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 to 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 do 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 peoplâ—â— 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 Creatour 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. to which the Apostle Peter is though to refer his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza renders Stipulatio bâ—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 Act of taking the Covenant yet they be of no force at all to weaken or dissolve its bond Let me therefore say Sir to these who offer to your and my consideration their doubts and scruples against taking the Covenant and scatter abroad papers of this nature that they manifest their malice and profane enmity against the Covenant by subjecting it to vulgar scorn and laying open their own nakednesse as if it were the nakedness of the Covenant and run away railing against the Covenant as of no force or obligation as void and null on a meer Petitio principii base-begging the question and taking it for granted That what makes the act of swearing sinful makes the Oath void And supposing a weight which is very little in their exceptions to words method form order of the Covenant and the imposing it on the people which might have kept some men from swearing to be sufficient to discharge all that are sworn If they will indeed batter the Covenant they should pierce into the body of it and prove the matter of it unlawful and then will I also shake off the Covenant for ever Till then I answer in the Negative to my own enquiry in Saint Peters bonds abide pag. 13. to make the worst of it a tumultuous Assembly come before us with Sword and Scepter say they are a Parliament and have lawful constant and compleat Authority and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us And silly inconsiderate we are not so well-skill'd in Politicks or acquainted with the Constitutions of our Country to detect their fallacy but think all Authority is within those walls and obedience must be yielded to what is there commanded and so we are beguiled into the Oath nor are we so hardy as to endure their violence but by fear are forced into the Covenant is it therefore void for we have opened our mouthes unto the Lord and cannot go back Sectio Tertia Proposition 3. The matter sworn in the Solemn League and Covenant is just and lawful to be maintained and pursued THat we may discover the lawfulness of the matter of this Covenant we must observe that in respect thereof it is partly Assertory and partly Promissory Assertory in the Preface of it viz. We Noblemen Barons The Assertory part of the Covenant Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts in the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland by the providence of God living under one King and being of one reformed Religion having before our eyes the glory of God and advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity and the true publick Liberty Safety and Peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included and calling to mind the treacherous plots conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors thereof in all places especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the reformation and how much their rage power and presumption are of late and at this time increased and exercised whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England and the dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland are present and publick testimonies We have now at last after other means of Supplication Remonstrance Protestation and Sufferings for preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruine and destruction according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times and the example of the people of God in other Nations after mature deliberation resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant wherein we all subscribe and each one of us for himself with our hands lifted up to the most High God do swear Though this Preface may seem and be said to be no part of the Covenant yet it being a Solemn profession of the grounds and reasons on which the Covenant was made and was declared in the very Act of swearing the Covenant by all that swore it we shall own it as a part thereof The Covenant is further assertory in the Conclusion viz. And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God and His Sonne Jesus Christ as 't is manifest by our present distresses and dangers the fruits thereof We professe and declare before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sin and for the sins of these Kingdoms especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts and to walk worthy of Him in our lives which are the causes of other sinnes and transgressions so much abounding among us And our true and unfeigned purpose desire and endeavour for our selves and all others under our power and charge both in publick and in private in all duties we owe to God and man to amend our lives and each one to go before another in a real Reformation that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation and establish these Churches and Kingdoms in truth and peace And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the searcher of all hearts with a true intention to perform the same as we shall answer at the great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed Most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the Yoke of Anti-christian tyranny to joyn in the same or like Association and Covenant to the glory of God and enlargement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the peace and tranquillity of Christian Kingdoms and Common-Wealths The Covenant is promissory in the six Articles thereof Concerning the assertory part of the Covenant it must be noted That although it should have been unlawful because untrue in the grounds or reasons pretendedly inducing to it and so hypocritical and fallacious in the humility zeal and resolution in the Conclusion protested whereby the takers in deceiving others may have deceived their own souls and bound themselves under a certain expectation of the wrath of that God of truth and jealousie who hath been called as a Witness of such wickedness Falshood in the Preface bars not the obligation of the promise Yet this fallacy will not discharge the obligation of the Covenant For an Oath binds according to expression not the takers reserved intention And therefore Grotius telleth us That if a man in his assertory Oath do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 swear falsly this will be no warrant for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not
expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The â—greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliamâ—â—to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which
by a spirit of Prelacy will it not bespeak that Government prejudicial to the Civil State which condemneth Conventicles in acts of piety but admits Families the Subjects houses the places and natural affection to be the protection of Treasonable Seditious Conspiracies But they adde against this Article that it binds to suffering punishment by an arbitrary power without Law or Merit contrary to the liberty of the Subject declared for by the House of Commons Let us Sir but read the words of the Covenant and that will evidence a contradiction to the Parliaments Declaration of the same nature with those we have before observed the words are these That they may be brought to publick Tryal and receive condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall deserve or the Supreme Judicatories of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient If Sir condigne punishment on publick Tryal according to the degree of the offence be without law or merit and Judicatory Supream Judicatory be Arbitrary High Courts of Justice and their proceedings will be Just and Regular and the liberty of the Subject for I think them to be more Opposites than the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant Unto the fifth Article of this Covenant Oxford Exceptions to the fifth Article of the Covenant they profess a readiness to confederate but they pretend to a double Remora 1. They do not see the happiness of such a blessed peace between the three Kingdoms Ireland being at War within it self To which I should have said no more than this Gentlemen where are your eyes and what obstructs your sight when you sware the Protestation you sware By all just and honourable wayes to endeavour to preserve the union and peace of the three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Was not Ireland then at War within it self Or have you forgotten that it was so or is not the Peace now concluded by both Parliaments and confirmed by this Covenant a greater happiness of settlement than was then obtained Sure some strong passion acted these learned men to make Mountains against the Covenant what were Mole-hills wssen they swore the Protestation But their second Remora is That no peace can be firm and well-grounded which is not bottomed on justice whose proper and adequate act is jus suum cuique unless the respective Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire To this I should say no more then this Specifie the defect of this Covenant as to these particulars for I cannot read or understand if they be not all secured by the same Suggestions without plain Demonstration do proclaim jealousie and prejudice but make no Argument or good Apology against required duty Unto the sixth and last Article Oxford Exceptions to the sixth Article of the Covenant being an Obligation of adherence to this Covenant against all opposition they say no more then what must be expected that untill they be satisfied in the Premises stated in the foregoing Articles of the Covenant they could not su scribe to this Conclusion which we must needs admit them hoping that a more cool serious survey of the Covenant second thoughts on their Exceptions thereunto may satisfie their consciences and lead them to bewail their unhappiness in throwing such stumbling blocks before their weak Brethren under the Name and Authority of a Famous and Learned University and for their groundless dissent and refusal of an enjoyed duty relating to the Honour of God Reformation and defenct of Religion Honour and Happiness of the King Peace and Safety of the Kingdoms in a Solemn League and Covenant which Sir we find notwithstanding these so much admired Exceptions approves it self lawful in respect of the matter therein sworn to be preserved or pursued and will the better stand under all defects and miscarriages in point of manner and form of making it which is the next thing to be considered Sectio 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 strongly 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
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 such 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 self-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 SVCH 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 an 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 Vox 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 and 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. Choosing 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 habet 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
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 Sectio Quinta Fifth Prop. The Ambiguities and Contradictions in the words of the Solemn League and Covenant are imagined not real SO Sacred is the nature of an Oath and so strict the obligation thereof that I freely confess simplicity of expression and sincerity of intention should continually attend it and ambiguous or contradictory terms do destroy the very nature thereof deceive men and blaspheme God in making him the Witness of a fallacy yet these ambiguities and contradictions must be real and in the very words of the Covenant not in the fancy or imagination of such as in prejudice do decline the Oath nor in the intention of him that sweareth not willing to be bound for if the words be clear and plain in their proper signification or vulgar acceptation the apprehension of the confederates or the due drift and scope of the Oath the Oath obligeth De juram prael 6. Sect. 22.11 p. 173 195. and must be carefully observed as Dr Sanderson Grotius and many others in this case do teach Some there are who charge the Solemn League and Covenant with ambiguities and contradiction in its terms and therefore have declined to swear it these having had a care to their passion and prejudice I cannot but commend confessing that whilst they but seem such to their imagination they might well be a remora to their act of swearing and spur unto the study of the Oath to be sworne but others plead them as an Argument to make void the Oath and such had need to see that there is no possibility of understanding the terms in a sound sence and making them to agree among themselves lest they be found Students unto perjury Forasmuch as the last have recourse unto the first let us consider what seemed to the one and are since alledged by the other to be ambiguous and contradictory that the one may be justified and the other acquitted if found real or both condemned if found imagined 1. Ambiguity Oxford Reasons Sect. 6 p. 17. League Illegal p. 27. The ambiguities that are urged are these 1. Those words in the first Article of the Covenant the common enemies the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do charge with ambiguity but assign no cause or reason for the same and Dr. Featley his ghost following their exception enquireth whether by common enemies are meant the world the flesh or the devil enemies to all true Religion or Papists and Independents enemies to the Discipline of the Scotch Church Unto this exception Sir I answer The words common enemies are words in their own nature and signification plain and cleer to be understood nor do I know them to be darkned by any variety of acceptation they are indeed relative terms to be specified or particularly assigned by their objects things or persons so that the Kingdom of England or professors of true Religion being annexed to common enemies as objects of that enmity doth make its sence plain and obvious to every capacity If then common enemies had been mentioned in the Covenant without an object assigned it might have been an individuum vagum and so ambiguous as not to be understood But they are not left so general for they are limited with this possessive our The words run thus The preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland in doctrine worship discipline and government against OVR COMMON enemies This Relative OVR doth limit and explâ—in COMMON ENEMIES and if they will consider the antecedent which can be no other than the Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses and Commons of all sorts c. living under one King being of one reformed religion having before our eyes c. and men described by these and the like qualities and in special by one that is fully exegetical to these terms in the Preface of the Covenant and discharge all imaginable ambiguity in them viz. Calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots and conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors thereof in all places but especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the reformation they will find that an ordinary Grammarian would easily read this Riddle and tell them common enemies limited by this possessive OUR must mean the enemies of England Scotland and Ireland as living under one King in the profession of one reformed Religion wherein some had made a progress to be preserved others were in pursuit of a greater degree of reformation but all opposed by the plots conspiracies c. of known enemies to true religion especially the professors thereof in these three Kingdoms Now whilst this enmity was not seen by the Masters and Scholars of Oxford it is no wonder if they imagined an ambiguity in these words Common Enemies and Dr. Featley his Ghost might hereby have assured himself that both the flesh the world and the devil are enemies to all true religion and so to reformation and Papists professed enemies to the reformed Religion were here intended and Independents though scarcely then known by that name by their enmity to the discipline and government of Scotland parts of the true reformed Religion might be accidentally accounted into the number of the Common enemies so far as the qualifications before mentioned in reference to the antecedent objects of this common enmity will include them And so Sir the words can be of no very dark or doubtful construction to the one or to the other there being no real ambiguity in them 2. The next words charged with Ambiguity The second Ambiguity charged on the Covenant are in the same Article the best Reformed Churches concerning which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford enquire which they be but by their leave that is not necessary to be resolved in or before the taking of the Covenant yet the words are of a plain and clear construction making this sence obvious to the meanest capacity in endeavouring the Reformation of the Church of England the Word of God shall be our Rule and forasmuch as many Churches are reformed some more and better some worse and less the best Reformed Churches shall be our pattern so that the Covenant asserts not which are the best reformed Churches but binds the Covenanter to the observation of whatever Church shall appear and be found the best Reformed as the example to which he shall endeavour England may be conformed The next words imagined to be so ambiguous as to impede the swearing the Covenant in judgement are in the second Article The third Ambiguity charged on the Covenant League Illegal p. 27. and profoundly stated by Dr. Featley's Ghost who enquires what is meant by Church-Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans c. as if it were not so particularly specified that every ordinary
performing what he promised and concludes Siquis volens jurare obligare se noluerit non eo minus obligatur None but Jesuites will say that a man swearing Grotius de jure belli pacis l. 2. p. 218. and in the act purposing not to bind his soul and thereof make a secret appeal to God is free and not bound by his Oath For this is expresly against the nature of an Oath whose obligation is inseparable from its Act. Saunders de Iuramento lec 5. p. 160. And therefore the same Author saith Siquis deliberato protulerit verba jurantia animo tamen non jurandi obligatur And this is no other than Oxford Divinity Siquis ex aliqua dolosa intentione velit putari jurasse habebit apud ipsum omnem obligandi effectum a man is bound by the action of swearing even beyond and contrary to his own intention And this is evident in Joshua and his Oath with the Gibeonites obtained by fraud and founded in falshood against which they had entred an express Caveat it being far from his intention to make a League with a Canaanite yet he and all Israel were bound by it as in the former Proposition it hath been cleared But why do I stand to establish the obligation of the promissory part of the Covenant against the falshood of the assertory part of it whilst no such falshood appears As for the Conclusive protest it lieth out of human cognizance and is onely obvious to the Searcher of hearts And to me he must be strangely blinded by passion or prejudice that seeth and subscribeth not to every part of the Preface as true yet some there are who though they could not speak out are willing to suggest a lie chargeable on the same and therefore the Covenant must be in this point vindicated against their exceptions pretended doubts and scruples urged against the taking of the Covenant Give me leave a little to weigh them The first I shall take notice of The Assertory part of the Covenant vindicated is the Anonymus Doubts and Scruples recommended to the world by Dr. Gauden and offered Sir to your and my consideration and his Quarrel I should say Scruple is against the Title of the Covenant which is certainly no part of it which he thus frameth I have not met with any Declaration to assure us Exception of Doubts and Scruples that Commissioners of each Kingdom respectively and especially of Ireland have been chosen and assembled together had power or did agree upon this League and Covenant without which or some such equivalent proceedings we cannot possibly know that it was the joynt consent resolution and desires of the three Kingdoms to enter into such a League c. Answer Whoever Sir were the Author of these Scruples he sure was of a very tender conscience that must be satisfied in the very Title and Denomination of the Covenant and cannot do his own duty or a just act enjoyned him by the Superiors of the Kingdom of which he is a member and subject untill he be assured that all to whom it may extend do desire and consent thereunto 2. There might be such a declaration though he met not with it Must private persons suspend required duties untill they meet with Declarations of the regular agitation of State affairs Must all the arcana imperii which relate to other Kingdoms be opened before the Subject give his faith to keep the conditions concluded by their Governors 3. Did he meet with any Declaration which told him Ireland was in a general Rebellion against the Crown of England to which it had been subjugated and was wholly dependent on the English interest for its rescue and reduction And must England stay its Covenant till Irelands Rebells send Commissioners and consent Or may they not without their consent covenant for the good of their vassal Kingdom which they must again recover by force 4. But the Title of the Covenant gives no ground for this Doubt for though it be entituled A Covenant for the peace and safety of the three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland yet is it not entituled A Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms And I hope they may be the Objects who are not Authors or Abettors of an Oath And if they be offended for our intention and endeavours of good to them let them bear it Charity will not always stay for the consent or desire of its object His next scruple is like unto this occasioned by those words Second exception out of Doubts and Scruples Of one Religion which he doubts the Irish Papists open Rebels against whom it was made and Popish party in England and Independents may not be of one Religion yet by the seventh Instruction it is to be proffered to all inhabitants Answer But Sir it doth not appear that it is to be proffered to the Irish Papists 2. Because proffered is it therefore taken The words are professed by them that take the Covenant may it not be a test and note of discrimination for discovery of the Popish party which lay lurking among us and none as Papists or indeed as Independents could take the Covenant 3. May not the majority denominate the whole The Protestant Religion is the onely one Religion owned and professed in these Nations nor doth he deny the Independents to be professors of it Sir must not Dr. Gauden commend his discretion in commending to the world such perplexing Scruples as have not a Scruple of Reason in them and shall not I appear as wise to spend time to consider them if of weight after the Covenant hath been taken but he affirms them as agreeable to the Oxford-Reasons which is a just Chius ad Choum Harp and Harrow yet hereby he puts us on the consideration of them which have passed thus long unanswered partly for the dread of their name no private person being a fit Antagonist or proper Casuist to sesolve the Doubts of an University and partly for that they were presented Apologetically as private grounds of dissatisfaction and for excuse from the Act required not as interdictions or condemnation of other mens Act as themselves profess much less as Arguments for absolution from the bond of the Covenant now it hath bin generally taken by Prince and People to which end they are now re-printed and by every foolish Pamphlet are anew urged and therefore necessitate the consideration of their weight which I confess I in reference to their name was willing to decline but by the worth of truth and weight of the Oath of God upon our Land am though a private obscure and unfit person constrained thereunto Subsectio secunda Their exceptions to the Preface of the Covenant maketh no positive charge yet suggesteth sundry falshoods therein asserted which they witness they could not acknowledge As First 1 Exception by Oxford Reason They were not able to say that the rage power and presumption of the enemies
of God in the sense there intended is at this time encreased To which Sir I should have then answered 1. Answer Their ability to say it is of little moment nor could we well judge it for whether they were under any natural wilfull violent or judicial incapacity is not our part to determine Others were able to say it and if these reverend Fathers and Students did know it though they were not able to say it it was for us sufficient And therefore may I be bold further to enquire 2. Whether they were able to read the whole Sentence expressing the sense Of the enemies of God whose rage power and presumption was at this time encreased here intended and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots conspiracies attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true Religion and Professors thereof in all places especially in these three Kingdoms ever sinte the Reformation of Religion and how much their rage power and presumption are of late and at this time encreased whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland the distressed estate of the Church and Kingdom of England and the dangerous estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland are present and publick testimonies Are not these full expressions of the sense in which the enemies of God whose raâ—â— power and presumption were encreased are to be understood And is it rational or religious to enquire after and suspend a duty on jealousie of a sense intended when we have the sense plainly expressed Is not this repugnant to the end of Speech the Interpreter of the mind 3. Were the Masters Scholars and other Members and Officers of the University of Oxford such strangers in the Protestant Israel as not to know the Papists and Popishly affected were enemies of God against true Religion and the Professors thereof in all places Or so unacquainted at home as not to know their plots conspiracies attempts and practices were especially against these three Kingdoms the most publick and potent professors of true Religion ever since the Reformation Had they no notion of the Rebellions against King Edward the sixth Of the Treasons Plots Conspiracies Roaring Bulls and Raging Spanish Armado against Queen Elizabeth Of the Gunpowder-Treason and other plots against King James Of the Colledge of Propagators of the Catholick cause erected in Rome under the Government of Cardinal Barbarin and designed against these Kingdoms Or of the grand Plot agitated by Con or Cuneus the Popes Nuncio in England discovered by Andreas ab Habernefield first to Sir William Boswel His Majesties Resident in Flanders and by him unto Laud late Archbishop of Canterbury and since fully cleared and laid open by Mr. William Prynn in his Romes Master-piece published in 1643. four years before their reasons and might have been profitable to their eye-sight 4. Did not this learned University judge it to be an high encrease of their Rage Power and Presumption to distribute their Jesuits into such several Orders as should be capable in any place or profession to propagate their plots To press upon the late King and Archbishop for a publick profession of union with Rome To boast openly of Englands returning to Popery To tender a Cardinals Hat to the late Archbishop To poison our Fountains the Universities and our very people with Arminian and Popish doctrines publickly preached and printed and Popish pictures publickly sold and bound up with our Testaments and Bibles To provoke the High-Commission cruelties and Puritans discontents To plot a plain Popish Service-book with very little variation oâ— from the Mass-book and procure it to be by force and violence imposed on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland to the raising Mutinies and stirring up the Bellum Episcopale with pretence to yoke them and intention to destroy the King and Protestant cause To rebell openly in Ireland and with rage and cruelty to murder and massacre the Protestants To divide between King and Parliament in England and possess themselves of his Majesties Garrisons and Armies as under their command To abet advise and effect the most barbarous murther of his late Majesty and our since confusions All which and many the like to have been the atchievements and accomplishments of these enemies of God to true Religion He that is in any measure observant of our affairs can run and read And are not these expressions of rage power and presumption let right reason judge 2. Oxford Reasons second exception They cannot truly affirm that they had used or given consent to any supplication or remonstrance to the purposes therein expressed To this Sir consider That although they cannot affirm it yet others can do it in truth and with joy 2. What are the purposes therein expressed not as before intended shall we judge it from the Preface It is the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honor and happiness of the Kings Majesty and His Posterity the publick liberty peace and safety of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included For the End is the Argument which is urged to enforce the constancy to the Covenant and in Article the sixth it is expressed to be the glory of God good of the Kingdoms and the honour of the King and these are the onely purposes expressed in these particular acts propounded for the production of them and shall we be so uncharitable as to think the Gentlemen of Oxford to have been so void of piety towards God love to their Country or loyalty toward their King as not to have used or given consent to Supplication or Remonstrance to these purposes therein expressed Must we think them so speechless as not to pray to God nor speak to men for the effecting of these purposes expressed No! I will rather presume them modest and not willing to publish their piety and zeal to good purposes or passionately prejudiced against some one expedient propounded to the effecting of these purposes expressed and thereby acted to confound the purpose and pursuing meanes But 3. Had not the University of Oxford Representees in Parliament If they did not sit were they violently excluded Or did they give their No to the Supplications or Remonstrances to the purposes expressed in the Covenant and if they did were not these Supplications and Remonstrances carried by the Majority of Votes And is not the Negative so swallowed therein that all persons and bodies corporate through the Nation did thereunto consent When we finde Oxford excepted we will say they could not truly affirme they gave consent But 3dly Oxford Reasons third exception they did not conceive the entring into such a League and Covenant to be a lawful proper and probable means to preserve our selves and our Religion from ruine and destruction To this Sir we must enquire into the conceipt of these Gentlemen and desire to know whether it relate unto the quality of the Covenant or the act
and excommunicating of the best of men for meer trifles things indifferent so judged by themselves at the least nay many times for opposing profaness and superstition yea for performing their duties in praying and preaching and the like evils which did attend it though I should say but accidentally by the corruption of Montague Laude Wren Pierce and their Companions be written in such sensible Acts and legible Characters that England might feel and the World read them I think there need not be much of Reason offered to shew not only the expediency but necessity of extirpation of a Government though in it self good yet capable of such enormities unlesse it be of an immediate and undoubted divine right But Sir Had not Oxford their numbers in Parliament and did they not trust them with their understandings or must a Parliament offer Reasons of the necessity and expediency of every Act they impose on the Subject before the Subject yield obedience and yet the Vote of the House of Commons past the 10th of June 1641. viz. That this Government hath been found by long experience to be a great impediment to the perfect reformation and growth of Religion and very prejudicial to the Civil State together with the learned Speeches of many Members in the House printed to offer Reason without as well as within doors might have laid something before the judgments of these Gentlemen I presume Sir the Subjects obedience must not in the judgment of this University be suspended untill the Reasons of State producing the resolution be known to and and apprehended by every person and society 2. If this Prelacy judged thus evil were but contemporary with Popery Superstition Heresie Schisme and Prophaness though we should presume it good I hope it may be ranked amongst its fellows and taken upon suspition it may be a grief but no wrong to stay an honest man found in company with Thieves when he hath cleared himself justice will let him go But Sir if this Prelatical Government be in the formality of it a plain and clear Papacy as the deriving it from Rome and its standing on no basis but the constitutions of the Church when Popish and institution of the Pope not Christ or any Christian Magistrate nor General Assembly of the Ministers of the Church of God in this Kingdom the owning of Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury Papam alterius mundi the content all Papists find in the same could they but continue it in dependance on Rome for Consecration and Investiture pure circumstances not of the essence of the Government and principally its springing from the same principles standing on the same Basis the indulgence of Princes and being supported by the self-same Arguments and Authorities which are urged by Bellarmine and the Council of Trent History of the Council of Trent Edit 3. p. 589 590. to p. 616. for the defence of the Papacy in all which respects it must needs appear that the difference between an universal Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop is in degrees and limits not in kind for is there not the same reason for Arch-bishops over Bishops to receive their Oath of Obedience as for Juridical Bishops over Presbyters and so the same for Cardinals over Arch-bishops and Popes over Cardinals do suggest it to be and if it were the Foot-stool or Stirrup of the Papacy as Salmasius doth at large demonstrate in his Apparatus ad Papatum and as Beza doth affirm when he tells us Episcopi Papam pepererunt Beza Epist 79. I hope it can be no great wrong to ranck it with Popery which might be its proper name though through use of a larger signification And if Sir its Rule whereby to square it and Reason of sustentation be that which is not more openly Canted by some then indeed generally practised viz. No Ceremonies no Bishop whereby the Cross in Baptism the Altar the Surplice and other matters innovated into the worship of God the use of which how edifying soever to the Church of God is a formal Superstition it cannot be much abused to call Superstition its companion And if it have been found to indulge Heresie by publishing and printing cum priveligio all Heretical Notions and silencing the Pulpit and stopping the Press from all possibility of Confutation or if by innovation of Superstition into worship and obtrusion of Error in Doctrine on the souls of men it hath provoked Schism I hope there is no great cause of complaint for putting these together with it And if it have been approved a protection and promotion of Revels Church-ales Clerks-ales The seventy two Ministers of Somersetshire in their unanimous consent to the continuance of Revels Church-ales c. Sports and Pastimes on the Lords day so that its Deans and Chapters or other Colledge and Conventions have proved like unto Bishop Pierce his Septuagint in their Agreement against Justice Richardson's order for suppressing of these and the like profaness certified in a letter to the late Arch-bishop dated the fifth of November 1633. and suppressing all Ministers that refuse to stir up such licentiousness as did the visitations of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Bishop Pierce and others it sure can be no great wrong to rank it with profaness and intimate it to have in it some contrariety to the power of godlinesse to which whatever some few very few Bishops might do the current of Episcopacy did never yield much countenance or speak much amity Sir in these and the like respects the extirpation hereof must be endeavoured by all that will not partake of other mens sins and I must be free to tell them that in their Parallel case propounded which yet will not square the alteration yea extirpation of the Civil Government of the City capable of such proximity unto Treason Murder Advltery Theft Cousenage and the like would be by all ingenuous men judged both just and reasonable but I insist too long in abatement of their affection who offer Arguments by which they were perswaded to adhere unto their object let us therefore weigh them severally Subsectio Octava This Preface being past they proceed to the Reasons why they cannot Covenant an endeavour to extirpate Prelacy that is to say The Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours or Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-deacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy And they propound five Reasons two relate unto the Government the third and fifth unto their own capacity and the fourth unto the estate of the Church according to this order I shall consider them And 1. Oxford first and second exception to the extirpation of Prelacy They tell us They are not satisfied how they can with a good conscience swear to extirpate Episcopal Government which say they we think to be if not Jure Divino in the strictest sense by express command yet of Apostolical institution that is to say was established in the Churches by the Apostles according to the mind
Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dangerous if they will evade the influence compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case I dare secure them from it in reference to the second 5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England is her foundation which if it be removed what shall the Righteous do And these serious Casuists do tell us That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England and they proved it by the Law for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation and Christ an enemy to Prelacy the corner stone and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profess They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy strike at the foundation of the Church which they are bound to uphold Truly Sir their care of the Church and its foundation is commendable but how comes it to pass that this Form of Government must be made the foundation of the Church without any danger of Schism by them to whom Scotlands making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church did seem so much tending to Schism Must the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion the very esse of the Church and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction Turpe est doctori c. Sir we cannot deny the proofs cited and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies propounding doubts professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied so much to content themselves and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies such Sophisme as better beseems the Logick than Divinity Schools and common Halls than the Regent house Two things are to be explained What they mean by holy Church and what foundation this is to which the Statutes relate These learned men wel know that by holy Church in the acceptation of that Age and of those very Acts the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile and the Statute of Edward the third was meant the Pompous Popish Ecclesiastical State whereof Abbies and Priories were no small Members as in Magna Charta and other Grants of Kings which had then such influence on the Civil State as that no Act of Parliament could bind or be deemed valid without the ratifying censure of holy Church whose manner was by her authority to curse all that should not keep such Lawes as were agreed I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out and tell us whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church or that the Church of Christ may not yea do not subsist in England now holy Church is driven out the Church simply Christian is very different from the pompous popish holy Church Again Sir the foundation mentioned in these Statutes is sutable to the Fabrick Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 22. holy Churches viz. the temporal endowments whereby she was made so pompous the Lands Mannors and large Revenues given by the King or Nobles of the Land as the question occasioning the same doth plainly evidence which was Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies and all Benefices in England and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement were just and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare providing for the advousance and disposal of all Benefices and the profits thereof in manner as the founders that is first donors had established and so the Prelacy in which it was founded is an Independency as to Rome and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free and within her self in respect of which in the very words of the Statutes themselves it is said The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores of such Possessions and Benefices doth give and grant the same to Aliens which did not and Cardinals which might not dwel in England as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the said Benefices as he was not of right after the Law of England so that this Prelacy is purely Political and the foundation more profitable than pious could these learned men be so absurd as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons Possessons and Presentations and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation and by vertue of this Political Prelacy the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishopricks to their Chancellours Treasurers Secretaries Kinsmen meer Lay-persons for increase of their means Pryns Catalogue of Testimonies for the parity of Presbyters and Bishops p. 16 17 18. and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void for 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15 20. and sometimes 30. years together by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist when her Prelates her foundation in their sense was wanting or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Christ because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy Ecclesiastical Prelacy like the Petrae and Rupes as in the time of King Henery the third have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church and in the State that they have constrained the Kings and Parliament of England as of all other Nations in all Ages to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds and at last to Covenant the extirpation thereof wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe we not only pull an old house about our ears but destroy the very Church if we have not wit enough to see how they would cosen us by the Law of man instead of the Law of God and a false gloss on fair words Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Government by Episcopacy of the estate of the Church of England we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government yet that little we shall consider and it relates unto their personal capacities in their third exception or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception In reference to their personal capacities they say They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice ingenuity or humanity to require the extirpation of this Government Oxford Reasons third exception against extirpation of Prelacy unless it had been proved unlawful what Sir if it had been proved inexpedient it would have been consistent with Saint Pauls Justice Humanity and
in the story forbids instances hoping general hints may answer the learned and sober 3. 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 that 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 will 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 men 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 horrid 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 unto 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
serious surveigh of the Solemn League and Covenant I cannot but observe and see clearly that first the matter therein Covenanted is publike and national relating to the Kingdom under its Civil Religious and reformed consideration or capacity being the reformation and defence of Religion under a national profession and the honour and happinesse of the King priviledges of Parliament and liberties of the Subjects and the like concernments no way proper for personal and individual private Oaths 2. These matters and this form of security to them were consul ed agitated debated determined concluded and agreed unto by two distinct Nations agreeing in the general capacities which did relate unto the matter thereof and that in their most publike capacities and by the indisputable most full and formal collective bodies of both Kingdoms the Parliament though defective in that part which was most necessary to establish a Law then indent a Covenant which did most eminently consist in the consent of the people and body of the Nations 3. The termes shewing the capacity in which it was sworn are general and National as in the very words of the Preface We Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens Burgesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts of the Kingdome of England c. by the providence of God living under one King and being of one reformed Religion so that all ranks and orders of men however dignified or distinguished among themselves yet united in this publike capacity the subjects of one King and of one reformed Religion and in that union universally sware the Covenant 4. The end and scope of this Covenant was Real National and Publike and only Personal in relation thereunto as is evident by the professed grounds thereof as having before our eyes the true publique liberty peace and safety of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included a sence of the deplorable distressed dangerous estate in which the Kingdoms then were and by the ends propounded almost in every Article thereof which relate to the Kingdoms and our Posterity and cannot be secured if the Oath be not National as in Article the First that we and our Posterity after us may as Brethren live in faith and love in Article the Second that the Lord may be one and his Name one in the three Kingdoms In Article the Third that the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland may remain conjoyned in a firme peace and union to all Posterity And by the Sixth Article it is declared to contain in it a cause which much concerned the good of the Kingdoms and in the conclusion thereof is a profession of sence and sorrow for the sin of these Kingdoms distinct from our own sins the which do loudly proclaime the scope and intent thereof to have been Nationall and publique 5. This Covenant was sworn by the Nation or Kingdom 1. Collectively by the body of the Nations regularly assembled and constituted in the most full and compleat Assembly that could and ever did represent the same in all acts and agâ—tations truly Real and National viz. The Parliament consisting of Lords and Commons that in their publique capacity as a Parliament the House of Commons Assembled in their House in the formality of the body of the Nation with their speaker before them went unto St. Margarets Church in Westminster and there with the greatest solemnity imaginable Ordinance of Feb. 5. 1643. did as the representative body of the Kingdom swear this Covenant which as a further testimony that it was a National Covenant they caused to be printed with their names subscribed and to be hanged up in all Churches and in their own House as a compass whereby in conformity to right Reason and Religion to steer their then debates and to dictate to all that should succeed into that place and capacity what obligation did before God lie upon the body of this Nation 2. It was universally sworn by the people of this Kingdom solemnly Assembled in their particular places of convention all over the Kingdom all manner of persons from eighteen years old and upward and that not at their own will and giddy humour but at the Command and by the Authority of Parliament Vid. ordinance enjoyning the taking of the Covenant who in their place and in the behalf of this Nation having judged it a fit and excellent means to acquire the favour of God towards the three Kingdoms did order it to be universally sworne and certainly whosoever will but well weigh the directions given and duly executed in the tendring of the Covenant in all Counties and Parishes by every individual Minister to every individual Congregation and taken by all persons religious military or civil enforced with arguments which might convince conscience in the ingenuous or constraine the act from the peevish or perverse and accompained with the greatest extention concomitant imaginable he cannot but see a much more then the fourth part of the Nation did swear the Covenant If the several Rolls within the several Parishes and Precincts of this Kingdom in which the several Names of such as did swear the Solemn League and Covenant were engrossed may be produced It will be found notwithstanding the many singulars who may now renounce and say they did not take the Covenant it was sworn by the universality of the Nation And I hope we who have ever been judged a free people tied by no bonds but such as we lay upon our selves may be allowed to bind our selves by an Oath De jure bel ex par 256. and so make it Real and National according to that Rule and Reason of Grotius Si quidem populo liberto actum sit dubium non est quin quod promittitur sui natura reale sit 3. The solemn League and Covenant hath been ratified and rendred National by his most sacred Majesty unto all such who apprehend the constitution of this Nation to be merum imperium an absolute Monarchy wherin the King hath supremam protestatem whose professed loyalty leads them to subject themselves to all manner his Majesties concessions and conclusions and that by a series of multiplied acts as his Majesties agreement with the Scots at Breda where he graciously condescended to his Subjects by Solemn Oath to publish testifie his approbation of the solemn League Covenant and at his first arrival into Scotland was pleased to subject unto the same bond in which his Subjects were engaged and to swear the same solemn League and Covenant And again at his royal Coronation at Scoon in Scotland on the first of January 1651. was Graciously pleased over and above the ordinary and solemn Oath peculiarly belonging to him as King of Scotland in his most publique capacity The History of Charles the second 75 76 77. to swear the solemn League and Covenant and this Oath in behalf of himself and his successors I Charles King of great Brittain France and Ireland do
we must be directed how to think of him I would not have you think that I have been studying all this while to attribute a Pope-like power to my superiors to dispence with the bond of an Oath that is already put upon my conscience No indeed I rather think he is studying how to loosen a pair of tyring Irons But hath he no hole to creep out at and evade his Answer but thus expresly overthrow his own design yes When what was sworn is performed we are free-men unlesse the Superiour gets us into a new Bond. That is very true but what doth he infer This is all that I expect that the higher powers will not renew the Oath and Covenant and then that business is at an end But I doubt Sir he reckoned without his Host Hath he performed what he promised in the Covenant it was thought to be work for all the days of his life he is sure a quick Merchant or is he not rather so bad a Pay-master that he will not perform any thing further then he is constrained by being haled to prison like a Bankrupt he dreams forbearance is an acquittance and is ready to begin a new score of Covenants if any man be so mad as to trust him if he can be secured from any new Bond his conscience will never make him pay the old he had need to be quickned or otherwise he is resolved to be discharged But I believe second thoughts will make him to see he had need to pay for the old before he be trusted for new when he dreams the Tryal is ended the Suit is but beginning what though the Higher Power never renew the Covenant will that cancel the Bond given to God if he agree not with his Adversary quickly he will be cast into prison verily he must not come thence till he have paid the utmost Mite nor will it make a Plea to the least mitigation of damages to say Lord My Superiours did never require me to renew the Covenant His Majesty is like to have Loyal Subjects at Chinkeford where they are taught that their Allegiance being once performed if the King do not cause them daily to renew the Oath of Allegiance they are free to turn Rebels and Traytors for any thing they had sworn before This is an Essex much cheaper and more easily to be had than a Popes Bull if I be not by the imposer exacted and required to perform I am ipso facto released he shall never want Clients that can make such Releases yet you must note this he manageth with most earnestness and seriousness as reaching the very mystery and depth of the Covenant But Sir he hath Salvo's for his Distinction and Reasons for his Assertion What is pious good and lawful in the Covenant doth still bind per vim Praecepti but not per vim Juramenti and if he perform not the contents or intents of the same he is guilty of disobedience but not of perjury What a dull Buzzard am I How have I spent my time that never learned this Notion in Divinity before I had once a Tutour commended to me by Dr. Chappel and he makes me believe the soul might at the same time be under a double Bond to the same Act the single tye of the goodness and lawfulness of the Act and the Cords of an Oath or Covenant and that the last was the strictest Bond he tortured my conscience with the thoughts of a complicated sin in not doing a duty sworn to be done and the guilt of both disobedience and perjury I must sure leave him and take unto Mr Russel attested by Dr. Gauden he teacheth a smoother way to Hell for where we are under a Duty and an Oath to do it in not doing it I shall be but damned for the least sin the disobedience not the perjury 2. It was never yet denied that in a promissory Oath between private persons be to whom the promise was made if he will release he may release if he had for never directed us to read ever this had been an intelligent observation for it hath ever been denied that any man could release the Oath Dr. Saunderson denieth it and Grotius denieth it and I deny it and therefore they distinguish between the Ralaxation of the matter of the promise which is to them sui Juris and the Release of the Oath which is Gods proper interest I may remit my profit or benefit and yet not release an Oath by his leave Sir I do again deny That Abraham did release his servant that which he dreames of to be a Release was part of the very Indenture of the Covenant or Oath that the servant might see the matter of it in its Extent but spare me Sir what is all this to the purpose it is to be proved that the Solemn League and Covenant is such a promissory Oath it was indeed agreed concluded and consented unto by two Nations but yet it is not a reciprocal promise each unto other that they may at any time relax each to other the whole or any part of the conditions thereof but is a joynt Oath or Vow to God by mutual Agreement put on the Kingdoms of England and Scotland and then to follow his fancy God and God only is the Plantiff and no Higher Powers of either Kingdom but they as Members of the Kingdoms are Defendants whom God impleads to perform what they are bound to do His promise was to prove the Covenant to be of the nature of a promissory Oath which might be released and this I expected but I would have him take time enough to do it in I will expect his Resolution at Dooms-day when the Tryal shall be undoubtedly ended and the Judge will openly declare his sentence against all who have broken or shall break the Covenant though not renewed at the command of the Higher Powers This Gentleman tells the World That Mr. Crofton wonders at Dr. Gaudens Logick in arguing the evil of it from the unblest effects and consequences of the Covenant And I think Sir he had Reason for Event was never judged a Rule of Equity but the unblest effects reflected on the Covenant did only accompany it not sprung from it as its proper brood and natural issue by it procreated Shall wicked mens reluctancy to piety and order or perfidy and contempt of the Oath of God create evil effects accidental sequels to the Covenant and it be condemned Sir this man is sure half an Arminian and thinks Gods command to Adam to have been the cause of mans Fall Is he not rather half an heathen that in all Tumults Earth-quakes and Plagues of God upon them would cry out Christianos ad Leones as if they were the cause of all Let any of them specifie that evil in the Covenant which hath a natural tendency unto these unblest or let him speak out curst effects and I will damn it as an accursed thing But Sir Mr. Crofton did not so much wonder at the Drs. Logick in this Argument as at his little Reason or Religion in giving his Attestation to such an Irrational Atheological Wild and Wicked Discourse as this is whilst he fears the Covenanter is righteous over-much I would advise him to consider whether the next words do not suit his spirit as proper for his medition Eccles 7.71 Be not over-much wicked neither be thou foolish why shouldest thou dye before thy time For Sir if I can judge his words are the language of a Fool and his Arguments the Reasons of wickedness and such a Release of the Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant must needs hasten his ruine CONCLUSION Honoured Sir I Will trouble you no further but leave these Positions unto your serious Consideration I have propounded them by way of Antithesis desirous to weigh what could be said against them I am Sir so sensible of the weight of an Oath the dread of Perjury especially on a Kingdom that I could not see this Nations tendency thereunto in silence if Sir I have any judgment in Christian Rules of safety one of the first debates in order to the establishment of this Kingdom and Restoration of this Church should be how far we are under and obliged by the Solemn League and Covenant I would not advance it above nor set it against Scripture but must be bold to say our Oaths being of matter consonant to Scripture are ready Dictators as well as Spurs unto our Duty and in things meerly humane morally good though not necessary the compass which should steer our course I must confess I cannot but be grieved to see some Transactions amongst us unto a contempt nay contradiction of the Covenant might but my poor weak papers provoke more able and serious Casuists in good earnest as before God and in the dread of an Oath to state and by right Religious Reason to resolve this case of conscience though in the Negative I had obtained my desire and if I know my own heart none shall be more ready then my self when convinced to fall down and worship and confess God is in them of a truth I must Sir beg your pardon wherein I appear too tedious the weight of the Argument the number and worth of the Antagonists speak something in Apology for me Sir I commend you to the guidance of Gods Holy Spirit and pray that you may be kept faithful and blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ FINIS