torn in pieces the Kings Prerogative whose consent was necessary invaded the priviledge of Parliament to make new Laws in things lawful or establish the old broken the liberties of the people in being imposed on with the Covenant without an Act of Parliament and having so many societies of Ecclesiastical persons destroyed plainly subverted 6. Indeed nothing can be said why the Oath made in favour of the 2 Sam. 21. 2. Gibeonites by Joshua the King and all the Princes and people should not oblige and nothing can be said why the Covenant made with hatred of the Bishops for their injury and ruine by a part of the Parliament and People without and against the King and the Laws when contrary to the very Constitution of the Land there were none to represent them in either House nothing I say can reasonably be said why such a Covenant so far at least should binde at all One may be bound to do the good he hath sworn so was Joshua c. to the Gibeonites one cannot be bound to do the evil he hath sworn as the Covenant would have him 7. Israel was cheated into a Covenant that hurt none but themselves if themselves at all and therefore their Covenant obliged them England that is a great part of it was also cheated pardon the expression into a Covenant that injured the Takers and every body else the King the Parliament that made it all future Parliaments the Liberties of the people the Governours and Government of the Church yea and God himself and the Consciences and Souls of the Takers themselves by breaking the bonds of all former obligations upon them to the contrary as in particular hath before appeared and how then can it bind to so much iniquity I need say no more to this or other instances of Zedekiah's Oath c. or I presume to this Argument of the Declarations that hath indeed engaged me longer then at first I foresaw A general Conclusion touching the Lawfulnesse of Re-ordination and the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England THere is but one thing more in the condition of Law required of Ministers by the Act of Vniformity Re-ordination of such as are onely Ordained already by Presbyters and Ordination of such as are not by Bishops I hope such as are concerned herein will not stand too much upon this considering that liberty is not denied them to keep their own sence whether the Ordination by Presbyters only is valid or not also that the Act makes it self no judge of the Ordination by Presbyters in forraign Churches also that there is no other way according to the Law of the Land to exercise their Ministry in this Church as also that if their former Ordination should be confirmed by any other form it could not passe for legal Ordination in this Church or Nation nor legally intitle them to the care of souls or to the profits of their places no other being thought fit to be appointed or allowed by our Governours and therefore their submission thereunto cannot be a taking Gods name in vaine which hath so good and so necessary an end but especially considering that worthy Mr. Humphery hath written so effectually and so largely already upon this Subject He hath so well prevented my pains herein I have onely to refer my Brethren to his Books for their full satisfaction in this point 2. Concerning that which I have written in this Treatise give me leave to subscribe which I do animo that I have not used one Argument but I really judge it convincing and such as is not either answered or prevented by any thing written either by Mr. Crofton or the learned and sober Author of the Covenanters plea. 3. Neither can I divine what may possibly be urged against the Declarations that is not answered except onely the unlawfulnesse of the Government Liturgy or Ceremonies of the Church all which are indeed concerned in the Declarations required 4. I confesse I took the lawfulnesse of these in themselves for granted and my reason I hinted at the beginning of my book namely because I was to treat such onely or chiefly with it as had purposed to conform had not the Act required them thus to declare such I conceived did not believe the Government of the Church or any Office or Ceremony of the Common Prayer Book was in it self unlawful who by their Conformity intended before to own the one and practise the other 5. However let me humbly beseech my Brethren if thus they scruple seriously to Consider that the ablest Pens that ever Engaged in these great Controversies have hitherto found it a task too difficult for them to evince that either the form of Government or any thing required in our Liturgie is in it self unlawfull 6. Yea give me leave to make my Observation that very few that have been Learned and Sober and Faithfull in the point since the Reformation to the beginning of our late Troubles but though they have much scrupled at first have argued themselves at length into a Conviction at least of the lawfulnesse of them 7. I hope my Brethren will not take it amisse If I offer to remember them that Conscience is not Regula Regulans in the first Consideration though so in the second but Regula Regulata and that she hath a Rule above her that must be a Rule unto her and the very Synterisis and Proposition from which alone she must draw and conclude all her definitions of things lawful or unlawful 8. The measure therefore of the Judgement of Conscience is the mind of God and not our own Not our own mind much lesse our will So that what he commands must be held a Duty what he forbids must be held a sin and what he neither commands nor forbids must be held indifferent that is in it self to be neither a Duty nor a Sin by every well enlightned rightly ruled and Indifferent Conscience 9. Now if it be a doubt to any Mans Conscience what is left by God indifferent that is what he hath neither commdnded and made a Duty nor forbidden and made a Sin What remaines but that he follow the advice of our Saviour and search the Scriptures these we may be sure are the best Rule of Conscience as the clearest Testimony of Gods Mind 10. If yet the doubt continue what God hath left indifferent in the Scriptures themselves suffer me to say that it is not possible that there should be a better help under Heaven for the removall of it besides immediate Revelation which may not be expected then the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches 11. Let the person then that desires satisfaction indeed bring his Conscience and the great things in question first to the Bar and Rule of Scripture and if he cannot see them condemned there as truly I cannot let him in the fear of the Lord and the sincerity of his heart after Truth and Peace yet prosecute his full
is enough that such as it is it cannot be altered much lesse extirpated without the change of the Laws very many Laws that much concern if not establish the same Now it is well enough known to be a grand part of the Kings Prerogative that no Law be made or altered without his fiat Much lesse then such Laws as concern himself so nearly as the changing not his Commissioners onely but his Government it self And it is more then apparent that the King was in such a condition when the Covenant was first taken that the Covenanters did intend either to force his consent to change those Laws or else to root out the Government by Prelacy against the King and the Laws too Therefore there is no such condition as might fairly have been in all the Covenant if the King shall please or if we can prevail with him to change the Laws or convince him of the great inconveniencies that we have discovered in this Government of the Church by Prelacy But I am sorry to remember how the Covenant was carried on as if the plot were laid to down with the Bishops whether the King would consent or not or what ere come on 't CASE IX Whether to endeavour thus against the Kings Rights as obliged thereunto by the Covenant be sinful Resol WIthout Question it is for to Covenant or swear to the injury of any is materially sinful and void of it self as if a man should vow he will steal his Neighbours Horse In all Covenants therefore the very light of Nature teacheth that Inferiours must except the rights of their Superiours Otherwise if an Oath will discharge from subjection how soon may all Government totter and dissolve No Covenant can take off the force of the fifth Commandement Honour thy Father and thy Mother more then of sixth seventh eight or of any of the Rest It is therefore granted by all Casuists that in iis rebus quae superioris potestati subjiciuntur in all things which lie under the power of our Superiour this Condition is necessarily to be understood in all Covenants Oathes and Promises si ipsi etiam placuerit if it shall also please him that is our Superiour Now nothing can possibly intercept the Conclusion but that either the Government of the Church doth not lie under the King or that the Altering of this Government did not concern his power or that he gave his Consent either to the Covenant or to the Altering of this Government but none of all these are true First the Government of the Church is directly and immediately under the King or sworne by us all to be Supream Governour in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill and indeed as as was hinted before all Ecclesiasticall Governours politically considered are the Kings Commissioners and in a plain line of subordination to him Neither can they be taken from him or indeed on purpose opposed or disobey'd without apparent injury to the Supremacy if not with his Royall Assent and special Commission Secondly Neither may this Government be altered or any thing changed therein or indeed any thing elsethat cannot be altered without Law but by the Kings own Act and the alteration of Laws is a thing subject also to the Kings power according to the Constitution of this Kingdom without all dispute Thirdly Neither did the King consent to the Covenant but as it is well known proclaimêd his dissent against it which very thing is thought sufficient to void it Datur Juritatio Juramenti aliquando per Superiores si in illa ipsa Materiâ Amese de consc p. 219. sint Superiores circa quam Juramentum versatur sic Parentes so Parents Husbands Masters Princes may pronounce saith Dr. Ames either Oathes or Vowes made by Children Wives Servants Subjects without their consent to be void in those things which are subject to their power Therefore so far as the Government of the Church cannot be altered but by Law it is under the power of the King at least not to alter it he having a Negative upon both Houses and consequently his proclamation hath pronounced the Covenant long agon if this rule be good which I think none do question at least so far void I wonder that it should be urged that the King so many years after in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should give his Consent to the Covenant which he had immediately upon its very birth crush'd by his Proclamation Yea so far as his Proclamation could pronounce it void and destroy it I think it may well be a Problem whether the Kings future consent could revive it if it had indeed been dead and buried so many years before But in what words did the King seem to consent he saith it should least displease him that men did keep their Covenant These words do not expresse his Consent to the Covenant much lesse to that part of it which concernes Episcopacy it was far from him to consent to the Extirpation of that but rather as it follows in the Kings words to preserve not to extirpate Religion in purity and the Kingdome in peace Indeed thus some would wrest one Coven plea. Modest expression against the plain scope of that whole Chapter in the Kings Book framed by him on set purpose to shew his dislike of this Covenant to his death as any impartial Reader thereof may satisfie him self Fourthly neither can it be said nor truly is it by any that I have heard of that the King did ever consent to the Alteration much lesse the Extirpation of Episcopall Government he was indeed at last contented upon a very hard bargaine to give it a suspension for three years but the sword cut off that preceeding and the Objection with it CASE X. Whether the Govenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopall Government be against the Laws and consequently sinful Resol TO swear absolutely without submismision to the will of the supream Governour to endeavour that which cannot be done either according to Scripture or the Constitution of the Kingdome without his Consent and Act this transports the subject beyond his place it invades the soveraingty and carries sedition and rebellion in it This cannot be denied though the thing sworne against be in it self unlawful especially when such Covenant is publickly imposed and taken for no publick Reformation of things amiss can proceed without Tumult if not consented unto by the King who is not to be frighted to do it by his Subjects in such a manner of rising up against him by publick Oathes This is to hurt Majesty and indeed to do evil that good may come and if any shall swear to do it in their places the form of their swearing contradicts the matter sworn for they cannot keep their places and take such an Oath 3. Much more when the thing sworn against is not evill in it self nor contrary to Gods Word therefore Mr. Crofton and the Author of the Covenanters plea
from the King alone from time to time accordingly 8. For the Common Law common usage which is Common Law will no doubt plead prescription and establish this form of Government over us A Government as a very learned man affirms may be established by Law as well by consent and submission on the peoples Part as by express suffrage Quid interest suffragio populus voluntatem suam declaret an Rebus facto Jul. Thus we have found the Covenant to be against a Government that was established by the Laws of the Land before it was imposed or taken and in that sence against the Laws of the Land and consequently so far sinful and not obliging 10. But however this will passe certainly there is Law made since the Covenant that is plain enough and will surely hold us none can encourage any further doubt but that the present Church-Government is so far established by the Act for Vniformity as that it requires every Minister to declare that he is not bound to endeavour a change of it 11. So that if the Covenant should be yet binding on us to endeavour a change of this Government it should oblige us to violate the Law and consequently to sin therefore whatever we thought before we may be satisfied that the Covenant cannot oblige us so far now viz. contrary to express Law But we shall put the Case and examine it more at large CASE XII Whether a Covenant taken first can oblige us against a future Law Resol 1. THis Case being weighty and indeed much our own I shall set my self with all sincerity as in the sight of God to give it a full and clear resolution according to the best of my own reason and the judgement of uninterested and learned Casuists 2. That Episcopal Government is restored by Laws made since the Kings return viz. in that which was taken from it its place in the Parliament and its former Jurisdiction also that this present Church-Government is so far established by the Act for Vniformity that it is expresly owned and allowed that so much as endeavours against it are prohibited that it is no less then the loss of our Livings not to declare that we are not bound to endeavour the alteration of it These things are plain enough 3. The great question here is whether these Laws made in the behalf of Episcopal Government after the taking of the Covenant against it can discharge the Subjects from the Obligation of the Covenant so far 4. To this I do not fear to answer Episcopal Government being in it self not sinful in the affirmative neither do I find any noted Casuist to contradict me 5. The sum of my reason for the affirmative you have in this plain Argument The Covenant to do that which may Prop. 1. become unlawful cannot bind when the thing sworn abstracted from our Covenant is become unlawful for then the Covenant becomes a bond of iniquity and should bind beyond that known and generally approved rule that no Covenant binds further and therefore not longer then we lawfully may and in the words of the Covenanters plea make us debtors to hell 6. I am far from the Opinion of Navarr Sylvester Layman and those that affirm that no man is further bound by an Oath then he would have obliged himself if he had foreseen the ill consequences of it which is indeed in their latitude a very dangerous rule and plainly destructive to humane society 7. Yet no Casuist but with Sanches will allow the Rule when thus limited that what would at first have hindred our obliging our selves had it been foreseen or had it first hapned will also discharge us when known or come to pass from the obligation to the performance of it if it be by reason that the matter is inhabilis ad producendam obligationem that is if the thing become unlawful and consequently weak and unable to produce an obligation as before But to Covenant to endeavour the Prop. 2. extirpation of Episcopal Government though it might be thought to be lawful to do then yet now it appears it was to Covenant to do that which might become unlawful viz. by the Laws restoring that Government and prohibiting all endeavours for the extirpation or alteration of it 2. Therefore if it did oblige so far before which cannot be granted yet it can now oblige so far no longer except it have power beyond Authority and can warrant disobedience to the Laws of the Land 3. The reason of the whole lies in that excellent Rule of Dr. Ames a Rule not questioned by any that I have heard of De Rebus ita Mutabilibus ut rem promissam faciant illi citam subintelligitur si res in eodem statu permanserint that is in the fairest and most uncexeptionable interpretation if the change of the state of things do not render the thing sworn or promised sinful or unlawful 4. Now it may be worth the examining what unlawfulness can de novo be contracted by the change of the state of things mutable 5. Certainly not an unlawfulness from any immediate prohibition of God for then either the thing could not be lawful or in that sence mutable before and the promise had been sinful ab initio whereas Dr. Ames supposeth the contrary and giveth this among the rest as a condition of a lawful Oath or else it must be made unlawful by special revelation which is absurd to suppose especially seeing Ames makes the changableness of the things and the state of them a possible instrument of changing things before lawful and lawfully sworn into sinful and such as can no longer be obliged unto 6. What then remains but that this Rule refers to the laws of men which indeed have power to change the state of things indifferent and to make them as to us and as to their use though not in themselves either sinful or necessary 7. So that the meaning of the Rule is that when we promise or swear any thing that is lawful if it be of a mutable nature and the contrary to what we swear may be commanded by Authority we are onely to perform it with this condition if things remain in the same condition and the command of Superiours or the Law of the Land do not prohibite and make it unlawful for us to do 8. Thus admit that Episcopal Government was res indifferens and res mutabilis when men swore against it yet to perform that Oath is now become unlawful by the intervention of new Law and our duty to Superiours which no former Oath can supersede for according to the Rule the Oath cannot bind in things of so mutable a nature without this condition si res in eodem statu permanserint if the things sworn do no way afterwards become sinful Object The proposal of an Objection wherein we have all that can possibly be urged against this Rule may give some advantage to our further clearing this weighty matter it is
not a publick Oath to alter Government of another Order for Subjects to swear to endeavour this against the Laws of the land the expresse dissent of the supream Governour and to hold themselves obliged hereunto contrary to an expresse prohibition of lawful Authority Truly methinks it is also against both Divine and Naturall Law against Reason and Scripture which seem to dictate as with a beam of the Sun that for publick security Order and Peace Subjects acquiesce in the present Government and not rise up either to swear or endeavour against it contrary to Law CASE XIV Whether to Endeavonr the Extirpation of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Laws to the Contrary be not against the Priviledge of Parliament and consequently sinful Resol 1. WE have already shewed the sinfulnesse of the matter of the Covenant in the second Article as against the Rights of the King and the Lawes of the Land we come now to consider whether it invade not the Priviledge of Parliaments and be not sinfull also in that regard 2. We find it a Rule with all Casuists in omni Juramento excipitur Authoritas Superioris i. e. quando agitur de super esse Superioris for it is confessed they add secùs si non de superesse superioris sed privatorum That is in all Oathes about such things as lie under the power of our Superiours their Authority is excepted 3. Nor their Authority already exerted in Laws made before the Oath onely but as it may de futuro and afterwards be put forth in any New Law contrary to our Oath Therefore D. Jacob gives this instance in the Case Jurans non exire domo c. A man Decision Area p. 173. swears not to go from home yet if he commanded by the Judge to appear before him or by the King to go into the warrs by obeying these commands he is not perjured 4. Again if a man promise another that he will not hurt him yet if the Law requires him to kill him he in so p. 174. doing doth not break his Oath quia illa promissio non occidendi intelligitur nisi lege permittente because his promise must except the Law 5. Hence it follows though all the Covenanters had at first lawfully bound themselves by their Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy yet naturally there must have been this great condition understood saving the Authority of Parliaments that have power to take up our endeavours of this nature by a Law to the contrary when they please 6. For if this Government of the Church do lye more properly under the power of Parliaments to establish or alter it and if it cannot be altered without a change of the Law and the Law cannot be changed but by an Act of Parliament is not the Covenant to that purpose de superesse superioris and thus necessarily conditioned with the exception of their Authority 7. Non valet Juramentum contra justitiam But it is against the righteousness of Obedience and the honouring of our Superiours to be held bound to act against the Authority of our Law-Makers in any new Law that they shall make if the matter thereof be not sinful by any previous obligation whatsoever 8. This were indeed a handsome trick for private persons to be all law in a short time to themselves if private and self-obligations had power to supersede and prevent all the power of Legislation in our Parliaments to the contrary and to change places with our Governours while thus we are freed from their impositions and they are bound to obey the obligations of our private Covenants 9. The priviledges of Parliaments are so rooted in the constitution of this Kingdom that a Parliament in being cannot in such a case as this prejudge succeeding Parliaments to whom it is essential with their head the King to make what Laws they please in things indifferent 10. Insomuch that if the Covenant had been lawfully imposed by the Long Parliament without the King as indeed it was not yea had the King himself been with them and made the Covenant as lawful as Law could make it yet it could not bind the Nation but upon an exception of the power of future Parliaments that by a new Law to the contrary might take off the obligation 11. Therefore an Act of Parliament made to be unrepealable in any subsequent Parliaments is void ipso facto as that in the eleventh and another in the one and twentieth of Rich. the second was these so made were void ipso facto in the very constitution 12. Why because as a learned person saith it takes away the very specifical form essence and being that is the power and priviledge of Parliaments 13. Much more an Act of private persons or of a Parliament without their King that should offer to binde all future Parliaments from doing or enacting what otherwise is lawful or engage the people not to obey them must needs be so far a void Act though in the most Solemn League and Covenant 14. Especially when a law by a full and undoubted Authority is made and actually extant to the contrary not only restoring the Government sworn against not only prohibiting all actions yea and endeavours against it but requiring us upon the severest penalty to declare that we hold we are not bound by virtue of that Covenant to do or endeavour any such thing 15. Besides the holding our selves bound by virtue of that Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government is indeed a continued breach of the priviledge of that very Parliament that imposed the Covenant at first in the injury thereby offered to the spiritual state thereof the Bishops when they were neither suffered to be present to answer for themselves nor to have any others as all the Commons of England have to represent them and to speak for them Non valet juramentum contra justitiam charitatem 16. But I find it much stood upon by Mr. Crofton and the reverend Author of the Covenanters plea that they did onely Covenant to endeavour in their places and by lawful means to extirpate Episcopal Government and this they hope they may lawfully do notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament and without any breach of their priviledges 17. But hereunto I answer that if so to endeavour as they count they are sworn be neither unlawful in it self nor against the Act of Parliament t is well enough they may then keep their Covenant and not break the Law or the priviledges of Parliament but I doubt we shall find their endeavours which they judge just and honest to be peccant in all the respects mentioned That we may discern whether so or no we think it fair to put the Case CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Act of Parliament Resol 1. IT is said there are more ways of endeavour then by violence and
lawfulness 4. Had a private company of persons entered into a private League among themselves to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy it had not been neer so dangerous nor their endeavour to perform it in likelihood so open and seditious and destructive to the publick 5. But so great a body made up of Members of all sorts but the head to guid them and warrant their Actions and all engaging by a Solemn publique Oath to their power in their places with their Lives Estates as the Covenant expresseth it to extirpate the Government of the Church I cannot but witness that indeed here lay the Eminency of Sedition Hence a Lawyer in his place is sworn to plead a Member of Parliament to Vote a Minister to Preach a Souldier to Fight a Country-man to Contribute and all to their power and with their Lives and Estates and the utmost hazard of them against that Government though established by Law against the expresse minde of the King and though also the power imposing were in actuall Armes against the King even when they imposed it and the people took it 6. Thus every one as related to the body was an Actor in every ones part and no doubt every one that did but contribute as a Covenanter did Counsel Vote Preach and Fight against Law and Government not to say the King 7. And if any person that was then zealous for the Covenant would speak freely he would easily resolve us that he meant more when he took it then to endeavour in his place in Master Crofton's and the Authour of the Covenanters pleas's Modern sence 8. Indeed the work and businesse of the Covenant as all ingenuous Covenanters must needs confesse and be humbled for was too too apparent to be this viz. to engage the Nation to extirpate Episcopacy and to endeavour in such a manner as though they knew the King would not consent at present yet vi armis they would force him to it or at least do it without him 9. Nothing can be more clear though nothing can be more sad and doleful to remember if the primitive meaning of the words in our places in the Covenant was any thing at all it was onely to keep the people from turbulency and confusion among themselves and not at all to hinder them from rising up in Armes against the King and his Army or at least the Kings Army the visible way they took to performe their Covenant and extirpate Prelacy 10. But I take no delight to recover the memory of these things as the Law hath pardoned them so I hope my Brethren have seen the folly and madness and sin of them and are truly ashamed to remember them I also crave pardon of my Reader for the mention of them with this true Apology that my Argument forced me to it But we will leave the fact and inquire after the jus viz. CASE XIX Whether the two Houses without the King could bind themselves and the people of these Kingdoms with an Oath to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government Resol IT will easily appear they could not by a few Propositions 1. The King is caput communitatis and no Act can passe or Law be made to bind the people without his fiat the Laws are therefore called the Kings Laws and said to be Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty indeed not without the Consent of the Lords and Commons and the Authority of the same The Excellent Bishop so often mention'd concludes and proves at large the power Legis-lative to be a power Autocratical and gives a sad memento to some that the wild notion of Co-ordinate power is a Ridiculous Invention and that such as received it by this gross Sophisme became guilty of the foulest perjury for by it they Acknowledge and constitute a power equall to him in the Kingdome whom in expresse terms they have sworn to be the onely Supream power in the Kingdome Secondly the King is the Fountain of all Justice as well as Law as the Law it self acknowledgeth and hath the execution of the Law first in himself from whom all Officers as subordinate derive their very Office as well as power of execution Thirdly The Government of the Prop. 3. Church cannot be altered except the Laws be alter'd nor yet without Vncommissioning the Kings Officers as all Ecclesiasticall Governours are Neither of which may lawfully be done without the King Therefore Fourthly The altering Prop. 4. of Church-Government both as it requires a change of the Law or an Vncommissioning the Kings Officers est res quae Regis potestati subijcitur in a very high and eminent manner and by fair consequence according to the Rule held undisputable by all Casuists neither Parliament nor people nor both together can be bound to endeavour the Alteration of the Government of the Church without this Condition Si Regi etiam placuerit if it shall also please the King Which pleasure of the King to alter any thing setled by Law must not be in private or in a private manner expressed but in a Regal Act when his two houses present him with a Bill to that purpose otherwise the Laws are still the same and our Obligations to them especially for the ratifying any Act or Vndertaking of the Parliament as the Case is here But all the world knows this was never done and thereupon according to the Rule the Obligation of the Covenant ceas'd immediately No Act of one Parliament can bind Prop. 5. all future Parliaments not to meddle with any thing that is within the power of Parliament such an Act as before was shewed is void in it self much lesse could that Ordinance of Parliament about the Covenant survive that Parliament and supersede the power of all future Parliaments to restore and establish Episcopall Government Neither could they bind themselves or the people absolutely and for ever thus to endeavour without breach of the priviledges of all future Parliaments without this Condition if they should also like and approve it and that such endeavours should never be forbidden by King and Parliament in any future Law to the Contrary but that is now done datur irritatio Juramenti and the Covenant is voided in that point Thus we are at length got over the great stone of stumbling the Obligation of the Covenant onely a weak mistake or two about this part of the declaration remains to be discovered and we shall passe on Obj. It is said that many things in the Covenant are Morally Good and how then can we abjure it Answ 1. My Dear Brethren pray spare such hard words you know the word Abjure is not in the Act And therefore should not be used by men of Conscience to the trouble of their Brethren and the more ignorant or inconsiderate part of the people 2. We are not called to swear at all much lesse to Abjure or Vnswear as some too scornefully yet too frequently as well as falsely love to speak which
is comely in none much lesse Ministers especially such as expect persecution 3. Neither are you required to declare against any thing that is good in the Covenant or that is not evill or rather against nothing either good or evil in the Covenant directly onely by Consequence for we are onely to declare that it doth not bind to endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State which seeing it cannot be done without breach of the Laws we have found to be sinfull and therefore it is inhabilis ad Obligationem producendam 4. If any do hold that they are bound by that Covenant to be more Loyal and faithful to the King and to reform their own lives c. the Act doth not say that they must hold or declare the contrary 5. We read it under the Royal hand I willingly forgive such mens taking the Convenant who keep within such bounds of Piety Law and Loyalty as can never hurt either the Church my self or the publick peace against which no mans Lawful Calling can engage him Obj. But why should we or how can we declare for others do we know anothers Conscience or how far he is bound Answ 1. This Complaint ariseth also from mistake as if we were called to declare what other men think or hold of the Covenant whereas indeed we are not required to trouble our selves whether others think or hold themselves bound by it or no but to declare what we our selves think or hold not that others are not bound by the Covenant at all as before but so far onely as not to be troublers of peace or enemies to Government 2. Now if this be unlawfull as hath methinks appeared sufficiently nemo tenetur ad illicitum neither we nor any other are obliged unto it and if it be a breach of the Act not so to declare we are also to declare as we are required that we hold there lies No Obligation upon our selves or any other person by virtue of that Oath called the Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government either of Church or State CASE XX. Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was in it self an Unlawful Oath Resol 1. WE are come to the second branch of the Declaration touching the Covenant that the Covenant was in it self an unlawful Oath 2. I shall not flie to the following words which may be Exegeticall of these to prove it so viz. because it was imposed against the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdome but allow that phrase unlawful in it self to carrie more in it then the bare illegality of the Imposition 3. Indeed if it be granted that it was unlawful in the Imposition as the boldest writer for Obligation of the Covenant do not deny this unavoidably drawes on another kind of illegality on the takers part for if it was unlawful in the imposing 't was much more so in the taking of it It is unreasonable to Imagine that the Common people had any more warrant thus to swear in a publick Covenant about matters of publick concernment without the consent of the King then the two houses had to require it of them 4. And though it will not follow that the Covenant is not obliging meerly because it was sinfully injoyn'd or sinfully taken it will follow against all Contradiction that a Covenant illegally taken is even therefore an unlawfull Oath and that is the thing we are here called to declare 5. That is no more then this that the peoples covenanting in so numerous a body in so publique a manner and about matters of so publique concernment without and against the minde of their King is an unlawful Act and though the matter of the Covenant could not have been proved to be unlawfull yet thus it is properly because formally an unlawfull Oath Therefore it is worth the heeding for the satisfaction of such a scruple that the Act doth not call us to declare that the Covenant was in it self unlawful as some too arelesly say it doth that might have seemed to reflect upon the matter of the Covenant but that it is in it self an unlawful Oath which rather seems to intend the forme and manner of it as a publique Covenant as was now said taken by a numerous body of Subjects without and against the mind of their King I shall not need to repeat what hath been urged before to prove the main matter of the Covenant unlawful but shall seal up this with that unquestionable Rule of my Lord of Lincoln who pleaseth to acknowledge that sometimes though the pactum be illicitum yet res pacta licet the things sworn may be lawful yet the Oath an unlawful Oath CASE XXI Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom Resol WE are now even at our Journies end and the sooner because we hardly met with any 〈◊〉 in our way in the present Case 1. I find there is nothing more easily yielded to be unlawful touching the Covenant then the imposition of it and how it can be unlawful in the imposition except it were imposed contrary to the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdome I cannot apprehend 2. It is enough that we read it as a fundamental in the Petition of Right that it is contrary to the Liberty of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament and the Long Parliament it self that imposed the Covenant never pretended to make an Act of Parliament without the King or if they had done so it had been to very little purpose because they had thus pretended to do what they could not do and acted against the known Constitution of the Kingdom as their successons did 3. If it should be said that the Oath made with the Gibeonites was against the Liberties of the people and yet it was found to be obliging First we are not here called to declare the non-obligation of the Govenant but the illegal imposition yet seeing we had no occasion to speak unto this Objection before briefly a word or two now 2. There is no resemblance betwixt the Covenant made with the Gibeonites and the Covenant we treat off That Covenant was not imposed on either part but freely taken and therefore could not be against the Liberties of the people volenti non fit injuria 3. Besides the Text saith expresly that Joshua made the League with them who was Supream and all the Princes of the Congregation sware unto them whereas many of our Princes did refuse the Covenant yea for ought we know most of them and our Joshua the King proclaimed against it 4. Again that League was to shew too much favour to strangers and enemies but the Covenant endeavours to root out a very considerable part of our own Nation 5. Again by that League there was no Fundamental no Law at all violated no hurt done by ours many Laws are to be
against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him Accordingly there arise two Cases CASE III. Whether it be lawfull for us to declare that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Resol 1. EIther it is lawfull to take Armes against the King or it is not if it be granted that it is not what should hinder us from declaring it when by Law as now we are called to do it but if it should be thought lawful I must demand by what Law T is but a subterfuge to speak of the Law of Nature while the Law of Scripture and the Law of the Land have undertaken the Case 3. Now what saith the Scripture surely it gives not the least colour of encouragement for it except Obedience and Submission and that for conscience and the Lords sake be taking Arms. 4. Again if the Scriptures may be thought too General let the Laws of the Land be examined I question not whether they were not sufficiently plain in the Case before yet now certainly they are above all Contradiction or doubt I mean by the late Act for the Safety of the Kings person where we may learn in the plainest manner that it is Treason and Rebellion and unlawfull enough upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King 5. Such as I now deal with do at the most onely doubt whether according to the constitution of this Kingdom the two Houses are not a power co-ordinate with the King and the King and his two Houses being at variance whether they might not side with the Parliament even to the taking Armes against the King but if this were a doubt before it is not possible it should remain so still all colour of it being wiped away and that Controversie as perfectly determined as an Act of King Lords and Commons can possibly do it as appears in the Act forementioned for the safety of the Kings person CASE IV. Whether is it lawful to declare that we do Abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or those that are Commissionated by him Answ 1. IF this be indeed a Traiterous position who doubts but that every true Subject is bound to abhor it and being lawfully called thereunto so to declare 2. That this is a Traiterous position I need not say more then what I just now said in answer to the last Case Namely that however it came to be disputed before it is now plainly determined to be so by the said Act for the safety of the Kings person and it being declared by Law to be a Traiterous position it ought so to be reputed and by this Law also it being so required of us it ought to be declared against and abhorr'd accordingly 3. So much may briefly suffice for the first general in this Declaration The second touching Conformity offers now to be considered This we shall pass with a quick dispatch that we may hasten to our main design the discharge of the Covenant The Case about Conformity in short is this CASE V. Whether we may lawfully declare that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established Resol 1. FIrst it seems there is no longer any ground of doubt whether the Liturgy be established by Law i. e. the Law of the Land 2. Secondly neither have we any reason to question whether it be against the Law of God seeing our Brethren whom we are now treating are supposed to acknowledge that they would have conformed unto it had not these Declarations been required which I know they would not have done had they thought it to be contrary to the Law of God 3. What then can obstruct this part of the Declaration with brethren so well prepared for it this only calls them to pass their former intention to conform into a promise that they will do so and to declare that for the satisfaction of Law and Authority they will do that which they acknowledge they can do with satisfaction to themselves and which also they confesse they would have done had not they received this dissatisfaction from the Declaration which yet we see vanisheth before us Of the Covenant 1. BUt the great Mountain is yet to be removed some say they are called to declare against and to renounce the Covenant or as some that would scare themselves and others from Conformity to abjure and to unswear the Covenant and this they complain is too hard for them they cannot do it This is I confess a very tender Point yet such I hope as the most tender Conscience need not fear to be pricked with it if warily handled I mean if we be not frighted awat from it or stand not at too great a distance but with a sound and impartial judgment draw neer unto it and look well upon it and consider after what manner and in what words we are indeed required to declare against the Covenant 2. Under this head there are three members of the Declaration touching the Covenant Something is to be declared against its obligation Something against its lawfullness in it self and something against the lawfulness of its imposition 3. We proceed to weigh them one by one with all seriousness and fidelity in a particular examination of the three Cases that offer themselves in the very words of the Declaration The first touching the Obligatory force of the Covenant is in the Declaration apparently limited to the alteration of Government and is this CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or alteration of Government either in Church or State Resol MEthinks it is no great venture to say that such as have taken the Covenant may lawfully declare that they hold that neither themselves nor any person is bound by the Covenant to endeavour a change of Government in Church or State We are agreed in three things and so far I shall not create a controversie First that a Covenant both illegally imposed and illegally taken may bind the Takers Secondly that the Covenant in Question doth not bind to an endeavour to alter or meddle with the State-Government Thirdly that the alteration or extirpation as the word is of Church-Government being the main business of the Covenant as the Covenanters plea hath granted if this main businesse of the Covenant be lawfull it doth so far binde those that have taken it if not lawful they are at least so far discharged and not under the obligation of it Fourthly t is accordingly therefore in plainest terms again and again granted us both by Mr. Crofton and the more Moderate and Learned Author of the Covenanters plea wherein indeed they concur with all Casuists that if we can discover any thing unlawful in the matter especially this main
the King and Parliament have practically improved the said distinction I presume in order to such Brethrens satisfaction and have indeed made a material alteration in the said Government by taking off the high Commission and the Oath ex officio by Law and yet established the Government it self CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular and therefore sinful in its matter Resol 1. AFter the Bishops were thrown out of their places in the House of Lords we might yet respect them as well as the rest of the Dignitaries in the Church as the Kings Subjects and to have an interest in the freedom of the Commons Now in this capacity we shall find the Covenant was very injurious to them even as Subjects and freemen and consequently it tore up the very foundation of the liberties of the people and in the destruction of one society threatned all 2. T is well known that the Governours of the Church were in possession of their several freeholds when the Covenant was voted to destroy them which their predecessors had enjoyed many hundred years without any interruption considerable 3. The number of these Subjects was not small their manner of living and governing in so many famous Corporations and Colleges was more then vulgar They had a considerable interest in the Lands of the Nation and much people being related to them and more depending on them and their great hospitality were concerned in them and fell with them 4. Yea it is declared by sundry Acts of Parliament that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England 5. And no wonder that this Crown of England is so much concerned for it and that the Kings of England at their Coronation swear they will grant confirm and keep all the Customs and Priviledges of the Church granted by King Edward and expresly to Bishops all Canonical Priviledges and that he will be a protector and defender of the Bishops Yet notwithstanding their number their Relations their Freeholds their Interest and Continuance notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament and the Royall Oathes yet was their Extirpation sworn by the Covenant imposed without Law or the Kings Consent and passed in the Parliament when the persons the many Corporations in the Land concern'd had none to represent them in the house of Lords or the house of Commons contrary to the excellent Constitution of the Nation and the Liberties of English men 7. Thus unjustly have they suffered nigh 20. years together and shall we yet think our selves bound by a Covenant that was at first laid in the subversion of our English Freedom to prosecute their Ruine 8. Especially against the Graine of Authority the current of the Laws and in an Age so zealous to fulfil the Prophesie of Dr. Featly who at their lowest askt this question How know ye whether Episcopacy may not be revived and raised up again by future Acts of Parliament in times as well affected to the Clergie as these are ill 9. For the Rights of Episcopal Government are again confirmed by King and Parliament and they that have places therein have as clear a title thereunto by Law as any other Subject hath to his temporal estate and how can a Covenant binde us to injure others who are first obliged by God himself to walk honestly 10. Here I humbly offer whether the King himself can be bound by Oath to destroy his people or any society or person of his Subjects especially out of his Parliament and when he is according to his Oath and his Office if he should never take his Oath bound to do Justice to all according to Laws already made the true measure of all mens Rights Salus populi hath a Supremacy over the King at least the King of Kings hath so who hath first obliged him to distribute Justice and preserve the Rights and Liberties of his people impartially and without respect of persons 11. We are sure the last King of ever happy Memory did not consent to the Covenant or if he had he was first bound expresly to the contrary by his Coronation Oath to defend the Bishops and maintain their Canonicall priviledges 12. And in the behalf of the present we may be bold to say the Parliament imposing the Covenant onely by an Ordinance which lost its force at their dissolution at his Fathers death he could not confirm the Covenant by any Act of his without a Parliament and the former Ordinance ceased with the former Parliament and the Petition of Right tells us that it is contrary to the Liberties of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament and much more so if against the Freeholds and the very being of so many famous Corporations in the people of England 13. The King is bound to Right but cannot be bound to wrong any of his Subjects any such obligation is void of it self for the Oaths of Kings must also have the condition so far as lawfully we may who are accountable to God though not to man by whom they are intrusted with the good of their Subjects and to whom they have sworn 14. Therefore David when he had made a rash Oath that he would slay 1 Sam. 25. 32. Nabal and all his Houshold rejoyced when he had occasion offered by Abigail to break his Oath and though he sware to Shimei that he would save 2 Sam. 19. 23. his life yet as if upon better advice he had found that that person had deserved to die and been convinced that it was expected from God that Justice should be done he commanded his Son Solomon to put him to death and doubtlesse it had been better for Herod to have saved John Baptist though he had broke his Oath and lost his Reputation in some measure with the people 15. Especially if through fear or any other temptation the King should be thus prevailed with to promise or swear to injure his Subjects The Case then is as if a man under threats of a Robber should swear to bring him his Neighbours horse 16. Now whether the thing sworn in fear and under temptation be unlawfull and unjust or not must be judged by the Conscience of the partie sworne 17. Whence may issue two Cases with respect to the time when the Oath is made and when it is to be performed But one answer doth serve them both for when the Conscience dictates the thing sworn to be unlawful it will rule the Case if a man sweares for fear against his Conscience his Conscience being Gods Vice-gerent within him he sins against God in swearing God by his Conscience having the first Obligation upon him And if he should perform his Oath against his Conscience he fins twice first by doing evil and secondly by keeping his evil Oath For as the Right Reverend Bishop Sanderson concludes this very case such Oath doth not bind against Conscience 18. The Author
of the Covenanters plea would faine say something to weaken this Conclusion of the Bishop supposing the matter of the Oath to be lawful in it self and onely appearing to be evill to him that swears it but though he make a flourish towards it if we apply his discourse to our present Case of the Covenant it vanishech into aire 19. For though it be true that an erring Conscience doth not obligare it cannot be denied but it doth ligare and consequently suspend the performance of the thing sworn so long as the party apprehends the matter to be sinful whether it be indeed so or not That is no one is bound by the Covenant to endeavour to extirpate the Government of the Church by Prelacy while he is perswaded that so to do is sinful and to the injury of the Church 20. And it is all one whether the Conscience of the party as I have said did thus judge the thing unlawful when he swore it or is since so convinced for we may not aggravate a rash Oath with unlawfull practice that is against Conscience 21. But if the matter of the Covenant be unlawful in it self as hath amply appeared in such a Case truly there is no dispute for here Conscience dictates nothing but Truth and Duty and it were sad adventure for a King himself to second Herod and to fulfill a wicked Oath by a more wicked Act against his Conscience and his Brother and his God too Si facere intendit bis peccat ex Tolet. Cas Con. intentione quam habet peccandi ex Juramento supra rem injustam The Case of Abbots in Henry the Eights time is too weakly compared with the Case of the Bishops in ours unlesse it be proved that the Abbots were as usefull in the Church as the Bishops c. That the Bishops c. are declared to have run into a proemunire as the Abbots were That the Abbots had none to represent them in the Parliment as the Bishops had not and especially that the King was not Active or any way consenting to the Act for the destruction of the Abbots as he was not to the Covenant for the Extirpation of the Bishops which are not to be undertaken CASE XVII Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations and consequently sinfull Resol THe first Spring of all Obligation is in God Laws bind us Love binds us Oathes and Covenants bind us but how as God in Nature or Scripture binds us he requires us to love our Neighbour as our selves and not to wrong him To obey Authority and observe their commands to pay our vows and fulfill the Oath that is gon out of our Lipps 2. It is a sure Rule that as God himself is ever the same so his Moral Obligations upon us change not Neither can any Act of ours take off or weaken our Obligations to him 3. Hence it eternally follows that a latter Obligation against a former is of no force but void of it self because the former Obligation being from God and of a Moral Nature it is eternal as God is and fixt and not to be broken 4. There seem to be three Bonds or Cords of God to have had force upon us before the Covenant was taken or thought of all which the Covenant is against and endeavours to break in the Second Article of it to Obey Authority to keep our Oathes and Promises and to serve the Church in our Generation 1. First God hath first both by Law of Nature and holy Scripture bound us by his Soveraigne indispensable command to honour our parents to obey them that have the Rule over us to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as supreame or to those that are sent and Commission'd by him and of necessity to be subject not only for wrath but Conscience sake because the powers that be are ordained by God ordained to be Ministers of God whosoever therefore resisteth resisteth the Ordinance of God and consequently God himself 2. Were not these Obligations upon us even on our very Consciences before the Covenant was taken did not the Covenant find these barrs within us was not the Conscience thus prepossessed against it and lock't up from it 3. But how was the Covenant contrary to these Obligations yea rather how was it not it being imposed and taken against the Kings Lawes and the matter of it as we have shew'd being against the Rights both of King and Parliament and the Government of the Church set over us by the King and Laws made both before and since the Covenant 4. More particularly God first obligeth us to be subject and obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church it would discharge us of our Obedience and oblige us to resistance contrary to Gods express Obligatiâ—â— upon us which cannot be 5. Again the Civil Authority requires us to obey our Ecclesiastical Governours The Civil Authority by Acts of Parliament requires us to declare that we are not obliged to resist them to endeavour to extirpate them to this also we oppose the Covenant though God first hath bound us to obey our Rulers which cannot be 6. I have spoken to this under another Argument before I shall here therefore onely add the plain but very weighty and Authentick testimony of Mr. Perkins who very distinctly foresaw Cases of Conse our Case 7. He laies down two Rules among others that methinks might decide our Controversie 1. If an Oath be taken against the Laws of the Land or Country whereof a man is member it binds not he doth not say that it was sinfully taken onely but it binds not at all he gives the very reason for it which I am now improving because on the contrary Gods Commandement binds us to keep the good Lawes of men 8. Therefore the Covenant so far as it is against the just Laws of the Kingdom that is such Laws as are not unjust or evil in the matter of them can not bind at all because God hath first commanded us and bound us to the contrary 9. 2. Again saith Mr. Perkins if at the first the matter of the Oath were lawful and afterwards by some means becomes either impossible or unlawful it binds not the conscience when it begins to be unlawful it ceaseth to bind saith he because the binding virtue is only from the word of God 10. Thus also had there been no Law to render the matter of the Covenant unlawful when it was taken yet it being now unlawful to endeavour to change the Government sworn against yea it being a duty to declare that we hold our selves not bound by the Covenant so to do the Covenant cannot oblige either thus to endeavour which is forbidden or not thus to declare which is required for the one is a sin of Omission the other of Commission but