never make opposition to it, nor endeavour any change thereof? July _ult._ 1648. sess. 21.' But it will be laid, that in their renewing the covenant that year, they did not leave out that article. True, thereby they stopped the mouths of their adversaries; and then they were not without hopes, but that in his straits he might have proved a Manasseh taken among the thorns. And the covenanters at that time, not being clear that he had done that which _ipso jure_ made him no magistrate, chused rather, while matters stood so, to engage to maintain him, than simply to disown him (which yet our forefathers did upon smaller grounds many times) in the hopes of being prevailed with at last. But when they saw that this proved ineffectual, therefore at the coronation of the new king they made the covenanted interest the sole basis upon which alone authority was conferred upon him. For the second, though they did not refuse the succession of Charles the Second (which was their blame and our bane, of which we may blush this day) yet we find many things in that transaction which justify our disowning of him, and condemn the owning of the present possessor. (1.) In that seasonable and necessary warning, July 27, sess. 27. 'whereas many would have admitted his majesty to the exercise of his royal power, upon any terms whatsoever: the assembly declares first; that a boundless and unlimited power is to be acknowledged in no king nor magistrate; neither is our king to be admitted to the exercise of his power, as long as he refuses to walk in the administration of the same, according to this rule. Secondly, that there is a mutual stipulation and obligation between the king and the people, as both of them are tied to God, so each of them are tied to one another, for the performance of mutual and reciprocal duties; accordingly kings are to take the oath of coronation, to abolish popery and maintain the protestant religion: As long therefore as the king refuses to engage and oblige himself for security of religion and safety of his people, it is consonant to scripture and reason and laws of the kingdom, that he should be refused. Thirdly, in the league and covenant the duty of defending and preserving the king, is subordinate to the duty of preserving religion and liberty: And therefore, he standing in opposition to the public desires of the people for their security, it were a manifest breach of covenant, and a preferring the king's interest to the interest of Jesus Christ, to bring him to the exercise of his power. Fourthly, That it was for restraint of arbitrary government, and for their just defence against tyranny, that the Lord's people did join in covenant, and have been at the expence of so much blood these years past; and if he should be admitted to the government before satisfaction, it were to put in his hand that arbitrary power, and so to abandon their former principles, and betray the cause.