would take it for granted that the Government of the Church by Prelacy as it is in England is so but neither they nor any other can ever prove it 4. Neither dare they say that either lawful Authority may not establish what Government they judge to be most convenient if not against the Scripture or that it is lawful for Subjects publickly to swear that without submission to the pleasure of their Governours they will endeavour to extirpate such Government as is not contrary to the Word of God Or that such a Covenant is binding upon the people to endeavour against it or not to submit unto it 5. Much lesse can it bind the people against such Government if lawful in it self and such also as cannot be altered without change of the Law which lies not in the power of the people to do without the King especially if the Government sworn against be established by Law 6. The matter is so plain as Mr. Perkins Cases of Consc hath decided it That a Covenant taken against the Laws of the Land is void of it self that it hath put the Declaration before the Covenant and Mr. Crofton and especially the Author of the Covenantters plea upon a task impossible viz. to make good that the Government of the Church as in practice in England is not established by Law I shall labour on purpose to satisfie this doubt presently in the mean time the present turn is apparently served with a plain distinction We may be said to endeavour against the Laws and to swear against them two wayes Either when the thing we swear against is expresly established by plain Law or when the thing we swear against cannot be abolished without the Alteration or Abolition of Law 8. Now admit that there be no express Law appointing this form of Government Covenanted against yet how doth this clear the Covenanters from swearing against Law when they swear to extirpate that which cannot be extirpated without the violation and alteration of many very many Laws So that this evasion I think is perfectly obstructed 9. A little more distinctly seeing as I humbly conceive there is much strength in this Argument to weaken yea to void the Covenants Obligation in this particular 10. I doubt not to assert that such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was covenanted is against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent such Laws as were in force before the Covenant was taken and such Law as by full and just Authority was enacted since And to conclude that if the endeavours to extirpate Prelacy according to the Covenant be indeed against the Law in either of these sences they are plainly sinful and no obligation of the Covenant can hold us to them First then let the Question be put CASE XI Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant Resol 1. I Have no insight into the Laws yet there is so much in the very Surface of them for this form of Government that as I cannot but wonder at the doubt so I am easily encouraged to encounter it 2. Yet give me leave in the first place to stumble at the fallacious use and too weak improvement that I find made of this expression Established by Law as if nothing could be legal or opposed as such that is not positively appointed in some Statute on purpose if this be heeded the advantage hence which at most is small utterly fails the design of the Covenant 3. To what poor satisfaction hath the learned Author of the Covenanters plea run through the Canon Law the Civil Law the Statute law and the Common Law to find such an establishment with so much industry while I think none will dare to question but this form is legal and that it is established in the law though no express Statute be found appointing it and so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws as that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 4. Is it not pretty to observe that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice to question whether Episcopacy be established by Law when Episcopacy hath so long even for a thousand years together as Sir Henry Spelman observes had a great hand in establishing yea making the Law it self 5. Truly methinks seeing the power of the Bishops was before the Laws so many hundred years before our Parliaments as now they are and before our Norman Laws I mean as ours And seeing also that they were still a main cause of the Laws there is the less reason to expect their Power or their Office or their Government from them or that the child should beget the father that begot it 6. However give me leave to venture a little without my Line and to offer a distinction or two that haply may cause my Brethren that are troubled with this scruple to take better heed to their words and to take a better course to vindicate their Cause then by such a wild adventure to disturb every thing 1. The Law may establish a thing two ways either by appointing it de novo or by allowing it and taking it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church not only by those special Laws that relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spiritual 2. Church-Government may be supposed to be established by Law either in its Office thus we need not say the present form is established by Law for its Office was before ever the Laws of the Land medled with Church-Government or secondly in its political power and the exercise of it thus the present Government none can doubt to be established by Law where we may read many times over the several legal names with their distinct Jurisdictions and the crimes punishable by them and Authority allowed them so to punish and the fees of their Courts yea and the very form and manner of consecrating the Bishops established by Law 3. Thirdly Church-Government is establishable by Law either immediately or mediately Immediately when by an express Statute such a form is appointed mediately when a Statute impowers a person or persons to Commissionate Governours for the Church and he or they by virtue of such power do settle a Government in the Church accordingly 7. Suppose the present Government be not established by Law in the first t is plainly so in the second sence there is Statute Law declaring the King to be Supream Governour over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiastical and there is Statute Law that gives him Power and Authority or rather according to my Lord Cooke declares him to have power to appoint and impower his Commissioners in Ecclesiastical matters And we know Church-Governours derive their political power and the exercise of it
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
minde and hold themselves obliged not to own Church-Government or Act under it as they may have daily occasion notwithstanding the final determination of Authority that we must be governed by it what disturbances distractions and confusions must needs follow in Church and State 3. Blame not the Parliament if they intended by the Act to prevent it especially considering that this is not all But more publick endeavours are judged by Mr. Crofton lawful too so long as every man keeps his place And truly if endeavours in the Covenant be the measure of the meaning of the word in the Act as is very likely I am loath to remember how high it once carried us indeed not in private but too too publickly The Covenant speaks of our places and by lawful means yet also to our power and with our lives and estates And what need of all this if we may only petition in a regular and legal course and so and no otherwise endeavour there being no other lawful way of endeavour in our places but these that I can think of and as for petitioning too if that should be forbidden certainly we are not bound unto it But Mr. Crofton and the said Author tells us of a better meaning of acting in our places Ministers must preach against the Government and the Lawyers must plead against it the Judge must sentence it the Souldier must fight against it yea and every tongue must revile it and speak evil of it and every mouth be filled with cursing and bitterness against it I need not say thus it was when the cause of the Covenant was in the field The Lord give us humble and peaceable spirits to discern at last in the Calm the way of our duty from which we have been too long transported by the stormy wind and tempest 4. In short thus to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church and the Laws is either sinful indifferent or necessary If it be said to be necessary that is a duty of it self without respect to the Covenant two things must be proved both of which are highly incapable of it First that the Government is unlawful in it self Secondly that Subjects are bound to use unlawful endeavours for a Reformation of Government and Law as no doubt those before mentioned are If these endeavours be said to be indifferent in themselves and made necessary to us by virtue of the Covenant I answer as before is proved that we cannot be bound by our own Oath to do a thing indifferent in it self seem it never so convenient to us against a known Law of the Land and to the prejudice of Parliamentary power in the determining of things indifferent But if the endeavours be indeed sinful in themselves we need no power of Law to discharge us of them for they never bound us but the Covenant was so far naught from the beginning 5. In a word that these endeavours are in themselves sinful appears in the reason of the Covenant and the concessions of the very opponents 1. The Covenant requires no more and we are bound no farther say our Brethren to endeavour against Episcopal Government but in our places and by lawful means But now the first step that our Brethren take in this their endeavour is out of their places viz. by not yielding unto not obeying not so much as acknowledging the Government which the King and the Law hath set over them nor making any conscience of the Law requiring them to disclaim their obligation to the contrary For Subjects not to obey not to own their superiours to reject those that are sent by their King Yea to make their own Covenant to prevent the commands of Authority surely this is for Subjects to be out of their places and if these be their endeavours to extirpate the Hierarchy the Covenant it self in the modern sence of it will not allow them 2. Again much more to take all occasions to revile and curse this Government in our Prayers and Sermons and Discourses and in effect to do what in us lies that the people reject it scorn it hate it trample upon it and make it the mark of their malice and revenge this is certainly to endeavour out of our places and by unlawful means too and far from the Tenour of our Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and Christianity 3. Let me then conclude that look what my Brethren concerned take to be the sence of endeavour in the Covenant and how they themselves understand it by their purposes and practices and upon sober reckoning they will find that such endeavours are both unlawful in themselves and made unlawful by the Act of Parliament and upon either account much more on both they need not stick to declare as required that neither they nor any other person is bound thus to endeavour notwithstanding the Covenant Though I presume if there be any other endeavours besides acting against speaking evil of or not yielding unto the Government as established by the Laws of the Land which are not unlawful seditious and not inconsistent with the places of Subjects my Brethren are not by the Act required to declare their non-obligation unto them Object But though we may not endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy there may be many corruptions in the Government by Episcopacy and are we not to endeavour an alteration or Reformation of them Answ 1. First as it is unlawful according to the Scriptures Reason and the Constitution of the Kingdom for Subjects to enter into a publick Covenant to reform the Church without the consent of the King so we cannot be bound by such Oath to endeavour it by means that are sinful and seditious as before or out of our places 2. We must distinguish of corruptions in the Government and the Government it self as well in the Answer as in the Objection and betwixt a Reformation and an Alteration or Change of Government or an Alteration in the Government and an Alteration of the Government T is worth our notice as to this Objection that the Act requiring the Declaration is expresse for the latter and not the former branch of the distinction the words of the Declaration are I do hold that neither my self nor any other person hath any obligation upon us from the Covenant to endeavour to make any alteration or change of Government in Church or State nor in the Government of either that is indeed that we are not bound by the Covenant to labour to pull down this Fram of Government and set up another either in Church or State We have sufficient ground for this distinction from our covenanting Brethren themselves if not from their distinction of the collective and distributive sence of the second Article about Church-Government yet from such moderate persons among them that openly declared upon a solemn occasion that might they see any material alteration in the Government granted there they should hold themselves satisfied as to the Covenant in that point Besides
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
these nothing prevail What shall we say to these things if it be sinful to conform declare wherein if not but some smaller matter hinder us I cannot but remember then that he that died of the Bite of a Weasell lamented that it was not a Lion I speak as unto Wise men Judge ye what I say and the God of Truth and Peace be with you Amen THE Grand Case Whether it be lawful to declare as is required by the late Act Entituled an Act for the Uniformity of Publique Prayers c. Resol I Fear there are some that question the very lawfulness of the Book of Common-prayer so few sheets of paper may not be thought to attempt so great a Taske as their satisfaction Yet hearing that many Moderate Brethren do now check who had resolved to conform had not these Declarations been required out of my tender affection to them as also my desire of the good of the Church which I cannot but believe may be much advanced through their Conformity I have taken this encouragement to offer my Reason why I conceive that such Ministers as could otherwise have conformed may lawfully declare in order thereunto as by the said Act is required That we may distinctly and throughly judge of this weighty point we shall set before our eyes both the Declarations in their own words for there are two of them the first we have in page 73. and the other in page 77. of the Act as it is now printed they are as followeth The first is thus I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons The second is thus I A. B. do declare that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him and that I will conform to the Liturgie of the Church of England as it is now by Law Established And I do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonl called the Solemn League and Covenant to Endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in its Self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom These are the Declarations we proceed to consider each of them in their several Branches Touching the first the Case is CASE I. Whether it be lawfull to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declarations Resol THis Declaration hath two branches The first is about the Liturgy the last about the Book of Ordination 1. Touching the Liturgy we are to declare in these words I do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and preseribed in and by the said Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer c. 2. Touching the Book of Ordination we are to declare in these words And the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons 3. Now give me leave to ask what can possibly render it unlawfull for such as can conform without it for such I deal with thus to declare 4. As for the latter branch touching the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Conseerating Bishops Priests and Deacons this most that have Livings have Subscribed already at their Ordination and read their allowance of openly to their several Congregations upon their Induction besides had not this been required in the Act who knows not that no conformity without subscribing and reading the Nine and thirty Articles in one of which we declare the same could legally suffice Yea who sees not the weakness of such a pretence of future conformity if this part of the Declaration had not been required which indeed is no new thing nor such as any one without self-abuse or self-delusion could possibly expect should not still be required or truly I think without dissimulation or abuse of the world could say they intended to have conformed had not this been required 5. But I perceive the first part of the Declaration touching the Liturgy bears the greater burthen of exception The words are I do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer c. 6. But did you indeed intend to have formed had not this Declaration been required what can hinder you thus to declare viz. that you do assent and consent to that which your selves did intend to practice and that this your assent and consent to your own intended practice is not Hypocritical but unfeigned certainly this is all that is here required 7. Perhaps the long Title of the Book afrights us But if there be more then in the Book we have nothing to do with that for we are only to declare for every thing contained in the Book but if there be not then we that embrace the substance have no reason to be scared with the shadow or to scruple at that in the Title which we can use in the Book Object 1. It is objected that there are several expressions in the Book of Common-Prayer that though we could safely read them yet we do not so heartily like and approve them as we seem to be required to declare Answ 1. Do not force an Edge upon the words to wound your selves Look well upon the Declaration and you will find that the object of your assent and consent is not the words but things not every word but every thing not every thing as there expressed but every thing contained in the expressions and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-Prayer 2. Yet if you can conform to the Book I hope you can read the words and if so I hope you can assent and consent unfeignedly to the lawfulness of the Action which your selves perform and this is all as more fully I shall shew presently that is here required of you to declare Object 2. But though we can use the things yet it is only for peace sake and obedience to Authority c. and not because we would chuse or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves Answ We may approve a thing absolutely as is hinted in the Objection and comparatively or respectively 1. That we should absolutely approve of every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer as that which we would chuse above all other and as best in it self we
cannot either with charity to our selves or our Governours or with any colour of reason conceive to be the intention of the Declaration required Seeing it is a moral impossibility that all men in so many particulars and various circumstances should be exactly of one mind And seeing much less will serve the ends of Government and the designe of the Act for Uniformity 2. It is therefore a comparative or respective approbation that is here required or rather in the milder words of the Act assent and consent the grounds thereof are not specified in the Act but left to our selves and whatsoever the grounds and motives are if they are effectual to prevail upon us to assent and consent unfeignedly to the Book of Common-Prayer our Governours expect no more for their Act hath its end 3. Thus we are left free to compare the effects and consequences of our conformity and Non-conformity of obedience to the Act and our disobedience and if we can but comparatively approve of conformity that is with respect to its conveniencies above Non-conformity and consequently of every thing to be conformed to upon the like grounds we may safely declare our assent and consent to the same in the sence of the Act. 4. For doubtless our Governours intended we should use those means they offer us for the same end themselves proposed Seeing therefore by the Act they intend and require uniformity and seeing also that they threaten such as will not thus assure them that they will conform with the loss of their Livings c. and lastly seeing all such penalties are annexed to Law on purpose to move us to active obedience what remains but that we are allowed thus to reason Here is such a Declaration required by Law and such a severe penalty annexed for all that disobey it though I could rather have liked the Book of Common-Prayer if such and such things had been altered yet rather then lose my living and therewith all legal opportunity of serving the Church rather then shew my self cross and disobedient to Authority in lawful things rather then ruine my self and family for a thing indifferent though in it self I judge it is inconvenient I do chuse to be obedient and conformable and in order thereunto upon these grounds I declare my assent and consent unfeignedly to every thing to be conformed unto 5. Indeed had the word Free been in the Act instead of unfeigned there had been more colour of this Objection Therefore out of a vile design I fear of some male-contents that can more freely consent to our common calamities then our common Prayers it is buz'd up and down perhaps not without feigning that our Free assent and consent is required And that thus we are to declare that we chuse these things for themselves and of our own accord Whereas the word Free is not at all mentioned and so the whole ground of the exception faileth 6. But for the perfect removal of any such scruple for ever let the Act interpret it self The words immediately forgoing this Declaration are these Every Minister shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Vse of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other they are the words of this Declaration Mark we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent To what not simply to all things but to all things with respect to their use to the use of all things in the said Book But in what words must we declare for the use of all things in the said Book in these words and no other and they are as was said the words of the Declaration 7. The plain meaning of the Act appears therefore to be but this while we declare in these words viz. of the Declaration we do but declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of Common-Prayer which if we can lawfully use we do but declare that if we do conform we do nothing against our consciences or that we do unfeignedly assent and consent to the use of that which we our selves either do or can use And as if our Governours had purposed to make this their meaning as plain as the Sun they have at least twice more given us the same interpretation of those words In page 74. such as are hereafter inducted must declare their unfeigned assent and consent To what why to the use of all things therein that is in the Book of Common-Prayer contained and prescribed But how and after what manner why according to the Form before appointed that is in the Declaration The like we have again page 83. 9. Of that which hath been said this is the Summe the Act in this first Declaration requires that we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of every thing in the Common-Prayer and the Form of Making Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons We suppose the brethren we now reason with to have purposed to use the Book of Common-prayer had not these Declarations been required and the Form of Making Bishops Priests and Deacons they have or must have subscribed and read their assent and consent unto it had this Declaration never been required Therefore I hope there is nothing of Conscience remaining in these my brethren to check any longer at this Declaration I shall therefore passe on unto the other CASE II. Whether is it lawfull to declare in the words of the second Declaration Resol 1. WHen Alcibiades a young Gentleman of Athens was afraid to speak before the Multitude Socrates to put him in heart ask'd him fear you such a one and names one of the Multitude to him no saith Alcibiades be is but a Trades-man fear you such a one saith he and names a second no for he is but a Peasant or such a one and names a third no for he is but an ordinary Gentleman Now saith Socrates of such as these doth the whole Multitude consist 2. I confess there are an heap of several things required in this second Declaration And perhaps their multitude may somewhat scare us Yea hence I have reason to believe that some are offended that hardly ever read much lesse examined the particulars of it 3. But be not afraid draw neer and take the Declaration into its parts and consider of them one by one its possible they may not be so formidable as we are apt of our selves or as others would have us to fancy It s possible we may thus receive encouragement with Alcibiades and finde a way to escape the Temptation This Declaration concerns three general heads Taking Armes against the King conformity to the Liturgy and the Oath called the Solemn League and Covenant 5. In the first part of this Declaration concerning the taking Armes against the King we are required to declare First that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Secondly that we abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against
his person or against those that are Commissionated by him Accordingly there arise two Cases 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
matter of the Covenant it was so far void ipso facto 5. For the proof of this they cry aloud for our strong reasons Such as I have I shall now crave leave with a sincere and humble hand to offer to my Brethren 6. Here I must pitch and my work in short is to prove that the Covenant so far as it engageth the takers of it against Church-Government and for the extirpation or change of it is unlawful and sinful in the matter of it 7. But give me leave to fix my foot in a plain distinction The Res jurata the thing Sworn or Covenanted to be done may be either such as is unlawful simply and absolutely unlawful for any to do or quò ad nos when though it be not sinful in the primary consideration of it yet to such and such persons it is sinful for it cannot be denied but that some things are lawful and laudable in themselves and for some persons as to execute justice to dispence the publick Ordinances to bear the Ark c. which are very unlawful for others not called thereunto to meddle with all 8. So that if to endeavour the extirpation of the Government of the Church by Prelacy be either unlawful in the first or absolute Consideration of it or else as to those that thus did Covenant and as it was covenanted if either way it be found unlawful so far the Covenant is sinful in the very matter of it 9. Indeed the immediate question and that which most neerly concerns the Covenanters is not whether the thing sworn be in it self lawful but whether it be so to them and whether this guilt lieth not on them first to purpose and then to swear to sin that is to do that which some way or other God hath forbidden them to meddle with for to them to whom it is forbidden it is as if it were unlawful in it self as the Apple to our first Parents and as it is unlawful for us it goes into the matter of the Covenant which we take and by consequence that which is only unlawful to us if sworn doth make that Oath as ours unlawful in its self that is in the matter of it 10. Therefore I shall not need to dispute whether the Government of our Church be so necessary by a Jus divinum and the word of God as that it is unalterable by the power of man or that it is sinful in it self to endeavour the alteration of it I chuse rather to come as neer my Brethren as I can and to argue from the latter branch of the distinction according to which my Task is to prove that it is unlawful for such as took the Covenant to endeavour a change of Church-Government by vertue of that Covenant Which may the plainer appear if we consider the persons that took the Covenant either as single persons and one apart from another or as united in the great body that at first took it Upon each of these we shall now proceed CASE VII Whether any private or single person can lawfully endcavour the alteration of Church-Government by vertue of the Covenant Resol THis seems to be much the proper Case seeing the Parliament it self that first imposed the Covenant are now dissolved into private persons Yea though some of the same Members and many of the same Lords may possibly sit in the present Parliament yet as to that Parliament that is gone and dissolved so long since they are but single and private persons therefore if the Question be of any obligation that may be thought to be now on them from any thing they did in the Long Parliament it must concern them as so many private or single persons members of the Kingdom and not of the Parliament 2. Now for any such to stand engaged by a publique Covenant against a settled Government as the Government of the Church is and accordingly to endeavour the extirpation or change of it is palpably sinful both as such a Covenant and such endeavours are directly against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the priviledges of Parliament the Liberty of the Subject and the former obligations which lay upon the Nations as will appear every one in his own order CASE VIII Whether to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Rights of the King Resol TO make the Argument from the Rights of the King conclude the matter of the Covenant sinful two things require proofe First That to endeavour against the Government of the Church by virtue of the Covenant is against the Kings Right Secondly Thus to endeavour against the Rights of the King by virtue of the Covenant is sinful Of both briefly For the first it is evident that thus to stand engaged by publick Covenant to endeavour and accordingly constantly to endeavour against Church-Government is directly against the Kings Right of Authority and Prerogative 1. 'T is against the Kings Right of Authority for he is the Supream Executor of the Law and all inferiour officers are but his Commissioners to execute that government in which he is alone the Supream Governour as we swear him to be both in Church and State Now take away the body of Governours the Head must needs fall and if all Inferiours be removed where will the Supream be But that which sits the argument indeed is this to be engaged constantly to endeavour as the word in the Covenant is to extirpate the Government of the Church doth directly oppose us in the whole course of our lives and that in the very sence of the Covenanters themselves against the Kings Government As none can deny the Government of the Church politically considered to be and against the Kings commissioners in the said Government In so much as they must either resist it by violence and Armes as they have occasion or at least not own it not submit unto it nor yield it any active obedience yea as more anon pray against it preach against it and every way disown it revile it undermine and watch all occasions to ruine and extirpate it according as they stick not to say they are ingaged by the Covenant If this be not inconsistent or at least incongruous unsuitable to the state and relation of Subjects and apparently against the Right of the King and his Authority whose government this is I humbly expect reason to the Contrary Secondly the Matter of the Covenant is thus also against the Rights of the Kings Prerogative as Legis-lator as well as against the Right of his Authority as Supream Governour I argue not from the imposition or from the taking of the Covenant without the King which indeed were both against his prerogative but as my Argument at present requires from the matter of the Covenant specified as engaging Subjects to endeavour the alteration of Government without the Kings consent Whether the Government sworn against be established by Law we shall examine anon at present 't
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
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
Premises Laus Deo Ecclesiae Pax. THE CONTENTS The Grand Case WHether it be lawful to declare as is required by the late Act Entituled an Act for the Uniformity of Publick Prayers c. Page 1. CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declartions CASE II. Whether it is lawful to Declare in the words of the Second Declaration 13 CASE III. Whether it be lawful for us to declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King 15 CASE IV. Whether it be 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 17 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 19 CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me or 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 22 CASE VII Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 26 CASE VIII Whether to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Rights of the King 28 CASE IX Whether to endeavour thus against the Kings Rights as obliged thereunto by the Covenant be sinful 32 CASE X. Whether the Covenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopall Government be against the Laws and consequently sinful 37 CASE XI Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant 41 CASE XII Whether a Covenant taken first can oblige us against a future Law 47 CASE XIII Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience 60 CASE XIV Whether to Endeavour 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 67 CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Act of Parliament 74 CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular and therefore sinful in its matter 89 CASE XVII Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations and consequently sinfull 98 CASE XVIII Whether the matter of the Covenant be not sinfull though taken and imposed by the two Houses of Parliament 116 CASE XIX Whether the two Houses without the King could binde themselves and the people of these Kingdomes with an Oath to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government 120 CASE XX. Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was in it self an Unlawful Oath 127 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 130 A general Conclusion touching the Lawfulnesse of Re-ordination and the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England 136 An Addition to the first Impression by way of Supplement to the two great Cases touching the Inexpediency and unlawfulnesse of things imposed 143 A Supplement to the Case touching the Imposition of things unlawfull 156 FINIS REcensui tractatum hunc cui Titulus The Grand Case Grande quidem opus si quod intendit efficiat M. Frank. S. T. P. R. P. D. Epo. Lond. a Sacris Domest Sextilis 11o. 1662. THere is Extant an Excellent Piece Entituled Some Necessary and Seasonable Cases of Conscience about things Indifferent in Matters of Religion Briefly yet faithfully stated and resolved wherein the just bounds of Imposing on one hand and of Obeying on the other are truly Fixed By the same Hand Sold by Tho Dring at the George in Fleet-street near Cliffords Inn 1662.