2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise1 and his oath, for the promise and covenant of any man, and so of the King doth no less bring him under a civil obligation and politic coaction, to keep his promise, then an oath, for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law, swear he shall be good for the son, or perform in lieu and place of the friend, what he is to perform, he doth only covenant and promise, and in law and politic obligation he is taken and snared by that promise, no less then if he had sworn. Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father, Gen. 42. 37. & Judah also, Gen. 43. 9. but they do not swear any oath, & i• is true that an oath addeth nothing to a contract and promise, but only it lays on a religious tie before God, yet so as consequently, if the contractor violate both promise and oath, he cometh under the guilt of perjury, which a law of men may punish. Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politic obligation, as well as an oath is already proved, and farther confirmed by Gal. 3. 15. Though it be a mans testament or covenant, no man disannulleth and addeth thereunto; No man even by mans law can annul a confirmed covenant, and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfil his own covenant; and so must the King put himself under mens law, by a covenant at his Coronation. Yea and David is reputed by Royalists, an absolute Prince, yet he cometh under a covenant before he be ⟨p. 403⟩made King. 3. It is but a weak reason to say, that an oath is needless, where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth, if it have any strength of reason. I retort it, a legal and solemn promise then is needless also, for there is no action of law against a King (as Royalists teach) if he violate his promise. So then King David needlessly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation; for though David should turn as bloody an enemy to the Church as Nero or Julian, the people have no Law-action against David; and why then did Jeremiah seek an oath of the King of Judah, that he would not kill him, nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies? and why did David seek an oath of Jonathan? It is not like Jeremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son, if they should violate the oath of God.
2. It is but a poor evasion to distinguish betwixt the Kings promise1 and his oath, for the promise and covenant of any man, and so of the King doth no lesse bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction, to keep his promise, then an oath, for he that becometh surety for his friend doth by no civil Law, sweare he shall be good for the sonne, or performe in liew and place of the friend, what he is to performe, he doth onely covenant and promise, and in law and politique obligation he is taken and snared by that promise, no lesse then if he had sworne. Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin safe home to his old father, Gen. 42. 37. & Iudah also, Gen. 43. 9. but they do not swear anyoath, & i• is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promise, but onely it laies on a religious tie before God, yet so as consequently, if the contractor violate both promise and oath, he cometh under the guilt of perjury, which a law of men may punish. Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation, as well as an oath is already proved, and farther confirmed by Gal. 3. 15. Though it be a mans testament or covenant, no man disanulleth and addeth thereunto; No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant, and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himself under law to fulfill his own covenant; and so must the King put himself under mens law, by a covenant at his Coronation. Yea and David is reputed by Royallists, an absolute Prince, yet he cometh under a covenant before he be ⟨p. 403⟩made King. 3. It is but a weak reason to say, that an oath is needlesse, where no action of law can be against the King who sweareth, if it have any strength of reason. I retort it, a legall and solemne promise then is needlesse also, for there is no action of law against a King (as Royalists teach) if he violate his promise. So then King David needlesly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation; for though David should turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian, the people have no Law-action against David; and why then did Ieremiah seek an oath of the King of Iudah, that he would not kill him, nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies? and why did David seek an oath of Ionathan? It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action against a King and a Kings son, if they should violate the oath of God.
- 1It is an evasion only to distinguish between the Kings promises and his oath.It is an evasion onely to distingu•sh between the Kings promis•s and his oath.
