IT being my fortune to meet with a frivolous and groundlesse pamphlet, penned as by the Title appeares, on purpose to traduce the Equity and Justnesse of our Sacred Solemne League and Cove­nant, and to poison the People with a misunder­standing thereof: And being informed that many of the papers were by Malignants and other ill Members procured and dispersed abroad by stealth, and in a clandestine way: I thought my self bound by the duty I owe unto God, and the publike obliga­tions of this Covenant, wherein I have a peculiar interest, to take in hand to answer it, and remove those scruples, and ill-contrived stum­bling-blocks, which are cast in the way of those which have not as yet come in, and subscribed to this holy Covenant.

I will not at all take notice of the bitternesse of the Traiterous and Seditious preamble, which sufficiently sets forth the Constituti­on of the Author. But considering that Oxford is the place from whence it came (where all their Doctrine is railing) I purposely passe it by, and will in a facile moderate way, betake my selfe to the ground work of the businesse.

It is pretended to be written to a gentleman of his own party now in Durance, which desired satisfactiun upon the point, who was intended to take the Covenant, as a meanes to procure his liberty; which be­fore he absolutely resolved upon, he desires information from this dangerous Counsellour, who tels him, if his resolution and advice [Page 4]may in time be herad, it stands this upon these two points.

• I. That no man can with a safe Conscience enter this Covenant by reason of the grosse and palpable Iniqvity of the Contents thereof.
• II. That he who through his own ignorance and cunning of others, hath been seduced, or by their threats and menaces forced, or by any other meanes brought to enter this Covenant with them, is not bound to the performance of the Contents, but having by the taking of it, contracted their guilt of a grievous sinne, it bound to a speedy re­pentance for the same.

These were notable convincing points indeed, if they were pro­ved: But he cares not for the reality of proof, so he may reduce his arguments to some specious frame; for the maine scope, or end, which he pretends to by reasoning upon these two points, is set downe in these two particulars.

First, In the resolving and keeping a good conscience (as he stiles it) in the refusall of this Covenant, by reason of the grosse and palpable Iniquity of the contents thereof.

Secondly, For the recovery of the Conscience ensnared by entring this Covenant, wherein is considered the not binding of it, if taken; which particulars, if thou canst make good, Tu Dominus, Tu vir, Tu mihi frater eris: I shall most willingly Subscribe.

Thus far we have a fair porch to the building, and which might take any man at the first fight: But let us now make entry, and see what furniture wee can finde within to entertaine a mans under­standing.

He proceeds to frame Obiections against the severall Articles of the Covenant. And the first thing he excepts against, is, that we are bound to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacie, and Church-Govern­ment by, Archbishops Bishops, &c. By the first and second Articles; and not onely so, but really and constantly to endeavour the same. Now he bids him see the Iniquity of this.

Object. 1. First, he sayes, here is sedition: Subjects entring into a Covenant for a change of established government, without and against their Soveraignes Command and Authority.

Answ. I answer, that this is not done against the Authority of our Soveraign, but this covenanting against Prelacie, is ordained, and entred upon, by those who have Soveraign Authority communicated unto them from the King in Parliament, and by them it is commen­ded [Page 5]unto the People to be sworne against, as a government incon­sistent with the good of the Kingdomes. Out of what Lawes Divine, or Civill and Nationall, do you read, that an Act of the grand Estates of a Kingdome lawfully convened, may be called sedition.

Object. 2. Secondly, hee sayes, Here is injustice to fellow-subjects: Subjects entring a Covenant, and binding themselves to do notorions wrong and injury to others; that is, to extirpate a company of men, whose Function is of Apostolicall institution, and hath continued in this Land from the first receiving of the Christian Faith; whose immuni­ties also, and priviledges, are undeniably; most ancient and legall in this Kingdome.

Answ. 1. First, I answer, That it could never be proved yet (though there have been many papers vented pretending the probation of it) that so much as regulated Episcopacie, was of Apostolicall institu­tion, muchlesse Prelacie an order of a higher straine, with all its Hie­rachicall Appurtenances, both of them being held in the opinion of the most and best Protestants unquestionable and obvious to all men, to be but of humane institution.

Answ. 2. Secondly, I answer: Be it granted that their immunities and priviledges are ancient and legall within this Kingdome; yet you must remember, that those immunities and priviledges were at first conferred upon them by the favour and indulgence of the State, in those dayes of the growing greatnesse of the Clergie, why then may not the same power of the State, in the an­cient and legall Court of Parliament, derived to their successors, now lawfully assembled, with as much reason deprive them of those immunities, together with their greatnesse, which have proved un­deniably so prejudiciall to the Kingdome.

Answ. 3. Thirdly, I answer, that our covenanting to extirpate Prelacie cannot be called injustice, nor injury to our fellow-subjects by the same reason also: Because the abolition of those accidentall priviledges, the fruitfull p [...]rents of so many intolerable exorbitances, is agreed upon by the Supreme Court of Justice, the representative Body of the Nation, which of it self is sufficient to annull the Hie­rarchie; but because Authority is of little availment, without the addition of forcible power in times of difficulty, opposition & rebel­lion of desperate Incendiaries; therfore it was necessary that the loy­all partee of the Land should be ingaged by Covenant, to defend the Parliament in the prosecution of their most just proceedings, to re­dresse [Page 6]the grievances of the Subject, of which, Prelacy is not the least, as also, for the chastizing of Delinquents; And how is it possible that this Prelaticall government should be convenient for a State or Kingdome: whereas,

• 1. They have been burthensome in all ages, what opposites in England have they been to our Kings, till their interests were changed?
• 2. Secondly, all reformed Churches have expelled them, as in­compatible with Reformation.
• 3. Thirdly, they have set three Kingdomes together by the eares, which now lie weltring in their own blood.
• 4. Fourthly, experience now shewes, there is no inconvenience in their want, either in Scotland or England.

Object. 3. The third Objection is, that here is sacriledge, in spoyling them, or a Church rather, of those possessions and interests, which be­side the right of dedication, do by as good Law and Title belong to them, as any Liberty and possession doth to other Subjects.

Answ. Be it granted, that the right of their possessions hold good by Law; yet when their Order and Function shall be disannulled by Law, there must be a necessity of disposing their Revenues other­wise, to the benefit of the Church, and so the end of the dedication being kept, by disposing them to that use whereto they were at first intended, it were vain and foolish to call this sacriledge and spoiling of the Church.

Object. 4. The fourth and last objection against the first and second Articles of the Covenant is, that here is rebellion with the greatest impiety: Subjects endeavouring this by force of Armes (as it will ap­peare by the sixt Article, they that Covenant bind themselves to do) that is to compell your Soveraigne to such an extirpation and spoiling, against which he is bound by the Law of God, and by expresse oath, and cannot be released of that oath, without their consent to whom he makes it, viz. those that must here be extirpated and spoiled.

Answ. 1. First I answer, that here is neither Rebellion, nor im­piety in the least kind, to endeavour the extirpation of those by Armes, which have been the maine cause of this present warre a­gainst the Parliament, and enemies to Reformation; with whom, be­cause the King is now there in person, being seduced by evill Coun­cellors, and such as have a designe to alter our Religion, invade [Page 7]our Liberties, and bring in Popery; therefore we shall not defend our selves, our Religion and Liberties, nor labour to deliver the King from them, but you will say, we Covenant to compell His Majestie to that which in conscience he cannot do, that is, to extir­pate prelacie; which brings me to my second answer.

Answ. 2. Secondly I answer, that no oath is to be observed, but in licitis & honestis, so farre forth as the matter sworn to is approved and found lawfull; and it holds good in Divinity, that such oathes as are not lawfull, are rather to be repented of, then persisted in. But upon politicke considerations there needs not any repentance, where the same power which ordained the things sworn to, doth after the manifest inconvenience of it, with the present constitution of publike affaires, ordaine also the abolishment thereof: for then the obligation becomes altogether invalid, and in no wise binding to the swearer: And therefore it is frivolous to say that the King can­not be released of such an oath as he hath taken to maintain Prelacie, unlesse the Prelates give consent; when at the best (to use the Language of the learned Exhortation to the taking of the Covenant) their whole government is but a humane constitution, and such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament: (in which the judgement of the whole Kingdom is involved and declared) not only very prejudiciall to the civill State, but also a great hindrance to the perfect Reformation of Religion.

His second exception is against the fourth Article, whereby he sayes, he which enters this Covenant doth professe, that he allow all those which adhere to His Majestie in this cause, should be esteemed, and proceeded against, as Malignants, Incendiaries, and as in the first Article they are set out, common enemies: Also by the same, fourth Article he binds himself to discover all such, that they may be brought to punishment.

Object. Now he tels him that the iniquity of this appears by what was said upon the former Articles; but more especially by the duties unto which the Oathes of Supremacy and allegiance bind all Subiects, viz. the assisting of His Majestie against all attempts, and the dis­covering unto Him all conspiracies, duties contrary to what is under­taken here.

Answ. I answer, that it is great equity and reason, that those now about his Majesty, which have involved him in this war, and are [Page 8]declared and known to be Incendiaries and Malignants, and the common Enemies of the Kingdome, should be discovered and proceeded against thereafter; and that the equity of that Ar­ticle may further appeare, the intent of it is the very same with those, in the Oathes of Supremacie and Allegiance, viz. The assisting of his Majestie against attempts, and the discovering of conspiracies; which doth not only evidence the equity, but al­so the seasonablnesse of this Covenant, being taken in such a time, when there are so many attempts, practices and conspi­racies in hand by a desperate partee of Cavaliers against Reli­gion, and the Kingdome; the greatest of which attempts is ab­solutely against his Majestie, though it seem otherwise, by engage­ing his Person in a bloody and strange war.

Object. The third exception taken, is concerning a clause in the third Article, for preserving and defending the Kings Majesties Person, and Authority, without any thought or intention of dimi­nishing his just power and greatnesse; And all which he hath to say against it, is this: That though hee which enters this Covenant, may thinke this clause to be just and faire, yet is it indeed a fear­full collusion and mocking of God, there being nothing more against his Majesties authoritie and power, then the intent and pursuit of this Covenant.

Answ. All the answer which I shall give to this, is, that it is but his say so, and I shall referre the impertiall Reader, to my former answers.

Object. His fourth exception is against the fifth Article; and hee objects, that hee which enters this Covenant, doth binde him­self by that Article, to indeavour the continuance of peace between the two Kingdomes, which, according to the intent of this Cove­nant, hee must do, by joyning with those who have actually broken the Pacification, and in pursuit of this Covenant, invaded this King­dome, which is also a fearfull collusion and macking of God.

Answ. I answer, that it is absurd to say, that the Pacification between the two Kingdomes of England and Scotland is broken by this Covenant, when both the Kingdomes by an unanimous consent, are joyned in this holy League for the mutuall defence and preservation of each others peace; and with as little reason may it be called an Invasion, or a collusion and mocking of [Page 9]God: For it is monstrous to conceive that any men should af­firm that ratification to be broken, when the persons ratifying do joyntly prosecute the preservation of it, by vertue of this Covenant, with all earnestnesse and alacrity, which is manifested at this day by an ample testimony of the full and free concurrence of the Bodies of both Nations.

The fifth exception taken, is against the sixt Article; because he that enters this Covenant doth professe by the sixt Article, that he allowes and approoves the Assisting and defending of all those, that take this Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof, against all opposition, and lets or impediments whatsoever; and by the same Article binds himself really and constantly, to endeavour the same to his power, without giving himselfe to a detestable neutrality in this cause, or making a defection to the contrary part.

Object. Now see, saies he, the iniquity of this Article, which so plainely speakes the language of desperate Rebellion, that he which Co­venants with them, doth by this Article binde himselfe to endeavour by force of Armes, to compell his Soveraigne to the Reformation pre­tended by this Covenant, and doth, as much as in him lies, cut himselfe off from returning to his Duty and Obedience, which is here called, a de­fection to the contrary part.

Answ. I answer, that by this you may see the Iniquity of the Au­thor, and the desparate sence he makes use of to mis-informe the Gentleman he wrote unto. The Equity of the Article is apparent; That there should be a firme adhearing to this Covenant and conti­nuance in his same, notwithstanding all opposition, contradiction, or diswasion to the contrary whatsoever. All the people stood to the Covenant, 2 King. 23.4. This was Iosiah his care not onely for him­selfe, but for all the people; He made all that were found in Iudeth and Benjamin to stand to it, so all his dayes they turned not backe from the Lord God of their Fathers, 2 Chron. 34.32, 33. But as for that slaunder of compelling our Soveraigne by force of Armes to a Reformation; I answer, that it is not properly to compell him, but rather to expell those from him, which are enemies to Reformati­on, and in time would approve themselves so unto him also, if not resisted by his faithfull Subjects, and compell him to enact what themselves please; which, what it would be if considered, is enough [Page 10]to engage all true Christian hearts against them: And therefore they are bound to this Covenant by that duty, obedience, and loy­ty which they owe unto their Soveraigne his Crowne and dignity, and the welfare of the Kingdomes, without defection to the con­trary part.

Object. His last Exception is against a clause in the sixth Article, That he which enters this Covenant, doth professe that he approves, and binds himselfe to all the premisses in the Articles, as to that which much concernes the glory of God, the good of the Kingdoms, and the honour of the King: and this he saies is to fill up the mea­sure, and to mocke God Almighty to his face.

Answ. I answer, Let all men judge how unreasonable and hel­lish a slaunder this is, and observe with what wresting these black characters of a false Comment, are here brought in under pretence of writing information to a Gentleman, to defame the genuine, and innocent sence of a glorious Covenant.

Thus I have done with the first particular of his discouse, which pretended to proove a necessity of refusing this Covenant, by a false imputation of grosse and palpable Iniquity upon the contents thereof. Now I shall proceed to the second particular, pretending to prove a necessity of repenting of it, if once taken.

If he could have proved the premisses, then the Conclusion would have followed more current, for I grant what he saies, That the matter and intent of any Covenant being unlawfull, it cannot binde to performance, no more then Herods oath did bind him to proceed to execution, Matth. 14. or the great curse under which the forty Conspirators, Act. 23. combined themselves to make an end of Paul, could indeede obliege them to performanc [...]; But the former point being not proved, the sence of the Covenant being rather defamed and traduced, then controverted justly; This latter point grounded upon the former, must of necessity fall of it selfe, and therefore it needs not an answer, running altogether ex falsa Hypothesi, upon a false supposition of Iniquity in the Cove­nant which is not as yet proved, nor can it be by the Iesuits, and Ie­suited impugners at Oxford. If they can furnish us with some con­vincing Arguments in this way, I my selfe who am a Covenanter, will not speedily repent of it, but also perswade others: but till then you must pardon me.

Now in relation to the latter part of his discourse, I shall onely give you notice that the frame of it is grounded upon a false in­sinuation,

Object. That this Covenant doth contrary the Oathes of allegi­ance and supremacie; and that the Iudges here tooke it with this re­servation: as thus, I take this Covenant so far forth as it doth not con­trary the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacie. But,

Answ. 1. First, I answer with the words of the learned exhor­tation to the taking of the Covenant, that this Covenant is so far from crossing the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance, that [...]t binds all, and more strongly engageth them to preserve, and de­fend the Kings Majesties person and authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdomes.

Answ. 2. I answer that the Iudges tooke it without any such re­servation he speakes of, or any other at all.

But this latter part need no answer (in regard as I said before) of the grounding it upon a false supposition of the illegality and injustnesse of this Covenant, which is not as yet proved: And there­fore I advise all to take heed both of the former and the latter, and to weigh the former objections with the answers impartially and seriously, not as men fore-armed with prejudicate opinions but as those that desire sincerely to be informed of the necessity and excel­lency of this holy Covenant.

The Apostle Peter speakes of Pauls writing, that in them some things are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned, and unstable, wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 2. Epist. chap. 3. vers. 16. But here on the con­trary, though the text of this Covenant be easie to be understood, we see that some (who at lest think themselves) learned, and who are not only stable but stiffened (as most of the Oxford partie are) in their own erroneous principles and opinions, will be trying their skill (or rather malice) to wrest or (as the Greek word streblousi imparts) to torture and set this Covenant upon the racke, to make it speake, and confesse a sence never intended by the composers, or proposers of it: And whereof (if but common ingenuity be the judge) it never will, nor can be found guilty: But at this time, I shall say no more to the Author of this base, injurious paper, but that in the close of the verse quoted from the Apostle Peter; Let him [Page 12]take heed such wresting as this be not to his own destruction.

Thus I hope in answering this virulent Pamphlet, I have given the Readers some insite into the matter of this holy League & Covenant, according to the sincere aime of those that made it; Take it then Reader and sweare to it: Who but an Atheist can refuse the first Article? Who but a Papist the second: who but an oppressor, or Rebell the third? Who but the guilty the fourth? Who but men of no fortune, desperate Caviliers the fifth (Who but light and empty men, unstable as water the sixt? In a word the duty is such that God hath ordained, the matter is such as God approveth, and the conse­quence will be such as God hath promised, the accomplishment of our peace and happinesse in this life, and the finall consummation of it in that which is to come.

This is Licenced and entred according to Order.