CERTAIN DISQUISITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Representing to the Conscience the unlawfulness of the Oath, entitled, A solemn League and Covenant for Reformation &c.  
As also the insufficiency of the Arguments used in the Exhortation for taking the said Covenant.  
Published by command.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the University. 1644.   

CERTAIN DISQUISITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Representing to the Conscience the unlawfulness of the Oath, entitled, A solemn League and Covenant for Reformation, &c.  
We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the gospel, and Commons of all sorts in the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by the providence of God living under one King, and being of one reformed Religion, having before our eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty, and His Posterity, and the true public Liberty, Safety and Peace of the Kingdoms, wherein every one's private condition is included, and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of God against the true Religion, and professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms ever since the reformation of Religion, and how much their rage, power, and presumption are of late, and at this time increased and exercised; whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies; We have now at last, (after other means of Supplication, Remonstrance, Protestations, and Sufferings) for the preservation of ourselves and our Religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of God's people in other Nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do swear:  
SEeing it hath pleased the composers of this Covenant to set it forth with an Introduction, which contains that which (it seems) prevailed with them, and they expect should work upon the three kingdoms to take the following Covenant; it will be behooveful in the first place to reduce the conscience to a clear and strict examination upon the contents of this Introduction; and then if it shall find that all things therein be true, and withal sufficient to that end for which they were premised, (viz. to infer a necessity of swearing to all things contained in the following Articles) the conscience will be directed to follow that dictate: But if it fail in either of those, we must betake ourselves to other considerations to be guided by. We will therefore sincerely propound the contents of the Preface, as near as may be according to its method, joining together matters of the same kind: And then we shall find the discourse of the Preface to be resolved into these principles.  

1. The glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King &c. are to be aimed at and endeavoured.  
2. Especially when they are endangered.  
3. The means therefore necessary towards those ends are to be used, which are either Supplication, Remonstrance &c. or making war.  
4. The former are first to be used, but if they fail, than the latter.   
These are the universal maxims, whereon (by application to the present condition) the taking of the Covenant is enforced: The three first then being granted, they subsume, that having used the former, and failing of success, we are all necessitated to use the latter, viz. To swear to join with the Scots in arms, which is the general, and to those particulars after mentioned in the Articles.  
That such joining in arms is the general end of the Covenant, will appear by comparing the sixt Article of the Covenant for mutual assistance and defence of one another, with the 14 Article of the Instructions, wherein the imposers of this Oath appoint to be read (Publicly at the time when the Covenant is read) the Declaration of the kingdoms of England and Scotland joined in arms for the vindication, &c. In which Declaration, the taking this Covenant is made one of the grounds both of their confidence (as they say) that this war wherein they are so deeply engaged is of God, and of their resolution (which they profess) with courage and constancy unto the end to do their part.  
Whosoever therefore is not persuaded in his conscience, either that all these means mentioned, and all other such like have been used, and have been rejected; or upon supposition that they had, yet doubts of the consequence (viz. that such an Army may be levied, and such a war managed) cannot without deadly sin (though disengaged from oaths for any of the following particulars) upon the former principles take this Covenant. But not to insist hereon, we will briefly run over the several places of the Preface, and consider the natural intimations from them; only supposing for example, the end of this Covenant to be the assistance, or at least, consent in this present joining in arms, applying it to men of the Church of England.  
ay, A. B. living under the King.] This cannot reasonably be a motive to war, but obedience to him; nor a motive to enter into a public League, Oath and Covenant not prescribed by Law, without him, much less against his express Proclamation; forasmuch as an Oath for confirmation (either assertory or promissory) is to men for an end of all strife: And a public Oath propounded to a Nation or Nations, is for the ending of public strife and divisions: and of any public strife of a Nation or Nations, under one King (properly so called) the King is the supreme judge in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil (as is evident by the Law of God, 1 Pet. 2. And to us moreover by the Law of the Land, 24 H. 8. c. 12. by the doctrine of the Church of England Art. 37. the book of Homilies, and establish●d Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.) And therefore such an Oath and Covenant may not be entered into without and against the allowance of the King, who is the supreme Judge even in the supreme Judicatory itself.  
Being of the Reformed Religion] established in the Church of England, the very mark and Character of which, as differenced from Popery and other Sects, hath been chiefly, that it hath always maintained, That it is not lawful in any case (not in the danger of their Religion) for subjects to take up arms against their lawful sovereign.  
Having before my eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.] Here the consideration of the mind requisite towards the judgement of conscience will be this; whether by this war, considered with its circumstances, the glory of God, &c. is more apt to be advanced then by peace: wherein, although reason might easily conclude, yet it will be much more certainly guided, if we shall examine those precepts which Christ and his Apostles have laid down, towards the accomplishment of those ends here proposed, and try whether they do suggest or intimate any thing towards such a war; If they do not (or if the contrary) the conscience having before its eyes the glory of God, &c. will not be induced to take this course for the advancement of it. For the rectification of conscience in this case, it will be requisite to consider this war to which we are enjoined to contribute, by whom and against whom it is undertaken: Where, if the conscience find it to be unlawful in the undertaking, it cannot lawfully consent or assist, viz. If it be no ways lawful for such as we are moved to join with, to take up arms against such as we should be sworn to oppose; If it might possibly be lawful in the first undertaking, it could no otherwise be but as it should be a necessary means to procure a just peace; and the determination of conscience in this case will depend upon the consideration of the conjunctures of things at the undertaking, and all the time of the continuance of this war: and if peace with truth might have been, or may be established without it, (much more if this means shall be found opposite) the conscience cannot without sin assent to this war: Here the mind is to examine the several propositions, motions, overtures, &c. which have been and are made by both parties, and according to them to judge.  
The happiness and honour of the King and his Posterity.] Here we are to consider, whether, or what this action of ours will contribute towards the honour and happiness of the King and his posterity. And because it is not easy to discover any foundation of such honour and happiness &c. besides, that the managers of this party with whom they would have us to join, have never particularly declared the way how these ends shall be or are advanced by their war (although it is one of their most common expressions:) the safest way (at least the most natural) for the conscience is to raise a judgement of what is likely to ensue upon what hath preceded (since these undertakings) upon the same Principles: where it is to consider, whether his Honour or Contumely have been increased by and since these wars. And so for the happiness of himself and his Posterity, consider whether if these men be upon the same design with those who gave him battle at Edge-Hill, Newberry &c. what those designs made towards the happiness of him, and his Posterity.  
The true public Liberty, Safety, and Peace of the kingdom] If the Scots (to whose assistance especially we are to be sworn) should not hereby be able to conquer and prevail, what will our taking of the Covenant advance the public Liberty and Peace of the Kingdom, according to the conceit of the enjoiners of the Covenant? If they should, consider how that can conduce to our Liberty, unless thereby be meant freedom from our ancient Laws, and from the settled happy government of Church and State, whilst we may fear to be put under uncertain new ones? Secondly, Safety, whether the danger of ruin do not outweigh or equalise the hopes of safety. Thirdly, Peace, whether this be the only, the likeliest, or indeed any probable means of procuring Peace? Seeing there are but two ways obvious by which this course should procure it, viz. Victory, or reducing the King to yield to their desires. Here the judgement of conscience will be grounded upon this, Whether the King be no way but by force inclinable to a just Peace?  
Wherein every one's private, &c.] This is subordinate to the former immediately preceding.  
Calling to mind the practices of the enemies of God against the true Religion, &c.] Here we are to consider and reckon up, who and of what sorts are the enemies of the Church of England, of which we are, and which is established by Law, to which we have subscribed, and what party in this quarrel is openly professed for it, hath equally declared against all sorts of its enemies, and which is not; and accordingly, &c.  
Whereof the deploreable estate of Ireland, &c.] Consider whether the true cause of this is to be referred (both in the rise and progress of it) to the King, or the malice of the Papists stirred up by those who (they say) had declared an intention of their utter extirpation? and secondly, where afterward the impediment of succour to those of our Religion lay?  
The distressed estate of England] whether that profession which is established by Law, be distressed by the King or by Sectaries?  
The dangerous estate of Scotland] Wherein was their danger after all things were settled with them and who brought them into that danger? that party which we should swear against, or themselves?  
After other means of Supplication, Remonstrance, Protestation, and Suffering] This which is here di●joyned from the rest of the motives, and cast into a Parenthesis, is indeed made the only foundation of this way of proceeding, and puts the only case wherein such a way of covenanting, &c. can be imagined to be lawful: So that if these means have not been both before, and ever since the undertaking of this design sincerely and effectually endeavoured (by the intimation of this introduction itself) this course is not warrantable; and there are other principles of Scripture and our Religion which are to be examined if they have been used such as infer, That it is not lawful in any case whatsoever to resist with Arms the lawful power by God set over us. Now whether these means have been and are to used, it will best appear by considering who hath sent the Messages for Treaty towards Peace, what hath been declared by both parties of certainty, and particularly touching Religion, Law, and provisoes for tender Consciences; and comparing together the several Remonstrances, Protestations, and Sufferings. Though all hitherto had been used and rejected, consider if the overture now lately made by the King's party, might not (by the mercy of God) be a means to produce Peace &c. if the business be managed as it ought. And according to the results of these the conscience must conclude.  
For the preservation of ourselves and our Religion] The Religion wherein we are grounded and to which the Clergy hath subscribed, in the Religion of the Church of England comprised in the Liturgy, Articles, Book of Ordination, and Homilies of our Church, confirmed by our 35. Article: consider whether the Covenant be a means ordered in reason to preserve these from ruin.  
According to the commondable practice, &c.] If this kingdom have done so, that cannot resolve the conscience: But consider whether ever in the like case the like war was commenced; if any one had been propounded, the conscience would the more easily have determined; but seeing there hath not, it must run over the Chronicles. In the mean time in such cases as are found, it may anticipate instances to the contrary (as in Queen Mary's days and those of Henry the 8. when there was more just reason in respect of Religion, if there might be any, then now is alleged) and other Arguments, such as the Doctrine of the Church of England ever since the Reformation, and the like, to equipoize this which is asserted gratis; and if after disquisition this be not found true, the conclusion of the conscience will be according to those premises.  
According to the example of God's people, &c.] This is of the same nature with the former warrant, and therefore the conscience upon this may proceed as upon that, seeing they have not set down which of God's people in any age or place, upon the like causes have taken the like course; till this be represented to the conscience, the safest way will be to examine what our Saviour himself, and the Apostles, and primitive Christians (who were assuredly God's people) did hold and practice for doctrine and example in the like (if there have ever been) or a worse case them is proved or pretended. And if they have not resisted (or held it lawful) their Princes in the greatest persecutions and utmost danger of Religion, and all that could be dear unto them, it may raise a conclusion, (till some stronger reasons can be presented, or the error of these be cleared and taken off) what is to be done when we are required to assist a warlike entrance of Subjects (with all the other circumstances which attend this action of the Scots) made only upon a believed charity of helping their neighbours.  
The sum of all is, That if all and every of the materials of this Preface (in as much as concerns the premises) were true, our consciences cannot assent to the consequence, that it is lawful for us as Subjects of the Church England (though we had not sworn or subscribed to some particulars, against which some of the Articles are contrived) to assist the Scots, or consent to them in this war, which assistance is the general end of this Covenant.  
Secondly, there is not any one member which doth conclude any thing to our consciences to move us to take it, neither in the complication do they conclude.  
Thirdly, there is not any particular member of it which doth not either directly, or by considerations naturally suggested by them and altogether unforced, prevail with us to the contrary. So that till every one of these obstacles and scruples be taken off, we cannot without violence to our consciences take this Oath:  
That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, 
Article 1.  endeavour in our several places and callings, the preservation of the Reformed Religion in 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, Worship, Discipline and Government; according to the Word of God, and the Example of the best Reformed Churches: And shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and catechising; That we and our posterity after us may as brethren live in Faith and Love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.  
In the first Article are we to be sworn to endeavour the preservation of the Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline of the Church of Scotland absolutely, or with this added as a restriction, against our common Enemies? By whom do we not rightly conceive to be meant the common Enemies to the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland? That those words, [against our common enemies] are to be taken restrictively it may be thought, because they otherwise should have been vainly added; and that by common Enemies those are meant, the necessity of the grammatical sense implies; there having preceded no other division, to which this community can refer, besides that of England, Scotland and Ireland, in the Preface. So that the word Our must refer to We in the beginning of the Preface, whose only distribution which can refer to common here, is that of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. Is not therefore the true sense of this part of the Article this, viz. I will sincerely, really, constantly, through the grace of God, in my calling against those who are enemies (for example) both to the Articles of the Church of England, and those of Scotland, both to our Liturgy and their directory for worship, both to our Church-Government and to presbyterial Government, endeavour to preserve their Articles, manner of worship and Presbytery? If thus it be, these things are to be considered; If the imposers of this Oath are assured in their Conscience, that the Doctrine, Worship &c. of the Church of Scotland, can infallibly be proved out of the Word of God, why would they have us swear to endeavour (in our calling of the ministry) to preserve it with a restriction against some men only, and not absolutely and indefinitely? Whether is this so free from the scandal of respect of Persons, as an oath for the impartial defence of Truth doth require? If they doubt it cannot be infallibly proved, how can our Brethren of Scotland, without spiritual Tyranny, desire an Oath to be imposed upon us Ministers of the gospel of another Church, to endeavour sincerely, really &c. in our calling (viz. by preaching, disputing, or otherwise) the preservation of it thus far?  
Secondly, how can we take an Oath to endeavour the preservation of that Doctrine which we neither know what it is (as it now stands) nor are told in any Declaration or Exhortation to us? nor were bound to know or search (no opportunity offering itself?) How then can this Oath be by us taken in judgement? Or since we doubt thus, though in general, how can it (not being of Faith) be other than sin? Whether are we not, if any thing shall be by us hereafter found in the Doctrine of Scotland contrary to sound Doctrine, bound to endeavour by the second Article to extirpate it, and by the first to preserve it? As for their Discipline and Government, so much as we understand of it (though otherwise we never interposed, yet being now called to give our consent to it, or reason to the contrary) we profess it to be such as that we dare not bind ourselves by Oath to endeavour its preservation constantly and indefinitely, for all time to come, till it be evidenced unto us that it hath been in any time before until this our last age. If it shall here be replied, that we are required to endeavour the preservation of their Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, only against our common enemies, that is, of us of the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and so the preservation of it only so far as we all agree; this we cannot conceive to be the adequate sense of those words, especially according to the intention of the imposers. For it is clear (as we have already touched) that our common Enemies are not only they who are adversaries to us in that wherein we all three do agree, but those also who in such things wherein we differ amongst ourselves, are yet by opposing themselves to us all, our common Enemies; against whom therefore by this Oath we should be bound to preserve to each that also wherein we differ amongst ourselves. Moreover, that that Sense is neither the only, nor the chief Sense intended by the Imposers, we have cause to think: because if so restrained, our Brethren of Scotland (in favour of whom we conceive this part of the Article to have been proposed) would be no whit secured against the fears of innovations from England, if we were only sworn to preserve unto them those things wherein we all agree at the entering this present League and Covenant.  
Thirdly, we desire to know why our Brethren of Scotland should desire it to be imposed upon us by Oath to maintain the Articles of their Religion, so far forth as hath been said, since our Mother the Church of England never yet hath imposed upon us by Oath to preserve her own known Articles, but hath testified her moderation to all, in that she hath required subscription only of all men which were admitted into holy Orders, or ecclesiastical Benefice, or to degrees in the University? And yet this was lately judged, since the sitting of this Parliament, to be too harsh an imposition upon younger Students at their admission to degrees, and the urging of it suspended. And we know not whether ever it was in use before this age, even in any not corrupted Church, to command men to swear the maintaining the Articles of their Religion, much less their Discipline and Church government.  
As to the second thing in this first Article to which we are to swear, How can any who are persuaded that there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Church of England, which is not consonant to the Word of God, without vanity swear to endeavour the Reformation of it according to the word of God? especially since we have lately protested to defend that Doctrine of the Church of England? And how can any who reverently believe this Church to be in respect of her Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government established by Law, no less perfect than any of the Reformed Churches, swear to endeavour its reformation in all those, according to the example of the best reformed Churches? And here by the way we cannot but take notice that this part of the Article is so framed, as if there were nothing in the Doctrine &c. of the Churches of England and Ireland to be preserved, and nothing in theirs of Scotland to be reformed.  
Moreover, the best direction for Conscience in examining what is here meant by Reformation, will be to consider those instances wherein in the following Articles is declared the Reformation, and then if persuaded that there is any thing there expressed (as instances of reformation) which is not according to (much more if against) the Word of God, how can we take this part of the Oath, at least in the sense of the Imposers?  
As touching the third thing, an endeavour of Uniformity &c. the considerations for direction of conscience will be the same with the second: For we are required to swear to endeavour an uniformity, and that in the reformation before mentioned, and after that reformation; so that in whatsoever sense or kind the reformation by them mentioned, and after described, is not to be undertaken, in the same our endeavour for uniformity is not lawful.  
Lastly, in the taking of this first Article, we should (as we conceive) make ourselves guilty either of rash swearing, or of perjury; and that from the necessary consequence of the complication of these two clauses, wherein first we should swear to preserve the reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government against our common enemies. And secondly, to bring the Churches of the three Kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in those particulars among ourselves: If we endeavour in our callings (but by prayer) to alter any thing in the Church of Scotland, wherein our enemies are theirs also (though therein we differ amongst ourselves) we commit perjury, because we swear to preserve it. To effect therefore the nearest uniformity in those particulars in the three Kingdoms, we are sworn to endeavour to bring the other two Kingdoms to the nearest conformity to the Church of Scotland. Now how can we swear to regulate by a rule, and to reform by a form, which we fully know not, (and much less know to be a fit rule or form) without rash swearing? sure we are, we cannot swear it in judgement, and for aught we know, not in righteousness.  
That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, 
Article 2.  endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, Church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy) Superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of godliness; lest we partake in other men sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues, and that the Lord may be one, and his Name one in the three Kingdoms.  
How can we swear to this part of the Covenant, who do believe that to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops is an act utterly unlawful for all several places and callings (and especially ours) by the Law of God and this Land, and to swear it much more sinful. And are we not here bidden to covenant and swear to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops? To us either the words are ambiguous, (and to ambiguities we may not swear) or rather (for we are loath to charge the words with ambiguity) the Grammatical sense (according to which the Oath is to be taken) speaks so: for as to what we hear by some said, that only our Church-government in aggregato, by all those governors together in a collective sense taken formally, is to be endeavoured to be extirpated, and not each there mentioned: first, Such interpretation given out is private only, and not by the authority of the imposers; and secondly, those words [and all other, &c.] do manifest that all the formerly mentioned particulars (in the parenthesis) are to be construed distributively, so far forth as to the extirpation of them. To omit that the word Prelacy there interpreted more properly agreeth to Archbishops and Bishops, then to the rest there mentioned, and a Prelacy they would be without them, because preferred before Presbyters: and if it no more were meant to ejure Bishops than Presbyters or Deacons, since as well Presbyters and Deacons make up part of our Church-government, as it now stands in aggregate, whether might this Oath be taken, had they also been included? Lastly, is not their practice for whose satisfaction this Covenant should be taken 
a Intelligentia verborum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, H●●ar. l. 4. de Tr●●.  (added to the common sense of mankind in the like manner of speaking or understanding such speeches) evidence enough to us that we cannot take this Oath and Covenant, unless we will swear to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops.  
If this be so, we desire to know, first, whether it be lawful for subjects to swear such a Covenant as directly contradicts the oath of their sovereign at his Coronation, as this second branch of the Covenant doth, binding us to endeavour the extirpation of the government of our Church by Bishops? For that our sovereign hath taken as contradictory Oath is evidently manifest by the last clause of the oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation: when after many other gracious promises which the King makes to his people, one of the Bishops reading to the King before the people concerning the canonical privileges of the Church, and beseeching him that he would be the protector and Defender of the Bishops & the Churches under their government, the King answereth in these words [With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon, and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge, all canonical privileges, and due Law and justice, and that I will be your Pretectour and Defender, to my power, by the assistance of God, as every good King in his Kingdom in right aught to protect and defend the Bishops, and Churches under their government.] Then the King ariseth, and at the Communion Table makes a solemn Oath in the presence of the people, to observe the premises, and laying his hand upon the book saith [The things which I have before promised, I shall perform and keep, so help me God, and the contents of this Book.] How can this Oath then for the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops be consistent with the Oath or Honour of our sovereign, which we have so solemnly protested to defend in the late Protestation? How can we with a solemn Oath enter into such a Covenant to which we may neither swear without our sovereign's consent, nor yet can lawfully desire nor have his consent? How sad were our condition, were the King willing of himself to violate this Oath? But what should we have to answer, should we by taking such a Covenant, this way necessitate (so far as in us lies) His sacred Majesty to violate his Oath so solemnly sworn at his Inauguration?  
Secondly, that to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops, is a sin against Divine Law, all those Arguments and Authorities convince, which prove that Bishops are of apostolical institution, and unalterable, and consequently Divine; which we shall unfold in these Propositions: First, that their institution stands grounded upon our saviour's own Action and Institution of the Apostles. Secondly, that Christ and his holy Spirit, by his Apostles appointed Bishops. Thirdly, that Christ the son of God, and the Holy Ghost afterward confirmed and approved Bishops, and their Commission and power which the Apostles had appointed.  
For the first, we say their institution is grounded upon our Lord's own instituting and ordaining twelve Apostles, above seventy Disciples; who saith to these his Apostles, As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 
a Eandem illis imponit personam, ac idem juris assignat. Calvinus in locum. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Chrysostomus in locum. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Ammonius in locum.  St. Joh. 20. 21. As in other ends of his mission so how not in this, which we know they did according to his pattern? As he was sent by his Father therefore to ordain one order of Teachers of the gospel superior to another, (which we know, because he did so ordain.) So also sent he his Apostles to ordain (which accordingly they did, and whatsoever they did by Christ's example therein, they did by his Commission here given) in an imparity, Bishops succeeding the Apostles above Presbyters subordinate, as the seventy 
a Theodoret. in Luc. 10. .  
That Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the ordinary part of their function, as it is the judgement of the most ancient godly Fathers, 
b Viz. Irenaeus ib. 3. c. 3 Tertul. de praescrip.. c 36 Cyprian ●p 42, & 61, & 69 Concil. Carthag anno 258 sub Cypriano. Theodoret. l. 4. c. 18. Ambros. de dignsacer. c. 2. Augustin. in Ps. 44. & Epist. 42. & de verbis Domini Serm. 24. Hieron. ep. ad Marcel. advers. Montanum, & epist. ad Evagr. Greg. mag. Hom. 26. in Evang. Theophylactus in Matth. 16. Pacianus ep. 2. ad Sympro●ian. And all those which aver the Apostles to have been Bishops, (though more also) vid. Cyprian. ep 65, & ep 68 Epipha. contra haeres. l. 1 haeres. 27. Ambros. in Ephes. 4. & serm. 50. The supposed Ambrose in 1 Cor. 12, 28. and so much some of them thought proved from Acts 1. 20.  that Bishops, we say as contradistinct to Presbyters were the successors of the Apostles; so is it manifest from Scripture, since power episcopal, (as it is now taken in this dispute) which we shall prove to have been given by the Apostles to Bishops, and to them only after the Apostles, was undeniably in the Apostles, and for a while held in their own hands without communicating it to others. That the Bishops were afterwards instituted by the Apostles themselves, which so many ancient Authous have averred. 
c viz. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 4. 63. & l. 5. c. 20. Ignat. ep. ad Antioch. Tertul. adversus Martion. l. 4. c. 5. & de praescr. c. 32, & 36. Clemens Alexan. l. de divit. salvand. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 17. Euseb. lib. Eccl. hist. 5. c. 6. & l. 3. c. 11, &c. 23. Irenaeus apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 10. S. Hieron. de script. Eccl. Chrysost. hom. de Ignat. tom. 5. Concil. Constant. 5. act. 2.  And namely by the apostolical Authority of St. Paul, and their institution, part of holy Scripture is made good, in that the power and Office of a Bishop (as the word is now taken in the ecclesiastical notion) is prescribed in the three Epistles of St. Paul, to those two famous church-governors Timothy and Titus, particularly the Office and power of a Bishop (as it is now taken contradistinctly to the Office of a Presbyter) in these Texts, 1 Tim. 1. 3. 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20, 21, 22. 2. Tim. 1. 6. Tit. 1. 5, 11. Tit. 3. 9 10: (and some others) and these Texts thus interpreted by Antiquity 
d 1 Tim. 1. 3. Theophyl. & Oecumen. in locum, 1 Tim. 5. 19 Epiphanius haeres. 75. n. 15, & Theop. in locum, v. 20, 21. Idem in locum, & Hemmin. in locum, v. 22. The supposed Ambrose in locum, a Tim. 1. 6. Hieron. Oecumen. Bucer. in locum Tit. 1. 5. Oecumen. in locum, v. 11. Chrysostomus in Tit. 1. Hieronimus in Tit. 3. 9 10. Ambros. lib. 5. de fid. s. Trinit. Bucer. Calvin. in locum. . And as the office prescribed there is episcopal, so these two appointed to this prescribed office of a Bishop by St. Paul himself, 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Tit. 1. 5. Yea by the holy Ghost, say Chrysost. Theophyl, Oecumenius: by divine Revelation saith Theodoret of Timothy. And that these two were Bishops according to the ecclesiastical notion of the word now used, ancient Fathers plentifully witness. 
b For Timithy Epib. haeres. 75. Eusebius lib. 3●. c. 4. Hieronimus de script. Eccl. Chrysost. hom. 2 ad Epist. Pilip. & in praefat. in 1 Tim. the supposed Ambrose in praefat. in 1 Tim. Polycrates apud Phot. Biblioth. Leont in concil. calce.. Prim. in praefat. in 1 Tim. & in 1 Tim. c. 4. add Sedul. in 1 Tim. 1. 2. For Titus, see Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. Hieronimus de script. Eccl. dictus Ambr. in praefat. ad Ep: Tit. Theodoret apud Oecumen. in praefat. ad ep. Tit. Theodoret apud Oecumen. in praefat. ad Tit. Theophyl. in praefat. ad Tit. Oecumen. in Tit. 1. add Sedul, prolog. in epist. ad Tit.  Moreover this superiority to office episcopal to have been fixed and continued to the day of death is evident, as from Church-history, so also from 1 Tim. 6. 14. where {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the same with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the beginning of the Epistle 1 Tim. 1. 18. and includes in it the whole charge given by St. Paul to Timothy in this Epistle. 
c Vid. Theodor. in 1 Tim. 6. 14 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Nempe ea quae scribo.  From which Text also it is manifested, that his Office prescribed was not personal only, but to descend by succession unto the coming of Christ 
d {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Oecumen. in 1 Tim. c. 5. See also Ambrose in 1 Tim. 6.   
Thirdly, this Office and power episcopal, that it was afterward approved and confirmed by the son of God himself immediately, and by the holy Ghost, will be proved from Revel. c. 1. &. 2. & 3. Where by the seven Stars, the Angels of the seven Churches, according to all reason, from the Text itself, and by the testimony of Antiquity 
e Saint Augustine ep. 162. and in the Comment on the Revelations under his name, Hom. 2. The supposed Ambrose in 1 Cor. 11. 16. & in Apoc. Oecum: in Apoc: 2. Arethas in Apoc. 1. and among the Moderns, Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Bullinger Concil. 9 in Apoc. Paraeus in Apoc. 1. 20. Dr Reynolds conference with Hart. c. 8. divis. 3. Pet. Molinaeus in his marginal Notes.  are seven Bishops of those seven Churches understood (which ecclesiastical story mentions to have been in the Church long before this time) as so many Angels and Apostles 
f Theodoret in 1 Tim. 3, 1. Pacianus epist. 2: ad Sympronian:  of the Churches; such as was Polycarp, the angel, the Bishop of the Church of Smyrna, made Bishop of that place by the Apostles themselves thirteen years before this book of the Revelation of St. John was written: and Onesimus probably the than Bishop, the angel of the Church of Ephesus. Their Office, Power, and Commission are there intimated to have been episcopal, and charged upon them by Christ, in that five of the Angels are charged as blameable, and accountable for the faults of both Presbyters and people; and therefore surely were trusted with authority over Presbyters and people, to have corrected and censured them. Particularly, episcopal power is intimated there, chap. 2. of the Revel. vers. 20. and that power of excommunication is sufficiently grounded on the 14 verse, Mr. Perkins in locum, affirmeth. Their mission to that office also, as it is there confirmed by the son of God, and by the holy Spirit: So also, to have been at first from God is in their title implied: For Angels sent forth for the church's sake are never said in holy Scripture to be any's Messengers but Gods; and if his Messengers or Angels, then sent by him. That their superiority was fixed, not weekly, or annual, is clear, as from the ecclesiastical History of Polycarp, and Onesimus, so also from the Text itself, c. 2. 10. Where the angel of the Church of Smyrna, as angel of the Church, is bidden to be faithful (in his Office surely) until death 
b {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 1b: v: 26: . Nor was it personal only but describing the Office of the angel of any Church (in like laudable or blame-worthy state) unto the coming of Christ (as it is implied v. 24. & 25. of the second chapter.) For what is said to them, so long as there is any that hath an ear to hear, he must hear, c. 2. v. 3. Nor did the personal blameworthy carriage of the angel of the Church of Sardis, c. 3. v. 1, &c. or of the angel of the Church of the Laodiceans, v. 14. 16. hinder Christ's approbation of their Office, who are in regard of their Office (not of their personal Excellency) styled the Angels of the seven Churches, and the Stars in the right hand of the Son of man: both which styles that they are there singularly appropriated to these successors of the Apostles, ought not to seem strange, since the twelve Apostles are confessedly meant by the crown of twelve Stars, Apoc. 12. 1. And St Paul the Apostle of us Gentiles, speaks of himself received as an angel of God, Galat. 4. 14. Summarily therefore out of holy Scriptures thus we reason, Many Presbyters and Preachers in one Church, and one chief, having eminency and power over all Presbyters and people therein, proveth the Office of a Bishop; but so holy Scripture witnesseth were in Ephesus, many Presbyters, Act. 20. 17. (or if they were Bishops in the sense now disputed, some of them at least, as Irenaeus thought, l. 3. c. 14. we need go no further in the argument) and more afterwards surely, and yet one chief Pastor or Bishop over all, such as was Timothy in his time, and the Angel of that Church (whosoever he was) mentioned Rev. 2. 1. So also in the Church of Pergamus, there were divers Teachers, true and false, c. 2. v. 13, 15. one Angel governor in chief, v. 1. For be it that all the Presbyters of each of the Churches might well have been called Angels 
c Job 33. 23. & Malach. 2. 7. , yet that one among them (in each Church) in such a compatible community of name is so called by way of eminency, proves an eminency in the one so called: which must either be of personal excellency above all the rest (and this who can show us in the Angel of the Church of Sardis, Laodicea, or Thyatira?) or else (and rather) of Office and power, so as John Baptist was called an Angel, Malac: 3. who was more than a Prophet; and St. Paul received as an angel, Gal. 4. 14. who was more than a Minister, and our Saviour Christ is called Michael, Apoc. 12. 7. with his Angels fighting under him. One objection more we shall take notice of, viz. the pretended necessity of understanding by each of the Angels there a collective body, from c. 2. v. 10. & 24. But this is manifestly clear to be no necessity at all from the like manner of speaking of the holy Ghost 2 Chron. 28. 1. & to the 5. Compare and judge. And therefore it is not lawful without any necessary reason, to depart from the literal and determinate individuation of one chief spiritual church-governor, in each of the seven Churches: for otherwise, as Tertullian speaks lib. de carne Christi, cap. 13. Omnia periclitabuntur alitèr accipi quàm sunt, & amittere quod sunt, dum alitèr accipiuntur. Yea there is not only no necessity, but much in the Text which doth resist such an interpretation of a collective body: for it should be either an Angel put for the whole particular Church; and this cannot be, seeing the Angels and the Churches are accurately distinguished c 1. v. 20. Or an Angel put for the whole collection of the Presbyters; but neither may this be admitted, inasmuch as in the same 20 verse the Angels are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seven, no more; and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} stars, not constellations, as Suidas distinguisheth the words. You have our reasons from these Scriptures, why to us it seems that to swear to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops is to swear to endeavour the extirpation of that whose Root is in holy Scripture; and to swear to endeavour (which we tremble to think of) to wrest these Stars out of the right hand of the son of man, who is also the Son of God. For in his right hand are they held, the Angels of the Churches, Revel. 1. 16, 20.  
As Church-government by Bishops hath been evidenced by holy Scripture, so was it also the judgement of the ancient godly Fathers, that it was an institution apostolical and Divine; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} saith Theodoret, l. 4. c. 18. by St. Cyprian, ep. 55. the power of Episcopacy is exegetically called, Ecclesiae gubernande sublimis & divina potestas: & epist. 27. Dominus noster Episcopi honorem disponens in Evangelic. And anon after, ut omnis actus Ecclesiae per Episcopos gubernetur: cum hoc itaque divina lege fundatum sit, miror quosdam audaci temeritate &c. & epist. 65. Episcopos & Praepositos Dominus elegit: And anon after, Deus Episcopos facit. Athanasius epist. ad Dracontium saith, that he who contemns the function of a Bishop, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and that the Office is of those things {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: Ignat. epist. ad Magnes. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Idem Ignat, epist, ad Ephes. Oecumen. c. 9 in Tim. 4. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Theophylact. and Oecumenius found Bishops upon Ephes. 4.11. and on Hebr. 13.17. Oecumenius and Nazianzen in Apologet. in 1 Pet. 5. vide Hegesippum apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. and Chrysostom. in Tit. 1. Hom. 2. Saint Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdot. c. 2. & 6. Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. 2. ep. 125.  
Further, out of the holy Scripture we might allege according to Saint Hierome's interpretation, that this distinction between the Bishops and his Presbyters was signified in Moses and the 70. So Hierom in Tit. 1. the distinction of Presbyters and Deacons, to be that which was under the Law of the high Priest, Priests and Levites. So S. Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotianum & Ep. ad Evagrium; and before him Ignat. ad Philadelph. Clement. ep. ad. Corinth. Chrysost. Hom. 20. ad pop. Antioch. and after Leo ep. 66 Isidor. Hisp. de officiis, Eccles. l. 2. c. 5. & 7. That the eminent dignity and office of Bishops was prophesied of, Psal. 45. 16. where Bishops are meant, say S. August. in loc. Comment. called S. Hierome's in locum. S. Cyril. of Alex. in loc. Theodoret in locum. Ruffinus in locum: as the other of Presbyters and Deacons were prophesied of, Isaiah 66. 21. And further, for imparity of Teachers in the new Testament, that answerably to Prophets in the old, and sons of the Prophets, among some that served in the gospel, some were as Fathers, others serving with them as sont. So also that we read of Builders and Master-builders in God's building, 1 Cor. 3. and we read also among those builders of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. 1 Cor. 12. 28. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Hebr. 13. 17. and under them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Luc. 22. 27. But for the confirmation by Scripture of the office of a Bishop, we adhere especially to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and those seven Epistles, Apoc. 1, 2, and 3. And if it be acknowledged of institution apostolical, and approved by God but temporary only, the contrary will be made manifest, as from the proper light of the Texts alleged, and from the forecited Text, 1 Tim. 6. 14. So also from this Proposition which we avow: No Constitution apostolical received by the universal Church perpetually in all ages, unto this age of this controversy, can without scandal and dangerous consequence be called Temporary; the universal practice of the Church practising continually and perpetually an apostolical Institution, being a most sure Commentary that it was no temporary institution. Forasmuch as we are taught by the holy Ghost in divine Scripture, that contention in what the Law of God is pretended not to be express, may be warrantably taken off by the custom of the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11. 16. See Theophylact. in locum. Custom, I do not say any, but of the Churches of God, i.e. Primitive, also universal, perpetual, interpreting the controverted Law of God, whether natural, as vers. 14. or Positive, by no less reason. Whereunto agreeth well the rule of S. Augustine, contra Crescon. lib. 1. c. 32. & contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia &c. & ep. 86. ad Casul. & epist. ad Januarium 118. si quidtota hodie &c. & Vincent Lyrin. adversus haereses, c. 2. &c. 3. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus &c. And if not by such traditive interpretation from the custom of the Churches of God, according to the Apostles rule, how shall we convince contentious gainsayers, that the sense of those Texts, go and teach all Nations, baptising them &c. Matth. 28. and those other of baptising the household of Stephanus, and of the keeper of the prison, 1 Cor. 1. Acts 16. or any other Scriptures, to be a divine warrant (as they are) for baptism of Infants? Or the sense of hoc facite &c. Luk. 22. to imply a divine right of Presbyters only to consecrate the Elements of the blessed Sacrament? or the sense of those Texts, John 20. 1, 19, 26. Acts 20. 7. 1. Cor. 16. 2. Revel. 1. 10. or Psalm 118. 24. or of any other Scriptures to be a divine warrant for the translation of our one day in seven from the seventh day of the week to the first? Or on the other side, how shall we convince those of the Church of Rome, that that apostolical divine Precept, James 5.14. as to the anointing the sick with oil was a temporary Precept only, but negatively from the interpretation of the custom of the Churches of God? Since miraculous gifts were also conferred by the laying on of hands, which yet was not temporary, Heb. 6 2.  
Now that this apostolical institution hath been universally practised, and perpetually in the custom of the Churches of God of all times and places (excepting only some narrow place and time of this age of this controversy) and that in Churches founded by different planters, by all the several Apostles and others sent by them, as well those Churches which have in several ages rejected the Antichristian Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome over all the Church, as others; and that order preserved by God from extirpation, thorough all the ten persecutions, and descending in each Church or City by particular continued succession: as for example, 27 Bishops from S. Timothy to the time of the Chalcedon council, as was declared there, act. 11. that in all times, primitive and following, Bishops have been chief in ecclesiastical government, in counsels, in Martyrdom, in Piety, in Learning, in the conversion of Nations, in the mighty confounding of Heresies and heretics; we believe we are able (if any deny) to make good. And first here for the Primitive Churches, we allege all the forecited testimonies of Antiquity, proving Bishop to have been instituted by the Apostles themselves, vide supra. Yea and early, within the Apostles times there having been not only three Bishops of Rome successively, Linus, Cletus, and Clemens: and within Saint John's time of life, four Bishops of Alexandria successively, Saint Mark, Anianus, Abilius, and Cerdo; three Bishops of Antioch, Saint Peter, Evodius, and Ignatius; two of Jerusalem, Saint James and Simeon; all while Saint John the Apostle yet lived, Euseb, hist eccles. lib. 3. cap. 12. But also Saint James made Bishop of Jerusalem soon after the passion of our Lord, saith Saint Hierom. de Script. Eccles. After the Ascension of our Saviour, saith Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 1. before Saint Stevens Martyrdom, for Saint Steven was Deacon to James Bishop of Jerusalem, saith Ignatius epist. ad Trall. and the ancient Author of the Epist. ad Heronem under his name; and that James himself was martyred after he had governed the Church of Jerusalem 30. years, saith Saint Hierom. de Script. Eccles. And as Saint Hierom affirmeth, James the Apostle to have been the first Bishop of Jerusalem, in Gal. 1. So also Peter to have been the first Bishop of Antioch, in Gal. 2. And Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria, in Prooem. in Matth. who died six years before Saint Peter or S. Paul (saith Saint Hierom. though therein he dissent from Irenaeus lib. 3.) 35. years before Saint James the Apostle; besides therefore nine recorded as Bishops in holy Scripture, Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and the seven of the seven Churches in Asia; besides two Apostles Bishops, viz. James of Jerusalem, and 
a James Bishop of Jerusalem ●, Concil. gen. Constantinop. Can. 32. Clemens apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. Euseb. l. 4. c. 21. & l. 2. c. 22. & l. 7. c. 14, 15, 19 Aug. l. 2. contra Lit. Petil. c. 57 contra Crescon. l. 2. c. 37. Epiphanius contra Ma●ich, sect. 66. & haeres. 78. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. cap. 15. hom. 38. & hom. 33. in Act. 15. 23. & Hom. 46. in Act. Hieron. in Gal. 1. & Epist. ad Evagr. & de Script. Eccles. Theophylact. & Oecum. in Gal. 2.  Peter of Antioch, 
b Origen. hom. 6. in Luc. Euseb. l. 3. c. 22, 35, 36. & in Chronico. in A. D. 38. S. Hieron. in Gal. 2. & l. de Eccles. Script. Chrysost. hom. de trans. Ignat. Theodor. dialog. 1. Greg. l. 6. Ep. 37.  and one Evangelist, Mark of Alexandria 
c Euseb. l. 2. 15. 24. Hier. proem in Mat. & de scr. Eccles. & Ep. ad Evag. Greg. l. 6. Ep 371, : there are also nine other (in all 21.) recorded in holy Scripture (all which, except two of the seven Angels, are there registered for Saints) who (if we will believe as credible records of Christians as any other human Records whatsoever) were Bishops before they died, viz. Clemens 
d Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Optat l. 2. cont. Parmen. Tertul. de praesadversus haeret, S. Aug. Ep. 165.  and 
e Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Optat. l. 2. cont. Parmen. Aug. Ep. 165.  Linus made Bishops of Rome successively by Peter and Paul. Evodius 
f Euseb. l. 3. c. 22. and the Author of the Epist. ad Antioch. under Ignatius his name.  Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul. Dionysius the Areopagite Bishop of Athens 
g Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. & l. 3. c. 4. : Archippus 
h Amb in Col. 4. Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 7.  Bishop of the Colossians: Epaphroditus 
i Theod. in 1 Tim. 3. & in Phil. 2. Primasius in Phil. 2. Pacianus Ep. 2. ad Sympronian.  Bishop of the Philippians: Epaphras 
k Ambros. Col. 4.  Bishop of the Colossians: Gaius 
l Origen l. 10. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 16.  also Bishop of the Thessalonians: Trophimus 
m Epist. comprovin. ad Leon.  Bishop of Arles: To which you may add (the two and twentieth) Antipas Bishop of Pergamus, if we will believe Paraeus in Apoc. 2. proving it out of Arethas Caesariensis, in Apoc. 1. and Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus, 
n Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes. Euseb. lib. 3. c. 35.  if he were not the forementioned Angel of the Church of Ephesus, when Saint John wrote his Revelation. To omit to speak here of other Bishops, who were scholars and Auditors of the Apostles, Ignatius of Saint John 
o Eus. l. 3. 35. S. Hieron. de. Script. Eccles. Theod. dial. 1. Felix 3. Epist. ad Zenonem.  made Bishop of Antioch by Saint Peter; Papias 
p Hieron, de Script. Eccles. & Euseb. l. 3. cap. 35. 39  Saint John's scholar, Bishop of Hierapolis; Publius and Q●adratus 
q Hieron. ibid. Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.  Bishops of Athens, Disciples of the Apostles; Simeon the son of Cleoph●● 
r Hegesippus apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. & Euseb. l. 3. c. 11.  Bishop of Jerusalem (after James) and the Kinsman of our Lord.  
This order of Bishops which began (though the first we read of in Scripture be Timothy and Titus) in Saint James of Jerusalem, or Saint Mark of Alexandria, continued throughout all the following ages of the Churches of God, in which Bishops have been the most reverend Martyrs, such as Ignatius, Polycarp. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, Cyprian of Carthage, and more than 30. of the first Bishops of Rome successively both in Episcopacy and Martyrdom. Of Bishops also especially did consist the first four general counsels, received by all the reformed Churches, the confounders of the main heresies touching the second and third persons in the blessed Trinity; and by an Act of Parliament, 1. Eliz. cap. 10. next to the canonical Scriptures, made the rule of judging Heresies: who also in council gave judgement for the inviolable practice of the Church in this order: the general council of Nice providing, Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi, Cant. 8. The general council of Constantinople adjudging to Bishops the power of Ordination, Can. 2. and Can. 4. in the case of Maximus. The general council of Ephesus distinguishing betwixt the Bishop and the rest of the Clergy. Can. 7. and confirming the Bishop's jurisdiction, Can. 5. The general council of Chalcedon determining, Can. 29. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  
For as much then, as in the first Article we are required to swear to endeavour the reformation of Religion according to the Word of God, and the examples of the best reformed Churches, surely we may not in the second Article swear to endeavour the extirpation of Church-government by Bishops, and so to forsake the government grounded on the Word of God, and to forsake the example of all the ages of the Primitive Churches, than which we conceive no late reformed Church will pretend to be more pure, and to whose examples they do or aught to endeavour to reform themselves.  
But after all this, it will be said, that this government by Bishops is ejured only, as it interprets Prelacy, which word if it have been translated Regimen Tyranicum, the Translation as far exceeds the truth of Grammar, as the Prelates are accused to have exceeded their lawful power; forasmuch as Prelacy in its original, and acception of ancient Authors (Praelati we say, not elati) imports but lawful preeminence and power. So is Timothy called by Gregory de Cura pastor: p. 2. c. 11. Praelatus Gregi; and the word Prelate is often honourably mentioned in our laws, 9 Ed. 2. & 24 Hen. 8. and is no more than the Title Praepositi mentioned also with honour by St. Cyprian Epist. 10. & 55. & 65. Augustin. de civitate Dei, l. 20. c. 9 or Antistites, S. Cypr. ep. 69. & Sancti Antistites, S. August. ep. 162. and divers words in Scripture used, signifying equivalently such preeminence, but let it not be told indeed in other Churches, that any other is here abjured than Regimen Tyrannicum.  
But are we warranted by the following stile of Hierarchy? Doth that word import originally and anciently any other than a sacred government? was it not accepted and approved in itself by Mr. Calvin. lib. de necessitate Eccl. reformandae, Talem si nobis Hierarchiam exhibeant in quâ sic emineant Episcopi, ut Christo subesse non recusent, &c. ut ab illo tanquam uno Capite pendeant, & ad ipsum referantur, &c. tum verò nullo non anathemate dignos fateor, qui non eam reverentèr summâque obedientiâ observent.  
Moreover, how can we in the same Article abjure Church-government by Bishops, with heresy, schism, and profaneness, (as there it follows) yea Prelacy even before schism and heresy, &c. when as Bishops have been in all ages the chief confounders of heresy and heretics, such was Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria of the heresy of Arrius. Cyril of Alexandria of the Nestorian heresy. Celestine Bishop of Rome, Augustine Bishop of Hippo, Prosper Bishop of Rhegium, Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspi, of the Palagian heresy: and many more in all ages of the Church before and since. Nor was there found any one Christian, throughout all the Primitive and purest times of the Church, for above five hundred years after Christ, who thought it fit to abolish Church government by Bishops (much less to ej●re it) save only one heretic, Aerius, so censured by Epiphanius, Haeres. 75. and by Saint Augustine, Haeres. 53. whose speech savoured of madness, saith Epiphanius; for he had said, What is a Bishop differing from a Presbyter? 
a Et infra {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  and the occasion of it Saint Augustine lets us know, lib. de Haeres. c. in Aerium; Aerius being a Presbyter, is said to have been vexed, because he could not get to be ordained a Bishop, and thence arose his envy: Epiphanius witnesseth as much, Haeres. 75.  
Secondly, as to Schism, Saint Hierom the one and only Father alleged, as denying the divine Institution of Bishops, yet held them necessary to repress Schism, and then surely most necessary, when Schism doth, as in these our days, most abound: For avoiding of Schism, Saint Hierom witnesseth, Episcopacy was thought necessary long within the Apostles times, even as early as it was said by some, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo &c. and therefore saith in his Dialogue, Adversus Luciferian. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exhorts quaedam, & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. S. Cyprian also Epist. 55. Non aliunde haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam &c. and so also lib. 4. epist. 9 Unde enim Schismata & Haereses obortae sunt & oriuntur, nisi dum Episcopus qui unus est praesumptione contemnitur? &c. Master Calvin also himself upon Philipp. 1. 1. Fateor quidem ut sunt hominum ingenia & mores, non posse ordinem stare inter verbi Ministros, quin reliquis praesit unus. So that we cannot apprehend the abjuration of Episcopacy to be a mean to that unity in this Article mentioned, That the Lord may be one, and his Name one amongst us, but rather the continuation thereof, according to the counsel of the holy Martyr S. Cyprian, Unus Deus, unus Dominus, unus Episcopus; and that of Ignatius ad magnes. 
b {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  Subjecti estote Episcope & vobis mutuè, ut Christus Patri, ut inter vos divina quaedam sit unio.  
Next, profaneness is here also to be cast out with Episcopacy; yet who may not fear God's Judgements, if he deny the detestable growth of profaneness since the contempt of that apostolical institution of Episcopacy? So that this Article as to Bishop's extirpation we must refuse, upon that close upon which others take it, lest, as it is said, we should partake in others sin, and consequently in their plagues.  
Thirdly, because neither can we swear to endeavour the extirpation of that part of this Church-government by Archbishops, an ecclesiastical constitution, so confessedly ancient; nor that part of this Church-government by Deans and Chapters, that is, a society of grave Divines, of Presbyters joined to the Bishop in his see of residence, as assistants in council and Government: as James Bishop of Jerusalem had his resident Presbyters, Acts 21. 18. and consulted with them, vers. 20. According also to the ancient general and continued custom of the Church of God ever since the first Christian Emperor's time; and moreover endowed with means given to them by the last wills and Testaments of many (which it is not lawful for us to endeavour to annull, Hebr. 9 17.) and by the gifts of many other Donors, who had true propriety in their goods, and might and did transfer the undoubted property to those to be enjoyed by the right and liberty of the Subject; especially such endowments having been consecrated and devoted unto God for pious uses, and which may not therefore by us (as we conceive) be endeavoured to be alienated, Prov. 20. 25. Numb. 16. 38. And as to the exercises of piety, so also to the encouragement of the most excellent part of learning, the study of divinity and of holy Scripture.  
We shall with the same sincerity, 
Article 3.  reality and constancy, in our several Vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the Rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King's majesty's Person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms, that the world may bear witness with our Consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His majesty's just power and greatness.  
Because in the third Article, whereas we are required, and that in the first place to bind ourselves absolutely without limitation expressed, To preserve the Rights and privileges of Parliaments, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms; and were likewise tied simply and indefinitely to defend the King's Person, State, and Honour, by the Oath of Allegiance and the late Protestation; here when we are bidden to swear to defend his majesty's Person and Authority, it is added [In the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms] therefore this manner of swearing we dare not admit, till it be publicly declared by the Imposers, that the meaning of those words is not (as to some it may sound) that I bind myself to preserve and defend his majesty's Person and Authority so far forth as he shall preserve and defend true Religion and the Liberties of the Kingdoms: Since by the holy Scriptures of the old and new Testament, by the Law of Nature and Nations, by the Oath of God, and by true Religion, we are bound to endeavour the preservation and defence of his Person and Authority, though he were a persecutor of the true Religion, and an abridger of our Liberties, such as were Saul and Nero in their times. And surely a larger Declaration of our endeavours simply to defend his Person, is at this time necessary, when through the divisions of the Kingdom his sacred majesty is so endangered; and that his Majesty hath often complained of affronts offered to his person; and hath complained also, that some have endeavoured to kill his Person in two set battles; and that there is nothing more frequent in the minds and mouths of some Shimei's, then that the King is popishly affected. A Papist in his heart; and therefore some furious zealot may not only upon these surmises conclude himself exempted (in case) from the duty of preservation and defence of his royal Person, but also mistake it as a debt to this Covenant, even to offer violence to his sacred majesty. May not therefore some such fuller Declaration and explication of our duty (when we will by Oath profess it) seem necessary to the end here proposed, That the world may bear witness with our Consciences of our loyalty?  
We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the discovery of all such as have been, 
Article 4.  or shall be Incendiaries, Malignants, or evil Instruments, by hindering the reformation of Religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the Kingdoms from another, or making any Faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and Covenant, that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme Indicatories of both Kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.  
Whether are not all those to be accounted to us as Malignants, &c. by hindering reformation of Religion (and consequently to be discovered that they may receive condign punishment) whom we know to endeavour in their places and callings, the continuation of Church-government by Bishops, and the preservation of the whole frame of government (as it now stands by the known Laws of this Kingdom established) administered according to the right intent of those Laws against all alteration, till it be by act of Parliament (enacted by his majesty's personal consent, and both Houses) altered and changed?  
Secondly, we demand how far forth we are here to be sworn to endeavour the discovery of all that have been or shall be Malignants &c. Is the son hereby engaged to betray his father, the wife her husband, the servant his master? and to accuse them as Malignants and evil Instruments by hindering the reformation? If so; hath the Law of God, of Nature, or of the Land ever commanded it; except in the case of high Treason? Where God enjoined to the Jews the discovery of those who should entice them to serve other gods (a sin surely as detestable and heinous, as to be such as here are to be accounted Malignants &c. by hindering the reformation of Religion) thus we read, Deut. 13. 6. If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee, &c. thou shalt not conceal him, but thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death: where it may be observed, That all the persons there by God so particularly recounted in the Text, not to be concealed, they are only such as are in a collateral equal degree, as the brother not to conceal his brother, the friend his friend; or of some inferiority, as the husband his wife, the father his son: But there is expressed no such injunction, That the son was to reveal his father, or the wife her husband: so tender was the God of nature of the respects due to those by whom he hath bestowed upon us our Being, Life, and Livelihood, or whom he hath made a head to others; that he did not command inferiors should give in an accusation against such their superiors, even in crimes which the Law judged should be punished with death.  
Thirdly, whereas we have in the late Protestation vowed to maintain the liberty of the Subject, and also are required to bind ourselves in this Covenant to preserve the same (if the liberties of the Kingdoms include the liberty of the subject.) Yet contrary hereunto (as we conceive) we should bind ourselves to endeavour that our fellow-subjects may be brought to punishment, either such as their offence shall deserve, or such as not only the supreme Indicatories of both Kingdoms, but any other also having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient; by which we should endeavour to put power (arbitrary surely, since it is not restrained according to the laws of our Land) in some other than the supreme judicatory, viz. some deputed from them, who may judge it convenient (if what they shall judge convenient may be their rule) as well sometimes to exceed the Letter of the Law, made by the supreme Judicatory, as otherwhile to mitigate it: Yea who may proceed against such Malignants where the Laws are wholly silent, and neither have given name to their fault, nor prescribed any punishment?  
And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these Kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, 
Article 5.  is by the good providence of God granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded, and settled by both Parliaments, we shall each one of us, according to our place and interest endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent Articles.  
Concerning the happy peace between these Kingdoms lately concluded, we earnestly prayed and desired that it might have been continued, and pray that it may be renewed; and are sorry heartily, that contrary to the Pacification made by His Majesty and both Parliaments, and contrary to the solemn Faith given, there is at this time a miserable War begun again between an Army of that Kingdom entering ours, (without and against his majesty's consent and Declaration) and the Forces raised by His Majesty, who (we have heard) hath much deprecated their entering in, alleging vehemently that their late solemn Faith and Pacification: So that shall it not be in us also Protestatis contraria facto, to bind ourselves in this Article (as willingly we would) to endeavour the continuance of a firm peace and union, and in the next to assist and defend those who declare, that in pursuit of this Covenant they now enter into this Kingdom with an Army? which if we look to the late Act of Pacification, and may for ourselves judge and discern what it is, since we are required to swear thereto, appears in its self an action as contrary thereto as War to Peace. So that this Covenant would bindus to endeavour that which it makes us to abjure.  
We shall also according to our places and callings in this common cause of Religion, 
Article 6.  Liberty, and peace of the Kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof, and shall not suffer ourselves directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the Kingdoms, and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all opposition, and promote the same according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed; All which we shall do as in the sight of God.  
Whereas we are in the sixt Article required to Covenant in this common cause of Religion (which is described in the first Article, A reformation of Religion in England and Ireland) that we will assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant against all opposition, and that in the close it is implied, that we should endeavour to do what we are able to suppress and overcome whatsoever opposition; we conceive it to be against the whole current of the gospel of Christ, the practice and Doctrine of all Primitive Christians, whom the world hath ever esteemed for blessed Saints and Martyrs, and lastly repugnant to the Doctrine of the best reformed Churches, (to which we here should swear to conform ourselves) to endeavour a Reformation of religion by force of Arms against the supreme Magistrat's consent.  
Secondly, May we swear never to suffer ourselves to be withdrawn by whatsoever persuasion from this League and Covenant, since the reasons persuading us to it are in no wise Demonstrative? What if hereafter we shall see better reasons, and stronger motives to forsake it, than we have now to take it, or shall have then to keep it? will not then our consciences better informed force us to break our Oath (an Argument that we sinned in taking it) or our Oath bind us contrary to our consciences so informed, (which is impossible?) What if (as now the King, so) future Parliaments disallow this Covenant, and oppose it, shall we then be obliged to continue therein, and to assist and defend all those that so continue against all opposition, though it shall be contradicted by the same Authority by which it is now imposed upon us?  
Thirdly, Where we are required to bind ourselves never to make defection to the contrary part; whether by the contrary part is not to be understood all that are against this Covenant? If so, will not these words following, [Against all opposition, against all lets and impediments whatsoever] include His majesty's opposition? And then, as we have said, we are in the close impliedly supposed, That we will endeavour to do what we are able to suppress and overcome any part whatsoever of the contrary part opposing itself; which since it seems not to except His Sacred Majesty, how will this be consistent with the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and the Laws of the Land, 5 H. 4. 25 Edw. 3? Secondly, how with the Word of God, when we are taught by St. Paul, Rom. 13. That whosoever shall resist the higher Powers, shall receive to himself Damnation? and in case of contrary conflicts of these higher Powers among themselves, from the reason included in the object, the damnation will be (without repentance) to those that resist the Highest: and among the higher powers, (if St. Peter may interpret St. Paul) the King is supreme, and all other governors are sent by Him, 1 Pet. 2. 14. 
a Vid. Angl. Confes. art. 37: & Scotican. confess art. 24. ideo confitemur & profitemur, quod qui supremae autoritati resistunt, usurpantes quod ad illius munus pertinet, illi Dei ordinationi resistunt, ideoque coram illo innocentes esse non possunt.  For ourselves therefore, if His Majesty should use the Sword committed to him unjustly, we must take up St. Ambrose's words, conc. 1. contra Auxentium, Dolere potero, flere potero, potero gemere, adversus arma, milites, Gothos quoque Lachrymae miae Arma sunt, talia sunt munimenta Sacerdotis, aliter nec deb●o, nec possumresistere.  
Fourthly, were there nothing in the Law of God, or of this Land forbidding us of the Kingdom of England to enter a Covenant of mutual assistance and defence, without and against the allowance of the King, yet it would be unlawful for us to join in this Covenant, since we are required here not only to join with one another, but with the Scots also in a Covenant of mutual assistance and defence; to whom, if by a law of their Land all such Covenants and Leagues be forbidden as seditious, we, if we knowingly covenant to assist and defend them in such a League, contract to ourselves the guilt of sedition. Now to the Scots (in the second part of that Act of Parliament holden at Linlithgow anno 1585.) are forbidden all leagues or bonds of mutual defence which are made without the privity and consent of the King, under the pain to be holden and execute as movers of sedition and unquietness. This we read objected by the Divines of Aberdeen, but could never yet see any satisfying answer made thereunto.  
Fiftly, Whether will not men think themselves bound by this part of the Covenant, all the days of their lives to continue so far zealously united against the contrary part, as to reject all overtures of accommodation, and reconciliation; till they be suppressed or overcome, and so our wounds become incurcable?  
Sixtly, This Covenant (as we conceive, under correction) cannot be wisely taken by any man affected to this cause; for should they not here swear never to yield themselves, though debelled, and unable to withstand the common Enemy, viz. the Forces raised by the King? nor ever to lay down Arms, or cease active resistance? But if it should please God to give the foresaid contrary part power of conquest, and consequently Ius victory, should they not bind themselves by this Covenant never to submit themselves to God's Will and Judgement against them? and so exclude all Christian patience and suffering in afflictions, and tie themselves (though unable) actively to resist, plot, disturb and overthrow all such who shall so have power over them hereafter, all such governors and governments, which it may please God (as they must confess for a punishment of their sins at least) to place over them, which thing we conceive to be against the Law of God, reason and Nations.  
And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many sins, &c.]  
What the Conclusion 
Concl.  suggests we have also considered, and profess ourselves ready to join with our brethren in the necessary humbling of ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and in the confession of our sins, (though in a public set form & prescribed, such as we conceive this former part of the Conclusion to be) our purpose also, desire & endeavour, through the grace of God, to amend our lives; and touching those words here mentioned [In all duties we owe to God and man] we profess and declare, that did we believe in our consciences, the above-written Articles of the Covenant not to be repugnant to our duties which we owe to God and man, (in the particulars specified relating to His Majesty and to the Bishops of our Churches, by God set over us, and otherwise) we should gladly have gone along with our brethren therein.  
Secondly, since this Oath expressly professeth, what also all lawful promisory oaths must include, that it is to be made in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at the great day; we trust our just refusal will, or aught to be better interpreted, even by the Imposers themselves, than those men's detestable hypocrisy, who enter this League, and make this Oath, with mental reservation; others as far as lawfully they may, and saving all former Oaths; yet others, as far as it is agreeable to God's Word, or in their own sense, or according to the sense of the Preacher, scandalising thus our Christian and reformed Religion, with Jesuitical mental reservations, reserving in their minds a sense contrary to their words (which are instituted to signify our minds) and contrary to the mind of the Imposers, (even in the judgement of their own minds) sufficiently signified in the words of the Covenant: and indeed, mentem injuratam gerunt; reserving this Popery in thus swearing, while they swear to extirpate Popery. We profess to know no other legitimate sensing of our Oaths, but mens deferentis, 
a Quâcunque arte verborum quis juret, Deus tamen qui conscientiae testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille cui juratur intelligit ●sidorus. Perjuri sunt, qui servatis verbis expectationem eorum quibus juratum●●, ●ecepe●u●●t, Augustin. ep. 224 ad Alipium.  (and that declared before the taking of the Oath, not in a post-Declaration) and the grammatical common sense of the words without limitation other then what is expressed; according to the rule of St. Augustin. Juramentum debet esse pressum, & expressum: By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. How also can any lawfully take an Oath, the matter whereof he judgeth to be unlawful, so far as lawfally he may? Be we not deceived, God is not mocked; May we swear to lie, steal, or commit adultery so far as lawfully we may? Is it more sinful to go about to do it, so far as lawfully we may, then so to swear it? He that so swears, swears with judgement against his judgement, and to unrighteousness without truth, and condemneth himself in that which he alloweth.  
Thirdly, to swear, saving all former Oaths, to what we judge to be opposite to our former lawful Oaths, is to delude both our former and present Oath; to warrant, that we may without scandal abjure (in words, not in heart) what we have sworn before to keep, because we have sworn before to keep and never to abjure it; to make vain (as far as in us lies) the great and dreadful name of God, the wholesome end and use of Oaths, and particularly to destroy the end of this present Covenant, if the takers intend not what the Oath intend●; and may also hereafter (saving this present Oath) swear to the contrary. For the present be it considered, that whereas this Oath is a League for unity; if each may take it in their own sense, its end will be none; and we as far from joint union of assistance as before. For, swearing to assist all who enter into this League, if we think ourselves bound to assist o●ely the takers in our own sense, than we may happily be tied to assist none hereby, for perhaps our own sense is peculiar and different from all others, and probably from most, for most take it in the common sense of the words.  
Lastly, if one end of this Covenant be, that (if it succeed) it may be encouragement to other Christian Churches (in like case) to join in the same or like Association and Covenant; we judge it necessary to admonish ourselves and others, that if in this we offend, we also lay a stumbling-block of offence before the faces of so many Christian Churches now and hereafter, who are here invited to follow our example. Should we not therefore sadly consider, whose example in this action we follow, before we give and invite others to follow our example? Ought we not wisely to fear, lest by this we expose our brethren of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, to the jealousy of their several Princes under whom they live, and become guilty of the provocation of all those evils, wherewith Princes in prevention of what is here suggested to their Subjects (if not declared against by them) may aggrieve our brethren of the reformed Religion? And also, have we not cause to question with ourselves, how the example of entering a covenant mutually to assist and defend one another, when there is declared a joining in arms, without and against the consent of the supreme Magistrate, how this example (we say) will make, as is here said, to the Peace and Tranquillity of Christian Kingdoms and commonwealths? Now the Lord of Peace himself give unto us, and to all the Churches of God, Peace always, by all means.  
Amen.   

An Exhortation to the taking of the solemn League and Covenant, &c.  IF the power of religion, or solid reason, if loyalty to the King, &c. 
IF it had not been intimated that the Authors of this Exhortation were the Assembly of Divines, (as they are styled in the 14 Article of the Instructions) and expressed, that the end of it was the satisfying of such scruples as may arise (and that by the same Authority by which the Covenant itself is to be imposed) it could not have given the conscience of any man either so much licence to examine the discourse with strictness and severity, or so much satisfaction (one way or other) in the examination; seeing there is scarce any other end of writing which necessarily obliges to a discovery of all the consequences and the principles of a discourse, and there is no such outward encouragement to the conscience towards satisfaction, as when it shall consider that it is examining an Exhortation and a Defence, the Authors of which have been chosen, the work appointed, and after the performance twice publicly read, and considered, and lastly ordered to be published by them who are the managers of the Cause for which this Exhortation and Defence is made. But this being the declared end, and those the Authors, it will not stand with the opinion of the faithfulness of those men towards the Cause itself, to imagine that they reserve to themselves clearer and firmer principles, upon which they are able to enforce the taking of the Covenant, than those they have here expressed: And consequently, if upon just examination it shall appear, that all the truth that is by them laid down is not sufficient to infer their Conclusion, they may be more tender of those who are of different persuasion from themselves, though they shall (notwithstanding their endeavours) persist in their opinion, nay though they should hereby gain a degree of adhesion to it.  
The conclusion which they would infer is the taking of the Covenant, and the general end of that, as expressed in the Covenant itself and in all the Declarations which concern the same, is (in our calling) the assistance of those of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland joined in Arms, &c. against the Popish, prelatical, and Malignant party: in a word, to assist, or comply with those English and Scottish Forces, against the Forces raised by the King's personal command. This being the case wherein the scruples (by them spoken of) are supposed to be removed, that their Arguments to that end might be effectual, it was necessary to their end, that the present case should have been clearly and particularly laid down, considering that the discovery of strong and not doubting presumption and supposal of that part which is defended, though it might produce a degree of confirmation in those who are (though not so strongly) of the same opinion, yet can it not in reason be reputed a means to take off scruple from a rational adversary. This being necessary in itself for a true and thorough resolution of conscience in the case, it cannot be denied but their discourse is imperfect in itself, and consequently they may as well have erred in assuming to themselves all that is holy and perfect, and esteeming of the adverse party as of people bewitched and besotted, hoodwinked and blinded, &c. nay, as the dregs and scum of the people, and in affirming the name and countenance of His sacred Majesty to be captivated, and prostituted to serve all the lusts of such men; and in setting in opposition the King and those that be faithful in the Land.  
But seeing that it is possible that a case may be so clear and plain to all men, that it may without any great damage be omitted in a discourse made for the resolution of the conscience; it will concern the conscience however impartially to set before its eyes the present question, and then to examine the discourse of this Exhortation, upon which the determination of conscience will naturally follow.  
To propound the State of the question impartially (though not according to the utmost truth of the case) it will be enough, if it be made up of truths confessed and undeniable.  

1. Scots and English are Subjects to the King.  
2. Of the same Protestant Religion, the professors whereof do not differ in fundamentals.  
3. Their joining in Arms, (as is alleged) is for the vindication and defence of their Religi●n, Liberties, and Laws.  
4. Against the Popish prelatical, and Malignant party.  
5. By these are meant the soldiers raised by the King.   

On the other side:  
1. The King is our lawful sovereign,  
2. Of the same Protestant Religion.  
3. He hath protested and engaged himself with all solemnity (as at the receiving of the holy Eucharist, &c.) to preserve and maintain the Protestant Religion, the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdoms and Parliaments.  
4. That he hath sent many Messages for Treaties toward Peace, both before and during the time of these wars, and expressed a desire of making the people witnesses of the equity of his proceedings.  
5. He hath declared his will against both the Scots and English, who take up Arms in this Cause.   
Out of these principles (whereas many more might be added in behalf of His majesty) let the question be, Whether it may be lawful and necessary for subjects to covenant together, without and against the express will of their lawful sovereign, to join in Arms against the Forces raised by his command, and that for the vindication and defence of that which he hath by all possible obligations engaged himself to maintain and defend, and for security of his people hath desired that differences might be composed by Treaty, and that the world might judge of his proceedings in it.  
If this be a true state of the question (at least so far as is here expressed) the next labour for our Consciences will be to examine whether any argument in this exhortation (upon supposition that they all were truths in themselves) do infer a lawfulness and necessity to covenant in our case, all things considered; and if it be evident that they are not sufficient, it may be a motive to abate the confidence of the composers of it (whosoever they were in particular) and to procure an examination of their own principles and actions, wherein they may possibly see that they have not either in their own actions, or in their judgement of others, proceeded so exactly according to the Law of conscience and the word of God.  
Now, although we are confident that there is not in this exhortation any one argument which the Assembly itself will undertake so to contrive, as that it shall conclude for a necessity or a lawfulness of taking such a Covenant in such a case (all things considered) and consequently the whole business, which was of necessity for vindication of ourselves from sottishness &c. is already done; Yet that it may without any danger of prejudice or error appear, that we are not guilty of such a presumption as we have excepted against in them, we will, as briefly as may be, examine their whole discourse, and evidently (Unless indeed we be bewitched to think so) discover what is untrue or uncertain (if any thing of those kinds shall occur) and what is insufficient in their Exhortation, after we have by way of Apology premised, that we will not all answer them in the manner of the delivery of the reasons. We have (as we hope) prevailed against those affections which might have arisen upon those expressions which concern ourselves, and (though with far greater difficulty) against that indignation which followed upon the apprehension of those (not so very reverent) expressions and reflections upon his sacred majesty, so far as not to suffer our judgements or consciences to be withdrawn from a just and mere examination of the truth: having seen in them, that zeal and confidence (however they are excellent affections in those who are sufficiently grounded in an unfallible truth, yet they) do in no measure help toward a discovery of truth or a removal of scruples in a case of conscience.  
The whole discourse was intended by the Authors of it, to consist of persuasions, and resolutions of scruples, and is immediately resolved into an introduction and the body of the discourse.  
As for the Introduction, it contains a collection of many places, from whence the composers thereof presume that the necessity of taking this League might be enforced. But seeing it carries not clearly in itself any discovery of the consequences, it could not in reason be premised to any other discourse, than such as in the process should clear that which was there presumed; and seeing the following discourse is no way ordered to a clearing of those inferences, so that the design of him who made the introduction is no further prosecuted, we may here indeed observe an instance of the variance which is said to be in the Assembly, but are no ways helped in that which was the fundamental intention of the whole (the resolution of our scruples) which by the serious consideration of those things here reckoned up, we profess to have been exceedingly strengthened upon us; and that by such inference as may be gathered, if not clearly seen, by this ensuing parallel.  
If the power of Religion, described and practised by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, and expressed in the most heroical actions of the primitive Christians; or if solid reason informed by the Doctrine of the Church of England, and assisted by the light of the examples of holy Saints and Martyrs, and by a perfect information of the beginnings and proceedings of our present miseries, and of the standing known Laws of the Land; If loyalty to the King, and piety to their native covatry, or love to themselves, and natural affection to their posterity; if the example of men touched with a deep sense of all these, such as have been the most eminent among the Clergy for piety and learning, the Instruments (as it is confessed) used by Almighty God for the preservation of our Religion against all its enemies, who, with many others, the most worthy of the Laity, have cheerfully and constantly been spoiled of their goods, and suffered a long and tedious imprisonment, and are and have been ready to suffer death itself in the present cause of his Sacred majesty; or if extraordinary success from God thereupon, such as was necessary to raise his Majesty from a state of despised weakness to a power able to resist, and probably able to debel all the Forces which his enemies of three Kingdoms can procure. If any or all of these can awaken a Nation hitherto stupefied and blinded, and thereupon imbroiled in the miseries which have attended upon this war, to see and embrace the sovereign and only means of their recovery; there can be no doubt or fear, that they will enter into a League with those who have lifted up (under what pretence soever) their hands against his Sacred majesty, but they will rather repent them of their former disobedience, endeavouring to reduce their brethren to a labour for reconciliation and pardon from his majesty, at least to an acceptation of those proffers for Treaty towards accommodation, which he so often makes; and in case they shall be by any pertinaciously refused, join themselves with his Sacred Majesty in his just defence.  
Having thus done with the Introduction, it follows that we examine the Discourse itself, which proceeds in this method:  
First, to propound the motives to persuade men to take the Covenant.  
Secondly, to answer the objections or scruples which might hinder, &c.  
Here, before we begin to examine the strength of the motives themselves, we observe the different apprehensions of the framers of it; for, whereas he who framed the Introduction did, it seems, imagine that the taking of the Covenant might be enforced from the positive Law of God, and the Law of Nature; the other, who was to lay down the Motives, was so far from that, as to esteem it necessary towards the same end, in the first place to insinuate the example of themselves of the Assembly, and others who had already taken it.  
The strength of their persuasive Arguments is this:  
First, This Covenant is already taken by the two Houses of Parliament, by the Assembly of Divines, the City of London, and the Kingdom of Scotland.  
Secondly, It hath been already seconded from Heaven by blasting the Counsels, &c.  
Thirdly, It carries in itself such a convincing evidence of Equity, Truth, and righteousness, as may raise in all inflamed affections to take it; which is proved, because  
There is [almost] nothing in this Covenant which was not for substance either expressed, or manifestly included in the Protestation of May 5. 1641.  
Ergo, whosoever are not wilfully ignorant, or miserably seduced, must infallibly take this Covenant.  
For the first of these Arguments:  
First, in general, we do not see how the example of either party can reasonably be alleged to direct the Conscience in any controversy.  
Secondly, we have reason to believe that far the greater number, both in the City of London, and the Kingdom of Scotland, could not take this Oath in judgement, as being not able to discern of the righteousness or iniquity of some of the Articles, especially that which concerns Episcopacy, so that a chief strength of this Argument from Example, consists in the example of themselves who are of the Assembly, and made this Exhortation. And then we conceive, they cannot justly accuse us either of immodesty or presumption, if we shall openly profess that they have not in this first Essay of theirs (at lest which we know to have been published) given evidences of so great Judgement, Learning, or Integrity, as may warrant or encourage us in matters of Religion and cases of Conscience, to subscribe to the authority of their example.  
To the second Argument, which is, That it hath been seconded from Heaven, &c. it cannot conclude to the Conscience, till it be sufficiently proved; neither can that be without a revelation of the Counsels of God, which if the Composer of this part hath obtained, it was requisite to the end propounded that he should have made it appear; till when it may be believed, that those instances where the signature of God's Judgements may the most plainly have been discovered, have fallen upon those who have had the greatest share in the raising and managing of those Arms, for the maintaining of which this Covenant is ordained.  
So than the whole force of their persuasion will depend upon the third Argument, and the proof of it, which (to avoid any error in examining) shall be again propounded:  
There is (almost) nothing in this Covenant, which was not for substance either expressed, or manifestly included in the Protestation, May 5. 1641.  
Therefore this Covenant goeth forth in its own strength, with such convincing evidence of Equity, Truth, and righteousness, as may raise in all not wilfully ignorant or miserably seduced, inflamed affections to join in the Covenant.  
Resp. 1. We are not able by all those ways of reasoning, to which we have hitherto been used, to discover the inference which is here made. If by the strength of their solid reason it may possibly be made to appear, yet we are confident the dependence is so deep and secret, that it ought not (to the end for which this discourse is declared to be intended) have been left unrevealed.  
2. Whereas the Argument of the evident Equity, Truth and righteousness of this is taken from the agreement of it with that Protestation, we will assume the matter of that Protestation to have been (in the judgement of this Assembly) equal, True, and Righteous; from whence it will follow, that if this should, according to their principles, either immediately or by necessary consequence contradict that Protestation, therein they must confess it to be unequal, false, or unrighteous; and wherein soever it doth positively dissent from it, there the Truth, Equity, and righteousness of it must be confessed to be here no way proved; this being premised, let us compare together this Covenant and that Protestation.  
There we protested that we would with our lives, &c. defend the Doctrine of the Church of England [indefinitely] which is undoubtedly contained in the 39 Articles, which (in the further Articles of impeachment, Jan. 17. 1643. by the Commons assembled in Parliament against the Archbishop of Canterbury) are styled, The 39 Articles of the Church England established by Act of Parliament; and in the six and thirtieth of those Articles it is avouched that the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, confirmed by Authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering, and hath nothing in it ungodly. This book asserteth, that it is evident to all men, diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times there have been these Orders of Ministers in the Church, Bishops, Priests, and` Deacons, which Officers were evermore bad in reverent estimation. Wherefore we there protested with our lives, &c. to defend that it is not ungodly (therefore not false Doctrine) to say, That diligent reading of the Holy Scriptures will help to make it evident, that from the Apostles times there have been Bishops, which could not be, unless the Scriptures did testify, that in the Apostles times they were. One of the Prayers also (& lex orandi lex docendi) thus begins; Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church, mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop; and the elected Bishop is afterward required to profess, That he is persuaded that he is truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ. And by consequence we there did protest to defend that also; and consequently (upon their own principles) it is unequal and unrighteous to swear to the extirpation of them.  
Again, in that Protestation there was nothing concerning the endeavouring the preservation of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church of Scotland, the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England. Moreover, in that we protested absolutely the defence of the King's Person, according to our Allegiance, which here we do not absolutely swear to, to maintain the Laws of the Land, the Liberty of the Subject, and only to defend one another so far as lawfully we may, which here are omitted. Many other differences may be observed. If yet they shall say, that there is nothing (almost) in this which is not in that, or nothing of moment (which must be the meaning, if their Argument be of any force at all) it may not be thought unreasonable, if we desire (with leave from His majesty) to renew that Protestation, that we may be thereby excused from this League and Covenant.  
After the proposal of their persuasive Arguments, they proceed to the taking away of scruples, not all, or most of such as might arise to the contrary (as appears by that which we have humbly represented against the Covenant itself) therefore such as they have chosen out (probably) because they conceived themselves best able for their Answer. The scruples which they suppose, are such as concern either the King or the Bishops.  
They begin with the extirpation of Bishops, where first they design to prove, that they may, and aught to be extirpated; and after they address themselves to answer one special objection. We will therefore in order propound and examine the weight and truth which is in their Arguments.  
The first is but an intimation, Some say this Government was never formally established by the Laws of this Land at all. If this were true, which some say, the Argument were not of so great force toward the taking away of this government, as it would be of power to confirm us in the belief we have of the venerable institution of this Government, when we shall consider that our Predecessors, who have been the Authors of our Laws, had such an esteem of the government by Bishops, that they thought it altogether needless formally to establish it by Law. Now that this (if any positive) consideration might be a ground of that which is here intimated (if true) appears, in that if it were true that it were not formally established, yet is it so interwoven with many of our Laws, that they and it must stand or fall together. So that here again we may desire of them to be tender of us, who have protested solemnly with our lives to defend the Laws of the Land.  
2. The life and soul of it is already taken away by an Act, &c. so as nothing of jurisdiction remains, but what is precarious in them, and voluntary in those who submit unto them.  

1. We cannot acknowledge that any essential part of Episcopacy (such as that which is the life and soul of it must be) is, or can be taken away from our Bishops, whether it be of order or jurisdiction; however the outward coercive Power communicated to it by the secular arm, hath been in the times of the famous Persecutions, and may be again divided from it.  
2. For the Act of this present Parliament here mentioned, we do believe that there was more taken away in it, than was intended by the major part of both Houses at the passing of it: This we gather out of those words of his majesty in his Declaration, Aug. 12. And whether that Act was penned with that wariness and animadversion, that there was not more determined by it, than the major part of both Houses intended at the passing of it, let themselves judge.  
3. However that were, we cannot conceive it reasonable, that their temporal lurisdiction should be taken away (as was suggested) that they might the better intend their spiritual, and then an argument made to take away the spiritual part of their Government also, because the former is already parted from them.   
Thirdly, That their whole Government is (at best) but a human constitution.] If there be no fallacy in these words, it is necessary that whole be taken materially, as it includes each several part, and not formally only; and then we answer, That the Government so far as to the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is (at least) of apostolical constitution, as is proved in our reasons against the second Article: and consequently (as to that which is here spoken of) it is not lawful to be taken away.  
Fourthly, It is such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament, not only very prejudicial to the civil State, but a great hindrance also to a perfect Reformation; Yea, who knoweth not? &c.  
We know the danger (and if indeed we did not) yet the honour and respect we bear to the very name of Parliaments would not suffer us to question the judgement of the two Houses; only in this case which so nearly concerns the Church of God, we crave leave to represent, that we do not apprehend how that should be in itself prejudicial to the civil State, together with which the State both anciently and of late, we conceive, hath flourished, and enjoyed a political happiness beyond most of the Nations of the earth. Neither how that should be opposite to a perfect Reformation, which in our Consciences we are persuaded (and we think may as clearly be proved as most matters in Divinity) was instituted by the Apostles and constantly obtained in the purest times of the Primitive Church, to which we conceive a Reformation ought to be squared: and indeed the chiefest Instruments and Defendants of that Reformation which we (by the mercy of God) enjoy, having been Bishops, some of which were Martyrs, as Bishop Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latimer, Ferrer, jewel, Bilson, &c. We cannot see to what Reformation Episcopacy can be a hindrance, unless to such a form as supposes that Episcopacy must be extirpated.  
Which moved the well-affected throughout this Kingdom, long since to petition this Parliament (as hath been desired before in the days of Queen Elizabeth and King James) for a total abolition of the same.  
In this which is intended for a proof the fourth Argument, seeing it is presumed that those who have petitioned for the abolition of Episcopacy, are and have been well affected; For a judgement of that we do only represent, that the same in the days of those renowned Princes, by those famous Parliaments held in their times were rejected as Ignorant and Seditious. And whereas it is said, the well affected throughout the Kingdom, &c. It doth, and may appear, that since the sitting of this present Parliament (and that after discountenance given to that party) more than four and forty thousand men of quality have petitioned for the continuance of our present Church-government: besides the City of London, the Counties of Dorcet, Kent, Surrey, Westmoreland, Cumberland, Southampton, Lancaster, Cornwall, Oxfordshire, Berkeshire, Wiltshire, the six shires of North-wales, and besides the two Universities: all the which have petitioned for the same.  
The restriction (or what else) is here laid down that we are not by this Covenant bound to offer violence to their persons, we pray may be observed by those who have taken this Covenant, or shall hereafter enter into it; for us who are so persuaded as we have expressed, it would have been a greater satisfaction, if we should have been to swear to bring the persons of any who have offended to a just and legal trial, so that their Office might have been continued, then to extirpate the Office, with an intimation only that we are not necessitated to offer violence to their persons.  
That which follows, is to take off the only scruple which they would suppose to remain, the oath of canonical obedience, wherein clergymen have sworn to obey the Bishops, in licitis & honestis; we will propound their Arguments.  
1. They which have sworn obedience to the Laws of the Land, may yet endeavour their abolition in a lawful way. Therefore they which have sworn to obey the Bishops may endeavour the abolition of Bishops.  
We do not see this consequence from the Law to the lawgiver, or the Authority itself from whence the Law is derived.  
It follows upon this Hypothesis that they who have sworn to obey the injunctions of Bishops, may endeavour in a lawful way the alteration or abolition of those injunctions; but to infer their conclusion, the Hypothosis must have been, that notwithstanding our Oath made to obey the Laws made by the King and the two Houses of Parliament, we may endeavour to abolish the King and both Houses of Parliament.  
Their second Argument is this:  
2. If Ministers or others have entered into any Oath not warranted by God's Word and the Laws of the Land, such Oaths call for repentance, not pertinacy in them. Ergo, notwithstanding the Oath of Canoxicall obedience, Ministers may endeavour the extirpation of Bishops.  
We believe, that to have cleared this consequence, they ought to have proved that the Oath of canonical obedience is not warranted by the Word of God, or the Laws of the Land, which seeing they have not done, the scruple, notwithstanding this Argument, will still remain.  
Having thus done with Episcopacy, they proceed to such scruples of conscience as they suppose may arise from that which concerns His Majesty; And there the design is to prove, that this Covenant may be taken, notwithstanding the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance already taken, and notwithstanding the want of His majesty's consent.  
1. This Oath binds all, and more strongly engageth them to preserve and defend the King's majesty's Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms; therefore,  
It doth not cross the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance.  
We answer, 1. The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance were ordained against those, who would not have denied to swear in these very words, To preserve and defend His majesty's Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms; Therefore notwithstanding this Argument, this Covenant may cross the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance.  
2. That this Oath may be taken without His majesty's consent, they would prove by examples, either Modern, or out of Scripture, as  
1. The Protestation May 5. was taken without His majesty's consent.  
We did not think we took it without his majesty's consent, and one reason we will express in their words of the same Paragraph, Because His Majesty did not except against it, or give any stop to the taking of it, albeit he was then resident in person at Whitehall.  
2. Ezra and Nehemiah, Ezra 10. Nehem. 9 Neh. 1. being vassals, and one of them menial servant to Artaxerxes, drew all the people into a Covenant, without the special Commission of the Persian Monarchs.  
The Covenant into which Ezra drew the people is expressed Ezra 10. 3. to have been to put away all the strange wives, and such as were born of them, according to the counsel of the Lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of God, and that according to the Law.  
And that of Nehemiah, (Nehem. 9 & 10. 29.) is expressed to have been a Curse and an Oath to walk in God's Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God; and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord, and his judgements and his Statutes.  
The Commission of Nehemiah, (besides what is mentioned Nehemiah 2.) cannot be denied to be the same which Ezra had obtained, which is expressed Ezra the 7. In the 7 of Ezra, v. 26. we find this as a part of his Commission: Whosoever will not do the Law of thy God, and the Law of the King, let judgement be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. Wherefore we cannot but extremely wonder that these Covenants here mentioned, should be said to have been entered into without the consent of the Persian Monarchs; an Assertion to us so exceedingly inconsiderate, that our apprehension of the failings in it cannot in a few words be expressed.  
As for that of Hezekiah, which follows at some distance, we might answer, that it is not, nor can it be proved out of the Scripture, that the keeping of the Passover was not consented to by Hoshea King of Irael. However, if the revolt of the ten Tribes were indeed a rebellion, as it is believed by many of the most famous Divines 
a Cyril. Alexand Calvin. in Hosea 8. 4. vide also the Fuller answer to Dr. Ferne. , then why might not Hezekiah justly send Proclamations to them, to join with him in a Covenant, although the King of Israel should positively have dissented?  
But not to insist upon negative Answers, or any thing which may be controverted, we answer: 1. That act of Hezekiah, was a bare invitation. 2. That to which he invited them was not a League or Covenant, but (that which the Law of God enjoined) the observation of the Passover: which was some years after the Covenant mentioned. 2 Chro. 29. 3 That it was at that time when Israel had not the face of a Kingdom, their King being in captivity under the King of Assyria. Which two latter answers are jointly proved by this following Discourse. The Covenant was made in 1mo Hezekiae, 2 Chron. 29. the Passover was not celebrated till after the captivity, 2 Chron. 30. 6. There was no captivity mentioned till after this first year of Hezekiah. Therefore the Covenant and Passover were not kept in the same year; and therefore also Hoshea was in captivity, before this invitation of Hezekiah. The last of the premises (which only can be doubted) is thus proved, because the first time expressed (which we read in Scripture) of Salmanasers coming up against Israel is the fourth year of King Hezekiah, 2 King. 18. 9 It no wise followeth therefore from this act of Hezekiah and the men of Israel, that it is lawful to impose, or enter a Covenant, without the consent of the King.  
Now, after these instances of Scripture, they betake themselves to modern examples, from whence they would infer more than a bare lawfulness to enter a Covenant without the King's consent, viz. an allowance of Subjects joining in Arms against their sovereign, which they would warrant from the actions of Q Elizabeth, K. James, and our gracious sovereign. Here we must indeed ingenuously profess, that we have not been sufficiently exercised in passages of State, to give a full satisfaction in all these particulars; wherefore we shall not of ourselves interpose at all, only briefly speak to their instances.  
1. As concerning the assistance of, and the confederacy with the united Provinces, we shall transcribe for satisfaction, a part of a Declaration of Q. Elizabeth, who first entered upon their Assistance; the Declaration is entitled, A Declaration of the causes moving the Q. of England to give aid to the defence of the people afflicted and oppressed in the low Countries. This Declaration was put forth, 1585. and in the 8, & 9 pages it hath these words.  
And furthermore, as a good loving Sister to him, and a natural good Neighbour to his Low Countries and people, we have often, and often again, most friendly warned him, that if he did not otherwise by his wisdom and Princely clemency restrain the Tyranny of his governors, and cruelty of his men of war, we feared that the people of his countries should be forced for safety of their lives, and for continuance of their native country in their former state of their liberties, to seek the protection of some other foreign Lord, or rather to yield themselves wholly to the sovereignty of some mighty Prince, as by the ancient Laws of their countries', and by special privileges granted by some of the Lords and Dukes of the Countries to the people, they do pretend and affirm, that in cases of such general injustice, and upon such violent breaking of their privileges, they are free from their former Homages, and at liberty to make choice of any other Prince, to be their Prince and Head. The proof whereof by examples past is to be seen and read in the ancient Histories of divers alterations of the Lords and Ladies of the Countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland and Zealand, and other Countries to them united, by the States and People of the Countries. And that by some such alterations, as the Stories do testify, the Duke of Burgundy came to his Title, from which the King of Spain's interest is derived.  
Upon these principles it it evident that then the Queen and Kings of England in joining to the assistance of or confederacy with the low Countries, have not joined with Subjects in Arms either against or without the consent of their true undoubted Monarch.  
2. As touching the assistance of the French Protestants of Rochel by our gracious sovereign that now is, we shall only reply (not insisting upon the Charter of Rochel granted to them by Lewis the 11.) that we are fully satisfied, that no argument can be drawn from thence, except by those who would raise a dispute of His majesty's Title and Interest in the Kingdom of France.  
3. As for the Scots, we expected that all further mention of their former actions should have been prevented by the Act of Oblivion. Yet seeing these men have undertaken to make an advantage against His sacred Majesty, even out of His acts and expressions of Grace and Clemency: we answer, That forms of Pacification and reconciliation, are not to be interpreted any further than to the reputation of the party to whom the reconciliation is made (you have not done so, or so, i.e. you shall be to me as if you had not) so as out of His majesty's expressions in the late pacification with the Scots, to conclude his approbation of the course then taken by them, or to take a warrant for their present undertaking, seems to be alike, as if they should conclude that it was lawful for other Churches to use St. Paul as the Galathians had done, by accounting him their enemy, because (by his own confession) they had done him no injury, and should gather that out of his Act of pacification with them, Gal. 4. 12. Brethren, I beseech you be as I am, I am as ye are, ye have not injured me at all.  
The sum of all is this: The Assembly of Divines in their exhortation, have neither concluded any thing positive for a lawfulness, or necessity of taking this Covenant, nor taken away any of those scruples which they propounded to themselves; they have neither proved that Bishops must or may be extirpated, nor taken off the scruple from the Oath of canonical obedience: They have neither cleared the objection from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, nor proved by any example recorded in Scripture, or by any undoubted warrantable practice, that it is lawful in any case whatsoever, without the King's consent, to enter into any whatsoever League and Covenant: So far have they been from proving that it is necessary or lawful to enter into this League, the state of the question being such, as we in the beginning have evinced it to be. So that should we enter into this covenant, it would be impossible to conclude our innocency therein from the innocency of Mordecai and the lewis here mentioned out of Esther 9 Their innocency was clear indeed, (but how would ours be so?) in that they resisted not the higher power, or the Arms commanded by him otherwise then by Fasting and Prayer, until the King granted them leave to gather themselves together, and to stand for their lives, which before they did not assume, for no want of sufficient strength to have defended themselves, (as is usually in the like cases objected) which is evident from their after sufficient strength by themselves to defend themselves, cap. 9  
Thus having examined the strength of their Reasons and Allegations, we think it still true (not only pretended, as the Exhortation hath it) that Clergy men (above all others) may not covenant to extirpate Church government by Bishops, both because of their Oath (as hath been proved) and simply considering the nature of the thing, in respect of the Reasons already by us alleged; and because Presbyters, if here they err, they err most dangerously and arrogantly, swearing (in effect) to endeavour to extirpate all order of spiritual Church governors above themselves, to endure none such (if they can help it) superior to themselves. The danger we had rather such should hear from St. Cyprian, Epist. 10. Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus, de offensa Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyteris, nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, sed neque futurum Domini Iudicium, neque nunc sibi praepositum Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub Antecessoribus factum est, cum contumelia & contemptu praepositi totum sibi vendicent? What also will they think of that ancient and reverend Canon (the 35. among those 50. commonly called The Canons of the Apostles) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} If any one ordained Bishop be not received, not through his own will, but through the wickedness of the people, let him remain a Bishop, but let the Clergy of that City be barred Communion, because they have not been better instructors of so inobedient a people. By which also it appeareth, that those lay men deceive themselves, who think that the Clergy only need scruple at this Oath, at least in the second Article thereof; we must tell them of Ignatius his rule, Epist ad Magnes. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Nothing ought to be done without the Bishop, by Presbyter, Deacon, or layman. If therefore (according to the Preface of this Covenant) we set the glory of God before our eyes, the same Ignatius gives us this other excellent monition, Epist. ad Trallian. 
a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c.  It becometh each of you, and especially the Presbyters, to cherish the Bishop, to the honour of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.   

The Printers Postscript to the Reader.  
GEntle Reader, a Copy of the foregoing Disquisitions accidentally coming to the hands of some, at whose command I am, was thought fit to be published, though without the knowledge and approbation of the Authors. The fitness of the subject, the worth of the work, and a peculiar relation to the Authors (if I mistake them not) may be a sufficient motive both for their command and my undertaking. Consider it seriously, and if thou art not yet engaged in the Covenant, this will confirm thee in thy resolution against it; if thou art, this by the assistance of God's grace may bring thee to a timely repentance. I cannot but admonish thee this one thing, viz. That I have gone exactly according to the Copy, even in those phrases which resemble the Genius of the place where it was composed, more than where it is published; only the faults which have escaped, I desire may be imputed to me and those many transcribers, through whose hands it passed before it could come to mine.  
FINIS.