A REVIEW OF THE GRAND CASE OF THE Present Ministry Whether they may Lawfully Declare and Subscribe as by the late Act of Vniformity is required In Reply to a Book Entituled A Short Surveigh of the Grand Case c. Wherein all their Objections against both the Declarations are Considered and Answered By the same Hand Job 4. 2. If we assay to commune with thee wilt thou be grieved but who can withold himself from speaking London Printed for T. Dring and are to be sold at the George in Fleet-street and by M. Mitchel at the first Shop in Westminster Hall 1663. THE PREFACE To my Reverend Brethren the Surveighers of the Grand Case 1. I Find some Learned Men have observed Jackson on the Creed both an Equivalency of Errours throughout most Ages and Nations and also an Equivalency of means to evince and to vindicate the truth by the wisdom of God so proportion'd to the diversity of times as no Age could have better then the present 2. May I observe that our present Age and the differences of it are of that strange and singular Humour that they need an Exception from that Learned Intimation in both Respects 3. As for the things in Controversie betwixt us though haply they may be reduced to some Ancient Topicks yet the Matâ—â—â— of ouâ— Cases as they now arisâ— from the force of the New Law the Act for Uniformity they have much of peculiarity and newness in them and whilst the Burthen of Resolving them remaines upon so weak a shoulder the means â—aâ— justly be Censured as inequivalent what so ever the blessing of God may be 4. Yet considering the Discussion of the present Debates depends more upon a due examining of Rationall Consequences then upon Authority's of Antiquity or any other Learning that requires long Experience and Observation I am not much discouraged yea seeâ—ng upon the Review you have occasioned me to make I my self do discern some things betwixt us more clearly then before I take encouragement to hope as I heartily wish that you my Brethren may do so too 5. I am sure my Aim is good as I I know 't is great I could not hope to hit it at the first or second shoot but through your Invitation I venture again that if possible by any means I might at length attain it However I shall reckon the sucâ—ess far more worthy then all my abours if I onely gain a little ground in what I prosecute and come nearer and nearer to my desired end for my Breâ—hrens sake and the peace of Jerusalem 6. You do quicken this expectation in me while you modestly indeed as you say signifie to me that though my Resolution of the Grand Case hath not made on you that impression nor produced that effect I might Rationally promise to my Self yet your selves cannot but observe it hath effected it in many others What you think I might rationally expect before I hope I may more chearfully pray for now For without Arrogance I presume to commend to your own reason whether most if not all of your main exceptions are not blown quite off by this Second Ventilation of the matters in difference 7. I cannot doubt but that you will easily be satisfied that a Comparative Approbation is a sufficient ground for unfeigned Assent and Consent according to the Act. 8. Also that seeing you intimate you could â—ear the particulars you except against in the Common-Prayer Book which cannot be without some Assent and Consent and seeing that no Assent and Consent cannot be other then Real and seeing all Real Assent and Consent is therefore unfeigned that you will not find further reason to scruple to give your unfeigned Assent and Consent to the same 9. For the matter of the Govenant I hope you will better consider that the great hinge upon whicâ— that Controversie turnes is not the necessity of Episcopall Government but the lawfulness of it For though you think it not necessary in it self or by the Word of God yet if it be lawful that is not sinful it becomes necessary upon us by the Laws of the Land and may not be sworn against 10. Moreover I would fain believe that the great stones of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant it being essentiall to Oaths in the judgement of the Reverend Casuist Bishop Sanderson to be personal and to bind but the Takers onely as also that about Church-Government established by Law and the dissolution of the Long-Parliament are perfectly removed out of your way 11. But I shall not Anticipate I leave the Book to your Christian and candid perusal accounting it no mean felicity that it hath to do with persons Ingenuous and Learned and truly desirous of satisfaction 12. Yet I must tell you it much troubled me that you took those expressions of felones sures proditores de â—e so tenderly to your selves 13. I told you they were the words of Dr. Donne and wish'd they were not applicable in our Case Indeed it was far from me to conclude all dissenters with them nor dare I say you deserved the charge in the least degree 14. Yet I dare say you will not plead for all dissenters yea that you do concur with Cassianus that some men he saith many are carried to desire sufferings by humane respects by the Spirit either of their Parents or the Spirit of Levity or the Spirit of Liberty or as I may add the Spirit of a party Yea it is storied of one Eulalia a Maid of 12 years old that came from her Fathers house declared her self to be a Christian spit in the Judges face and provoked him to execute her 15. Now no doubt my Brethren the same Spirit oâ— â—eal may work irregularly in any and in our Age especially when an opinion that all the Godly must suffer persecution is spread over the people 16. It is noted by Bodin that Christians in Tertullians time were so pleased with suffering that sometimes Edicts wore made by their very persecutors that no more Christians should be executed because they perceived that the Martyâ—s delighted in dying and my Dear Brethren if Christian Magistrates must be persecutors and the effect of the Law persecution and if the readiness of your numbers to suffer or any other confideration should prevail for a like Edict to stop your sufferings I beseech you do not think I should be against it I would not be thought your enemy because I would â—ell you the truth and earnestly perswade you to do your duty and not to suffer when you need not 17. I would rather stroak you with the seather then prick you with the pen â—â—cept to provoke you to good works and to mind you of your danger Indeed I feared at the time I wrote my last Book that many of my worthy Brethren were falling and I was in my Epistle somewhat earnest to save them and that I hope was all my Crime and no more then Ingenuous persons are
Bishops and thus Episcopacy is established by Law 36. But are there not State-Officers that had not their original in the Statute-Laws but only in the Common-Law of this Land as hundred-Constables and Crownets c. will any say that these are not established by law These were before the known written statute Laws and so were Bishops in England before any Christian Laws 37. Indeed methinks the very Concessions of your selves Mr. Crofton yea and of the two Houses of the Long Parliament is as much as my Argument and the Government of the Church can stand in need of 38. You grant in one place of your P. 28. 19. Book your selves that the Government of the Church by Prelacy is not onely limited restrained regulated but directed yea in some things authorized by the Kings Laws I think you will hardly say Usury is so or that any thing Authorized by law can be destroyed but by law And that sufficeth my Argument 39. Again methinks Mr. Crofton decides the Controversie against himself in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 25. There he chargeth the late Bishop of Exon because he pleaded for the Jus Divinuin of Episcopacy that he did confront King and Parliament in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and constitution even from the Statutes of Carlile and the 25. of Ed. 3. declaring against the Pope that Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation Power and Authority 40. Now I conceive this was never said of Usury or indeed of any thing not established by Law For how is this Donation Power and Authority put forth in framing this Creature and Constitution of Parliaments but in Acts of Parliament that is the laws of the land 41. If there be any doubt what judgment the two Houses that imposed the Covenant had touching the Legality of the Government of the Church of England we are satisfied of that by their Applications to his Majesty for the extirpation of it at the I le of Wight 42. Their words are these for the Abolishing of Episcopacy we take leave to say that it is not the Apostolical Bishop which the Bill desired of your Majesty intends to remove but that Episcopacy formerly was established by law in this Kingdom Again onely to put down him by law who was set up by law 43. Note first that the Long Parliament did not doubt but that Episcopacy was establish'd by Law Secondly that the imposens of the Covenant did extend the sence of the Covenant against that which was established by law Thirdly that yet in their own Judgment that which is set up by law is not to be puld down without law These things they saw at last though their many years practice before had contradicted them vid. Biblioth Regi p. 350. CASE XII Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 1. YOu deny that Episcopal Government hath received any more express Establishment by the Acts of Parliament since the Kings Return then it had before but I cannot find that you say it hath received no Establishment thereby onely that its establishment is not more express in the new laws then it was in the Old but that I need not dispute 2. The Establishment of Episcopacy was express enough in my judgment before and if the new laws be found to establish it at all my Argument is not interrupted 3. And truly methinks after 20. years shaking and almost Ruinating we may fairly count the laws that restore this Government upon its leggs again and not only to its quiet and safety but to its liberty and power of exercise should deserve the name of Establishing laws and the Government be thought to be Established by them though it stand upon au elder Bottom which I never denied 4. Besides for a law so far to encourage and Countenance of Government that was troden under foot so long together as to punish all kind of disobedience to it is plainly to re-establish the same 5. I might add we see the King according to law and his own Supremacy hath fill'd the Church again with all the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers and hath set again the whole Frame of Government in the very terms of the Conant over us and thus the Government is Established by law diametrically against the Covenant and then surely the Engagement of the Covenant is as opposite to the law as it is to Episcopacy 6. Consequently whether the Act of Vniformity doth precisely prohibit Endeavours against this Government or not upon which Argument I cannot but acknowledge you are very ingenuous Other laws require obedience to it that were indeed made of old but are now renewd and reinforced by these new laws 7. Therefore the Covenant cannot oblige us against this Government but it doth equally oblige us against these new laws which to do I have at large proved to be sinful and you have said nothing at all to disparage my Arguments 8. You intimate your labour is saved in that point and you need not discuss how far an Oath may bind against law But truly to me this seems to be your proper work and that you have questioned the wrong Proposition all this while I cannot satisfie my self that what ever you pretend that you doubt the legality of Episcopal Government 9. The Exceptions of the Antagonists you mention are answered before and I have no more to do upon this Case but to note one Expression of your own in the close of it 10. You seem to fear Atheism in that which only serves to Vindicate God against our selves His Authority in his Sovereign pre-obligations upon us against and after-Obligations contracted by our selves though by way of Oath and Covenant to the contrary 11. I cannot but believe that Gods preobligation upon us to obey Authority in lawful things is so firm and indissoluble that no Covenant of ours to the contrary can make those things unlawful or warrant disobedience therein 12. This I assert though our Covenant precede the laws requiring such lawful things which needs must pass with abundant Evidence If these after-laws as you affirm do only revive and reinforce those Ancient laws that had obliged us to the same things before we Covenanted to the contrary 13. Now this methinks should have more Piety to God shining in it upon the eyes of such as read and consider then to be capable of the suspition of Atheism or Irreligion though I charge not the contrary with what you fear Treason or Sedition 14. There is nothing said by you on the thirteenth and fourteenth Cases that doth not either consent with me or is not answered already I pass to the fifteenth Case CASE XV. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 1. TOuching the word Endeavour I conceive you ought to have sweat more for though you find much fault with my endeavours about it yet I can find very little correction or amendment
the very constitution of the Kingdom to maintain and defend the Government iv question as he is King 10. It hence irresistably follows that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome and there is an Obligation upon him to defend and to swear to defend before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Episcopacy 11. Yea the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy by any such previous Oath seeing such endeavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath to protect and defend the Bishops and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath against the Bishops it is void ipso facto for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown and bound as King to take it 12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular it is enough that it is not yet altered and that it cannot be Legally altered but by Act of Parliament I am sure you will not say the King much less before he is Crowned hath power of himself or with any others besides his Parlament to make or diminish or alter any known Law especially that which so much concerns his peoples interest security in the oath to be taken at his Coronation 13. Pray therefore observe weigh this Consequence if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand doth void the Coronation Oath required by Law then the King by a private Oaâ—â— may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament the liberty of the Subject and the other great concerns of Magna Charta as well as to extirpate Episcopacy and his Coronation Oath taken afterwards would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land I argue not now from the necessity of the things but from the Obligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them 14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it as Subjects for if we allow its violation in any one part we let go our security in all the rest 15. Moreover 't is certain that though where the Conscience judgeth the matter of a former Oath lawful the Conscience is bound against any future Oath to the contrary yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience 16. Now it is open and plain to all the world that seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bishops passed those Bills for the protection and preservation of Episcopal Government and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature his Conscience will not suffer him to destroy Episcopacy but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful 17. Surely the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience more then to you against yours much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath the bond of his Fidelity and peoples security this hath taken hold upon him and invincibly tieth him under such conviction to preserve his Conscience and his oath and Episcopal Government 18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this appearance and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government against all the evidence He hath given us of it 19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition and seeing we are not to declare whaâ— things are in themselves but what we judg them to be who can possibly stick to declare That he holds the single Person is not bound by to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government 20. Now for any other Person whether the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects how can they or any of them be bound think ye to endeavour to make the King sin and in so high a manner as to violate His Conscience and His solemn sacred Coronation Oath without which he cannot consent as His Royal Father proved with His Life to the extirpation of Episcopal Government 21. Consent I say much less Enact it and yet without both it cannot be legally done neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way but by desiring and labouring to perswade the King thus to Consent and Enact against Oath and Conscience 22. But lest it should be doubted whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding at the Coronation so far as it relates to our Argument and I have done with this great part of my Task 23. I find the Account thus wherein I think I am not Mis-informed 24. After the many other gracious promises which the King makes to his People One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People concerning the Canonical priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protector of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government The King Answereth in these words with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge All Canonical priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power by the Assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 25. Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People to Observe the premises and laying his hand upon the Book saith the things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the contents of this Book 26. Now who can think himself or any other person bound by any Obligation whatsoever to Necessitate so far as in them lies His Sacred Majesty to Violate His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His Inâ—uguration CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 1. I Must still assert the Liberty of the Subject was apparently violated by the Ordinance for the Covenant seeing the Free-holds of so many Several persons and famous Corporations were thus invaded while the Persons and Corporations so deeply concerned had none to Represent them in either house of Parliament when that Ordinance passed 2. This was the Emphasis of my Argument which you little observe and much less answer 3. I am still of the mind in my coldest blood that without Respect to some proportionable demerit it is not sui Juris to the King or Parliament to destroy any person or publique Corporation or to
how doth it follow that the Lords Prayer is accounted the necessary and only lawful Petition for this mercy in every approach to God is the Absolution in every approach to God Or if the Lords Prayer be must it therefore be accounted the only lawful petition of pardon of sin 11. Lastly all the reason you express to inforce this Conclusion is in your last words that the Lords Prayer is constantly subjoyned but that indeed is no reason at all for though it be constantly it is not only enjoyned as a Petition for pardon of sin and therefore you cannot say that it is reputed or enjoyned as the only lawful Petition for that end and consequently â—our Objection vanisheth 12. Can it be affirmed by any that converse with the Book of Common-prayer that if we do assent unto it we assent that the Lords Prayer is the only lawful Pâ—tition for pardon of sin while we find so frequent and so various forms to that purpose even from the beginning to the end of the said Book besides that of the Lords Prayer 13. What do those words in the Confession signifie But thou O Lord have mercy upon us miserable offenders spare thou them that confess their faults Restore thou them that be penitent How often do we meet with Lord have mercy upon us have mercy upon'u miserable sinners 14. Again more expresly Remember not Lord our offences nor the offence of our forefathers neither take thoâ— vengeance of our sins Deal not thou with us after our sins nor reward us after our iniquities mercifully forgive the sins of thy people and abundance more in the Office of Communion the visitation of the Sick Commination and indeed either more expresly or implicitely in every approach to God by the book of Common Prayer we have other Petitions of pardon of sin besides the words of the Lords Prayer 13. Thus we see that wise and good men may have cause to joyn with us in the words of our Liturgy that it may please thee to forgive us all our sins negligences and ignorances SECT 3. Of popular Responds 1. SEcondly you complain that you cannot Assent and Consent to the word Answer and the other directions for popular Responds for these are you say in Mr. Croftons Dialect Repugnant to the Apostles Rule Let all things be done decently and in Order 2. My dear brethren pray consider that though these things seem so directly repugnant to the Apostles rule of decency and order with you Mr. Crofton yet they did not seem so to our present Governours What Order can be prudently expected in Church or State if every private spirit should be Judge thereof and accordingly Act or Reject in publick Administrations Yea I dare in this thing appeal to your selves were you in the place of Government durst you trust the management of all indifferent things and all external Circumstances about Gods Worship to every private Discretion I am sure the Apostles did not 3. However you say in your Preface that you have admitted and could admit many inexpediencies for the liberty of your Ministry Now I am confident you will not say these are other then inexpediencies in your own judgments and the reason of this confidence your selves have given me page 15. where referring to these things you say you could submissively bear these things which cannot be understood but in the use of them and conformity to them Now how you can admit inexpediencies in your practice and bear with these things and yet not give some assent and consent thereunto I am still to learn especially that they are indifferent and not simply sinful though perhaps inexpedient in your opinion SECT 4. Of the Holy Table 1. AGain you are offended at the word Holy as an Adjunct to Table frequent in this Book for you know no holiness of Places or Instruments under the Gospel 2. For answer hereunto pray ask your selves in what sence Places and Instruments might be said to be holy in the time of the Law that the Gospel dispensation cannot bear as you seem to intimate 3. Nay rather is not that holiness that was restrained to some places and some things in the time of the Law now spread by the coming of Christ over all places and all things To the pure all things are pure What God hath sanctified call not thou common or unclean 4. So that any place or any thing that is capable of use in order to Gods Service by this grace of the Gospel we have liberty to use it and to set it apart for that peculiar use about the Worship of God as this publick house and not another this particular Table and not another c. 5. This I know neither you nor M. Crofton will scruple at and this granted you must needs confess that the exception against the word Holy as given to the Table is only a strife about a word for indeed you allow the thing and all the thing which this word as applied to the Table intends to signifie 6. Neither can you reply that it is improper to call a Table in this sence Holy seeing you may easily know the Church doth not intend by calling the Table Holy a proper but a figurative holiness or a holiness not inherent in the thing but predicated of it with respect to the end and use for which it is set apart which distinction I need not inform you hath undeniable ground in Scripture 7. Yet seeing you say you know no holiness of places under the Gospel give me leave to remember you of the Holiest of all Heb. 9. 3. and that peculiar to the Gospel-state the Holy Ghost signifying that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest while the first Tabernacle was yet standing v. 8. 8. Yea this seems to be a place to be entred into even in this life Having therefore boldness to enter into the Holiest by a new and living way And having a High Priest over the House of God Let us draw near with a true heart not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is Heb. 10. 19 to 26. To this the Holy Citie answereth Revel 11. 2. 21. 2. 22. 9. 9. But I am afraid of being mistaken let me therefore have leave to add that the end of my alledging these Scriptures is only to let you know that Holiness is attributed to places under the Gospel Contenting my self with my former Answer to the Objection without any strict Application of the Scriptures pointed at to that end and purpose 10. Howbeit if you acknowledge as I know you do with the Apostle that there is such a thing as Sacriledge Rom. 2. under the Gospel you may easily perswade your selves that some things may warrantably bear the Attribute of Holy even under the Gospel for what is Sacriledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it unquestionably imports that either the things that are stoln or the place out of which they are
better entertainment with you 4. You observe I make my first onset by Doctor Sanderson's distinction of Juramentum illicitum de se per accidens You farther say I grant that the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful you intimate that I hold it only sinful by accident 5. My dear Brethren I cannot forbear to tell you that you make too much haste stumble at the threshold you fall both upon that Reverend Person and my self with too plain mistakes 6. The Bishops distinction which you intend is not that of illicitum per se vel per accidens I do not here use that distinction I do not grant that the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful much less that the matter of the Covenant is sinful per accidens only The truth is both the Bishop and my self in the very places your words refer to do more then once say quite contrary to what you affirm in all which will you but take the pains to read over again that Chapter in Doctor Sanderson's Book and in mine that are here concern'd your own eyes shall judg betwixt us 7. The place you intend in Bishop Sanderson's Book is Pag. 71 72. Sect. 9. the Case is Deâ—â—re illicitâ Secundariò wherein indeed he is so directly against you that it is much so many eyes should not observe it 8. A thing saith he is unlawful secundarîo when it is not so in its own nature or to all persons Sed quibusdam tantùm pro conditione fuarum personarum prout sunt membra alioâ—jâ—â— câ—mmuâ—â—tatis anâ—â—ins certo aliqua vitae genere versanturie illicitum enim idque ex se non ex accidente tantùm his qui sunt membra alicujus communitatis quicquid legibus illius communitatis repugnat His reason there is because it is forbidden by God though not primario yet secundariò that is in the command of obedience to our Governours and consequently the Laws of the Land 9. Now that your discourse of this distinction intends this very place of the Bishops Book you give us a full demonstration in your next words following 10. You say you must make bold to mind me that the Learned Casuist hath determined the Case with an Ordinariè Haec juramenta ordinariè non obligant meaning such Oaths as are taken to do a thing that is thus evil not simply absolutely or to all persons but to us that by reason of our places are not allowed to do it they ordinarily do not bind 11. I acknowledg he subjoyns though nothing to your advantage Ordinariè dico quia fortasse possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari si non debuerit suscipi susceptum tamen potest obligari 12. You add That the Advocates of the Covenant think they may bring the Covenant within our Casuist's exception but upon an unbiassed reading our Casuist's following explication of himself there is nothing more evident then the contrary herein also your selves shall be Judges 13. Yet first give me leave to note our Casuist's Caution is with a fortassis perhaps such a Case may be he never thought you know he never said the Case of the Covenant was such yea his videtur adds no strength to the exception that is when the Oath seems but seems to be against the Laws of Community but that he might leave no room for the scruple he hath explained himself in his own Instance in a disjunctive penal Law 14. His Case is this Let the Law of the City be saith he that no man being chosen to the Office of a Pretor shall refuse it or if he do he shall find such a sum of Mony Caius swears he will never be Pretor but after his Oath he is chosen to that Office The Question our Casuist puts hereupon is Whether Caius be bound to keep his Oath or not and answer it thus he ought not to have sworn but having sworn he ought to keep his Oath and pay the Fine 15. Now how far this is from the Case of the Covenant in it self I need not say and how far it was so in the judgement of our great casuist his following Discourse doth sufficiently Demonstrate 16. I would here saith he be understood Praecisè in quantum adversatur legi Civitatis Nam respectu finis aut alterius causae imo respectu ipsius etiam Materiae quatenus est impeditiva majoris boni publici aut aliunde potest justa subesse ratio quae Obligationem tollat 17. Now admitting this exception of the Rule it is not possible to apply it to the Covenant however if the Covenant could be granted by some thing extraordinary in it to be excepted also yet you see the Casuist hath provided several other Topicks to render it non-obliging from the end or the very matter it self if it may hinder a greater publick good aut aliunde potest justa subesse ratio quae obligationem tollat 18. Give me leave also to remember you that I made my meaning touching the said distinction plain enough I did not distinguish as you assert I did That the thing sworn might be illicitum per se vel per accidens but I rather distinguish'd of illicitum per se as to the matter of the Covenant and that was either simply and primarily evil or secondarily and quoad nos when though it be not sinful in the primary consideration of it yet to such and such persons it is sinful that is forbidden by God as I did sufficiently explain my self 19. I did further conclude that a thing thus sinful quoad nos as being some way or other prohibited us to meddle with is illicitum per se secundariò and therefore not only so per accidens Thâ—se are my words To them to whom a thing is forbidden it is as 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 unlawful in it self that is in the very matter of it 20. So that the Consequence being granted if this be proved that it is unlawful in either sence either simply or quoad nos to endeavour the Extirpation of Church-Government we may bring the difference to an happy conclusion 21. But I rather chose to argue upon the latter branch that to alter the Government of the Church is unlawful quoad nos and that because it is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledges of Parliament the Liberty of the Subject and the former Obligations that lay upon the Nations all which I am bound to defend CASE VII Whether any private or single person may lawfully endeavour the Alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 1. TO that which I have said upon this