Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	bishop_n	call_v	presbyter_n	3,415	5	10.3134	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

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-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

concerning the two latter Whether together with the Popish Prelacy of sole and single Jurisdiction it was not the design of the Lords and Commons then assembled to oblige the people of England to extirpate also that Paternal Prelacy for which some plead yea both the name and thing of Prelacy though meerly respecting order in Ecclesiastical Conventions That we may make up a just judgement in the case let us take a view of their preceding and subsequent Acts. § 12. Anno 1641. They had by an Act wherein the King joyned with them taken from the Hierarchy all powers of inflicting Penalties Fines Amercements Imprisonments or any corporal punishment upon any of the Kings subjects for any matter or thing whatsoever as also all power of administring Oaths to any persons in any case belonging to Ecclesiastical cognisance In the year 1643. the Covenant is made and imposed in the terms before expressed In the year 1646. they first establish the Presbyterian Government for three years by their Ordinance which 1648. they renew again and make it sine Die In the year 1646. They by their Ordinance abolish the Name Title Stile and Dignity of all Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales We must confess we should have been very inclinable to have judged that the sense of the Parliament imposing the Covenant was against all manner of Prelacy and that they designed no less than the engaging of the whole Nation upon the highest security imaginable to endeavour the total extirpation of all the kinds of it had we not been informed that at that time the scruple was made by some Members in Parliament and resolved with the consent of our Brethren in Scotland that it was only intended against Episcopacy as then established in England which gives us a Latitude for a Prelacy of meer order as a civil constitution § 13. In the mean time the Covenant apertly obligeth us against arch-Arch-Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-Deacons Chancellors Commissaries c. there is no ambiguity in those terms And 2. Against all such exercise of Prelacy as is by any single person arrogating to himself sole and single Jurisdiction or sole and single power in Ordinations 3. Against all such exercise of Prelatical power as is taken away by the Statute of 17 Caroli for the taking away the High-Commission-Court As to all these the Parliaments sense is clear enough and can admit of no dispute Nor is this a rigid interpretation of the Covenant but as favourable as the words of it can bear or reason allow upon the view of what hath been already urged to evince the sense of the Imposers § 14. We conclude then That our solemn Covenant was the highest security wherein it was possible that the Eternal God could have us engaged to him or which the Lords and Commons then assembled in Parliament or our Brethren in Scotland could then take of us That we would in our Callings and Places endeavour to root out that Prelatical form and exercise of Church-Government which was exercised in England by Archbishops tyrannical Bishops their Chancellors Arch-Deacons Commissaries c. From which every reasonable Christian must conclude that if we fail in the performance by establishing that Government again or desiring the establishment of it by promoving owning or countenancing of what we have thus solemnly sworn to extirpate Not only our Brethren will have an Action in the case against us for the violation of our truth to them But the Righteous God will also have a just action against us for the irreverence shewed to his most Sacred Name And if ever any of our Brethren with whom we are engaged who possibly shall not be able so easily to obtain a discharge of their Consciences shall be brought into a suffering state by those whom we contrary to our solemn Oath shall help to set up they will doubtless have a just occasion to prefer a sad Bill of complaint against us to the just Judge of the whole Earth who useth to hear the cry of the Afflicted And whatsoever we may now think or talk in the distempers of our mind in the rantings of our foolish passions whensoever the day of Gods vengeance shall come upon us according to his Word Zech. 5.3 4. Or whensoever we shall have recovered our wits again and we can give our Consciences awaked out of sleep leave to speak freely to us it will be very hard to relieve them unless we can assign such an errour in the Covenant and that too as to the matter sworn as will be allowed by the Divine Law as a sufficient discharge as to our observance and leave us nothing to do but to humble our soules before the Lord for our taking of it It will therefore be the just concernment of every Soul bound in that sacred Bond to sit down and advisedly think before they resolve upon the violation of such an Oath whether there were any such errours And if those who think they have found them would avoid the Infamy which else will fall upon them they will stand concerned to set down these errours and publish them to the world in plain words of truth and soberness not in the insignificant figures of wanton Rhetorick wofully blurred too with foolish passion which may possible satisfie such as were before resolved to be satisfied and make a Bumble sufficient for the eyes of some silly souls and give the wiser sort of people opportunity to make themselves merry but can never stop the mouth or darken the light of a waky and well-informed Conscience CHAP. VI. The Absolvers pretended Errours in the Covenant examined in part The Covenant as to the matter of it so far as respecteth Prelacy not contrary to the Word of God The Plea of its contrariety to the Lawes of the Church or State examined and proved insufficient for the irritation of it § 1. VVE said before that whoso fancieth an escape for his soul from the obligation of the Covenant once taken must be put to the trouble to assign some errour sufficient to discharge him the sufficiency of which must be also judged by the Word of God because from that an Oath derives its Obligatory vertue That there may be such errours in Oaths that we have taken is granted whether in this Oath there be or no is the question If there be any we must find it either in the formal or material or efficient or final cause For we shall hardly find any in any appendant circumstance which will be of such force § 2. And verily there is a variety found out relating to the three latter Causes by such as have spent their time to seek them They have sought false witnesses against the Covenant to put it to death but we hope before we have done to prove not only that they have found none for their testimonies have neither agreed to the Propositions of the Covenant nor yet to the matters of fact relating to

several indeed supposed it that an Oath so directed and imposed doth not oblige against such a pretended imperfect legal establishment is we confess a piece of divinity the depth of which we cannot fathom nor yet believe that there is any truth in it If any of our Brethren in earnest think otherwise they should do well to bring forth their strong Reasons or to tell us what one Divine Ancient or Modern is of their minds till that time it is sufficient for us out of a reverence to the sacred Name of God to dissent from them in this notion proved as yet by no Scripture no reason nor any creditable authority § 39. For what some tell us that this Covenant was against Magna Charta the Petition of Right c. they appear to us scarce to have read either The latter saith not a word of the Government of the Church In the former there is only this general Article We have granted to God Magna Charta cap. 1. and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and our heirs for ever That the Church of England shall be free and have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable And may she not be so though Prelacy by extirpated Are Archbishops and Bishops c. more concerned in Magna Charta than Abbots and Priors Yet what are become of their Liberties Was not the priviledge of Sanctuary of making Canons c. some of those Rights Yet are they not taken away by Act of Parliament Surely so may the Church-Governours mentioned in the Covenant CHAP. VII The Absolvers Plea from Schisme considered The nature of Schisme No guilt of Schisme by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy Their Plea also from the supposed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant to the matter of former Oaths particularly the Coronation Oath the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and Canonical Obedience answered and found vain § 1. OUR Absolvers foreseeing these easie Answers to their afore-mentioned Pleas or at least being aware that if Prelacy be left to stand only upon a Parliamentary Foundation it will be liable to extirpation by succeeding Parliaments have not rested here but raised their Plea higher telling us That Episcopacy hath no Original but from the Apostles and looks very like an immediate institution of Christ's either preceptive and explicit or tacit and exemplary so that to abjure it runs us upon a Rock of Schism and dasheth us both in Opinion and practise against the judgment and custom of the Catholick Church in all places and ages till of later daies from the Apostles daies with whom we ought to keep communion in all things of so ancient tradition and universal observation In these words or to this sense they speak all § 2. It is very observable that if there were any truth in this Plea it would not only conclude all our Brethren of the Reformed Churches in France Holland Geneva Scotland N. England most parts of Germany Schismaticks For that is nothing with those with whom we have to do but it would also supersede all civil power 's thoughts for ever medling with the Government of the Church for fear of violating an Institution of Christ and the order of the whole Catholick Church and being posted up for Schismaticks § 3. But is it so indeed Or is this the noise of those who thunder thus because they cannot hope with any solid Arguments to do much let us a little consider these big phrases and see what they signifie The Papists have so enured us to this suffering under the reproach of Schismaticks for breaking off from the order of their Catholick Church that we begin not so much to regard the Charge or at least not to believe every one who calls out Schism and Schismaticks when they have nothing else to say § 4. Schism properly signifies a Rent or Breach which when it is from or in the community of a Church is very sinful both because against the Command of God directly and interpretatively but it must be from the Communion of a Church walking according to the Divine Rule otherwise if the Churches deviation especially be great there 's no great fear of any guilt by Schism in departing from it § 5. If indeed God by his Word hath any where appointed that the Government of his Universal Church shall be by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Chancellours Commissaries c. and the Church hath alwaies walked in that order we confess then that out Oath against it is Schismatical But we desire our Brethren to prove this § 6. Nay if God hath left the Church to its liberty to set up what Form of Government she pleases and the Universal Church hath at any time met in a perfect General Council and determined this inalterable Form or by an universal practise hath kept to such a Form there may be some colour to charge us but neither shall our Brethren prove this to us § 7. We challenge all the friends of Prelacy to make it good from any authentick Record that for three hundred years after Christ there were any such Creatures known in the Church of God as Archbishops Archdeacons Prebends Commissaries Chancellors Pope Stephen indeed in the 3 Century is called the chief Bishop of Rome in the fabulous decretal Epistles but Cyprian writing to him cals him no more than his Colleague In the 4 Century we read of Bishops Elders and Deacons Ambrose mentions them Dionisius and Optatus mention no more in this age Hierom in his Epistle to Nepotianus tels us l. de Dign Sacerdot that Bishops and Presbyters were the same only the latter were the younger men Ambrose tels us they had one and the same Ordination Indeed towards the end of the 4 Century which was 400 years after Christ they began to multiply Ecclesiastical Officers then came in Readers and Exorcists Subdeacons Archdeacons and Archbishops c. But we have already forsook the Order of the Church at that time when it was wofully declined from its Primitive Purity and shall be no more guilty of Schism in going a little further § 7. We said before that we find in Ecclesiastical story early mention of Bishops but not of such as ours were in England Our Bishops 1. Lay claim to a sole and single power in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. They are not chosen by the People nor Clergy 3. They are attended with Deans and Prebends Archdeacons c. 4. They execute their power by Lay Chancellours Commissaries c. 5. They have used to exercise a power in depriving Ministers suspending silencing excommunicating for trivial cases not paying a Tythe Goose or Pig c. Let our Brethren shew us such an Episcopacy before Antichrist was up in his Throne if they can if not they vainly charge us with Schism in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of such a Prelacy for which is no foundation in the practise either of the Primitive or any Reformed Church § 8. We are further told how truly

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-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

it be so or no. So that he is under a necessity of sinning contracted by his own fault and upon supposition that he retains this conscience which he is bound to acquit himself of § 10. We presume this is the case of very few in truth If it be the case of any we are afraid that at the Great day they will find their Oath obliging notwithstanding the errour of their conscience If any onely pretend such a thing to get quit of their Oath Let not our soul enter into their secrets unto their Assemblies Let not our honour be united CHAP X. The Absolvers Plea against the Covenant as Impeditivum boni false and if true not conclusive according to Casuists § 1. VVE are now come to the last pretence for the unlawfulness of the Covenant as to the matter from which some would inferre the non-obligation of it Some late Absolvers have confidently told the world That none are bound to the Observance of Oaths further than till they see that their Observance would hinder some good which might accrue from the violation of them which being once laid down for a Principle it is but telling their Proselytes That their persisting in endeavours to extirpate the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellours Commissaries Archdeacons will hinder the great good settlement order Communion with the Catholick Church c. and they have presently discharged all mens Soules as they think from the Obligation of the Covenant § 2. It were no dangerous matter we think to grant their Principle and to challenge all of them to instance in any one particular piece of good which the restoring of this Government would put us in possession of more than any other Government would do Is it conformity to the Apostolical or Primitive Church We challenge them all to prove any such Form of Government either in the Apostles times or for some hundred of years after Is it conformity with the Reformed Churches Are there any Bishops in the Churches of God in Scotland Holland France Are there any Archbishops or any single Persons challenging sole power in Ordination or Jurisdiction in any other Reformed Church whatsoever Are there any Deans Prebends Chancellours Commissaries Archdeacons c. to be found amongst them Indeed in the Popish Church there are no where else we think Is the good they talk of order suppression of Schism and errour Will not Presbytery do the same think we If not what hinders Certainly with the help of the civil powers it will without it Prelacy can do nothing § 3. If we may judge by what is past we have no great reason to promise our selves any such eminent Good by Prelacy Under that Government it was that so many godly learned and able Ministers were silenced suspended imprisoned banished so many thousands of godly people forced to leave their Countreys imprisoned hunted from one place to another they and their Families undone and all because they could not allow humane impositions in the worship of that God who is a Spirit and will be worshipped in spirit and truth who requires to be sanctified of them that draw nigh unto him Lev. 10.3 and hath revealed his wrath of old against the Jews for doing or allowing that in his Sanctuary which he commanded not This is the good England hath formerly had by them For Deans and Prebends all the good they did was to eat up the Fruits of the Land enjoying profits and great Revenues for no considerable Service at all § 4. But it must not be granted That our apprehending the observance of an Oath as hindring some good which might accrue by the violation will discharge us of our Obligation to observe it Indeed Gregor Sayrus resolves that every private person hath a power to commute an Oath for somthing better but Sylvester and others Greg. Sayri clavis reg l. 5. ca. 8. n. 15. oppose him and think the Pope must first determine the good to be better Soto Sanches Cajetan Panormitane Arragon and others do allow some cases wherein they say an Oath hindering some other good is void But they are all agreed in several limitations 1. It must be a greater good which is hindred 2. This greater good must be no otherwise attaineable than by the violation of the Oath For if we can keep our Oath and obtain the good too unquestionably we ought to do it 3. That melius bonum that greater good must be certain not doubtful and disputable and only possible 4. They all agree That the Oath thus irritated and made void must be only made to God For say they if it be made to our Brother also for his advantage much more if it be a Covenant made with him upon a valuable consideration his consent is necessary to the commutation before the Oath can be made void Now when our Absolvers shall have shewed us a good certainly greater than the peace of Conscience which may be had from the keeping of a lawful Oath and make it appear to us that this good can no other way be attained than by breaking our Covenant and that if we break it we may certainly be put into possession of it and lastly that all the people of Scotland and England mutually engaged in this Covenant have consented to the violation they shall have said somthing and till that time this Plea consists of nothing but aëry non-significant words § 5. To return to our eminent Dr. Sanderson He determines this case more like a Divine than some others Thus Juramentum non esse illicitum aut obligandi vim amittere praecisè ob hoc quod videatur esse impeditivum majoris boni De juram prom prael 3. §. 12. i. e. An Oath is not unlawful nor doth it lose its obligatory vertue precisely for this because it seems an obstacle to a greater good unless saith he other circumstances also concur as usually there do which either evince it unlawful or non-obliging He gives this reason because in all cases it is not true that every one is obliged to do what is best So that our Brethren must desert this Plea and find out somthing else to prove the Oath unlawful or non-obligatory And indeed to grant that the Prospect of a greater Good to be obtained by the violation of an Oath would discharge us from its observance is to open such a gap for all manner of perjury as all might creep out at and to take away all manner of security which either God could have of his Creatures or man of his Brother by any verbal obligation whatsoever But we have said enough to prove that nothing hath been said against the matter of the Covenant sufficient to prove it either unlawful or void and not obligatory CHAP. XI The Covenant cleared from any faults as to the Efficient Causes whether external or internal sufficient to make it void being once taken The Plea from the supposed unlawfulnesse of

and men as we have already shewed we do not understand what makes a Vow if it be not this that it is a promise to God as to the things of God When Abraham lifted up his hands to the most high God possessor of heaven and earth that he would take nothing from the King of Sodom Gen. 14.22 We beleeve he made a Vow and none but God could release him yet this was not purely in rebus Dei We think they have lost their common sense that say those do not vow that solemnly lift up their hands to God promising an endeavour to fulfil his Commandments 4. Nor doth it at all hinder that the Parliament first commanded it and then it was taken for on the Commanders part this still was a perfect Vow 2. On the peoples part it was still a Covenant with God as well as with men With God as to the things in it which concern Gods worship and glory immediately With men as to other things If the Command of the Parliament in a Critical notion hinder it as to those commanded from being strictly called a Vow it yet remains a Covenant with God confirmed by an Oath There are examples enough in Scripture of Magistrates commanding people to make and renew Covenants with God and of such spontaneous Covenants so that it is false that it was meerly an Oath before God it was a Covenant with God 5. 'T is false that he saith that a people can make a Covenant with God only two waies 1. In the Sacraments 2. Spontaneously They may be commanded by Magistrates to do it and do it in such obedience Nor have any power when it is done to release them as to what concerns God Ez. 10.3.5 There is a president of such a Covenant made with God at the command of Ezra 6. It is true we can do no action unwillingly but we may do somthing not freely spontaneously But suppose we have once whether spontaneously or no made a Covenant with God and confirmed it by oath we are bound by it and God only can release it for there is a debt accruing to God 7. The Parliament may indeed by rheir Act hinder others not engaged from engaging or at least forbear their obliging men yet free to engage But to say that any Act of men can discharge the debt already contracted to God is such Divinity as needs none to confute it § 17. We do therefore conclude that this Theologaster hath handled this weighty subject weakly and imperfectly enough as he prophesied p. 2. if nevertheless we having now discovered his failings any be provoked to handle it better and more like a divine we shall be willing to hear what he saith In the mean time we leave Mr. Russel to imitate the good example as he calls it of that holy and learned Doctor St. Augustine viz. to retract and publish his retractations least he have at the Great Day the guilt of more souls sins to answer for than his own A Postscript to the ingenuous Reader REader Least any should put a misinterpretation upon what we have said we have thought fit to let thee know that we have not seen our Papers since the third or fourth of October last since which time thou knowest is come out His Majesties gracious Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs In reference to which we crave leave to add a few words that thou mayest know that we are none of those who desire it may not pass into an Act or think our selves by the Covenant obliged to hinder so good a work The Covenant obligeth us in our callings to endeavour a Reformation according to the Word of God c. 2. To endeavour the extirpation of Popery Prelacy i.e. The Church-government by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Deans Prebends Chancellors Commissaries We suppose none dreams us to have covenanted against names but things viz. exorbitances of power either practised by these men or with which they were invested There were two things in point of Discipline wherein as to practice at least the Administration of Church-Government here in England was heretofore apparently against Gods Word a third wherein it was against right reason 1. The first was That persons not ordained were trusted with the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven viz. Excommunication c. Such were Chancellours Commissaries c. 2. The second was That Prelates arrogated a sole power to themselves both in Ordination and in the Exercise of Jurisdiction 3. That which was against Reason and Conscience was that the Bishops charge was such as an Angel from heaven could not have discharged with a good conscience In matter of Worship two things call'd for Reformation 1. The frame of the Lyturgie against which there were sufficient exceptions 2. The imposed Ceremonies those we mean which were mystical and Sacramental How far his most Excellent Majesty hath taken care in these things is now evident to all and we are most humbly thankful to his Majesty for his endeavours in it and to our Brethren for their endeavours with his Majesty relating to it what his Majesty hath already done is a great evidence to us that if hereafter it shall be made appear to His Majesty that ought yet remains to be farther done in order to the fulfilling of the Ends of the Covenant He who under these Circumstances hath freely and honourably done this will not be wanting to it and we are not so hasty as to think Hierusalem can be built in a day The God of Heaven requite into His Majesties bosome a thousand fold that love and tenderness to His People which He hath in this shewed and we are fully assured that it will be no grief of heart to His Majesty that He hath thus far condescended As to the Common-Prayer we profess our selves not against a Lyturgy and we doubt not but His Majesty will appoint such persons to review our Lyturgie as will agree in one which shall not be liable to just exceptions till that time His Majesty grants a liberty But we can never be sufficiently thankful for the liberty His Majesty hath granted us in reference to the Oath of Canonical Obedience Subscription and the Ceremonies Though indeed His Majesty hath been pleased to deny something of this liberty to Cathedralls and to Colledges yet we doubt not but when His Majesty shall truly understand that the continuance of those Ceremonies in both those places makes the generality of sober and consciencious people never come at Cathedral Churches to attend the devotion which His Majesty hath there provided dayly for them and that were they abated and the Deans and Prebends enjoyned in person there to Expound Scripture Preach or Catechize or read Divinity Lectures there daily instead of meer doing that which every Child might do at home and that not by themselves neither but oft times by mean persons of no esteem with sober and good people His Majesty will quickly otherwise order things there and not suffer so great a