THE COVENANTERS PLEA AGAINST absolver's.  
Or, a MODEST DISCOURSE, SHOWING Why those who in England & Scotland took The Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their Consciences discharged from the Obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the OXFORD MEN; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others.  
In which also several Cases relating to PROMISORY OATHS, and to the said COVENANT in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, Reason, and the joint Suffrages of Casuists. Contrary to the indigested Notions of some late Writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. SANDERSON.  
Written out by THEOPHIIUS TIMORCUS a Wellwisher to Students in Casuistical Divinity.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Menander. 
LONDON, Printed for T. B. and are to be Sold in Westminster Hall and Paul's Churchyard. 1661.   

The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes, etc. Chap. 14. upon the Covenant.  
As things now stand, good men shall least offend God or me, by keeping their Covenant, by good and lawful means, since I have the Charity, to think, that the chief End of the Covenant in such men's Intentions, was to preserve Religion in Purity, and the Kingdom in Peace.   

To the Honourable The COMMONS Assembled in the PARLIAMENT of England. More especially Such as serve for the Western Parts, and for the several Burroughs in Cornwall.  
Honourable Senators!  
§. 1. THE Name of a God hath ever been esteemed so sacred, the Reverence of Oaths so great, and the sin of Perjury so infamous, even amongst those who knew not God, but knew by nature the things contained in his Law, that if any man speaks at an advantage to his brother, he may promise himself the highest improvements of it, who pleads, that the holy Name of the Lord may not be profaned, that the highest security for men's saith, may not be violated, and that the guilt of Perjury may not be incurred.  
§. 2. This (Noble Senators) is the argument of the following sheets, and we think ourselves happy that we shall speak for our God, and for our own souls before you, touching all the things whereof we are accused; and touching a most sacred Oath which we have taken, with the highest Solemnities that ever attended any public action; especially because we know that many of your souls are bound in the same Bond with us, and that ourselves were brought into it by that Authority which God hath now devolved into your hands, and that you are expert in all customs and questions, which relate to the English Laws and Liberties, and we know also, that you believe the Scriptures; We beseech you therefore to hear us patiently.  
§. 3. We fear the great and living God, who hath said, You shall not swear by my Name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God: Having therefore at the Command of Lords and Commons Assembled in-Parliament, Anno 1643, 1644. lift up our hands unto God, and sworn; that we would endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, that is, the Government of the Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, and other Officers depending upon that Hierarchy; we cannot go back, either by endeavouring to build what we have destroyed, or by any positive owning of any such Ecclesiastical Authority; though we acknowledge ourselves obliged by all sacred Bands, to be actively obedient both to the King as Supreme, and likewise to the Parliament, in all things where he who is higher than the Highest, hath not by his Command superseded such our Allegiance, and where the salvation of our immortal souls is not hazarded: And (which God forbidden) if any thing of that nature (should by any mistake) be commanded by you, we humbly acknowledge it our duty (without any thoughts of rebelling against you) to exercise our Faith and Patience, in suffering what shall be imposed upon us, committing the cause of our souls to him who judgeth righteously.  
§. 4. For our Consciences in this thing (most noble Senators!) are we this day called in question, and judged for what we do in obedience (as we humbly conceive) to the holy Law of God: For this Conscience sake in reference to our Oath, are we accused by our Brethren.  
§. 5. Out of the Conscience of that Oath it was, that many of yourselves have suffered and done many things, both in opposition to the late usurpations of Government, and for the restoring of his most Sacred Majesty; you have not also wanted Companions in your Sufferings, from our inferior Orb, where many have been found, who that they might keep their souls clear from so high a guilt, as that of Perjury, have not only been content, to deny themselves advantages of preferment, but to suffer the loss of Life, Livelihood, Liberty, to be Exiles in a strange Land, and to forsake whatsoever hath been dear to them.  
§. 6. We are now told (Right Honourable) that all your and our Sufferings upon this account were in vain, for the Oath of God, which we so reverence, was ab initio null and void; That the matter of it was sinful and unlawful, seditious, schismatical, That the power imposing it, was unlawful, the design of it, Rebellion and Faction, that it was a forced Oath, etc.  
§. 7. We know, and are assured, that this cannot be the sense of your Honours concerning it: For whose were the Votes and Ordinances, by which our souls were engaged in that Sacred Bond? Certainly by the men whose these were, our Consciences are with child with this Oath, and we have so reverend thoughts of your Honour's charity, that you will so far contribute to our safe delivery, that we shall not die for want of that help which you can give us.  
§. 8. Yet because not only our private Honour, but the Honour also of the English Parliament and Nation are (as we humbly conceive) deeply concerned, in our vindication as to this Point, we have thought it our duty, to lay at your Honour's feet a just Apology for ourselves, and for the Oath which at the command of some of your Honours, we have taken; together with our PLEA, in vindication of the Parliament of England, from that Irreligion, which some have charged upon them, in imposing an Oath contrary to the Law of God; that Ignorance which others charge them with, for commanding an Oath contrary to the Laws of the Nation; yea, from that want of common sense, which others impute to them in the contrivement of an Oath so full of contradictions, both to former Oaths, and within itself, that (forsooth) it must needs be felo de se, and die, if not by the wounds of former Obligations, yet by the ill-favoured hands of its own nonsense or self contradiction.  
§. 9 As to our concernment (most noble Patriots) upon whom the ends of the time of Reformation are come, we are not so much concerned now to inquire, whether the imposing and taking of that Covenant, at first, were lawful yea or no? Our Question is, Whether we having taken it, are not now bound to keep it? The most therefore of Dr. Featly's and the Oxford Reasons against the Covenant, signify nothing to our present case. Dr. Gawden's late Arguments signify as little, many of them were considerable before the taking of the Covenant, but argue insufficiently for the violation or irritation of it; but as to that Point, are clearly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 10. It is agreed by the eminently Learned and Reverend Dr. Sanderson and all Casuists, That an Oath may be unlawful respectu rei juratae, 
De Jur. prom. prael. 2. Sect. 14.  or respectu actus jurandi; with respect to the thing sworn, (i. e. the matter of it) or in respect of the Act of swearing; What Oath soever a man takes (unlawful in the first sense) doth not oblige; But an Oath unlawful in the second sense, when once taken, doth oblige. Our question is not about the lawfulness of taking the Covenant, but the necessity of keeping of it, by such as have no desire to seal up their souls to damnation, and sacrifice their honour to a reproach before the world. For, Perjurii poena divina est exitium, humana dedecus (saith Tully.)  
§. 11. Dr. Gawden, and one Mr. Rowland have expressly spoken (or at least pretended to speak) to the true question, but with what success, the first hath done it, will be discerned by that excellent Answer which Mr. Crofton hath given him, which might have superseded any further pains, if there had been no cause to add something to some Pleas made or further improved by others, and to second Mr. Crofton with the Suffrages of Casuists, and especially, of Dr. Sanderson in the case; and for the other, we judge him not worthy our notice.  
§. 12. It was Augustine's opinion, that although Pelagius was fully answered, yet every one should write against such a common enemy of the Gospel. It is our Opinion, that those who any ways contribute, to bring souls under the dreadful guilt of swearing falsely,, are such common enemies to Christianity, yea to mankind (an Oath being the common security of the Sons of men) that those who go about to invalidate it, having their hands against all men, deserve to have all men's hands against them; as doing that which is not pleasing to God, and contrary to all men.  
§. 13. We cannot but admire the Religion of our Late Famous Sovereign, Ch. the First, a man of much sorrow and Afflictions, and to whom it was continually suggested, that the Covenanting Party of the Nation were the Causers of them (though indeed some of the Prelates were the true and proper cause, by exasperating his Subjects, by their illegal and enormous actions) yet in the midst of these sufferings, he is found thus speaking in his Meditations upon the Covenant:  
As things now stand, 
〈…〉 pag 86.  good men shall least offend God or me, by keeping their Covenant in good and lawful ways; since I have the Charity to think, that the chief end of the Covenant in such men's intentions, was to preserve Religion in purity, and the Kingdoms in peace.  
§. 14. By which expression, not only your Honours, and all sober men may judge, what an insufficient Plea in conscience they bring, to absolve us from the Covenant, who plead his Majesty's dissent at first declared, and afterwards continued, as to the imposing of it upon others: But you may also discern, that his Sacred Majesty had more Charity, for those of your Honours, who took that Covenant, than our late absolver's have, who can see no end in the giving or taking of it, but Faction and Rebellion, and we know not what: As also that his Majesty had more Godly jealousy for the souls of his people engaged in it, that they might not be destroyed by Perjury, than some late Casuists, whose proper Office it should be to watch over souls. The Lord lay not their sin to their charge.  
§. 15. But (Right Honourable) above all things that they talk, there is nothing (considered as a Reproach) more intolerable unto us, or (considered as an Argument) more ridiculous to all that shall hear of it, than what they urge (in order to the absolution of their credulous Proselytes) from the high presumptions of those, who having engaged in the same Covenant with us, so horridly violated the Oath of God, in the murder of his Majesty (of Glorious Memory) etc.  
§. 16. His Majesty (in the midst of his Exile) was pleased (in his Instructions to him who is now Lord Chancellor) when he was sent Ambassador for him into Spain, to do the Nation of England that Justice, as to declare those Actions, 〈◊〉 Actions only of an inconsiderable Faction of Miscreants; and your Honours have been pleased to take 〈◊〉 of his Majesty's justice in it; as likewise (in your first 〈◊〉 to his Majesty) to declare, That if the Parliament (the Covenant-imposing Parliament) had not been broken by a mutinous Army, those things could never have been done. Our Brethren know, that divers of those who took the Covenant, sacrificed their lives unto death, in opposition to the violaters of the Covenant: That for their adherence to it, the House of Lords was broken up, 200 Members of the House of Commons were secluded, that of those who remained, the number was very few, that consented to those horrid actions; that our Brethren of Scotland offered their lives and liberties in that Sacrifice; that the Ministry of England openly declared against it, to that height which caused the ruin of some of them, & made their whole Party odious to the Usurpers, and such as they would never own or trust: And therefore we cannot but think it a great want of Truth and Charity in our Brethren, to charge those things so generally upon the Covenanting Party of the Nation; who (we humbly conceive) have done more in order to the Ends of the Covenant, relating to his Majesty's Concernments, in the day wherein the Covenant was to be pleaded on their behalf, than any of those did, who now are so free to lay these things to their charge.  
§. 17. It is a piece of new Divinity to us, that if five hundred take an Oath, and five of them violate it, the rest are all absolved from the Obligation of it: Yet the disproportion is far greater betwixt those who took that Covenant, and those who so violated it, both as to their number and quality.  
§. 18. The Oath of God (Right Honourable) is upon us, and we are afraid because of it; we have sworn to endeavour the Reformation of the Church of God in England, in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, according to the example of the word of God, & the best Reformed Churches: To endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy: If this Oath be Obligatory, we cannot break it, without the highest presumption of wickedness, and therefore must be Sufferers under the old Constitution of Ecclesiastical Government, and Forms of Worship in England, if it be restored. We know your Honours will be tender of enforcing any to suffer for Conscience sake; and therefore humbly beg, that you would weigh our Answers to the slighty and Atheological Pleas of those who pretend to prove the Covenant void and not obligatory: What they say, appears to us to be against Scripture, Reason, and the judgement of all sober Casuists, and we believe will so appear to you.  
§. 19 The Princes of the greatest Congregation of England (Right Honourable) i. e. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, were those who swore, and who engaged us to swear. If our Adversaries may be believed, the design of the Oath was to engage the Scots in the Parliaments quarrel (His Majesty then living, as we said before, had more charitable thoughts) sure it is, that it was a mutual stipulation between the Scots and us. Casuists say, that my Oath doth not bind my Heir (which is true in some cases) but they as generally agree the real obligation of an Oath, as to the person to whom we swear for their advantages. We are sure, the Jews which were punished with three years' Famine in Saul's time, were none of those who had personally sworn to the Gibeonites, in the time of Joshuah, yet God revengeth their Breach of their Father's Oath upon them. It may be worthy of your Honour's consideration, whether the Obligation contracted by Oath, by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, 1643, 1644. do not bind the Noble Lords with yourselves, who this day make up those Honourable Assemblies, though personally you never were engaged in it.  
§. 20. However, we know and believe, that your Honours will be so jealous for the Glorious Name of God, so tender of the Souls of the People in these Nations engaged in that Sacred Bond, and so afraid of the wrath of God revealed in his Word, and by his Providence, against those who have made others Sufferers for righteousness sake, and so careful for the Honour of the Nation, that you will not by any Act of yours, contribute to any of these ends, which will all be the certain consequents of the violation of that Sacred Oath.  
§. 21. For as it cannot be imagined, but that your Honour's Authority, establishing any thing contrary to that Oath, will be a temptation to many, to break that sacred Bond; so it can as little be thought, but that there will be many thousands in England, who will believe that nothing can discharge their Consciences from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon them, and therefore will be obliged to go cheerfully into the Prisons which shall be provided for them, and to suffer any thing, rather than to sin against the Lord by such a presumptuous transgression.  
§. 22. Besides this, we most humbly beseech your Honours to consider, whether the things endeavoured to be restored, have upon former experience proved, or may probably be judged like to prove of such advantage, either to the civil or religious interests of England, as may be fit to be laid in the Balance with the laying aside so many hundreds (if not thousands) of Godly Ministers, and the sufferings and undoing of so many peaceable and godly people as will be laid a side, and made sufferers by the restoring of things in the Church to their form's state, after an Oath taken to the contrary.  
§. 23. Many of your Honours, we know have not yet forgotten, how many hard things were suffered in former times, by many Godly people in this Nation; because in Conscience they could not submit to these things; how many of the King's Subjects were (to the weakening of the Nation) driven into Foreign Lands, to the undoing of themselves and their Families; how by this means divers Mysteries of Trades of manufacture (in which the wealth of this Nation much lay) were communicated to other People; all which things formerly were judged worthy of Parliamentary Consideration.  
§. 24. We humbly beseech your Honours to consider, whether the same persons, in most places of England, be not again endeavouring to be possessed (if they be not already invested) with the same power, and whether (after twenty years' suffering) it be probably to be conceived, that they are less full of rage, 
Let enquiry be made at Oxford, Cambridge Peterborough, etc.  than formerly: And if any hath so much Charity, as to think, that their sufferings have taught them more moderation, we desire your Honours would inquire, what specimen they have any where already given of it. This we humbly move to your Honours, that you may represent it to his Majesty, whose Royal Grandfather was such a Zealous Defender of the free Grace of God, against Arminians, and who himself hath declared such a Zeal against vicious, profane and debauched persons, that we cannot but believe him not truly informed; either concerning the Principles or conversations of divers persons, to whom advantages are given against their Brethren.  
§. 25. We are not Right Honourable, against the use of an unimposed Lyturgy, nor against Primitive Episcopacy; we can submit to both, we do not think the Covenant was intended against either of these: But we are against the divine Right of Archbishops, Bishops, etc. We believe, that in the Primitive Church there might be Episcopus praeses; a Grave Minister, Precedent over his Brethren, living within a Circuit proportionate to his Ability for inspection, and that without him, nothing was ordinarily done, in Ordination or Jurisdiction: But that he alone could do any thing in either, we utterly deny. We are sure, that in the Primitive Church, there was no Archbishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's. We are against those Forms of Worship, contained in the Service-Book, ordinary to be had; We believe they are not established by the Laws of the Land (as we have heretofore in a Book for that purpose published) made evident to your Honours. We are sure that we have lifted up our hands to God, that we will endeavour a Reformation in that Point: We know that they are offensive in an high degree, to the generality of godly and sober men, that there are many things in those Books not to be justified in Divinity. We are not against the 39 Articles, which is usually called the Doctrine of the Church of England: We are ready to subscribe all of them, so far as they concern matters of Doctrine. But we are against Arminianism, against which not only King James, (of Glorious Memory) gave an open testimony, but the Parliament of England hath also heretofore openly declared: And in regard the Patrons of those Points, take advantage of some doubtful terms in those Articles, as patronising those their Tenets (though the Kings and Parliaments of England have heretofore declared their detestation of those Points) We could hearty wish a further explanation of them: We are against moral and significant Ceremonies, such as the Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, Bowing at the Name of Jesus, Cringing to Altars, etc. We believe that these things are not only scandalous, and unprofitable (things that perish with the using) but also unlawful and against the purity and simplicity of Gospel-worship, and such, against which we are highly engaged by the Oath of God which we have taken.  
§. 26. We humbly beseech your Honours, to compassionate the many thousands of Souls in England, who must be Sufferers, to the undoing of their Persons, their Wives and Children, if these things be restored again amongst us. We acknowledge ourselves obliged (if these things be established by your Act) passively to obey, and rather to seek our bread in a howling wilderness, than any ways to contribute to the disturbance of civil Authority. Prayers and Tears are our only weapons. But oh! let not the Cry of the Innocents' be against the Parliament of England; because God hath said he will hear their cry, and help them. If our Brethren think that no Government may be set up in the Church of God in England, but the ancient Form, and that the whole Nation is not concerned in the Covenant, for which we plead, and themselves be not personally engaged in it; let them enjoy their humours: But oh! Let them not by your Honours, be clothed with power to suspend, silence, excommunicate, deprive godly Ministers and people, (who are faithful Subjects to his Majesty, and pray daily for him, and for your Honours) because they cannot comply with them in these things, expressly contrary to the Oath of the Lord which is upon them.  
§. 27. We here lay at your Honour's feet our Answers to their pitiful Pleas against us, by which they would cajole us into Perjury. If our Brethren have any more strong Arguments, let them bring them forth; only let us say with Dr. Featly, Audiamus non phalerata sed fortia, we have had enough gay words. If notwithstanding all which hath been said, our Brethren by misrepresentations to his Majesty, or to your Honours shall obtain any power against us, and shall make their old Furnace yet seven times hotter (in which we yet trust his Sacred Majesty, and your Honours will fail their expectations) We know that the God whom we serve is able to deliver us: But whether he shall please to do it or no, we dare not deal falsely in our Covenant with him.  
§. 28. But give us leave to plead with your Honours (as sometimes the Psalmist did with God, Psal. 30.9.) What profit is there in our blood? Suppose we should with our Wives and Families be driven from our Possessions and Countries, to seek our Bread in other Lands; Suppose that the Prisons erected for Thiefs and Murderers, should be filled with Conscientious Christians, lying there, because they durst not forswear themselves, what profit would his Sacred Majesty or your Honours have from the blood of Innocents'? What pleasure in the ruin and undoing of so many thousand Souls, only because in the matters of their God, they differ from some men's sense? What loss would his Sacred Majesty have, by pleasing all the more sober part of his Subjects, by a new unimposed Form of Prayer, void of all offence? by multiplying the Bishops of England, so that they may be able to do their work? by restraining them from their sole Jurisdiction not to be justified, by any Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, or the example of any Reformed Church?  
§. 28. We humbly leave our Groans before your Honours, begging the Spirit of Wisdom and Government for every Soul in your great Assemblies, professing ourselves ready to hear any strong Arguments, which our Brethren have yet to bring, to prove the Covenant not obligatory, and humbly desiring, that in so Grave an Assembly, where hitherto not obstreperous Clamours, but Religion and Reason have ruled, we may not be condemned, for not doing that, which we profess we dare not do, because of that Bond, wherewith (at the Command of the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Parliament of England) we are bound unto the Great and Holy God, who hath said, I will not hold him guiltless that takes my Name in vain.   

CIPPUS Titulus Perjurium: 

Carmen Steliteuticum Cromwellii.  
Carmen Protrepticum Patriae.    
O Faedus! ô fides sacra!  
O Nomen, & Numen Dei!  
Rerum columna publicarum;  
Tutela pacis, militum concordia;  
Regumque civiumque nuptialis arrha;  
Et hostium studentium diversa, par metus.  
Quem nemo fecit irritum aut facturus est.  
Te pactus ille victor, ille dux ducum.  
Dextrâ ter ad coelos levatâ.  
Quid non patravit arduum?  
Post haec sed idem, conscio sub aethere,  
Dextrâ ter in Scotos levata  
Rem gessit haud bonam benè,  

3. Septembris.  Et Imperavit, & Obiit diem suum.  
An ideo Fortis & Vafer lusit Deum?  
Te sprevit, a te spretus est  
Te rupit, a te ruptus est  
Pessundedit te, pessum & est a te datus.  
Cum stirpe totâ  
Oliva putris, perfidus Cromwellius  
Infame nomen in futura secula  
Gentes per has & exteras.  
Injusta vota justus improbat Deus:  
In vota justa seu vocetur Jupiter  
Seu Mahometes sive Belus & Nebo  
Adest Jehova, poscit & ratam fidem.  
Hinc Sedeciam cepit Assyrius levem:  
Templumque mundi sedit in cineres decus.  
Hoc fulminantem vertit Annibalem retro:  
Nec pejeratus Jupiter lapis tulit:  
Hoc Vngarorum fregit infidam manum;  
Regnique florem Turca falce messuit  
Ducente Christo non suos contra suos.  
Nec vis, nec artes numen eludent sagax:  
Quodcunque Christo teste pactum sanximus  
Missum per auras carpit irredux iter,  
Et implet aures invocati Judicis  
Noctes diesque murmur aeternum ciens,  
Ut nec subintrent bis ter horarum preces.  
Ah! nequis in se vertat has Iras nocens,  
Neu tam tremendo fulmini subdat caput!  
An laedat idem, reddat, & surdum Deum?  
In pejerantes, queis cubat sub pectore  
Alenda vulpes, ipsa vel Clementia  

* III Decalogi Preceptum.  Diras minatur, sed nec exorabilis.  
Miseris supersunt vota; felices probant;  
Suscepta curis saepè sollicitos levant;  
Neglecta rursus saepè securos premunt,  
Sol, ante liquidi jura dediscet poli,  
Facemque nocti commodabit mutuam  
Nos quàm negemus Carolis pactam fidem,  
Satis superque vidimus fraudes pias:  
( Trojae Laomedonta perjurum luit)  
Cromwellium sceleris insons Anglia  
Poenas tributo duodecennali dedit.  
Tangamus Aras sanctius Plebs, & patres  
Profana regni si qua pars adhuc manet.  
(At nulla regni pars soluta foedere est  
Tenemur omnis Ordo: Pastor, & Greges.  
Et nasciturum spes in aureas genus.)  
Juremus, omnes quod tamen juravimus,  
Sacrae potentem Vindicem fidei Deum  
Qui regis uncti texit Augustum caput  
Semper daturos Caesari quae Caesaris  
 & daturos esse quae Dei, Deo.   

THE CONTENTS.  
CHAP. I. 
THE ancient and just reverence of Oaths evinced from the light of Nature, the revelation of Scriptures; the contempt of Perjury arguing Atheism worse than that of Pagan's Page 1.  CHAP. II. 
The several Forms of verbal Obligations, simple, and mixed; of a Promise, and Oath, a Vow, a Covenant, the distinct nature of each; the Covenant proved to be a Compound of all, and therefore highly obligatory p. 3.  CHAP. III. 
Containing a Corollary from the Premises, concluding the mistake of those who say, an Oath adds no special Obligation beyond the Reason and Religion of the matter p. 10.  CHAP. IU. 
The further Obligatory virtue of the Covenant argued from the Solemnities of it, arguing the violation deliberate and infamous p. 11.  CHAP. V. 
Rules in general concerning the interpretation of Oaths, those applied to the Covenant, and the true sense of it evinced from them p. 12.  CHAP. VI 
The absolver's pretended Errors in the Covenant examined in part; The Covenant, as to the matter of it, (so far as respects Prelacy) not contrary to the Word of God; the Plea of it contrary to the Laws of the Church or State examined, and proved insufficient for the irritation of it p. 19  CHAP. VII. 
The absolver's Plea from Schism considered; The Nature of Schism; No guilt of Schism by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy; Their Plea also from the supposed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant to the matter of former Oaths, particularly the Coronation-Oath, the Oath of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Canonical Obedience, answered and found vain p. 34.  CHAP. VIII. 
The absolver's Plea for the irritation of the Covenant from the supposed contradictions in itself confuted, and the Covenant (notwithstanding this suggestion) proved valid and obligatory p. 42.  CHAP. IX. 
Whether the Error of any man's Conscience that took the Covenant can discharge him from the observance of it p. 45.  CHAP. X. 
The absolver's Plea against the Covenant as Impeditivum boni, false, and if true, not conclusive according to Casuists p. 48.  CHAP. XI. 
The Covenant cleared from any faults as to the efficient causes, whether external, or internal, sufficient to make it void, being once taken; the Plea from the supposed unlawfulness of the power imposing, if true, proved insufficient p. 51.  CHAP. XII. 
The absolver's Arguments from the present dissent of the King who then was, argued; the Case stated and resolved; the Rules applied to the present Case, the Argument from hence for the irritation of the Covenant proved vain p. 53.  CHAP. XIII. 
Where the absolver's Plea from the force attending the Covenant, is considered, and proved vain. Oaths extorted by fear, do oblige in Conscience, proved from Scripture, Reason, the Opinions of Dr. Sanderson, Aquinas, Azorius, and all sober Casuists, for their Obligation. p. 57  CHAP. XIV. 
The absolver's Plea, from the pretended sinfulness of the End of the Covenant examined, whether the deformity of the end of an Oath can make it not Obligatory: The contrary proved. The absolver's Plea from hence Atheological and vain p. 67.  CHAP. XV. 
Where it is proved, that the Bond of the Covenant cannot be suspended by any Dispensation, altered by any Commutation, or dissolved by any Relaxation of Parties p. 69  CHAP. XVI. 
Concerning the Limitations of the Covenant, common to all Promissory Oaths, or particularly relating to this. What endeavour, as to the matter of the Covenant, is not required p. 73  CHAP. XVII. 
Wherein is a sleighty notice taken of a Late Pamphlet, wrote by one Mr. Russel, called, The Covenant discharged; and it is proved, that in stead of his finding the Snare broken, as he saith, he hath but resolved to break the Bonds, and to cast the Cords behind him p. 75.    

The Covenanters PLEA AGAINST absolver's.  

CHAP. I.  
The ancient and just Reverence of Oaths evinced, from the Light of Nature, the Revelation of Scripture. The contempt of Perjury arguing Atheism worse than that of Pagans.  
§. 1. WHen we consider the superlative Religion, of those who knew not God, for Fidelity, which was so sacred amongst the Sabines, that they made it an Idol; in which superstition, the Romans did not only comply with them, but assigned her a place in their Capitol next to Jupiter himself; teaching their Orator to cry, Colunto illa propter quae datur homini ascensus in Coelum, Mentem, Virtutem, 
Cic. de Leg.  Pietatem, Fidem; Let them worship the Stairs by which men ascend unto heaven, Virtue, Piety and Fidelity: Insomuch that Augustine in his Book de Civitate Dei, is put to the charge of a Chapter, to dethrone this noble Virtue a little, by removing it from the Seat of God. When we find so much honesty in Livy, as to determine, 
Livii Hist. l. 1.  That faith and Oaths were sufficient to rule a City, though there were no Laws nor Magistrates; and Tully concluding, 
Cicero de office lib. 3.  that Faith should be kept with the worst of men, ne quaeratur latebra perjurio, that there might be no Sanctuary for perjury in the world: We cannot but fear lest the men of Tyre and Sidon should rise up against this generation and condemn it, in which not only the Godly men seem to be ceased, 
Psal. 12.1.  but the faithful also seem to be failed from amongst the children of men. They speak vanity every man with his neighbour; with flattering lips, and a double heart do they speak.  
§. 2. But when we further read that the Heathens did not only hollow the name of their Idol Fides or Fideus, and authorise it to be invoked in swearing, but affirm also Quod affirmatè quasi Deo teste promiseris, id tenendum est jam enim non ad iram Deorum— Sed ad fidem & justitiam pertinet: That whatsoever men promised to do before God, as a witness, that they should do, not for fear of the God's anger, but out of reverence to Faith and Justice. When we remember the pretty stories of Jupiter's Fountain of Tyana, the waters in Sardinia and Bythinia, and the Acadine Well, mentioned by Aristotle; all which had their several malignant Influences (as they fabled) upon such odious transgressors as had broken their Faith once sealed by the contestation of an Idol; we are ready to cry out sit anima nostracum Philosophis: Let our soul's portion rather be with those old Philosophers, than with those quibus (as Baldwin saith) nec ara, nec fides, nec ulla pactio firma est, to whom indeed nothing is firm, nothing possible to be sealed. Hear oh Heavens! and be astonished oh Earth: Have any people under heaven been so vile prostitutors of the Faith of men, or so irreverent to an acknowledged Deity, that having sworn by those, who were no Gods, they would go back, and despise their Obligation? Yet in these days, men think it nothing, and that in Oaths taken by the dreadful name of the true and living God, to mock, and play with their Sacred Bands, and (as Lysander in Plutarch) to justify it as lawful as to cheat Boys with false Dice. And were this done by the unhallowed rabble of men, it would not be such an astonishment to us, as to see it done by Rabbis in our Israel, straining their wits upon the Tainters of carnal Sophistry, beyond all due staples of reason, inventing vain distinctions, and asserting unheard of Atheological Positions, and all to cheat silly souls into the highest presumptions of wickedness almost imaginable, and to publish these things in the face of the Sun; shining too in the Noonday of Gospel-light.  
§. 3. Is it not the true and living God (whom we serve) who hath said, 
Leu. 19.12.  You shall not swear by my Name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God, I am the Lord. Is it not he who curseth, and no man blesseth: 
Mal. 3.  who hath said he will be a swift witness against him that sweareth falsely. And again, The curse shall come into the house of him that sweareth falsely, by the Lord's name, 
Zech. 5.4.  and consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. Do not we serve the same God, who so severely revenged the violation of the Oath to the Gibeonites (into which Joshuah and the Israelites were cheated) upon all Israel, and then upon the Family of Saul? who so severely declared himself against Zedekiah for the violation of an Oath imposed upon him by a foreign Prince, who had conquered his Brother, 
Ezek. 16.17.  though the Oath tended to enslave the people of God, to an Idolatrous Prince? When we think of these things, trembling takes hold upon us, and we are ready to say concerning such as discourse for the nullity and violation of Oaths, as be did; Aut hoc non est Evangelium, etc. Either we are mistaken in that sacred Book, which we have hitherto called the Word of God, and owned as the Rule of our Faith and Life, or these men are not the Servants of this God, such as make this Word a light to their feet, and a lantern to their paths.  
§. 4. What can it argue less than Atheism, or an high contempt of God, lightly to esteem his sacred Name? for men to be of the profane temper condemned by the Poet;  
Nil metuunt jurare, nihil promittere parcunt,  
Sed simulac cupidae mentis satiata libido est  
Dicta nihil metuunt: nihil perjuria curant.  
The truth and fidelity of a man was by the Heathen accounted so noble a piece of the demesne and patrimony of a rational and virtuous soul, that if at any time, a Regulus, or any other had pawned it to an enemy, they thought it worth the redeeming at the price of their head. But if an Idol-god had been called to witness the Obligation, they thought scarce any punishment severe enough for him that presumed to violate it, as having broken the strongest Ligament of humane society (nullum enim vinculum ad astringendam fidem jurejurando majores arctius esse voluerunt, saith Tully) and denied that God who ruleth the world. Juvenal could set it upon no other foot.  
Sunt qui in fortunae casibus nunc omnia ponunt  
Et nullo credunt mundum Rectore moveri  
Naturâ volvente Vices, & lucis & Anni  
Atque ideo intrepidi quaecunque Altaeria tangunt.  
§. 5. Can we therefore hold our peace at the reading of divers late Pamphlets tending to Absolve men from the Sacred Oath, first taken, by the Lords and Commons Legally assembled in Parliament, Anno 1643. than by the generality of the people of England, (at their command) with the highest solemnity imaginable; after this by his Sacred Majesty (that now is) 
* If printed Books and Narrations be true.  Anno 1649, or 1650. who was pleased likewise by his Declaration (then emitted) to approve it in every Branch thereof, and to ratify his Subjects taking of it, in his other Dominions. After which, for any to put us upon an enquiry, whether our Souls be bound with that Bond, must certainly be that Snare to our Souls, against which Solomon of old gave us a Caution, and to tempt men to the highest contempt and profanation of the Sacred Name of God.  
§. 6. But the presumption is yet aggravated in our apprehensions, when we consider that this is done in a day, when a Righteous God is taking exemplary vengeance upon them, who after they had taken that Sacred Oath themselves, and been Instruments rigorously to press it upon others, could satisfy their Consciences, in destroying the Person of the King, whom they (in it) had sworn to preserve, and rooting out his Authority, which it obliged them to maintain: We say, for men in this day, to bid others go and do likewise, appears to us, like the cutting of a Purse in the face of a Judge, and an open proclaiming, that we have no degree of the fear of God before our eyes.  
§. 7. Especially when we consider that the thing wherein some of this Generation, would have that Sacred-Oath violated and contemned, appeareth to us, the main business of that Sacred Oath, viz. the Reformation of the Church, and Preservation of the Purity of Religion and Worship, to which most other things in the Covenant, seem to us (according to the phrase of it) to be subordinated.  
§. 8. This certainly should engage every true Englishman, who thinks himself concerned in the honour of his Nation, and every righteous Lot more especially, who must be grieved at the evil conversation of his Neighbours, to cry out, I pray you Brethren do not so wickedly: And the height of the wickedress, will be more evident, if we consider that Sacred Engagement, either in its own nature, or under its more than ordinary circumstances,   

CHAP. II.  
The several Forms of verbal Obligations simple and mixed. Of a Promise, an Oath, a Vow, a Covenant, the distinct Nature of each. The Covenant proved to be a Compound of all, and therefore highly obligatory.  
§ 1. BEsides the natural ties of every soul unto God, by which (as a Creature) it is bound in a duty of universal homage to its Creator, as it is directed by the light of Nature, or Revelation in Scripture, and the natural obligation, of Brotherly love, by which a man is indebted to his Neighbour, we are told by Moses, Numb. 30.2. that we may either enhance this hereditary debt, or contract a new one, to God, or men, by the words of our lips, binding our Souls in a bond, which (without profaning ourselves) we cannot violate. Which Bond, according to the different seal affixed to it, or the different Parties to whom it is delivered as our Act and Deed, according to the various matter, Form, or circumstances of it, hath obtained several names, and hath more or less obliging virtue.  
§. 2. There are 4 more noted Terms used in Scripture (and by Divines interpreting Scripture) expressive of such Obligations: A Promise, an Oath, a Vow, and a Covenant. A Promise (saith Aquinas) is a rational Act of a man, 
Aqu. 22 aequ. 88 art. 1.  by which he declareth and ordereth his purposes to another; as a Superior by his precept ordereth others, as to what he would have them do for him: So by a Promise a Superior, inferior or equal ordereth himself, as to what he will do for others. This when made freely, is by Critics called, pollicitatio: when at the importunity of another, promissio; either way, lex privata, it becometh a private law, obliging the soul morally virtuous, or religiously good, to a strict performance.  
§. 3. An Oath is a religious Act ubi Deus testis invocatur; where for further security to others of what we believe, or have done or engage to do, God is called in for a witness; which ought not to be, but in weighty matters, and in doubtful matters: But all the future actions of men, being such as are subjected to various accidents and contingencies, through the mutability of our minds, the bottomless deceit of our hearts, and the power which temptations from the world, the flesh and the Devil, have upon us, they are justly allowed by Divines, both as to their matter and circumstances, to be the proper matter of an Oath, whose formality lieth in the invocation of the dreadful Name of God, to attest the sincerity of our intentions, as to future performances; which sacred invocation of the name of God, annexed to a promise, addeth highly to the obligation of it; for it being a piece of Divine worship, so to invoke Gods sacred Name, the security is highly advantaged by such a Label annexed. Let vain Orators cant what they please, it is determined by all Casuists which we ever yet saw, 
Filiucii Mor. Quaest. tract. 25. cap. 4. q. 1.  That an Oath doth add to a promise a special obligation. Filiucius, and others make it an Article of our Creed, by telling us, that it is de fide to believe that it doth so.  
§. 4. A Vow (saith Richardus) est propositi supererogatiuè boni promissio Deo facta propter bonum finem, ex deliberatione firmata. By which description, nothing necessary by the necessity of a Divine Precept can be the proper matter of a Vow; no it must (according to him) be supererogatiuè bonum, some good thing which God hath not required at our hands; but we (not well understanding what good thing can be assigned, which falleth under no Divine Precept) do rather close with their more ordinary and justifiable description of it, who tell us, It is a promise made to God: And indeed thus it differs from a promise, which may be made to men, and that as to the things of this world: A Vow can only be made to God, and that in rebus Dei, in the things of God. Not to trouble ourselves with the niceties of the description of it, certain it is that the Obligation resulting from it is great. Aquinas, Sayrus, Filiucius, Layman and others, determine the obligation of a Vow, to exceed that of an Oath; 
Aq. 22ae q. 89. art 8.  because (saith Aquinas) the obligation of an Oath ariseth only from that reverence which we own to the Sacred Name of God: But the obligation of a Vow ariseth from that fealty which we own to God, the violation of which is always attended with irreverence. Not to dispute the strength of their ratiocinations, we think this (which some Casuists have also hit upon) may be superadded: That although in every Vow there be not a formal invocation of God (God being the proper correlate, and as it were, a Party to every Vow, and therefore not formally to be invoked for the contestation of it) yet there is in every Vow an implicit calling God to witness; so that certainly the obligation arising from a Vow is not beneath that of an Oath.  
§. 5. A Covenant (strictly taken) is a mutual stipulation of two or more parties, and in that lies its specific difference, both from a naked promise, and from an Oath and a Vow; all which maybe made by single persons: But the nature of a Covenant is such, as requireth at least two parties mutually engaging each to other. This obligation may be either contracted with God, or with our neighbour, and that concerning any kind of things, from whence are the several sorts of Covenants treated on by Civilians and Politicians, concerning which we shall speak nothing in this place. The Jews contracted a formal Covenant with God, when upon the promulgation of the Law by Moses, they said, whatsoever the Lord speaketh, that we will do; whence it is (as we conceive) that they are so often charged in holy Writ, with breaking Covenant; in the violation of the Divine Law. And God having given us in his Word, an everlasting Rule of righteousness, to the obedience of which we are engaged, by immutable promises (although God hath left off to speak from Heaven to us) yet we are still left in a capacity to make formal Covenants with God, which we do as often as we by solemn promises engage ourselves to the stricter observance of the Divine Law in whole or in part. The obligatory virtue of a Covenant (separated from the additional force of an Oath, by which it may be also further confirmed) seems to be increased from the mutual consideration, upon which it is necessary that each part of a Covenant should be entered; which makes every Covenanter to have a quid pro quo, and adds an obligation from justice to a due performance; so that as he who breaks a naked promise, sins against his Truth and Fidelity; and he who violates his Oath, highly sins against that reverence which he owes to the sacred name of God; so he that breaks a Covenant, sinneth against Justice, which every man is obliged to maintain, as that which joynteth all humane society, and keepeth the world in order.  
§. 6. Now besides these simple bonds, which should be sufficient to hold virtuous and religious men, there may be compounded Forms, in which there may be a mixture of two or three or all of these: And reason will easily teach us, that if any of these single cords, be sufficient to hold a soul which hath any value for Truth, any Reverence for the Name of God, or professeth any fealty to him, or in whom any love of common justice may be found, and who hath not, without regard either to God or man, without any conscience of Religion or moral Honesty, taken up a resolution, to break all sacred bonds asunder, and cast all cords behind his back: Certainly, when two, three, or all of these are twisted into one cord, they must be stronger than Sampsons' seven green with'hs, and like Solomon's threefold cord which cannot easily be broken.  
§. 7. And if we mistake not, such is the nature of this sacred Cord (the strength of which we are trying) The style of the whole is promissory, and argues all the force of a promise in it: The Preamble to it concluding thus,— With our hands lifted up to the most High God, we do swear; together with that Clause in the last Paragraph— And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the searcher of all hearts, sufficiently prove it to be an Oath, and to have in it all the virtue of that sacred Obligation: If a Vow according to the common notion of it) be sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei, a promise made unto God in the things of God, who so reads the first second or last Paragraphs, must certainly see much of a Vow in it: And if the imposing of it under penalty, delivers any that have taken it, from the obligation of a Vow (either through want of freedom or deliberation) yet certainly this will not excuse the first Contrivers, and Composers. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament at that time, did not only make a Promise, and confirm it with an Oath, but vowed in it a Vow to the mighty God of Jacob, and stand concerned to do according to the Vow which they have vowed. That it is a Covenant, both with God, and men, is so evident, that he who runs may read it. So far as it contains in it any promise made on our part, for the doing of those things which the Word of God revealeth to be his will concerning us, that we should do, either relating to the Reformation of the Church, or our own personal Reformation, or for the declining of what is contrary thereunto (of which nature is much both in the first, second and last Paragraphs of it) it is unquestionably a Covenant with God. Besides this, The King, Parliament, and People of the Three-Nations, by it mutually covenant each with other, for the performance of those things which respect them in their several stations, either respecting Reformation, or the Preservation of each others mutual Rights. The King covenanted with his People, that he will reform Religion, in Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches: That he will preserve the Doctrine, Worship and Discipline of the Church of Scotland, etc. In this also the Parliament joins with him, as also for the preservation of the people's Liberties; King and People covenant, to preserve the Privileges of Parliament. The People covenant with the King, to preserve his Majesty's Person, Honour and Authority, etc. Throughout the whole, there is a mutual stipulation of the People of the Three Nations each with other.  
§. 8. So that if there be any virtue in a promise, from the truth of men by it laid to pawn, and not to be redeemed without a just fulfilling of the thing promised: If any Religion in an Oath, because of the Reverence we own to the Sacred Name of God, and because the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain. If any Obligation resulteth from a Vow, because of the Fealty which we own unto God before, and above all others: If finally a man be obliged to keep his Covenant, from the consideration either of truth or justice; it all contributeth to the strength of this Sacred Bond, by which all the Souls that have taken it in the Three Nations, are this day bound to the Almighty, and each to other.  
§. 9 And certainly for those who are not so immediately concerned, but can glory, that either they were not of age, or that they were only standers by, when others thus obliged themselves; if there be any Ingenuity in them, any Reverence of God, any Brotherly Love, or any good will to the Land of their Nativity, they will be obliged to be jealous for their Brethren (who have thus bound themselves) with a godly jealousy, lest whiles for such a presumptuous transgression, as the violation of this sacred Bond must be, the wrath of the Lord shall burn up the dwellings of Transgressor's, their contiguity of habitation expose them to the danger in which it is ordinary for the Justice of a Righteous God to involve the neighbourhood of sinners: To say nothing of their concernment, in the profaning of the Lords Name, whose honour is equally impeached by our Neighbour's sins, as by our own: If they be Lots, their righteous souls will be vexed with the evil conversation of their Neighbours: If david's, their eyes will run down with rivers of waters because others keep not Gods Laws. Which makes the bold discourses of some not only to grate upon our ears, but to pierce our hearts, whilst we hear them not only content to dispense with their own Engagements, but reviling others, whose Consciences cannot allow them that Latitude, or who take themselves concerned, to warn the souls committed to their charge, to beware of so great a sin as that of Perjury. Nay, whilst we see them so ill employing their wits, and Pens, as to invent strange distinctions, and assert positions contrary to all Divinity, that they may not only break God's Commandments themselves, but embolden others so to do, as if they had an ambition to be degraded into the order of such, as shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God, Mat. 5.19.   

CHAP. III.  
Containing a Corollary from the Premises, concluding the mistake of those who say, an Oath adds no special Obligation beyond the Reason and Religion of the Matter.  
FRom what hath been already said, 'tis not hard to conclude, That a Promise, a Vow, an Oath or Covenant, or any form of Obligation, compounded of two or more of these, engaging us to any future performance, addeth to any praevious Obligation, which might before be upon us from the Law of Nature, or from the Law of God's eternal Righteousness: For whereas the matter of these may be either impossible or unlawful, (in which cases the obligations are ipso facto null and void, and we are only bound to repentance) Or 2. Indefinite and uncertain, (in which case, the obligation must be adjudged and determined, when the true nature of the matter appeareth to us.) Or, 3. Necessary, praeviously required of us by some Divine Law. Or, 4. Lastly, Free and indifferent, neither part being determined by the Divine Law. Certain it is, that where the thing which we have promised, sworn, vowed or covenanted for, is such as is in our own power: Our Promise, Vow, Oath or Covenant, createth in us an obligation, to that part which we have so bound ourselves for, and depriveth us of our former liberty in it, and hence an Oath or Vow is called by Divines lex privata, a By-law which man hath made unto himself. And where the matter is necessary, viz. such as God's Law before hath required of us, any of these increase our Obligation. All Casuists (I think) are thus far agreed. 
Dr. Sanderson de juram. promise. prael. 3. §. 6.  Ad quae praestanda vel injuratitenemur, (saith Dr. Sanderson) jurati certè multo magis tenemur. What we are bound to do although we had never sworn to the performance, we are much more obliged to when once we have sworn it. Nor are they the bare Words, Letters or syllables, of Covenants or Oaths, which as Charms bind any man's Conscience: But it is the rational Act of the man, who promiseth, voweth or sweareth, yea, his religious Act, which obligeth him, and that beyond the innate Reason and Religion of the matter, to the performance of which he sweareth, voweth, or covenanteth. And for any to say, that nothing in an Oath or Covenant, obligeth, but the Reason and Religion of the thing to be done, is indeed to destroy the use of all Oaths, and to abolish that Act of Religion which is performed by them, and to assert that which certainly never can be believed by any sober Christian, as being contrary to all Scripture and Reason, and to the determinations of all Schoolmen, Casuists, and Divines of any rank whatsoever.   

CHAP. IU.  
The further Obligatory Virtue of the Covenant argued, from the Solemnities of it, arguing the Violation deliberate, and infamous.  
ALthough (after thus much said) it might be needless to inquire if there be any other auxiliary strength to be added, in plea for it, yet we cannot but take notice of that known Maxim which we find in Sayrus, and other Casuists; 
Sayri Clavis Reg. l. 5. c. 3. §. 22.  Quanto crescunt solennitates, tanto majus est juramentum, by how much more solemn an oath, by so much the greater is the obligation of it. Sayrus is so confident of the truth of it, that he asserteth this, That an Oath made by the Creature, if solemnly taken, is more obligatory than an Oath made by the Creator, without such a solemnity: and determineth him only infamously perjured, who violateth a solemn Oath. But we think Dr. Sanderson hath hit the mark, in telling us, 
Dr. Sanderson prael. 5. §. 12.  that the solemnity of an Oath contributeth nothing to the intrinsic value and Obligation of it, but accidentally contributeth to its virtue, as it importeth deliberation in those that took it; and exposeth the Violators to a greater Scandal: The truth of which is obvious enough to every vulgar capacity.  
§. 2. But if the solemnity of the Act, can any ways contribute to a Sacred Bond, certainly the Covenant (for which we are pleading) is as much advantaged as is imaginable for any thing of that nature. It was first solemnly debated, branch by branch, and phrase by phrase, in the greatest Convention of the Nation, and by a Reverend Assembly of Divines, then taken in the Parliament House, and in that Assembly of Divines, by hands lifted up to the most High God, after this, Printed, by their Order, and with their Names subscribed to it. After this, by them ordered to be taken by all grand Officers of State, and by all Masters and Fellows of Colleges, by all Ministers, and by all such as should enter into the Ministry, and by the people in all Congregations: To which purpose it is advantaged by an Exhortation to the taking of it, printed with it by Order of the said Lords and Commons. After this, Ministers are designed by the Countrey-Committees, to give it to the several Congregations (having first preached a Sermon to quicken people to the taking of it) It was then taken both by Ministers and people, with hands lifted up to the most High God, in the face of the public Congregation. After this, ordered to be hung up in Churches, and at certain times to be renewed, etc.  
§. 3. So that certainly, whether we consider the complex nature of the Covenant in itself, having in it some ingredients of all sacred-Bonds, or the Circumstances which attended the taking of it, never was there an higher Obligation laid upon a Nation owning God, never a stronger Bond laid upon Christian Souls. Poeni foedifragi of old grew into a Proverb; Let not England's Coat be so stained; for certainly it is not capable of a greater blot, than that of a false and Covenant-breaking Nation.   

CHAP V.  
Rules in general concerning the Interpretation of Oaths: These applied to the Covenant, and the true sense of it evinced from them.  
IT may seem very unreasonable after sixteen years' digestion of the Covenant, to fetch it back into our mouths, that we may make a judgement of the true taste of it, which the wise man foresaw, when he told us it was a snare after vows to make enquiry: The corrupt humours of our stomaches (in this time) may have much altered it or us from what at first we should have (possibly) pronounced concerning it. And the more unreasonable, because the proper Interpreters of it are ceased; The Lords and Commons who first imposed it (if the Rule be good, ejusdem est interpretari ac condere) yet because there are not a few, who will not believe it so edged a tool, but that it may be played withal, and who apply to the Covenant, the Rabbinical Fable of Manna, which they say had a quality in it which sured every , we cannot reasonably proceed further, till we have enquired, whether indeed we hugged a Proteus, when we rejoiced in that sacred Oath, or whether this be not an ill report, without any just cause brought up upon a good action, that by it, the Adversaries of Reformation, might either discharge others from its observance (under pretence of its uncertain sound) or please themselves with a dream at least, that they shall be secure in the most presumptuous violation of it.  
§. 2. Only in regard that Obligatio juramenti est onerosa, the obligation of an Oath (if any at all) is exceeding heavy, though the luxuriant vanity of some men's wits, and the strong predominancy of lust in others, constrain us to an enquiry, yet we shall stand concerned to make it exceeding strictly and narrowly, being under this assurance; That every soul which hath taken it, is highly engaged either to the severest observance of it, or to a more than ordinary humiliation for his profane attempt to mock that God so solemnly, who hath told us that he cannot be mocked. Nor are we concerned to inquire the just sense of every Branch in the Covenant, but only of the Second Article, in which is contained the chiefest matter of our present Debate.  
§. 3. It is true, Molina, Tabiena, Sylvester, Layman, and Navarrus, and some others (with what consistency to themselves, in other places of their Writings may be judged by comparing Navarrus▪ his cap. 18. cum cap. 1●) maintain a strange Principle, viz. That none is further bound by an Oath or Vow, further than he would have obliged himself, if he had either foreseen or observed the necessary, or contingent, issue of it: By which means they set up a Chancery in every particular soul, to relieve it from the rigour of that [Lex privata] private Law of an Oath. But Cajetan, Lopez, Sotus, and others, reasonably oppose this licentious Principle, as that which lays a Foundation, to enervate all sacred and civil Obligations— quia saepe contingunt aliqua quae si fuissent praevisa contractus non celebrarentur, nec ad eum eventum contrahentes se obligâssent. Hence Sanches limits that Rule, [That what would at first have hindered our obliging of ourselves by an Oath or Vow, had it been foreknown, or had it first happened, will also discharge us (when known, or come to pass) from our Obligation to the performance of it] To those things only which (had they been first known) had made the entering into such sacred bond unlawful, 
Filiucii Qu. m. tr. 25. cap. 8.  ratione materiae, inhabilis ad producendam obligationem, in regard of the matter being such to which an obligation could not be created. Filiucius tells us that an Oath must be interpreted, according to the nature of the act to which it is annexed; because he who sweareth, intendeth to swear only that which he promiseth, in the same manner and under the same conditions as he promiseth. We much doubt the truth of this (which dependeth upon another question, Whether an oath may not bind a man beyond his intention when he swears) Undoubtedly an Oath may oblige a man beyond his private intention; and in this we think all Protestant Casuists agree. That other Rule therefore given by Casuists, is better, Juramenti obligatio est strictè Juris. That an Oath must be strictly interpreted, quoad materia & verba permiserint; as strictly as the matter and words will bear; and thus Filiucius agrees at last, and Suarez with him. And it were a woeful shame for us Christians to dispute this, when Tully tells us, 
Cicero de Offic. lib. 3.  that an Oath must be kept in that sense— sicut verbis concipitur more nostro. Yet Divines here ordinarily distinguish, betwixt spontaneous, arbitrary Oaths, and such as are by others imposed upon us: and concerning each, determine thus: 1. That such Oaths as we voluntarily take, must be interpreted (ex ipsius jurantis ment) by ourselves, best Judges of our own sense. 2. But such as are imposed by others, must be by us interpreted, according to the sense of those that imposed them upon us. Thus Dr. Sanderson rightly determineth, and quoteth Augustine in the case, Ep. 224, 225. He adds this irrefragable reason; Because the end of imposing Oaths upon others, is to create or beget to the Imposers, an assurance from him or those that take them, that they will fulfil what they swear, or promise, which assurance none can have who imposeth an Oath upon another, if he that takes the Oath, have a Latitude of interpretation left unto him, with a liberty to abound in his own sense.  
§. 4. Yet both these rules must be limited; so, that neither our private sense of our Spontaneous Oaths, nor yet the sense of those that impose Oaths upon others, must be other than will comport with the just signification of the words or phrases in the Oath, Vow, or Covenant, for this were to destroy the simplicity necessary to every Oath, and indeed not to interpret, but to coin an Oath, or new Obligation.  
§. 5. We must conclude then, That the sense of the Covenant (being at the will of others imposed upon us for their security, that we would do as we there promised) must be no other than what (comporting with the significancy of the words in which it was conceived) was the sense of the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament concerning it. And from a strict Obligation to the performance of it in their sense, we see nothing can discharge the soul, unless some public Declaration at the taking of it; we say public, for otherwise there was a deliberate, voluntary deceiving the expectation of those that imposed it: and we think Augustine speaketh a great deal of reason, when he tells us that— Whosoever deceiveth the expectation of him to whom he swears, can be no less than a perjured person. (Which passage Dr. Sanderson quoteth out of him.)  
§. 6. Nor (that Parliament being now extinct) can we imagine how we should better conclude their sense, then by considering the words themselves, in which they expressed this obligation, and taking a view (so far as we can) of their precedent and subsequent Acts or Ordinances. The words of the Covenant, so far as concerns our purpose, are found in the 2d Article thus,  
That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, (i.e.) Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacon's, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers, depending upon that Hierarchy; Superstition, Heresy, Schism, Profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of Godliness, lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues: and that the Lord may be one, and his Name one in these three Kingdoms.  
§. 7. The thing here Covenanted for, is an Endeavour to extirpate Popery and Prelacy: That we might the better understand what they meant by Prelacy, they tell us, It is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacon's, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending upon that Hierarchy. Certainly he that runs may read, and here is no great need of an Interpreter. We have not Covenanted against Bishops (every Minister is a Bishop) but against the Prelacy of Bishops; but in regard that the Prelacy of Bishops is of several kinds, there possibly may remain a question, What Prelacy the Lords and Commons intended in the Covenant?  
§. 8. There is a ¹ Prelacy of Jurisdiction, and ² a Prelacy of mere order. The Prelacy of Jurisdiction is of two kinds; for distinction sake we may call the first Pontifical, the second Paternal. The first is such a Prelacy, where the single Prelate assumes to himself a sole power in Ordination and Jurisdiction; and though (it may be in a compliment) he calls in a Presbyter or two to his assistance, yet it is ex abundanti, what he judgeth not himself obliged to do. It is not reasonable to imagine that the Parliament intended only the extirpation of this Prelacy; 
Bilson de Gub. Eccl. cap. 13.  for although Bilson and some others tell us, that the Presbyters joining with the Bishop in the imposing hands upon Presbyters, was rather add consensum than consecrationem; 
Field of the Church, l. 5. cap. 56.  yet Dr. Field speaks more soberly, and tells us, There aught to be a concurrence of other Ministers hands as well as the Bishops, in Ordinations, they having an equal Ministry, and power of order with him. Nor had any such Prelacy as this, ever any footing in England (other then what the arrogance of some single persons gave it.)  
§. 9 We call that a Paternal Prelacy, where the College of Presbyters hath a Prelate who must concur with them (ordinarily) in Ordinations, and acts of Jurisdiction. This (say the most sober men was all the Prelacy which ever was allowed in the Church of England; we are sure this is all for which there can be the least pretence of any divine or Apostolical authority.  
§. 10. The Prelate of mere order, nothing differs from a continued Moderator, having no more power than his brethren in Ordination or Jurisdiction, but for order sake praesiding amongst them.  
§ 11. There being no question but that the Covenant is to be interpreted against the first; the question only remains concerning the two latter, Whether, together with the Popish Prelacy of sole and single Jurisdiction, it was not the design of the Lords and Commons then assembled, to oblige the people of England to extirpate also that Paternal Prelacy, for which some plead, yea both the name and thing of Prelacy, though merely respecting order in Ecclesiastical Conventions? That we may make up a just judgement in the case, let us take a view of their preceding and subsequent Acts.  
§. 12. Anno 1641. They had by an Act (wherein the King joined with them) taken from the Hierarchy, all powers of inflicting Penalties, Fines, Amercements, Imprisonments, or any corporal punishment upon any of the King's subjects, for any matter or thing whatsoever, as also all power of administering Oaths to any persons in any case belonging to Ecclesiastical cognisance. In the year 1643. the Covenant is made and imposed, in the terms before expressed. In the year 1646. they first establish the Presbyterian Government for three years by their Ordinance (which 1648. they renew again, and make it sine Die.) In the year 1646. They (by their Ordinance) abolish, the Name, Title, Style and Dignity— of all Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales. We must confess, we should have been very inclinable to have judged, that the sense of the Parliament imposing the Covenant, was against all manner of Prelacy, and that they designed no less, than the engaging of the whole Nation upon the highest security imaginable, to endeavour the total extirpation of all the kinds of it; had we not been informed, that at that time, the scruple was made by some Members in Parliament, and resolved (with the consent of our Brethren in Scotland) that it was only intended against Episcopacy, as then established in England, which gives us a Latitude, for a Prelacy of mere order (as a civil constitution)  
§. 13. In the mean time, the Covenant apertly obligeth us against Arch-Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters Arch-Deacons, Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. (there is no ambiguity in those terms) And 2. Against all such exercise of Prelacy, as is by any single person, arrogating to himself sole and single Jurisdiction, or sole and single power in Ordinations. 3. Against all such exercise of Prelatical power, as is taken away by the Statute of 17 Caroli, for the taking away the High-Commission-Court. As to all these, the Parliaments sense is clear enough, and can admit of no dispute. Nor is this a rigid interpretation of the Covenant, but as favourable as the words of it can bear, or reason allow upon the view of what hath been already urged to evince the sense of the Imposers.  
§. 14. We conclude then, That our solemn Covenant was the highest security wherein it was possible, that the Eternal God, could have us engaged to him; or which the Lords and Commons, then assembled in Parliament, or our Brethren in Scotland could then take of us, That we would in our Callings and Places endeavour to root out that Prelatical form and exercise of Church-Government, which was exercised in England, by Archbishops (tyrannical) Bishops, their Chancellors, Arch-Deacons, Commissaries, etc. From which every reasonable Christian must conclude, that if we fail in the performance, by establishing that Government again, or desiring the establishment of it, by promoving, owning, or countenancing of what we have thus solemnly sworn to extirpate: Not only our Brethren will have an Action in the case against us for the violation of our truth to them; But the Righteous God will also have a just action against us for the irreverence shown to his most Sacred Name. And if ever any of our Brethren with whom we are engaged, who possibly shall not be able, so easily to obtain a discharge of their Consciences, shall be brought into a suffering state, by those whom we (contrary to our solemn Oath) shall help to set up, they will doubtless have a just occasion, to prefer a sad Bill of complaint against us, to the just Judge of the whole Earth, who useth to hear the cry of the Afflicted. And whatsoever we may now think, or talk in the distempers of our mind, & in the rantings of our foolish passions; whensoever the day of God's vengeance shall come upon us, according to his Word, Zech. 5.3, 4. Or whensoever we shall have recovered our wits again, and we can give our Consciences awaked out of sleep, leave to speak freely to us; it will be very hard to relieve them, unless we can assign such an error in the Covenant (and that too, as to the matter sworn) as will be allowed by the Divine Law, as a sufficient discharge, as to our observance, and leave us nothing to do, but to humble our souls before the Lord for our taking of it. It will therefore be the just concernment of every Soul bound in that sacred Bond, to sit down, and advisedly think (before they resolve upon the violation of such an Oath) whether there were any such errors: And if those who think they have found them, would avoid the Infamy, which else will fall upon them, they will stand concerned, to set down these errors, and publish them to the world in plain words of truth and soberness, not in the insignificant figures of wanton Rhetoric, woefully blurred too with foolish passion, which may possible, satisfy such as were before resolved to be satisfied, and make a Bumble sufficient for the eyes of some silly souls, and give the wiser sort of people opportunity to make themselves merry; but can never stop the mouth, or darken the light, of a waky and well-informed Conscience.   

CHAP. VI  
The absolver's pretended Errors in the Covenant examined, in part. The Covenant as to the matter of it (so far as respecteth Prelacy) not contrary to the Word of God. The Plea of its contrariety, to the Laws of the Church or State, examined, and proved insufficient for the irritation of it.  
§. 1. WE said before, that whoso fancieth, an escape for his soul from the obligation of the Covenant, once taken, must be put to the trouble, to assign some error sufficient to discharge him, the sufficiency of which, must be also judged by the Word of God, because from that an Oath derives its Obligatory virtue. That there may be such errors in Oaths that we have taken is granted, whether in this Oath, there be or no, is the question. If there be any, we must find it either in the formal or material, or efficient or final cause: For we shall hardly find any in any appendent circumstance, which will be of such force.  
§. 2. And verily there is a variety found out (relating to the three latter Causes) by such as have spent their time to seek them. They have sought false witnesses against the Covenant, to put it to death, but we hope before we have done, to prove not only that they have found none. (for their testimonies have neither agreed to the Propositions of the Covenant, nor yet to the matters of fact, relating to Divine Providence, nor yet each with other) but also to discharge them from their useless employment in seeking knots in so even a rush, by proving that none can be found, so that they must be forced to cut this Gordian knot, because it cannot be untied.  
§. 3. As to the material cause. The matter of every Oath of Covenant being either necessary, unlawful or indifferent: And each of these again being possible or certain, or impossible, or uncertain. If the matter of the Oath (to which we are speaking) be necessary, as commanded us by the Word of God; or indifferent, where God's Word hath left us at a liberty, except it be impossible, we are certainly bound to the performance of it, by our Oath, in the judgement of all Divines that we ever yet met with. From whence every conscientious Christian (by the way) must needs conclude thus.  
1. If the Officers as to the external administration of the Church of Christ under the Gospel, be so determined by the Word of God, That no Church under Heaven, nor any other powers, can make any alteration in them, but only ratify and confirm what God hath there appointed. Then, unless we can find that Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, are the Officers appointed by God's Word, for the Government of his Church, we are most certainly obliged by our Oath, to endeavour their extirpation: The reason is, because although we had not sworn, yet we are bound as Christians, to endeavour in our place and calling, that the Church to which we belong, have in it no Plants which are not of our Heavenly Fathers planting, and according to our former rule, what we are bound to do without an Oath, we are much more (having sworn) obliged to.  
2. Suppose the Government of the Church be not so determined by the Word of God, as to the external Administrators of it, but it be in the power of the Magistrate, or the Church to add some Officers, not there mentioned, or to choose what Form they please; yet we having sworn against this Form of Government, and against these Officers, we cannot set them up nor own them, but must, if they be imposed upon us, suffer under them: The reason is, because the matter of the Oath was indifferent & libera, and Juramentum tollit libertatem, we having sworn, it is to us no longer free.  
§ 4. No one can challenge the Covenant as giving an uncertain sound, at least, not as to this Branch of it; What we swore to, was not the general will of another, nor the unknown Rights, Statutes, and Privileges of a Society (yet many Oaths of that kind are judged lawful by Casuists, and generally judged obligatory though not without some exceptions) but the thing in this Oath is expressed, Prelacy, and the particular species of Prelacy, set down as plainly as can be imagined; so that there can be no escape, for any soul that feareth an Oath.  
§. 5. It remaineth therefore, that those who plead the non-obligation of this Oath, and have set up this new trade of absolving souls from it, must assert the matter of it unlawful, either primarily, or secondarily, either in its own nature, or in respect of some accident.  
§. 6. Dr. Sanderson tells us, that an Oath (as to the matter of it) is unlawful in its own nature, primarily, when it is contrary to the Word of God. (Secondarily) When it is contrary to the just Laws of any community in which we are involved: That an Oath may as to the matter of it be unlawful (ex accidenti) when it hinders some good, or occasioneth some evil to ourselves, or to others, when a mans own Conscience judgeth it unlawful. Others add, when it is contradictory to itself, or to some former Oaths, etc.  
§. 7. But the Casuists generally agree, that every unlawful Oath is not presently void (if once taken) it will be necessary therefore not only to examine, whether the Covenant (as to the matter of it). were unlawful, but whether it were so unlawful, that it doth not (now being taken) oblige, which unquestionably it was, if (as some pretend) it were contrary to the Word of God, in this particular; for no soul can be by an Oath bound to sin against God, according to that known Rule, Juramentum non potest esse vinculum iniquitatis.  
§. 8. But those who plead the Obligation of the Covenant (upon this account) null, will easily understand, that they will stand concerned to prove from the Word of God, That God hath somewhere determined, that either his Church Catholic, or his particular Church in England, should inalterably be governed by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Arch-Deacons, etc. Which when they have done, we will freely grant them that the Covenant in that Point doth not oblige: But this is such a task, as none we have met with durst undertake.  
§. 9 That therefore which they chief insist upon, is, that the matter of the Covenant was secondarily unlawful, as contrary to the Laws of the Church or State-communities in which we are involved, where we have two things to do, 1. To examine, Whether what they say be truth. And 2. To examine whether it be conclusive.  
§. 10. The Church is either Catholic and Universal, or particular: Either Entitive, Ministerial or Organical. When we speak of a Church supposed to be in a capacity to make Laws, obliging others, we must understand an organnical, representative Church, either Catholic, or National, or Provincial.  
§. 11. The Catholic Church in this sense, must consist, of a due proportion of Members sent from all particular Churches in the world, who meeting in a Synod, shall determine, or have determined such and such things; and we do confess (though we dare not assert such Laws universally obliging to all Christian People to the world's end) that we have and should have a great reverence, for such constitutions. But we do not believe that ever any such an Assembly met upon the earth, nor do we believe the world in a capacity to convene such an one, we have indeed read of some Councils called General Councils, but besides that, we find no such Law made by them, neither do we believe them to have been such Assemblies, strictly considered.  
§. 12. They must therefore understand the National Church of England: Which may be taken (as we said before) entitively, or organically. In the first sense, The Church of England is the whole number of Christian people in England, professing the Christian Faith: But when we speak of a Church making Laws, we must not understand Church in this Notion; but must understand it considered as organical; and then their power of making Constitutions or Canons, obligatory to others, must be derived either from the Word of God, or from the Civil Magistrate. What power can be pretended from the Word of God, must be bottomed upon Acts 15. From whence all that is possible to be concluded, is this, That particular Churches of Christians have a power given them by the Word of God, to choose fitting Messengers, which being so chosen, and met together, may consult and determine, in some Ecclesiastical cases. But certain it is, there was never such a National Convention in England; so that we need not inquire the matter of Fact, nor the force and power of such decrees, how far, and in what cases, they do oblige either present or future Generations.  
§. 13. The power which any Synod, Convocation, or Convention met at any time in England, can pretend to have had, must be either from the Pope before the Reformation in the time of King Hen. the 8th. or by virtue of some Act of Parliament since that time.  
§. 14. Our absolver's talk so much of the Church of England, and the Laws of the Church and Sons of the Church, by which they mean the Hierarchy (though it will be hard for them interpreting the Church, in that notion to answer the Papists, ask them where our Church was before Luther; for I am sure we had no Protestant Prelacy before that time) that it will not be amiss for us to take a view of the Church of England under this Notion, and consider what power she had (and from whom derived) to make any Ecclesiastical Laws, that should be this day so obligatory, that an Oath taken against them must be forthwith void.  
§. 15. We are indeed told by some Ecclesiastical Writers of King Lucius, who about the year 170. was an Instrument of planting the Gospel in England, and that he in stead of the Paganish Arch-Flamins and Flamens, established 28 Archbishops and Bishops, but the evidence of it is so feeble, that we find few giving any credit to it, much less was the Nation so early christianized so far, as to have any Synod so full, as to make Laws obliging the whole Nation: Nor indeed is there any Authentic Records of any considerable English Synod till near the year 600; then Pope Gregory sent over Augustine the Monk, to convert the Britain's, and he made haste in his work, baptising 10000 in a day. This doubtless was the man who first founded Prelacy in England (himself being the first Archbishop) in conformity to the Order of the Romish Church, whence he came; we know that it is said by some, that when he came, her found here one Archbishop and seven Bishops, but no such thing appears in his Letters, not are their Names, or places of residence expressed.  
§. 16. This Augustine by Authority derived from the Pope, appointeth Bishops, calleth a Synod, and enacteth Laws, etc. From that time, which was the year 586. to the year 1205. we have no Record of any Ecclesiastical Laws, made in England, the Christians here were doubtless governed by the Popish Canon Law. Although in that time there were 43 Archbishops of Canterbury (if we may believe Chronologers) yet have we no Record of any obligatory Canons were made by them.  
§. 17. Betwixt 1205. and 1414. were 14 Archbishops of Canterbury, beginning with Steph. Langton, and ending with H. Checkly, these all made some Provincial Laws, which are gathered together, and put into some method by Lindwood. Within that time the Pope sending over two Legates; Otho, in the year 1226. 11 Hen. 3. and Othobonus, in the year 1248. which was the 32 Hen. 3. They also each of them made parcels of Canons, which were after collected by Johannes de Aton, and were all the Laws of the Church of England (as they call it) in force. Nor do we read of any more done till the 25 Hen. 8. which was the year 1533. Till this time the Church of England was lost in the Popish rubbish, (according to our brethren's sense of Church, for the Prelates, there was none other, no not one)  
§. 18. In that year the Reformation of the Church was begun by Parliament, who made an Act (printed in our Statute Book,) forbidding any of the Clergy from that time, to presume to attempt, allege, claim, or to put in ure, any constitutions or Ordinances, Provincial or Synodal, or any other Canons; or to enact, promulge or execute any such Canons, etc. or assemble to enact them, without the King's Writ calling them together, and the King's Highness his consent ratifying them, etc. So that, from that day, no Laws made by the Church could oblige us, unless K. Hen. 8. first called the Churchmen together, and then ratified what they Decreed.  
§. 19 As to all former Church-laws, the Parliament in that Act gave power to K. Hen. 8. to call together 32 persons to review all old Canons, and to collect a body of Canons out of them, being not contrary to the Laws of God, nor the Laws of the Land, which when they had done, K. Hen. 8. was to confirm them; and immediately upon the review of the old Canons, they were all by than Act abrogated, and nulled, and so all Canons also after to be made contrary to the Laws of the Nation, etc.  
§. 20. Before these 32 persons could be called, and meet and finish their work, K. Hen. 8. dieth. The former Act not giving power to the King his Heirs and Successors to call the 32 persons, K. Edw. 
3, 4 Ed. 6. cap. 11.  did not do it, till the Parliament meeting in the 3d and 4th year of his Reign, by a new Act, gave him also power with the advice of his Council, within three years to name the 32 persons, which his father should have named.  
§. 21. King Edw. the 6. by his Letters Patents, bearing date, at Westminster, 11 Nou. in the 5th. year of his Reign, authorizeth the 32 Persons (whose Names and Powers may be seen by the Copy of those Letters Patents, prefixed to a Book called, Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.) They met, and within the three years' time, reviewed all, and compiled that Book called as aforesaid, (upon which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. The old Canon Laws were utterly abrogated; but before King Edward had confirmed this new Book, he died: So that there was no Laws of the Church of England left in any force.  
§. 22. Q. Mary succeeds, she revives the old Popish Canon Law. Q. Eliz. after her reviveth the Reformation: In her time, several Injunctions and Canons were made. After her time, K. James summoned a Synod, Anno 1603. which made 141 Canons, but as Qu. Elizabeth's (to our knowledge) were never confirmed so much as by the Royal assent, so the latter were never yet confirmed by Act of Parliament, by which alone (we are told) that our Consciences can be obliged, is perfect Laws.  
§. 23. It is observable, That in the Statute 25 Hen. 8. authorising such Canons, as should hereafter be made in Convocations assembled by the King's Writ, being first confirmed by the King; It is not said, by the King's Majesty, his Heirs or Successors, though in other parts of the same Act, those words are added. It is very probable, that the want of those words in the following part of the Act, concerning his Majesty's choosing the 32 persons to view the old Canons, was the reason why King Edward did not do it (King Hen. 8. being dead) till a new Act was made to the same purpose, to which latter Act, K. Edw. 6. in his Letters Patents refers, not to that of 25 Hen. 8. Nor is it yet determined whether a King's confirmation of Canons, makes them Law (according to that Statute of 25 Hen. 8. supposing that K. Hen. 8. his Heirs and Successors, as well as himself were intended in the Statute) any longer than his Majesty's Person lives, who so ratifies and confirms them. So that it is far from being so clear, that we may adventure the violation of an Oath upon it, that we have this day any Canons, or constitutions Ecclesiastical, of force, either by the Laws of God or of the Nation.  
§. 24. But admit this, where shall we find any such Canon as this? That the Government of the Church of God in England, is, and shall be by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Arch-Deacons; so that it shall be unlawful, either for the People of England, in their callings and places, to endeavour the extirpation of that Form of Government, or for the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England, to move for, or to Vote the alteration of it, and to engage People against it by an Oath: Something of this nature must be proved, before the Covenant will be proved contrary to the Laws of the Church of England; and if such a Canon could be showed, it is no Law; for it is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation, giving power to the Parliaments of England, to repeal or alter any Laws, Statutes, etc. And all Canons, contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Nation, are aforehand declared void and null by the Statute, 25 Hen. 8.  
§. 25. By what hath been said, appears the vanity of their Plea, who plead that the Covenant is null and void, because against the Law; of the Church: Let us come now to consider whether they speak more sense or truth, who pretend it is void, because contrary to the just Laws of the Nation.  
§. 26. It being apparent from the former discourse, that there was no Canon-Law of England in any force at the time of the composing, imposing and taking of the Covenant, the question only lies concerning the civil Laws of the Nation; which according to the Statute, 25 Hen. 8. must give all the obligatory virtue, which any Ecclesiastical deliberations can have amongst us.  
The Laws of our Nation are usually distinguished into, The Common Law and the Statute Law. The first is not written, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncertain, as may appear, from the different senses of Judges in their Book-cases, its matter and form is no other than the ancient Customs and Usages of the English Nation; which having been retained for many years, have been so familiarized with the People of the Nation, that by a common consent they have passed, and do pass for Law, till they are cotrolled by Statute. Our Statute Law is made up of the several Acts of about 260 Parliaments, and yet is capable of daily augmentation.  
§. 27. If those who plead the Covenant contrary to the Laws of the Nation, mean, The Common Law of England, their sense is no more than this, That by the constant usage of the Nation of England, the Government of the Church in that Nation, hath been by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. and an Oath (imposed by the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament) taken by the People, tending to the destruction of that ancient usage, is void and null, yea though the King of England (disliking the first imposing of it) yet afterwards, approveth his Subjects taking of it, and himself joins with them, and also taketh it.  
Yet neither will this evidence the matter of the Covenant contrary to Law. For in the Covenant we have sworn, to endeavour the extirpation, etc. The Law which must be contrary to this, must say, You shall not endeavour, etc. Now we appeal to all the Lawyers in England, whether there be any piece of the Common Law of England, which says to the Lords and Commons assembled in a Legal Parliament, or to the People of England, concerning any custom or usage in the English Nation,— You shall not endeavour in your callings and places, the extirpation and alteration of it: If there be, sure we are, the Statute 25 Hen. 8.21. doth control it, declaring a full power in the Parliament of England, with his Majesty's consent, to dispense, abrogate, null, diminish, amplify any Laws, etc. But there can no such thing be alleged.  
§. 28. So that here's no contrariety to the Common Law: Here is only, The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament (by his Majesty's Writ legally) taking notice that the external Form of Ecclesiastical Government amongst us, according to a long usage of the Nation, in the times of Popery (viz. from about the year 600. till the time of reformation, in the Reign of Hen. 8. and since that time, after some regulation of it by Statutes) was upon experience found at least very disconvenient to the reformed state of the Church amongst us, and having power in them (with the King's consent to be afterwards had) to abrogate, null, diminish, or amplify, any English Laws, usages, etc. agreeing to extirpate this usage, and swearing, and causing the People of England to swear with them, that they would in their callings and places endeavour to extirpate it. Whether the King pleased to consent, or no, certainly, they had power, in their callings and places to endeavour such a thing. The Covenant engageth no further: We cannot understand any contrariety in this to the Common Law of England.  
§. 29. For the Statute-Law of England, we shall only say this; That the Statute-Law which must be contrary to the Covenant, must speak to this effect; The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament upon a Legal Summons, shall not swear themselves, nor make others swear, to endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, i. e. the Church-Government, by Archbishops, Bishops, etc. Where to find such a Law we cannot tell: No, nor yet such a Statute, as positively determines, That the Government of the Church in England is, and shall be by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. It is true we often in the Statutes meet with these Names, and we find the Statutes supposing them, Ecclesiastical Officers, and telling us, That the Kings of England formerly founded this Church in Prelacy (what kind of Prelacy, and with what circumstances they say not) but we are at a loss for any other (save this implicit) establishment by any Statute Law.  
And we further believe, that the Spiritual Lords before the time of K. Hen. the 8, would have taken it in foul scorn, that any secular powers should have gone about by a civil Law to establish them: We have read of the heavy stir in King John's time, when the King of England did but pretend to the Nomination of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to what a base degree of condescension the Pope and his children here in England, humbled their Sovereign for that offer.  
§. 30. The truth is no more than this: The Parliament of England in the beginning of our Reformation, being engaged in prudence to drive no further nor faster in Reformation, than (the Lambs could go) the present state of the Nation could bear, which at that time was but very little, the Popish party being then the greatest by far, the Reformed Party such as did but see (men like trees) imperfectly discerning the things that differ in Religion, were pleased to proportion the Reformation, accordingly, so as neither, the newly Reformed Party might be lost by too much seeming innovation, nor the remaining Popish party exasperated too far. Hence in matter of Doctrine, nothing was agreed till the year 1562. which was the 4 of Eliz. not ratified by Parliament till 1571. viz. 13 Eliz. (near thirt years after the first beginning of Reformation) Hence in the matter of Worship, the same Lyturgy was continued, which was used in the Popish Mass, only leaving out the Prayers to Saints, and for the Pope; and the second Edition of the Common-Prayer, Anno 5 & 6 Edw. 6. was much amended in many things, from that 2 Edw. only in the business of Kneeling at the Sacrament, Didoclavius observeth, it was left at liberty by the Common-Prayer-Book, 2 Edw. but commanded in the Edition of it 5 & 6 Edw. 6. yet not without an excellent Rubric, to expound the usage of it (still to be seen in the Common-Prayer-Book, Edit. 5 & 6 Edw. 6. viz. Anno 1552. but left out in our ordinary Books, for what Reasons, let any one read and judge) As to the Form of Church-Government, the reforming Parliaments in the time of Hen. 8. found one in being, and the persons exercising it, in great power; they therefore thought fit not to dispute that Point, only to regulate that power, which the former usages of the Nation, and the Canon-Law, had invested them with, requiring them, to seal with the King's Arms in their Seals, to do nothing without his Writ, 
V Stat. 5 Eliz. 23.  etc. Other Parliaments since have denied them any assistance from the civil power to back their censures, but in some particular cases, and forbade them to administer any Oath, to fine, amerce, 
17 Car.  or imprison any of the King's Subjects, removing the Bishops out of the , etc. This is all the establishment we can find, that the ancient Hierarchy of England, had by any Law of England.  
§. 31. But suppose they were so established, do our Brethren take it for such an undoubted Gospel-Maxim, that an Oath taken against the Laws of a Nation, of what kind soever, written, or not written, consonant to, or dissonant from the Law of God, is forthwith null, and void, and no ways obliging? Do they believe this such a truth, that men may venture the damnation of their souls upon it? and venture, the curse of God cleaving to their house, till it hath consumed the timber thereof and the stones thereof, Zech. 5.3. upon the truth of it? They may talk thus in drollery to their friends, or credulous Proselytes, they may (to show their grandiloquence, and liberty of phrase) in lax discourses thus speak in Pamphlets; but we are so well persuaded of some of their skill in divinity, and of their other Learning too, that we believe they know, that no Scripture, no reason, no creditable authority, will justify any such thing, and they would be loath, that their crime, in these swelling words of vanity (by which the souls of people are ensnared) should be expiated, by that slight penance, of any of their standing two or three days in any of our schools, to defend such an atheological maxim, against what Arguments would be brought against it, nor would we desire fairer play in our case.  
§. 32. 1. In the first place, they will certainly grant, that it is false, if the Laws of the Nation to which an Oath pretended contrariant, be contrary to the Laws of God: For the contrary assertion were to set up one Higher than the Highest: So that if he who hath taken the Covenant, doth believe that the Government of the Church in England by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, prebend's, Archdeacon's, Chancellors, Commissaries, be contrary to God's Word, suppose that it be established by Law, or were so established, the Oath doth bind against the Law. And certainly if God's Word establisheth any Form, it is so, for there is in it ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of Deans, prebend's, Archbishops, Chancellors, etc.  
§. 33. 2. In the second place, Our Brethren will certainly grant, that in case the King had immediately consented with his Parliament, and imposed the Covenant, though it had been, expressly, apertly, positively, against any Law or Laws of the Nation, yet the Oath had obliged, because they altogether had a power to suspend annul, and abrogate any Law. It is true, this Oath was only imposed by Lords and Commons, the King at present not consenting: We are no Lawyers, nor can we tell how far the power of Lords and Commons extends, as to the suspending of the exercise of Laws, or giving of Oaths. But we have heard, that 2 parts of the legislative power of England lies in the Lords and Commons, and that they have of themselves given Oaths in many cases, in what cases, we know not: After this, his Majesty declares, That those who had taken the Oath, should least offend God and him in keeping of it. His Majesty that now is, takes the same Oath, declares his approbation, etc. Shall it yet be told us, that the Oath is void, because against the Laws, when all 3 States to whom the legislative power belongs, have approved of it: Certainly they must have an easy Faith, that part with it, to such kind of Assertions.  
§. 34. 3. But suppose there had been no such thing, but the Oath had been merely spontaneous; Our Brethren speak without their books, in discharging men's Souls, upon this Plea. Dr. Sanderson will tell them, that if the Law be penal, and hath in it an election, either of doing the thing, or suffering the penalty, an Oath will bind against the active part. Fortassis possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum, quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari et si non debuerit suscipi, 
De juram prom. prael. 3. §. 9  susceptum tamen potest obligare: ut exempli causa, in lege poenali disjunctiuâ. He puts the case concerning the Law of a City; That he who is chosen Mayor by the Freemen, shall hold, in case he refuseth, he shall pay 100 lb.  
Suppose such a Law, and this Law respecting this City established by Act of Parliament; A particular Citizen hath taken a private Oath, that he will never bear the Office of Mayoralty in that City, this man is chosen by the Freemen; What shall he do? Not hold (saith Dr. Sanderson) but pay his money; his Oath will bind here against the active part of the Law: So that if there were 40. penal Laws, which might seem to establish the Hierarchy against which the Covenant is directed; the Covenant will bind us against them all, thus far, viz, to suffer the penalty annexed for not owning them, rather than to own and acknowledge them. But yet further:  
§. 35. 4. Let us examine the reason, why an Oath should not bind against Law: There can be no other pretended, but the dominion which God hath reserved to Superiors over their Inferiors. So that if this which we call Law, be not clearly an establishment of our Superiors, to whom legistative power belongs (which mere usage and custom is not arguing no more than permission of Superiors) or if the Law be an exercise of dominion in things ubi non habent dominium; where God's Word allows them no such dominion, an Oath will certainly bind against such pretended Laws. Hence Azorius well notes, that boni mores sunt varii, i.e. 
Azor. mor. qu. l. 11. cap. 6.  good manners or customs are various, some commanded by the written Law of God, some by the written Canon Law, some by the Civil Law. And (saith he) that maxim, that Juramentum contra bonos mores non obligat. An Oath against good manners, customs, laws, doth not oblige, is to be understood, if it be contra bonos mores juris naturalis, vel divini Scripti, vel Canonici, secus autem est, si juramentum sit contra bonos mores jure civili institutos, i. e. against good Laws or manners, commanded by the divine Law of God written, or by the Canon Law; but 'tis otherwise, if those good manners be only commanded by Civil Laws. 
Sanches. l. 3. cap. 9 Suarez l. 2. de jur. cap. 21. Layman tract. mor. l. 4. cap. 6.  To the same purpose determine, Sanchis, Layman, and many other Casuists. The reason why they add the Canon-Law, is, because they believe their Church cannot err; so that an Oath against their Church Canons, is to them equivalent with an Oath against the Law of God.  
§. 36. 5. Yet it must be granted, that Oaths, in some cases, against Civil Laws, may be void, but it is far from being granted, to be an universal Truth: Abbas, Sylvester, Azorius, Molina, Lessius, Layman, Sanches, Suarez, all agree that an Oath will bind against any civil Law, if the Law doth obligare ad paenam, non ad culpam necessariò, i. e. oblige not necessarily to sin in case of refusal, but to punishment (which is what we said before) nay the most of them add further, that it will bind against them,— ubi materia legibus opposita sine peccato sieri potest; i.e. where the matter of it can without sin be performed; being not contra jus naturale aut divinum.  
6. Bartolus, 
Bartolus de fide jussor.  the great Lawyer gives several Rules in the case.  
1. He says, an Oath taken against the Civil Laws of a Nation, made chief for a public good, will not oblige: which Rule, yet Azorius doth not think proved by Covarruvias or Imolas, the friends of Bartolus, in the case.  
2. An Oath taken to confirm a Bargain. which Bargain is contrary to the Law, will (saith he) bind, till the Church absolves. As if one swears to pay an Usurer more than the Law alloweth the Usurer to take; or to pay a Thief a Sum of Money, to redeem his life, (supposing a Law to make such a Contract void) yet the Oath would bind. 
Sayri claevis regia, l. 11. ca 13.  Upon this case Gregor. Sayrus determines, That (supposing a Law) that all contracts, for the payment of money won by play, shall be void, yet if one have sworn to pay his Fellow-gamester, he is bound to pay it. He quotes with him in this opinion, Navarrus, Bannez, Salon, Lopez, Med na, etc.  
A third Rule he gives is this; 3. If the Oath be only contrariant to a civil Law, made only for the advantage of him that sweareth, the Oath will bind against the Law. We dare not justify all these Rules: But we will put a case or two to our Brethren, who are so free of their pardons and absolutions in this case. All know that it is against the Law of England, that a woman (under Covert Baron) should dispose of her estate which she hath in Jointure. Suppose now her husband proves a Bankrupt, or be imprisoned for debt, or suppose the woman, herself wants money, and she to furnish herself, or deliver her husband, borrows a sum of money, swearing to him of whom she borrows it, that if God lets her live to enjoy her Jointure, some Deed which she makes (against Law) for the security of the Creditor, shall be made good (though against Law) Shall not her Oath bind her? The Law of England expressly forbids giving above 6 per cent. for Interest: Suppose one swears, (in his necessity to give 8 per cent.) Will not this Oath bind, think we? in short, Azorius determines bluntly; Quando contractus est solum jure civili interdictus, jurejurando confirmatur: That an Oath will bind to fulfil a contract only forbidden by a civil Law.  
§. 37. We are not altogether satisfied in the Popish Casuists reasons, for this determination, we judge this question cannot be well resolved, without the resolution of another very weighty question; viz. How far humane Laws bind the Conscience; We do believe, that all such humane Laws as do necessarily tend to preserve the Government, and tranquillity of a civil state, because they are confirmed by the Law of nature, and the divine Law revealed, do apertly bind the Conscience, so that an Oath taken against them, is forthwith void. But for Laws, not plain and certain and express, nor having such necessary tendency, to the being of a civil state, nor being so conformable to the Law of Nature, or written Law of God, whether they lay such an hold on the Conscience as to make void an Oath, we think deserves our absolver's second thoughts, possibly the taking of such Oaths, might be at first inadvised and unlawful, but being taken, that they are voided by second thoughts, that the matter of them was against Law, we cannot but a little doubt and believe our Brethren have few Casuists, or other Divines of their minds in the case.  
§. 38. Nor yet is this our case, where the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament, to whom (though not solely) the legislative power belongs, do themselves take, and require others to take an Oath, to endeavour the extirpation of a Form of Government, which they apprehended inconvenient; which it is true was established by the usage of a long tract of time, but no positive Law was existent, directing it as the Government of the Church in England (though several indeed supposed it) that an Oath so directed and imposed, doth not oblige against such a pretended imperfect legal establishment, is we confess, a piece of divinity, the depth of which we cannot fathom, nor yet believe that there is any truth in it. If any of our Brethren in earnest think otherwise, they should do well to bring forth their strong Reasons, or to tell us what one Divine, Ancient, or Modern is of their minds: till that time, it is sufficient for us out of a reverence to the sacred Name of God, to descent from them in this notion, proved as yet, by no Scripture, no reason, nor any creditable authority.  
§. 39 For what some tell us, that this Covenant was against Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, etc. they appear to us scarce to have read either. The latter saith not a word of the Government of the Church. In the former, there is only this general Article;— We have granted to God, 
Magna Charta cap. 1.  and by this our present Charter, have confirmed for us, and our heirs for ever, That the Church of England shall be free, and have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable: And may she not be so, though Prelacy by extirpated? Are Archbishops and Bishops, &c. more concerned in Magna Charta, than Abbots and Priors? Yet what are become of their Liberties? Was not the privilege of Sanctuary, of making Canons, etc. some of those Rights? Yet are they not taken away by Act of Parliament? Surely so may the Church-governors mentioned in the Covenant.   

CHAP. VII.  
The absolver's Plea from Schism considered. The nature of Schism. No guilt of Schism, by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy. Their Plea also from the supposed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant, to the matter of former Oaths, particularly, the Coronation Oath, the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Canonical Obedience, answered, and found vain.  
§. 1. OUR absolver's foreseeing these easy Answers to their  Pleas, or at least being ware, that if Prelacy be left to stand only upon a Parliamentary Foundation, it will be liable to extirpation by succeeding Parliaments, have not rested here, but raised their Plea higher; telling us, That Episcopacy hath no Original but from the Apostles, and looks very like an immediate institution of Christ's, either preceptive and explicit, or tacit, and exemplary, so that to abjure it, runs us upon a Rock of Schism, and dasheth us both in Opinion, and practise, against the judgement and custom of the Catholic Church, in all places and ages (till of later days) from the Apostles days, with whom we ought to keep communion in all things of so ancient tradition, and universal observation.  
In these words, or to this sense they speak all.  
§. 2. It is very observable, that if there were any truth in this Plea, it would not only conclude all our Brethren of the Reformed Churches, in France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland, N. England, most parts of Germany, Schismatics: (For that is nothing with those with whom we have to do) but it would also supersede all civil power's thought for ever meddling with the Government of the Church, for fear of violating an Institution of Christ, and the order of the whole Catholic Church, and being posted up for Schismatics.  
§. 3. But is it so indeed? Or is this the noise of those who thunder thus, because they cannot hope with any solid Arguments to do much; let us a little consider these big phrases, and see what they signify.  
The Papists have so enured us to this suffering under the reproach of Schismatics, for breaking off from the order of their Catholic Church, that we begin not so much to regard the Charge, or at least, not to believe every one who calls out Schism and Schismatics; when they have nothing else to say.  
§. 4. Schism properly signifies, a Rent or Breach, which when it is from or in the community of a Church, is very sinful, both because against the Command of God directly, and interpretatively; but it must be from the Communion of a Church walking according to the Divine Rule, otherwise (if the Church's deviation especially be great) there's no great fear of any guilt by Schism, in departing from it.  
§. 5. If indeed God by his Word, hath any where appointed, that the Government of his Universal Church, shall be by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. and the Church hath always walked in that order, we confess then that out Oath against it, is Schismatical: But we desire our Brethren to prove this.  
§. 6. Nay if God hath left the Church to its liberty, to set up what Form of Government she pleases, and the Universal Church hath at any time met in a perfect General Council, and determined this inalterable Form, or by an universal practice hath kept to such a Form, there may be some colour to charge us, but neither shall our Brethren prove this to us.  
§. 7. We challenge all the friends of Prelacy, to make it good from any authentic Record, that for three hundred years after Christ, there were any such Creatures known in the Church of God, as Archbishops, Archdeacon's, prebend's, Commissaries, Chancellors. Pope Stephen indeed in the 3 Century, is called the chief Bishop of Rome (in the fabulous decretal Epistles) but Cyprian writing to him, calls him no more than his Colleague. In the 4 Century, we read of Bishops, Elders and Deacons, Ambrose mentions them. Dionysius and Optatus mention no more in this age. Hierom (in his Epistle to Nepotianus, tells us, 
l. the Dign. Sacerdot.  that Bishops and Presbyters were the same, only the latter were the younger men. Ambrose tells us they had one and the same Ordination. Indeed towards the end of the 4 Century (which was 400 years after Christ) they began to multiply Ecclesiastical Officers, than came in Readers and Exorcists, Subdeacons', Archdeacon's, and Archbishops, etc. But we have already forsook the Order of the Church at that time, when it was woefully declined from its Primitive Purity, and shall be no more guilty of Schism in going a little further.  
§. 7. We said before, that we find in Ecclesiastical story early mention of Bishops, but not of such as ours were in England.  
Our Bishops, 1. Lay claim to a sole and single power in Ordination and Jurisdiction.  
2. They are not chosen by the People nor Clergy.  
3. They are attended with Deans and prebend's, Archdeacon's, etc.  
4. They execute their power by Lay Chancellors, Commissaries, etc.  
5. They have used to exercise a power in depriving Ministers, suspending, silencing, excommunicating, for trivial cases, not paying a Tithe Goose or Pig, etc. Let our Brethren show us such an Episcopacy, (before Antichrist was up in his Throne) if they can; if not, they vainly charge us with Schism, in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of such a Prelacy, for which is no foundation, in the practice, either of the Primitive or any Reformed Church.  
§. 8. We are further told (how truly comes next to be examined) that the Covenant was void, because the matter of it contradicted former Oaths. They mention four: of Allegiance, Supremacy, of Canonical obedience, and that taken by the Kings of England, at their Coronation. If this be true, it is unquestionably void, for Juramentum prius prejudicat posteriori: But considering, that the Covenant was agreed and taken, by the Members of the gravest Convention of the Nation, and by so many Reverend Divines, it will not be amiss to inquire whether of a truth it be so or no, that if we find it true, both King and Parliament and People, may all do obeisance to Prelacy, as having unwarily suffered their grave and sacred ears to be nailed to the doors of its house, and obliged themselves to be its Servants for ever.  
§. 9 As to the Oath of Allegiance, there is no mention of Archbishops nor Bishops in it, we have only swore Faith and Allegiance to his Majesty; which we hope we may give, and yet endeavour in our callings to extirpate Popery and Prelacy, etc. If any one say, What if he shall command the setting of it up? We would fain know of our Brethren, what we should do, if Popery should be hereafter by any Prince commanded? But to speak directly. 1. We believe that Prelacy had no just footing in England, but what it had by Authority of Parliament. 2. We believe it in the power of King and Parliament, to suspend or abrogate any Laws, and to engage people by Oaths for ever obliging, against the matter of them. 3. We know both King and Parliament by their Act 17 Car. did take away much of the Prelate's jurisdiction. 4. We know that the two Houses of Parliament did suspend all other power of Arch-Bishops, etc. and engage the people of England by Oath against the restoring of it. 
* We assert the truth of this no further than as we have received it by printed Narrations.  Which Oath his sacred Majesty afterwards ratified and confirmed for ever. We believe none can absolve us from an Oath but God only. Our Allegiance therefore can only (in case of such commands) be showed, in our patient, humble submission to such penalties, as shall be inflicted upon us, for not yielding active Obedience, contrary to our Oaths.  
§. 10. So that a man might, and may bear Faith, and true Allegiance to his Majesty, and yet take an Oath to endeavour in our callings, the Extirpation of Episcopacy or Prelacy, in two cases.  
1. In case our Allegiance to God, required such an endeavour of us in our places.  
2. In case his Majesty's command of submission to that Prelacy, comes after my Oath to the contrary (ratified by himself.) And I can find no more in that Oath which can be pretended as contradictory to the Covenant.  
§. 11. The next Oath which they mention, is that of Supremacy, This Oath was established by the Statute 1 Eliz. 1. being devised to secure the Subjects of England to the Supreme Civil Magistrate of England, from acknowledging the foreign jurisdiction of the Pope. What can be fetched from this Oath must be either from the first part; where having declared, that we do in conscience believe the King is the only Supreme Governor in England, as well in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as Civil, in opposition to any foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate; and thereupon we renounce such pretended foreign Jurisdiction, and promise Faith and Allegiance. Or else it must be in the latter clause, where we promise to assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, etc. annexed to the Imperial Crown of England. For the former part we are not able to understand what in the Covenant is contrary to it? The Covenant allows the King the supreme moderation of all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual causes (if God's word will allow it) for there's nothing any can pretend against it, except they plead that then our Reformation cannot be according to the word of God (which for our parts we think very false.) The Covenant doth not in the least acknowledge the Jurisdiction of any foreign Princes, Prelates, etc. For the latter part, where we promise to assist and defend the Jurisdictions and Privileges annexed to the Imperial Crown. So saith the Covenant;— his Majesty's Person, Honour, and Authority—. Ah! but the second Article must be contrary to this Oath, because it is the Right of the Crown to choose Bishops, etc. (How this Plea will stand with their Episcopacy of Apostolical right let them consider.) I would fain (to make the business short) know, whether some of these Rights of the Crown may not by consent of the King be parted with? and whether his Majesty when he took the Covenant did not part with them? We had before only sworn to endeavour the extirpation of these Officers, in all our callings by lawful means and ways: (Such now as Petitioning the King, etc.) His Majesty that now is, at the entreaty of his Subjects in Scotland, parts with this Right, by swearing to extirpate those Officers, to the nomination of which he before had a right. May not we now keep the Oath of Supremacy, and the Covenant too?  
Nor can that general term oblige us any further, than to a defence, and maintaining all such Jurisdictions, Privileges, and Rights, annexed to the Imperial Crown, which are not contrary to the Word of God.— But there needs no more be urged against this vain plea; especially considering that very few men in England of those that took the Covenant had ever taken the Oath of Supremacy, which only belonged to Ecclesiastical persons, Graduates in Universities, and public Officers. Which did not make the hundredth part of those who took the Covenant in England.  
§. 12. The third Oath, to which (it is pretended) the Covenant is contrary, is the Oath of Canonical Obedience, which concerns no more than such as were made Ministers before 1641. or at least very few, so that much need not be said to it now. Indeed all those, or at the least most of those that have been in the Ministry twenty years, when they were Ordained, did promise, Reverently to Obey their Ordinary: And after this (by what Law I cannot tell) did swear (at least when they had Institution granted them by the Bishop to any living) that they would obey him in things lawful and honest. And also did subscribe the 39 Articles, where the 36. Article doth approve of the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops, Bishops.  
Here now is 1. a Promise of Obedience to the Ordinary.  
2. An Oath to the same purpose.  
3. A Subscription, that the form of the Consecration of Arch-Bishops, etc. contains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God. Now it is said, that he who took the Covenant, bound himself in a contrary bond, which latter bond by that reason is void ipso facto.  
§. 13. But (besides that, this Plea will absolve very few, as we said before) we are not able to fathom the depth of this Argument, for the Absolution of any. The Question is here, viz. Whether he that hath subscribed, that the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. expressed in the Common-Prayer book, contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God; and who hath promised Obedience to his Ordinary, and sworn to it, may not (after this) take an oath in his calling to endeavour the extirpation of the Government by Arch-Bishops, etc.  
§. 14. First, suppose that upon mature deliberation, the Ministers that subscribed, and took that Oath of Canonical Obedience, find that it was an unlawful Oath or Subscription, as obliging them to the acknowledgement of such a power in the Church, as is by no means allowed in the Word of God, they are in such a case only obliged to be humbled for their rash subscription and taking of that Oath, and their Second Oath against them will hold valid.  
Nay, secondly; suppose that that Oath of Canonical Obedience was imposed without authority of Parliament: And the Parliament as soon as they took notice of it, declared their dissent to it, and to all Oaths imposed without their authority: Certainly this should go far with them, who make the like plea against us, as to the Obligation of the Covenant.  
§. 15. But, thirdly; we will for once suppose the Oath materially good and lawful as to the efficient cause; yet certainly the Oath is irritated and made void by the Parliaments taking away of the matter of it. Nor do we understand how any person by a promise or an oath to be obedient in things lawful and honest, to this or that Governor, doth oblige himself whatever evil he seethe in such a Governor, either through want of just title, or maladministration of his trust, never, to endeavour to free himself from that servitude. If indeed we had sworn in the Oath of Canonical Obedience, never to have endeavoured the Extirpation of the Government, then to have taken the Covenant, had been to have sworn to contradictions, and the first Oath would have made the latter void, unless the matter of the first had been proved to have been unlawful, and so the first Oath had been Vinculum iniquitatis. But we shall need add no more in answer to this Plea, which if it were good, could absolve very few.  
§. 16. The next Oath, to which they pretend the Covenant to be contradictive, is the Oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation: We must confess we are not so fit to speak to this (being no Lawyers) only thus much at first offers its self.  
1. That his Majesty who now is, hath not taken it as yet, but hath taken the Covenant.  
2. We cannot find, that the King doth swear, to maintain and uphold the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and never to consent to an Act of Parliament for the extirpation of them, there is certainly no such thing. Ah but he swears to defend the rights of the Church (they will say) and Episcopacy is one of the rights of the Church.— The Oxford men quote the passages of the Coronation Oath, which they conceive the Covenant contradicting: Thus He swears,  
That he will keep, grant, and confirm the Laws, Customs, and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King, 
See this Case of Conscience about the King's Coronation Oath excellently resolved by M John Geree.  St. Edward: And that he will grant and preserve unto the Bishops, and to the Churches committed to their charge, all Canonical privileges, due Law and Justice. And that he will protect and defend them, as every good King in his Kingdom ought to be protector and defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government.  
§. 17. We doubt whether both these clauses be to be found in any Coronation Oath which our Princes have taken. If Mr. Prin giveth us a true relation, neither of them were promised by Edw. 6. We find them indeed both, the first in the Oath which King James took at his Coronation in England: the second in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in Scotland, they might (for aught I know) be put together in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in England; where there was certainly an alteration made in the forms of prayer lately used (some were added which were omitted ever since Hen. 6. time, 
Reign of King Charles p. 20.  saith Mr. Le-Strange) the same Gentleman avows there was no alteration made in the Oath. 2. It seems strange to us that the Reverend Bishops, should put the King to swear the Confirmation of the Liberties and Rights granted to the Church by Edward the Confessor, many of which were before taken away by Act of Parliament, as may be seen by comparing the Acts of Parliament since the time of Hen. 8. with the Records of those Grants of Edw. the Confessor, which the Reader may find in the close of Sir H. Spilmans Concilia Pambrittanica.  
§. 18. However it is certain that one thing which the King also swore, was the Government of the Nation, according to the Laws of the Land made, or to be made, so that his Oath for confirming the Church's Rights and Privileges must be interpreted, as to those Rights which were, and should continue ratified by the Laws of the Land; otherwise there was a manifest contradiction in the Oath, as to those two passages.  
§. 19 For the King's Oath, to maintain the Bishops and their Churches, it contradicts not the Covenant, which strikes at nothing but Prelacy of Bishops, Archbishops, Chancellors, Deans, prebend's, etc. Bishops and their Churches may be preserved in England, though these be extirpated. But no more need be said as to our present case; for the Oath which any former King of England took concerned only himself. Obligatio juramenti est personalis non realis, (as I think all Casuists agree.) His Majesty that now is, is obliged by no such Oath.  
§. 20. For the Contradiction which Doctor Featly assigns in the Covenant to the Protestation (by which we swore to preserve the Liberties of Subjects (out of which number Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters are not to be excepted) it is not worthy of an answer; for by the same Argument (after that Protestation taken) the Parliament could not have questioned any one Minister of State, or any other person (at least not annul their office) which certainly none will assert, since their Liberties, as Subjects, might be preserved sure, and yet their Liberties as Prelates, abridged.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The absolver's Plea for the irritation of the Covenant, from the supposed Contradictions in itself, Confuted: and the Covenant (notwithstanding this suggestion) proved valid, and obligatory.  
§. 1. HAving reconciled the Covenant to former Oaths, it is time that we should reconcile it to itself: for, as through its fight with its elders and betters, 'tis possible an Oath may so lose its strength, that it cannot hold a soul; so by hard conflictings within itself too, 'tis possible it may contract that weakness; no man being bound to do things contradictory, which indeed were impossible, at least in this case which we have before us. And this seems a task reasonable for us, considering that the Adversaries of the Covenant, have arraigned it of this before the world, and pronounced sentence against it.  
§. 2. I shall only premise this, That where a man by an Oath, Vow, Covenant, obligeth himself unwarily to do many things, though afterwards he finds that two of these things are contradictory, and the contradiction of them dischargeth his observance, yet he will stand bound to do the other thing contained in that bond. An Oath may be unlawful in some part, and yet Obligatory; unlawful as to some part, and yet obligatory as to other parts. 
Dr. Sanderson de Jur. prom. prael. 3. sect. 5. Aq. 22. q. 89.  Aquinas of old, and Dr. Sanderson tell us, that in case a man hath sworn to things which he finds impossible to be performed, yet he is obliged, ad faciendum quantum potest, to perform as much of it as he can. So that those who would discharge people from the obligation of the Covenant, as to the extirpation of Prelacy, must show us, that there is something in the Covenant contradictory to that particular, or else they say nothing to our purpose. By reason of other allegations the first taking of the Covenant might be unlawful, but (being taken) as to this, it will be found obliging.  
§. 3. Both for this, and the other Branches of the Covenant, we must confess ourselves to have so much reverence for the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament, for the Reverend Assembly of Divines, for the Parliament and Church of Scotland, for all those Ministers, and judicious Christians in England, who so freely took the Covenant, that we are not easy to believe, that an Oath upon mature deliberation, could have been swallowed and imposed by them, guilty of so palpable a fault, as contradicting itself in any thing. But as to this particular (which is only our concern to examine) Those that plead this, must produce another branch of the Covenant, obliging us to preserve and maintain, or at least not to oppose the Government of the Church in England by Prelacy of Arch-Bishops, and Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, etc. which for our part we cannot find, but believe there is no such thing (as not in the letter of it, so neither) by any just consequence to be concluded.  
§. 4. Whereas Doctor Featly assigns this seeming contradiction, in that, the first branch bindeth us to a Reformation of the Church according to the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches. The second branch bindeth us, to the Extirpation of Schism as well as Prelacy. And the third, to preserve and defend his Majesty's Person and Authority, without any diminution of his just Power and Greatness; and to preserve the Rights and Privileges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdom. And then he tells us, that Bilson, Downham, Armagh, and others (never answered by any) have proved Episcopacy to be most conformable to the Word of God. 2. That Prelacy is a means, if not the only means to extirpate Schism: And thirdly, That the Government of Arch-Bishops and Bishops, are comprised (with the Rights and Liberties of the Church) both in Magna Charta, and in the Petition of Right, the two great Records of English Liberties.  
The answer to all this we think is very easy.  
§. 5. To the first; what the Doctor meant by answering Bilson, etc. we cannot tell; all the world knows there have been many have called their Writings Answers to them. However, Bilson's, and the others Arguments have been answered many times over. Besides that, 'tis one thing to say Episcopacy (against which the Covenant is not directed) is conformable to the Word of God: Another thing to assert, that our English Prelacy was. If any will undertake to prove the latter, The Government of the Church most conformable to the Word of God, or direct us to any who hath pretended to a Scriptural proof of it, we dare undertake he shall be answered, or the Covenant (by all sober men) confessed null and void. But this is an hard task.  
§. 6. Supposing Prelacy were a means to extirpate Schism (which good effect of it we never yet saw) yet if it were an unlawful, or inexpedient mean, and there were better might be used, and more agreeable to the Word of God, we might as well swear against that means, and for the extirpation of Schism, as against the Spanish Inquisition (if it were amongst us) which yet will knock down Schism by as good Club-law as ever Prelacy did. As to our case now, the advancing of it will certainly make as great a Schism as ever was in any Church, and those judged Schismatics must live with it, or else the most bloody persecution of innocent souls must follow, that ever any Christian Nation knew. The asserting of Prelacy, as the only means (by the Doctor) is not only gratis dictum, not proved at all, but most falsely said, witness the Church of Scotland, which under Presbytery hath had fewer Schisms than we in England under Prelacy have had, or are like to have.  
§. 7. For the last allegation: It is true, we have sworn to defend his Majesty's Rights, the Parliaments Privileges, and the Subject's Liberties. But,  
1. Surely they must be judges (we mean the King and Parliament) both of their own Rights, and Privileges, and also of our Liberties.  
2. They have also power to disclaim their Rights, and give away our Liberties (we being included in them.) And if they will please to give away, or part with their own Rights and Privileges, and to disclaim for some of us, some particular Liberties, and then impose an Oath upon us; for aught we know, we are bound up by such Oath, nor is there any contradiction to be found here. Nor can we find the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, either in Magna Charta, or the Petition of Right, asserted as pieces of the Liberties of England: Nor were they such Liberties. Certain it is, Dr. Layton, Dr. Bastwick, Mr. Prin, and many others, had no reason to judge so, no more had any other person indeed, witness the proceed in the High Commission, and Starchamber, their frequent Excommunications of persons for not paying a tithe Goose; 
See the Oath prefixed to Dr. Wrens and to Dr. Montagnes Articles, etc.  not appearing at their Courts, their Oath ex officio (their Churchwardens Oath, impossible to be kept by any that took it) with many other things. God be merciful to the poor people of England, if these horrid things be appurtenances to their Liberties: If these be the things they have petitioned for, in their desires so often renewed for the confirmation of Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right. But let those who make this Plea, writ out the words of Magna Charta, etc. upon which they insist, when they tell us such pretty stories as these, and then we shall shape a more particular answer to that cavil.   

CHAP. IX.  
Whether the Error of any man's Conscience that took the Covenant, can discharge him from the observance of it.  
§. 1. HAving thus far cleared the Covenant (as to the matter of it) from any guilt of unlawfulness per se, either primario, or secundario; and shown, that it is neither contrary to the holy Laws of God, nor yet to the good laws of any community wherein we are involved, that it doth not bring us under the guilt of Schism, nor at all thwart any former Oaths, nor yet kill itself by any private quarrel of any member or branch of it with this, which is the matter of our debate: we must in the next place inquire whether it be not unlawful, ex accedenti. Thus (saith our Reverend Dr. Sanderson) an Oath may be, ex errore personae jurantis, or ex effectu malo rei juratae; from the error of the person swearing, or some ill effect of the thing sworn: Either as it is impeditiva boni, an hindrance of some good, or occasionativa mali, occasioning some evil, either temporal to ourselves, or spiritual to another, giving him just cause of stumbling and scandal.  
§. 2. Every reasonable Christian will understand, that it is possible that an Oath, as to the first taking of it, might be unlawful, upon some of these accounts, which yet being taken, aught to be kept. Thus the Reverend Dr. Sanderson determines concerning Oaths taken, 
De Jur. prom. prael. 3. sect. 13, 14, 15.  exposing ourselves to some great temporal damage (which the Psalmist also determines, Psal. 15.) or which expose us to great temptations, and concerning Oaths taken, which give scandal and offence to others. It may possibly be that in regard of some such things it might at first have been judged unlawful for some to have taken such Oaths, but being taken (saith he) they are obligatory, and aught to be kept.  
§. 3. There are therefore only two questions can be made here: 1. Whether an Oath obligeth where the matter is accidentally unlawful (at least presumed to be so) either from the error of the person swearing; or, 2. when it appeareth an obstacle to some good.  
§. 4. As to the first; the case is this, Whether (supposing the matter of the Covenant lawful) if any man's conscience told him when he took it, that it was unlawful; or if it now tells him so, he be yet obliged in conscience to do according to his Oath.  
§. 5. This case Dr. Sanderson thus determines. 1. He saith, That the soul that takes an Oath, concerning which he is, when he takes it, persuaded in his own conscience that it is unlawful (though it be an error of his conscience so to judge) sins grievously. 2. He tells us, Such an Oath doth not oblige (his erroneous persuasion still continuing.) 3. But in case he hath taken the Oath, and his conscience be afterwards better informed, his Oath upon his better information obligeth: Because in every Oath there is an obliging virtue, natural and inseparable, etc.  
§. 6. There is no doubt to be made of the first and third Branch of this determination, from whence this follows: That suppose any did take the Covenant at first contrary to the dictate of his conscience, yet if since he hath seen his conscience was at that time in an error, he is by virtue of his first taking of it perpetually obliged to a just observance of it. The only thing in question here is this; Whether supposing that any, when they first took the Oath, Were under temptations of fear or profit, etc. and so took an Oath, which their Consciences told them was unlawful, and they, bonâ side, think so still. This error of their conscience (supposing the matter of the Covenant never so lawful in itself) doth not discharge them from any obligation to do according to what they have sworn to the most high God.  
§. 7. Dr. Sanderson saith it doth discharge him, and that such an Oath doth not oblige him. The reason he gives is this: Because an Oath cannot take away a former obligation, nor superinduce a contrary obligation, to any which was before upon us. But who so by swearing opposeth the dictate of his conscience, crosseth that same dictate, which was a former obligation upon him, which this subsequent Oath could not remove. He therefore concludes concerning such an Oath, quin ipsum potius invalidum sit, & vim obligandi amittit. The term potius speaks to us, that the Reverend Dr. doubted himself, whether indeed the error of conscience made void the Oath.  
§. 8. It is a very hard case, the hinge of the question is, How far the dictate of an erroneous conscience doth oblige. We know Divines say with Dr. Sanderson, that it does always oblige, ad non faciendum contra, 
Amos. Casus l. 1. cap, 4.11.  to do nothing against it. So also Dr. Amos concerning things that are but lawful, i.e. which may be done, or not be done, he gives this reason for it, Because a man is not bound to do all that is lawful. But suppose the thing to be necessary, i. e. such as God's Word obligeth a man to do; and a man's erroneous conscience tells him, that he ought not to do it; or having done it, his conscience tells him he ought not to persist. What shall he do in this case? We doubt whether in this case he be discharged from the obligation of his Oath, by the error of his conscience. And this is the case; For when a man hath sworn, the fulfilling of his Oath is a thing no longer free to him, but necessary, in regard of the many precepts of God charging him, to take heed of swearing falsely, of taking God's name in vain, etc. and that under the highest penalties. So that he manifestly sins if he does it not. Now it seems to us very hard to assert, That a man's error of conscience (which is his sin) should absolve him from sin, and discharge him of the obligation of his Oath. We suppose upon second thoughts, no sober Divine will maintain it.  
§. 9 The truth is, The misery of an erroneous conscience is very great. If any man hath taken the Covenant, and his conscience now tells him, that he took an Oath, which at that time was unlawful for him to take, and being taken, is unlawful to be kept. If he doth not keep it, he most undoubtedly sinneth against God, whose Oath he hath violated, and whose precepts he hath disobeyed, and contemned his threaten against such as swear falsely; and yet the Oath seems 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to him unclean. So that if he doth observe it, he sinneth against the will of God (saith Dr. Ames) though not materially, and truly, yet formally, and interpretatively, because what a man's conscience dictateth to him, it dictateth under the notion of Gods will concerning him, whether it be so or no. So that he is under a necessity of sinning contracted by his own fault, and upon supposition, that he retains this conscience, which he is bound to acquit himself of.  
§. 10. We presume this is the case of very few in truth. If it be the case of any, we are afraid, that at the Great day they will find their Oath obliging, notwithstanding the error of their conscience. If any only pretend such a thing to get quit of their Oath, Let not our soul enter into their secrets! unto their Assemblies, Let not our honour be united!   

CHAP X.  
The absolver's Plea against the Covenant as Impeditivum boni, false; and if true, not conclusive, according to Casuists.  
§. 1. WE are now come to the last pretence for the unlawfulness of the Covenant, as to the matter, from which some would infer the non-obligation of it. Some late absolver's, have confidently told the world, That none are bound to the Observance of Oaths, further, than till they see, that their Observance would hinder some good, which might accrue from the violation of them; which being once laid down for a Principle, it is but telling their Proselytes, That their persisting in endeavours to extirpate the Government of the Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, will hinder the great good, settlement, order, Communion with the Catholic Church, etc. and they have presently discharged all men's Souls, as they think, from the Obligation of the Covenant.  
§. 2. It were no dangerous matter, we think, to grant their Principle, and to challenge all of them, to instance in any one particular piece of good, which the restoring of this Government, would put us in possession of, more than any other Government would do.  
Is it conformity to the Apostolical or Primitive Church? We challenge them all to prove any such Form of Government, either in the Apostles times, or for some hundred of years after. Is it conformity with the Reformed Churches? Are there any Bishops in the Churches of God in Scotland, Holland, France? Are there any Archbishops, or any single Persons challenging sole power in Ordination or Jurisdiction in any other Reformed Church whatsoever? Are there any Deans, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, &c. to be found amongst them? Indeed in the Popish Church there are, no where else, we think. Is the good they talk of, order, suppression of Schism and error? Will not Presbytery do the same, think we? If not, what hinders? Certainly with the help of the civil powers it will; without it, Prelacy can do nothing.  
§. 3. If we may judge by what is past, we have no great reason to promise ourselves any such eminent Good by Prelacy. Under that Government it was, that so many godly, learned and able Ministers, were silenced, suspended, imprisoned, banished, so many thousands of godly people, forced to leave their Countries, imprisoned, hunted from one place to another, they and their Families undone, and all, because they could not allow humane impositions in the worship of that God, who is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and truth, who requires to be sanctified of them that draw nigh unto him, Leu. 10.3. and hath revealed his wrath of old against the Jews, for doing or allowing that in his Sanctuary, which he commanded not. This is the good, England hath formerly had by them: For Deans and prebend's, all the good they did, was to eat up the Fruits of the Land, enjoying profits and great Revenues, for no considerable Service at all.  
§. 4. But it must not be granted, That our apprehending the observance of an Oath, as hindering some good which might accrue by the violation, will discharge us of our Obligation to observe it. Indeed Gregor. Sayrus' resolves that every private person hath a power to commute an Oath, for something better; but Sylvester, and others, 
Greg. Sayri clavis reg. l. 5. ca 8. n. 15.  oppose him, and think the Pope must first determine the good to be better. Soto, Sanches, Cajetan, Panormitane, Arragon, and others: do allow some cases, wherein they say, an Oath hindering some other good, is void. But they are all agreed in several limitations.  
1. It must be a greater good which is hindered.  
2. This greater good must be no otherwise attaineable, than by the violation of the Oath: For if we can keep our Oath, and obtain the good too, unquestionably we ought to do it.  
3. That melius bonum, that greater good must be certain, not doubtful and disputable, and only possible.  
4. They all agree, That the Oath thus irritated and made void must be only made to God. For say they, if it be made to our Brother also, for his advantage (much more if it be a Covenant made with him upon a valuable consideration) his consent is necessary to the commutation, before the Oath can be made void. Now when our absolver's shall have showed us a good certainly greater than the peace of Conscience, which may be had from the keeping of a lawful Oath; and make it appear to us, that this good can no other way be attained, than by breaking our Covenant, and that if we break it, we may certainly be put into possession of it, and lastly, that all the people of Scotland and England, mutually engaged in this Covenant, have consented to the violation, they shall have said something; and till that time, this Plea consists of nothing, but aery, nonsignificant words.  
§. 5. To return to our eminent Dr. Sanderson; He determines this case more like a Divine, than some others, Thus;— Juramentum non esse illicitum aut obligandi vim amittere praecisè ob hoc quod videatur esse impeditivum majoris boni, 
De juram prom. prael. 3. §. 12.  i. e. An Oath is not unlawful nor doth it lose its obligatory virtue precisely for this, because it seems an obstacle to a greater good, unless (saith he) other circumstances also concur (as usually there do) which either evince it unlawful, or non-obliging. He gives this reason, because in all cases, it is not true that every one is obliged to do what is best. So that our Brethren must desert this Plea, and find out something else to prove the Oath unlawful or non-obligatory. And indeed to grant that the Prospect of a greater Good to be obtained by the violation of an Oath, would discharge us from its observance, is to open such a gap for all manner of perjury, as all might creep out at; and to take away all manner of security, which either God could have of his Creatures, or man of his Brother, by any verbal obligation whatsoever. But we have said enough to prove, that nothing hath been said against the matter of the Covenant, sufficient to prove it either unlawful, or void and not obligatory.   

CHAP. XI.  
The Covenant cleared from any faults, as to the Efficient Causes, whether external, or internal, sufficient to make it void, being once taken. The Plea from the supposed unlawfulness of the Power imposing, if true, proved insufficient.  
§. 1. HAving hitherto cleared the matter of the Oath which is upon us, from any exceptions against it, pretending to evince it so far unlawful, that we having taken it, are not obliged by it. We come in the next place, to consider it as to the efficient Cause, to clear it from any exceptions made against it, upon that account; following the Method of the aforementioned Reverend Professor, Dr. Sanderson, who in his Book, de Juramento promissorii hath (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least) acquitted himself to all Learned and Conscientious men, whatever he hath done in his latter Book, the obligatione Conscientiae (which we have not so well weighed.)  
§. 2. There are several cases which the Dr. puts, relating to the efficient cause of promissory Oaths, under which he comprehends both the external and internal cause, the Agent and impulsive causes. As,  
First, Whether, and how far, the Oaths of Children, Fools, and Madmen, or such as are drunk, either with wine or passion, are lawful, and oblige (none of which concern us in this Discourse.) There are only 2 or 3 cases under this head to be spoken to, viz.  
1. How far an Oath may be lawful or binding, taken as imposed by an unlawful Authority.  
2. How far the Oath of one who is under the power of another, is lawful or obligatory.  
3. How far an Oath is lawful or obligatory to which we are forced, or into which we are frighted through fear of danger, in case we refuse it. For all these things are improved to the height against the Covenant, by our absolver's. They tell us, it was imposed upon us by an unlawful Power; That we were Subjects, and could not take it without the King's consent lawfully, and he dissenting, though we have taken it, it is null, and doth not oblige us: That the generality were forced to it; yea that his Sacred Majesty (who now is) was frighted into the taking of it, by the Scottish force and threatening, and is therefore discharged from any obligation to it. How truly this is spoken, and how consonantly to the judgement of Dr. Sanderson, and all sober Casuists, let us now inquire.  

De juram prom. prael. 4. §. 7.  §. 3. As to the former part of the first case, whether it be unlawful to take an Oath from an usurped power? Dr. Sanderson determines it affirmatively, because it becomes not a pious and courageous Christian to make himself a slave; yet the same Dr. allows it lawful, if we cannot avoid it without great danger, provided that the Oath be otherwise lawful, and, that we do not show too much forwardness in the doing of it, but do it with some testimony of reluctancy.  
§. 4. But how fat this is applicable to the present case, we are not able to determine. Lawyer's must first resolve us, whether the Lords and Commons of England assembled in Parliament, have not a power to make a new Oath, and impose it upon people, unless the King first consent: When that point of Law is determined, the Doctor's determination may be applied to it, which will much help the Covenanters in Conscience, if the case be in Law determined against them.  
§. 5. The third Conclusion of Dr. Sanderson's determination in the case, is sufficient to our purpose: Qui juramentum susceperit, à personâ justam authoritatem non habente, 
Dr. Sanderson. ibid.  delatum sed nulla alia ex parte vitiosum omnino teneri ad implendum quod juravit, i.e. He who hath taken an Oath from one who had no authority to give it, if the Oath be not otherwise faulty, is fully bound to perform what he hath sworn. So that our absolver's may see they are beside their divinity, in discharging men from the Obligation of the Covenant, because those who imposed it, (as they pretend) had no lawful power to impose it, for supposing that, the Oath being taken (saith Dr. Sanderson) doth oblige.   

CHAP. XII.  
The absolver's Arguments from the present dissent of the King, who then was, Argued. The Case stated and resolved. The Rules applied to the present Case. The Argument from hence for the irritation of the Covenant, proved vain.  
§. 1. WE are now come to our absolver's strong Forts, whatsoever they talk, that the Covenant is Schismatical, that it was against the Laws of the Nation, they know, & are convinced in their own Consciences, that there is nothing in these Pleas, sufficient to discharge any Conscience, and therefore being pursued, hither they run, as to their strong Castle: It was unlawful, being given and taken without the King's consent, and is therefore null and void. Or else, 2. It was a forced Oath, extorted by fear, and such Oaths do not oblige; this is the Doctrine they preach to their hearers. How true it is, let us now inquire.  
§. 2. The foundation of any case here; whether an Oath taken by an Inferior, be void or obliging, lies in that known place of Scripture, Numb. 30. And indeed Oaths so strictly obliging by divine Institution, it is reasonable that the irritation or obligation of them should also from thence be determined: and by the Scripture, we freely will be tried, it being the proper Bar for judgement in things of Conscience.  
§. 3. That Chapter beginneth thus; And Moses spoke unto the Heads of the Tribes, concerning the Children of Israel. This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. V 2. If any man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an Oath to bind himself in a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. This is the general Rule, and Law of God concerning Oaths. But God is pleased to reserve some Cases: The case of a woman in her Father's house, v. 3. The case of a woman who hath an Husband living, v. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12.  
§. 4. Concerning these cases, God thus determines, that if the Father of such a Daughter vowing or swearing, v. 5. Or the Husband of such a wife, v. 7. shall hold his peace at her, v. 4, 7. then such vows shall stand. 2. But if the Father of such a Child, or the Husband of such a Wife, shall disallow it in the day he hears thereof, v. 5, 8. than not any of their vows shall stand, v. 4. but shall be of none effect, v. 8. But v. 14. If the Husband altogether hold his peace at his wife from day to day, than he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds which are upon her, he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her, in the day that he heard them, v. 15. But if he shall any way make them void, after that he hath heard them, he shall bear her iniquity.  
§. 5. Divines do grant by Analogy, in respect of parity of reason, that the case is the same concerning Subjects in some cases, as to the Oaths they take, without the knowledge or praevious consent of their Superiors, though it be observable, that although Moses at this time was speaking to the Heads of the Tribes, concerning the Children of Israel, yet he omits this case, as having no special Command from the Lord in it, and it will be granted that in many things wherein the Magistrate hath not power over his Subjects, the Husband hath power over his wife, and the Father over the Child.  
§. 6. That the words of this Text are not to be understood in their utmost Latitude, is universally acknowledged by Casuists.  

Aq. 22. e. q. 89. art. 9 Filiucias tract. 25. cap. 9 Azor. mor. inst. l. 11. cap. 10. Sanches. l. 3. cap 9, 11. Aims cas. l. 4. cap. 22. qu 11. League illleg. p. 10, 11.  §. 1. The matter of the Vow must be such wherein the Law of God hath subjected us to the power of our Superiors. Thus Aquinas, Sanchez, Azorius, Filiucius, Dr. Ames, Dr. Sanderson, and indeed all others agree. Dr. Featly discoursing against the Covenant, saith, that to fulfil the express Command of God, no man doubteth but that a Covenant may be made, not only without, but even against the Command of a Prince. And indeed the reason is evident, because the dominion of the Superior, is the reason of the discharge or the suspension of the obligation of such Oaths: But saith Dr. Sanderson, there is none so much under the power of another, but as to some things he is sui juris, in his own power, and not under his dominion.  
§. 2. The Superior when he hears of his Subjects Oaths in such matter, must declare openly his dissent. For saith the Text, if he holds his peace, 
De jur. prom. prael. 4. §. 6.  he hath confirmed the Oath. To the ratification of an Interiors Oath, a praecedaneous express consent is not necessary, but a tacit consent is sufficient.  
§. 3. The Superior must declare his dissent presently. The Text saith, in the day that he heard thereof. If he hath omitted it but one day, saith the Doctor, he hath ratified the Oath. Qui serò●fe nolle significat putandus est aliquandiu voluisse. The dissent must be not only palam, but statim.  
§. 4. It must be a constant dissent. For suppose an Inferior hath sworn an Oath, and his Superior hearing of it, saith to him presently, you shall not do it: and the next day, or at any time afterwards, saith, he shall, or gives him leave to do it, the Inferiors Oath will from that day bind again; the reason of this is here: Because the Superiors power doth not extend so far as to cancel the obligation of an Oath, but only to suspend it. 
De Jur. prom. pr. 3. Sect. 10.  Dr. Sanderson saith excellently, That there is in every Oath, a natural and inseparable obliging virtue, the operation of which may be hindered; but that impediment being removed, the Bowl returns to its Bias, the Oath binds; and this as naturally, as water runs in its channel, when the dam is thrown down that hinders it, or a stone moves to its centre, when the thing that stayed it, is removed. God himself cannot make a thing that is, not to have been: The Oath having been made, hath its natural and inseparable virtue, the operation of which, in some cases indeed, the Superiors descent may hinder; but cannot deprive it of its obliging virtue: So that though at first he dissents, and so stops the Oath from its present working upon the Conscience, yet he cannot destroy the nature of it; and when his dissent is removed upon second thoughts, the Oath obligeth.  
§. 5. If once the Superior hath consenied, either tacitly or expressly, praecedaneously, or subsequently, he can never by his dissent again, either discharge us from the Oath, or suspend the Obligation of it. 
Dr. Sand. 16. prael. 7. sect. 6.  In this case, saith Dr. Sanderson, it is a true Rule, Quod semel placuit, amplius displicere non debet: The reason is, because God's Word in this case, declares the Oath established for ever. Dr. Sanderson saith truly, That if the Superior hath either consented to the Oath before the taking of it, or at any time after the taking of it, he can never afterwards make it void, or take away its Obligation. An Oath is not a thing to be jested with. Ludere cum sacris prophanum est.  
§. 6. To apply this to the present case of the Covenant: Is it clear, that people are under the power of Magistrates so far, as to the things of God, that the Magistrates may set up what Government in the Church they please, and under what Officers they please? Or hath not Christ in the Gospel determined the Substantials of Government, as to Officers, and Rules of Government? If the latter be true, Dr. Featly saith, none doubts, but people may covenant without their Superiors, to fulfil the Laws of God. If there be no Law of God in the case, why do our Brethren plead Episcopacy by divine right, and not tell the Parliament that they may alter that Form if they please.  
§. 7. Secondly, We must profess ourselves no Lawyers, but may it be taken for an undoubted truth, That the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament, have no power to impose an Oath upon people (otherwise good and lawful) without the King of England's consent first had? If it be so, we freely submit, and have nothing to say against it; but than it will only follow, that it was sinfully imposed and taken: not, that it doth not oblige. If it be not so, the want of the Superiors consent is not to be pleaded in the case  
§. 8. Did his Sacred Majesty in the day that he heard thereof, presently and openly declare his disallowance of it? If not, it is ratified for ever. We have heard indeed, but never saw his Majesty's Proclamation against it: We are sure that Printed with Dr. Featly's Book, relates not to it, but to a former Vow and Covenant quite of another nature.  
§. 9 However it is certain, that his Sacred Majesty (if that Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be his, which we think none in their wits doubt) after it was taken, declares, That good men should least offend God and him in keeping of it. Though indeed his Sacred Majesty liked not to impose it upon those of his Subjects, who might in Conscience scruple it, yet he certainly ratifies the obligation of the Oath in Conscience to those that had taken it. He was not willing (by making his People's Oath void) according to Numb. 30.25. to bear their iniquity.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Where the absolver's Plea from the force attending the Covenant, is considered, and proved vain. Oaths extorted by fear, do obligè in Conscience, proved from Scripture, Reason, the Opinions of Dr. Sanderson, Aquinas, Azorius, and all sober Casuists, for their Obligation.  
§. 1. WE are told in the next place, that the Covenant was forced and extorted by penalties, and that not only from Ministers, and Fellows of Colleges, and from the vulgar people; but even from his Sacred Majesty: and therefore it is null and void, and no Obligation can arise from it, it being against reason, that from a wrong, any should raise up to themselves a right, any more than a mere passivity in a rape, can oblige her that is so forced, to marry him who hath so abused her.  
§. 2. As to his Sacred Majesty, how truly any say this, we cannot tell, neither knowing whether his Majesty did indeed take the Covenant in Holland, before he came under the Scottish power; nor how he was treated in Scotland. If when his Majesty came into Scotland, the Covenant were by them imposed upon his Majesty, (he having not in Holland promised to take it.) Or (supposing that) if the Scots used any rough and disloyal Arguments to fright his Majesty into the taking of it (though indeed our Allegiance and reverence for his Majesty, constrains us to think, that (according to Dr. Sanderson's determination of the duty of a good and valiant man in such cases) no fear could ever have wrought upon his Majesty, so far as to have engaged him in any thing, which his Conscience told him was sinful and unlawful) yet the Scots are not to be excused in point of Loyalty and good manners, to their Sovereign. For many in England, there is no doubt but many Ministers and people (though not all, nor the major part engaging) took it in such a fright. But we will at present suppose all, viz. That both his Majesty and many of the people took it, as being feared to it. The Question still is, whether such Oaths once taken (however sinfully offered and imposed) do not oblige those who took them, to a just performance.  
§. 3. Divines in this case do distinguish, betwixt simple promises, and Oaths, betwixt natural and divine Law, and Civil and Ecclesiastical Law, and betwixt metus levis & gravis, a light fear and fright, and a solid and weighty case of fear, as where a man is threatened with the loss of his life, etc. in case he take not the imposed Oath, Hence (saith Baldwin) it is that Divines and Civilians differently determine the case with respect to the difference of Natural and Divine Law, 
Bald win cas. l. 2. c. 9 cas 12.  and that which is purely Civil and Ecclesiastical. And Divines here speak to many cases; As that of a promise or an Oath made to a Thief upon the Road, when for fear of a man's life, he promiseth the Thief a Sum of money. Whether he that is imprisoned justly or unjustly, and goeth out upon his Parol, swearing to return, be bound by his Oath to do it, though his return shall certainly, or may probably cost him his life, etc.  
§. 4. Divines also do here distinguish, betwixt such Oaths, if imposed by Lawful Powers, and if administered by Usurpers. Sanchez saith 'tis not question but such Oaths do oblige, 
Sanches l. 3. cap. 9  if the powers imposing have a just authority over us; and we suppose none will deny this, for there are very few Oaths imposed by lawful Magistrates, upon people, but policy directs them to annex a penalty in case of refusal, which as it is more or less, engendereth a lesser or greater degree of fear: And indeed to deny this, were to take away all possibility of Magistrates securing themselves by the Oaths of their Subjects: For it were no more, but for the Subject to say he swore his Allegiance out of fear, and according to such new divinity, he hath absolved himself. So that (although the Scots had no power to impose any such Oath upon their Sovereign under a penal fright, unless he had first given them that power) yet as to all the People of England, in case the Lords and Commons of England, legally assembled in Parliament, have any such privilege to impose an Oath upon the people, although the King doth not consent; we say (which we profess ourselves not to know) in case they have any such lawful power, the Argument from force signifieth nothing at all in the case.  
§. 5. But allowing our absolver's all advantage possible, supposing that the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Parliament of England legally, have no such power, but did injuriously impose it: The Question is, whether it being taken at this disadvantage, doth not yet oblige all that took it, to a just and religious observation of it? To which we say;  
§. 6. The Third Commandment says, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that takes his Name in vain. This Commandment is further interpreted by divers Scriptures, You shall not swear by my Name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the Name of the Lord thy God, Leu. 19.12. If a man vow a Vow unto the Lord, or swear an Oath to bind his soul with a Bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that hath proceeded out of his mouth, Numb. 30.2. It was said of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths, Mat. 5.33. And as to the penalty; I will be a swift witness against the Sorcerers, and against the Adulterers, and against the False swearers, Mal. 3.5. And again, The Curse of God shall enter into the house of him that sweareth falsely by the Lord's name, and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof, and with the stones thereof, Zech. 5.3. It is the observation of Filiucius, that the Precept is negative, and therefore no pretence of force can discharge us from our obedience to it: Not to dispute the force of his Argumentation, It is plain from those Texts, that every man is severely obliged to perform his Oaths; and the express obligation of an Oath appearing from Divine Institution, so highly onerosa, (as the Casuists speak) loading the Soul with curses that neglecteth it. It cannot but to every sober Christian appear, highly reasonable, that before we conclude, That Oaths extorted by fear, are not obligatory, we should find either from Scriptural Precepts or Precedents, a plain discharge from the obligation of them: Which we think will be very hard to find.  
§. 7. Yet, if we mistake not, we shall find some Scriptural Instances, which appear to us strong evidences to the contrary: We shall instance but in two: That concerning the Spies sent by Joshua to Jericho, whose story we read Josh. 2. & 5. and that of Zedekiah, which we have recorded, 2 Kings 24. Ezek. 17, etc.  
§. 8. As to the former we read, Josh. 2. That he sent two men to spy out Jericho: The King of Jerichò by some of his Ministers of State, gains intelligence, that they were come, and to what end they were come, and that they were lodged at the house of Rahab; he sends Messengers to Rahab, to deliver them, she acknowledgeth that such were come, but says they were gone again, (while in the mean time they were hidden in the top of her house) she comes to them before they went to bed; and v. 12. requires of them to swear unto her by the Lord, that as she had showed kindness unto them, so that when they had conquered Jericho, they would save alive her Father and her Mother, and her Brethren and her Sisters, and all that they had: They swear accordingly. In the 6th of Joshua, you read that Jericho was taken by the Israelites: V. 22. Joshua commands these Spies to go into the Harlot's house, and to bring out the woman and all that she had as they swore unto her. If Joshua and the rest of the Israelites had been of the Religion of our late absolver's, how much might they have pleaded in discharge of this Oath?  
1. As to the matter of it, there is an appearance of unlawfulness in it, because of the Command of God to destroy the Canaanites, and not to pity or spare them.  
2. It was made without Joshua's advice.  
3. It was imposed by an unlawful power.  
4. The men could not but fear, that if they had refused, Rahab might have discovered them, which had she done, they must unquestionably have died. But that age it seems was not so cunning to quit themselves of Oaths. It is the probable opinion of Magalianus, that the Precept of God for destroying the Canaanites, was with an exception, to such of them as should express signal kindness to the Israelites. And for other things they were to learn that an Oath taken (otherwise lawful) was discharged by any such pretences.  
§. 9 The second Instance is that of Zedekiah: The story is this; Zedekiah was a third Son of Josiah. The Scripture mentioneth three Sons of that good King; Jehoahaz (who succeeded Josiah immediately) Jehoiachim and Zedekiah, called by his Father Mattaniah; Jehoahaz having reigned wickedly three months, was overcome, and carried into captivity by Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt, where he died (for aught we know) childless, 2 Kings 23.32, 33, 34.  
The King of Egypt setteth up in his stead Eliakim, a second Son of Josiah, and turns his Name to Jehoiachim: he reigneth 11 years. In his days Nabuchadnezzar, King of Babylon conquers his Land; He dieth also, and leaveth only one Son (mentioned in Scripture) Jehoiachin, called by the Prophet Jeremy also Jeconiah (and so ordinarily by the 70 Interpreters) Jeremiah also in contempt, calls him Coniah. (Domini nomen à Regis nomine avulsum fuit, saith Hierom.) This man died childless, according to that, Jer. 32.30. Writ this man childless. Where and when he died, the Scripture speaketh not: probably he died a prisoner in Babylon, 2 Chron. 36.13. The King of Babylon makes Mattaniah (a third Son of Josiah, brother by Father and Mother's side to Jehoahaz (they were both the sons of Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, 2 Kings 23.31. ch. 24.18.) King in his stead. He took an Oath of Zedekiah by God, 2 Chron. 36.13. That this Oath was extorted by fear is past denial. Zedekiah was of the King's seed, Ezek. 17.13. Son of Josiah, Brother to Jehoahaz, Uncle to Jehoiachin or Jechoniah. There appears nought to the contrary, but that he was the right heir to the Crown. Jehoahaz, and Jehoiachim being dead (and probably Jeconiah dead too) sure we are he had a right to his liberty: He could neither have this Crown, nor yet his Liberty without taking this Oath to the Usurper the King of Babylon: he must else have always lived a slave to a Pagan Prince, and have been in daily danger of his life, and the more, as the refusing such an Oath, would have rendered him to the King of Babylon as suspicious, for hatching some design▪ for the recovery of his own, and his Country's Liberty. He takes it. And 'tis very like that he had some about him of the complexion of our late Casuists, who might tell him, it was an Oath against the Laws of Israel, imposed by an Usurper, forced upon him as a Prisoner, and therefore did not oblige. What ever the motive was, he broke it, and Ezech. 17.15. sent Ambassadors into Egypt to give him horses, and much people. But observe how God takes this, whether he also concurred, that Zedekiahs' Oath and Covenant was null and void. God declareth his sense of it by the Prophet Ezech. chap. 17. under the Parable of two Eagles and a Vine, from v. 1. to v. 11. he expounds this Parable, ver. 11. & sequent. Say now to the Rebellious house, etc.  
V 12. Behold the King of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the King thereof, and the Princes thereof, and led them with him into Babylon.  
V 13. And hath taken of the King's seed and made a Covenant with him, and hath taken an Oath of him, he hath taken also the mighty of the Land.  
V 14. That the Kingdom might be base: that it might not lift up itself, but that by keeping of his Covenant it might stand.  
V 15. But he rebelled against him, sending Ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him chariots and horses, etc. Might he not do so (notwithstanding his Oath?) According to our new Casuists the Oath was null and void, Zedekiah was a prisoner, the Jews in captivity, Zedekiah had never sworn to be tributary to the King of Babylon surely, if it had not been to recover his rights, if he had not been afraid of death, or imprisonment, or perpetual exile, certainly he could not offend God in violating such a forced Oath. But it seems the thoughts of God were otherwise; for the Prophet goes on: Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doth such things? or shall he break the Covenant, and be delivered?  
V 16. As I live saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the King liveth, that made him King, whose Oath he despised, and whose Covenant he broke, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die.  
V 18. Seeing he despised the Oath, by breaking the Covenant, when lo he had given his hand, and done all these things, he shall not escape.  
V 19 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, as I live surely, mine Oath that he hath despised, and my Covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his head.  
Is it possible now that any owning the name of Divines, and Interpreters of Scriptures, should tell us, that Oaths extorted by fear do not oblige?  
§. 10. Nor have our absolver's any better encouragement from the suffrage of Divines in the case, whether they be Ancient or Modern, Papists or Protestants. Azorius tells us, it is Communis sententia, the common sense of Divines, that Oaths so extorted do bind in conscience: Sanches saith, that Quidam antiqui, some old Divines did think they do not oblige, but who they are, we cannot find. 
Aq. 21 ae. q. 89. art. 7. resp. ad 3.  Sure we are, that Aquinas, Sayrus, Azorius, Filiucius, Sanches, Al. Hales, Bonaventure, Richardus, Gabriel, John Bacon, Panormitan, Durandus, Scotus, Estius, Soto, Cajetan, Navarrus, Suarez, Valentia, Layman, Antoninus, Dr. Ames, Dr. Sanderson, Baldwin, etc. all determine, that such Oaths do oblige. Some of them indeed dispute, whether the violation of such Oaths be a mortal sin, or only venial; whether they bind in foro Ecclesiastico, or no (according to Civil and Canon Law) whether the Pope can absolve in the case or no; but that such Oaths bind in the Court of Conscience, we find none doubting. There is indeed in the Canon Law a case of a Bishop mentioned, from whom Count Arnulph took some goods belonging to his Church, and made to swear, that he would never endeavour the restoring of them. The Bishop's case was brought before the Pope, he determines the Bishop's Oath void, and dischargeth him by a formal absolution. It is true, that Bassianus, and some others conclude, that the Pope determined the Oath void (in foro Ecclesiastico) because of the force he was under. But the Glossator upon the Canon Law, and so Sanches and others, determine better, that the reason why their Holy Father determined the Bishop's Oath void, was not because of the force (under which the Bishop was) but because the matter of the Oath was unlawful, he might not alienate the Church's goods, he being but a termer in them. And it seems that the Pope himself judged his case such, that he stood in need of his Absolution.  
§. 11. But to leave the Authorities of men, which we must confess signify very little to us in such a case as this is (the obligation of an Oath resulting from divine institution.) Let us inquire what may be said in reason, either for, or against the Obligation of such Oaths. We never read, or heard, nor are able to fancy more than two reasons in the case.  
1. Because, what one does under a force, he doth not freely and spontaneously.  
2. Because, he who by threatening forceth us to swear to his pleasure, doth us an injury, and it is against all reason, that any should from a wrong, raise up to himself a right. Both which reasons have been considered by the Schoolmen and Casuists, and determined insufficient. Sanches tells us, 
Sanches l. 3. cap. 11. Filiucius mor. qu. tract. cap. 6. Suarez De Jur. l. 2. cap. 7.  that Spontaneitas non est necessaria ad obligationem Juramenti. Spontaneity is not necessary to make an Oath obliging, and Filiucius tells us, coacta voluntas est voluntas; A will compelled is a will still: Aliquis timoratus potest velle jurare, saith Suarez; one under a fear may will an act of swearing.  
§. 12. And for the latter reason, it is determined of no value; because the injury done us by men, cannot discharge the obligation resulting from an oath unto God. Dous jusjurandum sibi delatum non extorquet (saith Azorius) God doth no man injury by forcing him, and hence they determine, 
Azor. inst. mor, l. 1. c. 11 q. 14.  That a naked promise made upon a force doth not oblige, because that is only made to men, and no obligation to God resulteth from it, but an Oath doth. Though we must confess, rather to agree with Azorius, who saith such promises do bind, jure naturali & divino, by a natural and divine right, but not by Ecclesiastical and Canon Law. But for Oaths in such cases, they generally agree them obligatory: And hence Filiucius and others tell us, 
Filiucius' u●sup.  That an Oath added to a Promise so forced from us, is not confirmative of an obligation, but introductive of an obligation. They consider a promise two ways.  
1. As it contains an assertion or proposition relating to matter of fact to be after done by us.  
2. In its proper form, as it is our engagement to our Brother, tending to his advantage: The Oath added to a promise forced from us, they say doth not confirm the promise in its proper form, not oblige us to do the thing, as the doing of it is advantageous to our brother; but it obligeth us to make good the assertion or proposition.  
§. 13. The truth is, art Oath obligeth by virtue of God's Law, and the same Law of God must provide exceptions to discharge the obligation of it. The Word of God no where saith, that the injury done us by our neighbour, or the want of perfect liberty when we do the Act, shall discharge us from the performance of it. We shall further offer several reasons against this novel Divinity concerning the nullity of forced Oaths: Seven or eight we shall instance in, most of which have been pleaded by Divines, and we shall give them their honour as we mention them.  
§. 14. First in all Reason, an Oath into which a man is cheated, is less obligatory than one by fear extorted. Sanches gives the reason, quia dolus aufert consensum, a man in such a case cannot be said to have consented; but that such an oath is obligatory, is plain from the instance of the Gibeonites, upon which we have the Judgement of all the Princes of the Congregation, Jos. 2.19. (when the cheat was discovered) delivered in these words, We have sworn unto them by the Lord, therefore we may not touch them, because of the Oath which we swore unto them: God himself resolves this case, 2 Sam. 21.1. punishing all Israel first with three years' Famine, for the violation of their Father's Oath, and then Saul eminently, in the Sacrifice of ten of his Sons to appease God's wrath for the violation of that Oath. Ergo, Oaths extorted by fear much more oblige.  
§. 15. Secondly, The injuries and infirmities of men cannot discharge any obligation upon us unto God. But fear concludes only, the injury and infirmity of men. We find the Schoolmen and Casuists generally agreeing in this.  
That from every promisory Oath, there results a double Obligation. The one to men whom the promise concerneth; the other to God, whose Sacred Name is invoked. Aquinas, Sanches, Azorius, Sayrus, Filiucius, all agree in this, and most of them use it as an Argument to prove the Obligation of such Oaths. men's injury in forcing us, may diminish the Obligation to them, but it cannot acquit us from our debt to God.  
§. 16. Thirdly, Every Oath which is licitum & possibile (lawful and possible) doth oblige, but fear doth not make an Oath either materially unlawful or impossible: Baldwin, Dr. Sanderson, with many others urge this Argument.  
§. 17. Every Oath to which a man consents (if otherwise lawful) is (notwithstanding any pretence of fear) obliging; Baldwin and Dr. Sanderson both urge this: The latter urgeth well, that the person so swearing, hath his choice, whether he will swear, or suffer the penalty like to be inflicted upon him for refusing the Oath; the will cannot be forced: He that thus swears (saith Dr. Sanderson) chooseth what at that time appeared best to him, and is therefore bound by it: Gregorius Sayrus agrees in the same reason.  
§. 18. Fifthly, Because an Oath (notwithstanding any circumstance of force) may be kept without any hazard to a man's Salvation. This Argument is urged by Filiucius, the Glossator upon the Canon-Law. It seems it was a Rule in Divinity in former times (however forgotten now) That every Oath which any man had made, and could keep without the hazard of his eternal salvation, he was obliged to keep: In this Rule also agree Sanchez, Suarez, Molina, etc.  
§. 19 Sixthly, Because the performance of a Promise ratified by such an Oath, is a virtuous action, supposing the matter of the promise lawful, though it be not necessary, yet when we have promised it, the performance becomes actus virtutis, for no act individuo is indifferent, whatever it may be in specie. Sanches saith truly, that it is not necessary to make an Oath oblige, that the matter be necessary: it is enough if it be free and indifferent, and if no more, yet an Oath makes it necessary as to us, and a Promise in such a matter, saith Cajetan (whose Argument this is, is a virtuous Act, and such must the fulfilling of it be.  
§. 20. Seventhly, A multiplication of ineffectual causes, though it implieth an addition to their number, yet it adds nothing to their weight, saith Filiucius. Here are two causes in the present case, which may be pretended, why such Oaths should not oblige. 1. The Injury. 2. The Fear. Both these are inoperative and ineffectual singly; 1. Fear alone will not nullisie an Oath (as we said before) an Oath into which a lawful power doth fright his Subjects by penalties is yet obligatory, and granted so by all. 2. The injury of an usurped power, will not do it, without fear. Casuists agree, that Oaths (otherwise lawful) imposed by unlawful powers (if once taken) do oblige. Now it is against reason, that these two ineffectual causes should jointly do what it is granted, that they cannot singly and apart: This is Filiucius his Argument.  
§. 21. Eightly, Justice requires, that a condition (lawful to be performed by me) should be made good to another, 
De Jur. prom. prael 4 Sect. 15.  when I have obtained the end, for which I so engaged. Dr. Sanderson speaks like a Divine in this case; Every conditional Covenant, the condition being fulfilled, obligeth: Whence both he and others conclude, that if any man hath sworn to a Thief, that upon consideration that he shall spare his life, he will pay to him such or such a sum of money, he is bound to pay it.  
§. 22. Ninthly (saith Dr. Sanderson) We ought always to suspect our carnal wisdom and reason, as contrary to purity of heart, and peace of Conscience. But what can be called wisdom of the flesh, if this be not, to oppose our own reason without any warrant of Scripture, to the express and severe Letter of Scripture, concerning the Obligation of Oaths.  
§. 23. Lastly (saith Dr. Sanderson) which is also observed by Baldwin in the case, The Heathens stand upon Record commended to posterity, for the not violating such Oaths: Amongst whom is Regulus (so highly as we remember, commended by Augustine) and Pompnius the Tribune, honoured by Tully, who yet elsewhere seems to be of a different mind to Divines in this Case.  
§. 24. Upon these and the like Reasons, we (with the generality of Divines of all sorts, and in all ages) conclude against the Sciolists and novelists in Divinity, of this present age, That Oaths extorted by fear, are (if otherwise lawful, notwithstanding such frights, or pretended force) obligatory.  
§. 25. In which Conclusion Divines are so highly agreed, that they not only determine, the Traveller bound to pay the sum of money, which he hath sworn to pay to a Thief, for the sparing of his life; but also That he who is justly imprisoned, and in danger, yea, certain to lose his life (if he return to his Keeper's hands, having sealed his Parol with his Oath, that he might have a liberty of breathing in the open Air) is bound in Conscience to return: Yea, the most (though Vasquez, Corruvias, and some others descent) determine him so bound, though he be unjustly and unlawfully imprisoned.  
§. 26. We shall only add this; That if this new Divinity be allowed in the world, that Oaths to which one is frighted, do not oblige; the widest floodgate imaginable will be set open to Perjury. It is but for any Subject to say, he was (by the penalty annexed) frighted into the taking of his Oaths of Allegiance and Obedience to his Superiors, and he will be discharged. But enough for such a piece of licentious Doctrine, not fit to ba mentioned amongst Christians.   

CHAP. XIV.  
The absolver's Plea, from the pretended sinfulness of the End of the Covenant examined, whether the deformity of the end of an Oath can make it not Obligatory: The contrary proved. The absolver's Plea from hence Atheological and vain.  
§. 1. HAving thus far patiently heard the Clamours of our new Casuists, against the Obligatory virtue of the Covenant, because of the supposed Failers, as to the material and efficient causes of it, whether more external or internal. We should in the next place, examine it as to the formal cause: Under which Head, Casuists examine, whether those Oaths be Lawful or Obligatory, where no words are used, or where men swear, not by the Living God, but by some Creatures, how far the intention of him that sweareth is necessary? and discourse concerning equivocations and mental reservations, with many others. But we do not find any of them snarling at the Covenant upon any of these accounts, though we believe too many of them had mentem injuratam. there's only one case more relating to the Causes of the Covenant, which needs be spoken to.  
§. 2. A great Sin-absolver much improves a Fancy (in order to the irritation of the Covenant) that the design of it was only to engage the Scots with the Parliament; and the End of the Covenant being merely Politic and Unlawful, the Covenant must needs also be void and null.  
§. 3. His Sacred Majesty, who had as much reason as any other to judge uncharitably of the end in imposing, and taking that Covenant, yet was more charitable: He (as we said before) professeth himself to have so much Charity, as to believe, that many good men's Intentions in taking that Covenant, was to preserve Religion in purity, and the Kingdoms in peace.  
§. 4. But (for once) suppose that the End of the Covenant had some obliquity in it, it is worthy the enquiring where our modern Casuists learned this Divinity, that the obliquity or unlawfulness of the end of an Oath did render it (once taken) void and not obliging; I am sure, 
De Jur. prom .. prael. 6. Sect. 14. Bald. casus, l. 2. c. 9  not of Dr. Sanderson, he teacheth them the quite contrary. Baldwin would have learned them to distinguish betwixt the unlawfulness of an Act, and the lawfulness of the good might result from it: He would have told them, That if an Adulterer had sworn, that if he should have a Child by an Adulteress, he would then do some high Service for God, he is bound (having that child) to do the good Service. If a Prince swears a Service to God, if he returns safe from an unlawful War; he is bound by his Oath (returning safe) to do what he hath sworn. It is true, we may not do evil that good may come of it; but we are yet to learn, that when an evil is done, we may not embrace, and do the good which should come of it. A Failer in the end makes an Action unlawful or sinful to him that doth it, 
Sanches Op. mor. l. 3. cap. 9 n. 28. Cajet. in 22ae. q. 23. Molina de justitia.  but surely it doth not nullify an Action done. Sanches, Cajetan, Corruvias, Molina, Soto, Arragon, etc. all agree, that a man is obliged to the performance of an Oath at first made for a sinful end. Sanches allows no dispensation in the case (nisi solutio sit iniqua) unless it be sinful to do the thing which we have sworn to do, which is nothing to the present case. Patrato crimine obligamur, is their joint Suffrage. Dr. Sanderson gives this excellent reason for it, quia etsi pactum fuit illicitum, res pacta licet, the thing sworn to do is lawful, though the pact were at first unlawful.   

CHAP. XV.  
Where it is proved, that the Bond of the Covenant cannot be suspended by any Dispensation, altered by any Commutation, or dissolved by any Relaxation of Parties.  
§. 1. WE have yet one case more to speak to, which we little thought would ever have been a question amongst Scholars, who call themselves Protestant's, viz. Whether supposing the Covenant obliging hitherto, his Sacred Majesty, 
Quisquis vendicat sibi jus dispensandi in juramento assumit sibi potestatem divinam, Dr. Sanderson.  or the present and succeeding Parliaments, severally, or jointly, may not make it void and not obliging, by their Act or Acts to that purpose? We most freely and humbly give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to the Parliament of England, what is theirs; but to give them a power of dissolving the Obligation of Vows and Oaths, is to give them what only belongs to God, and which was never yet challenged by them.  
§. 2. The Popish Casuists have found five or six ways to quit men of Oaths. 1. By Dispensation from the Pope or Prelate. 2. By Commutation. 3. By the power of the Superior, according to Num. 30.4. By the Cessation of the matter. 1. By the Relaxation of the Party.  
Our Brethren cannot but know, that the power challenged for the Pope (as Christ's Vicar) to dispense with Oaths, or to order the Commutation of them, is most justly exploded and abhorred by all Protestants, who generally judge Oaths de jure naturali, and so not to be dispensed with, save only by him who is the God of Nature. Besides, as Dr. Sanderson well urgeth, 
Dr. Sanderson De jur. prom. Prael. 7 Sect. 3.  it is to destroy the end of all Oaths, viz. the security aimed at in them, by them who impose them, and to take away another's right, which he hath acquired with whom the Covenant is made, confirmed by the Oath, yea, and the Obligation to God also which results from every Oath, (according to Aquinas and the generality of Schoolmen, and Casuists in the Case) and to subject the Conscience immediately to an humane Judicature. All which Reasons of Dr. Sanderson will strictly hold against any such pretended power of dispensation in the case of Oaths.  
§. 3. The Learned Doctor determines the same against any commuting of the matter of Oaths, for some other thing, which we judge, or is reverâ better. Neutro istorum modorum s●lvi potest juramenti vinculum, aut obligatio tolli (saith that Reverend Person) and he says right, that the whole Doctrine of commuting Oaths, and the truth of it, depends upon their dispensability, and both Doctrines are most notoriously false, and destroyed by the same Reasons.  
§. 4. How far a Superior hath power to suspend the Obligation of an Oath, taken by those under his power, and whose matter is subjected to his power, and how this irritation must be circumstantiated, and how long it lasts, and how little relief is for us from hence, we have showed before, and may therefore pass it over in this place.  
§. 5. A Fourth way by which the Gordian knot of an Oath may be untied, according to the Schoolmen, is by the Cessation of the matter; in which case, all Casuists, Popish or Protestants, judge the Obligation to cease. The Oath of the Soldier to his General, ceaseth, when he is not General, etc. The reason is evident, because the root of it is pulled up: But this is no way applicable in our case.  
§. 6. There is therefore no dispute, save only de relaxatione partis: whether the Parties in the Covenant, releasing the Bond of it, it may not be dissolved? We perceive that some think, that if it shall please his Majesty and the Parliament to release those who have taken the Covenant, from the observation of it, there needs no further care about it: To determine this business, betwixt our Brethren and us, 
De Jur. prom. prael. 7. §. 8.  we will refer ourselves to Dr. Sanderson, and but translate part of his excellent determination in the case.  
First, (Saith he) There can be no such release in Vows; in Oaths confirming humane Pacts, Covenants, and Bargains, there may. The reason of the difference is, because Vows are made to God, as to one Party. Now we shown before, that the Covenant as to the first and second Branch of it, did partake of the nature of a Vow, it was sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei, a Promise made to God, as well as to men, in the things of God, relating immediately to his Worship and Glory.  
Secondly, (saith Dr. Sanderson) If the Oath taken be [in gratiam alterius] i. e. for the honour, profit, or commodity of another, or the giving an homage to another, it doth not oblige, unless that other to whom we swear, accepts and confirms it.  
Thirdly, (saith he) If he or they to whom such Oath is made, for his or their profit and advantage, will have it stand good, no third person can discharge us from the obligation of it.  
Fourthly, (saith he) If the person to whom we swear will release us the Oath doth not oblige us after such Release.  
Fifthly, (saith he) The Oath is in such case only discharged so far as he doth release it.  
Sixthly, (saith he) The Release of any Party in an Oath, only takes away the Obligation of it as to his particular Interest, but prejudiceth no third Person.  
§. 7. From the Grave Determinations of this Learned man, by a review of what we have already said in our Second Chap. concerning the nature of the Covenant, it is no hard thing to conclude, what Lamentable Divinity they publish, that tell us, that it is in the power of any man or men, to discharge us from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon us.  
1. The Oath confirming the Covenant, did not only confirm a Contract made with King and Parliament, and with the Nation of Scotland, and our Brethren in England, engaging with us, but it confirmed a Solemn Vow and Promise made to God, in the things of God (for such certainly is the Government of his Church, Reformation in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, according to his Word, etc.) Now ab homine ea sola relaxari fas est, quae homini facta sunt, 
Dr. Sanderson ibid. Prael. 7  (saith Dr. Sanderson) Men can only release for themselves.  
2. According to the Doctors sixth Determination; Supposing that God were not interested as a Party, but the Covenant was a mere civil Pact between men and men, yet all Parties must release, before the Relaxation can be good, as to the whole Obligation. We have sworn to maintain the King's Person, Honour and Authority. 2. The Privileges of Parliament. If indeed his Majesty or the Parliament shall please, in whole or in part, by any of their Acts to release us, they may do it as to their own peculiar Concern and Interest: But we have also in the Covenant sworn to the Nation of Scotland, and to our Brethren in England, for their profit and advantage: and unquestionably our Brethren in Scotlnnd, looked upon the Abolition of the English Hierarchy (as to its ancient Form) as a thing highly tending to their advantage, and so did many in England, both Ministers and People (who had woefully suffered under it) Now how a Release should be good, unless from all persons and Parties concerned, we are yet to learn. If any one say; What the Parliament of England or Scotland doth, all the People are bound up in. We Answer, Not as to releasing Obligations contracted by Oaths. We presume our Brethren will not determine so in other cases, we have sworn out the Pope's Supremacy in England, we hope our Brethren will not say, that an Act of Parliament, if (which God forbidden) any such should hereafter be, will discharge those that have taken that Oath, from the observance of it.  
3. Concerning Dr. sanderson's 2, 3, and 4th. Determinations, there may be some question: If a man swears to another for his advantage, we are apt to believe the Oath binds in Conscience, though he to whom we swear, knows not of it, much less apertly accepts and ratifies it. Suppose a man swears to breed up his Child to Learning, or to a Trade, etc. we believe the Oath will bind, though the Child doth not like it, etc. There may also appear some doubt about the power of him, to whom we swear, to release us in whole or in part, because as we have said before, from every such Oath there resulteth a double Obligation; 1. To man. 2. To God. Now it doth not seem reasonable, That man should discharge God's Debts. Dr. Sanderson (ware of this exception) answers, That in a promise made, 
Dr. Sanderson ib. prael. 7.  merely far the advantage of another, and confirmed by an Oath, God is only invoked, as a witness of the truth of our hearts in promising, and challenged as a revenger, in case we violate our Faith so confirmed, but if the Party releaseth us, our Faith is not violated, so that no injury is done to God in it. We think this as much as can be said, whether sufficient or no, we will not here inquire, this not at all concerning our case.  
We conclude then, that as we can see no error in the Efficient, material, formal or final causes of this Oath of God which is upon us, sufficient to discharge us from the Obligation of it (considering things as they are now stated, and that the Oath is taken) so we cannot believe it in the power of any (save God alone) by dispensation, irritation, commutation, or relaxation, to discharge us from an endeavour to perform it. The Compass of that term, endeavour, remaineth yet to be measured by us, with a Reed from the Sanctuary, and that shall be our last Task.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Concerning the Limitations of the Covenant, common to all Premissory Oaths, or particularly relating to this. What endeavour as to the matter of the Covenant, is not required.  
§. 1. SUch is the Sovereign power of God over all, such the power which the Divide Law hath reserved to Superiors, such our own ignorance and infirmity (of which yet in due time we may be convinced) and such the mutability of humane affairs, that Divines reasonably say, that to all promissory Oaths, certain conditions (though not expressed) are yet necessarily to be supposed, viz. Si Deus voluerit, if God will (otherwise the performance will be impossible) 2. If lawfully I may: Otherwise the Oath will be vinculum Iniquitatis, and make us Debtors to Hell, 3. Saving the right of my Superior: For as we said before, God hath reserved to some Superiors, a power of irritation (or suspending rather) such Obligations. 4. If things continue in their present state.  
§. 2. As the third must not be understood otherwise than we have before proved; so the last must not be taken in its Latitude; For then (such are the contingencies and vicissitudes of humane affairs) that very few promissory Oaths relating to things to be done at any distance of time, would be found obliging. It is true, if the state of the case be so altered, that it will be sin for us to fulfil our Oaths, the Oath will not oblige, such is the instance Casuists give of an Oath, to give a sword to one, who before he receives it from us, proves mad. 2. And when the state of the case is so altered, that the plain end of the Oath, and the expectation upon which it is founded, appears frustrate (the Oath being only made to a Creature, for his or her advantage) it may be a question, whether the Oath obligeth yea or no? Such is that other Case put by Casuists, Where one hath sworn marriage to another, and before the time of Marriage comes, he discerns she hath been defiled by another (in which case his refusal to marry, is little other, than a Bill of Divorce, allowed by God's Law in case of Adultery, as this is after such a Contract in God's sight) But none of these will at present gratify our absolver's.  
§. 3. Some therefore have observed the express Limitations in the terms of the Covenant: 1. We will endeavour, 2. In our Callings and Places. 3. So far as lawfully we may. And God forbidden the terms should have been any other. Far be it from us to assert, that a man is tied by his Oath, beyond his endeavour, yea, and lawful endeavour, and in his Calling too. We say that the utmost that any conscientious Christian is by the Oath tied to, is, his utmost lawful endeavour in his Calling, as a Parliament-man, as a Magistrate, as a Minister, as a private person, according to his present capacity or future capacity, and if by endeavouring, honestly and lawfully he cannot attain his end, it is his duty, to sit down, and commit his soul and his cause to God, who doubtless will accept the sincerity of his heart. Only we hope it will not be pleaded in Bar to the lawfulness of endeavour in this case, that it is not lawful to endeavour if the contrary shall by a Law be established: For it was never thought yet unlawful, lawfully to endeavour the annulling, and regular repeal of a Law, which was found grievous to the Subjects outward concern, much less to his Conscience (as any Law must be after an Oath to the contrary, as to the matter of the Law.) This being foreprized, our Brethren and we are agreed, as to this Limitation. And we freely acknowledge ourselves obliged, either actively to do, what Laws require, or like Christians, to suffer the penalties which they inflict: Than which, nothing more was ever pleaded as the duty of good Subjects.  
§. 4. We do therefore conclude, professing, that we do believe it the duty of every conscientious private Christian, who hath taken the Covenant, when once he hath endeavoured what in him lies, in all things (lawful to be done by him) for the obtaining the ends of the Covenant, as to the Reformation of the Church; If at last he should be so unhappy, as to see all his endeavours frustrated, and (to put the case at the worst, which we hope will never be) he should at last, see Popery set up (i. e. the highest corruption in Ecclesiastical Administrations) to sit down, and mourn before the Lord for it, but not to make any resistance to the Lawful Magistrate, because he is the Ordinance of God: We hope none would say in such a case, he were obliged to own Popery, or that he might do it, but he is unquestionably bound to suffer as a wel-doer, rather than to disturb the Civil Peace (What hath Peter to do with the Sword?) And if this be our sense of his duty in so high a case, every one will conclude us (we hope) of that mind in case of the old Prelacy, which we are told is the great Bar to Popery, whatever else is to be said against it.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Wherein is a sleighty notice taken of a Late Pamphlet, wrote by one Mr. Russel, called, The Covenant discharged; and it is proved, that in stead of his finding the Snare broken, as be saith, he hath but resolved to break the Bonds, and to cast the Cords behind him.  
§. 1. WE had thought our work had been done, and sufficient Answer given, not only to what our absolver's had said, but also to what they reasonably could say: But while these sheets were in the Press, we have seen a new Pamphlet; Qualem proculdubio mundus literatus nunquam prius vidit, nec unquam posthac visurus est. The Author hath done well to tell us, it was wrote from his Study at Chinkford in Essex, we should else have been so uncharitable, as to have thought it had come from some other place; but he hath neglected to tell us, what Books are in that Study, for we cannot in any of our Studies, find any wrote, either by Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians, whose Divinity will agree with the Authors Positions.  
§. 2. We do not think ourselves beholden to the Author, for his promised forbearance of Passion, for besides that, he now and then bestows upon us a profane Scoff (according to the proportion of his faculty that way) as where he tells us, that the Faith of removing and settling Mountains are two Gifts, the latter of which we want, etc. In very deed the Author hath consulted himself, in not being too free with his passion, according to the Poet's Caution, Carpere vel noli nostra, vel ede tua. intending to publish such a piece as this to the world, he stood concerned to take heed what measure he meted to others, lest it should be meted to him again, we think he is liable enough to have it even pressed down and running over.  
§. 3. In divers things we confess he hath spoken truth: 1. As to himself, in what he says, p. 57 intending to batter the Covenant, he hath made his approaches at a reasonable (indeed unreasonable) distance, such a distance, that no shot hath come near it. 2. As to the matter; as where he saith, 1. That none can release a Civil Contract, but the Parties with whom it is contracted: That where an Oath is made to God, so that he is Judge and Party, only God can absolve it, p. 14. And p. 15. He would not be thought to plead for a Papal power in any, to discharge men from Oaths, etc. which would be enough for us, who have already proved, that the Covenant was Sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei, a Vow made (though at the Command of others) to God, as to the things which concern God; and giving unto God a right to exact the performance from us; as also, That it was a mutual stipulation with our Brethren in Scotland and England, with our King and Parliament, and according to Mr. Russel's own Doctrine, if there were nothing of a Vow in it, yet all Parties must release: So that what he says more, is to no purpose, because he argues ex ignoratione Elenchi, and lamentably mistakes the nature of the thing of which he speaks.  
§. 4. But because though he seems to grant this, yet up and down his Book, he scatters suggestions of another nature, and indeed maintains such Positions as we are sure Dr. Gawden durst not justify, and runs into so abominable mistakes, as if once believed by others, would make all Oaths no stronger than straws; we will add a few animadversions, upon what he saith, entreating our Brethren hereafter to bring forth other Champions, who may bring more credit to the Church of England, than we conceive this Author in a capacity to do (if we may guests at Leonem ex ungue.)  
§. 5. As to our Brother Crofton, whom he mentions in his Epistle, we conceive him of age, and therefore shall only desire the Reader to take notice; 1. That the Author can produce no Vote of Parliament in his terms, viz. That the King's Concessions were sufficient to establish a well-grounded Peace. The Vote passed Die Martis, 5 Dec. 1648, in these terms:  
Resolved upon the Question, That the Answers of the King, to the Propositions of both Houses, are a GROUND, for the Houses to proceed upon, for the settling the Peace of the Kingdom.  
What is this to sufficient to establish? But suppose this Sin-absolver had not stumbled here, but the Vote had been as he would have it— Why then (if you will believe him) the same power that established the Covenant, tacitly discharged it. For— The continuation of Bishops was included (in those Concessions we suppose.) This is again a most impudent falsehood. For the King in terms granted as follows:  
And we will likewise for three years confirm by Act of Parliament the Form of Church-government you have presented to be used for the Churches of England and Ireland, and Dominion of Wales. 
The King's Concessions printed 1648. pag. 2.  Provided that his Majesty, and those of his Judgement, or any others who in conscience cannot submit, etc. be not in the mean time obliged, etc. And that a free consultation and debate be had with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster in the mean time (twenty of his Majesty's nomination being added unto them) whereby it may be determined by His Majesty, and his two Houses how the said Church-Government, and Form of public Worship after the said time may be settled, or sooner, if differences be agreed. We wonder where Episcopacy was here included? Sure we are, the Propositions sent were for the utter abolishing of it. By this first Essay, the Reader may judge what to concluded M. Russel's assertions, and to show that that Parliament never intended to annul the bond of the Covenant. They no sooner met, anno 1659. but ordered it to be hung up before their eyes in the Parliament House for a continual monitor to them. It was urged by Mr. Prin, & doubtless highly prevailed, both with the consciences of the members, and also of the friends of the Long Parliament, to further the restoring of his Sacred Majesty, therefore surely it was not annulled by that Parliament, 1648. in any men's understanding, but only according to the peculiar intellect of this Sin-absolver.  
§ 6. In the first Page of his Book we cannot but take notice, that though his zeal appears high for the Religion of an Oath, it must not (he says) be imposed without great Prudence, nor taken without great care, etc. nor handled without great fear, etc. yet he hath omitted one main thing, viz. this, Nor violated without just warrant from God's Word; Let that be put in, and we are so far agreed.  
§. 7. In his second Page he seems to be wonderfully free, he will grant us (by way of supposition) all but one point; he will suppose it to have been, 1. Imposed by a lawful authority. 2. Not defective in Circumstances, 3. Clear from Ambiguity. 4. Perfect in form. 5. Pious in the End. 6. Fair in the manner, without fraud, violence, with deliberation, and consent. 7. As to the matter lawful. Only he will not grant us, That it cannot be released by any humane act or power. That it may not be said, This man hath made us rich, we will yield him all again, but the seventh, and if he will not give us that, we will buy it of him, at a full price of Reason and Argument, (such as shall be currant with all divines) we will suppose that at first, it was not imposed by a lawful authority. 2. That there was a defect in the Circumstances. 3. That as to some parts there was Ambiguity. 4. That it was not perfect in the Form. 5. That the End was not pious. 6. That there might be fraud or force, or too much haste in the taking, or imposing it, and yet (what the Books in Chinkeford Study say we cannot tell) our Divinity Books tell us, that an Oath taken (notwithstanding all these) will oblige. As for what he hugs so fast that he will not grant it us, though it were enough to tell him, all learned men that ever we heard of, would; yet we will endeavour to unclasp his hands, and try if we can get it by fair wrestling with this great Champion, being well assured, he will refuse upon any fair ground to try a fall with us upon this issue, and that all Divines, of judgement, will hiss at him that doth it. But he tells us, Page 2. That he will by sufficient arguments and testimonies prove that the same specifical power, or an higher than that which imposed this Vow upon us, may release us from the same either tacitly or expressly. When he hath done that, he must prove too that they have done it.  
§. 8. 'Tis Reason we should listen to this great undertaking, only we desire the Reader to take notice, that himself, both here, and elsewhere calls it a Vow, which according to all Divines is a solemn promise made to God in the things of God. From such an obligation as this he undertakes to prove our discharge, and yet as he tells us, p. 14. In those Oaths where God is judge and party there are none that can release from the binding power but God alone; We would fain know whether in a Vow God be not Judge and Party; and what Divines ever said otherwise? Or to whom a Vow is made if not to God? And then let this Author advise how to reconcile himself to himself, and he will be more likely to agree with us.  
§. 9 The foundation of his Argumentation is, The power of men in some cases to release the Bond of an Oath to their Neighbours. The truth of which we shall declare in the words of Dr. Sanderson. 
Dr. Sanderson De Jur. prom. prael. 7 §. 7. p. 229, 230.  Having first determined that none can discharge us from Vows. He tells us 2. That if we swear for the good and advantage of our brother (merely.) viz. with respect to his single honour, obedience, profit, etc. if he, to whom we swear, (for such his sole profit, and advantage) will release us, we are discharged from our Oath, and not bound in conscience to fulfil it: The Reason is, because our Brother may yield us his right, and so we have paid the debt, which done, we are not obliged. As for God; in an Oath made (praecise in favorem alterius) merely for our Brother's advantage, God is only concerned as a witness of our fidelity, and a revenger in case we be not faithful, but if our brother hath discharged us, we are not unfaithful, in not doing the thing, and so no transgressors before God.  
§. 10. But although we have said this before, and now again to let our Sin-absolver know we have no such desire (as he suggests, p. 2.) to snare people's consciences, yet we do not think any thing of this is proved from the instance of Abraham and his Servant, Gen. 24. which he makes the whole business of his Book, how fitly will appear by giving the Reader a just view of the Text.  
§. 11. In the 24. of Genesis, Abraham calls the eldest Servant of his house, and bids him put his hand under his thigh, and he would make him swear, That he should not take a Wife for Isaac of the Daughters of the Canaanites, etc. But v. 4. Thou shalt go unto my Country, and to my Kindred, and take a Wife to my Son Isaac. Ver. 5. And the Servant said unto him, peradventure the Woman will not be willing to follow me unto this Land, must I needs bring thy Son again unto the Land from which thou camest? And Abraham said, beware that thou bring not my Son thither again. v. 8. And if the Woman will not be willing to follow thee, than thou shalt be clear from my Oath, etc. After all this, v. 9 The Servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his Master, and swore to him concerning that matter. Here we have Abraham discovering to his Servant a design he had to send him for a Wife for his Son, and for security of his faithfulness, that he intended to put an Oath upon him, that he should not take a Canaanite, but one of Abraham's Kindred. The Servant fearing the Oath of God, desires before he swore, fully to know his sense, that he might not swear a thing either impossible or unlawful, it might have been impossible to have brought her without her consent, to be sure it had been unlawful (for two words must go to make the lawfulness of such bargains,) Abraham tells him that in that case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt be free from the Oath. i e. My design is not to engage thee in such a case, nor indeed could he engage him. After this the Servant takes the Oath.  
§. 12. Now (Reader!) what dost thou think this should prove? That which it naturally proves is this; That an Oath doth not oblige contrary to the declared sense of the imposers before it is taken. But what is this to the thing in question? 'Tis brought by this Casuist, to prove that Abraham had power to discharge his Servant of his Oath when he had taken it; yea, and this is again, and again, and again repeated, and made the foundation of all the discourse by virtue of the Author's quodlibetical abilities, when as there is not a tittle in the text looking this way, the passage being only an explication of the sense of an Oath before it was taken; we cannot but believe, that either the Printer or the Author hath abused the World, in telling it, that such lamentable stuff as this is, was attested by Dr. Gawden. We are ashamed to think what opinion will by such scribble as these be begot in the World, of the Church of England? We shall need say no more we hope to any thing he urgeth upon this foundation. He tells us, Jacob might have discharged Esau too of his Oath, nor (though he hath not proved it) will we deny it, it being only made to a man, and for his advantage, which is nothing as to our case; he promised us more examples, but p. he tells us he hath none. Yet, p. 7. he hath found out, such a one as it is, and tells us (but take heed of believing him good Reader!) That Mr. Crofton saith, that we had our first precedent for the Covenant from the Holy League; He that will read a little in Grimstons' translation of the French History, p. 823, 824. will quickly understand the nature of the Holy League. And though this Gentleman betrayeth no such depth of Judgement, yet we know our Brother Crofton is able to distinguish betwixt a League made by a pack of Popish Nobles, not lawfully Convened, and that for the raising of a war against their lawful Sovereign; and whoever else should oppose their ungodly designs. And a Solemn Covenant made by the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament, for the reformation of Religion according to the Word of God, etc. For his instance in Scotland, his question how the Scots came to be released, needs no answer, till he hath proved they were released at all.  
§ 13. In the next place, he argues from the abuse of the Covenant, here he tells us of the abolishing the Brazen Serpent, the destruction of the Temple, etc. when they were abused; he should have done well to have told us of the abolishing of a Vow taken, because some that took it did not keep it, than he had said something to the purpose; we shall not meddle with his quibbling about the unblessed effects of the Covenant, we are sure that it hath had some blessed effects, and we are sure that his talk of abolishing the obligation of an Oath lawful as to its matter, etc. is a parcel of unblessed Divinity if it be good sense.  
§. 14. For his next Argument, fetched from Eccl. 7.16. Be not righteous overmuch, etc. if he had understood that Scripture with the Context, he would have spared that instance where Solomon (having instituted a Dialogue between his flesh and spirit) brings in the flesh giving him that saving advice, we are yet to learn how any can be Righteous overmuch. Solomon tells us there what his heart said unto him in the days of his vanity, not what is our duty.  
§. 15. We see nothing more in his Tract till he comes to his notion, in which he highly triumpheth, That an Oath is no more than a Bond, where are parties, and a witness. The taking of the Oath he says, p. 14. is a bringing of the trial into Gods Court. Here he tells us, that in some Oaths God is a party, and a Judge too. And from such Oaths he is so just as to tell us, none but God can release us. But he will have the Covenant to be such an Oath where God is only a Judge, (he forgot his being a witness too) not a party; (and it must be so because he says so, for he adds not a word to prove it;) To omit his impertinent discourse of Assertory Oaths, p. 15. (which is wild enough,) He tells us, p. 16. That in promisory Oaths (such as he confesseth the Covenant to be) the Party sworn stands continually in God's Court, and is upon continual trial till he or they that put him upon trial are willing to withdraw, and so he says we are at this time released from the bond of the Covenant. Question, How doth this appear? The same powers that imposed it are willing to put us upon no further trial. p. 18. He distinguisheth between making a Covenant before God, and with God; and tells us there are but two ways now of making a Covenant with God. 1. In the Sacraments. 2. By Vows. p. 19 He distinguisheth betwixt taking an Oath willingly; and taking it spontaneously, p. 19, 20. To resolve the question, How the Parliament men, who have taken it, shall be released? He wipes the Enquirers mouth with an Egg shell, telling us, That every Parliament man hath a private, as well as public capacity, and if the Parliament repeal the Ordinance for the Covenant, it is then Void, and Conscience is discharged, etc. To all which a short answer will serve the turn.  
§. 16. Casuists say, that an Oath is Lex privata, a private Law, which Creatures lay upon themselves, or upon one another; The transgression of which is indeed highly cognoscible before the Judge of the whole Earth, who in every Oath is invoked, as a witness, and as a Judge and Revenger of our violation of our faith. 2. In Oaths which are merely to assert truths, or confirm contracts between man and man, wherein we make no bargain with God to do aught which immediately concerns his worship and glory; God indeed is only invoked as a swift witness, and as a severe judge, but is not a party, we only promise to men for their advantage. 3. We deny the Covenant to be merely such, it was partly a Vow, partly a Covenant, and that both with God and men, as we have already showed, we do not understand what makes a Vow if it be not this, that it is a promise to God, as to the things of God. When Abraham lifted up his hands to the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, that he would take nothing from the King of Sodom, Gen. 14.22. We believe he made a Vow, and none but God could release him, yet this was not purely in rebus Dei. We think they have lost their common sense that say, those do not vow that solemnly lift up their hands to God, promising an endeavour to fulfil his Commandments. 4. Nor doth it at all hinder, that the Parliament first commanded it, and then it was taken, for on the Commanders part this still was a perfect Vow. 2. On the people's part it was still a Covenant with God, as well as with men; With God; as to the things in it which concern God's worship and glory immediately: With men; as to other things, If the Command of the Parliament in a Critical notion, hinder it (as to those commanded) from being strictly called a Vow, it yet remains a Covenant with God confirmed by an Oath. There are examples enough in Scripture of Magistrates commanding people to make and renew Covenants with God, and of such spontaneous Covenants; so that it is false, that it was merely an Oath before God, it was a Covenant with God. 5. 'Tis false that he saith, that a people can make a Covenant with God only two ways: 1. In the Sacraments; 2. Spontaneously. They may be commanded by Magistrates to do it, and do it in such obedience. Nor have any power when it is done to release them as to what concerns God, Ez. 10.3.5. There is a precedent of such a Covenant made with God at the command of Ezra. 6. It is true, we can do no action unwillingly, but we may do something not freely & spontaneously; But suppose we have once (whether spontaneously or no) made a Covenant with God, and confirmed it by oath; we are bound by it, and God only can release it, for there is a debt accrueing to God. 7. The Parliament may indeed by rheir Act hinder others, not engaged, from engaging, or at least forbear their obliging men, yet free, to engage. But to say, that any Act of men can discharge the debt already contracted to God is such Divinity as needs none to confute it.  
§. 17. We do therefore conclude, that this Theologaster hath handled this weighty subject weakly, and imperfectly enough (as he prophesied, p. 2.) if nevertheless (we having now discovered his failings) any be provoked to handle it, better and more like a divine, we shall be willing to hear what he saith: In the mean time we leave Mr. Russel to imitate the good example (as he calls it) of that holy and learned Doctor, St. Augustine, viz. to retract, and publish his retractations, lest he have (at the Great Day) the guilt of more souls sins to answer for than his own.   

A Postscript to the ingenuous Reader.  
REader, Lest any should put a misinterpretation upon what we have said, we have thought fit to let thee know, that we have not seen our Papers since the third or fourth of October last, since which time (thou knowest) is come out His Majesty's gracious Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs. In reference to which we crave leave to add a few words, that thou mayest know, that we are none of those who desire it may not pass into an Act, or think ourselves by the Covenant obliged to hinder so good a work.  
The Covenant obligeth us in our callings to endeavour a Reformation according to the Word of God, etc. 2. To endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, i.e. The Church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, Deans, prebend's, Chancellors, Commissaries. We suppose none dreams us to have covenanted against names, but things, viz. exorbitances of power either practised by these men, or with which they were invested.  
There were two things in point of Discipline, wherein, as to practise at least, the Administration of Church-Government here in England was heretofore apparently against. God's Word; a third, wherein it was against right reason.  
1. The first was, That persons, not ordained, were trusted with the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, viz. Excommunication, etc. Such were Chancellors, Commissaries, etc.  
2. The second was, That Prelates arrogated a sole power to themselves, both in Ordination, and in the Exercise of Jurisdiction.  
3. That which was against Reason and Conscience was, that the Bishop's charge was such as an Angel from heaven could not have discharged with a good conscience.  
In matter of Worship, two things called for Reformation: 1. The frame of the liturgy, against which there were sufficient exceptions. 2. The imposed Ceremonies, those we mean which were mystical and Sacramental.  
How far his most Excellent Majesty hath taken care in these things is now evident to all; and we are most humbly thankful to his Majesty, for his endeavours in it, and to our Brethren, for their endeavours with his Majesty, relating to it; what his Majesty hath already done, is a great evidence to us, that if hereafter it shall be made appear to His Majesty, that ought yet remains to be farther done, in order to the fulfilling of the Ends of the Covenant, He who (under these Circumstances) hath freely and honourably done this, will not be wanting to it, and we are not so hasty, as to think Jerusalem can be built in a day. The God of Heaven requite into His Majesty's bosom a thousand fold that love and tenderness to His People which He hath in this shown; and we are fully assured, that it will be no grief of heart to His Majesty that He hath thus far condescended.  
As to the Common-Prayer, we profess ourselves not against a Lyturgy; and we doubt not but His Majesty will appoint such persons to review our liturgy as will agree in one, which shall not be liable to just exceptions; till that time His Majesty grants a liberty.  
But we can never be sufficiently thankful for the liberty His Majesty hath granted us, in reference to the Oath of Canonical Obedience, Subscription, and the Ceremonies.  
Though indeed, His Majesty hath been pleased to deny something of this liberty to cathedrals, and to Colleges; yet we doubt not, but when His Majesty shall truly understand, that the continuance of those Ceremonies in both those places, makes the generality of sober and conscientious people never come at Cathedral Churches, to attend the devotion which His Majesty hath there provided daily for them, and that were they abated, and, the Deans and prebend's enjoined, in person, there to Expound Scripture, Preach, or Catechise, or read Divinity Lectures there daily, instead of mere doing that which every Child might do at home; and that not by themselves neither, but oft times by mean persons of no esteem with sober and good people. His Majesty will quickly otherwise order things there, and not suffer so great a part of the Church's Revenue to be consumed in such a way, as is not like to be much profitable, while it is so little acceptable.  
And when His Majesty shall truly understand, by His faithful Ministers of State, that the retaining the Ceremonies in Colleges makes many sober, learned, and conscientious young men leave the Universities, (at furthest, as soon as they can but get a degree) and many of His Subjects resolve against breeding their Children there, as not thinking those Ceremonies lawful; His Sacred Majesty, who hath thus far expressed so great a tenderness to his People, will (as to these reserved Cases) also further provide for them.  
In the mean time, though we must some of us profess ourselves to be of the number of those who dare not submit our Children to an Education in our Universities (under those circumstances) yet we humbly submit to his Majesty's pleasure: So we may sit in our houses and worship God in peace according to his Will; we shall be content to purchase that our liberty with the denial of our Children the liberty of ingenuous breeding, or at least paying for it in some other places: hoping that his Sacred Majesty will in time also take this thing into his mature deliberation.  
But we must profess, that if His most excellent Majesties gracious Declaration had in every tittle fully answered the utmost of our desires, we should have yet seen a need of some such Discourses as these are for these Reasons:  
1. To recover to our God the due Reverence which the World hath had, and aught to have for his Sacred Name: The Violation of Oaths is in Scripture called, A profaning of the Name of the Lord, Num. 30.  
2. That the World may know, that all the Divines in England are not so meanly versed in Divinity, as to assert, or believe, those Principles, concerning the dissolving the bonds of Oaths, which some have lately vented amongst us, and are, we are sure, to be justified by no Father, School-man, Casuist, or Textuary, that ever we heard of in the World.  
3. For the security of his Majesty, and all Princes, and Christian Magistrates; for we believe, that it will be evident to all that duly consider it, that promisory Oaths from their Subjects will be of little use to establish their Thrones, if once their People believe, that they are discharged from their Oaths, 1. If their Oaths were against The Laws of the Church: Or 2. If they hinder greater good: Or 3. If they swore through fear of losing their Estates, else, etc. Or, 4. For an evil end: Or 5. That the same Power, or a greater than that which commanded them to swear, can in all Cases discharge them. The Papist shall be free from the Oath of Supremacy by Principle, because against the Laws of his Church; and as soon as seditious Subjects can but persuade themselves, that a greater good will come by Rebellion than by Obedience, and that the maintaining of a Monarchical Government is finis turpis; he shall plead, his Oath of Allegiance was a forced Oath, and there's an end of his duty, and his erroneous practice is justified by these erroneous Principles.  
4. Finally, (to say nothing of the Vindication of ourselves from our Antagonists reproaches) for the maintaining of humane Society, and keeping the bonds of truth between man and man in their perfect strength; Of what use (as to this) assertory and promisory Oaths are, every one knows: and we leave it to every reasonable Christian to judge of how little use they will be found to be if these Principles be once throughly drank in.  
We shall only add, that since we read his Majesty's Declaration we are troubled that we have had any occasion so much as to mention His Majesty's Declaration in Scotland, (though it was never in our secret thoughts to do it with any reflection upon his Majesty,) the sheets being some of them printed, we could not blot out what was written; what is said was in the simplicity of our hearts.  
That paper was commonly exposed to sale, without any check; as we knew not the Circumstances of his Majesty's first signing it, so neither knew we of the Printing of it, nor any thing, but that it was free for any to buy or read it; We are of the number of those (we confess) who cannon think our consciences discharged from the Covenant; Our Brethren, who have undertaken to absolve us, continually allege, that the Covenant, being taken without his Majesty's consent, is void. There is a great show in this Argument, if 1. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament have not a power in any cases to require an Oath upon people, except 2. His Majesty, or his Successors (at first dissenting) did not afterwards consent. In either of these Cases our Brethren know that Argument is of no value. We (not knowing the powers and privileges of Parliament, nor willing to dispute them; though to engage us to swear we were told they had such a power) were not willing to insist upon that Plea, (which must be made good by Precedents, or Law principles, not proper for Divines) and therefore chose to mention the latter as sufficient to enervate that Argument, (for our Brethren, whatever they say, will not stand to justify, that Juramentum metu extortum non obligat;) we hearty wish our Brethren would insist upon that Plea no more, they know they have a full answer to it.  
Having (good Reader!) thus far advertized thee, we have nothing to say, but only to pray, that God would give thee a good understanding in all things, and keep thee in awe of Oaths, as knowing that when once (as to the Religion of them) thou hast got a mastery over thy Conscience, nothing will remain sacred to thee, and the strongest ligament of humane Society is broken; And this we dare aver, That he who feareth not an Oath, but can take every slight pretence to quit himself of the bond of it, can neither be a good Servant to God, nor a good Subject to his Prince, nor a good man to his Neighbour.  
Blessed therefore is he who feareth always, though the simple pass on, and are punished.  
FINIS.    

WE are credibly informed, that when his late Majesty was Prisoner in the Isle of Wight, he was under some fears that Violence should there be offered to his Sacred Person, and he should be secretly murdered; which fear was no other quàm qui poterat cadere in virum fortem & prudentem, considering the Principles and Complexion of the men in whose Custody he was; Hereupon he sends for the Minister of the place, to which Carisbrook Castle belonged, by name Mr. Jeremiah French, acquaints him with the danger apprehended, and desired to know of him, whether he would be willing to endeavour his rescue if such an attempt should be: He told him yes, he would willingly lose his life to preserve his Majesties; only he desired his Majesty to direct what way he should serve him in: His Majesty replied, that the way he conceived as most probable to do the work: was to prepare and engage the People before hand, that if any such thing should be attempted by that part of the Army that was upon the place, the People might rise to his rescue; and to that end, he advised to do no more but Preach the Covenant, and press the Covenant upon the People. Mr. French did so, and thereupon was apprehended, and brought up Prisoner to London, and for some time endured very ill handling: This Story we had not from Mr. French himself, he living above 100 Miles from us, but we had it from divers credible Witnesses, to whom Mr. French told it many years before the return of His Majesty, that now is, to the possession of his Throne; And by this it appears, how fully His Majesty was persuaded that the Covenant was one of the greatest securities of his precious Life, and that those of his Subjects would be most faithful to him who were most faithful to the Covenant.