Question 1.

FIrst, I doubt how I can swear in truth, and judgement, or in truth and knowledge, according to Jere. 4.2. For however, the Parliament may to it self, have just grounds for what they say, yet to me, this is but T [...] ­s [...]imonium humanum; and though a man think, or be­leeve all true that is in this Oath, and in its Preamble asserted, yet it is not therefore in an Oath to be avowed or disavowed, I may in some cases swear upon my own knowledge, or ex testimonio Di [...]ino, but I may not swear upon other mens knowledge; As in Logick, Quod nescit predicare de est in secundo adjecto, nescit predicare de est in t [...]ti [...] adjecto. So in Divinitie, Quod nescit jurare de est in secundo adject [...], nescit jurare de [...]st in tertio adjecto. He that cannot swear that this plot was, cannot avow it to be wicked or treacherous.

Answ. It is written in the Law, The Testimony of two men is true, and by the month of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established: [Page 4]But in this Case of the Plot, we have the confession of Master Waller, and of others; two whereof were executed for their guilt herein Chil [...] ­ [...] I am k [...], and the Declaration not of one or two Members in Guild-Hall, London, but of both the Houses to be read in all parish Churches and Chappels, and a publike day of thanksgiving appointed for the deliverance from in which though it be but Testimonium humanum is so convincing, that the disbelief or doubting of the veritie of the Plot, doth lay an imputation either of very great weaknesse or horrible wickednesse on the Houses, of mocking God and man.

The Law of the Land gives so much credit to every Court of Re­cord, That no averrement must be taken against it, none be admitted to contradict it, or to say it is not true, no not the King Himself King­doms Case p. 11.; yet we are not required to swear that there was such a Plot, or that it was wicked and treach [...]rous, but (upon supposall of the Parliaments assertion, and our beli [...] thereof) that we detest and abh [...]rre it. May not a man swear that he detesteth the wicked and treacherous designe: of the Gun-Powder Treason Gun Powd [...]r Treason is fathered on the [...]uritans., or the Irish Rebell'on The Kings Commissi­on is pre­tended for it; there­fore they say it is no Rebellion., Seeing there is but Testimonium humanum for either of them. The People made a Covenant with King Joash upon [...] of [...]hojadah, that he was the Fings sonne, (which was but T [...] [...] humanum,) 2 King. 11.4. and 17. though the Queen cryed Trea [...], Treason, vers. 14. No man may hence forward swear, that he will [...] true and faithf [...]ll to Charles the [...]full King of England, or that he rests [...]ully assured of His Maje­sties Princely t [...]uth in His Protest [...]tions: Seeing there is but Testimoni­um humanum that there is a King, that His name is Charles, that He is the lawfull King; that those Protestations are His, that go under His name, for none can swear these things ex Testimonio Divino, and few (if any) can swear, all of them of their own knowledge.

How can I swear in righteousnesse as I am commanded, Quest. 2 Hosea 4 2. Is it a righteous thing to vow assistance to every man that taketh this Oath, without limitation of lawfull taking, and lawfull pursuance thereof; but may there not be some that will pursue this Oath by lying, stealth, murder oppression, &c.

The word ( [...]) was expressed in the Protestation, Answ. and we are bound by the jud [...]ment of Charitie, Matth. 7.1. so to understand it here, even as when the People answered Joshua, All that thous com­mand [...]st as, wewi [...], and whither soever, &c. Josh. 1.16. And Wives in the forme of marriage do vow to love, honour, and obey their Hus­bands. No man hath a vocation to any unlawfull thing; he that doth [Page 5]unlawfully, Eatenus doth not pursue this Oath, though he may think he doth; but I am not bound to assist every man in whatsoever he thinks he doth in pursuance of the Oath, but in whatsoever he indeed doth in pursuance thereof. They that without warrant of Law do take away Mens Goods, and Lives, and they that countenance and assist them, are Theeves and Murderers, Nihil [...]l [...]ud potest Rex quam quod de jure po­test. Bra­cton. now Judicium Guriae est quasi Juris dictum, and in the Courts alone doth the King legally judge, But the Kings word is no warrant. His will no Law whereby to take away the Lives and Goods of our Neighbours, nor will they free a man in foro civili, much lesse in Divino, from being Murderers or Theeves.

I must not forswear, Psal. 15.4. Quest. 3 Now how can I that have sworn Alleagiance to the King, and lately protested joyntly to maintain the Kings honour, and just priviledges of Parliament; how can I with­out perjury swear to this Oath, the Preamble whereof calleth the opposite Army a Popish Army, and saith it is raised by the King, and it is for subversion of Religion, Laws, and Licerties, this is small honour; for how can I maintain the Kings Honour, Person, and Crown, and fight against the Army which is said to be raised (not by ill Concomitants) but by the King.

The Oath of Alleagiance being intended for Papists, Answ. and others onely quatenus lyable to that infection, is in effect thus much, I swear I will do nothing against the King by the Authoritie of the Pope and Sea of Rome See God and the King Printed by speciall command, p. 21. to the 30. See more Page 8, 9, 10.

The Oath of Supremacy was intended to thrust out the Pope, and to discover Papists, and not to determine the present difference be­tween the King and Parliament, or the King and Kingdom, for Parlia­ment is the Kingdom to all intents and purposes of Law Sta [...]n­ta universi regni per regem, &c. Cowell., and it makes the King supreme over all persons, Rex non habet parem nee superiorem, Bracton, But not over the Laws, or the Judgements of his Courts, for so Rex habet superiorem, Deum scilicet & legem per quam fact us est Rex, item Curiam Comitum Baronum, &c. Ibidem. The Supremacy therefore is not in his personall, but in his legall commands, He Himself being under the Law, subject to the Coercive power of the Law; notwithstanding any Commission or protection from the King. The King is Supreme in Ecclesiasticis, yet He (notwithstanding that Supremacy) is lyable to Church-Censures William the Con­queror was excommu­nicated for breaking his Oath at his Coro­nation., at least His Friends, Fa­vourites, and Agents are; and the King cannot annull or make invalid [Page 6]those Censures. Neither can He (notwithstanding His supremacy) in Temporalls, make voyd the sentence or judgement of any Court of Record. Forces rais'd by the King may be dangerous and destructive to His Person. Crown, and Kingdom, and so by Law be Rebels and Delinquents, as the forces now raised by the King are actually adjudged to be (and the like forces have formerly been so judged [...] 11 [...] 4. by Parlia­ment, from whence ly [...]s no Appeal, and therefore may and ought to be res [...]sted; yet this in judgement of law is no resistance of the King, who is never supposed to do against Law, [...] Rex, quod [...], quod [...]: If the King com­mand. A. B. C. D. to take up Arms to kill [...] a Judge of Assise, or [...]. G. Parliament men whil [...]st they are doing that Office, and they accordingly kill them, this is high [...], notwithstanding the Kings command, and the Indi [...]t is found [...]. [...] King [...] Ca [...]e, [...]. And it is not onely lawfull, but our dutie to our King, (both by Law and our late Protestation) to resist such forces so raised by the King, and to endeavour to bring them to [...]. And they that do so resist, do stand for the King [...] at the Law and [...]udgement given [...] Kings judgement, though gi [...] [...] the [...] standing thereof, we [...] [...] ­pacit [...] This distinction is w [...]ted by [...] ­t [...]siue, [...] Edward Cook, and many o­thers.

P [...]erall, in which [...] is subject to [...] infir [...], [...] [...]ain of the Law, [...], the [...] and [...], C [...]ts of [...] [...]lly in the Parliament.

C [...]ands and Commission [...] the King in His [...] [...]mitis, [...] &. [...]ay [...] that proceed from Him in [...] Commands and Commissi­o [...] [...], are those, when these disagree, for then [...] and they that are [...]ly loyall, (that is) legall, [...], th [...]n doth a King hate His [...].

[...] [Page 5]can make a Popish Army, then the opposite Army is a Popish Army. Had it been for the Kings honour to have raised those forces, it had been no dishonour to have them spoken off. The Oath and Preamble are (as much as may be in such a Case) tender of the Kings honour, for though they say it is a Popish Army, and that it is raised by the King, and that it is for the subversion of Religion, Laws, and Liber­ties; yet they say not that the King doth so intend it. His Majestie and His forces may have severall ends and ayms; It is no wisedome to complement away our Religion and Liberties, for if Salus Reipublicae be supremalex. If Rex be propter regnum, not regnum propeer regen [...], (Fort [...]scue, Aquinas,) then the honour of the King is no further to besought, then is subservient to the good of the Kingdom.

God. Nature, and the Laws of the Land do allow defensive Arms to a subject against illegall and injudiciall violence. The Parliament is not a subject, for the King is a part, and in intent of Law present, Master Herles an­swer to Doctor Ferne. I have seen cited for proof here­of Ashes Tables, Errour, 65 to 70.21 Iac. c 13 Ceom [...]tons Iurisdiction of Courts, f [...] to 20. Smiths Common­wealth, l. 2. c 1, 2 15 Ed 3. c. 2, 3 of all these there are sund [...]y Presidents. Answer to thenin [...]en Propositi­ons. not onely as a Court of Justice, but as the highest Court, in which there is a Chair of State for His Person, and things agitated there, are said to be done coram Reg [...]; Neither are the Lords and Commons in Parlia­ment meerly subjects, but are Co-ordinate with His Majestie (this being a mixt Monarchy His Majesties Answer to the ninteen Propositi­ons., not onely of Supre [...]e and subordinate Go­vernours (for so the most absolute Monarchies or Tyrannies in the world are mixt) but of three Co-ordinate States) in the Legislative power, and trusted with the ultimate and indisputable power (in Case of doubt) of declaring what is Law, of reversing erroneous Judge­ments given in Inferiour Courts, of damning illegall Pattents, Mono­polies, Impositions, Exactions, of removing publike grievances, and particular wrongs complained of, of censuring and judging Delin­quents of all sorts, not onely in the Kings absence, but against His Personall Negative Vote or disassent in case he be present. His Maje­stie saith, That the power legally placed in both Houses of Parliament is more then sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny: which it cannot be in some cases without resistance of the forces raised by the King; without such power of resistance in the hands of the Houses, all mixture of Government and Limitation of Regall power is vain, for the Government at the will of the Prince, (raising a thousand, or but a hundred, that may not be resisted) will resolve in­to absolute Arbitrary, and Tyrannicall Government.

Resistance of the forces raised by the King, may consist with loy­altie to His Person; for the forces are not the person of the King, [Page 6]neither is His person ubiquitary with His forces; The Law supposeth not that the King is at any time amongst Traytors and Delinquents, but as a prisoner, especially in Parliament time, when he is presumed to be in the House of Lords.

The safeguard of the Kings Person hath been pretended when other things have been intended, Lancashire men were by warrants called to Warrington, to guard His Majesties Person, which came not there, the intent was to gather forces to assault Manchester: A guard for His Majesties Person, was the foundation of the warre against the Parlia­ment. If the Kings Person be engaged in any dangerous expedition, more to blame are the Cavaliers, they should say, it were better that all they were executed, then that one hair of His head should fall to the ground, 2 Sam. 18.3. But if they will needs expose His sacred Person to hazard, then we say, To kill or wound the King intentionally and purposely, is treason, hatefull to God and all good men, but to wound or kill Him casually, not onely praeter but contra intentionem; while we in our own intent and in intent of Law, are (for His pre­servation) prosecuting Rebells and Delinquents, is indeed a crosse, and an occasion of sorrow, but not of sin to the soul of him that doth it The King being sick calls for his Physitians to give Him Phy­sick, they proceed according to the rules of Art, and sincetely endeavour His health, if he being perswaded by some do neglect the prescribed rules of Diet, and so the Phy­sicked kills in stead of curing, the Physitians are not guiltie.. In Justs and Torneaments, Subjects standing onely on point of honour, have returned Launce for Launce, stroke for stroke, un­horsed, disarmed, and wounded Hall. 16 H. 8., yea killed Anno 1559. p Anno 1266. their Kings without suspition of disloyaltie. The casuall killing of King William Rufus by the glance of an Arrow, was no treason. The fighting against the Earl of Leicesters forces (where King Henry the third was in person, and carried about for the countenance of His Actions) and the re­scuing of Him (though He was wounded unawares in the rescue) was by Parliament judged, to be loyall and faithfull services. Finally, (to omit what Bishop Poinet saith of the power of the great Constable of England.)

If the King should come in the head of the Irish Rebels (many whereof are already Him,) we may and must (with as much tendernesse and care of His Majesties Person, as will stand with discharge of our dueties) resist and help to destroy those Robels that are about Him.

In reverence of Parliaments, and in regard of tender consciences, I desire these things first to be cleered, least in taking this Oath we go on Popish grounds, in these three principalls (viz.) Of implicite faith, of infallibilitie of Councell, and the Oath ex Officio. The Papists by an implicite faith, Quest. 4 beleeve and swear, because their Church saith it, [Page 7]And why, and how can our Countrey people beleeve, and swear, but because the Parliament faith it. The Papists think the Popes councell cannot erre, therefore engage their faith to beleeve, and their practises to do what de future shall be determined: I desire therefore to know the extent of the word (continued) will assist the forces raised and continued by both Houses, it seemeth to be meant, do futuro, else (raised) would have served the expression, thus it may be as large as &c. and ingageth our assistance to them, without limitation of lawfull con­tinuance, as if this Army or Parliament-Councell could not erre in ordering the same. The Papists (as was exclaimed in our Bishops Courts) have an Oath in their Inquisition to oblige men, either to ac­cuse, or forswear themselves; and doth not this Oath oblige men (if conscious of this that is meant by the Plot) either to accuse themselves, which is unnaturall, or forswear themselves, which is Diabolicall.

The Parliament do publish in their Declarations the Reasons and Grounds of their Votes and Actions, Answ. the Equitie as well as the Au­thoritie of their decisions; and therefore cannot be said to require an implicite faith. The Judgement of the Parliament is not infallible, but to us it is inevitable; Our Judgements are not in-thralled to be­leeve what they say, but they are bound up and superseded by theirs; and our interests are intrusted with them, and subjected to their decisi­ons. If His Majestie should concurre with the Houses in a Declara­tion of the Law, could you not then submit thereunto without con­tradiction, and rest therein without further debatement, except you go on Popish grounds of implicite faith and infallibilitie? Our hold­ing the Parliament to be the supreme Judicatory (in case of the Kings absence or opposition) doth no whit alter the case. If any implicite faith, and infallibilitie must be placed any where, it is more safely pla­ced in a generall Councell then in the Pope, and consequently in the Parliament, rather then the King This compari­son was made by Acneas Syl­vius in the Councell of Basil.

To avoyd processus in infinitum (which nature abhorres) there is a power resting some where, which is the ultimate and indisputable power of expounding the Laws; which power (resting in the Parlia­ment) must be assisted by all within the jurisdiction of the Court, and not be resisted or controuled by any, upon pretence of possible or actuall errour in them. If any Court of Record do erre, I am excused, yea, justified by the Law, if I living within their jurisdiction do sub­mit to their sentence, yea, obey it till it be reversed; As if A. (free from all Felony) be out-lawed for felony (which is but a Declaration [Page 8]by and before the Coroners) every subject in the Countie is bound so farre to credit the said Judgement, as not to receive, releeve and com­fort, A, upon pain of being accessary to felony The Kingdoms Case citeth 12 Ed. 2. Coron. 377. which is cited. 19 Eliz. dy 355. And in case of At­tainder by Parliament, though supposed to be unjust; the King Him­self cannot discharge the persons so attainted, but by reversing it in Parliament 1 Hen. 7.4. There is no necessicie that (continued) should be meant de futuro, seeing but a line or two before, both (raised) and (continued) are spoken de preterito. But if it be (is I beleeve it is) spoken d [...]fu­ture, it cannot be so large and boundlesse, as &c. seeing the ground of my promising assistance, is the limitation of the Parliaments forces (in my belief) to be for their just defence, and the just defence of the t [...]e Protestant Religion, and Libertie of the Subject. If, I say, whereas I beleeve, A. B. is a Protestant, I will assist him in the maintenance of his Religion, I do not engage my self to maintain Popery in case he should turn Papist. The King and His Councell and his forces may erre; therefore the Inhabitants of Chester, Shrowsbury, or any other place which have engaged themselves by Oath (upon their bele [...]f of His Majesties Protestations) to assist Him and His forces, against the forces of Robert Earl of Essex, Sir William Br [...]reton, &c. espe­cially de future, which is as large as, &c. and without limitation of lawfull, are in this respect as guiltie as they that take this Oath.

This Oath differs much from the Oath ex Officio, (which you say is Popish) for it is tendered not onely to suspected persons, nor princi­pally intended for the finding out of guilt, or the punishment of guilty persons, when found out (though such like Oaths were in use, Num. 5.19. Exod. 21.11. And now in Courts the person indicted, doth plead guiltie, or not guiltie; and so either detects himself, which is unnaturall, or lyes, which is Diabolica [...]l.) But to the whole Kingdom to binde them to the detestation and non-execution of the said, or the like plot, and to fidelitie for after times, R. S. the Author of these Q [...]aere's doth (I suppose) refuse this Oath; yet (I hope) he doth not hereby accuse himself to be conscious or guiltie of the said Plot.

I may not (especially by solemne Oath) take Gods name in vain, Quest. 5 nor multiply Oaths to the same intent. I took the Protestation to preven: the ruine of Parliaments, Kingdom, and true Protestant Religion; therefore this present Oath, expressed to be to the same in­tent, is needlesse and vain, if not, shew the necessity of it.

You say, Answ. but you prove not, that the taking of this latter Covenant is a taking of Gods name in vain. You see it is more large, plain, par­ticular, [Page 9]then the Protestation, and the Protestation was not sufficient to its end, many (notwithstanding the same) revolting from, plotting, and practising against Religion, Parliament and Kingdom, under pre­tence of standing for the King.

The Jews of old, and Christians of late did often renew their Cove­nants with God to the same intent. David and Jonathan made a Cove­nant, and renewed it once, and again to the same intent, 1 Sam. 18.3. and 20.16, 17.23.18. yet did not take Gods name in vain. The Governour of Christer hath imposed severall Oaths upon the Inhabi­tants of Chester to the same intent, (viz.) the securitie of the Citie, the resistance of the Parliaments forces. It seems that they also do take the name of God in vain.

An Oath ought not to be urged on them, Quest. 6 that shall lye in taking the same, Jerc. 4.2. Thou shalt swear in truth. Now it is more then probable that some of the multitude (seeing it is pressed on all the Kingdom) shall lye. For when they have told God and the Congregation, that they heartily sorrow for their sins, they will tell God a solemne lye. Now though we may exhort all men to repent, yet it is questionable, whether we may urge them to swear, that they repent who do not so.

By this Argument, Ministers may not in their own, Answ. and the peoples name, say, We are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance, &c. Nor God-fathers, and God-mothers (especially in the name of the Children,) say, I forsake the devill, &c. I beleeve in God, &c. Nor Children be taught to say, Our Father. Nor the Oaths of Supremacy, All agiance, and Protestation, nor any other Oath be tendered to the whole Kingdom upon any occasion; seeing it is more then probable that some of the Ministers, and people, are not heartily sorry, &c. Some of the Gossips do not fotsake the Divel, &c. Some of the Chil­dren have not God to their Father. Some Popish, treacherous, perju­red persons, will in taking the Oaths of Supremacy, &c. Tell God and the World a solemnelye.

On the solemnelyes assertorie or permissory, or both that were told by the people, Josh. 24. 2 Chro. 15. 2 Chro. 23. Neh [...]. 9. &c. 10. That man is a son of Belial, which (living in these sad times) is not in some measure sorrowfull for his own sins, and that intends not to en­deavour the amendment of his own, wayes; surely, he is none of the tender conscienced men, for whose satisfaction these were propound­ed. The Inhabitants of Chester have sworn, that they rest fully assured of His Majesties Princely truth and goodness, &c. It is well if some of [Page 10]them to save their goods and liberties, Quest. 7 have not told God and the world a solemne lye.

I desire to know the extent of those words, Will according to my power and vocation, assist the forces of the Parliament against the forces, &c. For it may be said, That he that warreth not in his own person; he that slyeth at any exigent; he that leaveth his Armour; he that taketh or giveth quarter; he that giveth not all his estate immediately to these warres, it may be said, That these have not done according to their power, and so are forsworne; and there is the more reason for this question, because some have taught, and others have practised this for a doctrine, that you may not take or give quarter in these warres, An unnaturall and bloody resolution.

When you know the extent of the words (To the uttermost of my power) in the Oath of Alleagiance, Answ. and the Oaths imposed upon Chester and Shrowsbury, and of the words (To my power) in the Protestation, and Oath of Supremacy, (the Oaths which you have already taken) Then you will guesse at the meaning of the words (accerding to my power and vocation) in the Oath now to be taken, where the word vocation limiteth the word power, for no man hath a vocation to any unlawfull or irrationall, any unnaturall or bloody resolution or action. If any man say, or teach, as you intimate some do, They have as little abilitie, as they have authoritie to expound the Oath. It may be some others do so explain it, that any Malignant in the Kingdom may take it, without forsaking his own principles. But, Inter utrumque via est.

An Oath is to be taken when we are thereunto called by lawfull authoritie, Quest. 8 and may be refused, when lawfull authoritie prohibiteth the same, or exempteth inferiours from the same. Now though I question not the Parliaments authoritie in enjoyning this Oath, yet I also beleeve that our Kings authoritie is a lawfull authoritie, if not su­preme also, who by Proclamation prohibiteth this Oath; And there­fore I cannot conceive a lawfull calling to this Vow and Covenant, Num. 30.5. A woman hath no power to vow that which her father disavowes, and how then can a subject have power to vow that which the King disavoweth, is not Rex pater patria?

An Oath may be taken lawfully by private persons to give satisfacti­on in some weightie doubt, though they be not thereunto called by any authoritie at all. 1. Jonathan and Davids Covenant stood firm, though condemned by Saul, 1 Sam. 22.7, 8. who was the father of one, the father in law of the other, and the King of both. Yea, they afterward [Page 11]renewed that Covenant, 1 Sam. 23.17, 18. The Kings lawfull autho­ritie is in His Courts of Justice, and His Proclamation for the rever­sing of the sentence and judgement of any Court of Record, especially of the Court of Parliament, which is His highest and honourablest Judgement King Iames. Basllicon Doron., is ipso facto null and voyd; especially when the King is amongst known and judicially declared Rebels and Delinquents, for then His Proclamations may be judged to be the acts of the said Delin­quents, over-awing, mis-informing, or otherwise abusing the King. A King of England was once articled against, as for other things, as that Without consent he had carryed away the Jewels and Plate of the Crown, and did hold a fantasticall opinion, That the Laws of the Realm were in his head, and sometimes in his breast. So for that He craftily de­vised certain privy Oaths, contrary to the Law, and caused His Subjects to be sworn thereto. Though this be now ordinarily done, not so much by the King, as by the Cavaliers within their Dominions of Nor­thumberland, Cumberland, Yorkeshire, Chester, Shrowsbury, &c. But the authoritie of Parliament was never till of late questioned for grea­ter acts then these. The late Protestation, which (well understood) contained that very thing which you dislike in this Covenant, viz. of resisting the forces raised by the King in some cases, stands good by your own rule, for the King did not publish any Proclamation against it, Numb. 30.4.7.

The vehement pressing of this Oath may prove prejudiciall to the Cause, and to the end, Quest. 9 to which it is pressed for being thus questionable for the lawfulnesse of it, it may make many to esteem worse of the Parliament. Diversmen that have assisted the Parliament, will not in likely hood take this Oath, but perhaps hereupon desert the Cause. As for that which somesay, it is vehemently pressed to the intent to dis­cover rotten hearts; I answer, it is no signe of a rotten heart to fear an oath, nay, rather that is the rotten heart that can disgest such so­lemne Oaths without fear and scruple.

These and the like quaere's in the hands of common people do not help the matter: Answ. Christ sometime spake hard speeches, which caused many to leave him, Joh. 6.1. We had rather have open foes then trea­cherous friends. I beleeve those hearts are rotten quantum ad nos & causam nostram, that have no juster scruples then these, and yet refuse this Oath. A man may truely fear an Oath, yet take the Oath of Su­premacy, Alleagiance, Protestation, and this also.