he will not hurt him yet if the Law requires him to kill him he in so p. 174. doing doth not break his Oath quia illa promissio non occidendi intelligitur nisi lege permittente because his promise must except the Law 5. Hence it follows though all the Covenanters had at first lawfully bound themselves by their Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy yet naturally there must have been this great condition understood saving the Authority of Parliaments that have power to take up our endeavours of this nature by a Law to the contrary when they please 6. For if this Government of the Church do lye more properly under the power of Parliaments to establish or alter it and if it cannot be altered without a change of the Law and the Law cannot be changed but by an Act of Parliament is not the Covenant to that purpose de superesse superioris and thus necessarily conditioned with the exception of their Authority 7. Non valet Juramentum contra justitiam But it is against the righteousness of Obedience and the honouring of our Superiours to be held bound to act against the Authority of our Law-Makers in any new Law that they shall make if the matter thereof be not sinful by any previous obligation whatsoever 8. This were indeed a handsome trick for private persons to be all law in a short time to themselves if private and self-obligations had power to supersede and prevent all the power of Legislation in our Parliaments to the contrary and to change places with our Governours while thus we are freed from their impositions and they are bound to obey the obligations of our private Covenants 9. The priviledges of Parliaments are so rooted in the constitution of this Kingdom that a Parliament in being cannot in such a case as this prejudge succeeding Parliaments to whom it is essential with their head the King to make what Laws they please in things indifferent 10. Insomuch that if the Covenant had been lawfully imposed by the Long Parliament without the King as indeed it was not yea had the King himself been with them and made the Covenant as lawful as Law could make it yet it could not bind the Nation but upon an exception of the power of future Parliaments that by a new Law to the contrary might take off the obligation 11. Therefore an Act of Parliament made to be unrepealable in any subsequent Parliaments is void ipso facto as that in the eleventh and another in the one and twentieth of Rich. the second was these so made were void ipso facto in the very constitution 12. Why because as a learned person saith it takes away the very specifical form essence and being that is the power and priviledge of Parliaments 13. Much more an Act of private persons or of a Parliament without their King that should offer to binde all future Parliaments from doing or enacting what otherwise is lawful or engage the people not to obey them must needs be so far a void Act though in the most Solemn League and Covenant 14. Especially when a law by a full and undoubted Authority is made and actually extant to the contrary not only restoring the Government sworn against not only prohibiting all actions yea and endeavours against it but requiring us upon the severest penalty to declare that we hold we are not bound by virtue of that Covenant to do or endeavour any such thing 15. Besides the holding our selves bound by virtue of that Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government is indeed a continued breach of the priviledge of that very Parliament that imposed the Covenant at first in the injury thereby offered to the spiritual state thereof the Bishops when they were neither suffered to be present to answer for themselves nor to have any others as all the Commons of England have to represent them and to speak for them Non valet juramentum contra justitiam charitatem 16. But I find it much stood upon by Mr. Crofton and the reverend Author of the Covenanters plea that they did onely Covenant to endeavour in their places and by lawful means to extirpate Episcopal Government and this they hope they may lawfully do notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament and without any breach of their priviledges 17. But hereunto I answer that if so to endeavour as they count they are sworn be neither unlawful in it self nor against the Act of Parliament t is well enough they may then keep their Covenant and not break the Law or the priviledges of Parliament but I doubt we shall find their endeavours which they judge just and honest to be peccant in all the respects mentioned That we may discern whether so or no we think it fair to put the Case CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Act of Parliament Resol 1. IT is said there are more ways of endeavour then by violence and
lawfulness 4. Had a private company of persons entered into a private League among themselves to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy it had not been neer so dangerous nor their endeavour to perform it in likelihood so open and seditious and destructive to the publick 5. But so great a body made up of Members of all sorts but the head to guid them and warrant their Actions and all engaging by a Solemn publique Oath to their power in their places with their Lives Estates as the Covenant expresseth it to extirpate the Government of the Church I cannot but witness that indeed here lay the Eminency of Sedition Hence a Lawyer in his place is sworn to plead a Member of Parliament to Vote a Minister to Preach a Souldier to Fight a Country-man to Contribute and all to their power and with their Lives and Estates and the utmost hazard of them against that Government though established by Law against the expresse minde of the King and though also the power imposing were in actuall Armes against the King even when they imposed it and the people took it 6. Thus every one as related to the body was an Actor in every ones part and no doubt every one that did but contribute as a Covenanter did Counsel Vote Preach and Fight against Law and Government not to say the King 7. And if any person that was then zealous for the Covenant would speak freely he would easily resolve us that he meant more when he took it then to endeavour in his place in Master Crofton's and the Authour of the Covenanters pleas's Modern sence 8. Indeed the work and businesse of the Covenant as all ingenuous Covenanters must needs confesse and be humbled for was too too apparent to be this viz. to engage the Nation to extirpate Episcopacy and to endeavour in such a manner as though they knew the King would not consent at present yet vi armis they would force him to it or at least do it without him 9. Nothing can be more clear though nothing can be more sad and doleful to remember if the primitive meaning of the words in our places in the Covenant was any thing at all it was onely to keep the people from turbulency and confusion among themselves and not at all to hinder them from rising up in Armes against the King and his Army or at least the Kings Army the visible way they took to performe their Covenant and extirpate Prelacy 10. But I take no delight to recover the memory of these things as the Law hath pardoned them so I hope my Brethren have seen the folly and madness and sin of them and are truly ashamed to remember them I also crave pardon of my Reader for the mention of them with this true Apology that my Argument forced me to it But we will leave the fact and inquire after the jus viz. CASE XIX Whether the two Houses without the King could bind themselves and the people of these Kingdoms with an Oath to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government Resol IT will easily appear they could not by a few Propositions 1. The King is caput communitatis and no Act can passe or Law be made to bind the people without his fiat the Laws are therefore called the Kings Laws and said to be Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty indeed not without the Consent of the Lords and Commons and the Authority of the same The Excellent Bishop so often mention'd concludes and proves at large the power Legis-lative to be a power Autocratical and gives a sad memento to some that the wild notion of Co-ordinate power is a Ridiculous Invention and that such as received it by this gross Sophisme became guilty of the foulest perjury for by it they Acknowledge and constitute a power equall to him in the Kingdome whom in expresse terms they have sworn to be the onely Supream power in the Kingdome Secondly the King is the Fountain of all Justice as well as Law as the Law it self acknowledgeth and hath the execution of the Law first in himself from whom all Officers as subordinate derive their very Office as well as power of execution Thirdly The Government of the Prop. 3. Church cannot be altered except the Laws be alter'd nor yet without Vncommissioning the Kings Officers as all Ecclesiasticall Governours are Neither of which may lawfully be done without the King Therefore Fourthly The altering Prop. 4. of Church-Government both as it requires a change of the Law or an Vncommissioning the Kings Officers est res quae Regis potestati subijcitur in a very high and eminent manner and by fair consequence according to the Rule held undisputable by all Casuists neither Parliament nor people nor both together can be bound to endeavour the Alteration of the Government of the Church without this Condition Si Regi etiam placuerit if it shall also please the King Which pleasure of the King to alter any thing setled by Law must not be in private or in a private manner expressed but in a Regal Act when his two houses present him with a Bill to that purpose otherwise the Laws are still the same and our Obligations to them especially for the ratifying any Act or Vndertaking of the Parliament as the Case is here But all the world knows this was never done and thereupon according to the Rule the Obligation of the Covenant ceas'd immediately No Act of one Parliament can bind Prop. 5. all future Parliaments not to meddle with any thing that is within the power of Parliament such an Act as before was shewed is void in it self much lesse could that Ordinance of Parliament about the Covenant survive that Parliament and supersede the power of all future Parliaments to restore and establish Episcopall Government Neither could they bind themselves or the people absolutely and for ever thus to endeavour without breach of the priviledges of all future Parliaments without this Condition if they should also like and approve it and that such endeavours should never be forbidden by King and Parliament in any future Law to the Contrary but that is now done datur irritatio Juramenti and the Covenant is voided in that point Thus we are at length got over the great stone of stumbling the Obligation of the Covenant onely a weak mistake or two about this part of the declaration remains to be discovered and we shall passe on Obj. It is said that many things in the Covenant are Morally Good and how then can we abjure it Answ 1. My Dear Brethren pray spare such hard words you know the word Abjure is not in the Act And therefore should not be used by men of Conscience to the trouble of their Brethren and the more ignorant or inconsiderate part of the people 2. We are not called to swear at all much lesse to Abjure or Vnswear as some too scornefully yet too frequently as well as falsely love to speak which