THE earnest desire of my Soul for the advance­ment of Piety and Peace, Sect. 1. engaged me to send forth my PEACE-OFFERING into the World, to invite to Peace, and per­swade to Obedience, and a just Conformity to the Laws under which we live; wherein it was my endeavour to satisfie the principal Doubts, and remove the most material Scruples which might hinder that Peace and Obedience: But there is now risen another, which I then could not foresee; viz. This Acknowledgment or Declaration, which we are commanded by the Act of Parliament, Entitu­led, An Act for Uniformity, &c. to make and subscribe, viz.

I A B. Do Declare, That it is not lawful upon any pre­tence whatsoever to take Arms against the King, and that I do abhor that Trayterous Position, of taking Arms by His Au­thority against His Person, or against those that are Com­missionated [Page 2]by Him; And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now established: And I do Declare, That I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me, or on any other person, from the Oath commonly called, The So­lemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any change or al­teration of Government either in Church or State; and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm, against the known Laws and Liber­ties of this Kingdom.

I know it will be deemed by many a matter of extream se­verity, Sect. 2. for the Parliament thus to oblige men to renounce, what, with hands lifted up to the most High God, they have so solemnly sworn; and this, by no less penalty than the Forfeiture of their Places, Livings, Promotions, and conse­quently Livelihoods, and means of Subsistence for them and their Families. But it may be remembred that there was as great severity. (yea, more bitter, because illegal) used against thousands of persons, every way as conscientious as any now can pretend to be, both Ministers and others, by those who imposed the Covenant, to make them swear it, though because of the Obligation of their former Oaths they durst not submit to such a perjury. I could tell sad Stories, to which the World is no stranger, of men brought before Committees, Holy, Learned, Pious, Painful Preachers, unblameable in their Lives, That when nothing could be objected against them for Life or Doctrine, then presently the Cry was, Try him with the Cove­nant: And the refusal of that, though so contrary to the known Laws, and their former Obligations, was the exposing of them and their Families to Beggary and Misery. Let us reflect up­on that unjust severity then, and not think it cruel now, that we are by a lawful Authority required to renounce that which was made an Engine to ruine and destroy so many.

But not to dispute the rigour or severity of the Law, let us consider the matter enjoined, Sect. 3. and see whether there be any thing in this Declaration, which a considering conscientious Christian may not readily Subscribe unto. There are but these three things to be declared and acknowledged.

• 1. The Unlawfulness of Rebellion, or bearing Arms a­gainst the King.
• 2. A readiness to conform to the Liturgy.
• 3. The Non-Obligation and Unlawfulness of that Oath, called the Solemn League and Covenant.

• 1. For the first, No Sober Christian,
  Sect. 4.
  or Loyal Subject can make Scruple at it, That it is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take or bear Arms against the King, is a Truth so manifest and express in the Scriptures, which com­mand
  Mat. 22.21
  to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars; and
  Rom. 13 1. — 8. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14
  Custom, Tribute, Fear, Honour, Subjection and Obedience to our Kings (yea, though they should be as the Roman Emperours, Enemies to, and Persecutors of the Church; that he must forfeit his reason, conscience, yea, his Christianity, that shall question it. And I hope, yea, can be almost confident, That even those who yet scruple the Obliga­tion of the Covenant, and are therefore afraid to Subscribe that part of this Acknowledgment, do abhor, and I presume are ready to declare, That they abhor that Trayterous Po­sition of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person. &c. which was but a distinction invented to draw in many well-meaning people into that quarrel; who being afraid to break their Allegiance to the King, were abused by dividing His Natural and Politick Capacity; and perswaded that they fought for the King, when what they did, tended to destroy Him.
• 2. For, the Conformity to the Liturgy;
  Sect. 5.
  that we may both lawfully conform, and consequently promise it, I refer the Reader to the Discourse about this Subject in my Peace-Of­fering.
• 3. But it is the matter of the Covenant,
  Sect. 6.
  and the obligation thereof, which is mainly now (if not only) the matter of Scruple, and Stumbling-Block in the way of many. That they (and very many they were) who by the Command of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, and upon the serious exhortation of an Assembly of Grave Divines, with hands lifted up to the most High God, have Solemnly Sworne it, and engaged themselves to endeavour in their places with all sinceri­ty, [Page 4]reallity and constancy, without respect of persons to perform the Contents of it; and to stand by all that entred into it a­gainst all opposers, and that no fear, terror or perswasion whatso­ever should draw them from a zealous prosecuting of the ends of it; that these should now acknowledge and declare, that neither themselves, nor any else are obliged by it, and that it was an unlawful Oaeth, &c. this sticks.

Some, Sect. 7. perhaps, that have been over eager and zealous in contending for, and by all imaginable Arguments urging and pressing this Oath, or, Covenant, labouring by all wayes to draw the people into this League and Combination, may think their reputation now so to lie at stake; that should they now retract or condemn that, which they have not only sworne themselves, but have been so zealous and instrumen­tal to make others also swear; that high esteem, which they now have with the people for zeal and Godliness, would be utterly lost; when this very Acknowledgement would make people think, that either they did heretofore go against Law, Conscience, and Piety, to promote a wicked design; or, now as weakly, to please men, and to save their worldly estates, are ready to do any thing, and perjuriously to break the bonds which they were by so Solemn an Oath obliged in. And the truth is, while men have their eye thus upon the empty blast of a vain reputation, there can be no hopes to perswade such to retract an error, much less to condemn, what themselves have so violently promoted. But, methinks, men of know­ledge and parts, and (above all) that profess themselves to be Christians, should know, that the esteem and applause, or censures of men, is too sandy a foundation to build upon; and the worst rule to guide our actions by: and be able to teach themselves and others, that as sometimes to fall, and be overtaken in a sin, was the weakness of flesh; so to persist in an error is the wickedness of a man; but to glory in, and labour to justifie an evil action, is the property rather of the Devil, than Man: and that our best repute, and highest credit with God and all good men, is, that we are more ready to repent, than we were to sin; that we our selves are ready to cast the first stone, and condemn our selves for what we have done amiss; [Page 5]that though sin have sometimes overtaken us as we are men, yet upon conviction we rise again by repentance, and through grace overtake mercy. What an happiness would it be to the Church? What a real honour would it be to the persons them­selves, if they would be as forward in returning, and as zea­lous in informing the people of their errors, and reducing them to obedience and peace; as they have sometimes been to stir them up against the wayes of both?

But I am not so uncharitable as to think that all, or the nost, Sect. 8. who scruple this Acknowledgement, are such men, or only guided by such rules. Many that took this Covenant, and ma­ny Ministers that pressed it (I verily believe) thought that they must and ought to do so (though, I fear, upon no better grounds, than St. Paul before his conversion had to perswade him that he Acts 26.9. ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus: or than those had, who persecuted the Disciples, and Joh. 16.2. thought they did God good service. Howsoever) many in the sincerity of their hearts did swear, many through fear entred the same obligation: some think they are still obliged, though they may be convinced that they rashly or unlawfully took that Covenant. The satisfaction of these doubring souls, is the design of this Paper.

We shall therefore examine the matter required by this Act, Sect. 9. which is a Law of undoubted Authority now upon us; and conside, whether any men are, or can be obliged by the Co­venant mentioned, so far, as that they may not subscribe this Declaration, or, Acknowledgement. There are but these two things required to be acknowledged and declared. 1. That there lies no obligation upon any person by this Oath, to endeavour the Alteration of Government in Church or State. 2. That it was an unlawful Oath, and imposed contrary to the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. Both which I judge unquesti­onably true, and shall give my reasons, that I may do my part to remove this stone of stumbling, and Conscience being sa­tisfied in this case, we all may obey the Law in a just consormi­ty, and continue with chearfulness and peace to serve God, and his Church in our generations.

An Oath beyond all peradventure is most Sacred, Sect. 10. and hath the greatest tie upon the soul; being, A Religious attestation of God, with an imprecation of his wrath upon us, if we break it, or abuse his Name in it. Here we call in God for a Wit­ness of the truth and sincerity of our hearts, and imprecate his vengeance upon us if we either lye, or mean not to performe what we so promise in things lawful, and in our power. Thus it is a Solemn invocation of God the searcher of all hearts, that he would bear witness to the truth, and be our Surety for what we promise, and punish him that swears deceitfully. So that an Oath thus solemnly sworne, and religioufly taken, must have the strongest obligation upon Conscience, upon this three­fold account.

• 1. In regard of the Name invoked,
  Sect. 11.
  and by which it is made. It calls in God as the Searcher of hearts
  Rom. 1.9. 2 Cor. 1.23. & 11.31. Gal. 1.20. Isa. 65.16.
  to attest it; that is, the eternal and immutable verity to confirm it: and to fal­sifie here, is to make the God of Truth the Author or Patron of a Lye.
• 2. In regard of the Imprecation,
  Sect. 12.
  and consequently the ven­geance to be inflicted; man devoting himself to a Curse, for a punishment of his Perjury; to be an Anathema, if he swear falsly, or willingly performe not, what by solemn Oath he is bound to do. For this was the form of, and the usual impreca­tion in the Ancient Oaths,
  Ruth 1.17. 1 Kings 2.23. & 19.2. 1 Sam. 25.22.
  God do so to me, and more al­so, if, &c. not expressing; but by an Aposiopesis suppressing the evil wished; as committing it wholly to the judgement of God: q.d. The Lord thus and thus punish me, yea multiply his plagues and judgements upon me, as himself pleaseth, if I intend otherwise than I say or profess. This was a thing which even Nature taught the very Heathens.
  Corn. Nep. in vita Agesil.
  When Agesilaus a King of Sparta, and Tissaphernes General of the Persians had made and sworne a three moneths truce; The Spartan thought himself obliged to keep faith with his enemy, and to attempt no hostility. But the Persian regarded it not, studied War still. Yet the Spartan persisted to keep his oath, expecting by this means advantage enough against the Persian, as being confi­dent that his Perjury would alienate the minds of men, both from him, and his designs; and moreover provoke the gods also against him, by whom he had sworne.
• [Page 7]3. In regard of the end for which the Oath was taken,
  Sect. 13.
  Viz. To make faith, and beget belief, to be a perfect
  Heb. 6.16.
  Confirma­tion of a thing in doubt, and the best assurance, that what is promised shall be performed. The God of Truth is called in to witness; and his anger imprecated, that men may have rea­son to believe and trust us; and not doubt of the truth of our words, or sincerity of our intentions. Words are made to be the interpreters of our mind, by which we can only know the intentions one of another; it is therefore as unnatural as unlawful to falsifie ones word, or
  Lev. 19.11. Ephes. 4.25.
  tell a Lye; to use mental reservations, Amphibologies, or Equivocations, which would make all Leagues and Contracts of no assurance. Truth and Falsehood are parts of justice and injustice, which have rela­tion to our Neighbour ad extra, and are therefore not to be estimated according to what lieth hid within, in the mind; but according to what flowes from the tongue in known and intelligi­ble words. The end of words is to testifie the hidden truth of the heart. But when an Oath shall be added to these words, and the Eternal Ʋerity called in to witness that our tongues do faithfully declare our minds, this is added to beget a firmer belief, and to falsifie here is a greater sin: a Truth which all men, even the Heathen have received as Sacred.
  Vid. Sims. Chron. Cath. in Perfic. p 115.
  When Lacrates the Theban Captain besieged Pelusium in the behalf of the Persians; at last it yielded upon terms; and Oath was given that the Greeks yielding the Castle, should go out safe with all their goods, and be conveyed to their Countries. Up­on confidence of this faith given by Oath, they yield, but the Persian Souldiers under Bagoas, the Kings Lieutenant coming in, contrary to the Oath fall to Pillaging the poor Greeks, they now can do nothing but bewail their misery, complain of the Perjury, calling on the gods to punish it. But Lacrates, who had made the terms, and given his Oath, in zeal to his Oath, falls upon the Persians for whom he fought; and protects the Greeks, to whom he had sworne. The Persi­ans accuse Lacrates as taking part with the Greeks against them, but the King (who was then Ochus, even the same who was Ahasuerus the husband of Hester) hearing the cause, justified Lacrates, condemned his own Lieutenant, [Page 8] B [...]g [...]as; determined that those Persians were justly served; and ordered further punishment should be taken upon them, who [...]o brake the Oath and pillaged the Greeks. So Sacred a thing did that Barbarous King esteem an Oath to be.

There is no doubt then, Sect. 14. but there is an high obligation by an Oath upon the soul. But yet not such an obligation in eve­ry Oath, as to bind the Sweater to an actual performance of it. For it is no difficult matter to give instances of some Oaths that have been wickedly entred into, and more wickedly kept. And therefore we must consider as the nature, so the several qualities of Oaths, that we may better be able to judge when and how far they bind.

As to an Oath then, Sect. 15. that we may neither sin in the taking, nor in the keeping of it, God hath given us this express com­mand, Exod. 20.7. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, &c. And for the preserving this Name of God from all prophanation, which is much prophaned by rash, in­considerate, irreligious Oaths; by Perjury, and by not perfor­ming our Oaths to the Lord; yea, and by doing, upon pretence of an Oath, what we ought neither to swear, nor do: The Pro­phet hath set this threefold boundary about all our Oaths. Jer. 4.2. Thou shalt swear — in Truth, Judgement, and Righteous­ness: (i. e.) Truly, considerately, and justly. So that to e­very lawful Oath, there are these three things prerequisite.

• 1. Truth.
  Sect. 16.
  That God be not invoked to a lye. Here the Law is,
  Lev. 19.12
  Thou shalt not swear by my Name falsly, a crime
  Isa. 48.1. Jer 5 2.
  charged upon Israel as their sin. For this is to make the Eternal Truth witness to a Lye, and lay an impuration up­on God, to be (as
  Joh. 8.44.
  the Devil) the Father and Factor of Lyes. Here then we are obliged, to sweat to nothing, but what is True, viz. to assert nothing but Truth: and our hearts and words going together, that we really endeavour to make good what we have sworne.
• 2. Judgement.
  Sect. 17.
  That we swear not rashly or inconsiderately, but seriously consider what we swear, and whose Name we in­voke: that an Oath may be taken with the greatest care, dis­cretion, and deliberation. Lest the Sacred Name of God be prophaned by idle, light, and customary Oaths; or our selves [Page 9]irreparably snared by our inconsideratenesse, as Joshua and Is­rael were
  Josh. 9.15. — 25.
  by swearing to the Gibeonites.
• 3. Justice and Righteousnesse.
  Sect. 18.
  To do nothing but what is just and honest, lest we make God the countenancer of wick­ednesse, and call in the most Holy to patronize impiety or in­justice. Such an unjust Oath was that of
  1 Sam. 14.39.44.45.
  Saul, whereby he would have killed his son:
  1 Sam. 25.22. —
  of David, to destroy Nabals house: of the
  Acts 23.12
  fews to murder Paul. The cause, ground and matter of the Oath must be just, honest, laewful, possible, and consonant to the revealed will of God.

These three conditions must have place in all sorts of Oaths, which are fully comprised under these two general heads.

• 1. An Assertory Oath, which is nothing else but a Deposition:
  Sect. 19.
  that, of which the Apostle speaketh, when he saith, that
  Heb. 6.16.
  an Oath for confirmation is the end of strifes. Which must be allow­ed, as without which many controversies, questions, and suits of Law were indeterminable. The use of this Oath is, when we are called, to witnesse and declare what we know of a thing past or present, the truth whereof we are bound then by Oath to declare, so far as we know. In this the three forementioned conditions have place, thus. 1. Truth, that we affirm or deny nothing, but what we know infallibly, evidently, and certain­ly: or, if the thing be doubtful, that we affirm or deny it, but as such, and venture no farther than a probability, viz. that there be perfect truth in our words. 2. Judgment, viz. 1. That we remember it is the Oath of God, an holy thing, and not to be made profane or common; nor taken, but when by a law­ful authority we are called unto it. 2. In great, and serious, and weighty causes, or matters of moment, to which only it is fit to call down (as by Oath we do) the great God from heaven to be a Witnesse and Judge. Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vin­dicè nodus inciderit — 3. Not out of any levity, love, hatred, or any passion or perturbation of mind; but a just and lawful necessity: when no other way remains to prove the truth, or put an end to controversies. 3. Justice and Righteousnesse. When we are justly called to take it, and when we swear, we swear from an honest heart. Here Justice and Truth is much what the same. These Oaths refering only to the time past or [Page 10] present, the Truth in them is but single; relating only to the time present, or the Act of swearing, viz. that this is Truth, which we now depose. The difficulties about these Oaths therefore are not many, nor very implicate, because thus their whole truths are immediately fulfilled in the present act, and a farther obligation these have not. But the most difficulty is concerning another sort of Oaths, viz.
• 2. Promissory Oaths.
  Sect. 20.
  Which have respect to the time to come, and lay an obligation for the future. For by these we en­gage our selves to do something hereafter. Such was that
  1 Kings 1.17.
  Oath of David, that Solomon should reign after him. This, when made to God, is called a Vow; when to man, an Oath. The Obligation in both is the same, because made in the name of God.
  Psal. 76 11
  Ʋow and pay to the Lord, saith one text, and
  Mat. 5.23.
  Thou shalt perform to the Lord thine Oaths, saith another. This also must have the same conditions, of,
  • 1. Truth,
    Sect. 21.
    that we promise only, what we sincerely mean to perform; and that we do really perform, or at least endeavor our best and utmost to perform what we have so promised. So that the Truth, which in the Assertory Oath is onely single, re­lating to the present, and Act of swearing, is in this promissory Oath double. 1. In regard of the present, that our mind and words go congruously together; that, as we promise, so there be a real sincere intention to perform, and here lies on the soul an immediate obligation, that in the very act of swearing, our words be according to our intentions. 2. In reference to the ef­fect, and time to come, that we will have our Actions go along with our words; and that by our utmost endeavors in all ho­nest wayes we will labour to make our words good.
  • 2. Judgment.
    Sect. 22.
    That (as in the former so in this) we 1. With reverence remember by whom we swear, the name of the great God, so as we enter not this Oath upon light and trivial causes, or, not lawfully called to it. 2. That upon mature deliberati­on we so promise, what we promise by oath, considering well the matter and circumstances to which we are engaged; lest by our inconsideratenesse we should oblige our selves to a mis­chief or inconvenience. 3. That, what we promise be pos­sible, and in our power; lest otherwise by our rashnesse we be­come [Page 11]engaged, where by reason of the impossibility of perfor­mance we cannot but break our Oaths. That we be not drawn either by affection, passion, fear or terror to promise that, which in out unbiassed thoughts we would not, or might nor do.
  • 3. Justice, and Righteousnesse, that what we promise be just,
    Sect. 23.
    honest, lawful and agreeable to the Word of God; not con­trary to any moral precept, nor our former lawful Oaths, and not yet rescinded obligations. So that, as 1. They sin against this, who having sworn, and being obliged to the duty of any moral precept, yet for gain, interest, vain reputation, &c. ab­solve themselves at pleasure, and perform not their Oaths: So 2. Do they sin also, who enter into Oaths and Obligations to do, what they are obliged not to do, as to lye, kill, steal, &c. Such was the Oath of the
    Acts 23.12
    Jews to kill Paul; of
    Mat. 14 8. — 12.
    Herod to He [...]odias, both rash, and against judgment in the Act, swearing to give her any request, not considering how unjust, or unequal a thing she might ask; and unjust and wicked in the execu­tion, the Murder of an innocent Man, and an holy Prophet of God.

These Promissory Oaths only are the matter of our present consideration, Sect. 24. as those only which have an obligation upon us for the future. And because the Matter of this Oath, which is in the future to be fulfilled, is naturally subject to change whether we will or no, the Obligation therefore must needs be mutable, and separable from the Oath. It is in our pow­er to make the first truth good, viz. That our minds and intentions shall go along with our words; but the second is not alwayes in our power, viz. That our Deeds and Actions shall exactly answer either our words or intentions. He is forsworn, who intends not what by Oath he promiseth; but he is not alwayes forsworn, who effects not what he hath so sworn.

Let us therefore consider the Cases, Sect. 25. how far these Oaths oblige; and when, or where the Obligation ceaseth; for I doubt not, but there is an unquestionable Truth in both these Propositions.

• 1. That though a lawful Oath generally obligeth, yet there are some Cases and Times where it obligeth not: And,
• [Page 12]2. That there is some kind of unlawful Oath that still ob­ligeth; so that on the one side, Sometimes an Oath may be lawfully sworn, yet afterwards unlawfully kept; on the o­ther side, it may be unlawfully sworn, yet may be lawfully kept, and would be unlawfully broken.

Therefore as to the lawfulness, Sect. 26. or unlawfulness of Oaths, I must premise this distinction, which is but necessary for the better understanding, wherein they are lawful or unlawful, and we may be able to give a clearer judgment of the Obliga­tion. Oaths may be said lawful or unlawful.

• 1. In regard of the Imposers or Exacters of them. They are lawful, when we are called to swear by a just and lawful Authority; unlawfully imposed, when by an usurping and unlawful Authority.
• 2. In regard of the Act, Manner, and Motive of swearing. It is lawful, when upon a lawful cell, from an honest heart, upon mature judgment: But not so, when rash, or inconsiderate, drawn by Affection, hurried by Possion, driven by Fear, or extorted by Force.
• 3. In regard of the Matter sworn to; whether just and honest, or evil and unlawful to be done. In the first Notion, an unlawful Oath may oblige; sometimes in the second; but never in the last. These things will help us to judge what Oath is lawfully or unlawfully taken; and when the Obligation of a lawful Oath ceaseth, and where it continues: And where an unlawful Oath obligeth, or ob­ligeth not. I shall give you my thoughts in these Conclu­sions.

• 1. It is beyond all question that all Oaths,
  Sect. 27.
  lawfully requi­red, to which we are called by a just Authority, the matter whereof is just, honest, and in our power to perform, do indi­spensibly oblige the conscience, so long, and so far, as those who required the Oath, will that they should. This I take as so clear and unquestionable, that it needs no proof nor expli­cation
• 2. All Oaths,
  Sect. 28.
  where the matter is just, or they oblige not to any dishonest thing, though they are rashly sworn or upon surprise, though imposed by unjust Powers, extorted by force, [Page 13]and cannot be kept but to our own inconvenience, and so consequently unlawful Oaths, perhaps, snfully sworn, as being contrary to that condition of swearing, in judgment; yet may lawfully be kept, yea, sometimes, and in some cases do oblige, and may not be broken. Such was the case of Pomponius the Raman Tribun.
  Cic. de Of­fic. l. 3. ad fin. cap. de Fortitud,
  He had summoned L. Manlius to appear in court to an accusation against him concerning his too severe usage of his son. The son T. Manlius hearing of it, went into the Chamber of the Tribune, and with his drawn sword threat­ned his life, if he presently swore not to him to withdraw the Action against his Father. Pomponius through this terror took such an Oath; and when the day came, declared the mat­ter to the people, and according to his Oath, withdrew the Acti­on. So Religious a tie was an Oath esteemed in those dayes, though it were extorted by terror. The like may be said of Oaths in case of surprisal: such was the case of Alexander M. The story is this,
  Pausan. Eli­ac. 2. Valer. Max. l. 7. c. 3.
  The Citizens of Lampsacum had joyn­ed with Darius the Persian against the Greeks: Alexander who had the command of all the Graecian forces, marcheth with fury, threatning utter destruction to these Lampsacenians; they affrighted, send one of their chiefest Citizens, one Anax­imenes to beg favour: Alexander to prevent him and his suit, swears that he wil not grant that which Anaximenes should ask: Anaximenes takes advantage, and surpriseth him upon his Oath, Petitions that he would destroy the City, demolish their Temples, captivate and sell the inhabitants; thus was Alexander wittily circumvented, and the City saved, Alexan­der thinking himself bound by his Oath not to destroy it, be­cause Anaximenes had so petitioned, whom he had sworn to deny. Here was an Oath rashly taken, the swearer surprized, who yet accounted himself obliged. Shall I adde another? a case which the Scripture records, it is that oath of
  Josh. 9.4-20.
  Joshua and Israel to the Gibeonites: they by craft obtain a League, which they should not have obtained, had they been known inhabi­tants of the Land, whom Israel had commission to destroy, but they pretending a long journey, an Embassy from a far Coun­trey, Joshua and the Elders of Israel are furprized, the League [Page 14]is made, and sworn to, to let these Gibeonites live. The peo­ple, when they hear the fraud, murmure against the Princes, but they answer, We have sworn to them by the Lord God of Israel, therefore we may not touch them. They knew they were (though rashly sworn) yet now obliged, and God did af­terwards severely
  2 Sam. 21.1-10.
  punish the breach of this Oath upon the house of Saul, who sought to slay the [...]b [...]onites contrary to this League, though it was in his zeal to the Children of Israel and Judah. Such Oaths then, though extorted, or unjustly imposed, or rashly taken, yet when their matter is not dishonest or un­just, do bind, though it may be to our own damage or incon­venience. He that hath so sworn may have reason to repent of his rashnesse, but must perform his Oaths, when he hath sworn, though
  Psal 15.4.
  to his own hurt, he must not change.
• 3. But there are some cases wherein both a lawful oath ceaseth to oblige;
  Sect. 29.
  and an unlawful oath never did, nor can oblige to the actual performance of it. The matter of a Promise, and consequently of a Promissory oath, is something future: now what is supposed future may yet be 1. Necessary. 2. Imp ssible. 3. Possible. The first is necessary to be perform­ed, and must be done; the second cannot be expected, nor can there be an obligation to do, what (not only may not but) can­not be done: The last may. But this depending so much upon our own or others wills; and there being also many contingen­cies, which cannot be determined by our wills; our state and condition here being in continual motion and change: this is that which makes the Difficulty, and is the matter of perplexing oaths, and promises. It must therefore be most evident, that there is no promise or oath, which, in these things whose futu­rition is subject to, and depends upon so many contingencies; can be so positive and absolute; but must be supposed to have some tacit but necessary conditions annexed to them: by rea­son whereof a man may sometimes not keep, and yet not be guilty of the bleach of his oath: yea, sometimes may be obli­ged not to keep it, for all our engagements and actions lie open to the controlments that may be made by a Law, Justice, the power of our Superiours, and the Rights of another third person. So that, [Page 15]
  • 1. There may be,
    Sect. 30.
    and oft is (as the Law and C [...]suists term it) Solutio vinculi per cessationem materiae, & mutationem fa­ctam circa causam juramenti principalem. When the matter of the Oath is taken away, or some notable and material change made in that which was the principal cause of the Oath, the bond is loosed, and he that was obliged, is now free. For this must be supposed as the tacite condition, [...]ebus sic stantibus, That things stand and continue as they do, or that there still be the same occasion of doing the thing now, as there was of do­ing, of swearing to do it, when the Oath was taken. And thus
    • 1. The Matter of the Oath ceaseth,
      Sect. 31.
      when the state of things is so changed between the time of swearing and falfil­ling, that had they been so then as they are now, or had we foreseen this change and state of things, the Oath would not have been required, yea ought not to have been taken at all. For instance,
      1 Kings 1.52.
      Solomon forgave Adonijah his offence in U­surping the Crown, on condition that wickedness should not af­terwards be found in him. After this comes in
      1 Kings 2.20.
      B [...]th [...]eba with a Petition for him, and King Solomon gives her an absolute pro­mise that be will not deny her. Upon this absolute grant she goes on to ask
      Ver. 21.
      Abishag one of Davids Concubines, a wife for Adonijah: upon this Solomon notwithstanding his former peremptory engagement to his Mother, not to deny her, not only doth not make that good; but moreover also takes a So­lemn Oath,
      Ver. 22, 23, 24.
      Adonijah should die. Here is an evident contradiction to his former peremptory Promise, and yet he cannot be said to break promise, nor had he sworne to the promise, could he for this be accused of dealing salsly; because in the Positive grant by the Promise, there must be understood this tacit condition, that Adonijah (according as his former pardon went) should attempt nothing unlawful, which he now did, it being Treason for any, to attempt the Concubines of the deceased King, besides the Successor; for
      2 Sam. 12.8 & 16.21.
      his only they were. Here was a notable alteration in the matter. The Pro­mise made and sworne to Adonijah, was, as to faithful and loyal, the case is altered when he turns Traytour. Thus, those who have subscribed and sworne to the use of the Liturgy of the Church of England, did subscribe and swear to that Par­ticular [Page 16] Liturgy which was established, and as it was established in 1 ^o Elizab. but now several alterations being made in the Book, and established by a Law of undoubted Authority, this is such an alteration in the Matter, as frees those from that ob­ligation as to that Book, when the time comes that this new one takes place, and is in force. And to this I refer this also,
    • 2. A Freedom from the bond or obligation,
      Sect. 32.
      when the same Authority, that required the Oath, gives a Relaxation, or cancels and annuls that Oath. Thus he, that fulfils not his pro­mise to him, that will not have it fulfilled, breaks not his word: The reason is, because no man is Master of anothers right; neither have we a right of making others keep, what is their own property, longer than they will themselves. To Pay a debt is alwayes the duty of the Debtour, so long as the Credi­tour will have it so: but it is not alwayes a duty in the Creditour to receive it from the Debtour: Acceptation here is equiva­lent to Payment. If I promise another, and swear to pay him 100 l. I am bound if he will accept it; but if he will re­fuse the Debt, I am free from the Obligation. So in this case, if a Servant swear to a Master to serve him such a Term of years, He is obliged, if the Master still require it, but if the Master will discharge him sooner, he is free, notwithstanding his former Oath. The like reason there is (I conceive) in Pablick Oaths, suppose them enacted by a lawful Authority; we swear lawfully, and are bound so long as that Authority will have that in force to which we swore. But if the same Au­thority annul the Law, and revoke the matter, we are also free. As suppose I were called to swear, that I would con­stantly use the Liturgy now established, and no other, I were bound by my Oath, as well as by the Act that enjoynes it: but should this be taken away hereafter by a Law, and the same Authority (i.e.) an Act of Parliament take away this, and re­quire another Form, I should be free of that Obligation: for the Oath supposeth the Authority still requiring it. In such a notable alteration we lawfully may not do, yea must not do (unless our Oath can oblige us to resist a Law, which God hath bound us to obey) what we lawfully did by Oath promise to do.
  • [Page 17]2. Those Oaths whereby we bound our selves to Impossibili­ties,
    Sect. 33.
    were Rashly, and inconsiderately taken; and may not on­ly lawfully be broken, but indeed cannot be kept: and the very Impossibility of Performance makes a nullity in the Obligation. Whether the things sworne to, are, 1. Impossible in Nature. As if I by Oath should engage my self to number the Stats, or the sands on the Sea shore, or hold the Ocean in the hollow of my hand: I should be sinfully involved in the guilt of a rash Oath; yet could not be obliged to that, which God and Na­ture have made impossible. Or. 2. Whether they be Moral­ly, and in equity Impossible. What we swear, must be in our Power: for this also is supposed a tacite condition, that we have power to do that, which we swear to do. This, I conceive, was that which by the Law of the most Righteous God,
    Num. 30.8, 12, 14.
    freed a Wife, or a Child from the obligation of their Oath or Vow, when the Husband or Father denied, and disallowed it: because neither a Wife being under Covert bond, nor a Child, being under tuition, are sui juris. They have not power o­ver their own selves. The Wife hath not power over her self, but the Husband: so nor hath the Child, but the Father: and consequently neither have they power over their own Actions and engagements; but he, under whose power themselves are. We know a Bond of a wife, or child under age signifies no­thing, nor can they be sued, they have no obligation in the Courts of men. There is proportionably the same reason of Publick Oaths, which are the Bonds of People who are un­der Government, or Tuition of their Prince. If People en­ter into an Oath, and bind themselves to an Action; and the King, under whose charge they are, who is Pater Patriae, and whom they are bound to obey, shall disallow those Oaths, and forbid those Actions; they may have reason to ask God forgive­ness for their Rash engagements, but are not obliged to do that which they have sworne: the things being not legally in their power, because of a Superior Authority, that disallows them, to which they
    Rom. 13.5
    must be subject.
  • 3. Those oaths,
    Sect. 34.
    which in the matter of them are against that most necessary condition of all oaths, Justice and Righte­ousness, never did, nor can oblige, (i.e.) if the thing sworne [Page 18]to, or Promised by Oath, be dishonest, unjust, impious; a­gainst the Law of God, Moral equity, the right of a third Person, &c. it may at no hand be done. There can be no justice, and consequently no obligation to worship an Idol, to Kill, Steale, Ribell, &c. justice requires that all lawful and possible engagements be performed, but sinful and unjust ob­ligations retracted. That Advice is certainly sound, which a Reverend Author gives.
    In malis promissis re­scinde fidem; in turpi voto muta decretum; quod incautè vovisti n [...] f [...]cias; impia enim promissio, quae scelere ad impl. tur. Glouc. on Ca­tech. out of Isi­dor.
    In wicked Promises, rescind thy faith; in a dishonest Vow change the aecree; do not that which thou hast vowed unwarily; it is an impi [...] oath which cannot be made good but by wickedness. It is a most sure rule, Juramen­tum pietatis non debet esse vinculum ixiquitatis, for otherwise Scolus esset sides. Such was the oath of
    Matth. 14.7-12.
    Herod to Hero­dias, an oath sinfully taken, and wickedly kept. Such was that oath of David, He swore,
    1 Sam. 25.21, 22, 34.
    with an imprecation of a Curse upon himself to Destroy Nabal and all his house, which yet upon the petition of Abigail he piously broke, but should sinfully have performed. Such was the Rash Oath of Saul,
    1 Sam. 14.24, 44, 45.
    which would have engaged him to murther Jonathan; but the People prevented, what he should sinfully have done. Such was the
    Act. 23.12, 21.
    Oath of those forty Jews to kill Paul, which they wickedly swore, and should more wickedly have committed. In this case, it matters not how, when, or by what means, we were brought to swear, so much, as what we have sworne. Oaths engaging to unlawful, and unjust Actions, (though through ignorance, error, weakness, misprision, surreption, fear, or malice entred into) are not to be kept, nor have any obligation upon the Conscience: They engage the Swearer to repent of, and retract his Oaths, but not at all to performe them.

The truth is, Sect. 35. to keep such an Oath is a double sin. A sin it was to swear; and another sin, to perform the oath; Quod malè juratur pejus servatur. For, what God hath forbidden, he will nor have done at any hand. He hath forbidden us to swear or promise them, but much more to do them, and to keep such Oaths, is but to adde sin to sin. Were the Oath ex­torted by fear; it is our sin to he affrighted into sin, who should rather choose to die, than sin. We must beg pardon for our base fears, but at no hand adde another sin in performance: [Page 19]and the same must we conclude of Surprise, or Passion, when the matter is unjust or sinful. Memorable is the Story which Munster Munst. de Germ. l. 3. c. 499. records of Jutha the Daughter of the Empe­rour Otho. 2. ‘She was by the Emperour, her Father, put into a Nunnery; but by force taken thence by Ʋdalric, or Ulderick the Son of the King or Duke of Bohemia, and married to him. The Emperour, urged by the indignity of the fact, swears to revenge himself upon Ʋlderick; and to lead an Army into Bohemia. He doth so, His and Ulde­ricks Armies meet. Jutha the Daughter of the one, and Wife of the other, astonished, and affrighted, hastily runs to her Father, begs to speak with him before the Armies joyn, or he lets his fury rage in blood. She obtains this li­berty, and sues for Peace and Reconcilement. The Em­perour urgeth his oath, whereby he had bound himself: She answers, Vana est religio quae sce­leri locum fa­cit; vim crimi­nibus Sacra­menta non ad­dunt. Munst, ibid. That Religion is vain, which makes way to wickedness; nor can any oath give force, power or licence, to a crime, or sin. Thus she satisfies her fathers scruple, and ob­tains her suit.’

So that No Oath can oblige us either 1. Against Piety, Sect. 36. the duties of the first Table. Or, 2. Against Justice and Charity, the duties of the second. For these are the matters of the Jam. 2.8. Royal Law of God, and indispensible duties up­on man: And in vain should the Lord of heaven give us such a Law, if we might at pleasure swear, and then upon pre­tence of such an Oath be at liberty to break such a Law, the least Commandments Mat. 5.17, 18, 19. whereof God at no hand will have to be broken. But particularly, so far as refers to our pre­sent purpose.

• 1. No Oath can oblige us against equity,
  Sect. 37.
  against the right of a third person, or to the direct injury of our Neighbour. For, though having sworne to our own inconvenience, we must not change, because we are Masters of our own rights, and may, if we please, give them away: yet of anothers rights we are not. God hath bound us by his Law to preserve them, and we may not swear to destroy them; nor may we destroy them, though we have sworne so.
• 2. No Oath can oblige us against the Duty,
  Sect. 38.
  that we owe to [Page 20]our Govèrnours or Superiours, or the Laws that we do and must live under. God hath bound us to Obedience, and no oath can oblige to Rebellion, Sedition, Schism, or Disobedi­ence: no more than the
  Mat. 15.5. Mark 7.11, 12.
  Corban, or pretence of a vow and a dedication of all to God, could free the Jews from yielding that honour, obedience, and maintenance, which God had ob­liged them to yield to their Parents. He that well understands the Fifth Commandment, Honour thy Father, and Mother, knows that no Oath can oblige a man to rise up against them, and turn his Father out of doors, yea or deny the duty which he owes to them: and as little can it oblige us to endeavour to Subvert the Government, or overthrow those Governours in Church or State, to whom, by vertue of the same Precept, we are obliged to be
  Rom. 13.1-5. 1 Pet 2.13, 14. Sect. 39.
  subject, not only for wrath, but for con­science-sake.
• 3. Nor can any oath oblige us against the former just obli­gations upon us; nor against those lawful Oaths, which we had formerly taken, and are not yet free from. Prior obli­gatio postoriori praejudicat. A former obligation doth pre­judge, and prevent the latter. For every lawful Oath having an unquestionable tie upon the conscience, it must be both un­lawful to swear any thing contrary to it, and though we swear, we cannot be obliged. For we cannot be bound to forswear; yea, we are infallibly bound,
  Exod. 20.7. Mat. 5.33.
  not to forswear our selves. A latter Oath cannot oblige, when the very taking of it, is an act of perjury, and the keeping of it would be a persisting in the perjury, in the breach of our former Oaths. This had the
  Vid. Sims. Chron. Cath. Part. 1. am. 3480.
  Phaenician Navi learned, who in the service of Cambyses were commanded by him to sail against Carthage; though they were under his pay, and probably bound by the Souldiers Oath, the Sacramentum Militia (and the Souldier is bound to obey, not dispute his Generals commands) yet they thought themselves not obliged in this, but denied obedience, because they were by a former Oath obliged to the Carthaginians: and they therefore thought, that their latter Obligation to Cambyies could not oblige them to destroy those, whom by a former Oath they were bound to protect and assist. An Oath, that is unlawfully entred into, because Rashly, may yet bind, [Page 21]when the matter is honest, and in our power: but No Oath, un­lawful in the matter of it, can either be lawfully taken, or when taken, can lay any obligation; for No Oath can oblig [...] us to sin.

We have now seen the general cases concerning the Na­ture, Sect. 40. Qualities, Obligation, and Non-obligation of an Oath. It will not now be difficult to shew, by applying these general things to the particular case of the Covenant, the Non-obli­gation, and Unlawfulness of that Oath. I have been very seri­ous in examining and considering this case, not, Whether the Penalty in this Act of Parliament be too severe (for into that we have no call to inquire) but, whether We may lawfully do as that Act requires, and make that Acknowledgement which this Law enjoyns us. Ʋiz. Whether this Covenant were lawful­ly taken, or may lawfully be kept: and whether yet it so obligeth, that we may not renounce it, and declare as much. And upon these premised principles I judge we may be fully convinced of its Illegality, and Non-obligation, and consequently may law­fully acknowledge and subscribe so.

• 1. It will not be denied, for it is unquestionable,
  Sect. 41.
  that This Covenant was a Publick Oath; and then according to the former rule, it may also be annulled, revoked, and abrogated by a Publick Authority, Suppose the Authority were Su­preme that required it; suppose, that we in obedience to that Authority did lawfully swear it: yet without dispute, the Au­thority, that is infallibly Supreme with us, doth now Revoke, and hath disannulled it. And here is evidently then Cessatio materiae, and such a Notable Alteration of the state of things referring to the Principal matter, which had it then been, this Oath would neither have been imposed nor sworne; and we may justly conclude, that, if it ever did oblige, yet now it doth not: unless we can be obliged to maintain a Law, which an Act of Parliament hath repealed. But this is not all, for this supposeth it established by a Law. But
• 2. It was an Oath Imposed by those,
  Sect. 42.
  who had no authority to impose an Oaeth. It was a Covenant entred into by Subjects; and disallowed by the King, who then ruled over us: and now again, by His present Majesty, with the full consent of all [Page 22]the estates of the Kingdom in Parliament, abrogated: and therefore cannot have an obligation, in analogy to, and by vertue of that Law of God before mentioned, Numb. 30. for in this case there is the same reason of Subjects under Govern­ment, as of Children under tuition, or a Wife under Covert­bond. We had no power to enter into such an Oath or Combi­nation; nor, it being denied, and disallowed by our Soveraign, can we be obliged by it: for this must be still supposed a tacite condition, That our Governours, and the Laws that we are un­der, will allow and permit it. But more,
• 3.
  Sect. 43.
  It was an Oath Unlawfully sworne, and cannot but be un­lawfully kept. And the unlawfulness will appear in these par­ticulars.

• 1. It was Unlawful in the Imposition: as being imposed by no lawful Authority. The Laws of this Kingdom acknow­ledge nothing to have the force and power of a Law, but from the stamp of the Royal Authority, the Kings Fiat: which that Ordinance, which imposed this Covenant, never had. It must therefore be concluded to be imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm, contrary to the Known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom: a thing, even the same, which those two Houses of P. which imposed this Oath, declared; when they took away and annulled the late Canons, and that Oath, which was so Decried for the, &c. viz.
  Exact. Coll. p. 859, 860.
  That A New Oath cannot be imposed without an Act of Parliament; which this was never established by.
• 2.
  Sect. 44.
  Ʋnlawful in the Ends of it. Which (whatsoever, and how specious soever the Pretences were) have appeared suffi­ciently to the world to have been indeed Seditious, and Rebelli­ous. The charge may seem high, and too uncharitable: but let it be remembred, (and it is too evident then to be denied) This very Covenant was made the main Engine of a design, the saddest, the bitterest, that England ever saw before, to en­gage a people against the Church and State: and to Bring in the Scots to assist them in a dismal War against the King; which they would not be brought to do, till this Kingdom did Cove­nant to throw out her Bishops, and extirpate the established E­piscopacy, Root and Branch. So that the great ends aimed at [Page 23]in the contriving and exacting this Covenant to be sworne, was, 1. Not to Reform some abuses, or, to take away some needless Officers, or, prevent some irregular proceedings in the Courts: but utterly to abolish the established Government in the Church. And then, 2. By the Assistance of the Scots to maintain a War against the King, and to reduce Him to such Terms as the Two Houses should think fit to put upon Him: That they might be able to Give Laws to the King, from whom they were bound to Receive them.
• 3. Unlawful also it was in the Matter of it,
  Sect. 45.
  as binding men
  • 1. To Impossibilities, if not in nature, yet certainly in e­quit, Ʋiz. binding men to do that, which they had no power, no authority to do. What Power or authority had Subjects to enter into such an Oath, not only without, but contrary to the mind, consent, and express Command and Will of their Soverargn? What Authority, P. e, or Call had they, to endeavour the Overthrowing of that Govern­ment, as Antichristian, under which the Christian Church had been happy, and flourished so many hundred years; and which they were by the positive Laws of our Land bound not to oppose, but to obey and submit unto? Id solum possumus, quod jure possumus, Properly, we only can do that, which we lawfully may do. In this sense then, the Covenant should bind to impossibilities; which argues a Nullity: unless Sub­jects can pretend to a power to overthrow any thing which the Law establisheth, whensoever they like it not. Farther,
  • 2. Unlawful it was, as binding to Unjust,
    Sect. 46.
    and Dishonest things also.

1. Infallibly, No Oath can bind to Sedition, or, the o­verthrow of those Laws that we are bound to obey: and that Oath obligeth to injustice and impiety, which obligeth to Perjury, and the breach of former, not yet cancelled, ob­ligations. Now the Laws had established Episcopacy; Mi­nisters had Sworne Obedience to the Bishop. There can there­fore be no obligation, because so much Impiety in that Oath, which if it should oblige, would oblige to Perjury.

Object. I know what hath been said to this, Viz. That, those who have Sworne obedience to the Laws of the Land, are not thereby prohibited to endeavour by all lawful means the abolition of those Laws, when they prove inconvenient or mis­chievous.

But, 1. Solut. 1. The Utmost of that Obedience, which was sworn to the Bishops, was but in Licitis & Honestis, in lawful and honest things. And how a lawful and honest obedience should be culpable; or the Laws that required it, should be mischievous, or, inconvenient, I confess I yet never could have eyes to see; nor (I think) any man else.

2. Sol. 2. Had the Laws, which established Episcopacy, been such: yet it will seem very strange to a considering, and intel­ligent man, that, presently to enter into such a Covenant and Combination; and by force and power to break through those Laws, and overthrow the established Government, whether the King will or no, should ever be accounted a lawful means. Again,

3. Sol. 3. Suppose it inconvenient, yet Subjects have no pow­er to Make a Law, or Alter a Law for themselves. If any mischief, or inconvenience had been in that Law; or the Government established; we might lawfully have shewed the Grievances, and Petitioned for a redress to those, to whom only it belonged to reform them: but to Swear to extirpate a Government, to overthrow a Law, against the Law-givers consent; this is somewhat else than a peaceable petition, or an honest endeavour. Though we might by humble petition in such a case beg a Reformation, yet without all controversie we were bound by our Allegiance, Duty, and former oaths, to o­bey that which was established, until the Supreme power should see it just or fit to alter it.

2. Sect. 47. That Oath which bindeth men to the injury of ano­ther, whom we are bound to love as we love our selves, and to do to them, as we would have others do to us, is unjust in the matter of it, and consequently unlawful, and bindeth not: But this Covenant bindeth to such an injury; an injury, not of one, or two, but an whole Order of Bishops who were once a Third Estate (and by the good Providence [Page 25]of God are so now again) to the depriving of them both of their Places, and Power in the Church; and of their Lands, Estates and Livelihoods, that if they lived, they must live up­on Alms; as many in the late Confusions were even forced to do.

3. It was infallibly unjust, and dishonest, and wicked, to endeavour and conspire the destruction of innocent, faithful, loyal subjects; to swear the death, confiscation of goods of all those, that conscientiously thought themselves bound, (as in­deed they were) by their Allegiance to serve and assist the King, and to preserve him from that fatal end, to which this Cove­nant (though, I verily believe, many of those, who sometimes were zealous in imposing it, and thousands that took it, never intended such a thing) did make and prepare too sad a way. Yet this do they swear, viz. to discover all such, as have been, or shall be Malignants—and to bring them to publick trial, that they may receive condign punishment. And who these Malignants were, what the condign punishment was, is suffi­ciently declared by those who imposed the Covenant, and there­fore by their avowed sense and publick Declaration, it is mani­fest whom men were by this Covenant bound to persecute and destroy. See, Exact. Coll. p. 260, 576, 509. All persons, who, upon any pretence whatsoever did assist His Majesty with Horse, Armes, Plate or Mo­ney in that war, these were declared Traytors, unparallel'd Traytors, and who ought to suffer as Traytors (and what the pu­nishment of such is, we need not be told) and to these was vowed speedy, and exemplary punishment.

Many other particulars might be produced to prove the Non-obligation, and the unlawfulnesse of that Covenant, Sect. 48. but these are enough to engage us to acknowledge, and to justifie us in such an acknowledgment as the present Law, the Act for Uniformity requires. Some, perhaps, may not be convinced of the truth of all these particulars here asserted: yet, me thinks, we may easily see enough to satisfie our souls, as to all that this Act requireth of us. And really, the Act in this par­ticular seemes to be penned with such Caution, Prudence, and Tenderness, that no conscientious Christian may be ensnar'd by such a subscription, nor have any occasion justly to scruple such an Acknowledgment. For,

1. As to the Obligation, it requires us only to acknowledge its present non-obligation. Not, that it never did, but that it doth not now oblige. Many perhaps may think that they were obliged, while that power stood, when yet they may now see they are not. But whatsoever was the Obligation, whether ever it did, or did not bind, all that we now are to declare, is, That there now lies to Obligation on us or any other by this oath to endeavor the alteration of Government in Church or State. Let me seriously put the question to those that yet make scruple, and are afraid to subscribe: Yea, let all loyal and pi­ous hearted Christians put the question to their own souls, and as in the presence of the eternal, All-seeing, and most righte­ous God, give answer to themselves.

• 1.
  Sect. 50.
  Can any Oath, that we have rashly taken, oblige any sub­ject to resist, or endeavour to root out a Government, which the Law hath established, and doth still maintain, and require obedience to? then, certainly, disobedience and rebellion could be no sin; nor any Government be firme, or Gover­nours secure, when men that like it not shall by Oath bind themselves not to obey, but abolish it. Prelacy is restored, and by an unquestionable Law established, do ye really think in your consciences that ye are now bound to extirpate it? not on­ly some of the subordinate officers (as some, who in the since­rity of their hearts were drawn in to swear this Covenant, did think they only were obliged against the whole frame, as so compounded together, and if any alteration were made, though but in some of the lowest Officers, were it but the re­moval of some Officials, Comissaries, &c. they had sufficient­ly answered their obligation,) But even the Bishops themselves, (for whatsoever some might think when they took the Cove­nant, the Imposers of it, by their actions shewed, that they meant not the laying aside only some Officers not so ne­cessary, nor of Divine institution, but the whole Episcopacy, and the very Bishops as a plant not of Gods planting.) Yea, if occasion and opportunity should be offered, may not some up­on the same pretence rise up against the whole Ministery, and from the same Covenant plead the extirpation of all the Mini­sters also, because they are made so by Episcopal Ordination, as [Page 17]such who are, and must be included under the title of Ecclesi­astical Officers depending on that Hierarchy, which in the Co­venant men with the Hierarchy bind themselves to exterpate?
• 2. Do ye really think, that,
  Sect. 51.
  notwithstanding it is enacted by a Law that to raise and bear armes against the King (though by order or ordinance of both or either house of Par­liament) is Treason, yet that you are bound still to maintaine Armies against His Majesty, if he will not consent to the matters sworn to in the Covenant: and to assist each other, and never by any terror, fear, or perswasion be drawn from such a combination? for so runs the Covenant, and if such be mens principles, that it still obligeth, how can our peace, or Laws, or Government ever be secure?
• 3. Do ye really think,
  Sect. 52.
  that you are still obliged to bring all that did adhere to, and assist His Majesty in the late warre, to punishment; to suffer as Malignants, Traytors, unparallel'd Traytors, (as they were then called, and the Covenant meant)? If the Covenant have any obligation, it must oblige to these things, for so is it there in terminis expressely sworn. Let me beseech all, soberly to lay their hands upon their hearts, and answer these questions to their own souls, and if they are not obliged in these (as beyond all doubt they are not, yea beyond all controversie they are tied by all obligations to the contra­ry) then must we conclude that it is truth, which by this Act of Parliament we are obliged to declare, and we may lawfully (and consequently, being so legally commanded, we are in consci­ence bound to) acknowledge and subscribe, that whether ever there were or were not any obligation by the Covenant, yet now, There lieth no obligation upon us, or any other person by his Oath, to endeavor any change or alteration of Government ei­ther in Church or State.

These considerations are sufficient to satisfie us then as to the first part or proposition to be acknowledged concerning the Covenant, viz. its present non-obligation. Which is no more, Sect. 53. than that, 1. What ever it did heretofore, yet now it doth not oblige, being taken away by a Law of a Publick and just au­thority. And, 2. However, man may yet be obliged to some other things therein mentioned, as to endeavour in our places [Page 28]and callings, the extirpation of Heresie, Schism and Prophane­ness, and whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of Godliness: to maintain and defend the Kings Majesties per­son and authority (without that Restriction there annext, our Allegiance being due to Him, not as He is a Christian or Godly, but as He is our King;) and to amend our lives, and go before each other in the example of a real reformation, &c. Though, I say, we may be, and are still obliged to all these things (yet, I think, not from this Covenant, but from other grounds and principles of more unquestionable authority) yet we may make that acknowledgement as the Act requires, which is not, that there lies no obligation by the Covenant to endeavour these things: but only No obligation to endeavour the alteration of the Government in Church or State: (i.e.) No obligation to Sedition, Rebellion, or, Opposition of the Laws which God hath commanded us to live under.

2. Sect. 54. As to the latter part to be declared, viz. the Unlawful­ness of that Covenant, it is only, that it was an Unlawful Oath, and though there may be many things to prove it so, yet we are there required to acknowledge but this one, The imposition of it contrary to the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, which must be acknowledged by those, who themselves have declared, that No new Oath can be imposed but by Act of Par­liament, which this never had, as before was shewn. Is it not undoubtedly true, that there can be no Act of Parliament, no Law, without the Royal assent? and was not this imposed without, yea contrary to the Consent of His late Majesty then Reigning? Disallowed still, condemned and revoked now by His present Majesty? yea condemned and disannul­led by a Law of England, an Act of Parliament? So that it is most certain, that, It was an Unlawful Oath, so far at least as concerns the manner of the imposition, and the authority of the Imposers, as, Imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. And this is all that we are here required to acknowledge.

Let me but adde the determination of the Assembly of Di­vines then called together by the two Houses of Parl. and sit­ting at Westminster, Sect. 55. in their Exhortation an next to that Cove­nant. [Page 29]In answer to that Plea of the Clergy, who might ob­ject, [ They were sworne to obey the Bishops in Licitis & Honestis, and therefore could not take this Oath to extirpate them—] They conclude thus — If there should be yet any Oath found into which any Ministers or others have entred, not warranted by the Laws of God and the Land, in this case they must tell them­selves and others, that such Oaths call for Repentance, and not Pertinacy in them. Now, are there not many things in this Oath against the Laws of God? is it not wholly against the Laws of the Land? Where do the Laws of God or the Land warrant Subjects to extirpate an established Order and Go­vernment, without the consent, yea against the mind of their Soveraign? Where do the Laws of God or the Land warrant any to prosecute those who according to their duty and Allegi­ance, serve, and labour to defend the Life, the Person, the Authority of the King, and act by His Commission, as Ma­lignants, and evil Instruments, and to punish them as Tray­tours? Sure I am, it was an Oath, much more against the Laws of God and the Land, than any of those Oaths, wherein the Subjects of this Realm were before engaged, whether the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; or, the Oath of Cano­nical obedience to the Bishops, (which are warranted by both;) can with any shadow of reason be pretended to be. This Oath therefore, even according to their determination, calls for Re­pentance, and not Pertinacy in it.

And, really, Repentance, earnest, Sest. 56. unfained Repentance it doth call for. We may too justly lament, and take up the words of the Prophet, Because of Swearing, the Land mourn­eth. The Land hath mourned, under the Scourges of God, and we have yet cause to fear, lest God again make us feel the smart of his Rods; Sure I am we have yet reason to mourn, in sorrrow and compunction of heart, for the sins of our Oaths, (besides those customary, prophane, Tavern, and street-oaths of ungodly men,) for our neglect and breach of those Sacred ties of Allegiance and Supremacy, which we had sworne, and violated; for those many unlawful Oaths and Engagements, which were too rashly entred into, and more sinfully kept. O let us with tears in our eyes, and contrition in our hearts, ear­nestly [Page 24]beg pardon of our God, whose name in these we have so often taken in vain; and testifie the sincerity of our Repen­tance by a Conscientious returning to our duty, in the care­ful practice of the strictest Piety to God; unstained and con­stant Faith and Allegiance to the King our Soveraign; and a chearful and ready obedience to the Laws upon us both in Church and State.

Thou hast now (Reader) my thoughts concerning this ac­knowledgement that we are to make of the Non-obligation, Sect. 57. and Unlawfulness of the Covenant. A I my design is Peace and Obe­dience, and to offer what I am able, to remove those doubts and stumbling-blocks that lie in the way, and hinder both. For those sober, humble, and conscientious men, who yet dare not renounce that Coven [...]nt, which though unadvisedly sworne, they yet think to oblige, and are therefore afraid to subscribe this Declaration prescribed, I shall presume to hope, they may find something in these papers, that may satisfie their doubts, remove their fears, and convince them of their real duty, that by their groundless scruples they may not make themselves uncapable of serving Christ and his Church in the Publick ex­ercise of their Functions and Ministeries. Read, Ponder, and Consider the matters before thee, lay aside all passion and prejudice, and the by-thoughts of a vain reputation: let not men that have erred, be ashamed to confess it, but be more ashamed to persist in it. Repentance is the next Door to in­nocency. Quem paenitet peccâsse paenè est innocens. We have suffered a sad shipwrack by our Follies and Sins, Repentance is Secunda tabula, post naufragium, a Planck left, by means whereof, through Gods mercy, we may yet get safe to shore, and be happy again.