AN ANSWER To the Solemn League & Covenant; PRESENTED To the public view of all Loyal Subjects in ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, and IRELAND; In the twelfth year of the Reign of our most Gracious Sovereign Lord CHARLES BY THE Grace of God, of ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, FRANCE and IRELAND, KING, Defender of the FAITH, etc.  
Published according to Order.  
LONDON, PRINTED for GEORGE HORTON, 1660.   

AN ANSWER TO THE Solemn League And Covenant.  
WHether is this Covenant so grounded upon holy Scripture, & so conformable to the Laws of the Land yet in force, and so consonant to former Oaths and Protestations that a religious Christian and Loyal Subject may without scruple of Conscience, and danger of ensnaring his soul enter into it?  
I answer negatively. And although I had more than once, made a Covenant with myself, Rebus sic stantibus, ôr rather jacentibus, never to question this Covenant; which the Authority of bath Houses, and Piety and Learning of the Assembly of Divines, both commended as the Sovereign Remedy of all the Maladies of the times: yet because my Conscience tells me that it hath not approbation from the Three that bear Record in Herven, I dare not conceal those Reasons which at the first made me doubt of the lawfulness of it, and in the end put it out of doubt. The Reasons propounding the naked truth, without any clothing of Art, or ornament of Rhetoric, are these. Andi non phalerata, sed fortia.  
Not to take advantage of the preposterous order in setting down the parts of this Covenant, wherein he that runneth may read a double Solecism. (For in it the Church of Scotland, precedeth the Church of England; and the Liberties of the Subject are set before the Royal Prerogative, and Imperial Dignity of the Prince. Surely such a sacred and venerable Evidence of fidelity, is a public Covenant made by two Nations, and signed by the Name of the great Jehovah; that in it both matter and method, phrase and order ought to be maturely advised on: and not only every period and line, but every word and syllable therein to be exactly scanned, before the Conscience of millions of men be charged with it. If we cannot brook or keep out hands from tearing a List, Catalogue, or Register, wherein they who are many degrees below us, are yet ranked above us, and named before us: can his Majesty take it well at our hands, that we should accept of a Covenant hand over head, wherein the members are set above the head, and his Sovereign Majesty slighted; and that not only by misplacing his person, but limiting and restraining the preservation of his Person, and Authority to the defence of the true Religion, and maintenance of the Liberties of the Kingdoms? What is this but to indent with our Sovereign, and capitulate with our head; as Ochan sometimes did with the Emperor Frederick, Defend gladio, & ego defendam te argumentis; Defend me with thy Sword, and I will defend thee with my Pen? If his Majesty will defend our Faith, we will bear faith to him; if he will keep safe our Pendants, we will safeguard his Crown. Which limitation I except at, not that I doubt but that there is and aught to be a mutuality between King and Sub●ect; and that if he either desert the true Faith, or infringe the Laws and just Liberties of his Subjects, for which he pawned his Faith at his Coronation; God will call him to an account for it: but this doth not discharge us of our Allegiance to him. Though he keep not touch with us, yet we may not break with him; for he is, (as Tertullian gives him his true dimensions, according to the golden reed of the Sanctuary,) Solo Deo minor, caeteris omnibus major: and consequently questionable for his breach of faith before none but God. Alas, what a fickle estate and lamentable condition were Princes in, if upon pretence that they defend not that Religion which the people believe to be true; or maintain not those Liberties which they challenge as their birthright; their royal Crowns may be exposed to rapine, and their sac●ed persons to violence!  
Not to dive into the depths of State, not anxiously to inquire into the reason which moved the first contrivers and projectors of this League to set it on foot at this present, and press it with all earnestness; I am persuaded that none will deny that their main scope and aim therein was, to engage our brethren of Scotland in the present quarrel, for pulling down Episcopacy, and setting up the Presbytery; and by this National and solemn League to strengthen their party, and foment the late unnatural War which drained the Wealth of the Kingdom.: and was like to draw out the life-blood also. Nemo tenetur divinare, say the Canonists; neither will I take upon me the office of a Prophet to foretell the Catastrophe of these Tragedies. Yet sure I am, this Queen of all Islands never received such prejudiced and wrong, nor ever was so near the brink of destruction as when she drew in foreign Forces to defend herself against homebred Enemies: and I pray God we experimentally interpret not the mystery of Pharoahs' dream concerning the lean kine which eat up the fat, and yet were never a whit the fatter. If there be a decree of Heaven, that these two Nations shall be drowned one in another's blood, for the crimsons sins of both not yet repent of: yet let not us draw this most fearful judgement upon both Kingdoms by the cord of an oath. But to argue syllogistically.  
No Subjects living under a Christian Prince who is a professor of the true Religion, and a Defender of the Orthodox Faith may enter into a public and solemn Covenant for the reformation of Religion, without the consent, (much less against the express command) of their Sovereign. For such disobedience and slighting of their King cannot stand with the duty they own him of fear and Loyalty, enjoined Prov. 24.21. My Son, Fear the Lord and the King, Eccles. 8.1. I advise thee to take heed to the mouth of the King & to the word of the oath of God. Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, & they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. V 4. If thou do evil, sea; for he beareth not the sword in Vain. Prov. 16.14. The wrath of the King is the Messenger of death. Prov. 19.12. The King's wrath is like the roaring of a Lion. 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake; whether it be to the King as Supreme. v. 17. Fear God, honour the King; Nor with the Prayers of the Church made for him, that we may serve, honour, and humbly obey him in God, and for God: Not with the principles of right Reason; for the King is the supreme head of the Church, and Commonwealth, under Christ; and all his Subjects conjuncti●● in Parliament, or divisim; are but Members of the same Body politic; and how should the Members enter into a covenant, or frame and devise it without the head?  
But the King is so far from yielding his royal assent to this Covenant, that he striotly forbids it, and that under the pain of Treason in his Proclamation printed at Oxford.  
Ergo, We may not enter into this Covenant, nor entangle our consciences with this new Oath.  
This Covenant we make with God: and in all things, especially the things appertaining to God, we must obey God rather then man.  
We have the Kings vertua consent thereunto: for though he be not present in person at the Parliament, nor hath given his Royal assent under his hand; yet this Parliament is called and continued by his Authority, and his consent is virtually contained in the Votes of both Houses.  
It is a ruled case in Divinity, That we must obey God rather than man, when God commandeth one thing, and man another: but when the commands of God and of his Vicegerent upon earth: clash not one against another, St. Bernard's doctrine is most true, we must obey him as God, who is in the place of God, in those things which are not against God. When St. Peter and St. John returned this answer to the Council, the Council forbade that which God commanded. God commanded the Apostles to preach Christ's Resurrection; and the Assembly of Priests and Elders forbade them. This is not the Covenante's case: for where doth God command the English to swear to preserve the Scotch Discipline and Liturgy, which they themselves have often varied? Or to abjure Episcopacy, which was the only government of the Church for more than 1500 years, and under whose shade Christian Religion most flourished, and the Church stretched forth her branches to the Rivers, and her boughs to the ends of the earth? Where doth the Scripture warrant, (much less command) the association of two Kingdoms and jointly taking up arms in the quarrel of the Gospel, and defending and propagating Religion by the sword?  
The calling of the Parliament by the King's Authority doth not conclude his assent to all the Ordinances of both the Houses: for is it were so, why did this Parliament, after they had voted the Militia, and the extirpation of Prelacy and Pluralities, send to his Majesty, and humbly entreat his royal assent? nay, why in all Parliaments since the first even till this day, after both Houses had past bills, did still the Lords and Commons lay them at his Majesty's feet, beseeching him in humblest manner to take them up, and sign them with his royal hand? and if he liked them, his answer hath been, Le Roy vieut; if he ditated them, Le Roy s'avisera. Did the calling of a Parliament in the King's name and by his Authority, virtually include or conclude his Royal assent to all the Acts; King Richard the 2d. had given his consent to his own deposing: for that Parliament wherein he was deposed, was called in his name and by his Authority.  
4. No Covenant, especially public and solemn between two Nations for reformation of Religion, may be taken without warrant from God's word; for in every such Covenant God is a party, and his consent must be both had and known, which cannot be but from his word. Beside, this Covenant is bound with an Oath, which is an Act of Religion, and cultus latriae, that is a part of divine worship; and if it be not commanded by God, it is forbidden in Scripture under the name of will-worship.  
Moreover, that golden rule of the Apostle applied by him to the use of things indifferent, stretcheth also to this case of Conscience, Whatsoever Oath we take, or Covenant we enter into, not persuaded in Conscience that we have good ground for what we do in Scripture, is sin to us.  
But this Covenant hath no warrant for it in holy Scripture: for from the Alpha of Genesis to the Omega of the Apocalypse there is no v●la nor vestigium of such a Covenant as this.  
Ergo, This Covenant must not be taken by any, who desire to walk exactly before God according to the precise rule of his word.  
There is warrant in God's word both for the matter of this Covenant, and the form and manner of taking the oath. For the matter we have a pattern of a Covenant taken for the reformation of the false, and preservation of the true Worship of God, and the uniting of Kingdoms in the truth thus reform, 1 Sam. 18.3, 4. 2 Kings 23.5. 2 Chron. 25.8. 9 2 Chron. 30. Ezra. 10.2. And for the form and manner of taking it by lifting up the hand, we have a Precedent, Apoc. 10.50.  
None of these instances are ad Rhombum: all those Covenants were made against idolatry and other sins expressly forbidden by the law of God; but this Covenant is against Prelacy and such a form of worship practised in the Church of England, as hath been justified by the word of God, and unanswerable a guments drawn from Scripture by Whitgift and Hooker in their answer to Cartwright, Covell to Barrow, and Browne, Burges to Ames, and Ball to Can, and many others.  
In all those Covenants the King had the main stroke, but in this none at all.  
1. For the Covenant mentioned, 1 Sam. 18.3, 4. it comes not home to our case, for that was a private Covenant between two intimate friends, for the safety of both their lives, sought after by a bloody Tyrant: this is a National Covenant between two Kingdoms, for the Reforming Religion, and settling Peace; that was made by the true King appointed by God, and anointed before this by Samuel, against him who indeed held the Crown, but was rejected by God himself; this a Covenant made by Subjects against the Commands of a most gracious Prince.  
2. For the Covenant mentioned, 2 King. 23.5. the text saith, King Josiah made this Covenant, that they should walk after the Lord, and keep his Commandments, and his Testimonies, and his Statutes with all their heart, etc. And that he put down the Chemarims, etc. There the King makes a Covenant, and reforms a Church, and not the People; here the people enter into a Covenant without the King, and they take upon them, against his command, to Reform, or rather Deform the Church, by overthrowing the Hierarchy, and abolishing Episcopacy. Chius ad Choum, these things agree as well as Harp and Harrow.  
3. For the Covenant mentioned, 2 Chr. 15.8, 9 King Asa gathered all Judah and Benjamin together to Jerusalem, where they offered to the Lord of the spoils, and made this Covenant, and in performance of this Oath or Covenant, v. 16. he deposed Maacah his Mother from her Regency, because she had made an Idol in a grove, and Asa broke down her Idol, and stamped it, and burned it at the brook Kidron.  
4. Eor the example of Israel, 2 Chron. 30. who in the days of Hezekiah, though they were under another King, yet joined with the men of Judah in keeping the Passover, it yields no support at all to their tottering cause. For,  
1. They entered not into any solemn League with the men of Judah, though for the present they joined with them in a Religious duty commanded by the Law.  
2. What they did, they were invited to do by King Hezekiah; whereas the Scotch are not invited to this League with the English by the King.  
3. The King of Ashur forbade not the Israelites to join with their Brethren of Judah in keeping the Passover; but the King forbids any of his Subjects to enter into this Covenant.  
4. The King who Reigned over the Israelites, was an Idolater; but our King is a worshipper of the true God. And albeit, in some case and quarrel, the worshippers of the true God may join with their Brethren of the same Religion in another Kingdom, in a Defensive League (though the King being an Idolater, should forbid it) yet it follows not, that they may do so without the consent, and against the command of a Christian Prince, who is a professor of the true Religion.  
Lastly, The Israelites, besides the invitation of King Hezekiah to keep a solemn Passover with the Jews, had the express command of God himself; whereas neither English nor Scotch have any command from God expressly or implicitly, to enter into this League for the Defence of the Protestant Religion against Papists without the King, the King himself undertaking, and that by most solemn Oaths and Protestations to defend the same.  
5. For the Covenant mentioned Ezra 10.3. that was merely to remove a Scandal from the Jews, and to fulfil the express command of God, for putting away strange wives, set down in the Law of Moses: in which case no man doubteth but a Covenant may be made not only without, but against the commandment of a Prince. Yet here the Jews (besides the command of Nehemiah the Viceroy) had the approbation of the Prince for making this Covenant: for the King of Persia at this time favoured the Jews; and contributed largely to the re-edifying of the Temple; and gave order to Ezra the Priest to adorn the house of God, and perform all things in his service according to the Law, Ezra 7.10.  
The last example, Rev. 10.5. is least to our present purpose: for the Angel there made no Covenant, but only swear by the living God, that time should be no more. It is true he lifted up his hand; yet that no way helpeth the Covenanters cause: for that might be a fit gesture in an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world, and the out-dating of all time; which yet may not be thought so fit a gesture for men entering into a holy League for the preservation of two Kingdoms. If they can▪ as the Angel did, stand upon the Earth and the Sea at the same time; let them also further imitate the Angel in lifting up their hands to Heaven; when they make their Covenant. Howsoever for the gesture we will not contend with them: I think it fit in taking this Oath, then after the usual manner, to lay the hand upon the Bible; for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that book: and the lifting up of the hand very well expresseth the purport of this Covenant, which is a lifting up of their hands against the Lords anointed, and his Church: yet under pretence of defence of the King's person, never so much endangered as by their Armies; and of Religion, never so profaned as by their Reformadoes; and of the liberties of Subjects, never so much infringed as by Arbitrary Votes.  
Before we take this Oath of Reformation, we must desire a Reformation of the Oath: for it is full of Ambiguities and Contradictions: whence I thus frame a fifth argument.  
5. No Ambiguous Oath ought to be taken, or Covenant signed: for here one of Pythagoras' golden Precepts taketh place, Loquere cum lumine: all Ambiguities, Equivocations, or mental reservations (especially in Leagues and Oaths) are abominated by all Protestants. He that swearath ambiguously sweareth not in simplicity of heart, nor can keep his Oath sincerely and entirely.  
But in this Covenant and Oath there are many Ambiguities.  
For what is meant in the first clause by common Enemies? Either the world, the flesh and the Devil; which indeed are (as it were) sworn Enemies to all true Religion: or Papists, or Independants; who are both enemies to the Discipline and Government of the Scotch Church.  
In the second clause what is meant by Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, & c? either all government by Bishops; or the present Government only, with the late Innovations and abuses thereof. If all Government by Bishops, then in taking this Oath, we condemn not only the perpetual Government of the Church from the Apostles time till the Reformation of Religion in the days of Hen. 8. but also the Reformed Churches in England, Ireland, Denmark, Swethland, Poland, Saxony, and other parts of Germany; where either they have Archbishops and Bishops, or tantmount Intendents, and Superintendents; If the present Government only, with innovations and abuses; let them explain what are the innovations and abuses we swear against: else we cannot swear in judgement. What is meant by Hierarchy? the word signifieth holy Government, being derived from jera holy, and Arkirule or government. And is it fit crudely, without any gloss, to forswear all holy Government?  
In the third clause, what is meant by defending the King's person in the defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms? Is it a limitation, or not? If it be no limitation, what doth it there? There aught to be no idle, and (if I may so speak) hangby words in an Oath: for the Wiseman teacheth us, when he speak to God, our words must be few. If it be a limitation, how doth this Covenant agree with the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; by which we are absolutely bound to defend the King's person, Royal Dignities and Prerogatives of the Crown, with any if or of, restriction or qualification?  
In the fourth clause, What is meant by Malignants or evil Instruments? A word never used till of late in any Statute, Law or Ordinance; and never so much abused as at this day.  
In the sixth clause, how far extend these words, I will assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and persuance thereof. Doth it reach to giving battle to the KING, Sequestering Estates, plundering houses, and trampling all Laws under foot, and to the justifying all the outrages committed in the maintaining and pursuing this League? If not, why is it not ci cumscribed with that limitation in the first Protestation, By all good and lawful means? or so far as lawfully I may? There being so many Amphibologies. Ambiguities, and Kiddles in this Oath, we must have some Oedipus of the Synod to read and clearly expound them, before we can safely engage our conscience by Oath to perform them.  
No Covenant may be made, or Oath taken, which implieth in it contradictions; for in such an Oath or Covenant we play fast and lose; say and unsay; and overthrow the nature of an Oath; and take God's name in vain. The Schools and ancient Doctors constantly maintain, that it exceedeth even Divine Omnipotency to reconcile Contradictions; which are amongst those many things St. Augustine speaketh of, which God therefore cannot do, because he is Omnipotent.  
But there are apparent Contradictions in this Covenant, and Gordian knots which cannot be untied. For,  
First, It is said in the Preface, that the Noblemen, Bar●●s, etc. enter into this Covenant according to the commendable practice of these King oms in former times; and yet Mr. Ne'er in his Speech, published by special order of the House, upon ●he very day the Covenant was read and sworn unto, and subscribed by the honourable House of Commons, and Reverend Assembly of Divines, Sept. 25. saith p. 12. That such an Oa●● for matter, persons, and other circumstances, hath not been in any age, or Oath we read of in sacred or humane stories. And Mr. Coleman in his Sermon commanded to be Printed by the Commons of the House of Parliament, Sept. ult. 1643. pag. 18. Ask your Fathers; consult with the aged of our times, whether ever such a thing were done in their days, or in the days of their Fathers before them! And in his Epistle Dedicatory, An Oath if vain, makes the Land to mourn: an Oath, if weighty, makes it rejoice. This is a new thing, and not done in ou● Land before; and I hope will have a new effect, not seen by our people before.  
We are to swear in the first branch, That we will really and constantly endeavour the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government: and yet in the same branch we swe●r to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in these three Kingdoms (of which Scotland is one) to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in form of Church-Government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches: But this cannot be done if Scotland be preserved in her present Directory for Worship, Discipline and Government: for the Government in the Church of England, Ireland, Denmark, Swethland, Poland, Saxony, and in all the Churches of the East (not subject to the Pope) is Episcopal: and that is proved to be most conformable to the Word of God, by the writings of Bilson, Downham, Armagh, never yet answered by any.  
We swear in the same branch. That we will endeavour to reform the Doctrine of the Church of England, according 〈◊〉 God's Word; and yet preserve the Reformed Religion in Sco●land in Doctrine: whereas the Doctrine of the Church of E●●land and Scotland is all one; as appears by the Confession of the one and Articles of the other. All the difference between the Church of England and Scotland, is concerng Discipline and Liturgy; not Doctrine, as it is distinguised from them.  
We swear in the second branch, That We will endeavour the extirpation of of Prelacy and Schism: whereas Prelacy hath been ever, and is, the special if not only mean to extirpate Schism. If Prelacy be taken away, saith St. Jerome ad Luc. and the preeminency of one Presbyter above another; Tot Schismata erunt quot Sacerdotes. That is, to extirpate Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, etc. and yet in the third b●anch we swear to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Parliament, and Liberties of the Kingdoms: among which liberties of the Kingdom of England, and privileges of the Parliament, are the contents of Magna Charta, and Petition of Right, in which the Government of Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rights and Privileges of the Church are comprised.  
In the third branch we swear to preserve and defend his Majesty's Person, and Authority, without any diminution of his just Power and greatness: and yet in the sixth Article we swear to assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuance thereof: Whereas it is known by their daily practice, that they levy Arms against the KING; Seize upon his Forts, Ships, Magazines, and Revenues. How can a man take away the King's Munition; and Castles; and yet not weaken his power? How can a man forcibly encounter and discomfit an Army raised by the KING'S Power, and yet not diminish his power? How can a man take away his Revenues, Houses, Parks. etc. and not diminish his greatness? How can he give him Battle, and yet Defend his Person? Therefore before we enter into this Covenant to make up all the breaches in the Church, and Commonwealth, we must make up the breaches in the Covenant itself; before we reconcile and unite the three Kingdoms, we must endeavour to reconcile the contradictions in this our Oath and Solemn League.  
Either this League and Covenant confirmed by Oath is free and voluntary; or forced and Compulsory. If it be free and voluntary, Why is there annexed a most severe penalty to be inflicted upon all those who refuse to enter into it before the first of March? If it be forced and compulsory, how is it a Covenant? especially with God, who respecteth not our words, but our hearts? If it be a constrained Oath imposed upon us whether we will or no; than it is a heavy yoke laid upon the Conscience, inconsistent with our Christian Liberty: and the requiring it of us is not like to procure a blessing from Heaven to the Land, but to pull down the vials of God's vengeance upon it, If Tertullian could say, Non est Religionis Religionem cogere, it is no religious act to force Religion: we may swear that such a constrained Oath is no way acceptable to God. Well it may be termed in ou● language a League or Covenant: but in the Language of Canaan it is not so. For Berith, a Covenant; comes from Bara, which signifieth eligere, saith Buxtorfius; that is, to choose. Neither is it any act of virtue in Aristotle's School: for virtus est habitus electivus; a habit whereby we exercise our free choice.  
None ought to swear to that he knoweth not; for an Oath must be taken in judgement, truth, and righteousness, Jer. 4.2. A man cannot swear in Judgement; or judiciously, who knoweth not that to be true in an assertory Oath; and honest and righteous in a promissory; which he sweareth unto. For if that be false to which he sweareth, he is perjured: and if be a dishonest thing thing which he promiseth to do, he is unrighteous. Besides it it great precipitancy and rashness, to enter into a Covenant blindfolded, and to swear to maintain that we understand not.  
But the subjects of England (at least for the major part) know not what the Scotch Discipline, Government, or Worship is: which notwithstanding by this Covenant they are bound to preserve, even with the hazard of their Fortunes and Lives.  
FINIS.