Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	england_n	king_n	people_n	13,931	5	5.0853	4	true

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

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-Statute-Law of England we shall only say this That the statute-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

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

the Power imposing if true proved insufficient § 1. HAving hitherto cleared the matter of the Oath which is upon us from any exceptions against it pretending to evince it so far unlawful that we having taken it are not obliged by it We come in the next place to consider it as to the efficient Cause to clear it from any exceptions made against it upon that account following the Method of the aforementioned Reverend Professor Dr. Sanderson who in his Book de Juramento promissorii hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least acquitted himself to all Learned and Conscientious men whatever he hath done in his latter Book de obligatione Conscientiae which we have not so well weighed § 2. There are several cases which the Dr. puts relating to the efficient cause of promissory Oaths under which he comprehends both the external and internal cause the Agent and impulsive causes As First Whether and how far the Oaths of Children Fooles and Madmen or such as are drunk either with wine or passion are lawful and oblige none of which concern us in this Discourse There are only 2 or 3 cases under this head to be spoken to viz. 1. How far an Oath may be lawful or binding taken as imposed by an unlawful Authority 2. How far the Oath of one who is under the power of another is lawful or obligatory 3. How far an Oath is lawful or obligatory to which we are forced or into which we are frighted through fear of danger in case we refuse it For all these things are improved to the heighth against the Covenant by our Absolvers They tell us it was imposed upon us by an unlawful Power That we were Subjects and could not take it without the Kings consent lawfully and he dissenting though we have taken it it is null and doth not oblige us That the generality were forced to it yea that his Sacred Majesty who now is was frighted into the taking of it by the Scottish force and threatning and is therefore discharged from any obligation to it How truly this is spoken and how consonantly to the judgment of Dr. Sanderson and all sober Casuists let us now enquire De juram prom prael 4. §. 7. § 3. As to the former part of the first case whether it be unlawful to take an Oath from an usurped power Dr. Sanderson determines it affirmatively because it becomes not a pious and couragious Christian to make himself a slave yet the same Dr. allowes it lawful if we cannot avoid it without great danger provided that the Oath be otherwise lawful and that we do not shew too much forwardness in the doing of it but do it with some testimony of reluctancy § 4. But how fat this is applicable to the present case we are not able to determine Lawyers must first resolve us whether the Lords and Commons of England assembled in Parliament have not a power to make a new Oath and impose it upon people unlesse the King first consent When that point of Law is determined the Doctors determination may be applied to it which will much help the Covenanters in Conscience if the case be in Law determined against them § 5. The third Conclusion of Dr. Sanderson's determination in the case is sufficient to our purpose Qui juramentum susceperit à personâ justam authoritatem non habente Dr. Sanderson ibid. delatum sed nulla alia ex parte vitiosum omnino teneri ad implendum quod juravit i.e. He who hath taken an Oath from one who had no authority to give it if the Oath be not otherwise faulty is fully bound to perform what he hath sworn So that our Absolvers may see they are beside their divinity in discharging men from the Obligation of the Covenant because those who imposed it as they pretend had no lawful power to impose it for supposing that the Oath being taken saith Dr. Sanderson doth oblige CHAP. XII The Absolvers Arguments from the present dissent of the King who then was Argued The Case stated and resolved The Rules applied to the present Case The Argument from hence for the irritation of the Covenant proved vain § 1. VVE are now come to our Absolvers strong Forts whatsoever they talk that the Covenant is Schismatical that it was against the Lawes of the Nation they know are convinced in their own Consciences that there is nothing in these Pleas sufficient to discharge any Conscience and therefore being pursued hither they run as to their strong Castle It was unlawful being given and taken without the Kings consent and is therefore null and void Or else 2. It was a forced Oath extorted by fear and such Oaths do not oblige this is the Doctrine they preach to their hearers How true it is let us now enquire § 2. The foundation of any case here whether an Oath taken by an Inferiour be void or obliging lies in that known place of Scripture Numb 30. And indeed Oaths so strictly obliging by divine Institution it is reasonable that the irritation or obligation of them should also from thence be determined and by the Scripture we freely will be tried it being the proper Bar for judgment in things of Conscience § 3. That Chapter beginneth thus And Moses spake unto the Heads of the Tribes concerning the Children of Israel This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded V. 2. If any man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an Oath to bind himself in a bond he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth This is the general Rule and Law of God concerning Oaths But God is pleased to reserve some Cases The case of a woman in her Fathers house v. 3. The case of a woman who hath an Husband living v. 6 7 8 11 12. § 4. Concerning these cases God thus determines that if the Father of such a Daughter vowing or swearing v. 5. Or the Husband of such a wife v. 7. shall hold his peace at her v. 4 7. then such vows shall stand 2. But if the Father of such a Child or the Husband of such a Wife shall disallow it in the day he hears thereof v. 5 8. then not any of their vowes shall stand v. 4. but shall be of none effect v. 8. But v. 14. If the Husband altogether hold his peace at his wife from day to day then he establisheth all her vowes or all her bonds which are upon her he confirmeth them because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them v. 15. But if he shall any way make them void after that he hath heard them he shall bear her iniquity § 5. Divines do grant by Analogy in respect of parity of reason that the case is the same concerning Subjects in some cases as to the Oaths they take without the knowledge or praevious consent of their Superiors though it be observable that although Moses at

Divine Providence nor yet each with other but also to discharge them from their useless employment in seeking knots in so even a rush by proving that none can be found so that they must be forced to cut this Gordian knot because it cannot be untied § 3. As to the material cause The matter of every Oath of Covenant being either necessary unlawful or indifferent And each of these again being possible or certain or impossible or uncertain If the matter of the Oath to which we are speaking be necessary as commanded us by the Word of God or indifferent where Gods Word hath left us at a liberty except it be impossible we are certainly bound to the performance of it by our Oath in the judgment of all Divines that we ever yet met with From whence every conscientious Christian by the way must needs conclude thus 1. If the Officers as to the external administration of the Church of Christ under the Gospel be so determined by the Word of God That no Church under Heaven nor any other powers can make any alteration in them but only ratifie and confirm what God hath there appointed Then unless we can find that Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons are the Officers appointed by Gods Word for the Government of his Church we are most certainly obliged by our Oath to endeavour their extirpation The reason is because although we had not sworn yet we are bound as Christians to endeavour in our place and calling that the Church to which we belong have in it no Plants which are not of our Heavenly Fathers planting and according to our former rule what we are bound to do without an Oath we are much more having sworn obliged to 2. Suppose the Government of the Church be not so determined by the Word of God as to the external Administrators of it but it be in the power of the Magistrate or the Church to add some Officers not there mentioned or to chuse what Form they please yet we having sworn against this Form of Government and against these Officers we cannot set them up nor own them but must if they be imposed upon us suffer under them The reason is because the matter of the Oath was indifferent libera and Juramentum tollit libertatem we having sworn it is to us no longer free § 4. No one can challenge the Covenant as giving an uncertain sound at least not as to this Branch of it What we sware to was not the general will of another nor the unknown Rights Statutes and Priviledges of a Society yet many Oaths of that kind are judged lawful by Casuists and generally judged obligatory though not without some exceptions but the thing in this Oath is expressed Prelacy and the particular species of Prelacy set down as plainly as can be imagined so that there can be no escape for any soul that feareth an Oath § 5. It remaineth therefore that those who plead the non-obligation of this Oath and have set up this new trade of absolving souls from it must assert the matter of it unlawful either primarily or secondarily either in its own nature or in respect of some accident § 6. Dr. Sanderson tels us that an Oath as to the matter of it is unlawful in its own nature primarily when it is contrary to the Word of God Secondarily When it is contrary to the just Lawes of any community in which we are involved That an Oath may as to the matter of it be unlawful ex accidenti when it hinders some good or occasioneth some evil to our selves or to others when a man 's own Conscience judgeth it unlawful Others add when it is contradictory to it self or to some former Oaths c. § 7. But the Casuists generally agree that every unlawful Oath is not presently void if once taken it will be necessary therefore not only to examine whether the Covenant as to the matter of it were unlawful but whether it were so unlawful that it doth not now being taken oblige which unquestionably it was if as some pretend it were contrary to the Word of God in this particular for no soul can be by an Oath bound to sin against God according to that known Rule Juramentum non potest esse vinculum iniquitatis § 8. But those who plead the Obligation of the Covenant upon this account null will easily understand that they will stand concerned to prove from the Word of God That God hath somewhere determined that either his Church Catholick or his particular Church in England should inalterably be governed by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Arch-Deacons c. Which when they have done we will freely grant them that the Covenant in that Point doth not oblige But this is such a task as none we have met with durst undertake § 9. That therefore which they chiefly insist upon is that the matter of the Covenant was secondarily unlawful as contrary to the Lawes of the Church or State-communities in which we are involved where we have two things to do 1. To examine Whether what they say be truth And 2. To examine whether it be conclusive § 10. The Church is either Catholick and Universal or particular Either Entitive Ministerial or Organical When we speak of a Church supposed to be in a capacity to make Lawes obliging others we must understand an organnical representative Church either Catholick or National or Provincial § 11. The Catholick Church in this sense must consist of a due proportion of Members sent from all particular Churches in the world who meeting in a Synod shall determine or have determined such and such things and we do confess though we dare not assert such Lawes universally obliging to all Christian People to the worlds end that we have and should have a great reverence for such constitutions But we do not believe that ever any such an Assembly met upon the earth nor do we believe the world in a capacity to convene such an one we have indeed read of some Councils called General Councils but besides that we find no such Law made by them neither do we believe them to have been such Assemblies strictly considered § 12. They must therefore understand the National Church of England Which may be taken as we said before entitively or organically In the first sence The Church of England is the whole number of Christian people in England professing the Christian Faith But when we speak of a Church making Lawes we must not understand Church in this Notion but must understand it considered as organical and then their power of making Constitutions or Canons obligatory to others must be derived either from the Word of God or from the Civil Magistrate What power can be pretended from the Word of God must be bottomed upon Acts 15. From whence all that is possible to be concluded is this That particular Churches of

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

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

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

bed and v. 12. requires of them to swear unto her by the Lord that as she had shewed kindness unto them so that when they had conquered Jericho they would save alive her Father and her Mother and her Brethren and her Sisters and all that they had They swear accordingly In the 6th of Joshua you read that Jericho was taken by the Israelites V. 22. Joshua commands these Spies to go into the Harlots house and to bring out the woman and all that she had as they sware unto her If Joshua and the rest of the Israelites had been of the Religion of our late Absolvers how much might they have pleaded in discharge of this Oath 1. As to the matter of it there is an appearance of unlawfulness in it because of the Command of God to destroy the Canaanites and not to pity or spare them 2. It was made without Joshua's advice 3. It was imposed by an unlawful power 4. The men could not but fear that if they had refused Rahab might have discovered them which had she done they must unquestionably have died But that age it seems was not so cunning to quit themselves of Oaths It is the probable opinion of Magalianus that the Precept of God for destroying the Canaanites was with an exception to such of them as should express signal kindness to the Israelites And for other things they were to learn that an Oath taken otherwise lawful was discharged by any such pretences § 9. The second Instance is that of Zedekiah The story is this Zedekiah was a third Son of Josiah The Scripture mentioneth three Sons of that good King Jehoahaz who succeeded Josiah immediatly Jehoiachim and Zedekiah called by his Father Mattaniah Jehoahaz having reigned wickedly three moneths was overcome and carried into captivity by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt where he died for ought we know childless 2 Kings 23.32 33 34. The King of Egypt setteth up in his stead Eliakim a second Son of Josiah and turns his Name to Jehoiachim he reigneth 11 years In his daies Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon conquers his Land He dieth also and leaveth only one Son mentioned in Scripture Jehoiachin called by the Prophet Jeremy also Jeconiah and so ordinarily by the 70 Interpreters Jeremiah also in contempt cals him Coniah Domini nomen à Regis nomine avulsum fuit saith Hierom. This man died childless according to that Jer. 32.30 Write this man childlesse Where and when he dyed the Scripture speaketh not probably he died a prisoner in Babilon 2 Chron. 36.13 The King of Babilon makes Mattaniah a third Sonne of Josiah brother by Father and Mothers side to Jehoahaz they were both the sons of Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah 2 Kings 23.31 ch 24.18 King in his stead He took an Oath of Zedekiah by God 2 Chron. 36.13 That this Oath was extorted by fear is past denial Zedekiah was of the Kings seed Ezek. 17.13 Son of Josiah Brother to Jehoahaz Uncle to Jehoiachin or Jechoniah There appears nought to the contrary but that he was the right heir to the Crown Jehoahaz and Jehoiachim being dead and probably Jeconiah dead too sure we are he had a right to his liberty He could neither have this Crown nor yet his Liberty without taking this Oath to the Usurper the King of Babilon he must else have alwaies lived a slave to a Pagan Prince and have been in daily danger of his life and the more as the refusing such an Oath would have rendered him to the King of Babilon as suspicious for hatching some designe for the recovery of his own and his Countreyes Liberty He takes it And 't is very like that he had some about him of the complexion of our late Casuists who might tell him it was an Oath against the Lawes of Israel imposed by an Usurper forced upon him as a Prisoner and therefore did not oblige What ever the motive was he brake it and Ezech. 17.15 sent Ambassadors into Egypt to give him horses and much people But observe how God takes this whether he also concurred that Zedekiahs Oath and Covenant was null and void God declareth his sense of it by the Prophet Ezech. chap. 17. under the Parable of two Eagles and a Vine from v. 1. to v. 11. he expounds this Parable ver 11. sequent Say now to the Rebellious house c. V. 12. Behold the King of Babilon is come to Hierusalem and hath taken the King thereof and the Princes thereof and led them with him into Babilon V. 13. And hath taken of the Kings seed and made a Covenant with him and hath taken an Oath of him he hath taken also the mighty of the Land V. 14. That the Kingdome might be base that it might not lift up it self but that by keeping of his Covenant it might stand V. 15. But he rebelled against him sending Embassadors into Egypt that they might give him chariots and horses c. Might he not do so notwithstanding his Oath According to our new Casuists the Oath was null and void Zedekiah was a prisoner the Jews in captivity Zedekiah had never sworn to be tributary to the King of Babilon surely if it had not been to recover his rights if he had not been afraid of death or imprisonment or perpetual exile certainly he could not offend God in violating such a forced Oath But it seems the thoughts of God were otherwise for the Prophet goes on Shall he prosper shall he escape that doth such things or shall he break the Covenant and be delivered V. 16. As I live saith the Lord God surely in the place where the King liveth that made him King whose Oath he despised and whose Covenant he brake even with him in the middest of Babilon he shall dye V. 18. Seeing he despised the Oath by breaking the Covenant when lo he had given his hand and done all these things he shall not escape V. 19. Therefore thus saith the Lord God as I live surely mine Oath that he hath despised and my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompence upon his head Is it possible now that any owning the name of Divines and Interpreters of Scriptures should tell us that Oaths extorted by fear do not oblige § 10. Nor have our Absolvers any better encouragement from the suffrage of Divines in the case whether they be Ancient or Modern Papists or Protestants Azorius tels us it is Communis sententia the common sense of Divines that Oaths so extorted do binde in conscience Sanches saith that Quidam antiqui some old Divines did think they doe not oblige but who they are we cannot find Aq. 21 ae q. 89. art 7. resp ad 3. Sure we are that Aquinas Sayrus Azorius Filiucius Sanches Al. Hales Bonaventure Richardus Gabriel John Bacon Panormitan Durandus Scotus Estius Soto Cajetan Navarrus Suarez Valentia Layman Antoninus Dr. Ames Dr. Sanderson Baldwin c. all determine that such Oaths do oblige Some of