A SHORT SURVEY OF THE Grand Case of the present MINISTRY WHETHER They may Lawfully Subscribe and Declare as by the late Act of Uniformity is required.  
AND The several Cases thence arising, especially about the COVENANT.  
By Some Conformable Non-Conformists  1 Pet. 4.19. 
Wherefore let them that suffer according to the Will of God, commit the keeping of their Souls to him in well doing as to a Faithful Creator.  
Printed, in the Year, 1663.   

Courteous Reader,  
OUr Condition is sad, and the more sad, by reason of those Severe Censures which Sober, and Learned men pass upon us, as if peevishness and groundless Scrupulosity were the only cause of our present Cross.  
Do we need to Appeal to God that we love ourselves? We conceive Natural Men should believe us without it; And if we may be believed therein, can it be supposed we would not willingly receive satisfaction to our Doubts?  
Let us tell thee we have read what hath been written to offer us satisfaction, but we find none.  
The Grand Case of the present Ministry hath made the fairest proffer, as professedly written for our sake to help the pinch of our Case; but yet it hath also failed our expectations and left us on the Rack of our doubts, or rather Shipwreck of our Resolutions.  
Lest we should by a sinful Silence justify the severe Censures which pass upon us; We have adventured to digest our dissatisfactions in the ensuing Tract, that our haesitancie in the conformity expected from us may be visible, and if possible removed.  
But now we have stated our doubts, we are in doubt of some severe moderation by the Interposition of Authority, yet why do we doubt? did ever the English Protestant Genius determine a Crime in a sober Disputation? We affirm nothing, only urge what sticketh with us as the Remora to that Negation which is expected from us.  
In the following Tract it might be expected we should have said something to the Case of Reordination, but we are not therein concerned; and our Reverend Casuist saith nothing but turneth us over to Mr. Humphrey whose sad experience of the Fact he retracts, and yet defends, doth add no little to the real weakness of his Argumentation on that point; we could tell thee we have seen two several Answers to his last piece on this Subject, which are smothered lest their appearance should break their bruised Reed, and add Affliction to him whom God hath grieved. Unto this Treatise with which we deal is added some considerations about admitting some inexpediencies, for the necessity of our Ministry unto this (which we think sufficiently obnoxious to exception) we have said nothing, because we have admitted, and could admit many inexpediencies for the Liberty of our Ministry, and our Conscience doth conceive formal, positive, and special sin in what is required from us; So that until the Act be acquitted from Sin, the Case of Necessity and expediency cannot take place in our Souls.  
Through the whole we wish it may be observed we may appear as Apologists for our noncompliance with what is required, rather than as Antagonists to what is affirmed: We have therefore propounded our own dissatisfactions, rather than disputed against what is urged by the Reverend Author of the Grand Case of the present Ministry, to whom our doubts are directed.   

A SHOHT SURVEY OF THE GRAND CASE OF THE Present Ministry, Whether they may Declare and Subscribe as is required in the Act for Uniformity, in an Epistle to the Author of the Grand Case.  

The Preface.  
Reverend Sir,  
WE, some of your Brethren, in compassion to whom you have been pleased to compose and publish your Candid and elaborate Tract, Entitled the Grand Case of the present Ministry. Having seriously considered the same, as being therein concerned; after some silence, have assumed the boldness of addressing these Lines unto you, thankfully to acknowledge your Zeal, Sobriety and Charity, therein expressed; and modestly to signify to you, it hath not made on us that Impression, nor produced that effect, you might rationally promise to yourself, and ourselves cannot but observe it hath effected in many others, Yet, Sir,  
2. We must and do acknowledge your Grave and serious Preface, most truly stating the Case of self-created Sufferings, and the sinfulness thereof; hath seized on our Spirits with no mean force.  
3. Truly, Sir, we are not a little troubled to apprehend men, yea wise and learned men reprehend us as felones de se, we have esteemed life sweet, and are pressed to pursue the preservation thereof, not only in reference to ourselves, but also in reference to our Wives and Children; some of them can make our hearts ache, crying for the bread of our late lost Benefices, and so keep us from any proud, profuse, contempt of the comfortable livelyhoods we did enjoy.  
4. The thoughts of being fures de se, do much terrify us, we are convinced we are not our own, our Persons, our Parts, our Ministry, are Gods, his Churches, and the Kings, from whence we may not withhold the same, for a moment unless superseded by some sin, which we dare not commit and break through for the greatest good.  
5. You make our hearts tremble when Boanerges like you pronounce us, Proditors de se, and that in the great concernments of our Ministry, dearer to us then all our lives, as committed to us for the salvation of precious Souls, many more than our own, or those of our own households.  
6. The consideration of these things, have constrained us to press upon you, and to present to you our dissatisfaction (and the grounds thereof) in your serious explications of, and expostulations with us, in the matters which appear to you the Grand Cause of our present case, to which we beg your leave to pass with all plainness and brevity, that if you can convincingly reply to it, we may bless God for you, as our Redeemer out of our present dark and comfortless condition.   

The Grand Case.  
Whether it be Lawful to declare, as is required in the late Act, Entitled an Act for Uniformity of Public Prayers.  
SIR, 
Pa. 1st.  your book doth profess to deal with such Who could Conform, but could not declare and subscribe what is required in, and by the Act of Uniformity; but you wholly pass by those men, who are against the use of the Common Prayer Book: We Sir, must needs confess ourselves, to be Ministers of the Rank with whom you deal; yet we must profess we should rejoice to see some Satisfactory discourse directed to the latter, many of whom we know to be men of Learning and sobriety, faithful Subjects to the King, and profitable Ministers in, and to the Church of God.  
2. These men we do discern to stumble, at a Liturgy, generally (throughout all Acts in Ministration of God's Ordinances,) and Exclusively (so that men must be tied to those forms, and none other.) Imposed, because they conceive the Modifying Gods Ordinances in, and to the Church by personal Ministerial Gifts, is the formal Act in and by which they must fulfil the Ministrey to them committed.  
3. These men are, Sir, of Age sufficient to speak for themselves, and do complain they have spoken, and are Answered by Rigour without Reason, we shall therefore leave them to themselves, and being singled out by you, we shall adventure to speak for ourselves, because for our sake it is you have been pleased to take so great pains.  
4. Sir, we take it for granted, you conceive the Declarations required from us, to be Tantamount to an Oath, they are to be Solemnly made in the Congregation, by Ministers qua Ministers of the Gospel, in which virbum sacerdotis is the Sacred Rivet of that Obligation, which resulteth from such Declaration, to our Conscience in the sight of God, and his Church.  
5. On this Consideration, we presume you will have Charitable table apprehensions of our present Haesistancie as to the Subscribing and publishing such Declarations, for it is a Snare to devour holy things, and after Vows to make enquiry, and we shall in  Judgements weigh your grounds on which you determine this Case, affirmatively moving in our Observation, according to the Method of your Argumentation.   

The Declarations are these two, by you truly Transcribed.  

The First is this.  
J. A. B. DO here declrae my unfeigned assent, and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in, 
Pa. 2.3.  and by the Book Entitled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites, and Ceremonies of the the Church, according to the use of the Church of England, to gether with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be Sung, or said in Churches, and the form, or manner of making, Ordaining, or Consecrating of Bishops, Priests or Deacons.   

The Second is this.  
J. A. B. DO Declare that it is not lawful upon pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King, and that I do abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms, by his Authority against his person, or against those Commissioned by him, and that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now Established by Law; and I do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me, or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any Change or alteration of Government, either in Church or State, and that the same was in its self an unlawful Oath, and imposed on the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws, and Liberties of this Kingdom.  
Theseare the Declarations which you affirm may be subscribed and made, as is required, your reasons for this your Judgement you produce in the particular following Cases, which we shall consider.    

Case the First.  
Whether it be Lawful to declare in the words of the First Declaration.  
THe first of the Declarations you distribute into two parts, 
Pa. 4.  that which concerneth the Liturgy, and that which concerneth the Book of Ordination.  
2. You first determine concerning the latter of these viz. The form and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; 
Pa: 45:  and determine it Lawful thus to declare in this part of the Declaration which you thus enforce: Most that have Live have subscribed this already, at their Ordination, and read their allowance of it, openly to their several Congregations upon their Induction, besides had not this been required in the Act, who knows not that no Conformity without subscribing and reading the nine and thirty Articles could legally suffice. To this Sir, we say:  
3. Our question is not what could legally suffice, but what may be Conscientiously done; for this must not be violated unto the satisfaction of that.  
4. Your Argument, is an Argument of fact, which if admitted true, will not conclude your Resolution; for you well know a facto ad jus will not follow, most have done it, therefore all may lawfully do it, is Logic; which the fear of God favoureth not. Yet Sir:  
5. We presume to gainsay your confident Assertion, That the most who had Live, had at the writing your book, subscribed the form and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, required by this Act, cannot but conceive strangely of it; we do not know the most who then had Live, and therefore cannot ask them the question; but we think they must be most of them Reordained according to the new Form, Presbyterial Ordination had sure been very Active, and Extensive, and Presbyters were easy Wheelers, who had well learned Tempora mu tantur & nos mutamur ab illis.  
6. Sir, give us leave to tell you, we had good Live until the 24th. of August 1662. and yet we were not of the Number of those who subscribed this Book, Form and manner at our Ordination, and we believe most who were then in Live, and Episcopally Ordained, were in the same common Capacity with us, and subscribed the Book which we subscribed, and sure this Book was not then born, if conceived in our Bishop's brain, it was not brought into the World many days before this Book of yours which giveth it suck.  
7. We must indeed confess we have been informed that the most of the Ministers in Cheshire (and it may be some other Diocese) in zeal or love to their Live (more manifest than Conscience or discretion) did by a Monstrous implicit faith subscribe this Book before the 24th of August. These may evince something of your Argument a facto, and yet we must tell you they were not all then Ordained, and if this will conclude ad jus, we must tell you these men did at the same time, subscribe the Book of Common Prayer, and both these Declarations, and all this they did in obedience to the Act for Uniformity before their eyes saw either of these Books; Ergo all may lawfully so do.  
8. Moreover, Sir, we must presume to acquaint you that we know the Reading so many of thirty nine Articles, Which contain only the Doctrine of Faith, or of the Sacraments, with an omission of that which concerned the book of Consecration would Legally suffice, we are confident you will make no more of this form and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, save a Political though Ecclesiastical order, and that neither Doctrine of Faith nor Sacraments, and an Assent to such Articles as contain Those, and Only those is required by the Law; The Statute which dictateth Legal sufficiency.  
9 We expect, Sir, you should reply to us, that the Book of Consecration Established by King Edward the Sixth and enforced by Queen Elizabeth, is much what the same with this, and therefore in subscribing that, we have subscribed this.  
10. Good Sir, excuse us, sinaile nonest idem, there are in this book some Additions, and alterations which were not in that, and this may bar our subscription to this; Moreover, Sir, the form of subscription required by this Law, is such as was never required before by any law, nor given by us to any form or manner of Ordination and Consecration. This requiring our unfeigned Assent and consent which we unfeignedly profess we cannot give.  
11. But, Sir, You have hit the white in your conjecture, that the first part of this Declaration is that which sticketh with us, 
Pa. 5:  (viz.) that which concerneth the Book of Common Prayer, 
Sect 5.  and is thus expressed.  
I. A. B. Do declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entitled, The Book of Common-Prayer, etc. For, Sir, although we could have conformed, we could not, 
Pag: 6:  nor (considering what you have said) can we yet make and subscribe this Declaration, 
Sect 7:  though we are not like Children affrighted with a long Title, we are not in judgement satisfied to declare concerning the Book what is required.  
12. We Sir, embrace your Suada, and will not set an edge on the words to wound ourselves; yet we must say, your gloss doth not so much as dull the edge yourself hath put upon the words; you tell us the Object of our Assent and Consent is not the words but things, there are several expressions which though we could safely read, yet we do not so hearty approvē them, as we seem to be required, not every thing as there expressed, but every thing contained in the expressions must have our Assent.  
13. Sir, We must be bold to tell you our Controversy is about Wordy things, a Liturgy, a Rubric, a Form, of Prayer, and the like: The question is whether these be right words, to be pronounced? and a fit form to be used, that in our Ministry we may be bound couse these and none other,? and as such Sir, your things are words and matters expressed, is the Mode of expression; to which, our Consent and Assent must be yielded; the Assent to a Creed may have the matter expressed for its object; but Assent and Consent to a Common Prayer Book hath no adequate object but the Mode, Words, Expressions, Forms to be used and pronounced; though Sir, we could Minister in and by some such Expressions, we must be well advised before we declare an unfeigned Assent and Consent thereunto, The Nonconformaists geneally allow the matter of Doctrine, or Petition, in the Common Prayer, expressed and contained, and have ever quarrelled the Mode, as not a full and fit wordy Direction or determination of the ministration directed in and by it.  
14. But, Sir, admitting your gloss; some things contained in such expressions, & signified by such words, are such to which we cannot Assent nor consent: For Instance, in the Absolution, a word is altered which we conceive hath altered the thing, (Wherefore we beseech him to grant us true Repentance, etc. In the old Book is a formal Prayer) but (let us Beseech him in the new book) seemeth to alter it into an authoritative Sacerdotal absolution which we are not convinced to be a standing piece of solemn Worship in every approach to God, or into a Ministerial exhortation of the people, and then not to stick at the impertinent Amen of the people, thereto subjoined; we are to be convinced that the words of the Lords Prayer are the necessary and only lawful Petition for pardon of sin in every approach to God, yet that is constantly subjoined.  
15. Again, Sir, Answer, in the Rubric is a word, but the direction of popular responds; the Invitation, Accompany me with an humble voice, 
Analeps. Analepth. Pa. 58.  and say after me, the different Characters in the Petitionary part of the Litany and Decalogue are directions for popular Conclamations, all which (be not offended if we tell you in Mr. Croftons' Dialect) is so directly repugnant to the Apostles rule; Let all things be done decently and in order; who in the case of extraordinary & immediate Elolitions of the spirit allowed the people no more, save an audible Amen: That we dare not assent nor consent to things contained in these words.  
16, Again, Sir, Holy is an adjunct to Table frequent in this book, and signifieth a Thing which we cannot admit; we know no holiness o● places or Instruments under the Gospel, yet will contend that such be handsome: Sir, Mr. Crofton whom you specially assault hath to our knowledge opposed the Profane neglect, contempt, and abuse of the Churches: Irreverend, unmannerly usage of the Table, reserved for the Ministration of the Lords Supper, and the Consecration of Churches, holiness of Table● with an equal vigour.  
17. Again, Sir, The corrupt Translation of the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed (unto manifest nonsense) to be sung or said in Churches, varying the Text from the Original, yea from the truth itself, rendering it contrary thereunto in those several particulars excepted against by the Non-conformists, whose loud and long clamour, would have engaged the correction of errors, so gross, and obvious, yet even these things are retained and returned, as things contained in and prescribed by this Common Prayer, book, and to which we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent: To this, Sir, we may and must add the corrupt Translation of the fourth Commandment, (wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it) contrary to the Original Text, the Bible Translation, and the prudent correction thereof, made in the book prepared for and sent into Scotland, by our late Prelates: Though, Sir, we could submissively bear these things, our Reformation not being at the first perfect; yet before we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to such words, speaking things so falsely, we must have a better Argument than this (you are not concerned in the Expressions) which expressions are manifest directions, and significations wilfully retained, and severely imposed after and against undeniable exceptions and earnest Petitions for Reformation.  
18. Give us leave to add one more (viz.) those words in Baptism; It is certain by God's word that Children being Baptised dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.  
19 Sir, it is true, these are but words, and an expression, but these words contain in them a Position and Doctrine asserted with the certainty of an Article of Faith, to which we cannot consent: we can Christianly believe the Regenerating Nature, Use, and efficacy of Baptism, and charitably hope the salvation of such who die subjected thereunto, but that the undoubted salvation of all baptised Infants dying before they commit actual sin is ortain by the Scriptures, We confess we cannot see, nor do we believe, we do believe Gods Sovereign Election and Reprobation of persons, The Scripture doth declare, God loved Jacob and hated Esau, the Children being not yet born, much less Baptised, nor having done good or evil, that the purpose of God might stand according to Election not of works, that all who pass under the administration of a saving Saving Ordinance are Undoubtedly saved is not clear from Scripture, but rather the contrary, things that are revealed belong unto us, and to our Children.  
19 We cannot but hope you will in a second review of these, and the like expressions, find our assent and consent is required to those Words, which Without forming an edge to wound ourselves, do contain and prescribe things to which no rational man in his right mind can declare the same.  
20. We now proceed to consider another Objection which you slate and resolve in this Case, viz.  
Though we could Use the things, 
Pa. 7. Objection 2:  it is only for peace sake, and in obedience to Authority, and not that we would choose or can absolutely approve of these things indifferent.  
To this Sir, you tell us we may not approve Absolutely but Comparatively.  
The first you say in Charity to our Governors we conceive to be required in the Declaration, 
Pag: 8:  because it is impossible, all men should in so many particulars, and various Circumstances be of one mind: But Sir.  
21. We humbly conceive we do not break Charity to our Governors, if we conclude that they knowing all men could not in so many particulars, and various circumstances be of one mind; and believing Unanimity to be the bond of Uniformity, did determine to knock off from public Ministration in the Church, all who were not of the same mind, and who would not Declare the same in such words as were by them prescribed.  
22. Truly Sir, we see very little cause to believe the Act will allow such a Comparitive approbation of the Common Prayer book as you do expires. It might something satisfy us, if we had our assurance from our Legislators that such a Comparative approbation would satisfy the Law, but they are herein silent, and the Law giveth not sufficient Reason on which we may conclude it.  
23. You say the Grounds of this Assent and consent are not specified in in the Act, if by the Grounds you mean the Reasons inducing the Legislators to require such an assent and consent; we must be bold to deny what you ●ff m●…nd entreat you to let us know what you make there words in the Act; Now in regard that nothing conduceth to the settling to peace in this Nation (which is desired by all good men,) not to the honour of our Religion, and the propagation thereof, than an Universal agreement in the public worship of Almighty God, and to the end Uniformity may be effected, it is enacted etc. Sir, we know not how to understand an Engglish Law, if Universal Agreement, and Uniformity to be effected, be not declared Grounds for enjoying such a Declaration of Assent, and Consent.  
24. Such a Comparitive Assent and Consent, 
Pa. 9: 10  as you assert will not well pass as unfeigned, avoiding a severe Penalty securing a good Living, and a Legal opportunity of serving the Church, not showing ourselves cross to Authority, and delivering our Family from ruin, are bad enducements to an unfeigned Assent and Consent all men will understand them Temptations to a Faint unfeigned Assent and Consent, let what will be required, if this comparison may bear weight, it shall not pass without an unfeigned Assent and Consent.  
25. Sir, we see with little cause you have to quarrel, 
Pa. 10.  that it is reported the Assent and Consent declared must be Free; For Sir, this Freedom is necessary and Essential to unfeigned: An Act Extorted will never be judged unfeigned, but suspected of Hypocrisy; if any report it to be expressed in the Declaration, let them bear their blame, but truly we think it is unavoidably employed.  
26. Sir, To remove all scruples from us for ever, 
Pa. 11.  you offer us the Act for the interpretation of itself, It would to some of us be worth some hundreds by the year, if you could lend us your understanding also; we grant to you that the words, immediately foregoing the Declaration are these; Every Minister shall declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent, to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and none other; But what then.  
27. We agree with you, we must declare our unfeigned Assent and Consent but to what? To all things with respect to their use, and that in these words, and no other; But Sir, that this refereth our Assent and Consent to the using Act, and That only we cannot see, these Acts have for their Object, All things contained & prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, etc. And the use thereof is the End of this Assent and Consent, so that the Act puts this plain Interpretation on the required Declaration, Every Minister shall Uniformly use the book, but unanimity being the spur and bond of Uniformity, they shall declare an Unfeigned Assent and Consent to all things contained and prescribed in and by the book; So that we must Use the Book with a Mind persuaded of the Truth and Goodness of the things to be used.  
28. This Sense of the Law we are induced to receive because.  

1. This Declaration Respecteth the use of the Comomon Prayer, and is the Security of Unfeignedness in that Act; the use of it without a Mind fully Assenting to the things contained, and Freely consenting to the things prescribed in and by this Book, would be but formal, forced, and feigned; we are confident our Legislators intended to obviate all haltings in Conformity, and this is only done by requiring an unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use; upon an unfeigned Assent and consent, to all and every thing therein contained and prescribed.  
2. The Use of the book is not once mentioned in the Declarations as the Object of the Assent and consent, but the Things therein contained and prescribed are ever expressed in the Declaration, and the Use of it is exptessed in the Law, only as the End secured by the Declaration.  
3. Universal agreement in the public Worship of Almighty God, is declared to be the ground of this Law, and Uniformity is the end thereof, both which can be only effected by the unanimity of the Administrators, in the things to be by them uniformly used.  
4. The using Act is provided for, promised, and secured by the next following Declaration in these terms, (I do declare that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now Established by Law,) Conform; what is that to a Minister? But that I will Use it, and the the things contained and prescribed in and by it: This is Sir, your own sense of Conformity; and sure Sir, you will not say this second Declaration doth Actum agere do over what was done in the first Declaration, these two must differ each from other; That Declareth Assent and Consent to the Matter and Things. This to the Act and Use thereof; Sir, until your sense of the Declaration be cleared from these exceptions or declared by the Legislators, give us leave to tell you We could do some things directed in the Rubric, but cannot Assent or Consent to the direction.   
We could at the Communion commend the poor to the Charity of the people, but we understand not their other Devotions to be then gathered, the affected title Offertory maketh it look like something exploded at our first Reformation from Popery.  
We could receive the Collection from the Deacons or Churchwardens 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 Eat and Drink the remains 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 Priest and Communicants, and the other Taken home to the Curates House.  
We could handsomely cover the Bread with a Napkin, but we understand not what is meant by Reverend placing them on the Holy Table, and covering them with a Linen Cloth, nor can we Assent or Consent thereunto.  
29. Reverend Sir, Our Fathers were, and ourselves might be content in some things to Symbolise 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 affirm our face is towards her, yet we pray for the peace and Glory of England's Church, that the Gospel may in her Flourish in Power and Purity.   

Case II.  
Whether 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 quarrelled 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 pieces, and you distribute it into three parts, that which concerns the Taking Arms against the King, Conformity, and the Oath, called the Solemn 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 declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King.  
Case IU.  
2. 
Case 4. Pa. 16.17.  Whether it be lawful to declare that we abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by the King's 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 Tyburn 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 Arms taken against him; our constancy of Loyalty under the Cross; do jondly 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 Arms 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 terms are so indefinite as to render the Position applycable to every Kingdom.  
5. Some say the terms are dubious if not false, it being indefinitely inserted, It is not lawful to take Arms against the King, on any pretence what soever; These think though this may be true, and square to the Laws of this Kingdom, the constitution of other Kingdoms 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 Frenzy, 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 justify a man, Se defendendo vim vi repellere, to take Arms, though by rallying the men of Belial● 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 affirm a Subterfuge, and in answer to your what saith the Scripture? they say it seemeth to be their Shield, this pretence being square to and consistent with professed obedience.  
6 To some it soundeth harsh to declare it a traitorous Positian to take Arms by the King's authority against the King's person or those Commissioned by him, these will not be persuaded that if Queen Elizabeth had by virtue of the broad Seal, (brought to her in Sanctuary by the then Archbishop of York) arrayed and armed men against Richard Duke of Gloucester, possessing the person of King Edward the 5th. she had thereby become a Traitor, 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 King's 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 Conform, 
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 Liturgy; 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 third part of this Declaration, which concerneth the Solemn League and Covenant, which is, indeed, the Great Mountain in our way, to be removed by a faith of Miracles; This you do again divide into three parts, its Obligation, its unlawfulness in its self, and its Opposition to the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, but your Resolution is to the particular Cases following.   

Case VI.  
Whether we may lawfully declare in these words, 
Case 6th. Pa. 221: 23.  I do bold these lies no Obligation on me nor any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State.  
1 TO this, Sir, you tell us it is No great venture to say such who have taken the Covenant may thus declare, This we confess is facile dictum, but the quod demonstrandum restat, the convinceing demonstration of this hath made many learned men sweat, and appeareth, Hic labour, hoc opus, a knot cut by the sword of Authority, whilst it cannot be loosed by Religious Reason.  
2. We consent to your concessions to the contestors for the Covenant (viz.) That the Covenant illegally taken and given may bind: Secondly, That it binds not to alteration of the Government of State: Thirdly, That the unlawful matter made it void, ipso facto: Fourthly, That Mr. Crofton, and the Covenanters-plea do grant that the unlawful matter doth void the Covenant ipso facto. But now Sir, give us leave to call for your strong Reasons.  
3. Here Sir, you pitch, and your work is to prove that the Covenant so far as it engageth the Takers of it against Church Government to the Exstirpation, or change of it is unlawful, and sinful in the matter of it; This made good Nobis eris magnus Apollo: We shall therefore with all diligence observe your motion in maintenance hereof.  
4. Your first onset is by Dr. saunderson's distinction of juramentum illicitum de se, & per accidens, and you grant the matter of the Covenant, is not simply and of itself unlawful; your Antagonist lie strongly entrenched in this, and thence defend the Covenant against all other assaults, it had been a noble Enterprise to have beaten them at this weapon; but ad impossibile nemo teneatur: We join issues with you on the second, and wish we may see you may prove the Covenant Ratione subjecti by the accident of its Takers condition and Capacity is unlawful in the matter of it; Yet Sir,  
5. We must make bold to mind you that the learned Casuist (on whom you depend in this Case and Determination) hath determined with an Ordinary, his words are Hac jurament a ordinary non obligant, or dinarié dico quia fortasse possunt dare Casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari, & si non debuerit sussepi suseptum tamen potest obligari; Sir, we study losing, not binding in this great Case, yet cannot but say on all sides the Covenant is confessed to be an extraordinary Oath, and it is a question whether it can be brought within your Casuists Ordinary, the advocates of the Covenant think it no hard task to bring the Covenant into your Casuists Exception, and so conclude Suscepi non debuerit susceptum tamen obligat, we leave it to them if they dare to make it good, our work is to weigh what you say to the contrary.  
6. Addressing yourself to your proof you have most prudently waved the Ius divinum of your Church Government, which to affirm Non multum ab insania differt; you consider the Covenanters as single Persons, or as vinted in the great body of the Nation; Now Sir, your field fills us with a reviving murmur, of of which alas we must sit down and sing.  
Expectata seges vanis illusit arenis.   

Case VII.  
Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church Government by virtue of the Covenant. 
Case 7. a. 26   
1. SIR, This (you say) seemeth much to be the proper Case, because the Parliament which imposed the Covenant are dissolved and become private persons, But Sir  
2. Do you not here build on a Petio principii? That the long Parliament is not dissolved, we dare not say; but it hath been said: and those words in the Statute which concerneth their continuance, whatsoever shall happen or be done to the dissolving them shall be void and null, are a stone at which our Consciences cannot but stumble whilst we are in obedience to present Laws submissively silent.  
3. You conclude the Covenant to be only private and personal an obligation on single persons: but Sir, Mr. Crofton hath affirmed, 
An ●alepsis Sect 6.  it is public and National, juramentum real obliging all the Nation, and all after-Generations, fide Anglorum thereby engaged. This he hath demonstrated beyond our capacity of contradiction and enforced by the consentient judgement of 600. Divines most of them yet living. You, Sir, are pleased to tell us, you have not used one Argument answered or prevented by Mr. Crofton; yet Sir, 
Pa. 13●.  you nor any other have not so much as attempted an Answer to this Position of Mr. crofton's which stands entire and unaslaul●ed.  
4. You suppose each single person who swear the Covenant in such a capacity, as to be concludent by your subsequent Arguments; The Truth is, our Affections are such, as make us wish it were so, but to satisfy our Consciences in abjuring (you are angry at that word, we will therefore say disclaiming,) the Obligation of the Coverant, we must have our Jadgements convinced it is so, because our Declaration doth discleim the Obligation of the Covenant on ourselves or any other person; which cannot be done if we conceive any person to have taken it who is not in the same common capacity with ourselves.  
5. Upon these ungranted Principles you conclude, for such to stand engaged by a public Covenant against a settled Government, to endeavour the exstirpation or change of it, is palpably sinful; both as such a Covenant, and such endeavours are against the Right of the King; the Laws of the Land, the privileges of Parliament, Liberties of the Subject; and former obligations laid on the Nation, all Arguments of weight; but so sick of a Noli me tangere, that they sound in our ears, a Ne plus ultra. Edge-tools which make your Antagonists cry Tolle legem, & fiat disputatio Who dare touch at them, did not your sencures of us as Fures, Felones, proditores de se cut our consciences and constrain our consideration and utmost endeavours of conviction; we therefore affirming nothing, will adventure to weigh your following demonstration of the sinful matter of the Covenant in reference to those particulars.   

Case VIII. Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King. 
Case 8th. Pa. 28.29.30.   
Case IX.  
Whether to endeavour thus against the Right of the King as obliged thereunto 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 obliged thereunto by the Covenant, is sinful.  
3. In this, Sir, we shall not descent 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 adequate 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 Specify 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 hearty 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 Churchmen, to screw the Prerogative of the King beyond its due pitch, and the proportion of England's Constitution.  
5. Your Major proposition allowed, we might weigh your proof of the Mino●, (viz.) your Eighth Case, To endeavour to alter the Government of the Church, is against the Right of the King.  
6. To the proof 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 King's Commissioners, & they taken away the head must fall; Good Sir give us a clear Answer to these two Inquiries.  

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 mind, meddle not with, Church-affaires; we are notyet persuaded that a Royal head must needs stand on Religious Shoulders, and fall when these are withdrawn.  
2. Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the King's Regality, that, Arch-Bishops, Bishops etc. taken away, this Head must fall? May not National, Privincial, and Classical Presbyteries become the King's Commissioners in the slead of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Commissaries, Chancellors, & c? May not the King's Supremacy exist 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.) Con●… to endeavour to e●…pate the Government of the Church, doth directly oppose the whole comse of our lives against the King's 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 than 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 King's 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 King's authority, Acted not in the King's name, but challenged sometimes a forinsecal, but ever a Divine  power, for its principle distinct from, yea opposite to the King's Authority: its subjects were with much difficulty, and the pinch of Praemunire brought to the submission of the Clergy, after which the King's Laws have indeed limited, restrained, regulated, directed, and in some things authorized ' these Governors, 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 o●… 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 King's consent, & whether he would or no.  
11. Sir, to this we must tell you, we do not find in the Covenant any such words as that we shall endeavour to exstirpate or alter the Government without the King's consent; not do we find in it any words which by a fair and genuine construction can bear any such sense, and we find 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 King's consent, to which the Covenant, he saith, doth oblige.  
12. Truly that limitation on the Covenant is so just, full, and legible (viz.) Through the grace of God in our places and Callings, that we cannot but yield to Mr. Crofton; the defence of the King's power, is not repugnant to the duties of our particular Callings, and 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, Heresy, Schism or Superstition, and yet not entrench on his Majesty's Jurisdiction, yea, in reference to a judicial Correction, Reformation and Exstirpation, which cannot be done without the King's consent, men's endeavour may be in their places and Callings by Counsel, Proposals, Remonstrance, Petition and Supplication to procure his Majesty's 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 persuade 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 King's 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 King's 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 find 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 King's Executive, and Legislative Right and power, yea unto the persuading and procuring his Consent and Concurrence to and with the same.  
14. You Sir affirm the King did not consent unto the Covenant but did Proclaim 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 Solemn League 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 find 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 Problem whether the King's future consent could revive it, doth fall, until it appear he did fully formerly void it.  
17. Sir we readily subscribe 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 oblige 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 Problem, 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 condemn, 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. Sawderson.  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 succeeding Superior under a more and express assent unto this Oath, and mandate to all his subjects to advance it: Sir it is a Problem which we cannot resolve; Whether political parents being changeable, (One Generation passeth and another cometh) he who succeeding existeth our present Parent do not by his mandate oblige us to the Oath disallowed by his Predecessor, whose interdict died with him. Sir, we offer this to be considered; we do not conclude it: for so to do who seethe 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 terms and expressions, but to weigh the strength of Reason, seeking satisfaction to our consciences, that if possible we might again recover our Live, 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 task 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 turn, it is this, we endeavour against Law when the things is Established by Law, or cannot be Established without Law: Pray Sir, is it against Law for Subjects, much more Legislators to endaevour the alteration, yea the abrogation, of some Laws and things thereby established; this is that your Antagonists affirm must be proved and brought into the conclusion to prove the matter of the Covenant against Law, and consequently sinful: May not an obedient Son of the Church, burdened with some Administration, authorized by Law, endeavour by all just means and swear he will so do, to have that Law repealed, if so how poor is your plain distinction.  
4. But you doubt not to assert that such an endeavour to Extripate Church Government as was Covenanted was against the Law both Antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent, this done would much avail; we shall attend your evidence.   

Case XI. Whether the present Government of the Church were Established by Law in England, 
Case 11th. pa. 41.  before the taking of the Covenant.  
1. TO this, you profess you have no insight into the Laws, but so much is in the surface of them, that you wonder at the doubt; we do Sir, believe you; for in the Index of the statute book, there is so large a Table of Bishops, Arch-Bishops, etc. that it may well be wondered that any should doubt whether this Government be established by Law. But had you taken the pains to read and consider the nature of the Laws, you would find Fronti nulla fides, your insight would find wanting what a superficial verive of the surface concludeth present.  
2. The fallacious use of, established by law, is in your own fancy your Antagonists never did limit it to an appointment of Statute, but have traversed the Canon, Civil and Common Law, and in none they find an establishment by Law, but have put the assertors thereof to prove it, which task you have undertaken, and thus you argue.  
3. Is it not pretty to observe that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice, 
Pa. 42.  as to question, whether Episcopacy be established by Law, when Episcopacy hath so long had an hand in establishing the law itself.  
4. This Argument hath, Sir, little force, we shall not be laughed into a persuasion, that Episcopacy is established by Law; and such establishment is a non sequitur to the Legislative Act of Bishops; it cannot be both cause and effect, its praeexistency to the Law doth suppose unto it a more sublime principle than the Law, which we know not unless it be that of Nature, or Scripture, or (as the Covenanters-plea doth well observe) the Roman Papacy, which forinsecal power existing in England as other Nations Usurped a Legislative power, which it yet holdeth by this Episcopal root.  
5. Sir, Would it not be pretty to hear a Jesuit retort and prove your Argument, crying is it not pretty to observe learned men, and Prelates are so far subdued to question whether the papacy were established by Law, when the Papacy for a thousand years established yea made laws to Christian Nations, and disposed their Crowns an Sceptres; if laughing will do it the Papacy hath a good claim, and you seem to us to admit succession in fact, a sufficient title against the most manifest obtrusion, invasion, and usurpation which can be admitted.  
6. Such Divines who found Monarchy in nature, and proclaim Monarches to be above the Law, will give you little thanks for this Argument, which estateth their Title on an establishment by law, because they are chief makers of the Law; but you proceed to further demonstration of an establisnment by law.  
7. You say, 
Pa. 43.44.  you will venture to strike this scruple dead, by a distinction or two.  
8. Your first distinction is this, The law establisheth by appointing it de novo, or by allowing and granting it on all occasions. The first you yield; the second you hold upon, and thus infer, Thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church not only by those special laws which relate unto it, but indeed in every law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spiritual.  
9 A fair Establishment, most laws do indeed express the assent and advice of the Lords Spiritual; we hope, Sir, you did not forget Lords-abbots', and Lord Cardinal were some of them.  
But, Sir, is every Hypothesis in law an undeniable position? Will Arguments, a facto, conclude ad jus? and ab esse a jure esse? and yet, Sir, this only concludes for Bishops, what becometh of Deans and Chapters, Commissaries and Chansellors, etc. Are these Lords spiritual in the sense of the Law; they do indeed exercise a spiritual Lordship in the Church; Will an Argument from persons of existence in such a capacity conclude an Establishment of things? Lords Spiritual were in Parliament, Ergo, the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, and that hierarchy were established by Law, will you stand by this Argument?  
10. That Bishops, or Lords Spiritual were in Parliament, De facto, is granted, but quo jure, is the question, the Romans will tell you by the Pope's Spiritual Power, and the Covenanters think how ever they are there preserved they were first planted by that Forinsecal Power.  
11. Your next Distinction is this; 
Pa. 4.  This Government as to its office is before the Law, but as to its exercise it is Established by Laws, for its Names, jurisdictions Crimes and Punishments, are mentioned in the Laws.  
11. The first of these we allow you, but tell you that is the thing in debate, for the Establishment of a Government is the Creation of such an Office, in Execution of which, men shall have the Power, Titles, Names, and Honours of such Officers: And herein your Government must be yielded to be the Pope's Creatute; for we find no English laws which ever framed or founded the same.  
12. As to the Exercise of this Government in its way and order, by Courts, Canons and visitations, we must tell you we find its names, Crimes and some punishments in our Laws) yet we question whether it were Established by Law) because we find these things are inserted into our Laws) to limit, regulate and restrain the same, which existing from a Forinsecal Power, grew exorbitant, and called for Boundaries, from our municipal laws which rides it with a prohibition as its bridle, and scourgeth it with a praemunire; Both which Writts do know it to be a Power and Government distinct from that Established by Law.  
13. Sir, This is far from an Establishment by Law, be not offended if we tell you Usury hath as good an Establishment by law as this amounteth unto, it is limited, regulated, restrained by law, and kept under the Cudgel of the Statutes against Extortion. But I pray you is it so established by law, that the oppressed poor man may not swear, he will in his Place and Calling endeavour the Exstirpation of biting Usury or pinching Prelacy.  
14. Your third Distinction is this Government Established by a Statute immediately appointing such a Form, 
Pag: 45:  or immediately by a Statute impowring a Person to Commissionate such Governors 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 Governors, 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 Governors 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, etc. we are as ready to seek, and as far 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; only 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 custom 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 find indeed Bishops restored to some privileges which had been denied 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 bottom, for it hath not received any more express Establishment than 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 than 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 privilege of Parliament, who must have a freedom to the alteration of Laws as they prove inconvenient.  
4. This Law doth bind Ministers to disclaim 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 woeful 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 bind 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 itself 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 itself lawful, and by Law Established.  
3. That this Oath was private and personal by fingle men, and so square to the Case of your Jesuits; which they say, 
Analeps. Analepth. Pa. 133. Sect 6.  and Mr. Crofton, as we before told you, hath averred to be public and National, sworn by the people Collectively, and Distributively considered.  
4. That the Oath of the people so sworn, layeth no bar on the Laws, Decrees, or Act of the Magistrate, the contrary whereto Mr. Crofton hath asserted from the Oath of Israel hindering saul's Law, and Oath against jonathan, to which you have given nothing in answer, we think few Politicians 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 Papacy to absolve them, according to your Divinity, we have sworn allegiance to, and an acknowledgement of the King's Supremacy, and cannot be willing his Majesty's Subjects should be made to believe a Law by a Queen mary 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 foreign 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 find 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 transgressor of the Law, which is fulfilled by punishing him, whose Act was not conform unto it; The Case, Sir, we conceive aught to be thus stated.  
Is not a quiet and cheerful submission to the Penalty assigned by a Law commanding an Act which conscience (judging sinful) doth inhibit a formal Act of that Conscientious obedience, Christianity bindeth us to yield 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 rebellious routs, 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 transgressors to this single Law, we are by Loyalty and sincere obedience resigned in the to will of our Sovereign 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. Whether 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 Privilege 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 denied.  
First, That the Covenant was an Oath private and personal; good Sir will you please to tell us, whether England is not a subject capable of a real Oath, as well as other Nations, consider the nature of a real public & National Oath, may it not bind all Successors to, or against some specials? Was the Law of Saul, the Princes of Israel against the Gebeonits' to be justified? Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of joshua, and the Princes with him? Pray? Resolve Mr. Crofton that the Solemn League and Covenant is not juramentum, real.  
Again, Sir, is the Conatus of a private capacity consistent with the freedom 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 bind themselves and successors, and lawful endeavour is sui juris to every man, and evince the Injustice or violence done to privilege of future Parliaments if you can.   

Case XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the Exstirpation of Episcopacy by virtue 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 than you found us.  
2. Sir, You cannot possibly deny but that there are more ways 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 Endeavour to Acts just and lawful, Yet you are constrained to tell us to such Endeavours the Covenant doth bind, and the Act doth not require us to disclaim.  
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 Etymology, 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 show 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 inquire 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 disclaim them? Are not these positive duty? You have determined these in the Affirmitive; But Sir, we will go 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 Soldier to fight against Episcopacy, if by any previous endeavours, King and Parliament can be persuaded to exstirpate this Government, and they make Laws to pluck it up, but its subjects are stubborn, and Rebell-rasing Bellum mere 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, We 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, Deans, Deans 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 quail 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 man's Arm, 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 ourselves, 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, reality, 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 Hypocrisy, Lukewarmness, 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 sense 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 Grace of God) cannot consent to disclaim and declare a non Obligation on them who swear it.  
12. Sir, Having considered the Act, we bear such affection to Episcopacy, that we would have passed by the Object of this Covenanted Act; You are pleased to tell us it is a change in the Government: By altering some things and letting the frame stand, not of the Government by pulling it down; And this sense you say you gather from some moderate Covenanters, who openly declared on a solemn occasion, that might they see any material alteration in the Government, they should hold themselves satisfied as to the Covenant in that point,  
13. Sir, Can the Declaration of single persons though Covenanters determine a sense upon the Covenant, which the Logical resolution, and Grammatical construction of the words will not allow; We cannot but commend Mr. Croftons' Candour (be his Prudence what it will) nor do we see how his Interpretation can be fairly avoided, Prelacy (a term though general in its signification, yet by long and common appropriation as obvious to vulgar capacity to denote a special kind of Government in the Church, as Tyranny in the Commonwealth.) restrained by a particular denomination, Hierarchy and specifical description of its enumerated parts, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Commissaries, Chancellors, and other Officers depending thereupon, not in sensu composite (that the removal of any one Officer might serve,) but sensu complexo the Government containing these is to be exstirpated not by mutation, mutilation, limitation, or regulation, but utter abolition, una cum stirpe evellere.  
14. Sir, If the sense of the Covenant were so far as you do suggest, we can the less declare its non obligation; for that is, to disclaim what you cannot but on as good and true, and to determine it doth not bind, wherein it is manifest it doth bind those who took the same, and yourself dare not deny its Obligation.   

Case XVI. Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular, 
Case 16th Pa. 89.  and therefore sinful in its matter.  
1. THis you affirm, and to make good your Argument, you tell us of the hard usage the Bishops met withal, being thrown out of the House of Lords, etc. But, Sir, What is this to the Covenant, they were thus used before the Covenant form, and by the consent of the King; if they met with Injustice and Violence shall the Covenant be blamed, it bond to no such thing, though to the an endeavour of Exstirpation of the Government, by all just and lawful means.  
2. You tell us the Bishops and their dependants were a society, had and their Free-holds and Interests. But, Sir, remember it was, Qua tales as Bishops, and sure, Sir, you will not deny this as all other societies are fully, Sui juris, to Parliament, as to their very esse, as well as Jurisdiction or Administration, to be wholly disposed at their will, and by their Power; We cannot believe, Sir, you will in cool blood, and on second thoughts say, that for the King or Parliament to swear to Exstirpate any society, it is as if a man should swear to bring me his Neighbour's Horse; Mr. Crofton hath averred Episcopacy to be more fully and formally the Right of Parliament or King to dispose of.  
3. You say, The Petition of Right tells us, it is contrary to the Liberty of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament; But, Sir, Mr. Crofton hath told you and us, that the Petition of Right tells us no such thing, 
Annaleps. Annalepth: Pa. 115:  he saith the words of the Petition eaten these; Whereas many of them have had an Oath Administered unto them, not Warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; And he Affirms this Petition complaineth of some special Oath, Ex officio, or for discovery of the Subjects Oath, he further tells us that Colleges and Corporations, constituted by the King's Charter, give Oaths, which the Petition of Right complained not against, and yet they were not imposed by Act of Parliament; We do not believe you will say these are against the Liberty of the Subject. Sir herein we must tell you your Argument is manifestly prevented by what Mr. Crofton had said, and so indeed in most that you have written on this, as on your other Cases.   

Case XVII. Whether the matter of the second Article in the Covenant be not against former Obligations, 
Case 17th: Pa. 98.  and consequently Sinful.  
1. THis you affirm, and to prove it, you pretend to a threefold Obligation, to which the Covenant is repugnant, viz. To obey Authority, to keep our Oaths and Promises, and to serve the Church.  
2. The first you build upon your former Principles, that the matter of the Covenant is against the Right of the King, the Laws of the Land, Privilege of Parliament, and liberty of the Subject; which we conceive are all laid in the dust, your Conclusion must needs fall with your Promises.  
3. For the Oaths and Promises which were first upon us, you specify the Oath of Allegiance, Supreamacy, and the Protestation: 5 May 1641. In all which you are so fully prevented by Mr. Crofton, who hath noted them to be consistent with the Covenant, that we cannot but wonder you should with such confidence impose on us, without a full answer to what is said by him.  
4. One thing we must not pass, viz. Your Observation that the Protestation, was imposed by the same power, and taken by the same persons, generally who took the Covenant, which is enough by Mr. Croftons' Logic, to make it public and National; Sir, we believe Mr. Crofton would not stick to allow you the Nationality of the Protestation; yet we observe it wants one material thing in Mr. Croftons' account, necessary to constitute juramentum real, and therein it doth differ from the Covenant: The Protestation was sworn with an I. A. B. by that personal name, which perished with the Takers thereof; but the Covenant was sworn by those real Capacities, Noblemen, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, which pass, and will pass to our Successors, whilst England is England.  
4. Your last Oligation is our service to the Church, superseded by the Covenant; But, Sir, you do not tell us whether it be Natural or by Accident, man's Corrupt nature interposing between that Act and our Service to the Church. Sir, we conceive the best of Actions may be as capable of an Impeditivum boni, by the intervenient inhibiting Decree of Caesar; and we are to be satisfied, that in that case, the guilt of non service to the Church is chargaable on our Soul, we may not sin that good should come thereof.   

The Conclusion.  
WE have, 
Conclusion:  Sir, considered your great undertaking, to charge Sin on the matter of the Covenant, in which, Sir, we must say you have not spoken any thing of satisfaction to us, nor Rational contradiction to those whom you pretend to Answer.  
2. Finding the matter of the Covenant lawful, we are not solicitous concerning the Mode of its imposition; we could easily declare what in that Case is required from us; We therefore not appearing as your Antagonists, but seeking satisfaction to our main doubt, which is, how we can declare the Covenant doth not oblige us nor any other person to Endeavour, shall abide wholly silent as to your next three Cases concerning the Act and power of the two Houses, the unlawfulness of the Oath, and illegality of the Imposition.  
3. We are, Sir, sorry to see you so obnoxious in many expressions, to correction of your Antagonists, if any of them durst be so hardy as to undertake an answer to you, as indeed you are; But, Sir, this is not our work, we are satisfied in ourselves, that howsoever men count us, Fures, Felones, and Proditors, de se, we can appeal to our Judge, Conscience is the cause of our choice of that sad condition in which we are; Whilst we can conclude with that learned Casnist the late Reverend Bishop of Lincoln, Juramentum de re non illicita, fit aliunde illicitum, ex aliquo externo defectu, vel propter aliquam indebitam circumstanstiam respectu actus jurandi possit obligare, jurantem ad implendum quod promisit: though we were not advancers of the Covenant, when first imposed, though we are no Advocates for the Covenant to be disclaimed, we are Expectants of God's avengement of the Covenant now it hath been taken; and do believe it is presumption, Non ferenda quod pulvis & cinis assumeret potestate in auferendi obligationem qua home obligatur Deo: We therefore yet dare not, cannot, will not declare the Covenant doth not oblige me or any other person to endeavour our alteration of the Government in the Church, But if you have more clear demonstrations that we may so do; We have attention and consideration for the same, we are, Sir,  
Your Brethren praying for the Peace, though not conforming to the whole, of the order of England's Church. 

M. D.  
S. C.  
I. F.  
O. R.  
A. T.   Oct. 16. 1662.