The Fastening of Saint Peters Fetters, Tract · Section 4

The Fastening of Saint Peters Fetters · Tract · Section 4

p. 108Sectio quarta. Propoſition 4. The Form and Manner of making the Solemn Leagne and Covenant, was good and allowable.

IN the Conſideration of this Poſition, I intend not to conſider the Form conſtituting it an Oath, which is evident, and known to all, to have been a Solemn Calling to God to witneſs, and avenge the violation or neglect thereof; in reſpect of which its obligation is eſtabliſhed, againſt whatever defects and miſcarriages did attend the agitation thereof; from which nevertheleſs I would deſire it (as much may) be acquitted; for it is pity ſo good matter ſhould be blemiſhed by the circumſtances which attended it.

Nor ſhall I inſiſt on an Hiſtorical Narration of the publick Aſſemblies, in which it was taken; the Solemnity thereof in reſpect of the quality of perſons; the Parliament, both Lords and Commons; the Commiſſioners of Scotland, the Aſſembly of Divines, making the firſt Aſſembly that entred into it; nor the Order by Solemn Humiliation and Prayer, and ſerious Inſtruction and Exhortation which attended it; nor the univerſal alacrity, joy and content of the moſt ſerious in England and Scotland, which accompained this firſt Act of making the Covenant; nor the after particular Solemnities, both for number, quality, and diſpoſition of perſons, and religious compoſed order, in which it was taken in the City of London, the ſeveral Counties and Congregations of England, then which I may boldly ſay, no publick Act ever paſſed by and among the people of England, more ſolemnly, or more religiouſly; which though it be now darkned and deſpiſed, doth ſet a luſtre on this Covenant to abide under the greateſt contempt and reproach caſt upon it; and will moſt ſtrongly bind in the preſence of God and men.

But my intentions are to defend thoſe actions as good, I do not ſay neceſſary and allowable, which were, and might be done without any ſin, or any debilitation of the Covenant, againſt which I find the Exceptions of the Enemies to the Covenant moſt p. 109ſtrongly bent, that thereby they might repreſent it vile, if not render it void; and theſe are either,

1. The order of the words.

2. Nature of the thing.

3. Authority which enjoyned it.

4. Or the action and geſture of the body uſed in the ſwearing of this Covenant.

All which I humbly conceive will be found ſuch, as might well ſuit ſo ſolemn an Act, as is a National Covenant; yet I find ſome late oppoſition thereunto, and in ſpecial, by the Oxford Reaſons, and the League Illegal; I ſhall briefly try their ſtrength.

1. Sir, As to the order of the words, I find Dr. 1. The order of the words vindicated againſt Dr. Featliey League Illegal Pag. 14.Featlies ghoſt in the League Illegal, like ſome helliſh fury, repreſenting the Dr. to have been a man ſo haughtily devoted to the punctilio's of order and honour, as not to brook, or keep his hands from tearing a Liſt, Catalogue or Regiſter wherein they who were below him, ſhould be ranked above, and named before him; in ſenſe whereof he thus breaths againſt the Covenant; Not to take advantage of the prepoſterous order in ſetting down the parts of this Covenant, wherein he that runneth, may read a double Soleciſm; for in it the Church of Scotland precedeth the Church of England; and the Liberty of the Subject is ſet before the Royal Prerogative, and Imperial Dignity of the Prince.

Sir, admit we this; Is it not an high crime? and beſpeaks it not a ſober ſerious ſpirit in Dr. Featly, a Member of the Aſſembly of Divines (who by a motion might have had this order inverted, as eaſily as he obtained to have Prelacy ſpecified in the ſecond Article of the Covenant after it was paſt) to pick a quarrel in the order of the words? although we deny not, That ſuch a ſacred and venerable evidence of fidelity is the Covenant, that matter, manner, phraſe and order ought to have (as I preſume they were) been maturely adviſed; yea, I wiſh line and period, word and ſyllable (which might be the Printers Errata) had been ſo ſcanned, that a captious Momus might not find a Colon or Comma, at which he might boggle and pleaſe his humour; yet it is but a poor advantage from the punctilio's of order and honour p. 110to argue againſt matters of moment, duties and exerciſes of Religion; and by miſplaced words to make an Oath or Solemn League illegal; I, but do I not run too faſt? he tells us he will not take the advantage; an honeſt man is indeed as good as his word; but I cannot truſt him; for his ninth Argument, This Covenant is derogatory to the Honour of the Church and Kingdom of England, Page 28.is thus proved; The Church of Scotland, is ſet before the Church of England. I like not that mans grace, that with the ſame breath will remit and retort an indiſcretion; yet Sir, I cannot but enquire whether the preferring of the pompous gay-cloath'd Church of England before the poor Church of Scotland, look not like a species of that impious partiality, condemned by the Apoſtle James, Chap. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Can we think this Dr. had the faith of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt in reſpect of perſons, or was acted by ſuch a ſpirit of contradiction? No, this language was ſpoken after he was dead.

2. But theſe Soleciſms are not to me ſo obvious; I ſtand ſtill, and cannot read them; though I read the Covenant with all obſervation and regard; yet I confeſs I find the Church of Scotland ſet before the Church of England; and the liberty of the Subject, before the Prerogative of the King; but they are propounded with Relation to different Acts; the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preſerved; of England to be Reformed; I hope it is no Soleciſme to put the factum before the fieri; and to ſwear the preſervation of good acquired, before an endeavour to obtain the ſame, or better; or to prefix the pattern, to what is to be thereunto confirmed; when this Authors ſecond thoughts had obſerved this ſalvo to his ſuggeſted **Page 29.Soleciſme, he grudges that Scotland ſhould be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England; for which he had little Reaſon, if venerable Beda ſpeak true, in that he reports, That **Mira divinae factum conſtat diſpenſatione pietatis, quod gens illa quae noverat ſcientiam divinae cognitionis, libenter & ſine invidia populo Anglorum communicare curavit. Bed. Eccl. Hiſ. Gen. Ang. l. 5. c. 23.that Nation did at firſt communicate the Science of Divine knowledge, without grudge or envy unto the people of England; I hope it is no Soleciſme to propound them as a pattern of Reformation, who have firſt obtained it; and from whom Chriſtianity it ſelf was at firſt to us tranſmitted.

The ſecond ſuppoſed Soleciſme, is no more viſible than this firſt; for if the liberty of the people be the end and excellency of the Prerogative of the King, as all wiſe Statiſts and Politicians p. 111do affirm; he ſure will admit to be the firſt in intention and endeavour, although the laſt in execution and enjoyment; and the rather, for that it is ſo directed and dictated by the Maxime of His late glorious Majeſty, declared at the paſſing of the Petition of Right, The peoples liberty ſtrengthens the Kings Prerogative, and the Kings Prerogative is to defend the peopl… liberty. I am ſure more ſerious and publick Stateſmen than he or I ſhall ever make, have judged it a Soleciſme in Parliaments, to ſupport the Kings Prerogative by ſupply of moneys, before the oppreſſions and burdens of the people have been relieved, and their liberties ſecured; and I believe I could prove that this is not the firſt Covenant made in England, preferring the Peoples liberty before the Kings Prerogative, without which the King may Tyrannize over ſlaves, not Rule over free-ment; which laſt is, and will be His greateſt honour.

The ſecond thing in reſpect of which the Covenant is blemiſhed and reproached as to the manner of making it, 2. The nature and name of the Covenant vindicated. Oxford Reaſons Sect. 2. pag. 3.relates unto the nature thereof; and the name is the noration of its nature, and it is called a Solemn League and Covenant, againſt which the Maſters and Scholars of Oxford do except, ſtumbling at the name Covenant; they were learned men, and muſt a little ſtand on the propriety of words; they therefore except againſt this denomination, becauſe impoſed with a penalty, which impoſition ſay they, is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant, which being a contract, implieth a voluntary mutual conſent of the contracters, whereunto men are to be induced by perſwaſion, not compelled by power; pactum eſt duorum pluriumve in idem placitum conſenſus.

To this Sir I grant, that a Covenant in the ſtrict acceptation of it, muſt be an agreement by mutual conſent; yet I muſt enquire of theſe learned men whether the Magiſterial impoſing of abſolute duty, or actions otherwiſe indifferent, by Superiours upon their Inferiours, and that under a penalty, may not be called a Covenant? What think they of that injunction to Mankind in Adam, Of the Tree of good and evil thou ſtalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou ſhalt die the death; we read not of any ſtipulation in Adam: And Divines tell us it was neither neceſſary nor proper, he being bound to accept the conditions his p. 112Creatour would put upon him; I am ſure this is generally judged a Covenant, and that we commonly call the Covenant of Works.

Again, In the Primitive Times of the Church, adult perſons did anſwer certain queftions propounded, as bredis? credo; abrenuncias? abrenuncio; 1 Pet. 3.21. Beza in Loc.1 Pet 3:21to which the Apoſtle Peter is though to refer his foreign? which Beza renders, Stipulatio b…nae conſcientiae apud Deum, and from this order Tertullian concludes: Anima non lavatione ſed responſione ſancitur. Do theſe learned men (as the Anabaptiſts) think the Covenant of Grace is not paſſed between God, and the Infants of believing Parents in their Baptiſme, who are not capable of ſuch conſent and ſtipulation, but were dedicated by the Authority and Intereſt of the Parent; and are accepted by the extent of the Covenant? or is confirmation an eſſential part of the Sacrament, and neceſſary ſupplement of Baptiſme? I find a like caſe in Scripture called a Covenant, Gen. 17.13. My Covenant ſhall be in your fleſh; the ſtipulation of Godfathers and Godmothers will not relieve the caſe, unleſs they be deputed by the Infants, though they were (which doth not appear) commiſſioned by the Lord; ſo that ſome Covenants are impoſed, and paſs withour mutual conſent.

2. May not an agreement between two different Nations, paſſed by the mutual conſent of the Princes, or Body Politick, be for further ſecurity ſake, impoſed by the Authority of each Nation on the individual Subjects thereof, and that under a penalty? which may be a good perſwaſion againſt their peeviſhneſs and pertinacy, who by their private intereſt may obſtruct the more general and publick good; and yet be properly denominated a Covenant; as ſuppoſe between England and Spain, which the Merchants of both are bound to keep; and I ſee no cauſe why they may not be compelled to ſwear; I hope the caſe will not differ between Scotland and England, who are diſtinct Nations, though under the ſame King; it is Sir no hard matter to make this the caſe of the Covenant.

But theſe learned men do except againſt the Authority enjoyning the Covenant, 3. The Authority impoſing the Covenant Vindicated.which is the third particular, in the manner of making the Covenant, ſuppoſed to be miſcarried; and herein Dr. Featlie's Ghoſt doth follow them, but ſo very weakly, and with p. 113ſuch palpable contradiction, that I ſhall not ſpend time and paper in obſerving the ſame; but ſpecially take notice of what is urged by the Oxford Reaſons from which he borroweth his ſtrength.

Here, Sir, I ſhall deſire it may be noted, that I do not affirme the authority to be full and compleat, but to have been lawful and ſufficient to impoſe an Oath, and thereby bind the people (wherein notwithſtanding they ſhould have been defective and fallacious, yet this will not diſcharge the obligation laid, as I have in my Analepſis, pag. 13. and before in Pag. 23.21.this Tract obſerved) againſt it, therefore as ſuch I ſhall endeavour to weigh the Exceptions.

The firſt whereof is, Oxford Reaſons. Sect. 2. pag. 3.That this impoſing of this Oath was contrary to the liberty of the Subject, expreſſed in the Petition of Right, to which liberty the impoſition of a new Oath, other than is eſtabliſhed by Act of Parliament, is thereby declared contrary.

Unto this, Sir, I ſay, I cannot but obſerve what ſtrength of prejudice acted theſe learned men in making to themſelves theſe Doubts and Reaſons against the Covenant; which leads them almoſt throughout their Book to infer generals from ſpecials; as I have before noted in our Arguments, ſo in this; the words themſelves do quote out of the Petition of Right, are theſe, Whereas many of them have had an Oath adminiſtred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realme, they do humbly pray that no man hereafter be compelled to take ſuch an Oath; according to which words, it appears to be ſome ſpeciall Oath that was complained of, and unto which the relative doth refer; the which, if they would pleaſe to obſerve, the connexion of the words will be found to have been a particular and ſpecifical Oath; the words in the Plaint run thus, Petition of Right.By means whereof Your People have been in divers places aſsembled, and required to lend certain moneys unto Your Majeſty, and of them, upon their refuſal ſo to do, have had an Oath adminiſtred unto them, not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; ſo that it appears to have been an Oath of diſcovery of their Eſtate, upon refuſal to lend moneys, or ſome Oath ex officio, unto p. 114ſelf-accuſation, beyond the Statute of the 25th. Henry the third, which is in this point complained of, as violated; and the prayer of that Petition doth no leſs ſpecifie this Oath by the Relative SƲCH, which referreth unto the quality of the Oath complained againſt; ſo doth alſo the concatenation of the prayer, which proportionally to the Plaint, is, That no man be compelled to make gift or loan, &c. or be called to make anſwer, or take ſuch Oath; ſo that this was an Oath to make anſwer unto the damage of a mans own Eſtate, Life, or Liberty, which is repugnant to Nature, and herein aggravated, as not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; a more full deſcription whereof, theſe Gentlemen might have received in the Statute 17. Caroli, concerning Commiſſioners for Cauſes Eccleſiastical. Now Sir, from this ſpecial to argue againſt all Oaths that paſs not by Act of Parliament, is a plain non ſeuquitur, and unjuſt inference; the Companies in London, or it may be ſome Colledges in Oxford, are conſtituted by the Kings Charter or Patent, and the Maſter and Wardens of the one, or Preſident and Fellows of the other; give an Oath to all that become Members thereof, and expect to participate in their priviledges; will theſe learned men ſay, that theſe Oaths not impoſed or preſcribed by Act of Parliament, were contrary to the Petition of Right, which never complained of, or prayed againſt ſuch Oaths? I do not think theſe men would have had us to think that the Oath & Caetera, enjoyned in the Canons of 1640. was againſt the Petition of Right, which certainly would beſpeak the Biſhops ſomething prejudicial to the Civil State, and yet it was never paſſed by Act of Parliament. Moreover, theſe learned men ſubſcribed, and ſwear to the Proteſtation of May, 1641. they did not ſure then think that ſubmitting to ſwear that Oath, they did violate, or betray the liberties of the people, expreſſed in the Petition of Right; they ſhould do well to tell us by what Act (I do not ſay Authority) of Parliament it was eſtabliſhed? I humbly conceive that there is a vaſt difference between an Oath of exaction, ſelf-diſcovery, or accuſation, which is wicked in its nature, and more wicked, when without warrant from the Law; and an Oath for establiſhment of publick and general good, impoſed by the Authority, though not eſtabliſhed by Act of Parliament; it is not the ſimple taking an Oath without conſent of Parliament; but the taking ſuch p. 115an Oath, as may impeach the perſons, or endanger the Eſtates of the Subject, which was the Peoples grievances; not is it the formality of an Act, but the full conſent of the people in Parliament, makes an Oath lawful, and preſerveth their liberties in the impoſing of it.

But theſe Maſters and Scholars of Oxford fear, Ibid.by owning this Covenant, they ſhould own a power in the impoſers thereof, then for ought that appeareth to them, hath been challenged in former times, or can conſiſt with their former Proteſtation (if rightly underſtood (in ſundry the moſt material Branches of it.

Unto this Sir, I muſt ſay, that I know not what did appear to them to have been the power of the impoſers, and challenged in former times; only unto me, and many others, it did appear not to he the meer natural Power of the People prepoſterouſly, and in a tumultuous manner aſſembled, who yet do appear to have a power to impoſe on themſelves an Oath; and to whom I find Soveraignty it ſelf (to ſpeak it with due Reverence) in ſome meaſure ſubjected, and its obligation ſuperſeded; if not made void, clearly barred from execution; if but by the impoſſibility put thereon, as it was in the caſe of Jonathans Reſcue; which I ſhall only report in the words of Biſhop Hall, Saul hath ſworn Jonathans death, the people contrarily ſwear his preſervation, Halls Contem. p. 1038.his Kingdom was not ſo abſolute (yet more abſolute than Englands) that he could run away with ſo unmerciful a juſtice, their Oath, which ſavoured of diſobedience, prevailed againſt his Oath, which ſavoured of too much cruelty; and ſo long as his heart was not falſe to his Oath, he could not be ſorry Jonathan ſhould live: I do not in any caſe juſtifie the prepoſterous and tumultuous Aſſemblings and Aſſumptions of the People, whereby they lay on themſelves Bonds which muſt not be broken, and cannot well without much difficulty be kept; yet I cannot but obſerve many times whereby, the Vox populi, is Ʋox Dei; as in the very change of the Government of Iſrael, on which Dr. Hall Notes It was Gods ancient purp ſe to raiſe up a King to his People; Page 10.24.how doth he take occaſion to do it by the unruly deſires of Iſrael; but (bleſſed be God) this was not the caſe of the Covenant; the impoſers did not aſſemble on their own heads, and by violence p. 116and diſorder aſſume unto themſelves an unuſual power.

The power impoſing this Covenant, was a Parliament, the Collective Body of the Kingdom; Duly Summoned, Regularly Elected and returned; Rightly Conſtituted, and Readily Embraced by King and Kingdom, and animated with more than ordinary Parliamentary power, by the Bill for their continuance againſt all Caſualties, ſo as not to be Prorogued, Adjourned, or Diſſolved, without their own conſent: And can any True-born Engliſh man (in any meaſure acquainted with the conſtitution of this Kingdom, or the Authority of the High Court of Parliament) deny theſe to be a juſt and lawful Authority to reſolve, order, and enjoyn, yea, and execute their Reſolves, Orders and Injunctions, during the being of their power; though not to eſtabliſh Lawes to be executed, when they were diſſolved and gone.

Sir, I cannot without ſad thoughts, remember the unhappy difference between His late Majesty, and the late long Parliament; which occaſioned the unhappy oppoſition of the Peoples Liberty, and the Kings Prerogative; as I cannot but wiſh they had been acted ſo conjunctly, that they might have ſeem'd to vulgar apprehenſion to have been but one; ſo I cannot but judge it prudence that a period be put to the diſpute thereof, upon the now Happy Re-union of his moſt Sacred Majeſty, and theſe too long diſtracted Kingdomes; I am clearly of opinion with Ariſtotle, that Prince of Politians, Ariſtot. Polit. lib. 5. c. 10, 11.That Regal Government is beſt establiſhed, where the Princes and People do participate of it; and that Theopompus the Spartan, in tranſmitting ſome of his Prerogative to his Ephori Princes, might well maintain the encreaſe of his Dominion, whilſt he made it longer by making it leſs: I think therefore that the wiſeſt men, and beſt Subjects, will rather think, then aſſert, a Prerogative in the King above His Parliament; and I for my part ſhould be content to find in the Parliament a ſufficient power to impoſe an Oath on the Subject, without the Kings conſent, rather than to aſſert their Superiority unto Him, in all points and particulars: And when Sir I conſider the power, even over and againſt their King in the Princes, and the Collective Body of the People Recorded in Scripture, as in making War, Joſh. 22. Judg. 20. Changing the Government. 1 Sam 8. p. 117Chooſing and establiſhing, not only their firſt, but ſucceeding Kings, though immediately appointed, and ſometimes anointed by God, as in the caſe of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam, and others, in removing from the King Favourites and Counſellors; as David was againſt the mind of Achiſh the King, diſmiſſed by the Princes of the Philiſtines, 1 Sam. 29. in reſtraining the Kings purpoſe of deſtruction, confirmed by an Oath once and again, as in the caſe of Jonathan; or of protection, as in the caſe of Jeremiah the Prophet, concerning whom Zedekiah the King ſaid, He is in your hands, the King is not he that can do any thing againſt you, Jer. 38.5. In theſe and the like caſes, Joſephus tells us, Joſeph. Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 18.the King might not do any thing without, or againſt the ſentence of the Senate or Congregation: Methinks a divine defence may be well made for the power of the Parliament in this caſe acted and admitted; though without, and againſt the conſent of the King.

And when I conſider what is Dogmatically aſſerted by Polititians, and no mean Lawyers, in reference to the power of general Councils and Conventions of Kingdoms in general, Foxe, Acts and Monuments. p. 616.as of Englands Parliaments in particular, as in the Council of Baſil againſt the Pope, the whole Realm hath more Authority than the King. The ſame aſſerted by Marius Salamonius, who by many Arguments doth defend it, De principatu. lib. 1. p. 17, 18.he was a Roman Lawyer and Philoſopher; Hollingſhead and Vowel in their Deſcription of England, declare concerning the Parliament, That this Court hath the most high and abſolute power of the Realm; and that not only without, but againſt the King, by it offenders are puniſhed, and corrupt Religion reformed or diſannulled, and that whatever the people of Rome might do centuriatis, comitiis, or tribunitiis; Vot. 1. cap. 1. p. 173.which I am ſure was to impoſe an Oath, the ſame is, and may be done by Parliament; unto which may be added what is ſpoken to the ſame effect, and almoſt in the ſame words, by Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary of State to King Edward the ſixth, and Queen Elizabeth, and a Doctor of the Law, in his Common-wealth of England; and Horne, an Eminent Lawyer in Edward the firſt his Reign, in his Mirrour of Juſtice, cap. 1. p. 7, 8, 9. and Forteſcue, Lord Chancellor to Henry the ſixth, in his Book de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 9. and Bracton, quoted by theſe learned men, who certainly affirms more than they can approve, Rex p. 118habet Superiorem Deum, item legem, per quam factus eſt Rex; item curiaem ſuam (viz.) Comites & Barones, &c. Et ideo ſi Rex fuerit ſine fraeno debent ei fraenum imponere; and above all, the Soveraign Powers of Parliaments judiciouſly defended in our very caſe, by that profound Lawyer, Mr. William Prynne, approved no leſs Loyal to, and Zealous for the Kings Prerogative, than Loving to the Peoples Liberties. I ſee not how we can avoid this Concluſion, That the Ʋotes, Orders, and Ordinances of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, even without or againſt the Kings perſonal command, is to be obeyed and obſerved.

Laſtly, When I obſerve the Tranſactions of Parliament in the times of Ʋortiger, Sigebert, Ofred, Beornerde, Edwin, and Edgar, and other Saxon Kings, Deo dictante & annuente populo; the power of Parliaments in the times of King John, King Henry the third, Richard the ſecond, and other Kings of England refuſing to aſſemble at the Kings Call, aſſembling without the Kings Writ, eſtabliſhing Laws, correcting Vice and Miſdemeanour, executing Juſtice, and entring into Oaths and Covenants, without and againſt the Kings conſent; and when I obſerve in all Parliaments a power of regulating the Kings Court and Council; of reſtraining, limiting, and enlarging the Kings power of Juriſdiction and Prerogative; nay, of making void or valid a Title unto the Succeſſion to the Crown, as in the times of Henry the eighth, in caſe of his many marriages; and that during the Seſſion of Parliament, all Laws are under covert at their feet, to be by them eſtabliſhed or deſtroyed, and are by any Vote or Order ſuperſeded, before a formal Repeal; and that in all Ages, and on all ſides, it is confeſſed, and cannot be denied, that the authority of Parliament is exercis'd in al Votes, Orders and Ordinances of the two Houſes, unto the deciſion of preſent controverſies, upon Appeal from other Courts of Judicatory, wherein they can, and may authorize Examinations on Oath, and make a final judgement, unto the eaſe and relief of the Subject, not otherwhere relievable; unto the enforcement of any Act to be at preſent done and executed for the good of the Kingdom, or any particular perſons or ſociety thereof, without ſo much as deſiring the Kings conſent and concurrence; and if this power ſhould be denied, what could the freuqency of Parliaments, provided for by the old Law of King Alfred, and after by the Statutes of 4. Ed. 3.4.36. p. 119Edw. 140. twice, or at leaſt once every year, on this very ground, that the people might receive right by holy judgment (ſuch was the judgment of Parliament deemed) and that the miſchiefs and grievances which daily happen, might be redreſſed if need be; on which account Proclamation was wont to be made in the open Palace, before the breaking up of Parliament, Whether there be any that have delivered a Petition to the Parliament, and not received anſwer thereunto? And this power removed, what will avail the Triennial Parliaments conceded by His late Majeſty, or of what benefit was the continuation of this late long Parliament, againſt all Caſualties whatſoever that might fall out to diſſolve them? Can it be rationally imagined, that their being ſhould be continued and ſecured, to ſit within thoſe Walls in Council and Debate, without any power to order or execute the Emergent Affairs of the Nation? Theſe things well conſidered, I ſ y, I ſee not how the impoſing an Oath can be an aſſuming, or the people ſwearing, an acknowledging of a greater power than hath in former times been challenged. If theſe Gentlemen will conſult our own Hiſtories in the caſes before touched, they will find a power much greater, not only challenged, but aſſumed and exerciſed; the which the ſeaſon, and preſent ſtate of Affair do forbid me to recite, in hopes that there will be no need to rip up our wounds newly healed; and theſe generals may, I hope, ſufficiently juſtifie the ſufficiency of that authority which brought us into Covenant.

But theſe learned men ſuggeſt an inconſistency of this power with their former Proteſtation in ſundry material Branches: Methinks, Sir, they ſhould have ſpecified thoſe Branches, and the rather, becauſe material and many. The Proteſtation contains not many Branches; and thoſe few ſeem to be fully conform to this Covenant in all the particulars; and wherein they have ſuppoſed a contrariety, we have before evidenced only a diſſonancy at the moſt; and that Ratione, not Re, in the manner of expreſſion, not the thing ſworn: they then proteſted to preſerve the power and priviledges of Parliament, and ſhould not covenant any more, nay, ſcarce ſo much in this Oath; for they herein promiſe to preſerve the Rights and Priviledges, which is ſomething ſofter than power; and I wonder they that then ſaw a power to be preſerved, could not now ſee a right: I will only enquire whether they thought the p. 120Parliament had a power to impoſe that Oath, and not a right to impoſe this? There was no Act of Parliament, nor Aſſent of the King to that; I obſerve the King in His Meſſages to the Houſes, doth note it to be their own Protestation, as if He had no hand in it, nor conſent unto it; and if by power they ſhould mean natural strength, not political authority, it hath been urged by many as their grievance, and by theſe Gentlemen themſelves in the foregoing Exceptions, that they had too much of that: It is the unhappineſs of a ſcrupulous conſcience to run it ſelf on contradiction in actions, as well as aſſertions; to ſwear as lawfully called at one time, but not to dare to ſwear an Oath containing the ſame matter, though called by the ſame authority another time.

But that which was the greateſt doubt with theſe learned men, was, Pag. ibid. & 4.the King by His Proclamation, Octob. 9.19. Carol. had expreſſely forbidden the entring into this Covenant, it being in His power to make void the ſame.

That ſuch an Interdict had been publiſhed by His late Majeſty, we cannot deny; League Illegal. p. 16.but not as Dr. Featly his ghoſt ſuppoſeth, on pain of Treaſon; for no Proclamation of the Kings of England did claim the formality of a Law, ſo far as to faſten Treaſon on the non-obſervance of what is thereby enjoyned.

2. I am not ſatisfied how regularly His Majeſty did iſſue forth the ſaid Proclamation; which is not uſually done, but by the advice of His Council, who are vailed by the Seſſion of Parliament; and all Proclamations then uſually run by the Advice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament aſſembled; and if at any time the Lords and Commons, or either of them during their Seſſions, give out Orders, not only relating to the Eſtate they repreſent, but to any others, the Subjects of this Realm; it hath not been uſual for the King, by the Authority of His Proclamation, to thwart, oppoſe, and void them; and in a caſe of this nature, a good obſerver may find, the Parliament have judged the Kings oppoſing, or taking notice of any thing by them debated or ordered, before it is regularly propounded to Him by themſelves, to have been a breach of priviledge, and ſo to have been acknowledged, and as ſuch retracted by His late Majeſty; the little pleaſure I have in the ſtory, forbids inſtances, hoping general hints may anſwer the learned and ſober.

p. 1213. Nor am I convinced that it was in His power by the equity of the Law, Numb. 32. (they mean 30.2.) to annull and make void the Covenant; for admitting the equity of that Law by Analogy to reach us, I hope no adult child ſhall on obſervation of irregularities in the Government of a Family, be barred from vowing in his place and calling, to his power and capacity ſincerely, really, and conſtantly to endeavor the Reformation thereof; viz. Quenquam qui gaudet uſu rationis ita plene ſub alterius poteſtate eſſe quin ut ſit quantum ad aliqua ſaltem ſui juris, is Dr. Sanderſon's Rule; though the effect may, yet the lawful endeavour cannot be out of the childs reach; De Turam.if the child or wife ſwear nothing but poſitive duty, or what is within their power, and ſo limit their vow; I hope the Superiours interdiction, will favour more of paſſionate miſtake, than ſtrength to avoid the vow.

Yet I muſt confeſs I am not clear, that the equity of that Law will reach our caſe, I was ever willing to yield His Majeſty the Reverence due to a Political Parent; but in this caſe of conſcience wherein He is abſtracted from, and oppoſed unto the Parliament, I find a defect which makes me fear the ſimile will not ſquare; and though I can own Him as a Parent to be by Him corrected and diſpoſed, yet methinks the Parental power is placed in others, at leaſt conjunct with Him (viz.) the Parliament; I am ſure Legiſlation is Paternal power, and Execution more proper to the other Parent; and that the Lords and Commons have a ſhare, if not the greateſt ſhare, in Legiſlation, no true Engliſhman, nay, no ordinary Polititian, can or will deny; when I obſerve the King ſworn to Rule according to the Laws, quas populas clegerit, which the people ſhall chooſe, and the Writ for their Election to require that they be furniſhed, and have plenam & ſufficientem potestatem pro ſe & communitate, &c. ad faciendum & conſentiendum his quae tunc & ibidem de communi in conſilidicti Regni nostri contigerint ordinari ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujuſmodi, &c. dicta negotia infecta non remaneant: Paternal Authority, power to conſent and make Laws in the great Affairs of the Kingdom, as the Family; and when I obſerve Polititians and Lawyers, even Engliſh-men, generally to conclude the forma informans, form animating the Law to be the conſent or choice of the people; whence Marius Salamonius, p. 122that great Lawyer, defining the Law, ſaith, it is, Expreſſa Civium Conventio; and makes this the Reaſon of their obligation, Ligatur populus legibus ſuis, De principatu. lib. 1. p. 35, 36. Instin. Cod. 1. Tit. 17. Lex. 8.quaſi pactis conventis, quae verae ſunt leges; whence Theodoſius the Emperour, writing to the Senate of Rome, doth declare conſenſus univerſorum, to be the formality of thoſe Laws that he would eſtabliſh; to which our Hollingſhead, and Sir Thomas Smith before mentioned, doth fully aſſent and concur, as likewiſe Forteſcue, who makes the King to be as the Miniſter in Marriage, who may eſtabliſh and declare it; but the conſent of parties gives it being; and the common Dialect of our own Statutes being, the Aſſent of the Lords and Commons, and Authority of Parliament, wich no leſs frequency than the Aſſent of the King; and that the contriving, debating, fully forming, by frequent reading, ſerious conſideration, and full diſputes, is the peculiar work of the two Houſes; whilſt a Miniſterial Declaration (though in a Dialect, and form of Majeſty) is the proper and only work of a King, though I deny not a Parental power and Prerogative to the King; I cannot but judge it more than probable, that the proper Paternal power is in the Parliament, or at the leaſt in the three Eſtates; and then, Sir, we are under this unhappy queſtion, Whether to obey father or mother, when they falling out, command different, nay, contrary things? this I confeſs is not more the diſtraction, than the confuſion of the Family; yet certainly in ſuch an unhappy chance, prudent and rational children, muſt, and will cleave to the principal legiſlative party, who hath a confeſſed authority and power to extend or reſtrain, augment or diminiſh the Prerogative and Miniſterial power of the other, bound to act according to their appointments.

Sir, Dr. Gaudens Appeal to the Oxford Reaſons, hath led me to this Diſcourſe, and unwilling diſtinction; but my prayer is, and hence-forward ſhall be, that England may honour father and mother, and know no difference; for the Caſe is now altered, and this Argument is of no force; as I thought I had ſufficiently hinted in my laſt; for His late Majeſty forbade the Act, but never aſſumed an Authority to void the Obligation; and His moſt Sacred Majeſty by His own ſubjection to it, Declaration for it, and Oath to endeavour the Eſtabliſhment thereof, hath (as is before noted) made it valid; and I hope ſuch as call Him Father, p. 123will weigh the equity of this Law, Numb. 30.2. and not only acknowledge their brethren bound by it, but themſelves become ſubject to the ſame bond, which had before a lawful and ſufficient, but now hath a compleat and perfect Auhority.

4. 4. The geſture in making the Covenant, vindicated.The fourth and laſt particular in the manner of making the Solemn League and Covenant, is, The action or geſture of the body uſed in the ſwearing thereof to declare the aſſent of the minde; by which prophane ſpirits do endeavour to reproach it, for that it was not ſworn after the ordinary manner uſed among us, by laying the hand on the Bible, but by lifting up the hand towards heaven. Amongſt thoſe who have of late appeared againſt the Covenant, I find none ſpeaking againſt this geſture, League Illegal p. 21.ſave only Dr. Featlies ghoſt, who (like it ſelf, more ſcurrilouſly than ſeriouſly) pretends to Anſwer one Text of Scripture, which he ſuppoſeth to be the only one for defence of this geſture, Rev. 10.15. The Angel lifted up his hand and ſware, &c. Unto which he ſaith, That might be a fit geſture for an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world; which yet may not be thought ſo fit a geſture for men entring into an holy League for the preſervation of two Kingdoms; If they can, as the Angel, ſtand upon the earth and the ſea at the ſame time: let them imitate the Angels in lifting up their hands when they make their Covenant; Howſoever, I think it a fitter geſture, in taking this Oath, than after the uſual manner to lay the hand on the Bible; for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that Book; and the lifting up of the hand, very well expreſſeth the purport of the Covenant, which is a lifting up their hands againſt the Lords Anointed and his Church.

The very tranſcription of this is a ſufficient confutation: Who can read it, and not run and read a moſt malicious heart venting it ſelf by a moſt weak head! Sounds not this Argument like Dr. Featley? Sure his Executor thought his name enough to make acceptable the dulleſt notions could drop from his own brain.

I ſhall deſire it may be conſidered.

1. No particular geſture is neceſſary and appointed of God to be uſed by men in making Oaths and Covenants; and therefore p. 224men have choſen what geſture of the body to them ſeemed good to declare the aſſent of the mind; as Abraham and Jacob, the putting the hand under the hallow of the thigh; our Countrey ordinarily uſeth the laying the hand on the Bible, and kiſſing the Book; but other Countreys, the holding up of the right hand. May not the Magiſtrate, preſcribing an Oath, preſcribe what geſture ſeems him good? They muſt needs be eager bent, who will fight with a ſhadow.

2. Is the lifting up of the hand a geſture peculiar to an Angel? only uſed in menacing, and when he ſtands on ſea and land at the ſame time? Did this man never read nor hear it uſed in other places of Scripture? and on other occaſions? or was it the vehemency or verity of the threatning, and doom denounced, which was witneſſed by it? What thinks he of Abraham in Gen. 14.22. I have lift up my hand to God, I will not take any thing that is thine? He was no Angel, nor threatning any judgement, nor did he ſtand on ſea and land at the ſame time: Or, what thinks he of Ezek. 20.5. I lifted up my hand unto the ſeed of the Houſe of Jacob? God was not an Angel; nor then menacing any fatal doom, but promiſing the greateſt bleſſings which Iſrael could enjoy, If he had pleaſed to conſult any Expoſitors on theſe or the like Texts, he ſhould find, that the lifting up of the hand, was the uſual geſture in ſwearing any Oaths and Covenants: He would make the World believe, the Covenanters were in an hard ſtrait to find an inſtance of this geſture in Scripture; and therefore they flie to the Angel in the Revelation.

3. Hath the Solemn League and Covenant no ground or foundation in Scripture? Suppoſe the matter of it be no more than he here ſuggeſteth, (viz.) The preſervation of two Nations; hath this no ground in Scripture? Did he never read therein of two Nations joyned in one Covenant, for the good one of another? But further, hath the preſervation of the true Reformed Religion, and reformation, according to the Word of God, no foundation in Scripture; are there no Hiſtorical Relations of Covenants of this matter? hath the preſervation of the Kings Honour and Happineſs, no ground or foundation in Scripture? hath unity and uniformity in Religion, no ground in Scripture, and are not theſe the matter of the Covenant? Can any thing but p. 125horrid impudence, ſay, It was not fit for them to lay their hands on the Bible, for this Covenant hath no ground or foundation in that Book? This Authour might have well forborne this charge, who himſelf concedes, that punctilio in the manner of making this Covenant, which many and himſelf would deny to have ground in Scripture, (viz.) the making it without the Kings conſent: For he grants, that a Covenant to remove a ſcandal, League Illegal p. 20.and fulfill the expreſs command of God, may be made not only without, but against the conſent of the Prince. If this Covenant fall not under one of theſe, nay both theſe qualifications, I have loſt my reaſon.

4. With what face can this fury ſay the purport of this Covenant was the lifting up of their hands against the Lords Anointed and his Church, whilſt its profeſſed inſcription, is, A Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honour and Happineſs of the King: Anſwerable whereunto are the grounds inducing to make it: Having before our eyes the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Christ, the Honour and Happineſs of the Kings Majeſty and His Poſterity; and accordingly promiſeth the preſervation and reformation of Religion according to the Word of God, and to preſerve and defend the Kings Majeſties Perſon and Authority; that the world may bear witneſs with our conſciences, that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminiſh His Majeſties just Power and Greatneſs: Whatever may have been the practiſes of ſome wicked men, who ſware this Covenant, it is as clear as the Sun, That the lifting up of the hand for the good of the Church, Honour and Safety of the Lords Anointed, was the purport of the Covenant it ſelf: And the violent rejection of the Covenant, as an Almanack out of date before the horrid violence done unto His late Majeſty, is a manifeſt teſtimony of it; together with the proteſt of the covenanted Secluded Members of Parliament, and of the Miniſters of London, againſt thoſe perjurious proceedings: As likewiſe, the publick teſtimonies of the Ministers of the Gospel to the Solemn League and Covenant, of almoſt all the Counties in England, do declare it: and the divaſtation and captivity of Scotland, the Sequeſtrations, Impriſonments, and death of many in England; and conteſts with all zeal, faithfulneſs, and constancy, againſt all difficulties and dangers, p. 126unto the very effecting of the Happy Return of His moſt Sacred Majeſty, and that in conſcience of this very Covenant, do loudly ſound it through the world, if the ſame malice do not deafen the ear in hearing the comment, that darkned the eye in reading the Text.

Now, Sir, I muſt tell him, the lifting up of the hand might be a moſt proper geſture to the taking of this Covenant, not only as a geſture uſual in ſwearing, and expedient, becauſe expeditious in an Oath univerſally ſworn by whole Aſſemblies, but as a ſign of special ſuit and earneſt ſupplication for divine grace and aſſiſtance, Lam. 2.19. Of Solemn adoration and worſhip of God; praiſing his goodneſs that had enclined the heart of the Governors of his people, to bring them into ſuch a Covenant; Neh. 8.6. Or of joy and alacrity in ſo Sacred a Bond unto ſuch abſolute duties tending to the honour of God, happineſs of the King, and ſafety of true Religion, Pſ. 119.48. And in theſe reſpects it is a geſture no leſs ſuitable to men than Angels; and the ſtanding on earth, not ſea and earth at the ſame time, performing a duty, and promiſing things required in Scripture, and praying mercies and bleſſings, not menacing a fatal doom: Yet I will not deny that it imprecated Gods direful judgements to fall on the heads of ſuch as ſhould violate this Solemn League and Covenant; which our eyes have ſeen accompliſhed on ſuch as ſlighted its obligation in the Civil part thereof: And I cannot but tremble, to think what muſt needs attend ſuch as not only ſlight, but ſet againſt, and violently break through theſe holy bonds in that part which immediately concerneth God and true Religion; whilſt we ſee the very manner of making this Covenant is no leſs juſtifiable, than the matter therein ſworn; and being ſeriouſly conſidered, will not avail to reproach, much leſs to diſcharge the Solemn League and Covenant.