THE SNARE Discovered: Wherein several OBJECTIONS against the national Covenant, and the obligation thereof, are calmly argued, in the way of a familiar discourse between a COVENANTER And an INTERPENDENT.  PROV. 20.25. 
It is a Snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy: and after vows, to make enquiry.  
LONDON, Printed for T. R. and E. M. 1649.   

The Snare discovered, in a Dialogue between a Covenanter and an Interpendent.  COvenanter. 
Well met good Sir, I should be glad to renew our former familiarity.  Interpendent. 
Your motion is very welcome to me: for I would by no means that Christians should be strangers.  Cove. 
This strangeness hath been a fault on all hands.  Inter. 
Me thinks Sir, you look as if all were not well with you, may I know what it is that troubles you?  Cove. 
Since you desire it, I shall open myself to you; and the rather, because you are not engaged in the Covenant. I met yesterday with a Treatise for the proving, that the national Covenant( which I took long since) is unlawful to be kept, and it runs in my mind still.  Inter. 
The Covenant is made by many amongst us( what some of the Papists style the Scripture,) a nose of wax; But I pray, wherein doth your Author express the unlawfulness of it?  Cove. 
I remember he saith in one place, that the Covenant was unlawfully taken, and therefore not to be kept.  Inter. 
In what sense doth he hold tha● the Covenant was unlawfully taken? in regard of the matter of the Covenant, or in regard of the manner of entering into it? there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two.  Cove. 
In respect both of the matter and of the manner, he argues the unlawfulness of the Covenant.  Inter. 
Thus far I must needs hold with him: that if any particular in the Covenant can be proved to be absolutely unlawful to be done, then the Covenanters Oath binds him not to keep the Covenant in that particular, though the Covenant is still obliging in regard of those things in it, which may lawfully be done. And I conceive, in case any particular of the Covenant should clearly appear unlawful to be performed: then the same Authority which tendered the Covenant, might do well to enjoin a public humiliation for it.  Cove. 
I shall therefore insist upon particulars, as they come to my mind; one main thing objected against as unlawful, is that clause for extirpation of heresy and schism. He says in that passage, the Covenanter vowed to do this, howsoever not so expressed in words, that he would persecute the godly, and not suffer them peaceably to worship the Lord.  Inter. 
This is very strange that any one should say, that the Covenanter vowed to do otherwise then is expressed in the words of the Covenant, and no less reasonable is it, to call the extirpation of sin by the odious name of persecution; nor is it suitable to the current of Scripture, to make the godly the subject of heresy; neither is there any colour for saying, that to extirpate heresy and Shisme is to hinder the godly from worshipping the Lord peaceably; for heresy is so far from being a friend to the worship of God, that it is an enemy, and schism is so far from advancing peaceableness, that it breeds and feeds contention.  Cove. 
Though I know not how to contradict what you have said: yet it will not be satisfactory to me unless I can find a Scripture-bottome. If any text of Scripture comes to your mind that might establish what you have said, you might do well to mention it.  Inter. 
You do well to require Scripture, for that is the supreme judge of Controversies; and I doubt not, but if my memory would serve, I might give you as ample satisfaction as you desire. That the Covenanter engages no farther then the words of the Covenant extend: I remember I red lately a text in Jer. 34.18. which is very full for the confirming of it, and for the other particulars; if you please to walk to yonder Seat, we will sit down and consider further of them.  Cove. 
I would fain have that clamour well scanned; that the extirpation of heresy and schism is persecution.  Inter. 
I suppose there is not much difficulty in that, for persecution in the constant language of the Holy Ghost, signifies an opposing of good, not an opposing of evil: as where the Apostle tells us, that he which is born after the flesh, persecutes him that is born after the spirit and you know our Saviour warrants the rooting out of those plants which are not of Gods planting, and that heresy and schism are plants that are not of Gods planting, is very clear in the Scripture. And as I remember, Master Burroughs in his Treatise of heart-divisions, urges to this Purpose a Gospel-Prophecy in Zech. 13. and in that Scripture it is worth observing, that not only false doctrines of the Heathens are to be suppressed, but also the erroneous doctrines of those which profess the true God; for it is said there, thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord; not in the name of false gods, but in the name of the true God.  Cove. 
I would gladly see somewhat in the New Testament.  Inter. 
I have the book here, and therefore if you please we will turn to some texts in it; and first I shall show you that heresy is a work of the flesh, and that the suppression of that, is so far from being a persecution of the godly, that it doth not at all touch the godly; for heresy and godliness cannot dwell together, this you shall see, Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witcherast, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and suchlike, of the which I tell you before, as I have often  told you in times past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God; here observe, the Apostle says expressly, heresy is a work of the flesh, and those which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God; therefore heresy is not in any of the godly: for it is certain that all the godly shall inherit the kingdom of God, and mark further what the Apostle says in the 12. verse, I would they were even cut off which trouble you, this the Apostle speaks concerning those that troubled the Church with their errors: Paul sure speaks not now the language of a Persecutor, yea he did at the same time suffer persecution for the truth, as you may see in the verse before. And that Schism is a work of the flesh, see 1 Cor. 3.3, 4. for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying and strife and Divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? for while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, Are ye not carnal? and that schisms do not advance the peaceable worship of the Lord, but hinder it, is further clear, 1 Cor. 11.17, 18, 19. Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse, for first of all when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be Divisions( or schisms) among you, and I partly believe it, for there must be also Heresies among you; our Apostle therefore labours much in that Epistle to root out schism from the Church of Corinth, and does very earnestly persuade them against it, as you may see in chap. 1. vers. 10, 11. Now I beseech you Brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no Divisions( or schisms) among you, but that yet be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, for it hath been declared to me of you, my Brethren, by them which are of Cloe, that there are contentions among you; See here, schism is a make-bate, and not fit to live in a Christian Common-wealth; if you please I will turn to some other places for the further proof of these things.  Cove. 
You may spare that labour, this is sufficient; and therefore I shall go on to another particular. My Author says that the Covenant contains a contradiction; for in one place it promises to preserve the Kings Person and Authority, and in another place it promises to endeavour that all such as be Incendiaries be brought to punishment: here is the Covenant, you may see the Objection is raised by comparing the third and fourth Article together.  Inter. 
I see how the words lye, and this puts me in mind of a passage which I red lately, exceptio firmat regulam, the laying down of just limitations to a general rule, makes that rule so qualified not liable to just exception; therefore it being granted that the third Article of the Covenant excepts the Kings Person and Authority, this will clear the extent of the fourth article, and so reconcile the pretended contradiction; if any will be captious at the word All, and say that an exception will imply a contradiction; there is a passage in sacred writ, which I have often thought upon, that may check their cavilling niceness; and this it is 1 Cor. 15.27. for he hath put all things under his feet, but when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him.  Cove. 
I am satisfied in this, but there are other objections made against the forementioned clauses of the Covenant severally, who is to be reputed a Malignant, and what it is that makes a man to be so? this is said to be a mystery.  Inter. 
the Covenant is very plain in this point: for in that fourth Article you have the Malignant described, by those things wherein his malignity is express; as bindring the Reformation of Religion dividing the King from his People, or one of his Kingdoms from another, or making any faction, &c.  Cove. 
This I see is very apparent. But the other choose in the Covenant for preserving the Kings Person, is objected against with much earnestness, and Scripture produced to prove it unlawful.  Inter. 
As for the third article of the Covenant so sarreas it engaged the taker to preserve the Person of the late King, it is now no further obliging, because the matter of it is taken away by the Kings death, and those who have taken, and conscientiously kept that branch, may enjoy the Testimony of a good conscience; nor need such be troubled that they have taken it, and I am confident there can be no Scripture produced to prove the unlawfulness of it.  Cove. 
What say you then to these texts which are alleged against it? Gen. 9.6. he that sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be  shed. Num. 35.31. Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a martherer, which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death, Deut. 19.13. thine eye shall not pity him, &c.  Inter. 
Though I never heard that the King embrued his hands in any mans blood: yet I shall not at all meddle with the case of the King in particular. But onely to these general Scriptures, I shall give you this general answer; that they are far from proving it unlawful for a subject to endeavour to preserve the person of his King, for those texts speak not how a subject should proceed towards his governor, in case of the Governours guilt, but only how a governor should proceed in punishing of Subjects according to their deserts: to clear this case, take a Scripture president. King Saul was guilty of the blood of many, yea sacred persons: for at his command Doeg the Edomite fell upon the Priests, and slay in one day above fourscore persons that wore a linnon Ephod; after this, when Saul was in the head of an Army, pursuing righteous David; Providence puts an opportunity into Davids hand, that he might do with Saul as he saw good. What doth David do in this case? Doth he take away the life of bloody King Saul? No, but he preserves that Kings person, and will not permit others to smite him: and gives a very good argument for it, drawn from the place of the King; he was the Lords anointed.  Cov. 
This I have heard largely urged by others.  Inter. 
It has indeed been well handled by many; if therefore you have any thing farther that is objected against the Covenant, you may proceed.  Cove. 
This is one thing in general, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin; & that the community of the people did not take the Covenant in faith, because many of them took it doubtingly or ignorantly.  Inter. 
It must be granted that many did so take the Covenant; and they have cause to be humbled for taking Gods name in vain: yet this taking of the Covenant in a sinful manner, doth not justify the breaking of the Covenant, nor dispense with the obligation of the Covenant in point of conscience: the truth is, there was never any Covenant made since the fall of Adam, nor any oath taken by any man whatsoever, nor ever will or can be, without some failing in the manner, so long as sin remains in mans nature, and therefore if failing in the manner of taking an Oath or Covenant should make voided the duty of keeping it; there should then no Oath or Covenant be binding to any man whatsoever; and what confusion would follow thereupon let any man judge.  Cove. 
What say you then to that assertion, that vows unadvisedly made, are such as not only do not bind, but are necessary to be broken.  Inter. 
That saying is not to be admitted without its limitations. I would therefore in general distinguish thus: when through unadvisedness a vow is made to do a thing, which is contrary to a moral precept, then that vow is not binding, but when through unadvisedness a vow is made to do a thing which is not contrary to a moral Precept, the unadvisedness cannot make voided the Vow. If I had the other part of the Bible here I would speak more fully to the point in hand; for in a case of conscience I love not to speak much without Book.  Cove. 
Sir, I will help you to a Bible presently, if you will please to stay here, till I step to that booksellers shop, what sort would you have?  Inter. 
Any will serve; but an 8o I am most used to, and so can most readily turn to places in it.  Cove. 
I have sped: here is the Book, the Lord help us to a right understanding of it.  Inter. 
And by it.  Cove. 
You mentioned even now a distinction about unadvised vows.  Inter. 
'Tis true, Sir, I said when a Vow through unadvisedness is made contrary to a moral Precept, it is not obliging, but otherwise it is obliging notwithstanding the rashness or unadvisedness, and this I shall now endeavour to clear to you, and first, that when through unadvisedness one vows to do a thing, which is contrary to a moral command, that Vow is not obliging. There are especially two case● wherein this fals out. The one is, when the thing vowed is altogether unlawful in its own nature, such as may not be done by any person whatsoever, this was the case of the Jews who vowed that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul; This rash Vow being contrary to the morality of the sixth Commandement, was therefore not binding. The other case is, when the thing vowed is not in its own nature unlawful, but may be unlawful in respect of the relation that the Person stands in which vows it; as suppose one under family-Authority vows to keep a fast day in his closet, though the thing be commendable, if it were advisedly done; yet if the keeping of that Fast be disallowed by the family-governour; the vow for the keeping of it is not binding, because it is contrary to the morality of the fist Commandement; for the confirmation of this case I shall turn to a place that is very full and clear, Numb. 30.12, 13. but if her hush and hath utterly made them voided on the day he heard them, then whatsoever proceedeth out of her lips, concerning her vows; or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand, her husband hath made them voided, and the Lord shall forgive her. Every Vow and every binding Oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it voided.  Cove. 
I would gladly see some proof, for the other part of your distinction, for you said unadvised vows are obliging, if the thing vowed he not contrary to a moral Precept.  Inter. 
You say right, I shall therefore now come to that, what think you of the Vow of Jephthah in judge. 11. was it not an unadvised vow? it is clear he repented his rashness, when he saw that by that means his family must be cut off: for by virtue of his Vow his only child must die a virgin; and yet for all that, though he would gladly have evaded that trouble, which brought him very low, yet he was sensible that his Vow was still binding; and therefore says expressly to his daughter; I have opened my mouth unto the Lord and I cannot go back. His daughter was of the same judgement, and though the thoughts of dying a virgin were so sad to her, that she would bestow two moneths in the solemn bewailing of her virginity; yet she never opens her mouth to dissuade her father from keeping his unadvised Vow, yea she expressly consents to the keeping of it, and after two moneths pause, in which Iephthahs affection would have readily laid hold of any faire way to have declined the severity of his Vow, yet can he not satisfy himself to lay it aside, and therefore it is said expressly, that he did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man, that is, she remained a virgin till the day of her death; for jephthah had by his unadvised Vow, so devoted her to God, that he could not give any man a title to be her husband. Another instance which I would propose to show that Covenants and Oaths unadvisedly made, are not to be made voided upon the bare account of unadvisedness, is in that case in josh. 9. when the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon, wilily drew Ioshua into a Covenant of peace with them, this Covenant, though unadvisedly entred into, not without doubting and ignorance; yet was it obliging. That this Covenant was entred into not without do●bting, I suppose may be gathered from ver. 7. the men of I●… l said unto the Hivites, peradventure ye dwell among us, and how shall we make a League with you? that this Covenant was entred into with ignorance, is clear; for they did not know, till three dayes after the Covenant, that the Gibeonites were of the Hivites, as you may see ver. 16. and it came to pass at the end of three dayes, after they had made a League with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelled among them. And this consideration that the Gibeonites were of the Hivites, was very material to the case of the Covenant: for, by a positive Law of God, the Hivites by name were devoted to destruction; as you may red Deut. 20.16, 17. But of the cities of these People which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. I conclude then, that this Covenant made with the Gibeonites was done unadvisedly; yea it is said expressly josh. 9.14. they asked not council at the mouth of the Lord. Here you see the case of the Covenant with so much failing in the taking of it; yet it was binding, yea though the generality of the People were against the keeping of the Covenant: yet will not Ioshua and the Princes of the Congregation( who understood the case better then the rude multitude) permit the Covenant to be dispensed with, as you may see at large in the latter part of that chapter, mark these expressions in the 18, 19. and 20. verses, the children of Israel smote them not, because the Princes of the Congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel, and all the Congregation murmured against the Princes, and all the Princes said unto all the Congregation, we have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel, now therefore we may not touch them; this we will do to them, we will even let them live, least wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we swore unto them. And itis observable that afterwards when Saul broke this Covenant, the Israelites under-went three years famine for it, as you may red in 2 Sam. 21. and I have much feared of late; least the like judgement be brought upon this kingdom for the like sin.  Cove. 
We have indeed great cause to fear that judgement both for this and for our other sins.  Inter. 
Have you any further objection?  Cove. 
Yes, this: what if any that hath taken the Covenant, find he cannot keep it without damage to himself?  Inter. 
Psal. 15. answers this expressly; for there the Holy-Ghost tells us, that the man that shall dwell in Gods Holy-H●ll, must be one that doth not change though he swore to his own hurt.  Cove. 
It is said; the Covenant is against public safety, and therefore may not be kept.  Inter. 
How is the Covenant against public safety? I had thought that the Covenant was set on foot to unite People for common safety.  Cove. 
My Author says, that the Covenant occasioned a general commotion, and set the People of the Land causelessly to destroy one another.  Inter. 
The Covenant is not therefore unlawful, because men take occasion of evil by it: for so men deal with the Gospel itself, in this sense Christ tells us that he came not to sand peace, but a sword; and to set a man at variance, &c. Matth. 10.34, 35. and as for the late commotions and destructions, they are rather to be imputed to the breaking of the Covenant, then to the keeping of it, the judgement of the sword is often threatened for breach of Covenant, as in Lev. 26.25. and jer. 34. and Ezek. 17.  Cove. 
There is one thing more which I would object out of the same Author that hath furnished me with the rest of my objections. His words are these. The wit of an enemy could not have devised a thing more pernicious and destructive to our public Peace and safety then the Covenant: for it is not possible that ever this Common-wealth shall be settled; according to what the Parliament hath lately declared, and the Covenant duly observed, so incompatible is the one with the other. This passage you may see in the 7. page. of his snare.  Inter. 
what hath been declared I meddle not with, but of this I am sure, that when a Declaration and a Covenant are inconsistent, the Covenant must be preferred, as being more sacred; for a Declaration is but the language of a purpose, but a Covenant is the language of a promise.  Cove. 
I thank you for your Christian freedom, in expressing yourself to me in these things concerning the Covenant, may I know your opinion concerning the late transactions here, since the beginning of December?  Inter. 
Excuse me Sir, I must now leave you.  Cove. 
Why Sir, what hast?  Inter. 
No great hast, but there is a Scripture that I would fain learn the meaning of, and I would wish others also to study it; it is in Amos 5. therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time, for it is an evil time.  Cove. 
I presume you will give me leave to guess at your judgement.  Inter. 
I cannot hinder you from thinking: but if you would follow my judgement, I would advice you to speak more to God about these things, and less to men. And for your own part since you have taken the Covenant, make conscience to keep it; And to help you herein I shall for a farewell commend one Scripture to your daily meditation.  ECCLES. 5.4, 5, 6. 
When thou vowest a Vow to God, defer not to pay it, for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed, better is it that thou shouldst not vow, then that thou shouldst vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou before the Angel that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands.  
FINIS.