The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II, Chapter 38
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 Church Government as fixed, must thus be Sworn to as Monarchy is, it alter not our Constitution? Or at least be not a perillous Innovation.
4. If the King and Parliament should command Men to endeavour an Alteration, e. g. of Lay-Mens Power of the Keys, or the greatness of Dioceses, I am afraid of being sworn beforehand to disobey them.
L.
But the Parliament meant not to bind themselves herein.
M.
I grant it. (Tho' being Church of England men, the 7th Canon aforesaid maketh it doubtful.) But when they have bound all the Subjects in the Land, and themselves among others, when out of Parliament, and when it's Excommunication to charge any of the Church-Offices with Sin; I think the Church-Government is fixed as unalterable. I ask you, Did the Parliament bind themselves against altering Monarchy, or the Succession? If they did, then it seems they did so by Church-Government, when they put it in many Oaths before that of the State. If they did not, then they have fixed Monarchy no more than Church-Government by this Oath. Therefore when they bind all in the same Oath from endeavouring any Alteration of Church-Government, they shew that they intend the fixing of it. And tho' some think it leaveth room for Petitioning, I do not believe that the Law or Oath leave any Men at Liberty to Petition against Monarchy; which is here conjoyned.
But my great reason of Non-Conformity herein yet remaineth. If the faults of Church-Government should prove but the tenth part as great as is feared by many, and said by those that write about it, what a tremendous thing is it to make a deliberate Solemn Covenant and Oath, never to endeavour any amendment of it, nor to perswade any man to repent or amend.
If the Germans, who are reported to be addicted to Drunkenness, or other Nations to Whoredom or Thievery, should take an Oath that they will never repent or amend, nor perswade any other to it, what a case were this?
L.
I confess if the Corruptions of Church-Government should prove as great Evils, as some conceive, it would be a heinous Sin indeed to Swear never to repent, or to endeavour to amend it.
The old Nonconformists thought that the frame of*And Bucer thought so too, when …e so earnestly wrote for another sort of Discipl…ne to King Edw. 6. English Prelatical Government was far worse than all their Ceremonies and other Corruptions set together. They thought it a Platform fitted to exalt Pride and Covetousness, and to propagate all ungodliness, and to drive serious Piety and Conscience out of the Land, upon the accounts before mentioned. 1. By the largeness of Dioceses making Discipline impossible, and so keeping almost all the wicked in the bosom of the Church, secure from the Power of the Keys. 2. By putting down all Bishops that should be in all the large Dioceses, save that one, and restraining all the Parish-Ministers from true use of the Keys, unless they will be ruin'd by it. 3. By setting up Secular Courts under the name of Ecclesiastick, and making it their Employment by 141 Canons, which are their self-made Contrivances, to hinder and ruine laborious Preachers, and Men of tender Consciences, and to cherish the contrary sort. 4. By putting the decretive Power of the Keys into the Power of these Lay-Men. 5. By setting up Pastors over all the Land without the consent of the Flock, by the meer Will and Election of Great Men and Patrons. 6. By driving unfit and unwilling persons to eat and drink Damnation in the Sacrament. 7. By driving multitudes of good People from the needful means of their Salvation. 8. By bringing good Men that grieve for all this, into Odium, for being against it.
And if this prove the case, I had rather lie in Gaol till Death, than Swear or Promise never to endeavour that I or any should repent and amend it. Do you think it not contrary to our Baptismal Vow, in which we promise Obedience to Christ to our lives end?
I read that the Israelites were greatly reproved for Worship in the High Places, and that they seldom repented: But I read not that ever they took an Oath or Covenant never to endeavour to amend: I find that when Israel was made to Sin by the Calves of Dan and Bethel, that they went on and amended not: But I read not that they Covenanted or Sware never to amend. I find that the Pharisees were heinous Sinners, that by their Traditions made void the Law of God: But many of them came to Iohn's Baptism, and professed some Repentance; and tho' obstinacy cut off the Nation of the Iews, I read not that they drew the Nation into an Oath or Covenant never to amend. When Christ came to save the World, it was by a Covenant of Faith and Repentance. And if I should see the World once confederate in a Covenant never to believe, repent and amend, I should call it the Kingdom of Satan, and thence date our Accounts Chronological, with a Regnante Diabolo, as in France they did a while, with a Regnante Christo. (of which Vide Blondellum).
I do not say that these old Nonconformists were in the right, nor that Bucer did no whit over-value the Discipline which he proposed to King Edward the Sixth; nor that this Oath containeth all the foresaid guilt. But I say, If I should prove so, and venture on it in uncertainty, when the Judgment of so many Parliaments, Lawyers, Divines abroad and at home are against such kind of Swearing: what a case should I bring my Soul into? National Oaths, especially such as seem to me to fix every Church-Office, from the Arch-Bishop to the Official, if not the Apparitor, as unalterable in the very Constitution of the Kingdom; even putting them before the State, are Matters of greater Consequence than to be rashly ventured on by me: Even the Long Parliament that made the silencing Acts, restored not the Canon and Et caetera Oath of 1640. which bound Men never to consent to such Alteration of Church-Government, by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, &c.