only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane church-Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
to set a Bishop in every Market Town or to take the use of the Keys from Laymen or to take down Archdeacons Officials Commissaries Surrogates c Whether all Reformation be out of the power of the King or not to be desired by the people 2. Whether that which is Lawful may not be done by the Law makers and be endeavoured by speech in Parliament or by petition by the people Especially if the King Command it 3. Whether men be not bound by a Vow to that which is Lawful much more to that Which is antecedently a duty 3. The Conformists are here disagreed among themselves some say that the Vow Bindeth not because it was unlawfully imposed But otherâ— better say that this proveth no more but that the Imposers could not bind me to take it by any authority of theirs And that if I had taken it in secret without imposition I had been bound by it Els no private Vow should bind Some say that it binds not because it was sinfully taken But others truly say that if Oaths bind not wherever men take them sinfully no wicked man should ever be bound by Oaths or Vows because they usually make them sinfully by an ill end and intention wrong motives or ill principles or manner Or at least a bad man might choose whether ever he will be obliged But all good casuists agree that if the matter be lawful the unlawful taking hinders not the obligation A man that is Baptized with ill motives or intentions is yet obliged by his Baptismal Vow Some say that it binds not because the matter it self is unlawful But it s granted that it bindeth to no unlawful matter Others therefore truly say that he that Voweth six things whereof three are sinful is not disobliged by the conjunction of these from the other three that are Lawful Els a Knave may keep himself disobliged as to all Vows by putting in some unlawful thing Some say that it binds not because we were antecedently bound to all that is good by other bonds and therefore not by this But others truly say that this is a most intollerable reason and would nullifie our Baptismal Vow and all our sacramental Vows renewed and all Covenants that ever man can make to God of any duty For Gods own Laws first bind us to every duty But for all that our own Vows Covenants and promises secondarily bind us also And a man may have many obligations to one duty Yea indeed the Covenanters ordinarily profess that they think not that a man should Vow any thing to God but what God first hath made his duty And they are against the Papists for making Religions and duties to themselves which God never made And therefore they profess that if some things in the Covenant were not their duty before they would not think that they are bound to it now And they profess that if they had never taken that Vow they had been bound to all that by it they are bound to And therefore condemning that Vow doth no whit secure the Government of the Church e. g. Lay Chancellours use of the Keys or the destruction of discipline from their Lawful endeavours to alter it And they profess that seeing the King hath power to command them Lawful things if they had Vowed any thing meerly Indifferent it would not have bound them against the Kings Commands Because it is not in subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from their obedience to authority Some say that the Proclamation of King Charles the first against the Covenant null'd the obligation But others truly say 1. That it could null no more than the Imposition to take it and not the obligation when it 's taken in necessary things 2. That this is nothing to all them that took it afterward and that when Charles II. had though injuriously been drawn to declare for it Some say that it binds not because men took it unwillingly But others truly say 1. that this would leave it in the power of a bad man to nullifie all Vows and contracts by saying that he did them unwillingly 2. That man hath fâ—ee will and cannot be compelled And a Vow of a thing Lawful to save ones life bindeth Men must rather die than lie 3. This would teach Subjects to say that they take all Oaths of Alegiance to the King unwillingly and therefore are not bound 4. It s true that no man that forceth another injuriously to a promise can claim to himself any right from that which was not free but procured by his own injurious violence or fraud But God wrongeth none and a Vow to God bindeth though procured by sinful force by men Some say that It was only a League and Covenant with men and not a Vow and therefore ceaseth câ—ssante occasione and by the consent of Parliamentâ— c. Ans There is no place for the belief of this objection to any that knoweth a Vow otherwise than by the name Indeed an Oath that is but an appeal to God that I will faithfully perform my Covenant with a man obligeth me not when that man hath discharged me from any obligation to him But this in question was primarily a promise or Covenant made to God which is a Vow and a League and Covenant of men with one another that they will perform it as is notorious to any man that readeth it with common understanding II. The second thing questioned about that Vow and the main is whether every Minister must or may become the judge of all other mens Consciences and obligations in three Kingdoms even of many thousands whom they never saw nor heard of and that so far as to absolve or justifie them from all obligations by that Vow to endeavour any Church reformation 2. It is here supposed 1. That though men ought to take an Oath in the sence of a Lawful Governour so far as they know it yet that they are not bound beyond the plain meaning of the words to the sense of Usurpers Therefore they know not but the King and Lords c. might take the same words in another meaning than the obtruders did intend e. g to reform according to Gods Word and the example of the best reformed Churches might signifie to them an opposition to Presbytery 2 That if men mistake the sence of the Imposers they are bound to keep an Oath in the Lawful sence in which they took it And then how knoweth every Minister in what sense every man in the three Kingdoms took it And how is he able to say that no one man of them all is obliged by it to endeavour a lawful and necessary reformation 3. And as to the former Argument that men were forced to it many of the Old Parliament are yet living and many others that then forced others to it and were not forced to it themselves 4 And if the present Parliament-men could upon what compulsion soever Vow to reform e. g. scandalous Ministers Swearing
Ecclesiastical Laws as the Surplice the sign of the Cross at the sacred Font kneeling in receiving the Sacrament and such like which yet by some light prejudice he thought were superstitious and Popish The question is What obligation there is in this case I say 1. Such an Oath cannot be taken during such errour without grievous sin For he sinneth grievously that sinneth against his conscience though erroneous For when the Judgment of the Intellect is every ones nearest Rule of action the will if it follow not that judgment failing from its Rule must needs be carried into sin It 's a common saying He that doth against his conscience buildeth to Hell Verily he that sweareth what he thinketh unlawful would swear if it were indeed unlawful that becometh unlawful to him that is lawful to another as the Apostle judgeth Rom. 14. 14 2. I say such an Oath doth not bind Because an Oath cannot take away a former obligation nor induce another obligation contrary to it But that Oath which is taken against the dictate of conscience had a former obligation arising from that dictate For the dictate of conscience whether right or erroneous alwaies obligeth at least not to act against it But a following Oath cannot remove that obligation but is it self invalid and loseth its obliging force 3. But if the swearer after better taught do see and correct his errour the Oath which bound him not before beginneth then to bind him P. 77. Other Cases there are of things by Accident unlawful by reason of ill effects of the thing it self as it may be a hinderer of a greater good or a cause at least an occasion of evil The fourth Case is when the thing sworn seemeth unlawful as hindering the effect of some antecedent good as of a Vow or Promise made before As if one that had before-hand bound himself to some work of Piety or Charity after take an Oath that hindereth the fulfilling of the former Vow As if one that vowed to give half his gain weekly to the poor shall after swear to give it all to the war This case hath no difficulty I plainly answer such an Oath is neither lawful nor obligatory because that the former obligation whencesoever contracted whether by Covenant or by Vow or by bare Promise or by meer Office or Duty remaineth valid and puts a bar to every following contrary act Read Prael 4. § 11 12 13 14 15. what he saith for the obligation 1. Of spontaneous Oaths 2. Of Oaths caused by fraud 3. Or by fear extorted 4. Even of Oaths to Robbers P. 110. 3. He that taketh an Oath imposed by one that had no just authority but not otherwise vicious is bound to perform what he swore Read p. 175 c. what he saith at large against equivocation stretching reservations as opening the door to all lying and perjury and frustrating the end of Oaths P. 195. Of the latitude and extent of an Oath How far the senso is to be measured by the scope As when the Cause of the Oath was particular but the words are general e. g. The Popes Usurpation was the Cause of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy But the words of the Oath so assert the Kings Supremacy as exclude all others as well as the Pope from exercising supreme Power in this Kingdom Answ Such an Oath obligeth as to the words themselves in their utmost latitude The Reason is because the intention of the Law though made on a particular occasion is general to hinder all incommodities of the same kind for the future As Lawyers fetch not the sense of Laws from the Proem but from the body of the Statute so we must judge of the just interpretation of an Oath not by the promised recognition or other preface but by the body of the Oath it self P. 208. He is alwaies perjured that intendeth not what he promised but he is not alwaies perjured that performeth not what he promised The bond being dissolved P. 227. Vows made to God as a party cannot be relaxed by man though men may give away their own If you swear for the sake of another as to his honour obedience profit or other good the Oath bindeth not unless he for whom you swear take it as acceptable and firm P. 242. Concl. 4. It is a grievous sin to impose an Oath unduly on another As 1. An Oath not stablished by Law or Custom c. 2. An Oath that is repugnant or in the sense that the words hold forth in the common use of speaking seemeth repugnant to any Oath by him formerly lawfully taken 3. They that constrain men to swear to a thing unlawful as against our duty to God or our Superiours or the Laws of the Kingdom or against good manners or that which is otherwise dishonest and may not be kept 4. He who imposeth an Oath of ambiguous sense or any way captious to ensnare the conscience life liberty or fortune of his neighbour 5. He that without necessity by fear compelleth or by Authority impelleth or by counsel example fraud or other artifice or reason induceth another to swear who he knoweth will swear against the judgment of his conscience I would all men in great power would remember how filthy a character Jeroboam branded his own conscience fame and name with that made Israel to sin and how greatly they provoke God's great wrath against themselves that abuse their power to other mens ruine which God gave them for edification and not for destruction P. 243. Concl. 5. An offered Oath is not to be taken with a reluctant or doubting conscience 1. Because what is not of faith is sin 2. Because we must swear in judgment which he doth not that sweareth against his consciences Judgment 3. Because this is done for some temporal commodity or to avoid some loss or obtain some gain or to get some mans favour or such like But how unworthy of a Christian is it to set God behind the World Heaven behind Earth the Soul behind the Body eternal joy behind temporal gain the hope of the life to come behind present ease inward peace behind outward 4. Because he that so sweareth evidently exposeth himself to the danger of Perjury a most heinous sin For he that for hope or fear of any temporal commodity or discommodity can be induced to swear that which he ought not it is scarce credible but he may by the like hope or fear be drawn from doing what he swore And PERJURY was by the very heathens accounted one of those most heinous sins which they believed would bring the wrath of the Gods not only on the guilty but on their posterity yea on whole nations much more is it to be feared of us who worship that one true God who hath solemnly professed that he will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain Lest while which way ever we look we see such a great and luxuriant crop of Oaths and