The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 10
CHAP X.
The Abſolvers Plea againſt the Covenant as Impeditivum boni, falſe; and if true, not concluſive, according to Caſuiſts.
§. 1. VVE are now come to the laſt pretence for the unlawfulneſs of the Covenant, as to the matter, from which ſome would inferre the non-obligation of it. Some late Abſolvers, have confidently told the world, That none are bound to the Obſervance of Oaths, further, than till they ſee, that their Obſervance would hinder ſome good, which might accrue from the violation of them; which being once laid down for a Principle, it is but telling their Proſelytes, That their perſiſting in endeavours to extirpate the Government of the Church by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Prebends, Chancellours, Commiſſaries, Archdeacons, will hinder the great good, ſettlement, order, Communion with the Catholick Church, &c. and they have preſently diſcharged all mens Soules, as they think, from the Obligation of the Covenant.
§. 2. It were no dangerous matter, we think, to grant their Principle, and to challenge all of them, to inſtance in any one particular piece of good, which the reſtoring of this Government, would put us in poſſeſſion of, more than any other Government would do.
Is it conformity to the Apoſtolical or Primitive Church? We challenge them all to prove any ſuch Form of Government, either in the Apoſtles times, or for ſome hundred of years after. Is it conformity with the Reformed Churches? Are there any Biſhops in the Churches of God in Scotland, Holland, France? Are there any Archbiſhops, or any ſingle Perſons challenging ſole power in Ordination or Juriſdiction in any other Reformed Church whatſoever? Are there any Deans, Prebends, Chancellours, Commiſſaries, Archdeacons, &c. to be found amongſt them? Indeed in the Popiſh Church there are, no where elſe, we think. Is the good they talk of, order, ſuppreſſion of Schiſm and errour? Will not Presbytery do the ſame, think we? If not, what hinders? Certainly with the help of the civil powers it will; without it, Prelacy can do nothing.
§. 3. If we may judge by what is paſt, we have no great reaſon to promiſe our ſelves any ſuch eminent Good by Prelacy. Under that Government it was, that ſo many godly, learned and able Miniſters, were ſilenced, ſuſpended, impriſoned, baniſhed, ſo many thouſands of godly people, forced to leave their Countreys, impriſoned, hunted from one place to another, they and their Families undone, and all, becauſe they could not allow humane impoſitions in the worſhip of that God, who is a Spirit, and will be worſhipped in ſpirit and truth, who requires to be ſanctified of them that draw nigh unto him, Lev. 10.3. and hath revealed his wrath of old againſt the Jews, for doing or allowing that in his Sanctuary, which he commanded not. This is the good, England hath formerly had by them: For Deans and Prebends, all the good they did, was to eat up the Fruits of the Land, enjoying profits and great Revenues, for no conſiderable Service at all.
§. 4. But it muſt not be granted, That our apprehending the obſervance of an Oath, as hindring ſome good which might accrue by the violation, will diſcharge us of our Obligation to obſerve it. Indeed Gregor. Sayrus reſolves that every private perſon hath a power to commute an Oath, for ſomthing better; but Sylveſter, and others,Greg. Sayri clavis reg. l. 5. ca. 8. n. 15. oppoſe him, and think the Pope muſt firſt determine the good to be better. Soto, Sanches, Cajetan, Panormitane, Arragon, and others: do allow ſome caſes, wherein they ſay, an Oath hindering ſome other good, is void. But they are all agreed in ſeveral limitations.
1. It muſt be a greater good which is hindred.
2. This greater good muſt be no otherwiſe attaineable, than by the violation of the Oath: For if we can keep our Oath, and obtain the good too, unqueſtionably we ought to do it.
3. That melius bonum, that greater good muſt be certain, not doubtful and disputable, and only poſſible.
4. They all agree, That the Oath thus irritated and made void muſt be only made to God. For ſay they, if it be made to our Brother alſo, for his advantage (much more if it be a Covenant made with him upon a valuable conſideration) his conſent is neceſſary to the commutation, before the Oath can be made void. Now when our Abſolvers ſhall have ſhewed us a good certainly greater than the peace of Conſcience, which may be had from the keeping of a lawful Oath; and make it appear to us, that this good can no other way be attained, than by breaking our Covenant, and that if we break it, we may certainly be put into poſſeſſion of it, and laſtly, that all the people of Scotland and England, mutually engaged in this Covenant, have conſented to the violation, they ſhall have ſaid ſomthing; and till that time, this Plea conſiſts of nothing, but aëry, non-ſignificant words.
§. 5. To return to our eminent Dr. Sanderſon; He determines this caſe more like a Divine, than ſome others, Thus;—Juramentum non eſſe illicitum aut obligandi vim amittere praecisè ob hoc quod videatur eſse impeditivum majoris boni, De juram prom. prael. 3. §. 12.i. e. An Oath is not unlawful nor doth it loſe its obligatory vertue preciſely for this, becauſe it ſeems an obſtacle to a greater good, unleſs (ſaith he) other circumſtances alſo concur (as uſually there do) which either evince it unlawful, or non-obliging. He gives this reaſon, becauſe in all caſes, it is not true that every one is obliged to do what is beſt. So that our Brethren muſt deſert this Plea, and find out ſomthing elſe to prove the Oath unlawful or non-obligatory. And indeed to grant that the Proſpect of a greater Good to be obtained by the violation of an Oath, would diſcharge us from its obſervance, is to open ſuch a gap for all manner of perjury, as all might creep out at; and to take away all manner of ſecurity, which either God could have of his Creatures, or man of his Brother, by any verbal obligation whatſoever. But we have ſaid enough to prove, that nothing hath been ſaid againſt the matter of the Covenant, ſufficient to prove it either unlawful, or void and not obligatory.