The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...

CHAP. LV. POINT XII. Whether all Trusted in Corporations may declare, That there is NO OBLIGATION▪ on them or any other Person from the Oath called, The League and Covenant. (Book 55)

M.

I Spake to this before but a little on the by; it being no XII. part of the Ministerial Conformity. Ministers are on∣ly to subscribe, or swear, that the said Oath bindeth no man to endeavour any Alteration of Government; but the Corporati∣ons are to declare, That there is no Obligation at all, from that Oath on them, or any other. I have read much of the History of Heathens, Mahometans, and Christians; and I confess, I remem∣ber not that ever I read the like to this. The likest to it that I

remember, was in the long Wars and Contentions between the Pope and the German Emperour, when they sware and un∣sware, and sware again, as either Party got advantage: And that Popes and Councils have Decreed the dissolving of Oaths of Fidelity to those Kings whom the Pope Excommunicates, is commonly known; but Protestants know no such power.

L.

This Declaration is to be expounded by the many following Acts, which only say, there is no obligation to Change the Govern∣ment.

M.

That's gratis dictum without proof; that several Acts have the same meaning when the words so much differ, is not to be presumed. One of them is an Universal Negative with∣out the least exception, and the other a particular Negative on∣ly. 2. And the Acts were made at several times, to several men, and the Parliament in the latter, never pretended to li∣mit or explain the former, which sure they would have done if they repented of the Terms. 3. And Parliament Men tell us. That it was mentioned that the Non-Obligation of the Cove∣nant should be limited, and it was pleaded against it, That if men believe that they are bound by it to any thing, some will think that they are bound to all that is lawful, and that it's law∣ful to take Arms against the King, and so there is no securing them from Rebellion, as by that Covenant, but by renouncing all its Obligation: And this carried the Cause. 4. It is not lawful for Subjects to put a particular Sence on Universal Words imposed, unless the imposers first so expound the Terms; which they have refused to do after twenty years complaint of the Dissenters, and do justifie the universal sence to this day. Therefore such forced Expositions of our Rulers words in so tremendous a matter, are not to be feigned without good proof.

L.

We say Bonum est ex Causis integris: There is Evil in that Covenant, therefore it is an Evil Covenant.

M.

That's none of the Question; it may be Evil in that part that is Evil, and the thing it self may thence be denomi∣nated Faulty or Evil, and yet not all that is in it be Evil, nor it Evil simpliciter but scundum quid. Do you think all is Evil that is there Vowed?

L.

If it be Evil, no one is bound to keep it.

M.

No, not in the Evil part: But do you think that the con∣junction of some Ill things in a Vow or Covenant, doth disob∣lige a man from all that's good in it? If so, mark what will follow.

1. Man is so ignorant, and imperfect, and faulty, that he doth nothing that's good without a mixture of some evil, how can sinless perfection come from sinful Imperfection? And so we should be bound by no Vow, or Oath, or Contract at all.

2. If Knaves once learn this Lesson, they will be sure to foist in some ill clause into their Vows to GOD, and their Cove∣nants with Man; that so they may be bound by none.

3. The Oath of Allegiance or Fedelity to the King, and the King's own Oath at his Coronation, in the time of Popery, had ill clauses in it for the Papal interest; doth it follow that neither of them did bind?

4. If an Irish Tory should, on the high-way, meet an English Lord, and take his Purse, pretend that he is against the King, and should force him at once to take an Oath to be true to the King, and to give him his Estate, and conceal his theft: The latter is evil, and yet even that Oath bindeth to be true to the King.

5. If the Clergy in their Ordination, in time of Popery, had divers sinful clauses and promises, doth it follow that their Ordination was null, and obliged them to no Ministerial Duty?

6. If the Clergy in former ages, or in France or Spain, be sworn to the King and the Pope, doth it follow that this binds them not to the King, because it binds them not to the Pope?

7. If men were Married in time of Popery, with unlawful Words and Clauses, or lately in England by Justices in new terms, was such marriage null?

8. If a Papist make to you a Testament, or Deed of Sale of his Estate, and put in some unlawful clauses appealing to Angels, or wishing you to pray for the Souls in Purgatory; I do not think you would take that Will or Deed for a nullity.

9. If in Popery or here, some Clauses at Baptism prove bad, it doth not 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 so∣ber 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 Pro∣mise 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 Sup∣per, 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 pro∣per 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 cho∣sen. 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 for∣ced, that will not save his Soul.

5. And your Doctrine will set up all unfaithfulness and re∣bellion. 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 unlawful∣ly imposed, and therefore bindeth not.

M.

This also is Pernicious Doctrine against all sober Ca∣suists. 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 per∣form 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 sub∣stance, 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 Swear∣ing. 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 que∣stion 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 Alle∣giance, 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 mani∣fested 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 their Sub∣jects from their Vows, tho' some pretend a parity of reason. But these things are certain.

1. That even the Parents make not the Vow null at its first making, but only relax it after, and stop the Confirmation of it, vers. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12.

2. That this Power is about vows to God, as good or hurtful to the inferiours; and that some Vows are so certainly necessary to the inferiours good, that the Father or Husband (whose Power is only for their good, and not their hurt) cannot dispense with it. As Dr. Sanderson, saith Praelect. 4. §. 5. p. 104, 105. it belongeth only to that matter in which one is under another Government, which hath §. 6. a double limitati∣on, One in the person of the Swearer, viz. There is scarce any one that hath the use of reason, that is so fully under anothers Power, but that in some things he is fui Juris. And there every man may do as pleases himself, without consulting his Superiour, so at that by his own Act; without his Superiours Licence, he may bind himself. 2. As to the consent of a Superior—a tacit consent antecedent or consequent suffices—Quasi diceret, si dissensum suum vel uno die dissimulet votum in perpetuum stabilivit.

And it is certain that to oppose Prophaneness, Schism, and Popery, and to Repent of Sin, are things so necessary, and so much for eve∣ry persons good, that no Parent or Husband can either forbid or nullify such a Vow: No man can hinder any from Vowing in Baptism to be a Christian, and to forbear Murder, Adultery, Theft, Idolatry, &c. nor can disoblige them after.

It is certain that if a superiour dissent, and after consent, or he die, and the next superior (e.g. a Husband) do consent, when a Woman makes the same Vow, it remaineth obliga∣tory.

And it is certain that if a Parent or Husband make the same Vow himself, he cannot disoblige himself. And if once he consent, he can never after nullify it.

And as to our case de Facto it is agreed, 1. That Parliament-Men took and imposed this Oath, when they were neither con∣strained, nor acknowledged the Kings Power to dissolve it.

2. That thousands in the Nation knew not of the Kings pub∣lished Profession against it.

3. That thousands, yea the far greatest number in England, took it after the death of the King.

4. That they thought the present King took it himself, and owned it by a Declarantion; In which, tho' for my part I doubt

not but the Scots sinfully abused Him and the Kingdom; yet that alters not the case of the Subjects obligation by that Vow.

5. That multitudes of Lords, Knights, and others took it that had adhered to the King in his Wars: All which undoubtedly puts it out of the case of dissolution in Levit. 30.

Besides, the common Protestant Doctrine is, that neither Popes, Princes or Prelates, can dispense with Vows made in re ne∣cessaria. Could Kings disoblige all their Subjects from their Oaths and Vows, it would make a great change in the Religion, Morality, and Commerce of the World: So that hitherto we have no satisfaction.

L.

But this was a League and Covenant between man and man, who are dead or changed, and not a Vow to God; as you pretend; on which you lay the stress of the Obligation.

M.

I have nothing to do with it as a League of Men, to do any action towards each other; but only as a Vow to God, and Covenant of Duty to God: And tho' the name of a Vow be not in it, I think him not worth the disputing with that on deli∣beration denieth it to be a Vow to God. Whom think you else do men make these promises to, of Repentance and Reformati∣on, and opposing Prophaneness, &c. The words signifie as so∣lemn a Vowing, as can well be made by words.

L.

You would make all the Corporations of England constituted by the grossest Perjury that men can be guilty of, even by disobliging or justifying themselves, and all others in three Kingdoms whom they never saw, in the violating of a Vow against Heresy, Schism, Popery, and Prophaneness, and Impenitence: When as you know that our Cler∣gy cry down Schism every day.

M.

I leave all Men to answer for their own actions: I only tell you why the Dissenters dare not take these Oaths: I meddle not with other Men. And you know a man that saith, This Vow binds not, may yet hold that something else binds us against the same thing. But if I were for Schism, and should argue from this topick of the non-obligation of the Vow, I know not how you could answer me.

L.

Let us try, What is your Argument?

M.

• That which is no sin, is not to be avoided as sin.
• Schism is no sin.
• Ergo Schism is not to be avoided as sin.

Remember that I do but plead their principles.

L.

I deny the Minor.

M.

• That which a man Vowing to avoid it, is not by that Vow bound to avoid, is no sin:
• But Schism (and so Prophaneness, and Popery) is that which a man vowing to avoid it, is not bound by that Vow to a∣void;
• Ergo Schism is no sin.

L.

I deny both Major and Minor, and first the Major.

M.

A Vow to avoid sin alwaies bindeth.

Ergo that is no sin which a man vowing to avoid is not thereby bound to avoid: est & non est are contradictory Terms.

L.

I deny the Major, and distinguish, a lawful Vow to avoid sin ever bindeth, an unlawful one doth not.

M.

Vnlawfulness is, 1. In the Act of Swearing. 2. In the Act of Imposing. 3. In the Matter Sworn. An Oath unlaw∣fully Imposed and Taken, bindeth to a Lawful Matter. But for an Oath against sin to be Materially unlawful is a contradiction: For to be Sin and to be Vnlawful is all one.

L.

I deny that a Vow against Schism binds not.

M.

• The Vow called the Covenant bindeth no man.
• The Vow called the Covenant, is a Vow against Schism (Pro∣paneness, and Popery;)
• Ergo a Vow against Schism, (Prophaneness and Popery) binds not.

L.

You argue à particulari: Tho' this Vow do not, another may.

M.

I argue ab essentia particularis ad communem essentiam. If this Vow have all that is essential to a Vow and yet binds not, then no Vow as such essentially doth bind. If the anima hujus bovis vel ovis, be not anima rationalis, and yet have all that is essential to the anima brutorum, then it is not essential to any ani∣ma bruti to be rational: And it cannot be accidentally so here. If the Vow against Schism and Prophaneness have all essential to a Vow and yet bind not, then no Vow bindeth qua talis as a Vow. And if Vows bind only by accident, or by something else that's an adjunct, that's nothing for their own essential obli∣gation.

And so much of the Corporation-Declaration.