WORSE and WORSE: OR, A DESCRIPTION OF THEIR DESPERATE Condition who shall presume to Take the NEW OATH OR COVENANT. Printed in the Year, 1643. CONCERNING THE OATH AND NEW COVENANT. What is Lawful Swearing. NOthing is manifested in Scripture to be more sacred than an Oath; which though made to Man and proceeding from Man, yet being made with relation to God is called The Oath of God, Exod. 22. as a principal part of God's Worship, Thou shalt worship the Lord and swear by his name, Deut. 10. And it is most justly called a Worship of God since thereby the just swearer glorifieth God, by professing, First, his Omniscience, as the only searcher of his heart to know whether he swears rightly or not. Secondly, his inviolable justice to condemn the unjust swearer and Thirdly, his omnipotency & unresistable power, to take vengeance upon every Godless violator of an Oath: and Godless he must needs be who observeth not all the properties of an Oath which God himself hath prescribed; even these three recorded. jerem, 4 Thou shalt swear in justice in judgement, and in Truth. First in justice, that the case be necessary and just, whereunto I am to be sworn, Secondly, in judgement, that know it to be such; because whosoever doth it doubtfully condemneth himself. Rom. 14.5, 22.23. Lastly, in Truth, abhorring from all deceitfulness of speech; either by verbal equivocation, or (which is the Art of lying) by any mental reservation. For although it be the easiest thing in the world to delude Man, yet the Apostle will have us know that God is not mocked, Gal. 2.7. Thus much of the substance and circumstances of Lawful swearing, We are to bring the new Oath to this divine Test, to try it whether it be true coin or counterfeit. I A. B. in humility and reverence to the divine Majesty, declare my hearty sorrow for my own sins, and the sins of this Nation, which have deserved the calamities and judgements that now lie upon it: And my true intention is, by God's grace, to endeavour the amendment of mine own ways.] Well then. Therefore must we take heed, least by multiplying our sins by perjuries and false swearing, we do provoke God to aggravate and multiply his judgements against us; because Rash swearing is a guiltiness, Leu. 5.4. and a false Oath is one of the greatest profanations of God's name that can be, as all Scripture showeth; and whereof God gave a document even in the new Testament, by his visible judgement upon two perjured wretches at once, as was seen before out of Act. 5. The Oath with an Exception. And that I do abhor and detest the said wicked and treacherous design lately discovered: and that I never gave, nor will gave mine assent to the execution thereof, but will according to my power and vocation oppose and resist the same, and all other of the like nature,] Which is not yet discovered unto me of what nature it is; whether it be not the same intended from the King for the Array, which is exacted by the Parliament for the Militia. And how fare the chief discoverer is to be believed, is a matter of great uncertainty; seeing, after His Impeachment of divers, none as yet hath been sufficiently convicted. The Oath with its exceptions. And in case any other like design shall hereafter come to my Knowledge, I will make such timely discovery as I shall conceive may best conduce to the preventing thereof.] None can give any assurance of that which is Like, before he know the colour of the ensample, which hitherto is not represented, but only in general terms, and therefore invisible and unknown to my conscience. The Oath and the Exception unto it. And whereas I do in my Conscience believe, that the Forces raised by the two Houses of Parliament, are raised and continued for their just defence.] Namely of Parliament; which I cannot do, if I may believe His Majesties often, public, and deep avouchments that he intendeth not the dissolution of this Parliament: nor until my Conscience be persuaded against Scripture to swear I ought not give credit to such expression from so Royal a mouth of my Sovereign, especially engaging his Sovereignty and Royalty for the truth of his Declarations in that behalf. The intention and reason of the Oath from the Preamble of it, and the exceptions against it. A Popish Army hath been raised against the Protestant Religion.] The intention and Reason of an Oath is (as it were) the soul thereof, and concerneth the very soul of the swearer. The Reason here pretended is (as the denomination showeth) The Popish Army of the King, now the denomination of every thing is taken either from that which is greater in Quantity, or in Excellency for worth, and value. But if I should think that the Army of the Kings is therefore more excellent because Popish, this were to denominate myself unworthy in opposing them, or if it be meant in respect of the Quantity, as if in the Army against the Parliament the greater number were Papists: this is as dissonant because the whole Host at Oxford, both Captains and inferior Soldiers (as is divulged) have taken the Oath, for defence of the Protestant Religion established. And scarce any one Troop of Papists hath been named in all the rest of the Armies on this side Trent. As for the Northern parts (if the asseverations of some may be credited) not two Regiments of sixteen can be accounted which profess themselves Popish. Therefore with what justice will they have me to swear that Army to be Papistical, and yet will not permit me to call their Army anabaptistical, which yet consists mainly of men of that Eaction? We are now to enter into the Religious consideration of this Oath. The Oath in respect of Religion and the exceptions. And I do in my Conscience believe, that those Forces are raised by the Parliament in defence of the true Protestant Religion.] But what is signified by the true Protestant Religion, we are not certified by this Oath, and must therefore borrow a light from the former oath of Protestation, authorized by this Parliament, both in the Preamble and explication thereof by the House of Commons. In the Preamble thus, The true Protestant Reform Religion established. In the Oath itself thus; The true Protestant Religion expressed in the doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popish innovations. The Exposition thus meaning so fare only as it is opposite unto Popery and Popish Innovations, and not to be extended unto any form of Worship. The first Exception. But to take up Arms against Sovereignty in pretence of defence of Religion is against the very doctrine of the Church of England; as is to be collected out of the 35. and 37. Article of our Church of England, having express relation unto the Homilies against Rebellion. The second Exception Secondly, If I swear against all Popish Innovation in Doctrine; then assuredly against those of taking up Arms in opposition to Princes in pretence of defence of Religion. Which is so uncouth an Innovation, as that it was condemned by the Universal Primitive Church of Christ for above 350. years; not only by their doctrine, but also their suffering for the defence of the Faith; and so testified by their public Apologies and glorious Martyrdoms. And that indeed this is a Popish doctrine is herein most evident, because that the now Schismatical Preachers for defence of this War use and urge the very same objections against the Army on the one side, and answers for confirmation of the others, by the same distorted expositions of Texts and Examples in holy Scriptures, which the Romish Sophisters have done, from point to point: notwithstanding they could not be ignorant of the learned and irrefragable Confutations made by Protestant Doctors and published to the World. A third Exception. Thirdly the exposition of the Protestation, professing by that Oath to oppose only the Popish Doctrines and Innovations: and the continued practice of not only connivance, but even indulgence also to the Brownistical and anabaptistical Faction, (which threaten nothing more than the destruction of the now professed Protestant Reformed Religion) do seem to prejudice the intention of this Oath; and give occasion to suspect that it may fall out against the doctrine as hath done to our Service-booke; which hath been by Sectaries torn in pieces, as it was at Durham by Papists in their insurrection in the North. And what difference can there be, whether this our Vineyard of Christ, the Church of England, be rooted out by the Romish Boar, or by other wild beasts of new and naughty Factions? From this part of defence for Religion, the Oath returneth as again to the part Politic. The Oath and the Exceptions against it. I. A. B. In my Conscience believe, that the Forces raised by the two Houses of Parliaments, are raised for their just Defence, and Liberty of the Subject, against the Forces raised by the King.] In this three circumstances are considerable; Who, against whom, and What; engendering as many doubts and obstructions unto the Consciences of them that are required to take this Oath. The first Exception. When we would know who it is that taketh up Forces for War, they tell us the Parliament, and that by their own Ordinance; whereas Subjects of every Kingdom are taught by the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, that this Authority is proper to him who is Supreme. According to the profession also of the Old Testament, and examples of their judges and Kings; excepting only where God himself did expressly interpose. The second Exception. The second Exception is Against whom▪ The Oath nameth not the King, but the King's Army, as though that were not against the King, which is to speak, Sibboleth in stead of Scibboleth. And what Conscience will not be jealous when severe execution is that the King being in Camp it is both against the Power and Person of the King, as Edge Hill can witness; and the Oath of Protestation, saying. I A. B. Protest according to my Allegiance to His Majesty, His Royal Person, Honour, Crown, and Dignity, etc. when as our learned Schismatics think to daub up men's consciences with their untempered mortar, by distinguishing between the Natural and politic Person of the King. The most of England can now laugh at their fond subtlety; knowing that he who killed Saul, the then King of Israel, did thereby kill the same King named Saul. And the Apostle showeth that they who resist the power sent by the King as Supreme, do thereby resist the power of the King himself. Therefore these contradictory Oaths cannot well lodge in any sincere Conscience. The third Exception. The matter For what, the Forces are raised expressed to be for Liberty of Subjects against Arbitrary Power contrary to Law, etc. Notwithstanding the power of Parliament in raising these Forces is done merely by an Arbitrary power, and against all prescription of Law; and to the highest oppression of the Subjects that hath been even unto the loss of both livelihood and lives. Alas our misery! A fourth Exception. When as the whole pretence for defence of Religion. Liberty of Subjects, and Privileges of Parliament, are no other than the King himself doth (I not say subscribe, but rather superscribe unto, avouching still that his taking up Arms is for the defence of the true eformed Protestant Religion, the Privileges of Parliament, and against all tyrannical Arbitrary government: must I then swear that they are just Forces raised for that which is so freely offered and yielded unto them? The Oath and the Exception against it. I will likewise assist the Persons who shall take this Oath, in what they shall do in the pursuance thereof. These words [What they shall do] have a great latitude and may leave the Actors unto a liberty or rather licence to urge men to take it by what means soever, be it fas or nefas. A Corollary to the former It may not be omitted to advertise how the Ministers and Trumpeters, sounding Alarms for War and for the Authorising of this Oath, do symbolise and jump with the Irish Papists in the self same three reasons which make for the justifying their Rebellion. 1. It is in the power of our People (say they) 〈◊〉 create a King, so to dissolve the Royal Government upon occasions seeming good to themselves. The second is Salon populi, the people's general and necessary good, as they pretend. Thirdly, the establishing of their own profession of Religion. These so many exceptions may prove so many Corrosives to the heart of the Swearer; whether he take it with a conscience wilful or doubtful. Three Quaeres or Cases of Conscience, touching the late Oath. 1. Q. How it consists with the threefold Condition of an Oath in general, 1. of Truth, 2. judgements, 3. Righteousness? jer. 4.2. 2. Q. How with the threefold Oath taken in particular: 1 Allegiance, 2. Supremacy, and the 3. Protestation? 3. q. How with it's own, 1. Introduction, 2. Limitations, and 3. Expressions in specials? and a threefold cord is not easily broken, Eccles. 4.12. For the first quaere and first Condition of Truth, 1. Which Excludes, Falsehood, Doubling, Fictions, mental Evasions, Equivocations, Reservations, etc. and requires simplicity, and severe correspondence to the sense and purpose of the Imposer, (i. e. liquido jur are.) For the Second, of Judgement, 2. Which requires it should be done soberly, advisedly, discreetly, reverendly, and in the fear of God. And not unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's lusts and appetites like brute beasts that have no understanding. For the third, of Righteousness. 3. That it be not to the hurt and prejudice of my neighbour, for any unjust or unlawful design. So, He that taketh it in his own private sense or reservations, (and not agreeable to the plain sense and purpose of the Imposer of the Oath,) offends against the first Condition. He that takes it rashly or timorously for fear or favour of men; offends against the second. He that takes it out of misguided-Zeal, or spirit of revenge upon his brother, offends against the third. For these and the like causes S. Austin concludes, that Falsa 〈◊〉 est exitiosa, vera iuratio periculosa, nulla iuratio secura. D. August: Ser: 28. de verbis Apost. False swearing is pernicious, true swearing is dangerous, not at all swearing is secure. Now for the second Q. How can it consist with a threefold Oath taken in particular? and First, how with the Oath of Supremacy? For, if he be Supreme over all persons, in all Causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal, how can I swear to subject him, or (which is all one) his Commissioners, 1. Pet. 2.14. and Power sent by him to any persons in any cause whatsoever? Ob. 1. But you will say the occasion of that Oath was only to exclude the Pope's Supremacy. Sol. True, though that were the chief occasion, yet it was not only the intention: but was purposely made to involve and shut up all his Subjects under the same Conditions of unresisting Obedience. Ob. 2. But the Oath only binds so long as the King observes the Condition of his own Oath for the true Religion. etc. Sol. A lawful Oath taken is of good force to bind us to Obedience even to a bad King; (much more to an eminently good Pious and Religious King) as appears by that of Solomon, Eccles▪ 8.2. I council thee to keep the King's Commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God: And by example of Zedechiahs' perjury and breaking of his Oath made to a Tyrant, Ezech: 17. v. 15.20. an Enemy of the Church. Shall he prosper (saith God) shall he escape that doth such things? Or shall he break his Covenant, and be delivered? As I live (saith the Lord) Surely MY Oath which he hath despised, and MY Covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. In like manner Saul his bloody house was visited because he sought to slay the Gibeonites (aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel) though in Zeal toto the Children of Israel and Juda. Hitherto of the first Oath, 2. Sam. 21.1.2. which is of Supremacy. The second follows of Allegiance, O. How can it consist with it? For I am bound by it to defend the King's Person, to the uttermost of my power; and speedily to discover and resist all Treasons and, Conspiracies against his Person, Crown, or Dignity; All which seem to be endangered by taking or partaking with Arms raised against him or the Power, Army, or Lifeguard commanded by Him for His defence, and that no person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath. And for— The third Oath. Of the late Protestation. How can it consist? For, I Protest, Vow, and promise to maintain the Protestant Religion See the preamble of the House of Commons to the Protest: expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popery and Popish Innovations. But this Assertion of the new Oath that (in my Conscience I do believe that the Forces raised by the two Houses of Parliament, are raised and continued for their ●ust defence, and for the defence of the true Protestant Religion) seems to contradict the late Protestation; For, first it is against the established Doctrine of the Church of England; which is in the 37. Article which saith that The King's Majesty hath the Chief power in this, Realm of England unto whom the Chief government of. All Estates, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, in All causes, doth appertain— To rule All Estates and degrees committed to Their charge; and to restrain with the sword; None of which can the King do, if the Sword or Militia be taken from Him. Item. That a man may, take up Arms or take an Oath when the Magistrate (i. e. Supreme Power) commandeth; implying that no man ought either, to take Oath or bear Arms without the Injunction of the Magistrate. Item, Article 35. that the two Books of Homilies, (the Homilies against Rebellion amongst the rest) contain a Godly and wholesome Doctrine, to be read in Churches by the Ministers (that is Preachers, not only Reading Ministers) diligently & distinctly; that they may be understood by the People as the Doctrine of the Church of England: For though there may be many Doctrines and many Churches in England yet there is but one Doctrine & one church of England, contained in the 39 Articles, and Common-Prayer Book confirmed by Act of Parliament. Thus far of the first particular of the Protestation. The second is, how it can consist with that part of the Protestation, which binds me to oppose all Popish Innovationis, etc. for to take, up Arms in case of Religion against a Supreme Power is a plain Popish Innovation, and a new Invention ought and maintained only in this last Age. And thirdly, ●ow can it consist with the last particular; Wherein I 〈◊〉 and protest to maintains with my Life Power and Estate (according to the duty of mine Allegiance His Majesty's Person, Honour and Estate, Now the Quaere is how I maintain first His Person with my life, Power, and Estate, if I swear to assist an Army of men whom He hath oft Declared (and are so accounted by many pious and judicious men) to be utter Enemies to His Person; Honour and Estate; Or, secondly, how can I be said to maintain His Honour, when by this Oath I profess (expressly contrary to the word of God, Eccles. 10.20. Exod. 22.28, (not only in mine heart to curse and accuse Him, but openly with my mouth to revile and blaspheme Him; and in effect, say in mine heart, (which is Nefandum horrendum and fare from the thought of an obedient Son, that honoureth his Father) He is an utter Enemy of God's true Religion, a violator of all sacred Vows, Oaths and Covenants. And can't yet be said to maintain His Honour? Can I be thus presumptuous to ●udge Him? Am I not afraid to speak evil or Dignities, & yet maintain the king's Honour, or the Christian Protestant Religion? 2 Pet. 2.10.11. Did Cham honour his Father when he discovered his real nakedness? and do they honour their Father that impute a lying and false nakedness, and cover his real Virtues & Glory by casting on foul and feigned aspersions? A Son honoureth his Father and a Servant his Master; If he be a Father where is his honour? Malach. 1.6.8, if he be our M●ster where is his fear? if this be the honour and fear, go and offer it 〈◊〉 thy Father, to thy Master, and see if they will take it at thy hands? Nor will the after exposition serve to heal this breach: by saying it was not to be extended to the maintenance of any discipline or government of the Church of England. For, first all the ordained Ministers of England have subscribed and sworn to the King's Supremacy, and all the doctrine of the Church of England; and therefore they cannot be absolved from this lawful Oath by any power whatsoever. And Secondly, though it should not be extended to Church-Government, yet it will reach to the Civil Supremacy and chief power of the Sword, See the abovesaid Article 37. which the express doctrine of the Church of England avouceth to be only in the King. Or thirdly, how can I be then said to maintain his Estate, when I take part with them that withhold and withdraw it from him? or that put him into such an Estate and condition as does exhaust and consume His Estate, by maintaining an Army to guard and protect His own Person and His Loyal Subjects? And hitherto of the two first Queries concerning the three Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Protestation; now followeth the third Queer, how this late Oath can consist with its own Introduction limitations and expressions. First, How with the Introduction, viz. That there hath been and now is in this Kingdom a POPISH AND TRAITOROUS PLOT for the subversion of the true Religion, etc. First how can I believe this, and believe the King's Protestation to the contrary? And Secondly how can I honour the King and not believe Him, And thirdly, how can I call it a Popish Army when the more principal part must give the denomination? when it is confessed and manifest, that the better part by much, and the greater by fare are Protestants, and sworn contrary to all popish plots. Secondly, In declaring my sorrow for my sins past, and purpose to amend, etc. How can it consist, if in this very Oath I commit greater sins of Pride, Slander, Envy, and all Uncharitableness, Blasphemy, Perjury, and Disobedience? And if the Repentance itself be such a sin, it is a Repentance to be repent of. Again, how can it consist with the Limitation, i. e. In Order to the securing the true Protestant Religion? when as it is clear by what is above said, It is directly contrary to Our Protestant Religion, or the Doctrine of Our Church (though there may be many other strange doctrines in our Church (which evidently asserts the King to be supreme over ALL Persons, in ALL Causes; and plainly denies any power of Arms to be used by Subjects against their King, under colour of Religion. Now what our Lord and Master said to one desiring him to divide the inheritance, See Luke 12. We his servants may answer in the like case, Man, who hath made me a divider or judge over you? If any speak to us to take up Arms to vindicate the present cause as just, in raising Forces against the King, Must answer and ask, Who, hath, made 〈◊〉 judges over our Sovereign? Or dividers of the King's Inheritance betwixt Him and His Subjects? Especially when he hath protested so often by all that is sacred, and engaged all that is dear to Him, that he will maintain in and defend the true Protestant Religion, and Liberty of the Subject etc. Am I not rather silenced by that of Solomon My Son, fear God and the King; See Prov. 24.21. and meedle not with them that are given to change, Prov. 24.21. Or are we not rather disarmed, by that of our Saviour, put up thy sword, for he that takes the sword will perish by the sword. Thirdly and lastly, the Expression; which is, To maintain and assist all persons in whatsoever they shall do in pursuance of the same. Which is of a vast and large extent; & seems to maintain, 1. Those that hazard and oppose the King's Person, Honour and Estate, 2. Those that go contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England (in taking up Arms under colour of Religion.) 3. And that in all which they shall do on pursuance of the same. What if I should be required to help to kill mine own Father, Natural, Civil, or Spiritual, if the King or my Parents or any Ministers shall oppose their Forces by word or deed, it seems I may and aught by virtue of these words [In pursuance of the same] assist any one that shall pursue them or any of them unto death. And we have cause to fear it will be so extended, when it is taken up or offered by some for good doctrine, that every man ought (as the Levites commanded by Moses) go out and slay every man his Brother, See Exod. 32.27▪ 29. and consecrate yourselves every man upon his Son or upon his Brother, Companion, or his Neighbour, if he judge him an Idolater, Enemy of God; (which is not very hard for malice to do.) And that the Levites by that severe and bloody execution, did expiate their slain of their Father's transgression. But fare be from that kakozelia, to partake of the transgression of Simeon and Levi brethren in iniquity; (except he had the same infallible Commission, and the same idolatry to oppose) under an hypocritical pretext of circúmcision, and furious zeal of Religious Reformation, did really affect not the conversion but the destruction; not the Circumcision but excision of the Shechemites. But pray we rather and conclude with the true Israel of God, Oh my soul, come not thou into their secret, into their assem●●● mine honour be not then united. Gen. 49.56.57. For in their anger they slew a man and (saving their Persons) cursed be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it is Cruel; 〈◊〉 them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel. Amen FINIS.