would take it for granted that the Government of the Church by Prelacy as it is in England is so but neither they nor any other can ever prove it 4. Neither dare they say that either lawful Authority may not establish what Government they judge to be most convenient if not against the Scripture or that it is lawful for Subjects publickly to swear that without submission to the pleasure of their Governours they will endeavour to extirpate such Government as is not contrary to the Word of God Or that such a Covenant is binding upon the people to endeavour against it or not to submit unto it 5. Much lesse can it bind the people against such Government if lawful in it self and such also as cannot be altered without change of the Law which lies not in the power of the people to do without the King especially if the Government sworn against be established by Law 6. The matter is so plain as Mr. Perkins Cases of Consc hath decided it That a Covenant taken against the Laws of the Land is void of it self that it hath put the Declaration before the Covenant and Mr. Crofton and especially the Author of the Covenantters plea upon a task impossible viz. to make good that the Government of the Church as in practice in England is not established by Law I shall labour on purpose to satisfie this doubt presently in the mean time the present turn is apparently served with a plain distinction We may be said to endeavour against the Laws and to swear against them two wayes Either when the thing we swear against is expresly established by plain Law or when the thing we swear against cannot be abolished without the Alteration or Abolition of Law 8. Now admit that there be no express Law appointing this form of Government Covenanted against yet how doth this clear the Covenanters from swearing against Law when they swear to extirpate that which cannot be extirpated without the violation and alteration of many very many Laws So that this evasion I think is perfectly obstructed 9. A little more distinctly seeing as I humbly conceive there is much strength in this Argument to weaken yea to void the Covenants Obligation in this particular 10. I doubt not to assert that such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was covenanted is against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent such Laws as were in force before the Covenant was taken and such Law as by full and just Authority was enacted since And to conclude that if the endeavours to extirpate Prelacy according to the Covenant be indeed against the Law in either of these sences they are plainly sinful and no obligation of the Covenant can hold us to them First then let the Question be put CASE XI Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant Resol 1. I Have no insight into the Laws yet there is so much in the very Surface of them for this form of Government that as I cannot but wonder at the doubt so I am easily encouraged to encounter it 2. Yet give me leave in the first place to stumble at the fallacious use and too weak improvement that I find made of this expression Established by Law as if nothing could be legal or opposed as such that is not positively appointed in some Statute on purpose if this be heeded the advantage hence which at most is small utterly fails the design of the Covenant 3. To what poor satisfaction hath the learned Author of the Covenanters plea run through the Canon Law the Civil Law the Statute law and the Common Law to find such an establishment with so much industry while I think none will dare to question but this form is legal and that it is established in the law though no express Statute be found appointing it and so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws as that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 4. Is it not pretty to observe that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice to question whether Episcopacy be established by Law when Episcopacy hath so long even for a thousand years together as Sir Henry Spelman observes had a great hand in establishing yea making the Law it self 5. Truly methinks seeing the power of the Bishops was before the Laws so many hundred years before our Parliaments as now they are and before our Norman Laws I mean as ours And seeing also that they were still a main cause of the Laws there is the less reason to expect their Power or their Office or their Government from them or that the child should beget the father that begot it 6. However give me leave to venture a little without my Line and to offer a distinction or two that haply may cause my Brethren that are troubled with this scruple to take better heed to their words and to take a better course to vindicate their Cause then by such a wild adventure to disturb every thing 1. The Law may establish a thing two ways either by appointing it de novo or by allowing it and taking it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church not only by those special Laws that relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spiritual 2. Church-Government may be supposed to be established by Law either in its Office thus we need not say the present form is established by Law for its Office was before ever the Laws of the Land medled with Church-Government or secondly in its political power and the exercise of it thus the present Government none can doubt to be established by Law where we may read many times over the several legal names with their distinct Jurisdictions and the crimes punishable by them and Authority allowed them so to punish and the fees of their Courts yea and the very form and manner of consecrating the Bishops established by Law 3. Thirdly Church-Government is establishable by Law either immediately or mediately Immediately when by an express Statute such a form is appointed mediately when a Statute impowers a person or persons to Commissionate Governours for the Church and he or they by virtue of such power do settle a Government in the Church accordingly 7. Suppose the present Government be not established by Law in the first t is plainly so in the second sence there is Statute Law declaring the King to be Supream Governour over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiastical and there is Statute Law that gives him Power and Authority or rather according to my Lord Cooke declares him to have power to appoint and impower his Commissioners in Ecclesiastical matters And we know Church-Governours derive their political power and the exercise of it
these nothing prevail What shall we say to these things if it be sinful to conform declare wherein if not but some smaller matter hinder us I cannot but remember then that he that died of the Bite of a Weasell lamented that it was not a Lion I speak as unto Wise men Judge ye what I say and the God of Truth and Peace be with you Amen THE Grand Case Whether it be lawful to declare as is required by the late Act Entituled an Act for the Uniformity of Publique Prayers c. Resol I Fear there are some that question the very lawfulness of the Book of Common-prayer so few sheets of paper may not be thought to attempt so great a Taske as their satisfaction Yet hearing that many Moderate Brethren do now check who had resolved to conform had not these Declarations been required out of my tender affection to them as also my desire of the good of the Church which I cannot but believe may be much advanced through their Conformity I have taken this encouragement to offer my Reason why I conceive that such Ministers as could otherwise have conformed may lawfully declare in order thereunto as by the said Act is required That we may distinctly and throughly judge of this weighty point we shall set before our eyes both the Declarations in their own words for there are two of them the first we have in page 73. and the other in page 77. of the Act as it is now printed they are as followeth The first is thus I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons The second is thus I A. B. do declare that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him and that I will conform to the Liturgie of the Church of England as it is now by Law Established And I do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonl called the Solemn League and Covenant to Endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in its Self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom These are the Declarations we proceed to consider each of them in their several Branches Touching the first the Case is CASE I. Whether it be lawfull to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declarations Resol THis Declaration hath two branches The first is about the Liturgy the last about the Book of Ordination 1. Touching the Liturgy we are to declare in these words I do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and preseribed in and by the said Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer c. 2. Touching the Book of Ordination we are to declare in these words And the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons 3. Now give me leave to ask what can possibly render it unlawfull for such as can conform without it for such I deal with thus to declare 4. As for the latter branch touching the Form or Manner of Making Ordaining and Conseerating Bishops Priests and Deacons this most that have Livings have Subscribed already at their Ordination and read their allowance of openly to their several Congregations upon their Induction besides had not this been required in the Act who knows not that no conformity without subscribing and reading the Nine and thirty Articles in one of which we declare the same could legally suffice Yea who sees not the weakness of such a pretence of future conformity if this part of the Declaration had not been required which indeed is no new thing nor such as any one without self-abuse or self-delusion could possibly expect should not still be required or truly I think without dissimulation or abuse of the world could say they intended to have conformed had not this been required 5. But I perceive the first part of the Declaration touching the Liturgy bears the greater burthen of exception The words are I do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entituled the Book of Common-Prayer c. 6. But did you indeed intend to have formed had not this Declaration been required what can hinder you thus to declare viz. that you do assent and consent to that which your selves did intend to practice and that this your assent and consent to your own intended practice is not Hypocritical but unfeigned certainly this is all that is here required 7. Perhaps the long Title of the Book afrights us But if there be more then in the Book we have nothing to do with that for we are only to declare for every thing contained in the Book but if there be not then we that embrace the substance have no reason to be scared with the shadow or to scruple at that in the Title which we can use in the Book Object 1. It is objected that there are several expressions in the Book of Common-Prayer that though we could safely read them yet we do not so heartily like and approve them as we seem to be required to declare Answ 1. Do not force an Edge upon the words to wound your selves Look well upon the Declaration and you will find that the object of your assent and consent is not the words but things not every word but every thing not every thing as there expressed but every thing contained in the expressions and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-Prayer 2. Yet if you can conform to the Book I hope you can read the words and if so I hope you can assent and consent unfeignedly to the lawfulness of the Action which your selves perform and this is all as more fully I shall shew presently that is here required of you to declare Object 2. But though we can use the things yet it is only for peace sake and obedience to Authority c. and not because we would chuse or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves Answ We may approve a thing absolutely as is hinted in the Objection and comparatively or respectively 1. That we should absolutely approve of every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer as that which we would chuse above all other and as best in it self we
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
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