IT is a saying of Pro. 14. 12. Solomon, There is way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the wayes of death. That the Covenant given and taken through the two Kingdoms, hath seem­ed unto many a way right, lawfull, religious, 'tis granted on all sides: the thing therefore which I have undertaken (and by the good hand of God assisting me) shall fully and clearly prove, is, that the same, is the way of death: a Covenant contrary to Religion, Law and Reason.

And first to begin with the generall definition of an Oath, which according to Alsted. The­ol. cas▪ c 15. Quest. 2. Divines, is a religious and ne­cessary attestation of Gods holy Name, whereby we invocate him as a witnesse to confirm the truth of our speech, and as a Judge if we speak falsly. And Arist. in Rhetor. ad Al­lex. c. 18.Aristotle, and Cic. [...]r. 3. offic.Cicero speak to the same effect, de [...]ning an Oath, to be A religious attestation, taking God to witnesse.

It is said to be A religious attestation, because an Oath is Dent. 6. [...]3. & 10. 20. Ps [...]l. 62▪ 12.part of Gods worship: That the Covenant-oath was not so, is apparent. For, 1. It is an enemie to Gods worship and true Religion; under the name of heresie and schisme, a meer designe to stop the passage of many precious truths, and to hindr the Saints from Church-fellowship, and walking in the faith and order of the Gospel.

2. It cannot be religious, because it contains a contra­diction, and so enforceth the taker, necessarily to be [...] Co­venant-breaker one way or other. In the third Article he [Page 2] swears to preserve the Kings Majesties Person and Authority, &c. here (as it is generally interpreted) the Convenanter promiseth not to touch the person of the King, as to have him corporally punished, should he be the greatest Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer upon the face of the earth. Yet a little after he swears he will endeavour that ALL SUCH as shall be Incendiaries, Malignants, and evill instruments, may be brought to publick tryall, and receive condigne punishment, &c. here nei­ther King, Queen, Prince, &c. are exempted, but whoso­ever shall shew himself an Incendiary to the publick peace, and safetie of the two Kingdoms, he will endeavour to have him punished, as the degree of their offence shall offence re­quire or deserve. That rule is well known, Aristot. de Interp. l. 2. c. 2. Impossibile est due contradictiora vere reddi de eodem. Thus he is snared by the transgression of his lips; and whiles he shuns one rock, he makes shipwrack upon another.

3. It cannot be a religious action to Lev. 19. 14. put a stumbling block before the blinde: and Pro. 28. 10. to cause the righteous to go astray in an evill way. But this Covenant doth so, and thus I prove it.

1. When the Covenant was commanded to be taken through the Kingdom, the people generally held (and for the most part do still) that the Government by Archbishops and Bishops was lawfull: and therefore to be required, yea for­ced to swear with their hands lift up to heaven, that they will endeavour the extirpation of Prelacie, howbeit at the same time it was well known, they thought it a lawfull and good government: it was an hard case, and shewed little pitie. The Digest. l. 2. Tit. 14 de pa­ [...]tis; Cicero▪ l. 3Law saith, Pactum si tolletur jus publicum tune non valet, etiam si fuerit juramento confirmatum: A Covenant if it take away publick right it cannot stand, yea though it be confirmed with oath. For my part I know not in what particular a free people may more groundedly and properly challenge publick right then in matters of Religion: and therefore quo jure, by what power may their Representatives require them, and that by oath, to change one form of government for another, untill they be informed touch­ing the lawfulnesse of such a change.

2. No lesse was it a snare to many poore souls, who must [Page 3] swear that they will really and constantly endeavour the preser­vation of the doctrine; worship, discipline and government in the Church of Scotland: but what these things were, poore wret­ches they knew not: not good they thought, because con­trary to their present practice. Ea certo oportet esse cognita & perspecta, say the Synopsis pr [...] disp. 20. p. [...]20. Leiden Professors: What men swear to▪ they must have a certain, full and clear knowledge of: not to Pro. 20. 25.vow, and afterward make inquirie. Observe the late Pourtract. pa. 78.Kings Speech (if that book be his) I am prone (saith he) to beleeve and hope, that many who took the Covenant are yet firm to this judgement, that such later Vows, Oaths and Leagues can never blot out these former gravings and characters which by just and lawfull oaths were made upon their souls. He takes it as grant­ed, that many when they swore against Prelacie, and for Presbyterie, it was against their Conscience, and so not binding.

3. To what use are these words in the Covenant, viz: Schisme and heresie? but another snare to deceive the sim­ple, and suppresse the godly. It was decreed in a certain Generall Councell held at Rome under 3 Volum: Conc. cop Ex­comm [...]de hae­ret. Innocent the third, in the yeer 1215. that no Heretick should be chosen King: confirmed before under 2 Volum: Conc. F. 136. 2. 15. 216. 530. Theod sius the younger, Valenti­nian the third, and Martian; and afterward recited by L. Manich. l. quicunq: in l. fine. C. de haeret. Ju­stinian the first, in the first Councell of Constantinople inserted in his last Code. But mark the mystery of iniquitie, who must de­fine heresie, and judge who is an heretick: this is the Popes work alone. We beleeve, saith Def c. 3. l 4. de Rom. Pont. Sect. tertius. Gretzer, the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chair, Non secus ac olim Petri infalli­bile, to be no otherwise then the judgement of Peter was. Who re­ject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith, are Hereticks, saith Canus. Now the like is this Covenant for all the world: Lib 3. de verb Dei. c. 8. Sect. Excuti­mus. first an oath must be taken for the extirpation of heresie and schisme, not that it is determined what is heresie or schisme, or that the Covenanter shall know before hand what is meant by it: but being blindly brought into the pit, then come our Brethren of Scotland with a cathedrall infallibi­litie in defining causes of faith, and tell him that Brownists, Anaboptists, Independants with others, such and such are in­tended: [Page 4] And howsoever he be not able to apprehend either herefie or schi [...]me in them, yet he must judge them here­ticks and schismaticks, for that he hath taken the Cove­nant, and our brethren say they are so.

We shall in the second place consider the ends of an oath: Now men swear unlawfully, when in taking an oath they do not respect, 1. Gods glory: 2. their own good: and 3. the good of their neighbours.

First for Gods glory: it could not by the generality of people in this Kingdom possibly be aymed at. 1. Because as Explicat. de­calog. 3. praec. p. 90▪ Rivet: truly saith, Nemo juramento cogi debet ad aliquid inique perpetrandum. No man ought to be constrained by oath to do any thing unjustly: his reason is, Quia obedientia erga di­vina mandata (que inter se nunquam pugnant) omnibus est prae­ferenda: Because obedience to Gods Commandments (which never disagree amongst themselves) is to be pre­ferred before all things. Now the Law saith, Gen. 9. 6. He that sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Num. 35. 31. Ye shall take no satis­faction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death. Deut. 19. 13 Thine eye shall not pitie him, &c. To covenant therefore to preserve the Kings Person, that is, to swear he should not be put to death, though a murderer, &c. it was an oath against a divine precept, and so not binding, neither was there a due respect had unto Gods glory.

2. Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is fin, and consequently tends not to Gods glory. But those who swore to things either doubtingly, or ignorantly, or forced through fear to escape bodily punishment, or to enjoy their calling, estates, credit, places, &c. could not swear in faith; But this was the con­dition of the people every where, and cannot be denyed. As one Iohan. Bapt. Foleng in Psa. 64. pa. 236.saith, Verior [...]e statim is perjurus efficiatur, qui Mona­chum profiteiur. So there was cause enough to beleeve, that when this Nation swore against the Government by Arch­bishops and Bishops, they forswore themselves, I mean the greatest number both Priests and people, as doing a thing against their Conscience, and never meant to keep the oath if they could otherwise choose. And to make this good, [Page 5] mark a passage in Mr. Decemb 27. 1643. pa. 18. Hendersons Sermon before the House of Commons. It feareth me (saith he) that a great part of the people of this Land are still fond of a form all Service, and a proud Prelacie.

3. Men have respect then unto Gods glory, when they do lawfull and just actions: and can shew Gospel precepts and presidents for the justification thereof: For as Fest▪ Christ. ca▪ 3 pa▪ 14. Hospi­nian rightly saith, Non statim omnia quae pio animo & bono zelo instituuntur, & abs (que) omni inquisitione recipienda sunt. We may not presently receive all things which are instituted with a godly minde and good zeal, without any exami­nation. So we should be like little children, put everie thing to the mouth which is given into the hand. What the Composers and Imposers of the Covenant at first in­tended, I shall not here touch upon, but this I affirm, and will stand to it, the same had never any Scripture bottome: policie perhaps it had: but pietie not: And for the Cove­nant and Oath which some fetch from Asa, Josiah, Nehe­miah, &c. it holds not forth any thing either for matter or manner to prove the lawfulnesse of this Covenant. Simili­bus similia convenire consentaneum est, saith the Logician. But except it be in name, as that is called a Covenant, and so this, there is no proportion or likenesse between them, as relating either to persons or things.

2. It is against the true end of a lawfull Oath, when a man respects not his own good, specially not the good of his soul: But what good could any man imagine he did to his soul, whilest he was swearing to the particulars in that Covenant. For instance: 1. Touching the Scots Church dis­cipline, when the swearer knew not what it was; or if he did, yet thought it not to be lawfull: or if lawfull, yet saw no reason or just cause for him to swear to endeavour the preservation of it, was such a course profitable for his soul? 2. When any worship or form of Church Government is setled in a Land by Authoritie, and the people by oath have received it, howsoever I grant the State may remove the same: neverthelesse to require an oath of the people for to reject it, untill they themselves do see the thing unlawfull, [Page 6] and are willing to take it, there is no warrant in Scripture for it. De haer▪ a Civil. mag. p [...]nicn [...]is. Beza confesseth (although no friend to liberty of conscience, yet) That God never gave power to man for imposing Laws upon the Conscience, nor can endure that any besides himself should bear sway or dominion over the minds of men. Now if this be not to impose Laws upon the Conscience, and to bear a lordly sway over the minde, viz: to compell men to swear against Prelaeie, to which they had before many times sworn, yea, and that before they saw the thing unlawfull, or could do it of conscience, then was there never an hu­mane law imposed upon the Conscience. 3. When the Mi­nisters of Aphrick were tendered an Oath, Victor: de persecut. van­dalic. Nunquid bruta irrationalia (said they) nos putatis ut juremus nescientes quid charta c [...]ntineat? Do ye think us such sencelesse beasts, as that we will swear not knowing what the writing doth contain? If men had duly regarded their souls good, they would have refused the taking of the Covenant with the like answer, and upon the same ground, that is, have known first what the heresie was and schisme, that should be extirpated, before they would swear to any acting against the same. Quod juste fit, scienter fit: quod vero injuste ignoranter, saith Topic. l. 2. c. 23. Aristotle: That is justly done which is done knowingly: but what ignorantly, that is done unjustly. And to say the truth, I hardly know the thing wherein the people of England, specially this present generation, have shewed themselves more irrationall and stupid then in this particular, for they have taken even the Oath ex officio, sworn to do that thing which they know not to this day what it is, nor how, or which way to act in reference to the oath which they have taken.

3. It is against the end of a lawfull Oath, when men re­spect not the good of their neighbours. Explicat. decalog. 3 prae. pa. 90. Rivetus saith, Non est servandum juramentum cujus executio cum salute publica, cum honestate, & bonis moribus pugnaret. That Oath is not to be kept, the execution whereof fights with publick safetie, honestie and good manners. And a little after, Si quis ergo errore deceptus, vel affectibus abreptus, aut metu victus, jurando pr mittit se aliquid facturum, quod vel in haec tria, vel in unum [Page 7] ex tribus impingat; jurando quidem peccat, sed si juramentum ser­vaverit, peccatum peccato addit. If any one therefore deceived through error, or led aside through affection, or overcome through fear, promiseth by oath, that he will do some­thing which is against these three, or any one of the three, he offends indeed by swearing; but if he keeps the Oath, he adds sin to sin.

This Covenant must needs be against publick safetie, be­cause it occasioned a generall commotion, and set the peo­ple of the Land causlesly to destroy one another. The Pres­byterian partie think themselves bound to engage against the Church and people of God, and to seek their utter ruin, under the name of schisme and heresie: the Independents ta­king the way of the other to be superstitious, conceive they have as much reason by the Covenant to oppose them: and the Cavileers, swearing to preserve and defend the Kings Maje­sties Person: conclude they may lawfully destroy them both. I mention not here our Brethren of Scotland, who challenge by the Covenant a power to settle our Church and State, and to spoil us in our persons, estates, conscien­ces, if we refuse to conform to their rules and orders: thus is the Covenant become an Achan, a troubler, a fire-brand in the Nation, and serves for no other use, but to make divi­sion, keep open the breach of differences, and to strengthen the opposing parties one against another, till in the end they are quite undone on all sides. The L. Non du­bium C. de Ll. l. Iubemus nulli.Law saith, Con­tractus vel pacta contra legem prohibiti, nam sunt ipso jure nulla. Contracts or Covenants against a prohibited Law are void by right. It is against the Law of God, Nature and Nations for any people to enter into a solemn League and Covenant to destroy their own safetie. But the wit of an Enemie could not have devised a thing more pernitious and destructive to our pub [...]ick peace and safetie then the Covenant: for it is not possible that ever this Common-wealth shall be setled according to what the Parliament hath lately declared, and the Covenant duely observed; so incompatible is the one with the other.

2. There is in the Covenant as little honestie: the late [Page 8] Pourtract. pag. 38. King spake true enough; I see the Imposers of it are content to make their Covenant like Manna (not that it came from heaven as this did) agreeable to every mans pallate and rellish, who will may swallow it: they admit any mens senses of it, though divers or con­trary with any salvoes, cautions, reservations, &c. And as it ad­mits of equivacotion and mentall reservation, so corrupt men and hypocrites have libertie enough there granted, to carrie forth their designes and private interests, in decei­ving and wronging others. Ier. 7. 4. 9. The Temple of the Lord, the Tem­ple of the Lord, was the cry of the hypocriticall Jews in the Prophets time. And when Hambleton brought the Scots in­to this Kingdom, to steal, murder, and commit adulterie, did they not then trust in lying words, saying, The Cove­nant, the Covenant? Ambrose in li de Virg. Venena non dantur, nisi melle circunlita, & vitia non decipiunt, nisi sub speeie, umbraque virtutum: Poy­son is not given but mixed with honey; and vices deceive not but under a shew and pretence of vertue. The Cove­nant indeed is a prettie cloak to cover any knaverie, villa­nie, treacherie; and if our Brethren shall once more at­tempt to oppresse the stranger, the fatherlesse, and the wi­dow, and shed innocent blood in this Land: I make no question but they will pretend to do all this by vertue of the Covenant: who is ignorant of rebellion and treason frequently taught in City and Countrey, and the people provoked to a new war, Authoritie despised, Magistracie contemned, lawfull and just commands of superiors reject­ed, and no other texts for all this but the Covenant. Offic l. 3. Ci­cero saith, Nihil honestum esse potest, quod justitia vacet. If it be according to justice, that men shall shed innocent blood, rob their neighbours, and for Subjects to despise domini­on, and speak evill of dignities, make insurrections and mutinies in the Common-wealth, presse the Magistrates to persecute the Saints, and suppresse the truth, then hath the Covenant honestie in it, otherwise it is a most dishonest thing, if it be understood as the Presbyterian Scots and English give their sense and interpretation of it.

From the definition of an Oath and ends, we come next to the properties, which are three, layd down by the Pro­phet: [Page 9] Thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth in truth, in judgement, Ier. 42. and in righteousnesse. First in truth, which is, that the speech agree with the thing, and the minde with the speech: so that we swear unlawfully when we swear a thing that is false or falsly: a thing false when we swear an untruth, the speech disagreeing with the thing: falsly when as we swear the truth but deceitfully, when we purpose to deceive, the heart and tongue not agreeing together.

1. It was a false thing, when the Covenanter swore to en­deavour the extirpation of schisme and heresie, for howsoever not expressed so in words, yet this he vowed to do, that he would persecute the godly, and not suffer them peaceably to worship the Lord. Comment. in Mat. 10. v. 17. Pareus commenting on these words, They will scourge you in their synagogues, saith, Damnati non ar­gumentis, aut scripturis refut abuntur: sed flagris coercebuntur: They are condemned not with arguments, or confuted by Scriptures, but forced by whips. And quoting some exam­ples for it, concludes, Plurima deinceps suppeditavit histori [...] Ecclesiastica, & hodie inquisitio Hispanica, ubi similibus argu­mentis doctrina Christi refutatur. The Ecclesiasticall History shews many the like instances, and so the Spanish Inquisition at this day, where the doctrine of Christ is confuted with such kinde of arguments: And in truth this Covenant may be added to the number: for there is not one word in it, of confuting heresie and schisme by Scripture, the Covenant binds no man to do this: extirpation, that is, fining, silen­cing, imprisoning, banishing, and murthering the Saints, and that for the Gospels sake.

But 2. be it granted the Covenanter is no way mistaken about heresie and schisme, the question then is by what Gospel precept or example he is obliged to swear, that he will pluck up these tares, and not suffer them to grow in the world untill the harvest? where hath Christ or his Apostles taught him, to judge them that are without? The Italians have a Proverb, that whosoever runs beyond his Commission, must run the hazard of it upon his own account. Calvin howsoever he wrote a whole Tract about punishing of Hereticks: yet he could not choose but acknowledge so much truth in a few [Page 10] lines, as confutes the whole Treatise: for Ins [...]itut li 4. c. 11. [...]ect. 5. and 15.having shewed how the holy Bishops of ancient time, did not exercise any Authoritie, in fining, Imprisoning, and civill punishment, gives his own opinion thus, that as the Church hath no power of forcing of her own, Neque expetere debeat, de civili coercitione loquor. Neither may she require it, I speak of the Civill Magistrate to imploy his authority in a civill way. And this Bern. in Cant.was Bernards opinion before him, Fides suadenda est, non imperanda: Faith is to be perswaded, not forced. So August. Epist. 65. Augustine, Docendo magis quam jubendo, monendo quam mi­nando: Rather by teaching then commanding, by admo­nishing Amminia­mus li▪ 25.then threatning. Amminiamus writes of Valentinian thus: Hoc moderamine prin [...]ipatus sui inclaruisse, quod inter re­ligionum diversitates medius steterit, nec quemquam inquietave­rit, neque ut hoe ant illud coleretur imperaverit, nec interdictis mi­nacibus subject [...]rum cervicem ad id, quod ipse, inclinaverit. With this moderation his principalitie shined, that amongst di­versities of Religion he stood in a mean, troubled no man, nor commanded either this or that should be worshipped, nor by threatning Edicts forced his Subjects to bow their necks to do what he himself did. What Maximilian would usually say, it is well known, Nullum enormius peccatum dare posse, quam in conscienti [...]s exercere velle. Qui enim conscientiis im­perare volunt, eos areem coeli invadere & pleramque terrae posses­sionem perdere. And much like this, was his answer to the King of France returning out of Polonia, and threatning the extirpation of heresie and schisme, (meaning the Huguonots:) Those ( Histor. Fr. l. 1 Hen. 3. p. 14.saith he) who seek to rule over mens consciences, supposing to win heaven, do [...]ft▪ times loose their possession on earth. The truth is, violence in Religion, and through compulsion and fear to drive men to act things involuntarily and against their conscience, is so unnaturall, absurd, unreasonable, as the very heathen saw it to be unlawful. Seneca de ira Errantem per agros igno­rantia viae, melius est ad rectum iter admonere quam expellere: saith Seneca. A man going astray through ignorance of his way, it is better by advise to lead him into his way, then to drive him thither by force. Sen. de cle.Again, Ingenianostra, ut no­biles & generosi equi, melius facili fraeno reguntur. Our wits are [Page 11] as noble and generous horses, best ordered by an easie bri­dle. So Ex Themistii dicto apud So­crat. Eccl. hist. 3 c. 21.another, Purpuraetuae cultores aliquos efficies, non Dei: Thou mayest cause them to be worshippers of thy purple robe, not of God. Mr. Discourse about Tolerat. p 53. 54. John Owen in a book lately come forth, saith, Cain seems to me, to have layed the foundation of that oruelty, which was afterward inserted into the Churches Or­thodoxies, by name of hereticidium, we finde the foure famous Em­pires of the world to have drunk in this perswasion to the utmost, of suppressing all by force and violence that consented not to them in their way of worship. And this he proves afterward in that learned discourse.

3. The hearts and tongues of many agreed not toge­ther, neither could it possibly be in most things, seeing the things to which they swore, were contrary to the minde and liking of the people every where. Juravi lingua, mentem injuratam gero. I have sworn against the calling of Arch­bishops and Bishops (might one say) but in my heart I be­leeve their standing is lawfull and good. I have vowed and covenanted (might another say) to discover Malignants, &c. but in my heart I never purposed so to do. The like in relation to Scotland, could it sensibly be thought when this Nation took the Covenant, they regarded that Kirk, or really meant (as they swore) to endeavour the preserva­tion of the discipline and worship of that Church? Many [...]styeelded unto it (saith the late Pourtract p. 78.King) more to prevent that eminent violence and ruine which hung over their heads in case they wholly refused it, then for any value of it, or devotion to it. He speaks doubtlesse the truth, it was taken to shun the odious name of being reputed otherwise malignants, enemies to the great work of Reformation, or to escape some outward danger, not religiously and in the fear of God, for the oath abounds with such ambiguous expressions, impossibilities, contradictions, and things so contrarie to the opinion of men in all places, that conscientiously in some particulars it could not be admitted by any person whatsoever.

And therefore no marvell, that Dr. Burgesse howsoever the first man who Serm before the House of Commons. Nov. 17. 1640. upon Ier. 50. 5openly desired and urged a Covenant to be entred into, yet when he saw this Covenant was the first (as I have heard) that opposed it in the Assemblie, and for [Page 12] refusall, he and Mr. Price were both suspended; Besides ma­ny godly men, perceiving what a snare it was, withdrew and obscured themselves for a time: It was so bestuft with selfish Interest, so disagreeing for matter with those Cove­nants which we read of in Scripture, and to those qualifi­cations which according to Gods Word ought to be in every Oath, that I have stood in admiration, it hath not been more opposed by judicious and pious men.

The second propertie of a lawfull Oath, is to swear in judgement, that is, confiderately, as knowing the thing to be true, and most certain: for though it may be true, yet if uncertain to the swearer, he takes an unlawfull Oath. Non temere prosiliendum esse: sed etiam at (que) etiam cogitandum, quid sit jurandum: item an res ita habeant, quemadmodum dicturi su­mus. Not rashly (saith In lib. Iosh. c. 2. hom. 11. p. 13. Lavaret) but it must be considered again and again, what the Oath is, and whether the things are so as we say. So Syntag. The­ol. l. 9. c. 23. p. 628. Polanus, Juramentum licitum est, de re­bus veris, certo cognit [...] ▪ The Romanes had an use, that he which would swear by Hercules, should go forth of the doores, that he might be well advised, and take some pause before he swear. For they held that Hercules did swear but once in all his life, and that was to the son of King Augeus. This deliberation in their idolatrous Oaths (saith Comment. on Exo ch. 20. quaest. 4 p. 294. Willet) should admonish Christians to be well advised in swear­ing by the Name of God. And now for application, here is more cause of mourning for a sinfull Covenant, then proving the unlawfulnesse of it in this particular.

1. It doth not appear, that the imposers of it were so re­ligiously affected, as to have the Oath advisedly and un­derstandingly taken: for surely if they had, it would not have been so ambiguously, darkly, wrappingly given forth, neither prest so hastily, but every man allowed time and means sufficient, for a clear and full satisfaction in every point. The 1. Confide­ [...]emus in aur▪ de tri [...]nte.Law saith, Turpe est sine lege loqui. Ad Plausi­tum l. 3.Like­wise, Factum a Judice quod officium ejus non pertinet, ratum non est. Now I demand whether it can stand with the Law of God, with pure reason, with the libertie of a free people, adde that libertie which Christ hath purchased for us with [Page 13] his own blood, that the civil Magistrate may require an oath of any man in a matter which he understands not, neither can speak certainly to it; and in case he refuse (not of wil­fulnesse, but of conscience) whether such a one may suffer in person or estate. For,

2. Were I a Papist, and did beleeve the doctrine of blinde obedience and the Coliars faith, and could approve Confut. Petti c. 14. p. 18. Hosius, saying, Ignorance in most things is best of all: to know nothing is to know all things. And what Cusan. Ex­ercit. l. 6. Cus [...]n saith, Obedientia irratis­nali [...], est consummata & perfectissima, seilicet quando obeditur, fine inquis [...]tione rationis: sicut jumentum obedit domino suo: and could receive Bellarm. de Iust l. 1. c. 7. Bellarmines tenet, who will have faith to consist in the assent, not in knowledge; and that the Pope in things belonging to faith, Bellar▪ de Pont l. 4. c. 3. Nullo casu errare potest: he can by no possible means erre. When he sets forth a Decree, Divinitus illi praeclusa est omni [...] via: saith Th: Bozius l. 18. de sig. Ec. c. 16. Bozius. God stop­peth every way unto him which might bring him into er­rour. And in making such Decree, Boz. l 16. c. [...] Nunquam valuit aut va­ [...]ebit facere contra fidem; He never was, he never shall be able to do ought against faith. I say let this be granted, the Popes Canons and Institutions may tolerably be subscri­bed to: But seeing Protestant Divines are of a contrarie judgement, and hold that Assemblies, Synods, Councels, may erre▪ and are not infallible in points of faith, yet notwith­standing will require men to swear to Articles of their own framing, and not satisfied touching the lawfulnesse of them, 'tis too absurd, and the Papists herein are truer to their principles then they: A blind Papist, I confesse, walks by some rule, when not knowing the thing to be lawfull, yet receives it, in regard he beleeves the Church cannot erre. But what hath a poore blinde Protestant to help him­self in point of conscience, when he shall be compelled to swear to such things as he knows not what they are, whe­ther good, bad, and is taught that the framers and impo­sers for ought he knows, may erre, and be deceived therein.

3. That the Covenanters knew not the things to be true and most certain to which they swore, and therefore took an unlawfull oath, 'tis as clear as the Suns that shines, [Page 14] for many particulars in the Covenant are still ridles and dark sentences, and it is not yet known whereto they have relation. I remember what De [...]ivi [...]. Dei. li. 21. c. 26. & in Enchirid▪ c 69. Augustine writes of Purgatory, Forsitan verum est: non est [...] [...]n sit quaeri potest. Perhaps it is so, it is not altogether incredible: it may be a question whether there be any such place or no. The like might most Covenanters have said, Forsitan verum est, perhaps it is true what I now swear; but it is a question: the Scots disci­pline and Church Gouernment for ought I know may be Anti­christian and false, and the Bishops calling, Christian and lawfull. So for heresie and schisme, can any man to this day tell what is intented thereby. I do not regard what Mr. Taylor or Mr. Jenkins say of it, for as Mr. Ley defensive doub [...]s▪ p▪ [...]9. 100.one speaks very well: A private interpretation of a publick act cangivs no satisfaction, unlesse it be expresly or ver [...]ually allowed by the highest Authority, that doth impose it, and then it is made publick. Private men though learned, if they take upon them the interpretation of publick Dictates, may be more like to light on mutuall contradictions, then of the true and proper construction of the text they interpret. So did Vega and S [...]to, Soto and Catherinus▪ &c. commenting on the Coun­cell of Trent. I do not know that the high Court of Parlia­ment hath any where declared what they mean by heresi [...] and schisme, and therefore for private men to determine of it, I take it to be beyond their calling. And for the fourth Article in the Covenant, namely, who is to be reputed a ma­lignant, and what makes a man to be so, and how far the Covenanter is bound by oath in point of discoverie, &c. here needs another Oedipus to unfold the mysterie. Comment. upon Exo. Ch. 20. quest. 7. p 295.Dr. Willet shewing for what things an oath is not to be taken, the second is, of things doubtfull and uncertain: for it were presumpti­on to call God to be witnesse, of that which he is uncertain, whether it be true or not.

The third property or qualification of a lawfull Oath, is, Rightcous [...]esse, that it be a just and lawfull thing which he swear [...]th. Juramentum non sit vinculum iniquitati [...]: An Oath ought not to be the bond of iniquitie: and therefore an oath is unlawfull when as thereby we promise any thing that is unjust, or unhonest, wheth [...]r it appear unto us pre­sently [Page 15] when we make the oath, or afterward finding i [...] ­pietie and injustice in it, which we did not discover at the making of it: then such an oath is rather to be broken then observed, for we sin not in breaking, but in making of it; whereas he that performs such an oath, addeth sin unto sin: that is to say, rashnesse in swearing, wickednesse in per­forming, according to that saying, Quod male juratur, pejus servatur. Juravit David temere▪ sed non implevit jurationem majore pietate, saith August. in Ser. de collat. Augustine: David sware rashly, but kept not his oath with greater pietie.

Howsoever the Covenant was at first (as we have before shewed) by many judicious and godly people refused, and the impiety and injustice in it observed and protested a­gainst: neverthelesse the unlawfulnes of it hath since more clearly and abundantly appeared; Per sequentia praecedentia declarentur, as Lawyers say. To shew the impietie and in­justice of the Covenant, take these few instances.

1. A man swearing not to do his office and duty, Non t [...]tum, non obligat: (saith Ames. cons. l. 4. c. 22. Amesim) sed si observetur, auget reatum. Not onely binds not, but if he keep it, he increa­seth his sin. When the Covenanter swares to preserve and de­fend the Kings Majesties person, he being then a Tyrant and Traytor, and having before shed much innocent blood, was not this an oath taken (at such a time) against his of­fice and dutie? Let the action since, and swearing then, be compared together.

2. The jumbling of this Nation and the Scots together in the Covenant, the taking of them in to settle Religion here, and to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacie, Popery, schisme and heresie amongst us, it was (under favour) a practice (I think) never before heard of Hence that Army under Hamilton pretended cause and ground to conquer us: and to this day our dear Brethren talk of coming in again to suppresse the Sectaries; thus the Covenant is be­come a snare to the Nation, and of a free State and people, would make us subjects and vassals to another Kingdom. The L. non du­bium▪ C▪ de 11. l. Iubemus nulli.Law saith, Contractus vel pacta contra legem pr [...]biti, nam sunt jure nulla. De verb. o [...] ▪ ligat.Again, Conditio [...]rpi [...] [...]el impossibilis vi­tiat [Page 16] actum. Likewise Contractus vel donatio legata non valent in fraudem legis. If our Brethren of Scotland think the Covenant sets them into the Chair, to determine of our affairs here in matters of Religion, and to suppresse all such as they call Sectaries: we must tell them such a Covenant is most un­righteous, against Religion, Reason, Law, and Conscience. Instit l. 4. c. 13. Sect. 20. Calvin saith, Absurdum est ad ea praestandum nos adigi, quae à nobis minime Deus requirit. It is an absurditie that we should be driven to the keeping of those things which God doth not require of us. Again, Vota inc [...]nsiderate suscepta, non modo nihil obligant sed necessario sunt rescindenda. Vows unadvised­ly made are such as not onely do not binde, but are neces­sarily to be broken. But where doth God require a free State to give up their Authoritie and power into the hands of strangers: and if forreiners shall judge them to be Secta­ries, whom the State knows to be godly and sound Chri­stians, where is that Law to binde up the hands of our Par­liament and Army, whilest these of another Countrey shall cut the throats of honest men. You will say the Covenant will justifie all this: then I say, the Covenant is a pernitious and wicked thing.

3. Some say, The impiety of Impunity. By this Covenant-oath all Independents ought to be expelled from the House of Parliament, yea not to sit in any Court of Judicatorie, to bear Votes, and determine the weightie causes of Religion and Church Reformation, but as offensive rubs and remoras to be removed; and onely sound Presbyters, Lords and Commons to rule. A prettie Oath, to swear men out of their rights, priviledges, liberties, and to make them uncapable est.of all place and trust in the Common-wealth, because they are honest. How doth such an Oath agree with the holy 1 Thes. 4. 4. 6.Scripture? This is the will of God, that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: but this (if it be so as it is be­fore said) contains the highest and vilest deceit that can be: Ovid. de A [...]te Amand. l 3.Heathens have taught otherwise and better.

[Page 17] 4. It is an untigbte [...]us oath for Magistrates (deceitfully drawn in) to promise by oath (to accommodate blood­thirstie men) to hinder Gods people from submitting to the sweet and easie yoke of Christ, to suppresse the order and way of the Gospel, and to stop the propagation of the truth, but so much and more too, is gathered from the Covenant, and nothing now more frequently complained of, then that the Parliament-men to be Covenant-breakers, because they suffer such things to be practised amongst the Saints. Mr. Discourse a­bout Tolera­tion, p 51. Owen well observes, If they close with them (saith he) they are Custodes u [...]tiusquae tabulae, the Churches nursing Fa­thers, &c. what they please. But if they draw back for want of light or truth to serve them, logs and storkes finde not worse enter­tainment from frogs, then they from some of them. Sum: Theol: Compen: Alt: part. 2. part. cap. 89. p. 222. Aquinas speak­ing of an Oath, saith, Sivero boni impoditivum: tuno juramen­to deest justitia, & non ost servandum. If this Covenant compre­hends such things, as some say it doth, yea and publickly avouch to be the main and principall of it, surely it wants justice, unlesse it be justice to oppose the chiefest good, even Christ in his Church, Ministery, Worship, Government, and to countenance preposterous, rash, and headie men in violence and persecution.

Next let us consider the use of an Oath, which is, Ʋt lites & controversiae f [...]niantur, saith Comment. ad Heb. c. 6. v. 16. Pareus: that debates and con­troversies may cease: so the Heb. 6. 16.Apostle, An Oath is an end of all strife. The taking of an Oath (saith Mr. On the Com. 3. p 75. Elton) serves to further brotherly love, and to confirm lawfull peace and society between party and party, countrey and countrey, Kingdom and Kingdom And a little before, That controversies which hinder love and Christian charity may be ended. So Confut. of Anabapt. Bakewell word for word. I marvell how any man could imagine, that this Oath was for peace, or that the present differences and strife between partie and partie; could be ended by it, but rather neces­sarily continued and increased. I have read some where, about Heraclea in Pontus, there should grow a tree over the Tomb of Amycus King of the Bebrycians, the Natives call'd it the raging or mad Lawrel, and for this cause, for if a branch or twig thereof (never so little) should be cast into a ship, [Page 18] all the Mariners and passengers would brawl and quarrell each with other, neither would there be any quietnesse and peace in the vessell till that mad wood was thrown over­board. Whether this Covenant be not like that raging and mad tree, let the Reader judge, having duly weighed these particulars.

1. It is an Apostolicall precept, that Philip. 3. 16 whereto we have already attained we should walk by the same rule: and the Rom. 15. 1.strong to bear with the weak; and nothing better beseeming Saints, then a due regard had unto tender Consciences. But there is nothing in the Covenant that looks this way: The difference between partie and partie (though brethren in the faith) is referred there to the Sword, and no recon­ciliation, but the extirpation of one, or both.

2. As the Oath comprehendeth many things of severall kinds, (and divers of them unknown what they are) which makes it both Mr. John Ley Defen­sive doubting. pag. 11. superfluous and perillous: so it hath this for an accommodation to the taker, that he is left to take it in his own sense, and having so taken it, now he must fight: but against whom? Against every one contrary to his judge­ment and practice. And howsoever the Presbyterians chal­lenge a proper interest in the Oath, as if the same stood for them, and their designe and cause alone: neverthelesse the truth is, others may claim as much as they, and though they make not the like noise, crying, The Covenant, the Cove­nant, yet from the Covenant have as much to say for them­selves and against them: and why the Magistrate should tolerate and countenance their Church, ministerie, wor­ship, and government, I say from the Oath may as fairly claim the approbation of the State, and the extirpation of them, as they can clearly gather any thing out of it against the other.

3. It cannot with truth be denyed, but this Covenant hath been a principall cause to hinder union and peace be­tween the Congregationall and Presbyterian Churches: and if a full reconciliation touching their differences could not have been made, yet such an accommodation and pa­cification easily setled, as both parties might have well satisfied, and brotherly love continued between them: but [Page 19] by this means they have been the more divided, and con­tention increased on both sides. Adde hereunto in the last place, the many rebellions and treacherous designes car­ried forth from time to time under the Covenant: As the rising in Surrey, Kent, Essex, Wales: and no marvell, for the Oath having in it, so many things, and so ambiguous, doubtfull, uncertain, contradictorie, &c. it must needs own almost any thing, specially [...]eeing the sense of it, hath ne­ver been plainly demonstrated, but left to mens own inter­pretation in severall particulars. The Divines of Aberdene said well, The Minist. and Professors of Aberdene in their gene­rall Demands, pag. 14. That the words of an Oath should be clear and plain, and if they be any way ambiguous, the true sense of them should be so declared and manifested, that all may know it. But this Oath was so obscure and dark, as it gave men occasion to take it in severall and different senses, and hereupon strengthen­ed themselves in opposing and striving one against ano­ther.

Object: If it be said, that in those dayes there was such division and distraction among us, that there was need to fasten us together by such a sacred bond as that of the So­lemn League and Covenant.

To this I answer, or rather will here set down Mr. Ley his words for answer: Defensive doubts, touch­ing the late Oath of the sixth Canon, pag. 6. 7.That neither the want of such an Oath was the cause of the distempers of the times, nor that the urging of it will be a convenient cure thereof: but rather the contrary: since there is more agreement betwixt peace and love which may be best pre­served where offensive things are not urged, then betwixt love and compulsion, especially, if (as of this Oath it is conceived) it incroach upon the conscience, &c. And we see by the operation of it alreadie, daily producing more and more dislike of it, that it is not likely to be aremedie against any maladie already discovered, but rather a means to exasperate the disease.

There be other means more effectuall for holding out of Popery ( Generall demands of the Ministers of Aberdene. pag. 29. say the Divines of Aberdene) in which we ought to confide more then in all the vows and promises of men; yea also, more then in all the united forces of this Land: to wit, diligent preaching and teaching of the Word, frequent prayer to God, &c. whereby we may increase in the knowledge of the truth, and in ability to defend it [Page 20] against the enemies of it: So for heresie, schisme, superstition, and other unlawfull things, and to advance the doctrine of truth, and discipline of manners; these have been the chief means, and will be still the best means, with them there is no need or use of swearing; and without them, Covenants and Oaths will do no good.

Moreover we have against the Oath, this, Alsted. [...]as c. 15. pag. 288. Si factum sit juramentum de rebus quae non sunt nostrae potestatis, &c. A man taking an oath to do an impossible thing, the same is not binding: [...] [...]on. Syn­tag l 9. c. 2 3. Ʋt si quis amico juret se ipsi bona alterius donaturum: As if a man should swear to his friend he would give him another mans goods. It is a maxime in Law and Nature, Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse baberet. Ty­rannicum est adres impossibles alios adstringere: saith Comment. in Gen. 24. v. 8 Pareus. The Ministers of London in their Letter to his Excellencie, do much presse these words in the Solemn League and Cove­nant: namely, The preservation and defence of the Kings Maje­sties Person: and do infer from the same, a violation of the Oath if he should be put to death. But they would have shewed more genuity and candor as becoming the Ministers of Christ, to have proved the lawfulnesse of such a promise: where is it required in the holy Scripture, that men should swear not to put to death a tyrant, traytor, murderer: will they rob God to give unto men? or do they think if men have sworn not to give unto God, the things that are Gods? they are bound to keep such an unjust and rash Vow, or otherwise they shall provoke the Lord to wrath, as they in­stance in Zedekiah, Saul, and others. It is well known a­mongst all the Subscribers; not one of them hath hitherto undertaken to justifie that clause in the Article taken ac­cording to their sense; yet doubtlesse they might with as much safetie have given Reasons against the Parliaments proceeding with the King, as cast forth from time to time raylings against them.

Besides do not men take an Oath to do an impossible thing, when they swear to do a thing which they know not what it is? Zeal without knowledge (saith Mr. Defensive doubts, p. 36.Ley) is not sufficient, but it is necessary men should first know what Popery [Page 21] is; and what is not, before they renounce it by swearing: And is it not as fit they should first know, what is schisme and heresie, and who are meant by Malignants, before they swear to suppresse the one, and punish the other? For it cannot be imagined, that an Oath otherwise can be kept, or that it is taken with any such intent. Again, Conscience (saith Exposition on Com. 3. p. 79. Mr. Elton) cannot be bound, where understanding cannot discern what is done, and where he that swears wants reason and understanding to discern what he doth. So Alsted cas. c. 15. p. 288.Alstedius, Conscientia enim obligari non potest, ubi intellectus, quid factum sit, aut fieri debeat discer­nere nequit. And a little after, Ad legitimum juramentum re­quiritur, ut intellectis integro, vel saltem non ablato, fi [...]t. He that swears rightly (saith Mr. Confut. of the Anab [...]p.Bakewell) ought to know the nature of an Oath, and to be able to judge of the matter before whom, and to whom, and of time, and place, and other circumstances. We ought (say the The general demands of the Ministers and profess. of Aberd p 37. Professors of Aberdine) to judge of those things we are to swear to, with the strict and inquisitive judgement of ve­rity, and to ponder duly, and to propound particularly and fully to others (especially to those who require our oath) to satisfie our con­sciences there anent, and to answer all the doubts and reasons, which make us unwilling and afraid to give our assent thereto. That this Oath was imposed upon many men who wanted reason and understanding to discern what they did, and so con­sequently the conscience not bound: thus I prove it.

1. It was not long before this Nationall Covenant came forth, that the Oath of the sixth Canon was enjoyned, and the Clergie were to swear that they did heartily, willingly, and truly upon the faith of a Christian, approve the doctrine and discipline or government established in the Church of England, a [...] [...]ontaining all things necessary to salvation, &c. Nor will they ever give their consent to alter the Government of this Church by Arch­bishops, Bishops, Deanes, and Archdeacons, &c. as it stands now established, and us by right it ought to stand. A little after this is published, a book entitled, Dr. Hall of Episcop. par. 2. p. 47. ibid. par. 1. p. 63. Episcopcaie by divine right. Wher­in it is affirmed; That there is not the tenth part of the plea for the Lords day from the writings of the Apostles which Bishops have for their Episcopacie. And that there be divers points of faith (weightie points) which have not so strong evidence in Scripture: [Page 22] so strong evidence, that Heaven may as soon fall, as that fail the Bishops. Neither was this his opinion alone, but the people generally thought so too, and for any other government (I speak of the greatest number) they knew none: so far did they want reason and understanding to discern what they did, when they sware down Episcopacie, and covenant­ed to maintain and preserve another kinde of Church-Go­vernment when it shall be found out, and set up by the States.

2. The Covenanter swears against Popery, but knows he what he doth? or what is intended by it? Luther (as Mr. Child: his Answer to Charitie main­tained. p. 82.some report of him) was wont to say, That himself, and almost eve­ry man else, had a Pope in his belly: yet few have it in their heads to tell what Popery is.

Many hold that divers of the Arminian Tenets are no­thing else but Popery blanched over with Kings large Declarat. p. 319.a specious sub­tiltie: and for holding them, some have been Peltius in Harmon. Re­monstr. & So [...]in. Excus. Ludg. Bat. 1633.publickly censured as Popish. Whitg. repl. to T. C. p. 299 559. Whitgift, Episcop part. 3 p. 34. Hall, and Defence of his Sermon. l. 1. c 8. p. 139. Downal con­clude Poperie upon the Presbyterie: and the Presbyterian disciplinarians condemne all Episcopall jurisdiction as Pa­pisticall. And many censure both these, as Popish and An­tichristian.

3. So touching Superstition, what doth the Covenantor take it for? The Conformists formerly have imputed super­stition unto the Defence of the three In­nocent Cerem. Epistle to the Non-conform Nonconformists in forbearing and forbid­ding the use of the Ceremonies: some charge the Parish-meeting places with superstition, and to be pull'd down, as the high places and idol temples. yea, and by the Covenant-oath they say it should be so. Tithes likewise is held superstition, and all Ainsw. on Exo. 20. v. 5.contributing to the maintenance of an unlawfull Ministerie: yea, there be some of opinion, that all Ordi­nances, (as Prayer, Preaching, Sacraments, &c.) are supra Statutum superstition. Briefly, the Papists charge the Pro­testants with superstition in divers things. I had almost for­gotten how some told me of late in Westminster-Hall, that the red crosse which hangs there by the wall at the Kings Bench is superstition, and the same (with all others the like) ought to be broken to pieces, and such things to be no [Page 23] in use amongst us, and the Covenanters sworn so to do.

4. For heresie it is well known, that this is charged by Papists upon Protestants, and they again upon the Papists: and the Lutherans upon them both: and the In a Book called, Mercy and Truth, or Charity main­tained. See Mr. Chil­lin. Preface in Answer to it, pag. 12. Professors of Protestantisme they specially of greatest worth, learning and autho­ritie, count Calvinisme heresie, and little lesse then treason.

5. For Schisme I shall not mention it here, it is a secret and mysterie, and therefore to be left alone: The dweller between White-hall and White-chappell imputes it Vindication of the London Ministers, p. 6. to Mr. Price, and men of his faction and humour. But the Law saith, Testes singulares non probant. We have next Malignants: and riddle me, riddle me, what is this? In the first Centurie of scandalous and lewd Ministers, I finde commonly malignitie applyed to such, as had spoken reproachfully of the Par­liament, as saying, Centarie p. 4The House of Commons in Parliament was an unjust Court, Pag. 9. hypocrites, schismaticall, and pragmaticall fel­lows, Pag 26.a company of factious fellows, no Parliament, that their Pag. 18.proceeding against the Earl of Strafford was wrong full and unjust &c. For such expressions formerly men indeed have been reputed Malignants, and so censured. And is it lesse ma­lignitie, or doth the Covenant exempt such from being malignants (because from Episcopacie turn'd to Presby­terie) who speaking of the Parliament, call it an apostatizing Parliament, a Covenant-breaking Parliament, a Parliament at whose doors may be layed all the errours, heresies and blasphemies of the times; a Parliament that hath wrought a great Reformation amongst us in Church and State, taking away High Commission Court, Star-Chamber, Councell Table, &c. and bringing in the roome thereof severall Committees, whose little fingers in the way of oppression, were heavier then the loyns of the former Courts; a Par­liament suppressing Poperie, Ceremonies, Crucifixes, Crosses, Ser­vice Book, &c. and in the roome thereof giving liberty of consci­ence, otherwise called, a cursed Toleration of errors, heresies, blas­phemies, and all manner of licentiousnesse; a Parliament that hath taken away Ship-money, Coat and Conduct money, Monopolies, &c. and in the roome thereof bringing in Taxes, Assessements, Free­quarters, and the heavie burden and bondage of Excize: which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.

[Page 24] And because some people might think, that such vile and malicious speeches could not possibly proceed from their lips, who stile themselves The Ministers of Jesus Christ within the Province of London: I desire it may be well obser­ved, that whereas Mr. John Price in his book entitled, Clerico Clas. p. 7. 8. Cle­rico-Classicum, hath charged them with this great maligni­tie against the Parliament, and in particular, names Mr. Cauton, Mr. Cranford, Mr. Case, Mr. Love, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Taylor, as authors and actors. In the Answer which i [...] lately come forth to the said book, not onely there is no­thing said to it, (and so granted to be true,) but withall he addes more calumniation and slander: yea, and more dangerous and destructive to the State.

Your faction ( Vindication of London Minist. from the aspersions of John Price pa. 70. saith he) have offered violence to the two Houses, forcing them to vote and unvote at your pleasure. Ibid p. 31. They cannot in their conscience beleeve that the Members sitting at West­minster are a free Parliament, seeing they are under the Sword: nor a full Parliament, in regard 200. Members of it are forc'd away; nor a compleat Parliament where two States are abolish'd. As for the late King, he was not ( Ibid. 47. saith he) either an idolater or a Tyrant: the P. 68.Army and Councell of justice, did put him to death by the impulse of that spirit that now works mightily in the children of disobedience, because 'twas done without and against the Word of God. P. 46.The guilt of that innocent blood which hath been spilt must be expiated and avenged on some of the chiefest of the Incendiaries: As for themselves they have Pag. 39.an holy indignation against so horrid a fact.

I could take out divers other things from the Covenant, to shew, that he who swears to it wants understanding to discern what he doth. But this shall suffice for the present. And I desire it may be noted, that the Oath is quidlibet ex quolibet, all things, and nothing: it makes everie man popish, su­perstitious, hereticall, schismaticall, malignant; and yet makes no body so: he that shall speak disgracefully and scanda­lously against the Parliament, and the proceedings thereof: is a malignant by the Covenant, and yet not a malignant: for the Covenant admits of a divers and contrary sense in one and the same thing. A malignant, an Incendiary, &c. if [Page 25] he stands for the Bishops, but if a Presbyterian: no malig­nant then, no Incendiarie, and why? not but that it is all one thing, or that he rails lesse, or speaks lesse falsly against the State; but because, he being his own Interpreter, he takes it otherwise.

Object. If it be so, a man may the more willingly take the Oath; for though he understand not what is meant by the particulars in it, yet taking libertie to himself to make such a sense of it as may most conduce to his own interests, whether for advantage, or for avoiding of danger and da­mage no hurt can follow; specially seeing by equivocation and mentall reservation, he can save himself from being discovered in any dangerous designe.

Answ: 1. An Oath cannot lawfully be taken, till the doubts and scruples be resolved and cleared, which might any way trouble the conscience of them who are indeed rightly religious. The Divines of The Minist. and profess. of Aberdine in their generall demands. p. 14. Aberdene said well, That the words of an Oath should be clear and plain: and if they be any way ambiguous, the true sense of them should be so declared and manifested, that all may know it. And if most of these doubts before proposed should be found to be frivolous (which we do not conceive of any one of them) and but one of them contain a just ground of ambiguitie, Mr. Ley Defensive doubts. p, 109. That one is enough while we are in suspense concerning the meaning of the Oath to suspend our dissent from taking thereof. For the comparison (brought by the prudent composer of the History of the Councell of Trent) we take to be true, and of much importance to this purpose, which is, Hist. Concil. Trident. l. 2. p. 212. Sicut enim particularis universalem con­tradictoriam falsam efficit: ita particularem ambiguam, incertam reddere universalem. For as one particular maketh false the contradictorie universall: so one ambiguous particular maketh the universall uncertain.

2. It rests not in the power of an inferior (whether he be the taker or minister of the Oath) to put his private conceit for the sense (which is the soul) of a publick con­stitution; and if he do so, we cannot but doubt of it (though it seem never so plausible) unlesse it be allowed by the Au­thoritie which chargeth the Oath upon the conscience. And this construction we are taught to make by the expla­nation [Page 26] of the Oath in Scotland, published by Marquesse Ha­milton the Kings Commissioner there, in these words: The expla­nation of the Oath in Scot­land in the Kings large Declar. p. 328. Oaths must be taken according to the minde, intention and commandment of that Authoritie which exacteth the Oath. Again, The Kings Declaration of the Tumults in Scotl. p. 177 An Oath must be either taken or refused according to the known intention of him that doth minister it, Ibid. p. 347. especially if it be a new Oath. To the same sense, though in different words, say the Aberdene Divines, The Minist. and Professors of Aberdene in their gene­rall Demands, pag. 14. An Oath is to be given according to the minde and judgement of him that requireth it. The old rule (which is a maxim) saith, Regul. juris. [...]. Is committit in legem, qui legis verba complectens, eontra legis nititur voluntatem. He offends against the Law, who cleaving to the words of the Law, leaveth the will of the Law, that is of the Law-maker. For men therefore to take an Oath contrary to the minde of them that require it, or before their minde is known, and the plain and com­mon sense and understanding of the Oath resolved and cleared, from whose authoritie and power it proceeded, and to put their own private conceit for the sense, it is a ve­ry unlawfull act, both in point of Law and conscience.

3. Note what miserie and mischief some men have brought upon themselves and others, in taking the Cove­nant in their own sense, and not knowing the intention of that Authoritie which exacted the Oath. Tis urged, that Vindication of the London Ministers, p. 36 the Covenant binds to preserve the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of Scotland: but who knows here, the minde and judgement of the State? For it is said a little after, according to the Word of God: and therefore unlesse the Parliament had resolved and declared in a plain and com­mon sense, that the worship, discipline and government of that Church was according to the Word of God: It is onely a Presbyterian private conceit for the sense, to say that the Covenant binds to preserve the worship, discipline and go­vernment of that Church. Again, the Covenant (saith he in the same place) ingageth to extirpate heresie and schisme: it doth so: and popery and superstition likewise, though he names it not: but must not this be taken according to the intention of that Authoritie which gave the Oath? and where is that thing as yet declared? The Covenant (saith [Page 27] he) ties us to endeavour after a uniformitie in Religion and form of Church Government: it would have been plain dealing to have set down the rest, to wit, according to the Word of God, and the best reformed Churches. But what is this for the Pres­byterian way? the Parliament hath not any where (to my knowledge) acknowledged it to be jure divino, neither is any man tyed by that Covenant to submit to it, or to en­deavour the promoting thereof.

Again, be it granted (as he saith) the Covenant binds to preserve the priviledges of Parliament: yet there is no breach of the Oath to resist such men who proceed extra judiciali­ter: because while the Magistrate doth against his office he is not a Magistrate: For L. Memine­rint 6. C unde vi. law and right, not injurie should come from the Magistrate. L. Prohibi­tum C. de Iur: fife. L. quem­admodum 39. S: Magist: ad L. Aquil. l. Nec mag 32▪ de injur. The Law gives every private man power to resist, if the danger be irrecoverable, yea though it be recoverable. So Marantius dis. 1. n. 35. Jurists say, that a private man hath the same Law to resist, and in a recoverable losse, they say, every man is holden to resist: D. D. Iason n 19. dec n. 26. ad l. ut vim de iust. & jur. Si evidenter constet de iniquitate; if the ini­quitie be known to all.

It adds much to the unlawfulnesse of this Oath, that men were compelled to take it: for if it had been left to every mans choise and libertie, whether he would have sworn to the particulars, or not, there had been more rea­son for that, and lesse danger in it. At Geneva both Mini­ster and people Mr. Hookers Preface before his Eccles Pol. fol. 5. p. 1.took an oath, for shutting out of Popery: but were not urged unto it, by any commination of dan­ger, that so their swearing might be with a free will, not mixt with reluctancie of conscience, or with fear of pe­naltie.

It hath been by some much complained of, and held to be a great oppression, when under the Prelate one was to devise a form of Prayer (plain enough for the sense) and another constrained under a great penaltie to observe and use the same. Here is a stinted Oath stuft with ambiguitie, dark and doubtfull termes: 'tis devised by one, imposed upon another; and though the taker be not satisfied in point of conscience touching the lawfulnesse of it, yet he shall be fined, sequestred, put out of his place, calling, live­lihood, [Page 28] &c. if he refuse to take it: Reader be thou judge where lyes the greatest oppression.

The Parliament hath lately, truly, and piously decla­red, Answer to the Scots Commis. p. 16. As for the truth and power of Religion, it being a thing in­trinsecall between God and the soul, and the matters of faith in the Gospel such as no naturall light doth reach unto; We conceive there is no humane power of c [...]ertion thereunto, nor to restrain men from beleeving what God suffers their judgement to be perswaded of. Exposition on Iude, v. 8. The civill Authority (saith Mr. Perkins) hath no power, or rule over the things of God. This being so, I cannot see, any Scrip­ture-rule or warrant, that the Magistrate hath, to compell any man to swear that he shall endeavour the preservation and establishment of such a worship, doctrine, discipline, and the extirpation of this or that Church Government. I speak not of what doctrine, worship and government the higher Powers may think fit to settle in a Kingdom, what to permit, and tollerate, or what not: But to require an oath of the people that they shall embrace this way, or oppose that thing in matters of Religion, this I humbly conceive is a businesse wherein they are not concerned.

Object. But we read in Scripture, that a Covenant hath been imposed by the Magistrate upon the people, and they have been required by oath to take it; yea, and in case any should refuse to binde themselves by oath to observe the same, they were to be punished: and for this there are sundrie instances: as in Nehemiah, Ezra, Hezekiah, Josiah, Asa.

Ans: That nothing can be truly gathered from such examples, to justifie this Covenant which we oppose, or to prove the lawfulnesse of it, I shall here clearly demonstrate by these Reasons.

1. For that which was done in Nehemiahs time, with whom I also joyn Ezra in the work of Reformation: first it appeared that none were constrained to go up to Jeru­salem, for the building of the Lords house, but such Ezra 1. 3, 4. 2 Chron 36. 23. among the people as would, and with whom their God was: such indeed (and none else) had libertie granted, and means allowed them, to return: but as for compulsion or violence, there was not any used.

[Page 29] 2. Touching that Covenant which they made, wrote, sealed, and swore unto: let it be observed: 1. That Ezra and such as went with him, before their journey Ezra 8. 21.humbled themselves by fasting before the Lord for direction. 2. When they were come to Jerusalem, not onely was there much weeping and wailing Ezra 9▪ 1, 2, 3.by him for the fins of the people, but also great Ezra 10. 1, 2. 10, [...]1, 12. 18, 19, &c.manifestation and practice of re­pentance, and amendment of life by all the Congregation.

3. As the Covenant tyed them onely to the keeping of the Law, so when all Neh. 8. 1. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12. the people were gathered together as one man, they had the Law read and expounded unto them, to the great humbling of all the people at the first, but af­terwards to the great rejoycing of them all, BECAUSE THEY HAD UNDERSTOOD THE WORDS THAT WERE DECLARED UNTO THEM: And in the last place, and for the shutting up of all, Neh. 9. from v. 1. to 38.con­fessing their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers, with fasting, and with sackcloths and earth upon them; Ch 9 39. the Princes, Levites, Priests, Neh. 10. 28, 29. and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the Land, voluntarily and freely covenanted (not through compulsion and fear) to walk in Gods Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the Commandments of the Lord their God, and his judge­ments, and his statutes, every one having knowledge (mark it well) and having understanding. There needs no application, the setting down of these things, with the Readers bear­ing in minde what I have formerly manifested, is convi­ction sufficient of the other Covenant, or at least to finde nothing there for it's justification, no not so much as a leaf to cover the nakednesse of it:

2. For Hezekiahs time, I finde nothing in the History of his life, in relation to this businesse: It is said, they 2 Chron. 30. 5. 11. 1. made a Proclamation throughout all Israel, that they should keep the Passe­over at Jerusalem, and divers of Asher, and of Manasseh, and of Zebulun came thither: but this was willingly, not by any compulsive law: for 1. he had no authoritie over them at all. 2. It was Ver. 12. the hand of Gid (upon them and) Judah to give them one heart to do the commandment of the King. 3. Whe­ther [Page 30] they were of Israel or of Judah, Ver. 25. the whole congregation rejoyced in the work, and good reason too; for they well knew what they then did, it was their duty to do, and no more but what they had formerly by Covenant obliged themselves unto.

3. And for Josiahs time, it is written, 2 Chron. 34. 30, 31, 32.he made a Cove­nant before the Lord (all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Priests, and the Levites, and all the people great and small being present) to walk after the Lord, and to keep his Commandments, &c. And he caused, or appointed (for the word signifies no more) all that were present in Jerusalem and Benja­min to stand to it. 2 Kin 23. 3. And all the people stood to the Covenant. Note 1. 2 Chron. 34. 30.it is said, he read in their ears all the words of the book of the Covenant, that was found in the house of the Lord. So there was nothing that he tyed them unto, but what they certainly knew to be just, holy, and good. 2. He causeth them not to stand unto any thing, but what before they had cove­nanted and promised to do: and therefore here was no new Oath, or properly any making of a Covenant, but a renewing rather of their Covenant: no solemn League and Oath to bring in, and establish amongst them, a new worship, dis­cipline, and Church Government, but a publick engage­ment to continue in such a religion to which they had be­fore submitted.

Now Reader wipe thine eyes, that thou mayest see, how Josiahs Covenant, and ours, do look in the face one like the other.

1. Josiah reads the words of the Law to the people, and to this onely would have them promise obedience: Our Covenant requires some thing against the Law of God, as that a murderer, traitor, tyrant, &c. if a King, shall not be put to death: so the Presbyterians expound one clause of it.

2. Josiah obligeth them by Covenant, onely to stand, for and to such things, as they knew what they were, and to be lawfull: for there was nothing propounded to them but the very Word of God. Our Covenant hath much in it not onely so doubtfull and ambiguous, as no man knows [Page 31] what is meant by it, but also what is apparently disagree­able to the Word of God.

3. There is nothing in Josiahs Covenant as tying the peo­ple to the practice of, I say not any one particular thing, but what before they had promised to do: our Covenant requires an oath to endeavour the preservation of the Scots worship, discipline, Church government, &c. and (some say) to settle Presbyterie tho [...]ow all the three Kingdoms: a thing before never promised by us, nor by our forefathers: never allowed before by Authority in the Land, or practi­sed by the people.

4. Josiah did not cause the people to swear against a former Oath, but obliged them to keep the oath which formerly they had made. By our Covenant men are sworn to endeavour the extirpation of Church government by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. howbeit many times before See the oath of the late 6. Canon. without and equi­vocation, or mentall evasion, or secret reservation they had taken a solemn Oath never to give their consent to alter the same.

5. Josiahs Covenant took in onely the members of that Church, and although many took the Covenant yet they were the Jews onely, and amongst them, Judah and Ben­jamin. But out Covenant takes all in, even three Kingdoms at once, England, Scotland and Ireland: not in reference to a visible Church▪estate: for it puts no difference between people within or without, the taking of the Oath is all the condition of the person no way considered of.

6. Josiahs Covenant was such as all the people stood to it: but this was so unlike to that, as many conscientious and tender hearted Christians, utterly refused it, and shewed the unlawfulnesse of it, and not a few who took it, did it meerly to prevent danger.

4. And in the last, of Asa it is said, [...] Chron. 15. 9. 12, 13.He gathered all Ju­dah, and Benjamin, and Manasseh, &c. and they entred into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, &c. That whoso­ever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. It may be some will think the Covenant is warranted by this example: but here it hath no relief nor countenance: and thus I prove it.

[Page 32] 1. This Covenant of Asa is the very same with that of Josiah mentioned before, and so cannot justifie ours, upon the aforesaid reasons and grounds.

But 2ly, if Asas example be the ground of our Covenant, then whosoever should refuse to take the Covenant, ought to be put to death: For any other punishment, as seque­stration, finement, imprisonment, &c. it is not just, nor comes up rightly to the thing: for if a man undertake to prove any act punishable, by this precept or that example in Scripture, he cannot appoint to it any other kinde of punishment but what the place mentioneth (it being there plainly determined) that same (I say) must be inflicted, and no other.

And here (to make a little digression) there is a fit occa­sion offered me to discover the great deceit of some men, in abusing the Magistrates, pressing them by civill punish­ment to suppresse Sectaries and Hereticks, and to prove that it is their duty so to do, these Deut. 13. 6, 7, 8, 9. Exod. 22. 20. & 31. 14. Levit. 24. 16. Deut. 17. 23. 45.Scriptures are com­monly cited, which is punishing with death: but percei­ving that to urge the execution of the Law in such a way, would not rellish, nor well take with them, here they are silent; but in the mean time shew the more hipocrisie, for if the Parliament be to act according to these Scriptures against Brownists, Anabaptists, Seekers, Arminians, why do they speak onely of silencing them? and would rest if they were restrained of libertie? Certainly either these Scrip­tures taken from the Law, give the Magistrate no power to punish such men at all for their conscience, or if they do, it is to put them to death. And therefore the Papists (be­ing truer to their grounds) upon these Scriptures hold it not onely to be no fin, but good service to God to extirpate by fire and sword all that are adversaries to, or opposers of the Church and Catholick Religion, and that hereticks should be delivered to the Civill Sword, and without mer­cie put to death. So write In 2 am, 2 ae, disp. quaest 11. punct. 3. Gregorius de Valentia, De Tripl. virtut. Tract 1. disp. 23 sect. 2. Suarez, Inst. moral: Tom. 1. l. 8 c. 14. Az [...]r, Summa part. 3. Tract. 1. quae. 6. & 9. Becan: In 2 am, [...] ae, disp. 56. dab▪ 1. Turrian. And that Schismaticks may be punish­ed with almost all the punishments of Hereticks. So De Trip virt. Tract 3. disp. 12. Sect. 12. Suarez.

3. To come again to the matter in hand, whereas it is [Page 33] said, 2 Chron. 15 15. All Judah rejoyced at the Oath; and the reason is ad­ded, For they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire. This shews, that as the Lord had chosen this whole Kingdom to be his people, and raised up this, and the like notable instruments of Reformation amongst them, so did he upon this and the like occasions work a most wonderfull and extraordinarie work upon them, bowing their hearts universally to the love of his Word for the present, and to the receiving of the same with joy, together with all readinesse to the obedience of his Com­mandments: The like unto which never was, nor shall be seen to the end of the world, in a whole Kingdom, except the Lord do again choose one Nation from all other Na­tions, to be his people as then he did.

4. Howsoever the Kings of Judah according to the dis­pensation of those times, were to destroy and put to death Idolaters, blasphemers, &c. and so to weed all such wic­ked ones out of the Church by the Sword: yet I deny that any King now upon earth is by the Word of God, to draw all people under his Dominion into a Solemn League and Covenant with the Lord, (how much lesse before they be conveniently taught) and to confirm the same by Oath, and to inflict death upon all them that [...]efuse it, (for there is no other punishment if the practice be taken up from the example of the Jews) or remain wicked and unrepentant, as the Kings of Judah were to do by the people of that Nation.

That godly Magistrates are by compulsive Laws to re­presse publick and notable Idolatrie, as also to provide that the truth of God in his Ordinance be taught and published in their Dominions, I make no doubt: It may be also, it is not unlawfull for them by some penaltie or o­ther, to provoke their Subjects universally unto hearing, for their instruction and conversion: but if they should hold it their duty as the Kings of Israel held it theirs, to Psal. 101. 8: destroy all the wicked of the land, and to slay all that would not seek the Lord God of Israel, with all their heart, and with all their soul, whether great or small, man or woman: and should [Page 34] practice accordingly, they would have very few Subjects to rule over.

To these considerations let this be added, that when David the famous King of Israel, and a man acquainted with the minde of God, had subdued the Nations round about him, and made them 2 Sam 7. 1, 2, 3, 6. Tributaries, and reigned over them: he did not, that we read of, by compulsive Laws, require them to take an oath that they would endeavour the ex [...]irpation of any false worship, and embrace the do­ctrine, worship and discipline of the Jewish Church. But you will say, those Nations were Heathen, and Infidels, and such as made no profession of Religion, nor were cir­cumcised. To which I answer: 1. Amongst the rest over 1 Ver. 14.whom David ruled, the e Edomites are named, which were the posterity of holy Abraham, as well as the Israelites, co­ming of Esau, as they of Jacob: who did also (besides many main truths) retain circumcision, and that true also, as well as some retain true baptisme: and by which they might (for ought I know) as truly be deemed the Lords people, though in a postacie, as Atheists and Papists by the other. 2. The grosser the errour is, the easier it is to be discerned, and so the lesse danger to impose an Oath against it. 3. If a Magistrate have under his power Infidels and Christians, I see no reason why he should more trou­ble the Christians conscience, then the other in matters of Religion.

And as the Word of God gives no allowance to force men involuntarily, and for fear of such and such penal­ties to take the Covenant, so it is against Law and reason that any compulsion should be used, but people ought to have been left to their own libertie and choise, as we said before. It is well known that the Law saith, Tex: in C. quando iure [...]ur m▪ 6. tandem l. 1. Edicto Prae­t ris rescinditur, quod me [...] gestum est: By the Edict of the Pretor what is done through fear is of no force: Quod non tam ve [...] bum ess [...] hominis, quam Dei vocem, saith a great Bl: cons: 133 Col 2.Law­yer. Juramenta vi extorta, non eru [...]t praestanda, Isidor etiam C. non est. 22. q. 4 In C. cum con­tingat 20. jus.saith the Canon Law. Decret. l. 2▪ c. 2 fol 157. p. 2. col. 2.Again, Juramento meticuloso abs [...]lutio per judi­cem Ecclesiasticum. So among the Emperiall Laws, there are [Page 35] these words of Frederick the Emperour: Auth Sacram▪ publ. C. si ad­vers. vendit. Sacramenta per vim vel per justum metum extorta, etiam à majoribus (maximè ne quaerimoniam maleficiorum Commissorum faciant) nullius esse momenti ju emus. And that it is against pure reason too, I prove thus.

1. This is a naturall principle, Quod tibi jus fieri, hoc alteri fac; & quod nolis tibi fieri, alteri ne facias. Now who is there, making it his own cause, would willingly be com­pelled to take an Oath, in a matter which he thinks is ei­ther false, or doubts of the truth of it; or if true in his un­derstanding, yet makes question whether he have any rea­son or ground to swear: and yet must either swear or suffer. But so it was here in many mens cases.

2. Pure reason teacheth a man so to consider his neigh­bour, as not onely not to cast him down; or if fallen, not onely help to recover him, but to keep him up what he can, that so he fall not. Basil (as Baron. An­nal. Tom. 6. an▪ 449. nu. 12. col. 83. Baronius reports) would not have Bishops to swear in respect of the perill of an Oath; And the The Coun of Challons, Can. 18. p. 560. Symps. of the Church. Councell of Challons inhibited and discharged the Clergie from a certain Oath which formerly they had been compelled to take, in regard it was perillous: how pe­rillous this Covenant is, we have shewed already in many particulars: so that to speak the truth, there was no rea­son it should be taken at all; but lesse reason that any man should be forc'd to take it: this was not the way to pre­vent our brothers falling, but rather with both hands to throw him down.

3. There is no reason that a man should accuse himself, the Word of God requireth two or three witnesses unto every lawfull eviction and condemnation. Which Mr. Lambert stood upon when he was examined about the Oath ex of­ficio, whether he thought it lawfull or no: Act: and Mon. p. 1021. 1022. It is not lawfull (saith he) for a man to swear when a man knoweth not what they will demand of him, or whether it be lawfull to shew them the truth of their demands or no, or whether the matter will bear an Oath, or if it will, whether there be no other means left to bowlt out the truth. If the Judge require an Oath in lawfull and con­venient manner, as in controversies which cannot otherwise be de­cided [Page 36] betwixt neighbour and neighbour, I think my self bound to swear: but if he put me to my oath to bewray my self, or to bewray any other, this being contrary unto charity, I count it expedient to hold me still. If a man have acted contrary to the things contained in the Covenant, though his minde gives him he hath done well in it, yet being by Oath obliged to dis­cover so much, how can he dispence with his Oath in con­cealing it? and if not, how can he fulfill that Command­ment, which requires him, not to destroy, but to save him­self? Thus he fals into a snare, and either necessarily must break his Oath, or Gods Law.

4. If a Magistrate be to impose an oath which may be diversly accepted, and what is truly intended cannot be known, unlesse the proper sense be plainly given, there is no reason that a man should take it, till he directly know in what acceptation or sense he shall take it; and therfore to be compell'd to take it before he knows so much is very unreasonable.

If there were nothing but this to be objected against the Oath, it were sufficient to manifest the unlawfulnesse of it, and to prove that it wanted the essentiall part and proper­tie of a true Covenant, and so binds not any mans consci­ence to keep it. I shall not here make repetition of things before spoken; this onely I adde, that the Covenant is such a strange thing, as when a man keeps it he breaks it, and breaking it he keeps it. I could multiply instances here, to let men see the weaknesse, absurditie, contradicti­on, &c. of it in this particular, but it is not worth the la­bour and time.

It is a question disputed by Divines, and Lawyers, whe­ther it be lawfull to impose an oath, to be taken by such an one, as we think making no conscience of it, will not stick to forswear himself, if he be put to it: And it is usual­ly answered by distinction, that for a private man to im­pose upon such a man an Oath for his gain and private respect, it is altogether unlawfull; because we are bound to prefer the glory of God which by such an oath is im­peached, and the salvation of our neighbours soul which [Page 37] hereby is indangered, before any gain and advantage. And consequently we ought rather to lose any worldly benefit, then that by such an Oath we should suffer God to be dishonoured, and our neighbour lose himself.

Again, howsoever it be granted, that the Magistrate may lawfully put such an one to his oath; yet so: Thomas 22. Quaest. 8. Art. 4 Selnec. parte 1. paedag. p 75.1. if the truth may not by other possible means be cleared, and justice executed: Martyr. in Loc. com. p. 240. LL. minime peccat.and 2: it must be in a necessary, weigh­tie and great cause.

1. For the last Article in the Covenant which is indeed the plainest and clearest of all, and concerns personall Re­formation; howsoever I grant every wicked man should repent and amend his life, yet I deny that the Civill Ma­gistrate hath any Authority to make him swear, that he shall become a spiri [...]uall and religious man: there are ma­ny things both civill and divine which men ought to do, yet there is no warrant for the Magistrate that he shall by oath compell them thereunto: newnesse of life is a super­naturall thing, and onely by the Spirit of God wrought in us, and therefore the lesse reason to put a poore ignorant soul to his oath that he shall do it. What hast thou to do (saith the Psal 5 [...] Psalmist) that th [...]u shouldst take my Covenant in thy mouth, and hatest to be reformed? Mr. Bakewell speaking of such men as may lawfully take an oath, describes them thus: Mr. Bakewel against the Anabaptist. He that sweareth ought to see in his own conscience that he is fit to take an oath▪ and thereby to worship and glor fie God: for he that swear­eth aright, ought to have his heart smitten with fear and aw to­wards God, as in all the parts of his worship: and therefore a pro­phane man that hath no fear of God in his heart, ought not to swear. So he.

To impose therefore such an Oath as this, upon three Kingdoms, and to have it taken by prophane men, who had no fear of God in them, and by such as it was well known before-hand would make no conscience of the Oath, but forswear themselves if they were put to it, let the Reader consider upon what ground (whether pious or politick) the businesse was taken up and carried on. H [...]nr. Vel­sten Po [...]. deca. 6. Qu 9 p 192 Qui ju [...]amentum a malo viro postulat insanus est, saith Apollodorus. [Page 38] He shews himself a mad man that would have a wicked man to swear: he means when he knows before-hand that he will forswear himself.

2. Howsoever there be some reason to think, that the Scots (at least many of them) meant indeed as they swore, to maintain & preserve the worship and discipline of their own Kirk: and to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacie. Yet there is no reason that any man should think, that the English and Irish conformable Protestants, generally ever meant to promote the one, and suppresse the other. Oh what a num­ber both here and there took the glorious Name of God in vain, when they were compelled through fear, to swear against the Government by Archbishops and Bishops: I con­fesse it was the lesse binding, because the Law saith, L. 11. Sect. circa de ex­cept. doli te­s [...]em. Pro­missio & juramentum sine causa factum est inefficax. Now certain it is, there was no cause, I mean necessarie, weightie, just, to require such a thing: It is one thing for the Magistrate to put down a publick worship and Nationall Church Government, finding it unsafe or unwarrantable: and an­other thing to compell the whole Nation by oath, to con­sent to it, and approve the same. Oleaster in Exod. 20. v. 7. Oleaster, observing how the Name of God is taken three wayes in vain, makes the second to be thus: In rem quam non intendis impleri, upon a matter which thou doest not purpose to fulfill. They must needs be blinde, that did not fore-see, that many would forswear themselves, if they should be put to swear against the Government by Bishops; and therefore so much being fore-seen, it shewed the lesse pitie and compassion to put it upon them.

3. When one malignant sware to discover another, and to bring forth his brother malignant unto condigne pu­nishment: was not this to impose an oath upon one, of whom the imposer could not possiblie but think that he would forswear himself, and play the Fox?

[Page 39] Augustine to this purpose speaketh well: August: in decollatione Iohan. Bapt: & habetur 22. Q. 5, ille qui. Qui hominem pro­vocat adjurationem, & scit eum falsum juraturum esse vincit ho­micidam, quia homicida corpus occisurus est, ille animam; imo du [...]s animas, & ejus animam quem jurare provocavit, & suam, &c. Ecce jurat, e [...]ce perjurat, tu quid invenisti, imo & tu periisti qui de illius morte satiari voluisti. Whosoever (saith he) provo­keth another to swear, knowing that he will swear falsly, he is worse then a murderer; because a murderer killeth but the body, this the soul, yea two souls at once; his whom he provoketh to swear, and his own. Behold he swearech, forsweareth, and perisheth; and what hast thou found thereby? yea thou hast lost thy self, who wouldest no otherwise be satisfied but by his destruction. And in ano­ther place, Serm▪ de perjuriis. He that inforceth one to swear whom he knoweth will swear falsly, is a murderer. Ille enim suo perjurio se interimit, sed isle manum interficientis pressit & impressit. For he killeth himself with his pe [...]jurie, but the other thrusteth and helpeth for­ward the hand of the self-murderer.

I wish these places may be well considered: for so some men would the better see their own evils and sins: The breach of the Covenant is much complained of: but upon whom doth the guilt chiefly lye? truly on the composers and promoters of it. Isa. 9. 16. The leaders of this people cause them to erre, and they that are led of them are destroyed. If the matter of the Oath with the condition of the Takers be duely weighed, it could not otherwise be expected, but that the people for the most part would forswear themselves, if they should be put to it. Now to conclude this point, what the Covenant is in a short account I will here shew the Reader: it hath two parts, the one contains a number of uncertain, dark, doubtfull and ambiguous words, the meaning whe eof no man knows, but like the Heathen Oracles may divers wayes be interpreted and taken: The other part contains some things so clear and manifest against most mens opinion, that it was altogether unsea­sonable at that time, (if it had been lawfull at some other time) to impose it: neither could the people then of this Land without sinning against their conscience swear to it.

[Page 40] I shall onely now speak a few things to some objections, and so will end this present Discourse.

Object. 1. This Covenant by many godly and learned Divines, is much pleaded for, many places of Scriptures Levit 26. 25 Isa. 24 5 and 33. 8. Ier 11. [...]0, 11. & 34. 18, 19, 20 Ezek 16▪ 59▪ & 17 16. 18, 19. Amos 1. 9▪ Mal 2. 10. Matth. 5 33. Rom. 1. 31. cited in their Sermons pressing the carefull keeping there­of, a great deal of mourning in their Prayer at Fasts and other times, because it is neglected, and Gods judgements terriblie threatned against the whole Nation for it. In brief, as for themselves they sav▪ In th Mini­sters of Lon­don their Let­ter to his Ex­cellencie▪ p. 6.Though some may esteeme it no more then an Almanack out of date, yet we look upon it as the Oath of God, religious, sacred, and inviolable, in whose Name we have sworn, and who will certainly require it at our hand. We know with what a jealous eye, and severe hand, the Ezek. 17. 14, 15. 18. 19.Lord avenged the quarrell of his Covenant made by Zedekiab to the King of Ba­bylon though extorted from him, and prejudiciall to him. We dare not therefore (when we have lift up our hands to the most high Gad) by the violation of a more righteous Oath provoke the wrath of the Lord against us, who is the searcher of all hearts, and to whom we must give an account at the great day.

Answ. 1 When the Protestant deals with Papists against their humane inventions, and the Puritan against him, commonly use this argument as a full and solid refuta­tion. Ambr. de virg l. 3. Nos nova omnia quae Christus non docuit jure damnamus, quia fidelibus Christus est: si ergo Christus non docuit quod doce­mus nos illud detestabile judicamus. We justly condemne all new things which Christ hath not taught▪ because Christ is the way for faithfull men: If therefore Christ hath not taught what we teach, we hold it worthy to be detsted. That this Covenant is a new thing, an earthly creature, not warranted by the Word of God, but sprung out of mans foolish brain, I have formerly proved at large: and so the same reason here is every way, and altogether as effectuall and forceable to condemne it.

2. What the opinion is of these learned and godly Di­vines touching an unlawfull Oath and Covenant, I know not; but this I know well, that men as lea [...]ned and godly as they, teach that such ought to be broken, and not kept. Explicat. C tech. par. 3. pa. 655.Qui servat juramentu [...]n illicitum, bis peccat, semel male jurand, [Page 41] & iterum male juratum servando, saith Ʋrsinus. So Comment. in Matt. 14. 10.Pareus. Four Treat. pag. 54.Those Oaths are laudablie broken (saith Mr. Downam) which are unlawfully made. And to this both Chemnit. harm Evang. c 74. p. 1071. Lutherans and Corn. A la­pid: in Mar. c. 6. v 26 Pa­pists consent. Philo speaking of those Vows and Oaths whereby men binde themselves contrary to that which God hath commanded, thus writeth: Philo de leg. special.Quasi non melius Deo (que) gratius sit tale perjurium modo serventur leges, &c. As though (saith he) to forswear in such a case for the keeping of Gods Laws were not much better and more acceptable [...] God. For a man addeth sin to sin whilest he abuseth his oath; wheras he should rather forbear from evill doing. Let him therefore forbear, and humbly in­treat God, that of his mercie he will pardon the unadvised rashnesse whereby he was led headlong to swear: For to double the fault when thou mayest disburden thy self of the one half, is very great madnesse, and scarcely possible to be cured. So he.

2. Howsoever I hear these men professing Letter to his Excell p. 1. not to be want­ing in that ingenuity and candor which become the Ministers of Jesus Christ; And among themselves to rise up and call one the other Vindication Epistle. blessed, and such as make the glory of God, and the good of souls the mark they ayme at, in the course of their ministery: Men that will not suffer the sins of the times to be quiet, whose names are as precious oyntment poured forth, spreading the sweet savour of the knowledge of Christ in many places, &c. Howso­ever (I say) I hear them thus to say of themselves; and each of other; neverthelesse if their sayings and doings about this Covenant be well observed, they will not appear to be such men in some things: but rather to hearten and harden sinners, pleading for the sin of the Nation, and keeping the people in their ignorance and error, that they should not return from their wicked way. And that this is so, thus I prove it.

1. By their abusing and misapplying the holy Scrip­tures: because the Word of God approves of just oaths, and reproves all breakers of lawfull Covenants, is this a good ground to justifie the Solemn League and Covenant, that it was The Oath of God, religious, sacred, &c. and the violation of it provokes the wrath of the Lord against the Land? Suppose a man should read these Texts, 1 Cor 6. 10. Jude 8. [Page 42] 2 Tim. 3. 2, 3, 13. Ezek 13. 10. Matth. 7. could he hence fair­ly gather, that Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Love, Mr. Taylor, &c. are raylers, despisers of Government, traitors, heady, high minded, se­ducers, false prophets? Every man would say, such an infe­rence were to corrupt the Word of God, for the places prove no such thing against the men: but if they indeed were such men, and so much could be proved against them, they fall then under the censure and reproof of such Texts. And is the Word of God handled otherwise then so, when men are acc [...]s [...]d to be Covenant breakers, and for-sworn, and thereby have highly displeased the Lord? And to prove this there is brought, Ezek. 17 14, 15, 11, 19. Zach. 5. 4. 2 Sam. 21. 1, 2, 6. as if these places did prove their accusation and charge: Whereas there is nothing held forth in the Texts, but that for breaking lawfull Cove­nants, and for rash and sinfull oaths (as this was) a Na­tion may justly fear Gods displeasure: but not one word in reference to the Nationall Oath, as if God should be ang [...]y with this Nation for breaking it: That some Covenants have been religious, sacred, inviolable, we grant: and for the violation thereof God hath shewed his displeasure, this is true also: but doth this prove ours to be so? and for the breaking of it G [...]d will do so? Indeed hitherto it hath been in this manner and way proved: Such a Scripture­covenant was sacred and religious: Ergo ours: For break­ing such an oath or league the Lord was angry, &c. Ergo he is displeased with this Nation for breaking theirs. But you will say this proves nothing; What? no proof? then hath not the Covenant to this day been proved lawfull; and if any one among them all (what ingenuitie and can­dor they professe to have) can yet prove it otherwise and better, ‘Erit mihi magnus Apollo.’

2. For their complaints and groans on Fast dayes, and [...]ed commonly in their Pulpits before or after Sermon, because the Covenant is not kept: this skuthropoi, sowre faced, and covering the Altar with tears, with weeping and cry­ing out, is a thing which the Lord regardeth not, nor re­ceiveth [Page 43] it with good will at their hands: Are they not afraid to bring a corrupt thing before the Lord, and to speak and plead for it? doth their heart never smite them for this? that is strange, considering in that prayer which Christ hath left us to be a rule and platform of all our prayers, there is nothing for the justifying of the Cove­nant, but in every Petition something clearly against it: As for eXample.

1. What more directly against the hallowing of Gods Name? then when men take his dreadfull and most glori­ous Name in vain, by swearing neither in righteousnesse, in truth, nor in judgement: For this I refer the Reader to what hath been said, pa. 9. to 18.

2. What is a greater impediment unto the coming of Gods kingdom then that, which 2 Thes. 3. 1▪ 2 Act. 13. 46.stops the Gospel, whereby all the elect may be truly converted: suffers not Churches to be 1 Chron. 28 12. Hebr. 3. 2. Isa 35. 8.gathered and constituted according to the pattern of the New Testament: nor that Psal. 2. 8. Col 1 18.Christ as King, Priest and Prophet may exercise power and authoritie onely in Sion: permits not the Mat. 28. ulc.whole counsell of God to be freely and truly taught, and all inventions and traditions of men powerfully confuted? nor the Mat. 28. 19. 1 Cor. 11 28. Matt. 7. 6.Sacraments which are the seals of Gods promise, administred and received in that puritie and sinceritie as by Christ is prescribed? nor the 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. &c.censures of the Church to be executed according to the Apostolicall Institution? yet all this, doth the Covenant as the great sticklers for it, expound some part of it.

3. Is there any thing more obvious and apparent against the doing of Gods will, then to oblige men by oath not to do their duty, and the very thing which God requireth of them? which is, Gen. 9. 6. Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed: yet this Letter to his Excellencie, pa. 6. Vindication of the Ministers of London. pa. 28.(some say) the Oath prohibiteth.

4. Is not this against asking our daily bread? when men shall be restrained from preserving their bodily life by law­ful and good means, unlesse they will swear to such things as they know not what they are? or taking them to be un­lawfull will swear against their conscience. For this see pag. 16.

[Page 44] 5. When we ask forgivenesse of sins, and yet take the Covenant, what is this but a mocking of God? it being a sin, and unlawfull so to do.

6. When we desire the Lord, that we may not be given over to the temptation of the devill, the world, or our own lust, as to be overcome thereof: but contrariwise that the Lord will strengthen us against all assaults of everie ene­mie, and grant us such holy means as may further us in our true obedience towards him? 'tis no otherwise then to ask power and grace to refuse the Covenant▪

7. And in the last place, when we entreat the Lord to set us free from the power of Satan, and from all the poli­cies and deceit which he exerciseth against the soul for its ruin and destruction, either by prosperitie or adversitie; and that he will give us strength to overcome all corrupt affections, and preserve us in well doing to the end: here we desire, that we may not fall into the evill of the Cove­nant: or if fallen, that God will take us out of the evill of it, and keep us that we do so no more.

This being so, my desire and prayer to God is, that all people in all places may take warning, that under a sad countenance, long prayer, great crying, deep sighing, and some tears they be not beguiled, and (like the simple who beleeves every thing) brought in to say Amen to a lye, and so offer the sacrifice of fools.

3. From this root of bitternesse, some have taken occasion to vomit out their own shame, against Authoritie: And as Absolom by slandering his Fathers government, sought to steal away the hearts of the people; and make rebellion: so these casting aspersion upon the supreme Magistrates of the Land, charging them with Covenant breaking, perjurie, &c. would have all people (like themselves) disaffected to them and their proceedings.

But mark (Reader) their unfaithfulnesse and falacie: for their ground-work the Covenant is laid, and some Par­liament Ordinances, and hence they raise their invectives and bold charges against the State. Now was it ever be­fore known, that men who make the glory of God and the good [Page 45] of souls the mark they ayme at in the course of their ministerie, and will not suffer the sins of the times quiet, to build upon so san­dy, uncertain and weak ground? Men of ingenuitie and candor formerly, would not durst to have charged their equals, no not their inferiors with any small crime, much lesse their superiors with murder, treason, oppression, in­justice, &c. without clear and apparent proof; and shewed what Commandment and Law of Christ they had broken, not fetch their proof either from anothers weaknesse and failing, or from an absurd and false conceit of their own. Suppose by the Covenant the King was not to suffer, Pres­byterie to be setled, and all others otherwise minded not be tolerated: yet this will not follow, that the Parliament having since done otherwise, they have therefore done un­justly, and sinned against the Lord.

I observe this the rather, because in that book lately come forth, entitled, A Vindication of the London Ministers, &c. the Author shews him an evill worker, in abusing the Reader: for howsoever he chargeth the Parliament with many vile things, neverthelesse shews not at all wherein they have acted against the Law of God, of Nations, Na­ture, or pure reason, onely objecteth the Protestation, the Na­tionall Covenant, and some Collections of Parliament, as if this were enough to prove them so, and himself no false ac­cuser.

Object. 2. Letter of the London Mini­sters to his Ex­cell: pag 11 6.You have an example of Gods severe judgement for the violation of an Oath in Saul: so Zedekiah for breaking the Covenant made to the King of Babylon was extreamly punished.

Ans. 1. Howsoever the Gibeonites were a people former­ly accursed, and fallaciously procured a Covenant from Jos [...]ita: yet that Covenant was lawful. Lavat in lib. [...]o [...]uae, c 9. hom 39 p 42. Josuem jussu Domini u Iudg 2 [...]2. 14. 2 Sam 2 [...]. 1, 2. 9. 14. 1 King. 9 20. secisse quod fecit (saith Lavater) and proves in the same place by two reasons, that the Lord approved that Covenant. Besides it appears by severall Scriptures, that they onely of the Canaanites were devoted to destruction who would not seek for peace; for if they sued for it, it was to be grant­ed them: so In D [...]u: 20▪ n 4 In Ios 9 n 9▪ Junius, Pet. Martyr, and others, &c. And the sew Doctors thus understand it, as Annot: o [...] Dent 20 1 [...].Mr. Ainsworth notes.

[Page 46] 2. That the Covenant made by Zedekiah to the King of Babylon was extorted from him, and prejudiciall to him, 'tis the Petitioners own glosse, the history shews no such thing: But let that passe; sure I am the Covenant was lawfull. For, 1. Nebuchad-nezzar 2 Chron. 36. 10. made him King. 2. The Lord cals it, Ezek. 17. 19, 20. his Covenant; and breaking it, a trespasse that he had trespassed a­gainst him. 3. He was by the Prophet Jeremie counselled to keep his Oath; and doing otherwise, threatned by him and Ezekiel (for his perjurie, infidelitie and rebellion) to be se­verely punished. So then this is the close, when the London Ministers shall prove, that the See a book entitled, Justice Ad­vanced, wherein the Parliaments proceeding a­gainst the King is justified by Scripture, Law and Reason.Parliament and people of England, obliging themselves by oath not to put their King to death, what murther and mischief soever he should commit, doing so, make as just and lawfull a Co­venant as Joshua made with the Gibeonites, and Zedekiah with the King of Babylon, and are bound as strictly to keep it: it shall be acknowledged that these examples speak something to the matter they are brought for: but till then, they must be contented to lye under the just censure of perverting and wresting the Scripture.

Quest: 3. But may not the Civill Magistrate taking the counsell and consent of a Synod, or Assemblie of Divines, set down what doctrine, worship, and Church discipline shall be extirpated, and not tolerated or suffered: and what shall be established and maintained through the Nation, and then require all the people of the Land, therein to joyn with them, and by Vow and Oath to promise so much, and in case any refuse, to suffer for it.

Answ: Howsoever this work properly belongs to the partie interested, and for them to prove the lawfulnesse of it: yet seeing here, they are altogether silent, I shall speak thus far to the objection. That it becomes not the Magi­strate so to do, neither hath he any warrant or calling for such a practice, thus I manifest.

1. For doctrine, worship, and such things, as they are spirituall, and concern the inward man, so it is God alone who carries forth the work in him, and for him; shews him by his Word what he should embrace, and what re­fuse, [Page 47] and helps him by his Spirit when his time and pleasure is accordingly in it. And this in Scripture is every where shewed, that there is See a Declar. of the Parl in Answ: to the Scots Commis. pag 16. no humane power of coertion called for here, the Magistrate is to leave the Lord to perswade the heart. Compare these Scriptures. Psal. 110. 2. Act. 2. 41. 1 Cor. 7. 22. 2 Cor. 1. 24. Rom. 14. 23. 1 Joh. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. Joh. 18. 36. Act. 4. 17. 20. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Cor. 5. 14. 20. 2 Cor. 10. 3, 4, 5. Rom. 10. 17. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 8. Matt. 28. 20. Act. 18. 15. 28. Joh. 6. 44. Matt. 16. 17. Ephes. 4. 11, 12, 13 Mat. 17. 5. 1 Cor. 3. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. 1 Cor. 9. 20. 21, 22.

2. To binde a Nation by oath to such a practice, shews the Imposers to be either absurd, or uncharitable, or tyrannicall. 1▪ Absurd and irrationable, if they should think the people generally in a capacitie to take such an Oath: Or 2. Suppo­sing otherwise, then uncharitable to compell any unto it a­gainst their conscience. Or 3. If they should think that some would not swear lest they should forswear themselves, then cruell and tyrannous to require such a thing at their hands; and refusing it, to punish them for it.

3. I confesse we read in humane Histories, that among the Gentiles it was enacted, that no worship should be admitted, no Religion exercised, but what received Estab ishment and ap­probation from them who supposed themselves to be intrust­ed with Authority over men in such things: And their Reasons for it were; partly because sundrie wayes of worship, and se­verall relig ons Suos deos, aut novos aur [...] [...] [...] Cic [...]o [...]li. a de [...]egibus.tends to the disturbance of the Common­wealth, and that civill society which men under the same go­vernment do, and ought to enjoy: And partly because the Gods whom they owned and worshipped were dishonoured and provoked to plague them. And having thus made a Law, and supported with such reasons as these, they proceeded to the execution of the penalty of that Law, as unto banishment, imprisonment, burning, drowning, torturing in sundr [...] kinds according to the pleasure of the Judges: Tis true this the Hea­then did, and this Rev. 13. 16, 17.power of the Dragon was given over to the Beast and false Prophet, and to this day many walk in the same paths with them. But I do not read where a Covenant was to be taken, and men enjoyned to swear unto their worship and [Page 48] religion, and to suffer punishment if they should refuse: such a practise for ought I know, was not once named among the Gentiles; darknesse it seems had not so overtaken them as to act so unreasonablie.

4. Seeing the Church of England resolveth, that all Councels, and Synods, whether Provinciall, Nationall or Oecumenicall, Article 21. they may erre, and have erred in things pertaining to God. And the same professed by all Protestant Churches: I would know, what reason and ground the Magistrate hath to swear him­self, much lesse to force another by oath to embrace, without all doubt and suspicion of error (for so it is presupposed he doth when he swears) any constitutions of men? Me thinks it is no fair dealing of Ministers, to tel [...] the people, Synods and As­semblie of Divines may erre, and yet to thrust upon them their decrees and devises in such a way, as if they were Apostolicall and infallible, and could not erre.

5. Not onely is this putting of men to oaths and vows in points of Religion contrary to Gospel way, rule and walking, but a subtle stratagem and plot used by Hereticks, Idolaters, and such vile wretches, the better to promote and advance, their errors, lyes & blasphemous tenets. Of Novatianus it is re­ported, that Baron An­nal: som: 2. an 254. nu: 75. Col. 504. before he would give the Sacrament, he caused his Ad­herents to put their hands betwixt his and to swear by the body & blood of the Lord they would not forsake him, and turn to Cornelius. And did not the Prelates usually make their Clergie and others to swear Canonicall obedience to their Articles, Injunctions, Can­nons? and why was it? but to uphold their superstition and false worship, and to hinder the power of godlinesse? One would have thought that the perillous Oath which the Bi­shops made them to take, and the trouble of spirit which some of them ever had for it, would have made them for the time to come, more carefull and tender hearted, and not again have run themselves, and forced others, into the like snare and danger.

To conclude all, seeing it hath been proved, that the Cove­nant both given and taken was unlawful, whosoever therfore hath had a hand either way in it, he ought to repent truly of it: and by this take warning, and learn Deut. 28. 58. to fear this glorious and fearfull Name, JEHOVAH THY GOD.