PAR T II. ReverendMr. Richard Baiter. ay, That [the taking downof Prelacy] was [ for the illegal manner ofdoing it], but li- ker that [the illegal manner of doing it] ( if it wereillegal) was [for she taken,g down of Prelacy] : The manner was for the work as its end, and not the work tor the manner. z. And there h no fuchend expreffed in the Covenant,but contrarily all along, Reformation is the profeffed end. And it is notJeerer ends, but the ends ex- preffed in the Covenant that the Takers were to look at. If it be Paid, That theft two were the unlawful Endsof Impofmg the Covenant, though not the finis materix, theEndof extirpatingPrelacy]. I anfwer, if that were proved, it is nothing to the Point ; for it will only prove the Impofing to be unlaw- ful. - ._ If it be laid, That itwas alfo [ the EndofMenr taking it ]. I anfwer, r. He that faith it was the intended End of the Takers, mull knowall their hearts , and know that all their Ends were the fame; which is impoffible. 2. If it be only [ the commanded End] that is meant, I further anfwer, r. It is vifible in the Words of the Covenant, that there is no fuch Endcommanded : Reformation is the End expreffed in the Covenant. z. If it had been commanded, that was the fin of the Commandeer, but proveth not that the Covenanters all took it to the commanded ends : And it bindeth according to the Takersfence. 3. If it had been certainly taken to a wrong end by every Man that took it (which is not proveable), this would only prove the Aclum urandi to be a fin, but not the Mareriam 3uratam to be evil ; which is theheart of all the Controverfie. There is great difference between theEmir juran- di and the flairrei jurat e ; theend of fwearing, and the end of the thing fworn. If the knit jurarsdi only be evil, it will only prove the atlumjurarsdi to bea fin: but it willnor prove the materia juramenti to be unlawful : and then the Oath maybe ob-, ligatory ( as Ihallbe further Ihewed). 4. Nay, go to the higheft, and if it had been the end of the matter fworn, (viz. of the extirpation of Prelacy ) that was evil, yet (as I have faid) molt Cafuifts, 1 think, will determine that the matter is feparablein molt Cafes from the end, (unlefs it be a meer relative Aa which the finis proximo is effential to). If a Man fwear Allegiance to the King to a wrong, end, is he not thereforeobliged to Allegianceby his Oath i' If a Man (wear to do many things in themfelvesindifferent, upon a miftaken fuppofition that they are Duties, and fo forthe pleating of God ; when it is difcovered to that Man, that they weremedia inepta, or no means at all to that end (of pleating God) but things indifferent, I fuppofe heh not therefore difobliged, though he vowed them only fob ration mediorum : becaufe the keeping of a Vow about things lawful, is plea- ting to God, though the matter vowed were indifferent. And if this hold not true; thenwicked men can fcarcely ever be obliged by any Oath or vow to God or their Superi- ours, becaufe they have wrong Ends in all , or molt things which they do. But this lafi part of the Anfwer is needlefs, becaufe the former are of undoubted cer- tainty. 376. 4. The fourth Reafon againft the Covenant is , That it wasfmfully taken. Anfw. t. It may be frnfully takenof one ( that had no fuf icient Motives,or had 'evil ones) and not of another: This Obje&ion chargeth fin on the King andall the Lords and Knights and Gentlemen of hispart, who took it unwillingly; when noneof themhave been heard fpeak for themfelves, nor haveproduced the Reafons that moved them to take it. z. If this were all granted of King and Kingdoms ( that they tinned in taking' it) it provethno more, but theaches jurarsdi was a fin, and not the materia jura- menti evil ; which is no proof of the nullity of the Obligation. Many a Man or Woman that finned in marrying ( for wrong ends, or without jolt caufes &c.) is yet bound by theMarriageCovenants. Many things are fnftil that are not nulli- ties. A ralh, or ignorant, or cauflefs Vow is fistful gaped aötium, andyet obligatory if it be lawful goad materiam, and be no nullity. When it is either reallyno Vow, or the thing vowed beforbidden ofGod, then it is not tobe judged obligatory. § ;77. The fifth Reafon againft the Obligation is, fromNumb. ;o. That it wad nulled by the King's declareddii fent. Towhich it is anfwered by theNon-Subfcribers, a. That the Text is nothing to the Point, or at leali, noMan can be lure it in For, r. it fpeakethonly ele materia non neceffaria; but the Covenant is fuppofedby the Non-Subfcribers to fpeak de materia neceffaria. X. The Text expirefly limiteth the indulgence to a daughter in thefamily, or a aa' fe, acid doth not extend it to the ftronger Sex: ). It limiteth it to Familier, where the Ruler is 1tí11 at hand, and extendeth it not to Kingdoms. ç. It doth not prove the Obligation' mill from thu beginning, but only diffolved afterward by the Father's 6i Husband's'difpenfatiorü ( as many Verfs exprefs ). g. Therefore to pretend ajaritj 61biafös; fni,,äKing's' difgálfingj' 05. MOW
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=