The Grand Case.
VVhether it be Lawful to declare, as is required in the late Act, Intituled an Act for Uniformity of Publick Pra­yers.

SIR,Pa. 1st. your book doth profess to deal with such Who could Conform, but could not declare and subscribe what is required in, and by the Act of Uniformity; but you wholly pass by those men, who are against the use of the Common Prayer Book: We Sir, must needs confess our selves, to be Ministers of the Ranck with whom you deale; yet we must profess we should rejoyce to see some Satisfactory discourse directed to the latter, many of whom we know to be men of Learning and sobriety, faithful Subjects to the King, and profitable Ministers in, and to the Church of God.

2. These men we do discerne to stumble, at a Liturgie, gene­rally (throughout all Acts in Ministration of Gods Ordinances,) and Exclusively (so that men must be tyed to those forms, and none other.) Imposed, because they conceive the Modifying Gods Ordinances in, and to the Church by personal Ministerial Gifts, is the formal Act in and by which they must fulfill the Ministrey to them committed.

3. These men are, Sir, of Age sufficient to speak for them­selves, and do complain they have spoken, and are Answered by Rigour without Reason, we shall therefore leave them to them­selves, and being singled out by you, we shall adventure to speak for our selves, because for our sake it is you have been pleased to take so great pains.

4. Sir, we take it for granted, you conceive the Declarations required from us, to be Tantamount to an Oath, they are to be Solemnly made in the Congregation, by Ministers qua Ministers of the Gospel, in which virbum sacerdotis is the Sacred Rivet of that Obligation, which resulteth from such Declaration, to our Conscience in the sight of God, and his Church.

5. On this Consideration, we presume you will have Chari­table [Page 10]table apprehensions of our present Haesistancie as to the Subscrib­ing and publishing such Declarations, for it is a Snare to devoure holy things, and after Vows to make enquiry, and we shall in unbi­assed Judgements weigh your grounds on which you determine this Case, affirmatively moving in our Observation, according to the Method of your Argumentation.

Case the First.
Whether it be Lawful to declare in the words of the First Declaration.

THe first of the Declarations you distribute into two parts,Pa. 4. that which concerneth the Liturgie, and that which con­cerneth the Book of Ordination.

2. You first determine concerning the latter of these viz. The forme and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Preists, and Deacons; Pa: 45: and determine it Lawful thus to declare in this part of the Declaration which you thus enforce: Most that have Livings have subscribed this already, at their Ordination, and read their allowance of it, 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 could legally suffice. To this Sir, we say:

3. Our question is not what could legally suffice, but what may be Conscientiously done; for this must not be violated unto the satisfaction of that.

4. Your Argument, is an Argument of fact, which if ad­mitted true, will not conclude your Resolution; for you well know a facto ad jus will not follow, most have done it, therefore all may lawfully do it, is Logick; which the fear of God favour­eth not. Yet Sir:

5. We presume to gainsay your confident Assertion, That the most who had Livings, had at the writing your book, subscribed the forme and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Preists, and Deacons, required by this Act, cannot but conceive strangely of it; we do not know the most who then had Livings, and therefore cannot ask them the question; but we think they must be most of them Reordained according to the new Forme, Presbyterial Ordination had sure been very Active, and Exten­sive, [Page 12]and Presbyters were easie Wheelers, who had well learned Tempora mu tantur & nos mutamur ab illis.

6. Sir, give us leave to tell you, we had good Livings until the 24th. of August 1662. and yet we were not of the Number of those who subscribed this Book, Forme and manner at our Or­dination, and we believe most who were then in Livings, and Episcopally Ordained, were in the same common Capacity with us, and subscribed the Book which we subscribed, and sure this Book was not then born, if conceived in our Bishops brain, it was not brought into the World many days before this Book of yours which giveth it suck.

7. We must indeed confess we have been informed that the most of the Ministers in Cheshire (and it may be some other Diocess) in zeale or love to their Livings (more manifest then Conscience or discretion) did by a Monstrous implicite faith subscribe this Book before the 24th of August. These may evince something of your Argument a facto, and yet we must tell you they were not all then Ordained, and if this will conclude ad jus, we must tell you these men did at the same time, subscribe the Book of Com­mon Prayer, and both these Declarations, and all this they did in obedience to the Act for Uniformity before their eyes saw either of these Books; Ergo all may lawfully so do.

8. Moreover, Sir, we must presume to acquaint you that we know the Reading so many of thirty nine Articles, Which contain only the Doctrine of Faith, or of the Sacraments, with an omission of that which concerned the book of Consecration would Legally suffice, we are confident you will make no more of this forme and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Preists, and Deacons, save a Political though Ecclesiastical order, and that neither Doctrine of Faith nor Sacraments, and an Assent to such Articles as contain Those, and Only those is required by the Law; The Statute which dictateth Legal sufficiency.

9. We expect, Sir, you should reply to us, that the Book of Consecration Established by King Edward the Sixth and enforced by Queen Elizabeth, is much what the same with this, and therefore in subscribing that, we have subscribed this.

10. Good Sir, excuse us, sinaile nonest idem, there are in this book some Additions, and alterations which were not in that, [Page 13]and this may barr our subscription to this; Moreover, Sir, the forme of subscription required by this Law, is such as was never required before by any law, nor given by us to any form or man­ner of Ordination and Consecration. This requiring our unfeig­ned Assent and consent which we unfeignedly profess we cannot give.

11. But, Sir, You have hit the white in your conjecture, that the first part of this Declaration is that which sticketh with us, Pa. 5: (viz.) that which concerneth the Book of Common Prayer, Sect 5. and is thus expressed.

I. A. B. Do declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled, The Book of Common-Prayer, &c. For, Sir, although we could have conformed, we could not,Pag: 6: nor (considering what you have said) can we yet make and subscribe this Declaration,Sect 7: though we are not like Children affrighted with a long Title, we are not in judgement satisfied to declare concerning the Book what is required.

12. We Sir, embrace your Suada, and will not set an edge on the wordes to wound our selves; yet we must say, your gloss doth not so much as dull the edge your self hath put upon the words; you tell us the Object of our Assent and Consent is not the words but things, there are several expressions which though we could safe­ly read, yet we do not so heartily approvē them, as we seem to be re­quired, not every thing as there expressed, but every thing contained in the expressions must have our Assent.

13. Sir, We must be bold to tell you our Controversie is about Wordy things, a Liturgy, a Rubrick, a Forme, of Prayer, and the like: The question is whether these be right words, to be pronounced? and a fit form to be used, that in our Ministry we may be bound couse these and none other,? and as such Sir, your things are words and matters expressed, is the Mode of expression; to which, our Consent and Assent must be yielded; the Assent to a Creed may have the matter expressed for its object; but As­sent and Consent to a Common Prayer Book hath no adaequate object but the Mode, Words, Expressions, Forms to be used and pronounced; though Sir, we could Minister in and by some such Expressions, we must be well advised before we declare an unfeig­ned [Page 14]Assent and Consent thereunto, The Nonconformaists geneally allow the matter of Doctrine, or Petition, in the Common Prayer, expressed and contained, and have ever quarrelled the Mode, as not a full and fit wordy Direction or determination of the ministration directed in and by it.

14. But, Sir, admitting your gloss; some things contained in such expressions, & signified by such words, are such to which we cannot Assent nor consent: For Instance, in the Absolution, a word is altered which we conceive hath altered the thing, (Wherefore we beseech him to grant us true Repentance, &c. In the old Book is a formal Prayer) but (let us Beseech him in the new book) seemeth to alter it into an authoritative Sacerdotal absolution which we are not convinced to be a standing peice of solemn Worship in every ap­proach to God, or into a Ministerial exhortation of the people, and then not to stick at the impertinent Amen of the people, thereto subjoyned; we are to be convinced that the words of the Lords Prayer are the necessary and only lawful Petition for pardon of sin in every approach to God, yet that is constantly sub­joyned.

15. Again, Sir, Answer, in the Rubrick is a word, but the di­rection of popular responds; the Invitation, Accompany me with an humble voice, Analeps. Analepth. Pa. 58. and say after me, the different Characters in the Petitionary part of the Letany and Decalogue are directions for popular Conclamations, all which (be not offended if we tell you in Mr. Croftons Dialect) is so directly repugnant to the Apostles rule; Let all things be done decently and in order; who in the case of extraordinary & immediate Elolitions of the spirit allowed the people no more, save an audible Amen: That we dare not assent nor consent to things contained in these words.

16, Again, Sir, Holy is an adjunct to Table frequent in this book, and signifieth a Thing which we cannot admit; we know no holiness o [...] places or Instruments under the Gospel, yet will contend that such be handsome: Sir, Mr. Crofton whom you specially assault hath to our knowledge opposed the Prophane neglect, contempt, and abuse of the Churches: Irreverend, unman­nerly usage of the Table, reserved for the Ministration of the Lords Supper, and the Consecration of Churches, holiness of Ta­ble [...] with an equal vigor.

17. Again, Sir, The corrupt Translation of the Psalter, or Psalmes of David, pointed (unto manifest non-sence) to be sung or said in Churches, varying the Text from the Original, yea from the truth it self, rendring it contrary thereunto in those several particulars excepted against by the Non-conformists, whose loud and long clamour, would have engaged the correction of errors, so gross, and obvious, yet even these things are retained and re­turned, as things contained in and prescribed by this Common Prayer, book, and to which we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent: To this, Sir, we may and must add the corrupt Transla­tion of the fourth Commandement, (wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it) contrary to the Original Text, the Bible Translation, and the prudent correction thereof, made in the book prepared for and sent into Scotland, by our late Pre­lates: Though, Sir, we could submissively beare these things, our Reformation not being at the first perfect; yet before we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to such words, speaking things so falsely, we must have a better Argument then this (you are not concerned in the Expressions) which expressions are manifest di­rections, and significations wilfully retayned, and severely impo­sed after and against undeniable exceptions and earnest Petitions for Reformation.

18. Give us leave to add one more (viz.) those words in Bap­tisme; It is certain by Gods word that Children being Baptized dy­ing before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.

19. Sir, it is true, these are but words, and an expression, but these words contain in them a Position and Doctrine asserted with the certainty of an Article of Faith, to which we cannot consent: we can Christianly beleive the Regenerating Nature, Use, and efficacy of Baptisme, and charitably hope the salvation of such who die subjected thereunto, but that the undoubted salvation of all baptized Infants dying before they commit actual sin is ortain by the Scriptures, We confess we cannot see, nor do we beleive, we do beleive Gods Soveraign Election and Reprobation of persons, The Scripture doth declare, God loved Jacob and hated Esau, the Children being not yet born, much less Baptized, nor having done good or evil, that the purpose of God might stand according to Electi­on not of works, that all who pass under the administration of a sa­ving [Page 16]Saving Ordinance are Undoubtedly saved is not cleare from Scrip­ture, but rather the contrary, things that are revealed belong un­to us, and to our Children.

19. We cannot but hope you will in a second review of these, and the like expressions, finde our assent and consent is required to those Words, which Without forming an edge to wound our selves, do contain and prescribe things to which no rational man in his right minde can declare the same.

20. We now proceed to consider another Objection which you slate and resolve in this Case, viz.

Though we could Use the things, Pa. 7. Objection 2: it is only for peace sake, and in o­bedience to Authority, and not that we would chuse or can absolutely approve of these things indifferent.

To this Sir, you tell us we may not approve Absolutely but Comparatively.

The first you say in Charity to our Governours we conceive to be re­quired in the Declaration, Pag: 8: because it is impossible, all men should in so many perticulars, and various Circumstances be of one minde: But Sir.

21. We humbly conceive we do not break Charity to our Governors, if we conclude that they knowing all men could not in so many perticulars, and various circumstances be of one minde; and believing Unanimity to be the bond of Uniformity, did deter­mine to knock off from publique Ministration in the Church, all who were not of the same minde, and who would not Declare the same in such words as were by them prescribed.

22. Truly Sir, we see very little cause to believe the Act will allow such a Comparitive approbation of the Common Prayer book as you do expiers. It might somthing satisfy us, if we had our as­surance from our Legislators that such a Comparative approbation would satisfy the Law, but they are herein silent, and the Law giveth not sufficient Reason on which we may conclude it.

23. You say the Grounds of this Assent and consent are not speci­fied in in the Act, if by the Grounds you mean the Reasons inducing the Legislators to require such an assent and consent; we must be bold to deny what you [...]ff m [...]nd intreate you to let us know what you make there words in the Act; Now in regard that no­thing [Page 17]conduceth to the setling to peace in this Nation (which is de­sired by all good men,) not to the honour of our Religion, and the propagation thereof, then an Universal agreement in the publick wor­ship of Almighty God, and to the end Uniformity may be effect­ed, it is enacted &c. Sir, we know not how to understand an Eng­glish Law, if Universal Agreement, and Uniformity to be effected, be not declared Grounds for enjoying such a Declaration of Assent, and Consent.

24. Such a Comparitive Assent and Consent, Pa. 9:10 as you assert will not well pass as unfeigned, avoiding a severe Penalty securing a good Living, and a Legal opportunity of serving the Church, not shewing our selves cross to Authority, and delivering our Family from ruine, are bad enducements to an unfeigned Assent and Con­sent all men will understand them Temptations to a Faint un­feigned Assent and Consent, let what will be required, if this com­parison may bear weight, it shall not pass without an unfeigned Assent and Consent.

25. Sir, we see with little cause you have to quarrel,Pa. 10. that it is reported the Assent and Consent declared must be Free; For Sir, this Freedome is necessary and Essential to unfeigned: An Act Extorted will never be judged unfeigned, but suspected of Hypo­crisie; if any report it to be expressed in the Declaration, let them beare their blame, but truely we think it is unavoidably implyed.

26. Sir, To remove all scruples from us for ever, Pa. 11. you offer us the Act for the interpretation of it self, It would to some of us be worth some hundreds by the year, if you could lend us your un­derstanding also; we grant to you that the words, immediately forgoing the Declaration are these; Every Minister shall declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent, to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and none other; But what then.

27. We agree with you, we must declare our unfeigned As­sent and Consent but to what? To all things with respect to their use, and that in these words, and no other; But Sir, that this refer­eth our Assent and Consent to the using Act, and That only we cannot see, these Acts have for their Object, All things contained & prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, &c. And the use [Page 18]thereof is the End of this Assent and Consent, so that the Act puts this plain Interpretation on the required Declaration, Every Mini­ster shall Uniformely use the book, but unanimity being the spur and bond of Uniformity, they shall declare an Unfeigned Assent and Consent to all things contained and prescribed in and by the book; So that we must Use the Book with a Minde perswaded of the Truth and Goodness of the things to be used.

28. This Sense of the Law we are induced to receive be­cause.

• 1. This Declaration Respecteth the use of the Comomon Prayer, and is the Security of Unfeignedness in that Act; the use of it with­out a Minde fully Assenting to the things contained, and Freely consenting to the things prescribed in and by this Book, would be but formal, forced, and feigned; we are confident our Legislators intended to obviate all haltings in Conformity, and this is only done by requiring an unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use; up­on an unfeigned Assent and consent, to all and every thing therein contained and prescribed.
• 2. The Use of the book is not once mentioned in the Declara­tions as the Object of the Assent and consent, but the Things therein contained and prescribed are ever expressed in the Declara­tion, and the Use of it is exptessed in the Law, only as the End secured by the Declaration.
• 3. Universal agreement in the publick Worship of Almighty God, is declared to be the ground of this Law, and Uniformity is the end thereof, both which can be only effected by the unanimity of the Administrators, in the things to be by them uniformely used.
• 4. The using Act is provided for, promised, and secured by the next following Declaration in these tearms, (I do declare that I will Conforme to the Liturgie of the Church of England as it is now Established by Law,) Conforme; what is that to a Minister? But that I will Use it, and the the things contained and prescribed in and by it: This is Sir, your own sense of Conformity; and sure Sir, you will not say this second Declaration doth Actum agere do over what was done in the first Declaration, these two must differ each from other; That Declareth Assent and Consent to the Matter and Things. This to the Act and Use thereof; Sir, until your sense of the Declaration be cleared from these excep­tions [Page 19]or declared by the Legislators, give us leave to tell you We could do some things directed in the Rubrick, but cannot Assent or Consent to the direction.

We could at the Communion commend the poor to the Charity of the people, but we understand not their other Devotions to be then gathered, the affected title Offertorie maketh it look like something exploded at our first Reformation from Popery.

We could receive the Collection from the Deacons or Church-Wardens and place it on the Table, but we understand not the hum­ble presenting and placing it on the holy Table, it hereby soundeth like a Sacrifice; we could Eate and Drink the remaines of Bread, and Wine with some of the Communicants, but we know no distincti­on (Communion ended) between Consecrated and unconsecrated Elements, nor see we on what ground to Consent and Assent that the one be Eaten at the Holy Table by the Preist and Communi­cants, and the other Taken home to the Curates House.

We could hansomely cover the Bread with a Napkin, but we understand not what is meant by Reverent placing them on the Holy Table, and covering them with a Linnen Cloath, nor can we Assent or Consent thereunto.

29. Reverend Sir, Our Fathers were, and our selves might be content in some things to Symbolize with Rome, when our face was from hers, but we cannot unfeignedly Assent and Consent unto such Simbolizing with her; Now most men think, and Nonconformists boldly affirme our face is towards her, yet we pray for the peace and Glory of Englands Church, that the Gospel may in her Flourish in Power and Purity.

Case II.
VVhether it be lawful declare in the words of the second De­claration.Case. 2th. Pa. 13:14

1. SIr, we must tell you, The many words in this Declaration affright us not, yet we cannot but be affected to observe the persons who quarreled at the Covenant, to impose an Oath, or Declaration Tantamount, so full of words, Turpe est Do­ctori.

2. But we consent to attend your motion in taking this De­claration in peices, and you distribute it into three parts, that which concerns the Taking Armes against the King, Conformity, and the Oath, called the Solemne League and Covenant, in each of which we shall consider your resolution and Reasons; The first part you divide into these two Cases.

Case V.
Whether it be Lawful to declare that we will Conforme,Case 5th.. Pa. 19:20 to the Litturgie of the Church of England, as it is now by Law Established.

THis Sir, is the second part of the Declaration to which you have said little, and we shall say less, only mind you that this declaring Our Assent and Consent to the use of the Liturgie; the foregoing Declaration doth determine Our unfeigned Assent and consent to the Things and Matters to be used; that unanimity, is the spring and spurr, ground and guard of this promised Unifor­mity.

2. But Sir, we hasten after you to the Consideration of the third part of this Declaration, which concerneth the Solemn [Page 23]League and Covenant, which is, indeed, the Great Mountaine in our way, to be removed by a faith of Miracles; This you do again divide into three parts, its Obligation, its unlawfulness in its self, and its Opposition to the Laws and Liberties of this King­dome, but your Resolution is to the particular Cases follow­ing.

Case VI.
Whether we may lawfully declare in these words,Case 6th. Pa. 221:23. I do bold these lies no Obligation on me nor any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Cove­nant, to endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State.

1 TO this, Sir, you tell us it is No great venture to say such who have taken the Covenant may thus declare, This we confess is facile dictum, but the quod demonstrandum restat, the convinceing demonstration of this hath made many learned men sweat, and appeareth, Hic labor, hoc opus, a knot cut by the sword of Authority, whilst it cannot be loosed by Religious Reason.

2. We consent to your concessions to the contestors for the Covenant (viz.) That the Covenant illegally taken and given may bind: Secondly, That it binds not to alteration of the Government of State: Thirdly, That the unlawful matter made it void, ipso facto: Fourthly, That Mr. Crofton, and the Covenanters-plea do grant that the unlawful matter dath void the Covenant ipso facto. But now Sir, give us leave to call for your strong Reasons.

3. Here Sir, you pitch, and your work is to prove that the Co­venant so far as it engageth the Takers of it against Church Govern­ment to the Exstirpation, or change of it is unlawful, and sinful in the matter of it; This made good Nobis eris magnus Apollo: We shall therefore with all dilligence observe your motion in maintenance hereof.

4. Your first onset is by Dr. Saundersons distinction of Iuramen­tum illicitum de se, & per accidens, and you grant the matter of the Covenant, is not simply and of it self unlawful; your Antago­nist [Page 24]lye strongly entrenched in this, and thence defend the Cove­nant against all other assaults, it had been a noble Enterprise to have beaten them at this weapon; but ad impossibile nemo tenea­tur: We joyn issues with you on the second, and wish we may see you may prove the Covenant Ratione subjecti by the accident of its Takers condition and Capacity is unlawful in the matter of it; Yet Sir,

5. We must make bold to minde you that the learned Casuist (on whom you depend in this Case and Determination) hath determined with an Ordinary, his words are Hac Iurament a ordi­narie non obligant, or dinarié dico quia fortasse possunt dare Casus in quibus Iuramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vo­cationis adversari, & si non debuerit sussepi suseptum tamen potest obligari; Sir, we study loosing, not binding in this great Case, yet cannot but say on all sides the Covenant is confessed to be an ex­traordinary Oath, and it is a question whether it can be brought within your Casuists Ordinarie, the advocates of the Covenant think it no hard taske to bring the Covenant into your Casuists Exception, and so conclude Suscepi non debuerit susceptum tamen obligat, we leave it to them if they dare to make it good, our work is to weigh what you say to the contrary.

6. Addressing your self to your proof you have most prudent­ly waved the Ius divinum of your Church Government, which to affirme Non multum ab insania differt; you consider the Co­venanters as single Persons, or as vinted in the great body of the Na­tion; Now Sir, your field fills us with a reviving murmer, of of which alas we must sit down and sing.

Expectata seges vanis illusit arenis.

Case VII.
Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church Government by vertue of the Co­venant.Case 7. a. 26

1. SIR, This (you say) seemeth much to be the proper Case, be­cause the Parliament which imposed the Covenant are dissol­ved and become private persons, But Sir

2. Do you not here build on a Petio principii? That the long Par­liament is not dissolved, we dare not say; but it hath been said: and those words in the Statute which concerneth their continuance, whatsoever shall happen or be done to the dissolving them shall be void and null, are a stone at which our Consciences cannot but stumble whilst we are in obedience to present Laws submissively silent.

3. You conclude the Covenant to be onely private and personal an obligation on single persons: but Sir, Mr. Crofton hath affirmed,An [...]alepsis Sect 6. it is publick and National, Iuramentum reale obliging all the Nation, and all after-Generations, fide Anglorum thereby engaged. This he hath demonstrated beyond our capacity of contradiction and enforced by the consentient judgement of 600. Divines most of them yet liv­ing. You, Sir, are pleased to tell us, you have not used one Argument answered or prevented by Mr. Crofton; yet Sir,Pa. 13 [...]. you nor any other have not so much as attempted an Answer to this Position of Mr. Croftons which stands intire and unaslaul [...]ed.

4. You suppose each single person who swear the Covenant in such a capacity, as to be concludent by your subsequent Arguments; The Truth is, our Affections are such, as make us wish it were so, but to satisfie our Consciences in abjuring (you are angry at that word, we will therefore say disclaiming,) the Obligation of the Coverant, we must have our Jadgements convinced it is so, because our De­claration doth discleim the Obligation of the Covenant on our selves or any other person; which cannot be done if we conceive any person to have taken it who is not in the same common capacity with our selves.

5. Upon these ungranted Principles you conclude, for such to [Page 26]stand ingaged by a publick Covenant against a setled Government, to endeavour the exstirpation or change of it, is palpably sinful; both as such a Covenant, and such endeavours are against the Right of the King; the Lawes of the Land, the priviledges of Parliament, Liberties of the Subject; and former obligations laid on the Na­tion, all Arguments of weight; but so sick of a Noli me tangere, that they sound in our ears, a Ne plus ultra. Edge-tools which make your Antagonists cry Tolle legem, & fiat disputatio Who dare touch at them, did not your sencures of us as Fures, Felones, proditores de se cut our consciences and constrain our consideration and utmost endeavours of conviction; we therefore affirming nothing, will ad­venture to weigh your following demonstration of the sinful mat­ter of the Covenant in reference to those particulars.

Case X. Whether the covenanting to endeavour the exstirpation of Epis­copal Government,Case 10th. pa. 37. be against the Lanes, and consequently sinful.

1. YOur resolution to this Case is most-what a recapiculation of your former Argument obnoxious to much exception, but we resolve not to stumble at termes and expressions, but to weigh the strength of Reason, seeking satisfaction to our conscien­ces, that if possible we might again recover our Livings, this (we note) urgeth your second Argument, to prove the matter of the Covenant unlawful because against the Laws.

2. You observe, Mr. Crofton, and the Covenanter plea deny Episcopal Government to be Established by Law, which, say you, to prove, is a taske impossible. That is true, for they cannot prove a Negative, if you make good the contrary you do the work as pro­per for you, as Negation is proper to them, Affirmanti incumbit pro­batio,

3. But,Pa. 39. Sir, your plain distinction will not serve the present turne, it is this, we endeavour against Law when the things is Established by Law, or cannot be Established without Law: Pray Sir, is it against Law for Subjects, much more Legislators to endaevour the altera­tion, yea the abrogation, of some Laws and things thereby establi­shed; this is that your Antagonists affirm must be proved and brought into the conclusion to prove the matter of the Covenant a­gainst Law, and consequently sinful: May not an obedient Son of the Church, burdened with some Administration, authorized by Law, endeavour by all just means and swear he will so do, to have that Law repealed, if so how poor is your plain distinction.

4. But you doubt not to assert that such an endeavour to Extri­pate Church Government as was Covenanted was against the Law both Antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent, this done would much availe; we shall attend your evidence.

Case XI. Whether the present Government of the Church were Esta­blished by Law in England, Case 11th. pa. 41. before the taking of the Cove­nant.

1. TO this, you profess you have no insight into the Laws, but so much is in the surface of them, that you won­der at the doubt; we do Sir, believe you; for in the Index of the statute book, there is so large a Table of Bishops, Arch-Bishops, &c. that it may well be wondred that any should doubt whether this Government be established by Law. But had you taken the pains to read and consider the nature of the Laws, you would find Fronti nulla fides, your insight would find wanting what a superfi­cial verive of the surface concludeth present.

2. The fallacious use of, established by law, is in your own fancy your Antagonists never did limit it to an appointment of Statute, but have traversed the Canon, Civil and Common Law, and in none they find an establishment by Law, but have put the asser­tors thereof to prove it, which task you have undertaken, and thus you argue.

3. Is it not pritty to observe that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice,Pa. 42.as to question, whether Episcopacy be establi­shed by Law, when Episcopacy hath so long had an hand in establi­shing the law it self.

4. This Argument hath, Sir, little force, we shall not be laugh­ed into a perswasion, that Episcopacy is established by Law; and such establishment is a non sequitur to the Legislative Act of Bi­shops; it cannot be both cause and effect, its praeexistency to the Law doth suppose unto it a more sublime principle then the Law, which we know not unless it be that of Nature, or Scripture, or (as the Covenanters-plea doth well observe) the Romane Papacy, which forinsecal power existing in England as other Nations Usur­ped a Legislative power, which it yet holdeth by this Episcopal root.

5. Sir, Would it not be pritty to hear a Jesuite retort and prove [Page 34]your Argument, crying is it not pritty to observe learned men, and Prelates are so far subdued to question whether the papacy were established by Law, when the Papacie for a thousand years established yea made lawes to Christian Nations, and disposed their Crowns an Scepters; if laughing will do it the Papacy hath a good claim, and you seem to us to admit succession in fact, a sufficient title against the most manifest obtrusion, invasion, and usurpation which can be admitted.

6. Such Divines who found Monarchie in nature, and proclaim Monarchs to be above the Law, will give you little thanks for this Argument, which estateth their Title on an establishment by law, because they are chief makers of the Law; but you proceed to further demonstration of an establisnment by law.

7. You say,Pa. 43.44. you will venture to strike this scruple dead, by a distinction or two.

8. Your first distinction is this, The law establisheth by appoin­ting it de novo, or by allowing and granting it on all occasions. The first you yeild; the second you hold upon, and thus inferr, Thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church not onely by those special lawes which relate unto it, but indeed in eve­ry law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spiri­tuall.

9. A fair Establishment, most lawes do indeed express the as­scent and advice of the Lords Spiritual; we hope, Sir, you did not forget Lords-Abbots, and Lord Cardinal were some of them.

But, Sir, is every Hypothesis in law an undeniable position? Will Arguments, a facto, conclude ad jus? and ab esse a jure esse? and yet, Sir, this only concludes for Bishops, what becometh of Deans and Chapters, Commissaries and Chansellors, &c. Are these Lords spiritual in the sence of the Law; they do indeed ex­ercise a spiritual Lordship in the Church; Will an Argument from persons of existence in such a capacity conclude an Esta­blishment of things? Lords Spiritual were in Parliament, Ergo, the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, and that Hyrarchie were established by Law, will you stand by this Argument?

10. That Bishops, or Lords Spiritual were in Parliament, De facto, is granted, but quo jure, is the question, the Romans will [Page 35]tell you by the Popes Spiritual Power, and the Covenanters think how ever they are there preserved they were first planted by that Forinsecal Power.

11. Your next Distinction is this;Pa. 4. This Government as to its office is before the Law, but as to its exercise it is Established by Lawes, for its Names, Iurisdictions Crimes and Punishments, are mentioned in the Lawes.

11. The first of these we allow you, but tell you that is the thing in debate, for the Establishment of a Government is the Creation of such an Office, in Execution of which, men shall have the Power, Titles, Names, and Honors of such Officers: And herein your Government must be yielded to be the Popes Creatute; for we find no English lawes which ever framed or founded the same.

12. As to the Exercise of this Government in its way and order, by Courts, Canons and visitations, we must tell you we find its names, Crimes and some punishments in our Lawes) yet we question whether it were Established by Law) because we find these things are inserted into our Lawes) to limit, regulate and restraine the same, which existing from a Forinsecal Power, grew exorbitant, and called for Boundaries, from our municipal lawes which rides it with a prohibition as its bridle, and scourg­eth it with a premunire; Both which Writts do know it to be a Power and Government distinct from that Established by Law.

13. Sir, This is far from an Establishment by Law, be not of­fended if we tell you Usury hath as good an Establishment by law as this amounteth unto, it is limited, regulated, restrained by law, and kept under the Cudgel of the Statutes against Extorti­on. But I pray you is it so established by law, that the oppressed poor man may not swear, he will in his Place and Calling endea­vour the Exstirpation of biting Usury or pinching Prelacy.

14. Your third Distinction is this Government Established by a Sta­tute immediately appointing such a Forme, Pag: 45: or immediately by a Statute impowring a Person to Commissionate such Governours to the Church.

15. The first of these you grant, your Government hath not, nor do you prove the second your Argument doth at most con­clude for Governours, and the Question is about the Frame of Government: Your Proof is for Governors, indefinite, and we [Page 36]have told you the Supremacy of the King may exist in, and ope­rate by, Church Governours under other Appellations; We do not say, men must Exstirpate Governors, they may subsist, when their capacities are changed, but a full Establishment of this Spe­cial Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. we are as ready to seek, and as farr from finding now we have read your distinctions, as we were before.

15. What you urge concerning the Common Law, common usage is so fully obviated by the Covenanters-Plea, that we shall say nothing to it; onely let us tell you; Prescription is a poor Fence to Usurpation, and a bad Guard for a Power in its origo manifestly Forinsecal. Usury is a common usage, yet no man will say, it is sinful and against law; for men to swear in their Places and Callings, they will endeavour to exstirpate an evil custome though a common usage.

Case XII. Whether the Covenant taken first can oblige against a future Law?Case 12. Pa. 47.

1. IN this Case you urge an Establishment of Episcopal Go­vernment, by a Law made since the Covenant was taken; But, Sir, you herein move upon a Petitio principii, and conclude what we must make bold to deny.

2. We have perused the late Statutes, and finde indeed Bish­ops restored to some priveledges which had been denyed to them, and this Government is guarded against some Batteries to which it was obnoxous, both these are speciallities, under which the Government is left to stand on its old bottome, for it hath not received any more express Establishment then it had before; Now, Sir, if Usery, should by a new Law, be restored to Eight per Cent. we hope it had not acquired any new Establishment which should make the endeavour of its exstirpation any more sinful then before.

3. We must make bold to tell you, you read without book when you say this Government is Established by the Act for Unifor­mity, [Page 37]that so much as endeavours of alteration are prohibited, & Mini­sters are bound to declare, they may not so much as endeavour against it; For Sir simple endeavour is not by this Law prohibited, not is this to be declared against, which certainly were destructive to the liberty of the Subject, and priveledge of Parliament, who must have a freedome to the alteration of Laws as they prove in­convenient.

4. This Law doth binde Ministers to disclaime a principle, not to disavow a power in themselves, to declare that the Covenant doth oblige to endeavour, not that endeavour shall be simply un­lawful, they are not barred from lawful endeavours on good ground, and woful experience of the evil of this Government, but from improving the Covenant to provoke the same; from a special, to conclude generally, is no good Argumentation.

5. Your first proposition failing, doth save us the labour of dis­cussing the second, how far an Oath may binde against Law; we shall only tell you that your Antagonists cry out that you con­clude this also in our Case on a Petitio principii, taking for gran­ted what they deny, As:

• 1. That this Governmet is in it self Lawful, which they say is sinful.
• 2. That inconveniences may not necessitate and warrant an alteration, and lawful endeavour to alter, or remove a thing in it self lawful, and by Law Established.
• 3. That this Oath was private and personal by fingle men, and so square to the Case of your Jesuites; which they say,
  Analeps. Analepth. Pa. 133. Sect 6.
  and Mr. Crofton, as we before told you, hath averred to be publick and National, sworn by the people Collectively, and Distribu­tively considered.
• 4. That the Oath of the people so sworn, layeth no barr on the Laws, Decrees, or Act of the Magistrate, the contrary whereto Mr. Crofton hath asserted from the Oath of Israel hind­ring Sauls Law, and Oath against Ionathan, to which you have given nothing in answer, we think few Polititians will conclude the subjection of Political Children to be so fully and formally puerile, as you suppose it is.

6. We, Sir, insist not on these things, because we undertake not to become your opponents, we only crave leave to let you [Page 38]know, Oaths are sacred things and Post-laws are a ready Papacie to absolve them, according to your Divinity, we have sworn al­legiance to, and an acknowledgement of the Kings Supre­macy, and cannot be willing his Majesties Subjects should be made to beleive a Law by a Queen Marys Parliament will ab­solve their Consciences and Oath. Yet we are not convinced that it is simply unlawful for Princes to give up their power, or part thereof unto some forreigne Potentate, but we for bear be­cause these strings are not struck with Prudence or Piety; These affirmed sound Atheism and Irreligion, these denied sound Trea­son, or at least Sedition.

Case XIII. Whether submitting to the Penalty annexed,Case 13th Pa. 60. be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in the point of Consci­ence.

1. SIr, To what you urge against us in this Case, we say, First you suppose that to be in the Law which we finde not to be in it, as we have before noted.

2. you state your Case to narrow, when you confine it to a single Act, of obedience to a single Law, we well know who so suffers by a Law, suffereth as a transgressour of the Law, which is fulfilled by punishing him, whose Act was not conforme unto it; The Case, Sir, we conceive ought to be thus stated.

Is not a quiet and chearful submission to the Penalty assigned by a Law commanding an Act which conscience (judging sinful) doth inhibit a formal Act of that Consciencious obedience, Christianity bindeth us to yeild to all Superiors.

This Sir was the honour of the Christian Leagions, that they were willingly led by droves to the Slaughter-house, and did not run into Mutinious and Rebelious routes, though armed with power when commanded to sin, Christians as Christ have a formal obedience unto the Cross; This Sir is yet our Comfort, though we be transgressours to this single Law, we are by Loyalty [Page 39]and sincere obedience resigned in the to will of our Soveraigne Lord the King, and Conscience to do what is commanded, or cheerfully to suffer what is adjudged, is the security of human peace, and order.

Case XIV. VVhether to endeavour the Exstirpation of Church Govern­ment by virtue of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Laws to the contrary,Case 14th. Pa: 67: be not against the Priviledge of Parliament and consequently sinful.

1. THis Sir you assirme, and about it make many words, which yet reach not the least satisfaction to our minds because you take for granted things denyed.

First, That the Covenant was an Oath private and personal; good Sir will you please to tell us, whether England is not a sub­ject capable of a real Oath, as well as other Nations, consider the nature of a real publick & National Oath, may it not binde all Successours to, or against some specials? Was the Law of Saul, the Princes of Israel against the Gebeonits to be justifyed? Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of Ioshua, and the Princes with him? Pray? Resolve Mr. Crofton that the Solemne League and Covenant is not Iuramen­tum, real.

Again, Sir, is the Conatus of a private capacity consistent with the freedome of all Parliaments? This so pinched upon you that you are constrained to cry, then keep your Covenant, yet you call on us to declare we are not bound to endeavour.

Sir, weigh well these two, that Conventus Anglorum may binde themselves and successours, and lawful endeavour is sui juris to every man, and evince the Injustice or violence done to priveledge of future Parliaments if you can.

Case XV. VVhether it be lawful to endeavour the Exstirpation of E­piscopacy by vertue of the Covenant,Case 15th. Pa. 74. notwithstanding the Act of Parliament.

IN this Case, Sir, we cannot but observe you do, Magno conatu sudare de verbo, sweat much at the Word Endeavour; endea­vouring to avoid it rather than understand or explain; After which you not only leave us unsatisfyed, but engaged more then you found us.

2. Sir, You cannot possibly deny but that there are more wayes of Endeavour then by Violence and Sedition, though you keep such only in your eye, and have an heart so affected against the Co­venant, that you could wish there were no other; and seem pin­ched that your Antagonists do explain Places and Callings, to li­mit Endevour to Acts just and lawful, Yet you are constrained to tell us to such Endeavours the Covenant doth binde, and the Act doth not require us to disclaime.

3. You have professed to explain the meaning of this word Endeavour, and appear angry that none hath done it before, and yet you have not given us any Etimologie, Acception, or Inter­pretation of the word; only you have pitched on some special Acts, by which endeavour may operate, which in the height of prejudice you improve to shew your dissaffection to the Cove­nant without giving the least satisfaction to those for whose sake you profess you have written.

4. After all that is said by you, we must enquire if any of the Acts of endeavour, you observed be lawful; or, if there be lawful Acts of endeavour, which you have not observed; Must we dis­claime them? Are not these positive duty? You have determi­ned these in the Affirmitive; But Sir, we will goe to the ut­most: Is it no possible for those very Acts which bear in your eyes the worst aspect to become lawful endeavours, (viz.) The Minister to preach, the Lawyer to plead, and the Souldier to fight against Episcopacy, if by any previous endeavours, King [Page 41]and Parliament can be perswaded to exstirpate this Government, and they make Laws to pluck it up, but its subjects are stubborne, and Rebell-rasing Bellum meer Episcopal, so that lawful Autho­rity requireth these Acts, from these Agents in their places and Callings to the utmost of their power, and unto their lives end. Sir, the limitation of Endeavour in the Covenant is so square to Reason and Religion, that rage may rend it Religious, reason can­not release the Covenaters from it.

5. Sir that we may if possible obtain satisfaction, we shall give our apprehensions of this Clause in the Covenant, that if you can evince our error or its sinfulness, you may please to do it.

6. Sir, The words of the Covenant are these, Wee shall in like manner, that is, sincerely, really, and constantly, through the Grace of God in our Places and Callings, endeavour the Extirpation of Pre­lacy, viz. Church Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chauncellors and Commissionaries, Deanes, Deanes and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchic.

7. This promise containeth in it the Act Endeavour, the Ob­ject Exstirpation, the quaile of the Act sincerely, really, and con­stantly, Through the Grace of God in our Places and Callings.

8. The Act is Endeavour, an Act general and indefinite, a word easy and plain to be understood, and of a large Significa­tion, an Act within the reach of every mans Arme, to be done by men in any Calling, or Capacity; and able to employ the ut­most power and skill, the Latin word is Conamen, or Conatus, the Greek [...] or [...] Temptation, and in the Hebrew [...] acquisition by all or any means, it Signifieth a personal Act, the least personal Act, and the utmost personal Act what we can, and all that we can do, it intendeth not the effect, but a motion towards the effect; the least motion of our selves, and Natural power to that effect, a simple Conari to which Manibus pedibus (que) is an Adjunct like that in Terence, timet ne se deseras p. egone istuc conari queam, I cannot so much as endeavour it, this is the Act promised generally and indefinitely, without those special Acts by which it must operate.

9. This Act may be feeble feigned Language, and by sinful [Page 43]means, It is therefore in the Covenant qualified with sincerity, reallity, and constancy, such as may be animated by the Grace of God, and must be lawful in our places and callings; So that un­lawful Acts of Endeavours are abandoned, and all Hypocrisie, Luke-warmness, and Inconstancy of Endeavour are to be avoi­ded.

10.Analeps. Analepth. Pag: 37: Upon the consideration of the Act Endeavour, and its quali­fication, We see not how Mr. Croftons interpretation can be avoi­ded; We have in the Covenant sworn with very much caution, not to effect, but in our Places and Callings, to endeavour: But this must not be by a bare wish for purity, and then welcome corruption, a consent to Reformation, and then a compliance with Superstition, a faint refusal, & then free reception of the estate to be Exstirpated, no it must be a stout and strenuous endeavour, withal force and fervour, as Dr. Saunderson in this case well no­teth; Obligat hoc genus juramenti non ad effectum quem supponi­mus esse impossibilem, sed ad conatum quam dieu spes ulla superat; imo quo plures & majores abijeiuntur difficultates, eo abnixius co­nandum, & fortioribus annimis ob intendum est.

11. You see, Sir, the promise in the Covenant explained; and it is plain that the Covenanted-endeavour is by the Declaration to be disclaimed, nor will this disclaimer admit of any sence in which you endeavour to construe it; the Covenant bindeth to a general and indefinite endeavour, yet this, Ministers must as ge­nerally and indefinitely disclaim and declare against, which we (considering endeavour is sui juris to the meanest Subject, and most private man; and this endeavo covenanted, must be order­ly and regular in their places, and callings; and Religious, through the Grace of God) cannot consent to disclaim and delare a non Obligation on them who swear it.

12. Sir, Having considered the Act, we bear such affection to Episcopacy, that we would have passed by the Object of this Co­venanted Act; You are pleased to tell us it is a change in the Go­vernment: By altering some things and letting the frame stand, not of the Government by pulling it down; And this sence you say you gather from some moderate Covenanters, who openly declared on a solemn occasion, that might they see any material alteration in the Government, they should hold themselves sa­tisfied as to the Covenant in that point,

13. Sir, Can the Declaration of single persons though Cove­nanters determine a sence upon the Covenant, which the Logi­cal resolution, and Grammatical construction of the words will not allow; We cannot but commend Mr. Croftons Candor (be his Prudence what it will) nor do we see how his Interpretation can be fairly avoided, Prelacy (a terme though general in its sig­nification, yet by long and common appropriation as obvious to vulgar capacity to denote a special kind of Government in the Church, as Tyranny in the Common-Wealth.) restrained by a particular denomination, Hierarchy and specifical description of its enumerated parts, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Commissaries, Chancellors, and other Officers de­pending thereupon, not in sensu composite (that the removeal of any one Officer might serve,) but sensu complexo the Govern­ment containing these is to be exstirpated not by mutation, mu­tilation, limitation, or regulation, but utter abolition, una cum stirpe evellere.

14. Sir, If the sence of the Covenant were so far as you do suggest, we can the less declare its non obligation; for that is, to disclaim what you cannot but on as good and true, and to de­termine it doth not bind, wherein it is manifest it doth bind those who took the same, and your self dare not deny its Obli­gation.

Case XVI. Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Sub­ject in this particular,Case 16th Pa. 89. and therefore sinfull in its matter.

1. THis you affirme, and to make good your Argument, you tell us of the hard usage the Bishops met withal, being thrown out of the House of Lords, &c. But, Sir, What is this to the Covenant, they were thus used before the Covenant formed, and by the consent of the King; if they met with In­justice and Violence shall the Covenant be blamed, it bound to no such thing, though to the an endeavor of Exstirpati­on [Page 44]of the Government, by all just and lawful means.

2. You tell us the Bishops and their dependents were a society, had and their Free-holds and Interests. But, Sir, remember it was, Qua tales as Bishops, and sure, Sir, you will not deny this as all other societies are fully, Sui Iuris, to Parliament, as to their very esse, as well as Jurisdiction or Administration, to be wholly dis­posed at their will, and by their Power; We cannot beleive, Sir, you will in cooll blood, and on second thoughts say, that for the King or Parliament to swear to Exstirpate any society, it is as if a man should swear to bring me his Neighbours Horse; Mr. Crofton hath averred Episcopacy to be more fully and formally the Right of Parliament or King to dispose of.

3. You say, The Petition of Right tells us, it is contrary to the Liberty of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament; But, Sir, Mr. Crofton hath told you and us, that the Petition of Right tells us no such thing,Annaleps. Annalepth: Pa. 115: he saith the words of the Petition ate these; Whereas many of them have had an Oath Administred unto them, not Warrantable by the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm; And he Affirmes this Petition com­plaineth of some special Oath, Ex officio, or for discovery of the Subjects Oath, he further tells us that Colledges and Corpora­tions, constituted by the Kings Charter, give Oaths, which the Petion of Right complained not against, and yet they were not imposed by Act of Parliament; We do not believe you will say these are against the Liberty of the Subject. Sir herein we must tell you your Argument is manifestly prevented by what Mr. Crofton had said, and so indeed in most that you have written on this, as on your other Cases.

Case XVII. Whether the matter of the second Article in the Covenant be not against former Obligations,Case 17th: Pa. 98. and consequently Sin­ful.

1. THis you affirm, and to prove it, you pretend to a three­fold Obligation, to which the Covenant is repugnant, viz. To obey Authority, to keep our Oaths and Promises, and to serve the Church.

2. The first you build upon your former Principles, that the matter of the Covenant is against the Right of the King, the Laws of the Land, Priveledge of Parliament, and liberty of the Subject; which we conceive are all laid in the dust, your Conclusion must needs fall with your Promises.

3. For the Oaths and Promises which were first upon us, you specifie the Oath of Allegiance, Supreamacy, and the Protesta­tion: 5 May 1641. In all which you are so fully prevented by Mr. Crofton, who hath noted them to be consistent with the Co­venant, that we cannot but wonder you should with such confi­dence impose on us, without a full answer to what is said by him.

4. One thing we must not pass, viz. Your Observation that the Protestation, was imposed by the same power, and taken by the same persons, generally who took the Covenant, which is enough by Mr. Croftons Logick, to make it publick and National; Sir, we believe Mr. Crofton would not stick to allow you the Na­tionality of the Protestation; yet we observe it wants one ma­terial thing in Mr. Croftons account, necessary to constitute Iura­mentum reale, and therein it doth differ from the Covenant: The Protestation was sworn with an I. A. B. by that personal name, which perished with the Takers thereof; but the Covenant was sworn by those real Capacities, Noble-men, Knights, Gentle­men, Citizens, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, which pass, and will pass to our Successours, whilst England is England.

4. Your last Oligation is our service to the Church, superse­ded by the Covenant; But, Sir, you do not tell us whether it be Natural or by Accident, mans Corrupt nature interposing be­tween that Act and our Service to the Church. Sir, we conceive the best of Actions may be as capable of an Impeditivum boni, by the intervenient inhibiting Decree of Caesar; and we are to be satisfied, that in that case, the guilt of non service to the Church is chargaable on our Soul, we may not sin that good should come thereof.