THE EQVITY Of the Solemn LEAGVE and COVENANT JUSTIFIED, Against an Infectious and Libellous Pamphlet: ENTITLED, THE INIQUITY Of the late Solemn League and Covenant Discovered.  
As it was lately sent from Oxford: and intercepted by the way to London.  
Written by way of Caution to all those who either have or shall read the said dangerous Paper.  
Printed for john Field. 1644.   

THE EQVITY OF THE SOLEMN LEAGVE and COVENANT JUSTIFIED.  
IT being my fortune to meet with a frivolous and groundless pamphlet, penned as by the Title appears, on purpose to traduce the Equity and Justness of our Sacred Solemn League and Covenant, and to poison the People with a misunderstanding thereof: And being informed that many of the papers were by Malignants and other ill Members procured and dispersed abroad by stealth, and in a clandestine way: I thought myself bound by the duty I own unto God, and the public obligations of this Covenant, wherein I have a peculiar interest, to take in hand to answer it, and remove those scruples, and ill-contrived stumbling-blocks, which are cast in the way of those which have not as yet come in, and subscribed to this holy Covenant.  
I will not at all take notice of the bitterness of the Traitorous and Seditious preamble, which sufficiently sets forth the Constitution of the Author. But considering that Oxford is the place from whence it came (where all their Doctrine is railing) I purposely pass it by, and will in a facile moderate way, betake myself to the ground work of the business.  
It is pretended to be written to a gentleman of his own party now in Durance, which desired satisfactiun upon the point, who was intended to take the Covenant, as a means to procure his liberty; which before he absolutely resolved upon, he desires information from this dangerous Counsellor, who tells him, if his resolution and advice may in time be herad, it stands this upon these two points.  

I. That no man can with a safe Conscience enter this Covenant by reason of the gross and palpable Iniquity of the Contents thereof.  
II. That he who through his own ignorance and cunning of others, hath been seduced, or by their threats and menaces forced, or by any other means brought to enter this Covenant with them, is not bound to the performance of the Contents, but having by the taking of it, contracted their guilt of a grievous sin, it bond to a speedy repentance for the same.   
These were notable convincing points indeed, if they were proved: But he cares not for the reality of proof, so he may reduce his arguments to some specious frame; for the main scope, or end, which he pretends to by reasoning upon these two points, is set down in these two particulars.  
First, In the resolving and keeping a good conscience (as he styles it) in the refusal of this Covenant, by reason of the gross and palpable Iniquity of the contents thereof.  
Secondly, For the recovery of the Conscience ensnared by entering this Covenant, wherein is considered the not binding of it, if taken; which particulars, if thou canst make good, Tu Dominus, Tu vir, Tu mihi frater eris: I shall most willingly Subscribe.  
Thus far we have a fair porch to the building, and which might take any man at the first fight: But let us now make entry, and see what furniture we can find within to entertain a man's understanding.  
He proceeds to frame Objections against the several Articles of the Covenant. And the first thing he excepts against, is, that we are bound to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy, and Church-Government by, Archbishop's Bishops, etc. By the first and second Articles; and not only so, but really and constantly to endeavour the same. Now he bids him see the Iniquity of this.  
Object. 1. First, he says, here is sedition: Subjects entering into a Covenant for a change of established government, without and against their Sovereign's Command and Authority.  
Answ. I answer, that this is not done against the Authority of our Sovereign, but this covenanting against Prelacy, is ordained, and entered upon, by those who have Sovereign Authority communicated unto them from the King in Parliament, and by them it is commended unto the People to be sworn against, as a government inconsistent with the good of the Kingdoms. Out of what Laws Divine, or Civil and Nationall, do you read, that an Act of the grand Estates of a Kingdom lawfully convened, may be called sedition.  
Object. 2. Secondly, he says, Here is injustice to fellow-subjects: Subjects entering a Covenant, and binding themselves to do notorions wrong and injury to others; that is, to extirpate a company of men, whose Function is of Apostolical institution, and hath continued in this Land from the first receiving of the Christian Faith; whose immunities also, and privileges, are undeniably; most ancient and legal in this Kingdom.  
Answ. 1. First, I answer, That it could never be proved yet (though there have been many papers vented pretending the probation of it) that so much as regulated Episcopacy, was of Apostolical institution, muchless Prelacy an order of a higher strain, with all its Hierachicall Appurtenances, both of them being held in the opinion of the most and best Protestants unquestionable and obvious to all men, to be but of humane institution.  
Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer: Be it granted that their immunities and privileges are ancient and legal within this Kingdom; yet you must remember, that those immunities and privileges were at first conferred upon them by the favour and indulgence of the State, in those days of the growing greatness of the Clergy, why then may not the same power of the State, in the ancient and legal Court of Parliament, derived to their successors, now lawfully assembled, with as much reason deprive them of those immunities, together with their greatness, which have proved undeniably so prejudicial to the Kingdom.  
Answ. 3. Thirdly, I answer, that our covenanting to extirpate Prelacy cannot be called injustice, nor injury to our fellow-subjects by the same reason also: Because the abolition of those accidental privileges, the fruitful parents' of so many intolerable exorbitances, is agreed upon by the Supreme Court of Justice, the representative Body of the Nation, which of itself is sufficient to annul the Hierarchy; but because Authority is of little availment, without the addition of forcible power in times of difficulty, opposition & rebellion of desperate Incendiaries; therefore it was necessary that the loyal party of the Land should be engaged by Covenant, to defend the Parliament in the prosecution of their most just proceed, to redress the grievances of the Subject, of which, Prelacy is not the least, as also, for the chastizing of Delinquents; And how is it possible that this Prelatical government should be convenient for a State or Kingdom: whereas,  

1. They have been burdensome in all ages, what opposites in England have they been to our Kings, till their interests were changed?  
2. Secondly, all reformed Churches have expelled them, as incompatible with Reformation.  
3. Thirdly, they have set three Kingdoms together by the ears, which now lie weltering in their own blood.  
4. Fourthly, experience now shows, there is no inconvenience in their want, either in Scotland or England.   
Object. 3. The third Objection is, that here is sacrilege, in spoiling them, or a Church rather, of those possessions and interests, which beside the right of dedication, do by as good Law and Title belong to them, as any Liberty and possession doth to other Subjects.  
Answ. Be it granted, that the right of their possessions hold good by Law; yet when their Order and Function shall be disannulled by Law, there must be a necessity of disposing their Revenues otherwise, to the benefit of the Church, and so the end of the dedication being kept, by disposing them to that use whereto they were at first intended, it were vain and foolish to call this sacrilege and spoiling of the Church.  
Object. 4. The fourth and last objection against the first and second Articles of the Covenant is, that here is rebellion with the greatest impiety: Subjects endeavouring this by force of Arms (as it will appear by the sixth Article, they that Covenant bind themselves to do) that is to compel your Sovereign to such an extirpation and spoiling, against which he is bound by the Law of God, and by express oath, and cannot be released of that oath, without their consent to whom he makes it, viz. those that must here be extirpated and spoiled.  
Answ. 1. First I answer, that here is neither Rebellion, nor impiety in the least kind, to endeavour the extirpation of those by Arms, which have been the main cause of this present war against the Parliament, and enemies to Reformation; with whom, because the King is now there in person, being seduced by evil Councillors, and such as have a design to alter our Religion, invade our Liberties, and bring in Popery; therefore we shall not defend ourselves, our Religion and Liberties, nor labour to deliver the King from them, but you will say, we Covenant to compel His Majesty to that which in conscience he cannot do, that is, to extirpate prelacy; which brings me to my second answer.  
Answ. 2. Secondly I answer, that no oath is to be observed, but in licitis & honestis, so fare forth as the matter sworn to is approved and found lawful; and it holds good in Divinity, that such oaths as are not lawful, are rather to be repent of, then persisted in. But upon politic considerations there needs not any repentance, where the same power which ordained the things sworn to, doth after the manifest inconvenience of it, with the present constitution of public affairs, ordain also the abolishment thereof: for then the obligation becomes altogether invalid, and in no wise binding to the swearer: And therefore it is frivolous to say that the King cannot be released of such an oath as he hath taken to maintain Prelacy, unless the Prelates give consent; when at the best (to use the Language of the learned Exhortation to the taking of the Covenant) their whole government is but a humane constitution, and such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament: (in which the judgement of the whole Kingdom is involved and declared) not only very prejudicial to the civil State, but also a great hindrance to the perfect Reformation of Religion.  
His second exception is against the fourth Article, whereby he says, he which enters this Covenant doth profess, that he allow all those which adhere to His Majesty in this cause, should be esteemed, and proceeded against, as Malignants, Incendiaries, and as in the first Article they are set out, common enemies: Also by the same, fourth Article he binds himself to discover all such, that they may be brought to punishment.  
Object. Now he tells him that the iniquity of this appears by what was said upon the former Articles; but more especially by the duties unto which the Oaths of Supremacy and allegiance bind all Subjects, viz. the assisting of His Majesty against all attempts, and the discovering unto Him all conspiracies, duties contrary to what is undertaken here.  
Answ. I answer, that it is great equity and reason, that those now about his Majesty, which have involved him in this war, and are declared and known to be Incendiaries and Malignants, and the common Enemies of the Kingdom, should be discovered and proceeded against thereafter; and that the equity of that Article may further appear, the intent of it is the very same with those, in the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, viz. The assisting of his Majesty against attempts, and the discovering of conspiracies; which doth not only evidence the equity, but also the seasonablnesse of this Covenant, being taken in such a time, when there are so many attempts, practices and conspiracies in hand by a desperate party of Cavaliers against Religion, and the Kingdom; the greatest of which attempts is absolutely against his Majesty, though it seem otherwise, by engageing his Person in a bloody and strange war.  
Object. The third exception taken, is concerning a clause in the third Article, for preserving and defending the King's Majesty's Person, and Authority, without any thought or intention of diminishing his just power and greatness; And all which he hath to say against it, is this: That though he which enters this Covenant, may think this clause to be just and fair, yet is it indeed a fearful collusion and mocking of God, there being nothing more against his Majesty's authority and power, than the intent and pursuit of this Covenant.  
Answ. All the answer which I shall give to this, is, that it is but his say so, and I shall refer the impartial Reader, to my former answers.  
Object. His fourth exception is against the fifth Article; and he objects, that he which enters this Covenant, doth bind himself by that Article, to endeavour the continuance of peace between the two Kingdoms, which, according to the intent of this Covenant, he must do, by joining with those who have actually broken the Pacification, and in pursuit of this Covenant, invaded this Kingdom, which is also a fearful collusion and macking of God.  
Answ. I answer, that it is absurd to say, that the Pacification between the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland is broken by this Covenant, when both the Kingdoms by an unanimous consent, are joined in this holy League for the mutual defence and preservation of each others peace; and with as little reason may it be called an Invasion, or a collusion and mocking of God: For it is monstrous to conceive that any men should affirm that ratification to be broken, when the persons ratifying do jointly prosecute the preservation of it, by virtue of this Covenant, with all earnestness and alacrity, which is manifested at this day by an ample testimony of the full and free concurrence of the Bodies of both Nations.  
The fifth exception taken, is against the sixth Article; because he that enters this Covenant doth profess by the sixth Article, that he allows and approoves the Assisting and defending of all those, that take this Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof, against all opposition, and lets or impediments whatsoever; and by the same Article binds himself really and constantly, to endeavour the same to his power, without giving himself to a detestable neutrality in this cause, or making a defection to the contrary part.  
Object. Now see, says he, the iniquity of this Article, which so plainly speaks the language of desperate Rebellion, that he which Covenants with them, doth by this Article bind himself to endeavour by force of Arms, to compel his Sovereign to the Reformation pretended by this Covenant, and doth, as much as in him lies, cut himself off from returning to his Duty and Obedience, which is here called, a defection to the contrary part.  
Answ. I answer, that by this you may see the Iniquity of the Author, and the desperate sense he makes use of to misinform the Gentleman he wrote unto. The Equity of the Article is apparent; That there should be a firm adhering to this Covenant and continuance in his same, notwithstanding all opposition, contradiction, or dissuasion to the contrary whatsoever. All the people stood to the Covenant, 2 King. 23.4. This was josiah his care not only for himself, but for all the people; He made all that were found in judeth and Benjamin to stand to it, so all his days they turned not bacl from the Lord God of their Fathers, 2 Chron. 34.32, 33. But as for that slander of compelling our Sovereign by force of Arms to a Reformation; I answer, that it is not properly to compel him, but rather to expel those from him, which are enemies to Reformation, and in time would approve themselves so unto him also, if not resisted by his faithful Subjects, and compel him to enact what themselves please; which, what it would be if considered, is enough to engage all true Christian hearts against them: And therefore they are bound to this Covenant by that duty, obedience, and loyty which they own unto their Sovereign his Crown and dignity, and the welfare of the Kingdoms, without defection to the contrary part.  
Object. His last Exception is against a clause in the sixth Article, That he which enters this Covenant, doth profess that he approves, and binds himself to all the premises in the Articles, as to that which much concerns the glory of God, the good of the Kingdoms, and the honour of the King: and this he says is to fill up the measure, and to mock God Almighty to his face.  
Answ. I answer, Let all men judge how unreasonable and hellish a slander this is, and observe with what wresting these black characters of a false Comment, are here brought in under pretence of writing information to a Gentleman, to defame the genuine, and innocent sense of a glorious Covenant.  
Thus I have done with the first particular of his discouse, which pretended to prove a necessity of refusing this Covenant, by a false imputation of gross and palpable Iniquity upon the contents thereof. Now I shall proceed to the second particular, pretending to prove a necessity of repenting of it, if once taken.  
If he could have proved the premises, than the Conclusion would have followed more current, for I grant what he says, That the matter and intent of any Covenant being unlawful, it cannot bind to performance, no more than Herod's oath did bind him to proceed to execution, Matth. 14. or the great curse under which the forty Conspirators, Act. 23. combined themselves to make an end of Paul, could indeed oblige them to performance; But the former point being not proved, the sense of the Covenant being rather defamed and traduced, then controverted justly; This latter point grounded upon the former, must of necessity fall of itself, and therefore it needs not an answer, running altogether ex falsa Hypothesi, upon a false supposition of Iniquity in the Covenant which is not as yet proved, nor can it be by the jesuits, and jesuited impugners at Oxford. If they can furnish us with some convincing Arguments in this way, I myself who am a Covenanter, will not speedily repent of it, but also persuade others: but till than you must pardon me.  
Now in relation to the latter part of his discourse, I shall only give you notice that the frame of it is grounded upon a false insinuation,  
Object. That this Covenant doth contrary the Oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and that the judges here took it with this reservation: as thus, I take this Covenant so far forth as it doth not contrary the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. But,  
Answ. 1. First, I answer with the words of the learned exhortation to the taking of the Covenant, that this Covenant is so far from crossing the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, that ●t binds all, and more strongly engageth them to preserve, and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms.  
Answ. 2. I answer that the judges took it without any such reservation he speaks of, or any other at all.  
But this latter part need no answer (in regard as I said before) of the grounding it upon a false supposition of the illegality and injustness of this Covenant, which is not as yet proved: And therefore I advise all to take heed both of the former and the latter, and to weigh the former objections with the answers impartially and seriously, not as men fore-armed with prejudicated opinions but as those that desire sincerely to be informed of the necessity and excellency of this holy Covenant.  
The Apostle Peter speaks of Paul's writing, that in them some things are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned, and unstable, wrist, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 2. Epist. chap. 3. vers. 16. But here on the contrary, though the text of this Covenant be easy to be understood, we see that some (who at lest think themselves) learned, and who are not only stable but stiffened (as most of the Oxford party are) in their own erroneous principles and opinions, will be trying their skill (or rather malice) to wrest or (as the Greek word streblousi imparts) to torture and set this Covenant upon the rack, to make it speak, and confess a sense never intended by the composers, or proposers of it: And whereof (if but common ingenuity be the judge) it never will, nor can be found guilty: But at this time, I shall say no more to the Author of this base, injurious paper, but that in the close of the verse quoted from the Apostle Peter; Let him take heed such wresting as this be not to his own destruction.  
Thus I hope in answering this virulent Pamphlet, I have given the Readers some insite into the matter of this holy League & Covenant, according to the sincere aim of those that made it; Take it then Reader and swear to it: Who but an Atheist can refuse the first Article? Who but a Papist the second: who but an oppressor, or Rebel the third? Who but the guilty the fourth? Who but men of no fortune, desperate Caviliers the fifth (Who but light and empty men, unstable as water the sixth? In a word the duty is such that God hath ordained, the matter is such as God approveth, and the consequence will be such as God hath promised, the accomplishment of our peace and happiness in this life, and the final consummation of it in that which is to come.  
This is Licenced and entered according to Order.  
FINIS.