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
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
against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him Accordingly there arise two Cases CASE III. Whether it be lawfull for us to declare that it is not lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Resol 1. EIther it is lawfull to take Armes against the King or it is not if it be granted that it is not what should hinder us from declaring it when by Law as now we are called to do it but if it should be thought lawful I must demand by what Law T is but a subterfuge to speak of the Law of Nature while the Law of Scripture and the Law of the Land have undertaken the Case 3. Now what saith the Scripture surely it gives not the least colour of encouragement for it except Obedience and Submission and that for conscience and the Lords sake be taking Arms. 4. Again if the Scriptures may be thought too General let the Laws of the Land be examined I question not whether they were not sufficiently plain in the Case before yet now certainly they are above all Contradiction or doubt I mean by the late Act for the Safety of the Kings person where we may learn in the plainest manner that it is Treason and Rebellion and unlawfull enough upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King 5. Such as I now deal with do at the most onely doubt whether according to the constitution of this Kingdom the two Houses are not a power co-ordinate with the King and the King and his two Houses being at variance whether they might not side with the Parliament even to the taking Armes against the King but if this were a doubt before it is not possible it should remain so still all colour of it being wiped away and that Controversie as perfectly determined as an Act of King Lords and Commons can possibly do it as appears in the Act forementioned for the safety of the Kings person CASE IV. Whether is it lawful to declare that we do Abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or those that are Commissionated by him Answ 1. IF this be indeed a Traiterous position who doubts but that every true Subject is bound to abhor it and being lawfully called thereunto so to declare 2. That this is a Traiterous position I need not say more then what I just now said in answer to the last Case Namely that however it came to be disputed before it is now plainly determined to be so by the said Act for the safety of the Kings person and it being declared by Law to be a Traiterous position it ought so to be reputed and by this Law also it being so required of us it ought to be declared against and abhorr'd accordingly 3. So much may briefly suffice for the first general in this Declaration The second touching Conformity offers now to be considered This we shall pass with a quick dispatch that we may hasten to our main design the discharge of the Covenant The Case about Conformity in short is this CASE V. Whether we may lawfully declare that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established Resol 1. FIrst it seems there is no longer any ground of doubt whether the Liturgy be established by Law i. e. the Law of the Land 2. Secondly neither have we any reason to question whether it be against the Law of God seeing our Brethren whom we are now treating are supposed to acknowledge that they would have conformed unto it had not these Declarations been required which I know they would not have done had they thought it to be contrary to the Law of God 3. What then can obstruct this part of the Declaration with brethren so well prepared for it this only calls them to pass their former intention to conform into a promise that they will do so and to declare that for the satisfaction of Law and Authority they will do that which they acknowledge they can do with satisfaction to themselves and which also they confesse they would have done had not they received this dissatisfaction from the Declaration which yet we see vanisheth before us Of the Covenant 1. BUt the great Mountain is yet to be removed some say they are called to declare against and to renounce the Covenant or as some that would scare themselves and others from Conformity to abjure and to unswear the Covenant and this they complain is too hard for them they cannot do it This is I confess a very tender Point yet such I hope as the most tender Conscience need not fear to be pricked with it if warily handled I mean if we be not frighted awat from it or stand not at too great a distance but with a sound and impartial judgment draw neer unto it and look well upon it and consider after what manner and in what words we are indeed required to declare against the Covenant 2. Under this head there are three members of the Declaration touching the Covenant Something is to be declared against its obligation Something against its lawfullness in it self and something against the lawfulness of its imposition 3. We proceed to weigh them one by one with all seriousness and fidelity in a particular examination of the three Cases that offer themselves in the very words of the Declaration The first touching the Obligatory force of the Covenant is in the Declaration apparently limited to the alteration of Government and is this CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or alteration of Government either in Church or State Resol MEthinks it is no great venture to say that such as have taken the Covenant may lawfully declare that they hold that neither themselves nor any person is bound by the Covenant to endeavour a change of Government in Church or State We are agreed in three things and so far I shall not create a controversie First that a Covenant both illegally imposed and illegally taken may bind the Takers Secondly that the Covenant in Question doth not bind to an endeavour to alter or meddle with the State-Government Thirdly that the alteration or extirpation as the word is of Church-Government being the main business of the Covenant as the Covenanters plea hath granted if this main businesse of the Covenant be lawfull it doth so far binde those that have taken it if not lawful they are at least so far discharged and not under the obligation of it Fourthly t is accordingly therefore in plainest terms again and again granted us both by Mr. Crofton and the more Moderate and Learned Author of the Covenanters plea wherein indeed they concur with all Casuists that if we can discover any thing unlawful in the matter especially this main
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
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
Premises Laus Deo Ecclesiae Pax. THE CONTENTS The Grand Case WHether it be lawful to declare as is required by the late Act Entituled an Act for the Uniformity of Publick Prayers c. Page 1. CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declartions CASE II. Whether it is lawful to Declare in the words of the Second Declaration 13 CASE III. Whether it be lawful for us to declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King 15 CASE IV. Whether it be lawful to declare that we do Abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or those that are Commissionated by him 17 CASE V. Whether we may lawfully declare that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established 19 CASE VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State 22 CASE VII Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant 26 CASE VIII Whether to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Rights of the King 28 CASE IX Whether to endeavour thus against the Kings Rights as obliged thereunto by the Covenant be sinful 32 CASE X. Whether the Covenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopall Government be against the Laws and consequently sinful 37 CASE XI Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant 41 CASE XII Whether a Covenant taken first can oblige us against a future Law 47 CASE XIII Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience 60 CASE XIV Whether to Endeavour the Extirpation of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Laws to the Contrary be not against the Priviledge of Parliament and consequently sinful 67 CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Act of Parliament 74 CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular and therefore sinful in its matter 89 CASE XVII Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations and consequently sinfull 98 CASE XVIII Whether the matter of the Covenant be not sinfull though taken and imposed by the two Houses of Parliament 116 CASE XIX Whether the two Houses without the King could binde themselves and the people of these Kingdomes with an Oath to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government 120 CASE XX. Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was in it self an Unlawful Oath 127 CASE XXI Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom 130 A general Conclusion touching the Lawfulnesse of Re-ordination and the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England 136 An Addition to the first Impression by way of Supplement to the two great Cases touching the Inexpediency and unlawfulnesse of things imposed 143 A Supplement to the Case touching the Imposition of things unlawfull 156 FINIS REcensui tractatum hunc cui Titulus The Grand Case Grande quidem opus si quod intendit efficiat M. Frank. S. T. P. R. P. D. Epo. Lond. a Sacris Domest Sextilis 11o. 1662. THere is Extant an Excellent Piece Entituled Some Necessary and Seasonable Cases of Conscience about things Indifferent in Matters of Religion Briefly yet faithfully stated and resolved wherein the just bounds of Imposing on one hand and of Obeying on the other are truly Fixed By the same Hand Sold by Tho Dring at the George in Fleet-street near Cliffords Inn 1662.