deprive them of their legal Freeholds especially whilst their Representatives are kept out of Parliament it being against common Justice and the Liberty of the Subject in Magna Charta 4. To conclude admit Mr. Crofton do truly Recite the words in the Petition of Right whereas many of them have an Oath administred to them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm yet my Assertion stands firm enough that the Covenant is against the Petition of Right 5. For it is not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whether you consider the manner of imposing and taking or the very matter of it as hath fully appeared before 6. 'T is true Oaths are given by Colledges and Corporations but are they not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm if not I am not afraid to infer that such as impose them run thereby into a premunire if they are then my argument passeth untouch'd 7. Indeed these particular Oaths are not in so many words found in the Statutes yet who doubts but that the King hath power by the Laws of the Land to grant such Charters and to give Authority to Colledges and Corporations to Administer such Oaths 8. Again who can or dare lay claim to such a power but the King or Administer such Oaths without power from the King much less against his Express will and Proclamation CASE XVII Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 1. I Conclude it is so and therefore void the force of the Consequence cannot be resisted in those excellent words of our great Casuist Obligation Antecedens impedit effectum Juramenti Subsequentis ne possit Obligare Semper enim Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori Irritum facit omnem Actum inductivum novae Obligationis sibi Contrariae 2. I assume there were three strong Cords and bonds of God upon us to the Contrary before ever the Covenant was taken or thought of to Obey Authority to keep our Oaths and promises to Serve the Church in Our Generations which we shal now review in their order SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 1. YOu would perswade us that I affirm this onely upon my former Principles because the Covenant is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledge of Parliament and the Liberty of the Subjects which you conceive are all laid in the dust 2. Perhaps you may find these Principles more potent and vigorous in their Resurrection however though I had a General Reflection upon these former Arguments yet I added a particular force to the present Argument which having raised a Dust it seems you did not see in these words 3. More particularly God first Obligeth us to be Subject and to obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage us to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church the Covenant would discharge us of our obedience and oblige us to Resistance Contrary to Gods express obligation upon us which cannot be 4. God doth immediately by his Word and likewise by the Mediation and interposition of Civil Authority command us to obey to be subject and not to resist our Spiritual Governours the Covenant would engage to break all at once and at once to violate the Laws of God the King and the Church and all Authority 5. Our duty is positive to be subject 2. Negative not to Resist whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God Wherefore we must needs be subject for conscience sake Rom. 13. Now both these are broken by the Covenant the one by omission the other by commission 6. First Our positive duty of obedience and subjection carrieth in it by Universal Consent to defend preserve to honour observe and to be faithful to our Governours now how these are consistent with Endeavours to Extirpate I cannot see 7. Again Our Negative part or Non-resistance is transgressed too by the Apostles Logick not to be subject is to Resist whosoever Resisteth wherefore we must needs be Subject however to Endeavour to Extirpate is too plainly to Resist 8. For Endeavours to Extirpate a Government are both far beyond the compass of Subjection they being no part either of Active or Passive Obedience and deep in the Nature of Resistance most properly taken 9. Endeavours to Extirpate have Action in them and are therefore more then passive Obedience their Action also is Diametrically opposite to Active Obedience 10. Again Endeavours to Extirpate do formally carry Resistance in them yea they are the formal Act of high Resistance not of the Law onely but of the Government it self not in the Action onely but in the very being of it for Extirpation is the end and utmost of Resistance and therefore Endeavour to Extirpate is properly resistance 11. Pray resolve me to what part of our Duty to our Parents will you reduce Endeavours to Extirpate their Government over us or how can such Endeavours square and Conform to the Commands of God and-the Laws of the Land Not to Resist but to be Subject to our Governours Ecclesiastical and Civil 12. 'T is vain to say we are bound to obey he laws yet we may Endeavour to have them changed It is not safe to Argue from the Laws which are but the Rule to our Governours who are the object of our obedience 13. If this consequence be Good upon an Oath taken of the like Nature against the civil power we may hold our selves bound to Endeavour to Extirpate both King and Parliament 14. For Government by Monarchy and the Constitution of Parliaments you will not say they are in themselves Necessary to our civil State and if because Episcopacy is doubted to be Jure Divino you conclude it lawful to swear against it or having so sworn to Endeavour to Extirpate it I dare not undertake to find a way for the civil Government to escape the danger the Inference is easie from Government to Government though the one be in the Church and the other in the State especially seeing we cannot resist the one and not disobey the other SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against Former Oaths and Promises 1. THis I also affirm and consequently that the Covenant was prevented by such Prior Obligations the Case is fully stated in these words of our Reverend Casuist Si cui Juramentum suscipiendum defereratur continens aliquid quod Obligationi priori sive Naturali sive adquisitae adversatur ut si adversetur officio quod parenti debetur aut principi vel si repugnet ei quod Ante liciè juratum fuit vel promissum ejusmodi Juramentum non potest à quoquam salvâ conscientiâ vel praestari vel praestitum ad impleri qui utrumvis fecerit pejeraverit 2. I assume that the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and the Protestation of May 5. 1641. were taken by the Nation before any of the Nation took the Covenant and that the Covenant
that this term against Law in one Proposition hath not the same sence with against Law in the other and there are four terms in the Argument and nothing concluded as yet against my plain distinction 11. Give me leave to be plain and the sum is this It is not against Law that is it is not unlawful to endeavour against Law therefore to endeavour against Law is not to endeavour against Law and then my distinction of endeavouring against that which is established by Law or against that which cannot be abolished without the alteration or abolition of Law is a poor distinction 12. But you call me off to prove That such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government as was Covenant-ed was against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent this done you say would much avail but you expect my evidence CASE XI Whether the present Church-Government was established by Law before the Covenant was taken THe sum of what I said upon the Resolution of this Case is reducible to three heads SECT 1. Church-Government is fixed by Law 1. First there is no need that we prove the Government to be established by Law in such a manner as the Covenanters seek for while we find it beyond all controversie that this Form is legal and established in the Laws though no express Statute should be found appointing it and it is so much allowed so far fixed and established by the Laws that he that shall any way engage against it doth so far engage against known Law 2. Now until this be questioned to what end do we trouble our selves any further All that is more then this is exubundanti and hath no necessary place left in the Argument 3. Yet of this whereon the very hinge of the Controverfie turns you have spared the pains to take any notice at all SECT 2. The Original of Prelacy is not to be sought in Law 1. IN the second place I intimated that it seems to me unreasonable to expect such proof That the Government of the Church should be established by Law in such a manner as you seek for That it should have its Original Establishment in Law 2. For before and at the first making of Christian Laws in this Kingdom this Government was found existing and to have first destroyed this Government and then again to have established the same by Law would have been plainly ridiculous which yet must have been done in order to such an establishment as you require proof of 3. It is acknowledged by Mr. Fox Act. Mon. Tom. 1. pag. 148. that in Elutherius his time An. Dom. 180. when this Realm was first converted to Christianity there were appointed in the same three Archbishops and twenty eight Bishops and since that time the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops c. hath been further established by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed above 30 times by Parliament and by the Statute called Confirmatio Chartarum still in force it was ordained that all Laws contrary to that Charter should be void and that Bishops twice every year should excommunicate all that did either do or advise contrary to it 4. The Government of the Church was at first founded in Prelacy therefore so far as we are a Christian Nation and governed by Christian Laws Episcopal Government goes into our foundation 5. I mean only it is so of the foundation as to be from and in the beginning of Church-Government and Christian Laws among us I do not say so of the foundation as to be unalterable yet others do however it is not yet actually altered and that is as much as the Argument requires and to warrant that expression which I thought augmentative though you pass it by unnoted viz. that there is the less reason to expect that the Power Office or Government of Bishops should have their origen from the Laws of the Land or that the Child should beget the Father SECT 3. Church-Government is established by Law 1. THirdly I laboured to prove that so far as a Government that was prae-existing before the Laws concerning it could be reasonably expected to be established by Law the present Church-Government is established by Law For 2. First the Laws of this Land since they were Christian have ever allowed it and taken it for granted as having its foundation sufficiently laid before upon all occasions not only by those special Laws that particularly relate unto it but indeed in every Law which expresseth the Consent of the Lords Spiritual 3. Here you only catch at the weakest part about the Consent of the Lords Spiritual to the Acts of Parliament leaving the strength of the Argument grounded in those many special Laws which relate to this Government and apparently allow and continue it without any exception or observation 4. Yet I am not at all satisfied that the allowance and recording of their Consent to every Law by the King Peers and Commons is not a plain acknowledgement of Episcopal Power and Government 5. Secondly I affirm That the present Government is established by Law though not in its Office which was before the Law yet in its Political Power and the Exercise of it in this Kingdom 6. Therefore the several Legal Names of Prelatical Governours with their distinct Jurisdictions and the Crimes punishable by them and the Authority allowed so to punish and the Fees of their Courts and the Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops are found and founded in the Laws of the Land 7. In your Recital of this Argument you only mention the Exercise of this Government and take no notice of its Political Power given by Law and therefore your Answer is short 8. But that this Political Power of Ecclesiastical Governours is setled and authorized by the Laws of the Land is most evident in that of the 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Eliz. An. 1. 2. 9. By 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Jurisdiction touching Matrimony Wills Tithes Oblations c. is expresly given them and it is added that all such Spiritual Causes shall be from henceforth heard examined discuss'd and cleerly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the natures of the Causes shall require 10. Note That if the Temporal Courts have any Authority given them by this Statute so also have the Spiritual they are joyned together such Courts Spiritual and Temporal 11. The point of Appeals is also established by the said Statute and Bishops are expressy authorized to receive Appeals from Arch-Deacons Courts and the Arch-Bishops from the Bishops with Authority hereby given them or established in them to put a final end to all such Controversies You may reade tho Statute at large 12. Yet I conceive that of Eliz. 1. c. 2. is more precise to our purpose Where it is Ordained and Enacted that all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellours
Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastiel Jurisdiction shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act as well to inquire in their Visitations Synods and elsewhere to take Accusations and Informations of all and every the things above mentioned within the Limits of their Jurisdiction and to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestratien or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like Form as heretof ore hath been used in like Cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws 13. Here we cannot but see not only the legal Names of Ecclesiastical Governours mentioned but their political Power and Authority allowed yea formally invested and establish't in them to inquire and to punish To punish with Admonition Excommunication Sequestration and Deprivation and all this by Virtue of this Act. 14. Had we nothing more to prove Episcopal Government to be established by law but this very Statute I cannot apprehend but that the work is done and all Objections to the contrary for ever superseded 15. Is here only a liberty to exercise a power given them is it not express that Power and Authority is also given them 'T is not declared that they have Power and Authority by Virtue of their Office or any other way but it is enacted that they have Power and Authority to inquire and punish c. by Virtue of this very Act. 16. Yea though it is intimated that the same Course had been used formerly it is not enacted only that this shall continue but as if such a kind of Objection had been in prospect it is enacted that by Virtue of this Statute all these Ecclesiastical Governours shall have full Power and Authority to proceed in like Form as heretofore bath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical laws 17. While I read the Statute so express and punctual in the Case I know you will not blame me if I wonder at your so frequent comparing the Government of the Church with Usury and her Governours with Usurers 18 I do not know of any Statute that gives so much countenance to Usury and Usurers as to say be it enacted that power and Authority be given to Vsurers or that makes them a politick body and invests them with Government over so much as their own Tribe and in Cases peculiar to their own way abuses and faults of Usury Do not reflect so unbeseemingly 19. Thirdly I affirm that should we yield unto you that there is no express Statute immediatly Authorizing Ecclesiastical Governours yet immediately it it cannot be denied to be established by Law I mean such Law as impowers the King to Commission and Authorize the Governours in the Church 20. That the King hath such a power in him is manifest from the Oath of Supremacy For being supream Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical he is so over all persons Ecclesiastical as to Commissionate all his inferiour Governours therefore they all either mediately or immediately receive their Commissions from him which is no doubt Legal in the Judgement of all that understand these Protestant Laws that revolve the power usurped by the Pope upon Henry the Eighth and all his successours in the Crown of England for ever v. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. Eliz. 1. where you reade thus 21. All Jurisdictions heretofore lawfully exercised by any Ecclesiastical power or Authority for Visitation Reformation c. are united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm and that your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall have full power and Authority by virtue of this Act by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England to Assign Name and Authorize persons to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions and to Visit Reform Redress c. 22. Your Answer is this at most concludes but for the Governours and not for the Frame of Government 23. But do you not hereby grant as much as my Argument needs For if the Governours of the Church are Authorized by Law you ow them Obedience and the Law in them and your Covenant provokes you to disobedience 24. Again How can all the Governours be Authorized by Law and not the Frame of Government too He that by Law Commissionates all the Governours doth he not thereby establish the Frame of Government 25. Yea where will you look for the Frame of Government but in the Seat of Governours and that according to the Covenant it self You there engage against Prelacy that is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops c. Viz. the several Governours of it 26. You add the Kings Supremacy may exist in and operate by other Church Covernours as well as these 27. I answer easily that admit what you say yet as no other sort of Governours can be Legally so until the King Commissionate them as he hath done these so this kind viz. Episcopal Government must of necessity continue to be Legal until the King shall Commissionate others of another Method or at least withdraw his Commission from these in the present form of Church-Government if he hath power to do it by Law 28. Lastly I urge you that this Government is plainly established by Common Law 29. To this you say that Prescription is a poor Fence to Vsurpation Usury hath prescription 30. But how doth it appear that the present Government is an Usurpation so weighty a charge deserves proof 31. Church Governours are the Kings Ecclesiastical Officers they have their power and authority to Govern given them by Act of Parliament this appears but that their Government is Usurpation appears not 32. To make good your charge two things require proof First that Episcopal Covernment was an Usurpation at first Secondly that it is so still and that it hath not obtained a good Title in law all this while The Statutes now mentioned prove the present Title of it And Magna Charta is a sufficient Evidence that so long agon it had Legal Authority and was no Usurpation 33. I rather mention Magna Charta here because it is accounted Common Law and adds much strength to my Argument thence and from long continuance Especially seeing there is much for the Church and Bishops but nothing for Usurers and Usury to be found in it 34. The Plea that Magna Charta is in behalf of the Abhots at well as Bishops hath nothing at all against us For Abbots were since abolished by law so were not Bishops We are not arguing that nothing confirmed by Magna Charta can be lawfully altered but that Episcopal Government confirmed by Magna Charta is established by that Law and not removed by any other 35. Yea this Objection answers it self and all the rest of its Company and yields us an Argument that might pass for an Instar omnium Abbots and Bishops were both confirmed by the Law of this Land Abbots are removed by Law and not Bishops and in the Law exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis and therefore the Law that removed the Abbots did establish the
Bishops and thus Episcopacy is established by Law 36. But are there not State-Officers that had not their original in the Statute-Laws but only in the Common-Law of this Land as hundred-Constables and Crownets c. will any say that these are not established by law These were before the known written statute Laws and so were Bishops in England before any Christian Laws 37. Indeed methinks the very Concessions of your selves Mr. Crofton yea and of the two Houses of the Long Parliament is as much as my Argument and the Government of the Church can stand in need of 38. You grant in one place of your P. 28. 19. Book your selves that the Government of the Church by Prelacy is not onely limited restrained regulated but directed yea in some things authorized by the Kings Laws I think you will hardly say Usury is so or that any thing Authorized by law can be destroyed but by law And that sufficeth my Argument 39. Again methinks Mr. Crofton decides the Controversie against himself in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 25. There he chargeth the late Bishop of Exon because he pleaded for the Jus Divinuin of Episcopacy that he did confront King and Parliament in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and constitution even from the Statutes of Carlile and the 25. of Ed. 3. declaring against the Pope that Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation Power and Authority 40. Now I conceive this was never said of Usury or indeed of any thing not established by Law For how is this Donation Power and Authority put forth in framing this Creature and Constitution of Parliaments but in Acts of Parliament that is the laws of the land 41. If there be any doubt what judgment the two Houses that imposed the Covenant had touching the Legality of the Government of the Church of England we are satisfied of that by their Applications to his Majesty for the extirpation of it at the I le of Wight 42. Their words are these for the Abolishing of Episcopacy we take leave to say that it is not the Apostolical Bishop which the Bill desired of your Majesty intends to remove but that Episcopacy formerly was established by law in this Kingdom Again onely to put down him by law who was set up by law 43. Note first that the Long Parliament did not doubt but that Episcopacy was establish'd by Law Secondly that the imposens of the Covenant did extend the sence of the Covenant against that which was established by law Thirdly that yet in their own Judgment that which is set up by law is not to be puld down without law These things they saw at last though their many years practice before had contradicted them vid. Biblioth Regi p. 350. CASE XII Whether the Covenant can oblige against a Future Law 1. YOu deny that Episcopal Government hath received any more express Establishment by the Acts of Parliament since the Kings Return then it had before but I cannot find that you say it hath received no Establishment thereby onely that its establishment is not more express in the new laws then it was in the Old but that I need not dispute 2. The Establishment of Episcopacy was express enough in my judgment before and if the new laws be found to establish it at all my Argument is not interrupted 3. And truly methinks after 20. years shaking and almost Ruinating we may fairly count the laws that restore this Government upon its leggs again and not only to its quiet and safety but to its liberty and power of exercise should deserve the name of Establishing laws and the Government be thought to be Established by them though it stand upon au elder Bottom which I never denied 4. Besides for a law so far to encourage and Countenance of Government that was troden under foot so long together as to punish all kind of disobedience to it is plainly to re-establish the same 5. I might add we see the King according to law and his own Supremacy hath fill'd the Church again with all the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers and hath set again the whole Frame of Government in the very terms of the Conant over us and thus the Government is Established by law diametrically against the Covenant and then surely the Engagement of the Covenant is as opposite to the law as it is to Episcopacy 6. Consequently whether the Act of Vniformity doth precisely prohibit Endeavours against this Government or not upon which Argument I cannot but acknowledge you are very ingenuous Other laws require obedience to it that were indeed made of old but are now renewd and reinforced by these new laws 7. Therefore the Covenant cannot oblige us against this Government but it doth equally oblige us against these new laws which to do I have at large proved to be sinful and you have said nothing at all to disparage my Arguments 8. You intimate your labour is saved in that point and you need not discuss how far an Oath may bind against law But truly to me this seems to be your proper work and that you have questioned the wrong Proposition all this while I cannot satisfie my self that what ever you pretend that you doubt the legality of Episcopal Government 9. The Exceptions of the Antagonists you mention are answered before and I have no more to do upon this Case but to note one Expression of your own in the close of it 10. You seem to fear Atheism in that which only serves to Vindicate God against our selves His Authority in his Sovereign pre-obligations upon us against and after-Obligations contracted by our selves though by way of Oath and Covenant to the contrary 11. I cannot but believe that Gods preobligation upon us to obey Authority in lawful things is so firm and indissoluble that no Covenant of ours to the contrary can make those things unlawful or warrant disobedience therein 12. This I assert though our Covenant precede the laws requiring such lawful things which needs must pass with abundant Evidence If these after-laws as you affirm do only revive and reinforce those Ancient laws that had obliged us to the same things before we Covenanted to the contrary 13. Now this methinks should have more Piety to God shining in it upon the eyes of such as read and consider then to be capable of the suspition of Atheism or Irreligion though I charge not the contrary with what you fear Treason or Sedition 14. There is nothing said by you on the thirteenth and fourteenth Cases that doth not either consent with me or is not answered already I pass to the fifteenth Case CASE XV. Touching the word Endeavour and the sence and force of it in the Covenant and in the Act. 1. TOuching the word Endeavour I conceive you ought to have sweat more for though you find much fault with my endeavours about it yet I can find very little correction or amendment
the very constitution of the Kingdom to maintain and defend the Government iv question as he is King 10. It hence irresistably follows that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome and there is an Obligation upon him to defend and to swear to defend before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Episcopacy 11. Yea the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy by any such previous Oath seeing such endeavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath to protect and defend the Bishops and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath against the Bishops it is void ipso facto for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown and bound as King to take it 12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular it is enough that it is not yet altered and that it cannot be Legally altered but by Act of Parliament I am sure you will not say the King much less before he is Crowned hath power of himself or with any others besides his Parlament to make or diminish or alter any known Law especially that which so much concerns his peoples interest security in the oath to be taken at his Coronation 13. Pray therefore observe weigh this Consequence if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand doth void the Coronation Oath required by Law then the King by a private Oaâ—â— may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament the liberty of the Subject and the other great concerns of Magna Charta as well as to extirpate Episcopacy and his Coronation Oath taken afterwards would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land I argue not now from the necessity of the things but from the Obligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them 14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it as Subjects for if we allow its violation in any one part we let go our security in all the rest 15. Moreover 't is certain that though where the Conscience judgeth the matter of a former Oath lawful the Conscience is bound against any future Oath to the contrary yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience 16. Now it is open and plain to all the world that seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bishops passed those Bills for the protection and preservation of Episcopal Government and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature his Conscience will not suffer him to destroy Episcopacy but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful 17. Surely the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience more then to you against yours much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath the bond of his Fidelity and peoples security this hath taken hold upon him and invincibly tieth him under such conviction to preserve his Conscience and his oath and Episcopal Government 18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this appearance and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government against all the evidence He hath given us of it 19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition and seeing we are not to declare whaâ— things are in themselves but what we judg them to be who can possibly stick to declare That he holds the single Person is not bound by to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government 20. Now for any other Person whether the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects how can they or any of them be bound think ye to endeavour to make the King sin and in so high a manner as to violate His Conscience and His solemn sacred Coronation Oath without which he cannot consent as His Royal Father proved with His Life to the extirpation of Episcopal Government 21. Consent I say much less Enact it and yet without both it cannot be legally done neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way but by desiring and labouring to perswade the King thus to Consent and Enact against Oath and Conscience 22. But lest it should be doubted whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding at the Coronation so far as it relates to our Argument and I have done with this great part of my Task 23. I find the Account thus wherein I think I am not Mis-informed 24. After the many other gracious promises which the King makes to his People One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People concerning the Canonical priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protector of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government The King Answereth in these words with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge All Canonical priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power by the Assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 25. Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People to Observe the premises and laying his hand upon the Book saith the things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the contents of this Book 26. Now who can think himself or any other person bound by any Obligation whatsoever to Necessitate so far as in them lies His Sacred Majesty to Violate His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His Inâ—uguration CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 1. I Must still assert the Liberty of the Subject was apparently violated by the Ordinance for the Covenant seeing the Free-holds of so many Several persons and famous Corporations were thus invaded while the Persons and Corporations so deeply concerned had none to Represent them in either house of Parliament when that Ordinance passed 2. This was the Emphasis of my Argument which you little observe and much less answer 3. I am still of the mind in my coldest blood that without Respect to some proportionable demerit it is not sui Juris to the King or Parliament to destroy any person or publique Corporation or to
Case you only return a discovery of three Principles which you affirm I take for granted though they are denied by my Adversaries 1. That the Long Parliament is dissolv'd 2. That the Covenant is only private and personal 3. That each single person is concluded by my subsequent Arguments These you call ungranted Principles but if they may not be granted though they are Principles I shall endeavour that they may be proved though I hope very few of the people of England need satisfaction in such points as these SECT 1. Of the dissolution of the long Parliament 1. TOuching the Dissolution of the Long Parliament I could not dream that so ingenuous persons had any scruple I would fain hope that you want a Refuge when I find you in so bad a Sanctuary 2. Yet when I read your words so warily conditioned in this great particular I find some small encouragement to think that though you now stumble at this stone if every other stone were removed you would stumble over it You say it hath been said you dare not say it and in obedience to present laws you are submissively silent 3. Are you indeed Obedient to what to the present Lawes Who made them the Parliament How comes this to be a Parliament if the Long Parliament be not dissolv'd 4. If the Long Parliament be yet in being the Present is none their Laws are none your Obedience is none if you acknowledge the present Laws you acknowledge the present Parliament and thereby you are over the stone of stumbling before you are aware for you acknowledge the Long Parliament dissolv'd 5. Now there are but two ungranted principles for one you have granted upon a better Argument then I had thought of your own Obedience to the present Laws 6. Truly I took you to be so ingenuous before hand and therefore I presumed to take this for granted and thought I might do it without offence For it is not only the ground of Obedience to the present Laws but the Foundation of our Peace our Liberty our Pardon our Lives and indeed of all we are worth in this world and such a stone not of stumbling but of the Comer that it is hardly safe to touch it though with an intent to fasten it But blessed be God it is fast enough already in our constitution and I hope not much loosned in your opinions 7. Yet if you are in doubt of what disease that great body died I refer you to Judge Jenkins and Mr. Prin who though in other things they differed too much agree very well in this great point 8. Indeed the Name Parliamâ—â—t which signifies to consult and treat together with the Writ whereby the two Houses are Assembled are a full Demonstration of its departure or dissolution long agon They are thereby called to consult and treat with the King therein it signified that Rex est habiturus Colloquium Tractatum cum praelatis magnatibus proceribus Rex in hoc individuo 9. Hence Judge Jinkins argues that the Parliament dissolved upon the Kings being forced from them and put into an incapacity of Treating with them however at his death they died on course 10. The King dying with whom they are to Treat and for which end they have their being the end of their assembling and consequently of their being is gon with him and they are no longer a Parliament A Parliament is a Relative term the Relate and Correlate die together Therefore the King in our Laws is Principium Caput finis Parliamenti 11. It may be said the Act secured them against the Kings death 12. 'T is plainly otherwise indeed it secured themselves from any violence to be done to that end by the King himseâ—f there is no such clause in the Act that they should not be capable of dissolving any other way much less in particular by the Kings death no security to save the Body when the Head was off 13. But a Parliament may be dissolved or dissolve die or be kill'd the Act secured them from being dissolved by the Kings power without their Consent not against the law of Mortality or their dissolving on course at his decease 14. This is very evident in ull Parliaments if the Kings favour shall continue a Parliament his whole time that Parliament hath all that the long Parliament desired or obtained by the Act specified yet upon the Kings death such a Parliament dissolves according to the nature of the thing and the constitution of the Nation 15. Who can be so fond as to imagine that it was ever intended either by the King or both Houses especially if the Reasons be weighed with which this Act was prosecuted that the constitution of the Nation or the nature of a Parliament should be altered by it or more then that the King should not dissolve them by violence that is without their own consent 16. 'T is as frivolous to mention that the King never dies in this respect For 〈◊〉 is evident that as the King is the Head of the Parliament the Relate Reasons of a particular Parliament so he doth die For as was said a Parliament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolv'd by the King in his life time dissolves of it self at his death and why but because in this sence the King dies 17. I never heard such Arguments as these following answered though indeed we need them not They are Judge Jenkin's He affirms that the Act for the continuance of the long Parliament is Repugnant to those for Annual and Triennial Parliaments which being all Acts of one Session are all Acts of one day and repugnant to common Right and common Reason and impossible by the Kings Mortality and maintains that when an Act of Parliament is thus against common Right and Reason and repugnant and impossible to be performed the common Law shall control and adjudge such an Act to be void and that these are the words of the Law 1. Par. D. Downhams Case fol. 11S 8E 3. 3. 30. 33. E. Cessavit 32. 37. H. O. Annuity 41. 1. Eliz. Dier 313. 18. I hope you will not demand who shall judge of such a Case since all parties have practically resolved this long agon 19. The Rump thought that Parliament too long the whole Nation were offended at the Rump The Long-Parliament men themselves when they were together again in order to the blessed Restauration of the King had a desire to be dissolv'd and did what they could themselves to do it and you know that both King Lords and Commons have since made a Law to which you say you yield Obedience that brandeth it for an high offence for any to say that the Long Parliament is not dissolv'd 20. But my dear brethren because you intimate that you are not fully satisfied in this point out of my hearty desire to do you any service I have advised with a very learned Sergeant in the Laws from whom I received these 3. Reasons every one
Ecclesiastical 6. Supream doth necessarily suppose and respect Inferiours and Supream Governour Inferiour Governours 7. Your second Query is this Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Archbishops Bishops c. taken away the head must needs fall 8. To this I hope I may clearly Answer that the removing of the inferiour Governours hath a Natural tendency to the falling of the Head as such that is the Head of them or the Supreme but hath no natural ordination to the substitution of other kind of Governours 9. There is nothing in the pulling down of the walls that goeth into the support of the roof nothing in pulling down Arch-bishops and Bishops c. that serves to uphold the Supremacy of the King in governing the Church but to destroy it as the twenty years experience past doth sadly demonstrate SECT 2. Of the Kings Right in the Government of the Church 1. THe second Medium I use to prove that endeavours to extirpate Episcopal Government you observe to be this that thus to endeavour is not only against the Kings Right as Executor of the Laws by opposing and seeking to destroy his Commissioners but his very government it self and this is the express sence of the Covenanters that according to the Covenant they are bound in the whole course of their lives against that Government which they know is the Kings Ecclesiastical Government 2. This you grant only you say the Covenanters do not mean such endeavours as I mention Again you plead that some others deny the Government of the Church to be the Kings Government because they find it not established by the Laws of the Land whereof it is his Right to be Executor and this is all you say only touching these things here you refer their discussion to their proper places where I intend God willing to meet them again SECT 3. Of the Kings Right as Legislator 1. AGain you note that I argue to endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Kings Right as Legislator as the maker as well as the Executor of the laws as appears by that sence of the Covenant which the practice of the Covenanters hath put upon it 2. To this you answer that the terms do so condition it that it doth not appear to engage us to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy without the Kings Consent 3. Here I must have leave to remember you that though it be true the terms of the Covenant which you specifie are soft and mild viz. through the grace of God in our places and callings yet there are other expressions visible in it that do more then seem to exact such proceedings as were veâ—y inconsistent with our places and callings or the grace of God viz. to our power and with our lives and fortunes 4. What need was there then of our power or lives and fortunes to be exposed in such endeavours but in opposing the King and his Army and how could that possibly be done in the present matter of endeavour to extirpate Prelacy but by Acting therein without the Kings consent and against his express mind to the contrary so that take a true measure of the Covenant by all such terms together as in fair reasoning we must needs do and it is too too evident that it puts us on endeavours that have no regard to the Kings consent at all 5. Besides if the true extent of endeavour covenanted be yet in doubt you would force me to resolve it by that black Comment of the state of things when the Covenant was press'd at first from the occasion of it which as the King sadly observ'd was that fatal confederacy with the Scots for their invading this Kingdome with Arms. The obvious and declared judgement of the Scots that created it touching the place and power of publick conventions and private persons in such matters The sudden course which the two Houses took to demolish this Government and that by virtue of the Covenant and to bring in another 6. These things I say soberly considered and pondered upon methinks should rationally and satisfactorily Evince to such sober persons as I am Treating with that endeavour in the sence of the Covenant it self and the prime Covenanters doth intrench souly upon the Kings Prerogative and Crown Notwithstanding those other small saint and after endeavours with the King to ratifie what they had laboured with all their power in a way of Hostility so long together to do without him and against his most signal express dissent so often reiterated 7. Which little endeavours to procure his consent I imagine you would hardly have mentioned had you had in your mind that at the same time the King was at least quasi a prisoner and was denied by the same persons that treated him the liberty to repair to the place where according to the Order of the Kingdom he useth to add his fiat to the making of Laws I mean the Parliament House 8. Further I am loth to remember that even then when the King at the I le of Wight and his two Houses were neerest to an accommodation the force of such endeavours as the Covenant exacted provoked them to reply to his Majesties papers that they were yet unsatisfied as to an agreement with and reception of his Majesty because he would only grant them a suspension of Episcopal-Government for 3. yeers and not an eternal extirpation of it for which they had covenanted vid. Biblioth Reg. p. 153. 9. But to return to the Covenant it self the close of it doth effectually conclude that in its prime and native intention it least of all regarded the Consent of the King and as to any such thing it was utterly desperate 10. The words are these We shall all the dayes of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever and what we are not able our selves to suppress or over come we shall râ—veal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed 11. Now I beseech you to consider here is a promise to continue in this cause which refers no doubt to the whole or the main matter of the Covenant Now as the Author of the Covenanters plea observes the main scope of the Covenant is against Church-Government to which all other things seem subordinate Therefore this same last Article repeats the beads of this common cause and begins it with Religion that is the Reformation of Doctrine Worship and Discipline and the extirpation of Episcopal Government The words are this common Cause of Religion Liberty and peace of the Kingdomes 12. Now in this Cause observe They swear to continue zealously and constantly all the dayes of their lives and what is the plain sence of that the King being known to be then in the fields and in arms agaâ—nst the Covenanters I say what can the plain sence be but that they would continue
9. in the 19. year of our Reign 9. If you will cast the Controversie upon the sight of the very Original I do not despair to effect it for you provided I may know whom I may pleasure with it and where for it is not possible I should print the Original 10. However I shall offer you such Evidence that this is a true copy that I verily believe ingenuous persons will receive it as next to demonstration 11. Note first that the Covenant was ordered to be printed by the Commons Sep. 21. An. Dom. 1643. This Proclamation is said to be issued Oct. 9. 1643. and I have a learned book by me called the Anticonfederacy that was printed the very next year viz. 1644. that labours to invalidate the said Covenant with the said Proclamation 12. He does not indeed transcribe the whole Proclamation as I have done yet so much of it and of the most material passages of it as you cannot chuse but know it to be the same and to say that he should feign such parts of a Proclamation at such a time as that or that the King should not be as quick to proclaim against the Covenant as he had been a little before against the Assembly of Divines June 22. 1663. are both unreasonable and ridiculous to any sober man 13. The words of that book mentioned are these The true scope and aim of this League speaking of the Covenant as it is declared by our most gracious King and we cannot receive it from a better hand is in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavour to bring in Forreign Forces to invade this Kingdome and is therefore by his Majesty justly sentenced notwithstanding its specious expressions of Piety and Religion to be nothing else in Truth but a Traiterous and seditious Combination against him and against the established Religion â—nd Laws of this Kingdome which are the very words of the Proclamation it self 14. I hope you will now no longer doubt whether there were indeed any such Proclamation or whether it be of force to void the Covenant 15. You say you allow that Rule of Ames datur irritatio aliquando per superiores but you note it must be si in illa ipsa materia sint superiores circa quaâ—â—ersatur Juramentum 16. But let me recommend it to your second thoughts whether endeavour simply considered or endeavour with its object extirpation of Prelacy be the matter of the Covenant and whether the King in this very matter of extirpation of Prelacy or endeavours to do it be not allowed to be our Superiour 17. Admit there were a Covenant taken by private persons to Endeavor to bring in forreign forces endeavor indeed is to every man sui juris but that this endeavour and consequently such a Covenant is not in a matter subordinate to the King I think you will not dispute 18. Lastly you seem to wonder that I make it a Probleme whether supposing the Proclamation had voided the Covenant at first the Kings after-consent could revive it 19. If you understand my words with respect to the first engagement actually made and voided by the Proclamation I think yopu need not much wonder if I should have affirmed whereas I onely quaeried Whether the same Act made void could be made in force again I am not afraid to write over the words once more I think it may well be a Problem Whether the Kings after-consent could revive it if it had indeed been dead and buried sop many years before 20. For the Covenant being voided by the Kings protest against it and the Parliament dissolved that promoted it I think you would wonder more at it if I should affirm That the King hath power without a Bill to that purpose from the two Houses by His own single Act to revive a matter of so high a nature to His Subjects so long time after CASE X. Whether the Covenant to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopacy be against the Laws and consequently sinful 1. I Proceed to argue That seeing the standing Laws of the Land are the express and fix'd consent of the King and Supream Authority and this extirpation of Prelacy cannot be effected but by offering violence to the Laws of the Land which cannot be lawfully done without the Consent and Act of the King and supream Authority it is sinful to swear to endeavour it without submission to their will and pleashres 2. This is evident by the former Arguments by the rules of all Casuists and particularly of Mr. Perkins who conckludes That a Covenant taken against the Laws of the Land is void of it self 3. To apply this Argument to our Case I observe The great Objection of Mr. Crofton the Covenanters-Plea and you my Surveyors is this That Episcopal Government is not established by Law in England 4. This Objection I labour first to avoid by a distinction in general and then I argue the point particularly That this Government is established by Law in England 5. My distinction is this We may endeavour against the Laws and swear accordingly two ways 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 abolition or alteration of Law Hence I argue That admit there were no express Law appointing this Form of Government sworn against yet how doth this clear the Covenanters from swearing against Law when they swear to extirpate that Government which cannot be extirpated without the alteration of many Laws So that this evasion I think is perfectly obstructed 6. All that you answer is levelled against this distinction you ask Is it against Law to endeavour the alteration yea the abrogation of some Laws and things thereby established 7. Now I beseech you consider whether you have any thing at all in these words to enervate or avoid my distinction or to render it poor as well as plain as you seem to glory notwithstanding your confidence your ingenuity shall judge betwixt us 8. Consider therefore the end for which I proposed it and you will confess you have not evaded it was it not in express terms to obstruct the Objection of Mr. Crofton and the Author of the Covenanters Plea viz. That Episcopal Government is not established by Law to which I said That it is all one whether it be established by express Law or cannot be abolished without the alteration of Law Now to this use of my distinction you have yet answered nothing at all 9. Besides in your Querie Whether it be against Law to endeavour to abrogate Law Unless you discover a double meaning in acting against Law you contradict your selves and if you do discover it you also discover a plain way for me to escape your Answer and to defend and justifie my plain distinction 10. Surely to endeavour the abolition or destruction of Law is to endeavour against Law Now if you affirm That it is not against Law thus to endeavour what remains but
gaining or increasing of grace or peace our prayers are a means not onely of asking but of effecting the same but to alter law and government is a thing of that nature that we can onely ask it we can Act no further towards it all the work for the effecting of it belongs to our Governours put any Familiar Instance with your selves and resolve the double will you say that the Childe desiring his Father to wind up his Watch is the Childs Endeavouring the winding it up or to wind it up 4. I can easily Consent that Conatus is not effectus yet you acknowledge it is a motion towards the Effect which you call a Natural power and I doubt not we agree that Conatus hath essentially in it a Natural tendency and operation towards the effect Endeavoured 5. Now simple and bare Petition or submiss supplication hath not so it hath indeed a verbal motion for the thing desired but no real Operation or Natural Motion towards the effecting of it 6. The subject by Petition doth desire it but the Parliament in all those legal methods of debating veting committing engrossing c. do properly endeavor the Abolition of any thing legally established 7. Truly I soberly discern this distinction of Petition and Endeavour both in the Covenant and in the Act of Vniformity 8. The Covenant saith we shall Endeavour the Extirpation of Prelacy not desire or perswade but Endeavour it Neither can you possibly perswade your selves that such as then imposed and took the Covenant did at first intend such Endeavors as you mean who took other courses you well know to effect the same 9. It is added Constantly and zealously must we be always zealous and hot in our Petitions must we perpetually sollicite King and Parliament with our supplications this will hardly consist with submiss Supplication 10. Indeed it is plainly Seditions in it self take Endeavour in your own sence publikely to engage by Covenant zealously and constantly to Petition the Alteration of Government this is to declare to the World that we will never be quiet under it 11. Thus also it is in the Act we are to declare there lies no Obligation to Endeavour a change it is not said that we shall not Petition that others may Endeavour it 12. Rational Endeavour implies that the persons endeavouring have probably a power to effect but it is certain before hand that without the Supream Legislative Power the Subjects cannot effect the Extirpation of Episcopacy therefore they cannot rationally or lawfully endeavour it therefore if they promise or Covenant so to do it is sinful and they may lawfully declare they are not obliged unto it that is to endeavour what they have no power by Law to do neither can the Act be thought to intend any more Stultum est Conari quod nequeas efficere 13. Lastly If submiss supplication be yet thought to have any spice of endeavor in it it cannot be rationally thought to be intended in the word endeavour in the Act you observe that Endeavour in the Act and in the Covenant are of one measure and it is too evident there was more in endeavour in the Covenant then meer Petition and submiss supplication which ran us upon those sad consequences that in all reason the Intention of this new Act is but to secure us from you say to make Laws against simple Endeavor is certainly destructive to the Liberty of the Subject and Priviledge of Parliament Methinks then you should not apprehend such a simple and bare endeavour is to be disclaimed as is essential in your own Judgements to the liberty of the Subject and priviledge of Parliament SECT 6. Whether to endeavour c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject c. 1. I Cannot yet consent that to endeavor to alter the overnment of the Church is at all times or at this time sui Juris to every or to any Subject or indeed to any person in the Nation to speak home 2. The King is the proper Judge of what Government is fittest for the Church both as he is Supream Governour over it and as he is the Head of the Parliament 3. As he is supream Governor over the Church of England he is supream Judge in all Causes into whom the last Appeal resolves and consequently he is supream Judge in this of the fitness of the Government of the Church unto whom the last Appeal for a final definitive sentence and determination is only to be made 4. Again as he is Head of the Parliament he is no less For though the 2 Houses be also Judges of the fitness of the Government yet still with submission and reservation to the highest Judge thereof their Sovereign Lord the King who hath a Negative upon both Houses and gives life or death with his own word to any Bill tendred to him 5. So that in matters Legally existing the King hath this great advantage above his 2 houses the King hath power of himself to continue the existence of any such thing without his two houses that is whether they will or not and they cannot remove or abolish any such thing without the King or whether he will or no. 6. Suppose it be granted that the people may petition both houses may proceed so far as to frame a Bill against a Government absolutely considered and without respect to any Prior Obligations by Oath or otherwise upon the King and tender this unto the King in Order to the extirpation of the same yet if the King refuse to pass the Bill that Bill so once rejected cannot be revived during that Parliament neither may any person in either house so much as move it any more by the laws of Parliament which nothing can warrant against but the necessity of the things so to be revived upon the Word of God 7. The same Reason perswades me that when both King and Parliament have by fresh law declared their dissent to alter the Government against all endeavours used to that end and so they have done by the late Statutes for its restauration then we the Subjects cannot be bound any longer to endeavour it if we were bound before 8. To be bound still to vex the King and Parliament with perpetual repetition of Petitions to remove a Government which they have still do signifie they will not remove yea which they do signally own and ratifie so much the more is to be bound to go contrary to authority as well as Law to trouble the peace of Church and State and the Government over us and indeed to endeavour or labour in vain all hopes of prevailing being taken away at postquam palam desperata est constat fieri non posse cessat obligatio ex jam dicto fundamento quod Nemo Teneatur ad impossibile 6. This must needs pass without all controll if we add to the consideration that the King is known to be born to and bound to take an Oath by
in the Second Article is Repugnant to them all 3. In all these you say I was fully prevented by Mr. Crofton and seeing this is all you say against me in these particulars I shall only return you to one who in all of them did as fully prevent Mr. Crofton many years agon 4. He leads us on thus as his Majesty hath sworn expresly to maintain and defend the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. So have we his Subjects implicitely sworn the same as many of us as have taken the Oaths Supremacy of Allegiance and the late Protestation 5. For first his Majesty having sworn so solemnly to maintain and preserve this Government of the Church if any Attempts or Conspiracies should be made against it we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance to maintain and defend his Majesty to the utmost of our power in his endeavouring to make good that his oath of maintaining defending that Government of the Church and the Rights and Priviledges of these Governours against all those Conspiracies and Attempts 6. Secondly we have sworn in our Oath of Supremacy that the Kings Highness is the only Supream of this Realm as well in spiritual things and causes as Temporal and that we shall to our power assist and defend all Jurisdiction Priviledge and Authority granted or elonging to the Kings Highness the Government of the Church being such an Ecclesiastical thing and Cause as that next to the Doctrine of the Church there is not any Ecclesiastical thing or Cause of nearer concernment to the King and whole Kingdome and the Regulating and ordering thereof belonging to his Jurisdiction Priviledge Preheminence and Authority we are obliged by that Oath not only to acknowledge his Majesty to be the Supream Governour in that thing and Cause but also to our power assist and defend that Jurisdiction Priviledge Preheminence and Authority and not to Assay or Endeavour ought concerning the Altering much less the rooting out of that Government without the Kings Consent and Approbation 7. Lastly we having sworn in our late Protestation to maintain and defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and one Article of that Doctrine which the Papists mainly Oppose viz. six and thirty together with several other parts thereof approving and Justifying the Government of this Church it must be granted that we are by this Oath bound so far to maintain and defend that Government as to approve and justifie the lawfulness thereof both in it self and in its Constitution here among us 8. Besides we swore expresly in the same Protestation to maintain and defend the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subject and every person that made that Protestation and therefore in that respect until we are convinced either that Arch Bishops and Bishops c. are no Subjects or that their Right of Governing this Church is not lawful we are bound by that Branch of the Oath not only not to Endeavour the Extirpation of the Government of the Church by them but to the utmost of our power to maintain and defend them in that their Right of Government and every person that took the Protestation in whatsoever he hath since done or shall hereafter do in the maintenance and defence â—thereof Ante-confederacy P. 51. 52. Printed 1644. 9. You believe Mr. Crofton will not stick to allow the Nationality of the Protestation and then the whole Nation was under the Obligation of the Protestation before the Covenant was taken and consequently in those things before recited the Covenant was superseeded and Master Croftons Imaginary Reality and Nationality of the Covenant is thrown to the ground by Mr. Croftons Logick his Position undermined by his Supposition 10. Give me leave also to remember that both in the Oath of Supremacy and the Protestation it was sworn to maintain the Kings Honor as well as his Authority but the Covenant is to endeavour to make the King break his Oath which is plainly contrary to Endeavours to save his Honour 11. The King hath sworn to defend and maintain this Government It is not a necessary Duty from the Word of God to destroy it there is nothing more dishonourable in a King then to break his Faith with his Subjects yea his Oath to them his Oath to defend and protect them and in so deep a measure too by his Extirpation and rooting them out Lastly the Covenant is to endeavour to prevail with the King thus to break his Faith and Oath with his Subjects in a thing in your own judgements not necessary upon him from the Word of God Now avoid the Consequence if you can SECT 3. Whether the Covenant can oblige us to the laying down of our Ministery 1. THirdly I assert we are first obliged to serve the Church in the work of the Ministery and the Obligation of the Covenant can no way disoblige us or discharge us of it 2. The Argument in short is thus No man hath power to put a Bar by any self-contracted Obligation about a thing not necessary in the way of his duty to God or his Church the reason is God hath first in Nature and Scripture obliged him to his duty Est illicitum quicquid bono publico adversatur aut paci Ecclesiast politicae Domesticae Sand. Actus unius non debet praejudicare juri alterius Our own private Act ought not to prejudice the right of another much less God the Church 3 But now to leave our Ministerial office because we will not renounce this part of the Covenant as required by law is to put a Bar in the way of our duty to God and his Church from a self-contracted-obligation about a thing in it self not necessary 4. I spent above 8. pag. in the book surveigh'd by you in the prosecution of this Argument Pray read them over again judge whether you have soil'd much less as you speak of my other Arguments laid it in the dust indeed you have not touched it with one of your fingers 5. This Argument may grant or rather give that it was lawful not to renounce the obligation of the Covenant before this Act was made but now the Act requires it as the condition of continuing in the Ministery the Case is otherwise 6. For the Covenant could not be taken in a matter not â—necessary without such a condition that the performing of it or the non-renouncing of it do not afterwards prove a bar to our duty be understood The Rule is known rebus sic stantibw vel si in eodeÌ„ statu res permanserint upon condition that no sin hereafter be to be committed no injury done no duty omitted by keeping our Oath or any thing truly consequential thereunto 7. There is a Case in Bishop Sanderson that brings us very neer our own Si Filius familias c. If a Son saith he swear to do a thing that is in it self lawful and his father not knowing what his son hath sworn commands