A26924:828
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
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 ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Chapter 55: POINT XII. Whether all Trusted in Corporations may declare, That there is NO OBLIGATION…
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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 denominated 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 conjunction of some Ill things in a Vow or Covenant, doth disoblige 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 Covenants with Man; that so they may be bound by none. 3. The Oath of Allegiance or Fidelity 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 nullify the Baptismal Vow.