Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	ecclesiastical_a	synod_n	2,123	5	9.4135	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85826	The Covenanters plea against absolvers. Or, A modest discourse, shewing why those who in England & Scotland took the Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their consciences discharged from the obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the Oxford men; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others. In which also several cases relating to promisory oathes, and to the said Covenant in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, reason, and the joynt suffrages of casuists. Contrary to the indigested notions of some late writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson. Written by Theophilus Timorcus a well-wisher to students in casuistical divinity.	Timorcus, Theophilus.; Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654, attributed name.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656, attributed name.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing G314; Thomason E1053_13; ESTC R202125	85,431	115

Christians have a power given them by the Word of God to chuse fitting Messengers which being so chosen and met together may consult and determine in some Ecclesiastical cases But certain it is there was never such a National Convention in England so that we need not enquire the matter of Fact nor the force and power of such decrees how far and in what cases they do oblige either present or future Generations § 13. The power which any Synod Convocation or Convention met at any time in England can pretend to have had must be either from the Pope before the Reformation in the time of King Hen. the 8th or by vertue of some Act of Parliament since that time § 14. Our Absolvers talk so much of the Church of England and the Lawes of the Church and Sons of the Church by which they mean the Hierarchy though it will be hard for them interpreting the Church in that notion to answer the Papists asking them where our Church was before Luther for I am sure we had no Protestant Prelacy before that time that it will not be amiss for us to take a view of the Church of England under this Notion and consider what power she had and from whom derived to make any Ecclesiastical Lawes that should be this day so obligatory that an Oath taken against them must be forthwith void § 15. We are indeed told by some Ecclesiastical Writers of King Lucius who about the year 170. was an Instrument of planting the Gospel in England and that he in stead of the Paganish Arch-Flamins and Flamins established 28 Archbishops and Bishops but the evidence of it is so feeble that we find few giving any credit to it much less was the Nation so early christianized so far as to have any Synod so full as to make Lawes obliging the whole Nation Nor indeed is there any Authentick Records of any considerable English Synod till near the year 600 then Pope Gregory sent over Augustine the Monk to convert the Brittains and he made hast in his work baptizing 10000 in a day This doubtless was the man who first founded Prelacy in England himself being the first Arch-Bishop in conformity to the Order of the Romish Church whence he came we know that it is said by some that when he came her found here one Archbishop and seven Bishops but no such thing appears in his Letters not are their Names or places of residence expressed § 16. This Augustine by Authority derived from the Pope appointeth Bishops calleth a Synod and enacteth Lawes c. From that time which was the year 586. to the year 1205. we have no Record of any Ecclesiastical Lawes made in England the Christians here were doubtless governed by the Popish Canon Law Although in that time there were 43 Archbishops of Canterbury if we may believe Chronologers yet have we no Record of any obligatory Canons were made by them § 17. Betwixt 1205. and 1414. were 14 Archbishops of Canterbury beginning with Steph. Langton and ending with H. Checkly these all made some Provincial Lawes which are gathered together and put into some method by Lindwood Within that time the Pope sending over two Legates Otho in the year 1226. 11 Hen. 3. and Othobonus in the year 1248. which was the 32 Hen. 3. They also each of them made parcels of Canons which were after collected by Johannes de Aton and were all the Lawes of the Church of England as they call it in force Nor do we read of any more done till the 25 Hen. 8. which was the year 1533. Till this time the Church of England was lost in the Popish rubbish according to our Brethrens sense of Church for the Prelates there was none other no not one § 18. In that year the Reformation of the Church was begun by Parliament who made an Act printed in our Statute Book forbidding any of the Clergy from that time to presume to attempt alledge claim or to put in ure any constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons or to enact promulge or execute any such Canons c. or assemble to enact them without the Kings Writ calling them together and the Kings Highness his consent ratifying them c. So that from that day no Laws made by the Church could oblige us unless K. Hen. 8. first called the Church-men together and then ratified what they Decreed § 19. As to all former Church-laws the Parliament in that Act gave power to K. Hen. 8. to call together 32 persons to review all old Canons and to collect a body of Canons out of them being not contrary to the Laws of God nor the Laws of the Land which when they had done K. Hen. 8. was to confirm them and immediatly upon the review of the old Canons they were all by than Act abrogated and nulled and so all Canons also after to be made contrary to the Laws of the Nation c. § 20. Before these 32 persons could be called and meet and finish their work K. Hen. 8. dieth The former Act not giving power to the King his Heirs and Successors to call the 32 persons K. Edw. 3 4 Ed. 6. cap. 11. did not do it till the Parliament meeting in the 3d and 4th year of his Reign by a new Act gave him also power with the advice of his Council within three years to name the 32 persons which his father should have named § 21. King Edw. the 6. by his Letters Patents bearing date at Westminster 11 Nov. in the 5th year of his Reign authorizeth the 32 Persons whose Names and Powers may be seen by the Copy of those Letters Patents prefixed to a Book called Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum They met and within the three years time reviewed all and compiled that Book called as aforesaid upon which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. The old Canon Lawes were utterly abrogated but before King Edward had confirmed this new Book he died So that there was no Lawes of the Church of England left in any force § 22. Q. Mary succeeds she revives the old Popish Canon Law Q. Eliz. after her reviveth the Reformation In her time several Injunctions and Canons were made After her time K. James summoned a Synod Anno 1603. which made 141 Canons but as Qu. Elizabeths to our knowledge were never confirmed so much as by the Royal assent so the latter were never yet confirmed by Act of Parliament by which alone we are told that our Consciences can be obliged is perfect Lawes § 23. It is observeable That in the Statute 25 Hen. 8. authorizing such Canons as should hereafter be made in Convocations assembled by the Kings Writ being first confirmed by the King It is not said by the Kings Majesty his Heirs or Successors though in other parts of the same Act those words are added It is very probable that the want of those words in the following part of the Act concerning his

THE COVENANTERS PLEA AGAINST Absolvers Or a MODEST DISCOURSE SHEWING Why those who in England Scotland took The Solemn League and Covenant cannot judge their Consciences discharged from the Obligation of it by any thing heretofore said by the OXFORD MEN or lately by Dr Featly Dr. Gauden or any others In which also several Cases relating to PROMISORY OATHES and to the said COVENANT in special are spoken to and determined by Scripture Reason and the joynt Suffrages of Casuists Contrary to the indigested Notions of some late Writers yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. SANDERSON Written out by THEOPHIIUS TIMORCUS a Well-wisher to Students in Casuistical Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menander LONDON Printed for T. B. and are to be Sold in Westminster Hall and Pauls Church-yard 1661. The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes c. Chap. 14. upon the Covenant As things now stand good men shall least offend God or me by keeping their Covenant by good and lawful means since I have the Charity to think that the chief End of the Covenant in such mens Intentions was to preserve Religion in Purity and the Kingdom in Peace To the Honourable The COMMONS Assembled in the PARLIAMENT of England More especially Such as serve for the Western Parts and for the several Burroughs in Cornwall Honourable Senators § 1. THE Name of a God hath ever been esteemed so sacred the Reverence of Oathes so great and the sin of Perjury so infamous even amongst those who knew not God but knew by nature the things contained in his Law that if any man speaks at an advantage to his brother he may promise himself the highest improvements of it who pleads that the holy Name of the Lord may not be profaned that the highest security for mens saith may not be violated and that the guilt of Perjury may not be incurred § 2. This Noble Senators is the argument of the following sheets and we think our selves happy that we shall speak for our God and for our own souls before you touching all the things whereof we are accused and touching a most sacred Oath which we have taken with the highest Solemnities that ever attended any publick action especially because we know that many of your souls are bound in the same Bond with us and that our selves were brought into it by that Authority which God hath now devolved into your hands and that you are expert in all customs and questions which relate to the English Lawes and Liberties and we know also that you believe the Scriptures We beseech you therefore to hear us patiently § 3. We fear the great and living God who hath said You shall not swear by my Name falsly neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God Having therefore at the Command of Lords and Commons Assembled in-Parliament Anno 1643 1644. lift up our hands unto God and sworn that we would endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy that is the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Officers depending upon that Hierarchy we cannot go back either by endeavouring to build what we have destroyed or by any positive owning of any such Ecclesiastical Authority though we acknowledge our selves obliged by all sacred Bands to be actively obedient both to the King as Supream and likewise to the Parliament in all things where he who is higher than the Highest hath not by his Command superseded such our Allegiance and where the salvation of our immortal souls is not hazarded And which God forbid if any thing of that nature should by any mistake be commanded by you we humbly acknowledge it our duty without any thoughts of rebelling against you to exercise our Faith and Patience in suffering what shall be imposed upon us committing the cause of our souls to him who judgeth righteously § 4. For our Consciences in this thing most noble Senators are we this day called in question and judged for what we do in obedience as we humbly conceive to the holy Law of God For this Conscience sake in reference to our Oath are we accused by our Brethren § 5. Out of the Conscience of that Oath it was that many of your selves have suffered and done many things both in opposition to the late usurpations of Government and for the restoring of his most Sacred Majesty you have not also wanted Companions in your Sufferings from our inferior Orbe where many have been found who that they might keep their souls clear from so high a guilt as that of Perjury have not only been content to deny themselves advantages of preferment but to suffer the loss of Life Livelihood Liberty to be Exiles in a strange Land and to forsake whatsoever hath been dear to them § 6. We are now told Right Honourable that all your and our Sufferings upon this account were in vain for the Oath of God which we so reverence was ab initio null and void That the matter of it was sinful and unlawful seditious schismatical That the power imposing it was unlawful the design of it Rebellion and Faction that it was a forced Oath c. § 7. We know and are assured that this cannot be the sense of your Honours concerning it For whose were the Votes and Ordinances by which our souls were engaged in that Sacred Bond Certainly by the men whose these were our Consciences are with child with this Oath and we have so reverent thoughts of your Honours charity that you will so far contribute to our safe delivery that we shall not die for want of that help which you can give us § 8. Yet because not only our private Honour but the Honour also of the English Parliament and Nation are as we humbly conceive deeply concerned in our vindication as to this Point we have thought it our duty to lay at your Honours feet a just Apology for our selves and for the Oath which at the command of some of your Honours we have taken together with our PLEA in vindication of the Parliament of England from that Irreligion which some have charged upon them in imposing an Oath contrary to the Law of God that Ignorance which others charge them with for commanding an Oath contrary to the Lawes of the Nation yea from that want of common sense which others impute to them in the contrivement of an Oath so full of contradictions both to former Oaths and within it self that forsooth it must needs be felo de se and die if not by the wounds of former Obligations yet by the ill-favoured hands of its own nonsence or self contradiction § 9. As to our concernment most noble Patriots upon whom the ends of the time of Reformation are come we are not so much concerned now to enquire whether the imposing and taking of that Covenant at first were lawfull yea or no Our Question is Whether we having taken it are not now

the common notion of it be sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei a promise made unto God in the things of God who so reads the first second or last Paragraphs must certainly see much of a Vow in it And if the imposing of it under penalty delivers any that have taken it from the obligation of a Vow either through want of freedom or deliberation yet certainly this will not excuse the first Contrivers and Composers The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament at that time did not only make a Promise and confirm it with an Oath but vowed in it a Vow to the mighty God of Jacob and stand concerned to do according to the Vow which they have vowed That it is a Covenant both with God and men is so evident that he who runs may read it So far as it contains in it any promise made on our part for the doing of those things which the Word of God revealeth to be his will concerning us that we should do either relating to the Reformation of the Church or our own personal Reformation or for the declining of what is contrary thereunto of which nature is much both in the first second and last Paragraphs of it it is unquestionably a Covenant with God Besides this The King Parliament and People of the Three-Nations by it mutually covenant each with other for the performance of those things which respect them in their several stations either respecting Reformation or the Preservation of each others mutual Rights The King covenanted with his People that he will reform Religion in Doctrine Worship and Discipline according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches That he will preserve the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of the Church of Scotland c. In this also the Parliament joynes with him as also for the preservation of the peoples Liberties King and People covenant to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament The People covenant with the King to preserve his Majesties Person Honour and Authority c. Throughout the whole there is a mutual stipulation of the People of the Three Nations each with other § 8. So that if there be any vertue in a promise from the truth of men by it laid to pawn and not to be redeemed without a just fulfilling of the thing promised If any Religion in an Oath because of the Reverence we owe to the Sacred Name of God and because the Lord will not hold him guiltlesse that taketh his Name in vain If any Obligation resulteth from a Vow because of the Fealty which we owe unto God before and above all others If finally a man be obliged to keep his Covenant from the consideration either of truth or justice it all contributeth to the strength of this Sacred Bond by which all the Souls that have taken it in the Three Nations are this day bound to the Almighty and each to other § 9. And certainly for those who are not so immediatly concern'd but can glory that either they were not of age or that they were only standers by when others thus obliged themselves if there be any Ingenuity in them any Reverence of God any Brotherly Love or any good will to the Land of their Nativity they will be obliged to be jealous for their Brethren who have thus bound themselves with a godly jealousie lest whiles for such a presumptuous transgression as the violation of this sacred Bond must be the wrath of the Lord shall burn up the dwellings of Transgressors their contiguity of habitation expose them to the danger in which it is ordinary for the Justice of a Righteous God to involve the neighbourhood of sinners To say nothing of their concernment in the prophaning of the Lords Name whose honour is equally impeached by our Neighbours sins as by our own If they be Lots their righteous soules will be vexed with the evil conversation of their Neighbours If Davids their eyes will run down with rivers of waters because others keep not Gods Laws Which makes the bold discourses of some not only to grate upon our ears but to pierce our hearts whilst we hear them not only content to dispense with their own Engagements but reviling others whose Consciences cannot allow them that Latitude or who take themselves concerned to warn the souls committed to their charge to beware of so great a sin as that of Perjury Nay whilst we see them so ill employing their wits and Pens as to invent strange distinctions and assert positions contrary to all Divinity that they may not only break Gods Commandments themselves but imbolden others so to do as if they had an ambition to be degraded into the order of such as shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God Mat. 5.19 CHAP. III. Containing a Corollary from the Premises concluding the mistake of those who say an Oath adds no special Obligation beyond the Reason and Religion of the Matter FRom what hath been already said 't is not hard to conclude That a Promise a Vow an Oath or Covenant or any form of Obligation compounded of two or more of these engaging us to any future performance addeth to any praevious Obligation which might before be upon us from the Law of Nature or from the Law of Gods eternal Righteousness For whereas the matter of these may be either impossible or unlawful in which cases the obligations are ipso facto null and void and we are only bound to repentance Or 2. Indefinite and uncertain in which case the obligation must be adjudged and determined when the true nature of the matter appeareth to us Or 3. Necessary praeviously required of us by some Divine Law Or 4. Lastly Free and indifferent neither part being determined by the Divine Law Certain it is that where the thing which we have promised sworn vowed or covenanted for is such as is in our own power Our Promise Vow Oath or Covenant createth in us an obligation to that part which we have so bound our selves for and depriveth us of our former liberty in it and hence an Oath or Vow is called by Divines lex privata a By-law which man hath made unto himself And where the matter is necessary viz. such as Gods Law before hath required of us any of these encrease our Obligation All Casuists I think are thus far agreed Dr. Sanderson de juram promiss prael 3. §. 6. Ad quae praestanda vel injuratitenemur saith Dr. Sanderson jurati certè multo magis tenemur What we are bound to do although we had never sworn to the performance we are much more obliged to when once we have sworn it Nor are they the bare Words Letters or sillables of Covenants or Oaths which as Charms bind any mans Conscience But it is the rational Act of the man who promiseth voweth or sweareth yea his religious Act which obligeth him and that beyond the innate Reason and Religion of the matter to the performance of

only which had they been first known had made the entring into such sacred bond unlawful Filiucii Qu. m. tr 25. cap. 8. ratione materiae inhabilis ad producendam obligationem in regard of the matter being such to which an obligation could not be created Filiucius tels us that an Oath must be interpreted according to the nature of the act to which it is annexed because he who sweareth intendeth to swear only that which he promiseth in the same manner and under the same conditions as he promiseth We much doubt the truth of this which dependeth upon another question Whether an oath may not bind a man beyond his intention when he swears Undoubtedly an Oath may oblige a man beyond his private intention and in this we think all Protestant Casuists agree That other Rule therefore given by Casuists is better Juramenti obligatio est strictè Juris That an Oath must be strictly interpreted quoad materia verba permiserint as strictly as the matter and words will bear and thus Filiucius agrees at last and Suarez with him And it were a woful shame for us Christians to dispute this when Tully tels us Cicero de Offic. lib. 3. that an Oath must be kept in that sense sicut verbis concipitur more nostro Yet Divines here ordinarily distinguish betwixt spontaneous arbitrary Oaths and such as are by others imposed upon us and concerning each determine thus 1. That such Oaths as we voluntarily take must be interpreted ex ipsius jurantis mente by our selves best Judges of our own sense 2. But such as are imposed by others must be by us interpreted according to the sense of those that imposed them upon us Thus Dr. Sanderson rightly determineth and quoteth Augustine in the case Ep. 224 225. He adds this irrefragable reason Because the end of imposing Oaths upon others is to create or beget to the Imposers an assurance from him or those that take them that they will fulfil what they swear or promise which assurance none can have who imposeth an Oath upon another if he that takes the Oath have a Latitude of interpretation left unto him with a liberty to abound in his own sense § 4. Yet both these rules must be limited so that neither our private sense of our Spontaneous Oathes nor yet the sense of those that impose Oathes upon others must be other then will comport with the just signification of the words or phrases in the Oath Vow or Covenant for this were to destroy the simplicity necessary to every Oath and indeed not to interpret but to coin an Oath or new Obligation § 5. We must conclude then That the sense of the Covenant being at the will of others imposed upon us for their security that we would do as we there promised must be no other then what comporting with the significancy of the words in which it was conceived was the sense of the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament concerning it And from a strict Obligation to the performance of it in their sense we see nothing can discharge the soul unless some publick Declaration at the taking of it we say publick for otherwise there was a deliberate voluntary deceiving the expectation of those that imposed it and we think Augustine speaketh a great deal of reason when he tels us that Whosoever deceiveth the expectation of him to whom he swears can be no less then a perjured person Which passage Dr. Sanderson quoteth out of him § 6. Nor that Parliament being now extinct can we imagine how we should better conclude their sense then by considering the words themselves in which they expressed this obligation and taking a view so far as we can of their precedent and subsequent Acts or Ordinances The words of the Covenant so far as concerns our purpose are found in the 2d Article thus That we shall in like manner without respect of persons endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy i.e. Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending upon that Hierarchy Superstition Haeresie Schism Prophaness and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness lest we partake in other mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues and that the Lord may be one and his Name one in these three Kingdoms § 7. The thing here Covenanted for is an Indeavour to extirpate Popery and Prelacy That we might the better understand what they meant by Prelacy they tell us It is the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending upon that Hierarchy Certainly he that runs may read and here is no great need of an Interpreter We have not Covenanted against Bishops every Minister is a Bishop but against the Prelacy of Bishops but in regard that the Prelacy of Bishops is of several kinds there possibly may remain a question What Prelacy the Lords and Commons intended in the Covenant § 8. There is a 1 Prelacy of Jurisdiction and 2 a Prelacy of meer order The Prelacy of Jurisdiction is of two kinds for distinction sake we may call the first Pontifical the second Paternal The first is such a Prelacy where the single Prelate assumes to himself a sole power in Ordination and Jurisdiction and though it may be in a complement he cals in a Presbyter or two to his assistance yet it is ex abundanti what he judgeth not himself obliged to do It is not reasonable to imagine that the Parliament intended only the extirpation of this Prelacy Bilson de Gub. Eccl. cap. 13. for although Bilson and some others tell us that the Presbyters joyning with the Bishop in the imposing hands upon Presbyters was rather ad consensum than consecrationem Field of the Church l. 5. cap. 56. yet Dr. Field speaks more soberly and tels us There ought to be a concurrence of other Ministers hands as well as the Bishops in Ordinations they having an equal Ministry and power of order with him Nor had any such Prelacy as this ever any footing in England other then what the arrogance of some single persons gave it § 9. We call that a Paternal Prelacy where the Colledge of Presbyters hath a Prelate who must concur with them ordinarily in Ordinations and acts of Jurisdiction This say the most sober men was all the Prelacy which ever was allowed in the Church of England we are sure this is all for which there can be the least pretence of any divine or Apostolical authority § 10. The Prelate of meer order nothing differs from a continued Moderator having no more power than his brethren in Ordination or Jurisdiction but for order sake praesiding amongst them § 11. There being no question but that the Covenant is to be interpreted against the first the question only remains

that weakness no man being bound to do things contradictory which indeed were impossible at least in this case which we have before us And this seems a task reasonable for us considering that the Adversaries of the Covenant have arraigned it of this before the world and pronounced sentence against it § 2. I shall onely premise this That where a man by an Oath Vow Covenant obligeth himself unwarily to doe many things though afterwards he finds that two of these things are contradictory and the contradiction of them dischargeth his observance yet he will stand bound to doe the other thing contained in that bond An Oath may be unlawfull in some part and yet Obligatory unlawfull as to some part and yet obligatory as to other parts Dr. Sanderson de Jur. prom prael 3. sect 5. Aq. 22. q. 89. Aquinas of old and Dr. Sanderson tell us that in case a man hath sworn to things which he finds impossible to be performed yet he is obliged ad faciendum quantum potest to perform as much of it as he can So that those who would discharge people from the obligation of the Covenant as to the extirpation of Prelacy must shew us that there is something in the Covenant contradictory to that particular or else they say nothing to our purpose By reason of other allegations the first taking of the Covenant might be unlawfull but being taken as to this it will be found obliging § 3. Both for this and the other Branches of the Covenant we must confess our selves to have so much reverence for the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament for the Reverend Assembly of Divines for the Parliament and Church of Scotland for all those Ministers and judicious Christians in England who so freely took the Covenant that we are not easie to beleeve that an Oath upon mature deliberation could have been swallowed and imposed by them guilty of so palpable a fault as contradicting it self in any thing But as to this particular which is onely our concern to examine Those that plead this must produce another branch of the Covenant obliging us to preserve and maintain or at least not to oppose the Government of the Church in England by Prelacy of Arch-Bishops and Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends c. which for our part we cannot find but beleeve there is no such thing as not in the letter of it so neither by any just consequence to be concluded § 4. Whereas Doctor Featly assigns this seeming contradiction in that the first branch bindeth us to a Reformation of the Church according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches The second branch bindeth us to the Extirpation of Schism as well as Prelacy And the third to preserve and defend his Majesties Person and Authority without any diminution of his just Power and Greatness and to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and the Liberties of the Kingdom And then he tels us that Bilson Downham Armagh and others never answered by any have proved Episcopacy to be most conformable to the Word of God 2. That Prelacy is a means if not the only means to extirpate Schism And thirdly That the Government of Arch-Bishops and Bishops are comprised with the Rights and Liberties of the Church both in Magna Charta and in the Petition of Right the two great Records of English Liberties The answer to all this we think is very easie § 5. To the first what the Doctor meant by answering Bilson c. we cannot tell all the world knows there have been many have called their Writings Answers to them However Bilson's and the others Arguments have been answered many times over Besides that 't is one thing to say Episcopacy against which the Covenant is not directed is conformable to the Word of God Another thing to assert that our English Prelacy was If any will undertake to prove the latter The Government of the Church most conformable to the Word of God or direct us to any who hath pretended to a Scriptural proof of it we dare undertake he shall be answered or the Covenant by all sober men confessed null and voyd But this is an hard task § 6. Supposing Prelacy were a means to extirpate Schism which good effect of it we never yet saw yet if it were an unlawfull or inexpedient mean and there were better might be used and more agreeable to the Word of God we might as well swear against that means and for the extirpation of Schism as against the Spanish Inquisition if it were amongst us which yet will knock down Schism by as good Club-law as ever Prelacy did As to our case now the advancing of it will certainly make as great a Schism as ever was in any Church and those judged Schismaticks must live with it or else the most bloody persecution of innocent soules must follow that ever any Christian Nation knew The asserting of Prelacy as the onely means by the Doctor is not onely gratis dictum not proved at all but most falsly said witness the Church of Scotland which under Presbytery hath had fewer Schisms than we in England under Prelacy have had or are like to have § 7. For the last allegation It is true we have sworn to defend his Majesties Rights the Parliaments Priviledges and the Subjects Liberties But 1. Surely they must be judges we mean the King and Parliament both of their own Rights and Priviledges and also of our Liberties 2. They have also power to disclaim their Rights and give away our Liberties we being included in them And if they will please to give away or part with their own Rights and Priviledges and to disclaim for some of us some particular Liberties and then impose an Oath upon us for ought we know we are bound up by such Oath nor is there any contradiction to be found here Nor can we find the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons either in Magna Charta or the Petition of Right asserted as pieces of the Liberties of England Nor were they such Liberties Certain it is Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Prin and many others had no reason to judge so no more had any other person indeed witness the proceedings in the High Commission and Starchamber their frequent Excommunications of persons for not paying a tythe Goose See the Oath prefixed to Dr. Wrens and to Dr. Montagnes Articles c. not appearing at their Courts their Oath ex officio their Churchwardens Oath impossible to be kept by any that took it with many other things God be mercifull to the poor people of England if these horrid things be appurtenances to their Liberties If these be the things they have petitioned for in their desires so often renewed for the confirmation of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right But let those who make this Plea write out the words

them indeed dispute whether the violation of such Oaths be a mortal sin or only venial whether they bind in foro Ecclesiastico or no according to Civil and Canon Law whether the Pope can absolve in the case or no but that such Oathes bind in the Court of Conscience we finde none doubting There is indeed in the Canon Law a case of a Bishop mentioned from whom Count Arnulph took some goods belonging to his Church and made to swear that he would never endeavour the restoring of them The Bishops case was brought before the Pope he determines the Bishops Oath void and dischargeth him by a formal absolution It is true that Bassianus and some others conclude that the Pope determined the Oath void in foro Ecclesiastico because of the force he was under But the Glossator upon the Canon Law and so Sanches and others determine better that the reason why their Holy Father determined the Bishops Oath void was not because of the force under which the Bishop was but because the matter of the Oath was unlawfull he might not alienate the Churches goods he being but a termer in them And it seems that the Pope himself judged his case such that he stood in need of his Absolution § 11. But to leave the Authorities of men which we must confess signifie very little to us in such a case as this is the obligation of an Oath resulting from divine institution Let us inquire what may be said in reason either for or against the Obligation of such Oaths We never read or heard nor are able to phansie more than two reasons in the case 1. Because what one does under a force he doth not freely and spontaneously 2. Because he who by threatning forceth us to swear to his pleasure doth us an injury and it is against all reason that any should from a wrong raise up to himself a right Both which reasons have been considered by the Schoolmen and Casuists and determined insufficient Sanches tels us Sanches l. 3. cap. 11. Filiucius mor. qu. tract cap. 6. Suarez De Jur. l. 2. cap. 7. that Spontaneitas non est necessaria ad obligationem Juramenti Spontaneity is not necessary to make an Oath obliging and Filiucius tels us coacta voluntas est voluntas A will compelled is a will still Aliquis timoratus potest velle jurare saith Suarez one under a fear may will an act of swearing § 12. And for the latter reason it is determined of no value because the injury done us by men cannot discharge the obligation resulting from an oath unto God Dous jusjurandum sibi delatum non extorquet saith Azorius God doth no man injury by forcing him and hence they determine Azor. inst mor l. 1. c. 11 q. 14. That a naked promise made upon a force doth not oblige because that is onely made to men and no obligation to God resulteth from it but an Oath doth Though we must confess rather to agree with Azorius who saith such promises do bind jure naturali divino by a natural and divine right but not by Ecclesiastical and Canon Law But for Oaths in such cases they generally agree them obligatory And hence Filiucius and others tell us Filiucius u●sup That an Oath added to a Promise so forced from us is not confirmative of an obligation but introductive of an obligation They consider a promise two wayes 1. As it contains an assertion or proposition relating to matter of fact to be after done by us 2. In its proper form as it is our engagement to our Brother tending to his advantage The Oath added to a promise forced from us they say doth not confirm the promise in its proper form not oblige us to do the thing as the doing of it is advantageous to our brother but it obligeth us to make good the assertion or proposition § 13. The truth is art Oath obligeth by vertue of Gods Law and the same Law of God must provide exceptions to discharge the obligation of it The Word of God no where saith that the injury done us by our neighbour or the want of perfect liberty when we do the Act shall discharge us from the performance of it We shall further offer severall reasons against this novel Divinity concerning the nullity of forced Oaths Seven or eight we shall instance in most of which have been pleaded by Divines and we shall give them their honour as we mention them § 14. First in all Reason an Oath into which a man is cheated is lesse obligatory than one by fear extorted Sanches gives the reason quia dolus aufert consensum a man in such a case cannot be said to have consented but that such an oath is obligatory is plain from the instance of the Gibeonites upon which we have the Judgement of all the Princes of the Congregation Jos 2.19 when the cheat was discover'd delivered in these words We have sworn unto them by the Lord therefore we may not touch them because of the Oath which we sware unto them God himself resolves this case 2 Sam. 21.1 punishing all Israel first with three years Famine for the violation of their Fathers Oath and then Saul eminently in the Sacrifice of ten of his Sons to appease Gods wrath for the violation of that Oath Ergo Oaths extorted by fear much more oblige § 15. Secondly The injuries and infirmities of men cannot discharge any obligation upon us unto God But fear concludes onely the injury and infirmity of men We find the Schoolmen and Casuists generally agreeing in this That from every promisory Oath there results a double Obligation The one to men whom the promise concerneth the other to God whose Sacred Name is invoked Aquinas Sanches Azorius Sayrus Filiucius all agree in this and most of them use it as an Argument to prove the Obligation of such Oaths Mens injury in forcing us may diminish the Obligation to them but it cannot acquit us from our debt to God § 16. Thirdly Every Oath which is licitum possibile lawful and possible doth oblige but fear doth not make an Oath either materially unlawful or impossible Baldwin Dr. Sanderson with many others urge this Argument § 17. Every Oath to which a man consents if otherwise lawful is notwithstanding any pretence of fear obliging Baldwin and Dr. Sanderson both urge this The latter urgeth well that the person so swearing hath his choyce whether he will swear or suffer the penalty like to be inflicted upon him for refusing the Oath the will cannot be forced He that thus swears saith Dr. Sanderson chuseth what at that time appeared best to him and is therefore bound by it Gregorius Sayrus agrees in the same reason § 18. Fifthly Because an Oath notwithstanding any circumstance of force may be kept without any hazard to a mans Salvation This Argument is urged by Filiucius the Glossator upon the Canon-Law It seems it was a Rule in Divinity in former