The annals of King James and King Charles the First ... containing a faithful history and impartial account of the great affairs of state, and transactions of parliaments in England from the tenth of King James MDCXII to the eighteenth of King Charles MDCXLII : wherein several material passages relating to the late civil wars (omitted in former histories) are made known.

His Majesties Answer to the forego∣ing Covenant.

TO dispute against this Covenant Scholasti∣cally, or otherwise than by vindicating Our Royal Authority, and the Monarchical Govern∣ment of that Our ancient Kingdom, is far beneath Us; and therefore We would only know, how they can possibly answer these four Questions to the World.

First, By what Authority they entered into this Covenant, and how they durst presume to exact an Oath from any of Our Subjects to it, or any thing else; it being an irrefragable proposition, That no publick Oath can be administred but by a Magistrate, or by one sufficiently deputed by Authority to administer it: For it is a Badge an∣nexed to Magistracy and Authority, to have power of giving and taking an Oath; and therefore they cannot satisfie the world by what Authority or de∣putation from Authority they did give this Oath to▪ and receive it from Our Subjects. They do answer, That though they have no Law for it, yet they have President; For this Confession of Faith (say they in the Title of their Covenant) was sub∣scribed by Our Father of happy memory, and his houshold, in the year 1580. thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year 1581. and that by the Ordinance of the Lords of the Secret Council, and Acts of the General Assem∣bly: Subscribed again, by all sorts of persons in the year 1590. by a new Ordinance of Council at the de∣sire of the General Assembly, with a general hand for maintenance of true Religion and the King's person. Now, was this their Confession of Faith, and Co∣venant annexed, commanded to be sworn and sub∣scribed by Us, by any order from Our Council, or by any Act of General Assembly? But they will say, that it being once commanded, that Com∣mandment is still in force and vigour. That is in∣deed a good ground or president for Us and Our Council, to command this same Oath to be re∣newed when We shall see cause; but the repetiti∣on of it must still be by the same Authority by which it was at the first injoyned: Now the first injunction of this Subscription was made by Our Royal Father, in the year 1580. the first renewing of it in 1581. was (as they say themselves) by an Ordinance of the Lords of the Secret Council; the second renewing of it 1590. was by a new Ordinance of Council at the desire of the General Assembly. By which it is plain, that the Judg∣ment of the General Assembly, (which in those days was at the highest, and was not wont to de∣rogate from their own power) was, that this Oath could not be renewed, nor any Band, but by Au∣thority from Our Royal Father and his Council. Again, have they not printed in the Frontispiece of this their Covenant Our Royal Father's charge to certain Commissioners, and all Ministers with∣in that Realm, for requiring this Oath, with a c••mmand to return to the Ministers of his House, the Names and Processes of all such as should refuse to take the said Oath? Now, did any of all these precede their Covenant? Was Our Authority, or the Au∣thority of Our Council so much as asked, much less obtained? Were there any Commissioners by Us, or Our Council appointed to receive this Oath in the several Shires? Nay, as shall appear afterward in due place, when We, with the ad∣vice of Our Council, by Proclamation did com∣mand the renewing of that Oath, and designed Commissioners throughout the several Shires of the Kingdom for administring of it, did not those, who call themselves of the Table, refuse to swear it themselves, and command that none of the Kingdom should swear it by any Authority from Us? And is no this pulling down of Our Au∣thority, and setting themselves in Our place? So that if the Reader look upon the Title and Inscription of their Covenant, he shall find (as We said) that it carrieth the overthrow of it in its own Front.

Secondly, Say they had power to command the new taking of this Oath, (as they had not,) yet what power can be pretended for their Interpre∣tation of it? It being a received Maxim, That no less Authority can interpret a Law or Rescript, than that which made it, or those, whom they who made it, have constituted Judges to give Judgment and Sentence according to the true meaning of it. This Oath then being first fra∣med and urged by our Royal Father, with the ad∣vice of his Council, can it be interpreted by any but by Us, and His and Our Successours? And have either We or Our Council given any such interpretation? Nay, can any man, though in Authority, indued with Religion or Reason, with any conscience or honesty, give not only so false, but so ridiculous and absurd an interpretation of that Confession of Faith; as those of the Table have given? For they have declared, That this Confession is to be interpreted, and ought to be un∣derstood of all the pretended Novations, no less than if every one of them had been expressed in the said Confession. Had they said that they themselves did prohibit these pretended Novations, as other Points of Popery in that Confession abjured, the words had then carried some sense, as intimating that they themselves did now think that they did tend to Popery: But that they should force any man to swear that the Framers of that Confession at the first did so, they being all dead, and so ne∣ver were asked, nor can be asked the Question; or that they should make men living swear what was the mind of the dead, concerning the five Articles of Pearth, the Service-Book, the Book of Canons, the high Commission, things of which in their lives they never heard, nor perhaps did ever imagine the introduction of them, (they in that Confession abjuring only those Romish cor∣ruptions, which in their time had infested the Church,) is such a profane and foolish interpre∣tation, that one would wonder how any one that either hath the knowledge, or maketh conscience of an Oath, can either himself take, or desire o∣thers to take an Oath so false and foolish as this: And therefore, with more Wit than Honesty, where they met with no scrupulous people, they suffered them to swallow down that wicked gloss which corrupteth the very Text of the Confession: But where multitudes, especially of the Ministers, (who at their admissions had sworn obedience to and practice of these points which they call In∣novations,) quarrelled at this their interpreta∣tion, they assured them, that it would breed a great division if they should desire but the least alteration of the words in which their Cove∣nant was conceived, but yet that they might very well swear all, with a reservation of not abjuring Episcopacy, the five Articles of Pearth, or any thing established by Acts of Parliament and General Assembly: With which Protestation and Reservation, and not other∣wise, many, especially of the Ministers, did swear their Covenant, as they themselve•• do well know: which was such a notable piece

of Jesuitical Equivocation on their parts, who ex∣acted this Oath, and contrary to the very Letter and Grammatical sense of the Oath it self, especi∣cally in that part of it which containeth their in∣terpretation of the Confession, as the like hath scarcely been heard.

Thirdly, Where was it ever heard that men, pre∣tending for a ground of their Proceedings, the President of a former Confession and Band annex∣ed, did dare to add any thing to the Text of that Confession and Band upon which they meant to build their Actions? But these men have taken upon them, not only without Authority to make an interpretation of that Confession, but flatly a∣gainst Authority, to add to the very Text of the. Band of Maintenance: For whereas the Band annexed to the former Confession was made in▪ defence of Ʋs, Our Authority and Person, with their Fortunes, Bodies and Lives, in defence of the Gospel of Christ, and Liberties of that our Kingdom, &c. they have added a mutual defence of one another: So that the Band, which was at the first made a∣gainst those Subjects who went about to correspond with Forreigners for the subversion of our Religi∣on and Kingdom, is now made against all Persons whatsoever, who shall oppose them in their Cour∣ses. That Band which was made in defence of Our Person and Authority, against all Treason at home and Invasion from abroad, is now principally made against Us, if We shall oppose their Courses; and next, against all such of Our Loyal Subjects as shall adhere to Us in defence of Our Person and Authority: For these words, against all Persons whatsoever, not excepting Us, shews their bad meaning too well. Now, whether Our Royal Father in the first Band, by defence of his Person and Authority, meant maintenance against Us his Successor, our Person and Authority (for they urge the intention of the first Confession and Band as a Warrant for this new one of theirs,) Or whother the words of the Emperour, or any Mo∣narch, or any other Law-giver, in any of their Laws of Rescripts, can be taken in any tolerable construction against the Crown and Dignity of themselves and Successors; Or how these new Covenanters can with the same breath blow both hot and cold, with the same hand both strike and stroak Us, in one Sentence swearing to defend Our Person and Authority, and yet in the next swear∣ing to defend one another against all Persons what∣soever, not excepting Us, if not principally intend∣ing Us, We leave it to the world to consider.

Fourthly, What show of defence can these men make, to save themselves from being punished with all rigour, as movers of Sedition, and disturbers of the Publick peace and quietness of the King∣dom, since the Act of the Tenth Parliament of James the Sixth, Act 12. and the 75th Act of the Ninth Parliament of Queen Mary, to which the Act last mentioned relateth, have declared all Leagues of Subjects amongst themselves, with∣out the privity and approbation of the King, to be Seditious, and the Authors and Abetters of them to be punished as movers of Sedition?