Conscience sake and therefore humbly beg that you would weigh our Answers to the slighty and Atheological Pleas of those who pretend to prove the Covenant void and not obligatory What they say appears to us to be against Scripture Reason and the judgment of all sober Casuists and we believe will so appear to you § 19. The Princes of the greatest Congregation of England Right Honourable i. e. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament were those who sware and who engaged us to swear If our Adversaries may be believed the design of the Oath was to engage the Scots in the Parliaments quarrel His Majesty then living as we said before had more charitable thoughts sure it is that it was a mutual stipulation between the Scots and us Casuists say that my Oath doth not bind my Heir which is true in some cases but they as generally agree the real obligation of an Oath as to the person to whom we swear for their advantages We are sure the Jews which were punished with three years Famine in Saul's time were none of those who had personally sworn to the Gibeonites in the time of Joshuah yet God revengeth their Breach of their Fathers Oath upon them It may be worthy of your Honours consideration whether the Obligation contracted by Oath by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament 1643 1644. do not bind the Noble Lords with your selves who this day make up those Honourable Assemblies though personally you never were engaged in it § 20. However we know and believe that your Honours will be so jealous for the Glorious Name of God so tender of the Souls of the People in these Nations engaged in that Sacred Bond and so afraid of the wrath of God revealed in his Word and by his Providence against those who have made others Sufferers for righteousnesse sake and so careful for the Honour of the Nation that you will not by any Act of yours contribute to any of these ends which will all be the certain consequents of the violation of that Sacred Oath § 21. For as it cannot be imagined but that your Honours Authority establishing any thing contrary to that Oath will be a temptation to many to break that sacred Bond so it can as little be thought but that there will be many thousands in England who will believe that nothing can discharge their Consciences from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon them and therefore will be obliged to go chearfully into the Prisons which shall be provided for them and to suffer any thing rather than to sin against the Lord by such a presumptuous transgression § 22. Besides this we most humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the things endeavoured to be restored have upon former experience proved or may probably be judged like to prove of such advantage either to the civil or religious interests of England as may be fit to be laid in the Ballance with the laying aside so many hundreds if not thousands of Godly Ministers and the sufferings and undoing of so many peaceable and godly people as will be laid a side and made sufferers by the restoring of things in the Church to their formes state after an Oath taken to the contrary § 23. Many of your Honours we know have not yet forgotten how many hard things were suffered in former times by many Godly people in this Nation because in Conscience they could not submit to these things how many of the Kings Subjects were to the weakning of the Nation driven into Forreign Lands to the undoing of themselves and their Families how by this means divers Mysteries of Trades of manufacture in which the wealth of this Nation much lay were communicated to other People all which things formerly were judged worthy of Parliamentary Consideration § 24. We humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the same persons in most places of England be not again endeavouring to be possessed if they be not already invested with the same power and whether after twenty years suffering it be probably to be conceived that they are less full of rage Let enquiry be made at Oxford Cambridge Peterborough c. than formerly And if any hath so much Charity as to think that their sufferings have taught them more moderation we desire your Honours would enquire what specimens they have any where already given of it This we humbly move to your Honours that you may represent it to his Majesty whose Royal Grandfather was such a Zealous Defender of the free Grace of God against Arminians and who himself hath declared such a Zeal against vitious prophane and debauched persons that we cannot but believe him not truly informed either concerning the Principles or conversations of divers persons to whom advantages are given against their Brethren § 25. We are not Right Honourable against the use of an unimposed Lyturgy nor against Primitive Episcopacy we can submit to both we do not think the Covenant was intended against either of these But we are against the divine Right of Archbishops Bishops c. We believe that in the Primitive Church there might be Episcopus praeses a Grave Minister President over his Brethren living within a Circuit proportionate to his Ability for inspection and that without him nothing was ordinarily done in Ordination or Jurisdiction But that he alone could do any thing in either we utterly deny We are sure that in the Primitive Church there was no Archbishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons We are against those Forms of Worship contained in the Service-Book ordinary to be had We believe they are not established by the Lawes of the Land as we have heretofore in a Book for that purpose published made evident to your Honours We are sure that we have lifted up our hands to God that we will endeavour a Reformation in that Point We know that they are offensive in an high degree to the generality of godly and sober men that there are many things in those Books not to be justified in Divinity We are not against the 39 Articles which is usually called the Doctrine of the Church of England We are ready to subscribe all of them so far as they concern matters of Doctrine But we are against Arminianism against which not only King James of Glorious Memory gave an open testimony but the Parliament of England hath also heretofore openly declared And in regard the Patrons of those Points take advantage of some doubtful terms in those Articles as patronizing those their Tenets though the Kings and Parliaments of England have heretofore declared their detestation of those Points We could heartily wish a further explanation of them We are against moral and significant Ceremonies such as the Surplice the Cross in Baptism Bowing at the Name of Jesus Cringing to Altars c. We believe that these things are not only scandalous and unprofitable things that perish with the using but also
Majesties chusing the 32 persons to view the old Canons was the reason why King Edward did not do it King Hen. 8. being dead till a new Act was made to the same purpose to which latter Act K. Edw. 6. in his Letters Patents refers not to that of 25 Hen. 8. Nor is it yet determined whether a Kings confirmation of Canons makes them Law according to that Statute of 25 Hen. 8. supposing that K. Hen. 8. his Heirs and Successors as well as himself were intended in the Statute any longer than his Majesties Person lives who so ratifies and confirms them So that it is far from being so clear that we may adventure the violation of an Oath upon it that we have this day any Canons or constitutions Ecclesiastical of force either by the Lawes of God or of the Nation § 24. But admit this where shall we find any such Canon as this That the Government of the Church of God in England is and shall be by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Arch-Deacons so that it shall be unlawful either for the People of England in their callings and places to endeavour the extirpation of that Form of Government or for the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England to move for or to Vote the alteration of it and to engage People against it by an Oath Somthing of this nature must be proved before the Covenant will be proved contrary to the Lawes of the Church of England and if such a Canon could be shewed it is no Law for it is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation giving power to the Parliaments of England to repeal or alter any Lawes Statutes c. And all Canons contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of the Nation are aforehand declared void and null by the Statute 25 Hen. 8. § 25. By what hath been said appears the vanity of their Plea who plead that the Covenant is null and void because against the Lawe of the Church Let us come now to consider whether they speak more sense or truth who pretend it is void because contrary to the just Lawes of the Nation § 26. It being apparent from the former discourse that there was no Canon-Law of England in any force at the time of the composing imposing and taking of the Covenant the question only lies concerning the civil Lawes of the Nation which according to the Statute 25 Hen. 8. must give all the obligatory vertue which any Ecclesiastical deliberations can have amongst us The Lawes of our Nation are usually distinguished into The Common Law and the Statute Law The first is not written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncertain as may appear from the different senses of Judges in their Book-cases its matter and form is no other than the ancient Customs and Usages of the English Nation which having been retained for many years have been so familiarized with the People of the Nation that by a common consent they have passed and do pass for Law till they are cotrolled by Statute Our Statute Law is made up of the several Acts of about 260 Parliaments and yet is capable of daily augmentation § 27. If those who plead the Covenant contrary to the Lawes of the Nation mean The Common Law of England their sense is no more than this That by the constant usage of the Nation of England the Government of the Church in that Nation hath been by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Prebends Chancellours Commissaries c. and an Oath imposed by the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament taken by the People tending to the destruction of that ancient usage is void and null yea though the King of England disliking the first imposing of it yet afterwards approveth his Subjects taking of it and himself joynes with them and also taketh it Yet neither will this evidence the matter of the Covenant contrary to Law For in the Covenant we have sworn to endeavour the extirpation c. The Law which must be contrary to this must say You shall not endeavour c. Now we appeal to all the Lawyers in England whether there be any piece of the Common Law of England which saies to the Lords and Commons assembled in a Legal Parliament or to the People of England concerning any custom or usage in the English Nation You shall not endeavour in your callings and places the extirpation and alteration of it If there be sure we are the Statute 25 Hen. 8.21 doth control it declaring a full power in the Parliament of England with his Majesties consent to dispense abrogate null diminish amplifie any Lawes c. But there can no such thing be alledged § 28. So that here 's no contrariety to the Common Law Here is only The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament by his Majesties Writ legally taking notice that the external Form of Ecclesiastical Government amongst us according to a long usage of the Nation in the times of Popery viz. from about the year 600. till the time of reformation in the Reign of Hen. 8. and since that time after some regulation of it by Statutes was upon experience found at least very disconvenient to the reformed state of the Church amongst us and having power in them with the Kings consent to be afterwards had to abrogate null diminish or amplifie any English Lawes usages c. agreeing to extirpate this usage and swearing and causing the People of England to swear with them that they would in their callings and places endeavour to extirpate it Whether the King pleased to consent or no certainly they had power in their callings and places to endeavour such a thing The Covenant engageth no further We cannot understand any contrariety in this to the Common Law of England § 29. For the Statute-Law of England we shall only say this That the Statute-Law which must be contrary to the Covenant must speak to this effect The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament upon a Legal Summons shall not swear themselves nor make others swear to endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy i. e. the Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. Where to find such a Law we cannot tell No nor yet such a Statute as positively determines That the Government of the Church in England is and shall be by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Prebends Chancellors Commissaries c. It is true we often in the Statutes meet with these Names and we find the Statutes supposing them Ecclesiastical Officers and telling us That the Kings of England formerly founded this Church in Prelacy what kind of Prelacy and with what circumstances they say not but we are at a loss for any other save this implicit establishment by any Statute Law And we further believe that the Spiritual Lords before the time of K. Hen. the 8 would have taken it in foule scorn that any secular powers should have gone about by a civil Law to establish
them We have read of the heavy stir in King John's time when the King of England did but pretend to the Nomination of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to what a base degree of condescention the Pope and his children here in England humbled their Sovereign for that offer § 30. The truth is no more than this The Parliament of England in the beginning of our Reformation being engaged in prudence to drive no further nor faster in Reformation than the Lambs could go the present state of the Nation could bear which at that time was but very little the Popish party being then the greatest by far the Reformed Party such as did but see men like trees imperfectly discerning the things that differ in Religion were pleased to proportion the Reformation accordingly so as neither the newly Reformed Party might be lost by too much seeming innovation nor the remaining Popish party exasperated too far Hence in matter of Doctrine nothing was agreed till the year 1562. which was the 4 of Eliz. not ratified by Parliament till 1571. viz. 13 Eliz. near thirt years after the first beginning of Reformation Hence in the matter of Worship the same Lyturgy was continued which was used in the Popish Mass only leaving out the Prayers to Saints and for the Pope and the second Edition of the Common-Prayer Anno 5 6 Edw. 6. was much amended in many things from that 2 Edw. only in the business of Kneeling at the Sacrament Didoclavius observeth it was left at liberty by the Common-Prayer-Book 2 Edw. but commanded in the Edition of it 5 6 Edw. 6. yet not without an excellent Rubrick to expound the usage of it still to be seen in the Common-Prayer-Book Edit 5 6 Edw. 6. viz. Anno 1552. but left out in our ordinary Books for what Reasons let any one read and judge As to the Form of Church-Government the reforming Parliaments in the time of Hen. 8. found one in being and the persons exercising it in great power they therefore thought fit not to dispute that Point only to regulate that power which the former usages of the Nation and the Canon-Law had invested them with requiring them to seal with the Kings Arms in their Seales to do nothing without his Writ V. Stat. 5 Eliz. 23. c. Other Parliaments since have denied them any assistance from the civil power to back their censures but in some particular cases and forbade them to administer any Oath to fine amerce 17 Car. or imprison any of the Kings Subjects removing the Bishops out of the Parliament-House c. This is all the establishment we can find that the ancient Hierarchy of England had by any Law of England § 31. But suppose they were so established do our Brethren take it for such an undoubted Gospel-Maxim that an Oath taken against the Lawes of a Nation of what kind soever written or not written consonant to or dissonant from the Law of God is forthwith null and void and no waies obliging Do they believe this such a truth that men may venture the damnation of their soules upon it and venture the curse of God cleaving to their house till it hath consumed the timber thereof and the stones thereof Zech. 5.3 upon the truth of it They may talk thus in drollery to their friends or credulous Proselytes they may to shew their grandiloquence and liberty of phrase in laxe discourses thus speak in Pamphlets but we are so well perswaded of some of their skill in divinity and of their other Learning too that we believe they know that no Scripture no reason no creditable authority will justifie any such thing and they would be loath that their crime in these swelling words of vanity by which the soules of people are ensnared should be expiated by that slight penance of any of their standing two or three daies in any of our schooles to defend such an atheological maxim against what Arguments would be brought against it nor would we desire fairer play in our case § 32. 1. In the first place they will certainly grant that it is false if the Lawes of the Nation to which an Oath pretended contrariant be contrary to the Lawes of God For the contrary assertion were to set up one Higher than the Highest So that if he who hath taken the Covenant doth believe that the Government of the Church in England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries be contrary to Gods Word suppose that it be established by Law or were so established the Oath doth bind against the Law And certainly if Gods Word establisheth any Form it is so for there is in it ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of Deans Prebends Archbishops Chancellors c. § 33. 2. In the second place Our Brethren will certainly grant that in case the King had immediatly consented with his Parliament and imposed the Covenant though it had been expresly apertly positively against any Law or Lawes of the Nation yet the Oath had obliged because they altogether had a power to suspend annul and abrogate any Law It is true this Oath was only imposed by Lords and Commons the King at present not consenting We are no Lawyers nor can we tell how far the power of Lords and Commons extends as to the suspending of the exercise of Lawes or giving of Oaths But we have heard that 2 parts of the legislative power of England lies in the Lords and Commons and that they have of themselves given Oaths in many cases in what cases we know not After this his Majesty declares That those who had taken the Oath should least offend God and him in keeping of it His Majesty that now is takes the same Oath declares his approbation c. Shall it yet be told us that the Oath is void because against the Lawes when all 3 States to whom the legislative power belongs have approved of it Certainly they must have an easie Faith that part with it to such kind of Assertions § 34. 3. But suppose there had been no such thing but the Oath had been meerly spontaneous Our Brethren speak without their books in discharging mens Soules upon this Plea Dr. Sanderson will tell them that if the Law be poenal and hath in it an election either of doing the thing or suffering the penalty an Oath will bind against the active part Fortassis possunt dari casus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari et si non debuerit suscipi De juram prom prael 3. §. 9. susceptum tamen potest obligare ut exempli causa in lege poenali disjunctivâ He puts the case concerning the Law of a City That he who is chosen Mayor by the Freemen shall hold in case he refuseth he shall pay 100 lb. Suppose such a Law and this Law respecting this City established by Act of Parliament A particular Citizen hath taken a private
this time was speaking to the Heads of the Tribes concerning the Children of Israel yet he omits this case as having no special Command from the Lord in it and it will be granted that in many things wherein the Magistrate hath not power over his Subjects the Husband hath power over his wife and the Father over the Child § 6. That the words of this Text are not to be understood in their utmost Latitude is universally acknowledged by Casuists Aq. 22. e. q. 89. art 9 Filiucias tract 25. cap. 9. Azor. mor. inst l. 11. cap. 10. Sanches l. 3. cap 9 11. Ames cas l. 4. cap. 22. qu 11. League illleg p. 10 11. § 1. The matter of the Vow must be such wherein the Law of God hath subjected us to the power of our Superiors Thus Aquinas Sanchez Azorius Filiucius Dr. Ames Dr. Sanderson and indeed all others agree Dr. Featly discoursing against the Covenant saith that to fulfil the express Command of God no man doubteth but that a Covenant may be made not only without but even against the Command of a Prince And indeed the reason is evident because the dominion of the Superior is the reason of the discharge or the suspension of the obligation of such Oaths But saith Dr. Sanderson there is none so much under the power of another but as to some things he is sui juris in his own power and not under his dominion § 2. The Superior when he hears of his Subjects Oaths in such matter must declare openly his dissent For saith the Text if he holds his peace De jur prom prael 4. §. 6. he hath confirmed the Oath To the ratification of an Interiors Oath a praecedaneous express consent is not necessary but a tacit consent is sufficient § 3. The Superior must declare his dissent presently The Text saith in the day that he heard thereof If he hath omitted it but one day saith the Doctor he hath ratified the Oath Qui seròâ—fe nolle significat putandus est aliquandiu voluisse The dissent must be not only palam but statim § 4. It must be a constant dissent For suppose an Inferior hath sworn an Oath and his Superior hearing of it saith to him presently you shall not do it and the next day or at any time afterwards saith he shall or gives him leave to do it the Inferiors Oath will from that day bind again the reason of this is here Because the Superiours power doth not extend so far as to cancel the obligation of an Oath but only to suspend it De Jur. prom pr. 3. Sect. 10. Dr. Sanderson saith excellently That there is in every Oath a natural and inseparable obliging vertue the operation of which may be hindred but that impediment being removed the Bowl returns to its Byas the Oath binds and this as naturally as water runs in its channel when the dam is thrown down that hinders it or a stone moves to its center when the thing that staied it is removed God himself cannot make a thing that is not to have bin The Oath having been made hath its natural and inseparable vertue the operation of which in some cases indeed the Superiors dissent may hinder but cannot deprive it of its obliging vertue So that though at first he dissents and so stops the Oath from its present working upon the Conscience yet he cannot destroy the nature of it and when his dissent is removed upon second thoughts the Oath obligeth § 5. If once the Superior hath consenied either tacitly or expresly praecedaneously or subsequently he can never by his dissent again either discharge us from the Oath or suspend the Obligation of it Dr. Sand. 16. prael 7. sect 6. In this case saith Dr. Sanderson it is a true Rule Quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet The reason is because Gods Word in this case declares the Oath established for ever Dr. Sanderson saith truly That if the Superior hath either consented to the Oath before the taking of it or at any time after the taking of it he can never afterwards make it void or take away its Obligation An Oath is not a thing to be jested with Ludere cum sacris prophanum est § 6. To apply this to the present case of the Covenant Is it clear that people are under the power of Magistrates so far as to the things of God that the Magistrates may set up what Government in the Church they please and under what Officers they please Or hath not Christ in the Gospel determined the Substantials of Government as to Officers and Rules of Government If the latter be true Dr. Featly saith none doubts but people may covenant without their Superiors to fulfil the Laws of God If there be no Law of God in the case why do our Brethren plead Episcopacy by divine right and not tell the Parliament that they may alter that Form if they please § 7. Secondly We must profess our selves no Lawyers but may it be taken for an undoubted truth That the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament have no power to impose an Oath upon people otherwise good and lawful without the King of Englands consent first had If it be so we freely submit and have nothing to say against it but then it will only follow that it was sinfully imposed and taken not that it doth not oblige If it be not so the want of the Superiors consent is not to be pleaded in the case § 8. Did his Sacred Majesty in the day that he heard thereof presently and openly declare his disallowance of it If not it is ratified for ever We have heard indeed but never saw his Majesties Proclamation against it We are sure that Printed with Dr. Featly's Book relates not to it but to a former Vow and Covenant quite of another nature § 9. However it is certain that his Sacred Majesty if that Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be his which we think none in their wits doubt after it was taken declares That good men should least offend God and him in keeping of it Though inded his Sacred Majesty liked not to impose it upon those of his Subjects who might in Conscience scruple it yet he certainly ratifies the obligation of the Oath in Conscience to those that had taken it He was not willing by making his Peoples Oath void according to Numb 30.25 to bear their iniquity CHAP. XIII Where the Absolvers Plea from the force attending the Covenant is considered and proved vain Oaths extorted by fear do obligè in Conscience proved from Scripture Reason the Opinions of Dr. Sanderson Aquinas Azorius and all sober Casuists for their Obligation § 1. WE are told in the next place that the Covenant was forced and extorted by penalties and that not only from Ministers and Fellowes of Colledges and from the vulgar people but even from his Sacred Majesty and therefore it is null and void
and no Obligation can arise from it it being against reason that from a wrong any should raise up to themselves a right any more than a meer passivity in a rape can oblige her that is so forced to marry him who hath so abused her § 2. As to his Sacred Majesty how truly any say this we cannot tell neither knowing whether his Majesty did indeed take the Covenant in Holland before he came under the Scottish power nor how he was treated in Scotland If when his Majesty came into Scotland the Covenant were by them imposed upon his Majesty he having not in Holland promised to take it Or supposing that if the Scots used any rough and disloyal Arguments to fright his Majesty into the taking of it though indeed our Allegiance and reverence for his Majesty constrains us to think that according to Dr. Sanderson's determination of the duty of a good and valiant man in such cases no fear could ever have wrought upon his Majesty so far as to have engaged him in any thing which his Conscience told him was sinful and unlawful yet the Scots are not to be excused in point of Loyalty and good manners to their Soveraign For many in England there is no doubt but many Ministers and people though not all nor the major part engaging took it in such a fright But we will at present suppose all viz. That both his Majesty and many of the people took it as being feared to it The Question still is whether such Oaths once taken however sinfully offered and imposed do not oblige those who took them to a just performance § 3. Divines in this case do distinguish betwixt simple promises and Oaths betwixt natural and divine Law and Civil and Ecclesiastical Law and betwixt metus levis gravis a light fear and fright and a solid and weighty case of fear as where a man is threatned with the loss of his life c. in case he take not the imposed Oath Hence saith Baldwin it is that Divines and Civilians differently determine the case with respect to the difference of Natural and Divine Law Bald win cas l. 2. c. 9. cas 12. and that which is purely Civil and Ecclesiastical And Divines here speak to many cases As that of a promise or an Oath made to a Thief upon the Road when for fear of a mans life he promiseth the Thief a Sum of money Whether he that is imprisoned justly or unjustly and goeth out upon his Parol swearing to return be bound by his Oath to do it though his returne shall certainly or may probably cost him his life c. § 4. Divines also do here distinguish betwixt such Oaths if imposed by Lawful Powers and if administred by Usurpers Sanchez saith 't is no question but such Oaths do oblige Sanches l. 3. cap. 9. if the powers imposing have a just authority over us and we suppose none will deny this for there are very few Oaths imposed by lawful Magistrates upon people but policy directs them to annex a penalty in case of refusal which as it is more or less ingendreth a lesser or greater degree of fear And indeed to deny this were to take away all possibility of Magistrates securing themselves by the Oaths of their Subjects For it were no more but for the Subject to say he sware his Allegiance out of fear and according to such new divinity he hath absolved himself So that although the Scots had no power to impose any such Oath upon their Soveraign under a penal fright unless he had first given them that power yet as to all the People of England in case the Lords and Commons of England legally assembled in Parliament have any such priviledge to impose an Oath upon the people although the King doth not consent we say which we profess our selves not to know in case they have any such lawful power the Argument from force signifieth nothing at all in the case § 5. But allowing our Absolvers all advantage possible supposing that the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Parliament of England legally have no such power but did injuriously impose it The Question is whether it being taken at this disadvantage doth not yet oblige all that took it to a just and religious observation of it To which we say § 6. The Third Commandment saies Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his Name in vain This Commandment is further interpreted by divers Scriptures You shall not swear by my Name falsly neither shalt thou prophane the Name of the Lord thy God Lev. 19.12 If a man vow a Vow unto the Lord or swear an Oath to bind his soul with a Bond he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that hath proceeded out of his mouth Numb 30.2 It was said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths Mat. 5.33 And as to the penalty I will be a swift witness against the Sorcerers and against the Adulterers and against the False swearers Mal. 3.5 And again The Curse of God shall enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly by the Lords name and it shall remain in the midst of his house and shall consume it with the timber thereof and with the stones thereof Zech. 5.3 It is the observation of Filiucius that the Precept is negative and therefore no pretence of force can discharge us from our obedience to it Not to dispute the force of his Argumentation It is plain from those Texts that every man is severely obliged to perform his Oaths and the express obligation of an Oath appearing from Divine Institution so highly onerosa as the Casuists speak loading the Soul with curses that neglecteth it It cannot but to every sober Christian appear highly reasonable that before we conclude That Oaths extorted by fear are not obligatory we should find either from Scriptural Precepts or Presidents a plain discharge from the obligation of them Which we think will be very hard to find § 7. Yet if we mistake not we shall find some Scriptural Instances which appear to us strong evidences to the contrary We shall instance but in two That concerning the Spies sent by Joshua to Jericho whose story we read Josh 2. 5. and that of Zedekiah which we have recorded 2 Kings 24. Ezek. 17 c. § 8. As to the former we read Josh 2. That he sent two men to spie out Jericho The King of Jerichò by some of his Ministers of State gaines intelligence that they were come and to what end they were come and that they were lodged at the house of Rahab he sends Messengers to Rahab to deliver them she acknowledgeth that such were come but saies they were gone again while in the mean time they were hidden in the top of her house she comes to them before they went to
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
comes next to be examined that the Covenant was void because the matter of it contradicted former Oaths They mention four of Allegiance Supremacy of Canonical obedience and that taken by the Kings of England at their Coronation If this be true it is unquestionably void for Juramentum prius prejudicat posteriori But considering that the Covenant was agreed and taken by the Members of the gravest Convention of the Nation and by so many Reverend Divines it will not be amiss to enquire whether of a truth it be so or no that if we find it true both King and Parliament and People may all do obeisance to Prelacy as having unwarily suffered their grave and sacred ears to be nailed to the doors of its house and obliged themselves to be its Servants for ever § 9. As to the Oath of Allegiance there is no mention of Archbishops nor Bishops in it we have only sware Faith and Allegiance to his Majesty which we hope we may give and yet endeavour in our callings to extirpate Popery and Prelacy c. If any one say What if he shall command the setting of it up We would fain know of our Brethren what we should do if Popery should be hereafter by any Prince commanded But to speak directly 1. We believe that Prelacy had no just footing in England but what it had by Authority of Parliament 2. We believe it in the power of King and Parliament to suspend or abrogate any Lawes and to engage people by Oaths for ever obliging against the matter of them 3. We know both King and Parliament by their Act 17 Car. did take away much of the Prelates jurisdiction 4. We know that the two Houses of Parliament did suspend all other power of Arch-Bishops c. and engage the people of England by Oath against the restoring of it * We assert the truth of this no further then as we have received it by printed Narrations VVhich Oath his sacred Majesty afterwards ratified and confirmed for ever We beleeve none can absolve us from an Oath but God onely Our Allegiance therefore can onely in case of such commands be shewed in our patient humble submission to such penalties as shall be inflicted upon us for not yielding active Obedience contrary to our Oaths § 10. So that a man might and may bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and yet take an Oath to endeavour in our callings the Extirpation of Episcopacy or Prelacy in two cases 1. In case our Allegiance to God required such an endeavour of us in our places 2. In case his Majesties command of submission to that Prelacy comes after my Oath to the contrary ratified by himself And I can find no more in that Oath which can be pretended as contradictory to the Covenant § 11. The next Oath which they mention is that of Supremacy This Oath was established by the Statute 1 Eliz. 1. being devised to secure the Subjects of England to the Supreme Civil Magistrate of England from acknowledging the forreign jurisdiction of the Pope VVhat can be fetched from this Oath must be either from the first part where having declared that we do in conscience beleeve the King is the onely Supreme Governour in England as well in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as Civil in opposition to any forreign Prince person Prelate State or Potentate and thereupon we renounce such pretended forreign Jurisdiction and promise Faith and Allegiance Or else it must be in the latter clause where we promise to assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges c. annexed to the Imperial Crown of England For the former part we are not able to understand what in the Covenant is contrary to it The Covenant allows the King the supreme moderation of all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual causes if Gods word will allow it for there 's nothing any can pretend against it except they plead that then our Reformation cannot be according to the word of God which for our parts we think very false The Covenant doth not in the least acknowledge the Jurisdiction of any forreign Princes Prelates c. For the latter part where we promise to assist and defend the Jurisdictions and Priviledges annexed to the Imperial Crown So saith the Covenant his Majesties Person Honour and Authority Ah! but the second Article must be contrary to this Oath because it is the Right of the Crown to chuse Bishops c. How this Plea will stand with their Episcopacy of Apostolical right let them consider I would fain to make the business short know whether some of these Rights of the Crown may not by consent of the King be parted with and whether his Majesty when he took the Covenant did not part with them We had before only sworn to endeavour the extirpation of these Officers in all our callings by lawfull means and wayes Such now as Petitioning the King c. His Majesty that now is at the entreaty of his Subjects in Scotland parts with this Right by swearing to extirpate those Officers to the nomination of which he before had a right May not we now keep the Oath of Supremacie and the Covenant too Nor can that general terme oblige us any further than to a defence and maintaining all such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Rights annexed to the Imperial Crown which are not contrary to the Word of God But there needs no more be urged against this vain plea especially considering that very few men in England of those that took the Covenant had ever taken the Oath of Supremacy which onely belonged to Ecclesiastical persons Graduates in Universities and publique Officers Which did not make the hundredth part of those who took the Covenant in England § 12. The third Oath to which it is pretended the Covenant is contrary is the Oath of Canonical Obedience which concerns no more than such as were made Ministers before 1641. or at least very few so that much need not be said to it now Indeed all those or at the least most of those that have been in the Ministry twenty yeares when they were Ordained did promise Reverently to Obey their Ordinary And after this by what Law I cannot tell did swear at least when they had Institution granted them by the Bishop to any living that they would obey him in things lawfull and honest And also did subscribe the 39 Articles where the 36. Article doth approve of the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops Bishops Here now is 1. a Promise of Obedience to the Ordinary 2. An Oath to the same purpose 3. A Subscription that the form of the Consecration of Arch-Bishops c. contains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God Now it is said that he who took the Covenant bound himself in a contrary bond which latter bond by that reason is voyd ipso facto § 13. But besides that this Plea will absolve very few as we said before we are not able to fathom the depth of this
Argument for the Absolution of any The Question is here viz. Whether he that hath subscribed that the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops Bishops c. expressed in the Common-Prayer book contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God and who hath promised Obedience to his Ordinary and sworn to it may not after this take an oath in his calling to endeavour the extirpation of the Government by Arch-Bishops c. § 14. First suppose that upon mature deliberation the Ministers that subscribed and took that Oath of Canonical Obedience find that it was an unlawfull Oath or Subscription as obliging them to the acknowledgement of such a power in the Church as is by no means allowed in the Word of God they are in such a case onely obliged to be humbled for their rash subscription and taking of that Oath and their Second Oath against them will hold valid Nay secondly suppose that that Oath of Canonical Obedience was imposed without authority of Parliament And the Parliament as soon as they took notice of it declared their dissent to it and to all Oathes imposed without their authority Certainly this should go far with them who make the like plea against us as to the Obligation of the Covenant § 15. But thirdly we will for once suppose the Oath materially good and lawfull as to the efficient cause yet certainly the Oath is irritated and made voyd by the Parliaments taking away of the matter of it Nor do we understand how any person by a promise or an oath to be obedient in things lawfull and honest to this or that Governour doth oblige himself whatever evil he seeth in such a Governour either through want of just title or male-administration of his trust never to endeavour to free himselfe from that servitude If indeed we had sworn in the Oath of Canonical Obedience never to have endeavoured the Extirpation of the Government then to have taken the Covenant had been to have sworn to contradictions and the first Oath would have made the latter voyd unless the matter of the first had been proved to have been unlawfull and so the first Oath had been Vinculum iniquitatis But we shall need add no more in answer to this Plea which if it were good could absolve very few § 16. The next Oath to which they pretend the Covenant to be contradictive is the Oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation We must confess we are not so fit to speak to this being no Lawyers onely thus much at first offers its self 1. That his Majesty who now is hath not taken it as yet but hath taken the Covenant 2. We cannot find that the King doth swear to maintain and uphold the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops and never to consent to an Act of Parliament for the extirpation of them there is certainly no such thing Ah but he swears to defend the rights of the Church they will say and Episcopacy is one of the rights of the Church The Oxford men quote the passages of the Coronation Oath which they conceive the Covenant contradicting Thus He swears That he will keep grant and confirm the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King See this Case of Conscience about the Kings Coronation Oath excellently resolved by M John Geree St. Edward And that he will grant and preserve unto the Bishops and to the Churches committed to their charge all Canonical priviledges due Law and Justice And that he will protect and defend them as every good King in his Kingdom ought to be protectour and defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government § 17. We doubt whether both these clauses be to be found in any Coronation Oath which our Princes have taken If Mr. Prin gives us a true relation neither of them were promised by Edw. 6. We find them indeed both the first in the Oath which King James took at his Coronation in England the second in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in Scotland they might for ought I know be put together in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in England where there was certainly an alteration made in the forms of prayer lately used some were added which were omitted ever since Hen. 6. time Reign of King Charles p. 20. saith Mr. Le-Strange the same Gentleman avows there was no alteration made in the Oath 2. It seems strange to us that the Reverend Bishops should put the King to swear the Confirmation of the Liberties and Rights granted to the Church by Edward the Confessor many of which were before taken away by Act of Parliament as may be seen by comparing the Acts of Parliament since the time of Hen. 8. with the Records of those Grants of Edw. the Confessor which the Reader may find in the close of Sir H. Spilmans Concilia Pambrittanica § 18. However it is certaine that one thing which the King also sware was the Government of the Nation according to the Laws of the Land made or to be made so that his Oath for confirming the Churches Rights and Priviledges must be interpreted as to those Rights which were and should continue ratified by the Laws of the Land otherwise there was a manifest contradiction in the Oath as to those two passages § 19. For the Kings Oath to maintain the Bishops and their Churches it contradicts not the Covenant which strikes at nothing but Prelacy of Bishops Arch-bishops Chancellors Deans Prebends c. Bishops and their Churches may be preserved in England though these be extirpated But no more need be said as to our present case for the Oath which any former King of England took concerned onely himself Obligatio juramenti est personalis non realis as I think all Casuists agree His Majesty that now is is obliged by no such Oath § 20. For the Contradiction which Doctor Featly assignes in the Covenant to the Protestation by which we sware to preserve the Liberties of Subjects out of which number Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters are not to be excepted it is not worthy of an answer for by the same Argument after that Protestation taken the Parliament could not have questioned any one Minister of State or any other person at least not annull their office which certainly none will assert since their Liberties as Subjects might be preserved sure and yet their Liberties as Prelates abridged CHAP. VIII The Absolvers Plea for the irritation of the Covenant from the supposed Contradictions in it self Confuted and the Covenant notwithstanding this suggestion proved valid and obligatory § 1. HAving reconciled the Covenant to former Oathes it is time that we should reconcile it to it self for as through its fighting with its elders and betters 't is possible an Oath may so lose its strength that it cannot hold a soul so by hard conflictings within it self too 't is possible it may contract
will not be pleaded in Bar to the lawfulness of endeavour in this case that it is not lawful to endeavour if the contrary shall by a Law be established For it was never thought yet unlawful lawfully to endeavour the annulling and regular repeal of a Law which was found grievous to the Subjects outward concern much less to his Conscience as any Law must be after an Oath to the contrary as to the matter of the Law This being foreprized our Brethren and we are agreed as to this Limitation And we freely acknowledge ourselves obliged either actively to do what Lawes require or like Christians to suffer the penalties which they inflict Than which nothing more was ever pleaded as the duty of good Subjects § 4. We do therefore conclude professing that we do believe it the duty of every conscientious private Christian who hath taken the Covenant when once he hath endeavoured what in him lies in all things lawful to be done by him for the obtaining the ends of the Covenant as to the Reformation of the Church If at last he should be so unhappy as to see all his endeavours frustrated and to put the case at the worst which we hope will never be he should at last see Popery set up i. e. the highest corruption in Ecclesiastical Administrations to sit down and mourn before the Lord for it but not to make any resistance to the Lawful Magistrate because he is the Ordinance of God We hope none would say in such a case he were obliged to own Popery or that he might do it but he is unquestionably bound to suffer as a wel-doer rather than to disturb the Civil Peace What hath Peter to do with the Sword And if this be our sense of his duty in so high a case every one will conclude us we hope of that mind in case of the old Prelacy which we are told is the great Bar to Popery whatever else is to be said against it CHAP. XVII Wherein is a sleighty notice taken of a Late Pamphlet wrote by one Mr. Russel called The Covenant discharged and it is proved that in stead of his finding the Snare broken as be saith he hath but resolved to break the Bonds and to cast the Cords behind him § 1. WE had thought our work had been done and sufficient Answer given not only to what our Absolvers had said but also to what they reasonably could say But while these sheets were in the Press we have seen a new Pamphlet Qualem proculdubio mundus literatus nunquam prius vidit nec unquam posthac visurus est The Author hath done well to tell us it was wrote from his Study at Chinkford in Essex we should else have been so uncharitable as to have thought it had come from some other place but he hath neglected to tell us what Books are in that Study for we cannot in any of our Studies find any wrote either by Jews or Gentiles Greeks or Barbarians whose Divinity will agree with the Authors Positions § 2. We do not think our selves beholden to the Author for his promised forbearance of Passion for besides that he now and then bestows upon us a prophane Scoffe according to the proportion of his faculty that way as where he tels us that the Faith of removing and setling Mountains are two Gifts the latter of which we want c. In very deed the Author hath consulted himself in not being too free with his passion according to the Poets Caution Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua intending to publish such a piece as this to the world he stood concerned to take heed what measure he meted to others least it should be meted to him again we think he is liable enough to have it even pressed down and running over § 3. In divers things we confess he hath spoken truth 1. As to himself in what he saies p. 57. intending to batter the Covenant he hath made his approaches at a reasonable indeed unreasonable distance such a distance that no shot hath come near it 2. As to the matter as where he saith 1. That none can release a Civil Contract but the Parties with whom it is contracted That where an Oath is made to God so that he is Judge and Party only God can absolve it p. 14. And p. 15. He would not be thought to plead for a Papal power in any to discharge men from Oaths c. which would be enough for us who have already proved that the Covenant was Sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei a Vow made though at the Command of others to God as to the things which concern God and giving unto God a right to exact the performance from us as also That it was a mutual stipulation with our Brethren in Scotland and England with our King and Parliament and according to Mr. Russel's own Doctrine if there were nothing of a Vow in it yet all Parties must release So that what he saies more is to no purpose because he argues ex ignoratione Elenchi and lamentably mistakes the nature of the thing of which he speaks § 4. But because though he seems to grant this yet up and down his Book he scatters suggestions of another nature and indeed maintains such Positions as we are sure Dr. Gawden durst not justifie and runs into so abominable mistakes as if once believed by others would make all Oaths no stronger than strawes we will add a few animadversions upon what he saith intreating our Brethren hereafter to bring forth other Champions who may bring more credit to the Church of England than we conceive this Author in a capacity to do if we may guess at Leonem ex ungue § 5. As to our Brother Crofton whom he mentions in his Epistle we conceive him of age and therefore shall only desire the Reader to take notice 1. That the Author can produce no Vote of Parliament in his terms viz. That the Kings Concessions were sufficient to establish a well-grounded Peace The Vote passed Die Martis 5 Dec. 1648 in these terms Resolved upon the Question That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a GROUND for the Houses to proceed upon for the setling the Peace of the Kingdom What is this to sufficient to establish But suppose this Absolver had not stumbled here but the Vote had been as he would have it Why then if you will believe him the same power that established the Covenant tacitly discharged it For The continuation of Bishops was included in those Concessions we suppose This is again a most impudent falshood For the King in termes granted as follows And we will likewise for three years confirm by Act of Parliament the Form of Church-government you have presented to be used for the Churches of England and Ireland and Dominion of Wales The Kings Concessions printed 1648. pag. 2. Provided that his Majesty and those of his Judgement or any
unlawful War he is bound by his Oath returning safe to do what he hath sworn It is true we may not do evil that good may come of it but we are yet to learn that when an evil is done we may not embrace and do the good which should come of it A Failer in the end makes an Action unlawful or sinful to him that doth it Sanches Op. mor. l. 3. cap. 9. n. 28. Cajet in 22 ae q. 23. Molina de justitia but surely it doth not nullifie an Action done Sanches Cajetan Corruvias Molina Soto Arragon c. all agree that a man is obliged to the performance of an Oath at first made for a sinful end Sanches allowes no dispensation in the case nisi solutio sit iniqua unless it be sinful to do the thing which we have sworn to do which is nothing to the present case Patrato crimine obligamur is their joynt Suffrage Dr. Sanderson gives this excellent reason for it quia etsi pactum fuit illicitum res pacta licet the thing sworn to do is lawful though the pact were at first unlawful CHAP. XV. Where it is proved that the Bond of the Covenant cannot be suspended by any Dispensation altered by any Commutation or dissolved by any Relaxation of Parties § 1. VVE have yet one case more to speak to which we little thought would ever have been a question amongst Scholars who call themselves Protestants viz. Whether supposing the Covenant obliging hitherto his Sacred Majesty Quisquis vendicat sibi jus dispensandi in juramento assumit sibi potestatem divinam Dr. Sanderson or the present and succeeding Parliaments severally or joyntly may not make it void and not obliging by their Act or Acts to that purpose We most freely and humbly give unto Caesar what is Caesars and to the Parliament of England what is theirs but to give them a power of dissolving the Obligation of Vows and Oaths is to give them what only belongs to God and which was never yet challenged by them § 2. The Popish Casuists have found five or six waies to quit men of Oaths 1. By Dispensation from the Pope or Prelate 2. By Commutation 3. By the power of the Superior according to Num. 30.4 By the Cessation of the matter 1. By the Relaxation of the Party Our Brethren cannot but know that the power challenged for the Pope as Christs Vicar to dispense with Oaths or to order the Commutation of them is most justly exploded and abhorred by all Protestants who generally judge Oaths de jure naturali and so not to be dispensed with save only by him who is the God of Nature Besides as Dr. Sanderson well urgeth Dr. Sanderson De jur prom Prael 7 Sect. 3. it is to destroy the end of all Oaths viz. the security aimed at in them by them who impose them and to take away anothers right which he hath acquired with whom the Covenant is made confirmed by the Oath yea and the Obligation to God also which results from every Oath according to Aquinas and the generality of Schoolmen and Casuists in the Case and to subject the Conscience immediatly to an humane Judicature All which Reasons of Dr. Sanderson will strictly hold against any such pretended power of dispensation in the case of Oaths § 3. The Learned Doctor determines the same against any commuting of the matter of Oaths for some other thing which we judge or is reverâ better Neutro istorum modorum sâ—lvi potest juramenti vinculum aut obligatio tolli saith that Reverend Person and he saies right that the whole Doctrine of commuting Oaths and the truth of it depends upon their dispensability and both Doctrines are most notoriously false and destroyed by the same Reasons § 4. How far a Superior hath power to suspend the Obligation of an Oath taken by those under his power and whose matter is subjected to his power and how this irritation must be circumstantiated and how long it lasts and how little relief is for us from hence we have shewed before and may therefore pass it over in this place § 5. A Fourth way by which the Gordian knot of an Oath may be untied according to the Schoolmen is by the Cessation of the matter in which case all Casuists Popish or Protestants judge the Obligation to cease The Oath of the Souldier to his General ceaseth when he is not General c. The reason is evident because the root of it is pulled up But this is no way applicable in our case § 6. There is therefore no dispute save only de relaxatione partis whether the Parties in the Covenant releasing the Bond of it it may not be dissolved We perceive that some think that if it shall please his Majesty and the Parliament to release those who have taken the Covenant from the observation of it there needs no further care about it To determine this business betwixt our Brethren and us De Jur. prom prael 7. §. 8. we will refer our selves to Dr. Sanderson and but translate part of his excellent determination in the case First Saith he There can be no such release in Vows in Oaths confirming humane Pacts Covenants and Bargains there may The reason of the difference is because Vows are made to God as to one Party Now we shewed before that the Covenant as to the first and second Branch of it did partake of the nature of a Vow it was sponsio facta Deo in rebus Dei a Promise made to God as well as to men in the things of God relating immediatly to his Worship and Glory Secondly saith Dr. Sanderson If the Oath taken be in gratiam alterius i. e. for the honour profit or commodity of another or the giving an homage to another it doth not oblige unless that other to whom we swear accepts and confirms it Thirdly saith he If he or they to whom such Oath is made for his or their profit and advantage will have it stand good no third person can discharge us from the obligation of it Fourthly saith he If the person to whom we swear will release us the Oath doth not oblige us after such Release Fifthly saith he The Oath is in such case only discharged so far as he doth release it Sixthly saith he The Release of any Party in an Oath only takes away the Obligation of it as to his particular Interest but prejudiceth no third Person § 7. From the Grave Determinations of this Learned man by a review of what we have already said in our Second Chap. concerning the nature of the Covenant it is no hard thing to conclude what Lamentable Divinity they publish that tell us that it is in the power of any man or men to discharge us from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon us 1. The Oath confirming the Covenant did not only confirm a Contract made with King and Parliament and with the Nation of
Scotland and our Brethren in England engaging with us but it confirmed a Solemn Vow and Promise made to God in the things of God for such certainly is the Government of his Church Reformation in Doctrine Worship and Discipline according to his Word c. Now ab homine ea sola relaxari fas est quae homini facta sunt Dr. Sanderson ibid. Prael 7 saith Dr. Sanderson Men can only release for themselves 2. According to the Doctors sixth Determination Supposing that God were not interested as a Party but the Covenant was a meer civil Pact between men and men yet all Parties must release before the Relaxation can be good as to the whole Obligation We have sworn to maintain the Kings Person Honour and Authority 2. The Priviledges of Parliament If indeed his Majesty or the Parliament shall please in whole or in part by any of their Acts to release us they may do it as to their own peculiar Concern and Interest But we have also in the Covenant sworn to the Nation of Scotland and to our Brethren in England for their profit and advantage and unquestionably our Brethren in Scotlnnd looked upon the Abolition of the English Hierarchy as to its ancient Form as a thing highly tending to their advantage and so did many in England both Ministers and People who had wofully suffered under it Now how a Release should be good unless from all persons and Parties concerned we are yet to learn If any one say What the Parliament of England or Scotland doth all the People are bound up in We Answer Not as to releasing Obligations contracted by Oaths We presume our Brethren will not determine so in other cases we have sworn out the Popes Supremacy in England we hope our Brethren will not say that an Act of Parliament if which God forbid any such should hereafter be will discharge those that have taken that Oath from the observance of it 3. Concerning Dr. Sandersons 2 3 and 4th Determinations there may be some question If a man swears to another for his advantage we are apt to believe the Oath binds in Conscience though he to whom we swear knows not of it much less apertly accepts and ratifies it Suppose a man swears to breed up his Child to Learning or to a Trade c. we believe the Oath will bind though the Child doth not like it c. There may also appear some doubt about the power of him to whom we swear to release us in whole or in part because as we have said before from every such Oath there resulteth a double Obligation 1. To man 2. To God Now it doth not seem reasonable That man should discharge Gods Debts Dr. Sanderson aware of this exception answers That in a promise made Dr. Sanderson ib. prael 7. meerly far the advantage of another and confirmed by an Oath God is only invoked as a witness of the truth of our hearts in promising and challenged as a revenger in case we violate our Faith so confirmed but if the Party releaseth us our Faith is not violated so that no injury is done to God in it We think this as much as can be said whether sufficient or no we will not here enquire this not at all concerning our case We conclude then that as we can see no errour in the Efficient material formal or final causes of this Oath of God which is upon us sufficient to discharge us from the Obligation of it considering things as they are now stated and that the Oath is taken so we cannot believe it in the power of any save God alone by dispensation irritation commutation or relaxation to discharge us from an endeavour to perform it The Compass of that term endeavour remaineth yet to be measured by us with a Reed from the Sanctuary and that shall be our last Task CHAP. XVI Concerning the Limitations of the Covenant common to all Premissory Oaths or particularly relating to this What endeavour as to the mattter of the Covenant is not required § 1. SUch is the Soveraign power of God over all such the power which the Divide Law hath reserved to Superiors such our own ignorance and infirmity of which yet in due time we may be convinced and such the mutability of humane affairs that Divines reasonably say that to all promissory Oaths certain conditions though not exprest are yet necessarily to be supposed viz. Si Deus voluerit if God will otherwise the performance will be impossible 2. If lawfully I may Otherwise the Oath will be vinculum Iniquitatis and make us Debtors to Hell 3. Saving the right of my Superior For as we said before God hath reserved to some Superiors a power of irritation or suspending rather such Obligations 4. If things continue in their present state § 2. As the third must not be understood otherwise than we have before proved so the last must not be taken in its Latitude For then such are the contingencies and vicissitudes of humane affairs that very few promissory Oaths relating to things to be done at any distance of time would be found obliging It is true if the state of the case be so altered that it will be sin for us to fulfil our Oaths the Oath will not oblige such is the instance Casuists give of an Oath to give a sword to one who before he receives it from us proves mad 2. And when the state of the case is so altered that the plain end of the Oath and the expectation upon which it is founded appears frustrate the Oath being only made to a Creature for his or her advantage it may be a question whether the Oath obligeth yea or no Such is that other Case put by Casuists Where one hath sworn marriage to another and before the time of Marriage comes he discerns she hath been defiled by another in which case his refusal to marry is little other than a Bill of Divorce allowed by Gods Law in case of Adultery as this is after such a Contract in Gods sight But none of these will at present gratifie our Absolvers § 3. Some therefore have observed the express Limitations in the terms of the Covenant 1. We will endeavour 2. In our Callings and Places 3. So far as lawfully we may And God forbid the terms should have been any other Far be it from us to assert that a man is tied by his Oath beyond his endeavour yea and lawful endeavour and in his Calling too We say that the utmost that any conscientious Christian is by the Oath tied to is his utmost lawful endeavour in his Calling as a Parliament-man as a Magistrate as a Minister as a private person according to his present capacity or future capacity and if by endeavouring honestly and lawfully he cannot attain his end it is his duty to sit down and commit his soul and his cause to God who doubtless will accept the sincerity of his heart Only we hope it