Of these in Order.

First, in regard of the Assembly, you seeme very lowly to complement with giving them the incommunicable Title of the Pope, [With Reverence to the holy Assembly] if this were not a complea ent, you would not so under­value their Exhortation to be unsatisfactory; and indeavour to the utmost of your power to confute and scrone them: to judge them for Hypocrites, or the like, as I shall hereafter let you see, that you may consider with what brotherly charity or conscience you have accused them.

Secondly, in regard of your Propositions or Questions which your con­science makes, I may speak of your conscience, that I perceive that she hath many children; all passions and conceptions of the soule I see are father'd on her, she is like the word King, which even Papists pretend to defend, that thereby they may defend themselves: howsoever since your conscience de­sires to know what Act it is that hath taken away the life and soule of this Government, I answer, It was the Act which put down the High-Commis­sion-Court, and disinabled any Bishop to Gove [...]ne by Chancellours, &c. This was done by the consent of the King, as also to dispossesse them for sitting in the H [...]nse of Lords: this to satisfie your first Question.

Secondly, your conscience questions or rather argues, That Bishops are but of humane constitution, is disputare non ex concessis, and is a Question [Page 23]which hath beene much controverted, but nor determined. I answer, though it hath not beene determined by the Popes, yet Bishop Jewell hath determined Bishops not to be Jure divine; Bishop Hall in his first humble Remonstrance confesseth as much in these words, or to this effect. The Church is glorious without Bishops, but more glorious with Bishops. And if you like not these determinations, you know that Calvin hath determined that Bishops are not of divine constitution. Germany in many parts are of the same opi­nion, the Low-Countreys, and the Reformed Church of Scotland hath quite exploded them, and our King hath confirmed their Determinations: And now I may adde, our Assembly hath so determined, and the State decreed in England, that they are not to be holden either jure divi [...], or jure humano. I am informed that it was treason for a Bishop to hold his Bishoprick but by the Crowne of England, which he needed not to doe, if he were a Bishop jure divino; this to answer your second Question.

Third Question, That we of the Clergy which have sworne for Bishops, should sweare against them? I answer, We sweare to the Bishops as wee sweare to the Lawes of the Land, untill they be altered; to sweare other­wise, were to sweare against the Priviledges of Parliament: and therefore it is but a conceit to judge this an Oath ex diametro [...], or a crosse Oath, for those that made this Oath, care neither for Crosses nor Cratches, which were used in a Popish manner: let not this Oath be crosse to you, which may advance the Crosse of Christ; for what will Doctrine without true Discipline prevaile, for want whereof, the Church hath beene kept in all the deadnesse, and darknesse, and corruptions, which to preserve, so many contend for, as is lamentable. The Bishops may be compared to the Bra­seni Serpent, which some thought was politique good, yet was soone abused; and this I dare affirme, that it is absolutely against the Word of God, that Arch-Deacons and Chancellours, &c. should have power from Bishops, to them derived, and the Ministers made cyphers; all that I conceive in the Superiority in the Church Government, as some say, is to be the head of a Presbytrie, by which Timothy was ordained, but I find no such Episcopacy which you contend for: this for Answer to the third Question. The third thing unspoken of, Is your Resolution, to judge it better way to sweare not to sweare at all. Sir, I hope you speake not in good earnest: if you doe, then you are far mistaken concerning your Re­solution: and secondly, I am mistaken concerning my opinion of you. For First, You are mistaken, &c. It is now a time of Judgement, therefore we ought to enter into a Covenant, and sweare for Reformation and Union amongst us, and so seeke God to divert the judgement, 2 Chron. 15. Neb. 9. Least therefore you should mistake your selfe, if you should with some not [Page 24]desire to sweare out of pollicy to prevent, to be ingaged in the Cause: Alas, that is not the way to discharge a good conscience, or secure your selfe, for now Newtrality stinkes in the nostrills of God and man, and Mer [...]z Curse will not be with-holden: thus you mistake your self if you refuse to swear. Secondly, I am much mistaken concerning you, for I thought you had not favoured the opinion of the Anabaptists and Manichies, [...]. [...]3. [...]an. who refuse to sweare, Zanchius saith, that Grati [...]n wrireth, Damnantur a Christo & Apostole juramenta temeraria, quae vulgo habentur in coll [...]quiis, non [...]a quae coram magi­stratu habentur. Our Saviour forbids common and idle swearing in our or­dinary talke, and upon sleight occasions: but hee forbids not the lawfull [...]se of an Oath before a Magistrate, and are not the Parliament Magistrates, nay, supreme Judicatory. And doe you not remember it is the Doctrine of the Church of England, that you must sweare when the Magistrate impo­seth an Oath? therefore doe not sweare that you will sweare no more which to doe, is a high blasphemy against Gods prerogative, which com­mands us to sweare, and therefore you must not sweare, not to sweare. ‘Thus Sir you see, that I have answered every Scruple which you have rai­sed concerning the Covenant, and this I thought had been all that you desired, but I finde (contrary to my expectation) that you have underta­ken the confutation of the Exhortation, which the Divines made for the taking of the Covenant: and further to speake your pleasure of them and the Sco [...]s, and to interpret the actions of the King, and in the midst of all this, you raise a prevalent Scruple: therefore in regard all the latter part of the writing is not composed with method and order as the former part was, I will answer you in this order.’

• First, Shew your Criminations or accusations.
• Secondly, Answer your Scruples raised against the Exhortation.
• Thirdly, Thresh your sheafe (for so you call it) in which as in one bun­dle you binde up all together.

First therefore to speak of your Criminations or Accusations either di­rectly against the Assembly and Scots, or by consequence against the King. I east you may thinke I should wrong you, I will write your owne words, which I would have passed by without observation, but that you ground all to be done upon conscience, and therefore you refuse the Covenant; to proceed therefore concerning you [...] Crimination, thus you write.

The Satisfaction which is offered to that Scruple touching the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, [...]ddy.is scarce satisfactory, If it be pleaded saith the Exhortation, that this Covenant c [...]osseth the Oath of Allegiance and Suprem [...]cy, there can he nothing fu [...]ther from truth, for the Covenant bindes all, and more strongly to preserve the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true [Page 25]Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdome. Bona verba, of which I may say as Isaac, The voyce is Jacobs voyce, but the hands are the hands of Esau, for how can my conscience be satisfied of this Scruple, when I in Words seeme to defend his Person, and yet in Action seeme to destroy his Person by taking up or approving of Armes taken: The sonne that said to his father I goe sir, and went not, was judged no better, if not worse, then his peremptory bro­ther, that gave bad words but good actions.

Of all which words of your owne, before I speake of them, I modest­ly intreate you remember your former words,M. K [...]y [...] where you acknowledge God the searcher of the heart, that you write all in good conscience, and in all integrity, &c. if so, with what conscence could you salute the Assembly with these words, [With Reverence to that holy Assembly] and yet in this place apply against the Assembly the jearing words of Da­ [...]us, which you know how Schoole-boyes expound. And seem to ac­cuse them of deceit, [The voyce is Jacobs voyce, but the hands are the hands of Esau] To give occasion of murther, as by accusing your selfe, you seeme to accuse them by this your Application, [How can my conscience be satisfied, when I in words seeme to defend his Person, and in action I seeme to destroy his person. You judge them guilty of dissimulation, to apply the Parable against them, of him that said, Sir, I goe, and went not. Can you speake all this, and yet thinke or call them a holy As­sembly; remember that in your Appeale, you say that God, and not you (Mr. Oddy) is the searcher of the hearr; how then conceive you an accusation or evill sentence of condemnation, against the Assembly, whom you call with a new stile, Holy. Take heed the Proverb be not applied against you, uno ore c [...]lidu [...] ac frigidum afflare, I wish you had not over-shot your selfe, or shot at some other Mark, or that you could excuse your selfe as Paul did, when he said, He wist not, or as the word will carry it, I did not consider that he was the high Priest: so you did not consider that the Assembly are Reverend, as you did complement; for they are no fit Object of scorn: thus much of your Accusation of the the Assembly.

Secondly, And if your conscience could dispence so to prevaricate against the Assembly of Divines, yet with what good conscience can you call the Scots our Deare Brethren, and yet first declare that their good successe was no warrantable Argument for the like future Pra­ctises, as you write, these are your words.

For that of our Brethren of Scotland, Exempla illustrant non probant,M. Od [...] neither is present successe a warrantable Argument for the like future practises. But it is said that the King in Parliament, Adjudged that our Deare Brethren [Page 26]in Scotland, had done as good Subjects; Princes favour vouchsafed to their people, should rather promote affection, and good will of their Subjects, then incourage them to disobedience.

Here is like future practices which you sweare to condemne, which me thinkes contradicts your owne words;M. Kaye in that you say, That the King in Parliament declared that they had done nothing amisse, which if they had not done, me thinks your conscience should bid you be silent in this which concerns you not, (being a private man) to med­dle with the whole State of a Kingdome, as your conscience bids you before to speake concerning your owne particular.

The Act of Oblivion so limits all discourse of this nature, and your Protestation bindes you, together with the Law of the Land, that I cannot but wonder how you could speake these words, [Princes favour should rather promote affection and good will to their Subjects, then encourage them to disobedience:] Thus far of your Crimination against the Scots.

But if confidences, passion, or want of true Information might [...]c­casion you to uncover your Brethrens nakednesse, yet with what good conscience could you speake these words of the King; that his Act by you must be thus interpreted in these words.

This was a favour vouchsafed rather to appease the Tumult, then approve of their actions. M. Oddy

If there were a Tumult raised, it was occasioned by the thundering of New Canons, M. Kaye. and breaking of the Lawes, which his Majesty well per­ceiving, made such an Act as might secure Subjects of their Liberties and Religion; and therefore did justly cast out the troublers of Israel: the movers of the Tumult having a more pious then polliticke end in what they did though you doe not seeme so clearely to apprehend it.

This which you speake, (if said by some other) would savour of Sedition and Disloyalty, but I spare you, though you may see against whom you have shot your bolt, if at the Head: Thus far of your cri­minations.

Secondly, according to promise to speake of your Scruples, one whereof is,

That the Oath of Allegiance seemes to bee much straitned by this Cove­nant, M. Oddy &c.

The Oath of Allegiance is not straitned but strengthned by the Co­venant, for it sweares us ad legem, M. Kaye. which the King sweares unto; and if any command should come forth contrary to the Law, our perform­ing of it were not obedience but disobedience; as if one that hath not taken Orders, should Baptize and Administer the Sacrament, though [Page 27]the action (lawfully done) be good, yet otherwise it is not obedience but disobedience to the Law. To take this Covenant bindes us to the Parliament, which preserves both King and Law, and so it streng­thens the Oath of Allegiance.

In the Protestation, in the first place we sweare to defend the Kings person and Authority before the Priviledges of Parliament, according to that of Peter,M. Oddy. Be Subject to the King, as Supreme: Here the Order is inverted to the King as Inferiour.

This Scruple may more properly be called a Cavill th [...]n a Scruple;M. Kaye. if you will contend for words, you know what Gato saith, Conira ver­bosis noli— To answer you therefore, If naming the Parliament before the King, preferre them before him as you would seeme to pretend: then I aske you, what thinke you Christ meant when he said, Give un­to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods? Did Christ in thus placing the words preferre Caesar before God? be­cause he named Caesar first, seeing the Apostle saith, It is better to obey God then man.

That Scruple that is done without the Kings consent, is very prevalent, M. Oddy and seemes scarcely removed by the present Instances of that of the Protestation, where it is said, that his Maj [...]sty did not except against it; argues rather the lawfu [...]n [...]sse of that: and this to be so much the more unlawfull, by how much his Majesty opposeth.

Though this may seem to be a prevalent Scruple in your judgement,M. Kaye in regard that you say, That the Assembly could scarcely remove it; and secondly, in regard by your Argument you desire to uphold it, yet I am incouraged to encounter with it; and by another Argument, which if it prove stronger, I hope that which the Assembly hath scarce­ly removed, with a little more help may bee quite removed out of your fancy.

My Argument which I draw from the very same words you raise your Argument, is this.

Every one hath Right and Liberty for what hee doth, not to aske anothers consent, least he betray his owne Liberty.

But the Parliament hath right and Liberty with asking consent of the King, to make the Protestation the 5. of May, Ergo, the Parliament ought not to aske consent of the King or of any other for making the Protestation the 5. of May, least they should betray their owne Liber­ties and Priviledges: here followes the second Argument.

If the Parliament had liberty and priviledge to make the Protesta­tion [Page 28]the 5. of May, without consent or approbation, then they had liberty to make the Covenant.

But they had priviledge to make the Protestation the 5. of May, Er­go, They had liberty to make the Covenant, without asking consent or approbation of any.

Therefore you see that your Argument is grounded upon a sandy foundation, That the Exhortation affirming that the Protestation was made without the Kings consent, argues the Authority of the Parlia­ment, in regard the King did not object, and that there was no diffe­rence then betweene the King and the Parliament; therefore if they had apprehended a necessity of his Approbation, they would have had his Confirmation. And if he had conceived, then that they had done it Illegally, and against his Priviledge, the King must needes have ob­jected against it, though it had beene never so good: Therefore that the Parliament did not aske the Kings consent, nor the King did not pleade, that it not could be lawfull without his consent, s [...]an absolute Argument which satisfies my conscience, That both the Covenant and Protestation are Legally made. And therefore in regard the King did not oppose it, it is a prevalent Argument that the King knew it was the Parliaments Priviledge, and therefore they did not aske his con­sent, nor he did not oppose against them. But you say now the King objected: I answer, It is more then I know, yet I know there are some that objects against the being of the Parliament it selfe, though by Law it is established, and yet I heare the King acknowledgeth them to be a Parliament, whereby he confesseth their Liberty, (as I conceive) to make an Oath or Covenant, as they made the Protestation the 5. of May. To prove the validity of your Scruple, which you thinke so prevalent, consider further.

Mr Oddy, Did you after you were made a full Minister ask liberty to Baptize, or if you should aske any mans consent, would it not argue you were not a full Minister: or must a Tenant ask his Landlords con­sent to goe into his house, or to repaire it, after hee hath made him a Lease of it, untill the Lease be expired: Then Mr. Oddy, if you confesse those Instances to be good, then you must needs confesse that the Par­liament asking no consent of the King, in the Protestation of the 5. of May, and in making the Covenant, is a strong Argument, that it was their Right and Priviledge to make the Protestation, the King not objecting: As it is an Argument that a man is a Tenant of a house, when his Landlord which oweth the house no way objects against him, [Page 29]nor labours to dispossesse him, in such a Case, silence is an Argument of consent or approbation, of possessing a mans right, &c. The King therefore being silent at the making of the Protestation the 5. of May, is an Argument that the Par­liament had power to make that Protestation, and then I am sure they have power to make this Covenant. That Nehemi­ah and Ezra had commission (as you say) for all they did, hath no ground out of Gods Word, for the people complain, Neh. 9.36, 37. Behold we are servants this day: and for the Land which thou gavest unto our Fathers, we are servants in it, and it yeeldeth much increase unto the Kings which thou hast set over us, because of our sins; Also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle at their pleasure, and we are in great distresse; and because of all this we make a sure Covenawt. You see then that because the people were under oppression of Kings, their Magistrate Nehemiah made a Covenant; so then there was no consent of the King in that place. Neither doe I finde in 7. of Ezra (as you pretend) any commission gi­ven to Ezra concerning a particular Covenant: For it were strange if a Heathen King should grant a commission against himselfe, or to approve of their Religion. Howsoever, I say, we have more liberty then Nehemiah or Ezra, for wee have a Parliament and Assembly, Magistrates and Ministers con­vened together for Reformation of Church and State; to pre­serve our Liberties, Lawes, and Religion, above all to be pri­zed. They were under the subjection of a heathenish King, bound to performe no Covenants with them; we have his Majesty sworne to rule by his Lawes, and therefore we have a great occasion to make a Covenant.

One thing yet remaines in Answer to your Scruples, which is the third and last particular, which you call the binding up of your Sheafe.

So then to bind up this Sheafe.

• First, Because I am ignorant what their Discipline is.
• Secondly, Because it seemes to maintaine a changeable Doctrine, and change­able Discipline.
• [Page 30]Thirdly, It sweares the preservation and Reformation of the same Doctrine.
• Fourthly, Because it seemes to impugne the former Protestation.
• Fifthly, Because it seemes to bring me within the compasse of perjury.
• Sixthly, Because the King is not onely not consenting, but reciting, there­fore, my conscience th [...] informed, bindes and bids me forbeare to sweare.

Though this your Sheafe be stuffed with severall Gleanes which you have gathered together out of your former Scru­ples already answered,M. Kaye. I cannot doe lesse then tell you, that in this your last Muster, you doe but ralley up your scatte­red company of Malignant Scruples, either to strengthen your Cause, or at least with this your last volley to continue to alarum the Countrey people, (too long seduced or misled) with the great report of the number of six Scruples: and that there is no such cause either hereby to affright them, or confirme them in Malignancy, I desire to set a true Cha­racter upon the head of every one of them.A true Character of M. Od. Scruples. The first or Captaine of these six Scruples, is Ignorance, which led you out of the way; which ignorance must needs be either purae negationis, or pravae dispositionis, either of which, Countrey people, and not Ministers may most tollerably pretend. The second is a conjecture without cause. The third is an offence where no offence is committed. The fourth is a slander, accusing the Covenant to oppose his most dearest Brother or Protestation, for whose defence it was made. The fifth is grosse untruth, which all the world may know it by. The sixth is Faction or sedition, to suggest accusation of a breach betwixt the King and the Parliament, whereby you make your selfe the Judge, and condemnes the Judges of the King­dome, or the Highest or supreme Judicatory. But least you may thinke I be too short with you by way of Recapitulati­on, I returne you a more particular, though short answer.

• First,
  [...]
  to informe your ignorance concerning the Scottish Government, that you might not therefore Scruple; we swear I conceive the approbation of it, onely as it is directly or by just consequence agreeable to the holy Word of God.
• Se­condly, [Page 31]That there is no changeable Doctrine nor Discipline by us to be thought of, so far as essentiall parts of Discipline and Doctrine is to be approved of; the Covenant grounds all out of Gods holy Word, which is unchangeable.
• Third­ly, That Preservation and Reformation of Doctrine implies contradiction, I answer, It doth no more oppose, then to sweare to preserve a house, and sweare to set a prop under it when it is ready to fall.
• Fourthly, That the Covenant doth not impugne the Protestation, I must againe tell you it wa­made to defend it.
• Fifthly, That by swearing to the Cove­venant, you should be perjured, is so grosse an untruth, that you having taken the Protestation, will be perfidious if you oppose the Covenant.
• Sixthly, That the King is resisting I acknowledge, (if there should bee just cause for it) this might be a Scruple; for the clearing therefore of this Doubt, I answer, That though it be proved that the King doth resist the Covenant, the Scruple will be of no more force, (except the Covenant of it selfe were evill,) then the Kings resisting Daniel for praying, or the Apostles for
  [...]
  Preaching to be evill. You shew no cause, nor I know none, why the King should resist the Covenant, which in respect of the King is full of Loyalty; seeing in the preservation of the Refor­med Religion, it sweares to assist the King.

Againe, I know nothing in the Covenant, whether it be extirpation of Prelacy, Popery, &c. but the King ei­ther hath done it in Scotland, or professed it in England.

Thirdly, I answer, If the King doe resist, the Parliament is resisting, for untill the Parliament be dissolved, the King cannot resist the Parliament, no more then the Head doth the Members.