The Fastening of Saint Peters Fetters, Tract · Section 2
Sectio Secunda. Second Propoſ. The irregularities in the firſt making the Covenant, will not diſcharge its obligation now it is made and ſworn.
VVHilſt we conſent unto the common concluſion of the Canoniſts, That Juramentum non eſt vinculum iniquitatis, An Oath muſt not be the bond of iniquity, and commend to all men their counſel, as indeed a duty, In malis promiſſis reſcinde fidem, In promiſes of evil make no conſcience to keep, nay, make confcience to break your faith. Yet we muſt conſider, and warily diſtinguiſh between the rem juratam, and actum jurandi, the act of ſwearing, and the matter ſworn: For in reſpect of the laſt of theſe, the Rule is to be underſtood, and the obligation to performance doth thereon depend: Such is the reverence of an Oath to all men, Heathen or Chriſtian, that raſhneſs and irregularities in obtaining and actually paſſing the Oath, would never be admitted as ſufficient to diſcharge its force.
The Rule of the School-men received by all Caſuiſts and Civilians, muſt here be obſerved, Tho. Aquin, par. 22 ae quaeſt. 89. Art. 9.Juramentum promiſſorium non poteſt diſpenſari ſecundum ſe, ſed tantum ratione materiae indebitae: A promiſſory Oath cannot be diſcharged by any reaſon, but the unlawful matter of it. And hereupon it is agreed on by all Divines, That the ground on which an Oath ſhall loſe its force muſt be intrinſecal of the body, ſubſtance, and matter of the Oath; not extrinſecal, and acceſſory to the Oath. It muſt be the ſinfulneſs of the thing, and matter ſworn, not the circumstances converſant about the act of ſwearing, which may be ſinful, and muſt be ſhunned, Scnderſon de Juramento.but avail not to diſcharge the Oath when taken. Well doth the Oxford Profeſſor diſtinguiſh, and tell us, They are two ſeveral queſtions to be diſtinctly reſolved according to the condition into which a man is caſt: The one is an hoc vel illudi juramentum ſit licitum, whether the Oath be lawful? And the other an Juramentum hoc vel illud obligat, whether the Oath do bind? For that Oath may be unlawfully ſworn, which muſt everlaſtingly bind when ſworn. That ſin is to be avoided in entring into a Covenant or Oath, which may be repented of without retraction of the Oath when ſworn: The Name of God too many times is (though it ought not to be) taken in vain by raſh ſwearing, yet muſt not be blaſphemed by forſwearing.
An Oath is an obligation ſo ſacred and permanent, that many conditions are required unto a regular acting of it. At firſt it ſhould be the act of a deliberate, not diſtempered mind; not the effect of a diſtreſſed condition; clearly propounded, and rationally received, not obtained by fraud, nor impoſed by force: But where, in any, or all theſe, and the l ke, there is a defect, and diſorder, or miſcarriage, that men with Jeptha raſhly ſwear ſuch a general Oath, as may rob them of the deareſt of their delights when it comes to performance: Or with Zedekiah be beſieged by Warres without, and Tumults within; to covenant, and confirm by Oath, conditions diſhonorable and burdenſome: Or with Joſhua and the Princes of Iſrael to the Gibeonites, ſwear beyond their intention, and almoſt the import of their expreſſions, there being an apparent fallacy in the foundation, and procuring cauſe of the contract; yet in theſe and many the like caſes the rule is moſt certainly to be admitted, Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet, theſe things ought not to have been done, but being done, do bind the conſcience.
I wonder how men can preſs this Rule in caſe of Baptiſm by Women, or Children, and Lay-perſons, (in whom I humbly conceive it cannot hold) and not regard it in an Oath, whoſe nature is ſuch as adminiſtreth a Reaſon for this Rule, and makes it neceſſary.
Many inſtances in ſtory might be given to amplifie this poſition, but (leſt I ſhould ſeem to leave the Road without Reaſon) I ſhall onelyonly offer the example of the Covenant with the Gibeonites for the clearneſs of its demonſtration commonly produced by all Caſuiſts in this very caſe. Grotius out of Ambroſe noting the ſurreptitious fraudulent obtainment thereof, Gnotius de Jure belli & pacis, lib. 2. cap. 13. p. 220.doth note, Decepti erant à Gabaonitis à regione longinqua ſe venire fingentibus; Joſua tamen pacem quam dederat revocandam non cenfuit; quia formata erat ſacramenti Religione, ne, dum alienam perfidiam arguit, ſuamfide n ſolveret. The Tranſlation of which I ſhall offer by a reverend Biſhop (moſt acceptable to our Anti-covenanters) who chargeth this deceit to have been the juſt effect of their ſinful neglect to conſult the Oracles of God; and ſaith, Joſh. Hall Biſhop of Norwich.Halls Contemp. p 918.The facility of Iſrael led them into a League and Oath for the ſafety of the Gibeonites; and now, within three days, their neighbourhood and dece t. Joſhua might have taken advantage of their own words to diſſolve this League, and have ſaid, Ye are come from a far Country, theſe Cities are near; theſe are not therefore the people to whom we engaged by our promiſe or oath: and Iſrael had put in a direct Caveat of their vicinity; ſo that it might ſeem queſtionable whether Joſhua needed to hold himſelf bound to this Oath; yet dare not Joſhua and the Princes truſt to ſhifts for the eluding of this Oath, but muſt faithfully perform what they had raſhly promiſed. Joſhua's heart was clear from any intention of a League with a Canaanite; he gave his Oath to theſe diſguiſed ſtrangers, yet he durſt neither Repeal it himſelf, neither do I hear him ſue to Eleazer the High Prieſt to diſpence with it; but taketh himſelf tied to the ſtrict words of his Oath, not to his own purpoſe: his tongue had bound his heart and hands, ſo as neither might ſtir; leſt, whilſt he was curious of fulfilling the Will of God, he ſhould violate the Oath of God.
But, Sir, how diſſonant to theſe dictates of this Reverend Father are thoſe ſons of the Church? who ſtrive for a Biſhoprick by ſinful caſting off the Covenant on a protended inadvertency in ſwearing it at firſt, and putting on it a ſenſe agreeable to their purpoſe, which is repugnant to the plain and expreſs Letter of the Covenant in the point of Epiſcopacy; correcting their infirmity graviori peccato, with a more grievous impiety, mending raſh ſwearing by plain perjury, and after a ſober admonition and refutation pertinaciouſly retain their reſolution, by publiſhing the very ſame pleas for breach of Covenant, and braving it to the world with a bold aſſerting, Dr. Gaudens Epiſtle to the doubts and ſcruples about taking the Covenant.No ſacred Oath or Promiſe can bind the ſoul of man from its just freedom, which is rational, civil, moral, legal, and religious; nor can it be bound to execute or fulfil any ſuch, when it is willingly, or by inadvertency, or malice, formally engaged by them, but not really to them. I wiſh, Sir, that this Doctor would attend Doctor Halls Divinity with as much diligence, as he ſeems to me to affect his Dialect.
What a prepoſterous and immethodical courſe do the Divines of our time take to diſcharge the obligation of the Covenant, by ſcandalizing the ſame with the irregularities which attended the firſt taking of it? That many miſcarriages occaſioned by the commotion and turbulency of thoſe martial days, (in which it was digeſted and propounded to the people) did accompany the Covenant when tendred and firſt taken, I can eaſily conſent; but not ſo great as they ſeem in the multiplyidg-glaſs (of paſſion and prejudice) by which they are now ſuggeſted, much leſs were they ſo great as to diſcharge the bond of it. I confeſs the Covenant ought not to have been the effect of Scottiſh importunities, or Engliſh compliances, nor to have been brought forth by the midwifry of tumults, and engaged enraged Armies, parties, and factions; nor its convictions and perſwaſions to have been by ſequeſtrations and impriſonments, as Dr. Gauden in his Analyſis ſuggeſteth; but I (on grounds urged in my Analepſis) cannot yield it was; yet grant it, will theſe things avail to the diſcharge of its binding force, and make it void? Nothing leſs.
Nay, League in the Illegal.Sir, ſhould I conſent and ſubſcribe unto the verity of the Arguments urged by Dr. Featley his Ghoſt, and admit (what I ſhall hereafter deny) 1. The ſuppoſed Soleciſm and miſtaken order of the words in the Covenant. 2. The ſuppoſed end and aim of the Contrivers of the Covenant. 3. The wants of authority in the Impoſers. 4. The ambiguity and ſeeming contradictions of many expreſſions. 5. That many took it not in Truth, Righteouſneſs, and Judgment. 6. That it wants warrant in Scripture, and is onelyonly bottomed on the baſis of Natural Policy. 7. That it is derogatory to Englands honour. 8. Taken without important cauſe, and urgent neceſſity; and ſo was faulty in theſe and the like circumſtances, which call for Repentance in Impoſers and Takers; yet it muſt be a Soleciſm in Divinity to awake this book, and ſend abroad theſe exceptions againſt the Act of making and ſwearing the Covenant, in hope that a review of them may make us repent and be wiſe, and to confirm men (the Apoſtates) in their (averſion, pretended) converſion from he Covenant, and draw others from it by the ſtrength of conviction. I will grant his Maxime, Deliberandum eſt diu quod ſtatuendum eſt ſemel. And though I believe the determination of the Covenant was on due advice) yet we will conſent unto him to repent and confeſs theſe miſtakes: But I muſt tell his Majeſties Chaplain, that Dr. Saunderſon will not upon all this give us leave to caſt off the Covenant, but conſtrains our conſciences to revive it. Juramentum de re non illicita, ſit aliunde illicitum, Sanderſon de juramento, prael. 2 a. p. 55.ex aliquo externo defectu, & propter aliquam indebitam circumſtantiam reſpectu actus jurandi, poſſit obligare jurantem, ad implendum quod promiſit. An Oath lawful in the matter, unlawful in external, undue circumſtances in the act of ſwearing, binds to accompliſhment.
This, Sir, hath the more influence upon me, becauſe it is Oxford Divinity, conceived to be read on the occaſion of this Covenant. We confeſs with Auguſtine, David juravit temere, ſed non implevit majori pietate. David ſware raſhly, but with piety repented and retracted, becauſe the matter, ſelf-revenge in Nabal's ruine was wicked: Which is not our caſe, when the matter of the Covenant appears to be manifeſt ſin, we muſt retract it; till then we will repent raſhneſſe, unadviſedneſſe in the act, but retain its obligation, leſt we patch up ſinne by ſinne.
Now I deal with His Majeſties Chaplain, may I, Sir, make bold to whiſper another notion of Divinity in his ear; he may have occaſion and opportunity to uſe it: Sir, it is this, That a Peoples impoſing on their Prince, and binding him to terms, and bringing him under an Oath, not onelyonly for themſelves, but all their fellow-ſubjects: in all or any the Kings Dominion, (for which act the Scots are much cenſured, and could I have adviſed, ſhould have been more innocent) ſavours ſomething of diſorder, tumult, irregularity, and vulgar violence. And yet Grotius determines (the matter being lawful) it obligeth the Prince ſo ſworn; becauſe God is invocated, and the King was voluntarily ſubjected. Though he doubt the power of Co-action of a Princes performance by men, yet he affirms the obligation befor God: Crotius de jure belli & pacis. l. 2. c. 14. p. 233.His concluſion is this on the diſcuſſion of the Queſtion, Dicimus ergo, ex promiſſo & contractu regis, quem cum ſubditis iniit, naſci veram ac propriam obligationem, quae jus det ſubditis: The promiſe or Covenant into which the King ſhall enter with his ſubjects doth engender a true and proper obligation, and conſer on the Subjects a right whereon to demand performance. I will not juſtifie all paſt actions, but can ſcarce refrain from adding to the Letany, From contrary Coronation-Oaths, good Lord deliver us.
Laſtly, How far wide do they ſhoot, who direct the private doubts and particular ſcruples of private perſons or ſocieties, againſt the taking the Solemn League and Covenant, to diſcharge its obligation? Men print, and re-print the Oxford Reaſons, and make a great noiſe with them in the world; and yet they are meet private reaſons, profeſſedly relating to their own refuſal of the Covenant; and they never tell us whether they or any of the perſons concerned, received ſatisfaction to their reaſons, Not to judge the conſciences of others, but to clear our ſelves before God and the world, from all ſuſpicion of obſtinacy. Oxford Reaſons, Pref. p. 1.and after ſubmitted to the taking of the Covenant; nor is it conſidered the Reaſons do profeſs an Apology, and pray a perſonal excuſe of themſelves from the Act, but do not ſo much as pretend to acquit the bond of the Covenant to ſuch as had taken it. Now granting that theſe Reaſons might have that force that the Authors of them could not without ſin conform to the Act of taking the Covenant, yet they be of no force at all to weaken or diſſolve its bond.
Let me therefore ſay, Sir, to theſe who offer to your and my conſideration their doubts and ſcruples againſt taking the Covenant, and ſcatter abroad papers of this nature, that they manifeſt their malice and profane enmity againſt the Covenant, by ſubjecting it to vulgar ſcorn, and laying open their own nakedneſſe, as if it were the nakedneſs of the Covenant, and run away railing againſt the Covenant as of no force or obligation, as void and null, on a meer Petitio principii, baſe-begging the queſtion, and taking it for granted, That what makes the act of ſwearing ſinful, makes the Oath void. And ſuppoſing a weight (which is very little) in their exceptions to words, method, form, order of the Covenant, and the impoſing it on the people; which might have kept ſome men from ſwearing, to be ſufficient to diſcharge all that are ſworn. If they will indeed batter the Covenant, they ſhould pierce into the body of it, and prove the matter of it unlawful; and then will I alſo ſhake off the Covenant for ever. Till then, I anſwer in the Negative to my own enquiry in Saint Peters bonds abide, pag. 13. to make the worſt of it a tumultuous Aſſembly come before us with Sword and Scepter, ſay they are a Parliament, and have lawful, conſtant, and compleat Authority; and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us: And ſilly, inconſiderate we, are not ſo well-skill'd in Politicks, or acquainted with the Conſtitutions of our Country, to detect their fallacy; but think all Authority is within thoſe walls, and obedience muſt be yielded to what is there commanded; and ſo we are beguiled into the Oath: nor are we ſo hardy as to endure their violence, but by fear are forced into the Covenant; is it therefore void? for we have opened our mouthes unto the Lord, and cannot go back.