The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 5
CHAP V.
Rules in general concerning the Interpretation of Oaths: Theſe applied to the Covenant, and the true ſence of it evinced from them.
IT may ſeem very unreaſonable after ſixteen years digeſtion of the Covenant, to fetch it back into our mouths, that we may make a judgment of the true taſt of it, which the wiſe man foreſaw, when he told us it was a ſnare after vowes to make enquiry: The corrupt humours of our ſtomacks (in this time) may have much altered it or us from what at firſt we ſhould have (poſſibly) pronounced concerning it. And the more unreaſonable, becauſe the proper Interpreters of it are ceaſed; The Lords and Commons who firſt impoſed it (if the Rule be good, ejuſdem eſt interpretari ac condere) yet becauſe there are not a few, who will not believe it ſo edged a tool, but that it may be played withal, and who apply to the Covenant, the Rabbinical Fable of Manna, which they ſay had a quality in it which ſured every Pallat, we cannot reaſonably proceed further, till we have enquired, whether indeed we hugged a Proteus, when we rejoyced in that ſacred Oath, or whether this be not an ill report, without any juſt cauſe brought up upon a good action, that by it, the Adverſaries of Reformation, might either diſcharge others from its obſervance (under pretence of its uncertain ſound) or pleaſe themſelves with a dream at leaſt, that they ſhall be ſecure in the moſt preſumptuous violation of it.
§. 2. Only in regard that Obligatio juramenti eſt oneroſa, the obligation of an Oath (if any at all) is exceeding heavy, though the luxuriant vanity of ſome mens wits, and the ſtrong predominancy of luſt in others, conſtrain us to an enquiry, yet we ſhall ſtand concerned to make it exceeding ſtrictly and narrowly, being under this aſſurance; That every ſoul which hath taken it, is highly engaged either to the ſevereſt obſervance of it, or to a more than ordinary humiliation for his prophane attempt to mock that God ſo ſolemnly, who hath told us that he cannot be mocked. Nor are we concerned to enquire the juſt ſenſe of every Branch in the Covenant, but only of the Second Article, in which is contained the chiefeſt matter of our preſent Debate.
§. 3. It is true, Molina, Tabiena, Sylveſter, Layman, and Navarrus, and ſome others (with what conſiſtency to themſelves, in other places of their Writings may be judged by comparing Navarrus▪ his cap. 18. cum cap. 1…) maintain a ſtrange Principle, viz. That none is further bound by an Oath or Vow, further than he would have obliged himſelf, if he had either foreſeen or obſerved the neceſſary, or contingent, iſſue of it: By which means they ſet up a Chancery in every particular ſoul, to relieve it from the rigour of that [Lex privata] private Law of an Oath. But Cajetan, Lopez, Sotus, and others, reaſonably oppoſe this licentious Principle, as that which laies a Foundation, to enervate all ſacred and civil Obligations— quia ſaepe contingunt aliqua quae ſi fuiſſent praeviſa contractus non celebrarentur, nec ad eum eventum contrahentes ſe obligâſſent. Hence Sanches limits that Rule, [That what would at firſt have hindred our obliging of our ſelves by an Oath or Vow, had it been foreknown, or had it firſt happened, will alſo diſcharge us (when known, or come to paſſe) from our Obligation to the performance of it] To thoſe things only which (had they been firſt known) had made the entring into ſuch ſacred bond unlawful,Filiucii Qu. m. tr. 25. cap. 8. ratione materiae, inhabilis ad producendam obligationem, in regard of the matter being ſuch to which an obligation could not be created. Filiucius tels us that an Oath muſt be interpreted, according to the nature of the act to which it is annexed; becauſe he who ſweareth, intendeth to ſwear only that which he promiſeth, in the ſame manner and under the ſame conditions as he promiſeth. We much doubt the truth of this (which dependeth upon another queſtion, Whether an oath may not bind a man beyond his intention when he ſwears) Undoubtedly an Oath may oblige a man beyond his private intention; and in this we think all Proteſtant Caſuiſts agree. That other Rule therefore given by Caſuiſts, is better, Juramenti obligatio eſt ſtrictè Juris. That an Oath muſt be ſtrictly interpreted, quoad materia & verba permiſerint; as ſtrictly as the matter and words will bear; and thus Filiucius agrees at laſt, and Suarez with him. And it were a woful ſhame for us Chriſtians to diſpute this, when Tully tels us,Cicero de Offic. lib. 3. that an Oath muſt be kept in that ſenſe—ſicut verbis concipitur more noſtro. Yet Divines here ordinarily diſtinguiſh, betwixt ſpontaneous, arbitrary Oaths, and ſuch as are by others impoſed upon us: and concerning each, determine thus: 1. That ſuch Oaths as we voluntarily take, muſt be interpreted (ex ipſius jurantis mente) by our ſelves, beſt Judges of our own ſenſe. 2. But ſuch as are impoſed by others, muſt be by us interpreted, according to the ſenſe of thoſe that impoſed them upon us. Thus Dr. Sanderſon rightly determineth, and quoteth Auguſtine in the caſe, Ep. 224, 225. He adds this irrefragable reaſon; Becauſe the end of impoſing Oaths upon others, is to create or beget to the Impoſers, an aſſurance from him or thoſe that take them, that they will fulfil what they ſwear, or promiſe, which aſſurance none can have who impoſeth an Oath upon another, if he that takes the Oath, have a Latitude of interpretation left unto him, with a liberty to abound in his own ſenſe.
§. 4. Yet both theſe rules muſt be limited; ſo, that neither our private ſenſe of our Spontaneous Oathes, nor yet the ſenſe of thoſe that impoſe Oathes upon others, muſt be other then will comport with the juſt ſignification of the words or phraſes in the Oath, Vow, or Covenant, for this were to deſtroy the ſimplicity neceſſary to every Oath, and indeed not to interpret, but to coin an Oath, or new Obligation.
§. 5. We muſt conclude then, That the ſenſe of the Covenant (being at the will of others impoſed upon us for their ſecurity, that we would do as we there promiſed) muſt be no other then what (comporting with the ſignificancy of the words in which it was conceived) was the ſenſe of the Lords and Commons then aſsembled in Parliament concerning it. And from a ſtrict Obligation to the performance of it in their ſenſe, we ſee nothing can diſcharge the ſoul, unleſs ſome publick Declaration at the taking of it; we ſay publick, for otherwiſe there was a deliberate, voluntary deceiving the expectation of thoſe that impoſed it: and we think Auguſtine ſpeaketh a great deal of reaſon, when he tels us that—Whoſoever deceiveth the expectation of him to whom he ſwears, can be no leſs then a perjured perſon. (Which paſſage Dr. Sanderſon quoteth out of him.)
§. 6. Nor (that Parliament being now extinct) can we imagine how we ſhould better conclude their ſenſe, then by conſidering the words themſelves, in which they expreſſed this obligation, and taking a view (ſo far as we can) of their precedent and ſubſequent Acts or Ordinances. The words of the Covenant, ſo far as concerns our purpoſe, are found in the 2d Article thus,
That we ſhall in like manner, without reſpect of perſons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, (i.e.) Church-Government by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, their Chancellours, and Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers, depending upon that Hierarchy; Superſtition, Haereſie, Schiſm, Prophaneſs, and whatſoever ſhall be found to be contrary to ſound Doctrine, and the power of Godlineſs, leſt we partake in other mens ſins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues: and that the Lord may be one, and his Name one in theſe three Kingdoms.
§. 7. The thing here Covenanted for, is an Indeavour to extirpate Popery and Prelacy: That we might the better underſtand what they meant by Prelacy, they tell us, It is the Government of the Church by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, their Chancellours, Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers depending upon that Hierarchy. Certainly he that runs may read, and here is no great need of an Interpreter. We have not Covenanted againſt Biſhops (every Miniſter is a Biſhop) but againſt the Prelacy of Biſhops; but in regard that the Prelacy of Biſhops is of ſeveral kinds, there poſſibly may remain a queſtion, What Prelacy the Lords and Commons intended in the Covenant?
§. 8. There is a 1 Prelacy of Juriſdiction, and 2 a Prelacy of meer order. The Prelacy of Juriſdiction is of two kinds; for diſtinction ſake we may call the firſt Pontifical, the ſecond Paternal. The firſt is ſuch a Prelacy, where the ſingle Prelate aſſumes to himſelf a ſole power in Ordination and Juriſdiction; and though (it may be in a complement) he cals in a Presbyter or two to his aſſiſtance, yet it is ex abundanti, what he judgeth not himſelf obliged to do. It is not reaſonable to imagine that the Parliament intended only the extirpation of this Prelacy;Bilſon de Gub. Eccl. cap. 13. for although Bilſon and ſome others tell us, that the Presbyters joyning with the Biſhop in the impoſing hands upon Presbyters, was rather ad conſenſum than conſecrationem; Field of the Church, l. 5. cap. 56.yet Dr. Field ſpeaks more ſoberly, and tels us, There ought to be a concurrence of other Miniſters hands as well as the Biſhops, in Ordinations, they having an equal Miniſtry, and power of order with him. Nor had any ſuch Prelacy as this, ever any footing in England (other then what the arrogance of ſome ſingle perſons gave it.)
§. 9. We call that a Paternal Prelacy, where the Colledge of Presbyters hath a Prelate who muſt concur with them (ordinarily) in Ordinations, and acts of Juriſdiction. This (ſay the moſt ſober men was all the Prelacy which ever was allowed in the Church of England; we are ſure this is all for which there can be the leaſt pretence of any divine or Apoſtolical authority.
§. 10. The Prelate of meer order, nothing differs from a continued Moderator, having no more power than his brethren in Ordination or Juriſdiction, but for order ſake praeſiding amongſt them.
§ 11. There being no queſtion but that the Covenant is to be interpreted againſt the firſt; the queſtion only remains concerning the two latter, Whether, together with the Popiſh Prelacy of ſole and ſingle Juriſdiction, it was not the deſign of the Lords and Commons then aſſembled, to oblige the people of England to extirpate alſo that Paternal Prelacy, for which ſome plead, yea both the name and thing of Prelacy, though meerly reſpecting order in Eccleſiaſtical Conventions? That we may make up a juſt judgement in the caſe, let us take a view of their preceding and ſubſequent Acts.
§. 12. Anno 1641. They had by an Act (wherein the King joyned with them) taken from the Hierarchy, all powers of inflicting Penalties, Fines, Amercements, Impriſonments, or any corporal puniſhment upon any of the Kings ſubjects, for any matter or thing whatſoever, as alſo all power of adminiſtring Oaths to any perſons in any caſe belonging to Eccleſiaſtical cogniſance. In the year 1643. the Covenant is made and impoſed, in the terms before expreſſed. In the year 1646. they firſt eſtabliſh the Presbyterian Government for three years by their Ordinance (which 1648. they renew again, and make it ſine Die.) In the year 1646. They (by their Ordinance) aboliſh, the Name, Title, Stile and Dignity—of all Biſhops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales. We muſt confeſs, we ſhould have been very inclinable to have judged, that the ſenſe of the Parliament impoſing the Covenant, was againſt all manner of Prelacy, and that they deſigned no leſs, than the engaging of the whole Nation upon the higheſt ſecurity imaginable, to endeavour the total extirpation of all the kinds of it; had we not been informed, that at that time, the ſcruple was made by ſome Members in Parliament, and reſolved (with the conſent of our Brethren in Scotland) that it was only intended againſt Epiſcopacy, as then eſtabliſhed in England, which gives us a Latitude, for a Prelacy of meer order (as a civil conſtitution)
§. 13. In the mean time, the Covenant apertly obligeth us againſt Arch-Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters Arch-Deacons, Chancellors, Commiſſaries, &c. (there is no ambiguity in thoſe terms) And 2. Against all ſuch exerciſe of Prelacy, as is by any ſingle perſon, arrogating to himſelf ſole and ſingle Juriſdiction, or ſole and ſingle power in Ordinations. 3. Againſt all ſuch exerciſe of Prelatical power, as is taken away by the Statute of 17 Caroli, for the taking away the High-Commiſſion-Court. As to all theſe, the Parliaments ſenſe is clear enough, and can admit of no diſpute. Nor is this a rigid interpretation of the Covenant, but as favourable as the words of it can bear, or reaſon allow upon the view of what hath been already urged to evince the ſenſe of the Impoſers.
§. 14. We conclude then, That our ſolemn Covenant was the higheſt ſecurity wherein it was poſſible, that the Eternal God, could have us engaged to him; or which the Lords and Commons, then aſſembled in Parliament, or our Brethren in Scotland could then take of us, That we would in our Callings and Places endeavour to root out that Prelatical form and exerciſe of Church-Government, which was exerciſed in England, by Archbiſhops (tyrannical) Biſhops, their Chancellors, Arch-Deacons, Commiſſaries, &c. From which every reaſonable Chriſtian muſt conclude, that if we fail in the performance, by eſtabliſhing that Government again, or deſiring the eſtabliſhment of it, by promoving, owning, or countenancing of what we have thus ſolemnly ſworn to extirpate: Not only our Brethren will have an Action in the caſe againſt us for the violation of our truth to them; But the Righteous God will alſo have a juſt action againſt us for the irreverence ſhewed to his moſt Sacred Name. And if ever any of our Brethren with whom we are engaged, who poſſibly ſhall not be able, ſo eaſily to obtain a diſcharge of their Conſciences, ſhall be brought into a ſuffering ſtate, by thoſe whom we (contrary to our ſolemn Oath) ſhall help to ſet up, they will doubtleſs have a juſt occaſion, to prefer a ſad Bill of complaint againſt us, to the juſt Judge of the whole Earth, who uſeth to hear the cry of the Afflicted. And whatſoever we may now think, or talk in the diſtempers of our mind, & in the rantings of our fooliſh paſſions; whenſoever the day of Gods vengeance ſhall come upon us, according to his Word, Zech. 5.3, 4. Or whenſoever we ſhall have recovered our wits again, and we can give our Conſciences awaked out of ſleep, leave to ſpeak freely to us; it will be very hard to relieve them, unleſs we can aſſign ſuch an errour in the Covenant (and that too, as to the matter ſworn) as will be allowed by the Divine Law, as a ſufficient diſcharge, as to our obſervance, and leave us nothing to do, but to humble our ſoules before the Lord for our taking of it. It will therefore be the juſt concernment of every Soul bound in that ſacred Bond, to ſit down, and adviſedly think (before they reſolve upon the violation of ſuch an Oath) whether there were any ſuch errours: And if thoſe who think they have found them, would avoid the Infamy, which elſe will fall upon them, they will ſtand concerned, to ſet down theſe errours, and publiſh them to the world in plain words of truth and ſoberneſs, not in the inſignificant figures of wanton Rhetorick, wofully blurred too with fooliſh paſſion, which may poſſible, ſatisfie ſuch as were before reſolved to be ſatisfied, and make a Bumble ſufficient for the eyes of ſome ſilly ſouls, and give the wiſer ſort of people opportunity to make themſelves merry; but can never ſtop the mouth, or darken the light, of a waky and well-informed Conſcience.