Inquiry About the New Oath Enjoined on Non-Conformists
The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A62530.0001.001
Project Note
This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.
This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.
Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.
However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.
This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.
Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org
A SOBER ENQUIRY About the New Oath Enjoyned on NON-CONFORMISTS According to Act of Parliament.
W Hither Passion, Prejudice, Partiality, &c. must not be laid aside in this Business?
Whither living under a Lawful Government, and expecting Protection from it, I do not owe Allegiance to it, and must Submit, and not endeavor to alter the Government, especially when this is made the Condition of my living under its Protection?
Whither Considering the State of the times, and the intention of our Governors, to secure the Peace at home against bosom Enemies, of which sort there are too many, is it not rational to expect security from us, and that by a lawful Oath or some other way?
Whither the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, mainly intended and understood against the Papists, will give you sufficient security, considering the Principles and Practises of the late times; (too too sadly yet remaining with many) the which are signified in the Act for safety both of King and Kingdom; and should not the new Oath respect such pernicious Principles and practices, as at present are like (if not most warily prevented) to endanger both Church and State, both King and Kingdom?
Whither they could not easily have ordered it, in another form, directly and in terms reversing the Covenant; and was it not through Providence and Prudence, ordered as it is; that sober and peaceable may be distinguished from those that will not rest till all return to their old Confusions?
Whither the Oath, though in Expressions somewhat ambiguous, may not be well enough understood by unbiased persons, that will not stretch their Charity, to suppose what their fancies will imagine of their Governors, and their intentions in it; since, the words of the Preamble, and the Act for Safety, (to whom this must be referred) and other known Laws, and Customs of the Land, will give them sufficient information; and since, the sense of Governors in their Laws, if not plain in words, is to be by private men (till a public Authentic interpretation) understood by common usage, and comparing with other Laws, or parts of the Law to which it belongs and may be referred , and not by our private suppositions of their Intentions not expressed in their Laws?
Whither this Oath can be rationally supposed to Bind us up from more, then endeavoring to overturn the foundation of the Goverment of Church or State, as to the King in both, and (if you will too) Bishops in the Goverment of the Church; Any thing more then these being accounted by the Laws of the Land, and by the Practices of our Kings, Parliaments, Synods, as alterable, and hath been, and may be daily (if duly) altered? Or, if this Oath may be supposed to bind us up from more, as to particulars and superstructures in Constitutions and Administrations, whither then can it rationally be supsed to intend more, to bind us up from a turbulent and irregular endeavor of altering, or (as expressed in the Preamble and Act for safety ) in a way of Schism, Sedition and Rebellion, and whither can this Oath be justly understood to bind us up from Peaceable and Regular endeavors of reforming what may be found amiss in Church or State; since that the Government itself to which in the Oath I sware with, the Fundamental and Positive Laws of the Land allow me, as a Man, an Englishman, a Christian, a Subject; my Just, though bounded liberty in that particular? and must not this be understood though not expressed in the Oath?
Whither other parallel Oaths, binding to Government and Laws, be not thus by general Reason, Consent and Custom, understood? as the Kings Coronation Oath, with Non Mutabimus leges & Consuetud. the Oaths that Members of Parliament, and of Convocation take; the Oaths for Judges, and other Lawyers; the Oaths in Courts, Corporations, Universities, &c. Compared with their known and allowed practices, in their places, changing and altering as to particulars both in Church and State.
Whither are not many Scriptures themselves thus understood, with limitations of the general Expressions, according to the nature and condition of the Subject; and particularly, Scriptures requiring obedience to Kings, Masters, Husbands, Parents, &c. see Rom. 13.5. with Beza 's note, 1 Pet. 2.13, &c. with Bishop Ushers power of Princes, Ephes. 6.24, &c.
Whither this Oath in effect (though added, and in terms it differ for reasons before expressed) require more from us then we have already sworn unto, in the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy.
Whither whatever the Covenant were in itself, and its imposing, can any sworn to it, now rationally suppose himself as bound by it to act against the Government, or towards the alteration of Government in Church or State; since such endeavors would be against the Laws of the Land, to which we owe obedience; against the terms of the Covenant itself, and the Exhortation to it, is lawfully, and in place and calling, &c. but especially against the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, with their antecedent obligation in force before, and consequently being renewed since the Kings return? Eccles. 8.2.
Whither not to Endeavor, be more then not to Act against the Government of Church or State; or that not to act, be more then to be subject or submit; and whither such subjection or submission, be not my bounden duty to my Superiors in such like cases from the Word of God? see Rom. 13.1, &c. 5. &c. and 1 Pet. 2. Eccles. 8.2. &c. Eccles. 10.8, 9, and 20. Prov. 30.31. and verse. 24, 21, 22.
Whither Apostles and primitive Christians, made not great Conscience of submitting in such like matters, as appears by Epistles and Church History, (see Bishop Ushers Power of Princes, and duty of Subjects ) and whither Christianity and Laws of Christ, do not bind us to the peace and good behavior in all such matters as are not our Rights, but our Superiors, both in War and Peace, in Church or State.
Whither, if consequences may be considered, as the taking the Oath may offend many, and possibly (though quaere how with our duty to our Superiors it may be supposed) it may not secure us, &c. so whither the not taking it, will not offend our Governors? and besides, bring such a scandal upon our whole Profession, as can never be washed away, though with our blood, which God prevent, and teach us our duty, leaving Events to him.
Over and above; Whither may not an honest Christian take a supposedly captious and ensnareing Oath, when the words are fair for an equal and an honest sense, between the imposer and the taker, and wherein by honest men on every hand it would and should be understood, especially in an Oath between a Ruler and a Subject (where no such captious supposition can be made without sin) when the end of Government, and of the Oath itself declared, is nothing but the peace and welfare both of Church and State.
Oxford Printed for R. Davis, Anno Dom. 1665.