nullifie the Baptismal Vow 10. If the King's Souldiers at once swear to fight for the King and to destroy or plunder some innocent men or the Papist Souldier should swear to be true to the King and to pull down the Protestant Ministry and Bishops the former Part binds them though the latter doth not L. An Oath unlawfully imposed binds no man. M. That 's only the Doctrine of Perjury contrary to all sober Christian Casuists An unlawful imposition that is made by an Usurper without true power binds no man to take the Oath imposed but if he take it without being bound to take it the Oath binds him to the lawful part of the matter 1. If a High-way Robber make me swear to be true to the King that Oath binds though he had no Authority to impose it on me 2. If an Usurping Minister Baptize a man and make him Vow himself to Christ his Vow binds him though the Usurper had no authority 3. If a man make many voluntary Vows which no man bound him to make he is bound to keep them if the matter be lawful And the want of authority in the imposer doth but leave you as a volunteer unobliged to take it 4. And I would not have a Popish Clergy tempted to say The King and Parliament had no authority to impose the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy on us without the Pope therefore we be not bound to keep them L. But the Covenant was forced and no man is bound by a Promise or Oath which he was forced to make M. That 's a Doctrine of gross Perjury It 's true that no man that without authority forceth another to promise any thing to him can lay any just clame to that which he forced a man to promise For no mans own Crime can give him right to a Commodity Nemini debetur Commodum ex propria culpâ and the promiser is not bound to give it him because he hath no right to receive it but if you be injuriously forced to promise or vow your Duty to GOD or the King or your Neighbour that vow and promise doth bind you to perform it 1. If it be done without right by Prince or Prelates that force men to be Baptized yet that forced Vow doth bind them 2. If Bishops unjustly force unfit men to the LORD's Supper their Vow there made obligeth them 3. As I said if a High-way Robber force you to swear to be true to the King or to restore ill gotten goods or to recant a slander that Oath doth bind you 4. If the King should unjustly force you to Marry a Woman the Covenant binds you The Reason is because man hath free will and doth all that he doth by that choice which is true freedom It 's no proper force of his will that moveth him though we call it force from anothers act who doth his best to force him a man may refuse though he die for it He that casteth his goods into the Sea to save the Ship is urged to it but may choose He that giveth a Thief his purse to save his life might have chosen Do not the Martyrs freely lay down their lives and if any deny Christ or his Cause to save his life and say I was forced that will not save his Soul. 5. And your Doctrine will set up all unfaithfulness and rebellion All men that under Penalties are commanded to swear Allegiance or to take this Corporation-Oath or the Militia-Oath or the Oath to the Bishops are hereby taught to say We were forced to it by the King and Prelates and did it all against our wills and therefore are not bound by it Such principles loose the bonds of all Societies Loyalty and humane Converse and married men will put away their Wives when they are weary of them and say I was forced against my will by my Parents or by Poverty c. L. But this Covenant was unlawfully taken as well as unlawfully imposed and therefore bindeth not M. This also is Pernicious Doctrine against all sober Casuists If the matter be good the causeless and unlawful act of taking it doth not nullifie the obligation to perform it He that voweth an indifferent act should not have done it for a vow must not be causeless but he must keep it when it is made He that sinned in marriage when he ought not yet must perform his marriage Covenant He that in meer hypocrisie maketh the Baptismal vow did sin and yet is bound to keep it The truth is wicked men have so much of ill principles and ill ends that they do all sinfully that they do oft as to the substance and ever as to the manner But they are not disobliged from all their Contracts and Vows because they sinfully made them Else they will purposely do all sinfully that they may not be obliged So that 1. If the Act of Imposition 2. The Act of Swearing 3. And part of the matter Sworn be all unlawful yet a man is obliged to that part of the matter that is lawful But part of the Vow in question was good L. What part of it was good as to the matter M. 1. The renouncing of Popery 2. And of Schism 3. And of Prophaneness 4. The Obligation to defend the King. 5. The Profession to Repent of sin c. L. But all this we are bound to otherwise before M. Then you confess that it is good and then the Vow in question binds us to it I hope you are not so ignorant as to think that 2 Vow binds not a man to do that which he is bound to before I told you before tho' a man be bound by his Vow in Baptism to Christ his renewing it at every Sacrament layeth more and more Obligation on him If a man have taken the Oath of Allegiance every time he taketh it he is again bound to the same thing One may have a thousand Obligations to one and the same Duty L. But one thing is unanswerable No man is bound by a Vow that had not a self-obliging power But the Subjects of England and Scotland had no self-obliging power to take that Covenant because the King was against it The 30. of Levit proveth this at large M. Indeed if the Act of Vowing were not only sinful but a meer nullity that Vow being no Vow could not bind But that Levit. 30. doth no whit prove this I have fully manifested in my Christian Directory in the chap. of Vows to which I referr you part 3. cap. 5. Where the whole case of Vows is so largely opened that I will here only say this little The text of Levit. 30. doth expresly speak only of Women that are in a Parents or Husbands house and only of Vows made freely to God of doing or offering something to him Yea it seemeth limitted to them of which many reasons may be given And many reasons I have there mentioned pag. 33. why it doth not extend to Princes and Magistrates for releasing
Oxford-Oath in the Act of Confinement and the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity M. I have told you fully before Not because we differ in Doctrine but in expounding the words of that Oath and Subscription 2. Were neither Arch-bishop Abbot nor his Clergy nor the Parliaments of those times of the Church of England as well as Sâ—bthorp and Mainwaring Were not the Laws made by those Parliaments made by the Members if not Representatives of the Church of England You know that our late great Defenders of the Church describe the Church of England to be those that Worship God according to the Law And were the Parliaments that made those Laws none of the Church themselves Chillingworth would not Subscribe without a limitting Profession Was he therefore none of the Church Was Bishop Bilson none of the Church Was R. Hooker none of the Church The first dedicated his Book to Queen Elizabeth and the latter is Dedicated to our King Charles the second and Praised by his Father And yet the Author of the Holy Common-wealth hath larglier than any man confuted Hooker's Popular Principles When William Barclay a Lawyer defended the King of France his Temporal Power against the Popes Usurpation of a Power to depose and restrain him he is fain to profess that the contrary opinion was so common that he was taken to speak some strange and singular thing And yet none doubts but he was of the same Church of Rome I again challenge you to name that point in which we differ in this Doctrine from the true Church of England L. You hold that Kings may be resisted by Arms. M. Not so much as the aforesaid Bishop and Doctors of the Church of England did or the Parliaments that made Church-Laws Again See our second Plea for Peace how far we disclaim it I profess that I am acquainted with no meer Non-Conformist Ministers that hold it at all lawful for Subjects to resist the King or any Supream Power by a War except in case that he notoriously declareth that he will if he can destroy the Common-wealth or deliver it up to a foreigner or destroyer that hath no right L. Sure the cry would never be for Extirpating the Dissenters for this Plot and their disloyalty if they were not guilty M. Nay if that be your argument Strangers to them say they are disloyal and guilty ergo they are so I leave you to God's answer for I will not undertake to answer you But will you use Sobriety a little further 1. It is now twenty seven years since they were ejected and cast out of maintenance and countenance and left to beg or crave their bread Long have they been laid in Gaols and fined deeply the Law laying on them twenty and forty pound a Sermon Their Goods Beds Books taken from them and they left destitute How many in all these years have ever been accused and proved guilty of one disloyal or seditious Sermon or Word I know of none Certainly it was not for want of will in the Accusers Those that by Oaths have brought them under Convictions and Warrants for distress of five ten and much more forfeitures even divers hundred pounds at once before they were ever summoned to speak for themselves would sure have sworn some disloyal Words against them had they been able And can many hundred Ministers have a fuller proof of their innocency than that they had no such prosecution twenty seven years from such a sort of Adversaries in so great Sufferings 2. And now this Plot is detected It is divers Months since and many Countries and Corporations have accused the Dissenters of it and cry them down to Extirpation And to this day I cannot hear of any one English Minister or at most not of two that is either an Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformist so much as accused or named as guilty The French and Dutch Churches in London are Dissenting Presbyterians Yet no man accuseth any of them for being in Plots and yet must they also be destroyed But Sir if any one or more of the Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformists Ministers or People had been found guilty would you condemn thousands or any of the guiltless for their sakes On what account Is it for their Relation to them They are mostly strangers to one another Come and let us try your rule of Justice I. Is there any Relation nearer than that of Father and Son And can any Minister be supposed to have more interest in or influence on his Hearers than a Father hath on his Son And you know that the chief man accused is the Kings eldest Son I hope you will not for this charge the King as if he principled him for Treason against himself Nor as if he were to suffer for his Sons faults II. The Judges have oft declared that many Iesuits and Papists were Plotters and Traitors and they died for it I hope you will not make all Papists guilty of their crime nor extirpate them for it And yet the Papists are Conventicling Dissenters too III. The Lords and great Men accused of this Plot and Treason how justly God knoweth were of the Church of England and shall all the Church of England be destroyed for their sakes Dr. Whitby and others now blamed by the Oxford-Convocation and Bishop Bilson Mr. Hocker c. were of the Church of England and shall all the English Clergy be accused of their words IV. Many of the accused were Hobbists and Infidels and some common ill-living Protestants Shall all the Hobbists and Infidels and ill-living Protestants be extirpated for their faults V. Many Gentlemen of some late Parliaments are accused not yet tried and proved guilty Shall all the Parliament-men therefore be extirpated as guilty VI. Some Lawyers and Students at Law are accused Shall all Lawyers and Students therefore be extirpated VII Divers of the Nobility are accused Must all Noble-men be therefore reproached VIII Some that have been of the Kings Privy Council were accused Is his Council therefore to be disgraced or destroyed IX Formerly many Judges have been guilty Are Judges therefore to be dishonoured X. By this justice you may next conclude They were Englishmen that were accused therefore let all English-men be rooted out Or they were Protestants and Christians therefore away with all Protestants and Christians Whereas I think it an unjust conclusion that because they were Irish-men and Papists that murdered two hundred thousand in Ireland therefore root out all Irish-men and Papists unless you will inferr They are men that commit all sin therefore root out mankind If it had been men that hate serious Godliness and are the seed of the Serpent and of Cain that are at deadly enmity to the true fear of God and thirst for the blood of the innocent that are accused of this Plot and if People had petitioned to have all this sort of men rooted out for it it would have fallen on more than you and I are willing to name or
XXXVII Point XXXIV Of renouncing all Obligations from the Covenant as on me or any other to endeavour any alteration of Church Government L. THis is now ceased at the end of twenty years what need you mention this M. 1. I thought you had desired to know why we conformed not for the twenty years past 2. I suppose that the like is still imposed on others in the Corporation Act the Vestry Act the Militia Act and the Marrow of it still imposed on us in the Oxford Oath L. And what have you against it M. First I 'll tell you what we have not against it because we are commonly here falsly accused 1. It is none of our Controversie whether this Oath or Covenant was unlawfully made and imposed both on the people and the King we deny none of this 2. It is none of our Controversie whether there be not some part of the Matter of it that is unlawful We deny not that 3. It is none of our Controversie whether it was not unlawfully taken We justifie not that as to our selves tho' we are not judges of the sin of King and Lords and others whom we have no Calling to condemn 4. It is none of our Controversie whether this or any other Covenant or Vow do bind us to Rebellion Sedition or any unlawful Act we renounce all such Obligation 5. Yea we hold that neither this nor any other Vows of our own can prevent any Obligation that the King hath Authority to impose upon us in things great or small else men might disable Magistrates to rule them and exempt themselves from Obedience by Vowing before hand not to obey 6. I add for my self that I hold my self bound by this Covenant to nothing which I had not been bound to if I had never taken it For I never thought that by Vows we may make new Religions or Laws to our selves but only bind our selves to that which God doth make our Duty L. Where then is the danger or sin that you fear M. I. As to the Obligation of the Vow on my self II. As to the Obligation of it on all others III. As to the Matter of altering Church Government 1. I am neither so blind wicked or singular as to deny the common Doctrine of Casuists Protestants and Papists that tho' a Vow be both sinfully imposed and sinfully taken yet it bindeth in materia necessaria licita Yea that if part of the matter be unlawful yet it bindeth to that part which is lawful Else a Knave might exempt himself from the performance of all his Vows by foisting in some unlawful matter or by making them in an unlawful manner Therefore if there be any thing that is necessary or lawful in that Vow I believe that I am thereto bound L. So Rebels that think it lawful to rebel will say that the Covenant binds them to it M. So he that thinks Gods Law doth bind him to Murder or Rebellion will plead Gods Law for it But doth it follow that Gods Law bindeth him to that or to nothing It is not mens false sayings that make or prove such Obligation He that will say that Gods Laws or the Kings or the Covenant binds him to sin must be punished for his Sin and Lie and yet all just Obligations stand L. But you are bound before by other Obligations to all that is good in it and not by the Covenant M. That 's an inference contrary to Reason and Christianity Can a Man of any Reason once dream that a Man may not have many Obligations to one and the same Duty or that the second Oath binds not to it because the first did you vowed your self to Christ in Baptism and you renew the same in the Lords Supper Are all the latter null because the first is valid What if you many times Swear Allegiance to the King Do none of these bind you but the first L. II. But do you think that endeavours to alter Church Government is any of your lawful or necessary Matter M. You know that there is a Law that maketh it a praemunire penalty to say that the Covenant bindeth one to endeavour any alteration of Church Government And why then will you put such a question to me All that I will say is this that as I say not that any one is bound to it by this Covenant so I am not so good a Casuist as to be able to justifie and acquit all other men from all such Obligations Let them look to themselves for my part I will be no voucher or surety for their indemnity L. III. This brings up to the other part of your Reasons and why may you not say that none is so bound M. 1. Because God never made me a Casuist to determine the case for all men in three Kingdoms 2. Because it is a new and monstrous thing for one private man yea many thousand private men to be forced to such an Office and Undertaking Every man must answer for himself before God and Man Noxa caput sequitur If I were commanded to be surety for everyman in England Scotland and Ireland but for the Peace or good Behaviour I should think it a piece of as palpable injustice as most ever the World knew But if I must undertake to answer for all their Souls in a case where thousands of Learned men have been of the contrary mind I 'll first think how to answer for my own Yet as to that part which I am certain of my self I do not scruple it I dare subscribe that the Covenant bindeth no man to be False or Rebellious against the King or to endeavour to alter our Monarchy or to deprive the King of any of his Rights nor to endeavour to change any part of Church Government which Christ hath instituted for continuance in his Church And is not this enough But whether our Diocesan frame as distinct from that which Arch-bishop Vsher called the Primitive Government be changeable or whether none of their Courts and Lay-mens power of the Keys be changeable or ought to be changed And whether no man may endeavour it in his place and calling I think a man may be saved without knowing And I think if you ask a man if King and Parliament should change the Office of an Official a Commissary a Chancellor c. or should set up a Bishop in every Market Town is it a sin against God or is it unlawful to obey them or if it be lawful to do it and any of them Swear to endeavour it in his place is he bound to perform that Oath If to all this a man say I cannot tell I am not Learned enough in Law and Divinity to resolve such cases but I am resolved my self to live in Loyalty and Peace I would ask any man that hath not put off humanity whether that man be fit to determine the case for all other men in three Kingdoms and to be a voucher for all their Souls in
a case that he understandeth not himself L How doth this make you a Voucher for their Souls M. 1. The case is of exceeding weight If I should publickly declare that no man is thus bound by a Vow and I should prove mistaken 1. Then I become guilty of all these mens sin by justifying it as no sin 2. And I am guilty of cruelty to their Souls in open telling them that they need not perform their Vows nor repent of non-performance 3. And Perjury is one of the heinousest sins on Earth 4. And the Perjury of Millions or Nations is yet one of the grievousest degrees of guilt 5. And I do my worst to make God destroy or forsake such a Land. And what yet can I do worse I say if in justifying them I should be mistaken what a guilt should I incur And doth Nature or Scripture bind me to run so great a hazard for so many thousand others Besides he that will be a Casuist must know all the case there are hundreds and thousands put upon these decisions that being then Children knew not who made the Covenant nor how it was imposed or taken and many that know not what it is and never saw it And there are thousands if not millions that took it whose Faces I never saw and know not what moved them nor in what sence they took it and Casuists say that if a man mistake the Imposers sence he is bound to keep it in the sence that he understood it when he took it if a lawful one especially if the Imposers had no Authority or their sence was doubtful And it is not uncharitable for me to think â—hat none of the Kings Compounding Lords or Clergy that after took it did take it in a sence which they thought found And must I tell them all that none of them is bound to keep it in that sound sence I will not run the danger of having thousands in judgment to suffer for Perjury and saying This man declared that it was no sin If they are all Innocent what need they my justification when they stand or fall by the judgment of God. If they prove guilty my declaring it no sin will not acquit them but condemn my own Soul by tempting them to impenitence I do not say that they are obliged by this Vow herein nor I will not say they are not There are many matters first to be known if we agree in point of Doctrine and I know that it 's an easie thing for confident men to multiply words to prove all lawful in this Oath and to Swear that it is rebellious Hearts that cause our doubtings and so say the Papists of the Protestants But whatever they say or threat I will not by their confidence and talk be drawn to cast my Soul into so great a hazard All men are not so bold in such things as some Chap. XXXVIII Point XXXV Of the Oxford Oath that we will never endeavour any alteration of Church Government M. THE Oxford Act is not content that we say that we are not bound by the Covenant to endeavour any alteration of Church Government but we must say and Swear that we never will endeavour it as any other way obliged to it L. The meaning is that you will never endeavour it by Rebellion Sedition or unlawful means M. The Parliament knew how to speak their minds By such Expositions you may Swear almost any thing in the World and no Government shall have any security by your Oaths The words are contrivedly as universal against all endeavour as can be spoken 2. But I 'll presently confute you undeniably You know Church and State Government are conjoined in the Oath and the Church put first Will you say as to State Government that the meaning only is That I will not endeavour to depose the King or alter Monarchy by Rebellion or any unlawful means but only by lawful means if you do you 'l soon be told home that the Oath doth mean That no means is lawful to such an end but the work it self as well as the means is forsnorn L. But the meaning is only that you will not endeavour to alter Episcopacy and not all other Offices and Courts M. This is as palpable a falsification as the former For 1. The words are a most express abjuration of endeavouring any alteration of Government at all And if you take the word Alteration strictly it more commonly signifieth a change of Quality or Manner 〈◊〉 of Essence But if you take it largely it comprehendeth both 2. And I appeal to any mans Conscience whether that was or is the Bishops sence Go ask them My Lords If I endeavour but to reduce Diocesans to every Corporation to take down your Lordships and great Revenues and your Chancellors Courts and all the rest of your Humane Officers will you take it for no breach of my Oath and I warrant you they will soon resolve you 3. Yet I shall fullier convince you The Bishops and Parliament are of the mind of the Church of England And the Canons do most fully speak the Churches mind And the Seventh Canon before cited when it makes it ipso facto Excommunication to call the Church Government sinful tells you that they extend this to Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons and the rest that bear Office therein 4. And I believe if you should say that I take my Oath to bind me from endeavouring no change of the Government of the State but only of the Essence of Monarchy you would quickly feel the Error of your Exposition L. But I can assure you that many able Conforming Ministers take the Declaration in the Act of Vniformity in such sences as aforesaid M. Our King is King of Scotland as well as of England and he hath thus declared his sence in the case of the Earl of Argyle and the Reasons of it are considerable And do you think that it can be the true sence in England and deserve preferment as to Loyal and Obedient Ministers which deserveth Death it self in Scotland can you wish for a clearer Exposition L. And why will you not Swear never to endeavour any alteration if you be required so to do M. I have read Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicon and many such Books in which I see how great a number of our greatest Divines as well Arch-bishop Cranmer took the Form of Church Government to be alterable and not fixed by Christ And if the Doctor have changed his judgment that changeth not the Authority of those that he citeth 2. I have in my full Treatise of Episcopacy told you why I cannot but wish more than one thing in our Ecclesiastical Courts and Government changed 3. I take it for a matter that deserveth consideration whether it be no change of the State Government to make all the Church Government unchangeable and so to disable the King to change it And how to reconcile the two parts of the Oath And whether if the whole