The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
Wherein is a ſleighty notice taken of a Late Pamphlet, wrote by one Mr. Ruſſel, called, The Covenant diſcharged; and it is proved, that in ſtead of his finding the Snare broken, as be ſaith, he hath but reſolved to break the Bonds, and to caſt the Cords behind him.
§. 1. WE had thought our work had been done, and ſufficient Anſwer given, not only to what our Abſolvers had ſaid, but alſo to what they reaſonably could ſay: But while theſe ſheets were in the Preſs, we have ſeen a new Pamphlet; Qualem proculdubio mundus literatus nunquam prius vidit, nec unquam poſthac viſurus est. The Author hath done well to tell us, it was wrote from his Study at Chinkford in Eſſex, we ſhould elſe have been ſo uncharitable, as to have thought it had come from ſome other place; but he hath neglected to tell us, what Books are in that Study, for we cannot in any of our Studies, find any wrote, either by Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians, whoſe Divinity will agree with the Authors Poſitions.
§. 2. We do not think our ſelves beholden to the Author, for his promiſed forbearance of Paſſion, for beſides that, he now and then beſtows upon us a prophane Scoffe (according to the proportion of his faculty that way) as where he tels us, that the Faith of removing and ſetling Mountains are two Gifts, the latter of which we want, &c. In very deed the Author hath conſulted himſelf, in not being too free with his paſſion, according to the Poets Caution, Carpere vel noli noſtra, vel ede tua. intending to publiſh ſuch a piece as this to the world, he ſtood concerned to take heed what meaſure he meted to others, leaſt it ſhould be meted to him again, we think he is liable enough to have it even preſſed down and running over.
§. 3. In divers things we confeſs he hath ſpoken truth: 1. As to himſelf, in what he ſaies, p. 57. intending to batter the Covenant, he hath made his approaches at a reaſonable (indeed unreaſonable) diſtance, ſuch a diſtance, that no ſhot hath come near it. 2. As to the matter; as where he ſaith, 1. That none can releaſe a Civil Contract, but the Parties with whom it is contracted: That where an Oath is made to God, ſo that he is Judge and Party, only God can abſolve it, p. 14. And p. 15. He would not be thought to plead for a Papal power in any, to diſcharge men from Oaths, &c. which would be enough for us, who have already proved, that the Covenant was Sponſio facta Deo in rebus Dei, a Vow made (though at the Command of others) to God, as to the things which concern God; and giving unto God a right to exact the performance from us; as alſo, That it was a mutual ſtipulation with our Brethren in Scotland and England, with our King and Parliament, and according to Mr. Ruſſel's own Doctrine, if there were nothing of a Vow in it, yet all Parties muſt releaſe: So that what he ſaies more, is to no purpoſe, becauſe he argues ex ignoratione Elenchi, and lamentably miſtakes the nature of the thing of which he ſpeaks.
§. 4. But becauſe though he ſeems to grant this, yet up and down his Book, he ſcatters ſuggeſtions of another nature, and indeed maintains ſuch Poſitions as we are ſure Dr. Gawden durſt not juſtifie, and runs into ſo abominable miſtakes, as if once believed by others, would make all Oaths no ſtronger than ſtrawes; we will add a few animadverſions, upon what he ſaith, intreating our Brethren hereafter to bring forth other Champions, who may bring more credit to the Church of England, than we conceive this Author in a capacity to do (if we may gueſs at Leonem ex ungue.)
§. 5. As to our Brother Crofton, whom he mentions in his Epiſtle, we conceive him of age, and therefore ſhall only deſire the Reader to take notice; 1. That the Author can produce no Vote of Parliament in his terms, viz. That the Kings Conceſſions were ſufficient to eſtabliſh a well-grounded Peace. The Vote paſſed Die Martis, 5 Dec. 1648, in theſe terms:
Reſolved upon the Queſtion, That the Anſwers of the King, to the Propoſitions of both Houſes, are a GROUND, for the Houſes to proceed upon, for the ſetling the Peace of the Kingdom.
What is this to ſufficient to eſtabliſh? But ſuppoſe this Abſolver had not ſtumbled here, but the Vote had been as he would have it—Why then (if you will believe him) the ſame power that eſtabliſhed the Covenant, tacitly diſcharged it. For — The continuation of Biſhops was included (in thoſe Conceſſions we ſuppoſe.) This is again a moſt impudent falſhood. For the King in termes granted as follows:
And we will likewiſe for three years confirm by Act of Parliament the Form of Church-government you have preſented to be uſed for the Churches of England and Ireland, and Dominion of Wales. The Kings Conceſſions printed 1648. pag. 2.Provided that his Majeſty, and thoſe of his Judgement, or any others who in conſcience cannot ſubmit, &c. be not in the mean time obliged, &c. And that a free conſultation and debate be had with the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter in the mean time (twenty of his Majeſties nomination being added unto them) whereby it may be determined by His Majeſty, and his two Houſes how the ſaid Church-Government, and Form of publike Worſhip after the ſaid time may be ſetled, or ſooner, if differences be agreed. We wonder where Epiſcopacy was here included? Sure we are, the Propoſitions ſent were for the utter aboliſhing of it. By this firſt Eſſay, the Reader may judge what to concluded M. Ruſſel's aſſertions, and to ſhew that that Parliament never intended to annull the bond of the Covenant. They no ſooner met, anno 1659. but ordered it to be hung up before their eyes in the Parliament Houſe for a continual monitor to them. It was urged by Mr. Prin, & doubtleſs highly prevailed, both with the conſciences of the members, and alſo of the friends of the Long Parliament, to further the reſtoring of his Sacred Majeſty, therefore ſurely it was not annulled by that Parliament, 1648. in any mens underſtanding, but only according to the peculiar intellect of this Abſolver.
§ 6. In the firſt Page of his Book we cannot but take notice, that though his zeal appears high for the Religion of an Oath, it muſt not (he ſaies) be impoſed without great Prudence, nor taken without great care, &c. nor handled without great fear, &c. yet he hath omitted one main thing, viz. this, Nor violated without juſt warrant from Gods Word; Let that be put in, and we are ſo far agreed.
§. 7. In his ſecond Page he ſeems to be wonderfully free, he will grant us (by way of ſuppoſition) all but one point; he will ſuppoſe it to have been, 1. Impoſed by a lawful authority. 2. Not defective in Circumſtances, 3. Clear from Ambiguity. 4. Perfect in form. 5. Pious in the End. 6. Fair in the manner, without fraud, violence, with deliberation, and conſent. 7. As to the matter lawful. Only he will not grant us, That it cannot be releaſed by any humane act or power. That it may not be ſaid, This man hath made us rich, we will yield him all again, but the ſeventh, and if he will not give us that, we will buy it of him, at a full price of Reaſon and Argument, (ſuch as ſhall be currant with all divines) we will ſuppoſe that at firſt, it was not impoſed by a lawful authority. 2. That there was a defect in the Circumſtances. 3. That as to ſome parts there was Ambiguity. 4. That it was not perfect in the Form. 5. That the End was not pious. 6. That there might be fraud or force, or too much haſte in the taking, or impoſing it, and yet (what the Books in Chinkeford Study ſay we cannot tell) our Divinity Books tell us, that an Oath taken (notwithſtanding all theſe) will oblige. As for what he hugs ſo faſt that he will not grant it us, though it were enough to tell him, all learned men that ever we heard of, would; yet we will endeavour to unclaſp his hands, and try if we can get it by fair wreſtling with this great Champion, being well aſſured, he will refuſe upon any fair ground to try a fall with us upon this iſſue, and that all Divines, of judgement, will hiſs at him that doth it. But he tells us, Page 2. That he will by ſufficient arguments and teſtimonies prove that the ſame ſpecifical power, or an higher than that which impoſed this Vow upon us, may releaſe us from the ſame either tacitly or expreſly. When he hath done that, he muſt prove too that they have done it.
§. 8. 'Tis Reaſon we ſhould liſten to this great undertaking, only we deſire the Reader to take notice, that himſelf, both here, and elſewhere calls it a Vow, which according to all Divines is a ſolemn promiſe made to God in the things of God. From ſuch an obligation as this he undertakes to prove our diſcharge, and yet as he tels us, p. 14. In thoſe Oaths where God is judge and party there are none that can releaſe from the binding power but God alone; We would fain know whether in a Vow God be not Judge and Party; and what Divines ever ſaid otherwiſe? Or to whom a Vow is made if not to God? And then let this Author adviſe how to reconcile himſelf to himſelf, and he will be more likely to agree with us.
§. 9. The foundation of his Argumentation is, The power of men in ſome caſes to releaſe the Bond of an Oath to their Neighbours. The truth of which we ſhall declare in the words of Dr. Sanderſon. Dr. Sanderſon De Jur. prom. prael. 7 §. 7. p. 229, 230.Having firſt determined that none can diſcharge us from Vows. He tells us 2. That if we ſwear for the good and advantage of our brother (meerly.) viz. with respect to his ſingle honour, obedience, profit, &c. if he, to whom we ſwear, (for ſuch his ſole profit, and advantage) will releaſe us, we are diſcharged from our Oath, and not bound in conſcience to fulfill it: The Reaſon is, becauſe our Brother may yield us his right, and ſo we have paid the debt, which done, we are not obliged. As for God; in an Oath made (praeciſe in favorem alterius) meerly for our Brothers advantage, God is only concerned as a witneſs of our fidelity, and a revenger in caſe we be not faithfull, but if our brother hath diſcharged us, we are not unfaithful, in not doing the thing, and ſo no tranſgreſſors before God.
§. 10. But although we have ſaid this before, and now again to let our Abſolver know we have no ſuch deſire (as he ſuggeſts, p. 2.) to ſnare peoples conſciences, yet we do not think any thing of this is proved from the inſtance of Abraham and his Servant, Gen. 24. which he makes the whole buſineſs of his Book, how fitly will appear by giving the Reader a juſt view of the Text.
§. 11. In the 24. of Geneſis, Abraham calls the eldeſt Servant of his houſe, and bids him put his hand under his thigh, and he would make him ſwear, That he ſhould not take a Wife for Iſaac of the Daughters of the Canaanites, &c. But v. 4. Thou ſhalt go unto my Country, and to my Kindred, and take a Wife to my Son Iſaac. Ver. 5. And the Servant ſaid unto him, peradventure the Woman will not be willing to follow me unto this Land, muſt I needs bring thy Son again unto the Land from which thou camest? And Abraham ſaid, beware that thou bring not my Son thither again. v. 8. And if the Woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou ſhalt be clear from my Oath, &c. After all this, v. 9. The Servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his Maſter, and ſware to him concerning that matter. Here we have Abraham diſcovering to his Servant a deſign he had to ſend him for a Wife for his Son, and for ſecurity of his faithfulneſs, that he intended to put an Oath upon him, that he ſhould not take a Canaanite, but one of Abraham's Kindred. The Servant fearing the Oath of God, deſires before he ſware, fully to know his ſenſe, that he might not ſwear a thing either impoſſible or unlawful, it might have been impoſſible to have brought her without her conſent, to be ſure it had been unlawful (for two words muſt go to make the lawfulneſs of ſuch bargains,) Abraham tells him that in that caſe foreign Thou ſhalt be free from the Oath. i. e. My deſign is not to engage thee in ſuch a caſe, nor indeed could he engage him. After this the Servant takes the Oath.
§. 12. Now (Reader!) what doſt thou think this ſhould prove? That which it naturally proves is this; That an Oath doth not oblige contrary to the declared ſenſe of the impoſers before it is taken. But what is this to the thing in queſtion? 'Tis brought by this Caſuiſt, to prove that Abraham had power to diſcharge his Servant of his Oath when he had taken it; yea, and this is again, and again, and again repeated, and made the foundation of all the diſcourſe by vertue of the Authors quodlibetical abilities, when as there is not a tittle in the text looking this way, the paſſage being only an explication of the ſenſe of an Oath before it was taken; we cannot but believe, that either the Printer or the Author hath abuſed the World, in telling it, that ſuch lamentable ſtuff as this is, was atteſted by Dr. Gawden. We are aſhamed to think what opinion will by ſuch ſcriblings as theſe be begot in the World, of the Church of England? We ſhall need ſay no more we hope to any thing he urgeth upon this foundation. He tells us, Jacob might have diſcharged Eſau too of his Oath, nor (though he hath not proved it) will we deny it, it being only made to a man, and for his advantage, which is nothing as to our caſe; he promiſed us more examples, but p. he tells us he hath none. Yet, p. 7. he hath found out, ſuch a one as it is, and tells us (but take heed of believing him good Reader!) That Mr. Crofton ſaith, that we had our firſt preſident for the Covenant from the Holy League; He that will read a little in Grimſtons tranſlation of the French Hiſtory, p. 823, 824. will quickly underſtand the nature of the Holy League. And though this Gentleman betrayeth no ſuch depth of Judgement, yet we know our Brother Crofton is able to diſtinguiſh betwixt a League made by a pack of Popiſh Nobles, not lawfully Convened, and that for the raiſing of a war againſt their lawful Soveraign; and whoever elſe ſhould oppoſe their ungodly deſigns. And a Solemn Covenant made by the Lords and Commons legally aſſembled in Parliament, for the reformation of Religion according to the Word of God, &c. For his inſtance in Scotland, his queſtion how the Scots came to be releaſed, needs no anſwer, till he hath proved they were releaſed at all.
§ 13. In the next place, he argues from the abuſe of the Covenant, here he tells us of the aboliſhing the Brazen Serpent, the deſtruction of the Temple, &c. when they were abuſed; he ſhould have done well to have told us of the aboliſhing of a Vow taken, becauſe ſome that took it did not keep it, then he had ſaid ſomething to the purpoſe; we ſhall not meddle with his quibling about the unbleſt effects of the Covenant, we are ſure that it hath had ſome bleſt effects, and we are ſure that his talk of aboliſhing the obligation of an Oath lawful as to its matter, &c. is a parcell of unbleſt Divinity if it be good ſenſe.
§. 14. For his next Argument, fetcht from Eccl. 7.16. Be not righteous overmuch, &c. if he had underſtood that Scripture with the Context, he would have ſpared that inſtance where Solomon (having inſtituted a Dialogue between his fleſh and ſpirit) brings in the fleſh giving him that ſaving advice, we are yet to learn how any can be Righteous overmuch. Solomon tells us there what his heart ſaid unto him in the daies of his vanity, not what is our duty.
§. 15. We ſee nothing more in his Tract till he comes to his notion, in which he highly triumpheth, That an Oath is no more than a Bond, where are parties, and a witneſs. The taking of the Oath he ſaies, p. 14. is a bringing of the trial into Gods Court. Here he tells us, that in ſome Oaths God is a party, and a Judge too. And from ſuch Oaths he is ſo juſt as to tell us, none but God can releaſe us. But he will have the Covenant to be ſuch an Oath where God is only a Judge, (he forgot his being a witneſs too) not a party; (and it muſt be ſo becauſe he ſaies ſo, for he adds not a word to prove it;) To omit his impertinent diſcourſe of Aſſertory Oaths, p. 15. (which is wild enough,) He tells us, p. 16. That in promiſory Oaths (ſuch as he confeſſeth the Covenant to be) the Party ſworn ſtands continually in Gods Court, and is upon continual trial till he or they that put him upon trial are willing to withdraw, and ſo he ſaies we are at this time releaſed from the bond of the Covenant. Queſtion, How doth this appear? The ſame powers that impoſed it are willing to put us upon no further trial. p. 18. He diſtinguiſheth between making a Covenant before God, and with God; and tells us there are but two waies now of making a Covenant with God. 1. In the Sacraments. 2. By Vows. p. 19. He diſtinguiſheth betwixt taking an Oath willingly; and taking it ſpontaneouſly, p. 19, 20. To reſolve the queſtion, How the Parliament men, who have taken it, ſhall be releaſed? He wipes the Enquirers mouth with an Egge ſhell, telling us, That every Parliament man hath a private, as well as publike capacity, and if the Parliament repeal the Ordinance for the Covenant, it is then Void, and Conſcience is diſcharged, &c. To all which a ſhort anſwer will ſerve the turn.
§. 16. Caſuiſts ſay, that an Oath is Lex privata, a private Law, which Creatures lay upon themſelves, or upon one another; The tranſgreſſion of which is indeed highly cognoſcible before the Judge of the whole Earth, who in every Oath is invoked, as a witneſs, and as a Judge and Revenger of our violation of our faith. 2. In Oaths which are meerly to aſſert truths, or confirm contracts between man and man, wherein we make no bargain with God to do ought which immediately concerns his worſhip and glory; God indeed is only invoked as a ſwift witneſs, and as a ſevere judge, but is not a party, we only promiſe to men for their advantage. 3. We deny the Covenant to be meerly ſuch, it was partly a Vow, partly a Covenant, and that both with God and men, as we have already ſhewed, we do not underſtand what makes a Vow if it be not this, that it is a promiſe to God, as to the things of God. When Abraham lifted up his hands to the moſt high God, poſſeſſor of heaven and earth, that he would take nothing from the King of Sodom, Gen. 14.22. We beleeve he made a Vow, and none but God could releaſe him, yet this was not purely in rebus Dei. We think they have loſt their common ſenſe that ſay, thoſe do not vow that ſolemnly lift up their hands to God, promiſing an endeavour to fulfil his Commandments. 4. Nor doth it at all hinder, that the Parliament firſt commanded it, and then it was taken, for on the Commanders part this ſtill was a perfect Vow. 2. On the peoples part it was ſtill a Covenant with God, as well as with men; With God; as to the things in it which concern Gods worſhip and glory immediately: With men; as to other things, If the Command of the Parliament in a Critical notion, hinder it (as to thoſe commanded) from being ſtrictly called a Vow, it yet remains a Covenant with God confirmed by an Oath. There are examples enough in Scripture of Magiſtrates commanding people to make and renew Covenants with God, and of ſuch ſpontaneous Covenants; ſo that it is falſe, that it was meerly an Oath before God, it was a Covenant with God. 5. 'Tis falſe that he ſaith, that a people can make a Covenant with God only two waies: 1. In the Sacraments; 2. Spontaneouſly. They may be commanded by Magiſtrates to do it, and do it in ſuch obedience. Nor have any power when it is done to releaſe them as to what concerns God, Ez. 10.3.5. There is a preſident of ſuch a Covenant made with God at the command of Ezra. 6. It is true, we can do no action unwillingly, but we may do ſomthing not freely & ſpontaneouſly; But ſuppoſe we have once (whether ſpontaneouſly or no) made a Covenant with God, and confirmed it by oath; we are bound by it, and God only can releaſe it, for there is a debt accruing to God. 7. The Parliament may indeed by rheir Act hinder others, not engaged, from engaging, or at leaſt forbear their obliging men, yet free, to engage. But to ſay, that any Act of men can diſcharge the debt already contracted to God is ſuch Divinity as needs none to confute it.
§. 17. We do therefore conclude, that this Theologaſter hath handled this weighty ſubject weakly, and imperfectly enough (as he propheſied, p. 2.) if nevertheleſs (we having now diſcovered his failings) any be provoked to handle it, better and more like a divine, we ſhall be willing to hear what he ſaith: In the mean time we leave Mr. Ruſſel to imitate the good example (as he calls it) of that holy and learned Doctor, St. Auguſtine, viz. to retract, and publiſh his retractations, leaſt he have (at the Great Day) the guilt of more ſouls ſins to anſwer for than his own.