THE Grand Case Of the present MINISTRY WHETHER They may lawfully Declare and Subscribe as by the late Act of VNIFORMITY is required AND The several Cases thence arising more especially about the COVENANT are clearly Stated and Faithfully Resolved By the same Indifferent Hand With an Addition to his former CASES of CONSCIENCE hereunto Subjoyned Love worketh no ill to his Neighbour therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law Rom. 13. London Printed by J. Macock for T. Dring and are to be sold at the George in Fleet-street and by M. Mitchel at the first Shop in Westminster-Hall 1662. THE PREFACE TO My Dissenting Brethren 1. A Man may be Felo de se by destroying himself by our Law and Fur de se by depriving and Stealing himself away from him to whom his Service is due by the Imperial Law and proditor de Se by the Law of Nature if he descend from the Dignity of Humanity and submit to the Danger which he might avoid These are words of the very Learned Doctor Donn against the Jesuitical ambition to suffer and with all my heart I wish they were not in all particulars too too pertinent to our present Case 2. For an Opinion that we are our own Lords and may dispose of our selves for the glory of God as we please precipitates not only Jesuites but the zealous of all professions to forsake themselves and to quit their Duties with a strange prodigality of their Lives and Fortunes 3. But it is verily a great Mistake for we are not our Own our Persons our Parts our Estates and Capacities they are Gods the Kings the Churches and our Wives and Friends and to all of these in a several respect and proportion we are justly accountable for them 4. It was a Monstrous kind of wantonness in those Women Gellius speaks of that so long plaied with their own Lives till they had brought it up for a fashion to kill themselves 5. And yet it should seem that it is even Natural for men of Stomack to value a Name above Life for the very Heather tempted with honour and vain-glory and sometimes with ease and a desire to be freed from present Inconveniences how familiarly did they kill themselves 6. Whereupon it is observed Arist Ethic. lib. 3. 6. 7. that such as laboured for publique preservation did oppose themselves to this strange Corruption by endeavouring to Convince the World that there is nothing more base and cowardly then to destroy ones Self 7. The Emperours also in their Laws and Constitutions had Remedies against it not only by Forfeitures but Infamy it self to remove if possible the Temptation of glory 8. Yea as if the Self-denial of Christianity were too weak to encounter it we read of a Law in the Earldom of Flaunders to the same purpose in which this destroying of ones self is counted with Treason Heresie and Sedition and do not our own Laws Reckon it not onely Mans-slaughter but Murther yea as a thing hardly standing with the truth of our Profession as Christians the Canons of the Church are set against it denying such persons Christian Burial 9. Amongst Christians Bellarmine by way of reproach indeed to his Adversaries hath this Gradation in his Observation wherein he placeth the worst first To Suffer saith he the Anabaptists are forwardest the Calvinists next and the Lutherans very slack And if it may be no offence to my Brethren we may easily note that with us the Quaker is forwardest the Anabaptist next the Independent next and the Presbyterian last no disparagement to him though all too forward in exposing themselves to needless sufferings 10. And now my Brethren if this Witness be true and the premises cannot be denied let us begin to think with our selves what it is that doth Warrant and justifie Sufferings and constitute Martyrdom 11. Certainly if propenseness to suffer makes the Martyr the Anabaptist the Quaker yea the Jesuite and the Heathen the Lunatick and the Madman even such as have neither Grace nor Reason are far before you 12. We must conclude that nothing can prefer the Sufferings of one Way or Party be it the Soberest in the World to an higher Estimation or Reward then another or indeed secure it from the offence of God our Neighbour and Self-Murther but the Justnesse of the Cause 13. Yet if the Cause be Just except the Intention be right too we fail of Martyrdome it is not the falling with a beloved party the satisfying the humour of a multitude the preserving a Name with Male-Contents the answering our own Idea of Conveniency much lesse a being revenged upon a Government we hate that makes a Martyr 'T is neither the Intention without the Cause nor the Cause without the Intention shall win and wear this Crown Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor yea though I give my body to be burned and have not charity it profiteth me nothing 14. Again Admit the Cause and the Intention both were right yet there is another way to frustrate the hopes and lose the Reward of Martyrdome for there must be a fit occasion too Necessitating the Sufferings which God approves A Learned Man against that Jesuiticall fury of daring the Magistrate assures us that the Right Martyrdome perisheth upon this ground among others that he which refuseth to defend his life by a lawful act and entertaines not those overtures of Escape which God presents him destroy's himself 15. There is a Golden Mean worth a Golden Mine fitly illustrated by the Law of the Roman Army Jus Legionis facile non sequi non fugere Neither to pursue persecution with a Neglect of our Safety or duty nor to run away from it with apparent hazard of Gods glory 16. Indeed our Supream Lord sometimes calls for our Goods our Liberties and our Lives in witness to his truth yet though he allows our Affection to himself a channel to Run in even to death when he requires he by no meanes indulgeth that Heathenish Corruption of destroying our selves When God calls we are bound to suffer and to suffer chearfully and willingly and readily but never Spontaneously or to have a hand in our own blood either by provoking our own Ruine or suffering for our own Cause or being our own Executioners This is to throw away the Talent lent us which ought thus onely to be spent when it may not be improved any other way for our Master's use 17. To suffer for Christ and the Gospels sake is indeed a favour from Heaven to you it is given in the behalf of Christ not onely to believe but to suffer for his sake but mark it must be for his sake and on his behalf and given too by God in the course of his providence not snatcht or stolne by our own Rashnesse and hastning the Occasion and Execution of it 18. God hath been pleased to set down in Scripture the Grounds and Causes upon which he Calls and we may and must submit to
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
appointed Hezeckiah's admitting to 2 Chron. 30. 17. to 21. Act. 27. 30. the Passeover the legally unclean and Paul his casting the good creatures of God into the Sea Yet we must still carefully distinguish betwixt things that are internally Materially and Naturally evil and such things as are onely extrinsically evil or unlawful onely by virtue of positive prohibitions in Scripture For what hath been said I intend onely to the latter branch viz. such things as are evil onely from without and by virtue of Gods positive precept for such things as are Intrinsically and Materially evil you have had my opinion about them already in the former Treatise If it be well heeded though a general rule may in case of necessity discharge us from present attendance upon the proper duties of the Lords Day the Ceremonial and external parts of worship yet no necessity that I can find will excuse wholly either Robbery Adultery Murther c. things Morally and Materially evil and therefore Immutabiliter mala immutably evil at least without some thing more then a general Rule viz. a special personal warrant as the Israelites had to take the goods of the Egyptians and Abraham to slay his Son Isaac Mark the opposition I will have mercy and not sacrifice the positive yields to the Natural and Moral duty the lesse necessary to the more necessasary the lesse to the greater Yet in such a case see here is a command too I will and this both affirmative I will have mercy And Negative Not sacrifice No doubt where God can have both he will but where he cannot he will have mercy though he lose sacrifice Yea rather then lose mercy he will have no sacrifice he prohibits sacrifice in such a case even prayer is turned into sin and sacrifice is an abomination But what is this mercy that the God of heaven so highly values and so strictly chargeth above his own service truly I can hardly think on 't without wonder or write it without Mat. 12. 4 5 10. astonishment it is instanced by our Ver. 11 12. Saviour in mercy not only to men but to beasts even sacrifice to the high God must give way to mercy to our beast Yet may we hence abate our wonder that the Scripture saw reason to prefix that Item go and learn what that meaneth as if little understood and lesse practised Go and learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice Is mercy to our beast so highly prized how much more is mercy to our selves to our Nation to the Church and to the souls of our people is mercy to a beast to take place of sacrifice to God how precious is mercy to all these when it meets with sacrifice and supports the Altar and when if we will not have both together we can have neither how much more desirable to God and man to have mercy and piety kiss each other then to throw away charity and duty together which God forbid But pardon my digression and I shall add but one instance more of this nature and hasten to conclude with Apology It is indeed a great one and much more insisted on then all the rest by reason that the practice was more general and the nature of it more applicable It is that famous Apostolical usage of the Jewish Ceremonies after Christs Resurrection and the first Christians following them at least in some of them viz. abstaining from bloud and things strangled till St. Augustines time for the space of neer four hundred year after Do not all consent that those Jewish Ceremonies even when the Apostles used them viz. Circumcision Shaving Vowing Purifying Abstaining from bloud and things strangled which two last they also imposed by a generall Decree I say do not even all consent that these were truly Mortua though not Mortifera dead with Christ and buried in his grave and rendred unlawfull to the Christian Churches by virtue of the consequence of his Resurrection yea in other Act. 15. 10. Col. 2. 20. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 4. 19 20. cases the use of them is directly reproved as needlesse shadows Ordinances of the World Commandments of men that turned from the truth and weak and beggarly rudiments Yet now in a second Consideration they are occasionally approved as good and necessary and accordingly as already we have said some of them imposed and many of them practised by those great examples The ends Acts 15. 2 4 6 7. indeed moving thereunto were most weighty viz. the Vnity of Brethren Winning Souls the Propagation of the Gospel the prevention of Scandal 1 Cor. 9. 19 20. 1 Cor. 9. 31. Act. 16. 3 Acts 21. 22 24 27 28. In Acts 2. 23. citing 1 Cor. 9. 20. and the danger of the Ministry through persecution Calvin is peremptory Non licuisset saith he it had not been lawful for believers to have retained those Ceremonies except they had made for Edification yet boldly addes licuit it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timothy Zanchy and Peter Martyr to name no more come neer to us in their application Peter Martyr saith that without Controversie the abstaining from Loc. com fol. 1087. Hoopero bloud and things strangled were Aaronical yet defends that Apostolical injunction for peace and the better conviction of believers and thence the Surplice Zanchy saith the forbidding of things In Phil. 1. fol. 45. 6. strangled and bloud smelt of Jewish superstition and that Pauls vow and purifying were hay and stubble at that time Yet he approves them for love and peace sake and thence perswadeth Ministers threatned by Authority to use such Ceremonies as are hay and stubble rather then to leave their Ministry He concludes from this great President Ergo multa toleranda Ministris ne pax scindatur Ecclesiarum c. therefore many things are to be born by Ministers for the Churches peace and to avoid scandals if they be neither such things nor Doctrines as strike at the Foundation But I forbear to enlarge or apply this Argument lest peradventure I be mistaken to charge my Brethren with too hard thoughts of our Churches Impositions or be thought my self to be too Friendly to any thing that 's sinful which God forbid I confesse it is a very tender point and to be touched gently both in Doctrine and Vse but though I cannot be so uncharitable as to fear our Church will try us with it or that it is the case of many of my Brethren their own judgements and lastly in though I dare not say how far I should venture in my own practice upon this principle yet I freely consent to the truth of it neither can I question it till I shall see the foresaid Scriptures better answered then I have yet done Yea I do firmly perswade my self that where there is only a Doubt concerning such unlawfulnesse of any thing enjoyned much encouragement to a readier obedience may justly be drawn from a prudent pondering the
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
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