The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
The Covenant cleared from any faults, as to the Efficient Cauſes, whether external, or internal, ſufficient to make it void, being once taken. The Plea from the ſuppoſed unlawfulneſse of the Power impoſing, if true, proved inſufficient.
§. 1. HAving hitherto cleared the matter of the Oath which is upon us, from any exceptions againſt it, pretending to evince it ſo far unlawful, that we having taken it, are not obliged by it. We come in the next place, to conſider it as to the efficient Cauſe, to clear it from any exceptions made againſt it, upon that account; following the Method of the aforementioned Reverend Profeſſor, Dr. Sanderſon, who in his Book, de Juramento promiſſorii hath (foreign at leaſt) acquitted himſelf to all Learned and Conſcientious men, whatever he hath done in his latter Book, de obligatione Conſcientiae (which we have not ſo well weighed.)
§. 2. There are ſeveral caſes which the Dr. puts, relating to the efficient cauſe of promiſſory Oaths, under which he comprehends both the external and internal cauſe, the Agent and impulſive cauſes. As,
Firſt, Whether, and how far, the Oaths of Children, Fooles, and Madmen, or ſuch as are drunk, either with wine or paſſion, are lawful, and oblige (none of which concern us in this Diſcourſe.) There are only 2 or 3 caſes under this head to be ſpoken to, viz.
1. How far an Oath may be lawful or binding, taken as impoſed by an unlawful Authority.
2. How far the Oath of one who is under the power of another, is lawful or obligatory.
3. How far an Oath is lawful or obligatory to which we are forced, or into which we are frighted through fear of danger, in caſe we refuſe it. For all theſe things are improved to the heighth againſt the Covenant, by our Abſolvers. They tell us, it was impoſed upon us by an unlawful Power; That we were Subjects, and could not take it without the Kings conſent lawfully, and he diſſenting, though we have taken it, it is null, and doth not oblige us: That the generality were forced to it; yea that his Sacred Majeſty (who now is) was frighted into the taking of it, by the Scottiſh force and threatning, and is therefore diſcharged from any obligation to it. How truly this is ſpoken, and how conſonantly to the judgment of Dr. Sanderſon, and all ſober Caſuiſts, let us now enquire.
De juram prom. prael. 4. §. 7.§. 3. As to the former part of the firſt caſe, whether it be unlawful to take an Oath from an uſurped power? Dr. Sanderſon determines it affirmatively, becauſe it becomes not a pious and couragious Chriſtian to make himſelf a ſlave; yet the ſame Dr. allowes it lawful, if we cannot avoid it without great danger, provided that the Oath be otherwiſe lawful, and, that we do not ſhew too much forwardneſs in the doing of it, but do it with ſome teſtimony of reluctancy.
§. 4. But how fat this is applicable to the preſent caſe, we are not able to determine. Lawyers muſt firſt reſolve us, whether the Lords and Commons of England aſſembled in Parliament, have not a power to make a new Oath, and impoſe it upon people, unleſſe the King firſt conſent: When that point of Law is determined, the Doctors determination may be applied to it, which will much help the Covenanters in Conſcience, if the caſe be in Law determined againſt them.
§. 5. The third Concluſion of Dr. Sanderſon's determination in the caſe, is ſufficient to our purpoſe: Qui juramentum ſuſceperit, à perſonâ juſtam authoritatem non habente, Dr. Sanderſon. ibid.delatum ſed nulla alia ex parte vitioſum omnino teneri ad implendum quod juravit, i.e. He who hath taken an Oath from one who had no authority to give it, if the Oath be not otherwiſe faulty, is fully bound to perform what he hath ſworn. So that our Abſolvers may ſee they are beſide their divinity, in diſcharging men from the Obligation of the Covenant, becauſe thoſe who impoſed it, (as they pretend) had no lawful power to impoſe it, for ſuppoſing that, the Oath being taken (ſaith Dr. Sanderſon) doth oblige.