SECT. 1. Of the dissolution of the long Parliament.

1. TOuching the Dissolution of the Long Parliament, I could not dream, that so ingenuous persons had any scruple: I would fain hope that you want a Refuge, when I find you in so bad a Sanctuary.

2. Yet when I read your words, so [Page 60] warily conditioned in this great parti­cular, I find some small encouragement to think, that though you now stumble at this stone; if every other stone were re­moved, you would stumble over it. You say it hath been said, you dare not say it, and in obedience to present laws you are submissively silent.

3. Are you indeed Obedient? to what? to the present Lawes? Who made them? the Parliament. How comes this to be a Parliament, if the Long Par­liament be not dissolv'd.

4. If the Long Parliament be yet in being, the Present is none, their Laws are none, your Obedience is none: if you acknowledge the present Laws, you ac­knowledge the present Parliament; and thereby you are over the stone of stum­bling before you are aware; for you ac­knowledge the Long Parliament dis­solv'd

5. Now there are but two ungran­ted principles; for one you have gran­ted upon a better Argument then I had thought of, your own Obedience to the present Laws.

6. Truly, I took you to be so ingenu­ous before hand, and therefore I pre­sumed [Page 61] to take this for granted, and thought I might do it without offence. For it is not only the ground of Obedi­ence to the present Laws, but the Foun­dation of our Peace, our Liberty, our Par­don, our Lives, and indeed of all we are worth in this world; and such a stone, (not of stumbling, but) of the Comer, that it is hardly safe to touch it, though with an intent to fasten it. But, blessed be God, it is fast enough already in our constitution, and I hope not much loosned in your opinions.

7. Yet, if you are in doubt of what disease that great body died: I refer you to Judge Jenkins and Mr. Prin; who, though in other things they dif­fered too much, agree very well in this great point.

8. Indeed the Name, Parliam [...]t, which signifies to consult and treat; to­gether with the Writ whereby the two Houses are Assembled, are a full Demon­stration of its departure or dissolution long agon. They are thereby called to consult and treat with the King: there­in it signified that Rex est habiturus Col­loquium & Tractatum cum praelatis, mag­natibus, & proceribus. Rex in hoc indi­viduo.

[Page 62]9. Hence Judge Jinkins argues, that the Parliament dissolved upon the Kings being forced from them, and put into an incapacity of Treating with them; however at his death they died on course.

10. The King dying, with whom they are to Treat, and for which end they have their being, the end of their assembling, and consequently of their be­ing, is gon with him, and they are no longer a Parliament. A Parliament is a Relative term; the Relate and Corre­late die together. Therefore, the King, in our Laws, is Principium, Caput, & finis Parliamenti.

11. It may be said, the Act secured them against the Kings death.

12. 'Tis plainly otherwise; indeed, it secured themselves from any violence to be done to that end, by the King himse [...]f: there is no such clause in the Act, that they should not be capable of dissolving any other way, much less, in particular, by the Kings death, no secu­rity to save the Body when the Head was off.

13. But a Parliament may be dissolved, or dissolve: die, or be kill'd: the Act [Page 63] secured them from being dissolved by the Kings power, without their Consent; not against the law of Mortality, or their dissolving on course at his decease.

14. This is very evident in ull Par­liaments: if the Kings favour shall con­tinue a Parliament his whole time, that Parliament hath all that the long Parli­ament desired or obtained, by the Act specified: yet upon the Kings death, such a Parliament dissolves, according to the nature of the thing and the con­stitution of the Nation.

15. Who can be so fond, as to ima­gine, that it was ever intended, either by the King, or both Houses, (especially if the Reasons be weighed, with which this Act was prosecuted,) that the con­stitution of the Nation, or the nature of a Parliament, should be altered by it; or more, then that the King should not dissolve them by violence; that is, with­out their own consent.

16. 'Tis as frivolous to mention, that the King never dies in this respect; For [...] is evident, that as the King is the Head of the Parliament, the Relate & Reasons of a particular Parliament, so he doth die. For, as was said, a Parliament [...] [Page 64] dissolv'd by the King in his life time, dissolves of it self, at his death, and why, but because in this sence the King dies?

17. I never heard such Arguments as these following answered, though indeed we need them not. They are Judge Jenkin's. He affirms that the Act for the continuance of the long Parliament is Repugnant to those for Annual and Triennial Parliaments; which being all Acts of one Session, are all Acts of one day, and repugnant to common Right and common Reason; and impossible by the Kings Mortality: and maintains, that when an Act of Parliament is thus against common Right and Reason, and repugnant and impossible to be perfor­med, the common Law shall control, and adjudge such an Act to be void, and that these are the words of the Law. 1. Par. D. Downhams Case, fol. 11S. 8E. 3. 3. 30. 33. E. Cessavit. 32. 37. H. O. Annuity 41. 1. Eliz. Dier. 313.

18. I hope, you will not demand who shall judge of such a Case, since all par­ties have practically resolved this long agon.

19. The Rump thought that Parliament too long; the whole Nation were offended [Page 65] at the Rump: The Long-Parliament men themselves, when they were toge­ther again, in order to the blessed Re­stauration of the King, had a desire to be dissolv'd, and did what they could themselves to do it: and you know, that both King, Lords and Commons, have since made a Law, to which you say you yield Obedience, that brandeth it for an high offence, for any to say that the Long Parliament is not dissolv'd.

20. But my dear brethren, because you intimate that you are not fully sa­tisfied in this point; out of my hearty desire to do you any service, I have ad­vised with a very learned Sergeant in the Laws, from whom I received these 3. Reasons: every one of which, he affirms, demonstrates that Parliament to be dis­solv'd; in sua arte credend. &c. and I hope you will be fully satisfied with them: they are these.

21. 1. By the death of the King; there be­ing nothing in the Act of continuance that doth or can secure them against that.

2. Because every Court in England dissolves on course, if it rises without adjourning, or doth not meet again, at the time and place appointed.

[Page 66]3. Because, when a Parliament Re­cedes, and the Electors chuse new Repre­sentatives, the first are dissolv'd thereby,

I need not apply these Rules; onely, if you yet doubt the force of them, and desire, as I know you will do, more full satisfaction; you will certainly with­out my advice confer with some able Lawyer, whom you may safer in your own apprehensions con [...]ide in. In such a case we must take things upon trust; and if we will be satisfied, we must trust some body, choose your Friend.

SECT. 2. Of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant.

1. IN the second place, you intimate that I take it for granted, that the Covenant was personal, and not Real or National. But Master Crof­ton hath affirmed it is real and Natio­nal, Obliging all the Nation, and all after Generations, side Anglorum, thereby en­gaged. This, you say, he hath enforced beyond all capacity of Contradiction.

2. Truly, I confess, I did not ima­gine (however confident I find you to the contrary) that such a principle had [Page 67] needed proof, with such as I proposed to deal with: but I see the Foundations are yet out of Course.

3. Much less, could I divine, that whether the Covenant be personal or re­ [...]l, it could any way concern me in my present Design to trouble myself; see­ing it was my work only to prove that the matter of the Covenant was sinful; and then, whether it be a real or a per­sonal Covenant, I think it comes all to one, viz. A sinful Covenant, and not Obliging.

4. Besides, upon your second Sur­vey, you will easily discern, that I di­stinguished single and private persons, from the Parliament, and not from the Nation; and considered both Members of my distinction; as taking the Cove­nant; And did not find my self obliged to say, that some not: but rather, that none at all were so far bound by vertue of it, as to endeavour any alteration or change of Government: so that your ex­ception here, If it have any weight, it is impertinent and ill placed.

5. But seeing I must be assaulted with Mr. Crostons authority. give me leave to [Page 68] oppose it, with Authority as valid, I hope, without any disparagement to him, in your own apprehensions: it is that Re­verend Casuist Bishop Sanderson.

6. Bishop Sanderson asserts, that it is essential to an Oath to be personal; and consequently, that there is no such thing as Juramentum reale, such a Real Oath as you have pretended.

7. Non tantùm (inquit ille vir Magnus) tenetùr Haeres vi Juramenti defuncto prae­stiti. It a ut si non solverit, injustus tantùm sit, non item perjurus: cujus ratio est, quia Juramentum est vinculum personale, & inducit Obligationem Spiritualem tantùm, &c. At in personalibus nemo ligatur fine proprio consensu. p. 115.

8. Again, he adds, At non potest quis alteri inducere Obligationem nisi ipse quo­que volverit, & proinde non potest Actu suo spiritualiter nisi seipsum tantùm—Obligatio Juramenti non transit ad succes­sores, p, 117. 118. nothing can be more plain.

9. Therefore, I must have leave to demand, what Casuist, Authour of Note, or Learned Man uninterested in the pre­sent Controversie hath used or allowed this distinction, besides Master Croston. [Page 69] Thus his authority is matcht; what rea­sons you hint for it, I proceed to give reason to Answer.

10. You add no reasons in this place, yet because I shall make but one work of it, I shall gather the reasons that serve to this purpose from the other parts of your book where I find them; they are but two, to the best of my Ob­servation, both received from Master Crofton: and I presume the best he hath, for that you improve no other.

11. The first I find upon Case the 14. by way of Expostulation, thus. Was the law of Saul, the Princes of Israel, against the Gibeonites, to be justified? Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of Joshua, and the Princes with him?

12. The answer is at hand, in the Re­verend Bishops words: Saul, Injustus tantùm sit, non item perjurus. Pauls sin was cruelty and injustice, and not perju­ry. Not the Oath of Joshua, immediate­ly, but the Law of Righteousness bound Saul to the contrary.

13. If any Obligation lay upon Saul rom Joshua's Oath, it was not formali­er, but effectivè only; not as an Oath, [Page 70] but in the effects of it: which was to preserve and maintain Justice and eve­ry mans right; even that right of the Gibeonites which they had obtained, by vertue indeed of their Covenant with Joshua long before.

14. Methinks, it may thus be re­sembled; a Parliament in England is not obliged; to continue all the Acts of pre­cedent Parliaments, but hath power to alter them as they think fit; yet no Parliament can void an Act of pardon made by any former Parliament.

15. The Reason is, not that one Parliament hath not power to undo what another hath done abstractly con­fidered; but because a Parliament it self may not be unrighteous and do in­justice.

16. But, why is it injustice from a Parliament to void an Act of pardon? the Reason seems to be this: An Act of pardon hath its effect the first day of its being, and gives actual Right to every one concerned in the mercy granted; they are actually pardoned, and the of­fence forgiven and done away. And now, if this pardon should be taken off again, Right is violated and punishment [Page 71] inflicted where there is no Crime.

17. Thus was it in the Case of the Gi­beonites; they had received an Act of pardon long before, a Legal restitution to the priviledges they enjoy'd by vir­tue of the Oath of Joshua, and the Prin­ces of Israel: and the violation of their Rights, so long after, with the taking away of their lives, by Saul, was iniqui­ty and cruelty in him, and most justly, though severely, punished by the God of Righteousness.

18. This Answer is plainly gathered from the Holy Scripture, whence the Ob­jection it self is framed.

19. The Famine (saith the Lord to David) is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites, 2 Sam. 21. 11.

20. It is rendred, in several of the Oriental Tongues, House of bloods; and so it is in the Hebrew: it was not perjury but blood fill'd his house, because he slew the Gibeonites, and broke the Act of Par­don, not the Oath of Joshua formally considered.

21. It is said, that the children of Is­rael had sworn to them, v. 2. but not Saul: yea the children of Israel in opposition [Page 72] to Saul: the children of Israel had sworn unto them, and Saul sought to slay them in zeal to the children of Israel. Therefore, in the Septuagint, we read [...], upon Saul, and upon his house; Injustitia in morte sanguinum ejus pro eo. quod morti. tradidit Gibeonitas, for that he deli­vered the Gibeonites to death: Injustice, it is not said Perjury, but injustice, and blood is laid upon him and his house, and so severely punished.

22. Secondly, the Covenant was sworn (say you, in Mr. Croftons words) by those P. 45. Real capacities, Noble Men, Knights, Gen­tlemen, Citizens, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, which pass and will pass to our Successours, whilest Eng­land is England; and therefore it is Juramentum reale, and obligeth the whole Nation for ever.

23. But it is to be remembred, before we conclude so confidently, that though the Proem runs thus, We Noblemen, Ba­rons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Bur­gesses, and Ministers of the Gospel, as well as Commons of all sorts, have so Resolved and Determined; yet most Noblemen, Ba­rons, Knights, Citizens, Burgesses, Mini­sters, [Page 73] and Commons of all sorts, had not thus Resolved and Determined when the Covenant was penn'd or publish'd.

24. For it was brought from Seot­land, and by a few men, at first, a little altered in England, and then, by an Or­der of some of the Commons, printed and published.

25. Now, if this be to make a Real and National Covenant, three or four private persons may as easily write over these great words, and as easily oblige the whole Nation and Posterity for ever; but this is ridiculous.

26. Again, 'tis certain that many in­dividual Persons, from the King, the Nobles, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, Citi­zens, Ministers, and Commons of all sorts, never took the Covenant, but ever, as occasion was offered, declared their abhorrency of it.

27. Yea, the Popish, the Milignant, and the Prelatical Parties, which cer­tainly were then no mean part of the Nation, if not the greatest, are suppo­sed in the Covenant it self to be enemies to it, and are, indeed, sworn against it. And are these obliged by the same Co­venant, and their Posterities after them? [Page 74] Are they sworn to oppose and destroy themselves? You will not say it.

28. Again, if these words can create a Real Covenant in your sence, not only Scotland, who framed it, and England, who knew not of it for the most part till it was taken, but Ireland too, and its Posterity, are obliged by it; and all the Rebels there are taken into Confedera­tion, and thousands of people there, that never saw it, or perhaps never heard so much as that there was any such thing in the world for divers years after this their pretended Obligation by it.

29. Truly I thought the Covenant­ing Party would not have entred into so Solemn a League with a Prelatical, Ma­lignant Party, much less with Papists, and Irish Rebels; yet such is the conse­quence of your Notion of a Real Cove­nant.

30. Moreover, this Argument is confu­ted in the very Proem of the Covenant it self, so plainly and evidently, that I must needs wonder that so many quick and perceiving eyes should not have dis­covered it: Wherein it saith (speaking of the form and manner of giving and taking the Covenant) wherein we all [Page 75] subscribe, (therefore, no more do take the Covenant then do subscribe it) and be­yond all contradiction adds, [and each one of us for himself] then no one for another, much less for so many thou­sands as your Real Notion would infer.

31. Therefore the pressers of the Co­venant durst not trust your Logick, but would have not only Parents, but their Children; not only Masters, but Ser­vants; not only Tutors, but Pupils, and such as were under the tuition of others, to subscribe for themselves, according to the phrase, Every one for himself.

32. But, to conclude, if it be against the very Nature and Essence of an Oath to be any more then personal, to binde succession or posterity, or to be National and Real, as you pretend; alas! what can words do more then to make a noise, to trouble mens minds, and to beget trouble in the Church by needless Disputation? But that it is so, I hope our Casuist (whom your selves and all men else admire) hath put it out of doubt, to your full satisfaction.

SECT. 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters.

1. THe third Principle which you in­timate I take for granted, is, That all Persons that took the Covenant are in the same capacity with our selves. You say, you cannot yield unto it.

2. I have laboured to find out your meaning, and cannot discover any thing, but the exception of the single person, that you can stand upon.

3. But if you please to review what I said from pag. 93. to pag. 97. you will see your oversight, and grant that I did not take it for granted.

4. And until you give Answer to the reason there offered, as also in some other places of my Book, I think I am not at all concerned to trouble you further about it, but shall now take up my shield, and appear in defence of my particular Arguments.

SECT. 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws.

1. I Do still affirm, That the King is the Supreme Executor of the Law, and all inferiour Officers are his Com­missioners, to execute that Government under him, in which he is alone the Su­preme Governour, as we swear him to be in Church and State; for, Reges sa­ [...]ro oleo uncti faut capaces spiritualis Ju­ [...]isdictionis.

2. Now, I say, take away the Body of Governours, and the Head must fall; and if all inferiours be removed, where will the Supreme be?

3. For Answer hereunto you onely desire my clear Answer to two Enquiries.

The first of your Queries is in these words:

4. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King?

5. To this I return my clear Answer; No. Yet they are plainly essential to his being a Supreme Governour in all Cau­ses and over all Persons Ecclesiastical.

6. Supream doth necessarily suppose and respect Inferiours; and Supream Go­vernour [Page 79] Inferiour Governours.

7. Your second Query is this: Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality; that Archbishops, Bishops, &c. taken away the head must needs fall?

8. To this, I hope I may clearly An­swer, that the removing of the inferiour Governours hath a Natural tendency to the falling of the Head, as such, that is the Head of them, or the Supreme; but hath no natural ordination to the substi­tution of other kind of Governours.

9. There is nothing in the pulling down of the walls that goeth into the support of the roof; nothing in pulling down Arch-bishops and Bishops, &c. that serves to uphold the Supremacy of the King in governing the Church, but to destroy it, as the twenty years experi­ence past doth sadly demonstrate.

SECT. 2. Of the Kings Right in the Government of the Church.

1. THe second Medium I use to prove, that endeavours to extir­pate Episcopal Government you observe to be this; that thus to endeavour is not [Page 80] only against the Kings Right as Execu­tor of the Laws, by opposing and seek­ing to destroy his Commissioners, but his very government it self; and this is the express sence of the Covenanters, that according to the Covenant they are bound in the whole course of their lives against that Government which they know is the Kings Ecclesiastical Go­vernment.

2. This you grant: only you say the Covenanters do not mean such endea­vours as I mention: Again, you plead that some others deny the Government of the Church to be the Kings Government, because they find it not established by the Laws of the Land, whereof it is his Right to be Executor, and this is all you say; only touching these things here, you refer their discussion to their proper pla­ces; where I intend, God willing, to meet them again.

SECT. 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator.

1. AGain, you note that I argue, to endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Kings Right as Legislator, as the maker, as [Page 81] well as the Executor of the laws, as ap­pears by that sence of the Covenant which the practice of the Covenanters hath put upon it.

2. To this you answer, that the terms do so condition it, that it doth not ap­pear to engage us to endeavour the ex­tirpation of Episcopacy without the Kings Consent.

3. Here, I must have leave to remem­ber you, that though it be true the terms of the Covenant which you specifie are soft and mild, viz. through the grace of God, in our places and callings; yet there are other expressions visible in it, that do more then seem to exact such proceedings as were ve [...]y inconsistent with our places and callings; or the grace of God, viz. to our power, and with our lives and fortunes.

4. What need was there then of our power, or lives and fortunes, to be expo­sed in such endeavours, but in opposing the King, and his Army? and how could that possibly be done in the pre­sent matter of endeavour to extirpate Prelacy; but by Acting therein without the Kings consent, and against his express mind to the contrary. [Page 82] so that take a true measure of the Cove­nant by all such terms together, as in fair reasoning we must needs do; and it is too too evident that it puts us on endeavours that have no regard to the Kings consent at all.

5. Besides, if the true extent of endea­vour covenanted be yet in doubt, you would force me to resolve it by that black Comment of the state of things when the Covenant was press'd at first: from the occasion of it, which, as the King sadly observ'd, was that fatal con­federacy with the Scots, for their inva­ding this Kingdome with Arms. The obvious and declared judgement of the Scots, that created it, touching the place and power of publick conventions and private persons in such matters. The sudden course which the two Houses took to demolish this Government, (and that by virtue of the Covenant,) and to bring in another.

6. These things I say, soberly consider­ed and pondered upon, methinks should rationally, and satisfactorily Evince to such sober persons as I am Treating with, that endeavour in the sence of the Cove­nant it self, and the prime Covenanters, [Page 83] doth intrench souly upon the Kings Pre­rogative and Crown; Notwithstanding those other small, saint, and after endea­vours with the King to ratifie what they had laboured with all their power, in a way of Hostility so long together to do without him, and against his most signal express dissent, so often reiterated.

7. Which little endeavours to procure his consent, I imagine, you would hardly have mentioned, had you had in your mind, that at the same time the King was at least quasi a prisoner, and was de­nied by the same persons that treated him the liberty to repair to the place where, according to the Order of the Kingdom, he useth to add his fiat to the making of Laws: I mean the Parliament House.

8. Further, I am loth to remember that even then, when the King (at the Ile of Wight) and his two Houses were neerest to an accommodation; the force of such endeavours as the Covenant ex­acted provoked them to reply to his Majesties papers, that they were yet un­satisfied as to an agreement with, and reception of his Majesty, because he would only grant them a suspension of [Page 84] Episcopal-Government for 3. yeers, and not an eternal extirpation of it, for which they had covenanted: vid. Bibli­oth. Reg. p. 153.

9. But to return to the Covenant it self; the close of it doth effectually con­clude, that in its prime and native in­tention, it least of all regarded the Consent of the King; and as to any such thing, it was utterly desperate.

10. The words are these: We shall all the dayes of our lives zealously and con­stantly continue therein against all opposi­tion, and promote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever: and what we are not able our selves to suppress or over come, we shall r [...] ­veal and make known, that it may be time­ly prevented or removed.

11. Now I beseech you to consider; here is a promise to continue in this cause; which refers, no doubt, to the whole or the main matter of the Covenant. Now as the Author of the Covenanters plea observes; the main scope of the Covenant is against Church-Government, to which all other things seem subordinate. Therefore, this same last Article repeats the beads of this common cause, and be­gins [Page 85] it with Religion; that is the Refor­mation of Doctrine, Worship and Disci­pline, and the extirpation of Episcopal Government. The words are this com­mon Cause of Religion, Liberty, and peace of the Kingdomes.

12. Now, in this Cause, observe, They swear to continue zealously and constantly all the dayes of their lives: and what is the plain sence of that, the King being known to be then in the fields. and in arms aga [...]nst the Covenanters; I say, what can the plain sence be; but that they would continue therein, though the King himself should forbid. Though the King should deny his Assent, and declare his most express Dissent and threats against it, yet they would persist therein all the dayes of their lives.

13. Yea, though King and Parlia­ment (as is now come to pass) should make Laws against it, they must be zea­lous and constant in this common Cause: so little regard will the Covenant allow, to this day, to the Kings Consent.

14. Yet heed what follows; against all Opposition, and promote the same against all lets and impediments whatsoever; give me leave to say, though this Opposition, [Page 86] these lets and impediments be from the King himself, as you know they were at this very same time▪ This being im­posed by the two Houses, and taken by the people; and the King himself in Arms to defend his own and the Churches Government.

15. Pray resolve, where then was the King Consent, or, if the King please, to be understood in the Covenant.

16. Moreover, doth not this Article, which is the close and perfection of the rest, plainly engage to such endeavours as carry opposition too? Be your selves the judges: the words are, against all opposition; how can you be engaged to endeavour against all opposition, but by opposition? against all opposition, but by opposing all oppositions? even that which the King himself should make, or rather, indeed, did make.

17. Now, how you can oppose the King, or the opposition made by him and his commission, and yet understand his consent in the same matter, I think you will not go about to inform me.

18. Once more, that the endeavours of the Covenant carry force and oppositi­on in them, according to the Grammati­cal [Page 87] Construction and Logical resolution of the same, appears in that [Power] is engaged to our Power: and Power in order to the suppressing and overcoming the opposers: for it is added, and what we are not able our selves to suppress, &c. by our own power: and on the other hand, we shall assist and Defend all those that enter into this League and Cove­nant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof.

19. Which expressions (I should abhor to infer it, did not my Argument force it) do beyond all capacity of Contradi­ction engage the Covenanters in a party to live and dy together in an hostile way of Opposition against the King, and his Armies and Friends, in a pursuit of the ends of the Covenant.

20. Which cannot consist with the places of Subjects, or lawful endeavours; or Possibly suppose the Kings consent.

21. I cannot rejoyce to conclude, that this meaning of the Covenant was expres­sed at first, by the prime inventors and contrivers of the Covenant; such words as these you find in a Declaration, called the Declaration of the convention of Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland.

[Page 88]22. To our knowledg, say they, upon swearing and subscribing of this League and Covenant, the opposite Malignant partie will rage and Tumultuate more then ever: and therefore, unless we will either betray our Religion, Liberties and Law, and all that we and ours do pos­sess, and suffer our selves to be cut off and massacred by the bloody and bar­barous cruelty of those our enraged ene­mies; There is a necessity of taking Arms for mutual defence.

23. Lastly, That the Kings Consent was little intended or understood in the Covenant, is yet more manifest, if it be considered, that it was not only made, and published, and pressed, without no­tice given him, and at such a time too, and condition of affairs, as had served the King from the Covenanting party, but it was still carried on against the Kings dislike, and express dissent and prohibi­tion of it, in a timely and solemn Pro­clamation against it.

SECT. 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenant.

1. THe King was pleased, upon the first hearing of the Covenant, published in Print by the Order of the Commons, (which I conceive was some­time before the Order of the Lords and Commons for the tendring and taking of it;) to issue out his Proclamation from his Court at Oxford, entituled, His Ma­jesties Proclamation, forbidding the ten­dring and taking of the Covenant, called the solemn League and Covenant for Re­formation.

2. The Ʋse of this Proclamation in the present controversie, is two-fold. First, it Demonstrates beyond all contradicti­on, that the intention of the Covenanters did not regard the consent of the King, which runs clearly against the Kings Su­premacy. Secondly, It renders the Co­venant void, even from its creation, be­fore ever it was ordered to be taken. For Datur irritatio Juramenti aliquando per superiores, si in illa ipsa materia s [...]nt su­periores cirea quam Juramentum versa­tur.

[Page 90]3. Now so far as the Gover [...]ment 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 the Kings Procla­mation having denied his Assent there­unto, and proclaimed his prohibition of it, thereby voided it long agon, accord­ing to the Rule.

4. A Rule never disputed, grounded evidently upon Scripture and Natural Reason; and indeed I find not, that your selves do question the Proposition; though I confess you put me to a task that I little expected, by doubting the Assumption.

5. You say, It remaineth upon you a doubt, whether there ever were any such Proclamation; you desire me to help you to a Copy of this Proclamation, and inform you, where to find the Original: Con­cluding, that the Obligation, without it, cannot be voided.

6. I hope you do hereby intimate, that upon the sight of this Proclamation you will be satisfied, that the Obligation of the Covenant was voided at the first; therefore I am much encouraged to tran­scribe it, and to inform you where you may find it.

[Page 91]7. It is indeed in Print, in more books then one, of unquestionable credit; par­ticularly, you have it in a Book called, Bibliotheca Regia in terminis, thus, p. 332.

8. Whereas there is a Printed paper, entituled, A solemn League and Cove­nant for Reformation and defence of Religion, the Honour and happiness of the King, and the Peace and safety of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland: Pretended to be ordered by the Commons in Parliament, on the 21. day of September last, to be Printed and pub­lished: which Covenant, though it seems to make specious pretences of Piety and Re­ligion, is in Truth nothing else but a Traiterous and Seditious Combination a­gainst us, and the established Religion and Laws of this Kingdome, in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavours to bring in Forreign forces to invade this Kingdom: We do therefore straitly charge and com­mand all our loving Subjects, of what de­gree or quality soever, upon their Allegi­ance, that they presume not to take the said Seditious and Traiterous Covenant. And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose, administer or tender the said Covenant, as they and [Page 92] every of them will answer the contrary to their utmost and extreamest perils. Given at our Court at Oxon, Oct. 9. in the 19. year of our Reign.

9. If you will cast the Controversie upon the sight of the very Original, I do not despair to effect it for you: pro­vided I may know whom I may pleasure with it, and where; for it is not possible I should print the Original.

10. However, I shall offer you such Evidence, that this is a true copy; that I verily believe ingenuous persons will receive it as next to demonstration.

11. Note first, that the Covenant was ordered to be printed by the Commons, Sep. 21. An. Dom. 1643. This Proclama­tion is said to be issued, Oct. 9. 1643. and I have a learned book by me, called the Anticonfederacy, that was printed the very next year, viz. 1644. that la­bours to invalidate the said Covenant with the said Proclamation.

12. He does not indeed transcribe the whole Proclamation, as I have done; yet so much of it, and of the most ma­terial passages of it, as you cannot chuse but know it to be the same; and to say, that he should feign such parts of a [Page 93] Proclamation, at such a time as that; or that the King should not be as quick to proclaim against the Covenant, as he had been a little before against the Assembly of Divines, June 22. 1663. are both un­reasonable and ridiculous to any sober man.

13. The words of that book mentio­ned are these; The true scope and aim of this League (speaking of the Covenant) as it is declared by our most gracious King, (and we cannot receive it from a better hand,) is in pursuance of a Traiterous de­sign and endeavour to bring in Forreign Forces to invade this Kingdome: and is therefore by his Majesty justly sentenced; notwithstanding its specious expressions of Piety and Religion, to be nothing else in Truth, but a Traiterous and seditious Com­bination against him, and against the esta­blished Religion [...]nd Laws of this King­dome, which are the very words of the Proclamation it self.

14. I hope you will now no longer doubt, whether there were indeed any such Proclamation, or whether it be of force to void the Covenant.

15. You say, you allow that Rule of Ames; datur irritatio aliquando per su­periores: [Page 94] but you note it must be, si in illa ipsa materia sint superiores circa qua [...] [...]ersatur Juramentum.

16. But let me recommend it to your second thoughts, whether endeavour simply considered, or endeavour with its object, extirpation of Prelacy, be the matter of the Covenant, and whether the King in this very matter of extirpa­tion of Prelacy, or endeavours to do it, be not allowed to be our Superiour.

17. Admit, there were a Covenant taken by private persons, to Endeavor to bring in forreign forces; endeavor indeed is to every man, sui juris; but that this endeavour, and consequently, such a Covenant, is not in a matter subordinate to the King, I think you will not di­spute.

18. Lastly, you seem to wonder that I make it a Probleme, whether suppo­sing the Proclamation had voided the Covenant at first, the Kings after-con­sent could revive it.

19. If you understand my words, with respect to the first engagement actually made and voided by the Proclamation; I think yopu need not much wonder if I should have affirmed, whereas I onely [Page 95] quaeried, Whether the same Act, made void could be made in force again? I am not afraid to write over the words once more: I think it may well be a Problem, Whether the Kings after-consent could revive it, if it had indeed been dead and buried sop many years before?

20. For the Covenant being voided by the Kings protest against it, and the Parliament dissolved that promoted it, I think you would wonder more at it if I should affirm, That the King hath pow­er, without a Bill to that purpose from the two Houses, by His own single Act to revive a matter of so high a nature to His Subjects, so long time after.

SECT. 1. Church-Government is fixed by Law.

1. First, there is no need that we prove the Government to be establish­ed by Law in such a manner as the Co­venanters seek for, while we find it be­yond all controversie, that this Form is legal, and established in the Laws, though no express Statute should be found ap­pointing [Page 100] it; and it is so much allowed, so far fixed and established by the Laws, that he that shall any way engage a­gainst it doth so far engage against known Law.

2. Now until this be questioned, to what end do we trouble our selves any further? All that is more then this is ex­ubundanti, and hath no necessary place left in the Argument.

3. Yet of this, whereon the very hinge of the Controverfie turns, you have spa­red the pains to take any notice at all.

SECT. 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law.

1. IN the second place I intimated, that it seems to me unreasonable to ex­pect such proof, That the Government of the Church should be established by Law in such a manner as you seek for, That it should have its Original Esta­blishment in Law.

2. For before, and at the first making of Christian Laws in this Kingdom, this Government was found existing; and to have first destroyed this Government, and then again to have established the same [Page 101] by Law, would have been plainly ridi­culous; which yet must have been done, in order to such an establishment as you require proof of.

3. It is acknowledged by Mr. Fox, Act. Mon. Tom. 1. pag. 148. that in Elutherius his time An. Dom. 180. when this Realm was first converted to Christianity, there were appointed in the same three Archbishops and twenty eight Bishops; and since that time the Government of the Church by Archbi­shops, Bishops, &c. hath been further e­stablished by Magna Charta, which hath been confirmed above 30 times by Parliament; and by the Statute called Confirmatio Chartarum, still in force, it was ordained, that all Laws contrary to that Charter should be void; and that Bishops, twice every year, should excom­municate all that did, either do or ad­vise contrary to it.

4. The Government of the Church was at first founded in Prelacy; therefore so far as we are a Christian Nation, and go­verned by Christian Laws, Episcopal Go­vernment goes into our foundation.

5. I mean only it is so of the founda­tion, as to be from and in the beginning of Church-Government and Christian [Page 102] Laws among us: I do not say, so of the foundation as to be unalterable, yet o­thers do; however, it is not yet actually altered, and that is as much as the Ar­gument requires, and to warrant that expression which I thought augmenta­tive, though you pass it by unnoted, viz. that there is the less reason to expect that the Power, Office, or Government of Bi­shops should have their origen from the Laws of the Land, or that the Child should beget the Father.

SECT. 3. Church-Government is established by Law.

1. THirdly, I laboured to prove, that so far as a Government, that was prae-existing before the Laws con­cerning it, could be reasonably expect­ed to be established by Law, the present Church-Government is established by Law: For,

2. First, the Laws of this Land, since they were Christian, have ever al­lowed it and taken it for granted (as having its foundation sufficiently laid before) upon all occasions; not only by those special Laws that particularly relate unto it, but indeed in every Law [Page 103] which expresseth the Consent of the Lords Spiritual.

3. Here you only catch at the weak­est part about the Consent of the Lords Spiritual to the Acts of Parliament, leav­ing the strength of the Argument grounded in those many special Laws which relate to this Government, and apparently allow and continue it, with­out any exception or observation.

4. Yet I am not at all satisfied that the allowance and recording of their Consent to every Law, by the King, Peers, and Commons, is not a plain ac­knowledgement of Episcopal Power and Government.

5. Secondly, I affirm, That the pre­sent Government is established by Law, though not in its Office which was before the Law, yet in its Political Power, and the Exercise of it, in this Kingdom.

6. Therefore the several Legal Names of Prelatical Governours, with their distinct Jurisdictions, and the Crimes punishable by them, and the Authority allowed so to punish, and the Fees of their Courts, and the Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops are found and founded in the Laws of the Land.

[Page 104]7. In your Recital of this Argument you only mention the Exercise of this Government, and take no notice of its Political Power given by Law; and therefore your Answer is short.

8. But that this Political Power of Ec­clesiastical Governours is setled and au­thorized by the Laws of the Land is most evident in that of the 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. & Eliz. An. 1. 2.

9. By 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Jurisdiction touching Matrimony, Wills, Tithes, Ob­lations, &c. is expresly given them; and it is added, that all such Spiritual Cau­ses shall be from henceforth heard, exa­mined, discuss'd, and cleerly, finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Au­thority, and not elsewhere, in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the natures of the Causes shall require.

10. Note, That if the Temporal Courts have any Authority given them by this Statute, so also have the Spiritu­al; they are joyned together; such Courts Spiritual and Temporal.

11. The point of Appeals is also esta­blished by the said Statute; and Bishops [Page 105] are expressy authorized to receive Ap­peals from Arch-Deacons Courts; and the Arch-Bishops from the Bishops, with Authority hereby given them, or establish­ed in them, to put a final end to all such Controversies. You may reade tho Statute at large.

12. Yet, I conceive, that of Eliz. 1. c. 2. is more precise to our purpose, Where it is Ordained and Enacted, that all and singular Archbishops and Bi­shops, and every of their Chancellours, Commissaries, Archdeacons, and other Ordinaries, having any peculiar Ec­clesiastiel Jurisdiction, shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act, as well to inquire in their Visitati­ons, Synods and elsewhere, to take Accu­sations and Informations of all and eve­ry the things above mentioned within the Limits of their Jurisdiction; and to punish the same by Admonition, Excom­munication, Sequestratien, or Deprivation, and other Censures and Process, in like Form as heretof ore hath been used in like Cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws.

13. Here, we cannot but see, not on­ly the legal Names of Ecclesiastical Go­vernours, [Page 106] mentioned; but their politi­cal Power and Authority allowed, yea, formally invested and establish't in them to inquire, and to punish. To punish with Admonition, Excommunication, Sequestration and Deprivation, and all this by Virtue of this Act.

14. Had we nothing more to prove Episcopal Government to be established by law, but this very Statute, I cannot apprehend but that the work is done, and all Objections to the contrary for ever superseded.

15. Is here only a liberty to exercise a power given them? is it not express, that Power and Authority is also given them? 'Tis not declared, that they have Power and Authority by Virtue of their Office, or any other way; but it is enacted that they have Power and Authority to inquire and punish, &c. by Virtue of this very Act.

16. Yea, though it is intimated, that the same Course had been used former­ly; it is not enacted only, that this shall continue; but as if such a kind of Objection had been in prospect; it is enacted, that by Virtue of this Statute all these Eccle­siastical, Governours shall have full [Page 107] Power and Authority to proceed in like Form as heretofore bath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical laws.

17. While I read the Statute so ex­press and punctual in the Case, I know you will not blame me, if I wonder at your so frequent comparing the Govern­ment of the Church with Usury, and her Governours with Usurers.

18 I do not know of any Statute that gives so much countenance to Usury and Usurers, as to say, be it enacted that pow­er and Authority be given to Ʋsurers, or that makes them a politick body, and invests them with Government over so much as their own Tribe, and in Cases peculiar to their own way, abuses and faults of Usury: Do not reflect so unbe­seemingly.

19. Thirdly, I affirm, that should we yield unto you that there is no express Statute immediatly Authorizing Ecclesi­astical Governours; yet immediately it it cannot be denied, to be established by Law: I mean such Law as impowers the King to Commission and Authorize the Governours in the Church.

20. That the King hath such a power in him is manifest from the Oath of Su­premacy. [Page 108] For being supream Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical, he is so over all persons Ecclesiastical, as to Commissio­nate all his inferiour Governours; there­fore, they all, either mediately or im­mediately, receive their Commissions from him; which is, no doubt, Legal, in the Judgement of all that understand these Protestant Laws, that revolve the power usurped by the Pope, upon Henry the Eighth, and all his successours, in the Crown of England for ever. v. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. & Eliz. 1. where you reade thus:

21. All Jurisdictions heretofore law­fully exercised by any Ecclesiastical power or Authority for Visitation, Reformation, &c. are united and annexed to the impe­rial Crown of this Realm: and that your Highness, your Heirs and Successors, shall have full power and Authority, by virtue of this Act, by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England to Assign, Name, and Authorize persons to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions, and to Visit, Reform, Redress, &c.

22. Your Answer is, this at most con­cludes but for the Governours, and not for the Frame of Government.

[Page 109]23. But do you not hereby grant as much as my Argument needs? For if the Governours of the Church are Authorized by Law; you ow them Obedience, and the Law in them; and your Covenant provokes you to disobedience.

24. Again, How can all the Gover­nours be Authorized by Law, and not the Frame of Government too? He that by Law Commissionates all the Gover­nours, doth he not thereby establish the Frame of Government?

25. Yea, where will you look for the Frame of Government, but in the Seat of Governours, and that accord­ing to the Covenant it self? You there engage against Prelacy; that is the Go­vernment of the Church by Arch-Bi­shops. &c. Viz. the several Governours of it.

26. You add the Kings Supremacy may exist in, and operate by other Church Covernours, as well as these.

27. I answer easily; that admit what you say, yet as no other sort of Gover­nours can be Legally so, until the King Commissionate them as he hath done these; so this kind, viz. Episcopal Go­vernment, must of necessity continue to [Page 110] be Legal, until the King shall Commis­sionate others of another Method; or at least withdraw his Commission from these in the present form of Church-Government; if he hath power to do it by Law.

28. Lastly, I urge you, that this Go­vernment is plainly established by Com­mon Law.

29. To this you say, that Prescription is a poor Fence to Ʋsurpation; Usury hath prescription.

30. But how doth it appear that the present Government is an Usurpation: so weighty a charge deserves proof.

31. Church Governours are the Kings Ecclesiastical Officers; they have their power and authority to Govern, given them by Act of Parliament: this appears, but that their Government is Usurpati­on, appears not.

32. To make good your charge, two things require proof. First, that Episco­pal Covernment was an Usurpation at first. Secondly, that it is so still, and that it hath not obtained a good Title in law, all this while.

The Statutes now mentioned prove the present Title of it. And Magna [Page 111] Charta is a sufficient Evidence, that so long agon it had Legal Authority, and was no Usurpation.

33. I rather mention Magna Charta here, because, it is accounted Common Law, and adds much strength to my Argument thence, and from long conti­nuance: Especially, seeing there is much for the Church and Bishops, but nothing for Usurers and Usury to be found in it.

34. The Plea, that Magna Charta is in behalf of the Abhots at well as Bishops hath nothing at all against us.

For Abbots were since abolished by law, so were not Bishops. We are not arguing that nothing confirmed by Mag­na Charta can be lawfully altered: but that Episcopal Government confirmed by Magna Charta is established by that Law, and not removed by any other.

35. Yea, this Objection answers it self, and all the rest of its Company; and yields us an Argument that might pass for an Instar omnium.

Abbots and Bishops were both confir­med by the Law of this Land. Abbots are removed by Law and not Bishops; and in the Law, exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis; and therefore the Law that [Page 112] removed the Abbots, did establish the Bishops: and thus Episcopacy is establish­ed by Law.

36. But are there not State-Officers that had not their original in the Statute-Laws, but only in the Common-Law of this Land, (as hundred-Constables and Crownets, &c.) will any say, that these are not established by law? These were before the known written statute Laws, and so were Bishops in England before any Christian Laws.

37. Indeed, methinks, the very Con­cessions of your selves, Mr. Crofton, yea and of the two Houses of the Long Par­liament, is as much as my Argument and the Government of the Church can stand in need of.

38. You grant in one place of your P. 28. 19. Book, your selves, that the Government of the Church by Prelacy, is not onely limited, restrained, regulated, but di­rected; yea, in some things authorized by the Kings Laws. I think you will hardly say Usury is so; or that any thing Authorized by law can be destroyed, but by law: And that sufficeth my Argu­ment.

39. Again, methinks, Mr. Crofton de­cides [Page 113] the Controversie against himself in his Berith. Anti-Baal. p. 25. There he chargeth the late Bishop of Exon, because he pleaded for the Jus Divinuin of Epis­copacy, that he did confront King and Parliament in what all their Statutes de­clare to be their own creature and constitu­tion even from the Statutes of Carlile, and the 25. of Ed. 3. declaring against the Pope, that Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation, Power and Authority.

40. Now, I conceive, this was never said of Usury, or indeed, of any thing▪ not established by Law. For how is this Donation, Power and Authority, put forth in framing this Creature and Constitution of Parliaments, but in Acts of Parliament, that is, the laws of the land.

41. If there be any doubt, what judg­ment the two Houses that imposed the Covenant, had touching the Legality of the Government of the Church of England, we are satisfied of that, by their Applications to his Majesty for the ex­tirpation of it, at the Ile of Wight.

42. Their words are these: for the Abolishing of Episcopacy we take leave to say, that it is not the Apostolical Bishop, [Page 114] which the Bill desired of your Majesty, in­tends to remove; but that Episcopacy for­merly was established by law in this Kingdom: Again, onely to put down him by law who was set up by law.

43. Note first, that the Long Parliament did not doubt, but that Episcopacy was establish'd by Law. Secondly, that the imposens of the Covenant did extend the sence of the Covenant against that which was established by law. Thirdly, that yet in their own Judgment, that which is set up by law is not to be puld down without law. These things they saw at last, though their many years practice before had contradicted them, vid. Biblioth. Regi. p. 350.

SECT. 1. Endeavour is distinguished.

1. YOu note (I say not with a black character) that I assign some spe­cial Acts by which endeavour may ope­rate; but to assert, that endeavour may be either private or publick: and these less or more publick; and to add expli­cations and instances of all these (as you know I did) is doubtless more then only to pitch on some special acts of endeavou? for thus you have the kinds and the mo­dification, as well as the acts or operati­ons of it.

2. Moreover, you know I gave you the application of them also: I say, first, That though in a general and unusual sence our private Prayers to God may chance to called endeavours, yet they are not so, either properly, or in any usual way of speaking, by the Covenanters themselves, nor to be presumed to be struck at, in the Act, by the Magistrate, who Governs Kingdoms and not Closets.

3. Again, I offer, That it is hard to assign any other kind of endeavour (if private Prayer be any) for the extirpation of Government that is pure and simple, [Page 121] and without all tincture of Sedition and Danger to the publick; or if there should be any such found, I humbly conceived the Civil Magistrate cannot be Rationally thought to intend them in the Act, there being no danger in them, and the Nature of them not properly under his Cognisance.

4. Now, my Brethren, judge whether it had not been fair for you, upon this no­table nick of Controversie, to have entred into a clear Debate of these things? did it not become you, either to shew the Defect of my Enumeration, or at least, to evince that some of the wayes of endeavour; by me pretended to be unlawful, to be good, just and lawful, and in our own power? and then to have convinc'd us, that some of those lawful endeavours are such as are plainly intended by the Act of Parliament? this, I presume, was your work.

5. Indeed, skipping over what is nearest, you say, you will go to the ut­most: and here you demand, is it not possible for those very Acts, which bear in my eyes the worst Aspect, to become lawful endeavours?

6. But, my Brethren, is there no dif­ference [Page 122] betwixt what is so, and what may become so? that which is possible only, is not so much as future much less present. It is certain, What may be there­fore is not: and when it is affirmed, that such a thing may become lawful, it is thereby granted, that that thing is now not Lawful.

7. To affirm therefore that such En­deavours may become lawful, is to con­demn them as unlawful at present: and consequently, that we cannot be bound unto them by the Covenant. Now ob­serve it, you are not required to declare that there never may, but for the present, there now lieth: or in the present tence there lieth no Obligation upon us there­unto.

SECT. 2. Of the Acts of Endeavour justified by my Brethren.

1. GIve me leave also to come to the utmost with you; my Brethren; and to ask you, what those endeavours or acts of endeavour are that you insist on: I mean, that not only may be­come lawful, but are so, as a present Bar against your Subscription.

[Page 123]2. You seem to grant, that for a Minister to preach, a Lawyer to plead, and the Souldier to fight against Episco­pacy, are at present unlawful; for these, you say, may become lawful. If you in­deed think there are any such as are square to Rule, in all points justifiable and lawful, it is much you named them not; without this you have done no­thing: In generalibus latet dolus; and the word Endèavour is but a Bug-bear.

3. Is it not safe to mention them? however, it is duty and necessary; but surely that cannot be the reason, seeing you began with so much confidence in the English Genius; and have found out ways to insinuate things more obnoxious.

4. Therefore, though in this most fit and proper place you do it not, yet in another you make my Antagonists to serve the turn. In p. 28. I finde these words: The Covenanters (say you) will tell me, there are Acts of Endeavour for Extirpation other then what I mention; such as Theological disputation, submiss supplication, popular groans, or com­plaints of grievances, by and under it, which are consistent with submission to it while existent.

[Page 124]5. My Brethren, I must needs acknow­ledge, I took great Content and satis­faction to my self from these words; not doubting but you knew how to express our Covenanting Brethrens minds, in the point, and that you do it truly.

6. Their Judgment soberly, it seems is this; They hold themselves bound by the Covenant to Endeavour to extirpate Episcopal Government, by no means that are inconsistent with submission to it, whiles existent.

7. This I look upon as a very great Concession from the rigour of former Principles and Practices; and a fair step to a good agreement betwixt us which the Good Lord prosper.

8. For, hereby, you seem to grant 3. things of no small concern in the Con­troversie.

1. That they can submit unto Epis­copal Government, notwithstanding the Covenant: That is, I presume, they can Act under it in several places, and obey it in things lawful: otherwise, they do not submit unto it, as a Government.

2. Therefore, they grant, that Epis­copal Government is not an unlawful Go­vernment, or sinful of it self, or by the [Page 125] Word of God; otherwise, I believe you would not so far own it, as to obey it, or submit unto it.

3. That if they can find out no such Endeavours against this Government, intended by the Act, as are consistent with submission to it while existent, and liable to no other just exception, we are agreed. For then you may declare there lies no Obligation to such Endeavours as are not; de non ente non est Obligatio.

9. Now, we are so near; suffer me to reach you with a word or two of serious advice, that you would bestow a few thoughts upon the following inquiries.

1. Whether, if the Government of the Church be not sinful, by the Word of God, it be not necessary to us, by the laws of the land, the Oath of Supremacy, and secundariò, by the Laws of God?

2. Hereupon, it is further worthy our inquiry, what Endeavours to extirpate this Government thus necessary are sui Juris to every Subject? I do not say to Reform, but to extirpate it.

3. Thirdly, Admitting the Moderate sence of some Covenanters, that the Co­venant doth not intend an Extirpation, but a Regulation of this Government; [Page 126] whether the Declaration be not recon­cilable with the Obligation hereunto: seeing there we declare that we are not, obliged to change or alter, not to reform this Government.

4. Lastly, take the sence of the Ob­ject how you please, it may be queried, whether you have not done your endeavour? after so long and strenuous Endeavours against it almost 20 years before, and several years since the happy Restaura­tion; we find the King, the Peers and People of England in Parliament, have sufficiently declared, that it shall not be extirpated?

So that, to reason, there now appears no further hope of effecting our endea­vours; and consequently the Obligation thereunto ceaseth, by the Rule, Nemo Tenetur od impossibile.

10. Pardon this digression so fairly oc­casioned; and I now hasten to examine those several Acts of Endeavour. which you have, in the Name of the Covenan­ters, proposed and Judged to be law­ful. Theological disputation; submiss supplication; popular groans, and com­plaints of grievantes by and under it; of them in Order.

SECT. 3. Of Endeavour by popular groans and complaints.

1. IN order to a true Judgement of the lawfulness of these Acts of Endeavour, let us take a glance of the object [...] of them as you have proposed it; you do not say the Government it self, but grievances by and under it.

2. First, then, for grievances under it, they may be redressed, without the utter Extirpation of the Government it self.

3. Again, we are not required to de­clare that we are not bound to endeavour to remove them; it is a change of Go­vernment, in the Act, and Extirpation, you say in the Covenant, and notes a Re­formation, or Redress of grievances onely.

4. Secondly, for grievances by it, I Ask, whether you intend such grievan­ces as flow from the Nature, or such one­ly, as happen upon the abuse or Male-ad­ministration of this Government: if you say, such as flow from the Nature of it, then you must prove Episcopal Govern­ment to be evil in Se; which I think you will not undertake; but if such as flow from Abuse onely, you are not [Page 128] held from Endeavouring against them.

5. If you yet doubt, whether you may not Endeavor against the Government it self, let us proceed to Examine particu­larly the Acts of Endeavour specified by you: Disputation, supplication, groans, or complaints.

6. For the last sort, groans, and com­plaints, I cannot understand, how these can be provoked, but where there is burden and grievance to be groaned un­der, or complained of.

7. That the Government it self is so, you do not say, much less evince: if it be found so, by Male-administration, Complain for me, and spare not; so you do it regularly, and not tumultuously.

8. Yet, I must needs observe, that groans and complaints under a Govern­ment must carry sedition in the manner of them, or else they cannot, properly, or without very much straining, be called acts of Endeavor for the extirpation of it.

SECT. 4. Of Endeavour by disputations.

1. A Second sort of Acts of Endea­vour, specified by you, are Theological Disputations; but these, Nei­ther, [Page 129] are Endeavours properly and direct­ly so called, as to the end intended.

2. For in such Disputations, who knows not, but, as Opponents, we may dispute for Popery, or any other Heresie: by such ventilation, the truth believed in the Church of England, is intended to be vindicated, and not destroyed.

3. Neither are such disputations any Motion towards the Extirpation of Epis­copacy, with the persons that have power to do it: seeing our Governours receive no Applications or Impressions by them.

4. Neither, is it the proper Intention of such Scholastick Disputations, to work upon our Governours to that end, who are no way concerned to take notice of them.

5. Yet, admit they were: let me be­seech you to propose after what manner these publique Disputations are to be managed, as Endeavours for this end.

6. Consider, what will you dispute against? the Lawfulness of the Govern­ment? I am confident you do not believe it to be unlawful; either, by the Word of God, or the Laws of the Land; for you say, you bear affection to Episcopacy, yea, such affection to it, as that you would have passed by the Object of this Covenanted Act.

[Page 130]7. Give me leave again; what will you dispute for? the Extirpation of E­piscopacy? how can this Consist with your Affection to it? or what Arguments, what weapons, will your Affection to it strike it with, to Ruine and destroy it?

8. Besides, when such Disputation ap­pears to design and endeavour the Extir­pation of the Kings Ecclesiastical Govern­ment, who see's not Manifest Sedition in it? to say no Worse.

9. Especially, when the Supream Go­vernment hath openly and freshly, even just now, declared Their Will to the Con­trary, by Restoring this Government, in all it's Officers, to it's former Authority and Priviledges against all Endeavours for it's Extirpation.

Lastly, would you dispute onely for a Reformation of it: this is not a change or Extirpation: and not concern'd in the Declar [...]tion, as I have often noted.

13. But you are ready to say, there is a Submiss Supplication: and this is pro­perly Endeavour, and sui Juris to every Subject.

11. Upon both these branches I must demur a little; for indeed, here lies the stress of this Controversie, and the strength [Page 131] Sampson; but it must be better proved,

1. That Petition is Properly Endeavour, and in the sence of the Act: and 2. That Petition to Extirpate Government is sui Juris to every Subject. I shall Examine them distinctly and seriously: for if either of these fail, your hair is off.

SECT. 5. Whether to Petition be to Endeavour pro­perly, and in the Act.

1. I Cannot so easily grant it, as you take it for granted, that to Petition another to do a thing is to endeavor to do it.

2. We know, that Petition or prayer to God is Ordinarily distinguish'd from Our own Endeavours for the same thing we pray for.

3. Neither, is there more reason to con­found our Petitions or prayers to such men, as are called Gods, with our Own Endeavours: especially, considering, that the things we Ask of God, are capable of our Own Endeavours; yea, if it be for gaining or increasing of grace or peace, our prayers, are a means not onely of ask­ing but of effecting the same; but to al­ter law and government is a thing of that nature, that we can onely ask it; we can [Page 132] Act no further towards it: all the work for the effecting of it belongs to our Go­vernours; put any Familiar Instance with your selves, and resolve the double: will you say that the Childe desiring his Fa­ther to wind up his Watch is the Childs Endeavouring the winding it up: or to wind it up.

4. I can easily Consent, that Conatus is not effectus: yet you acknowledge it, is a motion towards the Effect: which you call a Natural power: and I doubt not we agree, that Conatus hath essentially in it a Natural tendency and operation towards the effect, Endeavoured.

5. Now simple and bare Petition or submiss supplication hath not so: it hath indeed a verbal motion for the thing de­sired, but no real Operation or Natural Motion towards the effecting of it.

6. The subject, by Petition, doth de­sire it; but the Parliament in all those le­gal methods of debating, veting, commit­ting, engrossing, &c. do properly endeavor the Abolition of any thing legally esta­blished.

7. Truly, I soberly discern this distin­ction of Petition and Endeavour both in the Covenant, and in the Act of Ʋnifor­mity.

[Page 333]8. The Covenant saith, we shall En­deavour the Extirpation of Prelacy: not desire, or perswade, but Endeavour it: Neither can you possibly perswade your selves, that such as then imposed and took the Covenant did at first intend such En­deavors as you mean, who took other cour­ses, you well know, to effect the same.

9. It is added, Constantly and zealous­ly: must we be always zealous and hot in our Petitions: must we perpetually sol­licite King and Parliament with our sup­plications? this will hardly consist with submiss Supplication.

10. Indeed it is plainly Seditions in it self, take Endeavour in your own sence, publikely to engage by Covenant, zealous­ly, and constantly to Petition the Alterati­on of Government: this is, to declare to the World, that we will never be quiet under it.

11. Thus, also, it is in the Act: we are to declare, there lies no Obligation to En­deavour a change: it is not said, that we shall not Petition that others may Endea­vour it.

12. Rational Endeavour implies, that the persons endeavouring have probably a power to effect: but it is certain, before [Page 134] hand, that, without the Supream Legis­lative Power, the Subjects cannot effect the Extirpation of Episcopacy: therefore they cannot rationally or lawfully endea­vour it: therefore if they promise or Covenant so to do, it is sinful; and they may lawfully declare they are not obliged unto it, that is, to endeavour what they have no power by Law to do: neither can the Act be thought to intend any more: Stultum est Conari quod nequeas efficere.

13. Lastly, If submiss supplication be yet thought to have any spice of endeavor in it, it cannot be rationally thought to be intended in the word, endeavour, in the Act; you observe that Endeavour in the Act and in the Covenant are of one mea­sure, and it is too evident there was more in endeavour in the Covenant then meer Petition and submiss supplication, which ran us upon those sad consequences that in all reason the Intention of this new Act is but to secure us from: you say to make Laws against simple Endeavor is certain­ly destructive to the Liberty of the Sub­ject and Priviledge of Parliament; Me­thinks then, you should not apprehend such a simple and bare endeavour is to be disclaimed, as is essential in your own [Page 135] Judgements to the liberty of the Subject and priviledge of Parliament.

SECT. 6. Whether to endeavour, &c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject, &c.

1. I Cannot yet consent, that to endea­vor to alter the overnment of the Church, is at all times, or at this time, sui Juris to every, or to any, Subject; or indeed to any person in the Nation, to speak home.

2. The King is the proper Judge of what Government is fittest for the Church, both as he is Supream Governour over it; and as he is the Head of the Parliament.

3. As he is supream Governor over the Church of England, he is supream Judge in all Causes; into whom the last Appeal resolves: and consequently, he is supream Judge in this of the fitness of the Govern­ment of the Church, unto whom the last Appeal for a final & definitive sentence and determination is only to be made.

4. Again, as he is Head of the Parlia­ment he is no less. For though the 2 Hou­ses be also Judges of the fitness of the Go­vernment, yet still, with submission and re­servation to the highest Judge thereof, [Page 136] their Sovereign Lord the King; who hath a Negative upon both Houses, and gives life or death, with his own word, to any Bill tendred to him.

5. So that in matters Legally existing, the King hath this great advantage above his 2 houses: the King hath power of him­self to continue the existence of any such thing, without his two houses, that is, whe­ther they will or not: and they cannot re­move or abolish any such thing without the King, or whether he will or no.

6. Suppose it be granted, that the people may petition, & both houses may proceed so far as to frame a Bill against a Government absolutely considered, and without respect to any Prior Obligations by Oath, or otherwise, upon the King; and tender this unto the King, in Order to the extirpation of the same: yet if the King refuse to pass the Bill, that Bill so once rejected cannot be revived, during that Parliament: neither may any person, in either house, so much as move it any more, by the laws of Parliament; which nothing can warrant against, but the ne­cessity of the things so to be revived up­on the Word of God.

7. The same Reason perswades me, [Page 137] that when both King and Parliament have, by fresh law, declared their dissent to alter the Government against all en­deavours used to that end; (and so they have done by the late Statutes for its re­stauration) then, we the Subjects cannot be bound any longer to endeavour it, if we were bound before.

8. To be bound, still to vex the King and Parliament with perpetual repetiti­on of Petitions, to remove a Government which they have, & still do signifie they will not remove: yea, which they do sig­nally own and ratifie so much the more; is to be bound to go contrary to authority as well as Law, to trouble the peace of Church and State, and the Government over us; and indeed, to endeavour or la­bour in vain, all hopes of prevailing be­ing taken away: at postquam palam de­sperata est, & constat fieri non posse, cessat obligatio, ex jam dicto fundamento, quod Nemo Teneatur ad impossibile.

6. This must needs pass without all controll, if we add to the consideration that the King is known to be born to, and bound to take an Oath, by the very consti­tution of the Kingdom, to maintain and defend the Government iv question, as he is King.

[Page 138]10. It hence irresistably follows, that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath, but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome; and there is an Obli­gation upon him to defend, and to swear to defend, before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Epis­copacy.

11. Yea, the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy, by any such previous Oath, seeing such en­deavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath, to protect and defend the Bishops: and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath, against the Bishops, it is void ipso facto; for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown, and bound as King to take it.

12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular: it is e­nough, that it is not yet altered, and that it cannot be Legally altered, but by Act of Parliament: I am sure, you will not say the King, much less before he is Crowned, hath power of himself, or with any others besides his Parlament, to make or diminish or alter any known Law, e­specially [Page 139] that which so much concerns his peoples interest & security, in the oath to be taken at his Coronation.

13. Pray, therefore, observe & weigh this Consequence; if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand, doth void the Coronation Oath, required by Law, then the King by a private Oa [...] may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament, the liberty of the Subject, and the other great concerns of Magna Charta, as well as to extirpate Episcopacy; and his Coro­nation Oath taken afterwards, would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land. I argue not, now, from the necessity of the things, but from the Ob­ligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them.

14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown, and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it, as Subjects: for if we allow its violation in any one part, we let go our security in all the rest.

15. Moreover, 'tis certain, that though where the Conscience judgeth the mat­ter of a former Oath lawful, the Consci­ence [Page 140] is bound against any future Oath to the contrary; yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it, and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary; in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience.

16. Now it is open and plain to all the world, that (seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bi­shops & passed those Bills for the protecti­on and preservation of Episcopal Govern­ment; and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature;) his Consci­ence will not suffer him to destroy Episco­pacy, but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful.

17. Surely, the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience, more then to you against yours; much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath; the bond of his Fidelity, and peoples security: this hath taken hold upon him, and invincibly ti­eth him under such conviction, to preserve his Conscience, and his oath, and Episco­pal Government.

18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this ap­pearance; [Page 141] and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government, against all the evidence He hath given us of it.

19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition; and seeing we are not to declare wha [...] things are in themselves, but what we judg them to be, who can possibly stick to declare, That he holds the single Per­son is not bound by—to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government.

20. Now, for any other Person, whe­ther the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects, how can they, or any of them, be bound, think ye, to endeavour to make the King sin, and in so high a manner as to violate His Con­science, and His solemn sacred Coronati­on Oath? without which he cannot con­sent (as His Royal Father proved with His Life) to the extirpation of Episcopal Government.

21. Consent, I say, much less Enact it; and yet without both it cannot be legally done; neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way, but by desiring and la­bouring to perswade the King thus to [Page 142] Consent and Enact against Oath and Con­science.

22. But lest it should be doubted, whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops: give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding, at the Coronation; so far as it relates to our Argument, and I have done with this great part of my Task.

23. I find the Account thus, wherein, I think I am not Mis-informed.

24. After the many other gracious pro­mises which the King makes to his People; One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People, concerning the Cano­nical priviledges of the Church, and be­seeching him that he would be the Pro­tector of the Bishops and the Churches un­der their Government; The King An­swereth in these words: with a willing and devout heart, I promise and grant my pardon, and that I will preserve and maintain to you, and the Churches com­mitted to your charge, All Canonical priviledges, and due Law and Justice: and that I will be your Protector and De­fender, to my Power, by the Assistance of God: as every good King in his King­dom, in right, ought to Protect and De­fend [Page 143] the Bishops and Churches under their Government.

25. Then the King ariseth, and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People, to Observe the premises, and laying his hand upon the Book, saith, the things which I have before promised, I shall perform, and keep: So help me God, and the contents of this Book.

26. Now, who can think himself, or any other person, bound by any Obliga­tion whatsoever, to Necessitate (so far as in them lies) His Sacred Majesty to Vio­late His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His In [...]uguration?

SECT. 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority.

1. YOu would perswade us, that I affirm this onely upon my for­mer Principles, because the Covenant is against the Rights of the King, the Laws of the Land, the Priviledge of Parlia­ment, and the Liberty of the Subjects: which, you conceive, are all laid in the dust

2. Perhaps, you may find these Prin­ciples more potent and vigorous in their Resurrection: however, though I had a General Reflection upon these former Arguments; yet, I added a particular force to the present Argument, (which, having raised a Dust, it seems you did not see,) in these words.

3. More particularly, God first Ob­ligeth us to be Subject and to obey our Governours; and the Covenant would [Page 147] engage us to disobey, disown and destroy them: (I mean our Governours in the Church) the Covenant would discharge us of our obedience, and oblige us to Re­sistance, Contrary to Gods express obli­gation upon us, which cannot be.

4. God doth immediately by his Word, and likewise by the Mediation and interposition of Civil Authority, com­mand us to obey, to be subject, and not to resist our Spiritual Governours, the Covenant would engage to break all at once; and at once to violate the Laws of God, the King and the Church, and all Authority.

5. Our duty is positive, to be subject, 2. Negative, not to Resist; whosoever re­sisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God—Wherefore we must needs be subject for conscience sake. Rom. 13. Now both these are broken by the Covenant; the one by omission, the other by commission

6. First, Our positive duty of obedi­ence and subjection carrieth in it, by Universal Consent, to defend, preserve, to honour, observe, and to be faithful to our Governours; now how these are consistent with Endeavours to Extirpate, I cannot see.

[Page 148]7. Again, Our Negative part, or Non-resistance, is transgressed too: by the Apostles Logick, not to be subject, is to Resist: whosoever Resisteth—where­fore we must needs be Subject: how­ever, to Endeavour to Extirpate, is too plainly to Resist.

8. For Endeavours to Extirpate a Go­vernment are both far beyond the com­pass of Subjection, they being no part ei­ther of Active or Passive Obedience; and deep in the Nature of Resistance, most properly taken.

9. Endeavours to Extirpate have Action in them, and are therefore more then passive Obedience: their Action also is Diametrically opposite to Active Obedience.

10. Again, Endeavours to Extirpate do formally carry Resistance in them: yea, they are the formal Act of high Resistance, not of the Law onely, but of the Government it self: not in the Acti­on onely, but in the very being of it: for Extirpation is the end and utmost of Re­sistance; and therefore, Endeavour to Ex­tirpate is properly resistance.

11. Pray, resolve me, to what part of our Duty to our Parents will you reduce [Page 149] Endeavours to Extirpate their Govern­ment over us: or how can such Endea­vours square and Conform to the Com­mands of God, and-the Laws of the Land, Not to Resist, but to be Subject to our Governours, Ecclesiastical and Civil?

12. 'Tis vain to say, we are bound to obey he laws, yet we may Endeavour to have them changed: It is not safe to Ar­gue from the Laws, which are but the Rule, to our Governours, who are the object of our obedience.

13. If this consequence be Good; upon an Oath taken of the like Nature, against the civil power, we may hold our selves bound to Endeavour to Extirpate both King and Parliament.

14. For Government by Monarchy, and the Constitution of Parliaments, you will not say, they are in themselves Necessary to our civil State; and if, be­cause Episcopacy is doubted to be Jure Divino, you conclude it lawful to swear against it; or having so sworn, to En­deavour to Extirpate it, I dare not un­dertake to find a way for the civil Go­vernment to escape the danger: the In­ference is easie, from Government to Go­vernment; [Page 150] though the one be in the Church, and the other in the State; e­specially seeing we cannot resist the one, and not disobey the other.

SECT. 2.

Whether the Covenant be not against Former Oaths and Promises.

1. THis I also affirm, and consequent­ly, that the Covenant was pre­vented by such Prior Obligations: the Case is fully stated in these words of our Reverend Casuist. Si cui Juramentum suscipiendum defereratur, continens ali­quid quod Obligationi priori sive Natu­rali sive adquisitae adversatur ut si adver­setur officio, quod parenti debetur aut principi; vel si repugnet ei quod Ante lici­è juratum fuit vel promissum ejusmodi Juramentum, non potest à quoquam salvâ conscientiâ, vel praestari, vel praestitum ad impleri; qui utrumvis fecerit, pejeraverit.

2. I assume, that the Oaths of Alle­giance, Supremacy and the Protestation of May 5. 1641. were taken by the Na­tion, before any of the Nation took the Covenant, and that the Covenant in the Second Article is Repugnant to them all.

3. In all these, you say, I was fully [Page 351] prevented by Mr. Crofton; and seeing this is all you say against me in these particulars, I shall only return you to one, who in all of them did as fully pre­vent Mr. Crofton many years agon.

4. He leads us on thus; as his Maje­sty hath sworn expresly to maintain and defend the Government of the Church, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. So have we his Subjects implicitely sworn the same, as many of us as have taken the Oaths Supremacy, of Allegiance, and the late Protestation.

5. For first, his Majesty having sworn so solemnly to maintain and preserve this Government of the Church, if any Attempts or Conspiracies should be made against it we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance to maintain and de­fend his Majesty to the utmost of our power, in his endeavouring to make good that his oath of maintaining & de­fending that Government of the Church and the Rights and Priviledges of these Governours against all those Conspira­cies and Attempts.

6. Secondly, we have sworn in our Oath of Supremacy, that the Kings High­ness is the only Supream of this Realm, [Page 152] as well in spiritual things and causes, as Temporal; and that we shall to our power assist and defend all Jurisdiction, Priviledge and Authority, granted or e­longing to the Kings Highness: the Go­vernment of the Church being such an Ecclesiastical thing, and Cause, as that, next to the Doctrine of the Church, there is not any Ecclesiastical thing or Cause of nearer concernment to the King, and whole Kingdome; and the Regulating and ordering thereof belonging to his Jurisdiction, Priviledge, Preheminence and Authority, we are obliged by that Oath, not only to acknowledge his Ma­jesty to be the Supream Governour in that thing and Cause, but also to our power assist and defend that Jurisdicti­on, Priviledge, Preheminence and Au­thority; and not to Assay, or Endeavour ought concerning the Altering, much less the rooting out of that Government, without the Kings Consent and Ap­probation.

7. Lastly, we having sworn in our late Protestation to maintain and defend the Doctrine of the Church of England, against Popery: and one Article of that Doctrine, which the Papists mainly Op­pose, [Page 153] viz. six and thirty, together with several other parts thereof, approving and Justifying the Government of this Church; it must be granted, that we are by this Oath bound so far to maintain and defend that Government, as to ap­prove and justifie the lawfulness thereof both in it self, and in its Constitution here among us.

8. Besides, we swore expresly in the same Protestation to maintain and defend the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and every person that made that Protestation; and therefore in that respect until we are convinced, either that Arch-Bishops and Bishops, &c. are no Subjects; or that their Right of Go­verning this Church is not lawful; we are bound by that Branch of the Oath, not only not to Endeavour the Extirpa­tion of the Government of the Church by them, but to the utmost of our power to maintain and defend them in that their Right of Government: and every person that took the Protestation in whatsoever he hath since done, or shall hereafter do in the maintenance and de­fence [...]thereof. Ante-confederacy, P. 51. 52. Printed 1644.

[Page 154]9. You believe Mr. Crofton will not stick to allow the Nationality of the Protestation: and then the whole Nati­on was under the Obligation of the Pro­testation, before the Covenant was taken: and consequently in those things before recited, the Covenant was super­seeded, and Master Croftons Imaginary Reality and Nationality of the Covenant, is thrown to the ground by Mr. Croftons Logick; his Position undermined by his Supposition.

10. Give me leave also to remember, that both in the Oath of Supremacy, and the Protestation, it was sworn to main­tain the Kings Honor, as well as his Au­thority: but the Covenant is to endea­vour to make the King break his Oath; which is plainly contrary to Endeavours to save his Honour.

11. The King hath sworn to defend and maintain this Government. It is not a necessary Duty from the Word of God to destroy it: there is nothing more dishonourable in a King, then to break his Faith with his Subjects, yea, his Oath to them, his Oath to defend and protect them, and in so deep a measure too, by his Extirpation and rooting them [Page 155] out. Lastly, the Covenant is to endea­vour to prevail with the King thus, to break his Faith and Oath with his Sub­jects, in a thing, in your own judge­ments, not necessary upon him from the Word of God. Now avoid the Conse­quence if you can.

SECT. 3.

Whether the Covenant can oblige us to the laying down of our Ministery.

1. THirdly, I assert, we are first ob­liged to serve the Church in the work of the Ministery; and the Obliga­tion of the Covenant can no way disob­lige us or discharge us of it.

2. The Argument in short, is thus. No man hath power to put a Bar, by any self-contracted Obligation, about a thing not necessary in the way of his duty, to God or his Church; the reason is, God hath first in Nature and Scripture obliged him to his duty. Est illicitum quicquid bono pub­lico adversatur, aut paci Ecclesiast. politicae Domesticae. Sand. & Actus unius non debet praejudicare juri alterius. Our own pri­vate Act ought not to prejudice the right of another, much less God & the Church.

3 But now to leave our Ministerial office, because we will not renounce this [Page 156] part of the Covenant as required by law is to put a Bar in the way of our duty to God and his Church, from a self-contra­cted-obligation, about a thing in it self not necessary.

4. I spent above 8. pag. in the book sur­veigh'd by you, in the prosecution of this Argument. Pray read them over again, & judge whether you have soil'd, much less as you speak of my other Arguments, laid it in the dust; indeed you have not touch­ed it with one of your fingers.

5. This Argument may grant, or rather give, that it was lawful not to renounce the obligation of the Covenant, before this Act was made; but now the Act requires it as the condition of continuing in the Mini­stery; the Case is otherwise.

6. For the Covenant could not be taken in a matter not [...]necessary, without such a condition, that the performing of it or the non-renouncing of it do not afterwards prove a bar to our duty, be understood. The Rule is known, rebus sic stantibw, vel si in eodē statu res permanserint, upon condition, that no sin hereafter be to be committed, no injury done, no duty o­mitted by keeping our Oath, or any thing truly consequential thereunto.

[Page 157]7. There is a Case in Bishop Sander­son that brings us very neer our own.

Si Filius familias, &c. If a Son, saith he, swear to do a thing that is in it self lawful, and his father (not knowing what his son hath sworn) commands him to do something which hinders him from doing that which he had sworn to do, (doth not for bid him to do it, but commands him to do that, quod impediat id fieri quod juratum est.) He re­solv's the case; filius non tenetur juramen­to; his reason is, quia lege divina Natu­rali tenetur parere imperio Patris.

8. Thus admit that you swore a law­ful thing in the Covenant, your Civil Parent commands you to do that, which hinders the performing your Covenant; the Renouncing of the Obligation of it, in the Second Article. But, how much greater force is added to the Argument, if you consider the effect of your disobe­dience to this Command of Authority, your ceasing to work any longer in the Mi­nistry, and disobedience to God that called you to it.

9. Cause Causae est Causa Causati, the Cause of your ceasing to do your duty to God, the Law and the Church, is your Non-Subseription, the cause of your Non [Page 158] Subscription, is the Covenant. Therefore the Covenant is the cause of ceasing to do your duty; and therefore sinful, and not obliging.

Supream Authority hath, doubtless, power to make any conditions of our ser­ving the Church within its Dominions, in things not sinful, according to its own reason of State: the Covenant cannot hold us from performing such condition; for then it hinders us from doing our duty, by hindering from performing the condi­tion, upon which alone we are suffer'd to keep our places, and to serve the Church, and to which we have a pre-obligation of God upon us, not to be so easily broken by our own hands.

11. Therefore, my dear Brethren, in the fear of the great God, whose Servants we all are, let me request you once again, seriously to consider: that though, for your oaths sake you ought to quit your own In­terest; yet the Churches and the States you cannot.

12. Pray, enquire, who gave you power to expose your selves to an Incapacity of serving the Church, in the high and holy Calling of the Ministry (to which God hath called you, and for which he hath quali­fied) [Page 159] you, and in which, he expects you should be constant and faithful by such a Covenant as the renouncing thereof, is now made the condition of our station, and the discharge of our Office.

13. Ask your selves, was not the Law of God, requiring all that should be re­ceived into the Ministry, to preach the Gospel, to watch for souls, not to look back, &c. of force, before the Covenant? how then, can you plead the Covenant for the voiding of it? in such things too, as are certainly no conditions of Gods Commands.

15. I do not well know, what you mean, by the last note of your Surveigh, which onely remains to be taken notice of; your words are these. We conceive the best of Actions may be as capable of an Im­pedit. boni by the intervenient inhibiting Decree of Caesar: and we are to be satisfied that in that case the guilt of non-service to the Church is chargable on our soul: We may not sin that good should come thereof.

16. So far as I apprehend this Ob­jection, it is most easily answered.

17. First, by yielding that the best of your Actions must be performed, whether Caesar inh [...]bite or not.

[Page 160]18. Secondly, by denying endeavours to extirpate Episcopal Government to be of the best sort of your Actions: or the not endeavouring the same, or the renouncing the obligation of the Covenant so far, to be fin.

19. I have often said, that thus to endea­vour the extirpation of Episcopal Govern­ment is not in it self a duty: many of your Actions are so, and particularly, the dis­charge of your offices and places: there­fore, if it so fal out, that, through the com­mand of Caesar, you cannot both discharg your necessary duties, and also hold your selves bound not to do a thing that in it self, is not necessary, that which would ob­lige you not to perform such condition of your duties, ceaseth so far to oblige you; and that is the Covenant.

20. Otherwise, by your own Act about an object not in it self a duty, you would supersede the Authority of Caesar in things indifferent, & clip the power which God hath given him; by extending the effect of your Covenant with God, to Caesars in­jury. Injuriam alteri facit, qui quasi Jure suo statuit de iis quae sunt juris alieni.

Liberavi animam meam.