The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
The Abſolvers Arguments from the preſent diſsent of the King, who then was, Argued. The Caſe ſtated and reſolved. The Rules applied to the preſent Caſe. The Argument from hence for the irritation of the Covenant, proved vain.
§. 1. VVE are now come to our Abſolvers ſtrong Forts, whatſoever they talk, that the Covenant is Schiſmatical, that it was againſt the Lawes of the Nation, they know, & are convinced in their own Conſciences, that there is nothing in theſe Pleas, ſufficient to diſcharge any Conſcience, and therefore being purſued, hither they run, as to their ſtrong Caſtle: It was unlawful, being given and taken without the Kings conſent, and is therefore null and void. Or elſe, 2. It was a forced Oath, extorted by fear, and ſuch Oaths do not oblige; this is the Doctrine they preach to their hearers. How true it is, let us now enquire.
§. 2. The foundation of any caſe here; whether an Oath taken by an Inferiour, be void or obliging, lies in that known place of Scripture, Numb. 30. And indeed Oaths ſo ſtrictly obliging by divine Inſtitution, it is reaſonable that the irritation or obligation of them ſhould alſo from thence be determined: and by the Scripture, we freely will be tried, it being the proper Bar for judgment in things of Conſcience.
§. 3. That Chapter beginneth thus; And Moſes ſpake unto the Heads of the Tribes, concerning the Children of Iſrael. This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. V. 2. If any man vow a vow unto the Lord, or ſwear an Oath to bind himſelf in a bond, he ſhall not break his word, he ſhall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. This is the general Rule, and Law of God concerning Oaths. But God is pleaſed to reſerve ſome Caſes: The caſe of a woman in her Fathers houſe, v. 3. The caſe of a woman who hath an Husband living, v. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12.
§. 4. Concerning theſe caſes, God thus determines, that if the Father of ſuch a Daughter vowing or ſwearing, v. 5. Or the Husband of ſuch a wife, v. 7. ſhall hold his peace at her, v. 4, 7. then ſuch vows ſhall ſtand. 2. But if the Father of ſuch a Child, or the Husband of ſuch a Wife, ſhall diſallow it in the day he hears thereof, v. 5, 8. then not any of their vowes ſhall ſtand, v. 4. but ſhall be of none effect, v. 8. But v. 14. If the Husband altogether hold his peace at his wife from day to day, then he eſtabliſheth all her vowes, or all her bonds which are upon her, he confirmeth them, becauſe he held his peace at her, in the day that he heard them, v. 15. But if he ſhall any way make them void, after that he hath heard them, he ſhall bear her iniquity.
§. 5. Divines do grant by Analogy, in reſpect of parity of reaſon, that the caſe is the ſame concerning Subjects in ſome caſes, as to the Oaths they take, without the knowledge or praevious conſent of their Superiors, though it be obſervable, that although Moſes at this time was ſpeaking to the Heads of the Tribes, concerning the Children of Iſrael, yet he omits this caſe, as having no ſpecial Command from the Lord in it, and it will be granted that in many things wherein the Magiſtrate hath not power over his Subjects, the Husband hath power over his wife, and the Father over the Child.
§. 6. That the words of this Text are not to be underſtood in their utmoſt Latitude, is univerſally acknowledged by Caſuists.
Aq. 22. e. q. 89. art. 9 Filiucias tract. 25. cap. 9. Azor. mor. inſt. l. 11. cap. 10. Sanches. l. 3. cap 9, 11. Ames caſ. l. 4. cap. 22. qu 11. League illleg. p. 10, 11.§. 1. The matter of the Vow muſt be ſuch wherein the Law of God hath ſubjected us to the power of our Superiors. Thus Aquinas, Sanchez, Azorius, Filiucius, Dr. Ames, Dr. Sanderſon, and indeed all others agree. Dr. Featly diſcourſing againſt the Covenant, ſaith, that to fulfil the expreſs Command of God, no man doubteth but that a Covenant may be made, not only without, but even againſt the Command of a Prince. And indeed the reaſon is evident, becauſe the dominion of the Superior, is the reaſon of the diſcharge or the ſuſpenſion of the obligation of ſuch Oaths: But ſaith Dr. Sanderſon, there is none ſo much under the power of another, but as to ſome things he is ſui juris, in his own power, and not under his dominion.
§. 2. The Superior when he hears of his Subjects Oaths in ſuch matter, must declare openly his diſſent. For ſaith the Text, if he holds his peace, De jur. prom. prael. 4. §. 6.he hath confirmed the Oath. To the ratification of an Interiors Oath, a praecedaneous expreſs conſent is not neceſſary, but a tacit conſent is ſufficient.
§. 3. The Superior muſt declare his diſſent preſently. The Text ſaith, in the day that he heard thereof. If he hath omitted it but one day, ſaith the Doctor, he hath ratified the Oath. Qui ſerò…fe nolle ſignificat putandus eſt aliquandiu voluiſſe. The diſſent muſt be not only palam, but ſtatim.
§. 4. It muſt be a conſtant diſſent. For ſuppoſe an Inferior hath ſworn an Oath, and his Superior hearing of it, ſaith to him preſently, you ſhall not do it: and the next day, or at any time afterwards, ſaith, he ſhall, or gives him leave to do it, the Inferiors Oath will from that day bind again; the reaſon of this is here: Becauſe the Superiours power doth not extend ſo far as to cancel the obligation of an Oath, but only to ſuſpend it. De Jur. prom. pr. 3. Sect. 10.Dr. Sanderſon ſaith excellently, That there is in every Oath, a natural and inſeparable obliging vertue, the operation of which may be hindred; but that impediment being removed, the Bowl returns to its Byas, the Oath binds; and this as naturally, as water runs in its channel, when the dam is thrown down that hinders it, or a ſtone moves to its center, when the thing that ſtaied it, is removed. God himſelf cannot make a thing that is, not to have bin: The Oath having been made, hath its natural and inſeparable vertue, the operation of which, in ſome caſes indeed, the Superiors diſſent may hinder; but cannot deprive it of its obliging vertue: So that though at firſt he diſſents, and ſo ſtops the Oath from its preſent working upon the Conſcience, yet he cannot deſtroy the nature of it; and when his diſſent is removed upon ſecond thoughts, the Oath obligeth.
§. 5. If once the Superior hath conſenied, either tacitly or expreſly, praecedaneouſly, or ſubſequently, he can never by his diſſent again, either diſcharge us from the Oath, or ſuspend the Obligation of it.Dr. Sand. 16. prael. 7. ſect. 6. In this caſe, ſaith Dr. Sanderſon, it is a true Rule, Quod ſemel placuit, amplius diſplicere non debet: The reaſon is, becauſe Gods Word in this caſe, declares the Oath eſtabliſhed for ever. Dr. Sanderſon ſaith truly, That if the Superior hath either conſented to the Oath before the taking of it, or at any time after the taking of it, he can never afterwards make it void, or take away its Obligation. An Oath is not a thing to be jeſted with. Ludere cum ſacris prophanum eſt.
§. 6. To apply this to the preſent caſe of the Covenant: Is it clear, that people are under the power of Magiſtrates ſo far, as to the things of God, that the Magiſtrates may ſet up what Government in the Church they pleaſe, and under what Officers they pleaſe? Or hath not Chriſt in the Goſpel determined the Subſtantials of Government, as to Officers, and Rules of Government? If the latter be true, Dr. Featly ſaith, none doubts, but people may covenant without their Superiors, to fulfil the Laws of God. If there be no Law of God in the caſe, why do our Brethren plead Epiſcopacy by divine right, and not tell the Parliament that they may alter that Form if they pleaſe.
§. 7. Secondly, We muſt profeſs our ſelves no Lawyers, but may it be taken for an undoubted truth, That the Lords and Commons legally aſſembled in Parliament, have no power to impoſe an Oath upon people (otherwiſe good and lawful) without the King of Englands conſent firſt had? If it be ſo, we freely ſubmit, and have nothing to ſay againſt it; but then it will only follow, that it was ſinfully impoſed and taken: not, that it doth not oblige. If it be not ſo, the want of the Superiors conſent is not to be pleaded in the caſe
§. 8. Did his Sacred Majeſty in the day that he heard thereof, preſently and openly declare his diſallowance of it? If not, it is ratified for ever. We have heard indeed, but never ſaw his Majeſties Proclamation againſt it: We are ſure that Printed with Dr. Featly's Book, relates not to it, but to a former Vow and Covenant quite of another nature.
§. 9. However it is certain, that his Sacred Majeſty (if that Book called foreign, be his, which we think none in their wits doubt) after it was taken, declares, That good men ſhould leaſt offend God and him in keeping of it. Though inded his Sacred Majeſty liked not to impoſe it upon thoſe of his Subjects, who might in Conſcience ſcruple it, yet he certainly ratifies the obligation of the Oath in Conſcience to thoſe that had taken it. He was not willing (by making his Peoples Oath void) according to Numb. 30.25. to bear their iniquity.