A REVIEW OF THE COVENANT, WHEREIN The original, Grounds, Means, Matter, and Ends of it are examined: AND Out of the Principles of the Remonstrances, Declarations, Votes, Orders, and Ordinances of the prime Covenanteers, or the firmer Grounds of Scripture, Law, and Reason, disproved.  
HOSEA 10.3,4.  
Now they shall say, We have no King, because we feared not the Lord, What then should a King do to us?  
They have spoken words, swearing falsely in making a Covenant: thus judgement springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.  
Printed in the year, 1644.   

The Contents of the Chapters in this ensuing Discourse.  

CHAP. I.  
By what means the Covenanteers were reduced to the necessity of entering into this Combination, confessed to be their last refuge. 
p. 1.    

CHAP. II.  
The Grounds of the Covenant, and false Assertions laid down in the Preface to it, disproved. 
p. 4.   

Wherein is showed that the Covenanteers falsely affirm●  1. Themselves to be All sorts of Commons. 
 2. To live All under one King. 
 3. To be All of one Reformed Religion. 
p. 5.  4. In taking this Covenant to have an eye to the King● Honour and Peace of the kingdoms, 
 5. Or upon all the Plots against Religion in all places. 
 6. That they swear after mature deliberation. 
 7. That their supposed Enemies have an intention to subvert Religion. 
p. 6.  8. That their own Supplications and Remonstrances have been any means to preserve it, 
 9 Or themselves from utter ruin. 
p. 7.  10. That this Covenant is according to any former practice of these kingdoms (The late Scottish Covenant how unlike it.) 
 11. Or the example of God's People (Jews, Germans, Low-Countreymen, or other Protestants) in other Nations. 
p. 9    

CHAP. III.  
The unlawfulness of the Covenant in respect of the Cause Efficient; as made by Subjects against the will of their superior in such things as necessarily require his consent. 
p. 11.  This illegality proved upon it 1. As a Vow. 
 This illegality proved upon it 2. As an Oath. 
p. 12.  This illegality proved upon it 3. As a League. 
   

CHAP. IV.  
The matter of the Covenant examined; and proved, first, to be against Truth. 
p. 13.   

In that they falsely swear  I. The Doctrine, Discipline, Government, and Worship of the Church of Scotland to be according to God's Word. 
 II. The Doctrine of England not to be so, as contradicting their practices. 
p. 14.  III. The Lord not to be one amongst them, so long as Prelacy is not extirpate. 
 IV. That Prelacy is a sin, and that if private men should not take upon them to be Reformers, they should be partakers in other men's sins. 
 V. That the Cause of Religion is common to them all. 
p. 18.  VI. That they earnestly desire to be humbled. 
 VII. That the sins by them mentioned, are the true causes of the kingdom's distress. 
p. 19    

CHAP. V.  
That the Covenant, by reason of the many ambiguities in it, especially this, Who shall be the authentic Interpreter o● it, cannot be sworn in judgement. 
p. 20.   

Where we inquire,  I. Who ought to be the Interpreter in other ordinary Oaths; 
 II. Who in this. Whether every man for himself, or the foremen for all; and how they may differ. Particular doubts proposed upon which the Covenanteers are not resolved: As, 
 III. Wherein the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland consists. 
p. 22.  IV. Who those Common Enemies are against whom they swear. 
 V. What the Doctrine, Worship, Di●cipline, and Church-Government of England is, as to the Covenanteers. 
p. 23.  VI. To what that clause relates, According to the Word of God. 
 VII. What meant by— Whatsoever shall be found contrary to the power of godliness. 
p. 24.  VIII. In what sense they vow to de●end his majesty's Person and Authority. 
 ix.. And whether the King's preservation must be preferred before the preservation of all, or any one privilege of Parliament. 
p 25.  X What Liberty they intend. Whether to be free States. 
 XI, Who meant by— Both kingdoms. And which the Supreme judicatory in them. 
p. 26.  XII. What they understand by the yoke of Antichristian Tyranny. 
   

CHAP. VI.  
That the performance of sundry Clauses in the Covenant cannot be without grand inconvenience or injustice. 
p. 27.   

Such is their swearing  I. Constantly to preserve the Scottish Government (a human invention) and Discipline, in its own nature alterable. 
 II. To reform the English and Irish, according to the example of the best Reformed Churches: which is hard to be found, and not necessary to be followed. 
p. 28.  III. To endeavour the nearest uniformity in all the three kingdoms; which is not possible to be compassed, nor fitting to be kept. 
p. 30.  IV. To preserve the privileges of Parliaments; whereof some challenged to be such, are declared to be incompatible; others argued to be injust. 
 V. To accuse all Delinquents and Malignants, not excepting a man's own self. 
p. 34.  VI. To endeavour that all such may be brought to punishment, without hope of mercy or pardon. 
 VII. Each man to go before another in the example of Reformation; without waiting for the Ministers to show, or Magistrates authority to lead the way. 
p. 35.    

CHAP. VII.  
That many things vowed in the Covenant are not possible to be fulfilled. 
p. 36.   

For it is impossible for all the Covenanteers,  I. Constantly, and all the days of their lives to endeavour each particular they swear. 
 II. Mutually to preserve the privileges of Parliament of all the kingdoms. 
 III. To assist and defend all that enter into thi● Covenant. 
p. 38.  IV. Never to alter their opinions to neutrality or indifferency. 
 V. To observe all the Cla●ses in the Covenant, some whereof imply contradiction. 
   

CHAP. VIII.  
That the very taking the Covenant, and other avowed actions of the Covenanteers, are in ●act contradictory to the formal words of their Oat●. 
p. 40.   

This is argued, in that they swear,  
According to their callings, to extirpate all Popery, Superstition, heresy, schism, Faction;  
And to preserve the privileges of Parliament, Liberties of the kingdoms, Authority of the King:   

Yet is their taking and enforcing of this Oath  I. Inconsistent with most of their Callings. 
 II. An act of Popery, properly so called. 
p. 41.  III. As great a Superstition as Monastique vows. 
p. 44.  IV. A Branch of Aëriani●me, and so a heresy. 
p. 46.  V. A vowed schism from their mother Church. 
p. 48.  VI. A breach of the just privileges of Parliament. 
p. 50.  VII. An encroachment upon the public Liberty. 
p. 53.  VIII. A contempt of the King's Authority. 
 ix.. A sworn Faction against the better part of the kingdom. 
   

CHAP. ix..  
That many particulars vowed in the Covenant, and intended by the Covenanteers, are simply and absolutely unlawful. 
p. 55.   

Such are  I. The alteration of Religion established by Law, without the Lawgivers consent. 
 II. The Extirpation of Episcopacy. 
p. 61.  III. The pulling down the present Church●Government, before they be agreed upon another. 
p. 63.  IV. The Extirpation of the present ministry, as being ecclesiastical Officers that depend upon the Hierarchy. 
p. 66.  V. The Extirpation of Deans and Chapters, and alienation of the church's patrimony. 
p. 68  VI. Their illegal forcing the King to go against his Oath, legally taken at his Coronation. 
p. 72.  VII. Their swearing to have no respect of persons in their Extirpations. 
p. 75.  VIII. Their allowing their judges to punish Malignants as they shall think convenient, though their offences do not so deserve. 
   

CHAP. X.  
That the Covenant is repugnant to those general Ends for which it is pretended to be taken. 
p. 78.   

As being,  I. Contrary to the Glory of God. 
 II. Destructive to the Protestant Religion, and serving rather to advance Popery. 
 III. Derogatory to the King's Honour. 
p. 80.  IV. prejudicial to the Liberties of the kingdoms, as taken for the upholding of their power, by whom all public Liberty is already destroyed. 
 V. Inconsistent with the Peace of the kingdoms: as tending immediately to nothing but war with others, and not likely to end in Peace amongst themselves. 
   

CHAP. XI.  
That the particular Ends of the several Articles are likewise inconsistent with the matter of them. 
p. 87.   

As,  
I. A violent Reformation, with the Growth of Religion.  
II. A violent Extirpation of what is not sin, with the clearing of the Extirpers from sin.  
III. Their swearing, absolutely to preserve the power of Parliaments, but the King's Person and Authority with reservation, for this End, that the world may judge of their loyalty, and how they have no intentions to diminish his just Power.  
Here the world is in part informed wherein the King's just Power consists: As, 
(1. In making 
p. 88 of Law.  2. In making 
p. 88 of Law.  3. In declaring 
p. 89. of Law.  4● In executing 
 5. In appointing justices. 
 6. In pardoning offenders. 
p. 90.  7. In disposing of preferments. 
 8. In protecting his subjects. 
 9 In Supremacy over all Estates. 
 10. In calling, adiourning, proroguing, dissolving of Parliaments.) 
p. 91.    
And how all these Powers are actually diminished, if not destroyed by the Covenanteers.  
In treating of the last particular, the equity, and so the validity of the late Act, Against the Dissolution of this present Parliament, is ventilated.    

CHAP. XII.  
The true End of framing and enjoining this Covenant, The bringing in of the Sco●s, absolutely unlawful. 
p. 96.  I. In respect of the English inv●●ing. 
p. 97.  II. In respect of the Sco●s coming. (Where the three pretended Reasons of their Invasion are debated, viz. 
  
1. The g●●d ●f Religion in England. 
p. 98.  2. The 〈◊〉 of their native King. 
p 99  3. The rescuing this kingdom from destruction.) 
p. 100   
III. Their many former Oaths and Protestations to the contrary●   

CHAP. XIII.  
From these premises the Covenant is concluded unlawful in respect of the form. 
p. 104.     

Errata,  
Page, Line, For, read 3 18 left last 6 3 desciverant desciver●nt 7 2 and or 8 34 abjected abjured 10 13 Passan Passa● 14 35 convented convened ib. 37 knew know 21 21 interferre interfere 23 33 Assembly that Assembly of that 25 6 Bulk Balk 29 6 to English to the English ib. 20 our one 31 29 must might 37 31 considered considerable  
Those Quotations which occur out of the Remonstrances or Declarations of Parliament, are taken out of that Exact Collection, printed for Edward Husbands, and published by special Order of the House of Commons made Martii 24. 1642. which is here usually pointed at, the most compendious way by these Characters.   

A Review of the Covenant.  

CHAP. I. By what means the Covenanteers were reduced to the necessity of entering into this Combination, confessed to be their last Refuge.  
WHen the danger is once over, to reflect upon the many miseries they have undergone, may haply afford some small comfort to such as shall escape: but so long as we groan under the present distempers, and can discern no probable end of our sufferings but with ourselves, it is but a sad contemplation to look back upon our former Peace, and inquire by what sleights we were fooled out of so happy a condition. He that found the poor man ready to perish in the bottom of the pit, and was more inquisitive how he fell in, then solicitous to use means how to help him out, expressed a greater measure of curiosity than Charity.  
It shall therefore be my chiefest endeavour to rescue, if I may, the many seduced Scules out of that pit of Destruction into which they are already plunged. The danger of those courses that led them thither, was wisely foreseen 
a vide; Exact Collection of all Remonstrances, Declarations, &c. between the King's Majesty, and the Parliament. pag. 61. 102-127. 164.1●●. 252. & 381.  and timely foretold by His Majesty; but urgentibus Imperium fatis, salutares Dei atque hominum admonitiones spernuntur.  
If the Contrivers of these great Tropics in Church and State had at first, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, acquainted us with their designs, we should have been afraid to own, and ashamed to abet them. No question but what comes last in execution was first in their intention. The subversion of Government, as well civil as ecclesiastical, was the prime aim of those Architects of State, who were to erect their private greatness upon the public ruins. For whom it had been in vain to strike immediately at the face of Majesty, or talk of pulling up Root and Branch the first day. At the beginning of our Parliament it was with the common People of this Land, as once with the Roman soldier, Miles longo Caesarum Sacramento imbutus, ad destituendum Imperatorem, arte magis & impulsu quàm suo ingenio traductus. The tye of Allegiance which had been ever held sacred, and the many blessings of a long Peace, enjoyed under His Majesty and His royal Father, would not, without the help of Arts and Industry, suffer them to make a sudden defection from their Loyalty. Their nature therefore, fatally inclined to change, must be cunningly wrought upon by an odious representation and malicious aggravation of some past grievances; their dull restive Spirits must be conjured up by those two vulgar charms, Religion and Liberty; they are commanded to believe this is destroyed, and that endangered: So to bring them out of love with their present condition, and make them venture a certain happiness for uncertain hopes.  
By what degrees they were disciplined and broken to a perfect Rebellion, I forbear to rehearse. But if the Covenanting Members yet remaining at Westminster (of whom only I desire to be understood through this discourse) be the same men that managed the Cause from the beginning, and were the true Authors of all those Declarations and Remonstrances fathered upon one or both Houses of Parliament, I crave leave once more to put the kingdom in mind of what they were told before, 
b 
Declarat. of May. 19 1642.  
E C. p. 213. vid. & p. 16. & ●86.   how they had brought their work to such a height and degree of success, that nothing seemed to be left in their way able to hinder the full accomplishment of their desires, unless God in his justice should send a grievous curse upon them. When we lay this profession of theirs in the balance with His majesty's Answer to that very Declaratîon, 
c Ex Coll. p. 255.  where he desired his actions might no longer prosper, than they were direct●d to the glory of God, and the maintenance of true Religion; and weigh withal, Their strength and His weakness at that time, he having but a few men to guard him, less money to pay them, nothing at all to arm them, save a good Cause, the only thing that his adversaries wanted; and see how the Scales are turned since, how they are enforced to call in foreign assistance, and verify their own prophetic fear of invasion; we cannot but acknowledge His Majesty found that blessing which he desired, but whether it were the curse of God that thus far hindered the accomplishment of their desires, we are not forward to pronounce.  
After they had been twice foiled by His Majesty, first by His Pen, and since by His Sword: when writing and fighting would not serve the turn, they fell to vowing and swearing; their City Covenants led the way, and to bring on the Scots, this national followes● which their own elect 
d M. Nye in his Exhort. Co●. with a Narrative. p. 21.  Orator tells them, As it is the last Oath they are like to take in this kind, so it is their last Refuge. Tabula post naufragium. If this help them not, they are like to remain till their dying day an unhappy People.  
This then being (as is supposed) their Achilles, upon which the fate of Greece depends, I have adventured to encounter it. Though I must confess the minds of all men being long ago preengaged, and the grand controversy not likely to be decided by any other dispute, then of the sword: Discourses of this kind are much out of date. Nor can I conceive what other great advantage they can make of this Covenant, unless it be to enrich themselves by the injust spoils of some few men resolvedly honest, who by refuseing of it shall give testimony to the world, that they value the salvation of their souls, above that of their Estates. As for those many softer tempers, who may be won by persuasions, or forced by constraint to the taking of it, they will no sooner have opportunity to free themselves from those inducements, than they will hold themselves freed from any obligations laid upon them by this Oath, which is no other than a band of iniquity, as I shall endeavour to prove by thi● ensuing Discourse.   

CHAP. II. The Grounds of the Covenant, and false Assertions laid down in the Preface, disproved.  
THe more sacred any Ordinance is in itself, the more prodigiously Sacrilegious is their sin who would abuse it to injust ends. Such are all those who traitorously affected to the King of Heaven, without any warrant from his Law, upon false suggestions and surmises of their own, dare counterfeit his sign Manual, a Vow, and affix his Great Seal, an Oath, to any illegal Ordinance of their own invention.  
The Preface to this Covenant, if it be no part of it, (as 
a Covenant with Narrative. p. 28.  Master Henderson says it is) yet it contains the grounds of it; which ought to be so true and evident, as might be fit foundations to build a Solemn Oath upon; so unquestionably certain, that at least the Covenanteers themselves should not doubt of them. Whereas here they present us with almost as many untruths as lines, and some of them such as themselves know and confess to be false.  

1. For it is not true, that all sorts of Commons in the three kingdoms, either yet have, or probably ever will take this Covenant, nor that it is indeed, what is here insinuated and commonly given out, a national Covenant between the kingdoms. When the Covenanteers in the close, declare their desire to be humbled for their own sins, and the sins of these kingdoms; as they put a distinction betwixt their sins, so must they admit a vast difference betwixt themselves and these kingdoms, of which they are but an inconsiderable part; I mean for their worth, and I hope for their number too.  
2. It is not true, that all those who take the Covenant upon their own Principles, Live under one King; the States of Scotland, and the two Houses in England, are commonly affirmed to be above the King, at least Coordinate with him. His authority is 
b M. Ward's Analysis of the Covenant.  said to reside with them, though the person of Charles Steward be not there. This indeed makes them Kings, but not one King, so long as England and Scotland are not one kingdom. As for other inferior Covenanteers they must be Subjects, but whether to one, or the many Kings, let it be thus tried. King Charles Commands they shall not swear this League, the many Kings Command they shall; and their Subjects they are to whom they obey.  
3. It is not true that all the Covenanteers are of one reformed Religion. 
c Edenb. Ian. 4. 1642.  The Scots have often Petitioned for unity in Religion, and 
d S. Andr. May. 3.1642. E.C. p. 598, 599, & 600, 602.  professed there can be no hopes of it, till there be first one form of ecclesiastical Government: this being not yet effected amongst themselves, they must not pretend to be of one Religion.  
4. It is not true that in making this Covenant they could have all those goodly things before their eyes, which they here boast off. Vision is properly of things present; the Liberty and Peace of England, & Ireland could not be visible to them through the deplorable Estate of the one, and the distressed Estate of the other kingdom. But if they meant the phrase in a figurative sense, yet am I loath to believe they looked upon the Glory of God, and the honour of His majesty with the same eye. That they intended to make him a glorious God, in the same sense, they endeavour to make his Majesty a Glorious King.  
5. It is not true that they did or could possibly call to mind the plots, attempts, and practices against the true Religion, and professors thereof, which have been in all places ever since the Reformation. It is now above sixscore years since Luther first broke the ice, no doubt many plots have been against our Religion, or the professors of it, some perhaps bare plots, stifled in the womb, and never known but to the plotters; others might come to the birth, attempts, and practices, but at such a distance of time and place that none of the Covenanteers could be privy to them then, or were acquainted with them since; either never committed to story, or those Histories not now extant, or at least not read, no● observed, or forgotten by the Covenanteers, who therefore cannot now call to mind the plots in all places ever since the Reformation.  
6. And if they have not done so, then is the succeeding position likewise false, they did not enter into this Covenant after mature deliberation. Surely two or 
e Order of the Commons. Sept. 25. 1644.  three days after the first proposal was too short a time to ripen such a Deliberation. But if it must be held an essential mark of malignancy, not to swallow without chewing whatsoever is offered by such hands who pronounce the sentence by that Law, Qui dubitant, desciverant. If any one Covenanteer be truly guilty of such a politic rashness, as to swear upon trust, that others have maturely deliberated, though he have not, his default is sufficient to make all the rest liars, who in that case cannot truly say, We of all sorts, calling to mind the Plots in all places, resolved, after mature deliberation, swear, &c.  
7. If it were agreed, who are the greatest Enemies of our Religion, we should be better able to judge of the increase and exercise of their power and malice. upon that principle which the Scots have taught us, No unity in Religion without unity in ecclesiastical Government; we must conclude against the Covenanteers, that they who swear to extirpate the Government are Enemies to the Religion of the Church of England. But if they intend by Enemies, the King and Bishops, and other misnamed Malignants, whom they traduce for an intention of subverting Religion, it is a calumny, as void of truth as full of malice: nothing was ever denied by his Majesty, or opposed by his Followers, which might conduce to the settlement of the true Reformed, Protestant Religion And if it be such a permanent truth, that when ever any man swears this Covenant, The power of these Enemies is at that time increased; I wish they would consider what a strange Enemy they have to deal with, who grows stronger by their opposition, Qui saepiùs vinci potest, quàm illi vincere: and take heed they be not given up to incurable blindness and hardness of heart, that they cannot see, or will not acknowledge the hand of God working against them, and themselves fighting against God.  
8. It is not true, that their Supplications, Remonstrances, Protestations, and Sufferings have been any means to preserve themselves or their Religion from destruction. First, for Supplications: we have not heard of any from Ireland without effect, save such as are put upon the Covenanteers score. Nor have the Scots been repulsed in any desires which concerned themselves; it was their crime, which is our misery, they would needs be in alienâ Republicâ curiosi. And such supplications as have been presented in the name of this kingdom, were either for fashions sake, desiring the King's consent to things they resolved to do without it; and after the rejection of that gracious Message of January 20th, which might have prevented all those unreasonable demands insisted upon since, Non ut assequerentur, sed causam seditioni. To send an Army to present a Petition, was a strange address of Subjects to their King. Nor need they impute their Remonstrances of all the conceived errors in Government, or their Protestations to defend his Person, accompanied with a 
f Octob. 22. 1642. E.C. p. 663.  Declaration against his sincerity in Religion, and resolution to hazard their lives against Him and his Army, which the very next day they performed accordingly: but if supplications and sufferings were truly means, why do they not continue to supplicate, since they have no right to command? Why do they not (like Christians) rather suffer still, then offer wrong? Rather submit to the laws in force, then by violence compel their sovereign to receive new ones from them?  
9 Their Resolution to enter into this League, for the preservation of themselves and their Religion from utter ruin and destruction, implies a double untruth, that both they & it may be utterly destroyed. Though our Bodies and Estates have been long exposed to the peril of destruction; yet our souls are shot-free, we may take our saviour's 
g Matth. 10, 28.  word for it; and Animus cuj●sque est quisque. When Pandora's box of fears and jealousies was first set open, we were told of dangers though we could see none then, save that it was certain ruin for any man to think he was not in danger; but we have now too just cause to believe their predictions, who by that artifice got so much power into their hands as is sufficient to undo the kingdom; and by this Covenant vow so much ob●tinacy as not to entertain any thoughts of peace till either that be done, or they perish in the work: and if they shall, yet will their Religion (if it be that which they profess, the true Protestant) never fail, for Magna est veritas & praevalebit: 
h Matth. 16, 18.  the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; 
i & 7. 27.  it is founded upon a Ro●ke, and all the Enemies of God cannot overthrow it, 
k Act. 5.29.  because it is of God.  

10. The pretended truth of that which follows is obtruded upon the people to serve for a shoeing-horn to draw on the Covenant, which is falsely affirmed to be according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times. The Subjects of England never entered into a sworn Covenant, such as this is, either amongst themselves, or with other Nations. If the late rebels in Ireland did any such thing, none but equal rebels will think their Example worthy of commendation. So then, if neither England nor Ireland ever did the like, t●en not these kingdoms. Scotland only remains, the near and neighbouring Example whereof 
l Covenant with a Narrative. p. 28.  Master Henderson proposeth to our Covenanteers, as worthy their best observation, he would not say imitation: for Examples are the weakest Arguments; and in matters of doubtful right those that urge them commonly go beyond their Copy. It is but a poor defence, Societatem alieni criminis innocentiam vocare. Nor will the late Scots Covenant 1538, serve to justify this now.  
For first, in relation to themselves, there is a great difference in the occasion then and now. Their Religion and Liberties they then affirmed to be invaded; now they cannot pretend any such matter.  
Secondly, for the efficient cause, that Covenant was made only betwixt Subjects of the same kingdom; but this is a League amongst People of different Countries and laws.  
Thirdly, that was not without some stamp of royal Authority; being alleged to be the same for substance with the general Band, formerly subscribed and allowed by King James 1580. and enjoined by several Acts of council and general Assembly 1581., 1590. and to justify their explanations upon it many Acts of Parliament were produced. But this is wholly contrary to the King's Command, and some part of it against the whole current of English Parliaments.  
Fourthly, the main matter in both, Episcopacy, though it was supposed or suggested to be against Law in Scotland, yet was 
m Ministers Answer to the 4. Dem. of the Doct. of Aberden.  not required to be abjected, but the practice of it forborn, and the matter referred to a free general Assembly. Whereas here, though it be so deeply rooted in our laws, that no man can tell what is Law without it, it is vowed to be utterly extirpated, and that without the advice of the Clergy in Convocation, without a free Convention of both Houses in Parliament, without His majesty's Assent or Approbation.  
Fiftly, for manner of prosecution, 
n Ibid. Answ. to the first Demand. & Answer to the first Reply.  the Scots then professed to persuade, not enforce men to Covenant; disclaimed all threatenings, but of God's judgements; all violence, but of reason. Whereas 
o Ordinance of the Committee of Estates, Nov. 6. 1643.  now if their greatest Peers do post-pone or refuse to take this Covenant, all their goods and rents must be confiscate, and their persons made incapable of any benefit or office in the kingdom.  
Lastly, the case in England and Scotland is not now the same; the edge of those laws which were formerly urged against them, is taken off by a late 
p 2 Parl of K. Charles. Act. 29.  Act of Parliament. Whereas our laws stand yet in full force, and no man can be assured but the King may one day recover so much strength as to put them in execution.   
11. The next Assertion being equally false is equally destructive to the foundation of this Covenant; which is not (as is affirmed) according to the example of God's People in other Nations; which Text if we expound by 
q Covenant with Narra. pag. 28.  M. Hendersons Comment, either of the Israelites of old, or the Protestants in Germany and the Low Countries of later times, it will but serve to set out the ignorance or impudence of the Contrivers.   
It is true, the Jews made many 
r vid Gen. 17.7. Deut. 29.12. Iosh. 24. 23, 25. 2. Chron. 15. 8, 12. & 23. 16. & 29. 10. & 34.31,32. Nehem. 5.14. & 10. 1, 28, 29.  Covenants, but none like to this. For 1. All theirs were terminated within themselves; they did not vow the Reformation, much less extirpation of any Common Enemy, Syrians or Babylonians, of another Nation or Religion; for which yet they might have a better colour than our Brethren of Scotland now have. 2. The object of their Covenants was not like this of ours; no pretended privileges or disputable Liberties in matter of State, nor any conjectural fancies, or probable opinions in point of Religion: but either an universal obedience to the whole Law, or a more strict observance of such particular Precepts, wherein they found themselves most defective. 3. No one of their Covenants was ever sworn against the will of the Magistrate, but always at the personal command and example of their Supreme, or at least subordinate Rulers, not opposed but countenanced by the Supreme. A circumstance which had it ever been omitted by them might have been thought less necessary, in regard the matter of their Covenant was always enjoined by God himself.  
Next, for Germany, we must remember, that country is of a much distant constitution from the kingdom of England. Many Princes, and some Cities there, do not acknowledge the Emperor's Supremacy, as we do our Kings; yet never made any such Covenant as this against him. The first and principal by the Protestants at 
s 1530. & 1535. Sleidan. Com. lib. 7. & l 9  Smalcald, was not of sworn Subjects against their sovereign, but together with their Princes, for mutual defence only, not to offend any. And their last Covenant in the Pacification at 
* 1552.  Passan, after much effusion of blood, and the ruin of many Noble Families, ended in this, that no man should be troubled for his Religion, whether Romanist or Reformed.  
Lastly, the highest strain that I meet with in any Covenant made by the Protestants in the Low Countries, is no more than this, 
t Strad. hist. lib. 5. Me●erran. lib. 2. pag. 44.  To defend themselves, and oppose the Inquisition. The never vowed to extirpate either Popery or Prelacy, though the Prelates were of a different Religion: but in some of their 
u Idem. lib. 6. pag. 177. lib. 7. p. 194. lib. 4. p. 95. lib. 8. p. 217. 227, 228. lib. 9 p. 239. 248.  Covenants bound themselves to preserve them; and plead in their Petitions for the expediency of toler●ting divers Religions in the same State. Nor can I but admire the confidence of that Orator, who would impose upon his Honourable and Reverend Auditors a thing so contrary to all experience, urging the example of those Countries for extirpation, whose constant and continued practice in the toleration of all Religions is almost without example.  
If this be not enough to disprove the truth of this ground, their own Writers, 
* Covenant with a Nar. p. 12. & 19  M. Henderson, M. Nye, and M. 
x View of the Covenant. p. 15.  Mocket, shall witness against it, who with one mouth confess this Covenant to be such a thing as they never read nor heard of, nor the World ever saw the like. It is not then according to the former practice of these kingdoms, nor the example of God's People in other Nations. only the Holy League in France, which 
y M. Ward.  some of our Covenanteers so much disclaim, was so fully parallel to this in all circumstances, that if I had leisure to confront them, the Reader would say, Bithus and Bacchius were not more alike.  
I could with a wet finger, out of the 
z Thuanus D' Aubigue Davila, &c.  authentic Histories of that League, derive the whole pedigree and progress of this, and point out thence the main Heads and particular insinuations of such Remonstrances and Declarations as ushered this Monster into the world.  
— Sed spatiis disclusus iniquis  
Praetereo.—   

CHAP. III. The unlawfulness of this Covenant in respect of the Cause Efficient; as made by Subjects against the will of their superior, in such things as necessarily require his consent.  
HAving discovered the grounds of the Covenant to be false, we may well presume the superstruction itself is rotten and ruinous; as will more fully appear upon a strict survey of all its causes and ingredients.  
First, in respect of the Cause efficient, which is the parties covenanting, swearing, vowing, and inter-leaguing one with another, the unlawfulness of it does appear in this, that it is made by such as are, or should be what they profess, Subjects all living under one King, not only without any leave obtained, or so much as once desired, but contrary to the known will, and express command of this their lawful King; and that in such matters whereto his consent and approbation is necessarily required; without which they could neither lawfully take it at first, nor after his dislike is made known to them, ought they to persist in it, so as to hold themselves bound by it, though the matter of it were in itself otherwise just and good. For without controversy the parties Covenanting, as to some parts of this Oath, are as much subject to their supreme Head, the King, as the daughter to her father, or the wife to her husband. I shall not here need to question whether the King be Minor Vniversis, it will serve the turn if he be Maior Singulis, for in this Oath every man swears for himself, as a private person, not in any public capacity. If then by the 
a Numb. 30.  Law of God, the vow of the daughter or wife was so far in the power of the father or husband, that he might confirm or cancel it, as he pleased; and God refused to accept of it from the woman, unless the man, to whom she was subject, did ratify and allow it. Upon the same ground of subjection, though the matter vowed in this Covenant were not otherwise unlawful, yet being such wherein the parties vowing are and aught to be subject to the King, it is in his power to irritate their Oath, to declare it void and null, and if they persist in it they sin.  
2. This shows the Covenant to be unlawfully taken, but much more unlawfully obtruded upon others as a new solemn Oath, which they have no authority to impose that do it. The same Engine by which they dismounted the late Canons, and di●charged that Oath, will serve to fetch off any Ordinance o● Lords and Commons commanding this, That a new Oath cannot be imposed without an Act of Parliament, was a Truth so undoubted by the two Houses that they insist upon it twice in one lea●e of the same 
b Ex. Coll. p. 859,860.  Declaration. Their 
c Ib. p. 908, 910.  petitioning his Majesty to pas●e an Act for establishing a new Oath, and that he would be pleased to enter into a more strict alliance with some neighbour Nations, are sufficient convictions of their want of Authority in themselves either to impose a new Oath upon the Subjects of this kingdom, or to enter into a new League with those of another, unless the consent of his Majesty be first obtained.  
3. I● any private Men, Town, City, or County, may lawfully take this Covenant of their own accord and free will● (which is the way to ingratiate themselves the more) then in other cases of the like kind, they may at any time of their own accord, without any command from superiors, enter into a League of mutual defence with other Countries, and bind themselves by a solemn Oath to performance. And then farewell, not only the ancient Authority of the King, but that modern privilege of Parliament, which claims, that 
d E. C. p. 628, & 823.  no County can bind itself without their consent.  
But if all the kingdom be therefore bound to take this new Covenant, because it comes to them as commanded by the two Houses, though there were no Law for it before, then must all our Histories be purged, all our law-books taught to speak another Language, and all those Declarations revoked, wherein the Lords and Commons of this Parliament, so many 
e E.C.p. 270, 715.  times disclaimed all power of making any new laws without his majesty's cons●nt.   

CHAP. IV. The matter of the Covenant examined, and proved first to be against Truth.  
NExt to the Efficient, we shall survey the material Cause of this Oath, and allow it fair trial by the laws of God and the Land. If it be indicted upon the Text of jeremy 4.2. It will be found guilty in the highest degree, as destitute of all those conditions required to a lawful Oath, Truth, judgement, and righteousness.  
For the first, though this be for the main a Promissory Oath, to the formal Truth whereof, as such, no more is required but that the meaning of the parties swearing be truly conformable to the words of their Oath; that they truly intend to perform what they swear: yet is not the whole frame of it merely promissory; some assertions are interwoven, either actual or virtual, by way of implication: which may be justly suspected for want of Truth; and i● that be proved upon any one of them, all the Covenanteers are, ipso facto, guilty of perjury. I shall but point at some particulars.  

I. Those words wherein they swear the Preservation of Religion in the Church of Scotland, do imply that the Religion of that Church is in all the particulars there mentioned, Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, according to the word of God. Which is justly doubtful in some, and flatly false in others. 

1. The Doctrine of that Church, so far as it is distinct from their opinions concerning Discipline and Government, and other matters of practice, I have no purpose to quarrel. I acknowledge the ancient Articles of their public confession for true; but if by Doctrine they understand all the modern explanations and other doctrinal positions which have issued from their general As●emblies in later times, I could bring more instances and more objections against the truth of these Doctrines, than I know how to answer. But I forbear to make the wound wider than necessity requires.  
2. As touching their manner of Worship, if we should deny, they would be hard put to it, to prove those forms which they use in Marriage, baptism, the Lord's Supper, public Prayer, Preaching, catechising, and other of God's Ordinances to be according to his word.  
3. Much less their Discipline and Government, by Classes and Assemblies, higher and lower, which they pretend to be jure divino and perpetual. Some of their ablest Scholars have acknowledged their movable temporary Deacons, not to be consonant to divine Institution. And, if we might be admitted to argue before equal judges, we should go near to prove as much against their ruling Elders, which first justled the Superintendents, and since the Bishops out of that Church. If they will submit to that rule, the Presbytery, in Scripture, must submit to Episcopacy: that at best was but a Delegacy under the Apostles, who were in right the primitive Bishops, and from whom ours challenge by undeniable succession.    

II. When they swear the Reformation of Religion in England in Doctrine, as well as Discipline, according to the wo●d of God; they falsely imply that our Doctrine is erroneus, and not according to the word. Which though it be scandalous to us, is advantageous to the Covenanteers. The Articles of our Church most true in themselves, cannot be wire-drawn and forced to comply with their designs, and therefore no wonder if they desire to have them altered. They must therefore set the dial by the Clock, and seeing the present Doctrine of the kingdom condemns their practice and opinions, they must so far reform it, that it shall not contradict them.  
When a new Assembly of Divines must be convented, to tell the People such things are according to the word of God, which all men knew to be contrary to the Law of the Land, seeing the royal assent could not be obtained to authorise a Convention of such Persons, and in such an uncouth illegal way as was desired, it was inavoydably necessary, that the Doctrine of our Church in the 21. Article should be reformed, which teacheth, That counsels may not be gathered together, without the commandment and will of Princes.  
When they are resolved to extort those rights from their sovereign by force, which he is unwilling to part with upon entreaty, then 'tis fit the 35. Article be reformed, which confirms the Homily against Rebellion, as containing Godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times. In truth never so necessary for any times as these, the like whereof England never saw before.  
When they have vowed the extirpation of episcopal Government, Root and Branch, is it not high time to reform the 32. Article which talks of Bishops, Priests and Deacons: much more the 36. which adds archbishops, and confirms the book of Consecration and Ordination?  
When that Doctrine must be instilled into the people, that the King is no more than the Prince of Orange, or the Duke of Venice, only Maior singulis but minor universis, and that when his command● and those of one or both Houses are different, theirs must and aught to be obeyed, as with whom the supreme power doth reside; then surely a Reformation of the 37. Article is indispensably and eminently necessary, by which the Subjects have been led into that dangerous and deadly heresy, that has cost so many thousand lives, That the King's majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, unto whom the chief government of all (not only particular persons, but) Estates of this Realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, (not in some cases only, but) in all causes doth appertain.  
Lastly, when they were to take such an Oath as this, without the consent and against the command of the Magistrate, so utterly destitute of all the conditions required to a lawful Oath, they could do no less than reform the 39 Article, which requires those conditions. So that it cannot be denied, but they have strong inducements to reform the Doctrine, as well as the discipline and Government of England; and as they vow them both in one clause, so perhaps they intend them both in one sense; the Reformation of Doctrine as well as Government must be a total Extirpation of Branch and Root; we must not have one chip left of the old block.   
III. Their swearing the first Article to this end, that they may live in Faith, and that the Lord may be one amongst them, implies that before, and at the time of their entrance into this Covenan●, they neither lived in Faith, and so were Infidels; nor was the Lord one amongst them, and so without God in the world; which I hope is not true. But if faith be here taken for obedience, (as sometimes it is) or for an assent to the truth of that Doctrine which is 
a Harmon, Confess.  acknowledged by the world for the Confession of Faith of the Church of England: so I grant their late and present demeanour i● a sufficient demonstration, they have not lived in that faith. And I confess we have been told in effect by some of their forerunners, that the Lord is not one where Prelacy is not extirpate. 
b countermarch to M. James his Retreat. 1607.  That the true Church of Christ consisteth of Saints, Covenanted with God and themselves, having power to Christ and all his Ordinances; which the Assemblies of England want; being violently compelled to submit to another Christ of the Bishops devising; and so are no true Church. For the true visible Church is but one, as the baptism but one, and the Lord but one, John 10. 16. This was the scandalous imputation of the Brownists upon our Church, in the beginning of their separation; and it is shame and misery we should live to see it confirmed by a solemn Oath.  

IV. When they swear in the second Article to extirpate Prelacy, and that for this end, lest they be partakers in other men's sins; this implies not only that Episcopacy is a sin, which is an errant untruth; but that if they should not labour for the extirpation of it in such a violent manner as they do, they should be guilty of that sin. This conceit was the main ground of Separation both to the ancient Donatists and our modern Brownists; they both imagined, that if the Church be any way stained with corruption in Doctrine or Discipline, her Communion is hateful and defiled, and that whosoever joins with her is 
c Ibid. & Protestation Protested. pag. 14.  partaker of her sins, and so in danger of her plagues. Which is certainly false; our Saviour did not partake in the sins of the Jews, yet he did communicate with them. So long as we neither command nor counsel a ●inne to be done, nor consent to the doing of it, nor commend it when it is done, but barely permit it (though it be naturally, yet if it be not legally in our power to hinder it) we are no way guilty of it. God himsel●e does permit sin without sin. And if any man will be a Reformer without a Commission, he must look to be checked with a Quis requisivit? Israel sinned not by staying in Egypt, nor Lot by remaining in Sodom, till the Lord sent Moses to call them, and the angel to fetch him out. It was their affliction, but not their fault to see those unrighteous dealings of their Neighbours, which did vex but not pollute their righteous souls. All sin is to be avoided, but not by all means; some are possible which are not lawful. Death is a certain cure for all distempers, but a man may not kill himself to avoid intemperance; nor make away his Children in their infancy to prevent the sins of their age.  
The precedent of the New Assembly with his twenty assistant Brethren have published some truths in this Argument which might have been of singular use had they come in time, sufficient to stop that current of blood which has flowed from other principles then that which they now Preach to others but do not practise themselves. 
d Considerations to dissuade men from further gathering of Churches. Decem. 23● 1643.  They tell their more zealous Brethren, who (having conspired with them to extirpate this Government, and sworn every man to go before another in the example of a real Reformation) begin to gather themselves into Church societies, Although it be the duty of all the Servants of Christ to keep themselves always pure from corruption in Religion, and to endeavour in an orderly way the Reformation of it, yet it is an undoubted maxim that it belongs to Christian Magistrates in an especial manner to be authorizers of such a Reformation. If this maxim had been as well followed as it was known, we had never had a Rebellion to make way for a Reformation. How can they without blushing talk of an Orderly way to others, who know their call and sitting to reform where they do is altogether disorderly?  
But suppose the sins of Government did involve every one of our Nation in a common guilt; what is this to the Scots? Though Israel offend no necessity that Judah should sin. They may have sin● enough of their own to reckon for, though they should not swear that those of another kingdom shall be put upon their score: and yet they do it, by vowing to extirpate Bishops, &c. lest they be partakers in other men's sins.   
V. That which they have undertaken to maintain is not truly called in the sixt Article, The common Cause of Religion, Liberties, and Peace of the kingdoms. The many Sects and different opinions among the Covenanteers, and the reiterated desires of the Scots for unity in Religion, abundantly prove that the same Religion is not common to them all. And de facto the Religion, Peace and Liberties of England and Ireland have been disturbed, when the Scots enjoyed all theirs without opposition; and may do so still, unless they will thrust their fingers into the fire when they need not. The Cause of one kingdom is not common to another though they be in subjection to the same King. Philip the second, might have done well to grant a toleration to the Protestants in the Low Countries, though he had resolved never to allow the like in Spain. And His Majesty, by reason of his necessary absence from thence, may have granted some Liberties to Scotland, which if he should do in England would be in 
e vid. 27. ●en. 8. c. 24.  disherison to the crown.  

VI. In the last Article, they profess and declare to the World their unfeigned desire to be humbled for their own sins. Which profession the World, that sees only their Actions, will ●carce admit to be true. For it may well be conceived that the chief Heads among the Covenanteers are the same that projected the nineteen Propositions, whence the World will conclude rather an ambitious desire in them to be exalted, than any unfeigned desire to be humbled.  
Besides, it is not unknown to the World that, among other Sects which swarm in that great City where the Covenant is so generally taken, the Antinomians for number are not contemptible, of whose Creed this is a fundamental Article, That God sees no sin in his elect, such as they take themselves to be; and they would think it a derogation to the satisfaction of Christ should they be guilty of an unfeigned desire to be humbled for their sins: if any thus opinionated have taken this Covenant, he makes the rest liars as well as himself.   
VII. Lastly, though it cannot be denied, but the present distresses and dangers of these kingdoms are the fruits of their sins, yet to unde●take (as they here do) to determine for what sinne● in particular God is pleased to inflict these judgements upon us, is an Act of State proper for such as are of council to the Almighty, and should not be avowed by a solemn Oath, without a special warrant by Revelation. Besides, I do not find such a Harmony betwixt this Confession of sins here, and that formerly published in the 
f Feb. 1●. 1642 E.C. p. 917.  Ordinance for Humiliation. And it is not long since the Assembly informed their two Houses, that impunity was the cause of those reigning sins, Incest, Adultery, Fornication, Blasphemy, &c. but they forbore to tell us who were the cause of that impunity; were not they who pulled down those Courts where such sins were punishable?   
Amongst other provoking sins they make this one, that we have not laboured as we ought for the purity of the gospel. I am afraid there is a bad design lurks under these good words, which the Covenanters are now in labour of; probably the introducing of the long ago pretended holy Discipline, or some like Monster already Christened before it be borne, by the name of Purity and Reformation. If so, then is it false, that the not labouring for such a Purity is any cause of our present distress. For in all Queen Elizabeth and King James his reign and the first fifteen years of King Charles, for fourscore years together, though we wanted this pretended Purity, yet we wanted not the happiness of a blessed Peace. Which in the judgement of our 
g K. James his Proclamation for Uniformity. 1. Iacobi. March. 5.  English Solomon is a strong evidence, that God was well pleased with that form of Religion established by Law. Yet was he informed then, as Queen Elizabeth had been before, by the frivolous suggestions of some light Spirits, of divers errors both in Doctrine and Discipline, which stood in need of Reformation. Nor did we ever groan under the heavy hand of God, as at this day, till men of like humours upon the same grounds, have reenforced those opinions by the Sword, which their predecessors failed to make good by Discourse.  
These things if they be not all formally false, because in some sense they may be true; yet being not certainly true, they are all guilty of a virtual falsehood, because in some sense they are false: and seeing no man can know in what sense he ought to swear them now, or shall be required upon his Oath to believe them hereafter, he cannot therefore swear them in truth and judgement.   

CHAP. V. That this Covenant, by reason of the many ambiguities in it, especially this, Who shall be the authentic Interpreter of it, cannot be sworn in judgement.  
I. EVery Oath ought to be conceived in such familiar language as may be least obnoxious to misconstruction; and though few or none can be so void of obscurity, but a man, disposed to quarrel with words, may easily find himself matter to work upon. Yet in other oaths, all doubts of this nature may be quickly removed: for when a Vow or an Oath is taken by any man of his own accord, he knows in what sense he meant it at the time of emission, and in that he is bound to make it good.  
But when an Oath is imposed by the authority of another, the taker is bound in that sense which the impo●er meant it, so as it be not repugnant to the ordinary signification of the words, and such as may rationally be presumed to be intended by that authority.  
But if any man shall conceive the words of an Oath to be meant by the imposer in such a sense as he would not willingly swear, but can frame to himself a different construction of them, according to which only he will take the Oath and resolves to be bound by it: this will no more excuse him from perjury, then if he should make all the vows, and take all the oaths in the world, with an actual intention not to be bound by any of them; which is utterly contrary to the nature of all of them.  
II. upon these premises, I infer that the present Covenant cannot be sworn in judgement; not so much because it is clogged with many doubtful clauses, which may be common to it with other oaths, as because it is infested with this one fundamental doubt proper to itself, Who sh●ll be the authentic Expositor of it.  
It should seem here in England, by their way of proposal at first, not commanding it by Ordinance● but recommending it by their own Example, and 
a Orders of Commons Sep. 25.1643.  requiring the ministers to explain it to the people, that the Members at Westminster desired it should be a free Vow, and then every Covenanter must be his own Interpreter, not withstanding the many inconveniences that must ensue upon it. For every man abounding in his own sense, instead of swearing union, they shall swear division; and by their Vow to preserve all such as take the Covenant in the same words, they shall be obliged to destroy all such as take it in a contrary sense to themselves.  
But if this be an Oath imposed by the Authority of the remaining Members at Westminster for England, the Convention of Estates for Scotland, and I know not who for Ireland, the clearing of all doubts must in equity depend upon the Imposers intentions. This ministers occasion to many other doubts: as first, whether the States in Scotland and ours of England did not at first intend some material clauses in several senses, and whether hereafter their expositions may not interferre, and neither being superior to other, what must be done? Secondly, whether all the Members of both or either House in England, nay, whether the greater part of them, did upon the taking of the Covenant, concur in the same sense; if not, it cannot be any way obligatory as according to the sense of the Houses. Thirdly, if there were a full agreement of the major part present in the same sense at the first taking, yet hereafter, when they shall come to expounding, the major part than may declare themselves in an other sense than was first intended; for either some other Members may come in by that time, and concurring with the now minor, make a major part; or some of the present major part may die, or be removed, or be absent, or alter their opinions, and so vary the sense of the Houses, especially in that great business of Reformation in Doctrine and Government, con●erning which, neither the two Houses nor their assistant Divines● as themselves 
b Consid. of the Assembly. Dec. 3. 1643.  confess, are yet agreed. Fourthly, if it shall hereafter appear that the major part at the time of their taking and imposing this Oath did understand it in one sense, and the major part at the time of declaring shall expound it in another, it must be doubted in whether sense it shall be obligatory. And lastly, if the greater part of Lords shall declare it in one sense, and the greater part of the Commons in another, whose Declaration must carry it. Upon the resolution of these doubts it will appear, that many well meaning covenanters, whiles they laboured for such a Reformation as themselves conceived to be according to God's Word, were zealously perjured, by not endeavouring it in that sense which the Houses will declare was only intended.  
III. This main doubt being premi●ed, which has an influence upon all the rest, I shall only mention such others as I am persuaded the chief Covenanteers themselves are not agreed upon. Where first I conceive in the top branch of this Covenant, it is not only doubtful wherein the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland consists, which are here sworn to be preserved, but how far the preservation of them is intended; and who are meant by common Enemies. Since the ancient Confession of that Church has been so much improved by modern explanations, and all these confirmed by a national Oath; since their Discipline is such a mystery that many of themselves are not fully agreed upon it; since their first and second Book of Discipline contain several platforms, and the Contents of those four Volumes of the Acts of general Assemblies ratified at Glasgow, are not yet published, it is a hard case that any man should be forced to swear to preserve what nobody knows.  
IV. Next, I cannot tell where to ●ix that Character of common Enemies, which Master Hend●rson obscurely paraphraseth Syrians and Babylonians; 
c Covenant with Nar. p. 17.  and Master Nigh more express, but not more satisfactory, tells us that Popery and Prelacy are the chief. For considering Church government in England and Ireland is by Episcopacy, and that of Scotland by the Presbytery, this Covenant being supposed to be taken by all the three kingdoms, it follows that neither Papists nor Prelates are enemies to both Governments, who stiffly maintain the one to be of Divine or apostolical Institution; but the Separatists are common Enemies, who hold a distinct form of pastoral and Independent Government to be ●niversally enjoined by the Word of God, and both Episcopacy and Presbytery to be human inventions and Antichristian.  
V. I am sorry I should be forced to question what is meant in the next Clause by the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of England. Whether that which has been constantly avowed by this Church, and accepted for such by other Nations. Or if that Government be already abolished by the Votes of both Houses; if the life and soul of that Discipline be taken from it by new Expositions made upon the late Act for taking away the High Commission; if that form of public Worship, the Book of Common Prayer be suspended by an Order, if the ancient Doctrin● be already altered in part or in whole by the extemporary Declarations of an upstart Assembly; if these Declarations, that Order, those Expositions, those Votes be indeed binding to this whole kingdom (as the Covenanteers pretend they are) it will be impossible for them or any man to affirm what is now the Doctrine, Worship, Government, and Discipline of the kingdom of England; there being no general form left in which the kingdom is any way required, or supposed to agree, and the particular forms may be as many and different as the persons and opinions of the Reformers.  
VI. Those words following, [According to the Word of God] are in themselves very material, and the misapplication of them is a matter of great consequence. I doubt whether they ought to be restrained to the Clause immediately foregoing, touching Reformation of Religion in England and Ireland; or, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, they must be extended to the preservation of Religion in Scotland too, and so every Covenanteer be bound to maintain that the Scotch Discipline & Church Government is according to the Word of God. I am confident the Scots themselves do now intend them, and will hereafter expound them in this sense; and I raise that confidence upon these reasons. First, because the general 
d S. Andr. Aug. 3. 164●. E. C. p. 598.  Assembly that Church, with the assent and concurrence of the 
e Edenb. Aug. 18 1642. E. C. p. 599.  Lords of Secret council in that kingdom, have declared to our two Houses, that their kirk-government by Assemblies, higher and lower, is jure divino, and perpetual. Secondly, because in that form of this Covenant which came from Scotland, the words ran thus, Preservation of Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government according to the Word of God. Now upon the other part there is equal reason to believe, that not only many particular English Covenanteers, as possessed with an opinion of another Government, but that our Lords and Commons at Westminster do not in this point concur with the sense of the Scots. For first, they 
f Ex. Coll. p. 602, 603.  declare (in answer to that Declaration of Scotland) that one form of Church Government will hardly be obtained in all his majesty's Dominions, unless some way might be found for a mutual debate in framing that one form. Whence it must be collected that the form they aim at is not yet framed, and therefore not that which the Scots practise. Secondly, their reforming that draught of the Covenant agreed upon in Scotland, and reducing that Clause, [According to the Word of God] to a more proper place, and swearing in their new project of Reformation, to have an eye not only to God's Word, but to the example of other Reformed Churches, without any expression of, or restriction to that of Scotland, do persuade with me, that ou●English Covenanteers do not conceive the Scotish Discipline and Kirk-Government to be according to the Word of God.  
VII. Their Vow to extirpate whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness, points at some new discovery not yet made; I would be resolved who are designed for that inquisition; how far their Commission shall extend, and by what rules they must pronounce, what Doctrines are sound, what rotten, what they must take to be contrary to the power of godliness, what not. If Bishops be upon the file, either because some have too much enlarged the phylacteries of their Authority, or have been otherwise personally faulty; or, because Superiority and distinction of degrees amongst the Clergy are discovered already to be contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness: The same grand Enquest of Middlesex which found the Bill against Episcopacy may empanel hereafter, and upon the same evidence find against Magistracy. The same Arguments which set the Rooters on work, will find them more employment when this is done; when their hands are once in, they may proceed for a through Reformation to extirpate all civil superiority all distinction of Lords and Gentlemen. They who put these reasons into the mouths, and that power into the hands of so many known Anabaptists, may be too weak to wrest it from them when their own turn is served.  
VIII. In the third Article, I bulk the privileges of Parliament, so mysterious and intricat as no man dare undertake to state them truly, and only take notice of that passage, where they swear to preserve and defend the King's Person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the kingdoms. If his Authority were as well known as his Person, yet might it well be doubted, how far these words intend the preservation of one or other. 
g Analysis of the Covenant.  Mr Ward (in behalf of the Covenanteers) gives two expo●itions of them for sureness; either that we swear to defend his Person and Authority, so long as he defends our Religion and Liberties. (Which is not so much as they swear to do for any ordinary person that takes this Covenant. For they vow in the sixt Article, absolutely, to defend all those; but here they undertake no more than barely to endeavour to defend the King.) Or Secondly, that in defending Rel●gion and Liberties we do defend His majesty's Person, and Authority; yet may it so fall out, that what they do, or intend for his defence may truly tend to his destruction. And this we must confess is not common to His Majesty with the rest of His people; who (as it seems) has these two Prerogatives left yet unquestioned, that as the King's Commands, and none but His, may be disobeyed by the King's Authority, so his sacred Person, and only His, may be destroyed in His own defence.  
Ix.. It is further to be observed in the frame of this Oath, that contrary to the method of the general Protestation, the privileges of Parliament (what ever they be) have got precedency of His majesty's Person; which alteration surely was not without cause. It is therefore a doubt very necessary to be resolved, when the certain safety of the King's person comes in competition with any of their real or pretended privileges, which is to be preferred? Whether by this Oath they are not bound in such a case rather to suffer his person to perish, or actually to destroy him, then violate any such privilege, or leave it unpreserved.  
X. I likewise doubt what manner o●liberties those are which the Covenanters aim at, seeing they have never yet claimed any, as due by law, which were denied them. I meet with a new word much in request of late in some Scottish papers, The States; and though it hath been naturalised by Act of Parliament in England, I am not yet willing to understand it.  
When our men would caress the united Provinces, they apply the word to this kingdom; and tell those High and mighty Lords, when they complain of that assistance which His Majesty received from thence, 
h Ex: Coll●p. 636.  We cannot believe it was done by any direction from their Lordships. Neither can we think that they will be forward in helping to make us Slaves, who have been useful and assistant in making them Freemen. Whence we may well be jealous ●●at by Liberties of the kingdoms they intend no less than those of the Low Countries; and till they can attain to be such Free-States, in their own opinion they are no better than Slaves.  
XI. When they make it a part of their Oath to bring all Malignants to such punishment as the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively shall judge convenient, it should seem they have lost a kingdom already, for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they begun with three kingdoms, and now here are but two left. I will suppose England to be one; and here it will be a grand doubt to determine which is the supreme judicatory. 
i Vid. 1. Hen. 4. cap. 14. & 4. Hen. 4. c. 23.  Whether in some case● the King's Ordinary Courts of justice be not supreme. Whether the House of Commons be a judicatory at all. 
k 14. Ed. 3. c. 5.  Whether the House of Lords be in all cases. Whether, if they differ in their judgement, eit●er of them be supreme, (and which that is) or both, or neither. Whether, if they should both concur, in matters of universal concernment to the whole kingdom, without or against the King, they ought to be reputed Supreme. Whether if His Majesty should concur with them, in things concerning Reformation of Religion, (the main business of this Covenant) the joint assent of the 
l 24. Hen. 8. ●. 12. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 24. Hen. 8. c. 19  Clergy be not regularly required by the laws of this kingdom. If this one question about the supreme judicatory were rightly stated, perhaps all other doubts would not be tanti. But this still depending, we are left to uncertain resolutions for all the rest.  
XII. In the close of the Covenant it is very uncertain who they mean by those other Churches groaning under the yoke of Antichristian tyranny. Surely none more than those of the Romish Religion, who acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy. Yet Master 
m Covenant with Nar. p. 32.  Henderson applies it rather to other Reformed Churches, which (as he says) when they shall hear of this blessed Conjunction, it will be no other than the beginning of a jubilee and joyful deliverance unto them from the Antichristian yoke of tyranny. Who those Reformed Churches are, I profess I do not yet understand, unless that civil Dominion which their natural Princes of the Popish Religion exercise over them, be reputed by the Covenanteers a yoke of Antichristian tyranny.   

CHAP. VI. That the performance of sundry Clauses in this Covenant, cannot be without grand inconvenience, or injustice.  
RIght reason will dictate that we ought not to make such a promise as cannot be performed without manifest inconvenience; and Religion will add, that it were a sin in such cases to bind ourselves by a solemn Oath. Many things in this Covenant though they be not simply impossible, nor absolutely unjust●in toto genere, yet in many cases they may prove to be so, and therefore cannot be sworn in righteousness and judgement. If I make good this charge against it, then must it be acknowledged a rash, indiscreet, and therefore a sinful Vow.  
I. If a quite different form of Church-government from that of Scotland be approved by the Word, or at least conceived to be so, than all such as are so conceited (as amongst the Covenanteers not a few) cannot with a safe conscience swear to preserve that Government in any Church, which they are persuaded is not according, but contrary to the Word of God.  
Again, the Discipline and manner of Worship used in Scotland, are not only alterable in themselves, but confessed to be so by the 
a Con●. Scot. Artic. 20.  Doctrine of that Church: therefore it is unlawful to swear to preserve them by a solemn Oath, which might be majoris boni impeditivum. This inference will be no news to the House of Commons; it was urged with much vehemence, and heard with approbation against the late Oath enjoined by the Canons. 
b First argument against the Canons, p. 17.  My author concludes by a dilemma, that whosoever takes such an Oath, inavoidably falls upon a rock of perjury; either for saving his Oath he must deny obedience to the King, or by obeying the King he must break his Oath.  
Master Nathaniel Fiennes a better orator than soldier, upon the same Argument discourseth thus, 
c Second Speech, p. 13.  It is against the Law and light of Nature that a man should swear never to consent to alter (that is not so much as the covenanters here ●weare constantly to endeavour to preserve) a thing which in its own nature is alterable, and may prove inconvenient, and fit to be altered. And in case the Scots should think fit, upon any occasion to alter some parts of their Discipline, or Ceremonies in their Worship, whether must our English and Irish Covenanteers endeavour to resist any such alteration, or sit still and let them take their course, holding the Scotish per●ury sufficient excuse their own?  
II. When they swear to cut out their intended platform of Reformation by a double pattern, first of God's Word, and then of the best Reformed Churches, the latter might have been well spared, it was added without any necessity, but not without much inconvenience. For suppose there were two best Reformed (as certainly less than two cannot pretend to the name of Churches) which must they conform to? Of if there be but one best, how shall they know which it is?  
If Discipline hold the same course with Doctrine, and must be prescribed by God's Word, more than one form cannot be admitted. There may be many errors, but one Truth; many byways, but one right. But if in Discipline and Worship for certain, and perhaps in some things concerning Government too, the Scripture have not so fully and evidently defined, but some doubts are left which require a further determination. Who shall be judges in this case? Must we sit upon all other Churches, and pronounce against them, uncalled, unheard? Or, seeing it is a point wherein they are all equally concerned, shall they be equally admitted to Vote with us? And when they are all met, at least by their Delegates, shall it be referred to most voices to determine, which Church is best Reformed? Then what if some two or three, nay, what if all have equal voices, each Delegacy voting for their own Church, as it is most likely they will, who shall have the casting voice? We are now where we begun, unless haply the Irish Church will sit down to English, and so we may carry it by a double Vote. Or rather shall that Church be taken for the best reformed upon whom the most second voices do concur, the first being commonly the child of affection, but the second the offspring of judgement? So, not improbable but our Church might carry it again, for I could produce t●e testimonies of many authors of best note in other Reformed Churches, very liberal in their commendation both of the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England.  
Or if it were a thing easily to be agreed upon which, Church is the best reformed, it might not be fit to swear Conformity to that example: the best that is, is not the best that may be. The best existent may have some errors as well as faults, and therefore no absolute pattern for Reformation. What is best to another Church, may not be best for us. What is best for our time and place, is not so for another. No necessity then to reform according to the best example, if it were agreed upon. And till it be so, it had been best for us, these troubles excepted, to stay where we were.  
I conceive the reason of this addition (wherein they go less, having before sworn to reform according to God's Word, afterwards swear to do it according to the example of other Churches) to have proceeded from the Scots, who having no better plea from God's Word than others, will yet challenge our Covenanteers upon this Clause to declare them the best reformed Church, or otherwise why did they abjure their own, and swear to preserve the Scotish Church Government? which though it be none of the best, yet our men have thus far followed the Scotish Example, not of any other Reformed Church. Some want Bishops, because they cannot tell how to have them, their Princes being of a different Religion, will allow none but of their own. Some enjoy the Thing under another name of Superintendents. Some are willingly without them, because settled in such a Government as they find most suitable with a popular State, and dare not venture upon a change. But I have not heard of any Church, the Scotish excepted, which ever cast out her Bishops by violence, if they were of the same Religion, and vowed to root them out by the sword, contrary to the Law and command of the Supreme Magistrate. If Scotland be not in this an Example to our men (as some of their Apologetiques profe●se they are not) than I am confident, this course of Reformation is without Example in the sight of men, I wish it be not without excuse in the eye● of God.  
III. In the next Clause I doubt the Scots have put another slur upon the rest of our Covenanteers, who having got them first to swear the preservation of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government in the Church of Scotland, have induced them since to vow their endeavours to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in all these particulars. For there being no means imaginable by which this nearest Coniu●ction may be obtained, but either by a mutual condescension of all the three Churches, or an absolute submission of some two to the third: all hopes of condescending in Scotland, by the former part of the Oath, being taken away, it remains that the other two must totally sit down and submit to the Scots. only endeavour fully to inform themselves what the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Scotish kirk is, and then they have no more to do, but conform to it.  
Again, though a tolerable uniformity in all the three kingdoms were much to be wished, and by all lawful means to be endeavoured; yet the very nearest conjunction is not fit to be sworn. That excludes all variety, not only in Confession of Faith, and form of ecclesiastical Government, but in rites of Worship, and rules of catechising; for if any difference be admitted, the conjunction is not simply nearest.  
Nor perhaps is such an absolute uniformity morally possible. All men will never be of one mind: and the●efore a mutual toleration in some things may conduce more to the preservation of the Church than a violent Conformity. The Apostles times had their differences; and so long as we hold to one immovable, irreformable Rule of faith (as Tertullian calls that short Creed) Cat●ra iam disciplin● & conversationis, admittunt novitatem correctionis. And if the nearest conjunction be not possible, sure it is not nece●sary, i● it were so, the Scripture, which is not deficient in necessaries, would not only have proposed fitting directories, but prescribed set forms unto us, and limited the times, places, and manner of worship. Which our Saviour has not done, being willing (as it seems) to leave every Church at Liberty to consult with her own occasions or necessities, and accordingly to constitute as she should find in Christian prudence to be most convenient for the exegency of the times, disposition of the place, and temper of the People. The use of which liberty, we have both practised ourselves, and allowed in other Churches.  
It must here be remembered that this very thing which is now sworn, to bring all the kingdoms to an uniformity, is nothing else for substance then what was intended by King James, and attempted by King Charles; and that upon better grounds than now it is: they having both more authority to enjoin it, than the present Covenanteers can justly challenge; and presuming to meet with less opposition, than these have found. For, whatsoever have been declared since, the business which these two Princes went about, (to settle Episcopacy, and a Common form of Worship and Discipline in Scotland conformable to those in England and Ireland,) was not at first affirmed by any to be so destructive to the laws and Liberties of that kingdom, as the now intended alteration is known to be against the laws of England and Ireland.  
IV. If the Rights and privileges of Parliament were once truly stated, which are here sworn to be defended with lives and Estates, we must be able to make a clearer judgement of the lawfulness of this Oath, as to that Particular. Bu● this being a task which we neither dare undertake, nor can go through with, it will be sufficient, and perhaps not impertinent, if we wave the two other kingdoms, and take a short view of some few particular privileges pretended to be due to the Parliament of England, and see whether they be such as the Subjects ought to swear the preservation of them, before that of His majesty's Person, and the public Liberties.  
1. As a council they 
d E.C.P. 655.  challenge the privilege to be advised with in all the great affairs of Church and State: whereas their Writ calls them only to consult De quibusdam arduis. And His Majesty is accused for breach of privilege, because he did not ask their advice in some such things. Yet sometimes 
e Ib. p. 114. 158.164. 272.716.  he desired it so much, till his importunity was voted a breach of privilege. Here he is in a hard strait, like that in the Oracle, Si fecero peribo; si non-fecero, vapulabo. Not desire advice, and break privilege; desire it, and break privilege too.  
2. A vote is passed in January 
f 1642. E.C.P. 35.  tha●to arrest or detain any Member of the Commons House, without first acquainting tha● House, and receiving Order from thence, is such a Breach of privilege as must be vindicated with life and fortunes. And yet a 
g Ib. p. 724.  Declaration is issued in November following, that in those very cases which were formerly in controversy, any Member may be arrested by the ordinary Ministers of justice, and detained in sa●e custody, till he may be brought to the Parliament. It will conc●rne the sergeants to be informed in what months this privilege i● in season, and when it goes out.  
3. Another 
h Ib p. 278.  Declaration speaks in this manner, Though the privileges of Parliament do not extend to Treason, Felony, and breach of the Peace, so as to exempt the Members of Parliament from punishment nor from all manner of process and trial, as it doth in other cases. From these last words we must infer, that in case of Incest, Adultery, Fornication, Idolatry, sacrilege, Blasphemy, schism, heresy, Popery, Perjury, or what you will besides the three excepted particulars, the Members of Parliament may sin Cum Privilegio, they are exempted from all manner of process and trial.  
4. I do not know the mysteries of some privileges, why they are ambitious to entertain Treaties with foreign States, but when his Majesty desires the like, it should be answered, 
i Ib. p. 580.  We cannot do it by the fundamental privilege of Parliament. Why the People may take notice of their proceedings, but His Majesty may not without 
k Ib. p. 81,94. 684.  a high breach of privilege, mind them of him who said He was not worthy to be King. Why the meanest Subjects should be admitted to give in their reasons against established laws and desires of alteration; and the King be 
l Ib. p. 565, 566.  accused for breach of privilege, for desiring them to retract a private Order, as contrary to an express Act of Parliament. Why in Sir John Hotham's case all 
m Ib. p. 156.  interception of letters to the Parliament should be such a high breach of privilege; and now his Majesty cannot send a letter but shall be intercepted, nor a Messenger to them but shall be imprisoned, if not executed by their Commands.  
5. It is a new piece of Law, which our predecessors were ignorant of, that all Acts and agreements made by any private Companies or Corporations, by any Parish or County, nay by any particular person●, are of no further force in Law then they are confirmed by Parliament: and that to make any such till the two Houses be first acquainted, and their consent obtained, 
n E.C.P. 628. 823.  is an entrenching upon that Peculiar privilege of Parliament, To bind all or any part of the kingdom. This was the ground upon which they canceled those agreements made by the Lord Farefax in Yorkshire, and the like by their adherents in Cheshire; and declared that they who made them were not bound by them.  
6. The number of privileges in this kind may be infinite● yet we shall be able to set bounds to the measure of them by their own Declarations. Where first the Kings coming to the House of Commons is 
o Ib. p. 493.  affirmed to be the greatest violation of privilege that ever was attempted. Secondly, His wishing he had no cause to absent himself from White-Hall is 
p Ib. p. 100  taken as the greatest breach of privilege of Parliament that can be offered. And therefore the former must needs be less: and if there can be none greater, what shall we think of those many lesser, which have made a greater noy●e? Let the Reader say, if he make any Conscience of his life, or have any care of his Estate, or bear any Allegiance to hi● Majesties Person, or any reverence to His Authority, or have any considerable portion in the public liberty, whether he can willingly, according to the tenor of this Covenan●, sacrifice his life and liberty, his soul and Estate to the preservation of all and every of these privileges, and perhaps thousands more which are not yet declared, so as to prefer the least of them before the preservation of the common Liberty, His majesty's Person and Authority. For so it is declared, 
q Ib. p. 338.  that the King's Authority and Person can be no way maintained, bu● by upholding the power and privileges of Parliament.  
V. That passage where they swear the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Malignants, &c. carries with it a probable injustice and certain inconvenience. For it engageth every Covenanteer not only to be a common delator and accuser of his Brethren, but even of himself too, if he ever were or shall be any way guilty. The old Oath Ex officio, so long cried out upon as unnatural and injust that it was thought fit to be abolished by an 
r For taking away the high commission.  Act made this Parliament, was not half so bad as this new Oath is. For by this a man swears to discover himself, though there be no common fame against him, never any suspicion of him, though no judge ever question him, no other person accuse him, though he be now reformed and have altered his resolution, yet if he was ever peccant, he is bound by this Oath to discover himself, that he may come to his trial, and so receive condign● punishment.  
VI. That last clause to bring all to public trial, that they may receive condign punishment, carries fire in the tail of it, sufficient to consume the better half of the kingdom. It is but a small matter to tell their soldiers, that if they deny Quarter to any Malignants in his majesty's Army, they are guilty of perjury by anticipating that trial, which by this Oath they shall be brought to. I shall rather apply myself to the Lords and Commons at Westminster, who have already passed sentence, 
s Ex: Co●l: p. 260. & 57●, & 509.  That all such persons, as upon any pretence whatsoever, assist his Majesty in this war, with Horse, arms, Plate, or money, are Traitors, unparalleled Traitors; and aught to suffer as Traitors, and their punishment is here Vowed, as it was before threatened to be, speedy and exemplary. How the King of Denmark, or the Prince of Orange will escape does less Trouble me; then to see the sworn cruelty of these Covenanters, who have vowed the hanging of the greater part of this kingdom, and without any hope of mercy or pardon. If it were to be doubted which party were guilty of Treason, those whom the King hath proclaime●, or whom these Votes have declared, yet this is out of question, that many who sometimes assisted the one, are now turned to the other side; many yet perhaps assist that party with money, to which they are less cordially inclined; if all these, as they are declared Traitors for so doing 
t Ib. 576.  upon whatsoever pretence they did it, must suffer the condign punishment of Traitors, the Covenanteers will have as little comfort in the payment of this Vow, as jephta had in his. If the City be not startled at this consequence, yet for pity's sake to their poor friends in the country, who have paid Contributions to His majesty's Army, let them put on some bowels of compassion; let not judgement so far triumph over mercy, as to vow nothing but punishment, no pardon. Why should they devote that little blood to the axe or the halter, which the sword shall spare in this gasping kingdom? We have not forgotten him that told us (what we now find) they were not in a right way that made choice of such a rubric to their Reformation. And those who Sit, and Vote, and vow to punish according to those Votes, may remember, if we be traitors it is not long since they were so; and it is not certain what they may be.  
VII. When each man has sworn to go before another in the example of a real Reformation, he is bound upon his Oath not to expect till a general Reformation be publicly debated and agreed upon, not to forbear till he see whether the right rule will be commended to him in an orderly way, he must not stay for the command of Authority, or company of his neighbours; but where he conceives the Doctrine to be erroneous, the Worship superstitious, or otherwise faulty, the Discipline and Government not so exactly according to the Word, he must presently fall aboard with his Reformation work, publicly profess what his opinion is, and apply himself to the practice of that which he is persuaded in his own conscience is right; and must endeavour to set up that idol in the Church which he has already erected in his own imagination, and labour to extirpate all that oppose it, and refuse to bow down to it; that so he may go before others in the example of a real Reformation. And surely those Brethren in London, who begin to join themselves into Church Societies, are thus far to be commended. What though it be (as the 
u Considerations, &c. Decem. 23● 1643.  Assembly tell them) unfit, uncomfortable, unseasonable, yet being by them judged lawful, now after they have sworn, it becomes necessary. And I wonder why the Presbyterians should not be as zealous in fetting up their Government, and endeavouring to go before others in an exemplary way. I wish they would begin their Reformation in London with extirpation of schism, which it will be no hard matter to find, and by that time it shall be extirpate out of the City, Religion and Peace may once again revisit the country.   

CHAP. VII. That many things vowed in this Covenant are not possible to be fulfilled.  
TO make good this charge, which is a further ●vidence of injustice in the Covenant, as involving the takers in downright perjury, we shall propose such particulars as are either morally or absolutely impossible to be performed.  

I. That constancy of endeavour and zealous continuance which they swear to use all the days of their lives in the observance of most Articles, is more than they can assure; the work of Reformation may be longer, and their other avocations greater than they imagine; and in the interim of their hopes, their endeavours may flag, and their zeal remit. Besides the particulars of their Vow are so many, and of so different natures, as must needs distract their thought● and employments, which being fixed upon some, must divert their endeavours from the rest. And if they shall in truth all the days of their lives endeavour to extirpate the Government of the Church, they will never live to effect it.  
II. The mutual preservation of the Rights and privileges of the Parliaments in all three kingdoms cannot always be possible. To evidence this Truth, I shall suppose what the Covenanteers will easily grant: First, that the word Parliament is here secondarily, if not principally, intended for the two Houses in the respective kingdoms, exclusively to the King. Secondly, that the Parliament of Scotland (if not that of Ireland) hath as much right and privilege to all intents and purposes concerning that kingdom, as our Parliament has in relation to England. Thirdly, that whatsoever Rights and privileges have been challenged by our Lords and Commons of this Parliament, are truly due unto them, and the King bound to admit of them. These suppositions being granted, it cannot be denied but the several Parliaments (all challenging as great counsels to his Majesty, whose advice he must follow) may advise many things repugnant in themselves, and both or all impossible to be harkened to. The nineteen Propositions of the English, and the Scots Demands in the Act of Pacification will save us the labour of enquiring into former times, or straining invention for possible cases. 


1. The English advice and require that no Marriage of the King's Children be treated of without their notice, nor concluded without their consent. The Scots and Irish having equal interest, especially in the Prince's Person, may require equal privilege. But their public national interests, and affections to other States, being different, their advice and resolution will be so too. The Irish may advise and resolve upon a Match with Spain, the Scots with France, the English with some other distinct Family●  
Again, the Scots demand that the Prince may reside with them at some time; the English may require his continual residence at all times, at least they may both exact it at the same time. So when 
a E.C. p. 93.  these would have him at St. James, those would have him at St. Andrews. Such like for the King himself, much about the same time when the 
b 2. Parliament of King Charles. Act. 27.  Scots exact his residence with them; the 
c E. C. pag. 148.  council of Ireland desire his presence amongst them, the 
d & 143.  English protest, if he leave them, they will no longer submit to him, so as to be directed by any Commissioner. This impossibility will be more considered, if we restrain it only to the time of Parliaments; at the same time 1640. there were three Parliaments sitting in the three kingdoms; if they have equal privileges, all equally require the King's Presence; what shall he do, when he is told his absence from Parliament is a breach of privilege, 
e M. Prina● sovereign power of Parliam. part. 4●  against Law, against ancient custom, against his Oath? Is it possible for him to be in three kingdoms at the same time? Grant him his just Power, and he may without inconvenience rule all; but if the Supreme Power be in them, he will have a hard task to serve so many masters.   
Secondly, if all the Parliaments be considereed as Courts, ●nd allowed for Supreme judicatories in the several kingdoms, may not one of them declare Law against another? Surely yes, we have a fresh precedent for it. The Scots were declared Traitors by the Parliament of Ireland, 1638. They were declared loyal Subjects by the 
f 2. Parliament of King Charles. Act. 38.  Parliament of Scotland, 1640. And their Actions were condemned to oblivion by the Parliament of England.  
3. Lastly, if each Parliament be considered as the Representative Body of the respe●tive kingdoms, with a power to enact, order, or ordain, whatsoever they shall hold fitting, or of public necessity, and the King be bound by his Oath to pass all the Bills which shall be pesented under that notion, as they have formerly before the union of the Kingdoms made many 
g vid. 4. Iacobi. cap. 1.  contra●iant Laws, so will they do again; for the interests of the kingdoms being several in themselves, none having any mutual dependence or superiority above another, the titular union in the same King will be found in effectual to reconcile their differences, if he be not Supreme in the old received sense, but only in the new-coyned notion of coordinate (as some) or subordinate Supremacy, as others wittily have expounded. In any such case of difference, whether in matter of State or of Law, a mutual preservation of the privileges of all the Parliaments will be utterly impossible both for King and Subject; to preserve one, is to destroy two.    
III. Every Covenanteer undertakes more than he is able to perform, when he swears, not barely to endeavour, (as in other Articles) but actually to assist and defend all those that enter into this League, and actually to reveal and make known all lets and impediments against it. Though they have a will to do it, yet they may want means to effect it. If they do not send assistance to any Covenanteer when it is demanded, or what they do send be not sufficient to defend him, they fail in their Oath; and were to blame they did not use the word endeavour here, which is so carefully inserted in other places.  
IV. Nor can the most confiding of them be assured that he shall not suffer himself directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided from this union. As it is not in any man's power to hinder other men from using what Arguments they can to persuade him, so neither can he totally hinder those Arguments from leaving any impression in his soul. Besides, daily experience of many flitting from that cause to which they were sometimes as zealously addicted as any (Witness Sir John Hotham and others) there is reason why it should be so, in spite of any resolution to the contrary. Though ambition, avarice, passion, or prejudice, make men very willing to have that pass for true and good which they affect, and ●o first stagger their judgement, which at last fixes in a resolution not to examine any grounds of the contrary part which they hate: Yet the variety of success may so much alter the face of things, the inconstancy of human nature may so far comply, the light and evidence of the object may be such as will dispel all those mists of the understanding, and prevail against any obstinacy of opinion. But if they mean by this Oath such a resolution, Non persuadebo, etiam●i persuaser●, that against the light of their own consciences, they will still persevere in the same courses, though they be never so much convicted of their unlawfulness; they do but add heresy to Perjury. For a pertinacious maintaining of an opinion after a man is convicted that it is erroneous, I take to be the very formality of heresy, and that which I suppose the Covenanteers have sworn to extirpate.  
V. It will not be denied, but if one part of the Covenant, either in terminis, or by implication, contradict another, than it will be impossible to perform both. And I pray what are these but contradictions? 1. That all the Covenanteers in the three kingdoms should profess to be of one Reformed Religion, and then swear to preserve it in one kingdom, but to reform it in two. 2. To preserve the King's Person, without respect of Persons. This they vow in the second Article, and that in the third. 3. If the Parliament● be● as they conceive, the supreme judicatories in the respective kingdoms, with what congruity do they swear to preserve the Rights and privileges of the Parliaments in all three kingdoms, and then that all Delinquents shall be punished by the Supreme judicatories (of both. i.e.) only of two kingdoms? No marvel if some parts be liable to contradiction, when the whole Covenant is ushered in with a gross absurdity, which has influence upon every sentence in it. When each one for himself professeth, We swear, &c. Indeed why should one man swear for all the rest? But what is this to salve the solecism? How shall he be said to swear only for himself, whose every word in his Oath includes all others, as much as himself? These things being not certainly possible ought not to be sworn. It is all one as if they should swear they will not die till they be old, nor be sick till they die.    

CHAP. VIII. That the taking this Covenant, and other avowed Actions of the Covenanteers, are in fact, contradictory to the formal words of their Oath.  
What the Civilians call Protestatio contraria facto, (as if one should kill or rob a man and vow to do him no wrong) is a foul crime which infests many parts of this solemn Oath. The very act of taking or enforcing it, besides many other avowed practices of those that take it, does contradict the formal words of the Covenant.  
I. So though they swear in all their endeavours to keep themselves within the bounds of their several places and callings; Yet if we look upon the courses they take we shall find nothing less. Who are they who can challenge it as the proper duty of their calling to set on foot that Reformation vowed in the first, or that extirpation which is the matter of the second Article? If Religion and the Controversies thereanent be a thing common to every vocation; then is that restriction to several callings superfluous, and in a solemn Oath, profane. But if it be the more peculiar function of the Clergy, then why do other men intermeddle in matters beside their calling? If it be the proper work of a Parliament, why do our Assembly men challenge, as Ministers of the gospel, to be leaders in this work of Reformation? What have they to do in Parliament affairs? Were the Bishops cast out, that they might be taken in? What just calling can they pretend, who were neither summoned by his Majesty, to whom the calling of ecclesiastical Assemblies do in right belong, nor elected by the Clergy, to whom the nomination of Members to such assemblies, by the constitution of this kingdom does appertain?  
So in the third and sixt Articles, where they swear mutually to assist and preserve one another with their Lives and Estates, but with like restriction to their several vocations, places, and callings, either most of those who have actually taken up arms in this quarrel,, noblemen, Knights, Burgesses, butchers, Tapsters &c. are forsworn, by undertaking that service which is inconsistent with their professions; or if they be not, than all the rest of the Covenanters are, who being of the same callings, have not put themselves in arms, and assisted their brethren with their Lives, as they are bound to do, if it be not contrary to their Calling.  
Nor can the Authors or Executioners of those Ordinances be excused from perjury, whereby many men have been pressed for soldiers without any regard to their callings. What calling have the watermen to be employed in Land-service? What calling have the City tradesman to come and conquer the country? What calling have the framers of this Covenant to exact a new Oath of all this kingdom, or to enter in League with another? And if they have no calling that enables them to Command, then have the rest no calling to obey; and so both the imposing of this Oath, on one part, and the taking of it on all parts, is contrary to that clause so often repeated in it●According to our several callings.  
II. Though they swear the extirpation of Popery, yet (if the time would permit) I could make it evident from their own principles, that not only many avowed actions of the Covenanteers are originally popish: (as their di●pensing with Oaths lawfully taken: their excluding all clergymen from secular judicature: their Doctrine of propagating Religion by the Sword: 
a 
Covenant with Nar. p. 17.  
E.C. p. 228. 603. 604. 637. 624. 826. 915.   their entering into Leagues and Covenants for that purpose: their usurping a more than papal infallibility and omnipotency● their exalting themselves above all that is called God: 
b Lysimachus Nicanor.  their rudiments of Rebellion and opposition against the supreme Magistrate,) but that very power by which this Covenant is enjoined, which they swear to preserve in the third Article, is in the highest degree properly Popery. I am sure there is nothing in that large discourse of the 
c Discourse of Epis. Sect. 1. c. 10. p. 54. & dei●ceps.  Lord Brook against Episcopacy, which may not be applied here with more congruity. That power, which the Covenant-makers do pretend to, and Popery are all one in re. They have the same Rise, the same media of their progress, and the same end.  
1. First, 
d Ib. p. 59  the Rise of Popery was by overthrowing Christ's Ordinances; in Doctrine, as a heretic, but not as Pope: in Discipline, as Pope; This most properly belonging to Christ royal Office, as Doctrine to his prophetical. Doth not the pretended power of the Covenant-makers do the same? I confess with them, Scripture is the rule, but who must expound this Scripture? Synods, Assemblies, Committees. And though by their own confession those bind not men's consciences, yet they bind them to obedience; which obedience they precisely challenge; and when any fail thereof, they do without the least scruple of Conscience proceed to Sequestrations, Fines, Imprisonments, Deprivations, and what not? And so these men making Scripture a rule in appearance, do in truth monopolise all to themselves. This is just and flat Popery.  
2. The same Author proceeding to parallel Episcopacy with Papacy in the means of their rising, 
e Ib. p. 61.  tells us how Popes dealt with Princes; laid pillows under them with one hand, thrust them down with the other, and then trampled upon them. This can no way be affirmed of our Protestant Bishops: but whether our Arch-Covenanteers, when they promised to make their Prince a great and glorious King, and protested to defend His Person, Honour and Authority, did not in the mean time by their underhand practices labour to thrust him down, and by their open violence to trample upon him, the World sees in part, and themselves know more.  
3. Touching the means of the progress of Popery he informs thus, 
f Ibid.  That which they have most sounded in the people's ears is, The Church, The Church; The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord; By this as by a stalking horse they come much nearer than else they could. And hath not the empty noise of Religion, Religion, Reformation, Reformation, heightened the credit of the Covenanteers in the opinion of the people, and so been made a stale to their equally Popish ambitious ends?  
4 Lastly, to prove the ends of Prel●cy the same with those of Popery he says, 
g Ib. p. 62.  It cannot be doubted but by all these means they aim at the same End (which is also the Popes) to pull down all other power, and set up their own. Nor is there any great cause to doubt whether the principal Projectors of the Covenant aim at the like End, which they have already effected in too great a measure. They have (to their ability) pulled down all other power, both regal and episcopal; they have set up the one, and perhaps intend to settle the other, as a prudential Government, in themselves. We may therefore conclude this discourse with the words of Our Author against Bishops, Thus the Covenanteers oppose, and exalt themselves above all that is called God or is worshipped: which is most true Popery, in respect of the Imposers; and the submitting to such a power is likewise popish in respect of their adherents; and so the taking as well as the enjoining this Covenant a formal Act of Popery, and therefore contradictory to that vow to ●xtirpate Popery.  
I need no other Apology then what the same Author hath framed to my hand. 
h Ib. p. 60.  I bring not in these things, as if by agreeing in these I might convince the Covenant-makers and Papists, or the Pope, were all one. But the original fountain whence all these spring, the virtue and power which actuates them in their proper channel, this is papal.  
Nor may they evade by this, that though they do and command these things, yet they neither do them from the Pope's command, nor command them in the Pope's power. Though I grant this, yet they may be Antichristian, and so such in Re a● the Pope is, though not literally Romanists● For he, or they, whoever it be, that commands or prohibits the least title of Doctrine or Discipline, merely eximperio voluntatis, though the thing he so commands shall happen to be good in itself, (or that which he forbid●, to be evil,) yet he, in his so commanding, or prohibiting, is not only tyrannical, but Antichristian, properly Antichristian● Encroaching on the royal Office of Christ, which is truly High Treason against God, and most properly Antichristianism. I care not whether we call him a Pope, Papist, Romanist or any other name, I call him Antichrist; and if you will call Antichrist by the name of Pope, I call such imperious Commanders among us (though they have no shadow or dependence on Rome, or the Romish Pope) English Popes, I mean English Antichrists.  
Nor is this any particular fancy of that one Lord, but is attested to be the 
i 
Id. Sect. 2. cap. 7. p. 119.  
Protest●tion protest●d. pag. 2.  
Countermarch, &c.   general Doctrine of all the Brownists, who upon these principles conclude Episcopacy to be a rag of Popery, which we have here brought home to their own doors, and there we leave it.  
III. If Superstition be (as 
k View of the Cov. p. 35.  M. Mocket defines it) Quicquid supra statutum est. All Religious observances which have no command in God's word: every outward Act sign or circumstance in God's worsh●p, which he has not enjoined. An Oath being a part of worship expressly commanded, Deut. 6. 13. and this Oath being taken for a Religious end, if either the matter or any circumstance of it be such as God never required, it cannot (according to the Doctrine of the Covenanteers) be excused from Superstition.  
1. Now that outward Act used by the Covenanteers in the taking this Oath, where 
l Covenant with a Narrative.  each person by swearing is required to worship the great name of God, and testify so much outwardly by lifting up their hands, has no more colourable warrant from the word of God by way of command, then bowing the knee at the name of Iesu●, and therefore must be guilty of equal Superstition; and how great that is M. White shall determine.  
2. Again if the vows of their Religious Orders in the Church of Rome be confessedly Superstitious, I shall not know how to clear this vow from the same imputation. 1. Their vow of voluntary poverty i● not so much as the Vow of these Covenanteers to spend not only their Estates but their lives in pursuance of this Covenant. Without all peradventure it is no more unlawful by the word of God, for a Papist to part with his Estate for a known good end, then for a Protestant to devote his to the maintenance of a supposed good Cause. 2. The popish Vow of Continency, what has it more than the Covenanteers Vow of Obstinancy? Never to suffer themselves by whatsoever persuasion to be withdrawn from this union. That is, never to be of another opinion or resolution then now they are. It is no sin in any man to live a single life and to contain, but for a man to vow who has not the gift. And may not the Covenanteers want the guilt of Constancy, as well as other men the gift of Continency? Their own Confessor tells them so: 
m M. Nye in his Speech. pag. 13.  Especially when (as we this day) sensible of our infirmity of an unfaithful heart, not steady with our God, but apt to start from the Cause, bind ourselves with cords, as a Sacrifice to the horns of the Altar. If this will serve to absolve the Covenanteers, how shall the Vow of Continency be condemned at their tribunal, the matter whereof hath more approbation in Scripture, and the performance of it is no whit more impossible?  
3. The Popish Vow of Regular obedience to their superiors, is justly condemned as Superstitious. And is not as absolute, as blind an Obedience required by the framers of this Covenant? to believe all their Declarations, to observe all their Ordinances, to preserve all their Rights and privileges, which are more unknown, and sometimes more unjust than those of the cloister? Yet the Covenanteers Vow to conserve them with the utmost hazard of their lives. 4. If we shall add to these more ancient and ordinary monastic vows that fourth of the Jesuites, the Vow of Mission; whereby they bind themselves to go into whatsoever country their superiors shall send them, for the propagation of their Religion; we shall find something not unlike it in this Vow of the Covenanteers, compared with their practice. By the ancient 
n 1. Ed● 3. cap. 5.  laws of this Land no man should be compelled to go out of his County● save in case of actual Invasion; but by their Ordinance of the Militia, and the several Orders of Association and instructions to their lieutenants, 
o E● C. p. 88 389.  made by the prime Covenanteers, all men are required to follow their Leaders, as well within their several Counties, as to other places: and those pretended Rights, by virtue whereof these commands are laid upon them, they here Vow to maintain wi●h their Lives and Estates: which these superiors may, when they please, with equal authori●y and better reason, employ into France, Spain, Italy, or any other Popish Countries; whither, if they shall command, all are bound to go, by the tenor of this Vow for extirpation of Popery, and universal Reformation of Religion.  
3. Lastly, if whatsoever is not commanded by God be Superstition (as they hold it is) then if it were true that the Leaguers were all of one Religion, yet is there no command for them to enter into such a Holy League. Beside the Pacification at Passau, concluded betwixt the Protestants and Papists of Germany 1552, and confirmed in a Diet 1555, generally commended by Protestant 
p Sleidan. Gerard. Camerar. O●iander.  Writers, the examples in Scripture of Jacob and Laban, Joshuah and the Gibeonites, Solomon and Hiram, do abundantly prove that Leagues betwixt men of divers Religions is not against the word of God, and therefore a League betwixt people of the same Religion, for extirpation of such as are not of the same, is no way required by it. So than this Covenant, as to that point is Supra Statutum, and therefore Superstition.  
4. But if this sin consist rather in using such Acts, matter, signs, or circumstances in divine Worship, as are in their own nature no way apt to express that honour which we acknowledge to be due unto God, nor reducible to that end for which we intend them; surely than there may be Superstition in the inward as well as in the outward Act of Worship; and in particular 
q Rom. 10.2.  indiscreet zeal will appear to be a piece of Superstition: for though zeal be of its own nature apt to be referred to God's Worship, yet thus qualified it is not; and then I am confident, as Diogenes trod upon the pride of Plato, so, many of our zealous Covenanteers here vow to extirpate superstition with greater superstition.  
IV. The clearing of that clause which concerns Extirpation of heresy depends upon the resolution of many questions which we cannot here determine; upon this mainly, who shall be the So●eraigne judge of Controversies to define what Doctrines are heretical, and what not; whether must every man for himself fit upon other men's faith, and proscribe all that for heresy which crosseth his own fancy? The Church of Scotland allows no other judge in this point but Scripture; which will scarce come home to the point; for who shall give the sense of Scripture? The Lord 
r discourse. Sect. 1. c. 9 p. 51.  Brook has answered the question aright; What is true Doctrine the Scripture, or rather the spirit must judge, but what a Church will take for true Doctrine lies only in that Church. And amongst the Covenanteers who shall judge as the Church? In Scotland it is agreed, the general Assembly; in England I know not who, perhaps a select Committee of some Lay-Covenanteers. Such as shall be appointed to convent Ministers for preaching false Doctrine, and will not stick to censure him for heresy and Blasphemy who shall call the virgin Mary the Mother of God. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. I must once more borrow the words of that Honourable 
s Ib. p. 52.53.  Author I last mentioned, so long as the Church in her tenets intermedles not with State matters under the notion of Religion, I suppose the civil Power is not to interpose. If the question be what is Idolatry, what superstition, what heresy, what the punishment of those crimes, who shall judge but the Church? Whiles Parliaments labour for the Church, dealing no further in the affairs of the Church then by Scripture they may, certainly they do well: but if they once exceed their bounds, the issue will be CONFUSION instead of REFORMATION. Yet in regard our laws, if they should be put ordinarily in execution, are somewhat severe in the punishment of heretics, it was not amiss in the 
t 1. Eliz. c. 1.  Parliament to restrain the Power of ecclesiastical Commissioners in judging of heresy, to what had been formerly determined by Scripture, or by the four first general counsels: only when they added, Or such as shall hereafter be ordered, judged or determined to be heresy, by the high● Court of Parliament in this realm, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation: The matter had not been much different if the words had been a little inverted; if they had left the judgement to the Clergy, who (without disparagement) may be thought more compe●ent for such matters, and reserved the power of approving and confirming to themselves. But the Law being as it is, we willingly subscribe to it; and when the Parliament shall determine, with the Convocations assent, any matter or cause to be heresy, we shall better know how to conform either our judgement to their determinations, or our patience and obedience to their censures. In the mean time we must entreat our Brethren of the Clergy convened at Westminster to be persuaded, that though the Lords and Commons in the Court were indeed the Parliament, yet they in the chapel are none of the Convocation. And so what heresy is or what to be taken for such by any authoritative definition in this kingdom we are not like to hear in haist. But if tertullia's Prescriptions, or that golden Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, Quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper, &c. be of any use for the trial of heretics, than we can tell whose Disciples the Covenanteers are, that swear to extirpate episcopal Government: if Aërius, for affirming that a Bishop is not above a Presbyter, was generally reputed by the Christian world for more than thirteen hundred years together, as well in the Eastern as Western Church, for a downright heretic, we can charge those men with no less than a Contradiction who with the same breath vow the extirpation of Prelacy and heresy.  
V. The case is much alike concerning schism. Which is so near allied to heresy, that 
u 1. Cor. 11. 18,19.  S. Paul, if he do not confound them, makes that the necessary forerunner of this. But allowing the word for current in the common acception without any scrupulous enquiry into the nature of it, we must infer. 1. That this vow of the Covenanteers to extirpate schism is contradictory to that vow of mutual assistance, which they make in the sixt Article: for being knownely divided in their opinions concerning Church Government, they must be one to another mutually schismatics. 2. The mere taking of this Covenant, being in the principal part of it an utter condemnation of the Church of England, and a sworn Separation from it as prelatical, (that is, in their sense, Antichristian) can be no other than a most formal vowed schism, in respect of all those Covenanteers, who formerly held Communion with this Church: which being a true Church wherein Salvation might be had, suppose the worst, (which I do not grant) that there were some errors in her Doctrine, or some unlawfulness in her practice, yet so long as they are neither required to profess those errors nor to approve those practices (as, if we consider His majesty's frequent proffers of passing fitting provisions for the ease of ●ender consciences clearly they are not) any separation from this their Mother Church is utterly causeless; and unless by virtue of some Legislative power, a new sense be imposed upon the word, this is the greatest schism that ever was in any Church since the foundation of Religion.  
If they had not broken it already they might easily observe this part of their Oath for the future, for having by this Covenant left amongst themselves no visible Church, it quickly follows, no schism. Were it not so, I should wonder how it comes to pass, that after such a solemn Oath for extirpation of schism, and that not by public Order, but where every one must go before another in the example, so few should be found all this long time worthy to be extirpate out of that great City, where so many are known to be. Where all such as have been accounted schismatics from our Church of England either had their birth or have their breeding. Anabaptiss, Brownists of all sizes, Separatists● Semi-Separatists, Leamarists, Barowists, johnsonians, Ainsworthians, Robinsonians, Wilkinsonians, the several Congregations of Busher, Smith, Helwise, Hancock, Nevil, Pedder, each of which (as I am informed) had their distinct forms of Separation: the Antinomians, Eatonians, Gringletonians and Familists the Cottonians and Anti-Cottonians, and whatsoever spreading grafts have been transplanted from those fruitful seed-plots of schism, the Colonies of New Englaud or Amsterdam.  
All these were known, by head, even when the Government of the Church was in the hands of the King and Bishops; and sure their number is nought abated since it was seized by the Covenanteers: many whereof have small reason to swear the extirpation of schism, unless it be out of their own hearts. Which is so foul a sin, that some of themselves have confessed Jeroboam the son of Nebat, for this only cause, not for Idolatry, to be so often mentioned with that odious elegy, Who made Israel to sin. And considering the general defection now made from the Church of England, and the shallow grounds of this Separation, I take leave to mind those men who have had the greatest stroke in these divisions, of what 
* De Haeres. lib. 4. c. 62.  Irenaus writ so many hundred years ago. The Lord will judge also those that make schisms; who valuing more their own profit then the church's unity, do rent and divide, and to their power murder the great and glorious body of Christ, upon small and any occasions: speaking Peace, and making war; truly straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. For they can make ●o such Reformation, as will be able to countervail the harm of schism.  
VI. The imposing this Oath by their own Authority is a great violation of the Rights and privileges of Parliament which they swear to preserve. If we should allow the Leaders to be, what they desire to pass for, the two Houses of Parliament; yet is it denied that the one House hath any power to give an ordinary legal Oath; or that both Houses can lay any civil, much less Religious obligation, by a new Oath, upon the whole kingdom without His majesty's Assent by 
x E.C. pag. 859. 860.  Act of Parliament. Let but any Law be produced that it may be done, or any precedent showed that ever it was done by any free Parliament, and we shall be ready to recant this position. In the mean time I crave leave to intimate in some few particulars how the Covenanteers have violated not only the ancient and just Rights of Parliament, but those very privileges of the last Edition, which were never heard of before this Session.  

1. In relation to the King, who is the Head of that great Body, the denying His Negative in making of laws, the signifying His Authority contrary to his Will, the doing many things without Him, which, how necessary soever, he does not challenge any Prerogative to do without them, are sufficient instances of their injust usurpations.  
2. In relation to the House of peers: whether were not their privileges invaded, when some of the temporal Lords were committed by Mr Pennington, the than Lord Major of London, and a Member of the Lower House? when others of the spiritualty, twelve Bishops at a clap were impeached and committed for a crime they were no way guilty of? That never forgotten breach of privilege, His majesty's impeachment of the five Members was thus aggravated; 
y E.C. p. 278●  If such an accusation might be allowed, than it would be in the power not only of His Majesty but of any private man, under pretensions of Treason, to take away any man from his service in the Parliament, and so as many, one after another as he pleaseth, and consequently to make ● Parliament what he will, when he will; which would be a Breach of so essential a privilege of Parliament, that the very being thereof depends upon it. How much His Majesty did then abhor the thoughts of any such consequence, depends in part upon the now visible and then just grounds of that accusation. But whether in that more general, and more causeless impeachment of those twelve Members of the House of peers, the Projectors did not overact all the sad consequences of the former Discourse, and transgress that essential privilege upon which the very being of Parliament was said to depend, I do not determine; only, this is evident, the now Covenanting Commons ever since that time were able to make their House of Lords do or say what they would when they would. witness their several Counter-mands and cross Declarations. The Lords declare the laws should be observed, and the commonprayer Book used: these Commons declare, both shall be suspended. The Lord● declare, Tumults shall be suppressed, and the Authors punished: these Commons declare there are no Tumults, and command those persons shall be released who were apprehended as the Authors. The Lords thought the new Ordinance for the Militia unnecessary, and refuse to Petition for it: these Commons declare it is necessary, and 
z Ex. Coll. p. 19 & 59  complain of the Lords for their refusal. What would you more? In some cases, these men Order, 
a Ib. p. 112●  that the House of peers agree with the House of Commons.  
3. In relation to particular Members; It is somewhere confessed by the Commons, that 
b Ib. p. 723.  they cannot give away the privilege of their Members without their consent. Sure the many affronts● indignities, injuries, which several Members of that honourable House have sustained in their Persons, in their Estates, in their Protections, in their other privileges and Liberties, were never done by their own consent.  
4. In relation to the constitution of Parliaments, is not the freedom of the place and safety of the persons so absolutely necessary, that 
c E.C. p. 10●.  no Parliament can be without it? yet have not both been disturbed and endangered by tumultuous Citizens? Have not some been expelled, others committed, for being so honest as to Vote according to their conscience, but not so fortunate as to jump with the supposed Sense of the House? Were not their names posted up, and their lodgings notefied who were unwilling to have a hand in the first Act of this national Tragedy? I● the public demanding a List of such Lords' names as dissented in their Votes from the carrying party in the Lower House; if confining the whole Authority of both Houses to the pleasure of a few persons under the name of a Committee for the safety of the kingdom, into whose secret● the rest may not presume to inquire; if the admitting of Commissioners from another kingdom without whose concurrent advice nothing must be agitated in this, be not as totally repugnant to the nature of a free Parliament, as confessedly repugnant to all Precedents of former times; if all these things have been done, and yet no privilege broken, then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, there will be no danger of breaking privilege. But if all these were high violations of the Parliament privileges, all the Covenanteers are sworn to inquire after and punish the offenders without respect of persons.  
5. I cannot see that those who had a special hand in the creation have ever had a due care for the conservation of many new privileges. They who declared it to be no ordinary, but a high breach of privilege to 
d E.C. p. 156.  intercept any Letters or Messenger● coming to or from the Parliament, have since countenanced the interception of His majesty's Letters, commanded the imprisonment of His Messengers, and done enough to prove themselves either guilty of privilege-breaking, or no Parliament. Who if they shall pretend in case of privilege, as they have done in point of Law, that whatever they do, or command or approve, how contrary soever it may seem to be to their confessed or declared privileges, yet must not be taken for a violation of privilege, because it is approved by them in whom the Privilegilative power is supposed to reside. I confess this might be urged with good coherence to their other principles nor should I know well what to reply if I were not furnished out of their Store-hou●e; Where I find them telling the King, August. 25. 1642. that till he have recalled His Declarations and Proclamations, and taken down His Standard, 
e E.C. p. 580.  they cannot, by the fundamental privileges of Parliament, treat with him. Yet within a few months after, though the royal Standard was not taken down, nor any Proclamations recalled, those very men who before refused to grant, are now 
f Ib. p. 745.  petitioning for a Treaty, to His Majesty at Colebrook, and we find them actually Treating at Oxford: Whence we conclude, seeing they did afterwards what they had formerly declared, by their fundamental privileges, they could not do, not only in some cases they possibly may, but in this particular, according to the principles of their own Declarations, they actually did violate a privilege of Parliament, and that a fundamental one.   
VII. There can scarce be imagined any invasion upon the public Liberty more manifest, or of greater consequence than is the imposing of this Oath by such as have no Authority to exact it: and the submitting to this usurped Authority, is in all them that take it, a betraying of the Liberty of the kingdom. We have already proved that no new Oath can be imposed but by Act of Parliament●  
Besides, what can be more in prejudice of the Liberties of England, then forcing all the Subjects to swear to defend the Liberties of Scotland, and the unknown privileges of their Parliament? Are we not hereby made sworn vassals and slaves to another Nation? Do we not give them a Supremacy over us? or if their obligation be reciprocal, yet I doubt whether, in case they prove perfidious, that will serve to excuse our perjury.  
If by swearing to preserve the Liberties of the kingdom, they swear (as their 
g M. Mocket. View of the Covenant. pag. 36.  expositors bear us in hand) against all Arbitrary Power; whereby the Rulers will and pleasure is made the only Rule of the Subjects obedience, their Oath strikes at none more than the Master●Covenanters, to whom I fear the description in that author is most aptly fitted, New, proud, ambitious, domineering Officers of the first Head.  
VIII. Seeing no Act of Parliament can be made without his majesty's consent, no new Oath imposed without an Act of Parliament, their pressing of this Covenant by any Ordinance, their entering into League with two foreign Nations, and inviting others to join in the like Association, is such a palpable violation of the King's Authority, which they swear to preserve, and a contradiction so gross as none can reconcile, unless He to whom nothing is impossible.  
Ix.. What is the whole design of the Covenant but an apparent dividing of the King from his People? Or, which is all one, of the People from their King? What, but a sowing of division between the kingdoms, by hiring the Scots to take part in our dissensions? What, but a sworn Faction amongst the People of this Land, being a combination of some who confess themselves not to be the kingdom? And yet they would seem to swear against all these in the fourth Article.  
That they who here swear against Faction and Division have been the authors and are still the upholders of Division, and that by Faction, is plain from their constant refusal to descend to any Treaty for accommodation. First, when his Majesty wooed them to it from Nottingham; then when the most substantial Citizens petitioned for it at London. again, when in July last the Lords remaining at Westminster did Vote for it; when the major part of Commons then present did entertain the first motion of it; when the many poor People and the weaker sex did offer up strong cries and tears for it: yet so potent was the prevailing party of the common-council of London, (of Master Pennington's election, and therefore at his devotion) as not to spare their greatest Patriots; all their former service could not protect their names or persons from the rude hands and ruder tongues of those enemies of Peace; from whom the poor Petitioners found such barbarous entertainment as pitied me to see, & I take no pleasure to remember. Nor need I mention the many gracious overtures from his Majesty, that have been spurned at and rejected since. That which most irremoveably pins the Faction upon the Covenanteers sleeves is their entering into such a League as this with foreigners; which they would never have purchased at so dear a rate, had they confided in the native Forces of our own kingdom. Besides, the very ground of the Contestation decides the controversy. The Covenanteers fight for Subversion of the laws and Government established; his Majesty (as, by their confession, he is bound to do) and his other Subjects, for preservation of them: Say then, who are the Faction? Whether they who willingly submit to all laws now in force, and are ready to pay equal obedience to all such as shall be established in a free Parliament, or they who not only deny obedience, but vow to extirpate the present laws and Government?   

CHAP. ix.. That many particulars vowed and intended by the Covenant, are simply and absolutely unlawful.  
HAving already demonstrated the iniquity of the Covenant upon such general Heads of Discourse, as by sound consequence do infer no less; I proceed to the proposal of such other particulars as are found primâ fancy, without any help of deduction, immediately unlawful in themselves.  
I. Such is the main matter of the first Article, if not of the whole Covenant. The alteration of Religion in England and Ireland. Which if it were false and erroneous, as it is fal●ly suggested to be, yet being already settled by standing laws in both kingdoms, such as the King is sworn to defend, as much if not more than any other, for any Subjects by force of arms to go about to introduce an alteration, however veiled under the specious title of Reformation, is a thing not only directly contrary to the positive Constitutions of these kingdoms, and without warrant or example from divine Law, but utterly against Scripture, Reason, the practice of the true Church of God in all ages, the very nature of Religion itself, and the common principles of civil policy.  
I might for methods sake parcel this Section, 
See to this purpose, a Solid learned Discourse, Of Resisting the lawful Magistrate upon colour of Religion.  and show first that all force for Religion, Secondly, that all force against the King is unlawful. But because I find both swords united in the present undertakings of the Covenanteers, I shall not divide them in my discourse.  
1. First, That to labour the advancement of Religion by way of Force, contrary to established laws and the Prince's will has no warrant by way of command or approbation from God's word, must be taken for granted, till those who are otherwise minded can show the contrary: and will be needless to persuade if we prove in the second place that it is against express testimony of Scripture. Our Saviour 
a Ioh. 18.36.  professeth his kingdom is not of this world, and adds, for then would my servants fight. Which words as they evince that it is lawful for Subjects to fight at the command of their temporal King, for the maintenance of his worldly Estate; so do they insinuate that Christ's kingdom being spiritual, cannot, must not be advanced by temporal arms. 
b 2. Cor. 10.4.  The weapons of our spiritual Militia are not carnal, but spiritual. We have no command from Christ our spiritual Head, to kill and slay the common enemies of our Religion, but contrariwise to 
c Matt. 5.44.  pray for our persecutors, & not to resist evil. Perhaps upon the same conceit o● God's glory and advancement of their Religion they persecute us, as we Vow to extirpat● them. St Paul out of the abundance of zeal, 
d Gal. 1.14.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, did at first 
e Philip. 3.6.  persecute the Saints of God; yet not without 
f Act. 9.2.  authority from the Magistrate; and therefore his case was different from this of the Covenanteers; and he obtained pardon (it was a sin then) because he did it ignorantly. Our Saviour left it not untold to his Disciples, and in them to the Church, 
g Ioh. 16.2.  that the time would come that whosoever killed them, would think he did God service: those very murderers had the glory of God for their ends, but that could not excuse their actions.  
Heu, primae scelerum causae mortalibus aegris, Naturam nescire Dei! They were truly ignorant of those means which God requires for the advancement of his kingdom. 
h Ib. vers 3  These things they will do, because they have not known the Father, nor me. He will not have the 
i Mat. 13.30.  tares extirpate out of his field, the Church, till the time of harvest, and by the proper reapers. 
k Covenant with a Narrative. p. 24.  M. Nye in his exhortation to the Covenant, has made choice of a text sufficient to break the neck of it. He bids us be zealous, as Christ was, to cast out all (he never cast out any by fire and sword) but let us do it in an orderly way, and with the Spirit of Christ whose servants we are. 
l 2. Tim. 2.25.  The servant of the Lord must not strive (sure than he must not kill and slay) but be gentle to all men, (I hope Papists and Prelates may pass for men) apt to teach, (not to enforce) Patient, (not violent) in meekness instructing (not in fierceness consuming, destroying, extirpating) those that oppose. If Seditions, Tumults, Insurrections, Rebellion● must go current for Discipline and Order; if the taking up of arms defensive or offensive, be a work of patience and meekness, if the Spirit ●f contradiction be more conformable to the Spirit of Christ then that of suffering, the Lord be judge; for amongst men, great Authors are produced on both sides. The chief Covenanters 
m E.C. p. 725.  call it a Spirit of slavery, and 
n & 728.  advise all to make use of that defence which Nature teacheth every man to provide for. But God in Scripture teacheth no such matter; 
o Rom. 8. 17. 2. Tim. 2. 12. 1. Pet. 3.14. & 4. 16.  he commands every man to be conformable to the image of his son; if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.  
3. Thirdly, this course is against the nature of Religion itself. For Faith, the soul of Religion, is an inward act of the soul, which all the Tyranny in the world, that the malice of the devil can invent, or the wit of man exercise, can neither plant where it is not, nor extirpate where it is. It is the gift of God; freely begotten in the hearts of men, not by threat● and terrors, not by torture● and Massacres, but by the quiet still voice of the word preached: S●adenda, non c●genda. And therefore St Paul, though a lawful governor in the Church, flatly disclaims any 
p 2. Cor. 1.24.  domineering power over the Conscience. A● for the outward profession of Religion, neither is that subject to Force and violence: A man may confess Christ and his Faith in him, as freely in bonds as at liberty, as gloriously upon the cross as upon the throne. Fear indeed may incline a weak conscience to dissemble his opinion, but cannot constrain him to alter it. Fire and Faggot are strong arguments of a weak cause; undeniable evidences of cruelty in those that use them; but slender motives of credibility to beget Faith in those that suffer by them. Lastly for the external, free, and public practice of Religiou● duties, that I grant may be restrained by the outward violence of man; but when it is so, it is not required by God, who never expects to reap what he did not sow.  
4. Fourthly, it is against the constant commendable practice of the true Church of God in all ages. The Saducees, tho●gh they denied the Resurrection, and many other Truths in Religion, were tolerated in the Church of the Jews; and our Saviour convinceth them by strength of argument, not of arms. The example of Christ and his Apostles is beyond all exception, worthy our best imitation. When many of his Disciples did apostate, he used no violence to reduce them, but mildly said unto the Twelve, 
q John 6. 67.  Will ye also go away? When the Samaritans, who were of a different Religion, neglected to entertain him, because his face was towards Jerusalem, the place of the true Worship, he sharply 
r Luke 9 54.  rebuked those sonne● of thunder who would have consumed them with a shower of fire. When Peter thought to have defended him by force against a sudden assault made by the servants of the High Priest (the Ministers to execute an unlawful command, but employed by the lawful Magistrate) who by destroying the Master had no other intention but to extirpate that Religion which he had planted, he commands him to 
s Mat. 26. 52.  put up his sword, for all that take the sword (though it be in defence of true Religion, yet if it be against the command of the lawful Magistrate) shall perish by the sword. And as himself was content to suffer an ignominious Death upon the cross, notwithstanding he had power infinitely sufficient to repel all the violence of his enemies; so did his Apostles follow him in the like example, 
t Acts 5.41.  rejoicing in their life time that they were counted, worthy to be beaten for his name; and Saint Paul reckons it for a special grace and favour to the 
u Phil. 1. 29●  Philippians ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c.) that they not only believed in in Christ, but suffered for his sake: and when they had finished their course and fought the good fight of Faith, they gave up their lives a willing sacrifice in testimony of the Truth of their Religion.  
Conformable to this pattern was the constant 
* 
Arnob Lact. Cypr. contra Demetr.  
Tert. in Apol. & ad Scap. Iust. in Tryph. Aug. in Psa. 144.  
Ambros. in Luc. 22.38.  
Atha●. Ep. ad solit.. vitam agente●.   Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church. The most ancient Apologists for the Christian Faith, use this as an Argument to prove the Religion of their persecutors to be false, and their own true● that stood in need of human force to maintain it, but theirs stood by the sole power of God. Pudeat te eos col●re, quos ipse defendi●; pudeat tutelam ab ipsis expectare, quos tu tueris. Those good Christian● were content to trust God with the defence of his own Cause; and indeed they durst do no otherwise; their Religion enjoined them not to kill, but be killed for it. Nor was this for want of ability, but authority. They who best knew their own strength, professed to the face of their adversarie●, that both for number and experience they were nothing inferior. It was in their power to have oppo●ed, if their Religion would have permitted. One of them makes Peter put this question to his Master, Cur haberi praecipis gladium, quem vetas promi? Nisi fortè ut videaris potuisse vindicari, sed noluisse?  
Hence it came to pass that when both Swords were in a manner united, after the Emperors were converted to the Christian Faith, yet heretics were cut off by the spiritual, not by the temporal. The first general counsels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, condemned those Arch-Traitors in Religion, Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, but not to death. The council of Constance was the first that proceeded in that kind against John Husse and Jerome of Prague.  
Lastly, as the Harmony of Reformed Churches in their public 
x Confessio Aug. Art. 16. Gall. Art. 40. Helv. Art. 26. Scot. Art. 24. Angl. Art. 37.  Confessions does not admit of any division or violent resistance against the supreme Magistrate; so has it been the constant Doctrine of all the Protestant Divines generally from Luther, down till our times, and more particularly of this Church of England, as may be more fully seen in the Exhortation to obedience published in Edward the sixth's days, and the Homily against Rebellion confirmed by the Articles of our Church under Queen Elizabeth. The contrary Doctrine being ever reputed peculiar to the worst of Papists, the Jesuites, and the practice of it made a mark of Antichrist. So as I dare aver these three last years have produced more seditious Pamphlets in that kind within this one kingdom, than all the Christian world ever saw before; to the shame of our Nation, and scandal of our Profession.  
5. Fifthly, this course of violence is contrary to all experience of former times, by which it is found that Religion hath ever been better propagated by the sufferings of the true professors, than by force; Persecution to the Church being like pruning to the Vine; as it was first planted, so has it been watered and fructified most by blood. 
Sanguine fundata est Ecclesia, sanguin●●r●vit.  Not by shedding the blood of others, but willingly pouring out her own. The constant patience of Martyrs was the most winning rhetoric to persuade others to the Faith; it being most likely those opinions should be true, for which they so willingly laid down their lives: at least, common pity is a powerful orator to persuade with the People, (with whom the punishment makes the Martyr) that he who suffers has a good Cause. Whereas should he make resistance to defend himself, or use violence to compel others, that might be upon other ends, of profit, vain glory, revenge, and what not? The persecution in other places drove the Protestants hither in Edward the sixth'● days, as to a common Sanctuary, which much advanced the Reformation in England; and the cruelty of the Papists under Queen Mary was disposed by the Providence of God to perfect the Reformation both in France and the Low-Countries; whither no less that 
y Girolam. Pollini l' Hist. Eccl. l. 3. ●. 18.  thirty thousand strangers were banished from hence for Religion. The flames of our English Martyrs did but give more light to the Truth of the gospel, which their Enemies thought by that means to suppress; their Fune●als were the most effectual Sermons for the people's Conversion. The bloody Massacre at Paris was 
y Miterran● Hist. lib. 4. p. 103●  found to advance the Religion in France, and the rigorous pressing of the Inquisition made way for casting Popery out of the Low Countries: where the present Toleration of all Religions is acknowledged by the Lord 
a Disc. Sect. 2●c. 6. p. 94.  Brook for a special means that makes it flourish.  
6. Sixthly, it is against that innate principle of the Law of nature, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. Those who plead most for extirpa●ion of heretics, when it comes to be their own turn to be under the cross, stand for Liberty of Conscience, and declaim against persecution for Religion as a thing utterly unlawful; ●o the very Jesuites, Cardinal Allen, and Creswell in his Philopater. And surely if we will not suffer i● from others, we may not use it ourselves.  
7. Seventhly, 't is against the Law of our Land. W● have always deprecated that aspersion which ou● adversaries would cast upon it; professing we do not punish any heretics with death, but Seminaries for Sedition and Rebellion, not for Religion. And here I must observe that the Lords and Commons in Parliament primo Elizabethae confess they had no means to free the kingdom from the usurped power and authority of the Pope, 
Cap ●.  but with the assent of the Queen's Majesty: so far were they from thinking it lawful to raise arms for extirpation of Pop●ry when it was established by the Law of the Land.  
8. Eighthly, it is against the common rules of prudence and civil Policy, to use that as a means to propagate, which is more likely to tend to the extirpation of our Religion: I speak of the Protestant; which in the generality being not so populous as the Roman, if we shall extirpate them he●e where we are stronger, we must expect the same measure from them in other places where they are stronger: and then, in all human probability, our Religion is like to come to the worst in France, Germany, Poland, and other Popish Dominions. If they shall take the same course, what can we have in equity to object against them? Si quis quae fecit patitur, is he not rightly served?  
9 Lastly, it is utterly destructive to all civil Government: for if any be allowed to take up arms for propagation or defence of their true Religion, against the civil laws, and will of their Prince; whosoever has a mind to rebel, may do it upon the same pretence, and ought not to be questioned by any human Authority; for though they do but pretend Religion, yet is it impossible for any judge to convince them of such pretence; not can any thing be urged in defence of the true Religion, which may not be made use of by a false.  
II. The extirpation of that ancient Government by Bishops, which has obtained in England ever since the first plantation of Christianity in this Nation; to which we principally owe the Reformation of that Religion we now profess, of which none have been more zealous, more able propugners than our English Bishops, who by their constant preaching of it, their learned Writings for it, their pious living in it, and patient dying for it, have sealed unto us that precious Fai●h through which we hope, by the mercy of God, for the salvation of our souls; who have b●en the Founders or most eminent benefactors of most Churches, colleges, schools, hospitals and other public Monuments of piety and devotion, which have rendered this Nation so famous abroad and so magnificent at home. Of whose Government all the Clergy of this Land have testified their solemn approbation at their entrance into holy Orders, and to whom all beneficed Ministers have sworn obedience at their institution, and therefore (it was 
b Concerning the Canons. pag. 17.  M. bagshawes' Argument) if ever they assent to the alteration of this Government they are really perjured. Which H●s Majesty, and all His royal Predecessors at their Coronation have by a more particular and solemn Oath vowed to protect: which God himself by extraordinary blessings from Heaven (as King 
c Proclamation. 1 Iacobi.  James of blessed Memory did acknowledge) has approved and ratified. Which by the Catholic consent of the Churches of Christendom, both in Asia, afric, Greece, Russia, and other parts of Europe, that never acknowledged any subjection to, or dependence on the See of Rome, hath been constantly embraced, and the oppugners of it universally branded for heretics: which in most of those few Churches that want it, by their best and ablest Members hath been frequently desired: which of all other forms has undoubtedly the best title to Divine or apostolical Institution. Against which nothing is, or ever could be justly objected but the human infirmities and personal failings of some particular men, from which no Government is or can be totally exempt.  
If it be not unlawful to swear the Extirpation of this Government so deeply rooted by the fundamental laws of this kingdom (both Common and Statute) as Monarchy itself, or the newnamed sovereign Power of Parliaments cannot pretend to be built upon a surer foundation, let it be piously and prudently considered whether the same Engines by which the Covenanteers would subvert the Government of the Church, will not be of equal ●trength and fitness to pull up the Government of the State. Suppose neither King nor Bishop were of divine Right, certainly Parliaments are not. Suppose both Kings and Bishops fail in the performance of their trust, is there no expedient, but the Government must be abolished? Sure it is not impossible for Parliaments to be guilty of a like defailer; must they be exposed to the like justice? No Bishop, no King, is granted to be an old received truth by 
d Lord Brook. Sect. 2. c. 6. p. 87.  one who was none of the best friends to either Government. When I consult with history and experience, and behold the example of some Neighbour Nations, I say no more, but Vestigia terrent. A strict account must one day be given for every drop of Christian blood that has been shed in the common cockpit of Europe these fourscore years' last past.  
III. If it were as certainly true, as it is prodigiously false, that Episcopacy were an Antichristian invention, and therefore fit to be abolished, yet it would concern our Reformers to provide us of another Government before they take this away. If Christ did indeed prescribe one set form to be perpetually and universally observed in his Church, and Episcopacy be not that one (as we contend it is) let our adversaries first agree amongst themselves what it is, and we shall then know how to proportion our conformity to the authority and reasons of those that enjoin it. Or if it were left at large, in the power of the Church, Catholic or particular, to ordain what form she shall think most convenient, we still demand, who that Church is, and what that form must be here in England? In the mean time this is certain in itself, and generally acknowledged on all hands, an absurdity so gross as cannot fall into the imagination of any Christian, that Christ should at any time be thought to have a Church without any Government; or that it should be in the power of any man (I do not except a Parliament) to extirpate the present and so leave the Church void of all Government. I 
e Serinus apud S●ob. Serm. 42.  read indeed of a Law amongst the Persians, that after the death of the King there should be a five days' Cessation of all Law and Government, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that the People by that want might learn to know what a great blessing it is to enjoy the Ki●g and the Law. As the end was good, so in a civil State the thing was not injust. But in a Church the case is quite otherwise.  
The time was, when the House of Commons took it for an imputation cast upon them by Malignants, against whom they remonstrate to the kingdom in these words, 
f 1. Remonstranc●. E.C. p. 19  They inf●se into the People that we mean to abolish all Church-Government, and leave every man to his own fancy for the service and worship of God; absolving him of that obedience which he owes under God unto his Majesty, whom we know to be entrusted with the ecclesiastical Law, as well as with the temporal, to regulate all the Members of the Church of England, by such rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament. Were that House now turned Covenanteers, I should say those Malignants, if they were bad counsellors, were good Prophets. Is not all that a present Truth, which is here laid down as a false aspersion? When the Government by Archbishops, Bishops, chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers, is, according to the tenor of this Covenant, utterly extirpate, if all Church Government be not taken away, let them show us what remains; if every man be not left to his own fancy for the service of God, let them say, what other rule the Covenanteers have to walk by, while they are in expectation of a new Directory. If the rules of Order and Discipline, by which the Bishops did govern under the King, be established by Parliament, and no other so much as pretended so to be; if his Majesty require obedience to these Rules, according to those laws, with the execution whereof, next under God, he is entrusted, when the Covenanteers not only refuse to obey, but swear disobedience themselves, and require the like of all others, if this be not, what is it ●o absolve every man from that obedience which he owes under God unto his Majesty?  
The same authors told us at the same time, 
g Ibid.  We do here declare, that it is far from our purpose or desire, to let lose the golden reins of Discipline and government in the Church, and leave private persons or particular Congregations to take up what form of Divine Service they please; for we hold it requisite that there should be through the whole realm a Conformity to that Order which the laws enjoin. If the reins of Discipline be not now let loose amongst the Covenanteers, in whose hands are they? If private persons and Congregations be not at liberty, what Law does restrain them? If there be any new form and Conformity established, when was it enacted? Where may we find it?  
It will be said, though they have abjured Episcopacy, 
h E.C. p. 604.  yet they intend to consult with Divines about setl●ng another form, most agreeable to God's Word, most apt to preserve peace at home, and unity with Scotland. If it were not against the Law of God to rob the Church of all Government, as it is against the laws of this kingdom to abjure the present form, yet may it well be thought to be against common Policy, to endanger the safety, as we have forfeited the Peace, both of Church and State, by endeavouring to introduce a new Government not yet known of what stamp it is, nor what effects it may produce. To forsake all ancient and beaten paths, Et nova & ancipitia praecolere, avida & plerunque fallax ambitio est. Great care has been taken for the culling out of such Divines as were most likely to comply in their desires of innovation; many months have they sat a consulting, and are yet as far from agreement as when they first met. If no form must be settled but such as hath a concurrence of those three forementioned conditions, it is probable there must never be any settled at all. What is most agreeable to God's Word, next after Episcopacy, may be thought not most apt to preserve peace, among so many different Sects at home, at least not most apt to preserve unity with Scotland. The Scots are resolved their form, and none but theirs, is according to God's Word, 
i E.C. p. 598.  jure divino, and perpetual; And the Members at Westminster were once of the same opinion, or willing to make the Scots believe so, when they told them 
k Ib. 60●.  they concurred with their own judgement touching Church Government. If so, what need had they to call Divines to consult? Was it to be resolved in conscience whether they might lawfully tolerate what is ●ure divino, and perpetual? Or they were resolved upon the conclusion, but the Divines must find out the premises? Or which is most probable, they never were, nor yet are, nor perhaps ever will be agreed upon any one Government; though they all conspire against Episcopacy, as most opposite to their private Factions? For if we must have no Government but such as shall please the major part of the Members at Westminster, whether they consult the Assembly for fashions sake, or in sincerity, we are likely to have none at all. When Master Speaker shall put every particular form to the Question, the major part, by reason of distraction in affection or opinion, not concurring upon any one, one by one they will all be voted out of doors. For example, Shall the presbytery succeed? All the Independents, all those that are affected to Episcopacy, all that are enamoured of any new platform of prudential Government by Lay Commissioners, will with one voice cry, Not content. And such like for the rest; whatever form shall be proposed, there will be three to one odds against it. Till this difference be reconciled, if they will not pardon, I hope they may be entreated to reprieve Episcopacy; and till we have either found a better (which we never shall) or be agreed upon another Government, Contenti simus hoc Catone.  
IV. But will extirpation of Prelacy be sufficient to glut the malice of the Covenanteers? Nothing less, there is a clause in the Covenant, which is younger brother to the & c● in the Canons, of as large extent and more dangerous consequence. For here they swear to extirpate all other ecclesiastical Officers depending upon that hierarchy. That is, if they would speak plain English, all the Ministers in England that have been ordained or instituted by the Archbishops, or Bishops, or have been inducted, into their charge by any Archdeacon. I hope I need not yet press the iniquity of this consequence, but it is requisite I show the truth of it. And let the country know, that the most zealous Covenanteers in the City are composed of Brownists, Anabaptists, and other Brethren of the Separation, who have constantly traduced the calling of our English Clergy as Antichristian. 
l Vid. lawn, schism of the Brownists, p 78.  It is the 29th Article of their ancient Confession, that not only the Hierarchy, but The Priests and Deacons of England ordained by Bishops, are a strange and Antichristian ministry, and OFFICERS not instituted by Christ's Testament, nor placed in or over his Church. Hence it was that when Master Ainsworth and his Company separated from Master Johnson and his Church, it grew to a Law suit betwixt them in Amsterdam who should have the house allowed them by the City for their public meetings. The johnsonians objected, the other were Schismatickes; and the Ainsworthians would needs prove those were Apostates, that they had fallen from their first Faith: particularly, tha● they had placed over them one that was made Priest by a Lord Bishops Ordination● and had not ordained or imposed hands upon him again, contrary to their 29th Article: as also against the 32d Article of their Confession, which testifieth that all such as have received any of those false Offices of the Lords Bishops, are to giv● over and leave them. The author of the Countermarch to Master James his Retreat, endeavours to prove the Church of England a false Church, and to deny some fundamental points of Doctrine, by this Argument: because it denieth Christ's kingdom and Prophecy, inasmuch as it appointeth men to prophecy, to preach and administer the Sacraments by virtue of a calling which Christ hath not appointed: for the calling of the Ministers of England is by the presentation of a Patron, by the institution of a Lord Bishop, and by the induction of an Archdeacon, which are the mere inventions and devices of men. Therefore the outward calling is false and human: wherefore as it was an error fundamental in jeroboam's Church, 
m 2 Chron. 13.9, 10. 1 King's 12.31.  that Priests were made after his devising: so is it an error fundatall and corruption essential, to make Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which have a devised Office and form of calling essentially differing from that which God left in the Church for the calling of his Officers and Ministers.— The Minister must renounce his corrupt calling by the Bishop, and enter by the true calling taught by Christ. And let this be showed by any Minister of any parish of Engl●nd, if you can. If not, then are they still not truly called, so no true Ministers of Christ in regard of their calling. I have laid down this testimony more at large, that I might spare the producing of any more to the same purpose out of the Writings of Barrow, Cookie, Can, and other Separatists; with whom nothing is more frequent than to condemn our ministry for Antichristian; and to make it no less than Idolatry, to serve Go● in and by such a devised ministry.  
How many Disciples these men have in London, and how Orthodox this Doctrine is amongst the Covenanteers, we may guess in part, if we call to mind Master Burton, or who else was the author of the 
n p. 8. & 9●  Protestation protested. He put the question to our English Clergy●What if the calling of the ministry itself should prove a piece of popery? And referred it to their consideration, Whether they were able to prove themselves the Ministers of Christ lawfully called, when all of them do immediately derive their ministry from the Antichristian Hierarchy, or papal Prelacy, as the sole foundation thereof. This Doctrine found so much countenance even in those days, that neith●r the book was thoutght fit to be censured, nor the Author to be questioned, though his Majesty complained of it more than once. And whether the Independents, to whom the Spirit of expounding is most familiar, will not hereafter, when time serves, expound those words of their new Covenant, All ecclesiastical Officers depending upon the Hierarchy, according to their old wont, of all the Ministers ordained by the Lord's Bishops, and what will be the consequents of such an exposition (which I forbear to press) let the whole Clergy of England, and the rest of the kingdom consider and beware.  
V. To swear or endeavour such an Extirpation of Bishops, Deans and Chapters, as is aimed at by the Covenanteers, is not only unlawful by the positive Law of this kingdom, but, as in the highest degree Sacrilegious, utterly against the Law of God. To prove which, I shall premise these undoubted grounds of truth. First, that it is 
y Math. 20.15.  lawful for any man to do with his own what he please, so he do not misemploy it to a bad end. Secondly, that by the Law of God, any man may dispose of his means as well, if not better, for a pious use (as the encouragement of Learning, for maintenance of Religion) to a Body spiritual in succession, as to his heirs or Executors, or any secular Corporation. Thirdly, 
Acts 5. 4.  that by our laws the present Beneficiaries (Bishops Deans and Chapters &c.) have as true a propriety in their Church-means, as any other person hath in his lay-Fee. Fourthly, that what is on●e devoted to a Sacred use, cannot, without S●criledge, be converted to a profane. To which purpose I sh●ll not insist upon any testimony of Scripture (as having been sufficiently done by 
p Sir Henry Spelman, De non tem: eccles. M. Sempill sacrilege Sacredly handled. M Vdals Coale from the ●lter. D. Gardiner's scourge of sacrilege. &c.  others) but only quote (what will be in some men's esteem of more Force) the de●ermination of an English Parliament 25. Edw. 1. Which declar●s that lay men (they speak of them●elves, as a Parliament) have no authority to dispose of the goods of the Church; But (as the holy Scripture doth testify) they are committed only to the Priests to be disposed off.  
From hence I shall infer, First, that, ex plenitudine potestatis, for a Parliament to deprive any one Bishop, Deane or Prebend of his present maintenance whereof he is Legally possessed, unless it be by way of punishment for some personal delinquency, is as high injustice as to diss●ile any other man of his freehold without cause. Secondly, that though Bishops, Deans and Chapters &c. saving the Right of propriety to the present Beneficiaries, quo jure quâve injuriâ● should be abolished for the future, yet to convert their means from a Religious to a secular use, contrary to the known intentions and will of the Founders, cannot be excused from down-right sacrilege, and would be the ready way to bring upon us and our posterity all those fearful execrations with which those lands were at first devoted to God and the Church; and we should drink up the dregs of that bitter cup of God's wrath and displeasure, of which, it is to be feared, our forefathers supped too deep. The Lords and Commons at Westminster, in their 
q Feb. 1642, E.C. p. 918.  Ordinance for humiliation, confess the Idolatry and bloodshed in Queen Mary's days to have a more immediate influence upon the destruction of this kingdom, For which to this very day was never ordained such a solemn public and national acknowledgement of those sins, as might appease the wrath of that jealous God, against whom, and against whose people, with so high a hand they were committed. I do from my heart subscribe to this Confession. But may I not add from St Paul, 
r Rom. 2.22.  Thou that abhorrest Idols, Committest thou sacrilege? May we not fear that the sacrilege of King Henry's days cries as loud for vengeance in the ears of the Almighty, as the Idolatry of Queen Mary; this may seem a transient sin, which died with her person, but that is still entailed upon our Posterity. And we have never had any solemn national acknowledgement of it, or public humiliation for it. The poor Kirk of Scotland may in this be a pattern worthy our imitation, 
s Assembly at S. Andrew's. 1582.  which enjoined a general fast throughout the Realm, for appeasing of God's wrath upon the land for the crying sin of sacrilege. It is not very many years ago, since a Learned 
t Sir Fran Bac●ns● Consid●  statesman of our own, observed the Lands of the Church did pass in valuation between man and man, at a lower rate than other temporalties; and he thought all the Parliaments since the 27, and 31. of Henry 8. to stand obnoxious and obliged to God in conscience, to do somewhat for the Church to reduce the Patrimony thereof: since they debarred Christ's wife of a great part of her Dowry, it were reason they made her a competent jointure. But we have lived to see them of another mind; I pray God they do not bring upon this Land the sad effect of that 
u 
H. Huntington. lib. 6.  
●. Higden. lib. 1. ●. ult.   ancient Prophecy, an utter desolation, by a foreign ignoble Nation, for our treason and contempt of God's House. That which 
* Pererius in Genesin. 15. 16.  some of latter times did expect to see fulfiled upon us, when they observed our sins, like the iniquities of the Amorites, almost full and ripe for judgement, and told us the time was not far off.  
I do seriously persuade myself, that not a few of our Covenanteers, if the truth were known, do stomach more at the means, than at the Government of our Church. It is neither the calling nor the persons of Bishops, or Deans, but the bishoprics, and deaneries that are A●●ichristian and Malignant; and so they were fairly possessed of these, they care not whether those sink or swim. If the Presbytery were as rich as Episcopacy, and this as poor as that, the case would quickly alter, and the holy Discipline be in danger to be turned out of doors. It is not Conscience, but interest that makes Prelacy have so many back friend●. It is therefore declared that the public debts shall be paid out of the Estates of Delinquents, and Malignants; by which they profess they understand in part all Prelates and their dependants. This, if it were true, might be some ground in justice and reason for the Sequestration of that temporal right which these men have in their Estates; but none at all for alienating the perpetuity to a secular use; unless God himself be a Malignant; of whose Patrimony his Ministers are only usu-fructuarii: Or seeing the Covenanteers pretend to fight God's Cause, therefore they will make him pay their wages. If the men be peccant they plead no exemption, no impunity; sure the means is innocent.  
The Scripture is more 
x 1. T●m. 3.2. Titus 1.8.  express in requiring Hospitality of Bishops then of other men, and therefore in congruity never meant they should be so straitened in their abilities. They are injurious to God who think he would expect to reap more plentifully, where he sowed more sparingly. If the portion assigned by him to the Levites under the Law, may be any rule to judge of the Ministers competency under the gospel, their revenues will be found much above the proportion of their Brethren.  
It will not be so proper for this Discourse to insist much upon any politic considerations for conservation of the church's patrimony: as the constant revenue which it affords to the Crown, by Tenths, first-fruits, and other annual charges; the ordinary supply by way of Subsidy, or the extraordinary by loans and Benevolences, wherein the Clergy are ever rated above other Subjects in proportion. The fair and free Estates which their Tenants enjoy under them upon easy terms, not racked by such oppressions and exactions as are usually complained of from other Landlords; the many poor Officers and their Families which are sustained by them in a liberal and ingenious way; the great edge which they set upon Students in Divinity, so long as they remain the prize of virtue and industry; the grandeur, wealth, and reputation, which the Cathedrals occasion to the Cities, by the frequent resort of strangers, and others who have business to the Chapters. But if they shall upon any pretence be swallowed up by those Harpies who gape after them, the Exchequer will quickly find the want; the public burdens will lie more heavy upon the common People; their Tenants will be reduced to the hard conditions of other neighbours; their under-officers with their wives and children, if they cannot dig, must be enforced to beg; the poor will miss of their alms; and when the reward of piety and learning is taken away, nothing but barbarism and Ignorance will succeed in the place.  
If nothing that hath been said will move with the Covenanteers, who have conspired the ruin of this flourishing Church, let them examine whether their intended rapine upon the means of this be not directly contrary to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Scotland, which they swear to preserve. Their grand Reformer John Knox in a 
y Aug. 3. 1571.  letter upon his deathbed commands his Brethren of the Assembly at Sterling, with strength in God, to 'gainst and the merciless devourers of the patrimony of the Church. If men will spoil, let the● do it to their own peril and condemnation. But communicate ye not with their sins, of whatsoever estate they be, neither by consent, nor yet by silence. But with public Protestations make this known to the world, that ye are innocent of such robberies, which will ere long provoke God's vengeance upon the committers thereof, whereof ye will seek redress of God and man. Their first 
z 1569. ca. 6.  Book of Discipline defines the church's patrimony to consist not only in all manner of Tithes, but in all things doted to hospitality in times past, with all annual rents both to Burgh and Land: and declares all those who had got any of it into their hands, to be thieves and murderers. Their second 
a Cap. 9  Book of policy is more full in setting forth that patrimony, and concludes, that to take any of it away, and convert to the particular and profane use of any person, is detestable sacrilege before God. One of their 
b Edenb. 1591.  Assemblies appointed M. Robert Pont to write a Treatise against sacrilege; and 
c Ibib. 1595.  another laments the growth of it, to the utt●r undoing of the Church, and staying of the planting of the gospel; to the overflowing of the Land with atheism, and all kind of vice: there being above four hundred Parish ●hurch●s destitute of the ministry of the Word by and about the Parishes of Argile and the Iles.  
Let then our Covenanteers be well advised, if not for justice sake to the governors of our Church, if not for charity's sake to their dependants, if not for honour's sake, as they expect to hear in other Nations and after Ages, yet for God's sake, for conscience sake, for their Oaths sake, for the Doctrine of Scotland's sake, let them not rob the Church under colour of reforming it.  
VI. I must here subjoin by way of appendage, that considering the King at his Coronation hath bound himself by Oath, to defend the Rights and Liberties of the Clergy in general, and more particularly of the Bishops, if he should give them up for a Sacrifice to the will of their Adversaries, and upon any suggested grounds of policy pass away their Rights without their consent, (which they are bound in conscience to conserve) though in such a case their allegiance ties them, not to resist, yet (with humble reverence and submission be it spoken) I know not how he shall stand excused before God or man from the foul crime of perjury; and therefore it must be unlawful for any to endeavour to force his assent to an act so contrary to his Oath, as is this intended by the Covenant.  
For clearing of this point, I shall grant, first, that no Oath is obligatory beyond the true intention of it. Secondly, that any Oath taken for the benefit of another may be released by the consent of that party for whose behoof it was taken; or otherwise it may not● 
* To this purpose see the Oath of the Princes of Israel to the Gibeonites, Iosh. 11.15. though not approved by the people, vers. 18. yet was the breach of it severely punished by God himself, 2 Sam. 21.  though it be to the takers own loss. Hence I infer, first, that the King's Oath for the preservation of the public laws of the kingdom, does not bind him precisely to the perpetual observance of all those which were in being at the time when he first took his Oath, so as to exclude his consent to any future alteration; but only so long as regularly they continue in force: and that when the Lords and Commons in Parliament, as representing the kingdom, shall petition for any alteration, the King, if he see cause, may consent unto it, notwithstanding his former Oath, as having a relaxation from the kingdom to whom he swore. But secondly, his Oath to the Bishops and Clergy, being not a public but a particular one, he cannot, salvo juramento, without their consent, give way to the making of any new Law in derogation of their Liberties which he has sworn to defend.  
The subject of the legislative power in any State, though by reason of the Supreme jus dominii over the persons and goods of all the Subjects, he be above Law, yet will not that make him above his own Oaths and promises to particular persons. For a Law gives a right against the lawgivers, only so long as it is a Law, that is, no longer than till it please them to repeal it. But a promise or Oath made to another, gives a right against him that made it, as long as the creditor pleaseth. Were it not thus, the public Faith passed by the King and Parliament were of less value than any private man's bond, they might void it when they please; all promise of pardons granted to rebels or other Delinquents might be rescinded, and no security could be had by them. The reason I conceive to be this, the King here, and whosoever in other places is the subject of Supreme Power, though they be originally free from any engagement to inferior Subjects, yet (if they will) they may in some things bring a restraint upon their absolute Supremacy, Vnusquisque potest cedere jure suo, as well for the advantage of particular persons of their own Dominions, as to Princes, or People of another Nation. Which if they do, their own act shall bind them; in justice, if it were but a ba●e promise; but in Religion and Conscience, if it be confirmed by an Oath deliberately taken, and the matter itself be not unlawful. For this superaddes a religious band unto God, from which they can neither free themselves, nor any other absolve them, unless those in behalf of whom it was taken do release their interest. If this were not so, no Oath could be binding unto them.  
I will not deny but sometimes there may be just occasion for a King or State to make use of their Supreme Power to the present prejudice of particular persons, as in case of Invasion to destroy a private man's goods, that they may not come into the enemy's hands; but then, I suppose, they are bound in conscience and equity to make him reparation out of the commonwealth for his private losses, deducting so much as he for his part should be liable to bear in the public charges. Which if they shall refuse to do, and will use their summum ius to another man's injury, there is no remedy in foro humano, but they must answer for their injustice at a higher Tribunal.  
Here is now the case of our English Clergy; the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, &c. have not only a present personal estate in their Baronies and other Temporalties, as good in Law as any freeholder in the Land; but the Body of the Clergy have a perpetual Right in succession; both which his Majesty hath by many reiterated 
d E.C. p. 23.  Protestations vowed to maintain; and by the solemn 
e 291.355.  Oath at his Coronation (which has been so often pressed to other purposes) sworn to keep the laws, customs, and Franchises granted to the Clergy: to preserve and maintain to the Bishops and Churches committed to their charge, all canonical privileges, and due Law and justice, and to be their protector and Defender to his power, as every good King in his kingdom in right aught to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government. After the solemn emission of all which Oaths and Protestations, as it were a great sin if his Majesty upon temporal ends or by-respects, without any offence of the Clergy, should put their persons out of his protection, much more if he should cancel all their ancient Rights, and alienate their means, the thought whereof his righteous soul● abhors: So they cannot be excused from the guilt of perjury, who either by sly insinuations shall go about to incline, or by armed force labour to compel him to the breach of his Oath. The former may be the practice of evil counsellors, the latter is the design of these Covenanteers. I will not define, which are more inexcusable; their ends may be the same, the main difference is in the means, and this it is; these would extort injustice from their sovereign, those would persuade him to it, and so by making him less unwilling would make him more guilty; if the God of Heaven, in whose hands are the hearts of Kings, do not (as hitherto he has done) strengthen him with sufficient grace against the subtlety of the one, as with power against the violence of the other.  
VII. If all the particulars in the second Article were indeed criminal, yet they ought not to receive equal punishment; much less ought all persons without respect, whether truly or supposedly guilty of them, be (as is here vowed) in like manner extirpate. Nature hath made a difference in crimes; Religion and Law admits of a distinction betwixt persons, but this Oath confounds all. Divines were wont to distinguish of Papists, betwixt Seducers and Seduced; heretics, and their adherents; those the laws have sentenced to death, but allotted to these a milder animadversion, as of whom it may be true which Salvian spoke of some Arians, affectu piae opinionis errant. But from these rigid Covenanteers a seduced Lady must expect no more mercy than a professed Jesuite. Nay, the King himself if he be but prelatically affected, must look for no better measure. By their own confession his Person is in danger. If we look back upon what passed betwixt his Majesty and the two Houses upon that occasion, we shall find them thus reasoning against his going into Ireland. 
f 
April 18● 1642.  
E.C. p. 141●   If your majesty shall go, you will very much endanger the safety of your royal Person. Which will be subject not only to the casualty of war, but to secret practices and conspiracies; especially, your majesty continuing your Profession to maintain the Protestant Religion, which the Papists are generally bound by their Covenant to extirpate. Now then, his Majesty continuing his profession to maintain Episcopacy, which these men are generally bound by their Covenant to extirpate; shall not his Sacred Person, by the same consequence, be subject to the like practices, from them who have added this clause more than the Papists had in their Covenant, to extirpate all without respect of persons?  
The consequent hereof is a thing in itself so horrid and injust, that the sober Writers against Monarchy, have not been ashamed to profess, that be the crimes of Kings never so profane, yet their persons ought to be sacred, not to be violate, not to be touched. And some of the most active well-willers to the Cause, have granted thus much truth to us, that difference in Religion makes no difference in the Right of Kings.  
The Lord 
g Disc. Sect. 1. c. 9 p. 49.  Brook professeth, he is not of their judgement who say, None that are without the pale of the Church have right to any thing here below: but clearly conceives a heathen Emperor may be as lawful a Monarch as any Christian Prince. And I shall sub●ect this reason to it; because temporal Dominion respects men, as they are men, in a civil, politic capacity; not as they are Christians, Papists, Protestants, of this or that Religion. We need not fetch precedents from foreign Countries, the approved practice of our own kingdom will confirm us in this Truth. After the death of Edward the sixth, when the Protestants could see nothing in Qu●en Mary but what threatened ruin to their persons, and (if it were in her power) to their Religion too, yet they never questioned her right of succession to the Crown because she was a Papist. Nor did the Papists upon that ground oppose against Queen Elizabeth in the first Parliament of her reign.  
If it be needful to add any examples from Scripture, we shall there read that divers Kings of Israel were Idolaters, 
h 1 Kings 11.5. 2 Chron. 25.14. & 33. 3, 22.  Solomon, Am●ziah, Manasseh, Amon, and though the 
i Deut. 17.2.  Law was punctual that Idolaters should be put to death, yet we shall never find that either the People did, or the Prophets exhorted them to attempt any thing against the Persons, or to withdraw their allegiance from the Government of those idolatrous Kings.  
This present Oath then is in that particular injust, because it provides not for the safety, but implicitly vows the destruction of his majesty's Person, in case he be thought obnoxious to Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, heresy, schism, or profaneness; all which the Covenanteers swear to extirpate, without respect of persons.  
VIII. Those Malignants or evil Instruments, whether truly so called, or falsely suspected, must all be brought to their trial, and receive punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the Supreme judicatoryes of both kingdoms, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient. So as, though the supposed offence of a Malignant do not deserve to be punished with confiscation of his Estate, with death, or bands, yet if it require it, or if the Supreme judicatory, (what that means, I do not question) nay, if any inferior judge delegate from thence, shall think it convenient, be the crime what it will, never so small, never so great, be the Law for punishment of it never so express, all this is not considerable, these judges are not tied to any rules of Law, but convenience. If they think fit, the killing of a thousand men shall be less capital than the cutting off a dog's neck. Treasonable words against a worthy Member shall be severely punished, but against the King they shall pass unreproved. What though there be less justice, there is more convenience in the killing and sl●ying all such as are made Delinquents by Vote, then in discouraging such as are Traitour● by Law?  
For any judicatory to arrogate a power of punishing offenders, merely as they shall judge convenient, and condemning them because they will, though the degree of the offence do not so deserve, is most tyrannical and injust; and to delegate such a power to others as they cannot challenge to themselves, is to propagate injustice for convenience sake. In this Covenant such a power is pretended to be due to some, and deriveable upon others, and all the arbitrary exorbitant sentences, which either those supreme, or these delegate judges shall think fit to pass, all the Covenanteers swear to endeavour.   

CHAP. X. That the Covenant is repugnant to those general ends for which it is pretended to be taken.  
HAving dispatched the Efficient and material, we proceed to examine the final Causes of the Covenant, which are set down in the Title and Preface to it; they are (we confess) very good in themselves, but such is the nature of the Covenant, that the taking or observing of it, is either inconducing to, or utterly inconsistent with those proposed Ends, and therefore unlawful.  
I. The first main End is pretended to be here, what in Truth should be the supreme End, of all human actions, The glory of God. However some seduced zealots may have an actual intention of referring this their Oath to that End, yet the thing in itself being incapable of any such relation, there cannot be a greater profanation of God's Ordinance, or indignity offered to his Honour, than the abusing of his Name to unlawful acts, Uti Deo ut fruamur mundo. They who least reckon of his glory are most ready to make use of that pretence. All the Pope's Bulls, thundered out against Princes, did ever begin, as this Covenant doth, with a Nomine Domini, Having before our eyes the glory of God. There is nothing more certain, then that the sinful devices of men do not conduce to the glory of God.  
II. The next general End is said to be Religion, pure Religion, a common cloak for Rebellion in all age;— Saepius olim, 
Religio peperit scelerosa atque impia facta.  The Sicilian Vespers, the Massacre at Paris, the gunpowder Treason, were all, forsooth, pretended to be for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, for the Reformation and Defence of Religion. By which I suppose the Covenanteers understand the true Protestant Religion in opposition to Popery. Yet I am confident this course of theirs tends more to the advancement than extirpation not only of Popery properly so called, of that Pope which every man has in his own belly, but even of Romish Popery: and serve● rather to confirm that Antichrist in his Throne, than any way to weaken his force. I am quite of another mind than 
a Covenant with Narrative. p. 32.  M. Henderson, had the Pope of Rome known what was done that day, when he made his Speech at Westminster, it would have made his heart dance for joy, to see the Protestants mutually vowing the destruction and extirpation of one another.  
Hoc Ithacus velit. This is not the way to unite ourselves against the Common Enemies, 
b E. C. p. 21.  who are the better enabled by our Divisions to destroy us all. When bears and lions go together by the ears, it is victory to the shepherd if both be destroyed. We are now doing that of our own accord, which the Pope with all his arts and industry could never bring about. He prays for the continuance of our wars, as the establishment of his peace, with that old Roman, Maneat, quaes●, duretque gentibus, si non amor nostri, at ●erte odium sui. Quando, urgentibus Imperii fatis nihil jam presta●e fortuna maj●● potest, quàm hostium discordiam. They who, in cold blood, pronounced the peace and quiet of this kingdom to be the 
c E.C. p. 36.  only visible means under God to preserve the Protestant Religion, if ●hey now swear no peace, but utter extirpation— jurata nepotibus arma— sure the care of Religion is the least thing that troubles them.  
This then is one means whereby the Covenant advanceth Popery, confessed and visible, our distractions amongst ourselves, there is a second more close, which I doubt the Jesuites and other Emissaries make as much use off, to the seducing of weak souls. Namely that the Covenanteers here in England have left, as to themselves, no visible Church, no known rules of Doctrine, no set form of Government and Discipline, and therefore they begin in London to erect new Church-Societies according to every man's fancy and humour. This is false for the main ground, for as our King, so our Church, is still the same, Nun quam obscura nomina, licet aliquando obumbrentur. Both under a cloud in some places; but though they do not sh●ne in their full lustre, yet are they not so darkened but any may see them, who do not wilfully shut their eyes against them.  
I must not repeat, what I have proved already, that this Reformation intended to be brought about by the Covenanteers, (as it is already beg●n) by force of Armes● raised by Subjects against the Law, to which they owe, and the Prince to whom they have sworn Obedience, is a thing not only unwarrantable, as contrary to the word of God, the nature of Religion, the practice of the true Church in all ages, and the exper●ence of former times, but even against the rules of prudence and civil policy.  
III. The third End proposed to this Covenant, is the Honour and happiness of his majesty and His posterity. Where the King must of necessity be understood in a personal, not in a politic capacity; for in that only he can be said to h●ve posterity, in this he never dies. Now for his spiritual happiness it must be granted, the many injust provocations from these Covenanteers have afforded him sufficient matter of Christian patience and meekness, for which he may expect a more eternal weight of glory in the heavens, having on earth had so deep a share in that royal virtue, Bene facere & malè audire. But how far their former actions, and so in likelihood their present intentions, are opposite to the personal Honour, and temporal happiness of His Majesty, let them speak and the world judge. If 
d E.C. p. 80.  whatever violence be used against any that exercise the Militia, cannot but be taken as done against the Parliament; by the same reason, whatsoever is done or said against those that execute His majesty's Commands, he cannot but take as done against himself: much more those aspersions cast upon His Answers, Messages, Declarations, Proclamations, and other avowed actions of his own, tend immediately to his dishonour. The scandalous 
e Ib. p. 67.68.  impu●ations upon his Government, forged in the same shop with this Covenant: the defamations and invectives against his Person, suggestions against his sincerity in Religion, if not countenanced never punished, though often complained off, were these to his honour? The seizing and detaining of his towns, Forts, Magazine, Navy, Houses, Children, was this for his happiness? Directing their Cannon more especially against that part of his Army at Edge-hill and Newbury, where his Sacred person was known to be, was this for his Safety? If these things be dishonourable in themselves, it matters not by whose command they were done; that does not alter their nature, and make them cease to be so. Whether their thoughts of his Children and Posterity be so full of Honour as they here give out, we shall be glad to know by their fruits hereafter; and, unless those reveal themselves to the contrary, shall not further question the truth of their pretensions.  
IV. The fourth End of the Covenant is Liberty. The common frontispeice to all popular Rebellions. Libertas & speciosa nomina praetexuntur; nec quisquam alienum servitium & dominationem sibi concupivit, ut non eadem ista vocabula usurparet, What a precious con●erve of public Liberty, what a sovereign Antidote against any growing Tyranny this Covenant is like to prove (which is principally enjoined for the support of those men● power, who, under pretence of defending, have already destroyed whatever had the face o● Liberty by anunheard of Tyranny) may be easily discerned by presenting some few of their exorbitant invasions upon the Common liberty of the Subject.  
I am unwilling to be ever bearing upon that harsh string, the Liberties of the Clergy, which by the 
f Magna Charta, cap. 1.  laws of this Land are none of the least. Suffering the People to abuse the Bishops that they might complain, and then punishing them for complaining: turning them out of those walls where they had sat ever since there was a Parliament in England: usurping the power of the Convocation, in refusing to pass such Subsidies as they had freely granted, and imposing others upon them without their consent: Determining without and against their advice, in matters of Religion and ecclesiastical cognizance: Substituting in their place other Factious Spirits, neither chosen by the Clergy, nor approved by His Majesty: dispersing printed Tickets, inviting all men to accused them, and publishing to the world the most odious extracts of those accusations, before any proof made of them, or the parties appeared to their answers; a thing as full of scandal to the Religion of the accusers, as of injustice to the parties accused: fining, Imprisoning, sequestering, and depriving them without any due process of Law: all these and more I could press, but if the Liberties of other Subjects have been preserved entire, I am content the Clergy suffer.  
We have been informed at large by the 
g 1. Remonstrance of the State of the kingdom.  House of Commons wherein the Liberties of the kingdom consist, and how they were infringed before this Parliament. If there be any particular mentioned by them, wherein the Covenanteers have not equalled or exceeded all former pretended violations from the Crowne● let our sense of the present confer with our memory and experience of the former times, and freely pronounce, whether that Remonstrance had more of History or of Prophecy.  
Those distempers which before assaulted, never till now overwhelmed and extinguished the Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity of this Ki●gdom, nor weakened and undermined the foundation and strength of the royal Throne.  
The forced Contributions upon the Propositions are executed with more cruelty upon refusers, than any moneys formerly taken up by Commissions of Loane.  
The Petition of Right and privilege of Parliament have been insufficient to protect either other Subjects, or the Members of that great council, from fines, Imprisonments without bail or Habeas Corpus, from trial of some, and Execution of others by martial Law.  
Tunnage and Poundage are received, 
h E.C. p. 121.  contrary to an Act made this present Parliament, without any colour of Law or precedent to warrant it.  
Shipmoney and Monopolies are revived under the new name of Excise, to the value of many thousand pounds a month. A thing on their part so odious and illegal, that they who now impose it did once seem so far●e to detest it as to put out a Declaration, 
i Ib. p. 638.  calling it, A scandal raised against them by Malignants.  
Not only private interest but public Faith has been broken by them, in neglecting to pay the Scots, according to agreement, employing that and the money raised for relief of Ireland, to the maintaining of an unnatural war in the bowels of England.  
The Covenanting Committees have committed more rapes upon the common Liberty in one year, than all the Courts of Star-chamber and High Commission from their first Erection.  
Judges have been taken off the Bench by armed men and sent to Prison, for refusing to do against their Oaths and conscience, as judge Mallet. Others have been so awed, that they durst not do their duty: and the better to hold a rod over them, they have been impeached and committed for High Treason; yet brought to sit upon the Bench again before any trial or Sentence of Absolution, as judge Bartlet. Commands have been sent to prohibit their proceedings in several particular cases.  
Justices and jurors have been superseded from enquiring upon Routs and Tumults, and the common justice of the kingdom hath been obstructed by Ordinances, prohibiting the holding of assizes, notwithstanding the general Protestation for the free course of justice.  
New Oaths are enforced upon the Subject without Law.  
The usual course of pricking sheriffs not observed, but mock-Sheriffes appointed by a new forged Broad seal.  
Master White and his assistants triumph in the Suspension, Sequestration, or Deprivation of many painful, learned and pious Ministers.  
Many noble Personages and other Patriots, are Parliament-men in name, but the Power and Authority is wholly devolved upon a few, whose resolutions and determinations (if they be brought at all) are only brought into the House for countenance and execution, not for debate and deliberation.  
All military charges increased and exercised: soldiers, against their will, daily pressed by Ordinance, contrary to an Act made this Parliament.  
Are we any whit the more secured in our persons or estates, so long as the root of all these evils is not truly taken away, but only transplanted? Which was acknowledged to be the Arbitrary Power (formerly pretended to be in his Majesty, but now usurped by the Covenanteers) of taxing the subjects without consent by Act of Parliament. If the blow be the same, it smarts as sore whatever hand inflict it. To change our masters is not to be free. If they truly confessed, (in the case of Hull) it were in them an Act of high injustice should they destroy men's properties, when we see them daily do it, must we call it therefore just? They have urged against the King what holds strongest against themselves; 
k E.C. p. 858.  If by Law they might charge the subject for defence of the kingdom in time of danger, they were ill advised that desired aid of the subject in such times, and engaged themselves (as we know they have done) without a salvo jure, for repayment. Admitting it should be so, that without this power of imposing Contributions it were impossible to defend the people, it follows not that therefore they may impose such Contributions. 
l Ib. p. 846.  If M. Pym's excuse be yet authentic, the same Law that enables them to raise Force● for defence of the kingdom, enables them to impose Taxes for maintaining them, otherwise that power were vain and useless, it will serve the King in good stead; he it is who is entrusted with the power of defending the kingdom; he to whom the two Houses themselves sue for protection; he to whom they confess 
m Ib. p. 700.  All men's persons, lands, and moneys, are subject for the public good.  
V. The last general End of the Covenant is Peace: it is true● the chief Covenanteers did once profess their detestation of a civil war, 
n Ib. p. 464.  If it might be avoided without alteration of Religion, which they conceived to be the main End of their Enemies, and such as would draw with it l●sse of Liberty, and subversion of Law. This now appears to be their own main End; for what else is intended by their Oath for Reformation of Doctrine, and extirpation of the Government in our Church? What was it that altered the Popish Religion into Protestantism, but Reformation? And do not these aim at a greater alteration both in Doctrine. Discipline, Government and Worship, than ever the Papists went about?  
If they had been cordially affected to Peace, we had never been driven to these sad extremities of war. They might have had it before the Sword was drawn or a blow struck; no new Religion was pressed upon them; no Law denied which might conduce to the public safety. Since the war begun, several Treaties for accommodation have been proffered to them; the most rejected, others made fruitless by them. But if war be the only means to procure Peace, if weakening and impoverishing the kingdom be the way to preserve it, what hopes have we but in desperation? May they not yet have Peace, if they will embrace it with the same Religion, the same old laws? A gracious pardon is freely offered to all that will accept it. The happiness of a blessed peace concluded between the two Nations, what hinders the continuance of it? Extirpation of Church Government was no condition of that Pacification.  
Certainly, than these destructive ways of the Covenanteers do not lead immediately to it, but are they likely to end in Peace? Yes, when they have extirpated all opposers, ubi solitudinem fecerint, pacem appellant. Yet I doubt of that too. The chance of war is uncertain; they could not bring their ends about when they had more strength and less opposition; which if they shall ever do, they must know that laws made by the Sword are but short-lived; they will be unmade so too. Do they hope so throughly to root up the royal Vine, and spoil the Branches, that there will not be left {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, so much as to pour upon the goat's horns? There will never be wanting a Title to the Crown, and justice, or compassion, or faction at home will find, and interest abroad will lend a sword to defend it.  
Besides, it will ask some time to extirpate Popery, Prelacy, Delinquents, Malignants, &c. who being all declared traitors, and by this Covenant devoted to destruction, sure they will sell their lives as dear as they can; they can expect no worse by fighting than they must undergo by submitting; it is more honourable to die by the sword, than by the halter. Moriendum victis, moriendum deditis; id solum refert novissimum spiritum per ludibrium & contumelias effundant, an per virtutem.  
But say the Covenanteers should at last be masters of their most improbous desires, the kingdom by that time will be so exhausted of men and money and other necessaries, by a long war, and the consequents of it, Plague, Famine, and Decay of Trade, that it will be exposed for a prey to any stranger that shall think it worth invading, who cannot want as fair a colour as the Scots, either to interpose as Mediators, to propagate their Religion, to protect, or rescue, or revenge their injured friends. Or if all other States should be asleep while our house is on fire, what security can we have from our dear Brethren of Scotland; who● though it be in God's Cause, will not work but for their wages? and to enhance those they may pr●tract their service so long till all our Treasure will not pay them; and they who come to be partners, will at last look to be masters: ask the Stories, which will not flatter, what was the event of calling the Saxons and Normans into this Land. We have nothing to secure us from the like now, save only the innate candour and veracity of the Nation, so much famed in their own, and ours, and foreign 
o Major. Lesle. Hall. Harding. Sabellicus.  Histories. Sic notus Vly●ses!  
But if the Scots should prove as honest as they are wise, would there be any certainty of Peace among our English Covenanteers? I conceive not. Consider them of two sorts, the one engaged out of conscience, the other for politic ends. For the first, how shall so many different Sects be reconciled, who are bound by their Oath to extirpate all schism? They must fall to it pell-mell, the Presbyterians, Brownists, and other Separatists must fight it out. It is not a Parliamentary Power that will restrain them. The same principles which are produced now against the King, will serve then against the States. Their obligations are reciprocal, and if their Excellencies fail in their trust, they know what follows. If any insolent demand of popular zeal be not harkened to, presently Ad arma. Any turbulent Volero, any factious Bo●tefeu, may set a City on fire, but it requires pains and skill to quench it. Quippè in turbas & discordias pessimo cuique plurima vis; pax & quies bonis artibus indigent.  
For the second sort of Covenanteers, the Politicians, though their stomachs be stayed for a while, and the common enemy do yet unite them, when he is taken out of the way, those coals of dissension, which can at this time scarce be smothered, will then burst out into open flames. Essex and Waller, Manchester and Willoughby, Denbigh and Purefey, Brereton and Ashton, will then try the strength of their parties. The hopes of sharing the means of the Church, and Delinquents Estates, and succeeding in the chief Places of Honour and Profit in the kingdom, which now whets their swords against those that hold them, if they miss or fall short of those hopes, will set as sharp an edge upon them against their new Rivals; they must needs fall ●ut about dividing the spoil. For the preferments being not equal in number to the Competitors, some must be put by; and perhaps those that are advanced, will complain it is below their merits; when every man shall set the rate upon his own Treason, but a few will be satisfied. This will beget new discontents, and those will beget new fears and jealousies, and these will require new Officers of State, such as may be confided in; and what Peace, what safety is like to be in the end of all this? Very little, unless some of the royal Race again, as Augustus in the Roman State, Cuncta discordiis civilibus falsa, nomine Principis sub Imperium accipiat.   

CHAP. XI. That the particular Ends of the several Articles are likewise inconsistent with the matter of them.  
I. AS the whole Covenant is either inconducing to, or incon●istent with the general Ends for which it is pretended to be taken; so are the several Articles of it to those particular Ends which are specified in them. The Reformation vowed in the first, by such a violent course as they now endeavour it, we have alread● proved to be no means but rather a hindrance to the growth of Religion, and so to that Life in faith and love, and cohabitation of God among us, which is the End proposed to that Article. The like violent Extirpation of Prelacy (which is no sin) vowed in the second, is so far from preventing the inconvenience there mentioned, partaking in other men's sins, that all who vow it are thereby guilty of sin; much more they who attempt to do it in such a disorderly way: and most of all those, who, by fear or threatening, (which is a moral compulsion) force other men to enter into their Covenant, who are either persuaded in conscience of the iniquity of it, or cannot take it without reluctancy and doubting; and so not without sin. These men making it a touch of other men's affections, and the refusal of it a pretence to spoil and plunder, so causing them to swear, who, if they do, must forswear, are most properly and truly partakers in other men's sins.  
II. Lastly, their End of swearing the third Article to maintain the Rights and privileges of Parliament, and the King's Person and Authority, is said to be, That the world may bear witness with their consciences of their loyalty, that they have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his majesty's just power and greatness. This is vain and impertinent, for the world cannot see into their consciences, nor judge of their thoughts and intentions, otherwise than by their actions. It is acknowledged by the Lord 
a Disc. Sect. 1. c. 8. p. 42.  Brook, That Powers are God's Ordinances set over us for good, and that kingdoms certainly in holy Writ have more for them than any other Government. But let the ius Regium be never so much by Scripture, our King must be allowed no more than he can entitle himself to by the Law of the Land, nor so much neither by the good will of the Covenanteers. That the world may have some evidence to pass sentence upon, we shall propose a few particulars, wherein the King's just Power hath been diminished, if not abolished by the Master-Covenanteers.  

1. The Kings of England have been anciently so fully invested in the Legislative Power, that most of the Common laws we are now governed by, do owe their creation or conservation to the mere mercy of the conqueror. Magna Charta was first granted by Henry the Third 
b 9 Hen. 3.  of his mere free will. 
c. 14. Hen. 3. 21. Hen. 3. 3. Ed 1. 6. Ed. 1. &c.  Other Statutes which pass in number and have still the force of Acts of Parliament, are directed as private Writs, with a Teste meipso: and the common stile of most others runs in this strain, The King with the advice of the Lords, at the humble Petition of the commons, wills, &c. The form of passing bills, which is still observed, is Le Roy le veult, and Soit fait comm● il est desire. Hence some have collected that the Rogation of laws belongs to the two Houses, but the Legislation to the King; that their Act is Preparative, his only jussive. The Covenanteers have not only diminished, but 
d E.C. p. 709, 710●715,727.  contrary to their Declarations, utterly deprived him of this so just, so necessary a power, without which he cannot perform his trust, nor discharge his Oath to his Subjects. For they 
e Ib. p. 706.  challenge him as bound to pass all bills that shall be presented to him as for the good of the kingdom: whereby they do not leave him so much power as the meanest cobbler that gives a voice in the Election, or the burgess that is returned and sits in Parliament for any Borough. For any of these may freely Vote in the passing of any bills, and when there is an equality of Suffrages in the rest of the Members, his single voice may carry it, and make that Bill a Law, or no Law. But the King must not meddle in election of Members, he must not take notice of any Bill, till it be brought unto him for his assent, and in case he refuse, it must be a Law without him. Witness the Ordinance for the Militia, 
f Ib. p. 93. & 121.  and that for Tunnage and Poundage: besides infinite others to which his consent was never so much as asked, yet are they put in execution with rigour answerable to their power.  
2. The King has a just power, as to divers other purposes, so 
g 33. H. 8. c. 21.  to pass Acts of Parliament by his Great seal. In diminution of this power, they have declared against his forced absence from Westminster, as illegal; and made an Ordinance that all things passed by him under that seal shall be void.  
3. The King's just power in declaring Law has been formerly so great, that his Letters have been taken for sufficient Warrants and directions to the judges to proceed by; and his 
h 31. H. 8. c. 8. & 34. H. 8. c. 23.  Proclamations to several purposes of no less force than Acts of Parliament. But now that power is wholly 
i E.C. p. 305, 449,483.  protested against as illegal, and protection is promised to all such as shall oppose it. Yet the ground of it, (declared in the preface to that Act 31. Hen. 8.) is still the same, The Supremity of the regal Power given by God; and the reason of the 
k 1 Ed. 6. c. 1●.  repeal is quite ceased, which was a willingness in the King to gratify his People, and upon trust that they would not abuse the same, but rather be encouraged with more faithfulness and diligence to serve his highness.  
4. The King's power in executing Law hath been always conspicuous, and undeniedly just in granting out Commissions of Oyer and Terminer for the holding of assizes, 
l 28. Ed. 1. c. 8.  and in adjourning the term to what place he should think fit; a power as anciently due, so of late acknowledged in an Act made this Parliament for the abbreviation of Michaelmas term. Yet have the Covenanteers 
m E.C. p. 194. 898,931.  forbid any assizes to be kept; they have voted the King's removal of the term to be against Law, and promised to keep indemnified all judges and others that shall disobey his majesty's Proclamations in that behalf.  
5. The power of making justices of Peace is so entirely the Kings by 
n 27. H 8. c. 24.  Law, that it depends wholly upon his pleasure and will. Yet would the Covenanteers diminish his power, for they 
o E.C. p. 909.  require that such may be put out of Commission as they desire; and such put in, as were removed without their consent.  
6. The power of pardoning is so inseparably and absolutely the Right of the crown, that the 
p 27. H. 8. c. 24.  Law estates it wholly and solely upon the King. And it is not long since the Covenanteers did 
q E.C. p. 270, 715,901.  confess as much. Yet is nothing more frequent in their Ordinances than to promise protection for the time to come, and impunity for the time past. And does not their Covenant vow the punishment of all Delinquents, without any hope of pardon from his Majesty or themselves?  
7. The King's power over his Household, and the choice of his Officers is so just and reasonable, that they have not stuck to 
r Observations upon M. Eliot's letter, E.C. p. 486.  acknowledge it an undoubted Prerogative to dispose of preferments in his own Family. Yet, next to the robbing of the Church, nothing is more aimed at than to rob his Majesty of this piece of sovereignty, to get the disposal of his Servants and marriage of his Children into their hands: as the nineteen Propositions first informed us, and their actions since abundantly confirm.  
8. The Law hath placed in the King's Person a power to protect all other persons: as 
s E.C. p. 727, 710.  themselves confess in terminis; and to desire him to part with this power is such a supposition as cannot fall upon a Parliament. Yet has it been long, and still is their utmost endeavour to divest his Person of that power, by excluding him out of the exercise of the Militia, to deprive him of all those means whereby he should protect both himself and others, by declaring his 
t Ib. p. 271.  personal Commands, of what nature soever, to be of no force; and by putting such a 
u 727.  distinction betwixt his Person and his Office, as under colour of defending this exposeth that to the vilest attempts that any traitor can plot, or any assassin commit.  
9 That Supremacy of Power which the Law placeth in the King 
* 1. Eliz. c. 1.  over all States, as well as over all particular persons, which all the Subjects of this realm, and the Members of Parliament more particularly are bound by Oath to acknowledge and maintain, which they grant to be due unto him, when they desire him 
x E. C p. 5. & 73●●●  to protect them in their privileges, and challenge such protection, as due from him; when they make all their addresses unto him by way of Petition, and style him constantly in their Acts their only sovereign Lord. Yet the Covenanteers endeavour to disseise him of this supreme power, some by making the Houses coordinate with him, others by making him subordinate to them, and upon that ground justifying their taking up arms against him.  
10. Lastly, though the power of calling and dissolving Parliaments, as well as the appointment of the time and place, hath ever 
y See the Preface to the Act for a Triennial Parliament.  belonged to the Kings of this realm, yet is this 
z E.C. p. 701.  denied to be any Prerogative, and advantage taken from a late Act, contrary to the King's intention and the kingdom's expectation, contrary to the equitable meaning of that very Statute; contrary to the promise of the authors, to the inestimable prejudice of his Majesty, and the great grief of his Subjects, who are hereby deprived of the benefit of all other good laws, and more particularly of that for the frequency of Parliaments. 

First, it is undoubted neither King nor kingdom ever thought to have seen the sad effects of that Act for continuance of this Parliament which they now feel.  
Secondly, the Act itself, though it be not limited to any determinate time, is in its own nature but temporary. It was made for a transient cause, that the Houses might find credit for the raising of such money as was then necessarily to be advanced, 
a E.C. p. 10, 15,17.  as accordingly they did. And that rule in the civil Law, Cessante causâ, cessat Lex, the Lords and Commons have 
b Ib. p. 876.  declared to hold good in Acts of Parliaments; thence concluding that Act 5. Hen. 4. for the Commission of Array to have expired with the cause of it, though it were never repealed.  
Thirdly, they did promise 
c Ib. p. 203.  that the gracious favour of his Majesty expressed in that Bill should not encourage them to do any thing, which otherwise had not been fit to have been done. They having failed in the performance of that trust, whether is not his Majesty in equity free from that restraint which in confidence of their loyalty, he brought upon himself? And if they shall refuse ever to consent to an Act for Dissolution, as unwilling to part with that Paramont power which they have now possessed themselves of, whether is the King and kingdom left without redress? or may it not be lawful for him to resume his ancient Right? Especially considering the House of Commons did 
d Ib p. 17.  profess to the kingdom, that the restraint of the royal Power in that particular, was not to take it out of the Crown, but to suspend the execution of it, for that time and occasion only; which occasion is now over, and the time long ago expired.     
It is full time that the Bill for the triennial Parliament take place, at least once in four years; if not those other two 
e 4. Ed. 3. c. 14. & 36. Ed. 3. c. 10.  laws for holding a Parliament once every year. If they be still in force, what hinders but they may be put in execution? Nothing but the rigid interp●etation of that clause in the late Act, which requires that this Parliament shall not be dissolved, unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose. Yet custom or Desuetude are allowed to prevail against those very laws which are made with special provisions, that no custom or Desuetude shall prevail against them. Suppose all the Members should be taken away by death before any Act passed for the Dissolution of this, were it not in the King's power to call another Parliament, because the Act for continuance of this is not repealed? Those two former Statutes of Edward the Third though never repealed, yet were as good as void by disuse. When Pa●liaments in that King's time were made so frequent, they became a burden to the Subject; and therefore it was found requisite in the reign of his successor to make a penal 
f ●. R. 2●c. 4.  Law to enforce the Members to obey their Summons. And I find in the 
g Walsing. An Dom. 1380.  History of those Times, that the Clergy granted a Tenth, and the Laity a Fifteenth to the King, upon condition, that he should not call any more Parliaments within the year, Scilicet à Calend. Mart. usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis anno revoluto. The nonobservance of which condition is objected to that King. So far different was the opinion of those days from these of ours concerning annual or perpetual Parliaments.  
Though all former Statutes are repealed by the later, even than I suppose in judgement of Law, when there is no special mention made of any repeal, and notwithstanding the former require to stand unrepealed, unless it be by speci●ll Act. Which clause may be thought of as little use in this case as that we meet with in ●ome of our Statutes, which pronounce themselves perpetually to be observed, notwithstanding any Act of Parliament made or to be made to the conrary; this will not protect them against a future alteration or repeal. Yet I will not affirm that the Act of Pacification, though it was made since the Act against the Dissolution of this Parliament, is an Act passed to that purpose, however there be something in it that may be applied that way. For it buries in forgetfulness, not only all acts of hostility, which might be conceived to arise upon the coming of the Scotish Army into England, but all Counsels having relation thereunto; that the same, and whatsoever ensued thereupon, trenching upon his majesty's Honour and Authority, be held and reputed as if no such thing had ever been thought or wrought. It is too apparent, that the former Act for continnuance of this Parliament, trencheth very deep upon his majesty's Authority, and had a very near relation to the business of Scotland; being obtained for the more easy raising of money towards the payment of the Scots, and concluding a firm peace between the two kingdoms. Besides, there is a special proviso in that Act of oblivion, that it shall be no prejudice of the brotherly assistance promised to the Scots, (which assistance was agreed on by Act of Parliament,) but no proviso for saving any other Act incompatible with this; and we use to say, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. But where the words of the Law are ambiguous, we must not presume to fasten our own sense upon them, but submit to the Declaration of the lawgiver, the King, who by the advice of his learned council (without calling a Parliament) may expound the Law where it is doubtful, as his predecessors 
h D●er f. 376.  have done in other case●.  
It is further observable, that the same Statute which says, this Parliament shall not be dissolved, says also, it shall not be adjourned unless it be by Act of Parliament to be likewise passed to that pu●pose. Yet we know the two Houses 
i Ian. 1642.  did, and lawfully might, adjourn themselves from Westminster to London, without any Act passed to that purpose. Why then may not the King command them, at least their chief Committee, to adjourn from that place where they now sit to some other of more safety, where all the Members may freely meet and consult? If the freedom of the place be so necessary to all counsels, that the want of it hath been ever objected, and that justly, as a nullity to all their proceedings, and in particular the supposed design of bringing an Army to awe the Parliament, or any attempt of force against the Members, have been truly 
k E.C. p. 657. 695.  declared an endeavour to pull up by the root, and totally to subvert the Parliament, and to tend to the destruction of the very being of Parliaments; if the want of freedom and safety be truly 
l Ib p. 100  declared a thing inconsistent with the nature of that great council. Then undoubtedly so long as Westminster does not afford security and freedom to the Members, so long no true Parliament can be there, which should be as free from apprehensions of force, as from imputations of Faction.  
I would willingly learn, but I canno● find a Teacher, wherein the fundamental laws of the Land consist. For if the taking away the King's power to dissolve, adjourn, or prorogue Parliaments, be against the fundamental laws, 
m E.C. p. 887.  than no Statute makes it good. Now whether the perpetuity of a Parliament do not tend to the alteration of the Government, and so be against the fundamental Law; whether the forced exposition of the late Act against Dissolution, extending it beyond the time and occasion for which it was made, do not make it as good as perpetual. Whether this do not make way for the final ruin of all Parliaments, in case the City should be surprised by an Enemy, the King or Members all taken away by Death, before any Act be passed for Dissolution. Whether for defect of an Act it may not be dissolved by Ordinance, by the same fundamental Law by which this new Oath is imposed; whether it be not good in reason, yet it must be good in Law, that a Body politic may decree by what death they will die, by Act, by Writ, by Ordinance, by loss of the Head, or by consumption of the inferior Members; these are scruples which others may resolve.  
But if Treason be a charge which a Parliament cannot be capable of, as they 
n E.C. p. 654.  declare it is, and I believe it to be true; because perhaps, as some Romish doctors have asserted the Pope's infallibility, teaching that he cannot err as Pope, for if he do, he ceaseth to be Pope, so if the major part of one or both Houses shall consent unto, approve or command any treasonable Act, they thereby cease to be a Parliament; who are presumed in Law to be no less than they profess, His majesty's faithful and loyal subjects. Then if the Members at Westminster by raising war against the King, 
o 25. Ed 3. c. 2.  by forging a new Great seal, and declaring the old one, by which they were called and do sit, to be of no force; by calling in an Army of strangers, or by any other Act or Vote of theirs be trul● guilty of that charge, ●hey are no longer to be looked upon as a Parliament.  
Lastly, if the equitable sense of the Law may take place here, which has been pressed so much in other cases, it must be acknowledged that the Essence of that great council does not consist in the place, but the persons: for the place may be changed, yet the Parliament remain still the same. When we see far more of the Lords with his Majesty than at Westminster; when we find upon strict account that the major part of the Commons are either driv●n away, or have deserted that Cause; when we observe how many Members of either House do daily hazard, or have already spent their lives in the service against it; when we weigh their qualities, abilities, and estates with those of their opposites, and find them to be men of the best rank in their Countries, of known integrity for their lives, of unspotted zeal to Religion, of sound judgement and knowledge in Law, of public thoughts to the good of the kingdom, as well as loyalty to the Ki●g, which hath engaged them in this war, by which they have lost more already than the opposite Faction ever had, and expect to gain nothing but the testimony of a good conscience; when we consider how many of those that are most active at Westminster, by reason of their undue election, had never any right to sit there, and suppose that many others still remaining are not always carried along with the stream; when we remember by what means the Bishops (who are acknowledged by Parliament to represent one of 
p 1. Eliz. c. 3.  the three Estates of the realm) were thrust out, contrary to the fundamental Law, and how by that means all succeeding exorbitancies have been falsely fathered upon the Parliament: we cannot but pronounce upon these premises, that the Parliament is in truth for that cause which is owned by his Majesty, and not for that which passeth under the false usurped name of King and Parliament.   

CHAP. XII. The true End of framing and enjoining this Covenant, the bringing in of the Scots, absolutely unlawful.  
HAving done with the many specious and pretended Ends of the Covenant, we are come to the true End of Covenanting at this time, which the schools would call Finis applicationis, & finis operantis. This in particular persons may be divers, as the desire of advancement in some, the hope of impunity in others, but the main general End which first set the Contrivers on work about framing this Covenant, and keeps them still at it, by pressing it upon this Kingdom, was the bringing in of the Scots. 
a Vide Covenant with a Narrative, and The Declaration of the Scots.  The Covenant is one of the Postnatis of that kingdom, it was begotten and borne in Edinborough, only our English Commissioner● played the Midwives, and helped to lick it over into some fashion. Unless the Faction in England would engage themselves and their Adherents in such a Combination those conscientious Brethren of Scotland refused to assist in this Rebellion; as they are now ready to do, being upon their march to invade us. A thing so repugnant to the weal of this kingdom, that no true English heart but will abhor the mention of it; and so unjustifiable in respect of them, that no Scot, who has any sense of Religion to God, of gratitude and duty to their native King, or of brotherly charity to this neighbour Nation, will ever dare to draw his sword in this quarrel.  
I. First, how far it may endanger the being of this kingdom to admit an Army of strangers into her bowels, none such an infant in discretion or History but is able to discern. The calling in of foreign Force, if it were not Treason by Law, is a thing so odious in Nature to any that is touched with affection to his native country, that his majesty's greatest Enemies could not suggest a calumny more malicious against him, nor more powerful to steal away his Sub●ects hearts from him, than by giving out that he intended to make use of foreign aid when they supposed they had brought him to so low an ebb, that he would never find sufficient succour from his own Subjects. They are now driven to as great an exigency, and make no scruple of acting that course, which no necessity would suffer to enter into the King's thoughts. Such was his tender care and fatherly affection to His people, He chose rather to run the hazard of His own ruin, then owe his preservation to any hands but such as God should raise up in his defence among His own Subjects. These ways of the Covenanteers do both justify the Commission of Array against all their former objections, which grant it lawful in the coming in of strange enemies; and if His Majesty should follow their example, and hire an army to assist him from some other Nation, whatever were the consequents of it, they must bear the blame that first led the way, and he would be clear before God and man.  
II. Secondly, this intended invasion is so injust in respect of the Scots, that all who hear of it must cry shame upon them, who at the same time enter into a solemn Vow inviolably to observe the Articles of the late Treaty of Peace betwixt the two Nations, and to 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, and at the same time seize upon Berwick and put a Garrison in i●, contrary to an express Article of that Treaty of Peace so lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments; and are now upon the point to power an Army into this kingdom; whereby it appears that though we made peace with them, they made none with us: and we conclude, as a former 
b 7 Hen 7. c. 6.  Parliament did against them, that it were better for us to be at open war with them, then under such a feigned peace.  
III. They cannot say, nor do they pretend, that any one Article was violated upon our part, unless it were by those whom they come to defend. What cause then have they for this invasion? Is it for their own necessary defence? Nothing is threatened, nothing intended against them. Is it to revenge any injury we have done them? If any were done on either part, we have dearly paid for it already, and by the Act of Oblivion all former bitterness should be forgotten; but Chi offend, non perdona: they wronged us so much, they will never dare to forgive us. Is it for the lawful recovery of any right that we have taken and detain from them? Nor so, nor so. What then is it which may give any colour of justice to this expedition? Forsooth; no other than the good of Religion in England, the deliverance of their Brethren out of the deeps of affliction; the preservation of their own Religion and themselves from the extremity of misery; and the safety of their native King and his kingdoms, from destruction and desolation.— Ad populum phaleras.— We must be very silly if we be cheated with such fair words.  
1. Concerning the first we have already disputed and (I hope) proved, that it is not lawful to propagate Religion by arms. Nor is it true that those whom they call their Brethren in England suffer any thing for their Religion, or need shed one drop of blood in defence of that power without which Religion (as they pretend) cannot be defended. It has always been, and still is, the passionate desire of his Majesty to preserve the protestant Religion, and the just power of Parliaments. He has often proffered, and is still ready to perform, to pass any laws that shall be presented to him, for hindering the growth of Popery, and securing the just privileges of Parliament. He has only refused to consent to such an alteration in Religion and Government as the Enemies of our peace would force upon him, under the general name of Reformation, who are not yet agreed what is meant by it more than Extirpation. And therefore if the Scots should sit still and hold their peace, they need not fear the curse of Meroz when they look upon the cause which these men maintain. Which if it were indeed (what it is not●) the cause of Religion, it were but common to them with other Christian Churches, which lie groaning (as they tell us) under the yoke of antichristian Tyranny. If the Scots think themselves bound in Conscience, and have any calling or Commission from God, to be the Catholic Reformers of other Nations, they should do better to begin their Reformation in other popish Countries, where there is more need of it, and where less exception can be taken to it: where it may be free from any suspicion of Rebellion against the Prince, as being not their own Native King; and of ingratitude and perfidiousness to the country, as having not received equal courtesies from them, nor entered into the like union and pacification with them, as they have done with England. God forbid that those weapons which our money hath put into their hands should be drawn to cut our own throats, or that our kingdom should be ruined because they think it fit to be reformed.  
2. And concerning the second, if they do not enter into England and lift up arms against their own King, who (as they confess) hath promised and done as much for them as may secure them in their Religion and Liberties, we shall never blame them. But if they shall conceive of themselves, or be persuaded upon reports from hence, that those who adhere to His Majesty in the present quarrel are none but a popish, prelatical and malignant party; whereas it is evident to the world that the greater part of this whole kingdom sides with the King, otherwise their assistance had never been implored, never purchased at so high a rate; that many thousands of the best repute for Religion towards God, and affection to their country, to the certain damage of their Estates, and hazard of their lives, do appear in this cause upon no other incentives but of Conscience and Loyalty; it is but a groundless pretence in the Scots to talk of providing for their own pre●ervation against those that mean them no harm. No pretended experience of former times, much less any principles of their own Declarations, or conceived jealousies o● the vindictive disposition of the English, can warrant them before God, or clear them to the world, if they shall take advantage of our present weakness, and attempt a conquest of us now, because it is possible, if we once recover of these distempers, and be united amongst ourselves, we may be strong enough to resist them hereafter. Nor is there any necessity that the condition of one Kirk and kingdom, either in Religion or Peace, should be common to both: the present evidence of their quiet and our unrest proves it otherwise. And if we should ever be restored to our right wits and former quiet, whether they consider the peaceable disposition of His Majesty, His Princely Clemency towards all, and tender affection He has ever borne to His Native country; or the loyal disposition of His adherents in these troubles, falsely called, Malignant and Preiaticall; whose constant practice hath ever confirmed their Doctrine of subjection to the Magistrate, and to whose profession and interest nothing is more repugnant than a civil War, by which they may lose all, but are sure to gain nothing; or they consider the present condition of this whole kingdom, harrased and spoiled by these intestine divisions, which will certainly produce this good effect, that if once we see an end of these wars we shall better know to value Peace hereafter, and not be easily engaged again. From these grounds of common reason they might conclude more solidly, more charitably, that what ever be the event in England, if they do not embroil themselves without cause, they may for ever enjoy their Religion and Liberties, and need not fear an afterclap from hence. And let them remember thus much more of Israel's leading into captivity, that they never revolted from their God, till they first revolted from their King; Rebellion led the way, Idolatry followed after, and both ended in Captivity. God preserve both them and us from such a judgement. But let them take heed how they dally with edge-tools; how they make solemn Oaths to God, Protestations to the world, promises of Peace and union to their neighbours, when they intend nothing less: How they begin a national war against us, without any provocation from us, or previous denunciation from them, contrary to the late Treaty, only upon conceit, that if the power of this kingdom be recovered into those hands out of which it was wrested by violence and injustice, we may possibly, according to the Treaty, within three months denounce War against them.  
3. And concerning the third, if the question be not whether they should presume to be arbitrators in the matters now debated by fire and sword, betwixt His Majesty and those whom they call the Houses of Parliament, which is truly foreign and extrinsical to that Nation, they having no relation to, nor dependence upon the two houses or kingdom of England, only they owe subjection to the same King; why then, after their mediation hath been rejected (as they suppose) by both sides, upon confidence of their own strength and several successes, or unwillingness to receive conditions from Strangers, should they think it their duty, though it be in their power, to press that ecclesiastical Governm●nt upon us by force of arms, which his Majesty hath often declared he will not, and the two Houses have never declared that they will accept? They have vowed the destruction of all those that adhere to his Majesty under the name of Malignants and evil Instruments, and when they come with an Army to pay this Vow, call they this stopping the effusion of Christian blood? To hew out their way by the sword through all the forces raised for a guard to His Person, amongst whom he has yet been safe, whose actions have been as full of Loyalty as their adversaries professions, is this to rescue their native King● His crown and Posterity out of the midst of dangers? To help to sacrifice the greater part of this kingdom to the malice of those by whom they are declared Traitors, is this to preserve his people from ruin and destruction? What if every private man be bound in duty to interpose himself as a reconciler betwixt his neighbours armed to their mutual destruction? Must they therefore help with armed force to destroy the one party at variance? is this the part of a Reconciler? What if the son ought to hazard his own life for the preservation of his father at variance with his Brother? Must they therefore take up arms to endanger the life of their King, t●eir civil father, to side with a company of schismatics that flatter them with the name of Brethren?  
III. When they ask, shall a kingdom sit still, and suffer their King and neighbouring Kingdom to perish in an unnatural war? I shall answer this question to their own content; it is not fitting, it is not lawful. But let me in courtesy ask them another. When a kingdom hath taken notice of a difference debated by fire and sword betwixt their own King and some of his Subjects of a neighbouring kingdom; when they have solemnly vowed not to give themselves up to a detestable indifferency and neutrality in that cause; when they have observed that the main point in controversy is because the King will not consent to alteration of some laws already established; which he holds himself bound in conscience to preserve; after the whole Clergy in their 
c 
Petition presented to his Majesty.  
Ian. 1642.   national Assembly have promised to keep the people under their charge in obedience to his majesty and his laws, confessing it a duty well beseeming the Preachers of the gospel; after their whole 
d Supplication of the general Assembly. Edenb. Aug. 12. 1639.  kingdom has sworn, with their means and lives to stand to the defence of their dread sovereign, his Person and Authority, in every cause which may concer●e his majesty's Honour, with their friends and followers, in quiet manner or in arms, as they shall be required by his majesty; after they have acknowledged in their national Covenant, that the quietness and stability of their Religion and kirk, depends upon the safety of the King's majesty; and have therefore universally protested and promised under a solemn Oath and hand-writ, upon fearful pains and execrations, 
e 2 Parliam. of K. Charles● Act 5. concerning the Ratification of the Cove●ant.  to defend his Person and Authority with their goods, bodies, and lives, against all Enemies within the realm, or without, as they desire God to be a merciful Defender to them in the day of their death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; after the Nobility, Gentry, boroughs, Ministers, and Commons of that kingdom have confessed themselves, 
f E.C. p. 257.  bound by all the ties of Nature, Christianity, and Gratitude, so fully satisfied and persuaded of the royal zeal, and constant resolution of his majesty, to preserve the laws and Liberties of his kingdoms, that it were the height of disloyalty and ingratitude, if they should harbour any scruple or thought to the contrary, having so many real and recent evidences of his royal goodness, justice, and wisdom, in settling and establishing the true Religion, the laws and Liberties of that his Kingdom, to the full satisfaction of all his good subjects; after all these vows, promises, and protestations, how can they be so strangely given up to folly and wickedness, as to think it their duty, it being in their power, to come with armed Force to end our quarrels, by taking part with them to whom they owe no duty, and fighting against that part which is owned by his Majesty, to whom they stand bound by all the ties of Nature, Christianity, and Gratitude, who has left nothing undone that might give them content? Certainly if they shall so far forget or cast behind their backs all these solemn vows and professions, they will one day rise up in judgement against them. And if they shall harken to the call of the Enemies of our Peace, and come to assist them in this unnatural war, as they threaten to do, though in the time of animosity and appetite of revenge, such Invasion may be well taken by those who invite them to help to destroy their Brethren: yet afterwards, when the eyes of the mind, no more bloodrun with passion, do discern things aright, it will be a grief and offence to all true English hearts, to see how they have sold themselves slaves to a viler Nation; and they may be more united to cast them out, who were so ready, upon the advantage of their Divisions, to thrust themselves in.  
I shall in the mean while put them in mind, that there was a time when they had, if not a juster Cause, a better colour for Invasion of England; yet than they so far disclaimed all intentions of it as to call the bare mention of it, 
g In their instruction● concerning the Covenant, 1638.  The despiteful and devilish calumny of the disnatured Enemies of their kirk and kingdom. I am commanded to forget what they did then, but if they shall now verify those calumnies, and falsify all their solemn Oaths, though the King and this kingdom should not be able to call them to account, there is a God in Heaven that sees all their hearts, and will judge all their actions. And they cannot be ignorant that all the colours which they use in excuse or defence of their intended expedition, may with equal, nay better, reason be alleged by any other Nation, that have a mind to oppress and subdue upon pretence of assisting us, of providing for their own safety, or coming to compose our Differences.   

CHAP. XIII. From these Premises the Covenant is concluded unlawful, in respect of the form.  
HAving thus deduced at large the several Illegalities of this Holy League, both in respect of the Efficient and final Causes, but especially in respect of the matter, it naturally follows that we conclude it in the last place to be likewise unlawful in respect of the form. For whereas the nature of an Oath League, Covenant, or Vow, requires that it be holy, just and good, This thing being a Confederacy of Subjects, against the will of their sovereign, pretending many good, but intending a bad End, swearing many things in themselves unjust and contrary to all Law, Divine and human, the Covenanteers by labouring to induce the form of a solemn Oath, a sacred Covenant, a religious Vow, upon a matter so indisposed and incapable of such a form, do profane the Ordinances of God, and give that which is holy unto dogs.  
Any simple Promise, in respect of the form or nature of it, is apt to create an obligation of civil honesty, trust, and fidelity: if it be mutual by way of Contract, as a League and Covenant, it induceth a further tie of justice: if a Vow be joined to it, this superaddes a band of Religion: if all these be confirmed by a solemn Oath 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, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, it is not capable of any further addition; this is truly 
a Protestation of the Lords and Common●, Oct. 22.1643. E.C. p. 664.  confessed to be the strongest obligation that any Christian, and the most solemn public Faith that any State as a Parliament can give.  
In an Assertory Oath we make God our witness; and if we speak not Truth, we make Him a Lyar. In a Promissory we make God our Surety; and should we fail in performance, we cast an imputation of perfidiousness upon Him, as if He were not faithful in his promises. In a Vow we make God our creditor, we plight our Faith to Him, and when that is confirmed by an Oath He is both our witness and Sponsor too. So as to sport, and play at fast and loose with these many religious obligations were little less than to deny Him. He that makes no conscience of an Oath, though he do not speculatively believe God a liar, or a promise breaker, yet practically he deals with Him as if He were no better.  
The more sacred this Band is in itself the more religious caution ought every man to use before he enter into it, even than when it is conversant about a lawful object. But if any shall dare to prostitute this holy Ordinance to profane Ends, and stamp their unjust actions with the impression of it, it is such a crying sin against God, that I dare not promise them any remission. I have heard of some whom I knew, and therefore will not name, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, who after they were induced by persuasions, or fears, or other worldly considerations to take this Covenant, their conscience was so thunder-struck with the horror of their sin, that their own blood spilled by their own hands was not sufficient to wash away their guilt; and I cannot tell whether they found any place for repentan●e though they sought it with more than tears. If their case be so desperate who are enforced to take it, what shall we think of those that enforce it? Let them sequester our Estates, we care not; God will either provide us more, or give us grace to be content with less; if they take away our meat, he will take away our hunger. Let them imprison our persons, we thank them, so they leave our conscience free. But O, let them not by threatning death to the body, if we refuse their Covenant, destroy our souls by taking of it. Let them remember and abhor the example of that wicked miscreant who having his Enemy prostrate at his feet, promised him life if he would deny his Saviour, and when he had done so immediately slew him, making his proud blasphemous boast that he had murdered both body and soul at one blow.  
God in mercy open their eyes that they may see the error o● their ways; then they will confess, what is certainly true, that this their new Covenant being taken without Authority, and contrary to their former lawful oaths of Supremacy and allegiance, was void from the beginning; and does not bind them to any thing, but what I heartily wish they may find in the end, Repentance.   
FINIS.