A review of the Covenant, wherein the originall, grounds, means, matter, and ends of it are examined: and out of the principles of the remonstrances, declarations, votes, orders, and ordinances of the prime covenanteers, or the firmer grounds of Scripture, law, and reason, disproved.

CHAP. VII. That many things vowed in this Covenant are not possible to be fulfilled.

TO make good this charge, which is a further ••vidence of in∣justice in the Covenant, as involving the takers in down-right perjury, we shall propose such particulars as are either morally or absolutely impossible to be performed.

• I. That constancy of endeavour and zealous continuance which they sweare to use all the dayes of their lives in the observance of most Articles, is more than they can assure; the work of Reforma∣tion may be longer, and their other avocations greater than they imagine; and in the interim of their hopes, their endeavours may flagge, and their zeale remit. Besides the particulars of their Vow are so many, and of so different natures, as must needs di∣stract their thought•• and employments, which being fixed upon some, must divert their endeavours from the rest. And if they shall in truth all the dayes of their lives endeavour to extirpate the Government of the Church, they will never live to effect it.
• II. The mutuall preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments in all three Kingdomes cannot alwayes be pos∣sible. To evidence this Truth, I shall suppose what the Cove∣nanteers will easily grant: First, that the word Parliament is here secondarily, if not principally, intended for the two Houses in the respective Kingdomes, exclusively to the King. Secondly, that the Parliament of Scotland (if not that of Ireland) hath as

• much right and priviledge to all intents and purposes concern∣ing that Kingdome, as our Parliament has in relation to England. Thirdly, that whatsoever Rights and Priviledges have been chal∣lenged by our Lords and Commons of this Parliament, are truly due unto them, and the King bound to admit of them. These suppositions being granted, it cannot be denied but the severall Parliaments (all challenging as great Councels to his Majesty, whose advice he must follow) may advise many things repugnant in themselves, and both or all impossible to be hearkened to. The nineteen Propositions of the English, and the Scots Demands in the Act of Pacification will save us the labour of enquiring into former times, or straining invention for possible cases.
  • ...

    1. The English advise and require that no Marriage of the Kings Children be treated of without their notice, nor conclu∣ded without their consent. The Scots and Irish having equall in∣terest, especially in the Princes Person, may require equall privi∣ledge. But their publique nationall interests, and affections to other States, being different, their advice and resolution will be so too. The Irish may advise and resolve upon a Match with Spaine, the Scots with France, the English with some other di∣stinct Family••

    Againe, the Scots demand that the Prince may reside with them at some time; the English may require his continuall resi∣dence at all times, at least they may both exact it at the same time. So when a these would have him at S^t. Iames, those would have him at S^t. Andrews. Such like for the King himselfe, much about the same time when the b Scots exact his residence with them; the c Councell of Ireland desire his presence amongst them, the d English protest, if he leave them, they will no longer submit to him, so as to be directed by any Commissioner. This impossibility will be more considered, if we restraine it onely to the time of Parliaments; at the same time 1640. there were three Parlia∣ments sitting in the three Kingdomes; if they have equall Privi∣ledges, all equally require the Kings Presence; what shall he do, when he is told his absence from Parliament is a breach of Privi∣ledge, e against Law, against ancient Custome, against his Oath? Is it possible for him to be in three Kingdomes at the same time?

• ...
  • ...

    Grant him his just Power, and he may without inconvenience rule all; but if the Supreme Power be in them, he will have a hard taske to serve so many masters.

  • Secondly, if all the Parliaments be considereed as Courts, ••nd allowed for Supreme Iudicatories in the severall Kingdomes, may not one of them declare Law against another? Surely yes, we have a fresh precedent for it. The Scots were declared Trai∣tors by the Parliament of Ireland, 1638. They were declared loyall Subjects by the f Parliament of Scotland, 1640. And their Actions were condemned to oblivion by the Parliament of Eng∣land.
  • 3. Lastly, if each Parliament be considered as the Representa∣tive Body of the respe••tive Kingdomes, with a power to enact, order, or ordain, whatsoever they shall hold fitting, or of publique necessity, and the King be bound by his Oath to passe all the Bills which shall be pesented under that notion, as they have formerly before the union of the Kingdoms made many g contra••iant Laws, so will they do again; for the interests of the Kingdomes being severall in themselves, none having any mutuall dependance or superiority above another, the titular union in the same King will be found in effectuall to reconcile their differences, if he be not Supreme in the old received sense, but onely in the new-coyn'd notion of coordinate (as some) or subordinate Supremacy, as others wittily have expounded. In any such case of difference, whether in matter of State or of Law, a mutuall preservation of the Privi∣ledges of all the Parliaments will be utterly impossible both for King and Subject; to preserve one, is to destroy two.
• III. Every Covenanteer undertakes more than he is able to performe, when he sweares, not barely to endeavour, (as in other Articles) but actually to assist and defend all those that enter into this League, and actually to reveale and make known all lets and impediments against it. Though they have a will to do it, yet they may want meanes to effect it. If they do not send assistance to any Covenanteer when it is demanded, or what they do send be not sufficient to defend him, they faile in their Oath; and were to blame they did not use the word endeavour here, which is so carefully inserted in other places.
• ...

• IV. Nor can the most confiding of them be assured that he shall not suffer himselfe directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combi∣nation, perswasion, or terrour, to be divided from this union. As it is not in any mans power to hinder other men from using what Ar∣guments they can to perswade him, so neither can he totally hin∣der those Arguments from leaving any impression in his soule. Besides, daily experience of many flitting from that cause to which they were sometimes as zealously addicted as any (witnesse Sir Iohn Hotham and others) there is reason why it should be so, in spite of any resolution to the contrary. Though ambition, ava∣rice, passion, or prejudice, make men very willing to have that passe for true and good which they affect, and ••o first stagger their judgement, which at last fixes in a resolution not to examine any grounds of the contrary part which they hate: Yet the variety of successe may so much alter the face of things, the inconstancy of humane nature may so farre comply, the light and evidence of the object may be such as will dispell all those mists of the under∣standing, and prevaile against any obstinacy of opinion. But if they meane by this Oath such a resolution, Non persuadebo, etiam••i persuaser••, that against the light of their own consciences, they will still persevere in the same courses, though they be never so much convicted of their unlawfulnesse; they do but adde Here∣sie to Perjury. For a pertinacious maintaining of an opinion after a man is convicted that it is erroneous, I take to be the very for∣mality of Heresie, and that which I suppose the Covenanteers have sworne to extirpate.
• V. It will not be denied, but if one part of the Covenant, either in terminis, or by implication, contradict another, then it will be impossible to performe both. And I pray what are these but contradictions? 1. That all the Covenanteers in the three Kingdomes should professe to be of one Reformed Religion, and then sweare to preserve it in one Kingdome, but to reforme it in two. 2. To preserve the Kings Person, without respect of Persons. This they vow in the second Article, and that in the third. 3. If the Parliament•• be•• as they conceive, the supreme Iudicatories in the respective Kingdomes, with what congruity doe they sweare to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments

• in all three Kingdomes, and then that all Delinquents shall be pu∣nished by the Supreme Iudicatories (of both. i.e.) onely of two Kingdomes? No marvell if some parts be liable to contradiction, when the whole Covenant is ushered in with a grosse absurdity, which has influence upon every sentence in it. When each one for himselfe professeth, We sweare, &c. Indeed why should one man sweare for all the rest? But what is this to salve the Soloe∣cisme? How shall he be said to sweare onely for himselfe, whose every word in his Oath includes all others, as much as himselfe? These things being not certainly possible ought not to be sworne. It is all one as if they should sweare they will not dye till they be old, nor be sick till they dye.

Notes

• a

  E.C. p. 93.
• b

  2. Parlia∣ment of King Charles. Act. 27.
• c

  E. C. pag. 148.
• d

  & 143.
• e

  M. Prina•• Soveraigne power of Par∣liam. part. 4••
• f

  2. Parlia∣ment of King Charles. Act. 38.
• g

  vid. 4. Iacobi. cap. 1.