A26924:843
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.
a Husband) do consent, when a Woman makes the same Vow, it remaineth obligatory. 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 constrained, nor acknowledged the Kings Power to dissolve it. 2. That thousands in the Nation knew not of the Kings published 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 Declaration; In which, tho' for my part I doubt ⟨p. 206⟩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 necessaria. 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.
a Husband) do consent, when a Woman makes the same Vow, it remaineth obligatory. 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 constrained, nor acknowledged the Kings Power to dissolve it. 2. That thousands in the Nation knew not of the Kings published 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 ⟨p. 206⟩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 necessaria. 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.