The League Illegal, Document 4

The League Illegal · Document 4

p. 13THE League Illegall.

Queſt. WHether is this Covenant ſo grounded upon holy Scriptures, and ſo conformable to the Laws of the Land yet in force, and ſo conſonant to former Oathes and Proteſtations, that a religious Chriſtian and Loyall Subject may without ſcruple of Conſcience, and danger of enſnaring his ſoul, enter into it?

I anſwer Negatively.

Anſw. And although I had more then once, made a Covenant with my ſelf, Rebus ſic ſtantibus, or rather jacentibus, never to queſtion this Covenant; which the authority of both Houſes,Mr. Nye. p. 21. Our laſt refuge. Tabula poſt naufragium. Henderſons Speech, p. 32. Were this Covenant written on the plaſter of the wall, over againſt the Pope, Beſhazzar-like in his ſacrilegious pompe; it would make his heart to tremble, his countenance to change, his head and Miter to ſhake, his joynts to looſen, and all his Cardinals and Prelates to be aſtoniſhed at it. E. W. his Preface to the Solemn League: It is the cleereſt that ever was penned here below; the finger of God is in it too. By help of that hand which wrote the Ten words firſt, this was indicted and written ſure enough: for truly it is as the good Word of God. and Piety and Learning of the Aſſembly of Divines, hath commended as the Soveraign Remedy of all the Maladies of the times: yet becauſe my conſcience tels me that it hath not approbation from the Three that bear record in heaven, I dare not conceal thoſe Reaſons which at the firſt made me doubt of the lawfulneſs of it, and in the end put it out of doubt. The reaſons propounding the naked truth, without any clothing of art, or ornament of Rhetorick, are theſe. Audi non phalerata, ſed fortia.

p. 141Not to take advantage of 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 Liberties of the Subject are ſet before the Royal Prerogative, and Imperial Dignity of the Prince. Surely ſuch a ſacred and venerable Evidence of fidelity, is a publick Covenant made by two Nations, and ſigned by the Name of the great Jehovah; that in it both matter and method, phraſe and order ought to be maturely adviſed on: and not only every period and line, but every word and ſyllable therein to be exactly ſcan'd, before the conſcience of millions of men be charged with it. If we cannot brook or keep our hands from tearing a Liſt, Catalogue, or Regiſter, wherein they who are many degrees below us, are yet ranked above us, and named before us: can his Majeſty take it well at our hands, that we ſhould accept of a Covenant hand over head, wherein the members are ſet above the head, and his Soveraign Majeſty ſleighted; and that not only by miſplacing his perſon, but limiting and reſtraining the preſervation of his Perſon, and Authority to the defence of the true Religion, and maintenance of the Liberties of the Kingdoms? What is this but to indent with our Soveraign, and capitulate with our head; as Ochan ſometimes did with the Emperor Frederick, Defende me gladio, & ego defendam te argumentis; Defend me with thy Sword, and I will defend thee with my Pen? If his Majeſty will defend our Faith, we will bear faith to him; if he will keep ſafe our Pendants, we will ſafeguard his Crown. Which limitation I except at, not that I doubt but that there is and ought to be a mutual tie between King and Subject; and that if he either deſert the true Faith, or infringe the Laws and juſt liberties of his Subjects, for which he pawned his Faith at his Coronation; God will call him to an account for it: but this doth not diſcharge us of our Allegiance to him. Though he keep not touch with us, yet we may not break with him; for he is, (as Tertullian gives him his true dimenſions, according to the golden reed of the Sanctuary,) Solo Deo minor, caeteris omnibus p. 15major: and conſequently queſtionable for his breach of faith before none but God. Alas, what a fickle eſtate and lamentable condition were princes in, if upon pretence that they defend not that Religion which the people believe to be true; or maintain not thoſe Liberties which they challenge as their birthright; their royall Crownes may be expoſed to rapine, and their ſacred perſons to violence!

2Not to dive into the depths of State, nor anxiouſly to enquire into the reaſon which moved the firſt contrivers and projectors of this League to ſet it on foot at this preſent, and preſſe it with all earneſtneſs; I am perſwaded that none will denie that their main ſcope and aime therein was, to engage our brethren of Scotland in the preſent quarrell, for pulling down Epiſcopacie, and ſetting up the Presbyterie; and by this National and ſolemne league to ſtrengthen their partie, and foment this unnaturall war which hath already drained the wealth of the Kingdome: and is like to draw out the life-blood alſo. Nemo tenetur divinare, ſay the Canoniſts; neither will I take upon me the office of a Prophet to foretell the Cataſtrophe of theſe Tragedies. Yet ſure I am, this Queen of all Iſlands never received ſuch prejudiced and wrong, nor ever was ſo near the brink of deſtructions when ſhe drew in forain Forces to defend her ſelf againſt homebred Enemies: and I pray God we experimentally interpret not the myſterie of Pharaohs dream concerning the lean kine which eat up the fat, and yet were never a whit the fatter. If there be a decree of Heaven, that theſe two Nations ſhall be drowned one in anothers blood, for the crimſons ſins of both not yet repented of: yet let not us draw this moſt fearfull judgement upon both Kingdomes by the cord of an oath. But to argue ſyllogiſtically.

3No Subjects living under a Chriſtian Prince who is a profeſſor of the true Religion, and a Defender of the orthodox faith may enter into a publick and ſolemne covenant for the reformation of religion, without the conſent, (much leſſe againſt the expreſſe command) of their Soveraign. p. 16For ſuch diſobedience and ſleighting of their King cannot ſtand with the duty we ow him of fear and loyalty, injoyned Prov. 24. 21. My ſon, fear the Lord and the King. Eccleſ. 8. 2. I adviſe thee to take heed to the mouth of the King, and to the word of the oath of God. Rom. 13. 1. Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher powers: whoſoever reſiſteth the power, reſiſteth the ordinance of God, and they that reſiſt, ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. V. 4. If thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the ſword in vain. Prov. 16. 14. The wrath of the King is the meſſenger of death. Prov. 19. 12. The Kings wrath is like the roaring of a Lion. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your ſelves to every ordinance of man for the Lords ſake; whether it be to the King as ſupreme. v. 17. Fear God, honour the King; Nor with the prayers of the Church made for him, that we may ſerve, honour, and humbly obey him in God, and for God: Nor with the principles of right Reaſon; for the King is the ſupreme head of the Church, and Common-wealth, under Chriſt; and all his Subjects conjunctim in Parliament, or diviſim, are but Members of the ſame Body politick; and how ſhould the members enter into a covenant, or frame and deviſe it without the head?

But the King is ſo far from yielding his royall aſſent to this Covenant, that he ſtrictly forbids it; and that under the pain of Treaſonin; his Proclamation printed at Oxford.

Ergo, we may not enter into this Covenant, nor entangle our conſciences with this new Oath.

1This Covenant we make with God: and in all things, eſpecially the things appertaining to God,The Covenanters anſwer. we muſt obey God rather then man.

2We have the Kings vertua conſent l thereunto: for though he be not preſent in perſon at the Parliament, nor hath given his royall aſſent under his hand; yet this Parliament is called and continued by his authority, and his conſent is vertually contained in the Votes of both Houſes.

It is a ruled caſe in Divinity,Reply. That we muſt obey God rather then man, when God commandeth one thing, and man p. 17another: but when the commands of God and of his Vicegerent upon earth: claſh not one againſt another, St. Bernards doctrine is moſt true, We muſt obey him as God who is in the place of God, in thoſe things which are not againſt God. When St. Peter and St. John returned this anſwer to the Councell, the Councell forbad that which God commanded. God commanded the Apoſtles to preach Chriſts reſurrection; and the Aſſembly of Prieſts and Elders forbad them. This is not the Covenanters caſe: for where doth God command the Engliſh to ſweare to preſerve the Scotch Diſcipline and Liturgie, which they themſelves have often varied? Or to abjure Epiſcopacie, which was the only government of the Church for more then 1500 years, and under whoſe ſhade Chriſtian Religion moſt flouriſhed, and the Church ſtretched forth her branches to the Rivers, and her boughs to the ends of the earth? Where doth the Scripture warrant,See Mr. Coleman his Sermon. (much leſs command) the aſſociation of two Kingdomes and joyntly taking up armes in the quarrell of the Goſpell, and defending and propagating religion by the ſword?

2The calling of the Parliament by the Kings authority doth not conclude his aſſent to all the Ordinances of both the Houſes: for if it were ſo, why did this Parliament, after they had voted the Militia, and the extirpation of Prelacie and Pluralities, ſend to his Majeſty and humbly intreat his royall aſſent? nay, why in all Parliaments ſince the firſt even till this day, after both Houſes had paſt bills, did ſtill the Lords and Commons lay them at his Majeſties feet, beſeeching him in humbleſt manner to take them up, and ſigne them with his royall hand? and if he liked them, his anſwer hath been, Le Roy vieut; if he diſtaſted them, Le Roy s'aviſera. Did the calling of a Parliament in the Kings name and by his authority, vertually include or conclude his Royall aſſent to all the Acts; King Richard the 2d. had given his conſent to his own depoſing: for that Parliament wherein he was depoſed, was called in his name and by his Authority.

4. No Covenant, eſpecially publike and ſolemn between two Nations for reformation of Religion, may be taken p. 18without warrant from Gods word; for in every ſuch Covenant God is a partie, and his conſent muſt be both had and known, which cannot be but from his word. Beſide, this Covenant is bound with an Oath, which is an Act of Religion, and cultus latriae, that is a part of divine worſhip; and if it be not commanded by God, it is forbidden in Scripture under the name of will-worſhip.

Moreover, that golden rule of the Apoſtle applyed by by him to the uſe of things indifferent, ſtretcheth alſo to this caſe of conſcience, Whatſoever Oath we take, or Covenant we enter into, not perſwaded in Conſcience that we have good ground for what we doe in ſcripture, is ſinne to us.

But this Covenant hath no warrant for it in holy Scripture: for from the Alpha of Geneſis to the Omega of the Apocalypſe there is no vola nor veſtigium of ſuch a Covenant as this.

Ergo, this Covenant muſt not be taken by any, who deſire to walk exactly before God according to the preciſe rule of his word.

There is warrant in Gods word both for the matter of this Covenant,The Covenanters anſwer. and the form and manner of taking the oath. For the matter we have a pattern of a Covenant taken for the reformation of the falſe, and preſervation of the true worſhip of God,Coleman ſerm. p. 21. and the uniting of Kingdoms in the truth thus reformed, 1 Sam. 18. 3. 4. 2 Kings 23. 5. 2 Chr. 25. 8. 9. 2 Chro. 30. Ezra 10. 2. And for the form and manner of taking it by lifting up the hand, Nye's Speech, p. 15.we have a precedent Apoc. 10. 50.

None of theſe inſtances are ad Rhombum: Reply 1.all thoſe Covenants were made againſt idolatrie and other ſins expreſly forbidden by the law of God; but this Covenant is againſt Prelacie and ſuch a form of worſhip practiſed in the Church of England, as hath been juſtified by the word of God, and unanſwerable arguments drawn from Scripture by Whitgift and Hooker in their anſwer to Cartwright, C…vell to Barrow p. 19and Browne, Burges to Ames, and Ball to Can, and many others.

In all thoſe Covenants the King had the main ſtroak, but in this none at all.

1. For the Covenant mentioned, 1 Sam. 18. 3, 4 it comes not home to our caſe; for that was a private Covenant between two intimate friends, for the ſafety of both their lives, ſought after by a bloudy Tyrant: this is a National Covenant between two Kingdoms, for the Reforming Religion, and ſetling Peace; that was made by the true King appointed by God, and anointed before this by Samuel, againſt him who indeed held the Crown, but was rejected by God himſelf; this is a Covenant made by Subjects againſt the Commands of a moſt gracious Prince.

2. For the Covenant mentioned 2 King. 23. 5. the text ſaith, King Joſiah made this Covenant, that they ſhould walk after the Lord, and keep his Commandements, and his Teſtimonies, and his Statutes with all their heart, &c. And that he put down the Chemarims, &c. There the King makes a Covenant, and reforms a Church, and not the People; here the People enter into a Covenant without the King, and they take upon them, againſt his command, to Reform, or rather Deform the Church, by overthrowing the Hierarchy, and aboliſhing Epiſcopacy. Chius ad Choum, theſe things agree as well as Harp and Harrow.

3. For the Covenant mentioned 2 Chr. 15. 8, 9. King Aſa gathered all Judah and Benjamin together to Jeruſalem, where they offered to the Lord of the ſpoyles, and made this Covenant, and in performance of this Oath or Covenant, v. 16. he depoſed Maacah his mother from her Regency, becauſe ſhe had made an Idoll in a grove, and Aſa brake down her Idoll, and ſtampt it, and burned it at the brook Kidron.

p. 204. For the example of Iſrael, 2 Chron. 30. who in the dayes of Hezekiah, though they were under another King, yet joyned with the men of Judah in keeping the Paſſover, it yeilds no ſupport at all to their tottering cauſe. For

1. They entred not into any ſolemn League with the men of Judah, though for the preſent they joyned with them in a Religious duty commanded by the Law.

2. What they did, they were invited to do by King Hezekiah; whereas the Scotch are not invited to this League with the Engliſh by the King.

3. The King of Asſhur forbad not the Iſraelites to joyn with their Brethren of Judah in keeping the Paſſover; but the King forbids any of his Subjects to enter into this Covenant.

4 The King who Reigned over the Iſraelites, was an Idolater; but our King is a worſhiper of the true God. And albeit, in ſome caſe and quarrel, the worſhipers of the true God may joyn with their Brethren of the ſame Religion in another Kingdom, in a Defenſive League (though the King being an Idolater, ſhould forbid it) yet it follows not, that they may do ſo without the conſent, and againſt the command of a Chriſtian Prince, who is a profeſſor of the true Religion.

Laſtly, The Iſraelites, beſides the invitation of King Hezekiah to keep a ſolemn Paſſeover with the Jews, had the expreſs command of God himſelf; whereas neither Engliſh nor Scotch have any command from God expreſly or implicitly, to enter into this League for the Defence of the Proteſtant Religion againſt Papiſt without the King, the King himſelf undertaking, and that by moſt ſolemn Oathes and Proteſtations to defend the ſame.

5. For the Covenant mentioned Ezra 10. 3. that was meerly to remove a Scandal from the Jews, and to fulfil the expreſs command of God, for putting away ſtrange wives, ſet down in the Law of Moſes: in which caſe no man doubteth but a Covenant may be made not only without, p. 21but againſt the commandement of a Prince. Yet here the Jews (beſides the command of Nehemiah the Viceroy) had the approbation of the Prince for making this Covenant: for the King of Perſia at this time favoured the Jews; and contributed largely to the reedifying of the Temple; and gave order to Ezra the Prieſt to adorn the houſe of God, and perform all things in his ſervice according to the Law, Ezra 7. 10.

The laſt example Rev. 10. 5. is leaſt to our preſent purpoſe: for the Angel there made no Covenant, but only ſware by the living God, that time ſhould be no more. It is true he lifted up his hand; yet that no way helpeth the Covenanters cauſe: for that might be a fit geſture in an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world, and the outdating of all time; which yet may not be thought ſo fit a geſture for men entring into a holy League for the preſervation of two Kingdoms. If they can, as the Angel did, ſtand upon the earth and the ſea at the ſame time; let them alſo further imitate the Angel in lifting up their hands to heaven, when they make their Covenant. Howſoever for the geſture we will not contend with them: I think it fitter in taking this Oath, then after the uſuall manner, to lay the hand upon 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 this Covenant, which is a lifting up of their hands againſt the Lords anointed, and his Church: yet under pretence of defence of the Kings perſon, never ſo much endangered as by their Armies; and of Religion, never ſo profaned as by their Reformadoes; and of the liberties of Subjects, never ſo much infringed as by arbitrary votes.

Before we take this Oath of reformation, we muſt deſire a reformation of the Oath: for it is full of ambiguities and contradictions: whence I thus frame a fifth argument.

25. No ambiguous Oath ought to be taken, or Covenant ſigned: for here one of Pythagoras golden Precepts taketh place, Loquere cum lumine: all Ambiguities, Equivocations, or p. 22mental reſervations (eſpecially in Leagues and Oathes) are abominated by all Proteſtants. He that ſweareth ambiguouſly ſweareth not in ſimplicity of heart, nor can keep his Oath ſincerely and intirely.

But in this Covenant and Oath there are many Ambiguities.

For what is meant in the firſt clauſe by common enemies? Either the world, the fleſh and the Divel; which indeed are (as it were) ſworn enemies to all true Religion: or Papiſts, or Independents; who are both enemies to the Diſcipline and Government of the Scotch Church.

In the ſecond clauſe what is meant by Church government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, &c? either all government by Biſhops; or the preſent Government only, with the late Innovations and abuſes thereof. If all government by Biſhops, then in taking this Oath, we condemn not only the perpetual Government of the Church from the Apoſtles time till the reformation of Religion in the dayes of Hen. 8. but alſo the reformed Churches in England, Ireland, Denmark, Swethland, Poland, Saxonie, and other parts of Germany; where either they have Archbiſhops and Biſhops, or tantmount Intendents, and Superintendents; If the preſent government only, with innovations and abuſes; let them explain what are the innovations and abuſes we ſwear againſt: elſe we cannot ſwear in judgement. What is meant by Hierarchy? the word ſignifieth holy Government, being derived from foreign holy, and foreign rule or government. And is it fit crudely, without any gloſſe, to forſwear all holy Government?

In the third clauſe, what is meant by defending the Kings perſon in the defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms? Is it a limitation, or not? If it be no limitation, what doth it there?foreign. There ought to be no idle, and (if I may ſo ſpeak) hang-by words in an Oath: for the Wiſeman teacheth us,Eccleſ. 5. 1.Eccl 5:1 when we ſpeak to God, our words muſt be few. If it be a limitation, how doth this Covenant agree with the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance; by which we are abſolutely bound to defend the Kings perſon, royal Dignities and Prerogatives of the Crown, without any if or of, reſtriction or qualification?

p. 23In the fourth clauſe, what is meant by Malignants or evill inſtruments? a word never uſed till of late in any Statute, Law, or Ordinance; and never ſo much abuſed as at this day.

In the ſixth clauſe, how far extend theſe words, I will aſſiſt and defend all thoſe that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and perſuance thereof? Doth it reach to giving battle to the King, Sequeſtring Eſtates, plundering houſes, and trampling all Laws under foot; and to the juſtifying all the outrages committed in the maintaining and purſuing this League? If not, why is it not circumſcribed with that limitation in the firſt Proteſtation, By all good and lawful means? or, ſo far as lawfully I may? There being ſo many Amphibologies, Ambiguities, and riddles in this Oath, we muſt have ſome Oedipus of the Synod to read and clearly expound them, before we can ſafely engage our conſcience by Oath to perform them.

6No Covenant may be made, or Oath taken, which implyeth in it contradictions; for in ſuch an Oath or Covenant we play faſt and looſe; ſay and unſay; and overthrow the nature of an Oath; and take Gods name in vain. The Schools and ancient Doctors conſtantly maintain, that it exceedeth even Divine Omnipotency to reconcile Contradictions; which are amongſt thoſe many things St. Auguſtine ſpeaketh of, which God therefore cannot do, becauſe he is Omnipotent.

But there are apparent contradictions in this Covenant, and Gordian knots which cannot be untied. For,

1Firſt, It is ſaid in the Preface, that the Noblemen, Barons▪ &c. enter into this Covenant according to the commendable practice of theſe Kingdoms in former times; and yet Mr. Nye in his Speech, publiſhed by ſpecial order of the Houſe, upon the very day the Covenant was read and ſworn unto, and ſubſcribed by the Honorable Houſe of Commons, and Reverend Aſſembly of Divines, Sept. 25. ſaith p. 12. That ſuch an Oath for matter, perſons, and other circumſtances, hath not p. 24been in any age, or oath we read of in ſacred or humane ſtories. And Mr. Coleman in his Sermon commanded to be printed by the Commons of the Houſe of Parliament, Sept. ult. 1643. p. 18. Ask your Fathers, conſult with the aged of our times, whether ever ſuch a thing were done in their dayes, or in the dayes of their Fathers before them? And in his Epiſtle Dedicatory, An Oath, if vain, makes the Land to mourn: an Oath, if weighty, makes it rejoyce. This is a new thing, and not done in our Land before; and I hope will have a new effect, not ſeen by our people before.

2We are to ſwear in the firſt branch, That we will really and conſtantly endeavour the preſervation of the reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, and Government: and yet in the ſame branch we ſwear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in theſe three Kingdoms (of which Scotland is one) to the neareſt conjunction and uniformity in form of Church Government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the beſt reformed Churches. But this cannot be done if Scotland be preſerved in her preſent Directory for Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government: for the Government in the Church of England, Ireland, Denmark, Swethland, Poland, Saxony, and in all the Churches of the Eaſt (not ſubject to the Pope) is Epiſcopal: and that is proved to be moſt conformable to the Word of God, by the writings of Bilſon, Downham, Armagh, never yet anſwered by any.

3We ſwear in the ſame branch, That we will endeavour to reform the Doctrine of the Church of England according to Gods Word; and yet preſerve the reformed Religion in Scotland in Doctrine: whereas the Doctrine of the Church of England and Scotland is all one; as appears by the Confeſſion of the one, and Articles of the other. All the difference between the Church of England and Scotland is concerning Diſcipline and Liturgie; not Doctrine, as it is diſtinguiſhed from them.

p. 254We ſwear in the ſecond branch, That we will endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy and Schiſms: whereas Prelacy hath been ever, and is, the ſpecial, if not only means to extirpate Schiſme. If Prelacy be taken away, ſaith St. Jerome ad Luc. and the preeminencie of one Presbyter above another; tot Schiſmata erunt quot Sacerdotes. That is to extirpate Church-government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, &c. and yet in the third branch we ſwear to preſerve the rights and priviledges of the Parliament, and liberties of the Kingdoms: among which liberties of the Kingdom of England, and priviledges of the Parliament, are the contents of Magna Charta, and Petition of Right; in which the Government of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and the rights and priviledges of the Church are compriſed.

5In the third branch we ſwear to preſerve and defend his Majeſties Perſon, and Authority, without any diminution of his just power and greatneſs: and yet in the ſixth Article we ſwear to aſſiſt and defend all thoſe that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and purſuance thereof: whereas it is known by their dayly practiſe, that they levie arms againſt the King; ſeize upon his Forts, Ships, Magazens, and Revenues. How can a man take away the Kings Munition, and Caſtles; and yet not weaken his power? How can a man forcibly incounter and diſcomfit an Army raiſed by the Kings power, and yet not diminiſh his power? How can a man take away his Revenues, Houſes, Parks, &c. and not diminiſh his greatneſs? how can he give him battle, and yet defend his Perſon? Therefore before we enter into this Covenant to make up all the breaches in the Church and Common-wealth, we muſt make up the breaches in the Covenant it ſelf; before we reconcile and unite the three Kingdoms, we muſt endeavour to reconcile the contradictions in this our Oath and Solemn League.

7Either this League and Covenant confirmed by oath is free and voluntary; or forced and compulſory. If it be free and voluntary, why is there annexed a moſt ſevere penalty to p. 26be inflicted upon all thoſe who refuſe to enter into it before the firſt of March? If it be forced and compulſory, how is it a Covenant? eſpecially with God, who reſpecteth not our words, but our hearts? If it be a conſtrained Oath impoſed upon us whether we will or no; then it is a heavy yoke laid upon the Conſcience, inconſiſtent with our Chriſtian Liberty: and the requiring it of us is not like to procure a bleſſing from Heaven to the Land, but to pull down the vials of Gods vengeance upon it. If Tertullian could ſay, Non eſt Religionis Religionem cogere, it is no religious act to force Religion: we may ſwear that ſuch a conſtrained Oath is no way acceptable to God. Well it may be tearmed in our language a League or Covenant: but in the language of Canaan it is not ſo. For Berith, a Covenant, comes from Bara, which ſignifieth eligere, ſaith Buxtorfius; that is, to chuſe. Neither is it any act of vertue in Ariſtotles School: for virtus eſt habitus electivus; a habit whereby we exerciſe our free choice.

8None ought to ſwear to that he knoweth not; for an oath muſt be taken in judgement, truth, and righteouſneſs, Jer. 4 2. A man cannot ſwear in judgement, or judiciouſly, who knoweth not that to be true in an aſſertory Oath; and honeſt and righteous in a promiſſary; which he ſweareth unto. For if that be falſe to which he ſweareth, he is perjured: and if it be a diſhoneſt thing which he promiſeth to do, he is unrighteous. Beſides, it is great precipitancy and raſhneſs, to enter into a Covenant blind-folded, and to ſwear to maintain that we underſtand not.

But the ſubjects of England (at leaſt for the major part) know not what the Scotch Diſcipline, Government, or Worſhip is: which notwithſtanding by this Covenant they are bound to preſerve, even with the hazard of their fortunes and lives.

We do not ſwear to obſerve that Diſcipline,The Covenanters anſwer. but to preſerve it; I may preſerve that which in point of conſcience I cannot obſerve, Mr. Caſe ſerm. p. 42. Ch. 10. 28.or at leaſt not ſwear to obſerve.

The wives, ſons, and daughters in Nehemiah's time took a Covenant; who yet knew not in particular what that p. 27Covenant did bind them to.Mr. White in a Sermon at Lambeth. Students in the Univerſity take an Oath to obſerve the Statutes; Apprentices in London to maintain the priviledges of the City; and all of us in our late Proteſtation, the Liberty of the Subject; and yet neither Scholars, nor Apprentices, nor we, know in particular all the Statutes, and priviledges we ſwear to obſerve and defend.

Theſe Anſwers yield no ſtay at all to ſupport a weak and doubting conſcience: Reply 1.for ſuch as our Oath is, ſuch muſt be our knowledge: what we ſwear to in general, we muſt know in general; whatwe ſwear to in particular, we muſt know in particular. But in this Covenant we are ſworn to preſerve the reformed Religion in Scotland, not only in general, ſo far as it is Protestaut; but in the particulars therenamed Doctrine, Diſcipline, Government, and Worſhip which we cannot do, if we know not what they are, unleſs (as the Papiſts believe, ſo we ſwear) fide implicitâ.

2Mr. Caſe gives us a Rhetorical Agnomination for a Logical Solution; a Jingle for a Diſtinction. It is true, that to preſerve and obſerve is not all one. A thief that obſerves a Port-manteau or a cap-caſe, behind a Traveller, doth not intend to preſerve it for him: yet as a man cannot obſerve that he ſees not; ſo he cannot in judgement ſwear to preſerve what he knows not.

3The wives, ſons and daughters in Nehemiahs time, who entered into that Covenant, knew in particular what it was; namely, to put away their ſtrange wives: and the Text ſaith expreſſely,Ch. 10. 28. that none took the Covenant, but ſuch as underſtood it: and therefore I confeſs I underſtand not how this example is to the purpoſe.

4The caſe is far different between the Statute Liberties of this Kingdom, and the Diſcipline and Government of another Kingdom: Our Statute Liberties and Priviledges are p. 28in continual uſe; we know moſt of them: and concerning thoſe we know not, we may eaſily inform our ſelves out of the Books of Statutes, and Records. But for the Scotch Government of the Church and Liturgie, not one of a hundred among the learned, nor one of a thouſand of the illiterate vulgar, are inſtructed in it; neither can we know certainly where to find it. For the Scotch have no Book of Canons, or ſet Form of Prayer ordered by their Church, and ratified at this day by the Royal aſſent, as we have

5I cannot conceive any reaſon why the Subjects of England ſhould be bound by Oath to preſerve the Diſcipline and Liturgy of Scotland; whereas the Subjects of Scotland are not at all bound, nor to be bound, to preſerve the Diſcipline and Liturgy of the Church of England.

It ſeems altogether unreaſonable that we of this Realm ſhould be bound by Oath to preſerve that Government and 6Form of Worſhip in Scotland, which Scotch themſelves are not neceſſarily bound to obſerve: For they have often, and may ſtill, change it at their pleaſure. In the 18. year of Queen Elizabeths reign, they conformed to the Church of England; as Buchanan relateth in his Scotch ſtory: after they conformed to the Church of Geneva: upon which occaſion Bancroft wrote the Book entituled Engliſh-Scottizing and Scottiſh-Genevating. In King James his Reign (of bleſſed memory) they returned in part to the Engliſh Form of Government: See the Aſſembly at Perth.but ſince of late to the French. To ſwear then to preſerve them in their Diſcipline, Government, and Worſhip, is to ſwear to keep a Camaelion in one colour, which changeth colour every hour.

9No Engliſh man ought to enter into a Covenant which is derogatory to the honour of the Church and Kingdom of England. For he deſerves not to enjoy the ſingular priviledges and commodities of this Land, nor ſo much as breathe Engliſh air, who will not ſtand up for the honour of this Nation.Cic. off. Omnes omnium charitutes patria complectitur.

p. 29But this Covenant is many wayes derogatory to the honour of England. For the Church of Scotland is not only ſet before the Church of England in it; but is alſo propounded as a pattern of a Church intirely reformed, not only in Doctrine, but in Diſcipline alſo and Worſhip; and therefore to be preſerved in all three: But the Church of England as an imperfect draught of a Church defective in all; and conſequently to be reformed in all, according to Gods Word, and the pattern of other reformed Churches: whereas in truth the Church of England, as it was reformed before the Church of Scotland; ſo it was more exactly and perfectly Reformed (priùs tempore, dic & honore.) And no marvel; ſith the Church of England was reformed by the authority of the Prince, and the wiſdom of the State: but the Church of Scotland by the zeal of private men. The Church of England was reformed not only in D…ctrine, but alſo in Diſcipline and Liturgy, conformably to the ancient and beſt Churches: whereas the Church of Stotland, though it imbraced Apoſtolical doctrine, yet it had not the exerciſe of Apoſtolical diſcipline ſince the Reformation, till King James of bleſſed memory reſtored Epiſcopal Government there: where (they before writing after the copie ſet by Calvin) they had ſet up the Presbytery, or government by Lay Elders, unknown to any Elder age of the Church. But howſoever the glory of the Engliſh Church of late hath been eclipſed in the eyes of many; yet by the teſtimonies of the beſt Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, in the Reign of Qu: Elizabeth and King James, it may appear, that ſhe ſhined among all the Golden Candleſticks ſet in the Weſtern and Northern parts of Chriſtendom, velut inter…ignes Luna minores. She ſupported all other Reformed Churches; and the Church of Scotland by name; as their own Chronicles relate: And howſoever ſome thing hath been queſtioned in the Diſcipline and Liturgie of the Church of England by the Scholars of Aerius the Heretick, oppoſing all Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy and Liturgie: yet the doctrine of the Church of England hath been alwayes kept ſarta tecta; and held ſound and Orthodox by all that carryed the p. 30name of Proteſtants: and the Articles of Religion, together with the Apology of Biſhop Jewell, (wherein the whole Doctrine of the Church of England, is compriſed) are inſerted into the harmony of Proteſtant Confeſſions; and approved by the ſuffrage of all Orthodox Churches. To ſwear therefore to endeavour the reforming of the Church of England in Doctrine, according to the Word of God, is either to ſwear actum agere, to do that which is done already, and ſo to ſwear vainly: or to ſwear to pervert it, it being ſtraight already; which is to ſwear impiouſly.

10No ſolemn Covenant (eſpecially confirmed by millions of Oaths between two Kingdomes) ought to be made without neceſſary and urgent occaſion: for otherwiſe in ſuch a ſolemn and publick manner to call God as it were from heaven to atteſt with us, would be a taking of his Name in vain. Eraſ. Adag. foreign.Such Covenanting is like the caſting the holy anchor among the Athenians, and the creating a Dictator among the Romans; never to be acted or attempted, but in ſome great exigent of ſtate, to preſerve it from imminent ruine and deſtruction.

But there is no ſuch neceſſity at this time of engaging both Kingdoms, and locking them faſt in ſuch a League: for the Popiſh party is at a lower ebb now in England then it hath been heretofore; and his Majeſty hath bound himſelf by many Oaths (even ſigned with the blood of his Redeemer at the holy Communion,) to maintain the Proteſtant Religion; and not only to enliven the Acts formerly made againſt Seminary Prieſts, Jeſuits, and Popiſh Recuſants; but alſo to give his royall Aſſent to any ſuch further Acts as the wiſdom of the Parliament and State ſhould offer unto him, for the advancement of the Proteſtant, and ſuppreſſing of the Romiſh Religion. And as for the Priviledges of Parliament, and Liberties of the Subject, there needs no entring into this New League for their ratification and confirmation. For they are ſufficiently eſtabliſhed by former Acts of Parliament unrepealed, and by the late Proteſtation generally made by all the Subjects of this Kingdom, May 5. 1641. The Reaſons p. 31alleadged in the preface of the Covenant have ſcarce any colour of truth; and not ſo much as a ſhadow of neceſſity.

Reaſ. 1 The firſt is, That other means of Supplications, Remonſtrances, Proteſtations, &c. have proved uneffectual: and therefore no remedy for a deſperate cure, but this uniting of minds and ſwords with the ſtrongeſt tie of a National Covenant.

Anſw. Whereunto I anſwer, That to all thoſe Supplications, Remonſtrances, and Proteſtations his Majeſty hath given gracious anſwers; and hath often heretofore, and of late, offered honorable conditions of Peace; which have been refuſed.

Reaſ. 2 The ſecond is, That for the preſervation of themſelves, and their Religion, from utter ruine and deſtruction, they were conſtrained to make this League.

Anſw. Whereunto I anſwer, That Religion and the Church are in danger of ruine and deſtruction, as well by the Anabaptiſts, Browniſts, and other Sectaries (who take this Covenant, and have grown moſt inſolent upon this new League,) as by the Papiſts: and that the greateſt fear of utterly ruining and deſtroying this Kingdom, is from the continuance of this Civill and unnatural War, which is fomented by it.

Reaſ. 3 The third is, The commendable practiſe of theſe Kingdoms in former times.

Anſw. In this reaſon they plead Obſignatis tabulis; they avouch that which never hath been, nor can be produced; and the contrary hath been proved before.

Reaſ. 4 The laſt reaſon is, The example of Gods people in other Nations.

p. 32Whom they mean by theſe other Nations is expreſſed in the exhortation to the taking of this Solemn League and Covenant, p. 5. namely, the Netherlands and Rochellers. But as he in Plato's Dialogue ſaid, Exemplum ô holpes eget exemplo; ſo we may ſay of theſe, theſe are examples without example: late practiſes in our age and memory, without any Precedent in former ages and the beſt times of the Church. Neither yet are they parallel to this: For the King of Spain (againſt whom the Netherlands) and the French King (againſt whom the Rochellers entred into a League Defenſive and Offenſive with us) were perſecuters of the true Proteſtant Religion, and oppreſſors of their known Liberty: whereas our gracious Soveraign is a Profeſſor of the Goſpell, and a Defender of the Orthodox Proteſtant Faith, and a maintainer of the Priviledges of Parliament, and Liberties of Subjects: as appeareth by his Royal Aſſent to the Petition of Right.

11Every one that ſweareth, muſt have an eye to the conditions of a ſacred Oath ſet down by the Prophet Jerem. 4. 2. He muſt ſwear in truth, judgement, and righteouſneſs; in truth not falſly, in judgement not raſhly, in righteouſneſs not wickedly.

But no man can take this Oath in righteouſneſs: for not only Scripture, but even Nature teacheth every man, That it is an unrighteous thing, if not impious and ſacrilegious, to diſanul, abrogate, and overthrow the laſt Wils and Teſtaments of all the Founders of, and Benefactors to Biſhopricks, Deanaries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches; and to alienate their revenues to another end then they intended; eſpecially thoſe lands being dedicated to God; and that for the maintenance of his true worſhip, and not any ſuperſtitious end. It is an unjuſt thing to thruſt out a world of men without any crime, or legal forfeiture, out of their dignities, preferments, and Eſtates, whereof they and their predeceſſors have been legally poſſeſſed time out of mind. I appeal to their own conſciences, whether a man might lawfully ſwear to endeavour the extirpation of all the Judges of the p. 33Kings Bench, and Common Pleas, Barons of the Exchequer, Serjeants at Law, Counſellours, Barreſtors, and Atturneys: or of all Maiors, Sheriffs, Aldermen, Common-councel men, Maſters and Wardens of Companies, Sword bearers, Officers and Beadles. I am ſure ſuch an Oath were Votum devovendum, and faedus faedum; not only an illegall, but a deteſtible and execrable Oath. Obj. And what can they alleadg to difference this from ſuch a one? If they ſay, Lord Biſhops, Deans, Arch-deacons, &c. are no where mentioned in Scripture: no more is there of Lord Maiors,or Lord chief Barons, &c. Anſw. Yea but Magiſtrates and Judges are named; though not with ſuch honorable titles. So are Biſhops and Deacons: and there is as great a neceſſity of Eccleſiaſtical Magiſtrates, as civill; of order in the Church, as in the City and State: of ſome preferments and encouragements for Clergy men, and Civilians, as for Common Lawyers. As this Oath cannot be taken in righteouſneſs, ſo neither in judgement: for who can judiciouſly ſwear to preſerve the Doctrine, Diſcipline, and Worſhip of a Nation, which he knoweth not? How can he ſwear in truth that he will indeavour to Reform the Doctrine of the Church of England according to Gods Word, which he knoweth and hath acknowledged in his former Proteſtation, and ſubſcribed to the Articles of Religion, to be (as it is) conformable there-unto. But theſe reaſons have been touched before, and the Readers ſtomachis like to loath Cramben his coctam.

12No Oath ought to be taken, or Covenant entred into, which is repugnant to the juſt and wholeſome Laws of the Kingdom now in force. For to take ſuch an Oath, is to ſwear to ſin, and conſequently to ſin in ſwearing; unleſs they can make diſobedience to the Laws of the land no ſin.

But this Covenant is repugnant to many Laws of England; namely all thoſe Statutes and Acts of Parliament whereby Epiſcopal Government and Eccleſiaſtical Courts are eſtabliſhed and regulated.

p. 34To this Argument it is anſwered by thoſe who have aThe Covenanters anſwer. hand in pulling down that ſacred order that hath laid holy hands upon them:

That the Acts of Parliament are not like the Laws of Medes and Perſians, that cannot be altered: and in particular that all the former Acts paſſed in favour of Epiſcopacy, are vertually repealed by that Ordinance of both Houſes, wherein it is reſolved, That Epiſcopal Government ſhall be cut off root and branch.

Reply 1 But neither is this anſwer any way ſatisfactory, nor better then their former. For firſt, The reſolution to make an Act is not the enacting a Law. Many things may fall out between ſuch a Reſolution and the Execution thereof: in which interim they who take this New Oath may abſolutely forſwear themſelves in breaking the Oath of Canonical obedience to Biſhops yet in being.

2Though both Houſes ſhould concur to make ſuch an Act for the utter aboliſhing of Epiſcopacy; yet till the Royal Aſſent were gained thereunto, ſuch an Ordinance could never be improved to an Act of Parliament; much leſſe of force to Repeal many former Acts. For as neither the King with the Commons without the Peers, nor the King and Peers without the Commons: ſo neither the Peers and Commons without the King can Make or Repeal any Act made by the Three Eſtates. For that which is Eſtabliſhed by Authority, muſt be abrogated by equal Authority; Eraſ Adag. de tripode dictum.and the concurrence of the Three Eſtates in their Votes is that golden tripos, out of which we are to hear the Soveraign and authentical Oracles of the Law.

13Contrary Oaths and Proteſtations may not be taken: for they deſtroy one the other; and he that taketh them is like the Satyre in the Poet, who out of the ſame mouth bloweth hot and cold. Jam. 3. 11.Jas 3:11Can the fountain, ſaith St. James, out of the ſame place ſend out ſweet and bitter waters?

p. 35But this new Covenant and Proteſtation is contrary to that which was taken by both Houſes, and all the Subjects of this Kingdom, May 5. 1641. For in that we ſwear to maintain the Priviledges of Parliament and Liberties of the Subject: (and no man doubteth but Biſhops, Deans, &c. are Subjects; and their liberties and priviledges are expreſly mentioned both in Charta Magna, and the Petition of Right:) But in this we abjure all Prelacy; that is, Government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, &c.

14No man ought to ſollicit (much leſſe inforce upon penalties) any of the Clergy to take an Oath contrary to the Oaths they have formerly taken, both in their ordination, and inſtitution and induction into their Benefices; namely the Oath of Canonical obedience to their Biſhops, and of the Defence and Maintenance of the Priviledges of their Sees.

But ſuch is the Oath compriſed in this New Covenant: Therefore it can in no wiſe be taken; at leaſt by any Clergy, and Beneficed men.

As for theſe Clergy men who pretend that they above all others cannot Covenant to extirpate that Government, The Covenanters anſwer.becauſe they have (as they ſay) taken an Oath to obey the Biſhops in licitis & honeſtis: See exhortation to the taking of the Solemn League, p. 4.they can tell, if they pleaſe, that they that have ſworn obedience to the Laws of the Land, are not thereby prohibited from indeavouring by all lawful means the abolition of thoſe Laws, when they prove inconvenient, and miſchievous. And if yet there ſhould any Oath be found into which any Miniſters, or others, have entered, not warranted by the Laws of God, and the Land: in this caſe they muſt teach themſelves, and others, to call for Repentance; not pertinacy in them.

Reply 1 No man abſolutely ſweareth obedience to the Laws of the Land actively (for then every diſobedience to the Laws of the Land ſhould be perjury); but actively or paſſively; that is, either to do that which is commanded by the Law, or patiently p. 36to ſubmit to the penalty thereof. Which Oath notwithſtanding, any Member of Parliament may move for the abrogation of ſuch a Law.

2I grant that, notwithſtanding any ingagement by former Oath, a Member of the Parliament may move to have a Bill preferred for the abolition of a Law; in caſe it hath proved inconvenient and miſchievous. But ſuch are not the Laws by which Epiſcopacy is eſtabiſhed, and ſpiritual Courts regulated All the inconveniency and miſchief in the Church hath grown from the corrupt and ill execution of the Laws; which may be removed by a Reformation of the Biſhops, and inferiour Officers, without any change of the Law.

3No man is prohibited from indeavouring the abolition of any Law,by lawful means. But this entring into Covenant, and ſwearing the extirpation of Biſhops themſelves, and abrogation of the Laws made in favour of them, without and againſt the Kings Command, will never be proved a lawfull means of alteration of Laws, either by the Law of God, or the Land.

4Whereas they liſpe, but dare not ſpeak out, That the Oaths which Miniſters take at their Ordination and Inſtitution are unlawful, and call for Repentance: I demand of them, Whether they are yet unreſolved concerning the unlawfulneſs of their Oaths taken at their Ordination? If they are not reſolved, will they take a contrary Oath, and ſo run the hazard of Perjury? If their belief of the lawfulneſs of that Oath be pendulous and wavering; ſo muſt needs be their belief of the lawfulneſs of their Ordination, and entring into the Miniſtery. For they hang both upon the ſame ſtring: if the one ſlip, the other fals down to the ground. Have they not ſubſcribed the Articles of Religion, Article 36.whereof one is, The juſtification of the forme of Conſecration of Archbiſhops, and Biſhops; and of the Ordination of Prieſts, and Deacons. Is it not an expreſſe p. 37Canon of the Apoſtle, Heb. 13. 7.Heb 13:7Obey them that have overſight of you in the Lord? and is there any colour of pretence to queſtion the lawfulneſs of obeying them in licitis & honeſtis, The Ordering of Prieſts.that is, in things lawful and honeſt? Let us hear what they canſay to this Dilemma. Queſt. Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Miniſters, unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you, following with a glad minde and will their godly Admonitions, and ſubmitting your ſelves to their godly judgements?Either the form of Conſecration of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and Ordination of Prieſts and Deacons, confirmed together with the Articles of Religion by Act of Parliament, is a lawful form,Anſw. I will ſo do, the Lord being my helper. and agreable to Gods word; or not. If lawful and agreable to Scripture, then the Oath they take at their Ordination to Obey their ordinary, and ſubmit to his godly Admonitions and juſt Cenſures, God being their helper, bindeth their conſcience from taking this, in which they vow their utter extirpation. If it be an unlawful form, and repugnant to holy Scriptures, then no Biſhops or Miniſters have been lawfully made, or by a lawful form, ſince the firſt Reformation in England: which to aver were to caſt ſuch a fowl blurre upon the Church, as cannot be fetched out with the tears, no nor with the bloud of thoſe who ſo ſlander the Queen of all the reformed Churches.

This Dilemma with the two horns of it, wounds them which way ſo ever they go.

1Some flie to an extraordinary Calling; but there they are ſtopt with a counter demand, viz. What miracles do they, whereby they may prove their extraordinary Calling? for an extraordinary Calling, muſt be extraordinarily proved.

2Others ſay, That Oath was tyrannically impoſed upon them by the Biſhops; and therefore bindeth not their Conſcience.

1But they cannot eſcape this way neither: for Oaths impoſed by a lawful Authority, though tyrannically abuſed, p. 38binde the conſcience, if the thing promiſed be lawful; not becauſe ſuch an Oath is impoſed, but becauſe Gods name is interpoſed; by whom they ingage themſelves to the performance of what they have ſworn; ſo it be not malum in ſe.

2Beſides, it is not true that this Oath was impoſed by Biſhops: for it was appointed by Act of Parliament, in which the Articles are confirmed: neither are any Miniſters inforced to take Orders; but they offer themſelves to the Biſhop, and humbly deſire him to lay his holy hands on them; and freely and voluntarily ſubmit to the taking of this Oath of Obedience to their Ordinary.

3A third ſort anſwer, That indeed they took the Oath of Canonical obedience to their Biſhops; but they have long ago repented of ſuch an Oath.

1But theſe are cruſhed in their flight, and driven to the wall. For if they repent of that Oath taken at their Ordination, they muſt repent alſo of their Orders given them by Biſhops. For their Orders were given them upon the undertaking to perform that and other Conditions aſſented to by them, with this clauſe, ſo God help me, or God being my helper.

2Again, To repent of a lawful Oath taken (and ſuch I have proved it to be even now) is in plain Engliſh and down right terms, To confeſſe themſeves perjured. And if ſuch an anſwer might paſſe for currant, no Oath would be any tie upon the conſcience: for they might ſay as theſe Miniſters do, That they indeed took ſuch an Oath; but they repent the taking it.

4A fourth ſort anſwer with ſome more colour of probability, That the Oath made to Biſhops expired with them: and that Biſhops now, if they are not dead, yet they are dying, and breathing out their laſt gaſpe; for both Houſes have voted them down.

1But theſe Brethren ſhould have weighed with themſelves, and communed with their own hearts, before they put their p. 39hands to this new Covenant, Whether the preſent Votes of both houſes can diſpenſe with a lawfull and ſolemn Oath taken at their Ordination, and ſigned with Chriſts bloud at the Communion; which they immediately receive from the hands of the Biſhop, after he hath laid hands on them?

22. Dalo et non conceſſo, granting that (in regard of thoſe precedent votes, and this new Covenant taken by both Houſes for the extirpation of Epiſcopacie,) Biſhops might be ſaid to be dying: What then? doth this diſcharge them of their Oath? No more then it will a Wife for withdrawing her duty and loyaltie from her Huſband while he is a dying, and looking for a good houre. The Ceremonial Law was dying as ſoon as Chriſt was born: yet till it was dead and buried too, both he and his Apoſtles obſerved it. Therefore till Epiſcopacie is dead and buried, this Oath may not be lawfully taken by any ordained by them. Nay nor then neither, by their leave: for how know they whether it may not be revived and raiſed up again by future Acts of Parliament, in times as well affected to the Clergie as theſe are ill? And if it be ſo, the wounds of their Conſciences will bleed afreſh. No man can doubt but that Epiſcopacie better ſorteth with Monarchie then Preſbytery, or Independency; and it is certain that Epiſcopacie concurring with Royal Majeſty, and the Authority of the Peers, firſt conſtituted Parliaments: and it hath likewiſe been confirmed by Parliaments in all ſucceeding Ages. It is a plant which either Chriſt himſelf planted, or his Apoſtles: as is demonſtratively proved in Bilſon his perpetuall government of the Church; Downams anſwer to Paul Bains; Dr. Reynolds his letter commented upon by the Primate of Armagh; and Biſhop Andrews his Opuſc. It ſprung up together with the goſpell in this Nation; and hath ever ſince growne by it as a ſuccour. They were Arch-biſhops and Biſhops who had a hand in platting the Garland of our peace and ſafety, by uniting firſt the two Roſes; and after adding the thiſtle unto them. Nay they had the chief hands in planting the reformed Religion in this Kingdome; and ſome of them watered it with their bloud. If in this Covenant the Wow had been to endeavour the removall of all Antichriſtian Prelates, Popiſh Archbiſhops and Biſhops, corrupt Chancellours, Arch-deacons and p. 40Officialls: that would have been no more then as it were pulling off ſome withered buds from the rod of Aaron. But ſimply to abjure Prelacie (with an Engliſh gloſſe far worſe then the Scotch Text) that is Church Government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, &c. is either to blaſt with a poyſoned breath, or to pluck up that rod which ever ſince the reformation hath happily budded in this Church; and to deprive us (ſoe farr as in them lyeth) for ever of the goodly and fair Almonds it hath heretofore, and no doubt will in ſuccceding Ages bear, if they be not nipt in the bud: Many glorious Martyres; ſuch as were Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Farrar, Philpot: Many noble Champions of the reformed religion; as B Jewell, Bilſon, Andrews, Abbot, Fr. White Dr. Reynolds, Nowel, Sutcliffe, Field: Many eminnet Preachers; B. Mathews, King, Babbington, Felton, Lake, Party Dr. Sinnewes, Thompſon, Goodwin, Eedes, Boyſe: Many munificent Patrons of Learning, and Religion; Founders of, or Benefactours to Vniverſities, Schools, Colledges, Halls, and Hoſpitalls; as Merton, Chichley, Wai…fleete, Wickham, Kemp, Leichfield, Fox, Oldham, Grindall, Whitgift, G. Abbot, and divers others.

Here if they caſt in our diſh ſome Beckets, Ob.and Gardiners, and Bonuers, which were indeed bitter Almonds; we can eaſily rid our hands of them.Sol. For it was not Prelacie, but Popery, that imbittered, or rather poyſoned them: Which poyſon, ſince the reformation, is drawn out, and taken away from Epiſcopacie in England, by the Oath at their Conſecration, which cutteth off all their dependencie from the Pope: and ſince that none have given him a more deadly Wound then our learned and every way accompliſhed Vſhers, Mortons, Halls, and Prideauxes. Howſoever, was there not a Saul among the Prophets; a Julian among the Emperours; a Judas among the Apostles, a Diotrophes among the Elders; and a Nicholas among the Deacons? and muſt theſe moſt ſacred and divine Callings (like ſo many trees of Paradiſe, planted by God himſelf) be extirpated for (here and there,) ſome rotten or periſhed fruit found at ſome times upon the branches?

Deſine paucorum diffundere crimen in omnes.

p. 41Yea but manifold abuſes have crept into the eccleſiaſticall Courts; Ob.Commutations, Sol.delays, and exceſſive fees. And have not the like, or as bad in ſecular? Shall we then have no Conſiſtories, or Courts at all? The Biſhops (as it is objected but not proved) have corrupted the Goſpell: and have not ſome Judges the Laws? Shall we then have no more Judges upon the Bench? A Synod of Prieſts and Elders condemned our Saviour; and divers Councels have defined hereſies for Doctrines Defide, and ſet up Idolatry and Superſtition: ſhall we then have no more Aſlembltes of Divines? Nay truth cannot be concealed: Rupto jecore exibit caprificus. There have been ſtrange paſſages in former Parliaments, at which our Archives and Records bluſh: muſt we therefore v…te down all Votes, and take away all Parliaments? God forbid. Let all thoſe who are now moſt exaſperated againſt the reverend Fathers of the Church, and others (as they tearm them) of the prelaticall Clergie; coole their heat, and put water into their Wine, either with that precept of our Saviour,Math. 7. 1.Matt 7:1 Judge not that ye be not judged, condemn not that ye be not condemned: or that Item of the Apoſtle, Devoure not, l…ſt ye be devoured one of another: Gal, 5. 15.or of that modeſt and ingenuous confeſſiou of a devout Father, Toleramus, & toleramur; we muſt bear with ſome things in the Clergie, for they muſt bear with more in the Laitie. Tolerari, & non tolerare, eſt intolerabile: He is of a moſt intolerable nature and diſpoſition, who expects that others ſhould tolerate him in all things, and he tolerate others in nothing: for ſuch a diſpoſition is diametrically oppoſite to the Apoſtles precept,Gal. 6. 2.Gal 6:2 Bear ye one anothers Burdens, and ſo fulfil the Law of Chriſt.

13Noe Oath ought to be taken, or Covenant made, which is againſt Charity; For Covenants and Leagues are made to confirm and ſtrengthen, not to weaken or any way looſen thoſe natural and civill tyes, whereby we are bound one to another. Charitie is the end of the Law, and ſumme of the Goſpell; and bond of perfection it ſelf. As whatſoever is not done out of faith, ſo whatſoever is not done in Charity is ſin.

But this Covenant is againſt Charity, and offers violence to Humanity it ſelf. For by it we are bound to looſe and untie all p. 42Bonds whatſoever; whether, of affinytie, or conſanguinity or of intimate friendſhip, cum qua mariuntur, et pro qua moriuntur verae amiciliae candidat. If our brother, or our ſonne and daughter, or the wife that lyes in our boſome, or our friend that is as our own ſoul, be a malignant; we are ſworn by this Covenant to detect them, and betray them to the ſeve…itie of the cloſe Committee, and barbarous cruelty of the Sequeſtrators, and their inſtruments. And Malignants (in the ſenſe of them who tender this Oath) are all ſuch without exception, who ſwim againſt the ſtreame, or rather torrent, that bears all down before it; all who comply not with the times; all who complain of the Liberties of Subject trencht upon, and their propriety invaded; of Churches prophaned, monuments of the dead defaced; of hundreds of able, and learned, and orthodox divines, of irreprovable life and carriage, turned out of their benefices; and illeterate Ignonoramus's, and zealous beautifeux's ſet in their rooms; who preach as familiarly blaſphemie and treaſon, as they pray Non-ſenſe:

Laſtly, who make ſcruple of the managing of this preſent warr, whereby the Kings perſon and life is endangered. It is t…ue they profeſſe to fight for King and Parliament: To reſcue the one, and preſerve the other. But as in the Civill broyles in Italie a great Commander ſometimes ſaid, My ſword, though it have a keen edge, and can divide between the bone and marrow; yet it cannot diſtinguiſh a Guelf from a Gibbeline: So it is moſt certain, that the Canon or muſquet bullet diſtinguiſheth not between King and Subject; much leſſe between the King his Head and his Crown; his Perſon, and his power. The primitive Chriſtians (though they deſired nothing more then to glorifie Chriſt by their death, who ſaved them by his; and therefore ran with as much alacrity to Martyrdome as to ſilver games wherein prizes of infinite value were to be wonne: yet they) could never be brought by any tortures or torments to diſcover any Christian to the heathen perſecutors that ſought to bereave them of their eſtate, liberty, or life. But here by vertue of this new Covenant, not only a Chriſtian Brother is bound by a ſtrict Oath to detect another; but the ſon his Father, the Wife her Husband, the Daughter her Mother, the daughter in p. 43law her mother in law, the Servant his Maſter, the Tennant his Landlord, the Schollar his Tutor, and the Pupil his Gaurdian: and not to diſcover them only, but to be active alſo in bringing them to ſuch heavy Cenſures, as they who have the Legiſlative power in themſelves can inflict. What great outcries have been heard of late? what bitter invectives againſt the Oath commonly called ex officio; and that (as it hath been uſed in ſome Courts) not without cauſe? But here is an Oath, not ex officio, but rather as it may be uſed contra officium; not of duty, but againſt the duty we ow by all Laws of God and man to our Superiours, Inferiours, and Equals. Biſhops and their Chancellours were hardly thought of, and ſuffered much in the opinion of many, for preſſing innocent Ceremonies, and Veſtures; as the Cap, Surplice, Groſſe in Baptiſm, Ring in Marriage, &c. upon all ſuch of the Clergy as were inſtituted and inducted into Benefices. What then will be thought of them, who with greater Eagerneſs and Violence, under worſe penalties, preſſe upon the conſcience not Ceremonies, but Oaths; nor upon a few of one calling, but all ſorts of men, not innocent, but nocent Oaths, to the grievous wounding of their troubled ſpirits, and utter ruine of their Eſtates?

To conclude with the moſt Chriſtian reſolution of Lactantius; Religio defendenda eſt, Divin. Inſtit. lib. 5. c. 20.non occidendo, ſed moriendo; non ſaevitiâ, ſed patientiâ; non ſcelere, ſed fide. Nam ſi ſanguine, ſi tormentis, ſi malo Religionem defendere velis; jam non defendetur illa, ſed polluetur. Nihil enim eſt tam voluntarium quam Religio; in quâ ſi animus ſacrificantis averſus eſt, jam ſublata eſt, jam nulla eſt. The faireſt pretence, and moſt plauſible ſcope and end of them who firſt Deviſed and Framed this Oath, was to engage the Subjects of England in a firm League with the Scots, againſt the Popiſh party: that ſo by their aſſociated Armes, they might the better Protect the Proteſtant Religion in England; and Vindicate it, and Reſtore it in Ireland. But what if it may be made good by authority of Scriptures, and the teſtimonies of all ages, that Chriſtian Religion approveth not ſuch a kinde of defence? That ſuch a ſtrengthening of p. 44her cauſe is indeed the weakning it; and ſuch a forcible propugning the Proteſtant Doctrine, a ſtrong oppoſition to it, and a real impugning it? Surely Mr. Coleman in his Sermon commanded to the Preſſe by the Authority of the High Court of Parliament, ſaith as much terminis terminantibus; and verish, not only diſertis, but exertis, pag. 36. May the Reformation of Religion be brought in by Armes? I anſwer Negatively; it may not. The Sword is not the means which God ordained to propagate the Goſpel. Go and teach all Nations; not go and ſubdue all Nations, is our Maſters Precept. And Boſquier truly obſerveth, That Fiſh will not be caught with a bloudy net: if they ſpie but a drop of bloud upon it, they will ſwime away. Nay Chriſt himſelf refuſed to be reſcued by force of Armes; commanding Peter to put up his ſword; Mat 26. 52.Matt 26:52and adding withal, He that taketh up the Sword, ſhall periſh by the Sword. And if the ancient Doctors as well as Hiſtorians may be believed, they ſpeak out, and tell us, That Chriſtian Religion though ſhe could, yet never would draw any other weapons in her defence againſt the Powers that are Ordained of God, then prayers and tears: and therefore her ſtyle was, (when ſhe had cauſe to weep and lament for thouſands of her children executed with moſt exquiſite torments by bloudy Perſecutours) in her Remonſtrances to the Emperours, Rogamus Auguſte, non pugnamus: We proſtrate our ſelves at thy feet, O noble Emperour; we riſe not up in Armes againſt thee: For we have learned from our Maſter, That true and undefiled Religion before God is, to be defended, not by the Sword, but by the Word; not by Reſiſtance, but by Patience; not by Wickedneſs, but by Loyalty; not by Killing, but by Dying. For if Religion be defended and maintained otherwayes, (as by laying waſt Countries, Plundring Cities and Villages, ſlaughtering men, and copious effuſion of bloud) ſhe will not be thereby defended, but defiled. God open our eyes that we may ſee the way chalked out before us in his word; and in this day of our viſitation timely purſue thoſe things that belong to our peace! Amen and Amen.

THE END.