HAving with much sorrow beheld how the divisions and troubles of this torne and dis-joynted King­dome, have been continued even when we had good hopes that they were drawing to a period: Look­ing into the cause, this hath been observed to be none of the least, that all parties have laboured to uphold their owne Interests, by endeavouring to weave in Religion and Conscience, with a designe which they were driving on.

This practise appeares no where more then in the use that is made of the Nationall Covenant, which being a long Oath, and abounding with ambiguous expressions, may, by any party in the Kingdom be ea­sily construed to countenance their undertakings.

The observation hereof hath invited a search into this question, Whether this Nationall Covenant be agreeing for matter with those Co­venants which we read of in Scripture? or whether it have those quali­fications which according to Gods word ought to be in every Oath?

The Covenants which we read of in Scripture made by Asa, Ne­hemia and others, were wholly or mostly for seeking God, for hum­bling their soules under the sense of sinne, and for a reformation of their lives. But look upon our Covenant and (except a little at the latter end) it is stuffed with matter of Polity! Government! Rights! Priviledges! Liberties! and a many other matters, savouring more of earth then heaven, and more likely to perplex the conscience with doubts, then to strengthen and further a pious soule that seekes it's owne cleansing and reformation, and to close with the Lord Christ for strength and assistance hereunto.

Hence it commeth to passe (as was before said,) that all Parties have laboured to countenance their actions with this cloake, Their Covenant. In the late invasion of the Scots under Duke Hamilton, [Page 2]what brought them in, but Their Covenant? As you may see by their Declaration. The risings in severall parts of this Kingdome this last Summer 1648. It was (as they said) to pursue the ends of their Covenant, And how many that have stood out against the Parliament, have done it (as they said) in pursuance of their Covenant.

Let us therefore look into Gods word, and see what qualificati­ons, we find there required in every Oath that is pleasing to God: Let us consider what the godly and learned have written on this sub­ject, and then (without any pretending to a new light) we shall easily discover how peccant this long Oath is, against all Rules laid down by all Protestant writers old and new.

The ordinary qualifications of an Oath are these, that it be taken, in Truth, in Judgement, in Righteousnesse, collected from Jeremiah, 4.2. Isay 48.1.

First in Truth, That is, of such things as we will performe, and are fully resolved seriously to put in practise.

Secondly, Therefore we must swear in Judgement. We must well and throughly understand what we swear unto, An Oath must not have ambiguous expressions in it, for then how shall we sweare in Judgement?

And thirdly, we must swear in Righteousnesse, that is, we must not bind our selves to ought, but what is just and righteous, and may stand with the honour of God, and the good of them that fear him.

Now examine the severall Articles of our Covenant, and let him that takes it, weigh the expressions he there meets withall, (as he ought to do before he takes an Oath) and he shall soon see how dis­agreeing those Articles are with these Rules.

Our first qualification is to swear in Truth, Then bring the fourth Article of our Nationall Covenant to this qualification, And I aske him that takes the Covenant, whether he intend to complaine of, or dis­cover to some in Authority, all MALIGNANTS, and all that shall be so (Those are the words of the Article.) If he purpose seriously to do as he there swears, if he be one who frequents much company, I dare assure him he may begin in January and hold on till December and do no other businesse.

Besides, let the practise of our Covenanters speak for them, and I aske any man who hath sworn this Covenant how many Malignants he hath discovered since he tooke it? Is it because he never came [Page 3]in company of such, that he hath discovered few or none? He is one then that mewes himselfe up in his closet, and avoids the sight of the most.

But here it is worth the time to observe what hard shifts they study up to excuse the breach of their Oath. One sayes, that by Malignant is not understood, he that railes or speakes evill of the Parlia­ment, but he that plots and contrives against them.

Answer, 1. Are not words the discovery of mens minds? 1 Answ. And are not words punishable by all lawes of God and man? Doe not all Common-Weals punish an offender in words? Nay even between private men, a wrong in words requires satisfacti­on, much more words that are against the publick well-being of the State.

Answer, 2. 2 Answ. If men are not to be discovered untill they plot and act, it is then like that it is too late to discover such, and indeed contrary to the intent of a discovery, which is to pre­vent them that may plot and act, not to lay open them that do act, for they have discovered themselves, therefore he that by his speech declares himselfe Malignant, must be here comprehended.

A second Shift used to evade this Article, is, of some that run to the first words of the Covenant. And say that this discovery is to be made of every one in his place and calling, but (say they) it is not my place and calling, therefore it concerns not me.

Answer, 1. 1 Answ. Either it is every mans duty to make this discove­ry, (who takes this Oath) or else no mans duty, if any mans duty, why not thine as well as another mans, since thou hast sworn to do it.

Answer, 2. If it belong not to thy place to do it, 2 Answ. then thou swearest to an Impertinency, And so takest the name of God in vaine, and breakest the third Commandment. As that reverend man M. Ley of Budworth a member of the Assembly, hath wel ob­served in his booke (against the Oath of the new Cannon) called Defensive doubts. &c. Printed for G. Lathum 1641. Thus we see how miserably we intangle our selves by swallowing such large promises as these are. But to proceed.

Secondly, in relation still to this qualification of Truth in an Oath, I demand of thee who takest this Oath, if thou darest make so many promises to any friend (especially thy Superiour, and [Page 4]one with whom thou desirest to keep credit with) as thou mak­est here to the great God! Darest thou make such a friend so many promises as will fill a sheet of paper, and that of different matters, heterogeneall? And wilt thou do so with God as thou darest not doe with man? Is it probable that this Oath should be sworn in truth?

By this one instance given in this one particular, in one Ar­ticle you may guesse what may be said to the rest, if all the Articles and the severall expressions in them should be examined by these three qualifications, of Truth, Judgement, and Righteous­nesse. So that this tract would swell into a volume, if instan­ces should be given in the severall particulars, but I shall leave that to be done by those men in their privacy who make it a matter of Conscience, to consider and weigh before-hand what they promise either to God or man, and account it a sin to be rash with their mouth in uttering before God matters of such difficulty (if not impossibility) to performe, as this long promis­sory Oath containes. Observe well that of Eccles. 5.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

I shall therefore only give some hints to helpe the conscien­cious Christian in bringing some other of the particulars in the Covenant to the Test, and so passe over what might be further urged in this way.

Therefore for the second qualification of an Oath, viz. swea­ring in Judgement: Let these expressions bee examined, viz. Popery, Superstition, Heresie, Schisme,, Incendiaries, evill Instru­ments, &c. Art. 2. and 4. Hath Authority given us any definition of these? if not, how shall we sweare in Judgement? If any man conceive these expressions so cleare and plaine that they need no further Declaration; he seems to me like him that re­ceived the mony of the Usurer without telling it, because hee took no regard of re-payment; but he which intends to per­forme, will weigh the particulars of his promise.

And to returne to a booke before mentioned, made by Mr. Ley (whom his writings give me cause to esteem a conscientious man). I finde there, words not so large as these, and yet made an occasion of doubt, when we are to confirme it by Oath, as Doubt. 4. pa. 32. the word Popish doctrine, which I am sure is not so large as the word Popery in the second Article of the Co­venant.

[Page 5] And indeed that book is a consutation of our Covenant, be­fore the Covenant was penned, and therefore thither I shall di­rect the conscientious Reader for his fuller satisfaction, Muiato nomine de te fabula narratur; you will finde enough in that honest mans book to confute all or most of the Articles of our Covenant.

Indeed I have heard that good man hath since endeavoured in a later booke of his, to excuse our Protestation from those objections that were raised against the Canonicall oath, by shewing a vast difference between those two, Reall differences, and Personall differences, &c. And it may be he may likewise bee as willing to excuse our Covenant that way, for I heard that he tooke it; but though he shew us a thousand substantiall diffe­rences, if he cannot afford us those three qualifications, which ought to be in every oath (though he may excuse à tanto) I am sure he can never free it à toto, from the just charge of being an unlawfull Oath.

Let me here adde one Argument which was hinted me in the large Remonstrance of the Army of Novem. 16. 1648. at page 54. And it runs thus:

1. Argument; Such an Oath as heaps together severall distinct inte­rests, which are, or may come to be inconsistent, is an unlawfull oath.

But such is the Nationall Covenant.

Ergo, Unlawfull.

And a second Argument resulting from the matter preceding, which will run thus:

2. Arg. Such an Oath as cannot be taken in judgement, is unlawfull:

Such is our Covenant. Ergo, Unlawfull.

3. And so a third Arg. for Truth. And a fourth for Righteous­nesse, all which appeare plaine enough, and strong enough a­gainst our Covenant.

Object. But here some may Quaere, Object. how such an Oath was passed (especially with such generall approbation of the godly party) if there were so much sinne in it? How came it to passe that it was not look'd into, it passing so many hands, and being promoted by men so religious, and so eminent, men of so able parts, so industrious, &c. as any the Kingdome afforded.

1 Answer, That if it had come from, 1. Answ. or beene tendred by a suspected party; or had those promoted it who were no friends [Page 6]to Piety (as in the former Oath, viz. that of the new Canons) it would then have been questioned, and every word and sentence weighed; but comming out of the house of our friends, and specially taking its rise from Scotland (as was conceived) who were then lookt upon as the greatest promoters of Piety, and the Reformation in hand, and that Church esteemed one of the purest in the world; hence it took with us so generally.

What esteem any thing from Scotland had with us at the be­ginning of this Parliament, may appear by the confluence of such multitudes to their Commissioners, and to all Sermons made before them. A Sermon before them by a Scotch-man, pro­cured more Auditors, then three Congregations of the ablest men in London, had the place been capable of entertainment.

And how likely any thing wherein the Scots appeared, was to take with the people, you may see by that order of Parliament of Septem. 25. 1643. wherein it was ordered that Ministers should give notice to the people that the Commissioners of Scotland now here did take this Covenant, implying (as it seems to me) that this would be an inducement to the people to take it too. This order is Printed with some copies of the Covenant.

And this I conceive to be one reason that it was swallowed so easily.

A second reason might be this, It is well knowne that the stream ran then so violently, that no other construction would be admitted of any mans refusing the Covenant, but Malignancy: Now they who had so long groaned under Episcopall Tyranny ab­horred the very suspicion of being a friend to that side, so stuck at nothing that was offered as a medium to bring on the desired Reformation, especially such an Oath as promised to lead directly thereto.

2. 2. Answ. Answ. But yet secondly, the agreement was not so general as is supposed, for it stucke, and found opposition, and was dis­puted against even in the Assembly at Westminster, where it was first to passe, however the cry of those that were for it was so loud (for reasons before mentioned) that they who lookt into the evill of it more then the rest did, could not be heard.

Dr. Burgesse was the first man who openly desired and urged a Covenant to be entred into, insomuch as he made a whole Ser­mon [Page 7]to bring it on, preached to the House of Commons, Nov. 17. 1640. upon that text, Jer. 50.5. which is to be seen in Print, yet when the good man came to see what a Covenant was ren­dred them [all bestuft with self-ish interests, he was the first man that oppos'd it in the Assembly; but this being taken very hai­nously, he and Mr. Price another of this Assembly, were upon their refusall to take this Covenant, both suspended the Assem­bly, and in all probability had been suspended their calling and Ministry, had they persistent, so furiously was this businesse driven on at that time: In the mean time they are lookt upon as hainous offenders, and their names transmitted into the Country in every scurrilous Mercury, as the onely enemies of so good a worke. Being in this strait, they addresse themselvs to the Par­liament, and make humble Petitions, but could not be heard, so that at last, they give over contending, and upon their sub­mission were re-admitted to fit in the Assembly.

Besides divers godly men, seeing the snare, and no way to a­void it, withdrew and obscured themselves for a time, for they knew no other way to avoid that odious imputation of Mulig­nants, which they must needs contract by refusing, and there­fore gave place to that impetuous torrent for a time, according to that counsell, curr [...]ti cede Furori. They remembred there might come a time wherein they might bee usefull to the Church of Christ, but for the present saw little probability of prevailing against that popular stream, which in all likelihood should they have opposed it, would have overborne them.

And the like violence was continued for a long time after, inso­much as no Minister was suffered to passe the Assembly, unlesse he would take the Covenant. Nay those that bare sway of the Presbyterian party endeavoured to bring it to this, That who ever would not sweare that cast promissory Oath, should have no employment in Church or Commonwealth; so zealot are ma­ny men, that what they have swallowed themselves, should with out questioning be received by all others.

Which rigid carriage of those of the Presbyterian party, what can it be stiled else, save a wicked Lording it over the consciences of their Brethren.

1 I doe not charge this upon the Presbyterian Government, [Page 8]as having cause to think well of it, for that the Churches of Christ have long thriven under that Government, in many Kingdomes. But it is to be imputed to the uncharitablenesse of some in place then acting, who were more zealous in promo­ting the inventions of man, than the wayes of God, and who could be content that a godly Minister, though sound and Or­thodox, should yet be deprived of the use of his Calling (and consequently of subsistance for himself and family, and so be ex­posed to beg) because he cannot submit to swear a long Oath of a sheet of paper, of another mans pening: such an harshnesse as was not exceeded by the persecuting Prelates.

2 Neither is it intended that what is here spoken against the Covenant should weaken the endevours of any who have taken the Covenant in labouring to perform what they have sworn, that is, for so much of it as is feazible, and righteous, for I con­ceive them bound by it, (and so in a snare,) and God will not be mocked, Pay what thou hast Vowed, Eccles. 5.4.

But the uses which I intend of this Tract, are these:

• 1 To shew them that have taken this Oath, their sinfull rash­nesse, to bind themselves to impossibilities,
• 2 That those of my Brethren the Ministery, who are so fierce in pressing the Covenant upon all occasions, (as Mr. Jenkin of Christ-Church London, and divers others) may bee remembred, first, to take into consideration what a snare they lead men into; and secondly, what they have done toward Covenant-keeping themselves?

And however they and some others have studied up favoura­ble Interpretations of the Covenant, to still the obloquie of them that discern the evill of it, yet I desire them to consider what the forementioned M. Ley saith in his book of DEFEN­SIVE Doubts pag. 99, 100, 101. ‘That their labour to ease conscience, and good intentions therein, we take kindly: and in good will to them againe request them to consider, that a private Inter­pretation of a publick act, can give no satisfaction, unlesse it be expresly or vertually allowed by the highest Authority that doth impose it, and then it is made publicke; But why they should expect such an approbation of their private opinions we cannot imagine, &c.’ And againe, pag: 100. ‘For private [Page 9]men, though learned, if they take upon them the interpreta­tion of publick dictates, may be more like to light on mutual contradictions, then of the true and proper Construction of the text they interpret, So did Vega and Soto, Soto and Ca­therinus, &c. commenting on the Councell of Trent.’

A Third use of what hath been here said, may be for Statists, That seek to make Religion subservient to carnall policy, and to serve turnes for the present. And very plaine it is that there hath been many indeavours to make this use of the Covenant: Let those know and consider how irreligious their practise is, and hath been herein, The Bloodiest wretch, and prophanest Varlet, though come out of Ireland from the slaughter of our Protestant brethren there; yet (as it is commonly reported) if he would Take the Covenant, he was then looked upon as a friend, as one of Ʋs, As if a long Oath had power to metamorphize an Assasinate into a Saint.

But alas this carnall Policy always deceives them, Religion wil not serve Turn. This Net cat cheth none but Doves, Dat veni­am Corvis, Those who shall strike the blow and undermine them are men that will breake these bands, such Engines as these (let them be as wary as they can) are easily turned against those that planted them for their owne defence, as experience daily showes.

Fourthly, I wish what hath been here said, concerning Oaths may be taken into consideration by our brethren that fear God in the Kingdome of Scotland, who not only are daily crying out OUR COVENANT! OUR COVENANT! (as they of old, Templum Domini, Templum Domini,) but either have effected, or indeavoured to have it sworn over again. If what hath been already spoken out of Gods word, concerning the qualificati­ons of an Oath; and how this Oath failes therein, move them not, I hope their example shall not move them that feare God in this Kingdome, And the lesse if it be true which is reported, That for the generallity of that Nation, they are often forced to follow their Lords and great men, be it right or wrong. And that if some of the cheife Nobility enter into a quarrell, their Tenants must engage with them therein. Where as in England the meanest Subject hath the liberty to Governe himselfe and, [Page 10]to make his free choice of what he conceives good and upright, and is Protected by the Common law (which is our birth-right) against the most potent. I cannot affirme that the Common­alty in Scotland doe still remaine in that servile condition (having never been in Scotland,) but if it be so, their generall Engaging in this or any other course is the lesse to be heeded, as not being voluntary, but forced. And for the great ones among them, the Lord give them repentance of this sin of driv­ing the people into such a snare as this is, which if they will not see, let them know, that God can bring them down, an ex­ample whereof they have in their Country man Duke Hamilton of late.

In the fist place this may be a remembrancer to our Parlia­ment in England. It may teach them to consider how great a sin they are guilty of, in leading this Nation into such a snare, God hath humbled the major part of them, let them now that they have more leisure, look into this sin among others, how they have forced many of their brethren into this temptation, Either swear, or expose your selves to sufferings, in your estates, good name, &c. Let them pray that the same lot befall not them, which by their meanes hath befallen so many of their brethren and Country-men, it may please God that their timely re­pentance may prevent this or the like punishment. And the Lord sanctifie this admonition to that end.

Sixtly and lastly. Let this be a word of Exhortation to the Parliam. now sitting, to move them to cast away these wicked yokes, undo these heavy burdens, Is. 58.6. Cast out al promissory Oathes, as of Judges, Constables, Freemen of Corporations &c. They are not agreeing to these Rules of Truth, Righteous­nesse, Judgement. And other wayes may be found to compell Officers to do their duty. Make Lawes to punish them if they faile, but uphold not an old Custome which is found to disa­gree with Gods word, This acting for God will be for your honour, and God will appeare for you. But if you will not lay this to heart, and what an affliction a Promissory Oath is to a tender Conscience, God will in his own time find out men that will appear for him, And others shall have the honour of this work Hest. 4.14.

[Page 11] There is of late a removall in part of some promissory Oathes, and a new Oath appointed by a late Act of Parliament made Sep. 5. 1649. Yet is there one clause in that new Oath which makes it very hard, if not impossible, viz. those words at the end of it | You shall execute the Office of Mayor according to the best of your skill, knowledge and power, | which I say no man doth performe, for we do not pray, or hear, according to the best of our power, nor is it possible we should alwayes be at the full and utmost extent of our skill and power in performance of civill duties.

Christian Reader,

TAke notice that what is here said, is not the tenth part of what might be urged against this long Oath, so that which is spoken of the multitude of words Prov. 10.19. is truely ve­rified of this Oath, which abounds in words: For a conscientious man may justly quere:

1 How long shall I be bound by this Oath! Mr. Ley, pa. 86. shall I make Median and Persian Oaths, that can never be recalled? surely a wise man will never put his neck in such a snare.

Then secoadly, How prejudiciall this Oath may bee for the future, to all free Parliaments and Assemblies in this Kingdome, pa. 80. and the like. Which must be past over for brevities sake, and as much more, very materiall.

If Mr. Ley have compiled a Book of Doubts (about an Oath not one quarter so long as this,) which yet is risen to above half a quire of paper, what might be done in this which abounds in expressions no lesse ambiguous?

But for the present this shall suffice, for a taste to shew the evill of it, and may be a provocation to others to looke more into it: The Lord give us hearts so to walk with him, that we may pre­serve the peace of a good conscience, and that we may neither for fear of man, or any other sinister respect, enwrap our selves in such snares as these are.

[Page 12] In the 24th of Gen. When Abraham would swear his servant but to one particular businesse, with what caution was it done? and the Servant puts the case what might fall out about that busines, 1. Concerning the womans refusing to follow him. 2. Con­cerning bringing Isaac to the land whence they came. But in this long Covenant we swear to 20 particulars, and yet are not suf­fered to put any case to any one of them.

• 1 We swear to maintain priviledges of Parliament, but must not aske how many those be, Nor do I hear any put forth such a case as this, what if Parliament men will break them them­selves? or have the breaking of them wincked at?
• 2 We swear to indeavour to extirpate Heresie, and that with­out respect of persons; Art. 2. But never put the case (with A­brahams servant) But how if our Governours will neither assist nor countenance us in it?
• 3 We swear to discover such as have been or shall be Malignants, but never put the case how long this discovery is to last; and for how many years it is to bind us. Or how far Malignancy is to extend.
• 4 We swear Art. 1. To indeavour the preservation of Scotland in Doctrine and Discipline, but never put such a case as this, what if the Inhabitants in Scotland shall thinke good to alter their Discipline, how far shall I then be obliged? Abrahams servant would have said, Then will I be clear from this my Oath.