CASE. Whether the Lieges of Scotland, have any real necessity imposed on them by any Oath or Covenant, to any just scrupling of closing with Episcopacy, to which by Sacred Authority this Kingdom is lately restored.

WIth what Caution and Warinesse men ought to imbarque themselves in all manner of Engage­ments, needs not much Oil or Labour spent upon the Enquiry; Scripture alone is suffi­ciently able to instruct us, sometimes terming it a bond, Ezek. 20 37. Sometimes a snare, Prov. 6. 2. And verily he who doth unadvisedly engage, doth many a time in­tangle himself in an intrigue of inextricable difficulties, out of which, he cannot so easily winde himself; especially in the matter [Page 4] of Oaths in the time of popular confusions; Men then being [...] ­noxious to so many precipices of danger, in making Ship-wrack of Conscience, through Errour and Mis-prision, on the one hand; with fear and force, on the other. We need not much Range abroad in the inquest, after witnesses to this truth, our own home-bred late popular Covenants and Engagements, bearing so much lamen­table evidence of it upon them, to this very day; whileas these are still made use of, as the Master-engines of some Poly­pragma­tick-Male-contents, for staving of, honest and well-meaning People, from that duty, they owe to God, their Mother-Church, and our Gracious and undoubted Soveraign, by making it their constant and zealous endeavour to invegle the people, by presenting these as indispensable Bonds, which are, indeed, but so many snares, and so many Flaxen Fetters and Cob-webs, which themselves in the most essential Points, do break through at pleasure, (as God-wil­ling shall be made clearly to appear, in the sequel of this Dis­course) and yet amuse the Vulgar, who reach not to the depths of things, as if these were inviolable and indissoluble sacred wyths, wherein they must ly tied neck and heel.

That therefore, we may make appear, how far, the late Oaths, Covenants, &c. whereby the people of this Land did engage them­selves, against Episcopal Government, in this Church, do bind, and how far they may be dispensed with, as to an after-performance, and so whether to be reckoned among Sacred Bonds, or sinful Snares: I shall (howbeit asmuch hath been already said, to disco­ver the sinfulnesse and invalidity of these Oaths, &c. by His late Majesty of Immortal Memory, in His Admirable Book, and De­bates, &c. and by the Learned & Renowned Doctors of Aberdene, in their Demands & Duplys, as may put to silence all those who, to­gether with their duty, have not forfaulted a Sober, Rational mind) lay down very briefly, some few irrefragable Propositions concern­ing the bindingnesse of Oaths and Covenants in the general; from which, I shall draw a resolution of the Case in hand, by way of Corrolary; and then leave it, upon the sober, and impartial con­sideration, of all un-prejudged, to resolve, whether these Cove­nant-Engagements be the indispensable Oaths of God, (as some [...]o usually phrase it, for amusing the simple) or not. As for these P [...]nciples and Propositions, which, (I trust) may infer a full and satisfactory solution of the present Case; I shall, studying brevity, reduce them all to these eight, following.

[Page 5] Propos. jma. There is this first Proposition. No man may swear, or by subtilty or violence induce others to swear, unlawfully. This is full of evidence; none being free to sin, or any-wise to engage others to sin; but to swear, or to induce another by any means, to swear unlawfully, is, beyond all peradventure sinful; and therefore. &c. but we leave this on its own evidence, and goe to the next.

Propos. 2da. There is this second Proposition. That is not a lawfull or justifiable Oath, which is not attended with Truth, Righteousnesse and Judgement. This Proposition is borrowed, from the Prophet Jeremiah, Jer. 4. 2. Thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth, in truth, in righteousnesse, and in judgement. Where we find the Holy Ghost, laying down three grand qualifications of a lawful Oath; viz. 1. That it be in truth; which requireth not only, that the thing sworn be true, but also, candor and sincerity, in the undertaking, without all falsehood and double-mindednesse. 2. That it be in righteousnesse; which requireth, that the thing sworn, be just, and in it self lawful to be undertaken: which is all one with that which Judicious Casuists speak, viz. That the Oath be undertaken, Super re licitâ; Since God is not to be assum'd, either for Witnesse or Over-seer of a thing simply unjust (as, if the matter sworn be unlawful, he is) who is a God of most pure eyes, and cannot behold iniquity: And moreover, because it binds a man, to the doing of a thing, which yet the very intrinse­cal condition of the matter, refuseth a performance of. Upon this ground, Herod was not bound, notwithstanding his promise and oath, to deliver the Baptist's head, to Herodias her daugh­ter; no more, were these fourty Conspirators against St. Paul, Act. 23. 12, 13, &c. Neither, David by his having sworn and vow­ed the destruction of churlish Nabal, 1 Sam. 25. 22, &c. And then 3. that it be in judgement. Which requireth, that the thing undertaken by Oath, be not unmeet and undue to be per­formed, but due and convenient, and, which is mostly imported, that it be deliberately and pensiculately set about. These three qualifications, are ingredients absolutely necessary, for constituting a lawful Oath; being, that it is intrinsecally sinful, to swear ei­ther falsly, or unjustly, or to swear the performance of that, which is unmeet and inconvenient to be undertaken, as also, to engage rashly, unadvisedly, and without deliberation into any Covenant or Oath whatsomever. But,

[Page 6] Propos. 3ia. There is this third Proposition. A promissary Oath, which is undertaken, to the certain prejudice of another mans just right, cannot be attended with justice. This needs not much debate upon its evidence; being, that Justitia tribuit [...]uique snum, Justice being a vertue, whereby, to every man his Due, and Own are rendered: If therefore any Oath engage, to the perfor­mance of that which doth clearly prejudge any other, in that which is his due and just right, it is an unrighteous Oath, and because of its injustice, is, of it self, vacated from being binding or obli­gatory. But,

Propos. 4ta. There is this fourth Proposition. No prejudice or violence, done to the right of any other man, can be so highly dangerous and sinful, as that prejudice and violence which are done to the just right of the Supream Magistrate, and His Soveraign Authority. This is undeniably irrefragable; for, in so far, as the Publike Interest is beyond the Private, in regard of worth and ex­cellence, and as to intemerable preservation; so far is the preju­dice done to the just right of the Soveraign Magistrate and His Au­thority, incomparably sinful, beyond what can be done to the right of any private Subject or Subjects whatsomever. But,

Propos. 5ta. There is this fifth Proposition. The just right of the Soveraign Magistrate and His Authority, is egregiously tram­pled upon and prejudged, when private Subjects encroach upon it, and do upon suspition or jealousie of disallowed intentions or acti­ons of their Soveraign Princes, combine, confederate or binde themselves to Allow, Enact, or Establish any thing (much more, to reverse or repeal allowed established and standing Laws) con­cerning any matters belonging to Religion, (upon the wele or ill administration whereof, the greatest security or ruine of a State depends) without much more against the consent and command of lawful Soveraign Authority. This Proposition is clear, not on­ly from the Municipal and known Laws of this Kingdom, but even from the very Law and light of nature it self; for it is ob­vious to every Tenderer of Soveraignty, that it is one of the choisest and most inviolable Jewels of the Crown of a Supream Power, to which none are co-ordinate, but all subordinate, as to every Supream Power, as Supream, all must needs be; viz. That no Popular Combinations, Bonds or Leagues, should be among Subjects, upon what score or pretence how specious soever, with­out, much lesse against the consent and command of the Authority [Page 7] foresaid; for, and if it were f [...]ee for Subjects, thus at pleasure to Combine, Confederate, &c. A King (in which the Supream Power, in a true Monarchy, resides) were but a bare, weak, titu­lar King, and shaddow only of a Soveraign, depending prècario upon the Subjects, whom at pleasure they might cast off or de­stroy; nay, and of it self, it opens a patent door for the eversi­on and ruine of all Government and Supream Power, so that any who will, may, by a Confederacy rebel, upon one pretext or ano­ther. Hence it's evident, there can be no greater encroachment upon, no higher prejudice done unto Soveraign Authority, then for Subjects in any-wise to Combine or Bind themselves, against the Supream Royal Will and without consent of the Soveraign. And, if it be, so high a prejudice done to the just right of the So­veraign, for Subjects in any case to Combine or Confederat with­out him, were it even to the carrying on of standing and known Laws; what a heinous injury must it infer, upon the Soveraignes just right? for Subjects to Combine for the reversing and repeal­ing of established and standing Laws, without, nay, and forcibly against Royal Commands: is not this, the most superlative and transcendent prejudice, which can be done to the just right of the Supream Authority?

But here now, that we may a little more unfold this Propositi­on; it would be noticed that it is deem'd a favourable plea by some, for Subjects, tho in no case else, yet in the Concern of Re­ligion, to Combine and Confederate, without the allowance or consent of Soveraign Authority, for redressing abuses and refor­ming disorders therein; especially when the Supream Magistrate being required thereto, doth deny his concurrence, and withhold the shoulder. But such men, they are not aware, that in this they joyne issue with Phanatick Anabaptists and the bloodiest of the Popes devotionaries (who with them, in this, resemble Sampson's Foxes, being linkt together by the Tails, though their Heads look different wayes) and with them cry up the lawfulnesse of carrying on a Reformation in Religion, by outward force and violence: so much contrary to the wayes and Word of God, Joh. 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this world, &c. If it were, my servants would fight. Where, blessed Christ Jesus doth plainly insinuate, that His Kingdom being spiritual, cannot, must not, be advanced with temporal armes: for the weapons of the Christians warfare, are not Carnal, but Spiritual, 2 Cor. 10. 4. There is no command [Page 8] from Christ to kill and slay the common enemies of our Religion, but contrariwise to pray for our persecuters, and not to resist evil, Matth. 5. 44. See also other Scriptures, such as Zech. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 6. 2. and 2 Tim. 2. 25, &c. Nay, and this course, it is against the very nature of Religion it self; for, faith which is the Soul of Religion, is an inward act of the soul, which all the force in the world, can neither plant nor extirpate; [...]am suddenda non cogenda est. Conformable to this, was the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Pious, Sober, Primitive Church (which had learned better what belong'd to Authority, then to resist the Ordinance of God, even in a Heathen Caesar) whose Religion enjoyn'd them not to kill, but to be killed for it; Nor was this for want of ability but of Authority: As we read in the most Ancient Apologists for the Christian Faith, such as Arnob. Lactant. Cyprian: cont. De­metr. Tertull. in apol. &. ad Scap. Just. in Tryph. August. in Psalm. 144. Ambros. in luc. 22. 38. Athan. epist. ad solit. vitam agentes, &c. Then further, Popular Reformation, or Covenanting for Reformation of Religion without concurrence of the Supream Magistrate, hath no warrantable president, but rather to the con­trary in Sacred Writ: See those Scriptures at convenience, Deut. 29. 2, 10, 11, 12, &c. Josh. 24. 25. 2 King. 23. 23. 2 Chron. 15. 8, 12. and cap. 29. 3, 10. and cap. 34. 31, 32. Ezra 10. 3, 4, 5. In all which and in many the like, you have ever the Chief Magi­strates, Moses, Joshua, Hezekiah, Josiah, &c. concurring, or ra­ther going before the People, (as their place requir'd) in the se­veral Reformations therein mentionate; but no where the peo­ple Covenanting upon a Reformation of Religion (even in times of the worst of Kings) without concurrence of the Supream Ma­gistrate: Arise, for the matter belongs to thee (saith the whole Assembly of Elders there met) to Ezra, the prime Ruler; in that cited place, Ezra 10. 4. To shun the force of which Argument, and for a sinful impairing the Supreme Power of the Soveraign; some have [...]ancied a supposed co-ordination of power (I shall not once name these, whose impudence hath imboldned them to assert a monstrous Subordination of the Soveraign to the People) be­twixt our King and His People in their representative Meetings.

This, indeed, is the Arch-pillar, upon which some of no small Note, have laid the stresse of their Cause, for the supportment of the lawfulnesse of Popular-reformings, without the Supreme and Royal Consent. But, surely, this, as it is a most pernicious, so a [Page 9] most empty, airy, inconsequent speculation. Inconsequent, because, if a co-ordination of Soveraign Power, be supposed twixt King and People; then a joynt concurrence of both, in every act of Su­preme Power, is necessary, if the act be not spurious and illegitti­mate: so that by this, the people, de jure, may no more reform without the King, then the King without the People; both sing­ly considered (according to this dream) being but Subjecta po­testat is supremae partial [...], and both joyntly considered only, the adaequat and complete subject of Soveraignty. Empty and ground­lesse, for, what a wilde imagination is it, to place a co-ordinate power with the King, in the representative Body of the People, when the Soveraign only, hath by fundamental Law, the right of calling, and then of dissolving, at pleasure, the said Body; and what an absurd phoenomenon must it needs be? to conceive in a body, a co-ordination twixt the Members and the Head thereof; and the King is the Head of all the Tribes, 1 Sam. 15. 17. and such an Head, Ʋbi sedes meri imperij est. But further, this whim­sey is repugnant to the true condition of Monarchy; for, this supposed co-ordination of the Supreme jus [...]ive Power, must neces­sarily infer or suppose a communicability of the Soveraign Power, to more then one; which, notwithstanding, in true Monarchy, is so properly belonging to, and so inseparably setled in the Person of the Soveraign Prince, as that it cannot be derived or communi­cated to any other, save only in way of deputation and commission when and how far forth himself pleaseth, in the outward exercise and administration of the same. Since as Bodin rightly giveth it; Necess [...] est ut regnum quantumcunque est, ac jura omnia Majestatis, in solidum ƲNI, partitione sublatâ, tribuantur; alioquin non Monarchia sed Polyarchia dicetur. De republ. lib. 6. cap. 8. And indeed, however many Sharers there are in the Supreme Power, so many Supreme Governours or Soveraigns (respectively, and according to the different Interests they have, more or lesse) there shall be. Oh, what Chimera's of invention, wil men make use of to uphold most groundlesse conceits, they have once em­braced, for strengthning and promoving of their sinful and selfie de­signs and interests. But to leave this,

P [...]rpos. 6ta. There is this sixth Proposition. A justifiable Oath must be undertaken in bonum finem, for good ends and pur­poses; ends, consistent with the welfare of our Neighbour, espe­cially of the Church and State we live in. (A clause, say Casuists, [Page 10] necessarily supposed, though not alwayes expressed in such engage­ments) under this, much is comprehended; as, that a lawfull Oath cannot engage to the doing of any thing, repugnant or ob­structive, to the performance of some greater moral duty, one or another: so the Learned Grotius, de jur [...] belli, lib. 2. cap. 13. n. 7. Immo, etiam si res quae promittitur non sit illicita, sed majus bo­num morale impediens; sic quoque non valebit jurawentum, &c. Hence also it it is, that we ought by no means, to Vow, Promise or Swear peremptorly, against the doing of any thing, which yet the real equity thereof, either then, or upon occasion farely offe­red, may afterwards justly require and efflagitate at our hands. The ground of this comprehensive Proposition, briefly is, be­cause, the greater moral duty, is still to be preferred to the lesser, as to practice and performance; and in affirmative precepts, this is acknowledg'dly evident; these being such as oblige, licet sem­per, non tamen ad semper; as Divines universally take it.

Propos. 7ma. There is this seventh Proposition. No Oath is or can be justifiable or of binding force, which is taken against a righteous, laudable Oath formerly sworn. For, one lawful Oath can never make void another, much lesse can an unlawful, vacat the obligation of a righteous Oath. It is a clear case resolv'd by Ju­dicious Casuists, that a lawful Oath cannot be contra pactum ali­quod licitum prius initum; for such super-faetation of dissonant Oaths or Promises, doth ever beget a direct nullity in the latter. So that he who hath sworn Allegiance to the Soveraign, and to maintain Episcopal Government in the Church; (which we now suppose to be lawful) and thereby bound himself, to maintain the just Right, Power and Authority of his said Soveraign, or the forsaid Form of Church-Government, he cannot, by any second or supervenient Oath, be tied, to do any thing that may tend to the violation or infringement of his former engagement; and if he have so insnar'd himself, the obligation is, ipso facto, void and null. But,

Propos. 8va, & ult. There is this eight and last Proposition. A man is bound in conscience, to reve [...], renounce and disclaim that, Which he was induced to engage himself by Oath, unlawfully to perform. For, an Oath, which is, Sacramentum pietatis, as it is in the mouths of all, cannot be vinculum iniquit at is, can­not be a bond of iniquity. No man can be, by any rash Oath, or any Oath whatsomever, engaged so, as to stand oblidged, to do [Page 11] and perform that, which is in it self sinful and unlawful to be done; but [...] bound in couscience to break that snare which was never a real, but meerly a supposed Bond. Aquinas saith well, 2da, 2dae. quaest. 89. Jurans illicitum, peccat jurando, & peccat servando.

Over and beyond all these, there are (I know) many other cases, in which, the person once engaged to act, may be disobliged from a necessary performance; as, when he pomises or swears, to perform somewhat impossible, and beyond his reach; De impossibilibus, enim, nemo tenetur, is the received maxime: or, when his condition is notably changed, from what it was, when first he entered the obligation; for then, some inevitable and re­medilesse impediment, may obstruct the performance: and many such-like useful Cases may be touch'd upon; but the Propositions already laid down, are the most Catholick or Universal and surest Land-marks, by which, we may examine the legality and binding­nesse, of whatever engagements; where they fail All, or any of them, the supposed Promise or Oath, doubtlesse, becomes void and frustrate; intangle us it may, in the Snares and Bonds of sin­fulnes, as the wise man calls them, Prov. 5. 22. but not oblige us to a necessary performance of the thing undertaken; not even then, when as we freely and voluntarily incur the snare, much lesse, when it is forced upon us (which is much to be adverted in our present disquiry) by an over-awing, prevailing Faction; This loosens and weakens the ty much, if superveening thus to other circumstances; for, Non potest id civium consensu factum censeri, quod ereptâ libertate fiat. Bodin. de rep. lib. 2. c. 5.

And now, if our late Oaths, Covenants and Leagues, be squar'd according to these irrefragable rules above recorded; what bin­dingnesse or obligation may be found in them, will be easie to de­termine and resolve, by their impingence upon most of the forsaid Propositions: All these popular and tumultuary engagements, be­ing in their very essence, combinations among factious Subjects, without and against the known will and consent of Supreme Au­thority, and that, not to ca [...]y on or pursue laudbale and setled Laws, but (without all paralell) to reverse and repeal established and standing Laws, against the Royal Will of our Soveraign Law­giver; and, therefore, in the judgement of the most rigid at this day, acknowledged to have had much sin in them, upon this very Score. Much might be said in discovery of the sinfulnesse and unlawfulnesse of these late Covenants and Oaths; not only in re­gard [Page 12] of their efficient Cause, as made by Subjects against the will of their Soveraign, in such things as necessarily required His con­sent: but further, in respect of their subject-matter, as being guilty of high injustice to the right of the King, both in the mat­ter of combination without Him, and of conditional Allegiance to and preservation of Him, as also, the altering of Religion establish­ed by Law, without His consent; and as engaging, to accuse all Malignants (not accepting a mans own self) and to endeavour that all such, may be brought to punishment, without hope of mercy or pardon; binding also to pull down the established Church-Government, before agreement upon another; and every man to go before another in the example of Re [...]ormation, with­out either waiting for the Minister to direct, or Magistrates Autho­rity to lead the way; then these, what can be more unjust? binding also to impossibilities; as, to defend and assist ALL that engage into these O [...]t [...]s; and never to offer their opinions to neutrality or indifferency: the very taking also of these Oaths, was, in fact, directly contradicent to the formal words thereof; for, whereas they swear to extirpate Schism and Faction and to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdomes and Authority of the King; The very taking and enforcing of these Oaths, being a vow­ed Schism from their Mother-Church, a sworn Faction against their more Loyal Neighbours, the greatest prejudice to the Li­berties of the Kingdoms, the taking of these being destructive to all legal Publike Liberties; and the highest contempt that could be offered to the Kings Authority; as appeareth not only from what is above-said, but further in this, that some of these Oaths did engage, absolutely to preserve the power of Parliaments, but the Kings Person and Authority with reservation; for this end (forsooth) that the world may judge of their Loyalty, and how they had no intention to diminish his just Power. But left this short word, by inlarging on these and such like peccancies of these late Covenant-Oaths, should swell into a volumne; We shall for­hear: Nor shall we speak of the unparalelled fraud and force, pra­ctised in imposing these Oaths, upon honest and wel-meaning Sub­jects; neither of the grand impostur's, whereby factious and self­designing men, did speciously usher-in and drive-on, their own base carnal interests, under the colour of the interests of Jesus Christ, in our sadly-experienced late Tragedies: And shal briefly, draw a corrolary, from these above-specified Propositions, con­cerning [Page 13] the Point of Episcopal Government in this Church, and the s [...]eming obligation of the Subjects in this Land, by their Oaths and Vows, against it. And it is this. 1. That these Oaths, in the first place, were, in the judgement of many of the most So­ber and Learned, simply sinful and unjust; upon the score of their tendency to the extirpation of that form of Church-Government, which they conceived to be of Divine Right and Institution; so that in order to all these, who were then, or are yet, of perswasi­on, that Episcopacyis, jure divino, these Oaths cannot be supposed to be any wise in point of conscience binding: And, sure, more may be said, for a Divine Right and Institution, of an imparity in degrees and even in office, among Church-guides, and so, for Epis­copacy, then can be, for any other Form, or Model of Church-Government in the World. But, Secondly, Passing this, and sup­posing only Episcopal Government to have been, upon the mat­ter, indifferent; (as, I trust, the more modest, sober and mode­rate will readily acknowledge) then, for Subjects to engage by Covenants or Oaths, for the utter extirpation thereof, without the concurrence of Supreme Authority, nay, and against the con­sent and expresse will of the Soveraign Magistrate, and the esta­blished standing Laws of this Kingdom, of which, the King alone is the Fountain and Origine; Cum ipse sit author juris, ut Bra­cton. lib. 3. tra. 1. c. 9. And as another eminent in Law, saith wele, Vita & caput & autoritas in Principe est, omnium, quae in re­publica agi solent. How sinful, then, must needs these Oaths and Engagements, have been? How contrary to the just Right of the Soveraign? (Who in Adiaphoris and indifferents, is acknowledg'd by all, to be Summus & Supremus Arbiter) and therefore how invalid and insufficient, as to obligation upon any, who have been insnared by them; is obvious to every eye, that will not shut it self, against convincing light: How much, also, such are concern­ed heartily to homologat and close with His Majesti's Gracious Resolutions, in the present setlement of this long tossed Church; is as apparent. But, Thirdly, As to the most rigid, who (to the admiration of the truely Sober) would assert an intrinsecal unlawfulnesse and sinfulnesse, in Episcopal Government, however so wel regulated; I say, that even their Oath for the Extirpation of Episcopal Government, cannot oblige even as to them; being that for private Subjects by themselves, to endeavour to establish or prefer any new Law, however so just and laudable in it self, or [Page 14] to reverse and rescind any standing Law, however so unjust and sin­ful, against or without the Soveraign's Will and Royal conse [...], is heinously sinful and rebellious, and in it self, and fine operis, plain­ly Anarchical and eversive of all Government whatsomever: and, I trust, no Oath to act rebellion, sin or Anarchy, will be supposed by any sober, to be binding, unlesse it be to a speedy and hearty repentance; so that even the Engagements and Oaths of those who are most rigid in this matter, were in themselves, beyond all contradiction, sinful; and therefore can in no wayes be obliga­tive even as to those: So that, upon what ever account else it may be, that it pleaseth some men zealously to engage against Epis­copacy, in its present setlement and re-establishment, it cannot be upon the value of their Oath (as they would make simple people to believe, as if that were an indispensablety stressing their con­sciences) that being in its own nature, sinful (all combinations without Soveraign consent, being such, as themselves will now freely acknowledge) and therefore they cannot but see themselves in conscience obliged to reverse and mourn for these their sinful Oaths. And to deal a little freely, so much talking of Oaths, and indispensable Oaths, with the frequent threats of the danger of perjury, which have been so much thundred out, to fright wel­meaning and tender Christians; cannot be look'd upon by consi­dering persons, but as so many methods and impostures to de­lude: whileas, even the most violent pressers of the bindingnesse of these Oaths against Episcopacy, do in their open professions and acknowledgements, renounce and disclaim the obligations of these Oaths, as to the combination and confederacy that is in them (consederacies and combinations among Subjects, upon what pretext soever, without special allowance and consent of the Su­preme Magistrate, being, by themselves acknowledged to be sin­ful and rebellious) which yet is, if not, the very formalis ratio and essence of these ensnaring Covenant-Oaths, yet doubtlesse, the prime object and man foundation of them: whileas also they ac­knowledge the unbindingnesse of these same Oaths, as to conditi­onal and reserv'd Allegiance, by undue and unwarrantable limita­tions and restrictions; and yet still presse the Oath and its bind­ingnesse against Episcopal Government: and in a copulative Oath (such as these Oaths and Covenants acknowledge themselves to be) if the obligation, as to any one point, be dissolved and loosed, it can hardly be understood, how as to the whole or any other [Page 15] particular, there can be any more bindingnesse therein. What will the forsaid acknowledgments infer, being weighed in the bal­lance of discerning men, but that, were it not, that the fear of incurring the censure and penalties of treason, did overawe; these Covenant-Oaths, &c. would be still vigorously asserted, to be as binding and obligative in point of combination, without and against the Soveraign Magistrate's consent; and in order to con­ditional and limited Allegiance, as they are said to be, in order to the point of Episcopacy. To dispense with these Oaths and Co­venant-engagements in these great Points and Interests, and yet, still to set out the same as indispensable tyes and Sacred inviolable Bonds, against Episcopal-Government; is not this handsomely to play the Pope? in dispensing in some more weighty, and binding consciences, in lighter concerns of one and the same copulative Oath: or is it not rather (as some observing persons, give it) to act the impostures, in imposing upon the Peoples easinesse and credulity, for upholding of the tottering Diana of a Para-mount Power, some have so sinfully usurped, and so tyrannically practised▪ and are yet so unwilling to part with, left the power of this Church be recovered into those hands, out of which it was wrest­ed by violence and injustice.

And what a needlesse noise is it, that is so much raised by the zealous clamors of some, against Episcopacy; may it not be re­membered, that it was declared, by the contrivers and abettors of the Covenant, in its first rise; that though they supposed Epis­copacy to be against Law in Scotland, yet, they did not re­quire any, by taking of the Covenant to abjure it, but that the practise of it should be forborn and the matter referred to a free General Assembly. See Ministers Answ. to the 4. dem. of the Do­ctors of Aberdene. And one would think that the edge of such pre­posterous zeal, might have been rather blunted then sharpned, by these last three and twenty years exeperience. And is not Epis­copacy a Government, which had its rise in the Apostles them­selves, and by continual and universal succession; hath since, been still owned and practised by the Christian Church; as the conti­nued succession of Bishops in the See's of Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist; in Jerusalem from James the Apostle; in Antioch from Peter &c. shew, If historical credit may be given to such Worthies, as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Hierom, with many other grave and famous Ecclesiastick Writers; in so [Page 16] much, that [...]tus, for affirming a Bishop not to be above a single Presby [...]er, was generally reputed by the Christian World for thirteen hundred years together, as well in the Eastern as Western Church, for a down-right Heretick: a Government which hath been still owned in the Church of Scotland, when Order and Go­vernment did overtop Faction and Interest, and ever still, till Seditions, Tumults, Insurrections and Rebellions did go current for Discipline and Order: And in a word, a Government, which by the universal consent of the Churches of Christendome, both in Asia, Africk, Grece, Russia, and other parts of Europe, that never acknowledged any subjection to, or dependance upon the See of Rome, hath been constantly embraced, and the Opugners of it generally branded for Hereticks; which of all other Forms hath undovbted the best Title to Divine or Apostolical Instituti­on; against which nothing is, or ever could be, objected, but the humane infirmities and personal failings of some particular men, from which no Government is or can be totally exempted and priviledged; which, in the most of these few Churches who want it (some whereof are under the want of Bishops, because they cannot tell how to come by them, their Princes being of a diffe­rent Religion, and so will allow none but of their own; others there be, who are willingly without them, because setled in such a Government, as they find most suitable to a Popular State, and dare not venture upon a change; all others enjoying the felicity of Episcopal Government, either the thing and name both, or else the thing under another name, viz. Superintendents, Inspe­ctor's, &c. by their best and ablest Ministers, hath been fre­quently desired. Our practise, sure, is without all parallel, in that never did we read of any Church, before a misleading Faction in this our Church of Scotland, that ever turn'd out their Bishops (if they were of the same Religion) vowing to root them out by the Sword, contrary to the command of the Supream Lawful Magistrate. So that we must needs accuse all the World besides our selves, of folly, Antichristianism and ignorance, or then re­solve to forbear our peevish quarrellings against this Government of the Church by Bishops, to which through Gods Mercy, and His Majesties care, this broken Church is again restored. To all the former it may be added, that in all the Bible it is not to be sound, that the power either of Ordination of Jurisdiction, ever was exercised by a singl. Presbytery (yea, and it is none of the [Page 17] least of doubts, whether there be mention of any judicial consis­tory of single Presbyters simpliciter pares, in all Sacred Writ) without delegation from, and in a dependence upon a Superiour Power, residing in a single person. If then, the design of some Zelots against Episcopacy, may not seem to have worse at the bot­tome, and do not tend to lead Subjects into misconstructions of His Majesties Gracious Intentions, let the impartial, determine. So that, to draw towards a conclusion, we may see, how contrary such Oaths and Vows are to the duty which good Subjects, by vertue of their relation, and as Subjects, they owe to their Sove­raign; how contrary to due Allegiance; how obstructive and re­pugnant, to the performance, of the great moral duty of obedi­ence, due by Subjects to Supreme Authority, and the established Laws thereof; as also, how inconsistent with the welfare of the Church, and State we live in; and consequently how sinful, is easie to discern by comparing these Oaths, &c. with the irrefra­gable Propositions, above set down.

And therefore, if any (according to our last Proposition) good Subject or Subjects, have been drawn, by any pretence, perswasi­on or force whatsomever to bind himself by Oath or Covenant against Episcopal Government, which was, and now again is esta­blished by Law; he hath not sworn in justice, but engag'd himself to the certain prejudice of His Soveraign's just Right, by a sin­ful combining with private Subjects against His Authority, to the doing of many things contrary to established Law, and (which is most impious) by endeavouring to introduce the form of a So­lemn Oath upon a matter so incapable of, and indisposed for such a Form; if any, I say, hath been thus engag'd, he is obliged, in duty and conscience to disclaim, reverse and renounce his said act; otherwise, beside the horrid scandal which he shall draw upon the Reformed Religion, he doth run himself upon the breach of the third Command, by making his Oath, a bond of iniquity. And for the further satisfaction, of the satisfiable; it may ponderate, that the power imposing these Oaths, was originally invalid and naught; and where the fountain is corrupt, the streams issuing thence, can by no means run clear, Nam quod deest in causa deest in effectu; and therefore, what is done in vertue of such invalid power, can scarce amount to right or lawful; as grounded upon such a rotten Basis of pretended Authority. And, which ought exceedingly to stisfie Subjects, in their dis-obligation from these [Page 18] ensnaring tyes, Our Father, I mean, Pater Patriae, without whose consent, no vow or engagement of the childe is obligative, as we may see, Numb. 30. 4, 5, &c, that a Virgin or a Wise making a vow without consent of the Father or Husband, is dis-obliged therefrom, if the Husband or Father hearing of the vow, do dis­allow thereof; and, we being, in a moral sense, as much at the dispose of the King, the Father of the Countrey, the Civil Fa­ther of us all, if not more then Children at the dispose of their natural Parents, whileas the vows forsaid are dispenc'd and irritate by Him, they can be no more binding tyes to us, (suppose them otherwise lawful) and we, His diffent being any wayes signified to us, are dis-oblig'd and no more bound, but may forgo these vows; and in our so doing, the Lord will forgive us, as it is in Numb. 30. 6. forgive us, not for that we renounce these Vows, that be­ing duty; but for our rash or cowardish engagement in them, without due consent, that being our sin.

If it be said, that, our Civil Father, His Majesty His consent was indulg'd to these Engagements, which may therefore be still suppos'd to be binding, To this it is replied. First, This doth not take away the unlawfulnesse of any of these Oaths and Vows, which were undertaken, antecedently to any Royal and Authori­tative consent thereto procured; so that such who before that before-alleg'd consent, did engage in these combinatory Oaths, did therein heinously sin, so that these are thereby oblig'd to no­thing but Repentance; The first Swearing and Covenanting at least, being rebellious and sinful. But, Secondly, Any Royal con­sent that ever was procured or granted, was a violented, coacted consent, and therefore, in Law, to be look't upon by all honest Sub­jects, as a non-consent, coactus enim consensus, nullus; so that the Princes involuntary and constrained yeelding and ceding to a pre­vailing Faction, affords and layes no just title or ground of obliga­tion, no not upon Himself, in the exteriour Court, much lesse upon His Subjects: N [...]m, ex actione involuntaria, non nascitur, ob­ligatio. reg. juris. vid. cod. hb. 2. tit. 20. And then, Thirdly, That supposed consent of our present Soveraign, is obvious to the eye of all the World, to have been forc'd and coacted; He being by a Faction in this Kingdome, at that time, most unduti­fully, and disloyally kept, as a Noble Prisoner, rather then a free King, and by them violented, to give colour of life to these things, which in their very nature did bereave Soveraignty of its [Page 19] breath: and therefore that consent is now repeal'd, as appeareth from His Majesties present Resolutions, and His High and Honou­rable Council, their Proclamation, of the date September, 1661. relating to Church-Government. So that hence no shew of any title of obligation, as to these Vows and Oaths, doth affect the Subjects, but rather to the contrary; His diffent being of equal force to disoblige, as His consent is, to ty or oblige.

And now, by this time, I trust, it doth appear, that for any stiff­ly to oppose the setlement of this Church by Episcopacy, is so unwarrantable; that none who hath any sense of Religion to God, of charity to their Mother-Church, or of grateful duty to their Gracious King, will presume to justifie; and, if any will prove so peevish; Subjects, I trust, know better how to value Peace, being so harrassed and spoil'd by the late intestine Divisions, then to be so easily engag'd again, to devote that little blood and trea­sure which remains, to the sinful and ambitious lusts of a few men whom, though our King and this Kingdom were not able to call to an account, (which yet they may find) yet there is a God in heaven, who seeth all their hearts, and will one day, judge and be aveng'd of all such their sinful actions.

By what is said, men may see, at any time, how weak the cords of an unlawful Oath, Vow, or Engagement are and how little they bind, save only to Repentance, and that for their unadvised rash­nesse, if spontaneously undertaken, and for their cowardise, if through fear, submitted to. By this also it may appear to how little purpose, men make use of these tyes and fetters, that bind not in truth, but only ensnare; like to those cords where­with Sampson was bound, and as easily upon occasion broken asun­der; being, that there wants a twisting-in of these conditions re­quired in the Propositions premised, to strengthen and confirm them: nay, so far are they, from holding fast the person Engaged, that upon a due back-search and examination, they help to set him looser; when as he shall seriously bethink himself of the guilt and burden of sin he yet lyes under; Nam tolerabilius est promis­sum non facere quod turpe, est. Ambros. de offic. lib. 3. cap. 12. no other way of escape, then, but by a speedy cancelling of the obli­gation.

Briefly, and to conclude this short word, for satisfaction (in which we have appeared, upon no other incentives, but, of con­science, of Loyalty, and of zeal for order and beauty, in this our [Page 20] Mother-Church) of the Scrupulous; Where the Promise or Oath, both for matter and manner, is rightly undertaken; we cannot be too anxious and solicitons in keeping of it, so Matth. 5. 33. Religiose observa juramentum: was one of Pythagoras, his first lessons to his Disciples; yea, God himself, hath vouchsased it a room, within the catalogue of his most glorious titles, of being faithful, and keeping Covenant: otherwise, where fraud or force, with the like, shall happen to interpose, and withall, the matter, in many respects above-specified, be injustifiable; con­cerning such an obligation, when, or wheresoever undertaken; the best resolution, in my humble opinion, is, that it is ill taken and worse kept; nay, and is of it self void from the beginning, and binds to nothing, but, what I heartily wish, all may find in the end, REPENTANCE.