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
not a publick Oath to alter Government of another Order for Subjects to swear to endeavour this against the Laws of the land the expresse dissent of the supream Governour and to hold themselves obliged hereunto contrary to an expresse prohibition of lawful Authority Truly methinks it is also against both Divine and Naturall Law against Reason and Scripture which seem to dictate as with a beam of the Sun that for publick security Order and Peace Subjects acquiesce in the present Government and not rise up either to swear or endeavour against it contrary to Law CASE XIV Whether to Endeavonr 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 Resol 1. WE have already shewed the sinfulnesse of the matter of the Covenant in the second Article as against the Rights of the King and the Lawes of the Land we come now to consider whether it invade not the Priviledge of Parliaments and be not sinfull also in that regard 2. We find it a Rule with all Casuists in omni Juramento excipitur Authoritas Superioris i. e. quando agitur de super esse Superioris for it is confessed they add secùs si non de superesse superioris sed privatorum That is in all Oathes about such things as lie under the power of our Superiours their Authority is excepted 3. Nor their Authority already exerted in Laws made before the Oath onely but as it may de futuro and afterwards be put forth in any New Law contrary to our Oath Therefore D. Jacob gives this instance in the Case Jurans non exire domo c. A man Decision Area p. 173. swears not to go from home yet if he commanded by the Judge to appear before him or by the King to go into the warrs by obeying these commands he is not perjured 4. Again if a man promise another that he will not hurt him yet if the Law requires him to kill him he in so p. 174. doing doth not break his Oath quia illa promissio non occidendi intelligitur nisi lege permittente because his promise must except the Law 5. Hence it follows though all the Covenanters had at first lawfully bound themselves by their Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy yet naturally there must have been this great condition understood saving the Authority of Parliaments that have power to take up our endeavours of this nature by a Law to the contrary when they please 6. For if this Government of the Church do lye more properly under the power of Parliaments to establish or alter it and if it cannot be altered without a change of the Law and the Law cannot be changed but by an Act of Parliament is not the Covenant to that purpose de superesse superioris and thus necessarily conditioned with the exception of their Authority 7. Non valet Juramentum contra justitiam But it is against the righteousness of Obedience and the honouring of our Superiours to be held bound to act against the Authority of our Law-Makers in any new Law that they shall make if the matter thereof be not sinful by any previous obligation whatsoever 8. This were indeed a handsome trick for private persons to be all law in a short time to themselves if private and self-obligations had power to supersede and prevent all the power of Legislation in our Parliaments to the contrary and to change places with our Governours while thus we are freed from their impositions and they are bound to obey the obligations of our private Covenants 9. The priviledges of Parliaments are so rooted in the constitution of this Kingdom that a Parliament in being cannot in such a case as this prejudge succeeding Parliaments to whom it is essential with their head the King to make what Laws they please in things indifferent 10. Insomuch that if the Covenant had been lawfully imposed by the Long Parliament without the King as indeed it was not yea had the King himself been with them and made the Covenant as lawful as Law could make it yet it could not bind the Nation but upon an exception of the power of future Parliaments that by a new Law to the contrary might take off the obligation 11. Therefore an Act of Parliament made to be unrepealable in any subsequent Parliaments is void ipso facto as that in the eleventh and another in the one and twentieth of Rich. the second was these so made were void ipso facto in the very constitution 12. Why because as a learned person saith it takes away the very specifical form essence and being that is the power and priviledge of Parliaments 13. Much more an Act of private persons or of a Parliament without their King that should offer to binde all future Parliaments from doing or enacting what otherwise is lawful or engage the people not to obey them must needs be so far a void Act though in the most Solemn League and Covenant 14. Especially when a law by a full and undoubted Authority is made and actually extant to the contrary not only restoring the Government sworn against not only prohibiting all actions yea and endeavours against it but requiring us upon the severest penalty to declare that we hold we are not bound by virtue of that Covenant to do or endeavour any such thing 15. Besides the holding our selves bound by virtue of that Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government is indeed a continued breach of the priviledge of that very Parliament that imposed the Covenant at first in the injury thereby offered to the spiritual state thereof the Bishops when they were neither suffered to be present to answer for themselves nor to have any others as all the Commons of England have to represent them and to speak for them Non valet juramentum contra justitiam charitatem 16. But I find it much stood upon by Mr. Crofton and the reverend Author of the Covenanters plea that they did onely Covenant to endeavour in their places and by lawful means to extirpate Episcopal Government and this they hope they may lawfully do notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament and without any breach of their priviledges 17. But hereunto I answer that if so to endeavour as they count they are sworn be neither unlawful in it self nor against the Act of Parliament t is well enough they may then keep their Covenant and not break the Law or the priviledges of Parliament but I doubt we shall find their endeavours which they judge just and honest to be peccant in all the respects mentioned That we may discern whether so or no we think it fair to put the Case CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Act of Parliament Resol 1. IT is said there are more ways of endeavour then by violence 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