him yet he allowed him to break the childs vow for giving him a sacrifice and both to be guiltles and then why may not we be now absolved if our publique Parent judges it not fit that wee should be any longer tide formally to a conditionall Oath though it have relation to some sacred things You will say no because the Parent did not as a party solemnly concurre to the Childs vow and having never consented he might the better dissent but our publique Parent did concurre at a party to our Oath The Parliament and People tooke the Covenant joyntly together and it is said that if the Father heare the vowes and contradicts them not in the same day then he confirms them and cannot break them without iniquity To this I reply First that v. 16 it is said the Childe is free after the dissent of the Parent and that the Parent is charged with whatsoever was amisse in him which is excuse enough for us of the people Secondly the difference is great in a maine point of the paralell because after the concurrence of the Father to the childs vow for sacrificing something to God that might be compleated in the Temple without his further helping it on but we cannot doe any thing in our case without the cooperation of our publique Parent all along neither can he do any thing without the concurrences of many other possible but uncertaine conditions and if he in effect finde those conditions have come contrary to his publique endeavours what may we doe will it be enough for us to rest in having attempted the utmost of our private endeavours with him or will you authorize every man upon private judgement or interpretation to begin a warre in his own sence A League or Pact authorized betwixt private Neighbours over a whole Nation or over part of it is not as a League betwixt Prince and Prince because these have conditions exprest how and when to begin warre upon one another in case their Leagues be broken But there is no such thing exprest in terminis in that Covenant which we have made one with another and which we made subordinately to our Magistrate so that if we or the Magistrate faile we are equally left to Gods justice solely and to the forfeiture of our own penalties due to him and every one is to answer for his owne deficiency in his own Station And being left to our selves againe we are left to act onely so much of our Oath or of the ancient end of it as we were bound to before we swore which is a great deale because we were bound by precept before wee were by promise all the dayes of our lives to do our utmost for the glory of God and the good of our neighbour Secondly Princes or States who by the supremacy of their powers are able to make Lawes for their separated Kingdomes when they unite their supream Powers they are able to make a common Law for all their Kingdoms together which is called a League or Compact But a law when it comes to be broken which is a publique thing and therefore of every mans interest may be vindicated publiquely by Warre and by those who have a posse regni But I cannot say the same may be done for the Covenant for quo jure can it be done The Scots indeed by one way of arguing make it greater then a Law and by another make it lesse which is when they one while affirme it unalterable and unreformable as a divine text and another while confesse it was not made by the joynt concurrence of all those who with them are essentiall to the making a publique Law I conceive we may safely say it is of a Constitution inferriouâ— to that of a Law and therefore its obligation is lesse though its penalty be greater to the failers in it It was made use of only as a convenient instrument or meanes for the better attaining some lawes as its end A Law it was not because it was not made by all the then Legislative powers of the Kingdome For the Kings concurrence in England if not in Scotland was then held requisite for passing a Law and he ever dissented from this Covenant Halfe the inferiour sort of the People have not any Interest in it nor have taken it And not having any obligation to it how I pray you can they justly be drawne into the Penalty due to it as they must all be if a Warre which is effectually a Penall thing be begun though by a part of the Nation for the nature of Warre is such that it puts a whole Kingdome into imminent danger of desolation though but begun in a part and by a party of it Thus far I have endeavoured to shew the true fast and loose of all promissory Oaths and how their obligations cease according to the nature of the things which they are affixed to The Author of the grand case of Conscience p 1. Objects That if inconvenience may break a promise or disengage an Oath then many may be cheated and David was much mistaken Psal. 15.4 Who saith he shall dwell in Gods Tabernacle who sweareth to his own hinderance and changeth not I answer David speaks here of an Oath violated by a change onely in the Promiser who by his Oath hath past a right to another and therefore can no longer dispose of it againe the party to whom he swore may dispose of it as he pleaseth and may dispense him of it because no man hath a right to make another man keepe his owne longer then he please himselfe It is a duty to pay a debt but not to receive it Finally this is nothing to those cases where the change is not in us but in other persons and in things which relate principally and conjoyntly to the fulfilling of the Oath or Promise For if I promise Titius a sword at such a time and he then chance to be mad an accident not exprest betwixt us at first am I bound to put it into his hands in this change because I was the first promiser Wheras it is said that the obligation of somethings end because they can be no longer kept as that of the Kings person c. He ans. p. 11. That if men shall by violence put an end to the thing that thereby the obligation may end too that is a breach of Covenant A woman promiseth to be faithful to her husband so long as he lives but if she to marry another kills him she breaks her promise I grant it easily that they who use violence to break lawfull contracts sin grievously which is a thing now confest in every Church of Scotland but what is that to those who use no violence to breake them at all nor can helpe it when it is done although many be undone by it One thing I most earnestly desire to learne in this question propounded I guesse concerning the
viz. Of two Magistracies united as a meanes for the easier reaching the end of those respective reformations which they were obliged to make before they entred in league and of two people who by the union of their respective Magistracies passe for so much as is therein exprest into an union one with another and are to have their private capacities and endeavours managed by them and never against them by any virtue of this league Besides it is a considerable circumstance in the Magistrates managing the whole that states or civill constitutions by reason of the diseases of ambition and avarice are naturally as much subject to future changes as any other things are and without the supposition of tacite conditions we may as little sweare to preserve the State of a publique body as we may sweare to preserve the State of our own particular bodies or as a parent may to preserve his Childe which when it shall be taken away by diseases or by justice he may be sorry for the losse but may not justly complaine of it And indeed so it is come to passe without any default in us of the english People or of our publique Magistrate under whom we were to act in these private places and callings that neither of us can be said to have laid the Covenant aside although we could not keepe it from expiring because the failing was in that which was never suppos'd to be in our powers viz. in many conditionall things which camecr osse and in the breach of fidelity in another collaterall and concurring power If you please to object here as an aggravation and an incitement for us of the Covenanted people to rise kill and slay that the Covenant is buried not as a thing really expired and dead but that the people out of interest must be told so onely because the former Magistracy is really laid aside and changed which if people should throughly consider would quickly make them finde matter enough in the Covenant to take armes I shall not in the way of answer to this repeate any thing concerning the cause the meanes and the concurrences to this our present change every Covenanter both of England and Scotland knowing well that there was no change of Government here till the Covenant was Nationally broke and so many here were insnared both Royalists and Parliamentarians by the Scots who thought to have us'd it for a change of Government and as a stratagem to give law in another judicatory Neither shal I argue in this place how compatible any change may be with a Covenant so conditionall in which Kings as Parties are totally excluded from judging either for themselves or for others which point shall be further argued at last But I shall content my selfe to take what is here granted in the objection viz. That the Government is really changed The consequence then to us of the people will be that seeing by the fourth Article of the Covenant we may not without apparent breach of it act the sence of the Covenant but as we receive it from our respective and supream judicatory of England onely and that the said Government which it relates to is confest to be gone have you not then clearely confest that the obligation to act any thing publiquely by Covenant is likewise gone according to an old Axiome Sublato relatâ— tollitur correlatum If this present Government which we are chang'd to and which now protects us should thinke fit by the way of Covenant to give a new life to that remaining part of it which may be observed yet you will not allow any obedience to them though in things never so lawfull Neither will that fourth Article allow me to obey any forreigner nor those without whose consent the Covenant was made and consequently without whom it is to be interpreted as the late Proceedings of the Scots at the Hague plainely shew So that after all this if I in my private capacity be as you say still indispensibly obliged by it to begin or assist to publique troubles do you not fall into a worser absurdity and maintaine an Oath against the fifth Commandment or against all Magistracy which is an impossibility Nothing ever cautiond in termes more expressely for our duty of making discoveries of bringing to condigne punishment of our supreame respective Iudicatories and the like then the Covenant did which are things relating to none but our supream Magistracy unlesse you please plainly to assert another Absurdity that every single man who hath taken it is thereby absolvd from his Magistrate and is made one himselfe to judge of the other and thereby authorizd not by way of Toleration to professe but to establish what Religion he would to punish at his own tribunall whom he would and to reforme the state as he would For he to whom you will allow a capacity of making warre hath also a Capacity of making Peace and Lawes for the security of his Peace Thus we see how the Government is changed and the formall obligation of the Covenant at an end But what if I should grant you by the way of supposition that in case both the Covenant and the former Government were standing together in as full force as you desire and as it was when the Scots first delivered the King up to the Parliament of England I would then know of you whither if our Parliament had then for reasons best known to themselves and of which wee can never judge competently declared us of the People free from any further obligation of the Covenant might we justly have thought our solemne League at an end and that we ought to act nothing publiquely any longer by it If you will say we should have been still obliged to act upon it then I aske you againe under whom For I have proved it must be alwaies under a Magistrate and you have all along proved that it must onely be under our lawfull Magistrate how lawfull soever the thing be in it self which is commanded you would not allow the King to be the person to be obeyed whom you thought fit to keepe in an imprisonment The Parliament according to our supposition would not be any longer obliged to it or be obeyed in it and the Scots acknowledge themselves in the 4 Article to be the supreame judicatory onely of Scotland and I cannot act publiquely by a private Capacity or Magistracy Ergo in such a case the Covenant how good soever had not obliged any longer nor is it in it selfe eternall You will not deny perhaps but one man may free another from an Oath when it is for the worldly profit of him who pleases to release it as every man may throw away any thing of his owne right but you will not allow it in Sacred things where God is a Party I answer that though no Parent can dispence his wife or childe from the feare of God and the duties they owe to
a supreame law there But at that time the supreamest humane law which according to these gentlemens opinions was ever made in England or Scotland or perhaps in all the world was made without the King in those Kingdomes and against his dissent For which reason the Covenant engages not so positively for King or Kingly Government as for the Vnion of the Covenanters in any forme and against any opposition Whereupon the Presbyterians when it was as most conceiv'd in their power to restablish King or Kingly Goveâ—nment they omitted both for many dayes of their lives without question because they conceiv'd it not a Government absolutely necessary by Covenant When D. Hamilton entred England so hostilely for that end and as he thought by vertue of Covenant yet he was excommunicated for it by the Oracles of the Covenant Lastly The reigne of the Covenant since the first day of its birth and obligation was never yet a Râ—gall reigne no not for one day anywhere so that the change which is is not determinatly contrary to that principle out of which according to the circumstances of security any Government may be moulded for any place For which reason if I should grant you that the Covenant were not expir'd and had not beene so palpably broken as it was betwixt the Nations yet Scotland if they had pleas'd might have beene Govern'd by a King and England by a free State yet both consonantly enough to Covenant and without any contrariety because the circumstances of securitie in one might have been different from the circumstances of security in the other which though different might as well have been mutually maintained as their discipline differing from ours might have beene preserv'd by us From all which it appears that that Oath is Cloudy in the positive or set Government which we ought to have and so cannot be justly called it's owne interpreter besides a reformation according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches supposes such a latitude of Logick as would if all sides should be heard give us as much exercise as all our waâ—res have And certainly the Covenant is alike undefin'd in Religion and in civill Government For we swore to bring the Church Discipline in the three Kingdoms to as neer a similitude as the constitution of the places would bear not into the very same and as for the civill Government it was to receive its forme in the security of that just as water doth receive not onely the figure of the Pot or Glasse into which it is put but its conservation from being totally lost and spilt But how then will you free your selfe from this contradiction in asserting that the civill State is unalterable by Covenant when that of the Church which formes the other is so much alterable and seeing that of the State receives from this not only its form and being but what ever else you alone please to attribute to your security in it From whence I conclude again that a change of Government is consistent with Covenant that a submission to it in lawful things is much more and consequently it ingages not to any one determinate Government and so is not against this of ours I beleeve it hath been a frequent observation of many who have calmely converst with our Divines and others zealous for Presbytery That they have found them little satisfied with that sort of Presbytery which our Parliament modelled for us of this Nation as having little affinity with the Couenant My beliefe is that they in that discernd not the consequence of their own dissatisfaction For if their consciences regulated by Covenant can admit no civill Government but the Kingly which they so much argue for here and if the Covenant and a Scotch Presbytery whose right they hold to be Divine be essentially linkt together Then we and they may all of us learne not onely from direct inferences but from the declar'd experience of the Sonne the Father the Grandfather and great GrandMother that is of the three last Scotch Kings and one Queene That if the Scotch Presbitery come out of the Covenant then Kingly government cannot derive from it because they are jurisdictions incompatible and inconsistant in the same place and if one can conserve it then may we say as much of the other How much Mary Queene of Scotland experienced of this let the world judge by that which she wrote both with inke in her Letters and with her blood on the Scaffold For how came she to be Beheaded in England but by Mr. Knox and the Kirkes having done little better than put her into the hands of those who could not keepe her long alive with security to themselves King Iames hath writ and argued largely concerning his dangers sufferings under it it is yet remembred in what Dialect they of the Presbytery were wont to Preach and Pray against him to his face and he not know how to remedy it or by what right to top theirs When he came into England he profest his deliverance from that subjection not of small satisfaction to his minde and therefore at this diâ—tance he contrived how to extinguish or check that â—ate there after some progresse in that worke he himselfe dyed peaceably in a milder Country But K. Charles with that Crown inherited the consequences of that undertaking for his first troubles began in the controversie of that Presbytery and what a preservation he thought the Covenant from which it seemes their Presbytery is so inseparable might be to him and what his fate was and who helpt it on nay who diverted him from agreement here all the world knowes and in his writings likewise he hath showne to the world that he himselfe was not ignorant of it This only is the wonder that in the midst of this their specious zeale for Kingly Government the Covenant should be so silent concerning Royall Posterity or for their succession in case the Scots or English Souldiers had kill'd the King casually before he had given them the satisfaction which they required the consideration of all this with some other lately offer'd to the young Prince at the Hague by the Scotch Commissioners and the satisfaction which they in their late Declaration require from him as they did from his Father have questionlesse made him scruple so long at his adventure into that Country though so much invited For they told him p. 14.15 That for longer then these eight yeares yea ever since that Queene Mary their fundamentall priviledge hath beene to assemble in Parliament and to conclude there of themselves either without King or Kings Commissioners and that if his Majesty refuse those their reasonable desires they shall be constrained in so great an extremity to doe what is incumbent on them to preserve Religion and the Kingdom from ruine Here they plainly acknowledge and assume that supreame power and right
which shall be proved here more evidently towards the conclusion But because I intend truth here in the simplicity of my Heart and no way to swell this Argument either with passion in my selfe or with scandall to any man else therfore I shall sincerely unfold what hath long been a mistery to my selfe and for confirmation of what I have asserted here so positively I shall give the reader the expresse word of our great English Covenant-champion and of Master Hinderson especially the Scotch Champion betwixt whose fingers the Covenant it selfe was moulded Oâ—â—t â—â—ind cafe of Oonscience p. 14 saith But they who are now for the right of the Son and continuance of the Government are as much against the vices in and about him as about the Father And should he doe as his Father hath done they who are now for the performance of this Oath and Covenant would as truly joyne against him as against the Father Who can call this Regall Language which yet will be lookt on as the English Presbyterian-alarum though but by one man Hee had done well in speaking of the performance of Covenant by us all if he had offered a Catalogue of all that which would fulfill the Covenant in all its termes without any further interpretation But that which is supposed eternall for time is likewise infinite as to the matter which it may relate to by the application of humane Logick Mr. Hinderson in his Newcastle conference with the King p. 24.25 saith That the reforming power is in Kings and Princes Quibus deficientibus it comes to the inferiour Magistrates Quibus deficientibus it descends to the grâ—sse of the people but yet supposing still as he saith that they be all of them rightly inform'd For which reason though he conceal'd it from the King yet he meant that the reformation of any of those three powers according to the Covenant must be judged reformed afterwards by some other body of men here not named For I conceive that he who is ultimatly to judge of the Reformation and of its publique obligation judgeth likewise of the reformers themselves though never so high or never so low and to this strange opinion he would faine intitle two English Episcopall Champions Bilson and Iewell Here I must confesse I was at a stand concerning the nature and interest of the Covenant and was sorry to see that I was no plainlyer told whether it would carry me laden with so great a curse nor where it would set me downe At last I found in the same Author 32.33 Speaking of the subordination of powers under which people were finally to obey That he would not willingly tell his Majesty whether the Church was subordinate to the civill power either to King or to Parliament or to both For quoth he I utterly desolâ—ima such a headship as the Kings of England have claimed or such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave with appeales from Ecclesiastiall Iudicature to themselves No man may thinke but Mr. Henderson meant this for the jurisdiction of England as well as of Scotland for hee spake of Houses of Parliament which were plurall in England onely and though it may seeme strange at the first view to heare one say that the Scotch Nation state the supremacy of England in their Country or that they endeavour a direct change of Government here which they have indirectly attempted for a long while let every man judge not by our subtilties but by the Kirkes Declaration 27 July 1649 p. 11.12 Their words are That their King after his Oath of Coronation in Scotland shall assure them under his hand and seale to injoyne the solmne League and Covenant establish and practise the Prerbyteriall Government Directory Confession and Catechisme as they are approved by the severall Assemblies of their Kirke and Parliament in ALL HIS DOMINIONS and that he shall never endeavour any change thereof No man will say but States like judges ought to act ex bono aequo conjunctively So that though these things which here they would impose upon us perpetually were never so good yet they being unequitably deriv'd upon us from their supreame judicatory in whose possession we are not so fully now as they were last yeare in ours we ought to abominate their designe as much as they might the like obtrusion of their Presbitery from hence without power there to rectifie it ever after For these Presbiterians with us grant That good and lawfull things may not be practiz'd under a power unlawfull as they say the Scots would be here However here I at last found who was my supream right Magistrate in the Kirkâ— sence but then I conceiv'd I was in a great snare because I saw the jus publicum of a Kingdome totally though secretly changed I saw all things of direct religion and whatsoever related collaterally to its security lodged there and by the Kirke prejudged from the judgement of all other authorities in Scotland especially But because religion and its security draws in all humane concernments and that two supreame collaterall powers cannot stand in one and the same place in the same time for the same person but for contrary actions therefore I knew not whither of the two supreame powers the Ecclesiasticall or the Civill I should in this case throw away for they could not in this contest by the judgement of any be both obeyed together and I stood in a miserable case betwixt a Jaylour and a Devill the Kirke giving me to the Devill if I obeyed the Civill power and the Civill power giving me to the Jaylour if I obey'd the Kirke which was to speake the truth the State of the whole Kingdome of Scotland last yeare betwixt the the Kirkes excommunication and the Parliaments Order which authoriz'd Duke Hamiltons expedition in Vindication of the Covenant here In which difference we have no reason but to like the effect however we may dislike such a cause here Wherefore to answer this â—scruple I positively say That in whatsoever is of Pact betwixt man and man or of policy in the Covenant I ought solely to follow the civill Magistrate and the Church here ought to follow the Magistrate likewise as a case relating to the disquits to the warres and to the recovering the peace of earthly Kingdomes If otherwise then the civil jurisdiction ought clearely to be managed by the Ecclesiastique which is stated so no where that I know of but in Romagna and Dutchy of Ferrara and the other places belonging to the Pope This I speak not as desirous to detract any thing from the sacred function of the Ministery as it containes it selfe in its own function no man being able rationally to object any thing wherefore some might not ex Officio be deputed to excite others to vertue and sanctity of life But yet who can say they are not subject to the infirmities of ambition avarice and severe passions as well as other men or
blood The Reader may be pleased to take notice that though these replyes for the most part touch but on simple obedience to a Government supposed unlawfull but commanding lawfull things yet they virtually extend to our acting under such a Government It is to be presumed that our adversaries not contesting profestly what hath been publiquely argued in that point do conceive the difficulties of acting under involved in those of our submission to such a power The distinction of Active and Passive obedience is but a nicety and if one be not a sin the other is not They are in a manner the same thing derive from the same Principle and differ but gradually just as the morning and the noone light do which derive both from the same planet For he who takes paines to furnish in a â—axe and he who tooke paines to execute the office of a Judge or of a Justice of peace in honest things by vertue of Commissions and Orders from the same supreame but illegall Magistracy doe both of them what they doe by vertue of the same originall submission which is a passive obedience If this be otherwise then according to these authors opinion we and all our forefathers have sinned in obeying those actively or passively who by unjust usurpation have come betwixt us and them who derive from the first who were in compact unlesse the Lapse of time can justifie the viciousnesse of an action which is impossible or that we may lawfully obey those who plenarily possesse and protect us and command us lawfull things FINIS ERRATA p. 2. losse r. loose imperciptibly r. imperceptibly insinuation r. insinuations p. 2. l. 2. may be not r. may not be beholding r. beholden p. 6. heneration r. generation p. 7. but in one r in one p. 9. understand r. understood offices r. officers p. 10. a businesses r. busines p. 11. pretends r. pretend thereof r. therefore p. 13. but it is a contradiction r. is it a contradiction p. 14. for detain'd r. attain'd for dislove r. disolve p. 15. best to take heed r. best take heed p. 16. King r. Kings p. 17. purpose r. propose p. 19. found r. swound p. 22. at last r. at least p. 31. drive r. derive p. 33. ply r. comply for or r. nor p. 34. large r. subjection p. 39. person r. persons next r. rest p. 4 r. change r. chance p. 42. true to religion r. to true religion p48 dispence him of it r. dispence with him for it whence the difficulty of perswading civill truth â—irst Demur Demur p 6. case of Con. p. 3.7 â— Pag. 2. The end of Magistracy subsevient to the end of our being All justice or just things relate not essentially to the legall Magistrate Of commutative justice Vid. p. 26.35 1 Cor. 6. of distributive justice This present Parliament is effectually a Parliament Vid p. 18. Necessity above formes of Government The difference betwixt conquest victory Vid. p. 33. Object Answer The State of Kingdoms as separated and as mixt in themselves Of the Riâ—ht of War betwixt Fundamentall Parties page 9. Of the House of Lords Of Secluded Members The negative when prevalent in equall partnarship Whither the transactions of the legall number of the house be invaled when any members are forct away Of the present consent of the Major part of the People Ob. Answ. Whither the present power be the suprem Whither it be a Parliament Object Ans. The case of the Kings comming to the house of Commons not parallel The case of the apprentices entring and forcing the house not parallel The Parl. votes against force still observed are the same still VVhy actions of Government must change How wrong hath been fitted for a title 〈…〉 Bac. H. 7. Ob. Object Of toleration Ob. Ans. The magistrate in a state not as a Father of a Family VVhy states cannot looke so strictly after vertue as after publique quiet Oâ— Ob. Ans. Of the Ecclips suspention and extinction of supream powers The union of people to a GoVernment not like a marriage Obj. Ans. A King of England why not as a husband to the people of England Ob. Answ. Of taking away the Kings life Ob. Ans. Of obedience for wrath and for conscience sake Tyrants in titles from whom Of our lawfull submission to a Magistrate who rules by Gods permissive will Ob. Ans. Obedience necessary to lawfull and unlawfull powers how different How we may have a right to take what another may not have aright to give The difference betwixt privat Title and publique Of possession Object Answer Of supream powers altering themselves by joynt concurrence How seperatly Ob. Ans. Demur p. 8. Of non obedience Ob. Ans. What time makes a form'd Government Obj. Ans. Our condition different from Israels betwixt David and Absalom Obedience to false Governours in the right or wrong Government varies not the sin of obedience Wherein Caesars case the Parl. disagree Wherein Cesars case the Parl. agree as to justifie our obedience Obj. Ans. In what senâ—â— the present submission 〈◊〉 legall Of the 〈◊〉 evidence of 〈◊〉 riâ—â—ts to as to satisfie conâ—â—â—eâ—ce for actions of wâ—r uâ—on them Ob. Ans. Object Demn p. 5. Ans. Obedience some times asserts not a Title but power They who obey a wrong authority râ—bbe not the riâ—hâ—â— Obj. Ans. Of the recovery of dubious Rights and the benefit which people get by most warres Obj. Answer The case of the Master of the Ship thrown over board Ob. Answ. Whether we be actually in the unsettlement deepes which he supposes When the whole body may be hazarded for a disperate remedy when not 1 Joh. 3.17 we are still obliged to many things of the Covenant but not qua league or Covenant Of promissory â—nd assertory Oathes VVhither a promissory Oath which alwaies involves a Tacite condition be lawfull Ob. Ans. Gen. 24.2.34 Of tacite conditions in Oathes concerning things possible The obligation of a pact or promise with an Oath or without an Oath is all one 1 Kâ—ngs 2 20. 21.22 1 Sam. 25.22 Jo. â— 10 Gen. 24.2.3.4 Argu. The Covenant a politicall or State Oath The subordinate conditions of this Oath Ob. Ans. Oâ— change of â—â—â—â—â—nment 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 cause or as an effect of â—â—â—hers forâ—â—â— breach of Covenant can â—â—â—her way authorize us to 〈◊〉 against this Government The Covenant obliges us not against the â—iâ—th Commandement Page 15. The Covenaâ—â— make 〈◊〉 eacâ— man a Magistrate Obj. Ans. Num 30. How a superiour may free an inferiour from â—n Oath even in that which belongs to God The difference btewixt this our league and those of Princeâ— for authorizing war The obligation of the Covenant how lesse then the obligation of a â—ra War how an unjust penalty for the meere breach of Covenant Object Ans. Of the obligation of such a promise as may be fulfill'd solely by the promiser Ob. Answ. Of the obligation for preserving the Kings person by covenant How the words of preservation in Covenant provided more for the Kings suffering then the words of punishment provided for Delinquents sufferings Ob. Ans. How 〈◊〉 that the excluding member ought to be brought by 〈◊〉 before the excluded Ob. Ans. The Coveant relates onely to a time of uâ—nion with and under the magistrate How the league of nationall union came to be ended Of bringing those who would divide us to condigne punishment The meaning of our utmost endeavours and of all the dayes of our lives in the Covenant The Covenant how more then broke by the Scots hostility Obj. Ans. whither the nationall breaking of one part of the Covenant put an end to the whole Ob. Ans. The Covenant of all oathes interprets itselfe least especially in the positive Government which it would establish and in Religion Though the Covenant were in Force yet a change of Government might be consistent with it How the Covenant necessarily points at some change of Government Scotch Presbytery fit for any Government but the kingly The judgement â—â— experience of Mary Queen of Scotland Of King Iames Of King Charles Vid. Scotch Declaration 27 July 1649. p. 14. Of the Prince Vid. Decla p. 8.10 Scotch proceed at the Hague with the Prince p. 14.15 The supream power in Scotland in whom How the Scots state the supremacy of England in Scotland How the Scotch Presbyterians ours oppose one another Two supremacies in the same place how inâ—â—â—sistent Whether atrue Title doth according to Covenant authorize obedience The King of â— Scotlands present case the actual change of Government there by their interpretation of the covenant Against Kings Page 18. Page 22. The interpretation of the Kirke is not recommendatory to the State The conclusion
by the way of war a circumstance no more necessary betwixt them then that in the marriage of two persons a Lawyer should come after the Minister hath conjoyn'd them and tell them in what cases they may again proceed to Divorce and after their Divorce what kinde of marriages they should make next Even so war is suppos'd in that case as well as Divorce in this But because War begins there where Law ends and reciprocally and hath nothing but necessity for its equity and that all the degrees of necessity cannot at first be foreseen nor where security may at the end of all be presum'd off therefore there neither is nor ever was any fixt rule in any Countrey what people should be bound to do at the end of a a VVar. I hope the Presbyterians neither of England nor Scotland intend to deny what all the world knowes that they concluded the King under the necessity of VVar as well as others who conjoyned with them and having stated his case there they of the Kirke long agoe frankly declared that he not satisfying for the blood of three Kingdoms was not to touch the Scepter any more but as Mr. Hinderson applyed in his Newcastle Conference the 4th of Hester 14. That if his Majesty reforme not according to their way he and no lesse then his Fathes House were to perish by which what could hee and they understand lesse then change of Government a thing why now so horrid for the other party to think on seeing they gave first intimation of it They joyntly declared that the King was not to judge any thing for himselfe nor upon what tearms his readmittance to simple liberty could stand with their security for his VVar when it ended as they said who imprisoned him continued the same necessity upon them which made them take Armes at the beginning Therefore they themselves concluded that nothing could be changed in the Kings concernment according to the old forme and constitution of the Kingdom which relates to a time of Peace and not to a time of War But the Nobility whom he here stiles illustrior pars populi concurred not to this change therefore it is formally and fundamentally unlawfull In the first place I understand not and I beleeve the Lords doe as little what he meanes by putting them into such improper Latine For they alwaies understand themselves to be rather of the two Comites Regis then partem populi and therefore as if they were an integrant part of the Kingdome form'd to themselves a separated House a Jurisdiction over the people lay as a Barre betwixt the King and them whether that power of their's had any congruity with the other supreame and Legislative rights of the people or no is not now the question but rather this Whether according to their mutuall engagements their rights of a separated house were rightly lost to the House of Commons or no This is by them affirmed and the state of Venice as profound Platonists deny the other for otherwise Noble men would be as difficulty reformed as Kings and therefore they rarely conferre illustrious Titles of Nobility on any but those who are in illustrious Offices things separable from persons by which meanes all Offices with them are questionable But to return that which according to themselves thus excluded the King by the same Logicke excluded the Lords and if they either directly or indirectly concurred to the ruine of the rest of the Kingdome then the argument runs strong that the House of Commons were bound to preserve it and that the rest rightly owe their whole protection under God to them But because I will suppose nothing here the argument of matter of fact must judge one as well as the other Wherefore if any will aske whether there was not a Warre undertaken last yeare very eminently dangerous to the whole Parliament and their Party the Army and Country Committees and that by the contrivance of the Royall Party here the Scots Nation in the North Ormond in Ireland it will be past denying Likewise whether the House of Lords in that extremity declared with the Commons that the Scots were Enemies to the Kingdome or upon the first or second request gave their Concurrence for Counties to arme themselves for their defence The â—oyce of all parties must needs say no So that that House undertook to act a part as dangerous to the rest of the Parliament as they did who were actually in Armes against their party every where And how then should they expect to bestill necessary to them and to their securities who had put them into such apparent extremity and necessities As for the exclusion of some Members of the house of Commons I hope the sincere Presbyterians wonder not at that act because the Kirk and State of Scotland was preserved by such an act last year and by the concourrence of the same meanes which did this here Yea though they who from thence invaded our Nation declared as much for the Covenant and Presbytery as the Kirke it selfe save only that the Kirke had the good luck to speake the last word They who sit at top in the State are tanquam in nubibus to the eyes of us of the People Wee know not how they manage their Counsels nor contrive their tranâ—actions that is best determined by and amongst themselves It is enough for us if they be of a number competent to act and be persons who enter by vertue of free Election and sâ—t in the legall place For in a case where five are chosen to a businesses and that any three of them are to be of the Quâ—rum though two of them be never so accidentally or violently detained yet what the other three doe is to all intents and purposes valid which is the present case By this Gentlemans favour we have an Axiome of Law which saith that in Partner-ship or Society as the Civill Law calls it when matter of extreme prejudice is agitated betwixt those who are of equall contribution either of Art or Mony then Potior est conditio negantis nothing ought in this case to be concluded against the negatives though fewer in number which was the Parliaments case when after the equall provocations of a Prince by Warre and imprisonment some of the same House thought he might have been securely readmitted into the Government again and others thought it evidently dangerous In this case the difference was as it were legall betwixt the Members but not to be decided any way but by force there being no other Tribunall to judge them and their house might not judge of it because there they were parties and judges a thing allowed no where and if otherwise then the major part might legally vote the other out of the house at pleasure But what was at last determined by any number above forty with the speaker in the legal place seemes not out of form to us of the people
supposes many which is sufficient to oppose this Gentlemans single judgement And if he be indeed a Presbyterian he hath already concluded as much in the last Kings case by concurring to invest his person with the accidents of Warre in detayning him prisoner at Holmby and Newcastle c. Thirdly I understand not what he meanes by Gods placing a Magistrate morally over us For God he is our Divine and supreame Magistrate our Parent is our naturall and domestik Magistrate and those who command the State wherein we are are our civill publique subordinate Magistrates under God and every particular man who is arrived to the maturity of reason is if any such be his owne morall or private Magistrate For the principle of a humane or morall action is a minde acting freely according to vertue and those lawes which are written within us But if by a morall Magistrate he meanes such a one only as is seated over us and hath a care that we live conformably to vertue and honesty in relation to others then it followes that whoever hath the capacity so to hold inspection over us is a sufficient Magistrate but that can onely be he under whose full possession we actually are Moreover he is to know againe that States cannot looke so strictly after vertue as after publique quiet For morall vertue is a private thing and by reason of the free concurrence of the will cannot be discovered certainely but by those who are able to look within a man But that which is ad alterum and concernes rather wrong then right belongs to the Politicall Magistrate as a thing which cannot without confusion have redresse otherwayes For the chiefe convenience of a State is that people might be kept from inconvenience or incommoding one another and that they may be conserv'd in a liberty to doe other good things according to Piety and honesty So that he who doth things in themselves good though under an unlawfull civill Magistrate doth not by those acts assert any Magistrates right but his only who originally gave Law and Rules for those internall acts and that is Gods right alone Lastly whereas in this argument he saith a Father of a family so abused should in his required submission sin if he betrayed his place and power which God had naturally given him I answer that there is a difference betwixt betraying a place so given and loosing it by force which indeed is his first supposition The one cannot be done without sin because it is done voluntarily and totally by himselfe but it is not our sin if we be forc't out of a place to which we are compelled by a principle without us and totally besides our power But there is a lawfuller power visible enough to religious eyes though for the present in an Ecclipse and suspended It is not lawfull for a man to marry another woman whilst his owne wife is in a sound or for a woman to marry another man whilst her husband is in captivity or restraint and willing to come to her if he might To this I answer First How knowes he certainely that the other power is onely in an ecclipse or suspended or if it be onely in an Ecclipse doth it follow that we of the People might not doe lawfull Actions by the suppliment of other lights whilst we cannot have that of the Sun Must we all that while cease to be men for the absence of that which we cannot help The Presybterian party would not have that understood so when the King was in prison at Holmby There be no more suns in the world but one but there are many Magistrates and such who give better light one then the other for which reason God first chose not Monarchy for the Jewes certainly in an Ecclipse the Sun is never out of his naturall Orbe though his light and influence may be suspended and intercepted from us but when a Prince is in a forraigne Country and lives under the Lawes of another Magistracy and that all Lawes and di stributions of Justice and Magistracy in the Country he pretends to are made without him and against him will you according to the Lawes of Nature Nations or Policy say he alone and in that condition is the supreame power or Authority of that Country or rather that we of the People do nothing but sinne in his absence though we do things in themselves lawfull If you will aske how he came to be out of his Orbe or Country I am sure it was against the advice either of Presbyterian or Independent It is easily granted That a man may not marry another woman so soone as his wife falls into a swound But you must againe be reminded that the nature of Marriage and of Government differ extreamly there where you suppose them most to agree For Marriage is not alwaies necessary to every particular man But the publique body of a people cannot be without Government one day no more then a man can be without a Head because a smalltime serves to the ruine of a man Secondly to take this or that woman to wife is a thing of free choice but it is not so alwaies with the People in relation to Kings who have many of them committed great Rapes upon them as I beleeve this Gentleman will acknowledge A Woman may not marry another Husband whilst her first is in Captivity and willing to come to her if he might These cases of Marriage still makes a very bad paralell with our present case For first we have been taught by all parties in this Warre that a King of England is not as a Husband to the People of England For a Husband is he who alone makes and abrogates the Laws of his owne Family as a right of his propriety which a King of England could not doe alone in this state Secondly where was this Prince ever Crowned by which this Author meanes solemnly married to this state where was the benedictio sacra the anointing or the Oath of Contract taken by him I am sure the Covenant hath made no provision for him To this purpose is that Argument in the grand case of Conscience viz. The Apostle commands Wives to submit to their Husbands surely quà Husbands not quà men But sheuld a stranger come to anothers Wife and caâ—l himselfe Husband having before either imprisoned or slaine the right full Husband and require submission surely though shee might hee forced yet it were a sinne to submit to him thus as a husband I answer to submit in Adultery is a plaine sinne but for a Woman to submit in lawfull things to the power of a stranger is no sinne though he please to call himselfe her Husband or exercise the Government of the Family There is the same mistake of Husband here as in the former so that the Argument built thereupon of it selfe fals to the ground But if by this he meanes that in matter of
Kings Death which was a consequence of the others breach and tamperings If by the Covenant we were indispensably obliged to preserve his Person How came it to passe that we were obliged by the same Couenant to wage warre against him I have heard of a distinction betwixt his power and his person but never of any betwixt his person and himselfe So that if the Covenant could have dispenced any souldier of England or Scotland to kill his person by an accident of Warre as his life was oft in danger before he came to the Scaffold his Death had beene violent and the obligation to preserve him had ended and yet according to this argument the Covenant had not been broken Why then should these men thinke the world so dull as not to understand plainly enough that the Covenant provided for his Death more wayes then one True it is that the Covenant held out a faint and a conditionall preservation of him and after all no man can sincerely stretch it further From whence if we will let him judge this one controversie he hath left it recorded to posterity in his suppos'd book Chap. 9. In vaine is my person excepted by a parenthesis of words when so many hands are armed against me with swords Moreover in His Chap. of the Covenant he feared it provided for him in a Logick too loose and circumstantiall From all which what did he conclude but that he would not allow of a Covenant-argument for his life I know the answer here is obvious that bullets were not shot directly against him as few are against any in a Towne or in a Battell and that if he would have withdrawne his person he should have beene out of danger but then I pray you what advantage had he in this by Covenant more then any common souldier of either side who when they retire are equally out of danger Nay he had lesse advantage For by preserving him they meant keeping him after he was rescued from others and by keeping him they meant not him primarily but something else to which all consideration of him was to give way As for others which were to be brought to punishment they had some of them leave to go beyond the Seas others to enjoy liberties at home and of all the excepted persons there was never any of them who was here deprived of life but as our troubles and warres increast their number which was strange lessen'd even to six or seven at last and most of those out of the Kingdome I know they have distinctions wherefore so much might be remitted to those and not to the King although he had on his behalfe the word preservation in the Covenant but these distinctions are but their strong justifications for that which is the bottome of this argument if all Covenanters durst speake plainly alike He objects p. 11. That if according to Covenant we should preserve the priviledges of Parliament against a Malignant party that would have taken away but five Members why not against an Heriticall party which took away above two hundred I answer That when the five Membere were in danger there was a Session of neere all the Lords and of all the Commons to authorize the People to bring others before them to condigne punishment But where is there now any Session of a supream power in this Land before whom we ought to bring the present Parliament under what formall supream Magistracy can we now cooperate or receive publique orders but from them who have commanded no such thing against themselves Lastly the Covenant makes not us private men Magistrates neither doth it authorize us to a war disertly as to a penalty Certainly he doth not meane that the remaining Members make no house because there are more now kept out then are admitted into it For would not such an Argument clearly determine that the house of Lords was never a house since the Major part followed the King under pretence that they durst not sit any longer at Westminster Or else if the â—itting of so many Members as are enough for a legall vote be illegall after others are forcâ—t away How shall we justifie that Session with a new speaker when the rest were forc't to the Armies protection from the Citizens servants and apprentices who forc't them and Indangerd their lives in the House Or how shall we justifie the house of Commons for sitting when the five Members durst not appear Though force should not be used without a desperate occasion be given in which case the preservation of the substance is alwaies above the consideration of a formality as hath bin argued by the Parliament ever since their first warres yet they know few or many sitters in the House is not a thing of our examination if they be above forty The second Demurrer p. 6. Objects that we have sworne by no terrour to withdraw our selves from this blessed union but to continuein it all our lives against all opposition If there were nothing else in the world yet these words sufficiently prove that we are now absolutely absolved from the Covenant for first they relate to a State and time of Vnion in which we were according to the united strengths of two Nations two Magistracies and of the respective Magistracies and People here enabled yea commanded to make great opposition against those who then were actually united in armes against the Parliament But now that we are supposed by these Authors to be dis-united as our enemies are and that the Magistracy is changed our state of subordination somewhat varyed that the Links of our former chaine are broken and that the Commons act alone without a King as the Lords Commons acted before without one and that the Scotish Nation by their invasion and their attempting to divide the King from us and us one from another by their declaration made preparatorily for division thereby to favour invasion afterward have in the face of all the world broken whatever was of Nationall union and Peace yea and all that which was of confidence betwixt our selves at home and which was yet more horrid in incouraging one principall Army in Ireland to fall off from the advantages it had against the bloody Rebells to turne their swords against the Parliament it selfe only out of a by end of ambition yea now that the war being ended we are to enter into an Vnion of cohabitation or in cooperation as they have done in Scotland it selfe with those who during their united hostilities occasiond our Nationall Union are we I say after all this in the selfe same Union which they at first hoped might have been continued to them us for all our lives That Union suppos'd the warre which then was with the rest of the circumstances and if we wish the same effect or Union now do we not thereby wish the same cause or warre againe amongst us as we were to oppose armes to armes
so union to union and certainly that Union of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms was at an end ever since the Scotch Army here received their money and returned home leaving the Delinquents of both Nations dis-united and clearly reduced to receive condigne punishment as the Covenant calls it at the respective judicatories of both Kingdoms and if it ended not then yet it could not bee consistent with their Declaration and divisions presently after and if not then yet I am sure it could not be consistent with their Nationall invasion and tampering to divide all in England and Ireland the effect whereof hath been a change of Government here and hath made them totally distinct forrainers to us The Demurrers premisses in this Argument by a new logick relate onely to a State of publique Vnion and his conclusion relates only to a State of publique dis-union of the consequences whereof the Covenant saith nothing at all in any Article It enjoynâ—s the bringing of Delinquents to condigne punishment and those private persons likewise among our selves who should helpe on either divisions amongst us or the invasion of either Nation first But whether should they be brought to punishment The Covenant answers Either before the respective judicatories of each Kingdome who onely have power to judge of what is Condigne or before no body It speakes likewise how we should unitedly venture our lives against the Enemy which then was it doth not or at least ought not to sweare us to get the better of them for ever nor that we should in a rout or dis-union end our lives against all opposition and without quarter If the termes of our utmost endeavours and all the dayes of our lives are to be understood litterally and that we must not survive any violation of the Covenant then why do these Gentlemen who conclude themselves in the State of the Covenant thus understood thinke of living till to morow The termes of forever or for all the dayes of our lives are not in our contracts to be understood naturally but morally For we finde it plainly in the Judicial law that after a Jew had taken a servant and bor'd a hole through his eare he was as the Text saith to serve him for ever although one of them might possâ—bly have dyed the next day and both of them after a while might have beene made captives to others The law calls the league of Marriage individua vitae consueâ—udo a câ—habitaâ—ion for all the dayes of our lives For so it should be ex voto contrahentiâ—m in the sincere desires of the contractors Yet we know one ordinarily dyes before the other and that many conditions may happen to legitimate their divorce afterwards though the contract was never so religiously made in the presence of almighty God at first The Scots in their late proceedings with their King at the Hague pag. the 6. interpret the words of utmost endeavour as morally as we doe here For the Commissioners of the Kirk said they us'd their utmost endeavours to save the Kings life according to Covenant but how They answer that it was in Papers messages Declarations Testimonies and Protestations onely they name not warre or bloodshed for they protested against that way last yeare as contrary to Covenant when the Parliament of Scotland invaded us and I hope for the reputation of the religion they professe they have not altered their publique commentary of that sacred Text contradictorily so soone To conclude Either wee are still in the Vnion of the end of the Covenant or we are not If we be in it then these breake the Covenant by seeking to dis-unite us If we be not in it where then is the Article for our private forming a warre upon it and under whom if not under our English supreame iudicatory and if they call us not out to revenge that which was more then a bare falling off from the Covenant last yeare amongst ourselves when the Scots exercis'd such high hostilities and were the first shatterers of all our frame which otherwise might by Gods blessing have cemented againe how durst these private trumpets sound the alarum and open the wounds of the Nations once more Though the respective iudicatory of that Kingdome now cannot make that which was once done undone Yet by the present punishment of the Kirke it is acknowledged that they hold the Covenant to have been more then nationally broken in regard of the harme and damage which was done to us after it was broken For there is a great deale of difference betwixt ceasing to helpe according to a league and acting hostily contrary to it especially when no such penalty is in such a league exprest betwixt the parties But you will object that if the Covenant were so broken in one or two points by them yet it doth not follow that the whole Covenant is broken thereby and dead in every part I have answered before that we are no longer obliged to any thing in it by the way of League and Covenant The reason here is because here in leagues everything is to be observed conâ—unctively otherwise all is broken which is so true and cleare that if we looke upon Gods league and Covenant with Israel we shall finde the same thing pronounc't there God said If yee keepe my Commandements I will be your God and will maintaine you in your plenty and in your Land Yet he said that if they broke any one Commandement in their part of Covenant they were guilty of all and that all should be at an end betwixt them just as St. Iohn in the conclusion of his Revelation saith Who ever shall diminish but one word of that Booke defaceth the whole and looseth the whole benefit which he might expect thereby in the holy City by vertue of the second Covenant It is asserted that there is no clause in any Oath or Covenant which in a common sence forbids obedience to a present Government To this the grand case of Conscience answers That the Covenant engages to another Government therefore it forbids obedience to this and Oathes ought to bee their owne interpreters Here he at first begs the question whether the Covenant can now engage us or no seeing it hath beene proved that that which is now nothing cannot now engage us to any thing and conseqently our submitting to and acting under the present Government cannot be contrary to Covenant because things which are contrary one to the other must have actuall being together at the same time But the very being of this Government supposes the nullity of the Covenant whose death as it was other where contrived before gave life to that mutation here afterwards Secondly Though the Covenant were still valid and in force yet when we were sworne to it first it found us actually out of that Government here pointed at viz. Of King Lords and Commons For that is the supreame Government of a Country which makes