IT is not unknown to us the Free-born Protestants of England, that our Nation claimeth the priority of all o­ther Nations in the World for ancient and famous Laws, and Peace and Religion.

The Laws and Customs of England, Fortes. (saith Learned Fortes­cus,) are ancienter then the Laws of the Romans, Com. yea of the Venetians, Leg. which are esteemed the ancientest in the World; they are more famous then others, Cap. 17. because better then the Laws of other Nations, and that in a threefold respect, in the subject matter, in the form, and 3. in the disposing of them.

The ras substrata of the statute Laws of England, is reason, which indeed is the totum compositum of the common Law. Common Law, is a vast mine of right reason, out of which all other Laws are digged, and fitly squared to the good of the Kingdom: he therefore is esteemed the best Lawyer that spoke the best reason, and herein the People of England excel all other Nations, in that they are only subjected (by the Law,) to reason, and the purest reason, which to be, is doubt­less perfect freedom; yea it may truly be affirmed, that by the Law they are subjects only to divine reason; for we have such a standing Law upon record, that whatsoever Custom, maxim, or Statute, shall be faind directly contrary to the Law [Page 2] of God; that Custom, Maxim, Statute, or Case, shall be ipso facto void, and so adjudged.

And as for the matter for the form, the Laws of England are the absolute, and undoubted best in the World; for as there is universal obedience required and injoyned to every Law inacted, for there is a general assent in the acting and constitution of that Law.

There are 3. estates which concur, (as joynt causes of the same effect) in making of a Law. These 3. Conjunctions do make the supreme Authority of the Nation, the Apax, or Cul­men potestatis, being set upon the Kings head, all Writs and procession issuing out in his name; with him are joyned the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these 3. divisi­ons are limitted by Law; but compunction they have power to repeal, or make a Law; and none can say unto them, why do you so? but either of these apart, are limitted by Law.

Limitations of royal power have been made and acknow­ledged by Magna Charta, and several other acts, and no obe­dience, acknowledged any otherwise then according to Law; and King Charles acknowledged, that the measure of his power was the Law, and he desired no more then what he was invested with by Law.

And so of the other two estates of Lords and Commons, these three have negative voices alike, have freedom (in their several places,) a like freedom to make motions, and freedom to reject what they dislike.

This is the absolutest best Government in the World, as is clear from God and Nature. God himself who is the Al­mighty Monark of all Spirits, hath pleased to reveal himself to Man in a Trinity of persons, and governs the universe by himself, Angels and Men Celestical Bodies, by Sun, Moon, and Stars: the little World Man by understanding, will and affections; and the Kingdom of England, by King, Lords, and Commons.

The King of himself cannot make a Law of himself, if he do, tis tyranny, nor the Lords in a part by themselves, nor the Commons by themselves against the other two, if they [Page 3] do, it is usurpation, exceeding presumption, perjury and Trea­son, for they are sworn to the contrary by their Oaths of al­legiance and supremacy, to act nothing against the Crown and Dignity of their Soveraign Lord the King; besides, they are sworn to maintain the Priviledges of Parliament.

The King makes the first of these three Estates, by a right, which is not by election, nor by Conquest simply, but by in­heritance; for the Saxon Kings laying the plat-form of good Government, here in England continued it succesfully, until the Danes drove them into Corners, subduing them for a time, the which they soon recovered again, and so recovered their ancient Customs and Laws again, and continued them, Edward the Confessor, who was of the Saxon line, having no Heir, descending of his body, intended to make Edgar Ethling, Gran-child to Ironside his successor; but Edward the Con­fessor dying, Harrold-Earl, Godwins Sonne, being popular for his Victories, usurped the Crown, and dispossessed the right Heir, deluding William of Normandy, to whom he had pro­mised by Oath the Government of the Kingdom, after the death of Edward.

William Duke of Normandy hereupon pleads a right to the Crown of England, by promise (as he said) from Edward the Confessor, and hereupon brought an Army with him from Normandy, and gave battel to Harold the Usurper, at Hastings in Sussex, where he overthrow'd him, by whose overthrow, there was way made for a Treaty betwixt Duke William, and the Nobles and Citizens then at London, Duke William plead­ed his right by promise, as having a grant of the Kingdom made to him by Edward the Confessor, and confirmed by Har­rold, who forswore himself, and usurped the Crown: here­upon Duke William was received and acknowledged King by the Nobles and City of London, after this Edgar Ethling, who indeed was the right Heyr, compounded with Duke William, and for a royal allowance, which Duke William granted him, he reconciled himself to him, and thus William came in as Successour to Edward the Saxon King; and so it succeeded from the Normans to the Plantagenets, Henry the 2. being the Sonne of Maud, Henry the 1. his Daughter whom he [Page 4] married to Jeffery Plantagenet, who begat Henry the 2. and so it passed from the Normans to the Plantaginets, in whose unquestionable time, eight Kings succeeded each other: af­terwards they divided Henry the 4 of the younger house, & usurped the Crown, being of the house of Lancaster; but Edward the 4. of the house of York, coming in upon a better Title then those of Lancaster, overthrew those that opposed his Title: this Division continued and lived until Richard the 3. died, who breathed the last of the Plantagenets: The Tudors next succeeded the Plantagenets.

Henry the 7. matching with Elizabeth, the eldest Daugh­ter to Edward the 4. of the house of York, united both hou­ses of York and Lancaster, laying the white Rose and the red together, in the royal person of Henry the 7. the Scepter fell back into the Current of the old brittish blood: together with the German, Norman, Burgandian, Castalian, and French atchievements, with the intermarriages, which 800 years had acquired, incorporated, and brought back into the old royal time. Nauntons, fegmenta Regalia, p. 2. Sec. 1. So that the Stuarts, have an unquestionable Title to the Crown of England, from the old Christian brittish Kings, whose antiqui­ty is beyond all the Kings in the World.

The Tudors expiring in Queen Elizabeth, the mighty Fa­mily of the Stuarts, succeeded by an unquestionable Title, as lineally descended from Margaret the eldest Daughter of Henry the 7. of whom descended James the 1. of England, and sixth of Scotland, he reigning 22. years, died and left the possession of England, Scotland and Ireland to Charles the 1. who after he had raigned 24. years, was cut off by a violent death, Jan. 30. 1648. at his own door.

So that by this it may appear, by what right the Kings of England have for above these 100. years made the first and chief estate in Parliament, tis by a right of succession and in­heritance, always acknowledged and granted by the King.

The House of Lords make the second Estate, because the Nobility of a Kingdom are the main pillers of those political Thea [...]ors where they live, and as they are Clarior et illustri [...]r [Page 5] pars populi, they do claim that priviledge jure geutium, in this Kingdom they claim it as their Birth-right, never in any age denied them; their house being far more ancient then the House of Commons; for Henry the 1. was the first that e­stablished the House of Commons, and the House of Com­mons make the third estate who are called by the Kings Writ, and chosen by the people to be their Trustees in Parl: these being chosen, and come up to Westminster, or the place where the King appoints, they are called over in the Kings presence, and there they answer for what Shire or Town they are, which done, Smith. by the Kings Commandment, they choose them a Speak­er, who maketh requests to the King, C. W. that he would be con­tent that they may injoy their liberties, p. 19. to speak their minds freely, that they may punish any of their House offending, that they may in doubts have the liberty to consult with His Majesty and the House of Lords, promising in the Commons names, not to abuse, but to improve their priviledges, as faith­ful, true, and loving subjects ought to do for their Princes Honour and advantage.

The House of Commons have power to impeach any per­son of Treason, except the King; for the King is one of their Estates and the Head: now neither of these 3. Estates can impeach an other, the King & Lords cannot impeach the House of Commons, because it is the third estate; and the King and Commons cannot impeach the House of Lords, because it makes the second Estate, hereby the community must ne­cessarily dissolve it self, if either of the Estates could impeach each other: therefore the Lords and Commons be they never so intire and full, have no power de jure to impeach the King, because he makes the first estate in Parl: indeed they have power to curb the exorbitances of each other; and for this end, their two Estates of Lords and Commons, were devised, to curb the excess of Monarchs; but in no wise to dethrone them.

The House of Commons never was a Court of Judicature, it had a regative voice in the making of new Lawes, and the chiefest hand in granting subsidies, levying Taxes, and impo­sing Customs on this Kingdom, without whom, the King and Lords could not proceed.

[Page 6] The original of the Subjects liberty came first out of Ger­many, where saith Tacitus, nec Regibus libera aut infinita po­testas erat. Kings had not unlimitted power, but the weigh­ty matters of the Realm were dispatched by general meetings of all Estates; but it can never be found that the House of Commons was a Court of Judicature they are but the Peoples Trustees, and this power they have, that they have a negative voice in the making of a Law, or imposing of any Taxes; and herein is the great and vast liberty of the English Subject in­cluded, that there can be no Law imposed on them, but what their Representatives or Trustees in Parl: shall agree unto, and if after they have agreed unto a Law which proves inconveni­ent, or not so effectual as was intended for the good of the People. Fortes. The next Session (saith Fortescue) Cancito reforma­ri potest. C. 18. And thus the Laws of England in their framing are the best Laws in the World.

3. Com­mend. And as the best in their frame and constitution, so they are the best Laws in distribution; Legum. for as all Estates have a hand in framing a Law, so no Estate is exempted from observing of those Laws; so that English Laws may truly be called Justice in the abstract; for they do suum cui (que) tribu [...]re. They give the King his due, the Nobles their due, and the Commons their due; to each man, from him that welds the Scepter, to him that holds the Plough, it gives him his right.

The Law sets the King above imprisonment, or attainture by his Subjects; by this Rule in Law, nemo imprisonetur aut disvisietur nisi per judicium Legale parium. Now all other men in the Kingdom may be tryed, because there are to be found his Fellow-Subjects, equal in all the priviledges of a Subject with him; but a King, take him either in his personal capaci­ty, or publick capacity, he is no Subject of the Law: indeed, he is sworn to maintain and defend the Law. The King is bound to maintain the Law by his Oath, the form of which Oath runs thus. You shall keep the Church of God, the Clergy and People intirely in peace and concord in God, according to your power. The King answers, I will keep them: you shall cause equal and right justice in all your judgements, and discretion in mercy and truth, according to your power. The King answers, I will do it, you shall grant just Laws and Customs to be kept, and you shall [Page 7] promise that those shall be protected by you, and to the lover of God to be strengthened, which the common People shall choose according to their power. To which the King answers, I give and promise it. This Oath the King takes at his Coronation, viz. Parl. Rol. 1. Hen. 4. but in case he doth not so fully execute the Laws as is meete, there can be no Judge legal of the King, because he is a Monark, and there cannot be Judges of the accesse of Mo­narchy; for none can be found his equals, and to judge him o­therwise, were to deny the Monarch: what is granted to the meaner Subject, which is to be judged by his equalls.

But though the Monark cannot be judged, yet the instruments of that Monark may; for a Commission from the King cannot bear out a Subject beyond Law, the exorbitant Commands of such a Monak, as our English Monark being politically powerless; and if Authority fail in the supreme Power, the instrument can have none from thence derived to him, but must necessarily fall under the censure of the Law; so that though the King is head of the three Estates, cannot be molested; yet the instruments that he im­plies against Law may be tryed. This Law is most agreeable to the Law of God, and the Law of nature; to the Law of God, for Kings are the Representatives of God on earth, and none can touch them, we see this clear in two famous instances, in Saul, who (could crimes have brought him under the censure of men) had e­nough to dethrone him; for he was a Tyrant, a murtherer, and a publick enemy to the Church and State, yet David when he could have done justice upon him, said, God forbid, for he is the Lords anointed, the declared King of Israel. And David that was guilty of murther and adultery, both of them deserving death by the Law, yet was not questioned by his Subjects, because God only hath the power of punishing Kings, and not man.

This is most agreeable to the Law of nature; for if Kings should be subject to their Subjects, then the order must needs be con­founded, and the Law of nature utterly rooted up, which orders approves no further then the supreme Authority, which if judged by any, is not the supreme, and so produceth confusion and infini­tion: Therefore we conclude, that the Laws of England are the best Laws in the World in every respect, both for matter, form, and distribution. And as for Laws, so for pure Religion, it is beyond all other Nations, it received the Apostolick faith almost, if not all [Page 8] out as soon as Rome that brags of its antiquity. Origen▪ Gindas telleth us, that England received the Gospel in the Apostles dayes, Joseph at Armathea bringing it into the Kingdom, Hom. 4. and Origen and Turtulli­an tell us, Ezekel. that it received the Gospel as soon as any Natian in Europe. This we are sure that it hath retained it in its purity, the longest of any Nation, it had a great share in the Presevitians un­der the Heathen Emperours of Rome; after that under the Arrian and Entichion Heresies, and after that under Popus, the bloudiest and cruellest enemy to the Church; so that from the Apostles time till this day, Christian Religion (though sometimes obscured) never was obliterate nor extinct in the Kingdom. And as this Kingdom hath been famous for Laws and Religion above others, so it hath been the famousest in the World for Religious and vali­ant Kings to protect it, and eminent Ministers to divulge it.

Lucious the Son of Coilus, who was King of England, was the first Christian King, Jesus Christ smiling upon this Nation above all others, in blessing it with a righteous King, which was a mira­cle in the World: at that time Constantine the 8. King of Eng­land, after Lucius, who was the Son of beautiful Helea, King Coil his Daughter of England, whom she brought forth at York, he becam Emperour of Rome, conquering the Heathen Emperours with a Brittish Army, and so converted Rome Heathen into Rome, Christian the famousest Reformation that ever was wrought in the World, so that England is famous for being the first Christian Kingdom, and setting up Christian Empire, English Kings having been the only great friends to true Religion, in the time of Paga­nisme. And as they were the greatest friends to Christs Church against Rome Pagan, so they have been the greatest friends to the true Chucrch against Rome Antixfian; for about the year 1070. when the Pope was in his full height of soverainty, the Normons line succeeding the Saxons in England, were the first Kings that contemned the Popes Authority. William the Conqueror spit at him, and Wilt Rufus who succeeded him, openly spake against the Popes usurped power of binding and loosing withstanding and re­jecting his intrapped fopperies, declaring (against the Pope) the folly of invocating Saints, he plucked proud Arch Bishop Anselmes nose under his Girdle, in despight of the Pope, and so did the roy­al Family of the Plantagenets. The Tudors and the Stuarts got their several parts in greater degrees against the Pope, as they suc­ceeded [Page 9] each other. So that the Normans may be said to resist the Pope, the Plantagenets to grapple with the Pope, the Tudors to unhorse the Pope, and the Stuarts to stob the Pope; King James being the first King that writ a­gainst him, & proved him to be Antichrist. Against the Kings of England the Popes have born an old grudge, and indeavoured to destroy those Kings or Queens, which resisted their Authority, at least 12. Treasons against Q. Elizabeth were discovered, and prevented; which so frustrated Pope Pius Quintus projects, that it broke his heart for malice, that he could not with his Bulls (which with his own hands he sealed) depose and dethrone the Protestant Queen; for she took occasion from the Popes wickedness, and the Papists treachery, to extirpate Priests and Jesuites out of the Kingdom; whereupon Pope Gregory 13. erected a Colledge on purpose for Eng­lish Priests and Jesuites that fled from England to Rome, and another at Do­way, which was much nearer England, that they might there both frame their granadoes of Treason against the English Court and receive such per­sons as were succesless in their Treason, and made escapes out of England.

Against King James, besides that Treason of Warson and Clarke, the pro­digious Gunpowder-plot was contrived by the Papists to destroy the King the Prince, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, in the twinkling of an eye; upon this ground, because Pope Clement 8. by a Bull, Command­ed that the King should not be crowned without a toleration of Popery; but God prevented that prodigious blowe. Hereupon the King and the Parl: framed the Oath of allegiance to be taken by every subject in the King­dom, 'tis thus. I. A. B do truly and sincerely acknowle [...]ge, profess, testifie and declare in my Conscience, before God and the World, that our Soveraign Lord K. James, is lawful and rightful King of this Realm, and of all other His Maj. Dominions and Countries; and that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any Au­thority of the Church, or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power of Authority to depose the King, or dispose any of his Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions, or to authorize any forraign Prince to invade or anoy him or his Countries, or to discharge any of his subjects of the allegiance and obe­dience to His Majesty, or to give license to any of them to bear Arms, or offer a­ny violence or hurt to His Maj. person, State or Government, or to any of His Maj. Subjects. I do swear from my hear [...], that no withstanding any Declarati­on or excom. against the King, his Heirs and Successours, or any absolution of the said Subjects from their obedience; I will bear faith and true Religion to His Maj. His Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend to the ut­most of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever; and I do de­test and abhorre as impious and heretical, the damnable Doctrine of the Pope, that Princes may be excommunicated and deprived of their Kingdoms, deposed [Page 10] and murthered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do believe that neither the Pope nor any other can absolve me from this Oath, and all these things I do plainly swear according to the plain and common sence, and under­standing of the same words, without any equivocation or mental evation, or secret reservation. This Oath (with the Oath of supremacy) the supreme Autho­rity of the Nation thought fit to impose upon all the Protestants and other subjects in the Kings Dominions. The Protestants rejoyced that there were such Oaths whereby they might manifest their loyalty to their Soveraign Lord the King, only the Papists refused it, having and using no other plea but tenderness of Conscience, and fear to offend the Church of Rome: these Oaths distinguished Protestants from Papists a long time in England; du­ring which time, the Kingdom indured much peace and prosperity; but af­ter the death of K. James, K Charles succeeding him in the Throne, and matching with one of the Popish Religion, a gap was opened for Priests and Jesuites to enter into the Kingdom, and Romish designs were set on foot, for the setling of Jesuites in the Kingdom under the name of protestants; the Pope granting dispensations, and Jesuites writing books, (as Ortwinus and several others of the Church of Rome) that it was lawful for a Roman-Ca­tholique to make profession of the [...]rotestant Religion, to go to their Church­es, and outwardly comply with Protestants, and yet be a sacred Catholique; and that it was lawful vulpirare cum vulpibus, to play the knave with a knave, (they are their own words.) Hereupon subtil Jesuites under the name of Protestants seated themselves in England undiscovered, held corres­pondence with the Conclave of Rome, and carried on the Popes design, pro­fessing all obedience to the King; but keeping their poysonous treason a­gainst him in their brests, ready to spit in the Kings and his Posterities face, when they had fit opportunity; for they had learned their lesson within book, that it is lawful to spoil an Heretique King of his Goods, melius tamen est quod Authoritate judicis fiat; but 'tis better to do it by a Court of Justice, this is not a new opinion of the Popes, [...] [...]aus. 15. [...] 4. [...]oss. nor of the Jesuites though newly act­ed. And this is another opinion of theirs, that uxor Catholica viro haeretico bene volentiam reddere non tenetur, that a Papists wife may refuse to submit to her Husband, she may plot and conspire his death by the Popes Law, and this is another Cardinals opinion, (whose Books are licensed) Pater qui filium habet haereticum, exh [...]reditare talem filium tenetur, that the Father may disinherit his Son being a Protestant, & Simancha episcopus saith▪ propter tonne haeresin patris filii non sunt sui juris, [...]. l. 5. Rom. [...]. ca. [...]7. by reason of the Fathers Heresie the same freed from his allegiance Nay they hold that Subjects may lawfully refuse to obey Protestant Princes, saith Beliarmine; Non licet Christianis tolerare re­gem haereticum, That Christian Subjects ought not to tolerate a Protestant [Page 11] King to live; for in the Papists sense they are the Hereticks. With these poi­sonous opinions, did many subtil Jesuites and Priests lie about the Court, get into Ʋniversities and other places in the Kingdom, under the name of Pro­testants many of them.

These with the Popes Nuncio, having won the Arch-Bishop of Canterbu­ry to their party, as States-men conceived, drove on a subtil design to over­throw the Government of the Kingdom by a Parl: and so to pull down the Protestant Magistracy, and all their wholsome Laws, and by insinuating Al­tars, Crucifixes, Images, and Image-worship, with several other popish Ceremonies, and imposing them on the Ministery of England, thereby they intended at once to root out the Protestant Ministery, and Protestant Reli­gion. This took effect according to the Popes desires so fully, and raised the hopes of the Popish party so high, that they resolved (like Haman) to de­stroy the Church in every of the Kings Dominions. Scotland they intend­ed to new-mould to the Popes model, which Nation, though poor and weak intemporals, proved to the world, that they were rich and strong in spiri­tuals; for they discovered the Popes designes, and the English Jesuites, & the plots of the Spanish faction; insomuch, that the Protestant Nobility of England, petitioned the King for a [...]arl: which was granted, and the etcaetera Oath, a Popish new Engagement, on purpose devised to supplant the Protestant Mi­nistery, was utterly broken. The Parl: was by the gracious consent of the King established to sit until by their own Act they dissolved themselves. This as it was great joy to the Protestants: so it was exceeding terror to the Pa­pists and Popish faction, many of which fled beyond the Seas to Rome, and other places. Several others like subtil Foxes got on Sheeps-Cloathing, and walked amongst the Separatists, who during the Prelates tyranny, were counted the most religious and zealous Protestants, with these did they joyn and quickly learned their language, fitting them in all things to a hair, cry­ing out against. Antichrist the Pope of Rome, & Common Prayer, or Antichrists Bible, and Bishops as Antichrists brats: this pleased the Separatists, and no whit displeased the most of Protestants, who too far lost their discretion through the violence of their blind passions, who thought to much could not be said against Episcopal Government, it had been so exceeding tyrannical: hereby the subtil Jesuites under the name of zealous Protestants, pluckt the Prote­stant Ministery, and the Protestant Religion, and the Protestant Magistracy, as much into danger on the other hand, as it had been before by the Popish Prelatick party; for upon a true bottom did the Romish Sophists build a false Argument thus. The Pope is Antichrist (thats true) the Pope made Bishops (say they) and the Bishops made Ministers: therefore the Ministers now were set down for Antichristian Ministers: here the Devils Cloven foot ap­peared, and mark what progress and advantage they made of this: The next [Page 12] consequence was: If Ministers be Antichristian, then the Ordinances they ad­minister are Antich. Baptisme is Antich. singing Psalms, observing the Lords day, meeting in Churches, all this was Antichristian: so that the Pope set up two designes for the miscarriage of that of Scotland; for what with the Parl: just and strict proceedings against the Popish party about the Court, and what with their prevalency at Court with the Queen and the King; designes by the Court factions were on foot, to bring the Northern Army against the Parl: to over-awe them; as appears in the preamble of their Protestation, made May 5. 1641. Thus, whereas the designes of Priests, Je­suites, and other adherents to the See of Rome, have of late been more fre­quently and boldly put in practice then formerly, to the undermining and danger of the ruine of the true reformed Protestant Religion, and the sub­version of the fundamental Laws of England and Ireland, by wicked plots and conspiracies, and breach of Parliaments; whereby the Kings Maj. person is indangered, and an Army intended to be brought up against the Parl: to force them to condescend to the lusts of a Popish party: Hereupon the first Protestation was framed, and sent throughout the Kingdom, no body re­fusing to subscribe it except Jesuitish Separatists. J. A. B. do in the presence of Almighty God, promise, vow and protest, to maintain and defend as far as lawfully I may, &c. Soon after this, the breach between the King and the Parl. fell out, the King giving too much ear to evil Councel, and that Po­pish faction which was the ground of all the former persecution and the ci­vil War: the King raised an Army to defend himself and the Protestant Re­ligion, the Parl: did the like upon the same grounds, which at that time was doubtless real; their end propounded was to defend Religion, Law, the Kings Maj. Person, the Parl. priviledges, and the Peoples Liberties.

The Parl: cause seemed the best in most Protestants eyes at that time, in regard the Courts designs were long before discovered to the Parl: The Queens departure with the Crown-Jewels into Holland, and the numerous flocks of Papists going to the King, with all the corrupt part and guilty per­sons of the Kingdom, which made haste to the King after his departure, made the Protestants afraid what would become of Religion, Parliament, and the Kings person, should that party about him have prevailed: however they professed the Protestant Religion, though many of them convicted Papists. Hereupon the Lords and Commons made a second Vow and Covenant with this preamble, Whereas the Lords and Commons now assembled in Parl: have declared that there hath been and now is a Popish and Traiterus plot, for the sub­version of the true Protestant Reformed Religion, and the liberty of the subject &c.

And after all this still perceiving the Popish party to increase, grow great, victorious, bloudy and blasphemous; the Lords and Commons professing to the World, that they had nothing before their eyes but the glory of God, the advancement of Christs Kingdom, and the happiness of the [Page 13] King and his Posterity, with the true publique liberty, safety, and peace of the Kingdom against the plots of the enemies, they entred into the so­lemn League and Covenant, containing 6. Articles, which every Parl. man publickly and solemnly at the Chappel of St, Margaret Westminster, (with his hand lifted up to Heaven, in the sight of the Scots Commissioners, and the whole Congregation) did subscribe.

1. That we will sincerely, really, and constantly through the grace of God, in­deavour in our several places and callings the preservation of the reformed Reli­gion of the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Govern­ment, against our common enemies; the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine, &c. 2. That we will in like manner with­out respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Superstiti­on, Heresie, Schisme, Prophaneness, &c. 3. With the same reality, sin­cerity and constancy in our several places and Callings, indeavour with our E­states and Lives, mutually to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of Parl: and the liberties of the Kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom; that the World may bear witness with our Consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions, to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness. 4. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries or Malignants, &c. 5. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between the Kingdoms, for­merly denyedt our progenitors, &c. 6. We shall also according to our places, &c.

This solemn League and Covenant being entred into by both Nations of England and Scotland, made the deepest and strongest Politicians of the Ro­man faction to tremble, yea (as Mr. Hinderson, the Reverend and Learned Minister of Scotland, then Commissioner, well foretold) the news of this Co­venant, (which was soon carried to Rome, with the names of all the Subscri­bers) made the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinals amazed and tremble; insomuch, that they doubled their diligence to work the destruction of the Covenanteers at this time. The Duke of Lorane was solicited by Sir Kelem Digbies meanes, who was then the Queens Agent for the English Affairs at Rome, to help the King of England with an Army against the Covenan­ters in England. Sir Kelenem Digby was the Popes right hand to promote and further all designs against the Covenanters party in England. At the same time a Nuncio was forthwith sent from the Popes Court into Ireland, there to make a Cessation with the Protestants, and to further by all means possible the King of England against the Covenanters, which was con­cluded with the Popes good liking, as hath been confessed.

The old and sage Statesmen in Parl: perceiving the designes of the Pope to drive furiously on towards the destruction of the Parl: and Covenanters, called in the Scots to their aid against the Popes designes. The English A [...] ­my [Page 14] and Scots Army admitting no Officers or Souldiers in their Armies, but such as took the Covenant: the Covenanters (through Gods providence) beyond all expectation prospered in the field against their enemies; and the Parl: and Assembly of Divines prospered at Westminster, and went on suc­cessively, both of them being unanimous in the pulling down of Popery and Tyranny, and establishing and maintaining the liberties of the Kingdom, and Laws of the Realm, and true Religion in Doctrine, Discipline and Go­vernment; for this purpose the Assembly of Divines first went over the Articles of faith, drew them up after most deliberate, serious, and learned debates upon each of them, and humbly presented them to the Parl: under 33. heads. 1. of the Scripture, 2. of Gods Covenant, and the holy Trinity, 3. of Gods decrees, 4. of Creation, 5. of Providence, 6. of mans fall and sin, 7. of Gods Covenant with man, 8. of Christ the Mediator, 9. of free will, 10. of effectual Calling, 11. of Justification, 12. Adoption, 13. Sanctific [...]ti­on, 14. saving faith, 15. Repentance, 16. good works, 17. of perseverance, 18. of assurance of grace, 19. of the Law of God, 20. Christian liberty & li­berty of Conscience, 21. of religious worship and the Lords day, 22. of lawful Oaths, 23. of the civil Magistrate, 24. of marriage and divorce, 25. of the Church, 26. of Communion of Saints, 27. of the Sacraments, 28. of Baptisme, 29. of the Lords Supper, 30. of Church-censures, 31. of Synods and Councels, 32. of the Resurrection, 33. of the last judgement.

Then they regularly proceeded to settle Church-Government, first prov­ing Presbytery to be the Government which is most like to the primitive Government, and coming nearest of all other Governments to Gods word; next they drew up a Directory for Church-Government, with an Ortho­dox, learned, and pious Catechisme; and thus the Covenanters Magistra­cy and Ministry went on and prospered until they threw down their open enemies in the field, and were in great hopes of setling the Protestant Reli­gion in purity, and extirpating Popery out of the 3. Kingdoms: at this time the Popes Politicians were got into the Parl: Army, under the name of Independents, from which the King fled to the Scots.

The King being fallen into the Covenanters hands, viz. the Scottish Army, the Parl: made speedy and seasonable applications to him at Newcastle, offering to him Articles of agreement, which news was forthwith carried to Rome; whereupon the Pope and the Conclave of Rome were inforced to look about, and change their designes, project­ing new wayes by contrary proceedings to effect one and the same end; for whereas they had given order to the Catholiques in Ireland before to yield all assistance to the King against the Parl Seeing now the King was under the Parl: power, least he and his Parl: should agree, and so England and Ireland be lost, the Pope played aforehand game, sending his Army into Ireland, commanding at this time all the Cathol quests renounce their allegiance to the King of England, and from that day forward the Pope, and all the Romish Politicians projected how to destroy both King and Parl: and de­stroy the Reformation by the Covenanters, so far carried on both in England and Scot­land.

[Page 15] The task was hard at first view; to destroy a Religious Parliament, a victorious Army, and an able, pious, and zealous Clergy, was no small piece of work. The Romish poli­ticions therefore were inforced to fly to their last refuge of Hypocrisie and lies, and like Euphrates Frog, to change both shape and colour, using the violent motion of Frogs from one extream to another, from the extream of Tyranny, to the extream of Anarchy; from the extream of holy Orders to the extream of no ordination. In plain tearms the Pope and his Counsel perceiving there was no probable way to get a Toleration for Catholicks in the Kingdom of England, if the King, Lords and Commons agreed; con­sulted how to throw down King, Lord and Commons, and Assembly of Divines, toge­ther with the Protestant Ministery.

That the chief Engines to effect this might be placed here in England, and have sure footing free from the power of the Magistrates corrective and coercive power; Indepen­dency was set up which five valiant Champions of the Popes had defended in the Assem­bly as long as they could; and being there able to stand against truth no longer, like Serpents hissed for all the viperous brood of Sectarious blasphemers, or any Sect to creep into their bellies. Hereby Independencie that bottomlesse pit, and Independent con­gregations, (the very plot designed to destroy Religion in the Nethetlands by the Pope, first enacted there by Hugh Peters the Popes hyerling) became as so many nurceries of Jesuite: and Popish Priests, and so many dens of Theeves; where they framed all their picklocks opinions and devilish destructive instruments to ruin the Magistracy and the Ministery. For the propagating and facilitating of this design, the chief of the Romish Politicians in Europe were sent to England, where they all went under the name of dissenting brethren, Independents, tender consciens-men, and great Enemies to Anti­christ, crying, down with Antichrist, calling the Pope Anti-Christ; not that they thought so but that they might hereby carry an their design of throwing down the protestant Ministery undiscovered for this to this day is their great and chief argument The Pope is Anti-christ (thats true Antichrist making Bishops, Bishops are Antichristian, (that in some sortis true also)

Antichristian Bishops making and ordaining Ministers, Ministers of England, are Anti­christians. Ergo down with the Ministery of England, down with these black-coats, down with Baals Priests, down with them, there is the design, and there is the end of all. They onely use the Argument to put in practice the conclusion; they that presse the Argument, and first framed it, were far from thinking the Pope to be Antichrist, or Prelatical Bishop, eithe; onely it was framed to destroy the Covenanteeres Ministery, who abhor the Pope, and long since renounced him and his adherents.

If it be well observed, Indepency was but the wooden horse with a thousand Here­sies in his belly, brought into the Kingdom of England by the Romish Politicians, and let forth as so many furies to sly in the face of the reformed Religion. For he that views the Heresies of late sprung up amongst us, cannot but see that against every one of the Assemblies, 33. Articles they raised contrary Heresies; and could the silly English Secta­rians of their own heads without the help of Jesuits and Romish Casuists do all this? 'tis solly to think it. The late Heretical Arguments are taken out of Cas [...]sts; how sub­tilly did they devise liberty of conscience meerly to get free from the Magistrate, and [Page 16] how vehemently did they preach peace, for love, and meeknesse, and admonishing on,e another in love, and being tender of giving offence to tender cousciences; whereas we plainly see they had war and murther and malice in their hearts, onely thereby they Iull'd asleep secure and bleer-eyed Protestants who suffered these cheates to pick their pockets, while they heard them cry Gentlemen look to your purses; they cried out be­ware of Antichrist, who brough him in, & be good to tender consciences while they car­ried under their sheeps cloathing the wolves teeth to wound tender consciences withall.

To tell how these subtilly crept into the Army, who nourished and upheld them there would be too tedious. Our end i [...], to shew that the setting up of Indepency was the Popes design to throw down the Covenanting party in England, and those that opposed the Popish Religion. Out of this bottomlesse pit came all that party which first taught Re­bellion against the higher powers, from the dens of Independensie arose that party that lest off the Covenant, professed open hatred to it and them that took it with an intent to keep it.

That party that raised those Heresies against the true Religion, having now got power put them in practice against true Religion They that held the opinion of being free from Magistracie under the Gospel, now made themselves free. They that held Magistrates Ty­ran's, [...]ow having got power used them as Tyrants; these guifted brethren wete now high in the Army.

The chief men that were aimed, at were those that stood most stoutly to their Cove­na [...]t

The chief Protestants both in the House of Lords, the House of Common, and in the C [...] of London, were the men shot at, impeached, imprisoned, persecuted, banished, and some ('tis to be feared) poisoned.

This party laid hold of the King, imprisoned him, and when the two Houses of Lords and Commons sate freely, and voted a Treaty with the King, and when the King had agreed to extirpate Popery, and establish the Protestant Religion in his three King­doms, and to fettle Church-Government according to the primitive constitution; and when upon a free and serious debate the Lords and Commons voted the concessi­ons of the King to be a ground for them to proceed upon to settle the peace of the Kingdom, then, even then, this party against the Votes of the Supream Authority of this Nation, and against their allegiance violently rushed in upon the houses pulled out and restrained one hundred and fifty, imprisoned the chief Protestants, and ablest States-men who were most violent against the Papists.

[Page 17] and left only a party remaining in the lower House, such as themselves best liked of; this party seized on the King, caused him to be publiquely arraigned, and at his own door at Noon in the view of all the people cut off his Head, who was then the only Protestant King in the world, and only because he resolved to root out Popery, and establish true Religion according to the Covenant.

Since which time the same party having rid their hands of the Protest­ant Magistracy, have oft printed Books against the Calling of the Eng­lish Ministry, which Books have been printed by Authority, licensed, and frequently taught and scattered amongst the people.

And they have again and again petitioned that Power which they set up, if not to pull down Ministry, States Preachers (as they call them) to take away their Estates, their Tythes and Livings, by which they and their families subsist; and how far they have proceeded in England and Wales to ruine the Covenanters Ministry, all the world may see. But the chief Politicians amongst them conceiving that Design to be too short to reach all the Protestant Ministry, as the Heads of Colledges, and such men, and being well assured by taking away Tythes they shall prejudice their own party equal with othets, have pitched upon a more Politick Design for the extirpation of the Covenanters, which is by framing a contrary Oath to the Covenant, and imposing it upon the Ministry; hereby their own par­ty escape the snare, and only the Godly, Faithful, Loyal and Orthodox Ministers are taken; they have taken their Tythes from them, silenced some, thrust out of their Livings many, banished others, imprisoned o [...]hers, outlawed all the Covenanters; and lastly, have resolved to turn them this Winter out of all Cities, Towns and Corporations. Thus far have they proceeded by this Popish Engine to destroy the Protestants.

This New Oath (so far as we can perceive) is a meer Design to de­stroy the Parliament, to destroy the Army, to destroy the Ministery and the Kingdome.

1. Mr. Lilburn seemeth rationally to prove that this new oath or ingage­ment cannot be intended to uphold the present power that inforceth the taking of it, but to maintain the Liberties of the Common-wealth, whose just Liberties and Ancient customes they confound, and therefore by that ingagement men (say that party justly) are bound not to establish but to pull down any usurped power over the people.

2, If Mr Lilburn who is a man very popular in the Kingdome, having alwayes been a publick sufferer, should (as he conceives himself bound by that Engagement) gather of Gentlemen Souldiers and other Com­moners and free-born People of England, a considerable Party to remove those out of the way, whom he and his party conceive are Tyrannical, and Opposers of the People, and in their stead erect another Party, who are the true chosen Representatives of the People; whether he may not just­ly tax all the Engagers that resist him, as Covenant-breakers, and pro­ceed against them accordingly; and so consequently whether this doth not open a gap, and a wide one, to set up whom the People shall choose [Page 18] above the present House sitting and Engagement; to be Assistants in such Parliament confounding Acts, as 'tis declared:

2. As it is destructive to the Parliament, so likewise to the Army; For saith one part of the Army, The present Government is by Representatives of the peoples choosing. Saith another part, The present Government is by that Party in the House of Commons, who invited us to the City to pull down the King, Lords, and the greatest part of the Commons, and by our Power enabled to make Acts, and enforce the Kingdom to obey them. Saith another part of the Army, The present Government is the Councel of State, and the Councel of War, for that party in the House were not of our setting up, only we suffured them to sit there, and the Councel of war commanded them to act what they did; there­fore the Councel of War, with the Councel of State, erected by us; are the present Government. Whether all these several Parties (especially if there should be clashing betwixt them) may not by this Engagement conceive them­selves in Conscience bound to maintain their several Parties as the pre­sent Government without King or Lords? And thus 'tis likely to prove destructive to the Army.

3. 'Tis absolutely destructive to the Protestant Ministry, and the sound Protestants of the Kingdom; For it makes them in the sight of all the people in the world guilty of the horrible and Jesuitical Designs and Pra­ctises of the cutting off of the King, the throwing down of the House of Lords, and excluding of the Covenant keeping Protestants; for by sub­scribing that Engagement, they testifie to God and the world, that they approve of all that they have done, (as they say.)

2. They make themselves guilty of horrible Perjury; for they did swear Allegiance to the King, his Heirs and Successors, to defend them a­gainst all Attemps and Conspiracies whatsoever; Now this is directly to conspire the extirpation of the Kings Posterity. 2. The Protestation is against it. 3. Their Covenant directly opposeth the Engagement; For therein they engaged to maintain the King, Lords and Commons; and in this Engagement they engage to they know not what, without King and Lords: So that if they engage, they in their Consciences pull the guilt of Murther, Treason, and other foul Facts upon their head [...], and forswear themselves; Or if they do not engage, they are it seems to be stripe of their Estates, protection of the Law, and lies at the mercy of every Villain. So that 'tis absolutely destructive to the Ministry, and the like may be said of the Protestants of the Kingdom.

Oaths (say the Caseists, and all other Divines) ought to be plain and clear, without equivocal terms or doubtful expression; For every Oath or Engagement is given and taken, to oblige the party that takes it to the performance of what he swore unto. Now every wise man in taking an Oath proposeth first these two things. 1. Who imposeth it. 2. What it is that is imposed.

For that's certain, an unlawful or usurped Power cannot impose an Oath; it is lawful Authority must impose it, otherwise the Oath (though good) may justly be refused, As the Gun-powder Traytors, had their [Page 19] Design taken effect, they had got into the Throne, and imposed an Oath (though lawful in it self) upon the Barons, Knights, Citizens, Gentry, and Commons of England, yet it would doubtless and ought to be rejected by them, because the Authority was imposed which usurped it. This must needs be so, for otherwise a Master, if over-powered by his servants, is bound to take and submit to such an Oath as his servant shall impose, which would soon set Beggers on horse-back, and make all men of Honor and Wealth perpetual slaves; but greater confusion then this there can not be in Hell, for 'tis Confusion bottomless and unfadomable.

2. What it is that is imposed? that must be inquired into, for no man of conscience or honour, or the least degree of wit, but will inquire what it is that he takes before he take it, he will not take it first and enquire af­terwards what it means, that's forbidden by Solomon.

Now that men may understand what they ingage or swear unto, the words ought to be simple, cleer, and plain, that men may understand them; For juramentum obligat lecundum intentionem jurantis sine d [...] alias secundum secundarium intellectum ejus cui juratur, saith Aquinas. Now if there be Amphibolas, equivocal terms and obscurities in an Oath, how can it possibly be but there must be errors either in him that gives it, or he that takes it, or both.

As for this Engagement indeed it is politiquely gilded like a poysoned Pill, with as much subtilty and craft to induce people to take it as may be, for they call it An Engagement, not an Oath, for then they supposed people would scruple it, but it is only subscribing to two or three words, and there's an end; this is no great matter with Atheists, Apostates, Schis­maticks, Lovers of the World, and Haters of God and Goodness; but they that are wise, sober-minded, and conscientious▪ As they two well know what Authority imposeth it, so they cannot possibly see what is in­intended in it, nor what to make of it. He that seriously views it, will positively conclude, there was never such a little big-belly'd viporous Monster seen in the world before, to have so many Engines within so small a compass, to teer in pieces all parties that engage in it.

We'l spread it to the eye of the world.

I. A. B. do promise and declare that I will be true and faithful to the Commonwealth of England as it is now established, without a King and House of Lords.

Within this little Circumference of words there are no less then two and twenty Doubts to be resolved, and necessary Queries to be answered, before this. Engagement can be taken by any man of Honour or Consci­ence, Viz.

1 Quere. What is the meaning of the word [Common-wealth?] Whe­ther is it meant in the primary proper sence, for the Body of the Nation, or for the common good of that Body? Or whether in the secundary borrowed sence, for the Body of the Representative?

2. Whether (if it be meant in the latter sence) by Common-wealth be meant a Parliament, or a House of Commons, chosen as formerly? or [Page 20] by any other way, and how? Or whether the thing be changed with the name?

3. Whether it be only an exclusive Engagement, as being against King and Lords, without including any Government in their stead to which we engage?

4. Is the meaning, that we shall be true and faithful to the Common­wealth whiles King and Lords are excluded? Or that we shall endeavor also to continue their exclusion? And so whether he that endeavoreth their restoring, or he that hinders it not, do break the Engage­ment, though he be faithful to the Commonwealth while they are ab­sent?

5. If the present Government should be overthrown, and King and Lords set vp, whether doth he break this Engagement who shall be faith­ful to them, or that shall swear or engage for them against the present Government?

6. If by Commonwealth be meant the present Government (as the words [Now Established] would make us think it is) then what is it that is esta­blished? whether an intire House of Commons, or not intire? whether only the present House, or all future, or any future? Whether this House to be perpetuated? or if not, whether to continue till they voluntarily dis­solve, which we know not whether it will be perpetuated or not, and con­sequently, whether we engage to any succeeding Parliament or not? Or if they dissolve, whether the next must be annual or triennial, or of dura­tion of their own pleasure as this? or whether chosen as formerly? or how?

7. Whether the meaning of the word ( As) be to engage us to endeavor that all future Parliaments shall be established in the same course, and by the same means as this hath been?

8. Whether the word ( Now) have reference to the first Calling of this House of Commons, or to any alteration since made? And if so, by whom? and when? and by what Authority was that change made?

9. What's meant by ( true and faithful,) whether only to do them no wrong, or not to be perfidious? or else to obey them? or further to engage and hazard our estates and lives on their behalf, or how far?

10. And so if King and Lords should raise an Army to recover their Authority, whether he that refuseth to fight against them do break his Engagement?

11. Seeing the people are judged the Supream Power (as it is acknow­ledged by the present House) do they hereby engage to their Represen­ters, or to the present Authority, as their Supreriors or Rulers? and so give away their Supremacy? or is it so natural to them, that they cannot give it away? (which else would have been done heretofore;) Or do they engage to them only as their Trustees or Servants? viz. That they will defend them in the work that they set them about?

12. Whether if an Army, or any powerful Company, should seize on the present House of Comons, or the greater part, & should imprison, exclude, or hang them up at Tybarn, are the people bound by this Engage­ment [Page 21] to rise for their Defence, and make War against these In­vaders?

13. If this Parliament or any hereafter should endeavor to perpetuate themselves, and so prevent our having any more free Elections, whether do we hereby engage to be true to them; or if we endeavor to dissolve them, do we break this Engagement?

14. Doth this Engagement take away the Power of the next Parlia­ment? And if they when they meet and sit restore King and Lords, which now are thrown down, do they break this Engagement?

15. If this next Parliament shall so re-establish King and Lords, and will not rule without them, must we resist all, and be without any Go­vernment? or must we endeavor to choose a new Parliament? and if they do the like, what must we do?

16. If the present House shall again change their Judgments, and set up King and Lords, or require us to swear to them, must we obey or resist them?

17. If this Army by observing that there is no Government but Mo­narchy, or one Insupremacy in all the Bible mentioned, or by reading that ( For the sins of people many are thy Rulers,) or by the experience of new divisions and parties in Parliament, breeding distempers in Govern­ment, or by being won over by the prevalency or flattery of some one single person, whose deserts and worth they conceive is such, as they resolve to make him sole Governor, and so set up Monarchy again, whe­ther we are bound by this Engagement to resist them?

18. Do we engage to the present Power absolutely or conditionally? If this or any other Representative shall Tyrannize and invade the peoples Estates, or take away propriety (which are things that cannot be authori­tative acts, because the people having no such power themselves, cannot give it to others, seeing there is no power but what's derived from Gods, who hath given none to do evil,) are we in this case bound to continue our faithfulness?

19. If the people shall find that this present House, or any other here­after, hath forfeited their Trust, or been guilty of the fore mentioned Crimes, may they not recall that their Trust, and exclude them from Go­vernment?

20. Or if any of us be members of the Army, and the said Army shall hereafter judg that this House hath been so guilty, and shall exclude some, and banish others, and behead others (for so the Powers as now establish­ed stand) and so we understand [as now established,] do we break the En­gagement if we joyn with the Army in so doing, or should we resist them?

21. If this minor part of this present House, or any succeeding, shall judg that the whole is in danger by a corrupt majority, and (having strength thereunto) shall exclude them, do they break the Engagement or we, if we further them in it?

[Page 22] 22. If one part of the People or Army shall judg that this or any fu­ture Representative hath been this Trust, and the other part judg other­wise, which must we adhere to according to this Engagement?

When the Authors of this Engagement shall clearly and fully resolve these Doubts, and give national and satisfactory Answer to these Queries, they will in great measure satisfie the Kingdom, at leastwise the more ra­tional part of them, and much more dispose them to engage for the good of the Kingdom; until then, we could heartily wish that Mr Dury, and such vain Bablers (who most grosly abuse and misapply Scripture, and other Moral Rules) might be refrained from vometing up in the pub­lique view such indigested Crudities, to the scandal of the English Nation, and reproach of the Protestants throughout the world.

We do profess, when the lawfulness of the Authority that imposeth it shall be made out clear to us, and our Doubts fully resolved, with the ma­nifesting of the Iustice, Goodness and Necessity of this Engagement, we speak it seriously and unfeignedly, there shall none more willingly nor readily then our selves subscribe it, until then, we cannot but think the pressing of the Engagement, and the punishing the Non-Subscribers with with such intollerable punishments, as the exposing their Estates and per­sons to open violence, such on enslaving, irrational and destructive Act against the Protestants of England, as since the planting of the Gospel in this Kingdom until this day, the like destructive Act can scarce be found, It enslaves the Souls as well as the bodies of men; for what greater snare can there be to the Conscience, then to be inforced to en­gage to they know not whom? 2. To they know not what? All the light that is in it is, that it plainly tells a man that subscribes it, that he swears point blank against his Oath of Allegiance, his Protestation and his Co­venant, all which engage him to maintain King and Lords▪ this engageth him against King and Lords in the bare words.

Object. It is said by the most learned of the Engagers, That the taking of this Engagement is no breach of the Covenant, because the Covenant obligeth no longer then there is a possibility of keeping it; but King and Lords being taken away, there is no possibility of maintaining that that is not.

Sol. But we humbly conceive (under favor) that this Argument is no way satisfactory; For though it be granted, that 'tis impossible for a Co­venanter to maintain King and Lords when they are thrown down, yet 'tis not impossible for him in his calling and place to maintain Kingly Government; As it is impossible for the son to yield actual obedience to the father whom Theeves and Robbers have murthered, yet 'tis possible for that son to express his fillial affection that he bore to his father, and his real intentions of preserving his father, by exclaiming against the Malefactors, and using all lawful means to bring such men to condign punishment, and utterly shunning all compliance with them.

Put the case a company of hired servants in a family should conspire to kill the Master of the family, or imprison him, and seize on the wealth [Page 23] and estate of their Master, divide it amongst them, proclaim themselves Lords and Masters of the family, command the children to yield obedi­ence to them; though the children are not able to resist them, nor yield that obedidence for the present which is due to their father, nor the wife express that conjugal love, by reason of the violent restrant and separa­tion; yet it is possible for the wife to abhor the company, and disclaim the authority of those servants, not to own them for her lord, nor submit unto them, nor be confederate with them, though she cannot for the present enjoy her husband; and so for the children, though they cannot possibly love as their father, yet they may disclaim the power that abused their father, pray for his restoring, and abhor compliance with that party, that so presumptuously and wickedly threw down their father; This they may do, and are bound to do by the Law of Nature, as children to a father; and to do the contrary, as to be confederate with those that destroyed their father, were unnatural wickedness, and a meer Conspiracy, notwithstand­ing their father were not then in being. Rex pater patriae.

2 We affirm, That the Kings Title is now on foot, and the Lords in being, therefore there is a possibility of keeping the Covenant now.

Can any created (much less usurped) Power free us from our Oath, which we made to maintain King, Lords and Commons, Religion, Liber­ty; and the Peace and Union of the Kingdom? and never to be drawn directly or indirectly by any Combination, Perswasion or Terror to be divided from this blessed Union and Conjunction, whether to make de­fection to the conteary part, or give our selves to a detestable nutrarity or indiffterency, but all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition. This clause of the Covenant seems to be made purposely against the Powers now in Command; And do they imagine that men of Conscience or Honour will so foully blur their Profession and Reputation, and endanger their Souls, by a contrary Subscription? Ashcam tells us, That usurped Powers are so, notwithstand­ing theyout and succeed another generation.

We would fain know, whether subscribing this Engagement be not an acknowledging of the present Power sitting to be the Supream Authority of the Nation? and consequently in so doing whether we do not approve of their cutting off the King, throwing down the House of Lords, and cast­ing out all the Covenant-keeping Commons, with the rest of the Cove­nant keeping Officers in the Kingdom, hereby contracting the guilt of Blood, Treason, and other foul Enormities to our selves, by being partaker in other mens sins, which David, Psal. 1. bids us neither to sit with, nor stand with, nor walk with, not to have the least communion with?

Object. But is objected by the ablest of them from Rom. 13. 1, 2. That that the Powers that be are to be obeyed, let them be what they will be, if they are in being they are to be obeyed, because they are the Ordinance of God.

Ans. The Apostle layeth this Command upon Subjects, not to rebel against the visible Supream Authority, this the Engagers hold to be the [Page 24] sence of the Apostle if so, then hence we draw this Argument, Whatso­ever subiects shal Rebel against a visible supream Authority, they resist the Ordinance of God. But an Army and other subiects in contradicting the Votes of the two Houses, cutting off the King and pulling down the house of Lords Rebel against the Supream Authoritie, Ergo. Here is an Argument ad homi­nem, so that the Apostle seems to tell us that usurping powers are not the Ordinance of God, but the resisters of the Ordinance of God; and there­fore by their own Arguments the present power is rather to be dealt with as resisters of the visible Supream Authority then obeyed or acknowledg­ed for Supream.

As for that of Christs acknowledging Caesar, 'tis well known the Case is far different from ours, for the Roman Emperors had conquered Iudea many years before, and the whole Nation became Tributary to the Ro­mans, the Supream Authority of the Iews acknowledged Caesar to be their King, We have no King but Caesar, and they had for a certain Tribute compounded with Caesar, which Tribute money Christ forbids them not, but commands them to pay▪ if the Iews will Covenant with Caesar Christ bids them not break Covenant with Caesar, and this is all, and how far is this from our Case? Iesus Christ is a great enemy to usurpation and so much abhors that Christians should subject unto it, es­pecially under the Gospel, that he cals it Devil worship, Revel, 13. 4. Subjecting to a Tyrannicall Government is called the worshiping of the Devil; Verse 1, 2. the beast arising out of the Sea, (i. e.) the Eccle­siastical State; meaning the Pope, the great Independant or the world; (verse 2.) to whom the Devil, the Dragon, gave his seat and power, and great authority, The Dragons seat (before Constantine) was the Em­perial Throne seated at Rome, this the Devil gave the Pope; and why is it said the Devil gave him his power and seat, but because he got it in the Devils way? by lying, Covenant-breaking, Rebellion against their Leige Masters the Emperors, and his murthering and dethroning of them, and usurping their authority. This usurped power of the Pope, verse 3, the world wondered after, that is, yeelded subjection unto, ac­knowledged his soveraignty; and Verse 4. and they worshiped the Dra­gon; how so? the next words tell you, he gave power to the Beast; The Romans did not, and the Roman Catholiques did never absolutely professe themselves worshipers of the Devil, but in as much as they wor­shiped an usurped Power, a Power gotten by Treachery, Rebellion, mur­ther, and deceit, they worshiped the Devil. This Text holds out two clear Truths. 1. That there are Powers which are not of Gods setting up, out of the Devils setting up. 2. To subject to such usurped power, is subjection to the Devil, and as odious in the sight of Christ as wor­shiping of the Devil.

Object. Kings were ordained in wrath, and God was angry with Is­rael for desiring a King; Ergo, Kings are not the government approved by God.

Sol. To this we answer in a word to the Engagers, who upon this ground reject the government of Kings.

[Page 25] 1. God did not give the office of a King, but the person of a King in wrath▪ for when God took away the person, he continued the office. 2. He promi­sed to Abraham that Kings should come of him. 3. He that denyes the office of a king, denyes Christ who is a King, and denyes the established Govern­ment (in the form of it) by God in the Church since Adam.

2. God was not angry with them simply for seeking a king, but, 1. for their manner of seeking a king; they would seek one in the pride of their heart, onely to be like other Nations: 1 Sam. 8. 5. their hearts were hankering after not only to be like other Nations government, but their Religion. [...]. For that they sought a king inordinately, they could not be content with a go­vernment that was over them, but had an itching discontented humor against the present visible government. They made a remonstrance that their Judges were unjust, therfore they would be no longer subject to them: v. 5. this God is angry at. For Subjects to reject, or indeavour to change the govern­ment of a kingdom, or to overthrow the visible lawfull Authority upon dis­like of the Government, is a God-provoking sin, let the Ingagers look to it. The supreme Powers are onely disposed of by God. Doubtlesse they might have prayed to God in his due time to fulfill his promise, Gen. 16. of giving them a king, for Israel never came to the high noon of Reformation and glo­ry till kings were set over, and that was in Solomon, at which time the Church and State of the Jews flourished beyond all things before or since: so that in praying for a king in order to the glory of God, the accomplishment of his promises, and the good of his Church, it had been no sin: but for the peo­ple of their own heads mutinously, and in opposition to a visible Authority, to desire a king, this was a great sin.

Ob. If Gods providence order such things, we must submit to providence, and revealed decrees of God, lest we be found fighters against God.

Sol. To this we answer: there are the decrees of God, and the commands of God, we speak of them now as contra-distinct things quo ad nos.

The precepts or revealed commands of God in his word, are the unquesti­onable rules of Christians at all times, whereby to regulate all their actions, against which no providence nor necessity can prevail: so as to dispense with those Laws or precepts, we mean morall precepts, such as are naturally moral, not morall barely by institution, for such a morall differs nothing from cere­moniall, except in duration; such morall precepts, in extremâ necessitate, may be dispensed withall, as to help an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath day, which is a labour, and toil, and simply a breach of the Sabbath, yet in regard of the necessity it gives a dispensation, or rather the Law dispenseth with it. But as for morall commands which are such by nature, they are indispensible rules, except in the case of an immediate call to the contrary by revelation from God. As Abraham was call'd to kill his son Isaac, which was against a naturall precept, yet having an immediate call from God, had not God stayed his hand, he might have lawfully done it: because he that commanded Abraham so to do was the Lord, and maker of the Law, which he can dispense with. But this case cannot be ours under the Gospel, because God hath given us his revealed will in writing, since which immediate revelations have ceased in the Gospel Churches, there being no need of them at all.

[Page 26] Now as for the Providentiall acts of God, or his revealed decrees, these are no rules for us to walk by, nor follow any otherwise then they concur with the revealed will of God in his precepts. We bring a case shall make good this assertion, and stop the mouthes of all rationall antagonists.

In the 1 King. 11. 29. to v. 39. there was that decree revealed to Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah, who exactly revealed Gods intentions to give to him ten of the twelve Tribes, and the house of David but two, Judah and sickly Benjamin, scarce worth the mentioning as a Tribe it was so small. God reveals the reason to him why he did it, viz: for idolatry, and forsaking the true God. This, v. 37. donation of Gods to Jereboam is repeated again to him, that God would choose him, and give him a vast power over the people, to do, and reign as his heart could desire. Here if ever a man might have pleaded Pro­vidence, and have urged the revealed decree of God for attempting treason against Solomon, certainly (if in any case or person) it had not been rebellion in him to attempt that which Providence had decreed him. Nor rebellion in Israel to have subjected to him whom God had declared to be their king.

But Jereboam in following the revealed decree of God▪ contrary to a moral precept of God, viz: the fifth Commandment, which injoyneth Subjects and inferiors to submit to their lawfull superiors, for this very cause he is set down in the word of God as a Rebell against Solomon: 1 King. 11. 26. there he is put in the rear of the worst of the enemies of the Crown, and royall family of Is­rael, and stigmatized with this infamous mark of a Rebell: for, v: 26. Jere­boam the son of Nebat an Ephrathite of Zereda, Sauls servant—even he lift up his hand against the King: and the cause of this his rebellion is set forth in the rest of the following Chapter, because God had revealed his decree con­cerning the punishing of the Royall Family for their sin in giving him ten of the Tribes.

This revealed will of God was so far from justifying his acting against a mo­rall precept, that his actions are set forth hanging as it were on Hamans gal­lows, expressed in the terms of the highest treason, twice together, He lift up his hand against the King, he lift up his hand against the king.

Nor are the ten Tribes lesse excusable who subjected to Jereboam: for though they might have pleaded self preservation, and if they had not revolt­ed they had all been undone, and the providence of God who would have it so, who had decreed it so, and revealed those decrees to them by a Prophet, these might not be resisted, yet these ten Tribes notwithstanding for their rejecting of the visible and lawfull Authority, and supremacie of the king­dome, are twice branded in holy Chronicles for Rebels. 1 King. 12. 19. Israel rebelled against the house of David. And 2 Chron. 10. 19. Israel rebelled against the house of David.

So that it is manifest, that following of Providence is so far from being a Christians duty, that many times it is a desperate sin: and therefore it was that holy David when he might have cut off Sauls head, and when Provi­dence had cast him into his hands, he durst not walk by acts of Providence, but by divine precepts, which commanded him to do no murther. He might have pleaded self-preservation, and in killing him he had killed a publick Enemie, and a murtherer. But David had a better guide then Providence to direct him.

[Page 27] Witty and true was that expression of a pious and learned Divine: If Jo­seph in Aegypt had followed Providence, he had without doubt committed folly with his Mistris, and have said Providence put him upon it. We there­fore conclude, that acts of Providence are no rules for Christians to follow, and it is so far from resisting of God, the not being governed by them, that many times it becomes a great sin, as is evident by what hath been declared: and the ten Tribes have this sin written in bloody characters upon their back untill this day: for from Rebellion they turned to Idolatry; and from that day forward they sank deeper and deeper into misery, untill they lost their Religion, Laws, liberties, and Nation: which judgement remains upon them untill this day; God having hanged them in Gibbets to teach Posterities af­ter them to take heed of their sins, viz: of following Providence against a Precept:

Ob. But how comes it to passe, that they that make a scruple of subscribing this Ingagement, yet make no scruple of paying taxes: Is not such a subjecti­on an acknowledgement of their Authority? and do they not condemne themselves in doing one, and not the other?

A. We will not undertake to give the fullest Answer hereunto, yet we hope a satisfactory Answer we shall be able to give.

1. We therfore say, that we that do pay taxes do make scruples of paying them, and were we not inslaved should much more expresse our selves.

2. Paying of taxes doth not imply a not scrupling of the authority that demands and exacts them: A man may pay his money to a thief, yet not ac­knowledge that authority to be just.

3. Taxes that are now imposed are extorted, and not voluntarily payed: and (as to that) a power is usurped over mens estates, as if the Nation were compleatly conquered Now in such a case we conceive our selves meerly pas­sive, and no way active, at least free from any spontaneous act. Now this is far from acknowledging the iustness and lawfulness of the supremacie of such a Power; tis one thing to be inforced to a subjection in person and estate; and quite another thing to acknowledge that power which usurps this authority to be supreme and legall, which the Ingagement absolutely inforceth upon the Subscribers.

But let the world judge from this Objection, how cruel and tyrannical that Government is, that when the poore Protestants shall be content to sub­mit to most grievous taxes for quietnesse sake; yet this is not sufficient, un­lesse they will subject their souls, and insnare them also in unreasonable and cruell bondage. Is it not sufficient for the paying of taxes, bearing of Free-quarter, and suffering many afflictions to purchase (that which in no age was ever denyed) our freedom, but we must be cut-lawed, accounted the off-scouring of the world, and exposed to the cruelty of merciles men without remedie; must our estates, our livelihoods be taken away, our wives ravish­ed, our children dis-inherited, our goods rifled and must we have no remedy, and all because we will not [...]ump with men in their opinion? Let all Europe judge between our enemies and us this day, what have we done against them thus to provoke them, who of us have lifted up our hands against them where are these of us that in any taxes are behind? but we have payed it [Page 28] double, and yet a thousand of our families are ruined by them; they have ta­ken away our offices, and livelihoods, they have suspended and imprisoned sundry of our Orthodox and Presbyterian Ministers, and now have layed a snare to pluck them out of their Benefices, and at last to drive them the king­dome, as men unworthy to be protected. Where is that liberty of conscience they so much pleaded for before they got to be supreme, is not that forgot now? Are not Mr. Edwards his words fulfilled, who fore-warned the kingdom of that party which pleaded for Liberty of Conscience, saying, If ever they got power they would not grant liberty of conscience to others, who now so much plead for it for themselves.

This is our comfort in our distresse, that though on all hands we are ha­ted, and persecuted, and repreached by our enemies, yet for all this we have not dealt falsly in our Covenant: and we can say more in our distresse to up­hold our hearts then all our enemies, Lord thov knowest our integrity.

We will onely adde one thing (which indeed is no addition, but a vehe­ment reiteration, that this new Ingagement may be explained according to our Queries, or any other way to satisfie the rationall and sober minded part of the Kingdom, and if possible the drawer of it up, and first framer of it may be known. This would give wonderfull satisfaction not onely to private men, but Parliament men, who know the framer of it, and stop the mouthes of such who say, that Sir Kelenem Digby, and that patty that came with him from Rome into England (about the time of the throwing down of the Lords, and cutting off of the King, framed this Ingagement against the Protestants, and Covenanteers party; as also to ruine the Parliament, and Army. This by ma­ny rationall men is much credited upon this ground: because that the chief head-peeces of Rome, were at the cutting off of the King here in England, freely in oying their liberty; such as Sir Kelenem Digby, with his concealed Comrades, besides Sir Iohn Winter, Endimion Porter Esquire, Walter Montague Esquire, Sir Edw: Ford, all professed Papists, and the most of them proclaim­ed Traytors, some of them being of the blood of the gunpowder-traytors; these had all their liberties to flant it in the City of London, and West­minster Hall, and were courted, and gallantly entertained, whiles above 40. of the notorious Hereticks in the Popes black book, we mean stout Prote­stants (whose names many of them were at the Covenant in Print) were in­forced to look through the grates of Prisons, Sir William Waller, Major Gene­rall Brown, Coll: Coply, and others being to this day deteined and not the least cause shown for it, but only because they are Protestants many were inforced to make escapes, and flye beyond Sea as Coll. Hollis, Col: Massy, and severall Citizens of London: so that all men that had observed the Popes designes, since the Covenant was made against him in England, concluded that now the designe of the Popes had taken effect, and he had taken full revenge up­on the Parliament of England for all their Injuries done unto him and his party. Since which there onely remaineth of the Covenant keeping Presby­ [...]erian Ministery, against which many Petitions have been made, and put up to the House at Westminster, some to take them down, and some to take their means from them. But now the last and grand designe is to put upon them the new Ingagement, this hath scattered the Assembly of Divines in [Page 29] the first place, hath shaken and cast out the Heads of Houses in both Uni­versities, and daily creepeth more and more upon the Protestant Ministers both in the City and Countrey, clipping their estates, and keeping them out of Livings, and Benefices, whereby very many of the godly Ministers with their Families are like to starve already, these things make many Protestants imagine, that the design is to pluck up all the sound Protestants in the King­dom, both of Magistrates and Ministers, and so by degrees to eradicate the Protestant Religion, and all to make way for Popery, which hath already got stronger footing in the Kingdome then the Protestant Religion: for all the oaths that were against their consciences are taken away, and a new one set up well pleasing to the Papists, onely offensive to the Protestants: nay all Laws against the Papists are repealed, and they restored to their ancient li­berties in Q. Maries daies, and worse Laws against the Protestants, then in her daies. Nor is this inconsistent with State policy, for if it be true as it is beleeved, and reported to be true, that the designe is to set up Monarchy in another family, they cannot do it without the alteration of Religion, for the Protestants they are resolved to keep their Covenant, and the Sectarians they are in no wise to be leaned upon, by reason of their instability, they are like Jackdaws that flye from Church to Church, sometimes here, sometimes there, Heterogenious parts in an intire body, are fit to throw down a go­vernment: But unfit to erect another. But the Jesuite he is both a Statesman, and a staid man upon the Romish bottome, and that party, viz: the Romish party, are all allies in the Catholick cause; so that he that will usurp a Mo­narchy, his onely pollitique way is to joyn with that party who can befriend him in every Countrey. For all Catholick Princes are bound by an Oath, as much as in them lies, to promote the Catholique cause, and what Prince that is a Papist dares be assistant to a Protestant Prince against an usurper, that hath promised the Pope to set up the Catholique cause, and root out Prote­stants, that Prince that should do so, should be sure to be cursed whith bell, book, and candle at Rome: nay what King durst refuse (upon the Popes command,) to be assistant to the usurper, against the true head being a Pro­testant; we will say no more: what others say, either to tell of Sir Kenelem Digby his being sent to Rome, or of Quarter-master Generall Watsons going after him, or of his instructions what to agitate at the Popes Court, or of the Popes designs in Ireland against the Protestants.

But we will desire the Author who ever he be, or the power that put it forth, that they will tell us, what is the meaning of his new Ingagement, and make it cleer to us that they can lawfully impose it: and when the justnesse thereof in each particular shall be made out, that it is for the glory of God, the advancement of Religion, the establishment of lawfull Magistracy, and the establishing and reforming of the State, as the tenour of the Covenant runs, we do again professe that we will with all joyfulnesse submit, and sub­scribe thereunto.

But if upon cleer and manifest grounds it appear to be destrctive to the Parliament, Religion, Laws, Liberty, Kingdom, and Army, and a meer design to introduce Popery, they will be so far from promoting it (we hope) that they will speedily remove it out of the way, as a burdensome stone up­on [Page 30] Christians consciences, and the Kingdoms Gangreen. We could wish them to take notice of the hand of God against it since is came forth, the same night that the Act for the taking the Ingagement was printed, the same night a dreadfull blow by powder, which blew up 70. and odde persons, and slew them all in the twinkle of an eye: Lieut: Coll: Smith, who was Sir Har­dresse Wallers L: Coll: he that was the busie man in pulling the Members of the Commons House out of the House, and imprisoning the Members, he was blowed up in the midst of his cups, and slain: and since that one of the pro­moters of the Ingagement (we tremble to mention it) on Jan: 30. through the terror of conscience, and temptation of the devil, hanged himself. We cannot but take notice of Gods displeasure and wrath which breaks out dai­ly amongst us, in fires and murthers since this Ingagement came forth.

We therefore resolve (as we hate perjury, rebellion and treason) not to touch with this Ingagement, until upon evident grounds of humane rea­son, or Divinity, it be made clear, that it is for the good of Religion, Laws, Magistracy, and Ministery: and this our resolution is so reasonable, and just, that we conceive none but unreasonable men, and the enemies of Church and State, Parliament, Army and people will speak against it, or oppose this our resolution.

Ob. There is one objection or false glosse which the Ingagers make, and that is in the clause of the 3d. Article of the Covenant concerning the King, that we covenanted with the Parliament to defend the King so far as he de­fended the Protestant Religion: but if he act contrary, then to bring him to Justice according to the Covenant, that injoyns us to bring Delinquents to condigne punishment. But, say they, the King was a great Delinquent, and an enemy to the Protestant Religion.

A. To this we answer briefly: 1. The two former Articles of the Cove­nant speak wholly of the preservation of the reformed Religion, the 3d. Ar­ticle speaks wholly of the preservation of the King, and Parliament, and king­dome, which together with the preservation of Religion we covenanted to defend. To defend his Majesties person [in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the kingdom] is not inserted conditional­ly, as I will defend his person no longer then he shall defend Religion, and the Laws. If so, then twas taken with the like condition to be subject to the Parliament: and then it must necessarily follow, that we the Subjects make our selves the Kings Judges and that man or party may revolt from the King, and indevour to pull him down, because he maintains not his Religion; and therfore we renounce that Interpretation of that Clause as Jesuiticall. We Protestants took it in this sence, that we would, together with our Religion, preserve our King and Parliament absolutely: And if they did act any thing con [...]rary to Religion, or Law, we were resolved to yeeld passive obedience, and in no wise to resist the higher Powers But grant it (which we will not) that it had been meant conditionally, so long as he preserves Religion: how comes it, that when the King had fully determined, and yeelded to root out Popery, and to establish the Protestant Religion in the three Kingdoms, and to establish Church government, and put the Militia in the Parliaments hands; and when the Parliament voted his concessions a ground to proceed [Page 31] on to settle the Kingdom, then he was snatched away, and both King and Parliament thrown down. This plea of theirs joyned with their practice, would make any man beleeve the Ingagers flat Papists. How can they say they sincerely maintain the rights and privileges of Parliament, when they contradict their Votes, and take the boldnesse to tell them they are all trea­cherous, and lay violent hands on them, and exclude them from sitting in the House, and imprison them? And how can they say they defended his Maje­sties person in the maintaining of true Religion, when they cut him off, even then, when both the Houses of Parliament and He had even concluded the Treaty, to root out Popery, and establish the Protestant Religion? What Subject, especially hired servants, dare presume to contradict the Parliaments Votes upon serious debate, shall any one party of Subjects surmises out­weigh the grave and serious debates of a Parliament? Tis true subjects du­ty to submit to higher Powers, not resist them. But this was a resist­ance at that very time when all things were concluded in a manner, for set­ling the kingdome in peace, and true Religion. So that they that upon this ground plead for the necessity of cutting off the King, must plead it, because he would no longer defend the Popish Religion. And therfore from the In­gagers own Argument of cutting off the King, we cannot subscribe to this In­gagement; lest the world take us for most rank hypocrites, vile Apostates, and absolute Papists.

Reader, the times are such that they will not admit such Papers to be per­used, and corrected to thy hand: therefore be pleased to amend with thy pen these grosse mistakes of the Printer.

P. 1. l. 4. for, and peace and religion, r: pure Religion and famous Princes to defend both. l. 5. for, Fortescus, r. Fortescue. l. 10. for, disposing, r. dispensing. l. 11 for, Ras, r. res l. 16. for, spoke, r. speaks. l. ult: for, faind, r. found p. 2. l. 3. for, mat­ter for, r. matter, so for. l. 6. for, for, r: so. l: 7. for, constitution, r: constituting. l. 9. for, conjunctions, r: conjunctim. l. 10. for apax, r. apex. l. 12. for, procession, r: pro­cesses, l. 13. for, divisions, r: divisim. l. 14. for compunction, r: conjunctim. l. 17. for, limitations, r. as for limitations, for, power have, r: power they have. l. 33. blot out, and the kingdom of England by King, Lords, and Commons, p. 4. l. 3. for, time, r: line. l. 4. fer, divided Henry, r. divided. Henry, pvt out, and l. 13. for, laying, t: uniting. l. 21. 22. put out, whose antiquity is beyond all kings in the world. l. 32. for, [...]00. r: 1000. l. 34. blot out, alwaies acknowledged and granted by the king. p. 5. l. 21. for, then, r. the three, l. 35. for, vegative, r. Negative. l. 31. for, publike, r. politick, p. 7. l. 2. for, lover, r: honour. l. 3. for, their, r: your. for, give, r: grant. l. 5. for, 4. but. r: 4. N. 17. But. l. 7. for, accesse, r: excesse. l. 10. for, meaner, r: meanest. l. 7. for, is, r: as. l. 19. for, implies, r: imploys. l. 34. for, ap­proves, r: appeals. l. 35. for, and infinition, r: ad infinitum. p. 8. l. 1. for, Giudas, r: Guildas. l. 2. for, at, r. of. l. 6. for, ptesevitians, r: persecutions. l. 8. for Entichion Heresies, r: Eutichian Hereticks. for Popus, r: Popes, l: 15. for Lucious, r: Lucius l. 17. for, righteous, r. religious. l. 19. for, Helea, r: Helena. l. 25 for, up, Christian, r. up, the first Christian: l. 29. for, Antichrisian, r: Antichristian. l. 35. for, in­trapped, r: Religious. l. 38. for, got, r: Acted.