A BRIEF RESOLUTION Of the present Case of the SUBJECTS OF SCOTLAND, In order to Episcopal Government, by Sacred Authority reestablished in this KINGDOM.  
OR, Episcopus Scoticanus Redivivus.  
For the satisfaction of the People.  
AUTHORE PHIL-ALETHIO.  Hos. 10. 4. 
They have spoken words, swearing falsely, in making a Covenant; thus judgement springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.  Numb. 30. 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16. 
If the husband or father, shall any wise disallow of the vows or oaths, of his wife or daughter, after that he hath heard them; they do become void, and neither stand nor bind; and the Lord shall forgive her, because the husband or father disallowed her.  
Printed in the Year, 1661.   

A BRIEF RESOLUTION Of the present Case of the SUBJECTS OF SCOTLAND, In order to Episcopal Government, Re-established by Sacred Authority in this KINGDOM.  
CASE. Whether the Liege's of Scotland, have any real necessity imposed on them by any Oath or Covenant, to any just scrupling of closing with Episcopacy, to which by Sacred Authority this Kingdom is lately restored.  
WIth what Caution and Wariness men ought to embark themselves in all manner of Engagements, needs not much Oil or Labour spent upon the Enquiry; Scripture alone is sufficiently able to instruct us, sometimes terming it a bond, Ezek. 20 37. Sometimes a snare, Prov. 6. 2. And verily he who doth unadvisedly engage, doth many a time entangle himself in an intrigue of inextricable difficulties, out of which, he cannot so easily wind himself; especially in the matter of Oaths in the time of popular confusions; Men then being ●noxious to so many precipices of danger, in making Shipwreck of Conscience, through Error and Misprision, on the one hand; with fear and force, on the other. We need not much Range abroad in the inquest, after witnesses to this truth, our own homebred late popular Covenants and Engagements, bearing so much lamentable evidence of it upon them, to this very day; whileas these are still made use of, as the Master-engines of some Polypragmatick-Male-contents, for staving of, honest and well-meaning People, from that duty, they own to God, their Mother-Church, and our Gracious and undoubted Sovereign, by making it their constant and zealous endeavour to invegle the people, by presenting these as indispensable Bonds, which are, indeed, but so many snares, and so many Flaxen Fetters and Cobwebs, which themselves in the most essential Points, do break through at pleasure, (as God-willing shall be made clearly to appear, in the sequel of this Discourse) and yet amuse the Vulgar, who reach not to the depths of things, as if these were inviolable and indissoluble sacred wyths, wherein they must lie tied neck and heel.  
That therefore, we may make appear, how far, the late Oaths, Covenants, etc. whereby the people of this Land did engage themselves, against Episcopal Government, in this Church, do bind, and how far they may be dispensed with, as to an after-performance, and so whether to be reckoned among Sacred Bonds, or sinful Snares: I shall (howbeit as much hath been already said, to discover the sinfulness and invalidity of these Oaths, etc. by His late Majesty of Immortal Memory, in His Admirable Book, and Debates, etc. and by the Learned & Renowned Doctors of Aberdene, in their Demands & Duplies, as may put to silence all those who, together with their duty, have not forfaulted a Sober, Rational mind) lay down very briefly, some few irrefragable Propositions concerning the bindingnesse of Oaths and Covenants in the general; from which, I shall draw a resolution of the Case in hand, by way of Corrolary; and then leave it, upon the sober, and impartial consideration, of all un-prejudged, to resolve, whether these Covenant-Engagements be the indispensable Oaths of God, (as some ●o usually phrase it, for amusing the simple) or not. As for these P●nciples and Propositions, which, (I trust) may infer a full and satisfactory solution of the present Case; I shall, studying brevity, reduce them all to these eight, following.  
Propos. jma. There is this first Proposition. No man may swear, or by subtlety or violence induce others to swear, unlawfully. This is full of evidence; none being free to sin, or any-wise to engage others to sin; but to swear, or to induce another by any means, to swear unlawfully, is, beyond all peradventure sinful; and therefore. etc. but we leave this on its own evidence, and go to the next.  
Propos. 2da. There is this second Proposition. That is not a lawful or justifiable Oath, which is not attended with Truth, Righteousness and Judgement. This Proposition is borrowed, from the Prophet Jeremiah, Jer. 4. 2. Thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth, in truth, in righteousness, and in judgement. Where we find the Holy Ghost, laying down three grand qualifications of a lawful Oath; viz. 1. That it be in truth; which requireth not only, that the thing sworn be true, but also, candour and sincerity, in the undertaking, without all falsehood and double-mindednesse. 2. That it be in righteousness; which requireth, that the thing sworn, be just, and in itself lawful to be undertaken: which is all one with that which Judicious Casuists speak, viz. That the Oath be undertaken, Super re licitâ; Since God is not to be assumed, either for Witness or Overseer of a thing simply unjust (as, if the matter sworn be unlawful, he is) who is a God of most pure eyes, and cannot behold iniquity: And moreover, because it binds a man, to the doing of a thing, which yet the very  condition of the matter, refuseth a performance of. Upon this ground, Herod was not bound, notwithstanding his promise and oath, to deliver the Baptist's head, to Herodias her daughter; no more, were these forty Conspirators against St. Paul, Act. 23. 12, 13, etc. Neither, David by his having sworn and vowed the destruction of churlish Nabal, 1 Sam. 25. 22, etc. And then 3. that it be in judgement. Which requireth, that the thing undertaken by Oath, be not unmeet and undue to be performed, but due and convenient, and, which is mostly imported, that it be deliberately and pensiculately set about. These three qualifications, are ingredients absolutely necessary, for constituting a lawful Oath; being, that it is intrinsically sinful, to swear either falsely, or unjustly, or to swear the performance of that, which is unmeet and inconvenient to be undertaken, as also, to engage rashly, unadvisedly, and without deliberation into any Covenant or Oath whatsomever. But,  
Propos. 3ia. There is this third Proposition. A promissory Oath, which is undertaken, to the certain prejudice of another man's just right, cannot be attended with justice. This needs not much debate upon its evidence; being, that Justitia tribuit ●uique snum, Justice being a virtue, whereby, to every man his Due, and Own are rendered: If therefore any Oath engage, to the performance of that which doth clearly prejudge any other, in that which is his due and just right, it is an unrighteous Oath, and because of its injustice, is, of itself, vacated from being binding or obligatory. But,  
Propos. 4ta. There is this fourth Proposition. No prejudice or violence, done to the right of any other man, can be so highly dangerous and sinful, as that prejudice and violence which are done to the just right of the Supreme Magistrate, and His Sovereign Authority. This is undeniably irrefragable; for, in so far, as the Public Interest is beyond the Private, in regard of worth and excellence, and as to intemerable preservation; so far is the prejudice done to the just right of the Sovereign Magistrate and His Authority, incomparably sinful, beyond what can be done to the right of any private Subject or Subjects whatsomever. But,  
Propos. 5ta. There is this fifth Proposition. The just right of the Sovereign Magistrate and His Authority, is egregiously trampled upon and prejudged, when private Subjects encroach upon it, and do upon suspicion or jealousy of disallowed intentions or actions of their Sovereign Princes, combine, confederate or bind themselves to Allow, Enact, or Establish any thing (much more, to reverse or repeal allowed established and standing Laws) concerning any matters belonging to Religion, (upon the weal or ill administration whereof, the greatest security or ruin of a State depends) without much more against the consent and command of lawful Sovereign Authority. This Proposition is clear, not only from the Municipal and known Laws of this Kingdom, but even from the very Law and light of nature itself; for it is obvious to every Tenderer of Sovereignty, that it is one of the choicest and most inviolable Jewels of the Crown of a Supreme Power, to which none are , but all subordinate, as to every Supreme Power, as Supreme, all must needs be; viz. That no Popular Combinations, Bonds or Leagues, should be among Subjects, upon what score or pretence how specious soever, without, much less against the consent and command of the Authority foresaid; for, and if it were f●ee for Subjects, thus at pleasure to Combine, Confederate, etc. A King (in which the Supreme Power, in a true Monarchy, resides) were but a bare, weak, titular King, and shadow only of a Sovereign, depending prècario upon the Subjects, whom at pleasure they might cast off or destroy; nay, and of itself, it opens a patent door for the eversion and ruin of all Government and Supreme Power, so that any who will, may, by a Confederacy rebel, upon one pretext or another. Hence it's evident, there can be no greater encroachment upon, no higher prejudice done unto Sovereign Authority, then for Subjects in any-wise to Combine or Bind themselves, against the Supreme Royal Will and without consent of the Sovereign. And, if it be, so high a prejudice done to the just right of the Sovereign, for Subjects in any case to Combine or Confederate without him, were it even to the carrying on of standing and known Laws; what a heinous injury must it infer, upon the Sovereign's just right? for Subjects to Combine for the reversing and repealing of established and standing Laws, without, nay, and forcibly against Royal Commands: is not this, the most superlative and transcendent prejudice, which can be done to the just right of the Supreme Authority?  
But here now, that we may a little more unfold this Proposition; it would be noticed that it is deemed a favourable plea by some, for Subjects, though in no case else, yet in the Concern of Religion, to Combine and Confederate, without the allowance or consent of Sovereign Authority, for redressing abuses and reforming disorders therein; especially when the Supreme Magistrate being required thereto, doth deny his concurrence, and withhold the shoulder. But such men, they are not ware, that in this they join issue with Fanatic Anabaptists and the bloodiest of the Pope's devotionaries (who with them, in this, resemble Sampson's Foxes, being linked together by the Tails, though their Heads look different ways) and with them cry up the lawfulness of carrying on a Reformation in Religion, by outward force and violence: so much contrary to the ways and Word of God, Joh. 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this world, etc. If it were, my servants would fight. Where, blessed Christ Jesus doth plainly insinuate, that His Kingdom being spiritual, cannot, must not, be advanced with temporal arms: for the weapons of the Christians warfare, are not Carnal, but Spiritual, 2 Cor. 10. 4. There is no command from Christ to kill and slay the common enemies of our Religion, but contrariwise to pray for our persecuters, and not to resist evil, Matth. 5. 44. See also other Scriptures, such as Zech. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 6. 2. and 2 Tim. 2. 25, etc. Nay, and this course, it is against the very nature of Religion itself; for, faith which is the Soul of Religion, is an inward act of the soul, which all the force in the world, can neither plant nor extirpate; ●am suddenda non cogenda est. Conformable to this, was the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Pious, Sober, Primitive Church (which had learned better what belonged to Authority, then to resist the Ordinance of God, even in a Heathen Caesar) whose Religion enjoined them not to kill, but to be killed for it; Nor was this for want of ability but of Authority: As we read in the most Ancient Apologists for the Christian Faith, such as Arnob. Lactant. Cyprian: count. Demetr. Tertull. in apol. &. ad Scap. Just. in Tryph. August. in Psalm. 144. Ambros. in luc. 22. 38. Athan. epist. ad solit. vitam agentes, etc. Then further, Popular Reformation, or Covenanting for Reformation of Religion without concurrence of the Supreme Magistrate, hath no warrantable precedent, but rather to the contrary in Sacred Writ: See those Scriptures at convenience, Deut. 29. 2, 10, 11, 12, etc. Josh. 24. 25. 2 King. 23. 23. 2 Chron. 15. 8, 12. and cap. 29. 3, 10. and cap. 34. 31, 32. Ezra 10. 3, 4, 5. In all which and in many the like, you have ever the Chief Magistrates, Moses, Joshua, Hezekiah, Josiah, etc. concurring, or rather going before the People, (as their place required) in the several Reformations therein mentionate; but no where the people Covenanting upon a Reformation of Religion (even in times of the worst of Kings) without concurrence of the Supreme Magistrate: Arise, for the matter belongs to thee (saith the whole Assembly of Elders there met) to Ezra, the prime Ruler; in that cited place, Ezra 10. 4. To shun the force of which Argument, and for a sinful impairing the Supreme Power of the Sovereign; some have fancied a supposed co-ordination of power (I shall not once name these, whose impudence hath emboldened them to assert a monstrous Subordination of the Sovereign to the People) betwixt our King and His People in their representative Meetings.  
This, indeed, is the Arch-pillar, upon which some of no small Note, have laid the stress of their Cause, for the supportment of the lawfulness of Popular-reformings, without the Supreme and Royal Consent. But, surely, this, as it is a most pernicious, so a most empty, airy, inconsequent speculation. Inconsequent, because, if a co-ordination of Sovereign Power, be supposed twixt King and People; then a joint concurrence of both, in every act of Supreme Power, is necessary, if the act be not spurious and illegitimate: so that by this, the people, de jure, may no more reform without the King, than the King without the People; both singly considered (according to this dream) being but Subjecta potestat is supremae partially, and both jointly considered only, the adaequat and complete subject of Sovereignty. Empty and groundless, for, what a wild imagination is it, to place a  power with the King, in the representative Body of the People, when the Sovereign only, hath by fundamental Law, the right of calling, and then of dissolving, at pleasure, the said Body; and what an absurd phoenomenon must it needs be? to conceive in a body, a co-ordination twixt the Members and the Head thereof; and the King is the Head of all the Tribes, 1 Sam. 15. 17. and such an Head, Vbi sedes meri imperij est. But further, this whimsy is repugnant to the true condition of Monarchy; for, this supposed co-ordination of the Supreme jus●ive Power, must necessarily infer or suppose a communicability of the Sovereign Power, to more than one; which, notwithstanding, in true Monarchy, is so properly belonging to, and so inseparably settled in the Person of the Sovereign Prince, as that it cannot be derived or communicated to any other, save only in way of deputation and commission when and how far forth himself pleaseth, in the outward exercise and administration of the same. Since as Bodin rightly giveth it; Necess● est ut regnum quantumcunque est, ac jura omnia Majestatis, in solidum VNI, partitione sublatâ, tribuantur; alioquin non Monarchia sed Polyarchia dicetur. De republs. lib. 6. cap. 8. And indeed, however many Sharers there are in the Supreme Power, so many Supreme Governors or Sovereigns (respectively, and according to the different Interests they have, more or less) there shall be. Oh, what Chimeras of invention, will men make use of to uphold most groundless conceits, they have once embraced, for strengthening and promoving of their sinful and selfy designs and interests. But to leave this,  
Porpos. 6ta. There is this sixth Proposition. A justifiable Oath must be undertaken in bonum finem, for good ends and purposes; ends, consistent with the welfare of our Neighbour, especially of the Church and State we live in. (A clause, say Casuists, necessarily supposed, though not always expressed in such engagements) under this, much is comprehended; as, that a lawful Oath cannot engage to the doing of any thing, repugnant or obstructive, to the performance of some greater moral duty, one or another: so the Learned Grotius, de jur● belli, lib. 2. cap. 13. n. 7. Immo, etiam si res quae promittitur non sit illicita, sed majus bonum morale impediens; sic quoque non valebit jurawentum, etc. Hence also it it is, that we ought by no means, to Vow, Promise or Swear peremptorly, against the doing of any thing, which yet the real equity thereof, either then, or upon occasion fairly offered, may afterwards justly require and efflagitate at our hands. The ground of this comprehensive Proposition, briefly is, because, the greater moral duty, is still to be preferred to the lesser, as to practice and performance; and in affirmative precepts, this is acknowledg'dly evident; these being such as oblige, licet semper, non tamen ad semper; as Divines universally take it.  
Propos. 7ma. There is this seventh Proposition. No Oath is or can be justifiable or of binding force, which is taken against a righteous, laudable Oath formerly sworn. For, one lawful Oath can never make void another, much less can an unlawful, vacat the obligation of a righteous Oath. It is a clear case resolved by Judicious Casuists, that a lawful Oath cannot be contra pactum aliquod licitum prius initum; for such superfaetation of dissonant Oaths or Promises, doth ever beget a direct nullity in the latter. So that he who hath sworn Allegiance to the Sovereign, and to maintain Episcopal Government in the Church; (which we now suppose to be lawful) and thereby bound himself, to maintain the just Right, Power and Authority of his said Sovereign, or the forsaid Form of Church-Government, he cannot, by any second or supervenient Oath, be tied, to do any thing that may tend to the violation or infringement of his former engagement; and if he have so ensnared himself, the obligation is, ipso facto, void and null. But,  
Propos. 8va, & ult. There is this eight and last Proposition. A man is bound in conscience, to reve●●, renounce and disclaim that, Which he was induced to engage himself by Oath, unlawfully to perform. For, an Oath, which is, Sacramentum pietatis, as it is in the mouths of all, cannot be vinculum iniquit at is, cannot be a bond of iniquity. No man can be, by any rash Oath, or any Oath whatsomever, engaged so, as to stand obliged, to do and perform that, which is in itself sinful and unlawful to be done; but 〈◊〉 bound in couscience to break that snare which was never a real, but merely a supposed Bond. Aquinas saith well, 2da, 2dae. quaest. 89. Jurans illicitum, peccat jurando, & peccat servando.  
Over and beyond all these, there are (I know) many other cases, in which, the person once engaged to act, may be disobliged from a necessary performance; as, when he pomises or swears, to perform somewhat impossible, and beyond his reach; De impossibilibus, enim, nemo tenetur, is the received maxim: or, when his condition is notably changed, from what it was, when first he entered the obligation; for then, some inevitable and remediless impediment, may obstruct the performance: and many suchlike useful Cases may be touched upon; but the Propositions already laid down, are the most Catholic or Universal and surest Landmarks, by which, we may examine the legality and bindingnesse, of whatever engagements; where they fail All, or any of them, the supposed Promise or Oath, doubtless, becomes void and frustrate; entangle us it may, in the Snares and Bonds of sinfulness, as the wise man calls them, Prov. 5. 22. but not oblige us to a necessary performance of the thing undertaken; not even then, when as we freely and voluntarily incur the snare, much less, when it is forced upon us (which is much to be adverted in our present disquiry) by an over-awing, prevailing Faction; This loosens and weakens the ty much, if superveening thus to other circumstances; for, Non potest id civium consensu factum censeri, quod ereptâ libertate fiat. Bodin. de rep. lib. 2. c. 5.  
And now, if our late Oaths, Covenants and Leagues, be squared according to these irrefragable rules above recorded; what bindingnesse or obligation may be found in them, will be easy to determine and resolve, by their impingence upon most of the forsaid Propositions: All these popular and tumultuary engagements, being in their very essence, combinations among factious Subjects, without and against the known will and consent of Supreme Authority, and that, not to ca●●y on or pursue laudbale and settled Laws, but (without all parallel) to reverse and repeal established and standing Laws, against the Royal Will of our Sovereign Lawgiver; and, therefore, in the judgement of the most rigid at this day, acknowledged to have had much sin in them, upon this very Score. Much might be said in discovery of the sinfulness and unlawfulness of these late Covenants and Oaths; not only in regard of their efficient Cause, as made by Subjects against the will of their Sovereign, in such things as necessarily required His consent: but further, in respect of their subject-matter, as being guilty of high injustice to the right of the King, both in the matter of combination without Him, and of conditional Allegiance to and preservation of Him, as also, the altering of Religion established by Law, without His consent; and as engaging, to accuse all Malignants (not accepting a man's own self) and to endeavour that all such, may be brought to punishment, without hope of mercy or pardon; binding also to pull down the established Church-Government, before agreement upon another; and every man to go before another in the example of Reformation, without either waiting for the Minister to direct, or Magistrates Authority to lead the way; then these, what can be more unjust? binding also to impossibilities; as, to defend and assist ALL that engage into these O●t●s; and never to offer their opinions to neutrality or indifferency: the very taking also of these Oaths, was, in fact, directly contradicent to the formal words thereof; for, whereas they swear to extirpate Schism and Faction and to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdoms and Authority of the King; The very taking and enforcing of these Oaths, being a vowed Schism from their Mother-Church, a sworn Faction against their more Loyal Neighbours, the greatest prejudice to the Liberties of the Kingdoms, the taking of these being destructive to all legal Public Liberties; and the highest contempt that could be offered to the King's Authority; as appeareth not only from what is abovesaid, but further in this, that some of these Oaths did engage, absolutely to preserve the power of Parliaments, but the King's Person and Authority with reservation; for this end (forsooth) that the world may judge of their Loyalty, and how they had no intention to diminish his just Power. But left this short word, by enlarging on these and such like peccancies of these late Covenant-Oaths, should swell into a volume; We shall forhear: Nor shall we speak of the unparalelled fraud and force, practised in imposing these Oaths, upon honest and well-meaning Subjects; neither of the grand imposturs, whereby factious and self-designing men, did speciously usher-in and drive-on, their own base carnal interests, under the colour of the interests of Jesus Christ, in our sadly-experienced late Tragedies: And shall briefly, draw a corrolary, from these above-specified Propositions, concerning the Point of Episcopal Government in this Church, and the s●eming obligation of the Subjects in this Land, by their Oaths and Vows, against it. And it is this. 1. That these Oaths, in the first place, were, in the judgement of many of the most Sober and Learned, simply sinful and unjust; upon the score of their tendency to the extirpation of that form of Church-Government, which they conceived to be of Divine Right and Institution; so that in order to all these, who were then, or are yet, of persuasion, that Episcopacyis, jure divino, these Oaths cannot be supposed to be any wise in point of conscience binding: And, sure, more may be said, for a Divine Right and Institution, of an imparity in degrees and even in office, among church-guide, and so, for Episcopacy, then can be, for any other Form, or Model of Church-Government in the World. But, Secondly, Passing this, and supposing only Episcopal Government to have been, upon the matter, indifferent; (as, I trust, the more modest, sober and moderate will readily acknowledge) then, for Subjects to engage by Covenants or Oaths, for the utter extirpation thereof, without the concurrence of Supreme Authority, nay, and against the consent and express will of the Sovereign Magistrate, and the established standing Laws of this Kingdom, of which, the King alone is the Fountain and Origine; Cum ipse sit author juris, ut Bracton. lib. 3. troth. 1. c. 9 And as another eminent in Law, saith well, Vita & caput & autoritas in Principe est, omnium, quae in republica agi solent. How sinful, then, must needs these Oaths and Engagements, have been? How contrary to the just Right of the Sovereign? (Who in Adiaphoris and indifferents, is acknowledged by all, to be Summus & Supremus Arbiter) and therefore how invalid and insufficient, as to obligation upon any, who have been ensnared by them; is obvious to every eye, that will not shut itself, against convincing light: How much, also, such are concerned hearty to homologat and close with His Majesti's Gracious Resolutions, in the present setlement of this long tossed Church; is as apparent. But, Thirdly, As to the most rigid, who (to the admiration of the truly Sober) would assert an intrinsecal unlawfulness and sinfulness, in Episcopal Government, however so well regulated; I say, that even their Oath for the Extirpation of Episcopal Government, cannot oblige even as to them; being that for private Subjects by themselves, to endeavour to establish or prefer any new Law, however so just and laudable in itself, or to reverse and rescind any standing Law, however so unjust and sinful, against or without the Sovereign's Will and Royal conse●●, is heinously sinful and rebellious, and in itself, and fine operis, plainly Anarchical and eversive of all Government whatsomever: and, I trust, no Oath to act rebellion, sin or Anarchy, will be supposed by any sober, to be binding, unless it be to a speedy and hearty repentance; so that even the Engagements and Oaths of those who are most rigid in this matter, were in themselves, beyond all contradiction, sinful; and therefore can in no ways be obligative even as to those: So that, upon what ever account else it may be, that it pleaseth some men zealously to engage against Episcopacy, in its present setlement and re-establishment, it cannot be upon the value of their Oath (as they would make simple people to believe, as if that were an indispensablety stressing their consciences) that being in its own nature, sinful (all combinations without Sovereign consent, being such, as themselves will now freely acknowledge) and therefore they cannot but see themselves in conscience obliged to reverse and mourn for these their sinful Oaths. And to deal a little freely, so much talking of Oaths, and indispensable Oaths, with the frequent threats of the danger of perjury, which have been so much thundered out, to fright well-meaning and tender Christians; cannot be looked upon by considering persons, but as so many methods and impostures to delude: whileas, even the most violent pressers of the bindingnesse of these Oaths against Episcopacy, do in their open professions and acknowledgements, renounce and disclaim the obligations of these Oaths, as to the combination and confederacy that is in them (confederacies and combinations among Subjects, upon what pretext soever, without special allowance and consent of the Supreme Magistrate, being, by themselves acknowledged to be sinful and rebellious) which yet is, if not, the very formalis ratio and essence of these ensnaring Covenant-Oaths, yet doubtless, the prime object and man foundation of them: whileas also they acknowledge the unbindingnesse of these same Oaths, as to conditional and reserved Allegiance, by undue and unwarrantable limitations and restrictions; and yet still press the Oath and its bindingnesse against Episcopal Government: and in a copulative Oath (such as these Oaths and Covenants acknowledge themselves to be) if the obligation, as to any one point, be dissolved and loosed, it can hardly be understood, how as to the whole or any other particular, there can be any more bindingnesse therein. What will the forsaid acknowledgements infer, being weighed in the balance of discerning men, but that, were it not, that the fear of incurring the censure and penalties of treason, did overawe; these Covenant-Oaths, etc. would be still vigorously asserted, to be as binding and obligative in point of combination, without and against the Sovereign Magistrate's consent; and in order to conditional and limited Allegiance, as they are said to be, in order to the point of Episcopacy. To dispense with these Oaths and Covenant-engagements in these great Points and Interests, and yet, still to set out the same as indispensable ties and Sacred inviolable Bonds, against Episcopal-Government; is not this handsomely to play the Pope? in dispensing in some more weighty, and binding consciences, in lighter concerns of one and the same copulative Oath: or is it not rather (as some observing persons, give it) to act the impostures, in imposing upon the People's easiness and credulity, for upholding of the tottering Diana of a Para-mount Power, some have so sinfully usurped, and so tyrannically practised▪ and are yet so unwilling to part with, left the power of this Church be recovered into those hands, out of which it was wrested by violence and injustice.  
And what a needless noise is it, that is so much raised by the zealous clamours of some, against Episcopacy; may it not be remembered, that it was declared, by the contrivers and abettors of the Covenant, in its first rise; that though they supposed Episcopacy to be against Law in Scotland, yet, they did not require any, by taking of the Covenant to abjure it, but that the practice of it should be forborn and the matter referred to a free General Assembly. See Ministers Answ. to the 4. dem. of the Doctors of Aberdene. And one would think that the edge of such preposterous zeal, might have been rather blunted then sharpened, by these last three and twenty years' exeperience. And is not Episcopacy a Government, which had its rise in the Apostles themselves, and by continual and universal succession; hath since, been still owned and practised by the Christian Church; as the continued succession of Bishops in the sees of Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist; in Jerusalem from James the Apostle; in Antioch from Peter etc. show, If historical credit may be given to such Worthies, as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Hierom, with many other grave and famous Ecclesiastic Writers; in so much, that ●●●tus, for affirming a Bishop not to be above a single Presbyter, was generally reputed by the Christian World for thirteen hundred years together, as well in the Eastern as Western Church, for a downright Heretic: a Government which hath been still owned in the Church of Scotland, when Order and Government did overtop Faction and Interest, and ever still, till Seditions, Tumults, Insurrections and Rebellions did go current for Discipline and Order: And in a word, a Government, which by the universal consent of the Churches of Christendom, both in Asia, afric, Grece, Russia, and other parts of Europe, that never acknowledged any subjection to, or dependence upon the See of Rome, hath been constantly embraced, and the Opugners of it generally branded for Heretics; which of all other Forms hath undoubted the best Title to Divine or Apostolical Institution; against which nothing is, or ever could be, objected, but the humane infirmities and personal failings of some particular men, from which no Government is or can be totally exempted and privileged; which, in the most of these few Churches who want it (some whereof are under the want of Bishops, because they cannot tell how to come by them, their Princes being of a different Religion, and so will allow none but of their own; others there be, who are willingly without them, because settled in such a Government, as they find most suitable to a Popular State, and dare not venture upon a change; all others enjoying the felicity of Episcopal Government, either the thing and name both, or else the thing under another name, viz. Superintendents, Inspector's, &c. by their best and ablest Ministers, hath been frequently desired. Our practice, sure, is without all parallel, in that never did we read of any Church, before a misleading Faction in this our Church of Scotland, that ever turned out their Bishops (if they were of the same Religion) vowing to root them out by the Sword, contrary to the command of the Supreme Lawful Magistrate. So that we must needs accuse all the World besides ourselves, of folly, Antichristianism and ignorance, or then resolve to forbear our peevish quarrelings against this Government of the Church by Bishops, to which through God's Mercy, and His Majesty's care, this broken Church is again restored. To all the former it may be added, that in all the Bible it is not to be sound, that the power either of Ordination of Jurisdiction, ever was exercised by a singl. Presbytery (yea, and it is none of the least of doubts, whether there be mention of any judicial consistory of single Presbyters simpliciter pares, in all Sacred Writ) without delegation from, and in a dependence upon a Superior Power, residing in a single person. If then, the design of some Zelots against Episcopacy, may not seem to have worse at the bottom, and do not tend to lead Subjects into misconstructions of His Majesty's Gracious Intentions, let the impartial, determine. So that, to draw towards a conclusion, we may see, how contrary such Oaths and Vows are to the duty which good Subjects, by virtue of their relation, and as Subjects, they own to their Sovereign; how contrary to due Allegiance; how obstructive and repugnant, to the performance, of the great moral duty of obedience, due by Subjects to Supreme Authority, and the established Laws thereof; as also, how inconsistent with the welfare of the Church, and State we live in; and consequently how sinful, is easy to discern by comparing these Oaths, etc. with the irrefragable Propositions, above set down.  
And therefore, if any (according to our last Proposition) good Subject or Subjects, have been drawn, by any pretence, persuasion or force whatsomever to bind himself by Oath or Covenant against Episcopal Government, which was, and now again is established by Law; he hath not sworn in justice, but engaged himself to the certain prejudice of His Sovereign's just Right, by a sinful combining with private Subjects against His Authority, to the doing of many things contrary to established Law, and (which is most impious) by endeavouring to introduce the form of a Solemn Oath upon a matter so incapable of, and indisposed for such a Form; if any, I say, hath been thus engaged, he is obliged, in duty and conscience to disclaim, reverse and renounce his said act; otherwise, beside the horrid scandal which he shall draw upon the Reformed Religion, he doth run himself upon the breach of the third Command, by making his Oath, a bond of iniquity. And for the further satisfaction, of the satisfiable; it may ponderate, that the power imposing these Oaths, was originally invalid and naught; and where the fountain is corrupt, the streams issuing thence, can by no means run clear, Nam quod deest in causa deest in effectu; and therefore, what is done in virtue of such invalid power, can scarce amount to right or lawful; as grounded upon such a rotten Basis of pretended Authority. And, which ought exceedingly to stisfie Subjects, in their dis-obligation from these ensnaring ties, Our Father, I mean, Pater Patriae, without whose consent, no vow or engagement of the child is obligative, as we may see, Numb. 30. 4, 5, &c, that a Virgin or a Wise making a vow without consent of the Father or Husband, is dis-obliged therefrom, if the Husband or Father hearing of the vow, do disallow thereof; and, we being, in a moral sense, as much at the dispose of the King, the Father of the Country, the Civil Father of us all, if not more than Children at the dispose of their natural Parents, whileas the vows foresaid are dispensed and irritate by Him, they can be no more binding ties to us, (suppose them otherwise lawful) and we, His diffent being any ways signified to us, are disobliged and no more bound, but may forgo these vows; and in our so doing, the Lord will forgive us, as it is in Numb. 30. 6. forgive us, not for that we renounce these Vows, that being duty; but for our rash or cowardish engagement in them, without due consent, that being our sin.  
If it be said, that, our Civil Father, His Majesty His consent was indulged to these Engagements, which may therefore be still supposed to be binding, To this it is replied. First, This doth not take away the unlawfulness of any of these Oaths and Vows, which were undertaken, antecedently to any Royal and Authoritative consent thereto procured; so that such who before that before-alleged consent, did engage in these combinatory Oaths, did therein heinously sin, so that these are thereby obliged to nothing but Repentance; The first Swearing and Covenanting at least, being rebellious and sinful. But, Secondly, Any Royal consent that ever was procured or granted, was a violented, coacted consent, and therefore, in Law, to be looked upon by all honest Subjects, as a non-consent, coactus enim consensus, nullus; so that the Princes involuntary and constrained yielding and ceding to a prevailing Faction, affords and lays no just title or ground of obligation, no not upon Himself, in the exterior Court, much less upon His Subjects: N●m, ex actione involuntaria, non nascitur, obligatio. reg. juris. vid. cod. hb. 2. tit. 20. And then, Thirdly, That supposed consent of our present Sovereign, is obvious to the eye of all the World, to have been forced and coacted; He being by a Faction in this Kingdom, at that time, most undutifully, and disloyally kept, as a Noble Prisoner, rather than a free King, and by them violented, to give colour of life to these things, which in their very nature did bereave Sovereignty of its breath: and therefore that consent is now repealed, as appeareth from His Majesty's present Resolutions, and His High and Honourable Council, their Proclamation, of the date September, 1661. relating to Church-Government. So that hence no show of any title of obligation, as to these Vows and Oaths, doth affect the Subjects, but rather to the contrary; His diffent being of equal force to disoblige, as His consent is, to ty or oblige.  
And now, by this time, I trust, it doth appear, that for any stiffly to oppose the setlement of this Church by Episcopacy, is so unwarrantable; that none who hath any sense of Religion to God, of charity to their Mother-Church, or of grateful duty to their Gracious King, will presume to justify; and, if any will prove so peevish; Subjects, I trust, know better how to value Peace, being so harrassed and spoiled by the late intestine Divisions, then to be so easily engaged again, to devote that little blood and treasure which remains, to the sinful and ambitious lusts of a few men whom, though our King and this Kingdom were not able to call to an account, (which yet they may find) yet there is a God in heaven, who seethe all their hearts, and will one day, judge and be avenged of all such their sinful actions.  
By what is said, men may see, at any time, how weak the cords of an unlawful Oath, Vow, or Engagement are and how little they bind, save only to Repentance, and that for their unadvised rashness, if spontaneously undertaken, and for their cowardice, if through fear, submitted to. By this also it may appear to how little purpose, men make use of these ties and fetters, that bind not in truth, but only ensnare; like to those cords wherewith Samson was bound, and as easily upon occasion broken asunder; being, that there wants a twisting-in of these conditions required in the Propositions premised, to strengthen and confirm them: nay, so far are they, from holding fast the person Engaged, that upon a due back-search and examination, they help to set him loser; when as he shall seriously bethink himself of the guilt and burden of sin he yet lies under; Nam tolerabilius est promissum non facere quod turpe, est. Ambros. de offic. lib. 3. cap. 12. no other way of escape, then, but by a speedy cancelling of the obligation.  
Briefly, and to conclude this short word, for satisfaction (in which we have appeared, upon no other incentives, but, of conscience, of Loyalty, and of zeal for order and beauty, in this our Mother-Church) of the Scrupulous; Where the Promise or Oath, both for matter and manner, is rightly undertaken; we cannot be too anxious and solicitons in keeping of it, so Matth. 5. 33. Religiose observa juramentum: was one of Pythagoras, his first lessons to his Disciples; yea, God himself, hath vouchsased it a room, within the catalogue of his most glorious titles, of being faithful, and keeping Covenant: otherwise, where fraud or force, with the like, shall happen to interpose, and withal, the matter, in many respects above-specified, be injustifiable; concerning such an obligation, when, or wheresoever undertaken; the best resolution, in my humble opinion, is, that it is ill taken and worse kept; nay, and is of itself void from the beginning, and binds to nothing, but, what I hearty wish, all may find in the end, REPENTANCE.  
FINIS.   

Si quis necessitate coactus juraverit, pignusve posuerit, quo is ad insidias Domino suo parandas, vel ●pem, injuste cuivis ferendam, adstringitur, resiliat potius quam quo coepit, insistat, suademus. L L. Alured. c. 1.  
Consilium, prudensque animi sententia jurat, Et nisi judicii, vincula nulla tenent.