choose to die than sin We must beg pardon for our base fears but at no hand adde another sin in performance and the same must we conclude of Surprise or Passion when the matter is unjust or sinful Memorable is the Story which Munster (t) Munst de Germ. l. 3. c. 499. records of Jutha the Daughter of the Emperour Otho 2. She was by the Emperour her Father put into a Nunnery but by force taken thence by Vdalric or Ulderick the Son of the King or Duke of Bohemia and married to him The Emperour urged by the indignity of the fact swears to revenge himself upon Vlderick and to lead an Army into Bohemia He doth so His and Uldericks Armies meet Jutha the Daughter of the one and Wife of the other astonished and affrighted hastily runs to her Father begs to speak with him before the Armies joyn or he lets his fury rage in blood She obtains this liberty and sues for Peace and Reconcilement The Emperour urgeth his oath whereby he had bound himself She answers (v) Vana est religio quae sceleri locum facit vim criminibus Sacramenta non addunt Munst ibid. That Religion is vain which makes way to wickedness nor can any oath give force power or licence to a crime or sin Thus she satisfies her fathers scruple and obtains her suit So that No Oath can oblige us either 1. Against Piety Sect. 36. the duties of the first Table Or 2. Against Justice and Charity the duties of the second For these are the matters of the (u) Jam. 2.8 Royal Law of God and indispensible duties upon man And in vain should the Lord of heaven give us such a Law if we might at pleasure swear and then upon pretence of such an Oath be at liberty to break such a Law the least Commandments (x) Mat. 5.17 18 19. whereof God at no hand will have to be broken But particularly so far as refers to our present purpose 1. No Oath can oblige us against equity Sect. 37. against the right of a third person or to the direct injury of our Neighbour For though having sworne to our own inconvenience we must not change because we are Masters of our own rights and may if we please give them away yet of anothers rights we are not God hath bound us by his Law to preserve them and we may not swear to destroy them nor may we destroy them though we have sworne so 2. No Oath can oblige us against the Duty Sect. 38. that we owe to our Govèrnours or Superiours or the Laws that we do and must live under God hath bound us to Obedience and no oath can oblige to Rebellion Sedition Schism or Disobedience no more than the (y) Mat. 15.5 Mark 7.11 12. Corban or pretence of a vow and a dedication of all to God could free the Jews from yielding that honour obedience and maintenance which God had obliged them to yield to their Parents He that well understands the Fifth Commandment Honour thy Father and Mother knows that no Oath can oblige a man to rise up against them and turn his Father out of doors yea or deny the duty which he owes to them and as little can it oblige us to endeavour to Subvert the Government or overthrow those Governours in Church or State to whom by vertue of the same Precept we are obliged to be (z) Rom. 13 1-5 1 Pet 2.13 14. Sect. 39. subject not only for wrath but for conscience-sake 3. Nor can any oath oblige us against the former just obligations upon us nor against those lawful Oaths which we had formerly taken and are not yet free from Prior obligatio postoriori praejudicat A former obligation doth prejudge and prevent the latter For every lawful Oath having an unquestionable tie upon the conscience it must be both unlawful to swear any thing contrary to it and though we swear we cannot be obliged For we cannot be bound to forswear yea we are infallibly bound (a) Exod. 20.7 Mat. 5.33 not to forswear our selves A latter Oath cannot oblige when the very taking of it is an act of perjury and the keeping of it would be a persisting in the perjury in the breach of our former Oaths This had the (b) Vid. Sims Chron. Cath. Part. 1. am 3480. Phaenician Navi learned who in the service of Cambyses were commanded by him to sail against Carthage though they were under his pay and probably bound by the Souldiers Oath the Sacramentum Militia and the Souldier is bound to obey not dispute his Generals commands yet they thought themselves not obliged in this but denied obedience because they were by a former Oath obliged to the Carthaginians and they therefore thought that their latter Obligation to Cambyies could not oblige them to destroy those whom by a former Oath they were bound to protect and assist An Oath that is unlawfully entred into because Rashly may yet bind when the matter is honest and in our power but No Oath unlawful in the matter of it can either be lawfully taken or when taken can lay any obligation for No Oath can oblig◠us to sin We have now seen the general cases concerning the Nature Sect. 40. Qualities Obligation and Non-obligation of an Oath It will not now be difficult to shew by applying these general things to the particular case of the Covenant the Non-obligation and Unlawfulness of that Oath I have been very serious in examining and considering this case not Whether the Penalty in this Act of Parliament be too severe for into that we have no call to inquire but whether We may lawfully do as that Act requires and make that Acknowledgement which this Law enjoyns us Viz. Whether this Covenant were lawfully taken or may lawfully be kept and whether yet it so obligeth that we may not renounce it and declare as much And upon these premised principles I judge we may be fully convinced of its Illegality and Non-obligation and consequently may lawfully acknowledge and subscribe so 1. It will not be denied for it is unquestionable Sect. 41. that This Covenant was a Publick Oath and then according to the former rule it may also be annulled revoked and abrogated by a Publick Authority Suppose the Authority were Supreme that required it suppose that we in obedience to that Authority did lawfully swear it yet without dispute the Authority that is infallibly Supreme with us doth now Revoke and hath disannulled it And here is evidently then Cessatio materiae and such a Notable Alteration of the state of things referring to the Principal matter which had it then been this Oath would neither have been imposed nor sworne and we may justly conclude that if it ever did oblige yet now it doth not unless we can be obliged to maintain a Law which an Act of Parliament hath repealed But this is not all for this supposeth it established by a Law But 2.
due to Him not as He is a Christian or Godly but as He is our King and to amend our lives and go before each other in the example of a real reformation c. Though I say we may be and are still obliged to all these things yet I think not from this Covenant but from other grounds and principles of more unquestionable authority yet we may make that acknowledgement as the Act requires which is not that there lies no obligation by the Covenant to endeavour these things but only No obligation to endeavour the alteration of the Government in Church or State i.e. No obligation to Sedition Rebellion or Opposition of the Laws which God hath commanded us to live under 2. Sect. 54. As to the latter part to be declared viz. the Unlawfulness of that Covenant it is only that it was an Unlawful Oath and though there may be many things to prove it so yet we are there required to acknowledge but this one The imposition of it contrary to the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom which must be acknowledged by those who themselves have declared that No new Oath can be imposed but by Act of Parliament which this never had as before was shewn Is it not undoubtedly true that there can be no Act of Parliament no Law without the Royal assent and was not this imposed without yea contrary to the Consent of His late Majesty then Reigning Disallowed still condemned and revoked now by His present Majesty yea condemned and disannulled by a Law of England an Act of Parliament So that it is most certain that It was an Unlawful Oath so far at least as concerns the manner of the imposition and the authority of the Imposers as Imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom And this is all that we are here required to acknowledge Let me but adde the determination of the Assembly of Divines then called together by the two Houses of Parl. and sitting at Westminster Sect. 55. in their Exhortation an next to that Covenant In answer to that Plea of the Clergy who might object They were sworne to obey the Bishops in Licitis Honestis and therefore could not take this Oath to extirpate them They conclude thus If there should be yet any Oath found into which any Ministers or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God and the Land in this case they must tell themselves and others that such Oaths call for Repentance and not Pertinacy in them Now are there not many things in this Oath against the Laws of God is it not wholly against the Laws of the Land Where do the Laws of God or the Land warrant Subjects to extirpate an established Order and Government without the consent yea against the mind of their Soveraign Where do the Laws of God or the Land warrant any to prosecute those who according to their duty and Allegiance serve and labour to defend the Life the Person the Authority of the King and act by His Commission as Malignants and evil Instruments and to punish them as Traytours Sure I am it was an Oath much more against the Laws of God and the Land than any of those Oaths wherein the Subjects of this Realm were before engaged whether the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance or the Oath of Canonical obedience to the Bishops which are warranted by both can with any shadow of reason be pretended to be This Oath therefore even according to their determination calls for Repentance and not Pertinacy in it And really Repentance earnest Sest 56. unfained Repentance it doth call for We may too justly lament and take up the words of the Prophet Because of Swearing the Land mourneth The Land hath mourned under the Scourges of God and we have yet cause to fear lest God again make us feel the smart of his Rods Sure I am we have yet reason to mourn in sorrrow and compunction of heart for the sins of our Oaths besides those customary prophane Tavern and street-oaths of ungodly men for our neglect and breach of those Sacred ties of Allegiance and Supremacy which we had sworne and violated for those many unlawful Oaths and Engagements which were too rashly entred into and more sinfully kept O let us with tears in our eyes and contrition in our hearts earnestly beg pardon of our God whose name in these we have so often taken in vain and testifie the sincerity of our Repentance by a Conscientious returning to our duty in the careful practice of the strictest Piety to God unstained and constant Faith and Allegiance to the King our Soveraign and a chearful and ready obedience to the Laws upon us both in Church and State Thou hast now Reader my thoughts concerning this acknowledgement that we are to make of the Non-obligation Sect. 57. and Unlawfulness of the Covenant A I my design is Peace and Obedience and to offer what I am able to remove those doubts and stumbling-blocks that lie in the way and hinder both For those sober humble and conscientious men who yet dare not renounce that Covenâ—nt which though unadvisedly sworne they yet think to oblige and are therefore afraid to subscribe this Declaration prescribed I shall presume to hope they may find something in these papers that may satisfie their doubts remove their fears and convince them of their real duty that by their groundless scruples they may not make themselves uncapable of serving Christ and his Church in the Publick exercise of their Functions and Ministeries Read Ponder and Consider the matters before thee lay aside all passion and prejudice and the by-thoughts of a vain reputation let not men that have erred be ashamed to confess it but be more ashamed to persist in it Repentance is the next Door to innocency Quem paenitet peccâsse paenè est innocens We have suffered a sad shipwrack by our Follies and Sins Repentance is Secunda tabula post naufragium a Planck left by means whereof through Gods mercy we may yet get safe to shore and be happy again Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imparti si non his utere mecum FINIS
A DISCOURSE OF THE NATURE and OBLIGATION OF OATHS WHEREIN Satisfaction is tendered touching the Non-obligation and Vnlawfulness of the OATH called The SOLEMN LEAGue and COVENANT The Acknowledgment whereof is required of us by a late ACT of PARLIAMENT Intituled An ACT for VNIFORMITY Published as an APPENDIX to the Peace-offering By the same AVTHOR Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in Truth Judgment and Righteousness Jer. 4.2 Juramentum Pietatis non debet esse vinculum Iniquitatis LONDON Printed by E. M. for Thomas Pierrepont at the Sun in St. Pauls Church-yard 1662. A Discourse TOUCHING THE NATURE OBLIGATION of OATHS TOGETHER WITH THE NON-OBLIGATION and UNLAWFULNESSE Of the OATH called The Solemn League and Covenant THE earnest desire of my Soul for the advancement of Piety and Peace Sect. 1. engaged me to send forth my PEACE-OFFERING into the World to invite to Peace and perswade to Obedience and a just Conformity to the Laws under which we live wherein it was my endeavour to satisfie the principal Doubts and remove the most material Scruples which might hinder that Peace and Obedience But there is now risen another which I then could not foresee viz. This Acknowledgment or Declaration which we are commanded by the Act of Parliament Entituled An Act for Uniformity c. to make and subscribe viz. I A B. Do Declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person or against those that are Commissionated by Him And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now established And I do Declare That I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom I know it will be deemed by many a matter of extream severity Sect. 2. for the Parliament thus to oblige men to renounce what with hands lifted up to the most High God they have so solemnly sworn and this by no less penalty than the Forfeiture of their Places Livings Promotions and consequently Livelihoods and means of Subsistence for them and their Families But it may be remembred that there was as great severity yea more bitter because illegal used against thousands of persons every way as conscientious as any now can pretend to be both Ministers and others by those who imposed the Covenant to make them swear it though because of the Obligation of their former Oaths they durst not submit to such a perjury I could tell sad Stories to which the World is no stranger of men brought before Committees Holy Learned Pious Painful Preachers unblameable in their Lives That when nothing could be objected against them for Life or Doctrine then presently the Cry was Try him with the Covenant And the refusal of that though so contrary to the known Laws and their former Obligations was the exposing of them and their Families to Beggary and Misery Let us reflect upon that unjust severity then and not think it cruel now that we are by a lawful Authority required to renounce that which was made an Engine to ruine and destroy so many But not to dispute the rigour or severity of the Law let us consider the matter enjoined Sect. 3. and see whether there be any thing in this Declaration which a considering conscientious Christian may not readily Subscribe unto There are but these three things to be declared and acknowledged 1. The Unlawfulness of Rebellion or bearing Arms against the King 2. A readiness to conform to the Liturgy 3. The Non-Obligation and Unlawfulness of that Oath called the Solemn League and Covenant 1. For the first No Sober Christian Sect. 4. or Loyal Subject can make Scruple at it That it is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take or bear Arms against the King is a Truth so manifest and express in the Scriptures which command (a) Mat. 22.21 to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and (b) Rom. 13 1. 8. 1 Pet. 2.13 14 Custom Tribute Fear Honour Subjection and Obedience to our Kings yea though they should be as the Roman Emperours Enemies to and Persecutors of the Church that he must forfeit his reason conscience yea his Christianity that shall question it And I hope yea can be almost confident That even those who yet scruple the Obligation of the Covenant and are therefore afraid to Subscribe that part of this Acknowledgment do abhor and I presume are ready to declare That they abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person c. which was but a distinction invented to draw in many well-meaning people into that quarrel who being afraid to break their Allegiance to the King were abused by dividing His Natural and Politick Capacity and perswaded that they fought for the King when what they did tended to destroy Him 2. For the Conformity to the Liturgy Sect. 5. that we may both lawfully conform and consequently promise it I refer the Reader to the Discourse about this Subject in my Peace-Offering 3. But it is the matter of the Covenant Sect. 6. and the obligation thereof which is mainly now if not only the matter of Scruple and Stumbling-Block in the way of many That they and very many they were who by the Command of the Lords and Commons in Parliament and upon the serious exhortation of an Assembly of Grave Divines with hands lifted up to the most High God have Solemnly Sworne it and engaged themselves to endeavour in their places with all sincerity reallity and constancy without respect of persons to perform the Contents of it and to stand by all that entred into it against all opposers and that no fear terror or perswasion whatsoever should draw them from a zealous prosecuting of the ends of it that these should now acknowledge and declare that neither themselves nor any else are obliged by it and that it was an unlawful Oaeth c. this sticks Some Sect. 7. perhaps that have been over eager and zealous in contending for and by all imaginable Arguments urging and pressing this Oath or Covenant labouring by all wayes to draw the people into this League and Combination may think their reputation now so to lie at stake that should they now retract or condemn that which they have not only sworne themselves but have been so zealous and instrumental to make others also swear that high esteem which they now have with the people for zeal and Godliness would be utterly lost when this very Acknowledgement would make people think that either they did heretofore go against Law Conscience and
Freedom from the bond or obligation Sect. 32. when the same Authority that required the Oath gives a Relaxation or cancels and annuls that Oath Thus he that fulfils not his promise to him that will not have it fulfilled breaks not his word The reason is because no man is Master of anothers right neither have we a right of making others keep what is their own property longer than they will themselves To Pay a debt is alwayes the duty of the Debtour so long as the Creditour will have it so but it is not alwayes a duty in the Creditour to receive it from the Debtour Acceptation here is equivalent to Payment If I promise another and swear to pay him 100 l. I am bound if he will accept it but if he will refuse the Debt I am free from the Obligation So in this case if a Servant swear to a Master to serve him such a Term of years He is obliged if the Master still require it but if the Master will discharge him sooner he is free notwithstanding his former Oath The like reason there is I conceive in Pablick Oaths suppose them enacted by a lawful Authority we swear lawfully and are bound so long as that Authority will have that in force to which we swore But if the same Authority annul the Law and revoke the matter we are also free As suppose I were called to swear that I would constantly use the Liturgy now established and no other I were bound by my Oath as well as by the Act that enjoynes it but should this be taken away hereafter by a Law and the same Authority i.e. an Act of Parliament take away this and require another Form I should be free of that Obligation for the Oath supposeth the Authority still requiring it In such a notable alteration we lawfully may not do yea must not do unless our Oath can oblige us to resist a Law which God hath bound us to obey what we lawfully did by Oath promise to do 2. Those Oaths whereby we bound our selves to Impossibilities Sect. 33. were Rashly and inconsiderately taken and may not only lawfully be broken but indeed cannot be kept and the very Impossibility of Performance makes a nullity in the Obligation Whether the things sworne to are 1. Impossible in Nature As if I by Oath should engage my self to number the Stats or the sands on the Sea shore or hold the Ocean in the hollow of my hand I should be sinfully involved in the guilt of a rash Oath yet could not be obliged to that which God and Nature have made impossible Or. 2. Whether they be Morally and in equity Impossible What we swear must be in our Power for this also is supposed a tacite condition that we have power to do that which we swear to do This I conceive was that which by the Law of the most Righteous God (m) Num. 30.8 12 14. freed a Wife or a Child from the obligation of their Oath or Vow when the Husband or Father denied and disallowed it because neither a Wife being under Covert bond nor a Child being under tuition are sui juris They have not power over their own selves The Wife hath not power over her self but the Husband so nor hath the Child but the Father and consequently neither have they power over their own Actions and engagements but he under whose power themselves are We know a Bond of a wife or child under age signifies nothing nor can they be sued they have no obligation in the Courts of men There is proportionably the same reason of Publick Oaths which are the Bonds of People who are under Government or Tuition of their Prince If People enter into an Oath and bind themselves to an Action and the King under whose charge they are who is Pater Patriae and whom they are bound to obey shall disallow those Oaths and forbid those Actions they may have reason to ask God forgiveness for their Rash engagements but are not obliged to do that which they have sworne the things being not legally in their power because of a Superior Authority that disallows them to which they (n) Rom. 13.5 must be subject 3. Those oaths Sect. 34. which in the matter of them are against that most necessary condition of all oaths Justice and Righteousness never did nor can oblige i.e. if the thing sworne to or Promised by Oath be dishonest unjust impious against the Law of God Moral equity the right of a third Person c. it may at no hand be done There can be no justice and consequently no obligation to worship an Idol to Kill Steale Ribell c. justice requires that all lawful and possible engagements be performed but sinful and unjust obligations retracted That Advice is certainly sound which a Reverend Author gives (o) In malis promissis rescinde fidem in turpi voto muta decretum quod incautè vovisti nâ— fâ—cias impia enim promissio quae scelere ad impl tur Glouc. on Catech out of Isidor In wicked Promises rescind thy faith in a dishonest Vow change the aecree do not that which thou hast vowed unwarily it is an impiâ—â—… oath which cannot be made good but by wickedness It is a most sure rule Juramentum pietatis non debet esse vinculum ixiquitatis for otherwise Scolus esset sides Such was the oath of (p) Matth. 14 7-12 Herod to Herodias an oath sinfully taken and wickedly kept Such was that oath of David He swore (q) 1 Sam. 25.21 22 34. with an imprecation of a Curse upon himself to Destroy Nabal and all his house which yet upon the petition of Abigail he piously broke but should sinfully have performed Such was the Rash Oath of Saul (r) 1 Sam. 14.24 44 45. which would have engaged him to murther Jonathan but the People prevented what he should sinfully have done Such was the (s) Act. 23.12 21. Oath of those forty Jews to kill Paul which they wickedly swore and should more wickedly have committed In this case it matters not how when or by what means we were brought to swear so much as what we have sworne Oaths engaging to unlawful and unjust Actions though through ignorance error weakness misprision surreption fear or malice entred into are not to be kept nor have any obligation upon the Conscience They engage the Swearer to repent of and retract his Oaths but not at all to performe them The truth is Sect. 35. to keep such an Oath is a double sin A sin it was to swear and another sin to perform the oath Quod malè juratur pejus servatur For what God hath forbidden he will nor have done at any hand He hath forbidden us to swear or promise them but much more to do them and to keep such Oaths is but to adde sin to sin Were the Oath extorted by fear it is our sin to he affrighted into sin who should rather
in the late Confusions were even forced to do 3. It was infallibly unjust and dishonest and wicked to endeavour and conspire the destruction of innocent faithful loyal subjects to swear the death confiscation of goods of all those that conscientiously thought themselves bound as indeed they were by their Allegiance to serve and assist the King and to preserve him from that fatal end to which this Covenant though I verily believe many of those who sometimes were zealous in imposing it and thousands that took it never intended such a thing did make and prepare too sad a way Yet this do they swear viz. to discover all such as have been or shall be Malignants and to bring them to publick trial that they may receive condign punishment And who these Malignants were what the condign punishment was is sufficiently declared by those who imposed the Covenant and therefore by their avowed sense and publick Declaration it is manifest whom men were by this Covenant bound to persecute and destroy * See Exact Coll. p. 260 576 509. All persons who upon any pretence whatsoever did assist His Majesty with Horse Armes Plate or Money in that war these were declared Traytors unparallel'd Traytors and who ought to suffer as Traytors and what the punishment of such is we need not be told and to these was vowed speedy and exemplary punishment Many other particulars might be produced to prove the Non-obligation and the unlawfulnesse of that Covenant Sect. 48. but these are enough to engage us to acknowledge and to justifie us in such an acknowledgment as the present Law the Act for Uniformity requires Some perhaps may not be convinced of the truth of all these particulars here asserted yet me thinks we may easily see enough to satisfie our souls as to all that this Act requireth of us And really the Act in this particular seemes to be penned with such Caution Prudence and Tenderness that no conscientious Christian may be ensnar'd by such a subscription nor have any occasion justly to scruple such an Acknowledgment For 1. As to the Obligation it requires us only to acknowledge its present non-obligation Not that it never did but that it doth not now oblige Many perhaps may think that they were obliged while that power stood when yet they may now see they are not But whatsoever was the Obligation whether ever it did or did not bind all that we now are to declare is That there now lies to Obligation on us or any other by this oath to endeavor the alteration of Government in Church or State Let me seriously put the question to those that yet make scruple and are afraid to subscribe Yea let all loyal and pious hearted Christians put the question to their own souls and as in the presence of the eternal All-seeing and most righteous God give answer to themselves 1. Sect. 50. Can any Oath that we have rashly taken oblige any subject to resist or endeavour to root out a Government which the Law hath established and doth still maintain and require obedience to then certainly disobedience and rebellion could be no sin nor any Government be firme or Governours secure when men that like it not shall by Oath bind themselves not to obey but abolish it Prelacy is restored and by an unquestionable Law established do ye really think in your consciences that ye are now bound to extirpate it not only some of the subordinate officers as some who in the sincerity of their hearts were drawn in to swear this Covenant did think they only were obliged against the whole frame as so compounded together and if any alteration were made though but in some of the lowest Officers were it but the removal of some Officials Comissaries c. they had sufficiently answered their obligation But even the Bishops themselves for whatsoever some might think when they took the Covenant the Imposers of it by their actions shewed that they meant not the laying aside only some Officers not so necessary nor of Divine institution but the whole Episcopacy and the very Bishops as a plant not of Gods planting Yea if occasion and opportunity should be offered may not some upon the same pretence rise up against the whole Ministery and from the same Covenant plead the extirpation of all the Ministers also because they are made so by Episcopal Ordination as such who are and must be included under the title of Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy which in the Covenant men with the Hierarchy bind themselves to exterpate 2. Do ye really think that Sect. 51. notwithstanding it is enacted by a Law that to raise and bear armes against the King though by order or ordinance of both or either house of Parliament is Treason yet that you are bound still to maintaine Armies against His Majesty if he will not consent to the matters sworn to in the Covenant and to assist each other and never by any terror fear or perswasion be drawn from such a combination for so runs the Covenant and if such be mens principles that it still obligeth how can our peace or Laws or Government ever be secure 3. Do ye really think Sect. 52. that you are still obliged to bring all that did adhere to and assist His Majesty in the late warre to punishment to suffer as Malignants Traytors unparallel'd Traytors as they were then called and the Covenant meant If the Covenant have any obligation it must oblige to these things for so is it there in terminis expressely sworn Let me beseech all soberly to lay their hands upon their hearts and answer these questions to their own souls and if they are not obliged in these as beyond all doubt they are not yea beyond all controversie they are tied by all obligations to the contrary then must we conclude that it is truth which by this Act of Parliament we are obliged to declare and we may lawfully and consequently being so legally commanded we are in conscience bound to acknowledge and subscribe that whether ever there were or were not any obligation by the Covenant yet now There lieth no obligation upon us or any other person by his Oath to endeavor any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State These considerations are sufficient to satisfie us then as to the first part or proposition to be acknowledged concerning the Covenant viz. it s present non-obligation Which is no more Sect. 53. than that 1. What ever it did heretofore yet now it doth not oblige being taken away by a Law of a Publick and just authority And 2. However man may yet be obliged to some other things therein mentioned as to endeavour in our places and callings the extirpation of Heresie Schism and Prophaneness and whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness to maintain and defend the Kings Majesties person and authority without that Restriction there annext our Allegiance being
It was an Oath Imposed by those Sect. 42. who had no authority to impose an Oaeth It was a Covenant entred into by Subjects and disallowed by the King who then ruled over us and now again by His present Majesty with the full consent of all the estates of the Kingdom in Parliament abrogated and therefore cannot have an obligation in analogy to and by vertue of that Law of God before mentioned Numb 30. for in this case there is the same reason of Subjects under Government as of Children under tuition or a Wife under Covertbond We had no power to enter into such an Oath or Combination nor it being denied and disallowed by our Soveraign can we be obliged by it for this must be still supposed a tacite condition That our Governours and the Laws that we are under will allow and permit it But more 3. Sect. 43. It was an Oath Unlawfully sworne and cannot but be unlawfully kept And the unlawfulness will appear in these particulars 1. It was Unlawful in the Imposition as being imposed by no lawful Authority The Laws of this Kingdom acknowledge nothing to have the force and power of a Law but from the stamp of the Royal Authority the Kings Fiat which that Ordinance which imposed this Covenant never had It must therefore be concluded to be imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm contrary to the Known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom a thing even the same which those two Houses of P. which imposed this Oath declared when they took away and annulled the late Canons and that Oath which was so Decried for the c. viz. * Exact Coll. p. 859 860. That A New Oath cannot be imposed without an Act of Parliament which this was never established by 2. Sect. 44. Vnlawful in the Ends of it Which whatsoever and how specious soever the Pretences were have appeared sufficiently to the world to have been indeed Seditious and Rebellious The charge may seem high and too uncharitable but let it be remembred and it is too evident then to be denied This very Covenant was made the main Engine of a design the saddest the bitterest that England ever saw before to engage a people against the Church and State and to Bring in the Scots to assist them in a dismal War against the King which they would not be brought to do till this Kingdom did Covenant to throw out her Bishops and extirpate the established Episcopacy Root and Branch So that the great ends aimed at in the contriving and exacting this Covenant to be sworne was 1. Not to Reform some abuses or to take away some needless Officers or prevent some irregular proceedings in the Courts but utterly to abolish the established Government in the Church And then 2. By the Assistance of the Scots to maintain a War against the King and to reduce Him to such Terms as the Two Houses should think fit to put upon Him That they might be able to Give Laws to the King from whom they were bound to Receive them 3. Unlawful also it was in the Matter of it Sect. 45. as binding men 1. To Impossibilities if not in nature yet certainly in equit Viz. binding men to do that which they had no power no authority to do What Power or authority had Subjects to enter into such an Oath not only without but contrary to the mind consent and express Command and Will of their Soverargn What Authority P. e or Call had they to endeavour the Overthrowing of that Government as Antichristian under which the Christian Church had been happy and flourished so many hundred years and which they were by the positive Laws of our Land bound not to oppose but to obey and submit unto Id solum possumus quod jure possumus Properly we only can do that which we lawfully may do In this sense then the Covenant should bind to impossibilities which argues a Nullity unless Subjects can pretend to a power to overthrow any thing which the Law establisheth whensoever they like it not Farther 2. Unlawful it was as binding to Unjust Sect. 46. and Dishonest things also 1. Infallibly No Oath can bind to Sedition or the overthrow of those Laws that we are bound to obey and that Oath obligeth to injustice and impiety which obligeth to Perjury and the breach of former not yet cancelled obligations Now the Laws had established Episcopacy Ministers had Sworne Obedience to the Bishop There can therefore be no obligation because so much Impiety in that Oath which if it should oblige would oblige to Perjury Object I know what hath been said to this Viz. That those who have Sworne obedience to the Laws of the Land are not thereby prohibited to endeavour by all lawful means the abolition of those Laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous But 1. Solut. 1. The Utmost of that Obedience which was sworn to the Bishops was but in Licitis Honestis in lawful and honest things And how a lawful and honest obedience should be culpable or the Laws that required it should be mischievous or inconvenient I confess I yet never could have eyes to see nor I think any man else 2. Sol. 2. Had the Laws which established Episcopacy been such yet it will seem very strange to a considering and intelligent man that presently to enter into such a Covenant and Combination and by force and power to break through those Laws and overthrow the established Government whether the King will or no should ever be accounted a lawful means Again 3. Sol. 3. Suppose it inconvenient yet Subjects have no power to Make a Law or Alter a Law for themselves If any mischief or inconvenience had been in that Law or the Government established we might lawfully have shewed the Grievances and Petitioned for a redress to those to whom only it belonged to reform them but to Swear to extirpate a Government to overthrow a Law against the Law-givers consent this is somewhat else than a peaceable petition or an honest endeavour Though we might by humble petition in such a case beg a Reformation yet without all controversie we were bound by our Allegiance Duty and former oaths to obey that which was established until the Supreme power should see it just or fit to alter it 2. Sect. 47. That Oath which bindeth men to the injury of another whom we are bound to love as we love our selves and to do to them as we would have others do to us is unjust in the matter of it and consequently unlawful and bindeth not But this Covenant bindeth to such an injury an injury not of one or two but an whole Order of Bishops who were once a Third Estate and by the good Providence of God are so now again to the depriving of them both of their Places and Power in the Church and of their Lands Estates and Livelihoods that if they lived they must live upon Alms as many