NOthing can be the matter of a Vow or Covenant which is evidently unlawful, but it is evidently unlawful for a Subject or Subjects, to attempt to alter the Laws eſtabliſhed by force, without the concurrence, and againſt the Commands of the Supream Legiſlator, for the Introduction of a foreign Diſcipline, ſaid the See his Fair warning to take heed of the Scottiſh diſcipline, pag. 30. now moſt Learned and Reverend Primate of Armagh. Upon conſideration whereof, and finding that Jugling Oath, Entituled, A Solemn League and Covenant, to be the ſubject matter of Debate between the Reverend Epiſcopalians and the Presbyterians at this day, I reſolved with my ſelf (how unlearned ſoever) to make a ſerious Enquiry into the nature of that Covenant, and ſet down my Animadverſions on it. And upon ſuch Enquiry, I found it not at all to portend any good to this Nation; and by an impartial Search into the genuine fruits, and bloody villanous effects thereof (which as Springs from that venemous Fountain, have run forth over the Nation,) I finde that it deſerved rather to have been buried like Corah and his Complices, in everlaſting oblivion and forgetfulneſs (except it were for a deteſtation and perfect abhorrency of it) then to be revived again as an Achan amongſt us, to involve and keep us ſtill in blood and confuſion: I ſpeak not this out of paſſion or partiality, but out of a ſerious conſideration of the evil matter contained in it, part of the very Preface whereof ſounds very ſtrangely in mine ears, where they tell us, That according to the commendable practice of theſe Kingdoms in former times, and Gods people in other Nations, they have reſolved to enter into a Solemn League and Covenant, &c.

I have read a Saying ſomewhere, That its ominous to ſtumble at the threſhold, and that theſe Abſolonians ſhould ſtumble ſo groſly againſt the Truth at the very entrance of their League, argues their being filled more with Puritaniſm, then Purity; more with frantick zeal, then that according to knowledge; for had they had any regard to truth, the world had never then been made acquainted with ſuch a groundleſs Fiction; for let them make appear by true Evidences and Hiſtories (if they are able, and if not, let them renounce their bold Aſſertion) that ever ſuch a League (as this of theirs) was ever framed, deviſed, and put in execution within this Nation, for the extirpation of all Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and the reſt of that glorious Hierarchy, whoſe Liberties and Priviledges are eſtabliſhed by the great Charter, and other good Laws of this Land) and that ever there were ſuch a Combination againſt their Prince for no other end, but to defend him. If this were the Practice of former times, What meant the Olivarian Covenanting-Metropolitan Nye, when he point blanck affirmed, That it was Covenant with Narrative, p. 12. ſuch an Oath, as for Matter, Perſons, and other Circumſtances, the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we read of in Sacred or Humane Stories? Now can any one that hath read any thing of the Engliſh Chronicles, be ſo mad and frantick as to think that to be the Practice of former Ages, which was never viſible, never done by any within this Kingdom: nay, and which one of the profound Swearers themſelves affirms cannot be parallel'd, That the like hath not been in any Age? Either the one or the other, muſt lie with a witneſs. If what the Preface ſaith, be true, then Nye is notoriouſly deceived; then farewel truth it ſelf, and all the noble Aſſertors of it: if what Nye affirms be true, (as undoubtedly it is, and cannot be denyed) then that part of the Preface (which ſets ſuch a fraud and deceit to catch the eyes and hearts of ſome credulous poor mortals) muſt abſolutely appear to be a damnable falſhood, and the proper effects of a Serpentine infatuation, and their Covenant-building it ſelf, to be like that of the fools, ſpoken of by our Saviour in the 7. of Saint Matth. and the latter end. Nay, that's not all neither; for they call it a commendable practice: what, and never done, nor performed by any in this kingdom? Surely, if I ſhould go and do a thing (which was never before viſible, or acted by any) and ſay, It is according to the commendable practice of others, I might well be eſteemed void of any ſenſe or reaſon; in a meer diſtracted condition: fitter for an inhabitant of Bedlam, then any ſober place amongſt thoſe who were able to diſtinguiſh betwixt Sobriety, and Frenzy: betwixt an Orthodox Chriſtian, and a Guiſian Leaguer. But ſuppoſe there had been ſuch practiſes heretofore, in the times of Popiſh Egyptian darkneſs, ſhall any pretending to true Proteſtantiſm (which ſeverely declaims all ſuch perfidious Antichriſtian courſes) be found to be ſo far approvers of ſuch infamous actions, as to commend them for examples to others to tread in the ſame ſteps? Can Subjects combining and ſwearing together to extirpate the legal eſtabliſhed Church-Government of a Nation (as Biſhops were, and are ſtill here, though the leg) exerciſe of their Coercive power in the Star-Chamber, and High Commiſsion Courts was taken away by the Act in 1641. to prevent the ſubſequent Rebellion, and Jeſuitical-Combinations of Leaguing Presbyters) and vowing to aſſiſt one another in their Covenanted Rebellion, with their lives and fortunes, againſt the expreſs command of the ſupream Governor, for the attaining of their Leaguing ends, be called and ſtiled Commendable by any one, pretending ſome affinity to Loyalty or Chriſtianity (which are inſeparable, and the conſtant attendants upon a true fearer of the Lord)? It's a brave time with Rebels, when their Treaſon and diſloyalty are enrolled amongſt the Records of Fame and Honour, and their obedient oppoſites to the commands of their lawful Prince, are in the very act of Loyalty tearmed, and Recorded for terrible Delinquents againſt the thing which Nick-named it ſelf ſo often, A Parliament: Halcyon daies for Sacrilegious Schiſmaticks, when that which is condemned by the word of God (nothing more) ſhall be garniſhed forth with an Epethite of Commendable, though, what the Prophet, by God's expreſs command, ſaid ſo long ago, that do I ſay now unto theſe ſtrangers to Truth and Loyalty, Iſaiah 5. 20. Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil.

§. 2. They tell us too, It was according to the practice of Gods people in other Nations. Aha! What, Gods people, and Covenanting Rebels too? What, Reformers, and ſwearing Extirpaters of the Epiſcopal promoters of the Reformation? Saints, and yet Schiſmaticks! Chriſtians, and yet Traytors! Surely our Covenanters were put to extream hard ſtraits, to make lies their refuge for their carrying on of their extirpating Reformation? No other way to catch people into the black Road with them, but by blinding their eyes with Errors and Contradictions? A ſad geneneration of Merozians: Its true indeed, the Guiſian Leaguers in France, went directly in the ſame impious courſes before them, & unleſs they be their Gods people, I know none: for they alone were the Monſters that our Leaguers could properly ſay they were imitators of, becauſe they went to their helliſh work with an Oath (like ours) and yet Guiſe himſelf (like ours too) had the face to tell his Prince, That he was his faithful ſubject, for all that, Who (as the Tranſlator of a Pariſians Work tells us) living under See the right of Kings, and duty of ſubjects. Pref. a milde and peaceable Prince, ſlandered their King that he was an enemy to the Roman Catholick Religion (as our Covenanters did the late Carolian Martyr, to be an enemy to the Proteſtant) and under the fair pretence of Religion, ſcrewed themſelves into the favour of the Common people (who are uſually deceived by ſuch pretences) raiſing a ſtrong party againſt the King, by the name of the holy League, which cauſed much confuſion in that kingdom, (as by too ſad and lamentable experience we have found to be the effects of our Engliſh Leaguers in this.) And now I appeal to the conſcience of any man living, whether they that can firſt Rebel againſt their For ſo they ſwore the King was. only Supream Governour, and then have the confidence to tell us of a thing which never was (like that of the man in the Moon) and ſet it down with ſuch a poſitive Aſſeveration (as making it a pattern for their illegal traitorous undertakings) and ſtile that Commendable, which (if any ſuch thing had ever been) ought to be abhorred, as much as hell, by him that deſires the Rules of Chriſtianity: I ſay, I appeal to the Conſcience of any man living, who deſires not to be enſnared (and kept ſo) with the See Mr. Reynell's Panegyrik intituled, The unfortunate Change. Caledonian Boar, which was the cauſe of our diſtempers, whether they that ſpeak theſe lies and juglings, theſe palpable falſhoods and deceits, could poſſibly have (according to their aſſertion) Before their eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt (whoſe See Mr. Quarrel's Loyal Convert, P. 5. glory will not be vindicated by ſuch unlawful means, and unwarrantable proceedings, and whoſe kingdom is endeavoured to be pulled down by ſuch a peerleſs Covenant)? But whats it they ſwear, that muſt have a juggling Preface to ſet it forth? Why, they tell us in their firſt Article, That they will ſincerely, really, and constantly through the grace of God (as though that would ever ſquare with ſuch proceedings) endeavour in their ſeverall places and callings, the Preſervation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Diſcipline and Government, according to the word of God, and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches.

§. 3. What have I to do with the reglement of Foreign Churches? See his Fair warning, P. 1, ſaid the Reverend Primate, and ſo ſay I too, What had Engliſh men to do, to ſwear to preſerve the Doctrine, and Diſcipline of another Countrey? Let them ſtand or fall to their own Master. Ay, but here was the Myſtery, We have an earneſt longing deſire to have Biſhops extirpated, and we, having followed the pattern of our dear Scottiſh Brethren, in riſing up in arms againſt our King for that purpoſe, and being not well able and ſufficient of our ſelves, to carry on our deſign againſt them, we muſt call in the other to our aid, and they will not come to us, unleſs we will ſwear to ſet up their Church-way amongſt us; and therefore, rather then Biſhops ſhall ſtand, we will do it: For (as the late Martyr ſaid upon the Covenant) nothing will induce them to engage, till thoſe that called them in, have pawned thier ſouls to them by a ſolemn League and Covenant: I am verily perſwaded, that there was not one amongſt a hundred that ſwore that League to preſerve the Scottiſh Diſcipline, that knew no more what their Diſcipline was then a horſe, and ſo they ſwore with a blinde implicite faith to preſerve they knew not what themſelves: Pure good ſwearing, (is it not)? Was this ſworn in Truth, Judgement, and Righteouſneſs, as the Prophet ſaith, an Oath ſhould? Jer. 4. 2. If not, (as it was not) Is not therefore ſuch mens ſwearing unlawful, and ſo to be renounced, and repented of? Is it not an abominable wickedneſs in any one to ſwear to preſerve the Scottiſh Diſcipline (or when ſworn, to keep ſuch a wicked Oath) when the Reverend Primate hath made it appear by ſuch cogent and undeniable Arguments of truth, and ſound Divinity (beyond the reach and power of a Crofton, or any Presbyterian adverſary to anſwer without palpable cavilling, & declaring of their own folly) That See his fair warning, p. 2. this diſcipline (which the Croftonians ſo much adore) is the very quinteſſence of refined Popery, or a greater tyranny then ever Rome brought forth, inconſiſtent with all forms of civil Government, deſtructive to all ſorts of Policy, a rack to the conſcience, the heavieſt preſſure that can fall upon a people, and ſo much more dangerous, becauſe by the ſpecious pretence of Divine inſtitution, it takes away the ſight, but not the burthen of ſlavery. Reader, peruſe that ſmall book, and i'le undertake it ſhal give thee full ſatisfaction what this Cockatrice egge, the Scottiſh diſcipline is, and what a precious jewel it is to be preſerved. But how will they preſerve this Pandora's box? why, according to the word of God, & the example of the beſt reformed Churches: that's brave indeed! to ſwear to preſerve that according to the word of God, which knows nothing of it (as it is ſingular by it ſelf)? Suppoſe I ſhould ſwear to preſerve a thief in his pilfering courſes, according to the word of God, would that make the thieves actions good, becauſe it is expreſſed according to the word of God? or would it not rather aggravate and heighten the bloody nature of my ſins, to ſwear with ſuch a ſtrange ſelf-contradiction? Juſt as if I ſhould ſay, I would do a thing according to the will and deſire of another, who hath openly made his proteſtation againſt it: I am ſure the thieves actions cannot be more oppoſite to the Sacred Canon of Scripture, then ſome part of the Scottiſh Diſcipline is, (which the Reverend Primate hath well informed us of, to which I refer the doubtful for ſatisfaction) and therefore notwithſtanding that expreſſion, the Oath for preſervation of ſuch an Anti-Monarchical Diſcipline, cannot but be very wicked, and therefore unlawful to be ſworn or kept. And as for the beſt Reformed Churches, the Church of England, by all impartial, unbyaſſed, ſober Proteſtants, was wont to be accounted the beſt Reformed Church in the world; and, See the fair warning, p. 2. before theſe unhappy troubles in England all Proteſtants, both Lutherans and Calviniſts, did give unto the English Church the right hand of fellowſhip: which made the moſt Reverend Doctor Hammond (of renowned memory) to affirm, That See his View of the new Directory, and vindication of the ancient Liturgy, P. 7. the Church of England, as it ſtands eſtablished by law, is avowable againſt all the Calumniators in the world, to be the beſt, and moſt exemplary Reformed: ſo far (ſaith he) that if I did not gueſs of the ſenſe of the Covenant, more by the temper, then words of the Covenanters, I should think all men that have Covenanted to Reform, after the example of the beſt Reformed Churches, indiſpenſably obliged to conform to the King-Edward, or Queen-Elizabeth-English Reformation, the moſt regular, perfect pattern that Europe yieldeth. Thus that indefatigable Defender, and Propagator of Catholick truths, againſt the novel inchroachments of the then Julianizing times, whoſe memory will be precious, and his name ſmell as ſweet odour in the noſtrils of all true hearted Chriſtian Proteſtants, when the name of an Aſſembler will hardly be thought on, without immediate branding him for Treaſon and diſloyalty. And ſo now, having briefly diſpatched the firſt, I ſhall proceed on to the ſecond, and there they ſpeak out what their Covenant for Reformation is; for they tell us there too, in their Rebellious language,

§. 4. That they shall in like maner, without reſpect of perſons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers depending on that Hyerarchy) Superſtition, Hereſie, Schiſm, Profaneneſs, and whatſoever shall be found to be contrary to ſound Doctrine, and the power of godlineſs, leſt we partake in other mens ſins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues. In good time! Excellent Deformers! They that were the grand Promoters, and carriers on at firſt of the Regular Engliſh-Reformation (though indeed, not by Sedition and Rebellion againſt their Soveraign, nor by making uſe of curſing-Merozian Texts, to ſtir up the people to aſſiſt them in ſuch filthy courſes, but by obedience and ſubjection to the unjuſt puniſhment of Majeſty, and freely offering their bodies to the fire) muſt now be extirpated by our Deformers of Truth and Chriſtianity, under a ſly pretence of a deteſtable Reformation. A good requital to them for their incomparable defences of the true Proteſtant Religion againſt the Jeſuits, and others of the Babylonian Romiſh rout, to be now caſt out, as unprofitable branches, by a pack of holy Leaguers, not worthy to be named with them: but what ſaid our own late moſt noble Sovereign? See Eikon Baſilike upon the Covenant. Many Engines of religious and fair pretenſions are brought, chiefly to batter or raſe Epiſcopacy: This (ſaith he) they make the grand evil Spirit, which (with ſome other imps, purpoſely added to make it more odious and terrible to the vulgar) muſt by ſo ſolemn a charm and exorciſm, be caſt out of this Church, after more then a thouſand years poſſeſsion from the firſt plantation of Chriſtianity in this Iſland, and an univerſal preſcription of time and practice in all other Churches, ſince the Apoſtles times, till this laſt Century. But no antiquity muſt plead for it: Presbytery, like a young heir, thinks the father hath lived long enough, and impatient, not to be in the Biſhops chair and authority, all art is uſed to ſink Epiſcopacy, and lanch Presbytery in England, which was lately boyed up in Scotland by the like artifice of a Covenant. And therefore for that Apoſtolical-Primitive Univerſal Church-Government of Epiſcopacy (ſo Univerſal, That See Eikon Baſilike, in 24. P. 103. (as the Martyr ſaith) ſince the firſt Age, for one thouſand five hundred years, not one example can be produced of any ſetled Church, wherein were many Ministers and Congregations, which had not ſome Bishop above them, under whoſe Juriſdiction and Government they were: and ſo, by conſequence unavoidable, the damnable infamous nature of the Covenant for extirpation thereof. There hath been ſo much ſaid by our Reverend Epiſcoplains, and by our late Joſiah, of moſt bleſſed and glorious memory, that I ſhall forbear to ſay any thing more of it, but refer them that deſire ſatisfaction, to their reſpective writings; (and I wonder when the Preſbyterian will anſwer them: I do not mean by cavillings, and railings (for there have been too much of that already) but by true, good, ſolid, ſound arguments and reaſons; ſuch as may carry truth in their fore-head, which people ſhall eaſily perceive, when they can once have the happineſs to ſee the Swans turn black.

§. 5. But is this all that theſe Leaguers ſwear to extirpate in this Article? No, they joyn with the former (juſt as if a man ſhould joyn a Scottish Presbytery with a Monarchy, which (in the wiſe experienced judgement of King James See the Conference at Hampt. Court. p. 81. as well agreeth as God and the devil) Superſtition, Hereſie, Schiſm, Profaneneſs, and whatſoever shall be found contrary to ſound Doctrine, and the power of godlineſs. A good hearing! I like this part of the Article extreamly well; and the better, for that hereby they muſt endeavour to extirpate, as much as poſſibly they can, (under the danger of perjury) their very Extirpation. Down Covenant, down: What doſt thou hold up thy head for? Thy Fathers that begot thee, have knock'd thy brains out, and have ſworn to do it by their Sacred Covenant (as they call it) in ſwearing to extirpate Hereſie, Schiſm, and Profaneneſs: this I will make appear by their own confeſſion (and let them deny it if they are able) which they unanimouſly ſet forth to the view of all the world, no leſs then 52 of the party, See the Teſtimony to the truth of J. C. ſubſcribed by the Miniſters within the Province of London, p. 30. p. 29. p. 30 p. 26. That in ſtead of true Piety and power of Godlineſs, they had opened the very flood-gates to all Impiety and Profaneneſs, and after they had removed the Prelatical yoke [mark] from their ſhoulders, by their covenanted endeavors (i. i. by vertue of their League) Well! what then? What followed their extirpating Oath againſt the Prelacy? They tell us, There was a rueful, deplorable, and deformed face of the Affairs of Religion—ſwarming with noiſom Errors, Hereſies, and Blaſphemies in ſtead of Faith and Truth; torn in pieces with deſtructive Schiſms, Separations, Diviſions and Sub-diviſions, in ſtead of Ʋnity and Ʋniformity. page 31. That in ſtead of a Reformation, they might ſay with ſighs, what their enemies ſaid in ſcorn, they had a Deformation in Religion; and in ſtead of extirpation of Hereſie, Schiſm, Proſaneneſs, &c. they had an impudent and general inundation of all thoſe Evils. A fair Confeſſion, and an ingenuous ſelf-condemnation! Obſerve Reader, what theſe Changers of our times, and deforming Leagueing-Reformers have publickly confeſſed, to the ſhame and diſgrace both of themſelves and their graceleſs Covenant. Here they tell us, that they have opened the very flood-gates to all Impiety and Profaneneſs, (by vertue of that very Covenant whereby they were ſworn to extirpate it) and that after they had removed the Biſhops, Religion ſwarmed with noiſom Errors, Hereſies and Blaſphemies, torn in pieces with Schiſms and Diviſions: Very good; Was not this very Covenant (by force whereof theſe mad exploits have been done, and the terrible effects thereof are ſo ſadly complained of) taken and ſworn without, yea againſt the conſent and expreſs Command of the onely Supream Governor, (and ſo by conſequence abſolute rebellion) to whom theſe Swearers before by a legal eſtabliſhed Oath, had ſolemnly ſwore to bear true faith and allegiance? Is not then that League which was the Inſtrument and Means for the producing of theſe horrible Impieties and ſad Effects, both in the form and matter of it, extreamly unlawful, naught and wicked, and therefore not to be kept, but damned eternally? Our bleſſed Savior ſaith, Matth. 7. 18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit: And can this Covenant (whereby the Swearers thereof have acknowledged (for that was it they were ſpeaking of when they confeſſed) they have opened the very flood-gates to all impiety and profaneneſs) be a good tree that hath brought forth ſuch venemous deadly fruit? or not rather a very corrupt tree that cannot bring forth that which is good? Certainly that League muſt be a League and Covenant with hell and death, that ſhall produce ſuch helliſh fruits and effects, as by the printed Confeſsion of the Swearers themſelves was too evident and palpable (it ſeems) to be with any truth denied. What remains then, but that it ſhould have the deſerved fate of a corrupt tree, even to be ver. 19. hewn down and caſt into the fire by the hands of the common Hang-man? The bleſſed Apoſtle St Paul told his Romans, that he would have them to Rom. 16. 17, 18. mark them which cauſed diviſions contrary to the doctrine they had learned, and avoid them; for they that are ſuch (ſaith he) ſerve not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt but their own belly, and by good words and fair ſpeeches (like our unſacred Leaguers with their According to the word of God, and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches) deceive the hearts of the ſimple, who are not able to ſee into the depth of their deluſive Cheats. And in another place asked his Corinthians, that 1 Cor. 3. 3, 4. whereas there was among them diviſions, (and what they were, he tells us other where 1 Cor. 1. 12, 13. were they not carnal, and walked as men? And therefore again I Quaere, Can this League (from whence ſuch deſtructive Separations, Schiſms, Diviſions, and Sub-diviſions have naturally flown) be any other then extreamly abominable and wicked, when the very cauſers of ſuch diviſions, by what wayes or means ſoever, are branded by the Apoſtle with this black mark of not being ſpiritual, but carnal; of ſerving not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, but their own belly? Qui vult decipi, decipiatur; He that will be deceived, let him. But its impoſſible to catch any other with their deſtructive ſchiſmatical courſes, then thoſe who are either ignorant, or wilfully ſhut their eyes that they might not be enabled to ſee the miſchiefs and villanies of their ſolemn League and Covenant; which being ſo extreamly ſinful both in the form and matter of it, and by filling Religion with noiſom errors, hereſies, and blaſphemies, in ſtead of faith and truth, and cauſing an impudent and general inundation of all thoſe evils, to be vehemently, contrary to ſound doctrine on the one hand, and by opening the flood-gates to all impiety and profaneneſs, to be notoriouſly oppoſite to the power of godlineſs on the other hand, (for there were none of theſe things heard, or to be complained of in the Biſhops time, till Iſaiah. 14. 29. out of the ſerpents root this Cockatrice (the Covenant) came forth, whoſe fruits have proved no better to us then a fiery flying ſerpent.) I do here warn and conjure them in the preſence of God, Angels, and men, and as they will anſwer it before the Judgement-ſeat of Chriſt, not onely to renounce, but (as much as in them lie) to endeavor to extirpate ſuch an impious, profane, and faithleſs Covenant for extirpation of the Prelacy (the noble Hedge againſt all thoſe Schiſms, Separations, Diviſions and Sub-diviſions, ſo much complained of by them) according to the reality of the laſt Clauſe of this their ſecond Article which they ſwore. Return, return (O ſacred Covenanter) return, return into thoſe ways of truth, plainneſs and loyalty toward God and your King, which by your peerleſs Covenant you have ſo deeply apoſtatized from, into the ungodly ways of falſhood and ledition, ugling and deceit, diſloyalty, treaſon, and true malignancy, leſt (according to your own Covenanting words) you partake matter mens ſins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues.

§. 6. But becauſe my intentions are to be brief in my Animadverſions. I ſhall paſs from this ſecond to the third Article, where they tell us, That they hall with the ſame ſincerity, reality and conſtancy in their ſeveral vocations, endeavor with their eſtates and lives mutually, (to ſet the cart before the horſe, and the tayl of a man above his head) to preſerve the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, and to preſerve and defend the Kings Majeſties perſon and Authority (with a Jugling Jeſuitical King-deſtroying limitation) in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms, that the world may bear witneſs with our conſciences of our Loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminiſh His Majeieſties juſt Power and Greatneſs. This very Article, and the notorious Jugling in it, were enough to make an underſtanding perſon abhor the League eternally, and deteſt the very thoughts of having any thing to do with it; and that will appear if we do but conſider well their limited defence of their noble Sovereign, which in the whole amounts to no defence at all, but rather a direct imperious oppoſition and reſiſtance againſt His Regal Power and Authority.

§. 7. I have read many of the Leaguers indeed exclaim againſt the Royaliſts, for aſſerting, That the Covenant tended to the deſtruction of the King. What (ſay they) the Covenant tend to the deſtruction of the King! Is there not a particular Clauſe in it for preſervation and defence of the Kings Majeſties Perſon and Authority? Yes, there is ſo; and ſo far the words ſound ſome what like Loyalty: But what of that? Tell me (O ye holy Leaguers) did you defend the Kings Perſon in Leaguing together to ſend Armed men againſt Him? and were you not bound by a ſubſequent Article of this very Covenant, to aſſiſt and defend them in ſuch actions? Was that the defence of the Kings Perſon, when thoſe rebellions Forces (raiſed and ſent by the illegal power of a factious party of the Two Houſes then uſurping the Supream Authority) ſhot at thoſe (who were really riſen up in His Majeſties defence, according to their bounden duty and allegiance, and amongſt whom in ſeveral Battels He had His reſidence) with a Cannon and a Muſquet Bullet, which makes no difference between a King and Subject, the Superior and Inferior? Was fighting againſt him, ſeeling and cloſe impriſoning of him, preſerving of his Authority? Was it not by vertue of this Covenant that Treaſon before begun, was carried on by dint of ſword ☞ ſo long againſt the pretended Malignants, by true Delinquents, till the Martyrs Forces (through Gods Divine permiſſion) were wholly defeated and overcome? Did not that force him to ſurrender himſelf to a pack of Scottiſh Presbyterian Judaſſes? Did not their ſelling him into the hands of Leaguers at Weſiminſter, cauſe his Impriſonment? I ſay, was not this done by vertue of the Covenant? Is not impriſoning of his ſacred Perſon by force of Armes, abſolute The Law interprets it as a ſeeking the Princes life, when any one ſeeketh to force the Prince, Cook. in E of Eſſexs Caſe. high Treaſon by the Lawes of this new-riſen Kingdom? And was not his Impriſonment the true underiable conſequence of this Cainiſh League and Covenant? and is it not therefore evil and treaſonable, and ſo abominable, and not to be kept? And was not His Majeſties traiterous Impriſonment, the immediate Harbinger to his bloody devilliſh murther? Did not one ſucced the other? What then is it leſs then what the Aſſertors of Truth and Loyalty ſaid, That it tended to the deſtruction of our Martyred Sovereign? and ſhall that now dare to be pleaded for, and aſſerted for to be ſtill kept by any that fears God or reverences man?

§. 8. But ſome have ſaid, (and others may ſay the ſame ſtill) That though we roſe up in arms againſt the King, yet we kept our Oath ſtill, for it was with this limitation, In the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, &c. and he not following of the one, nor maintaining of the other, though we fought againſt him, yet we are true Swearers ſtill; Oh helliſh Clauſe and Regicidian Limitation! what! Is that your Loyalty to ſwear to your King with a Juggle? From ſuch Loyalty and all its abettors, O Lord deliver all Kings and Princes, and more eſpecially and peculiarly, Lament. 4. 20. The Breath of our noſtrils, our now incomparable Sovereign; For what Traytors or Rebels wil not ſwear any oath whatſoever with ſuch a curſed limitation as that, to defend their Prince, whileſt their Prince defends that which ſuch ſhall pleaſe to term the true Religion, whileſt he preſerves that which ſuch • Sav • . 10. 27. children of Belial may call the Liberties of the Kingdom? The Jeſuitical Papiſts will without any ſcruple take an Oath to the King with ſuch a limitation as that, whereby (though afterwards they murther their Prince for not upholding Popery, either by powder, poiſon, or ponyard) they may juſtifie the true keeping of their oath notwithſtanding, becauſe he not maintaining their Popes Supremacy, nor the abominable Maſs of their Romiſh trumperies, their defence of him ceaſed, by ſuch his actual maintenance of another Religion contrary to that which they account the true? Nay, did not the Sectarian party (who took this Covenant which See Feaks Beam of Light, p. 13 in Marg. was magnified moſt blaſphemouſly when it came into England firſt, as the very Ark of Gods preſence, and) who notwithſtanding that, afterwards brought their pious Sovereign (whom they had ſwore to defend) before their Court of higheſt Injuſtice, and condemned and executed Him moſt barbarouſly before the windows of his own Royal Palace, yet pleaded they were not perjured or forſworn, becauſe of this remarkable Reſtriction, or ſpecial Limitation (In deſence of the true Religion, &c. And he being (as they moſt impudently with faces of braſs affirmed) Page 29. a deſperate enemy to the Lord Jeſus his true ſeed and kingdom, and a great friend to Antichriſt, and the carnal and perſecuting Church in all his Kingdoms, their murther of Him was no breach of Covenant ſeemingly made for his defence; I am confident he that is a true Chriſtian Proteſtant, will deteſt ſuch limited Loyalty, ſuch jugling deſtructive defences of his Prince, as favouring too much of Jeſuitical venome, and Anti-monarchical deſigns, wherein a Kings preſervation ſtands altogether upon peoples fancies; when they fancy a Religion or the Liberties of a Kingdom to be ſuch as he doth not maintain, then farewel Loyalty, down goes true Faith and Allegiance, and up goes Treaſon and Rebellion, and yet pretend to be his dutiful, loyal Subjects too for all that (which ſome may ſay is impoſſible; but yet ſuch blinde pretences have been made by thoſe who had nothing elſe to ſay for themſelves and their illegal courſes, being aſſiſted too by ſuch a Learned Aſſembly of ſo many Divines, who after a Three years Conference, moſt profoundly voted God to be the Father.)

§. 9. And yet notwithſtanding this Anti-monarchical limitation, they declare they did ſet it down that the world might bear witneſs of their Loyalty, (they might have ſaid Jugling and Rebellion, for that is the true engliſh of ſuch a limited Loyalty) and that they have no thoughts to diminiſh His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs; No queſtion but the world would, did, and have ſufficiently taken notice of that which they call their Loyalty, and have found it to be ſuch as their Guiſian Leaguing Brethrne practiſed, who under pretence of 2 Sam. 15. 7, 8. maintaining w See The Right of Kings, in Marg. the Roman Catholick Religion, (as theſe did for that which they uſually miſ-called the Reformed) undermined the Kings Authority, and ſought to advance themſelves; the very ſame which Abſalom (the Beautiful Rebel) ſhowed to his Father, when under a fair colour of Evil Councellors at Court, and under a plauſible pretence of paying his vow he made to the Lord in Hebron, he verſe 6. ſtole the hearts of the men of Iſrael from their due allegiance to their King, and drew them verſe 11 in their ſimplicity into a damnable Rebellion with him; and therefore he that is loyal in practiſes and works, will never approve of theſe Weſtmonaſterian Leaguers loyalty, which onely conſiſts in words, whileſt their actions declares nothing elſe but Treaſon and Rebellion, unleſs See A Vindication of King Charls, by noble Mr. Symmons. p. 40. when they are in Cathedris, in their ſeats as Parliamentmen, they are all as infallible as the Pope, and have a power as well as he to do what they pleaſe, to make evil good, and good evil, to make Rebellion and Treaſon to be Duty and Loyalty, and duty and loyalty to be Rebellion and Treaſon; to vote ſacriledge, murder and theft to be no ſins; killing, ſlaying and deſtroying to be acts of zeal and chriſtian duty, Till then their loyalty will appear in the eyes of all judicious men to be no better then a Wolf in Sheeps clothing; As for their diſclaymer of diminiſhing His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs, upon ſearch and inquiry after it, we ſhall find it to be a chip of the old block, a parcel of contradictions like the other of preſerving the Kings perſon with a deſtructive limitation, and therefore I again thus Quaere, Is the taking the Antient right of the Militia from him (which was never for See The Royaliſts Defence, p. 97. the ſpace of 1700. years paſt queſtioned or diſputed until by theſe uſurpers injuriouſly wreſted from the Crown, but hath been time out of mind inherent in the King, See Iudge Jenkins Lex Terrae, p. 37. The practiſe of all times and the cuſtom of the Realm) no diminiſhing his Majeſties juſt power? Was the juſtifying the war by a party of the two Houſes (the Kings ſworn Subjects) againſt the Martyr to be warrantable, both in point of law and conſcience, and making a deforming Reformation without the conſent, and againſt the expreſs prohibition of their Dread Soveraign, and not onely ſo, but juſtifying for a commendable practiſe, the iniquity of Witchcraft (which Rebellion is termed by the Prophet) was this no diminiſhing His Majeſties juſt greatneſs? What do they think Engliſh men are made of? What are all made up of a bundle of contradictions that they impoſe ſuch juglings upon us? Surely the power of the Militia in the King was a very juſt, neceſſary power, (and he being See A Letter to a Member. p. 5. under God the Protector of the Law, I wonder how he could could defend it, and the d Priviledges of Parliament without the power of the ſword) and the greatneſs of His Majeſties over all in his dominions was very juſt too, if either the laws of God, or of this Land, or an oath of Supremacy are able to make it ſo; And yet forſooth people muſt be forced, by vertue of an illegal Anti-parliamentary League, not onely to be See The Animadverſions upon General Monk's Letter to the Gentry of Devon, p. 4. ingaged in the wars againſt the King, (and ſo thereby become perjured and faithleſs perſons) and to ſwear to aſſiſt all thoſe that ſhall do ſo too, in order to the taking away the Kings Negative voice, and the power of the Militia from him, which was one of thoſe juriſdictions, priviledges, preeminencies and authorities belonging to the Kings Highneſs, His Heirs and ſucceſſors, and united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, which every one of the Parliamenteers (as they were called) had by a ſolemn legal Sacred oath of Supremacy ſworn to aſſiſt and defend to his power) but alſo hipocritically (to ſay no worſe) to ſware too, that for all that they have no thoughts of diminiſhing His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs? Was there ever ſuch jugling ſeen, that men ſhould endeavour to take away that from their King (which is his juſt right) and yet ſware with their right hands, lifted up to the moſt high God, that they have no thoughts to diminiſh it? Ay and ſware too that they had before their eyes at this preſent, the honor and happineſs of the Kings Majeſty and his poſterity? in what part of the world can theſe mens peers be found, as to the art of jugling and contradictions in their oaths? Where may we find a pattern of their venemous courſes, but among the damned Guiſian leaguers in France, who murdered their King with a promiſe of fidelity, and of their being his true and faithful Subjects? And yet this, this is that Covenant (God wot) that notwithſtanding it ſet us together by the ears, and put us all in blood and confuſion, muſt be ſtill kept to inrol us amongſt mad men for ever; This jugling and contradictions in this ungodly Covenant, cannot but be contrary to the nature of a true oath, which as the Prophet ſaith muſt be made in Truth, righteouſneſs, and in Judgement, and therefore unlawful and not to be kept by any, without an evident diſobedience to the command of the Lord, expreſſed by the ſaid Prophet to the men of Iſrael.

§. 10. And though they can tell us in their ſixth Article, That this Cauſe and League of theirs, ſo much concerns the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms, and the honor of the King; yet I demand (and they may anſwer me if they can) Was is it ever heard ſpoke before by men that pretend a fear towards God, that that which is a moſt horrible breach of the Laws of God, could ever tend to his glory? and was not this Rebellions Covenant, and covenant Rebellion againſt the Martyr, directly a breach of the Divine Precept ſpoken by the mouth of his bleſſed St. Peter, 1 Pet. 2. 13. To ſubmit our ſelves to the King as Supream, and that for the Lords ſake? and did they not ſwear his Supremacy? yea, that he was the onely Supream Governor (thereby implicitely denying upon Oath any Co-ordinates with him in the exerciſe of the Supremacy)? and therefore can perjury and diſobedience to the Laws of our Creator be affirmed by any one (not poſſeſſed with a deep frenzy) to concern the glory of God? Its true indeed, when the Jews crucified our Savior, it was out of a pretended tenderneſs to the glory of God, and when our Engliſh-Jewiſh Tygres had murthered their lawful Sovereign, it was meerly (as they pretended) for the advancement of Chriſts kingdom; but that ſuch actions as either of thoſe, concerned either the glory of God, or the advancement of his Sons kingdom, is onely a demonſtration of the Aſſertors ſtrong deluſions; for it plainly intimates unto us, See the Right Rebel, p. 121. That there is a ſpecial work of Satan in it, when ſuch a ſtrong deluſion is ſent unto men, that they ſhould believe ſuch an Antichriſtian Lie, tendred unto them under the colour of a Chriſtian truth, as the Doctrine of Rebellion is. But this is juſt like the Second, of the good of the kingdoms: and therefore to that I again thus Quaere, Was there not a War begun by a pack of true Delinquents got into the Houſe of Commons, (and that they were ſuch, I appeal to the judgement of the Law?) Did not that war (as all wars do) tend to impoveriſh and oppreſs the Kingdom? Was not this League ſworn to carry it on, and not to leave off (whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give themſelves to a deteſtable indifferency, or neutrality in this cauſe of rebellion) till they had fulfilled their miſcheivous traiterous ends? Can then that Covenant which binds people (as this certainly did and doth) to continue the imbroyling of a Nation or Kingdom in blood, confuſion, perjury and Rebellion, concern ſo much the good of it? Can that which ſtirs up people to purſue the impoveriſhing, taxing, and inſlaving of a kingdome, (for whither did the Rebelling and riſing up in Arms, and ſwearing men to continue therein tend, but to that?) be affirmed by any except Frantick bedlamers to concern the good and benefit of it? And laſtly for the honor of the King, (for he and his honor are put at the fag end of all in this perfidious League) I further again Quaere, Is it for the honor of the King to have his ſubjects rebel againſt him? Is it for the happineſs of the King and his Poſterity, to have all his Aſſiſtants and Adherents deſtroyed, as much as their fellow-ſubjects can, under the black falſe notion of Evil Councellors and Malignants? Did not the Covenant binde the takers to ſuch things as thoſe? Let them deny it with truth if they can. Can that Covenant which binds men to diſloyalty and treaſon, (though hypocritically and lyingly pretending loyalty which doth not better the evil, nor antidote the venome in it; The devil though he appeares as an angel of light ſometimes, to enſnare men the more eaſily in his deluſions, yet he is but a black devil ſtill for all that; and therefore I may juſtly and truly make my Queſtion thus, Can that Covenant which binds men to diſloyalty and treaſon) and to break the Laws of this Land, be any thing leſs then Antichriſtian? And is it not therefore damnable and abominable, and to be abhorred of every one that deſires to obſerve the dictates of Gods good Spirit, in the ſacred Canon of Scripture? Undoubtedly every one that underſtands the true ways of advancing the glory of God, the honor of the King, and the good of the kingdoms, will hold himſelf obliged and bound to deſie this Covenant, as the very ſink of Jeſuitiſm, and high-way to hell it ſelf; and he that hath ever read, and conſidered well the Sacred Canon, and the undeniable truth of what our Carolian Martyr bid the Scotch Parliament always See Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae, the laſt printed Letter. ☞ remember, That as the beſt foundation of Loyalty is Chriſtianity, ſo tr • e Chriſtianity teaches perfect Loyalty; for without this Reciprocation, neither is truly what they pretend to be, will finde cauſe enough to refuſe the taking of, and if taken, to renounce and abjure ſuch a ſeditious Vow and Covenant, which ties men to continue Rebels all the days of their lives; for he that ſhall ſwear to extirpate a ſort of men (whoſe Function is eſtabliſh'd by the great Charter of our Liberties) in abſolute breach of the Law, and againſt the Command of his Prince, and endeavour to bring to paſs his extirpation by force of Arms, (which is high Treaſon) and ſwear that he will all the days of his life, zealouſly and conſtantly continue therein againſt all oppoſition, That man by any reaſonable perſon will be concluded a ſworn Rebel, and to continue by vertue of his Oath (without a juſt renunciation) a Traitor to his King, as long as breath remains in his body to enable him to carry on the intentions and purpoſes of it. And yet this is the League that ſuch a ſtir and clutter is kept about ſome mens Chriſtian and loyal breaking of it: and though ſome of its unlucky Patrons are pleaſed to alledge for its goodneſs, that part of the Clauſe of the firſt Article, wherein it is ſaid, according to the word of God, and the examples of the beſt Reformed Churches, yet I affirm, That that doth no more prove what they intend, by bringing of that Allegation, then the 2 Cor. 11. 14. devils being transformed into an angel of light, doth prove that he was in reality that into which he was transformed, then the Matth. 7. 15. falſe prophets coming to us in ſheeps clothing, doth prove that they are not inwardly ravening wolves; then the Phariſees Matth. 23. 21. appearing outwardly righteous unto men, is a convincing Argument to prove that within they were not full of hypocriſie and iniquity.

§. 11. But laſtly, they tell us, That they profeſs and declare before God and the world, their unfeigned deſire to be humbled for their own ſins, and for the ſins of theſe Kingdoms, eſpecially that they have not as they ought valued the ineſtimable benefits of the Goſpel, that they have not laboured for the purity and power thereof, and that they have not endeavored to receive Chriſt in their hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in their Lives. No, it's very true, for if they had, we ſhould never have ſeen an ungoſpel-like, unchriſtian Rebellion raiſed and ſworn to be upholden againſt our gracious King, painted over with a plauſible pretence againſt ſome pretended evil Councellors, nor an Anti-legal jugling ſelf-contradictory League ſworn for the Dathanian extirpation of the great upholders of Monarchy and it's juſt Rights, Priviledges, Preeminencies, and Authorities, againſt the ſeveral Incroachments of Papiſts and Presbyters, of Jeſuites and Sectaries. They complain there indeed that they have not endeavored to receive Chriſt in their hearts, and are they fit to be Reformers of Religion, and ſetters up of the ways and worſhip of our bleſſed Lord, when they have not ſo much as endeavored to receive him in their hearts? Doth the devil begin to make a Reformation of Chriſtian Religion? Do Atheiſts go about to ſet up Chriſtianity? What may we then expect the fruits of it to be, but a diſmal cloud of darkneſs and confuſion, which indeed doth ſuit well with theſe extirpating Leaguers Reformation they have made amongſt us, See A Vindication of king Charles. p. 88. ſuch a one as Nebuzaradan ſteward to Nebuchadnezar made at Jeruſalem, when he threw down the walls both of the City and Temple; They make it matter of humiliation it's true, that they have not walked worthy of him in their lives; and is this Baal-berith the way to do it? What ſhall we think of that man that ſhall out-face the Sun with his Treaſon, and ſeemingly repent for his wicked courſes, and yet at the ſame inſtant ſwear to carry on his rebellion ſtill? A ſerious man will give judgement, that ſuch a one hath nothing to do with God or Chriſtianity, but is wholly poſſeſſed by an evil ſpirit, which haunts him to his everlaſting deſtruction; And yet this is directly the caſe of our Engliſh Baalims of the Covenant; they firſt raiſe a war (which the Law of the Land calls Rebellion) againſt the Kings evil Councellors, to remove them from him, which is abſolute high Treaſon, & then pretend to humble themſelves that they have not endeavored to receive Chriſt in their hearts, nor walked worthy of him in their lives, and yet in the very act of this feigned humiliation ſwear too that they wil zealouſly continue in ſuch their filthy courſes all the days of their lives; was there ever ſuch grand hypocrites, and mockers of God ſince the world began, among thoſe that pretended a fear of his name, as theſe Leaguers are? The Scribes and Phariſees were but pigmies to them in this matter; Firſt pretend a ſorrow for their ſins, and yet in the very act of their temporary repentance bind themſelves by an oath, to proceed in them as long as ever they can; Go about to perſwade ſome credulous heady mortals, that they are very ſorry they have not walked worthy of Chriſt in their lives, and at the ſame time with their right hands lift up to the moſt high God, ſwear to break his Laws and Precepts, even to Rebel againſt their King, to whom he hath commanded all men to yeild a due ſubjection and obedience, and if that be the way to walk worthy of him, Libera me Domine, the Lord deliver me from any walking with them; If the way to walk worthy of Chriſt, be to turn Rebels and Traitors to the Prince we live under, and out of pure love to God, profane his Sanctuaries, break his Laws, and run directly counter to his ſacred Precepts, I know none that walked more worthy of God and of his Chriſt, then the blind Jews on the one hand that ignorantly crucified our bleſſed Lord for a Blaſphemer, and the helliſh wilful Regicides on the other hand that knowingly murthered his Anointed for a Tyrant; For my part, I am in ſuch diſorder of ſpirit whileſt I am thinking upon their deceipts and juglings, that I ſhall haſten (as much as confutation of rebellion will permit) to eaſe my ſelf of their puddle of contradictions, and for that end and purpoſe I ſhall proceed to the next that follows, where I finde them to let fall theſe goodly expreſſions; And are true and unfeigned (how ſhall any man beleeve the truth of it?) purpoſe (ſay they) in publique and private, in all duties we owe to God and man, is to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a Real Reformation.

§. 12. Here's a fair Proteſtation we ſee; Plauſible language again (as the former) to delude the hearts and minds of thoſe that take up all things upon truſt without any examination, but every whit as much jugling in it, as was in that which went before; which will eaſily appear by a few more Queries which I thus ſet down; Was it not a duty they owed to God to obſerve his commands? And did not he command by the mouth of St. Paul, That Rom. 13. 1. every Soul ſhould be ſubject to the higher powers, (which the oath of Supremacy and what another Apoſtle hath 1 Pet. 2. 23. ſaid, doth plainly evident to be the Kings moſt excellent Majeſty) and that too under pain of eternal Damnation? And was that a Real Reformation in the duty they owed to God to walk in oppoſition to his Injunctions? Again, for their duty towards man, Let them remember the Caſe of the Earl of Eſſex, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, who (in compariſon of Edge-hill Battel) gathered together but a handful of men, nor was that Queen fought with, (as our late renowned Sovereign was) nor her perſon in danger (as the Martyrs was) The Earl upon his Arraignment proteſted his intentions were onely to remove from the Queen ſome evil Councellors about her, yet notwithſtanding he raiſing force to do this without the Queens warrant, his plea was not available, but his action was judged Treaſon, and he and his Adherents executed as Traytors for it; Now mind, Was our Leaguers fighting againſt the King (for their declaring to fight for King and Parliament, at the very ſame time when they ſent Armed men againſt thoſe where he was in perſon, ſerves onely for a record and to eternize the memory of their damnable jugling and hipocriſie, but I ſay, Was their fighting againſt the King) a real Reformation of their duty towards man? Was their walking in the direct ſteps of the Trayterous Eſſex (who left an ungrateful ſon behind him, to follow the ſame curſes with himſelf) which was judged high Treaſon, the going before one another in the example of a Real Reformation? Was their actual See judge Jenkins's Lex Terra p. 12. incountring ſuch as came to ayd the King in his wars (which is Treaſon too) a Reformation of their duty towards man? Was ſwearing to commit Treaſon a Real Reformation? Obſerve Reader, They confeſs themſelves faulty in duty towards God and man (for what do they talk elſe of a Reformation?) and then leſt it ſhould be thought to be feigned, their purpoſe is, they ſay (but we have but their bare word for it) to make a Real Reformation, and what (trow we) is this Real Reformation of their default, but ſwearing together to break the Laws both of the Sacred Canon, and this land, in the wilful actual proceeding on to the commiſſion of Treaſon and Rebellion? Thus their Reformation of their lives is ſo like that of Religion, that it muſt needs proceed from one and the ſame treacherous mouth and jugling lips, that are altogether uſed in this League for the advancing of falſhood and depreſſing of the truth: alas our Covenanters made it appear, that their words and actions are two diſtinct things (and people are very ready always to paſs ſentence upon men, (not according to their fair words and pretences, but) according to their actions, and when they find a contrariety between them, to faſten upon them their proper deſerved name of hypocrites) Nay their very words do not agree one with another, (and ſuch ſurely muſt be accounted ſelfcontradictory juglers with a witneſs) for they had no ſooner told us of making a Real Reformation of their lives in all duties they owed to God and man, but preſently after they ſhut up their Baal-berith with this Antichriſtian, rebellious, infamous (and never enough to be deteſted) prayer and concluſion, beginning with a Moſt humbly beſeeching the Lord to ſtrengthen us by his holy ſpirit for this end, and to bleſs our deſires and proceedings with ſuch ſucceſs, as may be deliverance and ſafety to his people, (as though Rebellion could ever produce ſafety long to the undertakers) And which ſurely proceeded either from the inſtigation of the Devil, or elſe was the plot and deviſe of ſome Romiſh Jeſuitical Emiſſaries to make the true loyal Proteſtant Religion (which teaches men according to Chriſts Rule, rather to ſuffer and flee, then to fight with and kill our enemies) to ſtink as unſavoury ſtuff in the noſtrils both of God, and all truly pious men, elſe certainly we ſhould never have heard of an helliſh lewd League made for) encouragement to other christian churches (if they be truly Chriſtian they'l abhor our Leaguers courſes) groaning under or in danger of the yoake of Antichriſtian Tyranny (what, for very Titus 3. 1. fear of a yoke muſt Chriſtians rebel againſt Principalities and powers to diſobey Magiſtrates, which Titus had a command from St. Paul to put the then Chriſtians in mind to be ſubject to, though really groaning then under a ſad yoke, of Jewiſh and heatheniſh tyranny on the one ſide, and the other? certainly the Covenanters mind not what a neerneſs their feet are to be the very brink of hell, when they laid down theſe Antichriſtian Articles for others) to joyn in the ſame or like aſſociation and Covenant to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt (Suppoſe a man that hath cut himſelf, to ſtop it from bleeding, ſhould afreſh with a knife make the wound wider, would you not think him frantique?) and the peace and tranquillity of chriſtian kingdoms and Commonweals (Its a brave art to perſwade people that wars and bloodſheds, confuſions and diſorders, tend to the peace and tranquillity of a kingdom, and that this Covenant bound the takers to purſue their reſolutions by the ſword is plain beyond contradiction, and we have not been deluded and cheated by our Leaguing Abſaloms long enough (it ſeems,) but we muſt continue hampered ſtill in the nooſe of a Regicidian, Antichriſtian, leud, impious, profane Covenant for fear of being perjured forſooth, if we draw our ſelves and necks out of it, whereas true Chriſtianity will not ſuffer a man to tranſgreſs ſo far the bounds of loyalty, as to keep that, nor true loyalty permit a man ſo far to go beyond the limits of the Engliſh Laws, as to turn a Rebel to his King to ſtand to ſuch a faithleſs Covenant, which teaches men to See Eikon Baſilike, His Majeſties words upon the calling in of the Scots. build their piety on their ruines of Loyalty, to make bankrupt of their Allegiance under pretence of ſetting up a quicker trade for Religion; But to their concluſive prayer, a particular anſwer I ſhall give in ſuch following terms as theſe.

§. 13. We read in the 58 of Eſa. 1. verſe, the Lord commanding the Prophet in this manner, Cry aloud and ſpare not, lift up thy voice like a Trumpet, and ſhew my people their tranſgreſsion, and the houſe of Jacob their ſins; Yet they ſeek me daily and delight to know my ways as a Nation that did Righteouſneſs, and forſook not the Ordinance of their God, they ask of me the Ordinances of Juſtice, they take delight in approaching to God; Wherefore have we faſted (ſay they) and thou ſeeſt not? But what ſaid God to them? Behold (ſaith he) ye faſt for ſtrife and debate, and to ſmite with the fiſt of wickedneſs. Here was fair pretences; who could make better? but that did but aggravate the ſinful nature of their Crimes, we have had ſuch mock-faſts too in our times by our Leaguers (God bleſs us from any more ſuch) and promiſes to reform themſelves, that the Lord might turn away his wrath from us, and yet make it a part of their reformation preſently to purſue their rebellious intentions againſt their lawful onely Supream Governour; They pretended indeed to faſt for their ſins, but their ſubſequent actions declared to all the world their faſting to be like that of their Jewiſh Brethren, even for ſtrife and debate, for proſperity in Treaſon, and to ſmite with the fiſt of Rebellion, to cut and ſlay all the aſſiſtants of their King, becauſe they will not forſake their vertuous Soveraign, renounce their ſworn faith and allegiance, and become joynt actors with them in their unclean beaſtly courſes; The Jews ſought God daily and delighted to know his ways, yet that excuſed them not, So our Holy Leaguers pretend to ſeekafter God, and to delight in approaching to him, yet that ſerves not for an extenuation of their crimes, nor for the leſſening of their offences; Obſerve Reader theſe Leaguers prayers, how devoutly they can pray for ſucceſs in their Treaſons and Conſpiracies, nay, and to have it for this end too that other people in forrain Nations may Covenant in like manner to rebel and riſe up in Arms, for the extirpation of the ſettled Church Government of the Nation, without and againſt the conſent and precept of their reſpective Princes, and to follow our Leaguers peerleſs practices in it; But I demand, Is not ſuch a prayer as this extreamly ſinful in the matter of it? do they not as good as pray for proſperity in their breach of the Law of God? When I read it, methinkes I cannot but admire at theſe Covenanters confidence, and ſtupidity, that they ſhould firſt break the Laws of God in a moſt notorious manner by their perjury and diſobedience to their Prince, and then Covenant and bind themſelves to proceed in the carrying on of their evil Treacherous deſigns, and yet pray to God to proſper them in their villany, when they might more juſtly according to Gods dealing with Corah, and his holy-conſpirators for Church-paritie, have expected to have found the fate of thoſe murmuring Saints againſt the Supremacy of the Prince and Prieſt (the true and exact picture to me of our Covenanting Jack Presbyters) to be ſwallowed up alive for their Extirpating Covenant, and the earth whereon they trod to ſink under them: For See his Pious votary, p. 47, 48 a Rebel (ſaith the learned Hardy) who goeth forth to fight againſt his lawful Sovereign, to pray that God would be with him, were not a Petition, but a Preſumption: for though it be true that Almighty God doth ſometimes ſuffer (for reaſons beſt known to himſelf) ſuch wretches to proſper in their wicked ways, yet they cannot either juſtly expect, or religiouſly deſire it, and by how much the more devoutly they ſeem to undertake ſuch attempts, by ſo much the more abominable they are in the eyes of God, who never more abhorreth Rebellion, then when it is masked with Religion and Devotion. Do they think it was no ſin in them for to make ſuch an horrible concluſive prayer, as that which is here made for a cloſe to their Covenant? If they ſay no, then a pack of thieves, who lye in wait for to ſpoil men of their goods and eſtates, and ſometimes of their lives, may pray to God too for proſperity in their pilfering courſes, (that is, in plain Engliſh, to bleſs them in their diſobedience to him with ſucceſs for it) and count their prayer in ſuch caſe lawful too; and ſo Abſalom, and his deluded confederates, might moſt humbly beſeech God to bleſs them with ſuch ſucceſs againſt King David, that they might not onely uſurp his Authority, and caſt him out of his Throne, but that other of their neighbour Nations might be encouraged by their example to do the like to their own Kings; and ſo of any other whatſoever in the commiſſion of any villany: if they can but firſt have the courage to do the thing without fear of puniſhment, and in expectation of praiſe for it, and then can have but the confidence moſt humbly to beſeech God (as our Leaguers Cant it) to bleſs them with ſucceſs in it, if they ſay, yes, then I hope their Covenant ought to be aboliſhed and renounced, as being (what it is undoubtedly) ſinful in the matter of it.

I remember (Mr. Croftons profound Lawyer) Mr. Prynne in his printed Treatiſes hath told us, That the unparallel'd proceedings of thoſe who unjuſtly uſurped the title of Parliament, (though their title was onely in nomine, non re, in name, not in reality) in relation to their barbarous murther of their Lord and Sovereign (to whom they had ſworn to bear true faith and allegiance) and to their traiterous baniſhing of his incomparable Heir, through a quaternary of perjuries, have given occaſion See his Republicans, and others Spurious good Old Cauſe, briefly and truely Anatomized, p. 17. to all our Popiſh adverſaries, not onely to traduce, deride, reproach, blaſpheme our Proteſtant Profeſsion, as ſome of them have done in print, as a meer Seminary of Treaſon, Rebellion, Sedition, Hypocriſie, Perjury, Diſloyalty, and all ſorts of villany, but to combine together in a HOLY LEAGUE to extirpate it, and all Profeſſors of it out of the world; And See his True and perfect Narrative. p. 55. to maſſacre, eradicate, them as a company of Traitors, Antimonarchiſts, Regicides, Hypocrites, Rebels, and ſeditious perſons, And made it great matter of lamentation (as it is undoubtedly to every good Chriſtian) that men pretending to fear God, ſhould ever give ſuch an irrepairable ſcandal to Chriſtianity; And I have no ſooner ſet down that Gentlemans words, but I preſently finde that there was occaſion enough given by their warlike Covenant, to turn the edge of theſe Covenanters words upon themſelves; for they having rebelled againſt their Sovereign, as it were for Gods ſake, for the further ſtrengthning of themſelves in their wicked courſes, combined by League and Covenant, not onely to proceed on further in their riſing up in Arms againſt their ſupream Legiſlator for the glory of God, (a practice (as a loyal Scotch Miniſter See Scotlands late miſery bewailed, p. 14. ſaith) inconſiſtent with ſound divinity, againſt all orthodox doctrine, a practice contrary to Scripture, contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church, and their practice contrary to the Confeſsion of Faith; No King upon the accompt of his intellectuals, morals, or religion, being to be ſuſpended from the exerciſe of his Government, or denied ſubmiſsion too by his Subjects) but alſo to continue therein all the days of their lives, againſt all lets and impediments whatſoever, for the peace and ſafety of the three kingdoms; which as they are notorious contradictions in themſelves (like the reſt of their Jugling League) by being inſtrumental to the diſhonor of God in the horrible breaking of his Laws, and directly oppoſite to the peace of this kingdom (as well as all others where ſuch Antichriſtian prayers are put in practiſe) in being acted ſo rebelliouſly to the praiſe and glory of the man of ſin, to the pulling down of the kingdom of our moſt bleſſed Savior, and to the everlaſting diſgrace of true Chriſtianity (even of the true Proteſtant Religion, which vehemently exclaims againſt all ſuch ſeditious Antimonarchical ways and principles:) So with every rational man that knows there muſt be a flame kindled, before a houſe can be burned, that the King had never bin murthered by proſperous Rebels, if the flame of Sedition and Treaſon had not firſt ſet the kingdom a burning, (and for a man to make a flame in a houſe, and by that flame at length that houſe is burned and deſtroyed, and then to ſay he never intended the houſe ſhould have been deſtroyed, ſavours of little leſs then frenzy, and will hardly ever excuſe his innocency in it. Theſe Leaguers had firſt raiſed a war, and vowed and ſwore the proſecution thereof againſt the Martyr, and the ſword-men taking advantage of the Military power which by the Covenanters means they had obtained, executed their villany in their villanous act of Regicide, and yet the former would perſwade the world that they never intended it; which if the riſing up in arms had not firſt bin practiſed, the murther would then have never bin heard of; which being ſo evident to any mans underſtanding) this concluſion naturally flows from the premiſes, That their rebellious Actings againſt the King in the behalf of a Faction of the Two Houſes, (that had renounced all allegiance ſave in order to that which they called Religion) do give as great occaſion (as the murther) to foreign Princes to extirpate, as much as in them lies, the profeſſors of the Proteſtant Religion, to prevent them from riſing up in arms againſt them, leſt their proſperity in ſuch ways of darkneſs, ſhould invite them at length to attempt to ſerve them ☞ there, as the renowned Martyr was here, after he had been by vertue of this helliſh black Covenant fought againſt, and all his Forces overcome, and (as the immediate fruits, iſſues, and effects thereof) firſt ſold, then impriſoned, and afterwards delivered to his perjured Subjects to be crucified. Finally, for a concluſion to this Covenanting Prayer, which the famous Univerſity of Oxford affirmed, their hearts trembled to think that they ſhould be required to pray it, I ſhall here ſubjoyn the judicious and memorable thoughts of that then loyal conſcientious Univerſity, which I finde expreſſed in the following words; See their Reaſons. p. 15, 16. To pray (ſay thoſe reverend perſons) to the purpoſe in the concluſion of the Covenant, ſeemeth to us all one in effect, as to beſeech Almighty God, the God of love and peace, 1. To take all love and peace out of the hearts of Chriſtians, and to ſet the whole Chriſtian world in a combuſtion. 2. To render the Reformed Religion, and all Proteſtants odious to all the world. Mark the third, To provoke the Princes of Europe ☞ to uſe more ſeverity towards thoſe of the Reformed Religion; if not (for their own ſecurity) to root them quite out of their ſeveral Dominions. 4. The tyranny and yoke of Antichriſt (if laid upon the ſubjects necks by their lawful Sovereigns) is to be thrown off by Chriſtian boldneſs, in confeſſing the truth, and patient ſuffering for it, not by taking up arms, or violent reſiſtance of the higher Powers; and yet forſooth this is that ſacred Covenant that muſt be ſo ſtrictly kept, to ſet the whole Chriſtian world in a combuſtion. This is that League which muſt be ſo zealouſly continued in, to render the true Proteſtant Religion and profeſſors thereof, odious and deteſtable to all the world, yes and for the enlargement of the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt too they tell us.

I remember a very good obſervation of one upon this very account, See the Right Rebel. p. 145. That as none of the Diſciples denyed, curſed, and forſwore his Maſter, but Peter onely, who alone without his leave, drew a ſword in his defence, ſo neither is it ſaid of the reſt, that they forſook him and ſted, till after that Peter had raſhly attempted to defend him by force; as if the Holy Ghoſt would have Chriſtians obſerve, That fighting for Chriſt without warrant from him, is the next fore-runner of forſaking him: That Pag, 139 if there be any one thing above others, which The Antichriſt may properly challenge, as peculiar to himſelf, it is the profeſſed practiſe of Rebellion, of purpoſe to promote pretended Religion: for nothing can be more directly oppoſite, both unto the Doctrine and Practiſe of Chriſt himſelf, and his Apoſtles, of Orthodox Chriſtians in the times of the Primitive Church, and of all genuine Proteſtants ſince the Reformation, and yet that was the abſolute tenour of the Covenant, to reſiſt King Charles, to fight with a pretence for the advancement of King Jeſus, which how contrary to his Will, Practiſe, and Command, may very well be gathered out of what hath been already ſet down, as well as what Croftons profound Lawyer, Mr. Prynne himſelf, hath ſaid upon that ſubject, in his True and perfect Narrative, Pag. 68, 74, 75, 76. In which laſt page he ſets down one of the expreſs affirmations of the Jeſuits, (plainly declaring the great union between them and our Engliſh Leaguers, in that unchriſtian Practiſe) That their Goſpel and Religion is to be propagated, ſet up; the Heroticks, and Evangelical Sectaries, who reſiſt them, Refuted, (how?) Extirpated, Aboliſhed with Fire, Sword, and War (like holy Leaguers) and therefore upon all that hath been ſaid in my Animadverſions upon the ſeveral Articles of the Sacred Covenant (ſo called) I hope there is no man of any ingenuity, or underſtanding, but will conclude with me, the damnable ſinfulneſs thereof, both in the Form, and matter of it; and ſo, according to the Leaguers own Aſſertions, in the number of thoſe unlawful Oathes, which muſt at no hand be kept by any takers of them.

§. 14. Having thus diſpatcht my Animadverſions on this illegal League, I ſhall now proceed to ſet down their own words, to prove the unlawfulneſs, and ſin of keeping of their ſo much idolized Diana, and ſo the neceſſity of repentance from all its takers; Their words are theſe in their exhortation to take the Covenant; That if there ſhould any oath be found, into which any Miniſters or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God, and the land, in this caſe they muſt teach themſelves and others, that ſuch oathes call for repentance, not pertinacy in them; which words being ſuitable to what the Reverend Dr. Hardy ſaid I ſhall here adjoyn his words, That See his Pious Votary, p. 16. thoſe Covenants which ingages men inſtead of keeping the Laws of God, injuriouſly to violate both the Laws of God, and perfidiouſly to break their own former oaths, are no better then Leagues with hell, and Covenants with the Devil; Now mark, will the Law of God warrant any perſons whatſoever in the ſwearing a Reformation againſt their Kings conſent? will that Law, which commands me to yeild obedience to the King as Supream, warrant me in my diſobedience and rebellion againſt him for to carry on my work of reformation? Can that Law which enjoyns me to be ſubject to Principalities and Powers, warrant my throwing that ſubjection off becauſe I have the face to affirm, and pretend it is for the fulfilling of it? That this is the tenour of this impious Covenant, we need no other witneſs then it ſelf, which plainly teſtifyeth to all the world, that the ſwearers thereof took up arms meerly to alter Religion, And that diſobedience to God in the rebellion againſt the King, was the very matter and ſubject of the Covenant, is exceeding plain to any who conſider the famous aſſertion of the now moſt learned Primate of Armagh (one of whoſe words weighs more in the judgement of any underſtanding perſon, then ten thouſand of of ſuch bablings as our wily factious Presbiters keep ſuch a chatting in the Nation with) See his fair warning. p. 30. Subjects (ſaith that moſt accompliſhed Speaker) vow to God and ſwear one to another to change the Laws of the Realm, to aboliſh the diſcipline of the Church and the Liturgy lawfully eſtabliſhed, by the ſword (which was never committed to their hands by God or man) without the King, againſt the King, which no man can deny in earneſt to be plain Rebellion. So that unleſs they can make the Law of God to warrant that which it no where commands, but ſeverely condemns, Their League and Covenant according to the exhorters own affirmation, calls for repentance, and not continuance in the keeping of that, which the ſeveral takers had either the confidence at firſt rebelliouſly to ſwear or through the horrible ſeductions or threats, and menaces of the Delinquent Impoſers, took it (not conſidering the venom in it) without, and againſt the Carolian Martyrs conſent in perfect defiance of his legal ſworn onely ſupream authority; And as for its being warranted by the Laws of the Land, hear in the firſt place what the reverend Judge Jenkins ſaith in general; It is an oath (ſaith See his Lex Terrae p. 158. that famous Lawyer) againſt the Laws of the Land, againſt the Petition of Right, and he gives us a reaſon for it preſently after thus, No man (ſaith he) by the Law can give an oath in a new caſe without an act of Parliament, and therefore (ſaith he again) the impoſers thereof are guilty of the higheſt crime; Now can that oath be ſaid by any man in his right wits, to be warranted by the Laws of the Land, which is directly oppoſite and contrariant to them, and for which the impoſers may be hanged at Tyburn (for the gallows have commonly been the immediate fate and conſequence of that higheſt crime of Treaſon)? This Covenant was thruſt down the Throats of many people, not by an Act of Parliament (which muſt have been made (as the Petition of Right, and all other Laws and Acts have been) by the King, and all the Lords and Commons, but by an Ordinance (as it was called) of a packt black faction of the then never to be forgotten two Houſes (which ſerves for nothing but to p. 84. record to poſterity a lawleſs & diſtemper'd time) A thing ſo far from being warranted by the Laws of the Land, that ſuch a thing was never heard of, till theſe latter times of Treaſon and Sacriledge, Rebellion and Confuſion, when mens brains began to be poſſeſſed of the effects and virtues of a Midſommer-moon. Again, can that be warranted by the Laws of the land which is ſo far a breach of thoſe laws as its eſteemed high Treaſon? p. 22. 40. Ariſing to alter religion eſtabliſhed or any Law is Treaſon, ſaith the reverend Judge. And did not the thing which Crofton will needs have to be a Parliament, ariſe to alter the religion? and was not this league deviſed to keep men under an oath for the doing and aſſiſting of them in it? Let Jack Presbyter deny it if he can. In the ſecond Article of this Covenant, the takers ſwore to endeavour to extirpate Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, &c. which is abſolute contrary to Magna Charta (which in the 25th of Edw. 3. chap. 1. 2. is declared to be the common Law of the Land) chap. 1. and the laſt, Salvae fint Epiſcopis omnes libertates ſuae, That the Biſhops ſhall have all their whole Rights and Liberties inviolable, and this great Charter the Judge tells us p. 62. is confirmed by no leſs then 32 Acts of Parliament, and in the 42th of Edw. 3. The firſt chapter enacts, That if any Statute be made to the contrary, it ſhal be holden for none, and therefore their impious, lawleſs League in this reſpect is far enough from being warranted by the Laws of this Land, being ſo notoriouſly againſt the very Charter of our Liberties. Again, the Leaguers declared (as Crofton himſelf told us lately, for I am ſcarce old enough to remember the doing of it) That they Aboliſhed the Common-prayer Book in purſuance of their Covenant. Very good; This very book (which they pretended to aboliſh with the power of an illegal ordinance) was not onely compiled by true Martyrs, and Reformers, and practiſed in the times of four Princes, but was (and is ſtill, p. 62. notwithſtanding their Rebellious Ordinance) ſetled by no leſs then five Acts of Parliament; And therefore their Covenant being in that act alſo contrary to the Lawes, All Miniſters and others that have taken this Oath, muſt teach themſelves and others, (according to the exhorters own aſſertion, for I love to take men at their words) that ſuch oaths call for repentance and not pertinacy in them, it being proved to be ſo far from being warranted by the Laws of the Land, that it is an abſolute breach of above 26 of them.

§. 15. I remember, The Leaguers in their Diſputes and Arguments ☞ againſt the wearing of the Surplice, and performance of other commendable Ceremonies of our beſt Reformed Church of England, do out of their wiſe Noddles ſend forth ſuch doughty windy Affirmations, as will excellently wel ſerve to prove the unlawfulneſs of their Covenant. Let a man go and ask them why they will not wear the Surplice, and live in conformity to the Rites and Cuſtoms of the Church, they'l tell him, becauſe they are unlawful: and why are they unlawful? becauſe God hath no where commanded them to be done in the Scripture; though in any wiſe mans judgement, there can be no unlawfulneſs in a thing, without it be a breach of ſome Law which hath forbid it, and where they will finde that Law againſt the Surplice and Ceremonies, its poſſible they'l tell us when they are able, and their ability for that end will be I believe Ad Grecas Calendas, but not well before. Now according to their own ways of arguing, I ſhall make this retortion; That God hath no where in the Scripture commanded ſubjects (in caſe of a default made by the Prince, or that he will not conſent to any Reformation) to riſe up in Arms, and rebel againſt him, and ſwear an Oath to do it themſelves without any Royal Conſent at all; and let any of the Pack make it appear if they can. For, for them to ſet down the examples of the Oaths and Covenants, Kings and Subjects joyntly made for a Reformation, when they are demanded to ſhow a pattern for their Covenant, is no more to the purpoſe, then to ſay, Queen Elizabeth and her Nobles made a Reformation in this kingdom, to pull us out of the miſt of Popiſh darkneſs; no more ſatisfaction to a Quaeriſt, then (as the Reverend Dr. Pierce told one of his Antagoniſts) for a man when he is asked what's a Clock, To anſwer a windmil, or a pump? for the queſtion is not, whether Kings and Subjects may joyntly ſwear a Reformation of Abuſes, either in Church or State, (for there is no body I think wil ſtand to diſpute that) but whether in caſe a King will not make that extirpating Reformation his Subjects would have him, whether they may do this without his conſent, by Oaths and riſing up in Armes, which is palpable rebellion? See the League illegal p. 17. Where doth God command the Engliſh to ſwear to preſerve the Scotch Diſcipline and Liturgy, which they themſelves have often varied? Or to abjure Epiſcopacy, which was the onely Government of the Church for more then 1500 years, and under whoſe ſhade Chriſtian Religion moſt flouriſhed, and the Church ſtretched forth her branches to the Rivers, and her boughs to the ends of the earth? Where doth the Scripture warrant (much leſs command) the aſſociation of two kingdoms, and joyntly taking up Arms in the Quarrel of the Goſpel, and defending and propagating Religion by the ſword? And let them anſwer that, or let their ſilence conclude their being convinced: I ſay again, God never commanded Subjects any where in the Scripture, to make a Reformation without their Princes conſent by arms. And therefore to deal with them with their own weapons, according to their own ways of diſputations againſt the Ceremonies, I affirm, that their Covenant is wicked and unlawful, and being an unlawful ſinful Oath, by the reſolution and judgement of all Caſuiſts, it ought not to be pleaded for, nor taken, or if once taken, to be kept by any that ever took it, becauſe See The Fair Warning, p. 30. To obſerve a wicked engagement, doubles the ſin, according to the found determinations of the Reverend Primate; And ſo my Argument herein, I am ſure, ad hominem, is unanſwerable.

§. 16. The next thing that will come under examination, will be the unlawfulneſs of the Covenant, in reſpect of its contrariety to the two former legally eſtabliſhed Sacred Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the Proteſtation; and to that end I commend to the conſideration of my Readers, the excellent Determination of the Iriſh Primate in relation to this point, in his incomparable Fair Warning to take heed of the Scottiſh Diſcipline, p. 31. Where (after he had affirmed That a Supervenient Oath or Covenant either with God or man, cannot take away the obligation of a juſt Oath precedent) he immediately addes, But ſuch is the Covenant, a ſubſequent Oath, inconſiſtent with, and deſtructive to a precedent Oath, that is, the Oath of Supremacy; which all the Church-men throughout the kingdom, and all Parliament men at their Admiſsion to the Houſe, and all perſons of quality thoughout England have taken. The former oath acknowledgeth the King to be the only Supream Head (that is, Civil Head, to ſee that every man do his duty in his calling) and Governor of the Church of England. The ſecond Oath or Covenant to ſet up the Presbyterian Government as it is in Scotland, denieth all this virtually, makes it a Political Papacy, acknowledgeth no Governors, but onely the Presbytery. The former Oath gives the King the Supream Power over all perſons, in all cauſes. The ſecond gives him a power over all, as they are Subjects, but none at all in Eccleſiaſtical cauſes. This (ſaith he) they make to be Sacriledge. And therefore I Quaere, 1. Whether he that hath taken the legally eſtabliſhed Oath of Supremacy to His Sacred Majeſty, which (as a Paraphraſt very well noteth) See The Oathes of Supremacy & Allegiance, which have layen dead many years, &c. p. 10. Admits of no Rival in the Throne, but doth exclude all others from the Supremacy, from being enabled to act above His Majeſty, or contrary unto Him, or without Him, or his allowance, in any acts of Government, can take this illegal Covenant, whereby he ſwears, according to his utmoſt power, not onely to carry on the Rebellion then already begun, (for that it was ſo, needs no further demonſtration) but alſo to aſſiſt all other perſons that ſhall take it, in what they ſhall do in purſuance thereof (thereby implicitly owning the power of the then two Houſes, and diſowning the Onely Supremacy of the King, ſo clearly aſſerted in that Oath) I ſay, whether he that hath taken the former, can ever ſwear the latter, without a notorious guilt of apparent Perjury? If not, (as no man I think upon ſerious conſideration will affirm he may) then it neceſſarily follows that the one is an oppoſition to the other.

Again, The Oath of Supremacy bindes the takers to their power, to aſsiſt and defend all Juriſdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences, and Authoritys, granted, or belonging to the Kings Highneſs, and united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: And the famous Univerſity of Oxford have told us, That See their Reaſons, p. 38. the whole power of ordering all matters Eccleſiaſtical, was by the Laws of the Land in expreſs words, For ever annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, (citing the Statute for it in their Margin:) whence I Quaere, Secondly, Whether he that hath once taken the Oath of Supremacy, and afterwards ſwallowed down this Regicidian League, was not deſperatly forſworn in taking upon them the ordering of Eccleſiaſtical matters (which is one of thoſe Juriſdictions and Priviledges granted to the Kings Highneſs) ſo far as to ſwear the Extirpation of the Legally eſtabliſhed Eccleſiaſtical Government, without, and againſt his Majeſties Royal aſſent? one while ſwearing to defend the Juriſdiction and Preeminence granted, or belonging to the King, and another while vowing the performance of that which is abſolutely contrariant unto it? And Perjury attained by taking of two Oaths, in my ſhallow judgement, doth unavoidably imply, the vaſt proportion of difference and contrariety that is between them. Since the writing of theſe laſt words, I heard of the burning of the Solemn League and Covenant, by the hands of the Common Hangman, according to the Noble Order of the truely Honourable two Houſes, May 22. 1661. now at this preſent aſſembled in Parliament, by vertue of his Majeſties Gracious Writ; which, as it is no more then its deſerts, in having bewitched people into an odious Rebellion againſt their Prince, which (as one ſaith well) See the Right Rebel, p. 72. Muſt needs be acknowledged a ſin of Sodom, eſpecially ſince the Sodomites are the firſt that the Holy Ghoſt in Scripture hath taxed for the practiſe thereof: So I ſhall deſiſt from ſaying here any more of this Loyal Vote, concerning that monſtrous League, but ſhall now go on to the finiſhing of what I have here intended, to ſhow the ſinfulneſs thereof in its contrariety to former Legal Oaths; and to that end and purpoſe ſhall again Quaere: Thirdly, Can that Oath, Which * was deviſed onely to ** See his Majeſties Proclamation prohibiting the taking of it. prevent peace, and to engage the Kings good ſubjects in the maintenance of an horrid and odious Rebellion againſt him (as this wicked League did) any way accord with an Oath of Allegiance, which ſolemnly bound all its takers to bear true faith and Allegiance to his Majeſty, and to defend him to the uttermoſt of their power, againſt all attempts and conſpiracies whatſoever (therefore againſt that damnable one of the then two Houſes) which ſhall be made againſt his Perſon, Crown, and Dignity? Fourthly, Can this ſubſequent, ſeditious, and trayterous Vow and Covenant, which endeavours to withdraw the ſubjects from their natural Allegiance, which they owe unto their Prince (they are his * Majeſties own words) and engages them in acts of High Treaſon, by the expreſs letter of the Statute of the 25. of King Edward the 3. be any way conſonant, or agreeable with two preceding Oaths, which expreſly obliges them to bear to the King truth, and faith of life, members and earthly honour, and to See the oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, &c. p. 15. appear for the defence of him, of his Perſon and Government, againſt all attempts againſt them, by any whatſoever, upon any pretences ſoever? Can any be ſo wilde and frantick, as to make ſuch an affirmation? Fifthly, How can that Oath which bindes men abſolutely to bear true faith and Allegiance to the King, without any relation to his good, or bad Government, ſute with an Apoſtate that is ſworn with a curſed deſtructive limitation, to defend him ſo long as he ſhall continue in the preſervation of that, which the ſwallower thereof ſhall fancifully call, the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom, and no longer? See more of this in the excellent Scotch-Covenant condemned; That the one is the intention of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the other, the purpoſe of the Covenant, needs not to be demonſtrated with any illuſtration, ſeeing the doubters may be ſatisfied in the Oaths themſelves: And therefore I conclude the contrariety between the one and the other, in the words of the learned Paraphraſt, when he ſet down his minde with a Neither can that limitation in the Covenant, wherein they oblige Page 8. themſelves to the preſervation of the King, in the maintenance of the true Proteſtant Religion, the Priviledges of Parliament, and the Liberty of the ſubject, limit or abate the force of thoſe abſolute obligations, whereby all ſubjects are obliged to the King, and his lawful Heirs and Succeſſors, which are upon them by the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; but as ſuch limitations look very unhandſomly, ſo they have not at all any force of abatement in them, but ought to be abhorred, diſclaimed, and rejected by all honeſt Subjects and Chriſtians, as an evil gapp opened to Rebellion and Sedition to thoſe that have a minde to make ſuch an evil uſe thereof, under pretence that the King doth (that which indeed he ought not to do) either depart in any thing from the true Religion, or violate the Priviledges of Parliament, or the Liberties of the ſubject.

§ 17. Laſtly, For this League and Covenants contrariety to the Proteſtation, I ſhall firſt ſet down in general, the words of a Right Reverend perſon upon it, who hath told us, That See the Ima • e unbroken. the Proteſtation was confined to eſtabliſhed Law, but the Covenant to deſtroy Law, and what was eſtabliſhed by it; the Protestation to defend the Doctrine, the Covenant to deſtroy the Government, which is comprehended in the Doctrine: How do theſe two hang together? Reconcile them, and it will be as eaſie to make light and darkneſs, order and confuſion, vertue and wickedneſs, lawful & unlawful acts, to appear one & the ſame thing to every perſons eye and ear; And therefore how ſhallow and weak ſoever my judgement is in every thing, yet I hope thoſe that are judicious, will excuſe me, though I preſume for once to commend, what I ſay now, to their, and every mans ſerious conſideration; becauſe if I am erroneous, its not through wilfulneſs, or obſtinacy, but meerly for want of underſtanding to diſcern that which is better, (upon ſuppoſition that I am in an errour, which I cannot ſay, till I be convinced of it) and that which I have to ſay upon this account, ſhall come dreſſed to peoples eyes in no other terms then theſe which I have now ſubjoyned: Every one that took this Proteſtation, did Vow and Proteſt to maintain and defend (as far as lawfully he might, obſerve that well, Sir John) with his life, power, and eſtate, the true Reformed Proteſtant Religion, expreſſed in the Doctrine of the Church of England: Now minde, the Thirty nine Articles (as they are uſually called) have been alwaies hitherto wont to be accounted, The Doctrine of the Church of England: the Thirty ſixth Article whereof is ſo far from ſpeaking againſt the Biſhops for the advancing and promoting of a dogged, ſurly, Anti-Monarchical, Scottiſh Diſcipline, that the very book of Conſecration of Arch-Biſhops, and Biſhops, and ordering of Prieſts and Deacons, (which had the Royal Civil ſanction at the making thereof) is affirmed there to have nothing in it that is ſuperſtitious or ungodly: and this is a part of that, which in this Proteſtation was termed, The true Proteſtant Religion: Nay, and this muſt not be defended neither, but as far as lawfully I may, ſo that if there had not been the leaſt mention of Epiſcopacy in any of the Articles, yet confining themſelves in their Proteſtation, to the rules and orders of the Laws, the Supremacy of the King over all perſons, Clergy and Lay, in all cauſes, Eccleſiaſtical, and Civil, and Epiſcopacy, its ſtout propp and defender, (both undermined, ſubverted, and deſtroyed by a Scottiſh Diſcipline) ſtand as ſafe, and firm by the very Proteſtation, as they were before that was ever made or taken. Now comes a Solemn League and Covenant, and bindes its takers, by force of Arms, to beat down Epiſcopacy, comprehended in that very doctrine (which the Presbyters had ſworn to maintain and defend with their lives, powers, and eſtates) and eſtabliſhed by Law, to turn their neighbours (as the Revered Primate See his Fair Warning, page 2. ſaith) out of a poſſeſsion of above one thouſand four hundred years, to make room for their Trojan horſe of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline (a practiſe never juſtified in the world, but either by the Turk, or by the Pope) I, and do this too, not as far as lawfully they may, but any way in the world, by hook or by crook, per fas, aut ne fas, ſo that they can but attain at the ends aimed at in their extirpating noddles, to beat down the firm brazen walls of Epiſcopacy, to rear up the muddy, noiſom ones, of an unwholſom factious Presbytery in their rooms. And therefore once again, I Quaere, Can that Proteſtation (whereby I A. B. do promiſe, vow, and protest to maintain and deſend, as far as lawfully I may, with my life, power, and eſtate, the true Reformed Proteſtant Religion, expreſſed in the Doctrine of the Church of England (wherein the lawfulneſs of Biſhops is expreſly comprehended) any way agree with an illegal League, which bindes me to extirpate Biſhops (in direct oppoſition to that Doctrine) as contrary unto the power of godlineſs Our Leaguers, I know, would fain be accounted true and good Proteſtants, and yet ſwear to extirpate that which is a main propp of the true Proteſtant Religion; and therefore in this caſe the definition holds very firm and true, which was long ſince given of ſuch, at the Conference at Hampton Court, That they are Pag. 38. Proteſtants frayed out of their wits.

Again, part of that doctrine which by the Proteſtation, the takers vowed to defend is, that † The Kings Majeſty hath the chief power in his Realm of England and other his dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all ſtates of this Realm whether they be Eccleſiaſtical or Civil in all cauſes doth appertain. And by the Covenant the takers ſwore to preſerve and maintain all the days of their lives the thing called the Scottiſh diſcipline; Now nothing can be more oppoſite to the Supremacy of the King aſſerted in the Article, and vowed to be defended with life, power, and eſtate, in the Proteſtation, then this very Scottiſh diſcipline, which our Baal-Berithiſts by an after oath ſwore to preſerve: Yea light and darkneſs, God and the Devil, heaven and hell, the ſerving of Chriſt and the worſhipping of Baal, will aſſoon be brought to agree with each other, as the Scottiſh Presbytery will with Monarchy (King James told us it by a ſad doleful experience) as the diſcipline of Scotland wil accord with the Regal Supremacy over all perſons, in all cauſes, as well Eccleſiaſtical as Civil; he that hath once read, and reading, well conſidered the Primates Fair Warning, to beware, and take heed of this Scottiſh Cockatrice, he will find cauſe enough to perceive a vaſt contradiction between the Proteſtation and this: Yea, and as different a ſound between them both, as there is betwixt two bells in a ſteeple, and ſo by good conſequence ſee too the horrible impiety of their ſolemn League and Covenant; The Proteſters vow too according to the duty of their Allegiance to maintain and defend His Majeſties Royal Perſon, Honor, and Eſtate, without any curſed deſtructive Limmittation of that defence; All which are diminiſhed decreaſed and taken away by Sir Johns Holy League, which therefore can admit of no accord between them; The late Carolian Martyr in his diſcourſe upon the covenant profeſſes he could not See Eikon Baſilike. See how they wil reconcile ſuch an innovating (obſerve that, O Leaguer!) oath and Covenant with that former Proteſtation, which was ſo lately taken to maintain the Religion eſtabliſhed in the Church of England, ſince they count diſcipline ſo great a part of Religion, But if all that hath been ſaid, cannot (which in my weak judgement hath ſufficiently) prove the oppoſition of the one to the other, That there is a great deal of difference between them, may be eaſily perceiv'd by his Majeſties deep ſilence, when the Proteſtation was taken under his noſe, (as we uſe to ſay) when they were hard by him at Whitehal, as well as by his Publick Printed proclamation as far as Oxford, againſt the taking of that Seditious and Traiterous Vow and Covenant (as he called it) in the day he heard thereof, and his prohibition of all people upon their Allegiance, not to ſwear it, as ingaging the takers in Acts of high Treaſon; yea, and by the late order of the Lords and Commons for the Hangmans burning of it, when they did not ſo much as mention the Proteſtation, which if it had agreed with the Covenant, ſure enough thoſe Loyal Houſes would never have ſuffered it to have lain ſtill, but had ſent them both one way together; Upon conſideration of all that hath now bin ſaid by way of evidence, to prove the great contradiction between the two Legal Sacred Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, the Proteſtation and this jugling League and Covenant; for my own part I cannot but ſubmit to the Primates truth, See his Fair Warning. p. 31. That this Covenant is neither valid, nor lawful, nor conſiſtent with our former oaths, but deceitful, invalid, impious, rebellious, and contradictory to our former ingagements, and conſequently obligeth no man to performance, but all men to repentance; And therefore the difference being ſo great between them, I appeal to any Caſuiſt living, whether the former muſt not be kept, as well as the latter rejected; the one ſtood to, and maintained for fear of its true conſequence, Perjury, as well as the other to be renounced, and diſclaimed for the very ſame cauſe by thoſe that took any of the three former; and ſo (according to the exhorting Leaguers own words) it calls for repentance and not pertinacy in it; which makes alſo palpable and manifeſt, the great neceſſity and juſtneſs, of that memorable Vote of the two now moſt Honorable Houſes, when out of a noble diſdain to all Religious Rebellion, and Seditious Leaguing principles, as well as out of a true fear of God and the King, they ordered this Presbyterian Scotland whore to be burnt by the hands of Smectymnus the common hangman.

§. 18. Having now gone through this peerleſs Covenant, and proved (as far as my poor underſtanding enables me to ſee,) the great ſinfulneſs thereof, both in the form and matter of it; and alſo its jugling contradictions in it ſelf, as well as its abſolute oppoſition to former Legal Oaths, (and ſo by conſequence, undeniable, the great neceſſity of every takers ſad and ſerious repentance, renuntiation, and abhorrence thereof.) I ſhall deſiſt from ſaying any more now of it, but ſhall from hence proceed to the conſideration and examination of a certain ſeditious Paper-book (entituled BERITH ANTI-BAAL) ſet forth by one ZECHARY CROFTON, (a Presbyter of the Right ſtamp) whoſe contradictions, and ſhallow Arguings therein againſt the reverend Lord Biſhop of Exeter, made it ſo much the fitter task for me to ſet down my Animadverſions on it; I know indeed the man is looked upon as the Diana of the party amongſt the Brethren, and the ableſt to deal with ſuch unlearned Ceremonialiſts, as the ſhort-ſighted proſelites Judge the Profound Epiſcopalians (how learned ſoever they be.) But certainly they are either deceived in their Judgements of his parts, or elſe the man was ſo hampered with what the Biſhop replyed to him, that (as he affirmes of the Biſhop) in this Rejoynder of his See the fifth ſide of his preface. Having looſed from the Haven of Reaſon, true Religion, and the fear of God, he runs a drift wherever the wind of his own words can hurry him, and leades his Reader into a Wilderneſs, where he hears no ſound but the ſhrieks of Satyrs, barking and howling of beaſts, at beſt; raging and rayling of men, or wild and improper diſcourſes that tend to no certain end; For in my judgement, (which is none of the wiſeſt I am ſure, but nevertheleſs what I write, I commend to the cenſure of the impartially Judicious) this book of his (for a great part thereof) contains nothing but ſedition and juſtification of rebellion, to the debaſing of the Regal Supremacy, & power of making Laws, or of giving his conſent thereunto (for Crof;ton tell us the two Houſes may exerciſe their Legiſlative power without the Royal conſent) and ſneaking away from the queſtion in hand, like a meer ſhifter, and acting in ſome places the part of a pitiful Caviller. And by that time I have ſet down what I have to ſay of it, I leave it to every Readers judgement to make anſwer whether it be not ſo in his; And to that end and purpoſe I ſhall ſet down what in my ſhort curſory peruſal of the Book, I found worth taking notice of to be anſwered; He (good man!) in a fit of piety cries out, The Lord deliver me from rendring railing for railng, And yet (to Page 8. give the world a ſpecimen of his breeding, and manners, and good words) in the ſecond ſide of his Preface, he ſaith, he fears nothing more then to be bound to his good behavior, for misbehaving himſelf ſo much as to anſwer a fool according to his folly, (meaning the learned Prelate) and to ſhow his meekneſs, humility and averſation to rayling (for he tells us p. 8. he doth not delight to rake in that puddle,) In the very firſt ſide of his Preface, he compares the Biſhop to the Devil, in the fifth and ſixth, to the Heretiques, and Harding the Jeſuit, Pag. 62. to an envious, and cruel Vulture: the book he ſtiles, a Pag. 3. ſwoln Toad, the Biſhop himſelf he calls Pag. 42. a proud Paſhur, and ſhameleſs Semaiah, a Pag. 49. Runegado, an Apoſtate Presbyter, a Pag. 51. man of Fancy: Pag. 61. An envious Runegado and Apoſtate, Pag. 63. A ſhifting Runegado, and a Pag. 67. ſubtile Sophiſter: and yet behold, and wonder! this is the man that cries, The Lord deliver him from rendring Railing for Railing. The Biſhop having ſaid in his Anti-Baal-Berith, Page 191. That the late Primate of Armaghs Reduction of Epiſcopacy, was propounded, not in order to binde the hands of, or limit Biſhops in England and Scotland, but as a condeſcenſion, and expedient to diſarm and binde the hands of Presbyters and People. Crofton, in anſwer thereunto, thus profoundly Quaeres: Pag. 13. Sir, Who told you that this was the politick ſtratagem of that pious Biſhop? Did not Biſhop Wren? It would make a man mad, and t'would make a man laugh, to ſee ſuch pitiful arguings uſed in a rejoynder to an Antagoniſt, and yet to be believed as excellent, and invincible by ſome people, to hugge themſelves up in their deluſions? Juſt as if a man ſhould make ſuch a like Quaere to him, Who told people that it was little Mr. Croftons Politick ſtratagem, not onely to whipp his maid behinde, but before too? Did not the Church-Wardens, and ſeveral other of the Pariſhioners of that Pariſh, where that noble Miniſterial act was done, to adminiſter ſomewhat to the maids neceſſities? So again, The Biſhop having ſaid, That the League which Joſhua, and the Rulers of the people made with the Trappanning Gibeonites, was to the damage of no honeſt men, but themſelves: Crofton cries out, Pag. 48. Was the Oath of the Gibeonites no way to the injury of honeſt men? Was it no injury to Iſrael to looſe four Cities out of their inheritance given them by the Lord? Whereas the Biſhop had ſaid, It was to the injury of no honeſt men, but themſelves, which two laſt words, Crofton very cunningly leaves out, to make his Readers believe the convincing force of his Arguments: But alas! he knew to ſet down the whole Propoſition, was not for his turn of diſputing, but would have broke the neck of his cauſe and deſign, and made it evident to every one, that he was a meer ſhifting caviller; one that was minded more to quarrel with an Antagoniſt, then to anſwer him by good Reaſons and Arguments; which practiſe of his brings to my remembrance, the like cavilling tricks and ſhiftings, of the moſt learned Biſhop Mountagues Puritanical Informers in the very ſelfſame caſe; who thereupon told them, that the ſetting down of his whole paſſage and Propoſition See his Appeal to Ceſar. p. 145. Stood not with their prime purpoſe of calumniating; directly it gave check to their detraction in chief, and ſo they paſſed it ſlightly over.

§. 20. So again, The Biſhop having ſaid, That See his Anti-Baal-Berith, p. 146. a King, though never ſo Supream and Free, yet may not Vow and Covenant to the diminution of his own juſt Sovereignty, and Authority and Power, which is his by Law: Crofton thinks fit to give no other anſwer but this Pag. 32. Which all people of the world muſt, and will contradict; and leaving out (like a wrangling Sophiſter) the principal Clauſe, and Hinge of the Biſhops Sentence, on which hangs the force of the preceding words, which is this: And neceſſary for his high calling, to protect the Church and State, himſelf, and his good Subjects. And doth he, or any one in his wits, think that any Prince may Vow to diminiſh that, whereby his Subjects are defended? to extenuate and give away that Power he hath given him by God, to Preſerve and Protect thoſe people, over whom, by the ſame God, he is ſet as Ruler and Supream? To caſt his Subjects, in a maner, out of his Protection, and give leave to others to Domineer, and Tyrannize over them, and do them what rapine and miſchief they will, and he himſelf ſit ſtill, as a Cipher? Certainly thoſe people that are in ſuch a caſe, may well cry out of an Egyptian ſlavery, and ſadly proclaim, to their great grief and ſorrow both of heart and minde, That every man doth that which ſeems right in his own eyes, as though there were no King at all in Iſrael; That a Prince may vow the diminution of his own juſt Sovereginty and power (which is too hard for his Subjects to bear, and when ſuch diminution tends to their eaſe and benefit) no body indeed in the world I think will deny; but that is nothing at all to what the Biſhop ſaith: But that a Prince may not Covenant the diminution of his own juſt Soveraignty and Power neceſſary for his high calling, to protect his Subjects (which, and which alone is what the Biſhop ſays) is a truth as cleer as the Sun, and in that caſe our Presbyters, all people in the world that muſt and will contradict it, muſt beyond diſpute be ſuch people as belong to the world in the Moon.

§. 21. Again, the Biſhop having ſet down p. 149. That the two Houſes alone, no nor the King alone, or with them, have any Legiſlative power to decree or execute what is unrighteous againſt God or man: The Shifter anſwers with a p. 32. So that the Legiſlation is founded in the piety and juſtice of the decree, and rebellion againſt authority is acquitted by the iniquity of the command; not at all caring to conſider, that what the Biſhop ſaith in thoſe words, muſt needs have reference to the Law of God; and his meaning thus, that by that Law neither King nor two Houſes, joyntly or ſeverally have any lawful power to decree or execute what is unrighteous: for its impoſſible that that Reverend Prelate ſhould ever forget what he hath read in the Scriptures of wickedneſs eſtabliſhed by a Law, and the poſſibility of Governors Legiſlative power to execute Iſa. 10. 1 unrighteous decrees by the Woe, that by God himſelf is pronounced unto them that decree ſuch: Nay, the very language of the Biſhop in that aſſertion of his, doth convince me cleerly that he was wholly guided by this very Scripture in what he ſaid (which Crofton ſo much carps at) and ſo (as I juſt now ſaid) muſt needs have reference to the lawfulneſs of ſuch power for ſuch ends, and purpoſes by the Law of God which expreſly hath prohibited it, and pronounced a woe againſt the Actors of it. But hark what the man makes a matter of complaint of! why, that Rebellion by the Biſhops ſaying (oh how loyal he is all of a ſudden, and fearful of maintaining any Rebellious principles, not above eight lines before he hath point blanck affirmed (nay, and as though it were a convincing truth too) what I ſhall prove before I have done with him, not onely to be ſedition and rebellion, but an open denial of the Supremacy, Power, and Authority of His Moſt Sacred Majeſty: but lets hear what he can ſay for himſelf, why ſentence of condemnation ſhould not be paſſed againſt him for a wrangler; he ſaith, that by the Biſhops aſſertion it follows, that Rebellion) againſt authority is acquitted by the iniquity of the command; Pray Mr. Caviller tell me, whether an impious decree muſt be done or performed at the Command of any Prince whatſoever, by any one that hath the fear of the King of Kings before his eyes? Is not rebellion in that caſe againſt man, loyalty and true Allegiance towards God, and ſo by Sacred Rules Juſtifiable and acquitted? What think you of that Antichriſtian Acts. 5: 27, 28, 29. ſtrait command and decree, that the Jewiſh high Prieſt and Councel once gave unto the Apoſtles, not to teach in the name of Jeſus? And of their ſtout noble Chriſtian anſwer, we ought to obey God rather then men? Was not their Rebellion (if it muſt needs be ſo called) here againſt the Jewiſh Governors juſtifiable, and acquitted by their loyalty towards God, in performing of that which he had commanded them to do, & miraculouſly inſpired them with his holy ſpirit for that end? Certainly the man is either out of his wits in this complaint, or elſe an evident Rebel againſt his Savior, as his party (if not his own ſelf) have bin formerly againſt their Prince; for where the Laws of God and man, run counter, and come in competition one with another, I conceive its no Rebellion at all to obſerve the former in what he commands, & not at all the latter, and he that ſhall make it a matter of complaint of a mans Chriſtian refuſing in ſuch a caſe and terming it by the odious name of Rebellion, he muſt certainly be an Atheiſt, one that regards not the injunctions of the 1 Tim. 6. 15. bleſſed & onely Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; I remember an obſervable ſaying of one of His Majeſties Loyal Subjects to this purpoſe, though he tels us that See the right Rebel p. 28. It appeares, that that which ſometimes is eſteemed and termed Rebellion by men may be, and is in truth, and in Gods accompt, not onely lawful, but neceſſary alſo, and ſo not rebellion indeed, but duty; As when (ſaith he) the commands of inferiors in authority, are diſobeyed in obedience unto the lawful commands of thoſe that in authority are their Superiors; So the Sovereignty of God, being abſolutely Supream, as himſelf is the moſt high over all, if men (though the higheſt upon earth) command that which is forbidden by God, or forbid that which is commanded by him, it is not unlawful, but neceſſary Rebellion (if it may be ſo called) to obey him, though they thereby be diſobeyed.

§. 22. Again, The Biſhop having ſaid, page 146. That the King may not Covenant to diminiſh or deſtroy any honeſt ſubjects, in any of their juſt Rights, much leſs to extirpate or expel out of his Dominions, any Rank, Order, and Degree of men that are uſeful, and in ſome ſenſe neceſſary for the being, and well being of his people: Nay, neither Prince, or any party of the People may Vow to extirpate the meaneſt Calling, which ſerves the body Policick, any more then men may Vow to cut off their feet or toes, (for I love to ſet down the words as I find them in the clear Fountain, and not as they run in the unclean, muddy Streams of the Wranglers giddy brains.) The Shifter contents himſelf with one of his merry whimſies, to laugh out his Reverend Antagoniſt, rather then to give out a ſolid anſwer to the Biſhops Aſſertion, and ſaies, (behold, Reader, the profound quality of his Argument!) Pag. 32. Tinkers, and Pedlers, and men of the like Order, will certainly cleave cloſe to this Conſervator of their Liberty; where the man wants ability to anſwer, there he he affords his Readers one of the marks of his Crazy Brain, as conceiving that his Proſelites, See his Preface. doting on the bare ſay-ſo of an holy Leaguer, will the ſooner perſwade them to believe the ſtrength of his cavilling Objections; when he wants wherewith to convince an Opponent, he thinks its enough if he can but give him a Jeer, and afford him matter of laughter; which in a wiſe mans judgement, redounds to the diſcredit and ſhame of none, but the pittiful gaſping Aſſerter, who being deſtitute of ſound Reaſonings, for the ſupporting of his Sandy Building, and the holding up of his tottering Cauſe, thinks it ſufficient if he can but get ſo much breath as may enable him to ſling a Jeer at his Antagoniſt, before he, and his Covenant, do joyntly breath their laſt. He reſolved, it ſeems, to ſay ſomthing, rather then be thought to want wherewith to gainſay; and therefore laid down the preceding Poſition, to ſooth up his Proſelites with a belief of his Abilities, when (if they are no better then that I have hitherto taken notice of) they may well be compared to thoſe of fools, the upſhot of whoſe wiſedom is to be wiſe in their own conceits: and were he any more then See p. 8. of his book. The ſhadow of a Diſputant, we ſhould never have ſeen ſuch ſhallow anſwers made to convince his Reverend Antagoniſt of his ſuppoſed Error about the Holy League: but ſuch Pittiful evaſions in Argumentations, well becomes, indeed, the men of his ſtamp, in the defence of their peerleſs Oath; which as it ingaged men in Acts of High Treaſon, can certainly be maintained by no other means, then either by ſuch ſneaking cavilling tricks as theſe, or by Pag. 40. Stating of damnable Doctrines of Sedition, yea Rebellion.

§. 23. Again, the Reverend Prelate, having according to the tenor of thoſe words in Numb. 30. ſhaken the force and validity of the Covenant, as to its binding force upon the takers of it, becauſe of our Onely Superiours Prohibition of it, Crofton very cunningly (to ſhow the excellent skill he hath in the Art of cavilling, and running away from the queſtion in debate) that he might be thought to be ſome body in the eyes of his Claſſical Admirers, is pleaſed to ſet down what he would have, in this maner, Page 34. Will Doctor Gauden pleaſe to frame his Argument a Pari, for little Mr. Croftons reſcue, he conceives it muſt run thus: Numb. 32. directeth that the Oath or Vow of a Daughter, Wife, or other Inferior, made without the knowledge of Father, Husband, or Superiour, ſhould be at the pleaſure of the Superior confirmed, or made void; Ergo, No Scandalous, Diſgraceful, Diſhonorable Oath may be taken, if taken, muſt not be kept, if kept, it muſt be well interpreted. No, Mr. ſhifter, your Ergo is rotten, and invalid, and ſerves for nothing but to ſtir up peoples laughter and admiration of your cunning Sophiſtry; for if you had acted the part of a Scholar, and a ſound Diſputant, we ſhould have found your Ergo according to the Biſhops Arguings, to have been thus expreſſed, Numb. 30. Directeth that the Oath or Vow of a Daughter, Wife, or other inferior, made without the knowledge of Father, Huſband, or Superior, ſhould be at the pleaſure of the Superior confirmed or made void, Ergo this unſacred Covenant being taken without the conſent or knowledge of our Regal Superior, (or as the Biſhop alledges, by the See the 144 page of his book. Subjects of England, who were by Law and Oaths inferior to, and dependents on the King, obliged to duty and allegiance) by his open Proclamation againſt it, according to that Scripture, is fruſtrate, void, and of none effect: but ingenuons Arguings would have quite and clean ſpoiled the deſign of ſuch a Page 232 Sophiſtical Caviller, and therefore he craftily forbore the purſuit of true Diſputations (not quarrellings and envious cavillings) with his Reverend Adverſary, leſt thereby his 2 Tim. 3. 9. See p. 10. of Croftons book. folly ſhould have been made manifeſt to all men, yea even to his Presbyterian proſelytes, who are pleaſed with a ſound againſt the Biſhops book, and conſider not the certainty of it, and are ready jurare in verba Presbyteri, be they never ſo groundleſs, with whom the Say-ſo of a godly Presbyter is eſteemed a ſufficient reaſon of their Faith; And yet the man thinking how bravely he had drawn the Biſhops Arguings to ſerve the baſe ends of his own vain talking, he preſently begins to crow and vapour, and cries out of a Syllogiſm, Currens quatuor pedibus, running of four feet, and tells his Readers a Tale of a tub, a ſtory of his godly Brethren, the Jeſuits Conference at Ratisbone, who (juſt like his own Argument here againſt the Biſhop) ſet down thus their profound Determinations of the Articles of their Faith, Qui negat articulum fidei eſt hereticus, ſed hereticus eſt qui negat Tobiam habuiſſe Canem: Ergo, (juſt like our matchleſs Diſputer) ſequitur articulum eſſe fidei quod Tobias canem habuerit; He that denies an Article of Faith, is an heretick: But he is an heretick that denies Tobit had a dog; Therefore it follows, that it is an Article of Faith, that Tobit had a dog; Not conſidering that in his Parallel he fights with nothing but his own ſhadow, that he utters his minde for the diſgracing and vanquiſhing of no body but his own dear ſelf, not at all of the Biſhop, who hath no ſuch rotten Arguments in all his Book. And that we may perfectly ſee the mans deſign in Writing (even to fill up his Book with cavilling) he tells us in his Preface (ſide 3.) of the Biſhops writing Mr. Grafton, as if he ſhould anſwer Dr. Gaudie, when as one that could not reade, he takes no notice of what the Biſhop had ſet down at the latter end of his book to read Crofton for Grafton through the whole Diſcourſe; If his eyes were ſo dim he could not ſee it, he ſhould have ſaid ſo, and then I ſhould have done my beſt to have got a clear pair of Spectacles for him, that he might by that means have read what the Doctor had ſaid for him to correct, as well as others, ſeeing he was one of his Readers: but alas, he wanted ſomewhat to ſay to fill up his Preface, and therefore ſets down this for a part of it, to make appear his invincible ways of diſputing; His quotations of the Biſhops words are ſuch, that (beſides thoſe imperfect un-ſcholar-like ones I have already ſet down) there are no leſs then fifteen or ſixteen ſeveral other quotations, which are either imperfect like the former, or elſe abſolute falſe ones, as upon a true examination I have found them, and ſuch as leads his Readers into a wilderneſs for to ſee the truth of them: but I conſider his cavilling Diſcourſe was made in a great deal of haſte, and his mad-brain'd tricks have made his Book good for nothing, but to be the ſubject of ſome mens laughter and indignation; for my part, Mr. Crofton, I See the 8. page of his book. will excuſe you for your wrong, imperfect, falſe quotations (though not for your Antimonarchical, ſeditious Principles and Aſſertions up and down your Book) if your very friends do not with blame to you, ſay, You are come a great deal too ſoon, and have verified the old proverb upon your ſelf, The more haſte, the worſt ſpeed. And truly I am afraid it had been better for your outward and inward ſafety both, that your Book had been like the Biſhops, which you madly profeſs and ſay, contrary to the judgements of many ſober underſtanding men, Page 5. whoſoever in his right mind doth but read, will finde it a Rudis indigeſtaque moles, a meer Chaos of Confuſion, (where by the way, whoſoever is not of the ſame judgement therein with you, is cenſured to be out of his wits, like your ſelf, whoſe Wits run a wool-gathering) rather then that which you are pleaſed to ſtile methodical exceptions, which denies the onely Supremacy of the King; Its but a ſad merriment to play with edge-tools, to laugh at your Adverſary with Rebellion in your mouth, and (if the mercy of our moſt Gracious Sovereign prevent not, which I know no reaſon in the world for) you will finde it ſo to your coſt, before you are let looſe from the reins of your Juſt deſerved Impriſonment.

§. 24. Again the Biſhop ſaid (pag. 196.) That he peremptorily determines, that the King, Lords, and Commons have no prudent, moral, religious, and lawful power, to change an ancient, univerſal, and excellent Government by Biſhops, To any that is (AS new and Schiſmatical, SO) far worſe, and unſutable to England every way. Chriſtian Kings and their Parliaments, are obliged to the Laws of God, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety, and Polity too, of which the whole Church in its Primitive example, and conſtant cuſtom, is the beſt interpreter; As no Legiſlative power, is impowered by Gods Laws to bring in Hereſie, and Error, and Superſtition, ſo nor Schiſm, Faction, or Confuſion, by cauſeleſly nuding or taking from the Eſſentials of ſound Doctrine, or Chriſtian Communion, ever owned and maintained in the Church of Chriſt; Here's the Docters whole ſentence, word for word, as I took it out of his own Book, and not as its mangled by our Presbyters paultry deluſive falſe quotation, where he makes the words run thus: Doctor Gauden peremptorily determineth, That Parliaments, Kings, Lords, and Commons, have no Prudent, Moral, Religious, and lawful Authority, to change the Ancient, Univerſal, and excellent Government by Biſhops, for Chriſtian Kings and Parliaments are obliged, &c. leaving out thoſe words of the Doctors, which made his learned Aſſertion unanſwerable, and true beyond any ſound contradiction, which are theſe, (To any, that is, AS new and Schiſmatical, SO far worſe and unſutable to England every way) that ſo his own arguings might thereby appear the better, and ſound more pleaſingly to the ears of his factious brethren (a practiſe ſomewhat like unto one that pictures a man with the greateſt deformity of body he can, for no other end, but to make his own naturally deformed one, appear the neater and beautifuller.) But I conſider, otherwiſe he could not hide his folly from being palpable and open to every perſon (that is not poſſeſſed of a Bedlamers underſtanding) nor his Book from being thrown into the fire by ingenuous perſons, rather then they would vex themſelves ſo much as to read his lies and juglings, his cavillings and ſedititon, his falſe quotations, and confident language, both of the judicious Aſſertions, and perſon of that Learned, Reverend Prelate, whom this Holy Leaguer may well put to ſilence after the uſual Presbyterian ways of Diſputing: for indeed it will ſoon make any wiſe man leave off medling with ſuch notorious Salamanders, who loves to live in peace and quietneſs, and endeavour to advance the Unity of the Church, and delights not to live in contention with them, to kindle the fire of Combuſtion and Sedition, both in Church and State. But we will ſee, however, what the man conceived fit in his Scotized noddle, to ſay for himſelf, and make it the matter of his Anſwer to the words of the Biſhop, as he had filthily mangled them in his falſe quotation of them; and that I finde, upon ſearch, to be this learned one that follows, with a P. 25. of his Book. But Sir, have you not ſtretch'd too far, and ſtept into a Premunire? Little Mr. Crofton ſhould fear to be made leſs by the head, as guilty of Treaſon, Sedition at the leaſt, ſhould be thus confront King and Parliaments in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and conſtitution, changeable at their pleaſure, even from the Statutes of Carliſle, and 25. of Edward the 3. Declaring againſt the Pope, That holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation, Power, and Authority, and ſo by the ſame way changeable. Where is, Sir, the Kings Prerogative (why not Supremacy? Would not that word have choak'd you?) over all perſons in all cauſes Eccleſiaſtical? What is become of your oath, of Supremacy? Can you make this peremptory determination (as your ſelf calls it) conſiſt with it any more with your Covenant? Hath a gracious King lately advanced you to debaſe, nay, dethrone him, and his Parliament too? And then tells his Readers a ſtory, How it hath been obſerved to be the fatall chance of the Biſhops of England, to run themſelves into a Premunire.

The man would fain make people believe that Biſhops are Seditious perſons, and in particular his Reverend Antagoniſt, and therefore the beſt courſe will firſt be to conſider what the Biſhop hath ſaid, and then ſee whether it amount to the Sedition ſuppoſed by the Leaguing Rhodomantado, and in order thereunto I ſhall begin with the firſt particle of the Biſhops words, That Kings, Lords and Commons, have no prudent, moral, religious, and lawful authority, to change an ancient univerſal Church-Government by Biſhops, to any that is (As new and ſchiſmatical So) far worſe and unſuitable to England every way, and ſee whether they may be found to be either contrary to truth or a derogation to His Majeſties legal Supremacy, and therefore firſt, that they have no prudential authority to change Epiſcopal Government, (much leſs ſwear to extirpate them root and branch) is evident, not onely by the deſperate excommunicating antimonarchical braſen tricks and practiſes of the Godly partie (forſooth!) in Scotland againſt the excellent King James, in walking direct contrary to his Royal Commands, and ſtirring up the people in Rebellion againſt him, becauſe he did not ſubmit himſelf to their traiterous imperious humours, and making him for his own ſafety to flie out of his own capital City of Edinburgh, but alſo by that Kings famous Motto; No Biſhop, no King, and by the ſad woful experience of the truth thereof, by the late never to be forgotten Rebellion in 1642, and the Regicidian genuine iſſues and effects of it; knoweſt thou not Sir John Presbyter, the undeniable truth of that Aſſertion of the noble L'eſtrange, which he put forth to the view of the world, That See his Intereſt miſtaken: or, The holy Cheat, pag. 88. by thoſe very Troops that cryed down Biſhops, was the King murthered? Knoweſt thou not Sir John, what the wiſe King James ſaid to Dr. Reynolds's deſire at the conference at Hampton Court, for the rearing up a (domineering Tyrannical) Presbytery within this Kingdom? if not, then I ſhall for once declare it unto your Honor, the Royal Anſwer ran thus: See the Conference at Hampton Court, p. 81. Stay I pray you for one ſeven years before you demand that of me, and if then you finde me purſey and fat, and my wind-pipes ſtuffed, I will perhaps harken to you, for let that government be once up, I am ſure I ſhall be kept in breath, then ſhall we all of us have work enough both our hands full, but Dr. Reynolds, till you finde that I grow lazie, let that alone; If Kings and Parliaments have a mind never to be quiet, and to be alwaies in a combuſtion, I know no better advice can be given them, then for to ſet and rear up this Presbytery, but if they deſire to keep themſelves in reſt, peace and unity, they'l find I am confident no prudential authority to extirpate Epiſcopacy by a Baal-Berith, and bring an headleſs curriſh Presbytery in its room, but will abandon the Covenant, that See Mr. L'eſtrange his Intereſt miſtaken, p. 35. popular Sacrament of Religious diſobedience, as the very poiſon of hell, and the ſecret underminer of the Regal Authority and Supremacy, but then

§. 25. Again ſecondly, that they have no religious authority (for as for moral authority, that is an authority ſecundum morem, according to former cuſtom, their authority is ſo altogether in the negative there, that its in vain to blot any paper with an anſwer: but I ſay that they have no religious authority) to change Epiſcopal government, is evident too in regard of the Apoſtolicalneſs, and primitive uſe thereof by the Apoſtles while they lived, in commanding obedience, and controuling the ſubordinate governors, and their diſorders as well as the peoples in the ſeveral Churches they planted, and enjoyning the ſame to be done by his Epiſcopal deputies at Epheſus and Creet, (and in them all their ſucceſſors in the Epiſcopal office) in thoſe ſeveral Churches over whom they had their juriſdiction; Certainly he that tells me, that 1 Tim. 3. 1. he that deſires the office of a Biſhop deſires a good work, gives me no religious nor lawful authority to vow and ſwear with an Anti-regal Oath to extirpate it, and make an exchange for one of the plagues of Egypt to overwhelm us inſtead of that; That the Apoſtle ſaid the one, and that therefore for that very reaſon Kings and Parliaments have no religious authority to do the other, None but a Crofton and his crafty companions would ever have had the confidence to deny it, which makes me proceed to the next thing, and that is,

§. 26. That they have no lawful authority to change it, which muſt needs have reference to the Laws of God according to the ſubſequent words of the Biſhops, where he explaines his meaning by judiciouſly aſſerting, That Chriſtian Kings and their Parliaments are obliged to the Laws of God, and rules oſ Chriſtian piety and polity too, of which the whole Church in its primitive example is the beſt interpreter, and ſo his poſition in ſhort is this, That they have no lawful authority by the Laws of God, and rules of Chriſtian piety, and polity to change Epiſcopal Government, which is a cleer evident truth to me, for I conſider with my ſelf, that thoſe Laws and Rules will admit at no hand of any ſchiſm, ataxy, confuſion, or diviſion in the Church, which are contrary to true Chriſtianity (for the abounding whereof amongſt the Corinthians, they were ſo often taxed of their too much carnality) and that Biſhops were ſet up by the Apoſtles themſelves in remedium Schiſmatis, for the preventing of ſchiſmes and diviſions, and that none of thoſe errors and hereſies were ſo prevalent or apparent to humane eyes in the Biſhops times, as ſince their Julian extirpation for the ſetting up of Prsbyterian practical-jeſuitiſm, was the ground of a day of faſting, and humiliation amongſt the Godly rebels, and a Sermon thereupon preached by our unſacred Covenanter; What ſhall we ſay to thoſe things, that men ſhould ſhow ſo much pretence of goodneſs in appointing a day to humble themſelves for the errors and hereſies of the times (the true proper effects, of their arrogant ways of Rebellion, in ſetting up Presbytery as a diſtinct Government by it ſelf, without Epiſcopacy, in direct oppoſition to the practiſe of the Catholick Church, as well as to the King and his Laws, which is, and hath bin the head and fountain from whence the unclean muddy ſtreames of hereſies and blaſphemies have had their riſe and product) And yet forſooth, muſt have the means ſtill kept for the production of the ſame ends of diſorder and confuſion, Ʋpon the conſideration of the whole, I cannot but ſubſcribe to the great truth of the Biſhops words, That as no legiſlative power is impowered by Gods Laws to bring in either Hereſie, Error, Superſtition, Schiſme, Faction, or Confuſion, ſo neither have the King, Lords and Commons any prudent, moral, religious, or lawful Authority by thoſe Laws or thoſe of this Engliſh Nation, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety and Polity, to change the Ancient, univerſal, and excellent Government by Biſhops to any that is, As new and ſchiſmatical, ſo far worſe and unſuitable to England every way. If one part of the ſentence be true (which by Croftons ſilence is abſolutely concluded.) No man need fear to affirm the other without any derogation to the legal, rightful, Supremacy of the King; That which ſpeakes againſt Schiſme and faction, confuſion and diſorder, will not ſurely give me any lawful power to extirpate Biſhops, the main preventers of it, by being the conſtant promoters of love and unity.

§. 27. Thus I have examined the words as I found them imperfectly quoted in Croftons Diſcourſe, without that additional clauſe which I have ſet down in my true Citation of them, which he moſt unworthily and baſely had left out, that ſo he might have ſome what to fill up his rambling diſcourſe with; for a true Citation would have fo confounded his underſtanding, as immediately to have commanded him into a becoming ſilence and ingenuous conviction of the Biſhops truths: but rather then he would depart from his cavilling art and ſhiftings, he'l mangle the words of an Antagoniſt to make his own way the ſmoother, for credulous poor mortals to ſet their ſteps in; which hath brought to my remembrance the anſwer of a moſt Reverend perſon to the Miltonian Juſtifier of Regicide and Rebellion, depraver of verity and breaker of the Kings Image, That he See the Image unbroken, p. 153. broke ſentences and truths, leſt he ſhould breake for want of matter; And the words of the Biſhops with that additional clauſe in it, is ſo cleer a truth as can no waies be darkned by a Presbyters Argumentations (which was ſeen evident enough by Crofton himſelf, and ſo very craftily left it out) and therefore needs no other defence but the bare words themſelves which carry truth in their forehead, to the convincing of any oppoſer, which I have no ſooner done but I took a reſolution to follow the mans pattern for once, and turn Quaeriſt too,