SOME CONSIDERATIONS about the Nature of an Oath More particularly relating to Our Nationall Covenant. Seriously propounded to all who truly fear God, and desire so to walk with him, that they may enjoy Peace of Conscience. Wherein this QUAERIE is Handled: Whether the said Nationall Covenant hath those Requisites in it, which according to God's Word ought to be in every OATH. The Consideration whereof Is in this juncture of time the more seasonable, for that the said Covenant is on the one hand too much adored by some, and on the other hand by others esteemed scarce obliging, even them who have Sworn it. Qui facilè jurat, facilè perjurat. Imprimatur Theodore Jennings Septem. 17. 1649. London Printed for Robert Ibbitson in Smithfield near the Queen's head Tavern, Octob. 4. 1649. Observations upon our Nationall COVENANT. HAving with much sorrow beheld how the divisions and troubles of this torn and disjointed Kingdom, have been continued even when we had good hopes that they were drawing to a period: Looking into the cause, this hath been observed to be none of the least, that all parties have laboured to uphold their own Interests, by endeavouring to wove in Religion and Conscience, with a design which they were driving on. This practice appears no where more than in the use that is made of the Nationall Covenant, which being a long Oath, and abounding with ambiguous expressions, may, by any party in the Kingdom be easily construed to countenance their undertake. The observation hereof hath invited a search into this question, Whether this Nationall Covenant be agreeing for matter with those Covenants which we read of in Scripture? or whether it have those qualifications which according to God's word ought to be in every Oath? The Covenants which we read of in Scripture made by Asa, Nehemia and others, were wholly or mostly for seeking God, for humbling their souls under the sense of sin, and for a reformation of their lives. But look upon our Covenant and (except a little at the latter end) it is stuffed with matter of Polity! Government! Rights! Privileges! Liberties! and a many other matters, savouring more of earth than heaven, and more likely to perplex the conscience with doubts, then to strengthen and further a pious soul that seeks its own cleansing and reformation, and to close with the Lord Christ for strength and assistance hereunto. Hence it cometh to pass (as was before said,) that all Parties have laboured to countenance their actions with this cloak, Their Covenant. In the late invasion of the Scots under Duke Hamilton, what brought them in, but Their Covenant? As you may see by their Declaration. The rise in several parts of this Kingdom this last Summer 1648. It was (as they said) to pursue the ends of their Covenant, And how many that have stood out against the Parliament, have done it (as they said) in pursuance of their Covenant. Let us therefore look into God's word, and see what qualifications, we find there required in every Oath that is pleasing to God: Let us consider what the godly and learned have written on this subject, and then (without any pretending to a new light) we shall easily discover how peccant this long Oath is, against all Rules laid down by all Protestant writers old and new. The ordinary qualifications of an Oath are these, that it be taken, in Truth, in Judgement, in Righteousness, collected from Jeremiah, 4.2. Isay 48.1. First in Truth, That is, of such things as we will perform, and are fully resolved seriously to put in practice. Secondly, Therefore we must swear in Judgement. We must well and throughly understand what we swear unto, An Oath must not have ambiguous expressions in it, for then how shall we swear in Judgement? And thirdly, we must swear in Righteousness, that is, we must not bind ourselves to aught, but what is just and righteous, and may stand with the honour of God, and the good of them that fear him. Now examine the several Articles of our Covenant, and let him that takes it, weigh the expressions he there meets withal, (as he ought to do before he takes an Oath) and he shall soon see how disagreeing those Articles are with these Rules. Our first qualification is to swear in Truth, Then bring the fourth Article of our Nationall Covenant to this qualification, And I ask him that takes the Covenant, whether he intent to complain of, or discover to some in Authority, all MALIGNANTS, and all that shall be so (Those are the words of the Article.) If he purpose seriously to do as he there swears, if he be one who frequents much company, I dare assure him he may begin in January and hold on till December and do no other business. Besides, let the practice of our Covenanters speak for them, and I ask any man who hath sworn this Covenant how many Malignants he hath discovered since he took it? Is it because he never came in company of such, that he hath discovered few or none? He is one then that mews himself up in his closet, and avoids the sight of the most. But here it is worth the time to observe what hard shifts they study up to excuse the breach of their Oath. One says, that by Malignant is not understood, he that rails or speaks evil of the Parliament, but he that plots and contrives against them. Answer, 1. Are not words the discovery of men's minds? 1 Answ. And are not words punishable by all laws of God and man? Do not all commonweals punish an offender in words? Nay even between private men, a wrong in words requires satisfaction, much more words that are against the public well-being of the State. Answer, 2. 2 Answ. If men are not to be discovered until they plot and act, it is then like that it is too late to discover such, and indeed contrary to the intent of a discovery, which is to prevent them that may plot and act, not to lay open them that do act, for they have discovered themselves, therefore he that by his speech declares himself Malignant, must be here comprehended. A second Shift used to evade this Article, is, of some that run to the first words of the Covenant. And say that this discovery is to be made of every one in his place and calling, but (say they) it is not my place and calling, therefore it concerns not me. Answer, 1. 1 Answ. Either it is every man's duty to make this discovery, (who takes this Oath) or else no man's duty, if any man's duty, why not thine as well as another man's, since thou hast sworn to do it. Answer, 2. If it belong not to thy place to do it, 2 Answ. than thou swearest to an Impertinency, And so takest the name of God in vain, and breakest the third Commandment. As that reverend man M. Ley of Budworth a member of the Assembly, hath well observed in his book (against the Oath of the new Cannon) called Defensive doubts. etc. Printed for G. Lathum 1641. Thus we see how miserably we entangle ourselves by swallowing such large promises as these are. But to proceed. Secondly, in relation still to this qualification of Truth in an Oath, I demand of thee who takest this Oath, if thou darest make so many promises to any friend (especially thy Superior, and one with whom thou desirest to keep credit with) as thou makest here to the great God Darest thou make such a friend so many promises as will fill a sheet of paper, and that of different matters, heterogeneal? And wilt thou do so with God as thou darest not do with man? Is it probable that this Oath should be sworn in truth? By this one instance given in this one particular, in one Article you may guess what may be said to the rest, if all the Articles and the several expressions in them should be examined by these three qualifications, of Truth, Judgement, and Righteousness. So that this tract would swell into a volume, if instances should be given in the several particulars, but I shall leave that to be done by those men in their privacy who make it a matter of Conscience, to consider and weigh beforehand what they promise either to God or man, and account it a sin to be rash with their mouth in uttering before God matters of such difficulty (if not impossibility) to perform, as this long promissory Oath contains. Observe well that of Eccles. 5.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I shall therefore only give some hints to help the conscientious Christian in bringing some other of the particulars in the Covenant to the Test, and so pass over what might be further urged in this way. Therefore for the second qualification of an Oath, viz. swearing in Judgement: Let these expressions be examined, viz. Popery, Superstition, Heresy, Schism,, Incendiaries, evil Instruments, etc. Art. 2. and 4. Hath Authority given us any definition of these? if not, how shall we swear in Judgement? If any man conceive these expressions so clear and plain that they need no further Declaration; he seems to me like him that received the money of the Usurer without telling it, because he took no regard of re-payment; but he which intends to perform, will weigh the particulars of his promise. And to return to a book before mentioned, made by Mr. Ley (whom his writings give me cause to esteem a conscientious man). I find there, words not so large as these, and yet made an occasion of doubt, when we are to confirm it by Oath, as Doubt. 4. pa. 32. the word Popish doctrine, which I am sure is not so large as the word Popery in the second Article of the Covenant. And indeed that book is a consutation of our Covenant, before the Covenant was penned, and therefore thither I shall direct the conscientious Reader for his fuller satisfaction, Muiato nomine de te fabula narratur; you will find enough in that honest man's book to confute all or most of the Articles of our Covenant. Indeed I have heard that good man hath since endeavoured in a later book of his, to excuse our Protestation from those objections that were raised against the Canonical oath, by showing a vast difference between those two, Real differences, and Personal differences, etc. And it may be he may likewise be as willing to excuse our Covenant that way, for I heard that he took it; but though he show us a thousand substantial differences, if he cannot afford us those three qualifications, which ought to be in every oath (though he may excuse à tanto) I am sure he can never free it à toto, from the just charge of being an unlawful Oath. Let me here add one Argument which was hinted me in the large Remonstrance of the Army of Novem. 16. 1648. at page 54. And it runs thus: 1. Argument; Such an Oath as heaps together several distinct interests, which are, or may come to be inconsistent, is an unlawful oath. But such is the Nationall Covenant. Ergo, Unlawful. And a second Argument resulting from the matter preceding, which will run thus: 2. Arg. Such an Oath as cannot be taken in judgement, is unlawful: Such is our Covenant. Ergo, Unlawful. 3. And so a third Arg. for Truth. And a fourth for Righteousness, all which appear plain enough, and strong enough against our Covenant. Object. But here some may Quaere, Object. how such an Oath was passed (especially with such general approbation of the godly party) if there were so much sin in it? How came it to pass that it was not looked into, it passing so many hands, and being promoted by men so religious, and so eminent, men of so able parts, so industrious, etc. as any the Kingdom afforded. 1 Answer, That if it had come from, 1. Answ. or been tendered by a suspected party; or had those promoted it who were no friends to Piety (as in the former Oath, viz. that of the new Canons) it would then have been questioned, and every word and sentence weighed; but coming out of the house of our friends, and specially taking its rise from Scotland (as was conceived) who were then looked upon as the greatest promoters of Piety, and the Reformation in hand, and that Church esteemed one of the purest in the world; hence it took with us so generally. What esteem any thing from Scotland had with us at the beginning of this Parliament, may appear by the confluence of such multitudes to their Commissioners, and to all Sermons made before them. A Sermon before them by a Scotchman, procured more Auditors, than three Congregations of the ablest men in London, had the place been capable of entertainment. And how likely any thing wherein the Scots appeared, was to take with the people, you may see by that order of Parliament of Septem. 25. 1643. wherein it was ordered that Ministers should give notice to the people that the Commissioners of Scotland now here did take this Covenant, implying (as it seems to me) that this would be an inducement to the people to take it too. This order is Printed with some copies of the Covenant. And this I conceive to be one reason that it was swallowed so easily. A second reason might be this, It is well known that the stream ran then so violently, that no other construction would be admitted of any man's refusing the Covenant, but Malignancy: Now they who had so long groaned under Episcopal Tyranny abhorred the very suspicion of being a friend to that side, so stuck at nothing that was offered as a medium to bring on the desired Reformation, especially such an Oath as promised to lead directly thereto. 2. 2. Answ. Answ. But yet secondly, the agreement was not so general as is supposed, for it stuck, and found opposition, and was disputed against even in the Assembly at Westminster, where it was first to pass, however the cry of those that were for it was so loud (for reasons before mentioned) that they who looked into the evil of it more than the rest did, could not be heard. Dr. Burgess was the first man who openly desired and urged a Covenant to be entered into, insomuch as he made a whole Sermon to bring it on, preached to the House of Commons, Nou. 17. 1640. upon that text, Jer. 50.5. which is to be seen in Print, yet when the good man came to see what a Covenant was rendered them [all bestuft with self-ish interests, he was the first man that opposed it in the Assembly; but this being taken very heinously, he and Mr. Price another of this Assembly, were upon their refusal to take this Covenant, both suspended the Assembly, and in all probability had been suspended their calling and Ministry, had they persistent, so furiously was this business driven on at that time: In the mean time they are looked upon as heinous offenders, and their names transmitted into the Country in every scurrilous Mercury, as the only enemies of so good a work. Being in this strait, they address themselves to the Parliament, and make humble Petitions, but could not be heard, so that at last, they give over contending, and upon their submission were readmitted to fit in the Assembly. Besides divers godly men, seeing the snare, and no way to avoid it, withdrew and obscured themselves for a time, for they knew no other way to avoid that odious imputation of Mulignants, which they must needs contract by refusing, and therefore gave place to that impetuous torrent for a time, according to that counsel, curr●●ti cede Furori. They remembered there might come a time wherein they might be useful to the Church of Christ, but for the present saw little probability of prevailing against that popular stream, which in all likelihood should they have opposed it, would have overborne them. And the like violence was continued for a long time after, insomuch as no Minister was suffered to pass the Assembly, unless he would take the Covenant. Nay those that bare sway of the Presbyterian party endeavoured to bring it to this, That who ever would not swear that cast promissory Oath, should have no employment in Church or Commonwealth; so zealot are many men, that what they have swallowed themselves, should with out questioning be received by all others. Which rigid carriage of those of the Presbyterian party, what can it be styled else, save a wicked Lording it over the consciences of their Brethren. 1 I do not charge this upon the Presbyterian Government, as having cause to think well of it, for that the Churches of Christ have long thriven under that Government, in many Kingdoms. But it is to be imputed to the uncharitableness of some in place then acting, who were more zealous in promoting the inventions of man, than the ways of God, and who could be content that a godly Minister, though sound and Orthodox, should yet be deprived of the use of his Calling (and consequently of subsistence for himself and family, and so be exposed to beg) because he cannot submit to swear a long Oath of a sheet of paper, of another man's pening: such an harshness as was not exceeded by the persecuting Prelates. 2 Neither is it intended that what is here spoken against the Covenant should weaken the endeavours of any who have taken the Covenant in labouring to perform what they have sworn, that is, for so much of it as is feazible, and righteous, for I conceive them bound by it, (and so in a snare,) and God will not be mocked, Pay what thou hast Vowed, Eccles. 5.4. But the uses which I intent of this Tract, are these: 1 To show them that have taken this Oath, their sinful rashness, to bind themselves to impossibilities, 2 That those of my Brethren the Ministry, who are so fierce in pressing the Covenant upon all occasions, (as Mr. Jenkin of Christ-Church London, and divers others) may be remembered, first, to take into consideration what a snare they lead men into; and secondly, what they have done toward Covenant-keeping themselves? And however they and some others have studied up favourable Interpretations of the Covenant, to still the obloquy of them that discern the evil of it, yet I desire them to consider what the forementioned M. Ley saith in his book of DEFENSIVE Doubts pag. 99, 100, 101. That their labour to ease conscience, and good intentions therein, we take kindly: and in good will to them again request them to consider, that a private Interpretation of a public act, can give no satisfaction, unless it be expressly or virtually allowed by the highest Authority that doth impose it, and then it is made public; But why they should expect such an approbation of their private opinions we cannot imagine, etc. And again, pag: 100 For private men, though learned, if they take upon them the interpretation of public dictates, may be more like to light on mutual contradictions, then of the true and proper Construction of the text they interpret, So did Vega and Soto, Soto and Catherinus, etc. commenting on the Council of Trent. A Third use of what hath been here said, may be for Statists, That seek to make Religion subservient to carnal policy, and to serve turns for the present. And very plain it is that there hath been many endeavours to make this use of the Covenant: Let those know and consider how irreligious their practice is, and hath been herein, The Bloodiest wretch, and profanest Varlet, though come out of Ireland from the slaughter of our Protestant brethren there; yet (as it is commonly reported) if he would Take the Covenant, he was then looked upon as a friend, as one of Us, As if a long Oath had power to metamorphize an Assassinate into a Saint. But alas this carnal Policy always deceives them, Religion will not serve Turn. This Net cat ch none but Doves, Dat veniam Corvis, Those who shall strike the blow and undermine them are men that will break these bands, such Engines as these (let them be as wary as they can) are easily turned against those that planted them for their own defence, as experience daily shows. Fourthly, I wish what hath been here said, concerning Oaths may be taken into consideration by our brethren that fear God in the Kingdom of Scotland, who not only are daily crying out OUR COVENANT! OUR COVENANT! (as they of old, Templum Domini, Templum Domini,) but either have effected, or endeavoured to have it sworn over again. If what hath been already spoken out of God's word, concerning the qualifications of an Oath; and how this Oath fails therein, move them not, I hope their example shall not move them that fear God in this Kingdom, And the less if it be true which is reported, That for the generality of that Nation, they are often forced to follow their Lords and great men, be it right or wrong. And that if some of the chief Nobility enter into a quarrel, their Tenants must engage with them therein. Where as in England the meanest Subject hath the liberty to Govern himself and, to make his free choice of what he conceives good and upright, and is Protected by the Common law (which is our birthright) against the most potent. I cannot affirm that the Commonalty in Scotland do still remain in that servile condition (having never been in Scotland,) but if it be so, their general Engaging in this or any other course is the less to be heeded, as not being voluntary, but forced. And for the great ones among them, the Lord give them repentance of this sin of driving the people into such a snare as this is, which if they will not see, let them know, that God can bring them down, an example whereof they have in their Country man Duke Hamilton of late. In the fist place this may be a remembrancer to our Parliament in England. It may teach them to consider how great a sin they are guilty of, in leading this Nation into such a snare, God hath humbled the major part of them, let them now that they have more leisure, look into this sin among others, how they have forced many of their brethren into this temptation, Either swear, or expose yourselves to sufferings, in your estates, good name, etc. Let them pray that the same lot befall not them, which by their means hath befallen so many of their brethren and Countrymen, it may please God that their timely repentance may prevent this or the like punishment. And the Lord sanctify this admonition to that end. Sixtly and lastly. Let this be a word of Exhortation to the Parliam. now sitting, to move them to cast away these wicked yokes, undo these heavy burdens, Is. 58.6. Cast out all promissory Oaths, as of Judges, Constables, Freemen of Corporations etc. They are not agreeing to these Rules of Truth, Righteousness, Judgement. And other ways may be found to compel Officers to do their duty. Make Laws to punish them if they fail, but uphold not an old Custom which is found to disagree with God's word, This acting for God will be for your honour, and God will appear for you. But if you will not lay this to heart, and what an affliction a Promissory Oath is to a tender Conscience, God will in his own time find out men that will appear for him, And others shall have the honour of this work Hest. 4.14. There is of late a removal in part of some promissory Oaths, and a new Oath appointed by a late Act of Parliament made Sep. 5. 1649. Yet is there one clause in that new Oath which makes it very hard, if not impossible, viz. those words at the end of it | You shall execute the Office of Mayor according to the best of your skill, knowledge and power, | which I say no man doth perform, for we do not pray, or hear, according to the best of our power, nor is it possible we should always be at the full and utmost extent of our skill and power in performance of civil duties. Christian Reader, TAke notice that what is here said, is not the tenth part of what might be urged against this long Oath, so that which is spoken of the multitude of words Prov. 10.19. is truly verified of this Oath, which abounds in words: For a conscientious man may justly quere: 1 How long shall I be bound by this Oath! Mr. Ley, pa. 86. shall I make Median and Persian Oaths, that can never be recalled? surely a wise man will never put his neck in such a snare. Then secoadly, How prejudicial this Oath may be for the future, to all free Parliaments and Assemblies in this Kingdom, pa. 80. and the like. Which must be passed over for brevity's sake, and as much more, very material. If Mr. Ley have compiled a Book of Doubts (about an Oath not one quarter so long as this,) which yet is risen to above half a choir of paper, what might be done in this which abounds in expressions no less ambiguous? But for the present this shall suffice, for a taste to show the evil of it, and may be a provocation to others to look more into it: The Lord give us hearts so to walk with him, that we may preserve the peace of a good conscience, and that we may neither for fear of man, or any other sinister respect, enwrap ourselves in such snares as these are. In the 24th of Gen. When Abraham would swear his servant but to one particular business, with what caution was it done? and the Servant puts the case what might fall out about that business, 1. Concerning the woman's refusing to follow him. 2. Concerning bringing Isaac to the land whence they came. But in this long Covenant we swear to 20 particulars, and yet are not suffered to put any case to any one of them. 1 We swear to maintain privileges of Parliament, but must not ask how many those be, Nor do I hear any put forth such a case as this, what if Parliament men will break them themselves? or have the breaking of them winked at? 2 We swear to endeavour to extirpate Heresy, and that without respect of persons; Art. 2. But never put the case (with Abraham's servant) But how if our Governors will neither assist nor countenance us in it? 3 We swear to discover such as have been or shall be Malignants, but never put the case how long this discovery is to last; and for how many years it is to bind us. Or how far Malignancy is to extend. 4 We swear Art. 1. To endeavour the preservation of Scotland in Doctrine and Discipline, but never put such a case as this, what if the Inhabitants in Scotland shall think good to alter their Discipline, how far shall I then be obliged? Abraham's servant would have said, Then will I be clear from this my Oath. FINIS. September 17. 1649. Imprimatur, Theodore Jennings.