impowring a Person to Commissionate such Governours to the Church 15. The first of these you grant your Government hath not nor do you prove the second your Argument doth at most conclude for Governours and the Question is about the Frame of Government Your Proof is for Governors indefinite and we have told you the Supremacy of the King may exist in and operate by Church Governours under other Appellations We do not say men must Exstirpate Governors they may subsist when their capacities are changed but a full Establishment of this Special Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. we are as ready to seek and as farr from finding now we have read your distinctions as we were before 15. What you urge concerning the Common Law common usage is so fully obviated by the Covenanters-Plea that we shall say nothing to it onely let us tell you Prescription is a poor Fence to Usurpation and a bad Guard for a Power in its origo manifestly Forinsecal Usury is a common usage yet no man will say it is sinful and against law for men to swear in their Places and Callings they will endeavour to exstirpate an evil custome though a common usage Case XII Whether the Covenant taken first can oblige against a future Law Case 12. Pa. 47. 1. IN this Case you urge an Establishment of Episcopal Government by a Law made since the Covenant was taken But Sir you herein move upon a Petitio principii and conclude what we must make bold to deny 2. We have perused the late Statutes and finde indeed Bishops restored to some priveledges which had been denyed to them and this Government is guarded against some Batteries to which it was obnoxous both these are speciallities under which the Government is left to stand on its old bottome for it hath not received any more express Establishment then it had before Now Sir if Usery should by a new Law be restored to Eight per Cent. we hope it had not acquired any new Establishment which should make the endeavour of its exstirpation any more sinful then before 3. We must make bold to tell you you read without book when you say this Government is Established by the Act for Uniformity that so much as endeavours of alteration are prohibited Ministers are bound to declare they may not so much as endeavour against it For Sir simple endeavour is not by this Law prohibited not is this to be declared against which certainly were destructive to the liberty of the Subject and priveledge of Parliament who must have a freedome to the alteration of Laws as they prove inconvenient 4. This Law doth binde Ministers to disclaime a principle not to disavow a power in themselves to declare that the Covenant doth oblige to endeavour not that endeavour shall be simply unlawful they are not barred from lawful endeavours on good ground and woful experience of the evil of this Government but from improving the Covenant to provoke the same from a special to conclude generally is no good Argumentation 5. Your first proposition failing doth save us the labour of discussing the second how far an Oath may binde against Law we shall only tell you that your Antagonists cry out that you conclude this also in our Case on a Petitio principii taking for granted what they deny As 1. That this Governmet is in it self Lawful which they say is sinful 2. That inconveniences may not necessitate and warrant an alteration and lawful endeavour to alter or remove a thing in it self lawful and by Law Established 3. That this Oath was private and personal by fingle men and so square to the Case of your Jesuites which they say Analeps Analepth Pa. 133. Sect 6. and Mr. Crofton as we before told you hath averred to be publick and National sworn by the people Collectively and Distributively considered 4. That the Oath of the people so sworn layeth no barr on the Laws Decrees or Act of the Magistrate the contrary whereto Mr. Crofton hath asserted from the Oath of Israel hindring Sauls Law and Oath against Ionathan to which you have given nothing in answer we think few Polititians will conclude the subjection of Political Children to be so fully and formally puerile as you suppose it is 6. We Sir insist not on these things because we undertake not to become your opponents we only crave leave to let you know Oaths are sacred things and Post-laws are a ready Papacie to absolve them according to your Divinity we have sworn allegiance to and an acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy and cannot be willing his Majesties Subjects should be made to beleive a Law by a Queen Marys Parliament will absolve their Consciences and Oath Yet we are not convinced that it is simply unlawful for Princes to give up their power or part thereof unto some forreigne Potentate but we for bear because these strings are not struck with Prudence or Piety These affirmed sound Atheism and Irreligion these denied sound Treason or at least Sedition Case XIII Whether submitting to the Penalty annexed Case 13th Pa. 60. be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in the point of Conscience 1. SIr To what you urge against us in this Case we say First you suppose that to be in the Law which we finde not to be in it as we have before noted 2. you state your Case to narrow when you confine it to a single Act of obedience to a single Law we well know who so suffers by a Law suffereth as a transgressour of the Law which is fulfilled by punishing him whose Act was not conforme unto it The Case Sir we conceive ought to be thus stated Is not a quiet and chearful submission to the Penalty assigned by a Law commanding an Act which conscience judging sinful doth inhibit a formal Act of that Consciencious obedience Christianity bindeth us to yeild to all Superiors This Sir was the honour of the Christian Leagions that they were willingly led by droves to the Slaughter-house and did not run into Mutinious and Rebelious routes though armed with power when commanded to sin Christians as Christ have a formal obedience unto the Cross This Sir is yet our Comfort though we be transgressours to this single Law we are by Loyalty and sincere obedience resigned in the to will of our Soveraigne Lord the King and Conscience to do what is commanded or cheerfully to suffer what is adjudged is the security of human peace and order Case XIV VVhether to endeavour the Exstirpation of Church Government by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Laws to the contrary Case 14th Pa 67 be not against the Priviledge of Parliament and consequently sinful 1. THis Sir you assirme and about it make many words which yet reach not the least satisfaction to our minds because you take for granted things denyed First That the Covenant was an Oath private and personal good Sir will you please to tell us whether
by the Covenant Case 9th Pa. 32.33 be sinful 1. THese two Cases contain your first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful and unlawful An Antagonist would much quarrel at your method management and terms in his discourse but we seeking satisfaction pursue your scope and pass by such Peccadilloes 2. Your major Proposition is determined in your second case viz. that to endeavour against the Right of the King as oblieged thereunto by the Covenant is sinful 3. In this Sir we shall not dissent from you we find Mr. Crofton grant it candidly conceding to the Oxford Reasons that no peace can be firm and well grounded which is not bottomed in Justice whose proper and adaequate act is Ius suum cuique unless the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire he therefore cryeth out Specifie the defect in this Covenant as to these particulars I cannot read or understand if they be not all secured by the same Truly Sir we cannot but do the Covenant that right as to observe it bindeth its Subject to preserve the Authority as well as the Person of the King and we cannot easily believe it bindeth in any thing against the Kings Right 3. We hope Sir we may without offence observe the Kings Right of Prerogative is ill pleaded by such who themselves despise and disregard it disobeying the directions of his Royal Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs dictated by his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes they give cause to be suspected to throw it in the way of Antagonists as a stumbling stone on which to break their legs or necks who use it as a stepping stone in the way of their unwarrantable rigour and severity 4. Sir we are so heartily devouted to the service of the King that we dare not in the least detract from his Royal Prerogitive we well know England hath its Statute de Prerogativa Regis as Rome had her Lex Regia we unfeignedly wish this were amplified and made as legible as other Statutes yet Sir the severe censures passed in Parliament upon Dr. Manwaring and Sibthorp do loudly proclaim a possibility for Church-men to scrue the Prerogative of the King beyond its due pitch and the proportion of Englands Constitution 5. Your Major proposition allowed we might weigh your proof of the Minoâ— viz. your Eighth Case To endeavour to alter the Government of the Church is against the Right of the King 6. To the proofe of this you tell us it is against the Right of the King as Executor of the Law and you assign for your first Reason Church-Officers are the Kings Commissioners they taken away the head must fall Good Sir give us a cleare Answer to these two Enquiries 1. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King No Bishop no King hath been an Eventnal but is it a Moral truth Were there no Kings where there was no Bishops Were not Kings in Nations when all Church Government was in the Pope and his Substitutes Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical may add to the glory but not the being of the King Erastus himse would not say Kings cease to be King if they minde meddle not with Church-affaires we are not-yet perswaded that a Royal head must needs stand on Religious Shoulders and fall when these are withdrawn 2. Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Arch-Bishops Bishops c. taken away this Head must fall May not National Privincial and Classical Presbyteries become the Kings Commissioners in the slead of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Commissaries Chancellors c May not the Kings Supremacy exsist in and be executed over and by them subsistuted thereunto 7. Your first Medium seemeth to be of little force to prove To endeavour after Church Government is against the Kings Right as Executor of the Law your next is more general viz. Conâ—… to endeavour to eâ—…pate the Government of the Church doth directly oppose the whole comse of our lives against the Kings Government and that lay you is the sense of the Covenanters themselves 8. Sir If you had said To endeavour to exstitpate doth oppose us ni to this Government the whole course of our affections you had indeed spoken the Covenanters sense yet they will not slick to extend it to the whole course of our lives under those limitations Acts lawful In our places and Callings through the grace of God But Sir they will tell you These are Acts of endeavour for exstirpation other then what you mention such are theological disputation submiss supplication popular Groans or Complaints of greivances by and under it which are consistent with submission to it whilst existent thus it may be in all Corperations and the Church is not excepted 9. But Sir some do and will deny this Government to be the Kings Government Established and animated by the Laws whereof it is his Right to be Executor this you attempt to prove and in its time and place we shall consider At present let it be observed this Government was not at first animated by the Kings authority Acted not in the Kings name but challenged somtimes a forinsecal but ever a Divine intrinsecal power for its principle distinct from yea opposite to the Kings Authority its subjects were with much difficulty and the pinch of Premunire brought to the submission of the Clergie after which the Kings Laws have indeed limited restrained regulated directed and in some things authorized ' these Governours who yet Acting in their name and under their own Seds and affirming themselves to be the upholding Essential animation to Regality by their Cry No Bishops no King make Covenanters conceive they yet think scorn to oâ—… this Government as animated by the King and his Laws though they object it as a stone on which they wish to see their Opposers run their heads until they dash out their brains 10. You further urge To endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Right of the King as Legislator Pa. 30. the Covenant binding to do without the Kings consent whether he would or no. 11. Sir to this we must tell you we do not finde in the Covenant any such words as that we shall endeavour to exstirpate or alter the Government without the Kings consent not do we finde in it any words which by a fair and genuine construction can bear any such sense and we finde the Covenanters do deny it Mr. Crofton whom you most assault doth own the King as chief Ana leps Ana lepth Pa. 98.99 though not sole Legislator and allots Acts of endeavour to procure the Kings consent to which the Covenant he saith doth oblige 12. Truly that limitation on the Covenant is so just ful and legible viz. Through the grace of God in our places and Callings that we cannot but yeild to Mr. Crofton the defence of the Kings power is not repugnant to the dutys of our particular Callings and
England is not a subject capable of a real Oath as well as other Nations consider the nature of a real publick National Oath may it not binde all Successours to or against some specials Was the Law of Saul the Princes of Israel against the Gebeonits to be justifyed Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of Ioshua and the Princes with him Pray Resolve Mr. Crofton that the Solemne League and Covenant is not Iuramentum real Again Sir is the Conatus of a private capacity consistent with the freedome of all Parliaments This so pinched upon you that you are constrained to cry then keep your Covenant yet you call on us to declare we are not bound to endeavour Sir weigh well these two that Conventus Anglorum may binde themselves and successours and lawful endeavour is sui juris to every man and evince the Injustice or violence done to priveledge of future Parliaments if you can Case XV. VVhether it be lawful to endeavour the Exstirpation of Episcopacy by vertue of the Covenant Case 15th Pa. 74. notwithstanding the Act of Parliament IN this Case Sir we cannot but observe you do Magno conatu sudare de verbo sweat much at the Word Endeavour endeavouring to avoid it rather than understand or explain After which you not only leave us unsatisfyed but engaged more then you found us 2. Sir You cannot possibly deny but that there are more wayes of Endeavour then by Violence and Sedition though you keep such only in your eye and have an heart so affected against the Covenant that you could wish there were no other and seem pinched that your Antagonists do explain Places and Callings to limit Endevour to Acts just and lawful Yet you are constrained to tell us to such Endeavours the Covenant doth binde and the Act doth not require us to disclaime 3. You have professed to explain the meaning of this word Endeavour and appear angry that none hath done it before and yet you have not given us any Etimologie Acception or Interpretation of the word only you have pitched on some special Acts by which endeavour may operate which in the height of prejudice you improve to shew your dissaffection to the Covenant without giving the least satisfaction to those for whose sake you profess you have written 4. After all that is said by you we must enquire if any of the Acts of endeavour you observed be lawful or if there be lawful Acts of endeavour which you have not observed Must we disclaime them Are not these positive duty You have determined these in the Affirmitive But Sir we will goe to the utmost Is it no possible for those very Acts which bear in your eyes the worst aspect to become lawful endeavours viz. The Minister to preach the Lawyer to plead and the Souldier to fight against Episcopacy if by any previous endeavours King and Parliament can be perswaded to exstirpate this Government and they make Laws to pluck it up but its subjects are stubborne and Rebell-rasing Bellum meer Episcopal so that lawful Authority requireth these Acts from these Agents in their places and Callings to the utmost of their power and unto their lives end Sir the limitation of Endeavour in the Covenant is so square to Reason and Religion that rage may rend it Religious reason cannot release the Covenaters from it 5. Sir that we may if possible obtain satisfaction we shall give our apprehensions of this Clause in the Covenant that if you can evince our error or its sinfulness you may please to do it 6. Sir The words of the Covenant are these Wee shall in like manner that is sincerely really and constantly through the Grace of God in our Places and Callings endeavour the Extirpation of Prelacy viz. Church Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chauncellors and Commissionaries Deanes Deanes and Chapters Arch-Deacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchic 7. This promise containeth in it the Act Endeavour the Object Exstirpation the quaile of the Act sincerely really and constantly Through the Grace of God in our Places and Callings 8. The Act is Endeavour an Act general and indefinite a word easy and plain to be understood and of a large Signification an Act within the reach of every mans Arme to be done by men in any Calling or Capacity and able to employ the utmost power and skill the Latin word is Conamen or Conatus the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Temptation and in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquisition by all or any means it Signifieth a personal Act the least personal Act and the utmost personal Act what we can and all that we can do it intendeth not the effect but a motion towards the effect the least motion of our selves and Natural power to that effect a simple Conari to which Manibus pedibusque is an Adjunct like that in Terence timet ne se deseras p. egone istuc conari queam I cannot so much as endeavour it this is the Act promised generally and indefinitely without those special Acts by which it must operate 9. This Act may be feeble feigned Language and by sinful means It is therefore in the Covenant qualified with sincerity reallity and constancy such as may be animated by the Grace of God and must be lawful in our places and callings So that unlawful Acts of Endeavours are abandoned and all Hypocrisie Luke-warmness and Inconstancy of Endeavour are to be avoided 10. Analeps Analepth Pag 37 Upon the consideration of the Act Endeavour and its qualification We see not how Mr. Croftons interpretation can be avoided We have in the Covenant sworn with very much caution not to effect but in our Places and Callings to endeavour But this must not be by a bare wish for purity and then welcome corruption a consent to Reformation and then a compliance with Superstition a faint refusal then free reception of the estate to be Exstirpated no it must be a stout and strenuous endeavour withal force and fervour as Dr. Saunderson in this case well noteth Obligat hoc genus juramenti non ad effectum quem supponimus esse impossibilem sed ad conatum quam dieu spes ulla superat imo quo plures majores abijeiuntur difficultates eo abnixius conandum fortioribus annimis ob intendum est 11. You see Sir the promise in the Covenant explained and it is plain that the Covenanted-endeavour is by the Declaration to be disclaimed nor will this disclaimer admit of any sence in which you endeavour to construe it the Covenant bindeth to a general and indefinite endeavour yet this Ministers must as generally and indefinitely disclaim and declare against which we considering endeavour is sui juris to the meanest Subject and most private man and this endeavo covenanted must be orderly and regular in their places and callings and Religious through the
be then gathered the affected title Offertorie maketh it look like something exploded at our first Reformation from Popery We could receive the Collection from the Deacons or Church-Wardens and place it on the Table but we understand not the humble presenting and placing it on the holy Table it hereby soundeth like a Sacrifice we could Eate and Drink the remaines of Bread and Wine with some of the Communicants but we know no distinction Communion ended between Consecrated and unconsecrated Elements nor see we on what ground to Consent and Assent that the one be Eaten at the Holy Table by the Preist and Communicants and the other Taken home to the Curates House We could hansomely cover the Bread with a Napkin but we understand not what is meant by Reverent placing them on the Holy Table and covering them with a Linnen Cloath nor can we Assent or Consent thereunto 29. Reverend Sir Our Fathers were and our selves might be content in some things to Symbolize with Rome when our face was from hers but we cannot unfeignedly Assent and Consent unto such Simbolizing with her Now most men think and Nonconformists boldly affirme our face is towards her yet we pray for the peace and Glory of Englands Church that the Gospel may in her Flourish in Power and Purity Case II. VVhether it be lawful declare in the words of the second Declaration Case 2th Pa. 13 14 1. SIr we must tell you The many words in this Declaration affright us not yet we cannot but be affected to observe the persons who quarreled at the Covenant to impose an Oath or Declaration Tantamount so full of words Turpe est Doctori 2. But we consent to attend your motion in taking this Declaration in peices and you distribute it into three parts that which concerns the Taking Armes against the King Conformity and the Oath called the Solemne League and Covenant in each of which we shall consider your resolution and Reasons The first part you divide into these two Cases Case III. 1. Case 3. Pa. 15 Whether it be lawful for us to delare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Case IV. 2. Case 4. Pa. 16.17 Whether it be lawful to declare that we abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Armes by the Kings Authority against his Person or those that are Commissioned by him 1. SIr These two you conclude in the Affirmative on so sharp promises that none dare or in prudence can speak the Negative or withstand you Tower and Tyburne are terrible places 2. This part of the Declaration doth not much concern us out opposition to the late Rebellion against the King our resistance of the Armes taken against him our constancy of Loyalty under the Cross do Iondly witness you and we cannot be in this particular at any great distance yet we know some Loyal hearts who stumble for whose sake we wish you had more thoroughly argued those Cases by some Medium which they might venture to meet you at we will tell you what we have heard whispered by men of Loyal hearts 3. Some say this Declaration is the personal affection of a present private opinion which being changeable can give no security and so reacheth not the end for which it is exacted these men in zeal to his Majesty could pass a Promissory Oath that they would not take Armes against the King for they conceive their Act is fully within their power though the stronger reasons they may meet with in men or books may alter their present opinions though declared under the most sacred Oath 4 Some say this Declaration is Dogmatical by persons whose Opinion cannot end the Political strife which hath been and is in the World about it and so it cannot reach the end of so solemn Declaration These stumble that the tearms are so indefinite as to render the Position applycable to every Kingdome 5. Some say the tearms are dubious if not false it being indefinitely inserted It is not lawful to take Armes against the King on any pretence what soever These think though this may be true and square to the Lawes of this Kingdome the constitution of other Kingdomes may make it contrary and although our King is and we hope ever will be so qualified that in reference to him it may be true yet it is not impossible for a King Regis personam exuere in a natural or moral madness or Phrensie to turn Tyrant yea Beast waving his Royal Place violently extrajudicially extramagisterially to assault his Subject as Saul did David In this case men think Nature doth dictate it and Scripture doth justifie a man Se defendendo vim vi repellere to take Armes though by rallying the men of Belialâ— not to resist yet to restrain the King and those who are Commissioned by him until they make good their retreat and more safely run out of his reach And this Sir is some pretence on which to speak of the Law of Nature is not as you affirme a Subterfuge and in answer to your what saith the Scripture they say it seemeth to be their Sheild this pretence being square to and consistent with professed obedience 6 To some it soundeth harsh to declare it a trayterous Positian to take Arms by the Kings authority against the Kings person or those Commissioned by him these will not be perswaded that if Queen Elizabeth had by vertue of the broad Seal brought to her in Sanctuary by the then Arch-Bishop of York arrayed and armed men against Richard Duke of Glocester possessing the person of King Edward the 5th she had thereby become a Traytor these men think it not impossible for England again to see a perfidious Protector of the person of an Infant-King and tremble to think that this Declaration may become the basis of Treason and Guard of Rebellion if some Russians should which God defend seize the person of a King he is a man from whom Commissions may be by fear extorted whereby true Loyalty must be on their side and Treason on the part of the Kings Counsel Kindred Ministers of State if Arming against his Person by his Authority though on such a pretence quo posito absurdum sequens non est ponendum But Sir these are a Noli me tangere which we shall not defend Case V. Whether it be Lawful to declare that we will Conforme Case 5th .. Pa. 19 20 to the Litturgie of the Church of England as it is now by Law Established THis Sir is the second part of the Declaration to which you have said little and we shall say less only mind you that this declaring Our Assent and Consent to the use of the Liturgie the foregoing Declaration doth determine Our unfeigned Assent and consent to the Things and Matters to be used that unanimity is the spring and spurr ground and guard of this promised Uniformity 2. But Sir we hasten after you to the Consideration of the
Capacities I hope a Minister may by his preaching Id pa 7.6.6 or a Divine by Disputation in the Schools endeavour the Correction Reformation and Exstirpation of any Error Heresie Schism or Superstition and yet not intrench on his Majesties Jurisdiction yea in reference to a judicial Correction Reformation and Exstirpation which cannot be done without the Kings consent mens endeavour may be in their places and Callings by Counsel Proposals Remonstrance Petition and Supplication to procure his Majesties consent and Authority Sir this limitation is so clear and comprehensive that we think if the King please is so fully conditioned in the Covenant that it must be procured to effect the exstirpation Covenanted only the Covenanters stand obliged to a constant endeavour to perswade and procure the same 13. The condition in which the King was when the Covenant was made we cannot commend we can not but lament and condemn Yet Sir to do all men right the Messages Remonstrances and Petitions of the two Houses of Parliament the conference at the Isle of Wight the Votes upon the Kings Cocessions though but to supposed Episcopacy for three years the violence to which themselves were exposed do loudly witness all faithful Covenaters did conceive themselves bound to procure the Kings consent not to exstirpare this Government as you say whether the King would or no. 13. Now admitting what you say to be true the Government of the Church is under the King the alteration thereof did concern his power the King gave not consent unto the Covenant yet you finde something doth intercept your conclusion For Sir there are Acts of endeavour for Alteration and Exstirpation which are lawful proper to Subjects and consisient with the Kings Executive and Legislative Right and power yea unto the perswading and procuring his Consent and Concurrence to and with the same 14. You Sir affirme the King did not consent unto the Covenant but did Proclaime his dissent 15. The Proclamation against the Covenant hath been often urged and by the advocates for the Covenant admitted yet it remaineth upon us a doubt whether there ever were any such Proclamation we do not conclude it but shall give you the grounds of Conjecture 1. We never saw it nor Copy of it 2. The Anticovenaters neither Oxford Reasons Doctor Langbain Doctor Gauden who laid much stress upon it have ever produced it or transcribed its Copy Doctor Featly his Ghou as Mr. Crofton calleth it gives us by mistake the Proclamation against the Vow and Covenant instead of the Proclamation against the Solemne Leage and Covenant 3. His Majesty in his Meditations on the Covenant maketh no mention of such Proclamation and only aggravateth the same as imposed without his consent not against his Interdict 16. Sir be pleased to help us to a copy of this Proclamation and inform us where to finde the Original for until it be produced the Anticovenanters have no ground on which to stand nor can the Obligation be without it voided your Probleme whether the Kings future consent could revive it doth fall until it appear he did fully formerly void it 17. Sir we readily subcribe Amesius his rule Datur irritio juramenti aliquando per Superiores but it must be in illa ipsa materia sint Superiores circa quam versatur juramentum But sir Mr. Crofton hath told us the Effect cannot be produced without the consent and concurrence of Superiors but the Act about which the Covenant doth converse and to which it doth obliege is fully within the power of the inferior or subject Analeps Analesth Pa. 121 he urgeth from the Reverend Bishop of Lincoln vix quenquam quigaudet usu rationis ita plene sub alterius potestate esse quia ut fit quantum ad aliqua saltem sui juris and it inferreth I hope no adult child on observation of the irregularities in the Government of a Family shall be barred from vowing in his place and calling to his power and capacity to reform the same exstirpation is a parental Act but the child may endeavour and he doth conclude of this Covenant Obligat hoc genus juramenti non ad effectum sed conatum Again Sir The Superior must in the day he heareth of it renuendo renuere tollendo tollere you must let us see the Proclamation before we can conclude our Superior did thus void this Oath 18. Sir your Proclamation allowed you are of Divines the first who hath made it a Probleme Whether the Kings after consent could revive the voided Oath Secundae cogitationes sunt meliores Parents may on second thoughts allow what in passion they may condemne their condemnation is not fatal and irrecvocable The casuist Prelate hath determined Impossibility arising from the right of another may be removed by after consent Doct. Sauuderson and this once removed the Oath binds It is not clear the late King did void this oath but it is clear he did declare Good men should best please God and me by keeping the Covenant And as things now stand doth witness this Declaration to be the result of serious and second thoughts 19. You Sir in close of your Argument tell us The sword cut off the hard bargain for suspension of Episcopacy for three years and the objection with it Let us make bold to tell you Pa. 36. the same sword brought out succeding Superiour under a more and express assent unto this Oath and mandate to all his subjects to advance it Sir it is a Probleme which we cannot resolve Whether political parents being changeable One Generation passeth and another cometh he who suceeding existeth our present Parent do not by his mandate oblige us to the Oath disallowed by his Predecessor whose interdict dyed with him Sir we offer this to be considered we do not conclude it for so to do who seeth not it is neither safe nor prudent Case X. Whether the covenanting to endeavour the exstirpation of Episcopal Government Case 10th pa. 37. be against the Lanes and consequently sinful 1. YOur resolution to this Case is most-what a recapiculation of your former Argument obnoxious to much exception but we resolve not to stumble at termes and expressions but to weigh the strength of Reason seeking satisfaction to our consciences that if possible we might again recover our Livings this we note urgeth your second Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant unlawful because against the Laws 2. You observe Mr. Crofton and the Covenanter plea deny Episcopal Government to be Established by Law which say you to prove is a taske impossible That is true for they cannot prove a Negative if you make good the contrary you do the work as proper for you as Negation is proper to them Affirmanti incumbit probatio 3. But Pa. 39. Sir your plain distinction will not serve the present turne it is this we endeavour against Law when the things is Established by Law or cannot be Established without