The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 14 – Chapter 15
CHAP. XIV.
The Abſolvers Plea, from the pretended ſinfulneſs of the End of the Covenant examined, whether the deformity of the end of an Oath can make it not Obligatory: The contrary proved. The Abſolvers Plea from hence Atheological and vain.
§. 1. HAving thus far patiently heard the Clamours of our new Caſuiſts, againſt the Obligatory vertue of the Covenant, becauſe of the ſuppoſed Failers, as to the material and efficient cauſes of it, whether more external or internal. We ſhould in the next place, examine it as to the formal cauſe: Under which Head, Caſuiſts examine, whether thoſe Oaths be Lawful or Obligatory, where no words are uſed, or where men ſwear, not by the Living God, but by ſome Creatures, how far the intention of him that ſweareth is neceſſary? and diſcourſe concerning equivocations and mental reſervations, with many others. But we do not find any of them ſnarling at the Covenant upon any of theſe accounts, though we believe too many of them had mentem injuratam. Ther's only one caſe more relating to the Cauſes of the Covenant, which needs be ſpoken to.
§. 2. A great Abſolver much improves a Fancy (in order to the irritation of the Covenant) that the deſign of it was only to engage the Scots with the Parliament; and the End of the Covenant being meerly Politick and Unlawful, the Covenant muſt needs alſo be void and null.
§. 3. His Sacred Majesty, who had as much reaſon as any other to judge uncharitably of the end in impoſing, and taking that Covenant, yet was more charitable: He (as we ſaid before) profeſſeth himſelf to have ſo much Charity, as to believe, that many good mens Intentions in taking that Covenant, was to preſerve Religion in purity, and the Kingdoms in peace.
§. 4. But (for once) ſuppoſe that the End of the Covenant had ſome obliquity in it, it is worthy the enquiring where our modern Caſuiſts learned this Divinity, that the obliquity or unlawfulneſs of the end of an Oath did render it (once taken) void and not obliging; I am ſure,De Jur. prom.. prael. 6. Sect. 14. Bald. caſus, l. 2. c. 9. not of Dr. Sanderſon, he teacheth them the quite contrary. Baldwin would have learned them to diſtinguiſh betwixt the unlawfulneſs of an Act, and the lawfulneſs of the good might reſult from it: He would have told them, That if an Adulterer had ſworn, that if he ſhould have a Child by an Adultereſs, he would then do ſome high Service for God, he is bound (having that child) to do the good Service. If a Prince ſwears a Service to God, if he returns ſafe from an unlawful War; he is bound by his Oath (returning ſafe) to do what he hath ſworn. It is true, we may not do evil that good may come of it; but we are yet to learn, that when an evil is done, we may not embrace, and do the good which ſhould come of it. A Failer in the end makes an Action unlawful or ſinful to him that doth it,Sanches Op. mor. l. 3. cap. 9. n. 28. Cajet. in 22 ae. q. 23. Molina de juſtitia. but ſurely it doth not nullifie an Action done. Sanches, Cajetan, Corruvias, Molina, Soto, Arragon, &c. all agree, that a man is obliged to the performance of an Oath at firſt made for a ſinful end. Sanches allowes no diſpenſation in the caſe (niſi ſolutio ſit iniqua) unleſs it be ſinful to do the thing which we have ſworn to do, which is nothing to the preſent caſe. Patrato crimine obligamur, is their joynt Suffrage. Dr. Sanderſon gives this excellent reaſon for it, quia etſi pactum fuit illicitum, res pacta licet, the thing ſworn to do is lawful, though the pact were at firſt unlawful.
CHAP. XV.
Where it is proved, that the Bond of the Covenant cannot be ſuſpended by any Diſpenſation, altered by any Commutation, or diſſolved by any Relaxation of Parties.
§. 1. VVE have yet one caſe more to ſpeak to, which we little thought would ever have been a queſtion amongſt Scholars, who call themſelves Proteſtants, viz. Whether ſuppoſing the Covenant obliging hitherto, his Sacred Majeſty, Quiſquis vendicat ſibi jus dispenſandi in juramento aſſumit ſibi poteſtatem divinam, Dr. Sanderſon.or the preſent and ſucceeding Parliaments, ſeverally, or joyntly, may not make it void and not obliging, by their Act or Acts to that purpoſe? We moſt freely and humbly give unto Caeſar what is Caeſars, and to the Parliament of England, what is theirs; but to give them a power of diſſolving the Obligation of Vows and Oaths, is to give them what only belongs to God, and which was never yet challenged by them.
§. 2. The Popiſh Caſuiſts have found five or ſix waies to quit men of Oaths. 1. By Dispenſation from the Pope or Prelate. 2. By Commutation. 3. By the power of the Superior, according to Num. 30.4. By the Ceſſation of the matter. 1. By the Relaxation of the Party.
Our Brethren cannot but know, that the power challenged for the Pope (as Chriſts Vicar) to diſpenſe with Oaths, or to order the Commutation of them, is moſt juſtly exploded and abhorred by all Protestants, who generally judge Oaths de jure naturali, and ſo not to be diſpenſed with, ſave only by him who is the God of Nature. Beſides, as Dr. Sanderſon well urgeth,Dr. Sanderſon De jur. prom. Prael. 7 Sect. 3. it is to deſtroy the end of all Oaths, viz. the ſecurity aimed at in them, by them who impoſe them, and to take away anothers right, which he hath acquired with whom the Covenant is made, confirmed by the Oath, yea, and the Obligation to God alſo which reſults from every Oath, (according to Aquinas and the generality of Schoolmen, and Caſuiſts in the Caſe) and to ſubject the Conſcience immediatly to an humane Judicature. All which Reaſons of Dr. Sanderſon will ſtrictly hold againſt any ſuch pretended power of diſpenſation in the caſe of Oaths.
§. 3. The Learned Doctor determines the ſame againſt any commuting of the matter of Oaths, for ſome other thing, which we judge, or is reverâ better. Neutro iſtorum modorum ſ…lvi poteſt juramenti vinculum, aut obligatio tolli (ſaith that Reverend Perſon) and he ſaies right, that the whole Doctrine of commuting Oaths, and the truth of it, depends upon their diſpenſability, and both Doctrines are moſt notoriouſly falſe, and deſtroyed by the ſame Reaſons.
§. 4. How far a Superior hath power to ſuſpend the Obligation of an Oath, taken by thoſe under his power, and whoſe matter is ſubjected to his power, and how this irritation muſt be circumſtantiated, and how long it laſts, and how little relief is for us from hence, we have ſhewed before, and may therefore paſs it over in this place.
§. 5. A Fourth way by which the Gordian knot of an Oath may be untied, according to the Schoolmen, is by the Ceſſation of the matter; in which caſe, all Caſuiſts, Popiſh or Proteſtants, judge the Obligation to ceaſe. The Oath of the Souldier to his General, ceaſeth, when he is not General, &c. The reaſon is evident, becauſe the root of it is pulled up: But this is no way applicable in our caſe.
§. 6. There is therefore no diſpute, ſave only de relaxatione partis: whether the Parties in the Covenant, releaſing the Bond of it, it may not be diſſolved? We perceive that ſome think, that if it ſhall pleaſe his Majeſty and the Parliament to releaſe thoſe who have taken the Covenant, from the obſervation of it, there needs no further care about it: To determine this buſineſs, betwixt our Brethren and us,De Jur. prom. prael. 7. §. 8. we will refer our ſelves to Dr. Sanderſon, and but tranſlate part of his excellent determination in the caſe.
Firſt, (Saith he) There can be no ſuch releaſe in Vows; in Oaths confirming humane Pacts, Covenants, and Bargains, there may. The reaſon of the difference is, becauſe Vows are made to God, as to one Party. Now we ſhewed before, that the Covenant as to the firſt and ſecond Branch of it, did partake of the nature of a Vow, it was ſponſio facta Deo in rebus Dei, a Promiſe made to God, as well as to men, in the things of God, relating immediatly to his Worſhip and Glory.
Secondly, (ſaith Dr. Sanderſon) If the Oath taken be [in gratiam alterius] i. e. for the honour, profit, or commodity of another, or the giving an homage to another, it doth not oblige, unleſs that other to whom we ſwear, accepts and confirms it.
Thirdly, (ſaith he) If he or they to whom ſuch Oath is made, for his or their profit and advantage, will have it ſtand good, no third perſon can diſcharge us from the obligation of it.
Fourthly, (ſaith he) If the perſon to whom we ſwear will releaſe us the Oath doth not oblige us after ſuch Releaſe.
Fifthly, (ſaith he) The Oath is in ſuch caſe only diſcharged ſo far as he doth releaſe it.
Sixthly, (ſaith he) The Releaſe of any Party in an Oath, only takes away the Obligation of it as to his particular Intereſt, but prejudiceth no third Perſon.
§. 7. From the Grave Determinations of this Learned man, by a review of what we have already ſaid in our Second Chap. concerning the nature of the Covenant, it is no hard thing to conclude, what Lamentable Divinity they publiſh, that tell us, that it is in the power of any man or men, to diſcharge us from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon us.
1. The Oath confirming the Covenant, did not only confirm a Contract made with King and Parliament, and with the Nation of Scotland, and our Brethren in England, engaging with us, but it confirmed a Solemn Vow and Promiſe made to God, in the things of God (for ſuch certainly is the Government of his Church, Reformation in Doctrine, Worſhip and Diſcipline, according to his Word, &c.) Now ab homine ea ſola relaxari fas eſt, quae homini facta ſunt, Dr. Sanderſon ibid. Prael. 7(ſaith Dr. Sanderſon) Men can only releaſe for themſelves.
2. According to the Doctors ſixth Determination; Suppoſing that God were not intereſted as a Party, but the Covenant was a meer civil Pact between men and men, yet all Parties muſt releaſe, before the Relaxation can be good, as to the whole Obligation. We have ſworn to maintain the Kings Perſon, Honour and Authority. 2. The Priviledges of Parliament. If indeed his Majeſty or the Parliament ſhall pleaſe, in whole or in part, by any of their Acts to releaſe us, they may do it as to their own peculiar Concern and Intereſt: But we have alſo in the Covenant ſworn to the Nation of Scotland, and to our Brethren in England, for their profit and advantage: and unqueſtionably our Brethren in Scotlnnd, looked upon the Abolition of the Engliſh Hierarchy (as to its ancient Form) as a thing highly tending to their advantage, and ſo did many in England, both Miniſters and People (who had wofully ſuffered under it) Now how a Releaſe ſhould be good, unleſs from all perſons and Parties concerned, we are yet to learn. If any one ſay; What the Parliament of England or Scotland doth, all the People are bound up in. We Anſwer, Not as to releaſing Obligations contracted by Oaths. We preſume our Brethren will not determine ſo in other caſes, we have ſworn out the Popes Supremacy in England, we hope our Brethren will not ſay, that an Act of Parliament, if (which God forbid) any ſuch ſhould hereafter be, will diſcharge thoſe that have taken that Oath, from the obſervance of it.
3. Concerning Dr. Sanderſons 2, 3, and 4th. Determinations, there may be ſome queſtion: If a man ſwears to another for his advantage, we are apt to believe the Oath binds in Conſcience, though he to whom we ſwear, knows not of it, much leſs apertly accepts and ratifies it. Suppoſe a man ſwears to breed up his Child to Learning, or to a Trade, &c. we believe the Oath will bind, though the Child doth not like it, &c. There may alſo appear ſome doubt about the power of him, to whom we ſwear, to releaſe us in whole or in part, becauſe as we have ſaid before, from every ſuch Oath there reſulteth a double Obligation; 1. To man. 2. To God. Now it doth not ſeem reaſonable, That man ſhould diſcharge Gods Debts. Dr. Sanderſon (aware of this exception) anſwers, That in a promiſe made, Dr. Sanderſon ib. prael. 7.meerly far the advantage of another, and confirmed by an Oath, God is only invoked, as a witneſs of the truth of our hearts in promiſing, and challenged as a revenger, in caſe we violate our Faith ſo confirmed, but if the Party releaſeth us, our Faith is not violated, ſo that no injury is done to God in it. We think this as much as can be ſaid, whether ſufficient or no, we will not here enquire, this not at all concerning our caſe.
We conclude then, that as we can ſee no errour in the Efficient, material, formal or final cauſes of this Oath of God which is upon us, ſufficient to diſcharge us from the Obligation of it (conſidering things as they are now ſtated, and that the Oath is taken) ſo we cannot believe it in the power of any (ſave God alone) by dispenſation, irritation, commutation, or relaxation, to diſcharge us from an endeavour to perform it. The Compaſs of that term, endeavour, remaineth yet to be meaſured by us, with a Reed from the Sanctuary, and that ſhall be our laſt Task.