Relation of the Sufferings of Ministers in Scotland Since 1660, Section 22

Relation of the Sufferings of Ministers in Scotland Since 1660 · Section 22

p. 359SECTION XXII.

The solemne league & Covenant vindicated: And the author of the seasonable case, & caet Answered.

THe last thing which remaineth, is to shew the vanity of their pretensions who plead the nullity or non obligation of those Covenants. It is matter both of admiration, & of grief & sorrow, that there should be any found within the Church of Scotland, who had so far forgotten themselves, as now to turn not only enemies to piety & Christianity, but enemies also to very humanity, & not only break Covenanttyes themselves, but also teach others to do the fame, & that without any fear of punishment either from God or man. But God who is Jealous will not be mocked, let men dream of exemption as they please & by sophisticall chifts think to blinde their p. 360owne eyes & the eyes of others, God, who will not hold them guilt lesse that take his name in vaine, will, no doubt, by sad answers from heaven, discover the impiety & folly of these patrons of prophanity & inhumanity. Severall in the Kingdom of Engl. have vented their skill in that blake art of looseing the bonds of sacred Covenants. But their principles tending to all prophanity have been sufficiently discovered & answered by Ms Crofton & Timorcus. & there is one in Scotland who in a late pamphlet intituled, The seasonable case of submission to the Church Government, &c. tryeth how far his skill will reach in this art. O how fitly may that of Plautus be applyed to this generation

Nostra …t as non mul…um fidei g…rst.

Tabulaeotani…r, adsunt … d…odecim.

Tempus …cumque s…bit actuarius.

Tamen inven…r Rh…r qui factum negat.This age wherein we live is void of faith For writes are signed, twelue witnesses before, The notar writt'th both time & place, what more? Yet come'th a man of words who all deny'th.

But who the author is, who can tell; For though the pamphlet be published by order…, & so countenanced by authority; Yet he putteth not to his name, being (as would appear) ashamed to patronize such a bad cause: & least of all can he be known by the description he giveth of himself in the frontispiece, … lover of the peace of this Church & Kingdom unlesse he meane such a peace, as is the plague of God upon the heart, filling it with senslesnesse & stupidity, & lulling it asleep in his iust judgment, because of the palpable breach of a Covenant: Or such a peace as is very consistent with the curse & vengeance of God pursueing the quarrell of a broken Covenent. But whoever he be he tryeth his skill & strength in pulling down both the solemne league & Covenant (with which he both beginneth & endeth) & the nationall Covenant (which he fighteth against on the bye) & his strength in this matter must be tryed.

In dealing with the Solemue league & covenant he layeth downe three maine grounds.

p. 361The first is this pag. 22. That an oath howsoever in it self lawfull yet the case may be such, that by something following after, it may cease to binde, yea the case may be such that it can not lawfully be keeped. It will not be necessary to examine this, at any length, as it is here set down; but it will be sufficient to examine it, in so far as it maketh for the purpose in hand, & that will be, by examineing Whether the cases wherein he alledgeth this holdeth good, will suite the Covenant now under consideration.

He mentioneth three cases. The first is this When the matter of an oath is such as doth belong unto a superiour to determine in then the oath of the inferiour ceaseth to …blige when the superiour consenteth not to what is sworne. This is both agreeable to reason; because no deed of the inferiour can prejudge the right of the superiour, & also sound divines do acknowledge this, upon the common equitie of that law Numb. 30: 4. Unto which these things may be replyed. 1. Whether the relation betwixt subjects & Magistrats be so strait, as is the relation betwixt parents & Children & betwixt hu…band & wife, may be some what questioned, as to the matter in hand, the one being naturall, the other but politicall; the one such as cannot be changed at will, the other such as may; A man may Choose to live under what Magistrat he will, but a woman cannot cast off her parents, & her husband when she will, & take others: & therefore there may be a greater latitude allowed in the one case, then in the other, & whether Magistrats & subjects come within the compasse of that text Numb. 30 May be questioned also, seing there is nothing in the text hinting at this; Yea though Moses be speaking to the heads of the tribes, concerning the Children of Israel, yet he maketh no mention of this case, nor of any other except of two, viz. a woman under a husband, & a woman not sorisfamiliat: & though analogies may be allowed in some cases, yet there ought to be a clear ground out of the word, for such analogies as will founde an argument against the obligeing force of oaths; such analogies, as will warrand consciences in this case had need to be very clear & undoubted. 2. Though p. 362this analogie were ganted; yet this case will speak nothing to the poynt in hand, unlesse it were proved that there were no civil Magistrats in Scotland beside the King, & that all, Even the Estates of Parliament conv…ened in Parliament were subjects, & nothing else but subjects; & so though the Parliament, & all the land at the command of the Parliament should take an oath, it should not binde, if the King dissented therefrom. But there is enough said above to show that supreme soveragnitie, did never so reside in the Kings of Scotland, as that Parliaments even in their Parliamentary capacity were no sharers thereof, And this one thing is enough to disprove this phancy, viz. That the legislative power, which is an eminent part of severaignitie, did alwayes (in pa…t at least) belong unto the Parliament of Scotland; for they statute & ordaine, together with their soveraigne Lord; & therefore they are called the Acts of Parliament: Yea without a Parliament the King can make no lawes, yea nor can he make a law without all the Estates of Parliament. But of the power of the Parliaments of Scotland in making lawes, yea & over the King himself, enough hath been said: & therefore this case doth not concerne the matter in hand. 3. Let this be given, though it cannot be granted: Yet this case will not help his cause; because it can hold good in no other things, but such, in which the inferiour is subordinat to the superiour, & is by the law of God subject unto him, as the doughter, in the matter of her marriage, or the like, is subjected unto her parents; & the married wife, in the disposall of domestick goods & affaires, is subjected unto her husband: but in matters of religion & in morall duties, no wife is so subjected unto her husband nor doughter unto her parents, as that they can loose the obligation of their vowes & promises; Yea in this case it will be easily ganted that inferiours may vow & Covenant, not only without, but even against the command of superiours, for it is alwayes better to obey God then men; Now it hath been showne above that these Covenants are about morall duties & matters of religion wherein inferiours are not to waite upon p. 363their superiours, But must advance whether they will or not.

But to this he replyeth Pag. …3. That such as plead the obligation of the Covenant in the matter of Episcopacy must suppone that it is indifferent or not unlawfull, for if by God's word … be found unlawfull, then whether there had been a Covenant against it or not, it cannot be allowed. It is Answered. 1. It will not be a fit place here to lanch forth into the disput concerning Episcopacy, & more is already said against it by many famous & worthie divines, then is, or in haste will be, Answered, & as for what this Author is pleased to say for it, & against presbyterie else where in his pamphlet, it is but that which hath been said & said over againe, by others before him, who knew to put their arguments, in a better dresse then he doth, & is sufficiently answered by others: but if he had brought any new arguments forth to the field, it had then been fit to have taken some notice of them. But 2 whereas he thinketh that such as plead the Covenant obligation, must suppon that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent, & that presbytery is nothing else, he runeth alone without the company of any casuist or divine, for all do grant that an oath may be de re l…cita & possibili concerning a matter lawfull and possible, and particularly that it may b… about a matter morally good, & that in things morally good, an oath hath an obligeing force: ad quae praestanda sayeth D: Sander s…n de jur, pr…m: obl: p…ael. 3. §. 6) vel injurati tenemur, jurati multo tenemur magis, accedente scilice… ei quaepraefuit, ex praecepto, nova obligatione, ex jure…urando, i,e. for the doing of those things which we are bound to do though not under an oath, being under an oath we are much more bound, for to the former obligation ariseing from the command, there is a new obligation added, ariseing from the oath Had not the Covenants & oaths which the children of Israel swore, concerning morall dutyes, the law & the worshipe of God, an additionall tye & obligation? Ier. 50: 5. Ios. 24. Deut. 29: 3. By this meanes this author would take away this piece of God's worship & service, of vowing & swearing unto him, for it must either be about things necessary or about things indifferent: But he will have no oath p. 364or vow made about things necessary, because (sayes he) that is needlesse; nor will he have any oath or vow made about things indifferent, as shall be seen afterward; & so if he speak truth, there ought to be no vowes or oaths, at all. 4. But why may not people look even to the Covenant obligation, in things determined by the word? Doth not God lay the breach of Covenant oftentimes unto the charge of his people? & doth not this say that they were bound to look to their promises & obligations? It is true that oaths & Covenants should not be the only ground upon which to plead the lawfulnesse of such or such things; yet these promises vowes & Covenants, ought to have their own secondary place. So then, it is a poor thing to say that such as plead, for the standing force & obligation of the Covenant, must suppone that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent; for by this same reason, they must suppone also that the other great duties, which are engadged to, in that Covenant, relating to true religion & a holy life, from which (himself sayeth, Pag. 37.) no power on earth can loose, & to which they are indispensably tyed, are of an indifferent nature; which were most reasonlesse & absurd. 5. This is a hard case unto which this author would bring the Covenanters, viz. That either they must quite the obligation of the Covenant, or else say that all those particulars sworne to, in the second article: (which is the article he mainely instanceth) are but matters of indifferency and consequently say, that not only prelacy in it's height, as Hierarchicall, but poperie heresie, schisme, & every thing which is contrary to sound doctrine & the power of godlinesse, are matters of indifferencie. But would he say so in his own case. If one who had taken the oath of alleagiance, or fidelity, to his lawfull prince, or the oath de fideli administratione, in some office or other, should afterward alledge that these bondes did not binde him, for either the matter there obliged to, was a thing indifferent, & if so, he was not bound to wrong his liberty, or else duties antecedent to the oath, & then the oath, hath no force on him, & he is no way perjured, though he crosse a hundered of those oaths: Now what will this author reply in this case; hath he not (as it is usuall for such as plea…d p. 365for error) in seeking to wound the Covenanters, killed himself, & what evasions he findeth out for subjects to reject all the bondes of oaths imposed by superiours, every one seeth: And whether in so doing he doth his Maj. good service, & Acteth the part of a loyall subject, and faithfull casuist, any may judge.

But to proceed in the examination of the case set downe 4. Let this also be given unto this Author, though it may not be granted, he will not gaine his cause for let it be supponed that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent, will it thence follow that the Church may not determine, in a matter of indifferencie, concerning Church government, without the supreme Magistrat's expresse consent? Whether is the Church or the Magistrat, the fittest judge of that government, which best suiteth the Church, & tendeth most to edification, & is most expedient? whether are the Churches that live under the Turk, more able to judge of the most expedient edifying way of Church government, or the Turk himself? If he reply That he speaketh of Christian Magistrats. It is answered That heathens are as essentially Magistrats, as Christians are, & that text Numb. 30. groundeth no more an analogy for Christian Magistrats, then for heathens: And if that be a law, then he would remember that non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit, & that Christians may be subjects unto heathen Magistrats, is beyond all question: And therefore if this argueing hold good, a Christian Church living under the Turk, might not vow to maintaine and follow such a forme of Church government, as they judged most agreeable to the word of God, most advantagious for the ends of government, because, forsooth, it were a prejudging of the right of the great Turk their superiour. If he reply that the case is altered because of the Turk's granting liberty unto these Churches, to do in these things as they think meet Ans. Then the Turk is a better friend unto the Church, then the Christian Magistrat; & it were better for the Church to be under the Turk then under a Christian Magistrat. 5. Let all this be yet granted, by way of supposition, he will not gaine his poynt, for their oath in this Covenant doth p. 366not prejudge the right of the superiour; because they sweare only to endeavour, in their severall places & callings, such & such alterations, & what incroachment can this make upon the superiours right? May not a wife or a doughter sweare, in their places, & according to their callings, to endeavour the alteration of such or such a thing in the family, & yet never attempt it, without the consent of the parent or husband? May not here oath be lawfull, & binde h…re to use all faire & lawfull meanes to move & incline the parent or husband there unto? So that what ever he be pleased to say, of the way of Scotland their carrying on that businesse (in which how sowlely he erreth, may be showne hereafter) were it granted to him, will make nothing against the Covenant, concerning the obligation of which, is the difference now. Till then he make it appear that the Covenant, as worded, did directly prejudge the right of the superiour, his alledgiance is frivolous. & groundlesse. 6. This might be granted to him also (which yet cannot be done) & his cause gaine no advantage, & that for this reason; Because that place Numb. 30. Exponed accordto his owne glosse & commentary, maketh for the Covenanters every way: For. 1. They had no open dissent declared: It is true there is mention made of a proclamation declareing it unlawfull to enter into that Covenant but Mr Crofton in his Analepsis Analephthe. Pag. 120. sayeth that it was not regular, being done without the advice of his Councell, who are vailed by the session of Parliament, & sheweth also how it was a breach of privilege. But as to that, this may satisfie. That as that proclamation did not anull the act, but only prohibite it, so it did not concerne them in Scotland. Now if the parent or husband hold his peace, the oath is confirmed requiritur (sayeth doct Sanders. de jur. prom. obl. prael. 4. §. 6. It is required that there be a clear intimation of this dissent, for it is not enough for the father to say he is not well pleased with such a vow, but he must openly contradict the same, in refuseing he must refuse it, & in taking it away, he must quite take it away, as if he had said he must constantly in very deed refuse & prohibite the same; by his full power and authority. 2. Doct. p. 367Sanders. ubi supra prael. 4. §. 5. sayeth that a tacite consent will suffice, that is to say (sayeth he) When he who sweareth may in probability presume that the superiour, would not refuse it, his consent were asked. Now had not Scotland this tacite consent, when some yeers before, the King had ratified Acts of Parliament, discharging Church governement by prelats? yea more, they had a formall & expresse consent (having an Act of Parliament made by King & Parliament against the prelats) unto the thing which they did then vow & promise. 3. This dissent must be presently testified in the very day he heareth thereof; if one day passe, the oath is ratified; for (sayeth the forcited Doct. Sanders. ubi supra) he who signifieth his dissent too late, may be thought for some space of time to have consented. Now this proclamation was not before the 9. of Octob. 4. This dissent must be constant (as sayeth the forecited author) for if at any time thereafter he yeeld, the oath standeth in force; for his former dissenting did not make the oath no oath, nor loosed its obligation; But only hindered the execution, & so now the impediment being removed, the oath should be followed forth; & what is promised therein should be performed: And the Covenanters have this to say, That the King gave his after consent unto the oath when he said in his soliloquies. That good men should least offend God & him in keeping of it. But to put this out of all doubt, The King who now is (as was showne above) did solemnely owne this Covenant, & approve of all that was done in carrying on the ends of it, & promised that he would look upon the friends of the Covenant, as his only friends; & the enemies thereof as his enemies. And now, quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet, that which once pleased cannot againe displease him.

But to this the author replyeth thus. It would be considered if it was the Lord's minde in that law, That if Children or wiver having vowed, should by some meanes drive their parents or husbands out of the house,—and bargane with them either to ratify their vowes, or never to enjoy these comforts, that then the consent so obtained should be irrevocable. Ans. 1. He can p. 368be in no worse case as to this matter of giving hi… consent, then he would be, as to his swearing of an oath: Now it is granted by Casuists that an oath, unto which a man is forced, doth binde, if the matter be lawfull, otherwise, all oaths might be evited, by alledging that force const…ined to it: Even the oath of alleagiance might be question… upon this account; For it hath a penalty annexed to it, & so the swearers thereof may pretend that they were forced thereunto by the penalty: Was no… Zedeki…h's oath to Nebuchadnezzer forced? Doct. Sa…d. his determination in this may satisfie. He …bi supra Pr…l, 4 §. 5. sayeth. 2. If the matter required by force or sad fear, be not unlawfull nor injurious to any, but only some what disadvantagious to the s…er, as if one travailing should fall among robers that with drawne swords, would thre…ten his life unlesse…e would promise them such a summe of money, with an oath: In this case it is lawfull both to promise the money, & to confirme the promise with an oath. 3. I say such an oath doth oblige. And he giveth these reasons why the oath obligeth. 1. Because …e sweareth a thing lawfull & possible. 2. He did choose that which seemed best for that instant. 3. What is promised for a certane end should be performed when the end is attained. Yea which is more, an oath into which one is cheated (in which there is lesse reall will then in an extorted oath) obligeth, as that to the …ibeonites. So then if an oath into which one is forced doth oblige, much more will a consent to an oath stand, though exto…ted by fear, especially seing the text maketh no such exception. But 2. how can he say that such as were for the Covenant did deprive the King of all his worldly comforts, seing it was conscience to that Covenant that moved Scotland to call home the King, after that the Covenant breakers had taken away his fathers life, & had banished himself: And how can this shamelesse man say (as he doth pag. 24.) That the Covenant was contrived & carryed on, as if the designe had been laid to extirpat episcopacy, whether the King would consent, … not, or whatever course should be taken to force his consent vi & armis. When he cannot but know that before ever there was p. 369a word of this league & Covenant (of which he is now speak ing) prelacy was rooted out of Scotland.

But he will reply. That Scotia d did suspend this King from the exercise of his royall power until he consented, which was an unparallel'd way of usage from subjects to their soveraigne. Ans. This Gentleman would speak sparingly, lest he run himself into a premunire; for the Estates of Scotland did nothing but what the lawes of the land allowed them to do. There was an act of Parl. Parl. 1. Act. 8. K. Iam 6. enjoyning the King at his coronation to sweare to maintaine the true religion of Christ Iesus, & to rule the people according to th… loveable lawes & co…stitutions received in this rea…me, & to procure to the uttermost of his power, to the K…K & Christian people true & perfect peace. And this oath King Charles the first did swear, & what wrong did the Estates of Scotl. when they caused King Charles the II. sweare the same? It is true that both the nationall & solemne league & Covenant, were tendered to him also. But what was there in either of those different from this oath? all the question is about Episcopacy, & was not Episcopacy abolished fully by act of Parliament, & by an act of Parliament ratified & opproved by King Charles the first himself, being personally present Anno 1641? & so, was not this a received & an approved law, as full & formall, as ever any law made by any Parliament in Scotland was? And what wrong was it then to put this King to sweare to rule them by their owne approved & allowed lawes? By this, it may be seen that Reverend & learned Mr Crofton & the authors of the Covenanters plea, are mistaken through misinformation, when indirecly, at least, they alledge, or take it for granted that the Scots dealt uncivilly & disloyally with their prince in this businesse? & the reader must be intreated to look on that escape, as flowing from no ill will which they carry unto the Estates of Scotland, but meerly from want of information, though it had been wished that they had forborne to have vented in publik any such reflexion, untill they had been better informed. But furder, to goe on in speaking to the author now under examination: At that time, when the King was crowned, it became him & all, to have construed otherwise of his majesty p. 370& to have said with Cicero de officis lib. 3. Quasi vero, fort… viro vispossit adhiber… as if a slout and constant man could be forced unto any such thing: & with Doct Sander s…pius esse nequit qui non est fortis, he who is not thus stout and constant can not be a godly man. But now seing it hath pleased his Maj. to declare unto the world in print, that he did sweare that Covenant against his will, all are bound to give him credit: But withall this must be said; That Scotland is at a great losse, not knowing how they shall be secured in any thing, or how they shall know when Kings at their coronation do swear willingly, & when not: & on what ground they now stand who can know? for it may be as well said that he swore that oath, which was enjoyned to be sworne by the 1. Parl. of King Iam. 6. against his will: & upon this ground it may be alledged, that he is not now bound to maintaine the true reformed religion, not yet, to rule the land, by the laudable lawes thereof, but only according to his own will & pleasure.

But this author goeth on & sayeth. It would be considered whether this be de jure naturali, that a consent of a superiour once given to the vow of an inferiour, he hath no power to revoke his consent upon reasonable causes, and to make void the vow: Lessius thinketh the precept is eatenus judiciall Ans. He would gladly put to his Amen unto this if he did not feare to be hissed at: What Lessius or any of his stamp say, is not very materiall: But whereas he thinketh that that part of it is judiciall, he had done better if he had given one word of reason for it: But if he thinketh that that part of it is judiciall, what if others think that the rest of it is judiciall also, & so it be wholly laid aside as judiciall? But who ever these great schollers are who think that the superiour may revoke his consent, it is too too apparent that they are not great divines, who would teach people thus to falsify their oaths & promises, nor are they good royalists, who with Matchiavell (who sayeth Princes should not have vertue, piety, faith, religion or integrity; yea that it is dangerous to them to use those alwayes, & that it is necessary sometimes for them to do contrary to their faith and promise and turne with the winde) would teach Kings to take their word againe when as.

p. 371nudo jus & reverentia verbo

Regis inesse solet quovis juramine major.King's words have weight & great respect, More then all oaths which men exact.

& undertake to maintaine that maxime, that [principi …ihilest injustum quod fructu…sum. That a prince can do no wrong whatever he doth, if it be for his own gaine] seing Solomon that wise, King sayeth Prov. 17: 7. That [lying lips become not a prince, & the emperour Charles 5. when questioned by …udovick palatine of Rhine why he would not break his promi…e to Luther, said, That though faith in keeping of promises should be b…shed out of all the world; yet it should remaine with the Emperour] But Doct Sanders a better casuist then this author, resolveth the case otherwise ubi supra pr…l. 7. § 6. saying 3. if the super… hath once confirmed the promise by his expresse consent …edent or subsequent he cannot afterward make that promise void and null, or loose its obligation] Now it was shown before, That the Scottish Covenanters had more then his Maj. consent; They had him swearing the same thing, so that there can be no power of revokeing, or of doing, or of putting his inferiours to do any thing, contrary to the oath: and what sayeth this author unto this? He sayeth for sooth [That it is granted, unlesse upon some other ground there be a clear looseing of the superi…urs oath, & a ceasing of the obligatii… of it] Ans. Spect…um admissi, r…sum teneatis amies. Seing he had a minde to say this why hath he troubled his reader all this while? What these other grounds are he hath not yet showne, & this is a faire consession, that he hath been beating the winde; & therefore this first case is sent away with disgrace; for now at length he is ashamed of it, and it may be, he shall have cause likewise to be ashamed of the rest, ere all be done; for it is malum om…n in …mine cespitare.

The second case which he mentioneth shall be thus summed up [when the matter abideth not in the same state, but something in providence occureth, before the accomplishment of the oath, which p. 372maketh the performance either sinfull, as the delivering of the sword into the owners hand, when turned mad; or importing some turpitude, or something against morall honesty, as marrying of a woman, after oath discovered to be with childe to my brother, or anyother man, then the obligation of the cath ceaseth & so is the case here, (sayeth, he) some thing occurreth now, which maketh that without sin we cannot performe that oath, for (suppo…ing the indifferency of prelacy we cannot performe that hath without disobedience to the Magistrat in a matter wherein he hath power to command; no oath can binde, sayeth Perkines, against the wholsome lawes of the common wealth, neither is it materiall whether the lawes be made before, or after the oath, b…th wayes the matter of the oath becometh impossible de jure, and though in indifferent things of private cońcernment, an oath may take away liberty: Yet a subjects oath cannot take away the power of the Magistrat in things not unlawfull, nor binder subjects from obedience; otherwise subjects might finde away to plead themselves free from obedience in all things indifferent] This is the summe of his discourse unto which it is Ans, 1. The ground of this is yet questioned; for it is showne that as to the 2 Article, about which most of the contest is, the Covenant is not about things indifferent, but things morally evill, as is uncontroverted in all poynts save that of prelacy, and to take it for granted that prelacy, as there abjured, is a thing indifferent, is more then any adversary will yeeld to him. 2. Be it granted that such a government as is there abju…ed, is not expresly against the word of God; yet a thing indifferent, may become inconvenient & inexpedient, & an oath made concerning those things, may be undoubtedly good & lawfull. 3. If this doctrine of his hold good, It shall be hard to know what matter it should be, about which, an oath should be taken; for he said before, that an oath hath no force in matters morally good; and it is granted by all, that an oath hath no force in matters sinfull, for it cannot be vinculum iniquitatis; & here he sayeth a man may not sweare in things indifferent, if they be such as come under the compasse of legislators, and thus he doth much to banish all religious oaths out of the world, 4. Will no oath binde, which is against the lawes of the p. 373land? then what if a man in straite for money, shall borrow & promise with an oath, to give more annual-rent therefore, then the law of the land will allow; will not his oath binde him? What if the law of the land be against the giving of any money unto robbers; Shall not a man who is taken with robbers, & who to save his life promiseth with an oath to give them such a summe of money, performe his oath, merely because it is against the law of the Land? But as to this controversie let the reader consult such casuists as have spoken of it, whose names are set down by Timorcus in his Covenanters plea cap. 6. or if he please let him consult Doct Sanders. who de jur pro. oblg. prael. 4. §. 17. proveth it lawfull enough, & whatever be said of this: That which Doct. Sa…ders. sayeth ubi supra Prael. 3. §. 9. may be noticed. It may be (sayeth he) that some cases may be given, in which, an oath which seemeth contrary to some law of a community, or calling, though it ought not to have been taken, yet being taken, may oblige; as for example, in a law whereunto a penalty is annexed disjunctively, & in this case he thinketh the oath should be keeped & the law should not be obeyed, but the penalty should be payed, & this is enough for those who stand for the Cov. 5. If oaths made against the wholsome lawes of the common wealth binde not, oaths made against the …unwholsome lawes of the common wealth will binde, & in that case, without all doubt, people are bound to stand to their oath, & resolve upon suffering before they yeeld obedience: And whether any law made about prelacy be wholsome or unwholsome, is sufficiently determined in the premisses, & by the grounds upon which the legislators did goe, when they reseinded all acts made in favours of prelats & their power 6. This oath (even as to the 2. Article which …is most controverted) was not against, but conforme unto the wholesome lawes of the land; for befor that the league & cov. was sworne there were standing lawes against prelacy, & acts ratified & approved with all formalities, & published with all usuall solemnities, according to the King's own command & warrand; & therefore this case doth not come home to the case in hand. But he sayeth it is not materiall whether the lawes be made before, or after the oath. And that is a very p. 374strange thing; for a law not yet made, is no law, & an oat… taken in a particular about which there is no law yet made, can not be an oath against a wholesome law of the land: And to' say that a law made afterward may loose the obligation of an oath, is a very ready way for opening the door to all perjury, & to cast all oaths loose; for when once a man hath sworne to his own hurt, & would gladly be rid of his oath he hath no more to do, but acquant his superiour, & he will make a law for the contrary, & so he is at liberty; But will such sigleaves cover the nakednesse of perjurie? Or will such shifts satisfy in the day of reckoning? Dreame of those things who will, God will not be mocked? Doct. Sanders. a better casuist then he, ubi supra Prael. 3. §. 18. giveth a better resolution, saying if after the oath, the statute should be abrogated, or antiquated, the oath, as to that statute ceaseth, so that he is not bound by the oath to observe that law any more, …lesse (N. B.) the very thing contained in the oath be sworne to, expresly; in that case though the statute, be removed: the obligation of the oath standeth fast. And that is enough for the Covenanters. 7. Though it were granted (which will not be) that inferiours could not take an oath in those matters that fall under the power of legislators to enact lawes about, or if they did sweare, were not obliged to performe, what they swore; yet if legislators themselves sweare that such a thing (suppon it be but indifferent) shall never be enacted in a law, will not this oath binde those legislators? What will this advocat invente in this case, as an open door at which, both King & Parl, may escape, for both King & Parl. in their kingly & parliamentary capacity have abjured prelacy? 8. Why may not inferiours sweare when they finde any law grievous & burdensome, to endeavour according to their place & power to have such a law or Act altered? & why may not such an oath oblige? This is not an oath properly against a law: & because here the dominion of superiours over inferiours is sufficiently reserved, this cannot be condemned. 9. He mistaketh that case of casuists quando res non permanet in eodem statu. When he applyeth it to the purpose in hand; for prelacy is the same now which it was when first abjured, there is no conveniency or law p. 375fulnesse seen in it now which was not seen before; Yea on the contrary it appeareth worse then ever: So that if he would stand to that rule, quando res non permanet in eodem statu: when the state of the matter is changed. Though they had sworn to maintaine prelacy (as now they have abjured it) their oath could not binde them now to owne it; Because it appeareth now so deforme & abhominable a monster & a cockatrice seeking the ruine & destruction of all which cometh with in its reach. 10. what doth this author think of the oath made to the Gibeonites? Was there not a change of the Estate of affaires there, when within three dayes they were discovered to be lyars, & that they were not a people that dwelt a far off, but such as did dwell among them, & yet the oath must stand valid & firme: Yea was there not an expresse prohibition to make any league with these Canaanits? Exod. 23, 32: 33. & 34: 10. Deut. 7: 2. & 20: 16. & was not this a wholsome law? And yet the oath must be keeped, this law being a particular command, & so far only, to binde the conscience, as it might be obeyed without any breach of the morall law; as in Rachab's case it is evident (as sayeth, Mr Iackson in his annotations on Ios. 9: 18.) How will this advocat reply to these things? If he stand to his principles, he must condemne Iosua for keeping that oath. Moreover was not the oath of Zedekiah against the fundamentall lawes of the land, seing it was tendered to him, that the Kingdom might be base, Ezek. 17: 14. & yet being taken it must be keeped. So then his second case will not make much for him.

The third is, in short, this [When it hindereth a greater good, if the standing to it, be found impeditive of a greater good to which we are bound by a prior obligation, then the oath ceaseth to binde; & so is it here; for supponing the indifferencie of episcopacy, by adhereing to the oath, we hinder our own obedience to the Magistrat in things not against God's law, unto which we are pre-obliged; as also it hindereth the great duety of preaching the Gospel, unto which Ministers were bound, before the taking of Covenant] Ans, 1. This man would disput strongly if he had his will, and if men would yeeld him all which he demandeth, he would fight p. 376wonderfully. Grant him once that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent, & you see how he will disput to admiration, for the looseing of all Covenants; but i… that be not yeelded, what will he do then? He hath no more to say, for all his arguments run on this supposition, & when this ground faileth, all is wrong with him. But to discover his weaknesse yet more, let this once againe be granted, & let it be supponed that Episcopacy is not against God's law, yet it is Ans. 2. If this ground hold good, men shall have a door opened for looseing of … from all their oaths & vowes. Himself con…esseth that by this meanes, a wide gap may be opened to all perjury, & what course taketh he to prevent this? Doth he limit … this position in any thing? No not to all, for all this hazard which he cannot but see. May not any at their pleasure loose themselves from the oath of alleagiance, by alledging that the keeping thereof doth hinder a greater good to which they are bound by a prior obligation, viz. the liberating, & freeing of the countrey from oppression & tyranny? 3. Had not Ioshua more to say for looseing of his oath, seing the keeping of the oath made to the …ibeonits did hinder obedien ce unto a particular command which God had given unto his people, & yet God would dispense with that particular command in this case, when it could not be obeyed without perjury, which is directly against the law & light of nature, & when the obeying thereof would have givē the heathens great occasion of blaspheming the name of the Lord; though he will not dispense with the breach of any morall law upon that account. 4. Had not Zedekia… as much to say, for the looseing of himself from his oath? viz. that the keeping of the oath did hinder him from performing that duty to his Kingdome & countrey, unto which he was pre-obliged' But this new coined divinity was not of force in those dayes, & his bare word will not make it passe now with tender consciences. 5. What is the greater good which it will hinder? It will hinder (as he thinketh) their obedience to the civill Magistrat. But are all bound to obey the Magistrat in all things that are indifferent? Doth every law of the Magistrat binde the conscience? subjection, it is true, is necessary: but not obedience Active, & subjection may consist with obedience p. 377passive, that is, in suffering the penalty, when Active obedience cannot be given to the command: passive obedience is consistent with the publick peace, & doth no way hurt the majesty, honour or credite of the ruler. So that though standing to this oath, may now hinder Active obedience unto that command of the Magistrat, enjoyning, a countenanceing of, & a concurring with the abjured prelacy; yet it will not hinder subjection or passive obedience, & this is all, which in those positive indifferent things they can be said to be obliged unto, unlesse he would say (which yet he darre not) that the prelacy which was abjured, is a government commanded of God to be perpetually practised in the Church. 6. It would be considered also that their standing to this oath doth no way hinder their obedience to the Magistrat, in any thing commanded of God, or in any indifferent positive thing, save in this one particular (if so be this must goe under that name of indifferent things) & then the true question is not; whether is it a greater good to disobey Magistrats, then to keep an oath? But whether is it a greater good to obey the Magist. in this one particular of imoraceing that prelacy which was abjured, or to stand to the oath? And that will come to this, whether is it a greater good for Church or common wealth to have prelats, then to want them? & if this advocat will make this the question, there will be some found who shall willingly undertake the disput. But if what is past, & what is present be called in to give judgment in this matter, the question will quickly be decided, yea & appear to indifferent beholders, to be already determined: If the persecution of godly faithfull Ministers of the Gospell; If the laying of countreysides waste & desolate; If the feeding of people with winde & lies; If the great increase of atheisme, arminianisme, popery, ignorance, & prophanity of all sorts: If the persecuting of the godly & of godlinesse; If the hindering of the exercise of religion & Christian dueties, & the like, may have any weight in casting the scale. 7. As for the preaching of the Gospell, it is true, it is the duety of Ministers to be mindeing that; But God hath need of no man's sin to worke his work, he calleth no man to preach the Gospell, by p. 378the way of perjury; yea their suffering now for truth tenddeth to the furtherance of the Gospell, as, phil. 1: 12. & is much more edifying then all their preaching could be, after they had proclamed their perjury unto the would. 2. Whose fault is it, that Ministers cannot have liberty to preach the Gospell? Is their keeping of the oath the thing which standeth in the way? Is there no other way for one to have liberty to preach the Gospell, but by breaking his oath? what influence hath the conscientions observing of the oath upon non-preaching? What if that iniquity, which is established for a law, were taken out of the way? Would there not be preaching of the Gospell, notwithstanding of a conscientious observation of the oath? there is no doubt of this. So that it is not the observation of the oath, which hindereth the preaching of the Gospell, otherwayes it would alwayes have done it, & will alwayes do it, which is false: But some other thing▪ & now let the blame of not preaching the Gospell, lye where it should lye, for there it will lye, whether he will or not. Yea the conscientious observation of this oath is so far from lying in the way of preaching the Gospell, that on the contrary, the breach of the oath doth incapacitate a man for preaching of the Gospell both before God & men: perjury is no qualification of a minister before the Lord, & who can trust or commit their soulls unto a perjured man? How can such an one who hath once so palpably perjured himself presume ever to set his feet within a pulpit againe? And thus it is clear that this case maketh nothing against the Covenanters, & so the first assault which he hath made upon the Covenant is repulsed very easily.

The next ground which he layeth down is this. That if the Covenant be not rigidly interpreted & strained, it will not hinder a complying with the present prelacy, & that upon these two grounds. 1. At the time of the taking of the Covenant there was no such Church officers in Scotland, as are mentioned in the 2. Article; & therefore Scotland did not need to swear to endeavour their extirpation. And 2. The Parliament of England the giver of this oath, intended nothing lesse then the extirpation p. 379of all kindes of prelacy & Bishops in the Church, & for this he bringeth in the authors of the Covenanters plea, Mr Baxter, Mr Gataker, & Mr Vines as confirming this notion of his. Unto all which a short answere may suffice, for though it might be easily demonstrated that those men mentioned by him, do not approve of that species of Episcopacy which is no… set up in Scotland, & that they have said nothing wh…ch will speak out their judgment of the complyance of the. 2. Article of the league & Covenant with the Scottish Episcopacy, yet it doth not much concerne these in Scotland, to search & to try narrowly what is the judgment of any particular divine how eminent soever in England, concerning prelacy. Nor what sense or glosse they put upon the Covenant, or upon any particular article thereof; Though it is very probable that they will not put such a favourable interpretation upon that article, as shall make it an interpretation, not aequitate temperatam, but Gratia corruptam. Yea nor is it of much concernment to these of Scotland, to search after the sense or glosse, which the Parliament of England did put upon it (though no difference can be apprehended betwixt their sense, & the sense of the Kingdom of Scotland) seing they did not tender that oath unto Scotl. but they are to look rather unto the sense & glosse which the Church & state of Scotland in their publick meetings did put upon it, & it is clear that they intended no complyance betwixt the Covenant & this prelacy. Though, it is true, at the taking of the Covenant, there was no such officers as are there named, in Scotland. (Which is all the weak ground he goeth upon as to this particular) yet, albeit Scotland had gotten those unhallowed plants plucked up & cas…en out, they were not out of all fear of them. The dangerous Estate of the Church & Kingdom of Scotland at that time, said they were not without feares that these plants might againe take rooting, if the popish prelaticall & malignant faction had prevailed in the Kingdomes. And therefore they were called to fortifie themselves against those plagues & evills, by a solemne league & Covenant. But moreover doth not the very words of the second article expresly exclude the prelacy which p. 380is now in Scotland? Is not the Church of Scotland at present governed by two Archbishops and by tuelue other bishops? Have not those bishops their deanes, their arch deacons, &c. And is not the 2d. article expresly against such a government by such officers? Who that hath eyes in their heads can doubt of these things? Moreover will he suppose that the Church and state of the Kingdom of Scotland were such ignoramuses, as to set down contradictories in the Covenant, & that when they had sworne to maintaine the discipline & government of the Church of Scotland (which himself will confesse was presbyterian) in the first article, & in the second article had abjured a government in the Church, inconsistent with presbyterian government; should be thought with all to consent & yeeld unto such an episcopacy, as should be inconsistent with presbyterian government? Which were in effect to say, They swore to maintaine presbyterian government & yet might receive another government distinct from, & inconsistent with presbyterian government: And though they abjured prelacy; yet not every prelacy, for they might for all that, accept of one sort of prelacy which yet should be inconsistent with presbyterian government. But possibly this advocat saw he would be ashamed of such things, & therefore went to England to seek such help as he could finde, but all the help he hath gotten there, hath made little to his purpose. Finally this author would do well to follow D. Sand. his advice ubi sup. prael. 2 § 9. where he discourseth thus when I say an oath is stricti juris that is to b… understood thus, that the meaning of the oath is to be keeped when the same is clear from the words. And is not the sense of the 2d article of the Covenant as clear as can be? But put the case it be dubious, heare what he sayeth furder [But when the meaning is doubtfull, every one is carefully to take heed that they indulge not their own affections, & inclinations, or give way unto toolax & large a license of glosseing, to the end they may with more ease loose themselves from the obligation of the oaths with which they are bound, or give such a sense unto the oath or to any part thereof for their own profite & advantage, as no wise & prudent man, who is not concerned in the matter (and so having no p. 381interest is at greater freedom to determine) can be able to gather from the words themselves; & the reason is twofold, one in respect of others, and for fear of scandall, lest any other who is weak b… moved to think he may lawfully do what he seeth us do, being ignorant of those subtil…es with which alone we think to defend ourselvs from perjury. The other in respect of our selves, for fear of perjury, which is a most grievous crime, and which undoubtedly we bring upon ourselves if that more favourable interpretation deceive us, This reason dependeth upon that generall & most profitable rule, in matters doubtfull follow that which is saifest thus he solidely & judicously.

What he addeth here against the nationall Covenant shall be considered fully in the next Section.

When thus he hath spent his master pieces, against this Covenant, he cometh, in end, to try what his third & last device will do, & that is, to muster up some stragling faults which he espieth either as to matter or manner; which though granted to him, would not much advantage his cause, or say much for looseing the obligation of the oath, now after it is taken: Yet because he vapoureth much in his expressions here, & would gladly deceive the simple, who are not well acquanted with the nature of oaths, but are ready to think that the least escape in the manner of entering into an oath, is enough to dissolve its obligation, after it is taken, not knowing that quod sicri non debuit factum valet, nor knowing well how to guaird against this deceit, which he hideth with a multitude of words; his challenges must be answered.

All which he sayeth on this head, is some thing to these three particulars. 1. The want of authority, in the imposeing. 2. The generality of the termes in which it is conceived. & 3. Some incongruitie in the 3d article.

The summe of what he sayeth unto the first of these is this [To carry on a publick oath without the soveraigne power, is without any example among jewes or Christians. It is a speciall royalty of the King, to have power of imposeing an oath on all his subjects, especially where the oath hath a direct aime for raiseing armes: Such leagues are inhibited by the lawes of the land Ia. 6… p. 382Parl. 10. Act. 12. Mary Parl. 9. Act. 75. Now this Covenant was carryed on in England by a meeting of Parliament excludeing one of the Estates, and in Scotland by a committee of Estates] Ans. what if all this be granted? Will it therefore follow, that the obligation of the Covenant is loosed? Nay himself dar not say so, for he addeth [Now although this could not nullify the obligation of the Covenant, were the matter of it undoubtedly lawfull, and otherwise still obligeing; yet it were well if unlawfulnesse in regaird of this defect were acknowledged. So that all which he would have of the Covenanters now for proof of their sincerity is that they would give, as publick testimony against the sinfull way of entering into that bonde, as against that si… (as they suppose) of breaking it. But what would this advantage his cause? And seeing he saw that it would not advantage his cause why did he spend time & paines in vaine? He is at a weak passe now, when he can bring no arguments, but such as himself must needs answere, & discover the weaknesse of. But it is like out of a desire to have it going well with the Covenanters he would have them repenting of the misse which was made. But by his favour they must first be convinced of the errour ere they can say that they have erred, and ere they be convinced of an errour in that Particular, they must see more cogent arguments then any which he hath yet brought: For as for that committee of Estates which he sayeth did carry on that Covenant in Scotland, it had power for that effect from the convention of Estates, & their deed was approven in all poynts by the next meeting of Parliament, Anno 1644. the lawfulnesse of which convention & Parliament hath been shown above (and as for the Parliament of England, Mr Croften & Timorcus have sufficiently spoken to that) and as for Scotlands entering into a league with England without the King's consent, it hath been vindicated before: So hath it been showne how the Parliaments of Scotland do partake of the soveraignity with the King and have power of warre, & so all which he here sayeth is answered already: Only because he desireth some examples of the like among Iewes or Christians, though there be no great necessity for this businesse, yet some few instances shall be brought & p. 383first among the Iewes there are two eminent examples: one in the dayes of Asa King of Iuda. 2. Chron. 15. where many strangers of Ephraim manass…h & Simeon, fell to Asa; out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him, v. 9. And entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with great solemnity, v. 12, 14. & that without the consent of their own King. Another in the dayes of Hezekiah: when he came to the throne which was in the third yeer of Hoshea King of Israel. 2. King. 18: 1. In the first year of his reigne. 2. Chron. 29. 3. (& this was six yeers before the Kingdome of Israel was wasted & destroyed by Salmanass…r King of Assyria. 2. King. 17: 6.) beginneth a work of reformation, & said it was was in his heart to ma…e a Covenant with the Lord God of Israel. 2 Chron 29: 10. And he sent to Israell writting letters to Ephraim & Manasseh, desireing them to come up to the house of the Lord, & accordingly diverse of Asher Manasseh & Zebulon. 2. Chron. 30: 1, 11. joyned with him, in that Covenanted work of reformation: here are some of the subjects of Basha & Hoshea, without their consent or approbation joyning in a Covenant or bond with another King & Kingdom (which would seem more treasonable like, then for the subjects of one King to joyn together in Covenant for the good of King & Kingdome) to carry on a work of reformation, & no doubt this advocat darre not condemne this deed of those subjects of Hoshea or Basha. As for such Covenants among Christians, instances in abundance may be given, & some have already been named, as that betwixt the first reformers of Scotland, & the Queen of England, & these in France, Germany, the Low countreyes, Helvetia, piemont, &c. & so a few moe shall suffice. If he had read the History of the reformation of the Church of Scotland, he had seen there severall examples of Covenants entered into by Christians, without the consent of the supreme Magistrat viz. one Anno 1557 subscribed by Argile, Glencarne, Morton, Lorn & others. Another at Perth, Anno 1559. subscribed by Argile, Iohn Stuart, Glencarn, Boid, Vchiltree, &c. A third at Sterlin that same yeer, subscribed by many A fourth at Leth, Anno 1560. subscribed by all the nobilite p. 384barons, gentlemen & others professing Christ Iesus in Scotland. & a fift at Aire Anno 1562. subscribed by severall noblemen & gentlemen. In Sleidan's commentaries, Lib 7. Anno 1529. there is a Covenant betwixt the city Strausbrugh (which was under the command & jurisdiction of the Emperour) & three of the cities of Helvetia viz. Tigurum Berna, & Basil about assisting & dese…ding one another in the cause of religion; & this was without the consent & approbation of the emperour, as appeareth by the letter written to Strausbrugh from the dyet of the Empire: againe, An. 1530. there was a Covenant betwixt the La…dgrave of Hesse, & those three cities Tigur or Zurich, Basil & Strausburg anent mutuall defencein the cause of religion. That same yeer the protestants meet at Smalcald & draw up a Covenant for mutuall defence in religion & it was subscribed by Albert & Gebert of Mansfeldt by the cities of Magdeburgh, & Breme. Sleidan, sheweth also lib. 19. That in February 1547. the nobles of Boheme meeting at Prague entered into a Covenant among themselves for the defence of their liberty, whether Ferdinand would or not.

The second particular is about the generality of the termes wherein the Covenant is expressed. The summe of what he sayeth here is this. The Covenant was purposely framed in generall and homonymous termes that all the sects might lurck under it; And so the Sectarian army when they invaded Scotland did pretend the Covenant; And presbyterian Government was no way secured, it not being once named, but wrapped up in generall, under the reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline & Government, unto which independents & separatists might assent, purposeing to preserve the same against the common enemy, yea even such as entered into the Covenant could not agree in its sense as may be seen in the Parliament of England's baffling the Scottish Commissioner's declaration; Anno 1647. & other papers. Ans. 1. To say that the Covenant was purposely framed in generall termes, that severall parties might be fast united against prelacy, is a base & slanderous imputation, But suteth him well who pleadeth for such a cause; If the Covenant, for the most part, be thus conceived in generall & ambiguous termes, how cometh it to passe, that he p. 385produceth not instances thereof, no not so much as one? Was it not as cleare as the sun shineth at noon day, that the reformed government of the Church of Scotland, at that time, was presbyteriall▪ And did not himself say a little before, that at that time there was no such officers in the Church of Scotl. as are mentioned in the second article of the league & Covenant? And whereas he sayeth that severall sects did lurk under the lap thereof, doth …he think this a cogent argument to prove it's ambiguity? What sect is it which doth not plead scripture? Shall scripture therefore be accounted ambiguous … No not at all. Let men of corrupt mindes & principles wrest words in the Covenant as they please, the Covenant, to any who shall reade it, is plaine & clear enough, & he who will wink, may wander at noon day: let men imagine & put what glosses they will on scripture, It is plaine, & hath but one sense. But what will all this make to the businesse? Will the obligation of a Covenant, in which some men think there lyeth some ambiguities, be loosed upon that account? This must be proved ere it be received off his hand, as a truth: neither he, nor any of his party hath hit hertill▪ attempted any such thing. Lastly is there any ambiguity in the second article? Yet (sayeth he) were it not better to lay aside (when now it is disclamed, by Ki…g & Parliament & all persons of trust in the land) a human for me which in respect of the composure of it, is apt to be, hath been, & is like to be a seminary of variety of parties, & worse evills then prelacy is imagined to be. When he hath made it to appear that this composure is apt of its own nature, to be such a seminary of worse evills then prelacy, his advice may be taken to consideration, but till then (which will be, ad Calendas gracas) he must excuse the Covenanters; for neither King nor Parliament, though they had the pope with them, can give a dispensation in a matter of an oath, And King & Parliament with all the persones of trust, will have enough to do to hold the broad roll & the curse off themselves, their houses, & their posterity, & to keep themselves out of his hands, Who will be a swift witnesse against false swearers, though they undertake p. 386not to protect others from the wrath & vengeance of God.

The last particular which he exaggerateth is the limited or conditionall preservation of the King's Maj. person & authority, viz. in the preservation & defence of the true religion, &c. He enquireth whether this was right or not? And if difference in religion loose a people from their duty to the King? To which a short reply will suffice. 1. Though it were granted that there were some thing wrong here, this will not ground the non-obligation of the Covenant in other particulars, & what hath he gained then? 2. What ever wrong may be in wording this article thus, The blame is not be laid upon the first authors of this league & Covenant; For in the nationall Covenant (which was subscribed at first by King Iames & his houshold, Anno 1580. And in obedience to an act of Councell together with an Act of the Generall Assembly, by persons of all rankes, Anno 1581. And againe subscribed by all sorts of persons, Anno 1590. 1591.) The Covenanters duety towards the King is so qualified in these words. We protest & promise with our hearts under the same oath, hand write, & paines, that we shall defend his person & authority, with our gear, bodyes & lives, in the defence of Christ's evangell, liberties of our contrey, ministration of justice; & punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within th… realme or without. So that if he annull the leagué & Covenant upon this account, he must much more annull the nationall Covenant, whereof King Iames was the author: For in that there is more add…d to the qualification of their duty to the King, viz. his minisiration of justice and punishment of juiquity. So then this clause in the league being consonant unto that in the nationall Covenant needeth not be so much quarrelled at. 3. It is like he is displeased with any such qualification, but his reason is not very forceable viz. because it would insinuat that they were no otherwayes bound to defend him, for it will only insinuat that the Covenanters are to preferre, that which is of greater moment unto that which is of lesser concernment, & that they are to preferre the end unto the mean leading to the end; That is, when the King is in direct opposition, p. 387unto the cause & work of God, it becometh them to preferre the interest of Christ before man's, & not to help the mighty against the Lord, but the Lord against the mighty: And when defending, promoveing, or any way advanceing the authority of the King, shall directly tend to the ruine of the interest of Christ, & religion, no Christian is bound to concurre: And this was granted even by the Parliament, Anno 1648. So that the question betwixt the Parliament & the Church, at that time, was not whether religion, & the interests of Christ should be preferred to the interest of the King; or not: But whether the Engadgement, which was then carryed on, was not a preferring of Man's interests to Christ's▪ for as to the thes…s or major proposition, it was granted by the Parliament viz. That Christ's interest should be sought before man's, & the King's interests, only in a subordination to Christ's. Thus they did professe openly their owneing of the Covenant, & their resolution to prosecute the ends of the covenant, & to seek to secure & establish the King's interests only in subordination to the interests of Christ, for in their letter to the presbyteries (Printed in their records) May. 11. They shew that they were resolved to proceed for the preservation & defence of religion, before all other worldly interests whatsoever, & to carry on sincerely really & constantly the Covenant, & all the ends of it. And againe, in their answer to the supplications from Synods & presbyteries Iun. 10. (insert likewise in their Printed records.) They declare that in their undertakings they should preferre no earthly consideration to their dut… es for preserving of religion in Scotland in doctrine worshipe discipline & government, as it is already established, & to endeavvour to setle it in England & Ireland according to the Covenant. & also, in their answere to some committees of Shires they declare that [they had nothing before their eyes in that undertaking, but the preservation & good of religion, & the endeavouring the setling of it in England & Ireland according to the Covenant, in the first place & before all worldly respects: & his Maj. rescue from …his base imprisonment his re-establishment upon his throne, in all his just powers: the p. 388saiftie of this Kingdome from danger on all hands, & the preservation of the union & brotherly correspondence betwixt the Kingdomes, under the governement of his Maj. & of his royall posterity according to the Covenant.] So that the gentleman the author of this pamphlet, publisheth his mistakes to the world, when he would inferre thus [was this right that (where our alleagiance binds us to duty to a greater latitude) this should be held out to people, as the only standard of their loyally & duty to the King? Was it found Doctrine to insinuat (to the sense of intelligent men) that we were not otherwise bound to defend him? Was it well by such a clause to give occasion to wicked men to think they were no furder obliged to him then he should desend that which they accounted religion.] And that the folly of his consequencesmay furder appear, it would be considered that there is a clear difference betwixt these two: Owneing of the King, & defending his authority, never, but when he is actually owneing, & active for the cause & interest of Christ: And owneing of the King, & defending his authority, alwayes, but when he is in actuall opposition, & in a stated contradiction to the work & interest of Christ, So is there a difference betwixt these two. Non-concurrence in defending & promoveing of the King's authority, when he is opposeing the work of God: And actuall anulling, diminishing, or utter overthrowing of his power & authority when he is so stated: And so when the Covenanters say That they are not bound to contribute their power in their places & capacities, to promove or defend his Maj. power, & authority; when he is in a stated opposition to the work of God, & when the advanceing of him to his full power & authority, would cetanely tend to the ruine & desruction of the cause & people of God: yet they do not say, that they are never bound to defend him, but when he is actually promoveing & advanceing the work of God, according to his full power & place; Nor do they say, that when he opposeth the work of God, they are at liberty to destroy his person, or to spoile & rob him of all his just power & authority: And therefore both that clause in the p. 389Covenant, & their proceedings may be abundantly justified without laying down any ground for the taking away of the late King's life; & without clashing with, or contradicting the confessions of protestant Churches, or of their owne; so… still they acknowledge that difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrat's just & legall Authority, not free the people from subjection: But that this may be a little more clear, let this example be considered: A Father turneth phrenticke & mad, & seeketh to destroy the whole family, calling for a sword, & liberty to execute his cruelty; His sones rise up & binde his hands, & withhold the sword from him, & withall sweare to stand together in their own defence, & to defend their Father's just right & power in the defence of the family: Now, in this case, can any say that they were undutifull children; or that their covenanting so, & adding that clause in the Covenant, sayeth, they were free to cast off the relation that is betwixt him & them, except he guide the family, in all poynts as they would have him doing? No in no wayes. Here then it is clear that their refuseing to put the sword in their Father's hand, while under this distemper, is no act of undutifulnesse; It is no lessening of the Father's just power over the family, nor doth it say that they thinke themselves not bound to owne him as a Father, except when he is actively, promoveing the good of the family, & far lesse doth it say, that they think, because of this distemper, they may destroy him, or that the relation betwixt them & him is broken up for ever. So then, though this Advocat thought he had a faire sield to walk upon, & a faire occasion to vent his anger against that Church, & to make her odious to all Churches about, yet wise men, who easily see that there is no such strong relation betwixt King & subjects, as betwixt Parents & Children, will acknowledge that his ranting is without reall ground; And that Scotland in their treaties with the King at the Hage, & at Breda, & in their actions at home did nothing but what they may hold up their faces for, both before God & Man, doing nothing herein; which either contradicteth their own confession of faith, or the confession of faith of other Churches. Not p. 390their own confession of faith; For if the large confession of faith be viewed (which was approved by the Parliament & insert in their registres.) In that head of the civill Magistrate these words shall be found, We confesse and avow, that such at resist the supreme power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge, do resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltlesse: & furder we affirme that whosoever deny unto them their aide counsell and comfort, whiles the Princes and rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their office, that the same men deny their help support and counsell to God, who by the presence of his lifetenant doth crave it of them. So that all the resisting which is there condemned, is resisting of him while doing his duty & executing his office, & not, while he is seaking to destroy Religion, & the interests of Christ. Nor the confession of other Churches, for in the former confession of Helvetia, upon that head of the civill Magistrate, they say (as it is in the English edition) We know that though we be free, we ought wholly in a true faith, holily to submit ourselves, to the Magistrate, both with our body and with all our goods, and endeavour of minde also, to performe faithfulnesse, and the oath which we made to him, so far forth (N. B.) as his government is not evidently repugnant to him for whose sake we do reverence the Magistrate. So the French in their confession Art. 40. say, … must willingly suffer the yocke of subjection, although the Magistrats be infidels, so that (N. B.) the soveraigne Authority of God do remaine whole and entire and nothing diminished. And, which is worth the noticeing, the practice of Scotland in this, is consonant to the profession of the Parliament Anno 1648. (which did Act most for the King & his interest, preferring it to the interest of Christ) who in their declaration Aprile 29. insert in their Registres, Act 17. say, [That they resolve not to put in his Maj. hands, or any others whatsoever, any such power whereby the forsaid ends of the Covenant, or any of them, may be obstructed or opposed, Religion, or Presbyterian government endangered; But on the contrary, before any agreement or condition be made with his Maj. (having found his late concessions & offers concerning religion not satisfactory) that he give assurance p. 391by his solemne oath under his hand & seal, that he shall for himself & his Successours give his Royall assent & agree to such act or acts of Parliament, or bills, as shall be presented to him, by his Parliaments of both, or either Kingdoms respectivè? for enjoyning the League & Covenant, & fully establishing presbyteriall government, directory of worship confession of faith in all his Maj. Dominions: And that his Maj. shall never make any opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof.]

What this Author sayeth more in the three last Pages of his pamphlet is but partly a repetition of what he said before, & so is answered, & partly obviated by the preceeding discourse.