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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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.

Resol.

1. WHen Alcibiades, a young Gen­tleman of Athens, was afraid to speak before the Multitude, Socrates, to put him in heart, ask'd him, fear you such a one? and names one of the Multi­tude to him; no, saith Alcibiades, be is but a Trades-man; fear you such a one, saith he? and names a second; no, for he is but a Peasant; or such a one? and names a third, no, for he is but an [Page 14] ordinary Gentleman. Now, saith So­crates, of such as these doth the whole Multitude consist.

2. I confess, there are an heap of se­veral things required in this second De­claration. And perhaps, their multitude may somewhat scare us. Yea, hence, I have reason to believe, that some are offended that hardly ever read, much lesse examined the particulars of it.

3. But be not afraid, draw neer, and take the Declaration into its parts, and consider of them one by one: its possible, they may not be so formidable as we are apt of our selves, or as others would have us to fancy. Its possible we may thus re­ceive encouragement, with Alcibiades, and finde a way to escape the Temptati­on.

This Declaration concerns three gene­ral heads. Taking Armes against the King: conformity to the Liturgy: and the Oath, called the Solemn League and Covenant.

5. In the first part of this Declaration, concerning the taking Armes against the King, we are required to declare; First, that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King. [Page 15] Secondly, that we abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Autho­rity against his person, or against those that are Commissionated by him. Accordingly there arise two Cases.

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?

Tis 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 [Page 17] 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.

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 [Page 20] 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.

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, tis 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 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 [Page 25] 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, [Page 26] 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.

Resol.

THis seems to be much the proper Case, seeing the Parliament it [Page 27] 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.

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. 'Tis against the Kings Right of [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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 'tis enough, [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] the plot were laid to down with the Bishops, whether the King would con­sent or not, or what ere come on't.

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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] (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 [Page 36] 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.

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 [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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.

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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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; tis 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, from the King alone, from time to time accordingly.

8. For the Common Law, common usage which is Common Law, will no doubt plead prescription, and establish this form of Government over us. A Government (as a very learned man affirms) may be established by Law, as well by consent and submission on the peoples Part; as by express suffrage: [Page 46] Quid interest suffragio populus volunta­tem suam declaret an Rebus & facto? Jul.

Thus we have found the Covenant to be against a Government that was established by the Laws of the Land, be­fore it was imposed or taken, and in that sence, against the Laws of the Land, and consequently so far sinful, and not obliging.

10. But however this will passe, certainly there is Law made since the Covenant, that is plain enough, and will surely hold us: none can encourage any further doubt, but that the pre­sent Church-Government is so far esta­blished by the Act for Ʋniformity, as that it requires every Minister to de­clare, that he is not bound to endeavour a change of it.

11. So that if the Covenant should be yet binding on us, to endeavour a change of this Government, it should oblige us to violate the Law, and con­sequently to sin: therefore, whatever we thought before, we may be satisfi­ed that the Covenant cannot oblige us so far now, viz. contrary to express [Page 47] Law. But we shall put the Case, and examine it more at large.

Resol.

1. THis Case being weighty, and indeed much our own; I shall set my self, with all sincerity, as in the sight of God, to give it a full and clear resolution, according to the best of my own reason, and the judgement of un­interested and learned Casuists.

2. That Episcopal Government is re­stored by Laws made since the Kings return, viz. in that which was taken from it, its place in the Parliament, and its former Jurisdiction: also, that this present Church-Government is so far established by the Act for Ʋniformi­ty; [Page 48] that it is expresly owned and al­lowed; that so much as endeavours against it are prohibited, that it is no less then the loss of our Livings, not to declare that we are not bound to en­deavour the alteration of it. These things are plain enough.

3. The great question here is, whe­ther these Laws, made in the behalf of Episcopal Government, after the ta­king of the Covenant against it, can dis­charge the Subjects from the Obligation of the Covenant so far.

4. To this I do not fear to answer (Episcopal Government being in it self not sinful) in the affirmative: neither do I find any noted Casuist to contra­dict me.

5. The sum of my reason for the affirmative you have in this plain Ar­gument.

The Covenant to do that which may Prop. 1. become unlawful, cannot bind, when the thing sworn (abstracted from our Covenant) is become unlawful; for then the Covenant becomes a bond of iniquity, and should bind beyond that known and generally approved rule, [Page 49] that no Covenant binds further, and therefore not longer, then we lawfully may; and in the words of the Covenan­ters plea, make us debtors to hell.

6. I am far from the Opinion of Navarr, Sylvester, Layman, and those that affirm that no man is further bound by an Oath, then he would have obliged himself if he had foreseen the ill conse­quences of it; which is indeed in their latitude a very dangerous rule, and plainly destructive to humane society.

7. Yet no Casuist, but with Sanches, will allow the Rule, when thus limited; that what would at first have hindred our obliging our selves, had it been fore­seen, or had it first hapned, will also discharge us, when known or come to pass, from the obligation to the per­formance of it, if it be by reason that the matter is inhabilis ad producendam obligationem, that is, if the thing be­come unlawful, and consequently weak and unable to produce an obliga­tion, as before.

But to Covenant to endeavour theProp. 2. extirpation of Episcopal Government, though it might be thought to be lawful [Page 50] to do then, yet now it appears it was to Covenant to do that which might become unlawful, viz. by the Laws, restoring that Government, and pro­hibiting all endeavours for the extirpa­tion or alteration of it.

2. Therefore, if it did oblige so far before, which cannot be granted, yet it can now oblige so far no longer ex­cept it have power beyond Authority, and can warrant disobedience to the Laws of the Land.

3. The reason of the whole lies in that excellent Rule of Dr. Ames, a Rule not questioned by any that I have heard of. De Rebus ita Mutabilibus, ut rem promissam faciant illi citam, sub­intelligitur, si res in eodem statu per­manserint, that is, in the fairest and most uncexeptionable interpretation, if the change of the state of things do not render the thing sworn or promised sin­ful or unlawful.

4. Now it may be worth the exa­mining, what unlawfulness can de no­vo be contracted by the change of the state of things mutable?

5. Certainly not an unlawfulness [Page 51] from any immediate prohibition of God: for then, either the thing could not be lawful, or in that sence mutable before; and the promise had been sinful ab ini­tio, whereas Dr. Ames supposeth the contrary, and giveth this among the rest, as a condition of a lawful Oath: or else, it must be made unlawful by special revelation, which is absurd to suppose: especially seeing Ames makes the changableness of the things and the state of them a possible instrument of changing things before lawful, and lawfully sworn into sinful, and such as can no longer be obliged unto.

6. What then remains, but that this Rule refers to the laws of men: which indeed have power to change the state of things indifferent; and to make them, as to us, and as to their use, though not in themselves, either sinful or necessary.

7. So that, the meaning of the Rule is, that when we promise or swear any thing, that is lawful, if it be of a mu­table nature, and the contrary to what we swear may be commanded by Au­thority; we are onely to perform it, with this condition, if things remain [Page 52] in the same condition; and the com­mand of Superiours or the Law of the Land do not prohibite, and make it unlawful for us to do.

8. Thus, admit that Episcopal Go­vernment was res indifferens, and res mutabilis, when men swore against it: yet to perform that Oath is now be­come unlawful, by the intervention of new Law, and our duty to Superiours, which no former Oath can supersede. for according to the Rule, the Oath cannot bind in things of so mutable a nature, without this condition, si res in eodem statu permanserint, if the things sworn do no way afterwards become sinful.

Object. The proposal of an Objection where­in we have all that can possibly be ur­ged against this Rule, may give some advantage to our further clearing this weighty matter: it is 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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: [Page 55] 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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 59] 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, thatAlphon. 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, ifVid. Dr. Don, pseu­domartyr. p. 156, 157—The Applicati­on is too easie. the Lawes be Just, is evident and with­out question; O that we may find it so.

18. But there is a Notable Evasion, that I must needs take notice of, so ma­ny are crowding for an escape at it: they say, rather then break our Covenant, we will submit to the penalty of the Law, and thus we suppose we fulfil the Law, and obey Authority.

That we may take the more steady view of it, we will put the Case.

Resol.

CArminus tells us, that this Opi­nionDe potest. 1. leg. Hum. p. 2. c. 2. [that if we undergo the pe­nalty of the Law, we do not sin in the breach of it:] was the Opinion of some Schoolmen, who thought it a glorious matter, and fit to raise them a Name, to leave the common and beaten wayes; having, perchance, a delight sawcily to provoke, to gnaw, calumniate, and to draw into hatred those Powers and Au­thorities which made those Laws.

2. The ground of this grosse mi­stake, partly respects the Law-makers: partly, the Nature of the Law it self; and partly, the end of punishment as annex'd to the Law.

3. The mistake arises very much [Page 61] from an unjust apprehension of Govern­ours, that make the Laws: we have not that Reverence and Conscience of them as is meet for such Ministers of God; not con­sidering whose Authority they have, and execute in their Legislation: if we did, we should learn to submit unto them for the Lords sake, and obey them out of Conscience: for they make Laws; and if they be not sinful, God commands us to obey them.

2. We are also very apt to mistake about the Nature of Humane Laws: as if all such as have a penalty annex'd were therefore penal onely, or purely penal Lawes, and left the Subjects in a perfect Indifferency whether to yield Active or Passive Obedience, to do, or to suffer what the Law requires or pro­vides.

4. 'Tis granted, that some Laws are penal purely; and if that occasion any doubt about the present Law, I cannot give them safer advice, then seriously to peruse the excellent paines of BishopLectur. of Consc. Sanderson, drawn out to so much length, upon his observation of the sad effects of this Mistake, in a most clear [Page 62] discourse about the Nature of penal Laws, and of such as bind the Consci­ence.

5. I believe, there is the more to be studied in this point, because I find the Learned Author of the Covenanters plea asserting also that how far Hu­mane Laws bind the Conscience, is the main question in the present Contro­versie.

6. The said Author of the Covenan­ters plea seems to be a great admirer of that Excellent Bishop, and no question but he is acknowledged on both sides, for Learning, Piety, Prudence, Experience, all parts requisite for a perfect Casuist, as credible as any other the Generation affordeth; and from his mouth what per­son doth not snatch at satisfaction? let us then hear what he saith in the Case.

1. He expresly affirmes that no Law that hath a Command expressed is purely penall.

2. That all Humane Laws that are not purely penal, do in a sort oblige the Conscience: in generall, immediately, and in particular, ex Consequenti, from the Word of God.

3. If the matter of the Law be not sinful, we are bound to Active Obedinece; neither may we wittingly violate, much lesse oppose them, or be bound so to do, without sin.

7. To apply this, if the Govern­ment be not in it self unlawfull: if it be commanded to be submitted to, if we are required to declare that we are not bound to endeavour against it; And lastly, these Laws be not purely penal, we are not left indifferent by God or the Law, whether we will obey or suffer▪ but are bound in Conscience to own the Authority, and submit unto the Govern­ment, and declare we are not bound by the Covenant to extirpate or alter it.

8. Indeed, to stick at a particular Law of more private concern, so far as to suffer the penalty, and not do the thing commanded, might in some Ca­ses, for private satisfaction, be held more tolerable; but to hold our selves, notwithstanding Law expresse to the contrary, bound by Oath not to own a Government founded or confirmed by Law, or Governours commissionated by [Page 64] the King; is such a thing as cannot be excused, (without expresse warrant from Scripture, which affords it none) by any Rules of sober reasoning before God or Conscience.

9. Indeed, if the Covenant have such force as to bind the Conscience a­gainst Law, still to endeavour the extir­pation of Episcopacy; I cannot see, but as it now obligeth not to own, or to Act under it, will also compell to resist and fight against it, if occasion were offered.

10. Neither can I see any possible means of tying the hands and hearts of Covenanters to duty and peace (I speak as a Divine) but this onely, that they suffer their Consciences to be satisfied from Reason and Scripture, that they first owe such obedience even in Consci­ence to the lawful Commands of Humane Authority, as no future Oath can dis­charge them from it. And that it is not in their liberty, whether to do what is commanded, or to suffer what is threat­ned, seeing God interposeth and decides the question, by determining us to the first, and requiring our Active Obedi­ence [Page 65] to the Commands of his Deputies, where himself hath not required the contrary in his Word before. Sub­mit your selves therefore unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supream, or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him.

Lastly, the mistake ariseth from a false opinion of the end of punishment, which is properly in all Laws not purely penal: the punishment of disobe­dience, and not obedience at all. In­deed God requires us to suffer, rather then to do evil; but Man commands, not to suffer but to do, whom we must obey in lawfull things.

I shall put a period to my Argument (which was the second in order) from the Laws of the Land, having found the matter of the Covenant in the second Article, contrary to them we may con­clude it sinful, and so far not bind­ing.

11. Yet before I take off my pen, I cannot but acknowledge that some Popish Casuists do say, that an Oath may bind against the Civil Law in [Page 66] some Cases; if it be not against the Divine Law, the Law of Nature, or the Canon Law.

The Author of the Covenanters plea would suppose that these Casu­ists put in the Canon Law, to save their Infallibility. But may not we, upon as good grounds, suspect the like partia­lity in excluding the Civil Law? We are sure Obedience in things lawful is with severity enough required in Scripture unto Civil Authority.

12. But we must observe, that these Casuists instance generally, in such oaths as are concerning Contracts betwixt Man and Man; the performance of which hurts not the publick; and in­deed the Covenanters plea mentions no other.

13. But is 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 [Page 67] 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.

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 [Page 68] 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 manDecision. 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 sop. 174. doing, doth not break his Oath; quia [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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, [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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, tis 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.

Resol.

1. IT is said, there are more ways of endeavour then by violence and 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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; tis 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, tis 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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 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 [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] 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 [Page 85] 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 [Page 86] 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.

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. Tis well known, that the Gover­nours of the Church were in possession of their several freeholds, when the Co­venant [Page 90] 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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 94] 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 slay1 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 [Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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.

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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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 Obligati [...] 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 [Page 102] 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 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 [Page 104] 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 [...]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 [Page 106] 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 [Page 107] 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 [Page 108] 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 [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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, [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] of your station, and discharge ofLaz. Sey­man. your office?

2. 'Twas 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?

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 [Page 117] 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 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 [Page 118] 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 [Page 119] 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 [Page 120] 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.

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, [Page 121] 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 theProp. 3. Church cannot be altered, except the Laws be alter'd, nor yet without Ʋn­commissioning 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 Ʋn­commissioning 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, [Page 123] especially for the ratifying any Act or Ʋndertaking 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 bindProp. 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 [Page 124] 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.

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 [Page 128] 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, 'twas 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 [Page 130] 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.

Resol.

WE are now, even at our Jour­nies end, and the sooner be­cause [Page 131] 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 [Page 132] against the Liberties of the people, and yet it was found to be oblig­ing.

First, we are not here called to de­clare the non­obligation 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 [Page 133] 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 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 the2 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 [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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.