without subscribing the 39. Articles of which this is one could legally suffice and yet affirm that had not these new Declarations been required they intended to have Conformed may doubtless lawfully as to their own principles for you could not choose but see that my Argument was ad homines declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the book of Ordination 9. But you venture also to gainsay my Assumption which you please to term a confident assertion and say you cannot but conceive strangely of it I shall not be moved to say this is strange confidence only I humbly conceive you may well abate somwhat of it by a new survey and second thoughts 10. My Assertion as you have collected it is this that the most who had Livings had at the writing my Book subscribed the form and manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons required by this Article This Assertion you assault after this manner We do not know say you the most that then had Livings and therefore cannot ask them the question but we think they must be most of them reordained according to the new form Presbyterial Ordination had sure beâ—n very Active and Extensive and Presbyters were easie wheelers 11. But pray consider why must the most of the Ministers that possessed Livings before the 24 of August last be Reordained according to the new form were there not many that enjoyed their Livings to that very day that were never Episcopally ordained But your thoughts spent upon Re-ordination had been better improved upon the Ejection of those Ministers that were found in other mens Livings this might have rendred my Assertion less strange to you 12. I do not say that the Presbyterians were easie wheelers yet you know they were upon the wheel and very many of them were by vertue of a former Act of Parliament turned off and others that were Episcopally Ordained and had been Legally inducted into the same places long before had the better turn of being restored 13. Now I hope I may have leave to conclude that the many Ancient Ministers that were thus restored added to the number of such both Presbyterians and others as had continued in their places during all the time of our great Distractions may easily make the Number of Subscribers even at the time of writing my Book to exceed the number of Ministers that then enjoyed their Livings and had not subscribed Your next Objection is that it was not the same Book of Ordination which was subscribed before it being in several things altered 14. But my dear Brethren do not let us quibble away our Vnity and Peace Can you say I am sure you do not say that these books are not the same for substance Can you believe that any can subscribe the Old that can refuse the New Yea is not the book altered for the better in your own apprehensions and cannot your selves rather subscribe the New one 15. You indeed offer that some Additions and alterations made may bar your subscriptions but certainly if any such there be it is but fair either to discover them or not to argue from them 16. I shall not ask you whether every accidental alteration doth change the individual Subject Whether the paring of your Nails or the suffering the Alteration of every dayes Nutriment render you not the same men if so whom do I reply unto or where shall I find my Surveyers 17. But your next Item calls me to be more serious viz. that black mark your pen hath cast upon some Cheshire Ministers to which I have onely this to say that though I dare not approve but did personally disswade some brethren from the same Action yet give me-thinks the Love of Brethren might have had a better interpretation or at least a milder reprehension if not a more private one for it especially considering the reason of State that prevailed for such alterations in order Mainly for the satisfaction of such as are unwilling to conform without a Reformation and therefore not likely to give any dissatisfaction to such as could Conform before yet I would not plead for a scandalous practice as I fear that was 18. You do further object That the Law might be satisfied with reading and subscribing so many of the thirty nine Articles as contain only the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments with an omission of that which concerns the Book of Consecration according to the Statute 19. I know this hath been the opinion of many yet I ever thought it a mistake grounded upon a mis-understanding of the Statute 20. The words of the Statute are these And subscribe to all the Articles of Religion which only contain the Doctrine c. which only refers to the antecedent all the Articles and serves by way of explication of the Nature of all the Articles and not by way of exclusion of any of the number the sence is this which that is all which Articles contain only the Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments 21. It is not said All those Articles only which contain or Those Articles which only contain but All the Articles which contain only explaining the Nature of the whole and not excluding any one of the number the Statute requires subscription to the whole number which are all of that nature 22. Here is the Continent All the Articles of Religion which we know are nine and thirty the thing contained and that is only the Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments there is not one excepted either from this Nature or from our Subscriptions besides if we exclude an Article after this manner we fail in Arithmetick as well as Grammar and while we have but thirty eight we cannot be said to read or subscribe the nine and thirty Articles of the Church of England 23. You intimate That the Artcile touching the Book of Consecration is no Doctrine of Faith or of the Sacramentâ— 24. I answer first This is only to quarrel with the fitness of the explication and the Parliament that gave it us who surely did ill to tell us That all these Articles contain only such Doctrine as is not to be found in one of them But the Grammatical construction of the words will stand well enough and carry it That all the thirty nine Articles of Religion contain only such Doctrine in the judgment of the â—arliament that made that Statute unless you can shew us the exception of any one of those Articles made by the same Authority either in this or some other Law Vhi Lex non distinguit c. 25. Besides Who knows not that the Doctrine of Discipline Government and Worship and the Doctrine of Imposition of hands and Ordination is to be believed and in a large sence is a Doctrine of Faith in which sence if the thirty nine Articles of Religion are said by the Statute to contain only the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments 26. However the Article touching the Doctrine of Ordination
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
of which he affirms demonstrates that Parliament to be dissolv'd in sua arte credend c. and I hope you will be fully satisfied with them they are these 21. 1. By the death of the King there being nothing in the Act of continuance that doth or can secure them against that 2. Because every Court in England dissolves on course if it rises without adjourning or doth not meet again at the time and place appointed 3. Because when a Parliament Recedes and the Electors chuse new Representatives the first are dissolv'd thereby I need not apply these Rules onely if you yet doubt the force of them and desire as I know you will do more full satisfaction you will certainly without my advice confer with some able Lawyer whom you may safer in your own apprehensions conâ—ide in In such a case we must take things upon trust and if we will be satisfied we must trust some body choose your Friend SECT 2. Of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant 1. IN the second place you intimate that I take it for granted that the Covenant was personal and not Real or National But Master Crofton hath affirmed it is real and National Obliging all the Nation and all after Generations side Anglorum thereby engaged This you say he hath enforced beyond all capacity of Contradiction 2. Truly I confess I did not imagine however confident I find you to the contrary that such a principle had needed proof with such as I proposed to deal with but I see the Foundations are yet out of Course 3. Much less could I divine that whether the Covenant be personal or reâ—l it could any way concern me in my present Design to trouble myself seeing it was my work only to prove that the matter of the Covenant was sinful and then whether it be a real or a personal Covenant I think it comes all to one viz. A sinful Covenant and not Obliging 4. Besides upon your second Survey you will easily discern that I distinguished single and private persons from the Parliament and not from the Nation and considered both Members of my distinction as taking the Covenant And did not find my self obliged to say that some not but rather that none at all were so far bound by vertue of it as to endeavour any alteration or change of Government so that your exception here If it have any weight it is impertinent and ill placed 5. But seeing I must be assaulted with Mr. Crostons authority give me leave to oppose it with Authority as valid I hope without any disparagement to him in your own apprehensions it is that Reverend Casuist Bishop Sanderson 6. Bishop Sanderson asserts that it is essential to an Oath to be personal and consequently that there is no such thing as Juramentum reale such a Real Oath as you have pretended 7. Non tantùm inquit ille vir Magnus tenetùr Haeres vi Juramenti defuncto praestiti It a ut si non solverit injustus tantùm sit non item perjurus cujus ratio est quia Juramentum est vinculum personale inducit Obligationem Spiritualem tantùm c. At in personalibus nemo ligatur fine proprio consensu p. 115. 8. Again he adds At non potest quis alteri inducere Obligationem nisi ipse quoque volverit proinde non potest Actu suo spiritualiter nisi seipsum tantùm Obligatio Juramenti non transit ad successores p 117. 118. nothing can be more plain 9. Therefore I must have leave to demand what Casuist Authour of Note or Learned Man uninterested in the present Controversie hath used or allowed this distinction besides Master Croston Thus his authority is matcht what reasons you hint for it I proceed to give reason to Answer 10. You add no reasons in this place yet because I shall make but one work of it I shall gather the reasons that serve to this purpose from the other parts of your book where I find them they are but two to the best of my Observation both received from Master Crofton and I presume the best he hath for that you improve no other 11. The first I find upon Case the 14. by way of Expostulation thus Was the law of Saul the Princes of Israel against the Gibeonites to be justified Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of Joshua and the Princes with him 12. The answer is at hand in the Reverend Bishops words Saul Injustus tantùm sit non item perjurus Pauls sin was cruelty and injustice and not perjury Not the Oath of Joshua immediately but the Law of Righteousness bound Saul to the contrary 13. If any Obligation lay upon Saul rom Joshua's Oath it was not formalier but effectivè only not as an Oath but in the effects of it which was to preserve and maintain Justice and every mans right even that right of the Gibeonites which they had obtained by vertue indeed of their Covenant with Joshua long before 14. Methinks it may thus be resembled a Parliament in England is not obliged to continue all the Acts of precedent Parliaments but hath power to alter them as they think fit yet no Parliament can void an Act of pardon made by any former Parliament 15. The Reason is not that one Parliament hath not power to undo what another hath done abstractly confidered but because a Parliament it self may not be unrighteous and do injustice 16. But why is it injustice from a Parliament to void an Act of pardon the Reason seems to be this An Act of pardon hath its effect the first day of its being and gives actual Right to every one concerned in the mercy granted they are actually pardoned and the offence forgiven and done away And now if this pardon should be taken off again Right is violated and punishment inflicted where there is no Crime 17. Thus was it in the Case of the Gibeonites they had received an Act of pardon long before a Legal restitution to the priviledges they enjoy'd by virtue of the Oath of Joshua and the Princes of Israel and the violation of their Rights so long after with the taking away of their lives by Saul was iniquity and cruelty in him and most justly though severely punished by the God of Righteousness 18. This Answer is plainly gathered from the Holy Scripture whence the Objection it self is framed 19. The Famine saith the Lord to David is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21. 11. 20. It is rendred in several of the Oriental Tongues House of bloods and so it is in the Hebrew it was not perjury but blood fill'd his house because he slew the Gibeonites and broke the Act of Pardon not the Oath of Joshua formally considered 21. It is said that the children of Israel had sworn to them v. 2. but not Saul yea the children of Israel in opposition to Saul the children of
Israel had sworn unto them and Saul sought to slay them in zeal to the children of Israel Therefore in the Septuagint we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Saul and upon his house Injustitia in morte sanguinum ejus pro eo quod morti tradidit Gibeonitas for that he delivered the Gibeonites to death Injustice it is not said Perjury but injustice and blood is laid upon him and his house and so severely punished 22. Secondly the Covenant was sworn say you in Mr. Croftons words by those P. 45. Real capacities Noble Men Knights Gentlemen Citizens Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts which pass and will pass to our Successours whilest England is England and therefore it is Juramentum reale and obligeth the whole Nation for ever 23. But it is to be remembred before we conclude so confidently that though the Proem runs thus We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses and Ministers of the Gospel as well as Commons of all sorts have so Resolved and Determined yet most Noblemen Barons Knights Citizens Burgesses Ministers and Commons of all sorts had not thus Resolved and Determined when the Covenant was penn'd or publish'd 24. For it was brought from Seotland and by a few men at first a little altered in England and then by an Order of some of the Commons printed and published 25. Now if this be to make a Real and National Covenant three or four private persons may as easily write over these great words and as easily oblige the whole Nation and Posterity for ever but this is ridiculous 26. Again 't is certain that many individual Persons from the King the Nobles Barons Knights Burgesses Citizens Ministers and Commons of all sorts never took the Covenant but ever as occasion was offered declared their abhorrency of it 27. Yea the Popish the Milignant and the Prelatical Parties which certainly were then no mean part of the Nation if not the greatest are supposed in the Covenant it self to be enemies to it and are indeed sworn against it And are these obliged by the same Covenant and their Posterities after them Are they sworn to oppose and destroy themselves You will not say it 28. Again if these words can create a Real Covenant in your sence not only Scotland who framed it and England who knew not of it for the most part till it was taken but Ireland too and its Posterity are obliged by it and all the Rebels there are taken into Confederation and thousands of people there that never saw it or perhaps never heard so much as that there was any such thing in the world for divers years after this their pretended Obligation by it 29. Truly I thought the Covenanting Party would not have entred into so Solemn a League with a Prelatical Malignant Party much less with Papists and Irish Rebels yet such is the consequence of your Notion of a Real Covenant 30. Moreover this Argument is confuted in the very Proem of the Covenant it self so plainly and evidently that I must needs wonder that so many quick and perceiving eyes should not have discovered it Wherein it saith speaking of the form and manner of giving and taking the Covenant wherein we all subscribe therefore no more do take the Covenant then do subscribe it and beyond all contradiction adds and each one of us for himself then no one for another much less for so many thousands as your Real Notion would infer 31. Therefore the pressers of the Covenant durst not trust your Logick but would have not only Parents but their Children not only Masters but Servants not only Tutors but Pupils and such as were under the tuition of others to subscribe for themselves according to the phrase Every one for himself 32. But to conclude if it be against the very Nature and Essence of an Oath to be any more then personal to binde succession or posterity or to be National and Real as you pretend alas what can words do more then to make a noise to trouble mens minds and to beget trouble in the Church by needless Disputation But that it is so I hope our Casuist whom your selves and all men else admire hath put it out of doubt to your full satisfaction SECT 3. Of the capacity of all Covenanters 1. THe third Principle which you intimate I take for granted is That all Persons that took the Covenant are in the same capacity with our selves You say you cannot yield unto it 2. I have laboured to find out your meaning and cannot discover any thing but the exception of the single person that you can stand upon 3. But if you please to review what I said from pag. 93. to pag. 97. you will see your oversight and grant that I did not take it for granted 4. And until you give Answer to the reason there offered as also in some other places of my Book I think I am not at all concerned to trouble you further about it but shall now take up my shield and appear in defence of my particular Arguments CASE VIII Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King CASE IX Whether to violate the Kings Right be not sinful 1. YOu well observe that these two Cases contain my first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful My major Proposition you say is determined in the second of these Cases This you grant in Mr. Crofton's words The proper and adequate Act of Justice is Jus suum cuique the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and People 2. The minor then contained in the first of these Cases is the thing in Controversie viz. whether the Covenant engaging against the Government of the Church or to endeavour to extirpate the same do not violate the Kings Right 3. This I affirm for by such Endeavours the King is injured first as he is the Executor of the Law and in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical Supreme Governour both with respect to his Officers and to his Government secondly as Legislator SECT 1. Of the Kings Right as Supreme Executor of the Laws 1. I Do still affirm That the King is the Supreme Executor of the Law and all inferiour Officers are his Commissioners to execute that Government under him in which he is alone the Supreme Governour as we swear him to be in Church and State for Reges saâ—ro oleo uncti faut capaces spiritualis Juâ—isdictionis 2. Now I say take away the Body of Governours and the Head must fall and if all inferiours be removed where will the Supreme be 3. For Answer hereunto you onely desire my clear Answer to two Enquiries The first of your Queries is in these words 4. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King 5. To this I return my clear Answer No. Yet they are plainly essential to his being a Supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons
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