sedition and indeed so there may and if there by any endeavours not forbidden by the Parliament and Law whatever they are we are not called by the Act to declare that neither we nor any other are bound unto them for wherein the Act doth not require us to declare we cannot be bound by the same Act to declare 2. Therefore the endeavours against the Government of the Church sworn in the Covenant are either the same which the Act intends or not if they be not the same then notwithstanding the Covenant we may declare we are not bound to endeavour in the sence of the Act by virtue of the Covenant which never intended so to bind us but if the same endeavours be intended both by the Covenant and the Act then the Covenant so far loseth its force for as hath been clearly I hope proved we cannot be bound by it against a law though that Law if the matter in it self be lawful be made after the Covenant was taken 3. I mean if the endeavours to which we are required to declare we are not bound by the Act be such only as are seditious and may disturb the publick then either the such endeavours required by the Covenant were seditious endeavours too or else This Act doth not cross the Covenant in this particular but strikes at such endeavours as were not covenanted 4. If the endeavours in the Covenant be seditious then they are sinful and we cannot be bound to them and indeed the greatest friends of the Covenant confess so much if not then hey may declare as indeed they have already in their Writings that they are not bound to endeavour seditiously which is no doubt the meaning of the Act. 5. However as was said let thesence of the word endeavour both in the Covenant and in the Act fall how it will t is plain that unless it be a necessary duty of it self without respect to the Covenant thus to endeavour which is impossible to be proved t is a sin to break the Act made against such endeavours and a duty to declare we are not bound by the Covenant so to do 6. But because stresse is laid upon this very word and indeed much of the Controversie depends upon it and I find not any that have written upon the Covenant to have distinctly and plainly considered it I shall take a little liberty to open the meaning of it in a few distinctions and apply them as I pass on 7. Endeavour is either private or publique 1. Private endeavour may be thought to be with God in prayer in our Closets when no other person can receive any influence against Authority from what we say and the publique suffer no danger by them In this sence to endeavour against what we conceive to be corrupt or sinful in Church or State betwixt God and our selves be it yet a sober well-tempered and enlightned conscience if hearkned to may whisper that to fet our hearts and faces in our prayers to God who hath said curse not the King in thy Bed-chamber no not in thy thought against Government and Law that defends the substantials of Religion savours but little of a Christian spirit and may easily draw the guilt of want of allegiance and charity to Government and unwarrantable boldness with God 8. Yet it may not be out of our way to remember that prayer is a very unusual and unacceptable sence of Endeavour and that there is nothing more usual with covenanting Ministers as well as others in their Sermons in publique to the people to oppose or at least to distinguish endeavour and prayer calling them to add their endeavour in the use of other means for the obtaining the matter of their prayers or the things prayed for without which viz. Endeavour we say prayer is but Muliebre supplicium weak and unavailable 9. And doubtlesse to take the word Endeavour in the Act in this broad and wide interpretation without the compasse of ordinary use in our selves or others is to make a Net for our selves and others with a desire not to escape it 10. For who can rationally imagine that an Act of Parliament should intend to govern mens thoughts or closets The end of Civil Power is to keep the Civil Peace and what can Charity or Justice imagine else to be the intention of Civil Laws private prayers if amisse may provoke God and trouble our selves but they reach not the publick peace Neither can that be presumed to break Laws which cannot prejudice the end of Law or be discovered by the Law-makers Therefore onely apparere is esse in Jure and not to appear to break the Law in the sence of the Law is not to break it 11. Secondly there is again publick endeavour and this more or lesse publick Endeavour less publick is such as though somewhat privately practised hath publick influences and effects or a natural tendency thereunto This is either Positive or Negative Positive endeavour against Church Government though in somewhat a private way may be of much danger not onely to the thing endeavoured against which is directly intended by such endeavours but to the publick peace and be very seditious in its nature and effects Such are venting our animosities and discontents against Government and persons commission'd by the King in our prayers with our families and discourses with our Neigbours 12. This is to enkindle a fire that if of general practice by Covenanters scattered up and down may quickly inflame the whole Kingdome 13. Such a course of Reformation as this though the things endeavoured to be reformed were very corrupt and indeed abominable no wise man can allow or discharge of sedition and unwarrantable acting out of our places 14. But if the Government sworn against be not unlawful and if it be fenced with Laws and we are required in the Act to declare we are not bound to endeavour against it who dare justifie such endeavours against Government and Law but such as love to despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities 15. 2. This less publique way of endeavour is Negative when we will no way own or act under the Government in our places and thus design to weaken the Government by withdrawing our own subjection and encouraging others to do the like after our example 16. I wish it were not so but is not this with the former the intended practice of such as hold themselves obliged by the Covenant and is this if possible to live peaceable with all men is this to be subject for wraths sake and to obey every Ordinance of man either the King as Supream or those that are commissioned by him is this to obey the Laws of the Land and to do nothing that may disturb the publique 17. O that my brethren would sadly consider if so great a multitude as they please to boast of even of all degrees and ranks in the Nation did indeed take the Covenant and all of them should be of their
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
is comely in none much lesse Ministers especially such as expect persecution 3. Neither are you required to declare against any thing that is good in the Covenant or that is not evill or rather against nothing either good or evil in the Covenant directly onely by Consequence for we are onely to declare that it doth not bind to endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State which seeing it cannot be done without breach of the Laws we have found to be sinfull and therefore it is inhabilis ad Obligationem producendam 4. If any do hold that they are bound by that Covenant to be more Loyal and faithful to the King and to reform their own lives c. the Act doth not say that they must hold or declare the contrary 5. We read it under the Royal hand I willingly forgive such mens taking the Convenant who keep within such bounds of Piety Law and Loyalty as can never hurt either the Church my self or the publick peace against which no mans Lawful Calling can engage him Obj. But why should we or how can we declare for others do we know anothers Conscience or how far he is bound Answ 1. This Complaint ariseth also from mistake as if we were called to declare what other men think or hold of the Covenant whereas indeed we are not required to trouble our selves whether others think or hold themselves bound by it or no but to declare what we our selves think or hold not that others are not bound by the Covenant at all as before but so far onely as not to be troublers of peace or enemies to Government 2. Now if this be unlawfull as hath methinks appeared sufficiently nemo tenetur ad illicitum neither we nor any other are obliged unto it and if it be a breach of the Act not so to declare we are also to declare as we are required that we hold there lies No Obligation upon our selves or any other person by virtue of that Oath called the Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government either of Church or State CASE XX. Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was in it self an Unlawful Oath Resol 1. WE are come to the second branch of the Declaration touching the Covenant that the Covenant was in it self an unlawful Oath 2. I shall not flie to the following words which may be Exegeticall of these to prove it so viz. because it was imposed against the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdome but allow that phrase unlawful in it self to carrie more in it then the bare illegality of the Imposition 3. Indeed if it be granted that it was unlawful in the Imposition as the boldest writer for Obligation of the Covenant do not deny this unavoidably drawes on another kind of illegality on the takers part for if it was unlawful in the imposing 't was much more so in the taking of it It is unreasonable to Imagine that the Common people had any more warrant thus to swear in a publick Covenant about matters of publick concernment without the consent of the King then the two houses had to require it of them 4. And though it will not follow that the Covenant is not obliging meerly because it was sinfully injoyn'd or sinfully taken it will follow against all Contradiction that a Covenant illegally taken is even therefore an unlawfull Oath and that is the thing we are here called to declare 5. That is no more then this that the peoples covenanting in so numerous a body in so publique a manner and about matters of so publique concernment without and against the minde of their King is an unlawful Act and though the matter of the Covenant could not have been proved to be unlawfull yet thus it is properly because formally an unlawfull Oath Therefore it is worth the heeding for the satisfaction of such a scruple that the Act doth not call us to declare that the Covenant was in it self unlawful as some too arelesly say it doth that might have seemed to reflect upon the matter of the Covenant but that it is in it self an unlawful Oath which rather seems to intend the forme and manner of it as a publique Covenant as was now said taken by a numerous body of Subjects without and against the mind of their King I shall not need to repeat what hath been urged before to prove the main matter of the Covenant unlawful but shall seal up this with that unquestionable Rule of my Lord of Lincoln who pleaseth to acknowledge that sometimes though the pactum be illicitum yet res pacta licet the things sworn may be lawful yet the Oath an unlawful Oath CASE XXI Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom Resol WE are now even at our Journies end and the sooner because we hardly met with any 〈◊〉 in our way in the present Case 1. I find there is nothing more easily yielded to be unlawful touching the Covenant then the imposition of it and how it can be unlawful in the imposition except it were imposed contrary to the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdome I cannot apprehend 2. It is enough that we read it as a fundamental in the Petition of Right that it is contrary to the Liberty of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament and the Long Parliament it self that imposed the Covenant never pretended to make an Act of Parliament without the King or if they had done so it had been to very little purpose because they had thus pretended to do what they could not do and acted against the known Constitution of the Kingdom as their successons did 3. If it should be said that the Oath made with the Gibeonites was against the Liberties of the people and yet it was found to be obliging First we are not here called to declare the non-obligation of the Govenant but the illegal imposition yet seeing we had no occasion to speak unto this Objection before briefly a word or two now 2. There is no resemblance betwixt the Covenant made with the Gibeonites and the Covenant we treat off That Covenant was not imposed on either part but freely taken and therefore could not be against the Liberties of the people volenti non fit injuria 3. Besides the Text saith expresly that Joshua made the League with them who was Supream and all the Princes of the Congregation sware unto them whereas many of our Princes did refuse the Covenant yea for ought we know most of them and our Joshua the King proclaimed against it 4. Again that League was to shew too much favour to strangers and enemies but the Covenant endeavours to root out a very considerable part of our own Nation 5. Again by that League there was no Fundamental no Law at all violated no hurt done by ours many Laws are to be
matter of the Covenant it was so far void ipso facto 5. For the proof of this they cry aloud for our strong reasons Such as I have I shall now crave leave with a sincere and humble hand to offer to my Brethren 6. Here I must pitch and my work in short is to prove that the Covenant so far as it engageth the takers of it against Church-Government and for the extirpation or change of it is unlawful and sinful in the matter of it 7. But give me leave to fix my foot in a plain distinction The Res jurata the thing Sworn or Covenanted to be done may be either such as is unlawful simply and absolutely unlawful for any to do or quò ad nos when though it be not sinful in the primary consideration of it yet to such and such persons it is sinful for it cannot be denied but that some things are lawful and laudable in themselves and for some persons as to execute justice to dispence the publick Ordinances to bear the Ark c. which are very unlawful for others not called thereunto to meddle with all 8. So that if to endeavour the extirpation of the Government of the Church by Prelacy be either unlawful in the first or absolute Consideration of it or else as to those that thus did Covenant and as it was covenanted if either way it be found unlawful so far the Covenant is sinful in the very matter of it 9. Indeed the immediate question and that which most neerly concerns the Covenanters is not whether the thing sworn be in it self lawful but whether it be so to them and whether this guilt lieth not on them first to purpose and then to swear to sin that is to do that which some way or other God hath forbidden them to meddle with for to them to whom it is forbidden it is as if it were unlawful in it self as the Apple to our first Parents and as it is unlawful for us it goes into the matter of the Covenant which we take and by consequence that which is only unlawful to us if sworn doth make that Oath as ours unlawful in its self that is in the matter of it 10. Therefore I shall not need to dispute whether the Government of our Church be so necessary by a Jus divinum and the word of God as that it is unalterable by the power of man or that it is sinful in it self to endeavour the alteration of it I chuse rather to come as neer my Brethren as I can and to argue from the latter branch of the distinction according to which my Task is to prove that it is unlawful for such as took the Covenant to endeavour a change of Church-Government by vertue of that Covenant Which may the plainer appear if we consider the persons that took the Covenant either as single persons and one apart from another or as united in the great body that at first took it Upon each of these we shall now proceed CASE VII Whether any private or single person can lawfully endcavour the alteration of Church-Government by vertue of the Covenant Resol THis seems to be much the proper Case seeing the Parliament it self that first imposed the Covenant are now dissolved into private persons Yea though some of the same Members and many of the same Lords may possibly sit in the present Parliament yet as to that Parliament that is gone and dissolved so long since they are but single and private persons therefore if the Question be of any obligation that may be thought to be now on them from any thing they did in the Long Parliament it must concern them as so many private or single persons members of the Kingdom and not of the Parliament 2. Now for any such to stand engaged by a publique Covenant against a settled Government as the Government of the Church is and accordingly to endeavour the extirpation or change of it is palpably sinful both as such a Covenant and such endeavours are directly against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the priviledges of Parliament the Liberty of the Subject and the former obligations which lay upon the Nations as will appear every one in his own order CASE VIII Whether to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Rights of the King Resol TO make the Argument from the Rights of the King conclude the matter of the Covenant sinful two things require proofe First That to endeavour against the Government of the Church by virtue of the Covenant is against the Kings Right Secondly Thus to endeavour against the Rights of the King by virtue of the Covenant is sinful Of both briefly For the first it is evident that thus to stand engaged by publick Covenant to endeavour and accordingly constantly to endeavour against Church-Government is directly against the Kings Right of Authority and Prerogative 1. 'T is against the Kings Right of Authority for he is the Supream Executor of the Law and all inferiour officers are but his Commissioners to execute that government in which he is alone the Supream Governour as we swear him to be both in Church and State Now take away the body of Governours the Head must needs fall and if all Inferiours be removed where will the Supream be But that which sits the argument indeed is this to be engaged constantly to endeavour as the word in the Covenant is to extirpate the Government of the Church doth directly oppose us in the whole course of our lives and that in the very sence of the Covenanters themselves against the Kings Government As none can deny the Government of the Church politically considered to be and against the Kings commissioners in the said Government In so much as they must either resist it by violence and Armes as they have occasion or at least not own it not submit unto it nor yield it any active obedience yea as more anon pray against it preach against it and every way disown it revile it undermine and watch all occasions to ruine and extirpate it according as they stick not to say they are ingaged by the Covenant If this be not inconsistent or at least incongruous unsuitable to the state and relation of Subjects and apparently against the Right of the King and his Authority whose government this is I humbly expect reason to the Contrary Secondly the Matter of the Covenant is thus also against the Rights of the Kings Prerogative as Legis-lator as well as against the Right of his Authority as Supream Governour I argue not from the imposition or from the taking of the Covenant without the King which indeed were both against his prerogative but as my Argument at present requires from the matter of the Covenant specified as engaging Subjects to endeavour the alteration of Government without the Kings consent Whether the Government sworn against be established by Law we shall examine anon at present 't
is enough that such as it is it cannot be altered much lesse extirpated without the change of the Laws very many Laws that much concern if not establish the same Now it is well enough known to be a grand part of the Kings Prerogative that no Law be made or altered without his fiat Much lesse then such Laws as concern himself so nearly as the changing not his Commissioners onely but his Government it self And it is more then apparent that the King was in such a condition when the Covenant was first taken that the Covenanters did intend either to force his consent to change those Laws or else to root out the Government by Prelacy against the King and the Laws too Therefore there is no such condition as might fairly have been in all the Covenant if the King shall please or if we can prevail with him to change the Laws or convince him of the great inconveniencies that we have discovered in this Government of the Church by Prelacy But I am sorry to remember how the Covenant was carried on as if the plot were laid to down with the Bishops whether the King would consent or not or what ere come on 't CASE IX Whether to endeavour thus against the Kings Rights as obliged thereunto by the Covenant be sinful Resol WIthout Question it is for to Covenant or swear to the injury of any is materially sinful and void of it self as if a man should vow he will steal his Neighbours Horse In all Covenants therefore the very light of Nature teacheth that Inferiours must except the rights of their Superiours Otherwise if an Oath will discharge from subjection how soon may all Government totter and dissolve No Covenant can take off the force of the fifth Commandement Honour thy Father and thy Mother more then of sixth seventh eight or of any of the Rest It is therefore granted by all Casuists that in iis rebus quae superioris potestati subjiciuntur in all things which lie under the power of our Superiour this Condition is necessarily to be understood in all Covenants Oathes and Promises si ipsi etiam placuerit if it shall also please him that is our Superiour Now nothing can possibly intercept the Conclusion but that either the Government of the Church doth not lie under the King or that the Altering of this Government did not concern his power or that he gave his Consent either to the Covenant or to the Altering of this Government but none of all these are true First the Government of the Church is directly and immediately under the King or sworne by us all to be Supream Governour in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill and indeed as as was hinted before all Ecclesiasticall Governours politically considered are the Kings Commissioners and in a plain line of subordination to him Neither can they be taken from him or indeed on purpose opposed or disobey'd without apparent injury to the Supremacy if not with his Royall Assent and special Commission Secondly Neither may this Government be altered or any thing changed therein or indeed any thing elsethat cannot be altered without Law but by the Kings own Act and the alteration of Laws is a thing subject also to the Kings power according to the Constitution of this Kingdom without all dispute Thirdly Neither did the King consent to the Covenant but as it is well known proclaimêd his dissent against it which very thing is thought sufficient to void it Datur Juritatio Juramenti aliquando per Superiores si in illa ipsa Materiâ Amese de consc p. 219. sint Superiores circa quam Juramentum versatur sic Parentes so Parents Husbands Masters Princes may pronounce saith Dr. Ames either Oathes or Vowes made by Children Wives Servants Subjects without their consent to be void in those things which are subject to their power Therefore so far as the Government of the Church cannot be altered but by Law it is under the power of the King at least not to alter it he having a Negative upon both Houses and consequently his proclamation hath pronounced the Covenant long agon if this rule be good which I think none do question at least so far void I wonder that it should be urged that the King so many years after in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should give his Consent to the Covenant which he had immediately upon its very birth crush'd by his Proclamation Yea so far as his Proclamation could pronounce it void and destroy it I think it may well be a Problem whether the Kings future consent could revive it if it had indeed been dead and buried so many years before But in what words did the King seem to consent he saith it should least displease him that men did keep their Covenant These words do not expresse his Consent to the Covenant much lesse to that part of it which concernes Episcopacy it was far from him to consent to the Extirpation of that but rather as it follows in the Kings words to preserve not to extirpate Religion in purity and the Kingdome in peace Indeed thus some would wrest one Coven plea. Modest expression against the plain scope of that whole Chapter in the Kings Book framed by him on set purpose to shew his dislike of this Covenant to his death as any impartial Reader thereof may satisfie him self Fourthly neither can it be said nor truly is it by any that I have heard of that the King did ever consent to the Alteration much lesse the Extirpation of Episcopall Government he was indeed at last contented upon a very hard bargaine to give it a suspension for three years but the sword cut off that preceeding and the Objection with it CASE X. Whether the Govenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopall Government be against the Laws and consequently sinful Resol TO swear absolutely without submismision to the will of the supream Governour to endeavour that which cannot be done either according to Scripture or the Constitution of the Kingdome without his Consent and Act this transports the subject beyond his place it invades the soveraingty and carries sedition and rebellion in it This cannot be denied though the thing sworne against be in it self unlawful especially when such Covenant is publickly imposed and taken for no publick Reformation of things amiss can proceed without Tumult if not consented unto by the King who is not to be frighted to do it by his Subjects in such a manner of rising up against him by publick Oathes This is to hurt Majesty and indeed to do evil that good may come and if any shall swear to do it in their places the form of their swearing contradicts the matter sworn for they cannot keep their places and take such an Oath 3. Much more when the thing sworn against is not evill in it self nor contrary to Gods Word therefore Mr. Crofton and the Author of the Covenanters plea
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
minde and hold themselves obliged not to own Church-Government or Act under it as they may have daily occasion notwithstanding the final determination of Authority that we must be governed by it what disturbances distractions and confusions must needs follow in Church and State 3. Blame not the Parliament if they intended by the Act to prevent it especially considering that this is not all But more publick endeavours are judged by Mr. Crofton lawful too so long as every man keeps his place And truly if endeavours in the Covenant be the measure of the meaning of the word in the Act as is very likely I am loath to remember how high it once carried us indeed not in private but too too publickly The Covenant speaks of our places and by lawful means yet also to our power and with our lives and estates And what need of all this if we may only petition in a regular and legal course and so and no otherwise endeavour there being no other lawful way of endeavour in our places but these that I can think of and as for petitioning too if that should be forbidden certainly we are not bound unto it But Mr. Crofton and the said Author tells us of a better meaning of acting in our places Ministers must preach against the Government and the Lawyers must plead against it the Judge must sentence it the Souldier must fight against it yea and every tongue must revile it and speak evil of it and every mouth be filled with cursing and bitterness against it I need not say thus it was when the cause of the Covenant was in the field The Lord give us humble and peaceable spirits to discern at last in the Calm the way of our duty from which we have been too long transported by the stormy wind and tempest 4. In short thus to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church and the Laws is either sinful indifferent or necessary If it be said to be necessary that is a duty of it self without respect to the Covenant two things must be proved both of which are highly incapable of it First that the Government is unlawful in it self Secondly that Subjects are bound to use unlawful endeavours for a Reformation of Government and Law as no doubt those before mentioned are If these endeavours be said to be indifferent in themselves and made necessary to us by virtue of the Covenant I answer as before is proved that we cannot be bound by our own Oath to do a thing indifferent in it self seem it never so convenient to us against a known Law of the Land and to the prejudice of Parliamentary power in the determining of things indifferent But if the endeavours be indeed sinful in themselves we need no power of Law to discharge us of them for they never bound us but the Covenant was so far naught from the beginning 5. In a word that these endeavours are in themselves sinful appears in the reason of the Covenant and the concessions of the very opponents 1. The Covenant requires no more and we are bound no farther say our Brethren to endeavour against Episcopal Government but in our places and by lawful means But now the first step that our Brethren take in this their endeavour is out of their places viz. by not yielding unto not obeying not so much as acknowledging the Government which the King and the Law hath set over them nor making any conscience of the Law requiring them to disclaim their obligation to the contrary For Subjects not to obey not to own their superiours to reject those that are sent by their King Yea to make their own Covenant to prevent the commands of Authority surely this is for Subjects to be out of their places and if these be their endeavours to extirpate the Hierarchy the Covenant it self in the modern sence of it will not allow them 2. Again much more to take all occasions to revile and curse this Government in our Prayers and Sermons and Discourses and in effect to do what in us lies that the people reject it scorn it hate it trample upon it and make it the mark of their malice and revenge this is certainly to endeavour out of our places and by unlawful means too and far from the Tenour of our Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and Christianity 3. Let me then conclude that look what my Brethren concerned take to be the sence of endeavour in the Covenant and how they themselves understand it by their purposes and practices and upon sober reckoning they will find that such endeavours are both unlawful in themselves and made unlawful by the Act of Parliament and upon either account much more on both they need not stick to declare as required that neither they nor any other person is bound thus to endeavour notwithstanding the Covenant Though I presume if there be any other endeavours besides acting against speaking evil of or not yielding unto the Government as established by the Laws of the Land which are not unlawful seditious and not inconsistent with the places of Subjects my Brethren are not by the Act required to declare their non-obligation unto them Object But though we may not endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy there may be many corruptions in the Government by Episcopacy and are we not to endeavour an alteration or Reformation of them Answ 1. First as it is unlawful according to the Scriptures Reason and the Constitution of the Kingdom for Subjects to enter into a publick Covenant to reform the Church without the consent of the King so we cannot be bound by such Oath to endeavour it by means that are sinful and seditious as before or out of our places 2. We must distinguish of corruptions in the Government and the Government it self as well in the Answer as in the Objection and betwixt a Reformation and an Alteration or Change of Government or an Alteration in the Government and an Alteration of the Government T is worth our notice as to this Objection that the Act requiring the Declaration is expresse for the latter and not the former branch of the distinction the words of the Declaration are I do hold that neither my self nor any other person hath any obligation upon us from the Covenant to endeavour to make any alteration or change of Government in Church or State nor in the Government of either that is indeed that we are not bound by the Covenant to labour to pull down this Fram of Government and set up another either in Church or State We have sufficient ground for this distinction from our covenanting Brethren themselves if not from their distinction of the collective and distributive sence of the second Article about Church-Government yet from such moderate persons among them that openly declared upon a solemn occasion that might they see any material alteration in the Government granted there they should hold themselves satisfied as to the Covenant in that point Besides
the King and Parliament have practically improved the said distinction I presume in order to such Brethrens satisfaction and have indeed made a material alteration in the said Government by taking off the high Commission and the Oath ex officio by Law and yet established the Government it self CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular and therefore sinful in its matter Resol 1. AFter the Bishops were thrown out of their places in the House of Lords we might yet respect them as well as the rest of the Dignitaries in the Church as the Kings Subjects and to have an interest in the freedom of the Commons Now in this capacity we shall find the Covenant was very injurious to them even as Subjects and freemen and consequently it tore up the very foundation of the liberties of the people and in the destruction of one society threatned all 2. T is well known that the Governours of the Church were in possession of their several freeholds when the Covenant was voted to destroy them which their predecessors had enjoyed many hundred years without any interruption considerable 3. The number of these Subjects was not small their manner of living and governing in so many famous Corporations and Colleges was more then vulgar They had a considerable interest in the Lands of the Nation and much people being related to them and more depending on them and their great hospitality were concerned in them and fell with them 4. Yea it is declared by sundry Acts of Parliament that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England 5. And no wonder that this Crown of England is so much concerned for it and that the Kings of England at their Coronation swear they will grant confirm and keep all the Customs and Priviledges of the Church granted by King Edward and expresly to Bishops all Canonical Priviledges and that he will be a protector and defender of the Bishops Yet notwithstanding their number their Relations their Freeholds their Interest and Continuance notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament and the Royall Oathes yet was their Extirpation sworn by the Covenant imposed without Law or the Kings Consent and passed in the Parliament when the persons the many Corporations in the Land concern'd had none to represent them in the house of Lords or the house of Commons contrary to the excellent Constitution of the Nation and the Liberties of English men 7. Thus unjustly have they suffered nigh 20. years together and shall we yet think our selves bound by a Covenant that was at first laid in the subversion of our English Freedom to prosecute their Ruine 8. Especially against the Graine of Authority the current of the Laws and in an Age so zealous to fulfil the Prophesie of Dr. Featly who at their lowest askt this question How know ye whether Episcopacy may not be revived and raised up again by future Acts of Parliament in times as well affected to the Clergie as these are ill 9. For the Rights of Episcopal Government are again confirmed by King and Parliament and they that have places therein have as clear a title thereunto by Law as any other Subject hath to his temporal estate and how can a Covenant binde us to injure others who are first obliged by God himself to walk honestly 10. Here I humbly offer whether the King himself can be bound by Oath to destroy his people or any society or person of his Subjects especially out of his Parliament and when he is according to his Oath and his Office if he should never take his Oath bound to do Justice to all according to Laws already made the true measure of all mens Rights Salus populi hath a Supremacy over the King at least the King of Kings hath so who hath first obliged him to distribute Justice and preserve the Rights and Liberties of his people impartially and without respect of persons 11. We are sure the last King of ever happy Memory did not consent to the Covenant or if he had he was first bound expresly to the contrary by his Coronation Oath to defend the Bishops and maintain their Canonicall priviledges 12. And in the behalf of the present we may be bold to say the Parliament imposing the Covenant onely by an Ordinance which lost its force at their dissolution at his Fathers death he could not confirm the Covenant by any Act of his without a Parliament and the former Ordinance ceased with the former Parliament and the Petition of Right tells us that it is contrary to the Liberties of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament and much more so if against the Freeholds and the very being of so many famous Corporations in the people of England 13. The King is bound to Right but cannot be bound to wrong any of his Subjects any such obligation is void of it self for the Oaths of Kings must also have the condition so far as lawfully we may who are accountable to God though not to man by whom they are intrusted with the good of their Subjects and to whom they have sworn 14. Therefore David when he had made a rash Oath that he would slay 1 Sam. 25. 32. Nabal and all his Houshold rejoyced when he had occasion offered by Abigail to break his Oath and though he sware to Shimei that he would save 2 Sam. 19. 23. his life yet as if upon better advice he had found that that person had deserved to die and been convinced that it was expected from God that Justice should be done he commanded his Son Solomon to put him to death and doubtlesse it had been better for Herod to have saved John Baptist though he had broke his Oath and lost his Reputation in some measure with the people 15. Especially if through fear or any other temptation the King should be thus prevailed with to promise or swear to injure his Subjects The Case then is as if a man under threats of a Robber should swear to bring him his Neighbours horse 16. Now whether the thing sworn in fear and under temptation be unlawfull and unjust or not must be judged by the Conscience of the partie sworne 17. Whence may issue two Cases with respect to the time when the Oath is made and when it is to be performed But one answer doth serve them both for when the Conscience dictates the thing sworn to be unlawful it will rule the Case if a man sweares for fear against his Conscience his Conscience being Gods Vice-gerent within him he sins against God in swearing God by his Conscience having the first Obligation upon him And if he should perform his Oath against his Conscience he fins twice first by doing evil and secondly by keeping his evil Oath For as the Right Reverend Bishop Sanderson concludes this very case such Oath doth not bind against Conscience 18. The Author
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
torn in pieces the Kings Prerogative whose consent was necessary invaded the priviledge of Parliament to make new Laws in things lawful or establish the old broken the liberties of the people in being imposed on with the Covenant without an Act of Parliament and having so many societies of Ecclesiastical persons destroyed plainly subverted 6. Indeed nothing can be said why the Oath made in favour of the 2 Sam. 21. 2. Gibeonites by Joshua the King and all the Princes and people should not oblige and nothing can be said why the Covenant made with hatred of the Bishops for their injury and ruine by a part of the Parliament and People without and against the King and the Laws when contrary to the very Constitution of the Land there were none to represent them in either House nothing I say can reasonably be said why such a Covenant so far at least should binde at all One may be bound to do the good he hath sworn so was Joshua c. to the Gibeonites one cannot be bound to do the evil he hath sworn as the Covenant would have him 7. Israel was cheated into a Covenant that hurt none but themselves if themselves at all and therefore their Covenant obliged them England that is a great part of it was also cheated pardon the expression into a Covenant that injured the Takers and every body else the King the Parliament that made it all future Parliaments the Liberties of the people the Governours and Government of the Church yea and God himself and the Consciences and Souls of the Takers themselves by breaking the bonds of all former obligations upon them to the contrary as in particular hath before appeared and how then can it bind to so much iniquity I need say no more to this or other instances of Zedekiah's Oath c. or I presume to this Argument of the Declarations that hath indeed engaged me longer then at first I foresaw A general Conclusion touching the Lawfulnesse of Re-ordination and the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England THere is but one thing more in the condition of Law required of Ministers by the Act of Vniformity Re-ordination of such as are onely Ordained already by Presbyters and Ordination of such as are not by Bishops I hope such as are concerned herein will not stand too much upon this considering that liberty is not denied them to keep their own sence whether the Ordination by Presbyters only is valid or not also that the Act makes it self no judge of the Ordination by Presbyters in forraign Churches also that there is no other way according to the Law of the Land to exercise their Ministry in this Church as also that if their former Ordination should be confirmed by any other form it could not passe for legal Ordination in this Church or Nation nor legally intitle them to the care of souls or to the profits of their places no other being thought fit to be appointed or allowed by our Governours and therefore their submission thereunto cannot be a taking Gods name in vaine which hath so good and so necessary an end but especially considering that worthy Mr. Humphery hath written so effectually and so largely already upon this Subject He hath so well prevented my pains herein I have onely to refer my Brethren to his Books for their full satisfaction in this point 2. Concerning that which I have written in this Treatise give me leave to subscribe which I do animo that I have not used one Argument but I really judge it convincing and such as is not either answered or prevented by any thing written either by Mr. Crofton or the learned and sober Author of the Covenanters plea. 3. Neither can I divine what may possibly be urged against the Declarations that is not answered except onely the unlawfulnesse of the Government Liturgy or Ceremonies of the Church all which are indeed concerned in the Declarations required 4. I confesse I took the lawfulnesse of these in themselves for granted and my reason I hinted at the beginning of my book namely because I was to treat such onely or chiefly with it as had purposed to conform had not the Act required them thus to declare such I conceived did not believe the Government of the Church or any Office or Ceremony of the Common Prayer Book was in it self unlawful who by their Conformity intended before to own the one and practise the other 5. However let me humbly beseech my Brethren if thus they scruple seriously to Consider that the ablest Pens that ever Engaged in these great Controversies have hitherto found it a task too difficult for them to evince that either the form of Government or any thing required in our Liturgie is in it self unlawfull 6. Yea give me leave to make my Observation that very few that have been Learned and Sober and Faithfull in the point since the Reformation to the beginning of our late Troubles but though they have much scrupled at first have argued themselves at length into a Conviction at least of the lawfulnesse of them 7. I hope my Brethren will not take it amisse If I offer to remember them that Conscience is not Regula Regulans in the first Consideration though so in the second but Regula Regulata and that she hath a Rule above her that must be a Rule unto her and the very Synterisis and Proposition from which alone she must draw and conclude all her definitions of things lawful or unlawful 8. The measure therefore of the Judgement of Conscience is the mind of God and not our own Not our own mind much lesse our will So that what he commands must be held a Duty what he forbids must be held a sin and what he neither commands nor forbids must be held indifferent that is in it self to be neither a Duty nor a Sin by every well enlightned rightly ruled and Indifferent Conscience 9. Now if it be a doubt to any Mans Conscience what is left by God indifferent that is what he hath neither commdnded and made a Duty nor forbidden and made a Sin What remaines but that he follow the advice of our Saviour and search the Scriptures these we may be sure are the best Rule of Conscience as the clearest Testimony of Gods Mind 10. If yet the doubt continue what God hath left indifferent in the Scriptures themselves suffer me to say that it is not possible that there should be a better help under Heaven for the removall of it besides immediate Revelation which may not be expected then the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches 11. Let the person then that desires satisfaction indeed bring his Conscience and the great things in question first to the Bar and Rule of Scripture and if he cannot see them condemned there as truly I cannot let him in the fear of the Lord and the sincerity of his heart after Truth and Peace yet prosecute his full
Premises Laus Deo Ecclesiae Pax. THE CONTENTS The Grand Case WHether it be lawful to declare as is required by the late Act Entituled an Act for the Uniformity of Publick Prayers c. Page 1. CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declartions CASE II. Whether it is lawful to Declare in the words of the Second Declaration 13 CASE III. Whether it be lawful for us to declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King 15 CASE IV. Whether it be lawful to declare that we do Abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or those that are Commissionated by him 17 CASE V. Whether we may lawfully declare that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established 19 CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State 22 CASE VII Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 26 CASE VIII Whether to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Rights of the King 28 CASE IX Whether to endeavour thus against the Kings Rights as obliged thereunto by the Covenant be sinful 32 CASE X. Whether the Covenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopall Government be against the Laws and consequently sinful 37 CASE XI Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant 41 CASE XII Whether a Covenant taken first can oblige us against a future Law 47 CASE XIII Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience 60 CASE XIV Whether to Endeavour 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 67 CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Act of Parliament 74 CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular and therefore sinful in its matter 89 CASE XVII Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations and consequently sinfull 98 CASE XVIII Whether the matter of the Covenant be not sinfull though taken and imposed by the two Houses of Parliament 116 CASE XIX Whether the two Houses without the King could binde themselves and the people of these Kingdomes with an Oath to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government 120 CASE XX. Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was in it self an Unlawful Oath 127 CASE XXI Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom 130 A general Conclusion touching the Lawfulnesse of Re-ordination and the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England 136 An Addition to the first Impression by way of Supplement to the two great Cases touching the Inexpediency and unlawfulnesse of things imposed 143 A Supplement to the Case touching the Imposition of things unlawfull 156 FINIS REcensui tractatum hunc cui Titulus The Grand Case Grande quidem opus si quod intendit efficiat M. Frank. S. T. P. R. P. D. Epo. Lond. a Sacris Domest Sextilis 11o. 1662. THere is Extant an Excellent Piece Entituled Some Necessary and Seasonable Cases of Conscience about things Indifferent in Matters of Religion Briefly yet faithfully stated and resolved wherein the just bounds of Imposing on one hand and of Obeying on the other are truly Fixed By the same Hand Sold by Tho Dring at the George in Fleet-street near Cliffords Inn 1662.
sufferings and to sbrink when fairly called or run upon sufferings when not called the first is to crucifie Christ in his Cause and the last is to crucifie Christ in our selves but to be crucified for Christ is to suffer with him that we may be also glorified together 19. Give me leave my dear Brethren for whom I truly travel in Birth without offence to be plain with you in a few words of serious advice seasonably inferred from these Considerations which my hearty affection and faithfulness to you and this poor Church will not suffer me to omit I shall cease to trouble you 1. Let me beseech you to suspect that natural Corruption which upon Ambition Discontent and Temptation of Credit and Glory in the World is prone to hasten you in this Crisis of distemper to unwarrantable Sufferings 2. Take heed of being Hurried to suffering with the Motion of the Multitude or by the foud perswasion of an implicite faith or dependance upon the Principles and examples of others whose Temptations haply may be greater then yours and yet if you follow them their sufferings may be less Yea it is possible and worthy to be heeded that others may tempt you to follow them into that Condition wherein you indeed may suffer for them and yet they not suffer with you 3. Therefore having the glory of God the prosperity of Sion the peace of the Nation the progress of the Gospel the Salvation of Souls the fulfilling of your Ministry and provision for your Selves and your several Families before your eyes let nothing tempt you from all these that amount to no more then the pleasing and gratifying an Espoused party that resolves to be Angry for against all these I can see no reason why you should resemble that Spelunca Hienae which the Prophet cōplained of that is a fish as St. Chrysostom observes that hath but one back-bone and cannot turn except it turn all at one 4. Above all take heed of displeasing Christ by pleasing your selves or friends of provoking him to forsake you in you sufferings by dissembling to suffer for him when you Know you do not or when indeed you do not and you think you do To suffer the loss of all in pretence for Christ and therefore to suffer the loss of Christ too this is suffering indeed What can more imbitter our sufferings then to have the punishment of loss temporal seconded with the punishment of pain Spiritual and our dissembled sufferings for Christ rewarded with our real sufferings from him with a who hath required these things at your hands 5. Remember the great end of our Life and callings of our Stations and Relations we are not sent into the world properly to suffer but to do viz. to perform the Offices of Society required of us in our several places 2. The way to Triumph was not of old to be slain in the Battel but to have kept the Station and done all Military duties let us stand fast and not be shaken or moved with the blasts of envious reproaching or flattering words Let not small encounters of apprehended inconveniences make us flie or quit our duties 3. Let us fulfill our Ministry begun and Run the Race that is yet before us with patience and perseverance to the end despising the shame as our fore-runner did who may call us also to follow his steps as well through evil as good Report Yielding him Sweat in the Harvest of our Calling and not our Blood till he Calls for it 6. Pythagoras his Sholars were to suffer themselves to be slain rather then to stir their foot and tread down a Bean and Jarvice the Priest in King James his days though he had publiquely declared before that it was lawfull to take the Oath of Allegiance yet he would die in the refusall of it because it seemed not Expedient to him to take it then 2. Ah! my Brethren is there indeed no greater Latitude in Christian-liberty must we needs venture all upon a point of Indifferency or meer Expediency I dare not Determine how far a Divine positive Law loseth its hold and obligation in Case of Just fear or Necessitie yet when we see nothing in the things enjoyned that is against the Law of Nature and when there is no Rule to be found against them in the holy Scripture yea when the Case is such as indeed ours is that neither the primitive nor the Reformed Churches disallow of Conformity 'T is evident that at most there is ground of Scruple onely of the lawfulness there can be no Knowledge of the unlawfulness thereof 3. Now in such a Case Conscience cannot prohibite Conformity though very much is still pleaded from it for indeed in accurate Speaking it is not Conscience Corbo sum sum Tom. 1. p. 1. e. 12. that doth properly bind at all but that Law which Conscience takes Knowledge of and presents to our Vnderstanding And if the Law be not clear in it self or if Conscience take not a full or clear Knowledge of the Law especially if there be no Law at all in the Case we have no Knowledge to Enlighten and guide our Conscience we are in Ignorance in doubts or in Scruples and the Law of Conscience doth not now dictate to us what to do or Suffer and if in such a Case we choose to Suffer we may not say we suffer for Conscience I did it Ignorantly not Conscientiously saith the great Apostle Hence a Learned Divine in confutation of the Jesuists Dr. Don pseudo p. 238. suffering-zeal concludes that where God hath afforded us no way of attaining to Certain Knowledge though a man may have some such knowledge or Opinion as may sway him in an Indifferent Action by Reasons of Conveniency or with an Apparent Analogy with other points of more evident Certainty yet no man may Suffer any thing for these points as for his Conscience because though he lighted upon the Truth yet it was not by any Certain Way which God appointed for a Constant and Ordinary means to find out that Truth 6. But lest I enlarge beyond the bounds of a Preface In short O that my brethren would soberly ask themselves what that means I will have mercy and not Sacrifice is there no such thing as self-deniall in parting with our own Wills is no apprehended Inconvenience to be born for the discharge of our Trust to God and men is nothing tolerable that is not best or is nothing to be yielded out of charity and pity to the Church and State Our selves and Families Are the Talents of our offices our Gifts and our opportunities of doing good at our own disposall are the shrieks and cries of the Souls of our people of our wives and children hanging upon us easily answered or the importunity of Friends the Reasonings of Brethren the perswasions of all the Eminent forreign Reformed Divines the Authoritie of long continued Custome in our own Church or the Laws of the Land can all
these nothing prevail What shall we say to these things if it be sinful to conform declare wherein if not but some smaller matter hinder us I cannot but remember then that he that died of the Bite of a Weasell lamented that it was not a Lion I speak as unto Wise men Judge ye what I say and the God of Truth and Peace be with you Amen THE Grand Case Whether it be lawful to declare as is required by the late Act Entituled an Act for the Uniformity of Publique Prayers c. Resol I Fear there are some that question the very lawfulness of the Book of Common-prayer so few sheets of paper may not be thought to attempt so great a Taske as their satisfaction Yet hearing that many Moderate Brethren do now check who had resolved to conform had not these Declarations been required out of my tender affection to them as also my desire of the good of the Church which I cannot but believe may be much advanced through their Conformity I have taken this encouragement to offer my Reason why I conceive that such Ministers as could otherwise have conformed may lawfully declare in order thereunto as by the said Act is required That we may distinctly and throughly judge of this weighty point we shall set before our eyes both the Declarations in their own words for there are two of them the first we have in page 73. and the other in page 77. of the Act as it is now printed they are as followeth The first is thus I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons The second is thus I A. B. do declare that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him and that I will conform to the Liturgie of the Church of England as it is now by Law Established And I do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonl called the Solemn League and Covenant to Endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in its Self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom These are the Declarations we proceed to consider each of them in their several Branches Touching the first the Case is CASE I. Whether it be lawfull to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declarations Resol THis Declaration hath two branches The first is about the Liturgy the last about the Book of Ordination 1. Touching the Liturgy we are to declare in these words I do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and preseribed in and by the said Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer c. 2. Touching the Book of Ordination we are to declare in these words And the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons 3. Now give me leave to ask what can possibly render it unlawfull for such as can conform without it for such I deal with thus to declare 4. As for the latter branch touching the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Conseerating Bishops Priests and Deacons this most that have Livings have Subscribed already at their Ordination and read their allowance of openly to their several Congregations upon their Induction besides had not this been required in the Act who knows not that no conformity without subscribing and reading the Nine and thirty Articles in one of which we declare the same could legally suffice Yea who sees not the weakness of such a pretence of future conformity if this part of the Declaration had not been required which indeed is no new thing nor such as any one without self-abuse or self-delusion could possibly expect should not still be required or truly I think without dissimulation or abuse of the world could say they intended to have conformed had not this been required 5. But I perceive the first part of the Declaration touching the Liturgy bears the greater burthen of exception The words are I do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer c. 6. But did you indeed intend to have formed had not this Declaration been required what can hinder you thus to declare viz. that you do assent and consent to that which your selves did intend to practice and that this your assent and consent to your own intended practice is not Hypocritical but unfeigned certainly this is all that is here required 7. Perhaps the long Title of the Book afrights us But if there be more then in the Book we have nothing to do with that for we are only to declare for every thing contained in the Book but if there be not then we that embrace the substance have no reason to be scared with the shadow or to scruple at that in the Title which we can use in the Book Object 1. It is objected that there are several expressions in the Book of Common-Prayer that though we could safely read them yet we do not so heartily like and approve them as we seem to be required to declare Answ 1. Do not force an Edge upon the words to wound your selves Look well upon the Declaration and you will find that the object of your assent and consent is not the words but things not every word but every thing not every thing as there expressed but every thing contained in the expressions and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-Prayer 2. Yet if you can conform to the Book I hope you can read the words and if so I hope you can assent and consent unfeignedly to the lawfulness of the Action which your selves perform and this is all as more fully I shall shew presently that is here required of you to declare Object 2. But though we can use the things yet it is only for peace sake and obedience to Authority c. and not because we would chuse or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves Answ We may approve a thing absolutely as is hinted in the Objection and comparatively or respectively 1. That we should absolutely approve of every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer as that which we would chuse above all other and as best in it self we
against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him Accordingly there arise two Cases CASE III. Whether it be lawfull for us to declare that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Resol 1. EIther it is lawfull to take Armes against the King or it is not if it be granted that it is not what should hinder us from declaring it when by Law as now we are called to do it but if it should be thought lawful I must demand by what Law T is but a subterfuge to speak of the Law of Nature while the Law of Scripture and the Law of the Land have undertaken the Case 3. Now what saith the Scripture surely it gives not the least colour of encouragement for it except Obedience and Submission and that for conscience and the Lords sake be taking Arms. 4. Again if the Scriptures may be thought too General let the Laws of the Land be examined I question not whether they were not sufficiently plain in the Case before yet now certainly they are above all Contradiction or doubt I mean by the late Act for the Safety of the Kings person where we may learn in the plainest manner that it is Treason and Rebellion and unlawfull enough upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King 5. Such as I now deal with do at the most onely doubt whether according to the constitution of this Kingdom the two Houses are not a power co-ordinate with the King and the King and his two Houses being at variance whether they might not side with the Parliament even to the taking Armes against the King but if this were a doubt before it is not possible it should remain so still all colour of it being wiped away and that Controversie as perfectly determined as an Act of King Lords and Commons can possibly do it as appears in the Act forementioned for the safety of the Kings person CASE IV. Whether is it lawful to declare that we do Abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or those that are Commissionated by him Answ 1. IF this be indeed a Traiterous position who doubts but that every true Subject is bound to abhor it and being lawfully called thereunto so to declare 2. That this is a Traiterous position I need not say more then what I just now said in answer to the last Case Namely that however it came to be disputed before it is now plainly determined to be so by the said Act for the safety of the Kings person and it being declared by Law to be a Traiterous position it ought so to be reputed and by this Law also it being so required of us it ought to be declared against and abhorr'd accordingly 3. So much may briefly suffice for the first general in this Declaration The second touching Conformity offers now to be considered This we shall pass with a quick dispatch that we may hasten to our main design the discharge of the Covenant The Case about Conformity in short is this CASE V. Whether we may lawfully declare that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established Resol 1. FIrst it seems there is no longer any ground of doubt whether the Liturgy be established by Law i. e. the Law of the Land 2. Secondly neither have we any reason to question whether it be against the Law of God seeing our Brethren whom we are now treating are supposed to acknowledge that they would have conformed unto it had not these Declarations been required which I know they would not have done had they thought it to be contrary to the Law of God 3. What then can obstruct this part of the Declaration with brethren so well prepared for it this only calls them to pass their former intention to conform into a promise that they will do so and to declare that for the satisfaction of Law and Authority they will do that which they acknowledge they can do with satisfaction to themselves and which also they confesse they would have done had not they received this dissatisfaction from the Declaration which yet we see vanisheth before us Of the Covenant 1. BUt the great Mountain is yet to be removed some say they are called to declare against and to renounce the Covenant or as some that would scare themselves and others from Conformity to abjure and to unswear the Covenant and this they complain is too hard for them they cannot do it This is I confess a very tender Point yet such I hope as the most tender Conscience need not fear to be pricked with it if warily handled I mean if we be not frighted awat from it or stand not at too great a distance but with a sound and impartial judgment draw neer unto it and look well upon it and consider after what manner and in what words we are indeed required to declare against the Covenant 2. Under this head there are three members of the Declaration touching the Covenant Something is to be declared against its obligation Something against its lawfullness in it self and something against the lawfulness of its imposition 3. We proceed to weigh them one by one with all seriousness and fidelity in a particular examination of the three Cases that offer themselves in the very words of the Declaration The first touching the Obligatory force of the Covenant is in the Declaration apparently limited to the alteration of Government and is this CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or alteration of Government either in Church or State Resol MEthinks it is no great venture to say that such as have taken the Covenant may lawfully declare that they hold that neither themselves nor any person is bound by the Covenant to endeavour a change of Government in Church or State We are agreed in three things and so far I shall not create a controversie First that a Covenant both illegally imposed and illegally taken may bind the Takers Secondly that the Covenant in Question doth not bind to an endeavour to alter or meddle with the State-Government Thirdly that the alteration or extirpation as the word is of Church-Government being the main business of the Covenant as the Covenanters plea hath granted if this main businesse of the Covenant be lawfull it doth so far binde those that have taken it if not lawful they are at least so far discharged and not under the obligation of it Fourthly t is accordingly therefore in plainest terms again and again granted us both by Mr. Crofton and the more Moderate and Learned Author of the Covenanters plea wherein indeed they concur with all Casuists that if we can discover any thing unlawful in the matter especially this main
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
both sin to which no Covenant can possibly oblige for then it should oblige us against God himself 2. Secondly the matter of the Covenant in the Second Article is against many former Oaths whereby the Nation stood obliged before the Covenant was imposed or taken and in that regard we were first obliged by God to the contrary 1. Not to speak of that natural Allegiance in which all Subjects by the will of God in the very law of Nature as well as Scripture are born obliged when they are born Subjects unto our lawful Prince the Oath of Allegiance superadded re-enforceth us to obey him in all his lawful commands 2. And according to the Rules above mentioned whether this Oath be actually taken before the Covenant or after we are by the Divine obligation to obey the Kings Laws and to declare that the Covenant doth not binde us against the Kings Ecclesiastical Government or against his will expressed in the Laws of the Land whatsoever is hitherto urged to enervate the same 3. Especially if we add the direct obligation of the Oath of Supremacy wherein we all own and Recognize the King in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Supream Governour For how can the Oath to extirpate his Government and destroy his Officers against his will and his known Laws consist with his sworn Supremacy or in the cause of Ecclesiastical Government how do those Ecclesiastical persons acknowledge him to be their Supream Governour while they resist him against his express Laws in this very cause even with endeavours to extirpate his Government 4. Besides many of the ancient Ministry stand more immediately obliged to the Government of the Church by their subscriptions to thirty nine Articles wherein they have set their hands that there is nothing superstitious or ungodly in the Form and Manner of Making Consecrating â—nd Ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons as also in the form of their very Ordination as Deacons and as Presbyters in which they solemnly promised to obey their Ordinary and to follow his godly Judgement which they also bound with the Oath of Canonical obedience 5. Lastly the general protestation taken some years before the Covenant must needs effect the discharge of it so far as they are contrary 6. That the Protestation was as legal as the Covenant as yet none ever questioned It was imposed by the same power at least it was never proclaimed against by the King as the Covenant was and that the Author of the Covenanters plea argues did sufficiently ratifie it It was taken by the same persons generally and indeed by thousands more then the Covenant was and that is doubtless enough by Mr. Croftons Logick to conclude it National and perpetual and not to be violated or made void by any future power or obligation or Covenant whatsoever 7. But wherein is the Covenant contrary to the Protestation 1. In the Protestation we promised to maintain the priviledges of Parliament which as I have shewn before by our standing bound by the Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government notwithstanding its establishment by Act of Parliament and by superseding Parliamentary power for ever enjoyning our subjection to it are sufficiently violated 2. In the Protestation we also promised to defend the liberties of the Subject These are also violently seized on by this Second Article of the Covenant herein so great and considerable a part of the Nation as Ecclesiastical Governours are have their freeholds sworn against and their Power and Offices threatned with utter extirpation Notwithstanding the protection of the King and the Laws yea when neither their King that gave them their Commissions nor any to represent them had liberty to vindicate their cause or speak in their behalf in the Parliament when destruction was contriving by this way of a Covenant for them 3. But these things have been hinted before and unanswerably handled by others I hasten to the third and last way of preobligation mentioned viz. for the service of the Church in our generation when I have sealed that from our Oathes and promises now spoken to with that general Rule of Dr. Ames never yet acquainted with doubt Juramentum posterius contra Juramentum aut etiam promissionem Antecedentem honestam non obligat a latter Oath that is against a former honest Oath or but a promise doth not bind 3. Thirdly I doubt not to say that the Covenant cannot bind us to forsake our duties or discharge us from the exercise of our offices in the service of the Church whereunto we are called and to which we are obliged by God in his Word before ever the Covenant was thought on 1. I acknowledge that my Lord of Lincolne teacheth that the seeming hindring of some good doth not simply or precisely alwayes discharge us from our Oath except there be other circumstances concurring which evince it non obliging 2. But there seems to be no roome for a question here when our place and duty requires us to do that which would be hindred for then the discharge results also yea and principally from a former Obligation of God upon us to do our duty 3. A man swears he will never come near such a River more because he had like to have been drowned there but at a distance he sees his Neighbour in the same hazard at the same place now certainly notwithstanding his Oath to the contrary he is bound to help his Brother out and to save his life What is the reason of this there was a prior Obligation of God upon him thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self 4. Dr. Jacob the Casuist puts a harder Case by far then this A man swears to another that he will do him no hurt yet if by the Law he kills him afterwards he doth not break his Oath his reason is quia illa promissio non occidendi subintelligitur nisi lege permittente implying that there was a pre-obligation upon him to fulfill the Law Indeed the thing sworn must be indifferent in it self or at least of weaker necessity then the good that would be hindred by the keeping our Oath and then all Casuists I think concur with Jacob and Sylvester qui indifferens aliquid jurat ut ite ad villam non esse militem c. Dato Casu quo quis vivere nequeat nisi veniat contra Juramentum illud servare non tenetur propriâ Authoritate contravenire potest 5. Now if to endeavour extirpation of Episcopall Government be not sinful I am sure it is non-necessary and then it is but an indifferent thing if so though men have sworn it yet if the keeping their Oath will hinder the doing of their Natural duty both to the King in breaking his Laws casting off his Government and to the Church and our several Congregations in putting our selves into an incapacity according to Law to serve any longer in the Ministry we are so far discharged of our Oath