THE Grand Case Of the present MINISTRY.  
WHETHER They may lawfully Declare and Subscribe, as by the late Act of UNIFORMITY is required.  
AND The several Cases, thence arising (more especially about the COVENANT) are clearly Stated and Faithfully Resolved.  
By the same Indifferent Hand.  
With an Addition to his former CASES of CONSCIENCE, hereunto Subjoined.  
Love worketh no ill to his Neighbour: therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law,  Rom. 13. 
London, Printed by J. Macock, for T. Dring, and are to be sold at the George in Fleetstreet, and by M. Mitchel at the first Shop in Westminster-Hall. 1662.   

THE PREFACE TO My Dissenting Brethren.  
1. A Man may be Felo de se by destroying himself, by our Law: and Fur de se, by depriving and Stealing himself away from him to whom his Service is due, by the Imperial Law: and proditor de Se, by the Law of Nature, if he descend from the Dignity of Humanity, and submit to the Danger which he might avoid. These are words of the very Learned Doctor Donn, against the Jesuitical ambition to suffer: and, with all my heart I wish, they were not in all particulars, too too pertinent to our present Case.  
2. For an Opinion, that we are our own Lords, and may dispose of ourselves, for the glory of God, as we please, precipitates, not only Jesuits, but the zealous of all professions, to forsake themselves, and to quit their Duties, with a strange prodigality of their Lives and Fortunes.  
3. But it is, verily, a great Mistake; for we are not our Own: our Persons, our Parts, our Estates, and Capacities, they are Gods, the Kings, the Churches, and our Wives and Friends: and to all of these, in a several respect and proportion, we are justly accountable for them.  
4. It was a Monstrous kind of wantonness in those Women, Gellius speaks of, that so long played with their own Lives, till they had brought it up for a fashion, to kill themselves.  
5. And yet it should seem, that it is even Natural for men of Stomach, to value a Name above Life; for the very Heather, tempted with honour and vainglory, (and sometimes with ease, and a desire to be freed from present Inconveniences) how familiarly did they kill themselves?  
6. Whereupon, it is observed, 
Arist. Ethic. lib. 3. 6. 7.  that such as laboured for public preservation, did oppose themselves to this strange Corruption, by endeavouring to Convince the World, that there is nothing more base and cowardly then to destroy one's Self.  
7. The Emperors also in their Laws and Constitutions, had Remedies against it: not only by Forfeitures, but Infamy itself, to remove, if possible, the Temptation of glory.  
8. Yea, as if the Self-denial of Christianity were too weak to encounter it, we read of a Law in the Earldom of Flaunders to the same purpose: in which, this destroying of one's self, is counted with Treason, Heresy and Sedition: and do not our own Laws Reckon it, not only Mans-slaughter, but Murder? yea, as a thing hardly standing with the truth of our Profession, as Christians, the Canons of the Church are set against it, denying such persons Christian Burial.  
9 Amongst Christians, Bellarmine (by way of reproach, indeed, to his Adversaries) hath this Gradation in his Observation, wherein he placeth the worst, first. To Suffer, saith he, the Anabaptists are forwardest, the Calvinists next, and the Lutherans very slack. And if it may be no offence to my Brethren, we may easily note; that with us, the Quaker is forwardest, the Anabaptist next, the Independent next, and the Presbyterian last, (no disparagement to him) though all too forward) in exposing themselves to needless sufferings.  
10. And now, my Brethren, if this Witness be true, and the premises cannot be denied; let us begin to think with ourselves, what it is, that doth Warrant and justify Sufferings, and constitute Martyrdom.  
11. Certainly, if propenseness to suffer makes the Martyr, the Anabaptist, the Quaker, yea, the Jesuit and the Heathen, the Lunatic and the Madman, even such as have neither Grace nor Reason are far before you.  
12. We must conclude, that nothing can prefer the Sufferings of one Way or Party (be it the Soberest in the World) to an higher Estimation or Reward, than another, or indeed, secure it from the offence of God, our Neighbour, and Self-murder, but the Justness of the Cause.  
13. Yet, if the Cause be Just, except the Intention be right too, we fail of Martyrdom: it is not the falling with a beloved party, the satisfying the humour of a multitude, the preserving a Name with Malcontents, the answering our own Idea of Conveniency, much less, a being revenged upon a Government we hate, that makes a Martyr. 'Tis neither the Intention without the Cause, nor the Cause without the Intention, shall win and wear this Crown; Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor: yea though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.  
14. Again, Admit the Cause and the Intention both were right: yet, there is another way to frustrate the hopes, and lose the Reward of Martyrdom: for there must be a fit occasion too, Necessitating the Sufferings which God approves. A Learned Man, against that Jesuitical fury of daring the Magistrate, assures us, that the Right Martyrdom perisheth upon this ground (among others) that he which refuseth to defend his life by a lawful act, and entertains not those overtures of Escape, which God presents him, destroy's himself.  
15. There is a Golden Mean (worth a Golden Mine) fitly illustrated by the Law of the Roman Army, Jus Legionis facile, non sequi, non fugere: Neither to pursue persecution with a Neglect of our Safety or duty: nor to run away from it, with apparent hazard of God's glory.  
16. Indeed, our Supreme Lord sometimes calls for our Goods, our Liberties, and our Lives, in witness to his truth: yet, though he allows our Affection to himself a channel to Run in, even to death, when he requires; he, by no means, indulgeth that Heathenish Corruption of destroying ourselves. When God calls we are bound to suffer, and to suffer cheerfully, and willingly, and readily, but never Spontaneously, or to have a hand in our own blood; either by provoking our own Ruin, or suffering for our own Cause, or being our own Executioners. This is to throw away the Talon lent us; which ought thus only to be spent, when it may not be improved any other way for our Master's use.  
17. To suffer for Christ and the Gospel's sake is, indeed, a favour from Heaven, to you it is given, in the behalf of Christ not only to believe, but to suffer for his sake; but mark, it must be for his sake, and on his behalf, and given too, by God, in the course of his providence; not snatched or stolen by our own Rashness, and hastening the Occasion and Execution of it.  
18. God hath been pleased to set down in Scripture the Grounds and Causes upon which he Calls, and we may and must submit to sufferings: and to sbrink, when fairly called, or run upon sufferings, when not called, the first, is to crucify Christ in his Cause, and the last, is to crucify Christ in ourselves: but to be crucified for Christ, is to suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  
19 Give me leave, my dear Brethren (for whom I, truly, travel in Birth) without offence to be plain with you, in a few words of serious advice, seasonably inferred from these Considerations; which my hearty affection and faithfulness to you, and this poor Church, will not suffer me to omit, & I shall cease to trouble you.  
1. Let me beseech you to suspect that natural Corruption, which, upon Ambition, Discontent, and Temptation of Credit and Glory in the World, is prone to hasten you, in this Crisis of distemper, to unwarrantable Sufferings.  
2. Take heed of being Hurried to suffering, with the Motion of the Multitude, or by the foud persuasion of an implicit faith, or dependence upon the Principles and examples of others; whose Temptations, haply, may be greater than yours; and yet, if you follow them, their sufferings may be less. Yea, it is possible, and worthy to be heeded, that others may tempt you to follow them into that Condition, wherein you, indeed, may suffer for them, and yet they not suffer with you.  
3. Therefore, having the glory of God, the prosperity of Zion, the peace of the Nation, the progress of the Gospel, the Salvation of Souls, the fulfilling of your Ministry, and provision for your Selves and your several Families before your eyes; let nothing tempt you from all these, that amount to no more than the pleasing and gratifying an Espoused party, that resolves to be Angry: for, against all these, I can see no reason, why you should resemble that Spelunca Hienae, which the Prophet complained of; that is a fish (as St. Chrysostom observes) that hath but one backbone, and cannot turn, except it turn all at one.  
4. Above all, take heed of displeasing Christ by pleasing yourselves or friends; of provoking him to forsake you in you sufferings, by dissembling to suffer for him when you Know you do not; or when, indeed, you do not, and you think you do.  
To suffer the loss of all in pretence for Christ, and, therefore to suffer the loss of Christ too, this is suffering indeed. What can more embitter our sufferings, then to have the punishment of loss temporal seconded with the punishment of pain Spiritual? and our dissembled sufferings for Christ rewarded with our real sufferings from him: with a, who hath required these things at your hands?  
5. Remember the great end of our Life and callings, of our Stations and Relations: we are not sent into the world properly to suffer, but to do, viz. to perform the Offices of Society required of us in our several places.  
2. The way to Triumph was not (of old) to be slain in the Battle, but to have kept the Station, and done all Military duties: let us stand fast, and not be shaken or moved with the blasts of envious reproaching or flattering words. Let not small encounters of apprehended inconveniences make us fly, or quit our duties.  
3. Let us fulfil our Ministry begun: and Run the Race that is yet before us, with patience and perseverance, to the end, despising the shame, as our forerunner did, who may call us also to follow his steps, as well through evil as good Report; Yielding him Sweat in the Harvest of our Calling, and not our Blood till he Calls for it.  
6. Pythagoras' his Scholars were to suffer themselves to be slain, rather than to stir their foot and tread down a Bean; and Jarvice, the Priest, in King James his days, though he had publicly declared before, that it was lawful to take the Oath of Allegiance, yet he would die in the refusal of it, because it seemed not Expedient to him to take it then.  
2. Ah! my Brethren, is there, indeed, no greater Latitude in Christian-liberty? must we needs venture all upon a point of Indifferency, or mere Expediency?  
I dare not Determine, how far a Divine positive Law loseth its hold and obligation in Case of Just fear or Necessity: yet, when we see nothing in the things enjoined, that is against the Law of Nature; and when there is no Rule to be found against them in the holy Scripture; yea when the Case is such as indeed ours is, that neither the primitive nor the Reformed Churches, disallow of Conformity; 'Tis evident, that at most, there is ground of Scruple only of the lawfulness; there can be no Knowledge of the unlawfulness thereof.  
3. Now in such a Case, Conscience cannot prohibit Conformity (though very much is still pleaded from it) for indeed, in accurate Speaking, it is not Conscience 
Corbo. sum. sum: Tom. 1. p. 1. e. 12.  that doth properly bind at all, but that Law which Conscience takes Knowledge of, and presents to our Understanding.  
And if the Law be not clear in itself, or if Conscience take not a full or clear Knowledge of the Law, especially if there be no Law at all in the Case, we have no Knowledge to Enlighten and guide our Conscience, we are in Ignorance, in doubts, or in Scruples; and the Law of Conscience doth not now dictate to us what to do or Suffer; and if, in such a Case, we choose to Suffer, we may not say, we suffer for Conscience: I did it Ignorantly, not Conscientiously, saith the great Apostle.  
Hence a Learned Divine (in confutation of the Jesuists 
Dr. Don, pseudo. p. 238.  suffering-zeal) concludes, that where God hath afforded us no way of attaining to Certain Knowledge; though a man may have some such knowledge or Opinion as may sway him, in an Indifferent Action, by Reasons of Conveniency; or with an Apparent Analogy with other points of more evident Certainty; yet, no man may Suffer any thing for these points, as for his Conscience: because, though he lighted upon the Truth, yet it was not by any Certain Way which God appointed, for a Constant and Ordinary means to find out that Truth.  
6. But lest I enlarge beyond the bounds of a Preface; In short, O that my brethren would soberly ask themselves, what that means, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice? is there no such thing as self-denial, in parting with our own Wills? is no apprehended Inconvenience to be born for the discharge of our Trust to God and men? is nothing tolerable that is not best? or is nothing to be yielded out of charity and pity to the Church and State, Ourselves and Families?  
Are the Talents of our offices, our Gifts, and our opportunities of doing good, at our own disposal? are the shrieks and cries of the Souls of our people, of our wives and children hanging upon us, easily answered, or the importunity of Friends, the Reasonings of Brethren, the persuasions of all the Eminent foreign Reformed Divines, the Authority of long continued Custom in our own Church, or the Laws of the Land, can all these nothing prevail? What shall we say to these things? if it be sinful to conform, declare wherein: if not, but some smaller matter hinder us; I cannot but remember then that he that died of the By't of a Weasel, lamented that it was not a Lion.  
I speak as unto Wise men, Judge ye what I say; and the God of Truth and Peace be with you. Amen.   

THE Grand Case.  
Whether it be lawful to declare, as is required by the late Act, Entitled an Act for the Uniformity of Public Prayers, etc.  

Resol.  
I Fear, there are some that question the very lawfulness of the Book of Common-prayer: so few sheets of paper may not be thought to attempt so great a Task, as their satisfaction.  
Yet, hearing that many Moderate Brethren do now check, who had resolved to conform, had not these Declarations been required, out of my tender affection to them, as also my desire of the good of the Church (which, I cannot but believe, may be much advanced through their Conformity) I have taken this encouragement, to offer my Reason, why I conceive, that such Ministers as could otherwise have conformed, may lawfully declare in order thereunto, as by the said Act is required.  
That we may distinctly, and throughly judge of this weighty point, we shall set before our eyes both the Declarations in their own words (for there are two of them) the first we have in page 73. and the other in page 77. of the Act as it is now printed: they are as followeth.  

The first is thus.  
I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Entitled, the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England, together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form or Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.   

The second is thus.  
I A. B. do declare, that it is not lawful upon any 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 that are Commissionated by him: and that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law Established. And I do declare, that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath, commonl called the Solemn League and Covenant, to Endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government, either in Church or State; and that the same was in its Self an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom.  
These are the Declarations: we proceed to consider each of them, in their several Branches. Touching the first, the Case is.    

CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declarations?  

Resol.  
THis Declaration hath two branches. The first is about the Liturgy; the last, about the Book of Ordination.  
1. Touching the Liturgy, we are to declare in these words. I do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the said Book, Entitled the Book of Common-Prayer, etc.  
2. Touching the Book of Ordination, we are to declare in these words: And the Form or Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.  
3. Now give me leave to ask, what can possibly render it unlawful for such as can conform without it (for such I deal with) thus to declare?  
4. As for the latter branch, touching the Form or Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Conseerating Bishops, Priests and Deacons; this, most that have Live have Subscribed already at their Ordination, and read their allowance of, openly, to their several Congregations, upon their Induction: besides, had not this been required in the Act, who knows not that no conformity without subscribing and reading the Nine and thirty Articles, in one of which we declare the same, could legally suffice? Yea, who sees not the weakness of such a pretence of future conformity; if this part of the Declaration had not been required; which indeed is no new thing, nor such, as any one without self-abuse or self-delusion could possibly expect should not still be required; or (truly I think) without dissimulation or abuse of the world, could say, they intended to have conformed had not this been required?  
5. But I perceive the first part of the Declaration, touching the Liturgy, bears the greater burden of exception.  
The words are, I do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book, Entitled the Book of Common-Prayer, etc.  
6. But did you indeed intent to have form had not this Declaration been required, what can hinder you thus to declare? viz. that you do assent and consent to that which yourselves did intent to practice? and that this your assent and consent to your own intended practice is not Hypocritical, but unfeigned? certainly, this is all that is here required.  
7. Perhaps, the long Title of the Book affrights us. But if there be more than in the Book, we have nothing to do with that: for we are only to declare for every thing contained in the Book: but if there be not, than we that embrace the substance, have no reason to be scared with the shadow; or to scruple at that in the Title, which we can use in the Book.  

Object. 1. It is objected, that there are several expressions in the Book of Common-Prayer, that though we could safely read them, yet we do not so hearty like and approve them, as we seem to be required to declare.  
Answ. 1. Do not force an Edge upon the words, to wound yourselves. Look well upon the Declaration, and you will find that the object of your assent and consent is not the words, but things; not every word, but every thing; not every thing as there expressed, but every thing contained in the expressions, and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-Prayer.  
2. Yet, if you can conform to the Book, I hope you can read the words: and if so, I hope you can assent and consent unfeignedly to the lawfulness of the Action which yourselves perform: and this is all, as more fully I shall show presently, that is here required of you to declare.   

Object. 2. But though we can use the things, yet it is only for peace sake, and obedience to Authority, etc. and not because we would choose, or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves.  
Answ. We may approve a thing absolutely, as is hinted in the Objection, and comparatively or respectively.  
1. That we should absolutely approve of every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, as that which we would choose above all other, and as best in itself, we cannot, either with charity to our selves, or our Governors, or with any colour of reason, conceive to be the intention of the Declaration required. Seeing, it is a moral impossibility, that all men, in so many particulars, and various circumstances, should be exactly of one mind. And seeing much less will serve the ends of Government, and the design of the Act for Uniformity.  
2. It is therefore, a comparative or respective approbation, that is here required: or rather in the milder words of the Act, assent and consent the grounds thereof, are not specified in the Act, but left to ourselves; and whatsoever the grounds and motives are, if they are effectual to prevail upon us, to assent and consent unfeignedly to the Book of Common-Prayer, our Governors expect no more, for their Act hath its end.  
3. Thus we are left free to compare the effects and consequences of our conformity, and Nonconformity: of obedience to the Act, and our disobedience; and if we can but comparatively approve of conformity, that is, with respect to its conveniencies above Nonconformity; and consequently of every thing to be conformed to upon the like grounds, we may safely declare our assent and consent to the same, in the sense of the Act.  
4. For doubtless, our Governors intended we should use those means they offer us, for the same end themselves proposed. Seeing, therefore, by the Act, they intent, and require uniformity; and seeing also, that they threaten such as will not thus assure them that they will conform, with the loss of their Live, etc. and lastly, seeing all such penalties are annexed to Law, on purpose to move us to active obedience; what remains, but that we are allowed thus to reason. Here is such a Declaration required by Law, and such a severe penalty annexed, for all that disobey it: though I could rather have liked the Book of Common-Prayer, if such and such things had been altered; yet rather than lose my living, and therewith, all legal opportunity of serving the Church, rather than show myself cross and disobedient to Authority in lawful things; rather than ruin myself and family for a thing indifferent, though, in itself I judge it is inconvenient: I do choose to be obedient and conformable; and in order thereunto, upon these grounds I declare my assent and consent unfeignedly to every thing to be conformed unto.  
5. Indeed, had the word [Free] been in the Act instead of [unfeigned] there had been more colour of this Objection.  
Therefore, out of a vile design, I fear, of some malcontents, that can more freely consent to our common calamities, than our common Prayers; it is buzzed up and down, perhaps, not without feigning, that our Free assent and consent is required. And that thus we are to declare, that we choose these things for themselves, and of our own accord. Whereas the word Free is not at all mentioned, and so the whole ground of the exception faileth.  
6. But for the perfect removal of any such scruple for ever, let the Act interpret itself. The words immediately foregoing this 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 no other; they are the words of this Declaration.  
Mark, we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent. To what? not simply to all things, but to all things with respect to their use: to the use of all things in the said Book. But in what words must we declare for the use of all things in the said Book? in these words, and no other; and they are, as was said, the words of the Declaration.  
7. The plain meaning of the Act appears, therefore, to be but this: while we declare, in these words, viz. of the Declaration, we do but declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of Common-Prayer: which if we can lawfully use, we do but declare, that if we do conform, we do nothing against our consciences: or that, we do unfeignedly assent and consent to the use of that which we ourselves either do, or can use.  
And, as if our Governors had purposed to make this their meaning as plain as the Sun, they have at least twice more given us the same interpretation of those words. In page 74. such as are hereafter inducted must declare their unfeigned assent and consent. To what? why to the use of all things therein; that is, in the Book of Common-Prayer contained and prescribed. But how and after what manner? why according to the Form before appointed; that is, in the Declaration. The like we have again, page 83.  
9 Of that which hath been said this is the Sum; the Act, in this first Declaration requires, that we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of every thing in the Common-Prayer, and the Form of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. We suppose the brethren we now reason with to have purposed to use the Book of Common-prayer, had not these Declarations been required: and the Form of Making Bishops, Priests and Deacons, they have, or must have subscribed, and read their assent and consent unto it, had this Declaration never been required. Therefore I hope there is nothing of Conscience remaining in these my brethren, to check any longer at this Declaration. I shall therefore pass on unto the other.     

CASE II. Whether is it lawful to declare in the words of the second Declaration?  

Resol.  
1. WHen Alcibiades, a young Gentleman of Athens, was afraid to speak before the Multitude, Socrates, to put him in heart, asked him, fear you such a one? and names one of the Multitude to him; no, saith Alcibiades, be is but a Tradesman; fear you such a one, saith he? and names a second; no, for he is but a Peasant; or such a one? and names a third, no, for he is but an ordinary Gentleman. Now, saith Socrates, of such as these doth the whole Multitude consist.  
2. I confess, there are an heap of several things required in this second Declaration. And perhaps, their multitude may somewhat scare us. Yea, hence, I have reason to believe, that some are offended that hardly ever read, much less examined the particulars of it.  
3. But be not afraid, draw near, and take the Declaration into its parts, and consider of them one by one: its possible, they may not be so formidable as we are apt of our selves, or as others would have us to fancy. It's possible we may thus receive encouragement, with Alcibiades, and find a way to escape the Temptation.  
This Declaration concerns three general heads. Taking Arms against the King: conformity to the Liturgy: and the Oath, called the Solemn League and Covenant.  
5. In the first part of this Declaration, concerning the taking Arms against the King, we are required to declare; First, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. Secondly, that we abhor that Traitorous position of taking Arms by the King's Authority against his person, or against those that are Commissionated by him. Accordingly there arise two Cases.    

CASE III.  
Whether it be lawful for us to declare, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King.  

Resol.  
1. EIther it is lawful to take Arms against the King, or it is not: if it be granted that it is not, what should hinder us from declaring it, when by Law (as now we are) called to do it? but if it should be thought lawful, I must demand by what Law?  
'tis but a subterfuge to speak of the Law of Nature, while the Law of Scripture and the Law of the Land have undertaken the Case.  
3. Now, what saith the Scripture? surely it gives not the least colour of encouragement for it, except Obedience and Submission, and that for conscience, and the Lords sake, be taking Arms.  
4. Again, if the Scriptures may be thought too General; let the Laws of the Land be examined. I question not whether they were not sufficiently plain in the Case before: yet now, certainly they are above all Contradiction or doubt. I mean by the late Act for the Safety of the King's person, where we may learn in the plainest manner, that it is Treason and Rebellion, and unlawful enough upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King.  
5. Such as I now deal with do at the most, only doubt, whether according to the constitution of this Kingdom, the two Houses are not a power  with the King: and the King and his two Houses being at variance, whether they might not side with the Parliament, even to the taking Arms against the King: but if this were a doubt before, it is not possible it should remain so still; all colour of it being wiped away, and that Controversy as perfectly determined as an Act of King, Lords and Commons, can possibly do it: as appears in the Act forementioned, for the safety of the King's person.    

CASE IU. Whether is it lawful to declare, that we do Abhor that Traitorous position of taking Arms by the King's Authority against his person, or those that are Commissionated by him?  

Answ.  
1. IF this be indeed a Traitorous position, who doubts but that every true Subject is bound to abhor it? and being lawfully called thereunto, so to declare.  
2. That this is a Traitorous position, I need not say more than what I just now said in answer to the last Case. Namely, that however it came to be disputed before, it is now plainly determined to be so by the said Act for the safety of the King's person; and it being declared by Law to be a Traitorous position, it ought so to be reputed: and by this Law also, it being so required of us, it ought to be declared against, and abhorred accordingly.  
3. So much may briefly suffice for the first general in this Declaration. The second, touching Conformity, offers now to be considered. This we shall pass with a quick dispatch, that we may hasten to our main design, the discharge of the Covenant.  
The Case about Conformity in short is this.    

CASE V.  
Whether we may lawfully declare, that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law established?  

Resol.  
1. FIrst, it seems there is no longer any ground of doubt, whether the Liturgy be established by Law, i. e. the Law of the Land.  
2. Secondly, neither, have we any reason to question, whether it be against the Law of God, seeing our Brethren, whom we are now treating, are supposed to acknowledge, that they would have conformed unto it, had not these Declarations been required; which I know they would not have done, had they thought it to be contrary to the Law of God.  
3. What then can obstruct this part of the Declaration, with brethren so well prepared for it? this only calls them to pass their former intention to conform into a promise that they will do so: and to declare that, for the satisfaction of Law and Authority, they will do that which they acknowledge they can do with satisfaction to themselves: and which, also, they confess they would have done, had not they received this dissatisfaction from the Declaration: which yet we see vanisheth before us.  

Of the Covenant.  
1. BUt the great Mountain is yet to be removed: some say, they are called to declare against, and to renounce the Covenant: or, as some that would scare themselves and others from Conformity, to abjure and to unswear the Covenant: and this, they complain, is too hard for them, they cannot do it.  
This is, I confess, a very tender Point, yet such, I hope, as the most tender Conscience need not fear to be pricked with it, if warily handled. I mean, if we be not frighted awat from it, or stand not at too great a distance: but with a sound and impartial judgement draw near unto it, and look well upon it, and consider after what manner and in what words, we are indeed required to declare against the Covenant.  
2. Under this head, there are three members of the Declaration touching the Covenant. Something is to be declared against its obligation. Something against its lawfulness in itself; and something against the lawfulness of its imposition.  
3. We proceed to weigh them, one by one, with all seriousness and fidelity, in a particular examination of the three Cases that offer themselves in the very words of the Declaration.  
The first, touching the Obligatory force of the Covenant, is in the Declaration apparently limited to the alteration of Government, and is this.     

CASE VI.  
Whether we may lawfully declare in these words. I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any Change or alteration of Government either in Church or State.  

Resol.  
MEthinks, it is no great venture to say that such as have taken the Covenant may lawfully declare that they hold that neither themselves nor any person is bound by the Covenant to endeavour a change of Government in Church or State.  
We are agreed in three things, and so far I shall not create a controversy.  
First, that a Covenant both illegally imposed, and illegally taken may bind the Takers.  
Secondly, that the Covenant in Question doth not bind to an endeavour to alter or meddle with the State-Government.  
Thirdly, that the alteration or extirpation (as the word is) of Church-Government, being the main business of the Covenant (as the Covenanters plea hath granted) if this main business of the Covenant be lawful, it doth so far bind those that have taken it, if not lawful, they are, at least, so far discharged, and not under the obligation of it.  
Fourthly, 'tis accordingly, therefore, in plainest terms, again and again granted us, both by Mr. Crofton, and the more Moderate and Learned Author of the Covenanters plea, wherein indeed they concur with all Casuists, that, if we can discover any thing unlawful in the matter, especially this main matter of the Covenant, it was so far void ipso facto.  
5. For the proof of this, they cry aloud for our strong reasons. Such as I have, I shall now crave leave, with a sincere and humble hand, to offer to my Brethren.  
6. Here I must pitch; and my work, in short, is to prove, that the Covenant, so far as it engageth the takers of it against Church-Government, and for the extirpation or change of it, is unlawful and sinful in the matter of it.  
7. But give me leave to fix my foot in a plain distinction. The Res jurata, the thing Sworn or Covenanted to be done may be either such as is unlawful simply, and absolutely unlawful for any to do, or quò ad nos, when though it be not sinful in the primary consideration of it; yet to such and such persons it is sinful; for it cannot be denied, but that some things are lawful and laudable in themselves, and for some persons, (as to execute justice, to dispense the public Ordinances, to bear the Ark, etc.) which are very unlawful for others not called thereunto, to meddle with all.  
8. So that, if to endeavour the extirpation of the Government of the Church by Prelacy, be either unlawful in the first or absolute Consideration of it, or else as to those that thus did Covenant, and as it was covenanted; if either way it be found unlawful, so far the Covenant is sinful in the very matter of it.  
9 Indeed, the immediate question, and that which most nearly concerns the Covenanters, is not whether the thing sworn be in itself lawful, but whether it be so to them; and whether this guilt lieth not on them, first to purpose, and then to swear to sin, that is, to do that which some way or other God hath forbidden them to meddle with; for to them to whom it is forbidden, it is as if it were unlawful in itself (as the Apple to our first Parents) and as it is unlawful for us, it goes into the matter of the Covenant which we take; and by consequence that which is only unlawful to us, if sworn, doth make that Oath, as ours, unlawful in its self, that is, in the matter of it.  
10. Therefore, I shall not need to dispute, whether the Government of our Church be so necessary by a Jus divinum, and the word of God, as that it is unalterable by the power of man, or that it is sinful in itself to endeavour the alteration of it. I choose rather to come as near my Brethren as I can, and to argue from the latter branch of the distinction, according to which, my Task is to prove, that it is unlawful for such as took the Covenant to endeavour a change of Church-Government by virtue of that Covenant. Which may the plainer appear, if we consider the persons that took the Covenant, either as single persons, and one apart from another, or as united in the great body that at first took it.  
Upon each of these we shall now proceed.    

CASE VII.  
Whether any private or single person can lawfully endcavour the alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant.  

Resol.  
THis seems to be much the proper Case, seeing the Parliament it self, that first imposed the Covenant, are now dissolved into private persons. Yea, though some of the same Members, and many of the same Lords, may possibly sit in the present Parliament, yet as to that Parliament that is gone and dissolved so long since, they are but single and private persons: therefore, if the Question be of any obligation that may be thought to be now on them, from any thing they did in the Long Parliament, it must concern them as so many private or single persons, members of the Kingdom, and not of the Parliament.  
2. Now, for any such to stand engaged by a public Covenant against a settled Government (as the Government of the Church is) and accordingly, to endeavour the extirpation or change of it, is palpably sinful, both as such a Covenant, and such endeavours, are directly against the Rights of the King, the Laws of the Land, the privileges of Parliament, the Liberty of the Subject, and the former obligations which lay upon the Nations: as will appear every one in his own order.    

CASE VIII.  
Whether, to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church, be against the Rights of the King.  

Resol.  
TO make the Argument from the Rights of the King conclude the matter of the Covenant sinful, two things require proof. First, That to endeavour against the Government of the Church by virtue of the Covenant, is against the Kings Right. Secondly, Thus to endeavour against the Rights of the King by virtue of the Covenant is sinful. Of both briefly.  
For the first, it is evident, that thus to stand engaged by public Covenant to endeavour, and accordingly constantly to endeavour against Church-Government, is directly against the Kings Right of Authority and Prerogative.  
1. 'Tis against the Kings Right of Authority, for he is the Supreme Executor of the Law; and all inferior officers are but his Commissioners to execute that government, in which he is alone the Supreme Governor, as we swear him to be, both in Church and State.  
Now take away the body of Governors, the Head must needs fall; and if all Inferiors be removed, where will the Supreme be?  
But that which sits the argument indeed, is this, to be engaged constantly to endeavour (as the word in the Covenant is) to extirpate the Government of the Church, doth directly oppose us in the whole course of our lives, and that in the very sense of the Covenanters themselves, against the King's Government; As none can deny the Government of the Church politically considered to be, and against the King's commissioners in the said Government.  
In so much, as they must either resist it, by violence and Arms, as they have occasion; or at least not own it, not submit unto it, nor yield it any active obedience, yea, as more anon, pray against it, preach against it, and every way disown it, revile it, undermine, and watch all occasions to ruin and extirpate it, according as they stick not to say, they are engaged by the Covenant; If this be not inconsistent, or at least incongruous, unsuitable to the state and relation of Subjects, and apparently against the Right of the King and his Authority, whose government this is, I humbly expect reason to the Contrary.  
Secondly, the Matter of the Covenant is thus also against the Rights of the King's Prerogative, as Legis-lator, as well as against the Right of his Authority as Supreme Governor.  
I argue not from the imposition, or from the taking of the Covenant without the King; which, indeed, were both against his prerogative; but as my Argument at present requires, from the matter of the Covenant specified; as engaging Subjects to endeavour the alteration of Government without the King's consent.  
Whether, the Government sworn against be established by Law, we shall examine anon, at present 'tis enough, that such as it is, it cannot be altered, much less extirpated, without the change of the Laws, very many Laws, that much concern, if not establish the same.  
Now it is well enough known to be a grand part of the King's Prerogative, that no Law be made or altered without his fiat: Much less then, such Laws as concern himself so nearly as the changing, not his Commissioners only, but his Government itself.  
And it is more than apparent, that the King was in such a condition▪ when the Covenant was first taken, that the Covenanters did intent either to force his consent to change those Laws; or else, to root out the Government by Prelacy, against the King and the Laws too. Therefore there is no such condition as might fairly have been in all the Covenant, [if the King shall please] or if we can prevail with him to change the Laws, or convince him of the great inconveniencies, that we have discovered in this Government of the Church by Prelacy; But I am sorry to remember how the Covenant was carried on, as if the plot were laid to down with the Bishops, whether the King would consent or not, or what ere come on't.    

CASE IX.  
Whether to endeavour thus against the King's Rights, as obliged thereunto by the Covenant, be sinful?  

Resol.  
WIthout Question it is; for to Covenant or swear to the injury of any is materially sinful, and void of itself; as if a man should vow he will steal his Neighbour's Horse.  
In all Covenants, therefore, the very light of Nature teacheth, that Inferiors must except the rights of their Superiors; Otherwise, if an Oath will discharge from subjection, how soon may all Government totter and dissolve?  
No Covenant can take off the force of the fifth Commandment. Honour thy Father and thy Mother, more than of sixth, seventh, eight, or of any of the Rest.  
It is therefore granted by all Casuists, that in iis rebus quae superioris potestati subjiciuntur, in all things which lie under the power of our Superior, this Condition is necessarily to be understood, in all Covenants, Oaths and Promises; si ipsi etiam placuerit, if it shall also please him that is our Superior.  
Now nothing can possibly intercept the Conclusion, but that either the Government of the Church doth not lie under the King: or that the Altering of this Government did not concern his power: or that he gave his Consent, either to the Covenant, or to the Altering of this Government, but none of all these are true.  
First, the Government of the Church is directly and immediately under the King: or sworn by us all, to be Supreme Governor, in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil; and indeed, as as was hinted before, all Ecclesiastical Governors politically considered, are the King's Commissioners, and in a plain line of subordination to him. Neither can they be taken from him, or indeed on purpose opposed or disobeyed, without apparent injury to the Supremacy, if not with his Royal Assent, and special Commission.  
Secondly, Neither may this Government be altered, or any thing changed therein, (or indeed any thing elsethat cannot be altered without Law,) but by the Kings own Act; and the alteration of Laws is a thing subject also to the King's power, according to the Constitution of this Kingdom, without all dispute.  
Thirdly, Neither did the King consent to the Covenant, but, as it is well known, proclaimêd his dissent against it, which very thing is thought sufficient to void it.  
Datur Juritatio Juramenti aliquando per Superiores, si in illa ipsa Materiâ 
Amese. de consc. p. 219.  sint Superiores, circa quam Juramentum versatur; sic Parents: so Parents, Husbands, Masters, Princes may pronounce (saith Dr. Ames) either Oaths or Vows made by Children, Wives, Servants, Subjects, without their consent, to be void, in those things which are subject to their power.  
Therefore, so far as the Government of the Church cannot be altered but by Law, it is under the power of the King, at least, not to alter it; he having a Negative upon both Houses, and consequently his proclamation hath pronounced the Covenant long agone, if this rule be good, which I think none do question, at least so far void.  
I wonder that it should be urged, that the King so many years after, in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should give his Consent to the Covenant which he had immediately upon its very birth crushed by his Proclamation.  
Yea, so far as his Proclamation could pronounce it void and destroy it, I think it may well be a Problem, whether the King's future consent could revive it, if it had indeed been dead and buried so many years before.  
But in what words did the King seem to consent? he saith it should least displease him that men did keep their Covenant. These words do not express his Consent to the Covenant; much less, to that part of it which concerns Episcopacy: it was far from him to consent to the Extirpation of that: but rather as it follows in the King's words, to preserve (not to extirpate) Religion in purity, and the Kingdom in peace.  
Indeed, thus some would wrest one 
Coven. plea.  Modest expression, against the plain scope of that whole Chapter in the King's Book, framed by him on set purpose to show his dislike of this Covenant to his death; as any impartial Reader thereof may satisfy himself.  
Fourthly, neither can it be said, nor truly is it by any that I have heard of, that the King did ever consent to the Alteration, much less the Extirpation of Episcopal Government; he was indeed at last contented upon a very hard bargain, to give it a suspension for three years; but the sword cut off that preceding, and the Objection with it.    

CASE X.  
Whether the Govenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopal Government be against the Laws, and consequently sinful.  

Resol.  
TO swear absolutely without submismision to the will of the supreme Governor, to endeavour that which cannot be done, either according to Scripture, or the Constitution of the Kingdom, without his Consent and Act, this transports the subject beyond his place, it invades the soveraingty, and carries sedition and rebellion in it.  
This cannot be denied, though the thing sworn against be in itself unlawful, especially when such Covenant is publicly imposed and taken; for no public Reformation of things amiss can proceed without Tumult, if not consented unto by the King, who is not to be frighted to do it by his Subjects, in such a manner, of rising up against him by public Oaths; This is to hurt Majesty, and indeed to do evil, that good may come; and if any shall swear to do it in their places, the form of their swearing contradicts the matter sworn; for they cannot keep their places, and take such an Oath.  
3. Much more when the thing sworn against is not evil in itself, nor contrary to God's Word; therefore Mr. Crofton and the Author of the Covenanters plea would take it for granted, that the Government of the Church by Prelacy, as it is in England, is so: but neither they, nor any other can ever prove it.  
4. Neither dare they say, that either lawful Authority may not establish what Government they judge to be most convenient, if not against the Scripture, or that it is lawful for Subjects publicly to swear, that without submission to the pleasure of their Governors, they will endeavour to extirpate such Government as is not contrary to the Word of God. Or that such a Covenant is binding upon the people, to endeavour against it, or not to submit unto it.  
5. Much less can it bind the people against such Government, if lawful in itself, and such also as cannot be altered without change of the Law, which lies not in the power of the people to do without the King, especially if the Government sworn against be established by Law.  
6. The matter is so plain, as Mr. Perkins 
Cases of Consc.  hath decided it: That a Covenant taken against the Laws of the Land is void of itself, that it hath put the Declaration before the Covenant, and Mr. Crofton, and especially the Author of the Covenantters plea, upon a task impossible, viz. to make good that the Government of the Church, as in practice in England, is not established by Law.  
I shall labour on purpose to satisfy this doubt presently; in the mean time, the present turn is apparently served with a plain distinction. We may be said to endeavour against the Laws, and to swear against them, two ways. Either when the thing we swear against is expressly established by plain Law; or when the thing we swear against cannot be abolished without the Alteration or Abolition of Law.  
8. Now admit, that there be no express Law appointing this form of Government Covenanted against, yet how doth this clear the Covenanters from swearing against Law, when they swear to extirpate that which cannot be extirpated, without the violation and alteration of many, very many Laws. So that this evasion, I think, is perfectly obstructed.  
9 A little more distinctly, seeing, as I humbly conceive, there is much strength in this Argument, to weaken, yea to void the Covenants Obligation, in this particular.  
10. I doubt not to assert, that such an endeavour to extirpate Church-Government, as was covenanted, is against the Law both antecedent to the Covenant, and subsequent: such Laws as were in force before the Covenant was taken, and such Law as by full and just Authority was enacted since. And to conclude, that if the endeavours to extirpate Prelacy according to the Covenant be indeed against the Law in either of these senses, they are plainly sinful, and no obligation of the Covenant can hold us to them. First, then, let the Question be put.    

CASE XI.  
Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant.  

Resol.  
1. I Have no insight into the Laws: yet there is so much in the very Surface of them, for this form of Government, that as I cannot but wonder at the doubt, so I am easily encouraged to encounter it.  
2. Yet give me leave, in the first▪ place to stumble at the fallacious use, and too weak improvement that I find made of this expression [Established by Law] as if nothing could be legal, or opposed as such, that is not positively appointed in some Statute on purpose; if this be heeded, the advantage hence, which at most is small, utterly fails the design of the Covenant.  
3. To what poor satisfaction hath the learned Author of the Covenanters plea run through the Canon Law, the Civil Law, the Statute law, and the Common Law, to find such an establishment, with so much industry? while I think none will dare to question, but this form is legal; and that it is established in the law, though no express Statute be found appointing it; and so much allowed, so far fixed and established by the Laws, as that he that shall any way engage against it, doth so far engage against known Law.  
4. Is it not pretty to observe, that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice, to question whether Episcopacy be established by Law, when Episcopacy hath so long, even for a thousand years together (as Sir Henry Spelman observes) had a great hand in establishing, yea making the Law itself.  
5. Truly, methinks, seeing the power of the Bishops was before the Laws, so many hundred years before our Parliaments, as now they are, and before our Norman Laws, I mean, as ours: And seeing also, that they were still a main cause of the Laws, there is the less reason to expect their Power, or their Office, or their Government from them; or that the child should beget the father that begot it.  
6. However, give me leave to venture a little without my Line, and to offer a distinction or two, that haply may cause my Brethren that are troubled with this scruple, to take better heed to their words, and to take a better course to vindicate their Cause, then by such a wild adventure to disturb every thing.  
1. The Law may establish a thing two ways: either by appointing it the novo: or by allowing it, and taking it for granted (as having its foundation sufficiently laid before) upon all occasions: thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church, not only by those special Laws that relate unto it, but indeed, in every Law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spiritual.  
2. Church-Government may be supposed to be established by Law, either in its Office, thus we need not say the present form is established by Law; for its Office was before ever the Laws of the Land meddled with Church-Government; or, secondly, in its political power and the exercise of it: thus the present Government, none can doubt, to be established by Law: where we may read many times over, the several legal names, with their distinct Jurisdictions, and the crimes punishable by them, and Authority allowed them so to punish, and the fees of their Courts, yea and the very form and manner of consecrating the Bishops established by Law.  
3. Thirdly, Church-Government is establishable by Law either immediately or mediately. Immediately, when by an express Statute such a form is appointed, mediately, when a Statute empowers a person or persons, to Commissionate Governors for the Church: and he or they, by virtue of such power, do settle a Government in the Church, accordingly.  
7. Suppose the present Government be not established by Law in the first; 'tis plainly so, in the second sense: there is Statute Law, declaring the King to be Supreme Governor, over all persons, and in all causes Ecclesiastical: and there is Statute Law that gives him Power and Authority, or rather (according to my Lord Cook) declares him to have power, to appoint and empower his Commissioners in Ecclesiastical matters. And we know, Church-governors derive their political power, and the exercise of it, from the King alone, from time to time accordingly.  
8. For the Common Law, common usage which is Common Law, will no doubt plead prescription, and establish this form of Government over us. A Government (as a very learned man affirms) may be established by Law, as well by consent and submission on the people's Part; as by express suffrage: Quid interest suffragio populus voluntatem suam declaret an Rebus & facto? Jul.  
Thus we have found the Covenant to be against a Government that was established by the Laws of the Land, before it was imposed or taken, and in that sense, against the Laws of the Land, and consequently so far sinful, and not obliging.  
10. But however this will pass, certainly there is Law made since the Covenant, that is plain enough, and will surely hold us: none can encourage any further doubt, but that the present Church-Government is so far established by the Act for Uniformity, as that it requires every Minister to declare, that he is not bound to endeavour a change of it.  
11. So that if the Covenant should be yet binding on us, to endeavour a change of this Government, it should oblige us to violate the Law, and consequently to sin: therefore, whatever we thought before, we may be satisfied that the Covenant cannot oblige us so far now, viz. contrary to express Law. But we shall put the Case, and examine it more at large.    

CASE XII.  
Whether a Covenant taken first, can oblige us against a future Law?  

Resol.  
1. THis Case being weighty, and indeed much our own; I shall set myself, with all sincerity, as in the sight of God, to give it a full and clear resolution, according to the best of my own reason, and the judgement of uninterested and learned Casuists.  
2. That Episcopal Government is restored by Laws made since the King's return, viz. in that which was taken from it, its place in the Parliament, and its former Jurisdiction: also, that this present Church-Government is so far established by the Act for Uniformity; that it is expressly owned and allowed; that so much as endeavours against it are prohibited, that it is no less than the loss of our Live, not to declare that we are not bound to endeavour the alteration of it. These things are plain enough.  
3. The great question here is, whether these Laws, made in the behalf of Episcopal Government, after the taking of the Covenant against it, can discharge the Subjects from the Obligation of the Covenant so far.  
4. To this I do not fear to answer (Episcopal Government being in itself not sinful) in the affirmative: neither do I find any noted Casuist to contradict me.  
5. The sum of my reason for the affirmative you have in this plain Argument.  
The Covenant to do that which may 
Prop. 1.  become unlawful, cannot bind, when the thing sworn (abstracted from our Covenant) is become unlawful; for then the Covenant becomes a bond of iniquity, and should bind beyond that known and generally approved rule, that no Covenant binds further, and therefore not longer, than we lawfully may; and in the words of the Covenanters plea, make us debtors to hell.  
6. I am far from the Opinion of Navarr, Sylvester, Layman, and those that affirm that no man is further bound by an Oath, than he would have obliged himself if he had foreseen the ill consequences of it; which is indeed in their latitude a very dangerous rule, and plainly destructive to humane society.  
7. Yet no Casuist, but with Sanches, will allow the Rule, when thus limited; that what would at first have hindered our obliging ourselves, had it been foreseen, or had it first happened, will also discharge us, when known or come to pass, from the obligation to the performance of it, if it be by reason that the matter is inhabilis ad producendam obligationem, that is, if the thing become unlawful, and consequently weak and unable to produce an obligation, as before.  
But to Covenant to endeavour the 
Prop. 2.  extirpation of Episcopal Government, though it might be thought to be lawful to do then, yet now it appears it was to Covenant to do that which might become unlawful, viz. by the Laws, restoring that Government, and prohibiting all endeavours for the extirpation or alteration of it.  
2. Therefore, if it did oblige so far before, which cannot be granted, yet it can now oblige so far no longer except it have power beyond Authority, and can warrant disobedience to the Laws of the Land.  
3. The reason of the whole lies in that excellent Rule of Dr. Ames, a Rule not questioned by any that I have heard of. De Rebus ita Mutabilibus, ut rem promissam faciant illi citam, subintelligitur, si res in eodem statu permanserint, that is, in the fairest and most uncexeptionable interpretation, if the change of the state of things do not render the thing sworn or promised sinful or unlawful.  
4. Now it may be worth the examining, what unlawfulness can de novo be contracted by the change of the state of things mutable?  
5. Certainly not an unlawfulness from any immediate prohibition of God: for then, either the thing could not be lawful, or in that sense mutable before; and the promise had been sinful ab initio, whereas Dr. Ames supposeth the contrary, and giveth this among the rest, as a condition of a lawful Oath: or else, it must be made unlawful by special revelation, which is absurd to suppose: especially seeing Ames makes the changableness of the things and the state of them a possible instrument of changing things before lawful, and lawfully sworn into sinful, and such as can no longer be obliged unto.  
6. What then remains, but that this Rule refers to the laws of men: which indeed have power to change the state of things indifferent; and to make them, as to us, and as to their use, though not in themselves, either sinful or necessary.  
7. So that, the meaning of the Rule is, that when we promise or swear any thing, that is lawful, if it be of a mutable nature, and the contrary to what we swear may be commanded by Authority; we are only to perform it, with this condition, if things remain in the same condition; and the command of Superiors or the Law of the Land do not prohibit, and make it unlawful for us to do.  
8. Thus, admit that Episcopal Government was res indifferens, and res mutabilis, when men swore against it: yet to perform that Oath is now become unlawful, by the intervention of new Law, and our duty to Superiors, which no former Oath can supersede. for according to the Rule, the Oath cannot bind in things of so mutable a nature, without this condition, si res in eodem statu permanserint, if the things sworn do no way afterwards become sinful.  
Object. The proposal of an Objection wherein we have all that can possibly be urged against this Rule, may give some advantage to our further clearing this weighty matter: it is this. It may be thought, that God by the virtue of the Covenant hath the first obligation upon us, how then can the Law of man, made afterwards, take that off?  
Answ. This is prevented in the very Rule itself; for we cannot be bound by any Covenant about such mutable things, without this condition be understood: and whatever we think we give unto him, God will accept no bond from us, without this condition, that it be to the prejudice of none, much less of Superiors.  
2. And who sees not, how great a prejudice this must needs effect to Authority, if an Oath taken by Subjects about things mutable should have power to suspend all future Laws to the contrary for ever?  
3. Indeed, God hath the first obligation upon us, (but we mistake wherein) not by the Covenant mentioned: by his own Law and the Covenant we enter as Christians; that we will honour our father and mother, obey every Ordinance of man, and those that Rule over us, and submit ourselves unto the higher powers.  
4. This is such a preobligation as no future Covenant can possibly dissolve; so that such as make a Covenant that shall bind them against the lawful commands of Authority do thereby break their Covenant with God; which if they desire to renew again, they have no course left, but to break off the sin of their unlawful Covenant by timely repentance.  
5. Seriously considering that we promised in the Covenant, that which we have now, at least, no power to do: we had not the leave of future Governors in taking: and we see their Laws and Rights will be manifestly violated in the keeping of the Covenant.  
6. We offered that which was not our own, which Authority alone hath right and power to dispose of: thus we offered to God what we stole from our neighbour, or rather affronted and mocked him with a pretence of giving him more than we had: for we have not in us to swear, that we will do that for God, which afterwards we cannot do without breach of Laws, and offence to Authority  
7. Certainly, the first Table is never to be kept by a breach of the second: God will not be righted by the injury of our brother; or glorified, by dishonouring our Father and Mother: our unrighteousness cannot work the righteousness of God; nor can we fear God by dishonouring the King.  
8. This I conceive to be the true reason of the former Rule, as well as a full answer to the present Objection, and a sufficient proof of the present Argument. God's unalterable law is to obey our superiors in things lawful. Things that are now lawful may be forbidden us by Authority, and then those things that before were lawful become unlawful: the state of things of this nature is mutable, and how they will change we know not; only this we know, we must be subject for conscience sake, and submit to Authority for the Lords sake.  
9 Therefore God having the first obligation upon us, and that being unalterable, no Promise or Oath aftwards can discharge us from that; and consequently, all Promises and Covenants about things that are thus mutable may be made, or if made can bind, no further then with this condition, if things so continue, and no command from Authority be to the contrary.  
But I have something behind, that I hope may give full satisfaction.  
10. There was a famous Case betwixt us and the Jesuits, much disputed in King James his days, that doth fully in all due circumstances answer ours.  
11. It was usual then, as appears by the controversy, for Jesuits to go out of this Land and take an Oath at Rome, according to a certain constitution of the Pope to that purpose, that they would return into England and publicly preach the Catholic Faith here.  
12. Now, because that some went out of the Land and took this Oath, before the Laws prohibiting this practice were made, and some after: there arose into controversy two notable Cases of Conscience: the first, respecting such persons as took such Oath against the laws before made to the contrary was this: Whether that Oath to preach publicly the Romish Faith did bind the persons so sworn, against the Laws before in force, to the contrary? The second respecting such as took that Oath before the laws to the contrary were made, was this: whether the laws made against that which before they had sworn to do, did not render the Oath, though made before to the contrary, void.  
13. Both these Cases are so parallel to ours, they justly require us to take special notice how they were decided.  
14. And in earnest, what do our best Divines conclude about them? To the first, it is answered, that the laws prohibiting that which they swore to do, being Antecedent to their Oath: the Oath was unjust from the beginning; 
Sair. Thes. Cas. Cons. c. 7.  for which is quoted those words of their own Casuists; a law which forbids upon pain of loss of goods, death, banishment, or such like, binds a man upon pain of mortal sin: and thence our Divines conclude, that no Vow can justify the breach of it.  
15. But, suppose the Oath be first taken, what say they then? here also they positively and without Hesitancy say, that an Oath cannot bind against a law, though the law be made after the Oath is taken.  
Thus saith a very Learned man, in answer to the Jesuits, as to this Case: if these Laws which take hold of you, when you return hither, had been made between the time of your Vow, and your returning, yet naturally they would work the same effect upon this Vow of yours, (that is, as if the Law had been made before their Vow) and make it void. He also adds the same reason why, which before we have used, because (saith he) something was now interposed, which may Justly, yea Ought to change your purpose.  
16. But the Jesuits seemed to complain, that the Laws were made on purpose to interrupt and hinder the performance of their vow, and to make them break their Oath. And hence a third notable Case issued, viz.  
17. Whether the Evil Intention of those that make the Laws, namely to make men's previous Oaths void, doth not weaken the force of such Laws; as to the discharging of such Oaths.  
The Answer that was given to this, consisted of two branches. 1. That it could not be any evil intention in the Legislators, but clearly, the necessities of Church and State, that provoked these Laws. 2. However, though the Laws had been made on purpose to preclude the performance of the vow, yet would they naturally work the same effect, and void the Vow: urging, that 
Alphon. Castr. de potest. leg. Doc. 1.  their own men teach, that the Laws of Princes are not therefore necessarily unjust and void, because the Prince had an ill intention in the making of them.  
All this, saith that Learned man, if 
Vid. Dr. Don, pseudomartyr. p. 156, 157— The Application is too easy.  the Laws be Just, is evident and without question; O that we may find it so.  
18. But there is a Notable Evasion, that I must needs take notice of, so many are crowding for an escape at it: they say, rather than break our Covenant, we will submit to the penalty of the Law, and thus we suppose we fulfil the Law, and obey Authority.  
That we may take the more steady view of it, we will put the Case.    

CASE XIII.  
Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed, be a due fulfulling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience.  

Resol.  
CArminus tells us, that this Opinion 
De potest. 1. leg. Hum. p. 2. c. 2.  [that if we undergo the penalty of the Law, we do not sin in the breach of it:] was the Opinion of some Schoolmen, who thought it a glorious matter, and fit to raise them a Name, to leave the common and beaten ways; having, perchance, a delight saucily to provoke, to gnaw, calumniate, and to draw into hatred those Powers and Authorities which made those Laws.  
2. The ground of this gross mistake, partly respects the Lawmakers: partly, the Nature of the Law itself; and partly, the end of punishment as annexed to the Law.  
3. The mistake arises very much from an unjust apprehension of Governors, that make the Laws: we have not that Reverence and Conscience of them as is meet for such Ministers of God; not considering whose Authority they have, and execute in their Legislation: if we did, we should learn to submit unto them for the Lords sake, and obey them out of Conscience: for they make Laws; and if they be not sinful, God commands us to obey them.  
2. We are also very apt to mistake about the Nature of Humane Laws: as if all such as have a penalty annexed were therefore penal only, or purely penal Laws, and left the Subjects in a perfect Indifferency whether to yield Active or Passive Obedience, to do, or to suffer what the Law requires or provides.  
4. 'Tis granted, that some Laws are penal purely; and if that occasion any doubt about the present Law, I cannot give them safer advice, then seriously to peruse the excellent pains of Bishop 
Lectur. of Consc.  Sanderson, drawn out to so much length, upon his observation of the sad effects of this Mistake, in a most clear discourse about the Nature of penal Laws, and of such as bind the Conscience.  
5. I believe, there is the more to be studied in this point, because I find the Learned Author of the Covenanters plea asserting also that how far Humane Laws bind the Conscience, is the main question in the present Controversy.  
6. The said Author of the Covenanters plea seems to be a great admirer of that Excellent Bishop, and no question but he is acknowledged on both sides, for Learning, Piety, Prudence, Experience, all parts requisite for a perfect Casuist, as credible as any other the Generation affordeth; and from his mouth what person doth not snatch at satisfaction? let us then hear what he saith in the Case.  
1. He expressly affirms that no Law that hath a Command expressed is purely penal.  
2. That all Humane Laws that are not purely penal, do in a sort oblige the Conscience: in general, immediately, and in particular, ex Consequenti, from the Word of God.  
3. If the matter of the Law be not sinful, we are bound to Active Obedinece; neither may we wittingly violate, much less oppose them, or be bound so to do, without sin.  
7. To apply this, if the Government be not in itself unlawful: if it be commanded to be submitted to, if we are required to declare that we are not bound to endeavour against it; And lastly, these Laws be not purely penal, we are not left indifferent by God or the Law, whether we will obey or suffer▪ but are bound in Conscience to own the Authority, and submit unto the Government, and declare we are not bound by the Covenant to extirpate or alter it.  
8. Indeed, to stick at a particular Law of more private concern, so far as to suffer the penalty, and not do the thing commanded, might in some Cases, for private satisfaction, be held more tolerable; but to hold ourselves, notwithstanding Law express to the contrary, bound by Oath not to own a Government founded or confirmed by Law, or Governors commissionated by the King; is such a thing as cannot be excused, (without express warrant from Scripture, which affords it none) by any Rules of sober reasoning before God or Conscience.  
9 Indeed, if the Covenant have such force as to bind the Conscience against Law, still to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy; I cannot see, but as it now obligeth not to own, or to Act under it, will also compel to resist and fight against it, if occasion were offered.  
10. Neither can I see any possible means of tying the hands and hearts of Covenanters to duty and peace (I speak as a Divine) but this only, that they suffer their Consciences to be satisfied from Reason and Scripture, that they first owe such obedience even in Conscience to the lawful Commands of Humane Authority, as no future Oath can discharge them from it. And that it is not in their liberty, whether to do what is commanded, or to suffer what is threatened, seeing God interposeth and decides the question, by determining us to the first, and requiring our Active Obedience to the Commands of his Deputies, where himself hath not required the contrary in his Word before. Submit yourselves therefore unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him.  
Lastly, the mistake ariseth from a false opinion of the end of punishment, which is properly in all Laws not purely penal: the punishment of disobedience, and not obedience at all. Indeed God requires us to suffer, rather than to do evil; but Man commands, not to suffer but to do, whom we must obey in lawful things.  
I shall put a period to my Argument (which was the second in order) from the Laws of the Land, having found the matter of the Covenant in the second Article, contrary to them we may conclude it sinful, and so far not binding.  
11. Yet before I take off my pen, I cannot but acknowledge that some Popish Casuists do say, that an Oath may bind against the Civil Law in some Cases; if it be not against the Divine Law, the Law of Nature, or the Canon Law.  
The Author of the Covenanters plea would suppose that these Casuists put in the Canon Law, to save their Infallibility. But may not we, upon as good grounds, suspect the like partiality in excluding the Civil Law? We are sure Obedience in things lawful is with severity enough required in Scripture unto Civil Authority.  
12. But we must observe, that these Casuists instance generally, in such oaths as are concerning Contracts betwixt Man and Man; the performance of which hurts not the public; and indeed the Covenanters plea mentions no other.  
13. But is not a public Oath to alter Government of another Order? for Subjects to swear to endeavour this, against the Laws of the land, the express dissent of the supreme Governor; and to hold themselves obliged hereunto, contrary to an express prohibition of lawful Authority; Truly, methinks, it is also against both Divine and Natural Law, against Reason and Scripture, which seem to dictate as with a beam of the Sun, that for public security, Order and Peace, Subjects acquiesce in the present Government, and not rise up, either to swear or endeavour against it, contrary to Law.    

CASE XIV.  
Whether to Endeavonr the Extirpation of Church-Government, by virtue of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Laws to the Contrary, be not against the Privilege of Parliament, and consequently sinful.  

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

CASE XV.  
Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy, by virtue of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Act of Parliament.  

Resol.  
1. IT is said, there are more ways of endeavour then by violence and sedition: and indeed so there may; and if there by any endeavours not forbidden by the Parliament and Law, whatever they are, we are not called by the Act to declare, that neither we, nor any other are bound unto them; for wherein the Act doth not require us to declare, we cannot be bound by the same Act to declare.  
2. Therefore the endeavours against the Government of the Church, sworn in the Covenant, are either the same which the Act intends, or not: if they be not the same; then, notwithstanding the Covenant, we may declare we are not bound to endeavour in the sense of the Act, by virtue of the Covenant, which never intended so to bind us: but if the same endeavours be intended both by the Covenant and the Act, than the Covenant so far loseth its force; for, as hath been clearly, I hope, proved, we cannot be bound by it against a law, though that Law, if the matter in itself be lawful, be made after the Covenant was taken.  
3. I mean, if the endeavours to which we are required to declare we are not bound by the Act, be such only as are seditious, and may disturb the public, then either the such endeavours required by the Covenant were seditious endeavours too, or else This Act doth not cross the Covenant in this particular, but strikes at such endeavours as were not covenanted.  
4. If the endeavours in the Covenant be seditious, than they are sinful: and we cannot be bound to them; and indeed the greatest friends of the Covenant confess so much; if not, then hay may declare (as indeed they have already in their Writings) that they are not bound to endeavour seditiously: which is no doubt the meaning of the Act.  
5. However, as was said, let thesence of the word [endeavour] both in the Covenant, and in the Act, fall how it will; 'tis plain, that unless it be a necessary duty, of itself, without respect to the Covenant, thus to endeavour, which is impossible to be proved, 'tis a sin to break the Act made against such endeavours, and a duty to declare we are not bound by the Covenant so to do.  
6. But because stress is laid upon this very word; and indeed much of the Controversy depends upon it; and I find not any that have written upon the Covenant, to have distinctly and plainly considered it; I shall take a little liberty to open the meaning of it in a few distinctions, and apply them as I pass on.  
7. Endeavour, is either private, or public.  
1. Private endeavour may be thought to be with God in prayer, in our Closets, when no other person can receive any influence against Authority from what we say; and the public suffer no danger by them.  
In this sense, to endeavour against what we conceive to be corrupt or sinful in Church or State, betwixt God and ourselves be it: yet a sober, well-tempered, and enlightened conscience, if harkened to, may whisper, that to fet our hearts and faces in our prayers to God (who hath said, curse not the King in thy Bedchamber, no not in thy thought) against Government and Law, that defends the substantials of Religion, savours but little of a Christian spirit, and may easily draw the guilt of want of allegiance and charity to Government, and unwarrantable boldness with God.  
8. Yet it may not be out of our way to remember, that prayer is a very unusual and unacceptable sense of Endeavour: and that there is nothing more usual with covenanting Ministers, as well as others, in their Sermons in public to the people, to oppose, or at least to distinguish endeavour and prayer: calling them to add their endeavour in the use of other means, for the obtaining the matter of their prayers, or the things prayed for; without which, viz. Endeavour, we say, prayer is but Muliebre supplicium, weak and unavailable.  
9 And doubtless to take the word [Endeavour] in the Act in this broad and wide interpretation, without the compass of ordinary use in ourselves or others, is to make a Net for our selves and others, with a desire not to escape it.  
10. For, who can rationally imagine that an Act of Parliament should intent to govern men's thoughts or closerts. The end of Civil Power is to keep the Civil Peace; and what can Charity or Justice imagine else to be the intention of Civil Laws? private prayers, if amiss, may provoke God, and trouble our selves, but they reach not the public peace; Neither can that be presumed to break Laws which cannot prejudice the end of Law, or be discovered by the Lawmakers. Therefore, only apparere is esse in Jure: and not to appear to break the Law, in the sense of the Law, is not to break it.  
11. Secondly, there is again public endeavour, and this more or less public.  
Endeavour less public, is such as though somewhat privately practised, hath public influences and effects, or a natural tendency thereunto: This is either Positive or Negative. Positive, endeavour against Church Government, though in somewhat a private way, may be of much danger, not only to the thing endeavoured against, which is directly intended by such endeavours, but to the public peace: and be very seditious in its nature and effects. Such are venting our animosities and discontents against Government, and persons commissioned by the King, in our prayers with our families, and discourses with our Neighbour's.  
12. This is to enkindle a fire, that if of general practice by Covenanters scattered up and down, may quickly inflame the whole Kingdom.  
13. Such a course of Reformation as this, though the things endeavoured to be reform were very corrupt, and indeed abominable, no wise man can allow, or discharge of sedition and unwarrantable acting out of our places.  
14. But if the Government sworn against be not unlawful, and if it be fenced with Laws; and we are required in the Act to declare we are not bound to endeavour against it: who dare justify such endeavours against Government and Law, but such as love to despise Dominions, and speak evil of Dignities.  
15. 2. This less public way of endeavour is Negative, when we will no way own or act under the Government in our places, and thus design to weaken the Government, by withdrawing our own subjection, and encouraging others to do the like after our example.  
16. I wish it were not so: but is not this, with the former, the intended practice of such as hold themselves obliged by the Covenant? and is this, if possible, to live peaceable with all men? is this to be subject for wrath's sake? and to obey every Ordinance of man? either the King as Supreme, or those that are commissioned by him? is this to obey the Laws of the Land? and to do nothing that may disturb the public?  
17. O, that my brethren would sadly consider, if so great a multitude as they please to boast of, even of all degrees and ranks in the Nation, did indeed take the Covenant; and all of them should be of their mind, and hold themselves obliged not to own Church-Government, or Act under it, as they may have daily occasion (notwithstanding the final determination of Authority, that we must be governed by it) what disturbances, distractions and confusions must needs follow in Church and State?  
3. Blame not the Parliament if they intended by the Act to prevent it: especially considering, that this is not all. But more public endeavours are judged by Mr. Crofton lawful too, so long as every man keeps his place.  
And truly, if [endeavours] in the Covenant be the measure of the meaning of the word, in the Act, as is very likely, I am loath to remember how high it once carried us: indeed not in private, but too too publicly.  
The Covenant speaks of our places and by lawful means; yet also to our power, and with our lives and estates. And what need of all this, if we may only petition in a regular and legal course, and so, and no otherwise endeavour; there being no other lawful way of endeavour in our places, but these, that I can think of: and as for petitioning too, if that should be forbidden, certainly we are not bound unto it.  
But Mr. Crofton and the said Author tells us of a better meaning [of acting in our places:] Ministers must preach against the Government, and the Lawyers must plead against it, the Judge must sentence it, the Soldier must fight against it, yea, and every tongue must revile it, and speak evil of it, and every mouth be filled with cursing and bitterness against it.  
I need not say, thus it was, when the cause of the Covenant was in the field. The Lord give us humble and peaceable spirits, to discern at last in the Calm the way of our duty, from which we have been too long transported by the stormy wind and tempest.  
4. In short, thus to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church, and the Laws, is either sinful, indifferent, or necessary.  
If it be said to be necessary, that is, a duty of itself, without respect to the Covenant; two things must be proved; both of which are highly incapable of it. First, that the Government is unlawful in itself. Secondly, that Subjects are bound to use unlawful endeavours for a Reformation of Government, and Law; as no doubt those before mentioned are.  
If these endeavours be said to be indifferent in themselves, and made necessary to us, by virtue of the Covenant: I answer, as before is proved, that we cannot be bound by our own Oath to do a thing indifferent in itself (seem it never so convenient to us) against a known Law of the Land; and to the prejudice of Parliamentary power, in the determining of things indifferent.  
But if the endeavours be indeed sinful in themselves, we need no power of Law to discharge us of them, for they never bond us: but the Covenant was so far naught from the beginning.  
5. In a word, that these endeavours are in themselves sinful, appears in the reason of the Covenant, and the concessions of the very opponents.  
1. The Covenant requires no more, and we are bound no farther (say our Brethren) to endeavour against Episcopal Government, but in our places, and by lawful means.  
But now the first step that our Brethren take in this their endeavour, is out of their places, viz. by not yielding unto, not obeying, not so much as acknowledging the Government, which the King and the Law hath set over them: nor making any conscience of the Law, requiring them to disclaim their obligation to the contrary.  
For Subjects not to obey, not to own their superiors, to reject those that are sent by their King; Yea to make their own Covenant to prevent the commands of Authority; surely this is for Subjects to be out of their places; and if these be their endeavours to extirpate the Hierarchy, the Covenant itself, in the modern sense of it, will not allow them.  
2. Again, much more to take all occasions to revile and curse this Government in our Prayers, and Sermons, and Discourses; and in effect, to do what in us lies, that the people reject it, scorn it, hate it, trample upon it; and make it the mark of their malice and revenge; this is certainly to endeavour out of our places, and by unlawful means too, and far from the Tenor of our Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Christianity.  
3. Let me then conclude, that look what my Brethren concerned take to be the sense of endeavour in the Covenant, and how they themselves understand it by their purposes and practices, and upon sober reckoning, they will find that such endeavours are both unlawful in themselves, and made unlawful by the Act of Parliament, and upon either account, much more on both, they need not stick to declare, as required that neither they, nor any other person is bound thus to endeavour, notwithstanding the Covenant.  
Though, I presume, if there be any other endeavours besides acting against, speaking evil of, or not yielding unto the Government as established by the Laws of the Land, (which are not unlawful, seditious, and not inconsistent with the places of Subjects) my Brethren are not by the Act required to declare their non-obligation unto them.  

Object. But though we may not endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy, there may be many corruptions in the Government by Episcopacy, and are we not to endeavour an alteration or Reformation of them?  
Answ. 1. First, as it is unlawful according to the Scriptures, Reason, and the Constitution of the Kingdom, for Subjects to enter into a public Covenant to reform the Church, without the consent of the King: so we cannot be bound by such Oath to endeavour it, by means that are sinful and seditious (as before) or out of our places.  
2. We must distinguish of corruptions in the Government, and the Government itself, as well in the Answer, as in the Objection: and betwixt a Reformation, and an Alteration or Change of Government: or an Alteration in the Government, and an Alteration of the Government.  
'tis worth our notice, as to this Objection, that the Act requiring the Declaration is express for the latter and not the former branch of the distinction: the words of the Declaration are, I do hold that neither myself nor any other person hath any obligation upon us from the Covenant, to endeavour to make any alteration or change of Government in Church or State, nor in the Government of either: that is, indeed, that we are not bound by the Covenant to labour to pull down this Fram of Government, and set up another, either in Church or State.  
We have sufficient ground for this distinction from our covenanting Brethren themselves, if not from their distinction of the collective and distributive sense of the second Article, about Church-Government; yet from such moderate persons among them, that openly declared upon a solemn occasion, that might they see any material alteration in the Government granted there, they should hold themselves satisfied, as to the Covenant, in that point.  
Besides, the King and Parliament have practically improved the said distinction (I presume, in order to such brethren's satisfaction) and have, indeed, made a material alteration in the said Government, by taking off the high Commission, and the Oath ex officio, by Law; and yet, established the Government itself.     

CASE XVI.  
Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular, and therefore sinful in its matter.  

Resol.  
1. AFter the Bishops were thrown out of their places, in the House of Lords, we might yet respect them, as well as the rest of the Dignitaries in the Church, as the King's Subjects, and to have an interest in the freedom of the Commons. Now, in this capacity we shall find the Covenant was very injurious to them, even as Subjects and freemen, and consequently, it tore up the very foundation of the liberties of the people, and in the destruction of one society threatened all.  
2. 'tis well known, that the Governors of the Church were in possession of their several freeholds, when the Covenant was voted to destroy them, which their predecessors had enjoyed many hundred years without any interruption considerable.  
3. The number of these Subjects was not small: their manner of living and governing, in so many famous Corporations, and Colleges, was more than vulgar.  
They had a considerable interest in the Lands of the Nation: and much people being related to them, and more depending on them, and their great hospitality, were concerned in them, and fell with them.  
4. Yea, it is declared by sundry Acts of Parliament, that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England.  
5. And no wonder, that this Crown of England is so much concerned for it: and that the Kings of England, at their Coronation swear, they will grant, confirm and keep all the Customs and Privileges of the Church, granted by King Edward; and expressly to Bishops all Canonical Privileges: and that he will be a protector and defender of the Bishops.  
Yet notwithstanding their number, their Relations, their Freeholds, their Interest and Continuance, notwithstanding the Acts of Parliament, and the Royal Oaths: yet was their Extirpation sworn by the Covenant imposed without Law, or the King's Consent, and passed in the Parliament, when the persons, the many Corporations in the Land concerned, had none to represent them in the house of Lords, or the house of Commons, contrary to the excellent Constitution of the Nation, and the Liberties of English men.  
7. Thus unjustly have they suffered nigh 20. years together; and shall we yet think ourselves bound by a Covenant, that was at first laid in the subversion of our English Freedom, to prosecute their Ruin?  
8. Especially, against the Grain of Authority, the current of the Laws, and in an Age so zealous to fulfil the Prophecy of Dr. Featly, who at their lowest, asked this question; How know ye whether Episcopacy may not be revived and raised up again by future Acts of Parliament, in times as well affected to the Clergy, as these are ill.  
9 For the Rights of Episcopal Government are again confirmed by King and Parliament: and they that have places therein have as clear a title thereunto by Law, as any other Subject hath to his temporal estate: and how can a Covenant bind us to injure others, who are first obliged by God himself to walk honestly?  
10. Here I humbly offer, whether the King himself can be bound by Oath to destroy his people, or any society or person of his Subjects? especially, out of his Parliament, and when he is according to his Oath and his Office, if he should never take his Oath, bound to do Justice to all, according to Laws already made, the true measure of all men's Rights: Salus populi hath a Supremacy over the King: at least, the King of Kings hath so, who hath first obliged him to distribute Justice, and preserve the Rights and Liberties of his people impartially, and without respect of persons.  
11. We are sure, the last King, of ever happy Memory, did not consent to the Covenant: or if he had, he was first bound expressly to the contrary by his Coronation Oath, to defend the Bishops, and maintain their Canonical privileges.  
12. And in the behalf of the present; we may be bold to say, the Parliament imposing the Covenant, only by an Ordinance, which lost its force at their dissolution at his Father's death, he could not confirm the Covenant by any Act of his without a Parliament: and the former Ordinance ceased with the former Parliament: and the Petition of Right tells us, that it is contrary to the Liberties of the Subject, to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament: and much more so, if against the Freeholds, and the very being of so many famous Corporations in the people of England.  
13. The King is bound to Right; but cannot be bound to wrong any of his Subjects: any such obligation is void of itself; for the Oaths of Kings must also have the condition, so far as lawfully we may; who are accountable to God, (though not to man) by whom they are entrusted with the good of their Subjects, and to whom they have sworn.  
14. Therefore David when he had made a rash Oath, that he would slay 
1 Sam. 25. 32.  Nabal and all his Household, rejoiced when he had occasion offered by Abigail to break his Oath: and though he swore to Shimei, that he would save 
2 Sam. 19 23.  his life; yet, as if upon better advice he had found that that person had deserved to die, and been convinced that it was expected from God that Justice should be done; he commanded his Son Solomon to put him to death: and doubtless, it had been better for Herod to have saved John Baptist; though he had broke his Oath, and lost his Reputation, in some measure, with the people.  
15. Especially, if through fear or any other temptation, the King should be thus prevailed with, to promise or swear to injure his Subjects; The Case than is, as if a man under threats of a Robber, should swear to bring him his Neighbour's horse.  
16. Now whether the thing sworn in fear and under temptation be unlawful and unjust, or not, must be judged by the Conscience of the party sworn.  
17. Whence may issue two Cases, with respect to the time when the Oath is made; and when it is to be performed. But one answer doth serve them both: for when the Conscience dictates the thing sworn to be unlawful, it will rule the Case: if a man swears for fear, against his Conscience, his Conscience being God's Vicegerent within him, he sins against God in swearing; God by his Conscience having the first Obligation upon him. And if he should perform his Oath against his Conscience, he fins twice: first, by doing evil, and secondly, by keeping his evil Oath. For as the Right Reverend Bishop Sanderson concludes this very case, such Oath doth not bind against Conscience.  
18. The Author of the Covenanters plea would feign say something to weaken this Conclusion of the Bishop, supposing the matter of the Oath to be lawful in itself, and only appearing to be evil to him that swears it: but though he make a flourish towards it, if we apply his discourse to our present Case of the Covenant, it vanishech into air.  
19 For though it be true, that an erring Conscience doth not obligare, it cannot be denied but it doth ligare; and consequently suspend the performance of the thing sworn, so long as the party apprehends the matter to be sinful, whether it be indeed so, or not.  
That is, no one is bound by the Covenant to endeavour to extirpate the Government of the Church by Prelacy, while he is persuaded that so to do is sinful, and to the injury of the Church.  
20. And it is all one, whether the Conscience of the party, as I have said, did thus judge the thing unlawful, when he swore it, or is since so convinced; for we may not aggravate a rash Oath with unlawful practice, that is, against Conscience.  
21. But if the matter of the Covenant be unlawful in itself, as hath amply appeared, in such a Case, truly there is no dispute; for here Conscience dictates nothing but Truth and Duty: and it were sad adventure, for a King himself to second Herod; and to fulfil a wicked Oath by a more wicked Act, against his Conscience, and his Brother, and his God too.  
Si facere intendit, bis peccat: & ex 
Tolet. Cas. Con.  intention quam habet peccandi, & ex Juramento supra rem injustam.  
The Case of Abbots in Henry the Eights time, is too weakly compared with the Case of the Bishops in ours, unless it be proved that the Abbots were as useful in the Church as the Bishops, etc. That the Bishops, etc. are declared to have run into a proemunire, as the Abbots were. That the Abbots had none to represent them in the Parliament, as the Bishops had not; and especially that the King was not Active or any way consenting to the Act for the destruction of the Abbots, as he was not to the Covenant for the Extirpation of the Bishops, which are not to be undertaken.    

CASE XVII.  
Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant, be not against former Obligations, and consequently sinful.  

Resol.  
THe first Spring of all Obligation is in God: Laws bind us, Love binds us, Oaths and Covenants bind us, but how? as God in Nature or Scripture binds us, he requires us to love our Neighbour as ourselves, and not to wrong him. To obey Authority, and observe their commands, to pay our vows, and fulfil the Oath that is gone out of our Lips.  
2. It is a sure Rule that as God himself is ever the same, so his Moral Obligations upon us change not. Neither can any Act of ours take off, or weaken our Obligations to him.  
3. Hence it eternally follows, that a latter Obligation against a former is of no force, but void of itself; because the former Obligation being from God, and of a Moral Nature, it is eternal, as God is, and fixed, and not to be broken.  
4. There seem to be three Bonds or Cords of God to have had force upon us, before the Covenant was taken or thought of: all which the Covenant is against, and endeavours to break in the Second Article of it: to Obey Authority, to keep our Oaths and Promises, and to serve the Church in our Generation.  
1. First, God hath first, both by Law of Nature, and holy Scripture, bound us by his Sovereign indispensable command, to honour our parents, to obey them that have the Rule over us, to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether to the King as supreme, or to those that are sent and Commissioned by him: and of necessity to be subject not only for wrath, but Conscience sake: because the powers that be are ordained by God, ordained to be Ministers of God: whosoever therefore resisteth, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and consequently God himself.  
2. Were not these Obligations upon us, even on our very Consciences, before the Covenant was taken? did not the Covenant find these bars within us? was not the Conscience thus prepossessed against it? and locked up from it?  
3. But how was the Covenant contrary to these Obligations? yea rather how was it not! it being imposed and taken against the King's Laws: and the matter of it, as we have showed, being against the Rights both of King and Parliament: and the Government of the Church set over us, by the King and Laws, made both before, and since the Covenant.  
4. More particularly, God first obligeth us to be subject, and obey our Governors: and the Covenant would engage to disobey, disown, and destroy them: I mean, our Governors in the Church, it would discharge us of our Obedience, and oblige us to resistance, contrary to Gods express Obligati●● upon us, which cannot be.  
5. Again, the Civil Authority requires us to obey our Ecclesiastical Governors: The Civil Authority by Acts of Parliament requires us to declare that we are not obliged to resist them, to endeavour to extirpate them; to this also we oppose the Covenant, though God first hath bound us to obey our Rulers, which cannot be.  
6. I have spoken to this, under another Argument before; I shall here therefore, only add the plain, but very weighty, and Authentic testimony of Mr. Perkins, who very distinctly foresaw 
Cases of Conse.  our Case.  
7. He lays down two Rules, among others, that methinks might decide our Controversy.  
1. If an Oath be taken against the Laws of the Land, or Country whereof a man is member, it binds not; he doth not say that it was sinfully taken only, but it binds not at all: he gives the very reason for it, which I am now improving: because on the contrary, God's Commandment binds us to keep the good Laws of men.  
8. Therefore the Covenant, so far as it is against the just Laws of the Kingdom, that is, such Laws as are not unjust or evil in the matter of them, can not bind at all, because God hath first commanded us and bound us to the contrary.  
9 2. Again (saith Mr. Perkins) if at the first the matter of the Oath were lawful, and afterwards by some means becomes either impossible or unlawful, it binds not the conscience: when it gins to be unlawful it ceaseth to bind, saith he, because the binding virtue is only from the word of God.  
10. Thus also, had there been no Law to render the matter of the Covenant unlawful, when it was taken; yet it being now unlawful to endeavour to change the Government sworn against: yea it being a duty to declare that we hold ourselves not bound by the Covenant so to do, the Covenant cannot oblige, either thus to endeavour which is forbidden, or not thus to declare which is required; for the one is a sin of Omission, the other of Commission, but both sin, to which no Covenant can possibly oblige: for than it should oblige us against God himself.  
2. Secondly, the matter of the Covenant in the Second Article is against many former Oaths, whereby the Nation stood obliged before the Covenant was imposed or taken: and in that regard we were first obliged by God to the contrary.  
1. Not to speak of that natural Allegiance in which all Subjects by the will of God in the very law of Nature, as well as Scripture, are born obliged, when they are born Subjects unto our lawful Prince; the Oath of Allegiance superadded re-enforceth us to obey him in all his lawful commands.  
2. And according to the Rules above mentioned, whether this Oath be actually taken before the Covenant or after, we are by the Divine obligation to obey the King's Laws; and to declare that the Covenant doth not bind us against the King's Ecclesiastical Government, or against his will expressed in the Laws of the Land, whatsoever is hitherto urged to enervate the same.  
3. Especially, if we add the direct obligation of the Oath of Supremacy; wherein we all own and Recognize the King in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, Supreme Governor. For how can the Oath to extirpate his Government, and destroy his Officers against his will and his known Laws, consist with his sworn Supremacy? or in the cause of Ecclesiastical Government, how do those Ecclesiastical persons acknowledge him to be their Supreme Governor, while they resist him, against his express Laws, in this very cause, even with endeavours to extirpate his Government?  
4. Besides many of the ancient Ministry stand more immediately obliged to the Government of the Church, by their subscriptions to thirty nine Articles: wherein they have set their hands, that there is nothing superstitious or ungodly in the Form and Manner of Making, Consecrating ●nd Ordaining of Bishops, Priests and Deacons: as also in the form of their very Ordination as Deacons and as Presbyters; in which, they solemnly promised to obey their Ordinary, and to follow his godly Judgement: which they also bound with the Oath of Canonical obedience.  
5. Lastly, the general protestation, taken some years before the Covenant, must needs effect the discharge of it so far as they are contrary.  
6. That the Protestation was as legal as the Covenant, as yet none ever questioned. It was imposed by the same power, at least it was never proclaimed against by the King, as the Covenant was: and that, the Author of the Covenanters plea argues, did sufficiently ratify it. It was taken by the same persons generally, and indeed by thousands more than the Covenant was, and that is, doubtless, enough, by Mr. Croftons' Logic, to conclude it National and perpetual, and not to be violated or made void, by any future power or obligation or Covenant whatsoever.  
7. But wherein is the Covenant contrary to the Protestation?  
1. In the Protestation we promised to maintain the privileges of Parliament; which, as I have shown before, by our standing bound by the Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government, notwithstanding its establishment by Act of Parliament; and by superseding Parliamentary power for ever, enjoining our subjection to it, are sufficiently violated:  
2. In the Protestation, we also promised to defend the liberties of the Subject. These are also violently seized on by this Second Article of the Covenant; herein so great and considerable a part of the Nation, as Ecclesiastical Governors are, have their freeholds sworn against; and their Power and Offices threatened with utter extirpation, Notwithstanding the protection of the King and the Laws; yea when neither their King that gave them their Commissions, nor any to represent them, had liberty to vindicate their cause, or speak in their behalf in the Parliament, when destruction was contriving by this way of a Covenant, for them.  
3. But these things have been hinted before, and unanswerably handled by others: I hasten to the third and last way of preobligation mentioned, viz. for the service of the Church in our generation; when I have sealed that, from our Oaths and promises now spoken to, with that general Rule of Dr. Ames, never yet acquainted with doubt,— Juramentum posterius contra Juramentum, aut etiam promissionem Antecedentem & honestam, non obligat; a latter Oath, that is against a former honest Oath, or but a promise, doth not bind.  
3. Thirdly, I doubt not to say, that the Covenant cannot bind us to forsake our duties; or discharge us from the exercise of our offices in the service of the Church, whereunto we are called: and to which we are obliged by God in his Word, before ever the Covenant was thought on.  
1. I acknowledge, that my Lord of Lincoln teacheth that the seeming hindering of some good, doth not simply or precisely always discharge us from our Oath: except there be other circumstances concurring, which evince it non obliging.  
2. But there seems to be no room for a question here, when our place and duty requires us to do that which would be hindered: for then the discharge results also, yea and principally, from a former Obligation of God upon us, to do our duty.  
3. A man swears he will never come near such a River more, because he had like to have been drowned there: but at a distance, he sees his Neighbour in the same hazard at the same place: now certainly, notwithstanding his Oath to the contrary, he is bound to help his Brother out, and to save his life. What is the reason of this? there was a prior Obligation of God upon him, thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself.  
4. Dr. Jacob the Casuist puts a harder Case by far than this; A man swears to another that he will do him no hurt, yet if by the Law he kills him afterwards, he doth not break his Oath; his reason is, quia illa promissio non occidendi subintelligitur, nisi lege permittente, implying, that there was a preobligation upon him to fulfil the Law.  
Indeed, the thing sworn must be indifferent in itself, or at least of weaker necessity, than the good that would be hindered by the keeping our Oath, and then all Casuists, I think, concur with Jacob and Sylvester; qui indifferens aliquid jurat, ut ite ad villam, non esse militem, etc. Dato Casu quo quis vivere nequeat, nisi veniat contra Juramentum, illud servare non tenetur, & propriâ Authoritate contravenire potest.  
5. Now, if to endeavour extirpation of Episcopal Government be not sinful, I am sure it is non-necessary, and then it is but an indifferent thing: if so, though men have sworn it, yet if the keeping their Oath will hinder the doing of their Natural duty, both to the King in breaking his Laws, & casting off his Government: and to the Church, and our several Congregations, in putting ourselves into an incapacity according to Law, to serve any longer in the Ministry: we are so far discharged of our Oath by the preobligation of God to our Necessary duty; and (notwithstanding the Covenant) we be to us if we preach not the Gospel.  
6. Upon this ground I stand, and assert, that the Argument ab impeditivo boni, is not so sleight, as the Reverend Author of the Covenanters plea would render it. Neither doth that Author himself say, that in no Case the Argument will hold: yea at last, he seems to concur with other Casuists, in the Allowance of it, with these four grains or conditions; it must be a greater good that is hindered: this greater good must be attainable no otherwise, but by the violation of the Oath. This good must be certain, and the Oath must be only made to God.  
7. Having laid down these Rules, the said Author bids a challenge to his absolver's, to apply them to the Case of the Covenant; and though the stress of the Argument lies not here, I humbly accept it.  
1. I dare affirm, that greater good would accrue to themselves, and to the Church of God, and their Native Country, by not endeavouring the extirpation of Episcopacy, or the present Church-government, and by declaring that ye are not bound so to do, and thereby continuing your employment in the Church, then by any sober and reasonable man can possibly be imagined, as things and Laws now are, by such endeavours.  
2. What fruit can you look for from such cross proceed to Government and Law, but the loss of your place, your capacities to dispense your trust, to employ and improve your Talents, and, if so many fall together as is feared, the distraction of the Nation, the discontent of the people, the grief of our King, and the great hazard and loss of the Church.  
3. On the other side, how great advantage must needs follow upon a general conformity (notwithstanding the Covenant) to the Church and State? how great satisfaction to our Governors, especially to our most gracious King, whose indulgence you yet rejoice in, and he yet continues, as the space of your repentance and obedience, after two years' patience, and long suffering. How much Right would you thus do the Laws, your selves, your families, and your several Congregations: yea how much encouragement, you that are Leaders, might you hereby give to your Brethren? your nonconforming Brethren, who depend on you, and wait your motions, whom you have, as it were power to save or destroy? your conforming Brethren, who are scandalised by your means before the people? and made the scorn and reproach of such as count themselves extraordinary Saints, for your sakes? saying, We will do any thing to save our Live, but such and such are the only faithful and conscientious Ministers, they will not conform. How might you (it is much in your power) how might you thus allay our storms, still the noise of the people, and in a short while leave nothing amongst us but peace, and unity, and amity, and all blessed advantages of profiting souls, of destroying Heresies, of reforming abuses, and crushing that spirit of profaneness you so much, and continually complain of: but are running from the only visible remedy of it in the world. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you to understand it.  
2. Give me leave therefore, in the second place, to say also, that these goods, cannot be attained by us any other way; for by the Laws Ministers cannot discharge or attend upon their Offices; neither can the people (if they are bound by the Covenant, not to own, but to resist the Government of the Church,) concentre together in the peace and settlement of Church or State, they must not own the Government, nor conform to the proceed of it; nor the Laws about it; and yet the civil Authority will stand by it, defend it, protect it, second its Decrees and Acts with the severe penalties the Law hath provided; and what weeping and complaining, what wasting and ruining of Estates and Families? what public distraction and confusion must needs follow?  
3. Which, thirdly, is as certain as our King and Parliament by Statute Law can make it. Neither can any sober man, and one that expects not the fruits of Rebellion and Treason; for a Reformation, imagine how things can alter without a Miracle: we have as much certainty both Logical and Moral, as wise men know the Nature of the Case will bear.  
4. Lastly, this Oath was made, at least in this Article, to God only: to say the Scots were parties in the first Article hath some colour, but not in the second: for what were they concerned in our Government, while it is was covenanted, not to meddle with theirs?  
How ever both the parties promised what they had no power or right to do, as I suppose is now past the Controversy with both Nations?  
And, my dear Brethren in the Ministry of the Gospel, let me seriously request you to consider; that though for your Oaths sake you ought to quit your own interest, yet the Churches, or the States you cannot. Pray satisfy yourselves in this one thing.  
1. Before you lay down; who gave you power to expose yourselves to an incapacity of serving God, and his Church in your high and holy calling, and give her up to the hazards and ruins, you say you foresee, by covenanting against that, which is now made, (as you know) by Law, the condition of your station, and discharge of 
Laz. Seyman.  your office?  
2. 'Twas the sentence of a learned Presbyterian, that the Edification of the Church must proceed as providence makes way. And who hath warranted you to plead your Covenant (in things not necessary) for the obstruction of it?  
3. Ask yourselves, was not the Law of God, requiring all that should be received into the Office of the Ministry, to Preach the Gospel, to be a faithful Steward of the Mysteries of God, to Watch for Souls, in a constant distribution of all Ordinances to their several Congregations; ask yourselves, I say, were not these Laws of force before your Covenant? how comes it to pass then, that you plead your Covenant to the voiding of them? in such things too, as certainly are not conditions of God's commands?    

CASE XVIII.  
Whether the matter of the Covenant be not sinful: though taken and imposed by the two Houses of Parliament?  

Resol.  
1. HItherto we have considered the Covenanters as so many private and single persons: and found, that it is not lawful for such to endeavour a change of Church-Government against the Law.  
2. Let us now look on them as united: and examine, what validity that adds to the Covenant, or what legality to such endeavours.  
3. It is said, and much insisted on, that the two Houses of Parliament, and the generality of the people took the Covenant.  
But indeed, though this may much alleviate the fault of the vulgar and particular private persons: in the gross, it adds weight to the transgression: for so great a body of Covenanters, without their head, casts no shadow upon that action, other then to darken and put out all colour of lawfulness.  
4. Had a private company of persons entered into a private League among themselves, to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy; it had not been near so dangerous, nor their endeavour to perform it, in likelihood, so open and seditious, and destructive to the public.  
5. But so great a body made up of Members of all sorts (but the head to guide them and warrant their Actions) and all engaging by a Solemn public Oath, to their power, in their places, with their Lives, Estates (as the Covenant expresseth it) to extirpate the Government of the Church. I cannot but witness, that indeed, here lay the Eminency of Sedition.  
Hence a Lawyer, in his place, is sworn to plead; a Member of Parliament to Vote; a Minister to Preach, a Soldier to Fight, a Countryman to Contribute; and all to their power, and with their Lives and Estates, and the utmost hazard of them, against that Government, though established by Law; against the express mind of the King: and though also the power imposing were in actual Arms against the King, even when they imposed it, and the people took it.  
6. Thus every one, as related to the body, was an Actor in every one's part: and no doubt, every one that did but contribute as a Covenanter, did Counsel, Vote, Preach, and Fight, against Law and Government, not to say, the King.  
7. And if any person, that was then zealous for the Covenant would speak freely, he would easily resolve us, that he meant more when he took it, then to endeavour in his place in Master Crofton's and the Author of the Covenanters pleas's, Modern sense.  
8. Indeed, the work and business of the Covenant, as all ingenuous Covenanters must needs confess, and be humbled for, was too too apparent to be this, viz. to engage the Nation to extirpate Episcopacy, and to endeavour in such a manner, as though they knew the King would not consent at present, yet vi & armis they would force him to it, or at least do it without him.  
9 Nothing can be more clear, though nothing can be more sad and doleful to remember, if the primitive meaning of the words in our places in the Covenant was any thing at all, it was only to keep the people from turbulence and confusion among themselves; and not at all to hinder them from rising up in Arms, against the King and his Army, or at least the King's Army; the visible way they took, to perform their Covenant, and extirpate Prelacy.  
10. But I take no delight to recover the memory of these things; as the Law hath pardoned them; so I hope, my Brethren have seen the folly and madness and sin of them; and are truly ashamed to remember them. I also crave pardon of my Reader for the mention of them, with this true Apology, that my Argument forced me to it.  
But we will leave the fact, and inquire after the jus, viz.    

CASE XIX.  
Whether the two Houses, without the King, could bind themselves and the people of these Kingdoms, with an Oath, to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government.  

Resol.  
IT will easily appear they could not, by a few Propositions.  
1. The King is caput communitatis, and no Act can pass, or Law be made, to bind the people without his fiat; the Laws are therefore called the King's Laws, and said to be Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty; indeed not without the Consent of the Lords and Commons, and the Authority of the same.  
The Excellent Bishop so often mentioned, concludes and proves at large, the power Legis-lative to be a power Autocratical, and gives a sad memento to some, that the wild notion of  power is a Ridiculous Invention: and that such as received it, by this gross Sophism, became guilty of the foulest perjury; for by it they Acknowledge and constitute a power equal to him in the Kingdom, whom, in express terms, they have sworn to be the only Supreme power in the Kingdom.  
Secondly, the King is the Fountain of all Justice, as well as Law, (as the Law itself acknowledgeth) and hath the execution of the Law first in himself, from whom all Officers, as subordinate, derive their very Office, as well as power of execution.  
Thirdly, The Government of the 
Prop. 3.  Church cannot be altered, except the Laws be altered, nor yet without Vncommissioning the King's Officers, as all Ecclesiastical Governors are. Neither of which may lawfully be done, without the King.  
Therefore Fourthly, The altering 
Prop. 4.  of Church-Government, both as it requires a change of the Law, or an Vncommissioning the King's Officers, est res quae Regis potestati subijcitur, in a very high and eminent manner; and by fair consequence, according to the Rule held undisputable by all Casuists, neither Parliament, nor people, nor both together, can be bound to endeavour the Alteration of the Government of the Church, without this Condition. Si Regi etiam placuerit, if it shall also please the King.  
Which pleasure of the King to alter any thing settled by Law, must not be in private, or in a private manner expressed, but in a Regal Act, when his two houses present him with a Bill to that purpose; otherwise the Laws are still the same, and our Obligations to them, especially for the ratifying any Act or Undertaking of the Parliament, as the Case is here; But all the world knows, this was never done, and thereupon according to the Rule, the Obligation of the Covenant ceased immediately.  
No Act of one Parliament can bind 
Prop. 5.  all future Parliaments, not to meddle with any thing that is within the power of Parliament: such an Act, as before was showed, is void in itself; much less could that Ordinance of Parliament about the Covenant survive that Parliament, and supersede the power of all future Parliaments, to restore and establish Episcopal Government.  
Neither could they bind themselves or the people absolutely, and for ever, thus to endeavour, without breach of the privileges of all future Parliaments without this Condition, [if they should also like and approve it:] and that such endeavours should never be forbidden by King and Parliament, in any future Law to the Contrary: but that is now done, & datur irritatio Juramenti; and the Covenant is voided in that point.  
Thus, we are at length got over the great stone of stumbling, the Obligation of the Covenant; only, a weak mistake or two, about this part of the declaration, remains to be discovered, and we shall pass on.  

Obj. It is said, that many things in the Covenant are Morally Good, and how then can we abjure it?  
Answ. 1. My Dear Brethren, pray spare such hard words: you know the word [Abjure] is not in the Act; And therefore should not be used by men of Conscience to the trouble of their Brethren, and the more ignorant or inconsiderate part of the people.  
2. We are not called to swear at all, much less to Abjure or Vnswear, as some too scornfully, yet too frequently, as well as falsely love, to speak: which is comely in none, much less Ministers, especially such as expect persecution.  
3. Neither, are you required to declare against any thing that is good in the Covenant or that is not evil: or rather against nothing either good or evil in the Covenant directly, only by Consequence: for we are only to declare that it doth not bind to endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State; which seeing it cannot be done without breach of the Laws, we have found to be sinful; and therefore it is inhabilis ad Obligationem producendam.  
4. If any do hold that they are bound by that Covenant to be more Loyal and faithful to the King, and to reform their own lives, etc. the Act doth not say, that they must hold or declare the contrary.  
5. We read it under the Royal hand: I willingly forgive such men's taking the Convenant, who keep within such bounds of Piety, Law and Loyalty, as can never hurt either the Church, myself, or the public peace,— against which no man's Lawful Calling can engage him.   

Obj. But why should we, or how can we declare for others? do we know another's Conscience, or how far he is bound?  
Answ. 1. This Complaint ariseth also from mistake: as if we were called to declare what other men think or hold of the Covenant; whereas indeed, we are not required to trouble ourselves, whether others think or hold themselves bound by it or no: but to declare what we ourselves think or hold: not, that others are not bound by the Covenant at all, as before, but so far only, as not to be troublers of peace, or enemies to Government.  
2. Now if this be unlawful (as hath methinks appeared sufficiently,) nemo tenetur ad illicitum: neither we nor any other are obliged unto it: and if it be a breach of the Act, not so to declare: we are also to declare, as we are required, that we hold there lies No Obligation upon our selves, or any other person, by virtue of that Oath called the Covenant, to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government, either of Church or State.     

CASE XX.  
Whether it be lawful to declare, that the Covenant was in itself an Unlawful Oath.  

Resol.  
1. WE are come to the second branch of the Declaration, touching the Covenant, that the Covenant was in itself an unlawful Oath.  
2. I shall not fly to the following words, which may be exegetical of these, to prove it so, viz. because it was imposed against the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom: but allow that phrase [unlawful in itself] to carry more in it, than the bare illegality of the Imposition.  
3. Indeed, if it be granted, that it was unlawful in the Imposition, as the boldest writer for Obligation of the Covenant do not deny; this avoidable draws on another kind of illegality on the takers part: for if it was unlawful in the imposing, 'twas much more so, in the taking of it; It is unreasonable to Imagine that the Common people had any more warrant thus to swear in a public Covenant, about matters of public concernment, without the consent of the King, than the two houses had, to require it of them.  
4. And though it will not follow, that the Covenant is not obliging, merely because it was sinfully enjoined, or sinfully taken; it will follow, against all Contradiction, that a Covenant illegally taken is even therefore an unlawful Oath, and that is the thing we are here called to declare.  
5. That is no more than this; that the people's covenanting in so numerous a body, in so public a manner, and about matters of so public concernment, without and against the mind of their King is an unlawful Act: and though the matter of the Covenant could not have been proved to be unlawful, yet thus it is properly, because formally an unlawful Oath.  
Therefore, it is worth the heeding, for the satisfaction of such a scruple, that the Act doth not call us to declare, that the Covenant was in itself unlawful (as some too arelesly say it doth) that might have seemed to reflect upon the matter of the Covenant: but that it is, in itself, an unlawful Oath, which rather seems to intent the form and manner of it, as a public Covenant, as was now said, taken by a numerous body of Subjects, without and against the mind of their King.  
I shall not need to repeat, what hath been urged before, to prove the main matter of the Covenant unlawful; but shall seal up this, with that unquestionable Rule of my Lord of Lincoln; who pleaseth to acknowledge, that sometimes, though the pactum be illicitum, yet res pacta licet: the things sworn may be lawful, yet the Oath an unlawful Oath.    

CASE XXI.  
Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom?  

Resol.  
WE are now, even at our Journeys end, and the sooner because we hardly met with any 〈◊〉 in our way, in the present Case.  
1. I find there is nothing more easily yielded to be unlawful, touching the Covenant, than the imposition of it; and how it can be unlawful in the imposition, except it were imposed contrary to the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom, I cannot apprehend.  
2. It is enough, that we read it as a fundamental in the Petition of Right, that it is contrary to the Liberty of the Subject to have an Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament: and the Long Parliament itself, that imposed the Covenant, never pretended to make an Act of Parliament without the King: or if they had done so, it had been to very little purpose, because they had thus pretended to do what they could not do; and acted against the known Constitution of the Kingdom, as their successons did.  
3. If it should be said, that the Oath made with the Gibeonites was against the Liberties of the people, and yet it was found to be obliging.  
First, we are not here called to declare the non-obligation of the Covenant, but the illegal imposition: yet, seeing we had no occasion to speak unto this Objection before, briefly a word or two, now.  
2. There is no resemblance betwixt the Covenant made with the Gibeonites, and the Covenant we treat off. That Covenant was not imposed on either part; but freely taken, and therefore could not be against the Liberties of the people; volenti non fit injuria.  
3. Besides, the Text saith expressly, that Joshua made the League with them, who was Supreme; and all the Princes of the Congregation swore unto them: whereas, many of our Princes did refuse the Covenant, yea, for aught we know, most of them; and our Joshua, the King, proclaimed against it.  
4. Again, that League was, to show too much favour to strangers, and enemies: but the Covenant endeavours to root out a very considerable part of our own Nation.  
5. Again, by that League there was no Fundamental, no Law at all violated, no hurt done: by ours, many Laws are to be torn in pieces: the King's Prerogative, whose consent was necessary, invaded: the privilege of Parliament to make new Laws, in things lawful, or establish the old, broken: the liberties of the people, in being imposed on, with the Covenant, without an Act of Parliament, and having so many societies of Ecclesiastical persons destroyed, plainly subverted.  
6. Indeed, nothing can be said, why the Oath made in favour of the 
2 Sam. 21. 2.  Gibeonites by Joshua, the King, and all the Princes and people, should not oblige: and nothing can be said, why the Covenant made with hatred of the Bishops, for their injury and ruin, by a part of the Parliament and People, without, and against the King and the Laws, when (contrary to the very Constitution of the Land) there were none to represent them, in either House; nothing I say, can reasonably be said, why such a Covenant, so far at least, should bind at all. One may be bound to do the good he hath sworn, so was Joshua, etc. to the Gibeonites; one cannot be bound to do the evil he hath sworn, as the Covenant would have him.  
7. Israel was cheated into a Covenant, that hurt none but themselves; if themselves at all; and therefore their Covenant obliged them: England, that is, a great part of it, was also cheated (pardon the expression) into a Covenant that injured the Takers, and every body else; the King, the Parliament that made it, all future Parliaments, the Liberties of the people, the Governors and Government of the Church, yea, and God himself, and the Consciences and Souls of the Takers themselves, (by breaking the bonds of all former obligations upon them, to the contrary;) as in particular hath before appeared; and how then can it bind to so much iniquity?  
I need say no more to this or other instances of Zedekiah's Oath, etc. or, I presume, to this Argument of the Declarations: that hath indeed engaged me longer than at first I foresaw.     

A general Conclusion, touching the Lawfulness of Re-ordination, and the Government, Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England.  
THere is but one thing more, in the condition of Law, required of Ministers, by the Act of Uniformity; Re-ordination of such, as are only Ordained already by Presbyters; and Ordination of such as are not, by Bishops. I hope, such as are concerned herein, will not stand too much upon this, considering, that liberty is not denied them, to keep their own sense, whether the Ordination by Presbyters only is valid or not: also that the Act makes itself no judge of the Ordination by Presbyters in foreign Churches: also, that there is no other way, according to the Law of the Land to exercise their Ministry in this Church; as also, that if their former Ordination should be confirmed by any other form, it could not pass for legal Ordination in this Church or Nation: nor legally entitle them to the care of souls, or to the profits of their places; no other being thought fit to be appointed, or allowed by our Governors; and therefore their submission thereunto cannot be a taking God's name in vain, which hath so good and so necessary an end; but especially considering, that worthy Mr. Humphrey, hath written so effectually and so largely already, upon this Subject.  
He hath so well prevented my pains herein, I have only to refer my Brethren to his Books for their full satisfaction in this point.  
2. Concerning that which I have written, in this Treatise, give me leave to subscribe (which I do, animo) that I have not used one Argument, but I really judge it convincing, and such as is not, either, answered or prevented by any thing written, either by Mr. Crofton, or the learned and sober Author of the Covenanters plea.  
3. Neither can I divine, what may possibly be urged against the Declarations, that is not answered; except only the unlawfulness of the Government, Liturgy, or Ceremonies of the Church: all which are indeed concerned in the Declarations required.  
4. I confess, I took the lawfulness of these in themselves for granted, and my reason, I hinted at the beginning of my book, namely, because I was to treat such only, or chief, with it, as had purposed to conform, had not the Act required them thus to declare: such I conceived, did not believe the Government of the Church, or any Office or Ceremony of the Common Prayer Book, was in it self unlawful; who by their Conformity intended before, to own the one, and practise the other.  
5. However, let me humbly beseech my Brethren, (if thus they scruple) seriously to Consider, that the ablest Pens, that ever Engaged in these great Controversies, have hitherto found it a task too difficult for them, to evince, that either the form of Government, or any thing required in our Liturgy, is in itself unlawful.  
6. Yea, give me leave to make my Observation, that very few that have been Learned, and Sober, and Faithful in the point, since the Reformation, to the beginning of our late Troubles, but (though they have much scrupled at first) have argued themselves at length into a Conviction, at least of the lawfulness of them.  
7. I hope my Brethren will not take it amiss, If I offer to remember them, that Conscience is not Regula Regulans (in the first Consideration, though so in the second) but Regula Regulata: and that she hath a Rule above her, that must be a Rule unto her, and the very Synterisis and Proposition, from which alone she must draw and conclude all her definitions of things lawful or unlawful.  
8. The measure therefore of the Judgement of Conscience, is the mind of God and not our own: Not our own mind, much less our will. So that, what he commands, must be held a Duty, what he forbids, must be held a sin; and what he neither commands nor forbids, must be held indifferent: that is, in itself, to be neither a Duty nor a Sin, by every well enlightened, rightly ruled, and Indifferent Conscience.  
9 Now, if it be a doubt to any Man's Conscience what is left by God indifferent, that is, what he hath neither commdnded and made a Duty, nor forbidden and made a Sin; What remains, but that he follow the advice of our Saviour, and search the Scriptures? these, we may be sure, are the best Rule of Conscience, as the clearest Testimony of God's Mind.  
10. If yet the doubt continue, what God hath left indifferent, in the Scriptures themselves, suffer me to say, that it is not possible, that there should be a better help under Heaven for the removal of it, besides immediate Revelation (which may not be expected) then the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches.  
11. Let the person, then, that desires satisfaction indeed, bring his Conscience and the great things in question, first, to the Bar and Rule of Scripture; and if he cannot see them condemned there (as truly I cannot) let him in the fear of the Lord, and the sincerity of his heart after Truth and Peace, yet prosecute his full satisfaction, by repairing unto, and duly examining; first, what Opinion the Primitive Churches, (as soon as they took notice of these things in Controversy) had of them: and then also, ask the Judgement of the most eminent Reformed Divines; they have freely signified the same upon all occasions in their witings, ever since the Reformation.  
Now, if it be unquestionably found, that both the Primitive and Reformed Churches have unanimously testified; That they believe, the things now in Controversy with us, are not forbidden by God, but that they are at least of an Indifferent Nature, and may lawfully be used; Who art thou, O Man, that repliest? or darest say, they are unlawful.  
FINIS.   

An Addition to the first Impression, by way of Supplement to the two great Cases touching the Inexpediency and unlawfulness of things imposed.  

I. Touching the Doctrine of Expediency.  
LEst the Doctrine of Expediency should yet remain under the cloud of any exception: I have thought good to add a few things for the farther clearing of it, in Answer to the only material Objection against it.  
Object. It may be said, quòd non expedit non licet: and if that which is not expedient, be not lawful, than it may not be practised upon any pretence; for we must not do evil, that good may come.  
Answ. In Answer hereunto, I crave leave to distinguish: for things are unlawful, or evil, in specie, or in genere, only.  
That I call unlawful in specie, which is in itself, without respect to its circumstances, prohibited by some special Law, natural or positive, as Theft, Murder, Profaning the Lord's day, etc. now things simply inexpedient, cannot be thought unlawful in this sense, they being granted on all hands to be in themselves indifferent.  
That is unlawful, or evil in genere only, (on the other hand) that is not the transgression of any special Law of Nature or Scripture; but by reason of some accident, or outward respect, circumstance or consequence, (for the sake of which, the thing becomes forbidden) is unlawful by some general Rule of Decency, Order, Custom, or the like.  
Thus only are things inexpedient, unlawful or evil: not in themselves, but from their circumstances; not in their Natures, but accidentally; not as violations of a special, but of a general Law of God. So that, if the inexpediency of such a thing, for which alone it is prohibited, be either severed from it, or overbalanced, it becomes repugnant to no Law at all; and consequently, the evil and unlawfulness is, in such a case, removed. Mr. Calvin 
Institut. li. 4. c. 11. 31.  gives us some instances of this, shortly, and smartly; Quid? an in Muliere Carbaso sita Religio est ut nudo capite egredi sit nefas? an sanctum de ejus silentio decretum, quòd violari sine summo scelere non possit? an aliquid in genuflexione, inhumando cadavere mysterium, quod praeteriri sine piaculo non possit? minime.— Sed est Nihilominus in istis rebus quod agendum aut cavendum mos regionis, instituta ipsa denique humanitas, & modestiae regula dictet.  
For, that which by reason of circumstances only, is evil or unlawful, is so only accidentally, and may be not immutably so: and that which is evil by accident, in one respect, may be good, yea better in another: now if circumstances sway on the other hand, the thing that at first seemed otherwise, may thus prove expedient; and by the very reason of this Objection, lawful.  
Yea, admit that some respects do render it inexpedient; yet, if more and greater render it expedient; it thus becomes more expedient, then inexpedient; and the overbalance of expediency, concluding the Case (according to Polanus his Golden Rule,) the inexpediency must yield itself; and the thing proceeds in such an instance of practice, to be expedient and aught to be done. For, suppose the thing must either be done, or left undone: and it is inexpedient, all things considered, to leave it undone, than it is expedient, and consequently necessary, to be done.  
We must not do evil to obtain good; yet we must do good, to prevent evil, though the thing be good for nothing else. Things that are expedient, are therefore good. [It seemeth good to us] and therefore, necessary. [These necessary things] 
Acts 15.  whence, those very things, which we are afraid to do, because inexpedient, may possibly be our duty to do, because expedient.  
The sum is, things with respect to expediency and inexpediency, fall under a double consideration. And such things as in their first consideration are inexpedient, may in some second respects, be both lawful, expedient, and necessary▪ to be done.  
Now, whatsoever censure the reason given of it may conflict with; I dare say, the Proposition itself was hardly ever before opposed; and I would fain hope it is not now.  
No doubt, the Apostles knew very well, that a refusing to eat things strangled, and blood, at that period of time, especially, by a Law to enjoin it, carried, in the first consideration of it, no small inconvenience, as is easily judged from the rest of their Writings; yea, in that very Law, they grant they are burdens, (no other Burden) yet to prevent greater inconveniencies, (the Apostasy of the Jews, the interruption of the Gospel, etc.) it seemed good unto them, yea necessary so to do.  
St. Cyprian's Rule is Catholic; we 
Inst. 4. 12, 11.  either find it, or some Allusion to it, almost every where. Calvin, amongst others, citys and seals it, and my Conclusion with it. Misericorditer igitur corripiat homo: quod autem non potest, patientèr ferat, & cum delectione gemat atque lugeat.  
St. Ambrose his advice to St. Augustine's 
Vid. Aug. cpist. 86. Casula: prope finem. & epist. Januar. 119.  Mother, that she should conform to the usages of every Church where she came, (which St. Augustine received as an Oracle from God) must needs indulge my proposition; unless every usage in the several Churches where she might possibly come, were exactly squared to the strict Idea of fitness and expediency in the Matron's Mind, which can hardly be imagined. 
Servilibus oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum.   
And St. Augustine himself was in our very Case; 'tis known, he was much troubled at the multitude of Ceremonies in his time; and heavily complains of them as a burden, nay a bondage, to the Church; a bondage 
Januar. epist. 119. Ecclesia— multa tolerat. ibid.  worse than Jewish; yet who ever found him symbolising with Donatis, or in the least, to encourage any man, for any such cause, to break the Union and Peace of the Church by Separation? yea, he was the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord, against all appearances of such Schism.  
Most of the Foreign Reformed Divines, have not only asserted, but applied the Rule, to our very Case, (and therefore the rather to be heeded) and have de industriâ given their advice, from the present principle, touching Conformity in England: and what do they say in it? do they not either approve our usages, or dislike them only as inconvenient? and those they dislike as inconvenient, do they not, notwithstanding their inconvenience, yet earnestly persuade to Conformity to them? and what is it that moves them so severely to admonish them against Nonconformity, but a sad prospect of greater inconveniencies, the disquiet of the Church, the provoking of our Governors, and the laying aside the work of the Gospel.  
If Vnacquaintance with these worthy men cause any to doubt or suspect this truth; I humbly beg them, throughly to examine it, especially in the discourse of the troubles at Frankford, and those weighty papers of Bucer, P. Martyr, etc. to Bishop Hooper, Cranmer, Greendall, etc. about this very Controversy. If you read the other disputes, and occasional advices of Calvin, Zanchy, Polanus, Alesius, Beza, Saravia, Hemingius, Bucanus, Bullinger, Zepperus, Paraeus, Arelius, and the rest of that golden number; they all consent (except Illiricus) in the sweetest harmony as one man, that for some Inconveniencies imposed on us, we ought not to quit the Office of the Ministry, or hazard the Church.  
Illiricus, that only eminent foreign Divine in his Age against Conformity, had this Apology beyond us; that the Interim, full of popish errors, was then by Charles the Fifth imposed upon Germany,. Yet notwithstanding all his other excellencies what a horrid Character Melancton, yea and Beza himself gives of him and his cause: but what was his crime? he hotly persuaded all the Ministers to lay down their Ministry rather than conform; 
Bez. in vit. Calv. an. 1540  which occasioned so many Tumults, that Beza complains he promoted Popery, as if he had been hired by the Pope of Rome; and indeed, deserved that black name which a sober Historian gives him. Mathias Flaccius, homo vehemens: & quocunque loco pedem figeret, accerri mus Turbarum incentor.  
Notwithstanding, therefore, these heats of Illyricus and his furious followers, it will be their Joy and Crown, at last, that can truly say, with Lumbertus, Nihil novi attuli, sed antiquam & receptam Doctrinam, etc. I have brought in nothing new, but the old and received Doctrine of the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the general part of Modern Divines, which my Conscience, yea these my Eyes bearing me witness, I can safely do.  
When I read that imprudent, yea impudent saying of Miricus, branded by Melancton, viz. that rather than Conformity should be yielded, Desolation should be made in the Church, and that Princes are to be frighted with the terror of Insurrection: I find myself carried yet more to the contrary; and the more enamoured with the sober, safe and peaceable counsel of Melanction, and his Brethren, in the present Conclusion.  
Yet I must needs confess, that the Fruit & profit which the Church hath reaped from this Rule, [that we ought rather to conform to some things inexpedient, then to lay down our Ministry] the Fruit, I say, hereof hath more deeply affected me, than any hurt or danger of the Contrary, which haply may not be impertinent briefly to touch.  
The Ministers of Suevia (as Melancton tells us) would not conform to the use of the Surpliee, but rather chose to lay down their Ministry; But Melancton and Pomeranus, even by the force of this very Principle, that we ought to conform to some inconveniencies, rather than to leave our Ministry, 
Conc. Melanc. p. 2. sol. 91. ●  recovered most of the Ministers of marquis Albertus' Dominions, to a peaceable mind, and due Conformity.  
By the same Argument Calvin quieted the Church at Geneva, when all in an uproar about the Wafer-cake: he told them to this effect, that the thing was in itself indifferent; and for its inconvenience, they ought not to break, and hazard the Church. Generally, by this alone, he argued both Ministers and People, that scrupled at it, to conformity again.  
Neither have we been altogether without some fruit of this Doctrine in England: indeed the most eminent Non-conformists here have known its power.  
Bishop Hooper, for not practising, and for preaching against conformity, was convented before the High Commission, and imprisoned; yet at length, did conform himself. But by what means? why, at length by the pains of Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin, he became convinced of this truth (that we ought not to stick at an inconvenience, to the prejudice of the Church) and then the work was done.  
By virtue of the same principle, were a while after, Doctor Humphrey-Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Sparkes, Dr. Chaloner, Dr. Ayray, Mr. Chaderton, and Mr. Kenwstubs, all very eminent, after a long reluctancy, at last subdued, and reduced to conformity.  
In later time, Mr. Sprint, after he had shown much opposition, hath with more learning, soberness, and industry, testified to the world, that he was prevailed upon by the same Consideration: the very Title of his Book, is, the necessity of Conformity in case of Deprivation: he also assures us, in the Epistle to his Book, that by the same Argument, many others had received satisfaction from him, and doubts not but many more would.  
Give me leave to assume, that this Principle may have life and vigour still: I mean, not in itself, for so it is Moral, perpetual, and eternal, but in the minds of sober men. And that when the Tempest is over, and the thoughts of people a little more Calmed, my Brethren may discern this truth more clearly, and reap the peaceable fruit of it, (which, our good God, the God of peace, in mercy to this poor Church grant) yea, I hope I perceive, some blossoms to appear already: great is the truth, and will prevail.    

A Supplement to the Case, touching the Imposition of things unlawful.  
IT is well known, that very Pious and Learned men have ventured much further in this Argument: boldly asserting, that things not only inconvenient and unlawful in genere, but more directly sinful, even against particular Scripture, may lawfully be done in some Emergencies, and Cases of 〈◊〉.  
Neither can it be denied, but that we often find in the Scripture itself, particular commands, overruled by a more general Law of necessity; and then, doubtless, the general warrant grants a Supersedeas against particular obligation: and in such a Case it is not sinful, not to fulfil a particular command, but rather a clear obedience to God (who in the instance, takes off the force of the particular) in his more general Law.  
Thus the breakers of the Sabbath broke a particular command, yet breaking the particular, in obedience to the general rule of necessity, they do not do evil that good may come, but are reckoned 
Matth. 12. 2. 3, 4, 5.  blameless, and called Innocent. Thus also the particular Text tells us expressly, that it is unlawful for any, save the Priests only, to eat the Shewbread: yet in a straight, the general rule of necessity warrants, not only David, but those also that were with him to eat thereof. Upon the same account we 
2 Chron. 7. 72.  must put Solomon's upon an Altar not appointed: Hezeckiahs admitting to 
2 Chron. 30. 17. to 21. Act. 27. 30.  the Passeover the legally unclean: and Paul his casting the good creatures of God into the Sea.  
Yet we must still carefully distinguish betwixt things that are internally, Materially, and Naturally evil: and such things as are only extrinsically evil, or unlawful only by virtue of positive prohibitions in Scripture. For what hath been said I intent only to the latter branch, viz. such things as are evil only from without, and by virtue of God's positive precept: for such things as are Intrinsically and Materially evil, you have had my opinion about them already in the former Treatise.  
If it be well heeded, though a general rule may, in case of necessity, discharge us from present attendance upon the proper duties of the Lords Day: the Ceremonial and external parts of worship; yet no necessity that I can find will excuse wholly either Robbery, Adultery, Murder, etc. things Morally and Materially evil, and therefore Immutabiliter mala, immutably evil: at least without some thing more than a general Rule, viz. a special personal warrant; as the Israelites had, to take the goods of the Egyptians; and Abraham, to slay his Son Isaac.  
Mark the opposition, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice; the positive yields to the Natural and Moral duty; the less necessary, to the more necessasary, the less to the greater.  
Yet, in such a case, see here is a command too [I will] and this both, affirmative, [I will have mercy.] And Negative, [Not sacrifice.] No doubt, where God can have both, he will: but where he cannot, he will have mercy, though he lose sacrifice. Yea, rather than lose mercy, he will have no sacrifice, he prohibits sacrifice; in such a case, even prayer is turned into sin, and sacrifice is an abomination.  
But what is this mercy that the God of heaven so highly values, and so strictly chargeth, above his own service: truly, I can hardly think on't, without wonder, or write it without 
Mat. 12. 4, 5, 10.  astonishment: it is instanced by our 
Ver. 11, 12.  Saviour, in mercy, not only to men, but to beasts; even sacrifice to the high God must give way to mercy to our beast. Yet may we hence abate our wonder, that the Scripture saw reason to prefix that Item, go, and learn what that meaneth: as if little understood, and less practised. Go and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.  
Is mercy to our beast so highly prized? how much more is mercy to ourselves, to our Nation, to the Church, and to the souls of our people? is mercy to a beast to take place of sacrifice to God? how precious is mercy to all these, when it meets with sacrifice, and supports the Altar? and when, if we will not have both together we can have neither, how much more desirable to God and man to have mercy and piety kiss each other, then to throw away charity and duty together; which God forbidden.  
But pardon my digression, and I shall add but one instance more of this nature, and hasten to conclude with Apology. It is indeed a great one, and much more insisted on then all the rest, by reason that the practice was more general, and the nature of it more applicable. It is that famous Apostolical usage of the Jewish Ceremonies after Christ's Resurrection, and the first Christians following them, at least in some of them, viz. abstaining from blood, and things strangled (till St. Augustine's time) for the space of near four hundred year after.  
Do not all consent, that those Jewish Ceremonies, even when the Apostles used them (viz. Circumcision, Shaving, Vowing, Purifying, Abstaining from blood and things strangled (which two last they also imposed by a general Decree,) I say, do not even all consent, that these were truly Mortua (though not Mortifera) dead with Christ, and buried in his grave, and rendered unlawful to the Christian Churches, by virtue of the consequence of his Resurrection? yea, in other 
Act. 15. 10. Col. 2. 20. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 4. 19, 20.  cases, the use of them is directly reproved, as needless shadows, Ordinances of the World, Commandments of men that turned from the truth, and weak and beggarly rudiments.  
Yet, now in a second Consideration, they are occasionally approved, as good and necessary, and accordingly, as already we have said, some of them imposed, and many of them practised, by those great examples. The ends, 
Acts 15. 2, 4, 6, 7.  indeed, moving thereunto were most weighty, viz. the Unity of Brethren, Winning Souls, the Propagation of the Gospel, the prevention of Scandal, 
1 Cor. 9 19, 20. 1 Cor. 9 31. Act. 16. 3: Acts 21. 22, 24, 27, 28. In Acts 2. 23. citing, 1 Cor. 9 20.  and the danger of the Ministry through persecution.  
Calvin is peremptory, Non licuisset, saith he, it had not been lawful for believers to have retained those Ceremonies, except they had made for Edification, yet boldly adds, licuit, it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timothy.  
Zanchy, and Peter Martyr, to name no more, come near to us in their application. Peter Martyr saith, that without Controversy, the abstaining from 
Loc. come. fol. 1087. Hoopero.  blood and things strangled were Aaronical; yet defends that Apostolical injunction, for peace, and the better conviction of believers: and thence, the Surplice.  
Zanchy saith, the forbidding of things 
In Phil. 1. fol. 45. 6.  strangled and blood, smelled of Jewish superstition: and that Paul's vow, and purifying, were hay and stubble at that time. Yet he approves them for love and peace sake: and thence persuadeth Ministers, threatened by Authority, to use such Ceremonies as are hay and stubble, rather than to leave their Ministry. He concludes from this great Precedent, Ergo multa toleranda Ministris, ne pax scindatur Ecclesiarum, etc. therefore many things are to be born by Ministers for the Church's peace, and to avoid scandals: if they be neither such things, nor Doctrines as strike at the Foundation.  
But I forbear to enlarge, or apply this Argument, lest peradventure I be mistaken to charge my Brethren, with too hard thoughts of our Church's Impositions: or be thought, myself, to be too Friendly to any thing that's sinful, which God forbidden.  
I confess, it is a very tender point; and to be touched gently, both in Doctrine and Use: but though I cannot be so uncharitable as to fear our Church will try us with it: or, that it is the case of many of my Brethren, their own judgements; and lastly, in though I dare not say, how far I should venture in my own practice upon this principle; yet, I freely consent to the truth of it: neither can I question it, till I shall see the foresaid Scriptures better answered, than I have yet done.  
Yea, I do firmly persuade myself, that where there is only a Doubt concerning such unlawfulness of any thing enjoined, much encouragement to a readier obedience may justly be drawn from a prudent pondering the Premises.  
Laus Deo, Ecclesiae Pax.   

THE CONTENTS.  

The Grand Case. WHether it be lawful to declare, as is required by the late Act, Entitled an Act for the Uniformity of Public Prayers, etc. Page 1.  
CASE I. Whether it be lawful to Declare in the Words of the first of these Declartions?  
CASE II. Whether it is lawful to Declare in the words of the Second Declaration? 13  
CASE III. Whether it be lawful for us to declare, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King. 15  
CASE IU. Whether it be lawful to declare, that we do Abhor that Traitorous position of taking Arms by the King's Authority against his person, or those that are Commissionated by him. 17  
CASE V Whether we may lawfully declare, that we will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law established? 19  
CASE VI Whether we may lawfully declare in these words. I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me, or any other person, from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State. 22  
CASE VII. Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church-Government by virtue of the Covenant. 26  
CASE VIII. Whether, to Endeavour to alter the Government of the Church, be against the Rights of the King. 28  
CASE IX. Whether to endeavour thus against the King's Rights, as obliged thereunto by the Covenant, be sinful. 32  
CASE X. Whether the Covenanting to endeavour the Extirpation of Episcopal Government be against the Laws, and consequently sinful. 37  
CASE XI. Whether the present Government of this Church were Established by Law in England before the taking of the Covenant. 41  
CASE XII. Whether a Covenant taken first, can oblige us against a future Law? 47  
CASE XIII. Whether a submitting to the penalty annexed, be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in point of Conscience. 60  
CASE XIV. Whether to Endeavour the Extirpation of Church-Government, by virtue of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Laws to the Contrary, be not against the Privilege of Parliament, and consequently sinful. 67  
CASE XV. Whether it be lawful to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy, by virtue of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Act of Parliament. 74  
CASE XVI. Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject in this particular, and therefore sinful in its matter. 89  
CASE XVII. Whether the matter of the second Article of the Covenant be not against former Obligations, and consequently sinful. 98  
CASE XVIII. Whether the matter of the Covenant be not sinful, though taken and imposed by the two Houses of Parliament? 116  
CASE XIX. Whether the two Houses, without the King, could bind themselves and the people of these Kingdoms with an Oath, to endeavour the alteration of Church-Government. 120  
CASE XX. Whether it be lawful to declare, that the Covenant was in itself an Unlawful Oath. 127  
CASE XXI. Whether it be lawful to declare that the Covenant was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom? 130  
A general Conclusion, touching the Lawfulness of Re-ordination, and the Government, Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church of England. 136  
An Addition to the first Impression, by way of Supplement to the two great Cases touching the Inexpediency and unlawfulness of things imposed. 143  
A Supplement to the Case, touching the Imposition of things unlawful. 156   
FINIS.   

REcensui tractatum hunc, cui Titulus, The Grand Case: Grande quidem opus, si quod intendit efficient.  
M. Frank. S. T. P. R. P. D. Epo. Lond. a Sacris Domest. Sextilis 11ᵒ. 1662.   

THere is Extant an Excellent Piece Entitled, Some Necessary and Seasonable Cases of Conscience about things Indifferent in Matters of Religion, Briefly, yet faithfully stated and resolved: wherein the just bounds of Imposing on one hand, and of Obeying on the other, are truly Fixed, By the same Hand. Sold by Tho: Dring at the George in Fleetstreet near Clifford's Inn, 1662.