without question O that we may find it so 18. But there is a Notable Evasion that I must needs take notice of so many are crowding for an escape at it they say rather then break our Covenant we will submit to the penalty of the Law and thus we suppose we fulfil the Law and obey Authority That we may take the more steady view of it we will put the Case CASE XIII Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed be a due fulfulling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience Resol CArminus tells us that this Opinion De potest 1. leg Hum. p. 2. c. 2. that if we undergo the penalty of the Law we do not sin in the breach of it was the Opinion of some Schoolmen who thought it a glorious matter and fit to raise them a Name to leave the common and beaten wayes having perchance a delight sawcily to provoke to gnaw calumniate and to draw into hatred those Powers and Authorities which made those Laws 2. The ground of this grosse mistake partly respects the Law-makers partly the Nature of the Law it self and partly the end of punishment as annex'd to the Law 3. The mistake arises very much from an unjust apprehension of Governours that make the Laws we have not that Reverence and Conscience of them as is meet for such Ministers of God not considering whose Authority they have and execute in their Legislation if we did we should learn to submit unto them for the Lords sake and obey them out of Conscience for they make Laws and if they be not sinful God commands us to obey them 2. We are also very apt to mistake about the Nature of Humane Laws as if all such as have a penalty annex'd were therefore penal onely or purely penal Lawes and left the Subjects in a perfect Indifferency whether to yield Active or Passive Obedience to do or to suffer what the Law requires or provides 4. 'T is granted that some Laws are penal purely and if that occasion any doubt about the present Law I cannot give them safer advice then seriously to peruse the excellent paines of Bishop Lectur of Consc Sanderson drawn out to so much length upon his observation of the sad effects of this Mistake in a most clear discourse about the Nature of penal Laws and of such as bind the Conscience 5. I believe there is the more to be studied in this point because I find the Learned Author of the Covenanters plea asserting also that how far Humane Laws bind the Conscience is the main question in the present Controversie 6. The said Author of the Covenanters plea seems to be a great admirer of that Excellent Bishop and no question but he is acknowledged on both sides for Learning Piety Prudence Experience all parts requisite for a perfect Casuist as credible as any other the Generation affordeth and from his mouth what person doth not snatch at satisfaction let us then hear what he saith in the Case 1. He expresly affirmes that no Law that hath a Command expressed is purely penall 2. That all Humane Laws that are not purely penal do in a sort oblige the Conscience in generall immediately and in particular ex Consequenti from the Word of God 3. If the matter of the Law be not sinful we are bound to Active Obedinece neither may we wittingly violate much lesse oppose them or be bound so to do without sin 7. To apply this if the Government be not in it self unlawfull if it be commanded to be submitted to if we are required to declare that we are not bound to endeavour against it And lastly these Laws be not purely penal we are not left indifferent by God or the Law whether we will obey or suffer but are bound in Conscience to own the Authority and submit unto the Government and declare we are not bound by the Covenant to extirpate or alter it 8. Indeed to stick at a particular Law of more private concern so far as to suffer the penalty and not do the thing commanded might in some Cases for private satisfaction be held more tolerable but to hold our selves notwithstanding Law expresse to the contrary bound by Oath not to own a Government founded or confirmed by Law or Governours commissionated by the King is such a thing as cannot be excused without expresse warrant from Scripture which affords it none by any Rules of sober reasoning before God or Conscience 9. Indeed if the Covenant have such force as to bind the Conscience against Law still to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy I cannot see but as it now obligeth not to own or to Act under it will also compell to resist and fight against it if occasion were offered 10. Neither can I see any possible means of tying the hands and hearts of Covenanters to duty and peace I speak as a Divine but this onely that they suffer their Consciences to be satisfied from Reason and Scripture that they first owe such obedience even in Conscience to the lawful Commands of Humane Authority as no future Oath can discharge them from it And that it is not in their liberty whether to do what is commanded or to suffer what is threatned seeing God interposeth and decides the question by determining us to the first and requiring our Active Obedience to the Commands of his Deputies where himself hath not required the contrary in his Word before Submit your selves therefore unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supream or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Lastly the mistake ariseth from a false opinion of the end of punishment which is properly in all Laws not purely penal the punishment of disobedience and not obedience at all Indeed God requires us to suffer rather then to do evil but Man commands not to suffer but to do whom we must obey in lawfull things I shall put a period to my Argument which was the second in order from the Laws of the Land having found the matter of the Covenant in the second Article contrary to them we may conclude it sinful and so far not binding 11. Yet before I take off my pen I cannot but acknowledge that some Popish Casuists do say that an Oath may bind against the Civil Law in some Cases if it be not against the Divine Law the Law of Nature or the Canon Law The Author of the Covenanters plea would suppose that these Casuists put in the Canon Law to save their Infallibility But may not we upon as good grounds suspect the like partiality in excluding the Civil Law We are sure Obedience in things lawful is with severity enough required in Scripture unto Civil Authority 12. But we must observe that these Casuists instance generally in such oaths as are concerning Contracts betwixt Man and Man the performance of which hurts not the publick and indeed the Covenanters plea mentions no other 13. But is
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
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
this It may be thought that God by the virtue of the Covenant hath the first obligation upon us how then can the Law of man made afterwards take that off Answ This is prevented in the very Rule it self for we cannot be bound by any Covenant about such mutable things without this condition be understood and whatever we think we give unto him God will accept no bond from us without this condition that it be to the prejudice of none much less of Superiours 2. And who sees not how great a prejudice this must needs effect to Authority if an Oath taken by Subjects about things mutable should have power to suspend all future Laws to the contrary for ever 3. Indeed God hath the first obligation upon us but we mistake wherein not by the Covenant mentioned by his own Law and the Covenant we enter as Christians that we will honour our father and mother obey every Ordinance of man and those that Rule over us and submit our selves unto the higher powers 4. This is such a pre-obligation as no future Covenant can possibly dissolve so that such as make a Covenant that shall bind them against the lawful commands of Authority do thereby break their Covenant with God which if they desire to renew again they have no course left but to break off the sin of their unlawful Covenant by timely repentance 5. Seriously considering that we promised in the Covenant that which we have now at least no power to do we had not the leave of future Governours in taking and we see their Laws and Rights will be manifestly violated in the keeping of the Covenant 6. We offered that which was not our own which Authority alone hath right and power to dispose of thus we offered to God what we stole from our neighbour or rather affronted and mocked him with a pretence of giving him more then we had for we have not in us to swear that we will do that for God which afterwards we cannot do without breach of Laws and offence to Authority 7. Certainly the first Table is never to be kept by a breach of the second God will not be righted by the injury of our brother or glorified by dishonouring our Father and Mother our unrighteousness cannot work the righteousness of God nor can we fear God by dishonouring the King 8. This I conceive to be the true reason of the former Rule as well as a full answer to the present Objection and a sufficient proof of the present Argument Gods unalterable law is to obey our superiours in things lawful Things that are now lawful may be forbidden us by Authority and then those things that before were lawful become unlawful the state of things of this nature is mutable and how they will change we know not onely this we know we must be subject for conscience sake and submit to Authority for the Lords sake 9. Therefore God having the first obligation upon us and that being unalterable no Promise or Oath afwards can discharge us from that and consequently all Promises and Covenants about things that are thus mutable may be made or if made can bind no further then with this condition if things so continue and no command from Authority be to the contrary But I have something behind that I hope may give full satisfaction 10. There was a famous Case betwixt us and the Jesuites much disputed in King James his days that doth fully in all due circumstances answer ours 11. It was usual then as appears by the controversie for Jesuites to go out of this Land and take an Oath at Rome according to a certain constitution of the Pope to that purpose that they would return into England and publickly preach the Catholick Faith here 12. Now because that some went out of the Land and took this Oath before the Laws prohibiting this practice were made and some after there arose into controversie two notable Cases of Conscience the first respecting such persons as took such Oath against the laws before made to the contrary was this Whether that Oath to preach publickly the Romish Faith did binde the persons so sworn against the Laws before in force to the contrary The second respecting such as took that Oath before the laws to the contrary were made was this whether the laws made against that which before they had sworn to do did not render the Oath though made before to the contrary void 13. Both these Cases are so parallel to ours they justly require us to take special notice how they were decided 14. And in earnest what do our best Divines conclude about them To the first it is answered that the laws prohibiting that which they swore to do being Antecedent to their Oath the Oath was unjust from the beginning Sair Thes Cas Cons c. 7. for which is quoted those words of their own Casuists a law which forbids upon pain of loss of goods death banishment or such like binds a man upon pain of mortal sin and thence our Divines conclude that no Vow can justifie the breach of it 15. But suppose the Oath be first taken what say they then here also they positively and without Hesitancy say that an Oath cannot bind against a law though the law be made after the Oath is taken Thus saith a very Learned man in answer to the Jesuits as to this Case if these Laws which take hold of you when you return hither had been made between the time of your Vow and your returning yet naturally they would work the same effect upon this Vow of yours that is as if the Law had been made before their Vow and make it void He also adds the same reason why which before we have used because saith he something was now interposed which may Justly yea Ought to change your purpose 16. But the Jesuits seemed to complaine that the Laws were made on purpose to interrupt and hinder the performance of their vow and to make them break their Oath And hence a third notable Case issued viz. 17. Whether the Evil Intention of those that make the Laws namely to make mens previous Oathes void doth not weaken the force of such Laws as to the discharging of such Oathes The Answer that was given to this consisted of two branches 1. That it could not be any evill intention in the Legis-lators but clearly the necessities of Church and State that provoked these Laws 2. However though the Laws had been made on purpose to preclude the performance of the vow yet would they naturally work the same effect and void the Vow urging that Alphon. Castr. de potest leg Doc. 1. their own men teach that the Laws of Princes are not therefore necessarily unjust and void because the Prince had an ill intention in the making of them All this saith that Learned man if Vid. Dr. Don pseudomartyr p. 156 157 The Application is too easie the Lawes be Just is evident and
the King and Parliament have practically improved the said distinction I presume in order to such Brethrens satisfaction and have indeed made a material alteration in the said Government by taking off the high Commission and the Oath ex officio by Law and yet established the Government it self CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular and therefore sinful in its matter Resol 1. AFter the Bishops were thrown out of their places in the House of Lords we might yet respect them as well as the rest of the Dignitaries in the Church as the Kings Subjects and to have an interest in the freedom of the Commons Now in this capacity we shall find the Covenant was very injurious to them even as Subjects and freemen and consequently it tore up the very foundation of the liberties of the people and in the destruction of one society threatned all 2. T is well known that the Governours of the Church were in possession of their several freeholds when the Covenant was voted to destroy them which their predecessors had enjoyed many hundred years without any interruption considerable 3. The number of these Subjects was not small their manner of living and governing in so many famous Corporations and Colleges was more then vulgar They had a considerable interest in the Lands of the Nation and much people being related to them and more depending on them and their great hospitality were concerned in them and fell with them 4. Yea it is declared by sundry Acts of Parliament that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England 5. And no wonder that this Crown of England is so much concerned for it and that the Kings of England at their Coronation swear they will grant confirm and keep all the Customs and Priviledges of the Church granted by King Edward and expresly to Bishops all Canonical Priviledges and that he will be a protector and defender of the Bishops Yet notwithstanding their number their Relations their Freeholds their Interest and Continuance notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament and the Royall Oathes yet was their Extirpation sworn by the Covenant imposed without Law or the Kings Consent and passed in the Parliament when the persons the many Corporations in the Land concern'd had none to represent them in the house of Lords or the house of Commons contrary to the excellent Constitution of the Nation and the Liberties of English men 7. Thus unjustly have they suffered nigh 20. years together and shall we yet think our selves bound by a Covenant that was at first laid in the subversion of our English Freedom to prosecute their Ruine 8. Especially against the Graine of Authority the current of the Laws and in an Age so zealous to fulfil the Prophesie of Dr. Featly who at their lowest askt this question How know ye whether Episcopacy may not be revived and raised up again by future Acts of Parliament in times as well affected to the Clergie as these are ill 9. For the Rights of Episcopal Government are again confirmed by King and Parliament and they that have places therein have as clear a title thereunto by Law as any other Subject hath to his temporal estate and how can a Covenant binde us to injure others who are first obliged by God himself to walk honestly 10. Here I humbly offer whether the King himself can be bound by Oath to destroy his people or any society or person of his Subjects especially out of his Parliament and when he is according to his Oath and his Office if he should never take his Oath bound to do Justice to all according to Laws already made the true measure of all mens Rights Salus populi hath a Supremacy over the King at least the King of Kings hath so who hath first obliged him to distribute Justice and preserve the Rights and Liberties of his people impartially and without respect of persons 11. We are sure the last King of ever happy Memory did not consent to the Covenant or if he had he was first bound expresly to the contrary by his Coronation Oath to defend the Bishops and maintain their Canonicall priviledges 12. And in the behalf of the present we may be bold to say the Parliament imposing the Covenant onely by an Ordinance which lost its force at their dissolution at his Fathers death he could not confirm the Covenant by any Act of his without a Parliament and the former Ordinance ceased with the former Parliament and the Petition of Right tells us that it is contrary to the Liberties of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament and much more so if against the Freeholds and the very being of so many famous Corporations in the people of England 13. The King is bound to Right but cannot be bound to wrong any of his Subjects any such obligation is void of it self for the Oaths of Kings must also have the condition so far as lawfully we may who are accountable to God though not to man by whom they are intrusted with the good of their Subjects and to whom they have sworn 14. Therefore David when he had made a rash Oath that he would slay 1 Sam. 25. 32. Nabal and all his Houshold rejoyced when he had occasion offered by Abigail to break his Oath and though he sware to Shimei that he would save 2 Sam. 19. 23. his life yet as if upon better advice he had found that that person had deserved to die and been convinced that it was expected from God that Justice should be done he commanded his Son Solomon to put him to death and doubtlesse it had been better for Herod to have saved John Baptist though he had broke his Oath and lost his Reputation in some measure with the people 15. Especially if through fear or any other temptation the King should be thus prevailed with to promise or swear to injure his Subjects The Case then is as if a man under threats of a Robber should swear to bring him his Neighbours horse 16. Now whether the thing sworn in fear and under temptation be unlawfull and unjust or not must be judged by the Conscience of the partie sworne 17. Whence may issue two Cases with respect to the time when the Oath is made and when it is to be performed But one answer doth serve them both for when the Conscience dictates the thing sworn to be unlawful it will rule the Case if a man sweares for fear against his Conscience his Conscience being Gods Vice-gerent within him he sins against God in swearing God by his Conscience having the first Obligation upon him And if he should perform his Oath against his Conscience he fins twice first by doing evil and secondly by keeping his evil Oath For as the Right Reverend Bishop Sanderson concludes this very case such Oath doth not bind against Conscience 18. The Author
torn in pieces the Kings Prerogative whose consent was necessary invaded the priviledge of Parliament to make new Laws in things lawful or establish the old broken the liberties of the people in being imposed on with the Covenant without an Act of Parliament and having so many societies of Ecclesiastical persons destroyed plainly subverted 6. Indeed nothing can be said why the Oath made in favour of the 2 Sam. 21. 2. Gibeonites by Joshua the King and all the Princes and people should not oblige and nothing can be said why the Covenant made with hatred of the Bishops for their injury and ruine by a part of the Parliament and People without and against the King and the Laws when contrary to the very Constitution of the Land there were none to represent them in either House nothing I say can reasonably be said why such a Covenant so far at least should binde at all One may be bound to do the good he hath sworn so was Joshua c. to the Gibeonites one cannot be bound to do the evil he hath sworn as the Covenant would have him 7. Israel was cheated into a Covenant that hurt none but themselves if themselves at all and therefore their Covenant obliged them England that is a great part of it was also cheated pardon the expression into a Covenant that injured the Takers and every body else the King the Parliament that made it all future Parliaments the Liberties of the people the Governours and Government of the Church yea and God himself and the Consciences and Souls of the Takers themselves by breaking the bonds of all former obligations upon them to the contrary as in particular hath before appeared and how then can it bind to so much iniquity I need say no more to this or other instances of Zedekiah's Oath c. or I presume to this Argument of the Declarations that hath indeed engaged me longer then at first I foresaw A general Conclusion touching the Lawfulnesse of Re-ordination and the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England THere is but one thing more in the condition of Law required of Ministers by the Act of Vniformity Re-ordination of such as are onely Ordained already by Presbyters and Ordination of such as are not by Bishops I hope such as are concerned herein will not stand too much upon this considering that liberty is not denied them to keep their own sence whether the Ordination by Presbyters only is valid or not also that the Act makes it self no judge of the Ordination by Presbyters in forraign Churches also that there is no other way according to the Law of the Land to exercise their Ministry in this Church as also that if their former Ordination should be confirmed by any other form it could not passe for legal Ordination in this Church or Nation nor legally intitle them to the care of souls or to the profits of their places no other being thought fit to be appointed or allowed by our Governours and therefore their submission thereunto cannot be a taking Gods name in vaine which hath so good and so necessary an end but especially considering that worthy Mr. Humphery hath written so effectually and so largely already upon this Subject He hath so well prevented my pains herein I have onely to refer my Brethren to his Books for their full satisfaction in this point 2. Concerning that which I have written in this Treatise give me leave to subscribe which I do animo that I have not used one Argument but I really judge it convincing and such as is not either answered or prevented by any thing written either by Mr. Crofton or the learned and sober Author of the Covenanters plea. 3. Neither can I divine what may possibly be urged against the Declarations that is not answered except onely the unlawfulnesse of the Government Liturgy or Ceremonies of the Church all which are indeed concerned in the Declarations required 4. I confesse I took the lawfulnesse of these in themselves for granted and my reason I hinted at the beginning of my book namely because I was to treat such onely or chiefly with it as had purposed to conform had not the Act required them thus to declare such I conceived did not believe the Government of the Church or any Office or Ceremony of the Common Prayer Book was in it self unlawful who by their Conformity intended before to own the one and practise the other 5. However let me humbly beseech my Brethren if thus they scruple seriously to Consider that the ablest Pens that ever Engaged in these great Controversies have hitherto found it a task too difficult for them to evince that either the form of Government or any thing required in our Liturgie is in it self unlawfull 6. Yea give me leave to make my Observation that very few that have been Learned and Sober and Faithfull in the point since the Reformation to the beginning of our late Troubles but though they have much scrupled at first have argued themselves at length into a Conviction at least of the lawfulnesse of them 7. I hope my Brethren will not take it amisse If I offer to remember them that Conscience is not Regula Regulans in the first Consideration though so in the second but Regula Regulata and that she hath a Rule above her that must be a Rule unto her and the very Synterisis and Proposition from which alone she must draw and conclude all her definitions of things lawful or unlawful 8. The measure therefore of the Judgement of Conscience is the mind of God and not our own Not our own mind much lesse our will So that what he commands must be held a Duty what he forbids must be held a sin and what he neither commands nor forbids must be held indifferent that is in it self to be neither a Duty nor a Sin by every well enlightned rightly ruled and Indifferent Conscience 9. Now if it be a doubt to any Mans Conscience what is left by God indifferent that is what he hath neither commdnded and made a Duty nor forbidden and made a Sin What remaines but that he follow the advice of our Saviour and search the Scriptures these we may be sure are the best Rule of Conscience as the clearest Testimony of Gods Mind 10. If yet the doubt continue what God hath left indifferent in the Scriptures themselves suffer me to say that it is not possible that there should be a better help under Heaven for the removall of it besides immediate Revelation which may not be expected then the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches 11. Let the person then that desires satisfaction indeed bring his Conscience and the great things in question first to the Bar and Rule of Scripture and if he cannot see them condemned there as truly I cannot let him in the fear of the Lord and the sincerity of his heart after Truth and Peace yet prosecute his full