The Covenanters Plea Against Absolvers, Discourse · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Whether the Error of any mans Conſcience that took the Covenant, can diſcharge him from the obſervance of it.
§. 1. HAving thus far cleared the Covenant (as to the matter of it) from any guilt of unlawfulneſs per ſe, either primario, or ſecundario; and ſhewed, that it is neither contrary to the holy Laws of God, nor yet to the good laws of any community wherein we are involved, that it doth not bring us under the guilt of Schiſm, nor at all thwart any former Oaths, nor yet kill it ſelf by any private quarrel of any member or branch of it with this, which is the matter of our debate: we muſt in the next place enquire whether it be not unlawfull, ex accedenti. Thus (ſaith our Reverend Dr. Sanderſon) an Oath may be, ex errore perſonae jurantis, or ex effectu malo rei juratae; from the error of the perſon ſwearing, or ſome ill effect of the thing ſworn: Either as it is impeditiva boni, an hindrance of ſome good, or occaſionativa mali, occaſioning ſome evil, either temporal to our ſelves, or ſpiritual to another, giving him juſt cauſe of ſtumbling and ſcandal.
§. 2. Every reaſonable Chriſtian will underſtand, that it is poſſible that an Oath, as to the firſt taking of it, might be unlawful, upon ſome of theſe accounts, which yet being taken, ought to be kept. Thus the Reverend Dr. Sanderſon determines concerning Oaths taken, De Jur. prom. prael. 3. ſect. 13, 14, 15.expoſing our ſelves to ſome great temporal damage (which the Pſalmiſt alſo determines, Pſal. 15.) or which expoſe us to great temptations, and concerning Oaths taken, which give ſcandal and offence to others. It may poſſibly be that in regard of ſome ſuch things it might at firſt have been judged unlawful for ſome to have taken ſuch Oaths, but being taken (ſaith he) they are obligatory, and ought to be kept.
§. 3. There are therefore onelyonly two queſtions can be made here: 1. VVhether an Oath obligeth where the matter is accidentally unlawfull (at leaſt preſumed to be ſo) either from the error of the perſon ſwearing; or, 2. when it appeareth an obſtacle to ſome good.
§. 4. As to the firſt; the caſe is this, Whether (ſuppoſing the matter of the Covenant lawfull) if any mans conſcience told him when he took it, that it was unlawfull; or if it now tels him ſo, he be yet obliged in conſcience to do according to his Oath.
§. 5. This caſe Dr. Sanderſon thus determines. 1. He ſaith, That the ſoul that takes an Oath, concerning which he is, when he takes it, perſwaded in his own conſcience that it is unlawfull (though it be an errour of his conſcience ſo to judge) ſins grievouſly. 2. He tels us, Such an Oath doth not oblige (his erroneous perſwaſion ſtill continuing.) 3. But in caſe he hath taken the Oath, and his conſcience be afterwards better informed, his Oath upon his better information obligeth: Becauſe in every Oath there is an obliging virtue, natural and inſeparable, &c.
§. 6. There is no doubt to be made of the firſt and third Branch of this determination, from whence this follows: That ſuppoſe any did take the Covenant at firſt contrary to the dictate of his conſcience, yet if ſince he hath ſeen his conſcience was at that time in an errour, he is by virtue of his firſt taking of it perpetually obliged to a juſt obſervance of it. The only thing in queſtion here is this; Whether ſuppoſing that any, when they firſt took the Oath, Were under temptations of fear or profit, &c. and ſo took an Oath, which their Conſciences told them was unlawfull, and they, bonâ ſide, think ſo ſtill. This errour of their conſcience (ſuppoſing the matter of the Covenant never ſo lawfull in it ſelf) doth not diſcharge them from any obligation to doe according to what they have ſworn to the moſt high God.
§. 7. Dr. Sanderſon ſaith it doth diſcharge him, and that ſuch an Oath doth not oblige him. The reaſon he gives is this: Becauſe an Oath cannot take away a former obligation, nor ſuperinduce a contrary obligation, to any which was before upon us. But who ſo by ſwearing oppoſeth the dictate of his conſcience, croſſeth that ſame dictate, which was a former obligation upon him, which this ſubſequent Oath could not remove. He therefore concludes concerning ſuch an Oath, quin ipſum potius invalidum ſit, & vim obligandi amittit. The term potius ſpeaks to us, that the Reverend Dr. doubted himſelf, whether indeed the error of conſcience made voyd the Oath.
§. 8. It is a very hard caſe, the hinge of the queſtion is, How far the dictate of an erroneous conſcience doth oblige. We know Divines ſay with Dr. Sanderſon, that it does alwaies oblige, ad non faciendum contra, Amoſ. Caſus l. 1. cap, 4.11.to doe nothing againſt it. So alſo Dr. Amos concerning things that are but lawfull, i.e. which may be done, or not be done, he gives this reaſon for it, Becauſe a man is not bound to doe all that is lawfull. But ſuppoſe the thing to be neceſſary, i. e. ſuch as Gods Word obligeth a man to doe; and a mans erroneous conſcience tells him, that he ought not to doe it; or having done it, his conſcience tells him hee ought not to perſiſt. What ſhall he do in this caſe? We doubt whether in this caſe he be diſcharged from the obligation of his Oath, by the errour of his conſcience. And this is the caſe; For when a man hath ſworn, the fulfilling of his Oath is a thing no longer free to him, but neceſsary, in regard of the many precepts of God charging him, to take heed of ſwearing falſly, of taking Gods name in vain, &c. and that under the higheſt penalties. So that he manifeſtly ſins if he does it not. Now it ſeems to us very hard to aſſert, That a mans error of conſcience (which is his ſin) ſhould abſolve him from ſin, and diſcharge him of the obligation of his Oath. We ſuppoſe upon ſecond thoughts, no ſober Divine will maintain it.
§. 9. The truth is, The miſery of an erroneous conſcience is very great. If any man hath taken the Covenant, and his conſcience now tels him, that he took an Oath, which at that time was unlawfull for him to take, and being taken, is unlawfull to be kept. If he doth not keep it, he moſt undoubtedly ſinneth againſt God, whoſe Oath he hath violated, and whoſe precepts he hath diſobeyed, and contemned his threatnings againſt ſuch as ſwear falſly; and yet the Oath ſeems foreign, to him unclean. So that if he doth obſerve it, he ſinneth againſt the will of God (ſaith Dr. Ames) though not materially, and truly, yet formally, and interpretatively, becauſe what a mans conſcience dictateth to him, it dictateth under the notion of Gods will concerning him, whether it be ſo or no. So that he is under a neceſſity of ſinning contracted by his own fault, and upon ſuppoſition, that he retains this conſcience, which he is bound to acquit himſelf of.
§. 10. We preſume this is the caſe of very few in truth. If it be the caſe of any, we are afraid, that at the Great day they will find their Oath obliging, notwithſtanding the errour of their conſcience. If any onelyonly pretend ſuch a thing to get quit of their Oath, Let not our ſoul enter into their ſecrets! unto their Aſsemblies, Let not our honour be united!