AN ANSWER TO A CERTAIN WRITING, Entitled, CERTAIN DOUBTS And QVAERE'S Upon occasion of the late Oath and Covenant, With desire of satisfaction, for tender Conscienced People, to whom it may be exhibited.  
5. August. 1643.  
Imprimatur  
Joseph Caryl.  
LONDON, Printed for Luke Fawn, and are to be sold at the sign of the Parrot in Paul's Churchyard. 1643. Sept. 11.   

TO THE Right Worshipful And much honoured COLONELS Ralph Asheton, Esquires. Richard Holland, Esquires.  
And the rest of the Colonels, Commanders, Officers, and Soldiers, in the County Palatine of Lancaster.   

AN ANSWER to a certain writing, Entitled, Certain Doubts and Quere's upon occasion of the late OATH and COVENANT, with desire of satisfaction, for tender conscienced People to whom it may be exhibited.  

Question 1.  
FIrst, I doubt how I can swear in truth, and judgement, or in truth and knowledge, according to Jere. 4.2. For however, the Parliament may to itself, have just grounds for what they say, yet to me, this is but T●s●imonium humanum; and though a man think, or believe all true that is in this Oath, and in its Preamble asserted, yet it is not therefore in an Oath to be avowed or disavowed, I may in some cases swear upon my own knowledge, or ex testimonio Di●●ino, but I may not swear upon other men's knowledge; As in Logic, Quod nescit predicare de est in secundo adjecto, nescit predicare de est in t●●ti● adjecto. So in Divinity, Quod nescit jurare de est in secundo adject●, nescit jurare de ●st in tertio adjecto. He that cannot swear that this plot was, cannot avow it to be wicked or treacherous.  
Answ. It is written in the Law, The Testimony of two men is true, and by the month of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established: But in this Case of the Plot, we have the confession of Master Waller, and of others; two whereof were executed for their guilt herein 
a Chil●●●●● I am k●●● , and the Declaration not of one or two Members in Guild-Hall, London, but of both the Houses to be read in all parish Churches and Chapels, and a public day of thanksgiving appointed for the deliverance from in which though it be but Testimonium humanum is so convincing, that the disbelief or doubting of the verity of the Plot, doth lay an imputation either of very great weakness or horrible wickedness on the Houses, of mocking God and man.  
The Law of the Land gives so much credit to every Court of Record, That no averrement must be taken against it, none be admitted to contradict it, or to say it is not true, no not the King Himself 
(b) Kingdom's Case p. 11. ; yet we are not required to swear that there was such a Plot, or that it was wicked and treacherous, but (upon supposal of the Parliaments assertion, and our beli●●● thereof) that we detest and abhor it. May not a man swear that he detesteth the wicked and treacherous design: of the Gunpowder Treason 
c Gun Powder Treason is fathered on the puritans. , or the Irish Rebell'on 
(d) The King's Commission is pretended for it; therefore they say it is no Rebellion. , Seeing there is but Testimonium humanum for either of them. The People made a Covenant with King Joash upon 〈◊〉 of ●●hojadah, that he was the Fing son, (which was but T●●●● 〈◊〉 humanum,) 2 King. 11.4. and 17. though the Queen cried Trea●●●, Treason, vers. 14. No man may hence forward swear, that he will 〈◊〉 true and faithf●ll to Charles the ●●●full King of England, or that he rests ●ully assured of His Majesty's Princely truth in His Protestations: Seeing there is but Testimonium humanum that there is a King, that His name is Charles, that He is the lawful King; that those Protestations are His, that go under His name, for none can swear these things ex Testimonio Divino, and few (if any) can swear, all of them of their own knowledge.  
How can I swear in righteousness as I am commanded, Quest. 2 Hosea 4 2. Is it a righteous thing to vow assistance to every man that taketh this Oath, without limitation of lawful taking, and lawful pursuance thereof; but may there not be some that will pursue this Oath by lying, stealth, murder oppression, etc.  
The word (〈◊〉) was expressed in the Protestation, Answ. and we are bound by the judgement of Charity, Matth. 7.1. so to understand it here, even as when the People answered Joshua, All that thou command ●st as, wewi●●●, and whither soever, etc. Josh. 1.16. And Wives in the form of marriage do vow to love, honour, and obey their Husbands. No man hath a vocation to any unlawful thing; he that doth unlawfully, Eatenus doth not pursue this Oath, though he may think he doth; but I am not bound to assist every man in whatsoever he thinks he doth in pursuance of the Oath, but in whatsoever he indeed doth in pursuance thereof. They that without warrant of Law do take away men's Goods, and Lives, and they that countenance and assist them, are Thiefs and Murderers, 
Nihil ●l●ud potest Rex quam quod de jure potest. Bracton.  now Judicium Guriae est quasi Juris dictum, and in the Courts alone doth the King legally judge, But the King's word is no warrant. His will no Law whereby to take away the Lives and Goods of our Neighbours, nor will they free a man in foro civili, much less in Divino, from being Murderers or Thiefs.  
I must not forswear, Psal. 15.4. Quest. 3 Now how can I that have sworn Allegiance to the King, and lately protested jointly to maintain the King's honour, and just privileges of Parliament; how can I without perjury swear to this Oath, the Preamble whereof calleth the opposite Army a Popish Army, and saith it is raised by the King, and it is for subversion of Religion, Laws, and Licerties, this is small honour; for how can I maintain the King's Honour, Person, and Crown, and fight against the Army which is said to be raised (not by ill Concomitants) but by the King.  
The Oath of Allegiance being intended for Papists, Answ. and others only quatenus liable to that infection, is in effect thus much, I swear I will do nothing against the King by the Authority of the Pope and Sea of Rome 
(e) See God and the King Printed by special command, p. 21. to the 30.  See more Page 8, 9, 10.  
The Oath of Supremacy was intended to thrust out the Pope, and to discover Papists, and not to determine the present difference between the King and Parliament, or the King and Kingdom, for Parliament is the Kingdom to all intents and purposes of Law 
(f) Sta●nta universi regni per regem, etc. cowel. , and it makes the King supreme over all persons, Rex non habet parem nee superiorem, Bracton, But not over the Laws, or the Judgements of his Courts, for so Rex habet superiorem, Deum scilicet & legem per quam fact us est Rex, item Curiam Comitum Baronum, etc. Ibidem. The Supremacy therefore is not in his personal, but in his legal commands, He Himself being under the Law, subject to the Coercive power of the Law; notwithstanding any Commission or protection from the King. The King is Supreme in Ecclesiasticis, yet He (notwithstanding that Supremacy) is liable to Church-Censures 
(g) William the Conqueror was excommunicated for breaking his Oath at his Coronation. , at least His Friends, Favourites, and Agents are; and the King cannot annul or make invalid those Censures. Neither can He (notwithstanding His supremacy) in temporals, make void the sentence or judgement of any Court of Record. Forces raised by the King may be dangerous and destructive to His Person. Crown, and Kingdom, and so by Law be Rebels and Delinquents, as the forces now raised by the King are actually adjudged to be (and the like forces have formerly been so judged 
(h) 〈◊〉 11 〈…〉 4.  by Parliament, from whence ly●s no Appeal, and therefore may and aught to be resisted; yet this in judgement of law is no resistance of the King, who is never supposed to do against Law, 〈…〉 Rex, quod 〈…〉, quod 〈…〉: If the King command. A. B. C. D. to take up Arms to kill 〈◊〉 a Judge of Assize, or ●. G. Parliament men whilst they are doing that Office, and they accordingly kill them, this is high 〈◊〉, notwithstanding the King's command, and the Indi●…t is found 〈…〉. 
i 〈◊〉 King●… Ca●e, 〈◊〉.  And it is not only lawful, but our duty to our King, (both by Law and our late Protestation) to resist such forces so raised by the King, and to endeavour to bring them to 〈…〉. And they that do so resist, do stand for the King 〈…〉 at the Law and ●udgement given 〈…〉 King's judgement, though gi●… 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 standing thereof, we 〈…〉 ●…pacit●… 
(k) This distinction is w●…ted by ●…t●siue, 〈◊〉 Edward Cook, and many others .  
P●…erall, in which 〈…〉 is subject to 〈…〉 infir●…, 〈…〉 ●…ain of the Law, 〈…〉, the 〈…〉 and 〈…〉, C●…ts of 〈…〉 ●…lly in the Parliament.  
C●…ands and Commission 〈…〉 the King in His 〈…〉 ●…mitis, 〈◊〉 &. ●…ay 〈…〉 that proceed from Him in 〈…〉 Commands and Commissio●… 〈…〉, are those, when these disagree, for then 〈…〉 and they that are ●…ly loyal, (that is) legal, 〈…〉, th●n doth a King hate His 〈…〉.  
can make a Popish Army, than the opposite Army is a Popish Army. Had it been for the King's honour to have raised those forces, it had been no dishonour to have them spoken off. The Oath and Preamble are (as much as may be in such a Case) tender of the King's honour, for though they say it is a Popish Army, and that it is raised by the King, and that it is for the subversion of Religion, Laws, and Liberties; yet they say not that the King doth so intent it. His Majesty and His forces may have several ends and aims; It is no wisdom to compliment away our Religion and Liberties, for if Salus Reipublicae be supremalex. If Rex be propter regnum, not regnum propeer regen●, (Fort●scue, Aquinas,) then the honour of the King is no further to besought, then is subservient to the good of the Kingdom.  
God. Nature, and the Laws of the Land do allow defensive Arms to a subject against illegal and injudiciall violence. The Parliament is not a subject, for the King is a part, and in intent of Law present, 
(m) Master Herles answer to Doctor Ferne. I have seen cited for proof hereof Ashes Tables, Error, 65 to 70.21 jac. c 13 Ceom●tons jurisdiction of Courts, f●● to 20. Smith's Commonwealth, l. 2. c 1, 2 15 Ed 3. c. 2, 3 of all these there are sund●y Precedents. Answer to thenin●●en Propositions.  not only as a Court of Justice, but as the highest Court, in which there is a Chair of State for His Person, and things agitated there, are said to be done coram Reg●; Neither are the Lords and Commons in Parliament merely subjects, but are  with His Majesty (this being a mixed Monarchy 
(l) His Majesty's Answer to the ninteen Propositions. , not only of Supre ●e and subordinate Governors (for so the most absolute Monarchies or Tyrannies in the world are mixed) but of three  States) in the Legislative power, and trusted with the ultimate and indisputable power (in Case of doubt) of declaring what is Law, of reversing erroneous Judgements given in Inferior Courts, of damning illegal Patents, Monopolies, Impositions, Exactions, of removing public grievances, and particular wrongs complained of, of censuring and judging Delinquents of all sorts, not only in the King's absence, but against His Personal Negative Vote or disassent in case he be present. His Majesty saith, That the power legally placed in both Houses of Parliament is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny: which it cannot be in some cases without resistance of the forces raised by the King; without such power of resistance in the hands of the Houses, all mixture of Government and Limitation of Regal power is vain, for the Government at the will of the Prince, (raising a thousand, or but a hundred, that may not be resisted) will resolve into absolute Arbitrary, and Tyrannical Government.  
Resistance of the forces raised by the King, may consist with loyalty to His Person; for the forces are not the person of the King, neither is His person ubiquitary with His forces; The Law supposeth not that the King is at any time amongst Traitors and Delinquents, but as a prisoner, especially in Parliament time, when he is presumed to be in the House of Lords.  
The safeguard of the King's Person hath been pretended when other things have been intended, Lancashire men were by warrants called to Warrington, to guard His Majesty's Person, which came not there, the intent was to gather forces to assault Manchester: A guard for His Majesty's Person, was the foundation of the war against the Parliament. If the King's Person be engaged in any dangerous expedition, more to blame are the Cavaliers, they should say, it were better that all they were executed, than that one hair of His head should fall to the ground, 2 Sam. 18.3. But if they will needs expose His sacred Person to hazard, than we say, To kill or wound the King intentionally and purposely, is treason, hateful to God and all good men, but to wound or kill Him casually, not only praeter but contra intentionem; while we in our own intent and in intent of Law, are (for His preservation) prosecuting Rebels and Delinquents, is indeed a cross, and an occasion of sorrow, but not of sin to the soul of him that doth it 
* The King being sick calls for his Physicians to give Him Physic, they proceed according to the rules of Art, and sincetely endeavour His health, if he being persuaded by some do neglect the prescribed rules of Diet, and so the Physicked kills in stead of curing, the Physicians are not guilty. . In Justs and Torneaments, Subjects standing only on point of honour, have returned Lance for Lance, stroke for stroke, unhorsed, disarmed, and wounded 
(n) Hall. 16 H. 8. , yea killed 
o Anno 1559. p Anno 1266.  their Kings without suspicion of disloyalty. The casual kill of King William Rufus by the glance of an Arrow, was no treason. The fight against the Earl of Leicester's forces (where King Henry the third was in person, and carried about for the countenance of His Actions) and the rescuing of Him (though He was wounded unawares in the rescue) was by Parliament judged, to be loyal and faithful services. Finally, (to omit what Bishop Poinet saith of the power of the great Constable of England.)  
If the King should come in the head of the Irish Rebels (many whereof are already Him,) we may and must (with as much tenderness and care of His Majesty's Person, as will stand with discharge of our duties) resist and help to destroy those Robels that are about Him.  
In reverence of Parliaments, and in regard of tender consciences, I desire these things first to be cleared, lest in taking this Oath we go on Popish grounds, in these three principals (viz.) Of implicit faith, of infallibility of Council, and the Oath ex Officio. The Papists by an implicit faith, Quest. 4 believe and swear, because their Church saith it, And why, and how can our Country people believe, and swear, but because the Parliament faith it. The Papists think the Pope's council cannot err, therefore engage their faith to believe, and their practices to do what the future shall be determined: I desire therefore to know the extent of the word (continued) will assist the forces raised and continued by both Houses, it seemeth to be meant, do futuro, else (raised) would have served the expression, thus it may be as large as etc. and engageth our assistance to them, without limitation of lawful continuance, as if this Army or Parliament-Councell could not err in ordering the same. The Papists (as was exclaimed in our Bishop's Courts) have an Oath in their Inquisition to oblige men, either to accuse, or forswear themselves; and doth not this Oath oblige men (if conscious of this that is meant by the Plot) either to accuse themselves, which is unnatural, or forswear themselves, which is Diabolical.  
The Parliament do publish in their Declarations the Reasons and Grounds of their Votes and Actions, Answ. the Equity as well as the Authority of their decisions; and therefore cannot be said to require an implicit faith. The Judgement of the Parliament is not infallible, but to us it is inevitable; Our Judgements are not enthralled to believe what they say, but they are bound up and superseded by theirs; and our interests are entrusted with them, and subjected to their decisions. If His Majesty should concur with the Houses in a Declaration of the Law, could you not then submit thereunto without contradiction, and rest therein without further debatement, except you go on Popish grounds of implicit faith and infallibility? Our holding the Parliament to be the supreme Judicatory (in case of the King's absence or opposition) doth no whit alter the case. If any implicit faith, and infallibility must be placed any where, it is more safely placed in a general Council then in the Pope, and consequently in the Parliament, rather than the King 
(q) This comparison was made by Acneas Silvius in the Council of Basil.   
To avoid processus in infinitum (which nature abhors) there is a power resting some where, which is the ultimate and indisputable power of expounding the Laws; which power (resting in the Parliament) must be assisted by all within the jurisdiction of the Court, and not be resisted or controlled by any, upon pretence of possible or actual error in them. If any Court of Record do err, I am excused, yea, justified by the Law, if I living within their jurisdiction do submit to their sentence, yea, obey it till it be reversed; As if A. (free from all Felony) be outlawed for felony (which is but a Declaration by and before the Coroners) every subject in the County is bound so fare to credit the said Judgement, as not to receive, relieve and comfort, A, upon pain of being accessary to felony 
(r) The Kingdom's Case citeth 12 Ed. 2. Coron. 377. which is cited. 19 Eliz. die 355.  And in case of Attainder by Parliament, though supposed to be unjust; the King Himself cannot discharge the persons so attainted, but by reversing it in Parliament 
(s) 1 Hen. 7.4.  There is no necessity that (continued) should be meant de futuro, seeing but a line or two before, both (raised) and (continued) are spoken de preterito. But if it be (is I believe it is) spoken d●future, it cannot be so large and boundless, as &c. seeing the ground of my promising assistance, is the limitation of the Parliaments forces (in my belief) to be for their just defence, and the just defence of the t●●e Protestant Religion, and Liberty of the Subject. If, I say, whereas I believe, A. B. is a Protestant, I will assist him in the maintenance of his Religion, I do not engage myself to maintain Popery in case he should turn Papist. The King and His Council and his forces may err; therefore the Inhabitants of Chester, Shrowsbury, or any other place which have engaged themselves by Oath (upon their beleaf of His Majesty's Protestations) to assist Him and His forces, against the forces of Robert Earl of Essex, Sir William Br●reton, etc. especially the future, which is as large as, etc. and without limitation of lawful, are in this respect as guilty as they that take this Oath.  
This Oath differs much from the Oath ex Officio, (which you say is Popish) for it is tendered not only to suspected persons, nor principally intended for the finding out of guilt, or the punishment of guilty persons, when found out (though such like Oaths were in use, Num. 5.19. Exod. 21.11. And now in Courts the person indicted, doth plead guilty, or not guilty; and so either detects himself, which is unnatural, or lies, which is Diabolical.) But to the whole Kingdom to bind them to the detestation and non-execution of the said, or the like plot, and to fidelity for after times, R. S. the Author of these Q●aere's doth (I suppose) refuse this Oath; yet (I hope) he doth not hereby accuse himself to be conscious or guilty of the said Plot.  
I may not (especially by solemn Oath) take God's name in vain, Quest. 5 nor multiply Oaths to the same intent. I took the Protestation to preven: the ruin of Parliaments, Kingdom, and true Protestant Religion; therefore this present Oath, expressed to be to the same intent, is needless and vain, if not, show the necessity of it.  
You say, Answ. but you prove not, that the taking of this latter Covenant is a taking of God's name in vain. You see it is more large, plain, particular, than the Protestation, and the Protestation was not sufficient to its end, many (notwithstanding the same) revolting from, plotting, and practising against Religion, Parliament and Kingdom, under pretence of standing for the King.  
The Jews of old, and Christians of late did often renew their Covenants with God to the same intent. David and Jonathan made a Covenant, and renewed it once, and again to the same intent, 1 Sam. 18.3. and 20.16, 17.23.18. yet did not take God's name in vain. The Governor of Christer hath imposed several Oaths upon the Inhabitants of Chester to the same intent, (viz.) the security of the City, the resistance of the Parliaments forces. It seems that they also do take the name of God in vain.  
An Oath ought not to be urged on them, Quest. 6 that shall lie in taking the same, Jerc. 4.2. Thou shalt swear in truth. Now it is more than probable that some of the multitude (seeing it is pressed on all the Kingdom) shall lie. For when they have told God and the Congregation, that they hearty sorrow for their sins, they will tell God a solemn lie. Now though we may exhort all men to repent, yet it is questionable, whether we may urge them to swear, that they repent who do not so.  
By this Argument, Ministers may not in their own, Answ. and the people's name, say, We are hearty sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance, etc. Nor Godfathers, and Godmothers (especially in the name of the Children,) say, I forsake the devil, etc. I believe in God, etc. Nor Children be taught to say, Our Father. Nor the Oaths of Supremacy, All agiance, and Protestation, nor any other Oath be tendered to the whole Kingdom upon any occasion; seeing it is more than probable that some of the Ministers, and people, are not hearty sorry, etc. Some of the Gossips do not fotsake the Devil, etc. Some of the Children have not God to their Father. Some Popish, treacherous, perjured persons, will in taking the Oaths of Supremacy, etc. Tell God and the World a solemnelye.  
On the solemnelyes assertory or permissory, or both that were told by the people, Josh. 24. 2 Chro. 15. 2 Chro. 23. Neh●. 9 etc. 10. That man is a son of Belial, which (living in these sad times) is not in some measure sorrowful for his own sins, and that intends not to endeavour the amendment of his own, ways; surely, he is none of the tender conscienced men, for whose satisfaction these were propounded. The Inhabitants of Chester have sworn, that they rest fully assured of His Majesty's Princely truth and goodness, etc. It is well if some of them to save their goods and liberties, Quest. 7 have not told God and the world a solemn lie.  
I desire to know the extent of those words, Will according to my power and vocation, assist the forces of the Parliament against the forces, etc. For it may be said, That he that warreth not in his own person; he that slayeth at any exigent; he that leaveth his Armour; he that taketh or giveth quarter; he that giveth not all his estate immediately to these wars, it may be said, That these have not done according to their power, and so are forsworn; and there is the more reason for this question, because some have taught, and others have practised this for a doctrine, that you may not take or give quarter in these wars, An unnatural and bloody resolution.  
When you know the extent of the words (To the uttermost of my power) in the Oath of Allegiance, Answ. and the Oaths imposed upon Chester and Shrowsbury, and of the words (To my power) in the Protestation, and Oath of Supremacy, (the Oaths which you have already taken) Than you will guess at the meaning of the words (accerding to my power and vocation) in the Oath now to be taken, where the word vocation limiteth the word power, for no man hath a vocation to any unlawful or irrational, any unnatural or bloody resolution or action. If any man say, or teach, as you intimate some do, They have as little ability, as they have authority to expound the Oath. It may be some others do so explain it, that any Malignant in the Kingdom may take it, without forsaking his own principles. But, Inter utrumque via est.  
An Oath is to be taken when we are thereunto called by lawful authority, Quest. 8 and may be refused, when lawful authority prohibiteth the same, or exempteth inferiors from the same. Now though I question not the Parliaments authority in enjoining this Oath, yet I also believe that our King's authority is a lawful authority, if not supreme also, who by Proclamation prohibiteth this Oath; And therefore I cannot conceive a lawful calling to this Vow and Covenant, Num. 30.5. A woman hath no power to vow that which her father disavows, and how then can a subject have power to vow that which the King disavoweth, is not Rex pater patria?  
An Oath may be taken lawfully by private persons to give satisfaction in some weighty doubt, though they be not thereunto called by any authority at all. 1. Jonathan and David's Covenant stood firm, though condemned by Saul, 1 Sam. 22.7, 8. who was the father of one, the father in law of the other, and the King of both. Yea, they afterward renewed that Covenant, 1 Sam. 23.17, 18. The King's lawful authority is in His Courts of Justice, and His Proclamation for the reversing of the sentence and judgement of any Court of Record, especially of the Court of Parliament, which is His highest and honourablest Judgement 
* King james. Basllicon Doron. , is ipso facto null and void; especially when the King is amongst known and judicially declared Rebels and Delinquents, for then His Proclamations may be judged to be the acts of the said Delinquents, over-awing, mis-informing, or otherwise abusing the King. A King of England was once articled against, as for other things, as that Without consent he had carried away the Jewels and Plate of the Crown, and did hold a fantastical opinion, That the Laws of the Realm were in his head, and sometimes in his breast. So for that He craftily devised certain privy Oaths, contrary to the Law, and caused His Subjects to be sworn thereto. Though this be now ordinarily done, not so much by the King, as by the Cavaliers within their Dominions of Northumberland, Cumberland, Yorkshire, Chester, Shrowsbury, etc. But the authority of Parliament was never till of late questioned for greater acts than these. The late Protestation, which (well understood) contained that very thing which you dislike in this Covenant, viz. of resisting the forces raised by the King in some cases, stands good by your own rule, for the King did not publish any Proclamation against it, Numb. 30.4.7.  
The vehement pressing of this Oath may prove prejudicial to the Cause, and to the end, Quest. 9 to which it is pressed for being thus questionable for the lawfulness of it, it may make many to esteem worse of the Parliament. Diversmen that have assisted the Parliament, will not in likely hood take this Oath, but perhaps hereupon desert the Cause. As for that which somesay, it is vehemently pressed to the intent to discover rotten hearts; I answer, it is no sign of a rotten heart to fear an oath, nay, rather that is the rotten heart that can digest such solemn Oaths without fear and scruple.  
These and the like quaeres in the hands of common people do not help the matter: Answ. Christ sometime spoke hard speeches, which caused many to leave him, Joh. 6.1. We had rather have open foes then treacherous friends. I believe those hearts are rotten quantum ad nos & causam nostram, that have no juster scruples than these, and yet refuse this Oath. A man may truly fear an Oath, yet take the Oath of Supremacy, Allegiance, Protestation, and this also.   

Other brief Quaere's, with their Answers.  
IS there any precedent of such an Oath to resist forces raised by their Quest. 1 Kin●s?  
Yes, Answ. th● Scottish Covenant, judged lawful by Parliament, and the Union of the Hollanders, which I hope are no Rebels, for the Prince of Orang is one. Briesly, Kingdoms in the like Case, do usually take th● like course to prevent treachery and division.  
The King and Parliament are here divided, Quest. 2 is not this against my Protestation?  
This Covenant doth not disannul any of our former Oaths and Covenants. Answ. The late Plot (the occasion of this Oath) being rather against Religion, Parliament, and Kingdom, then against the person of the King; therefore the one is mentioned, not the other. Th● Unity between King and Parliament (in these sad divisions) cannot be better kept then by cleaving to the Parliament, For the King is legally presumed to be in Parliament, not contra.  
The King hath protested upon the Sacrament, Quest. 3 that He will maintain the Protestant Religion, without connivance at Popery, etc.  
It is not certain that the King hath so protested, Answ. if he have, and His intentions be real, yet this lays no Bond on his Successors, muchless on the Queen, the Papists and Rebels now in Arms, by whom our Religion is rather endangered then by the King, which keep not Covenants and Truces that Turks would keep, (for Popish principles will admit the taking and breaking of solemn Oaths) and have not suffered the King to keep his former many solemn Protestations, scarce the same day they were made: Si dissimulandum, Regnandi causa dissimulardun, qui n●s●it dissimulare, nescit regnare. Should Popery and Tyranny be professedly maintained; sew Protestant Subjects would cleave to that party. If His Majesty were from amongst Delinquents, Atheists, Papists, Aliens, He would (I believe) keep His Protestations, Prov. 25 Remove the wicked from about, etc. It is our duty therefore to rescue Him out of their h●nd●, that He may keep His Protestations.  
FINIS.