is a most pernicious so a most empty airy inconsequent speculation Inconsequent because if a co-ordination of Soveraign Power be supposed twixt King and People then a joynt concurrence of both in every act of Supreme Power is necessary if the act be not spurious and illegittimate so that by this the people de jure may no more reform without the King then the King without the People both singly considered according to this dream being but Subjecta potestat is supremae partialâ—â— and both joyntly considered only the adaequat and complete subject of Soveraignty Empty and groundlesse for what a wilde imagination is it to place a co-ordinate power with the King in the representative Body of the People when the Soveraign only hath by fundamental Law the right of calling and then of dissolving at pleasure the said Body and what an absurd phoenomenon must it needs be to conceive in a body a co-ordination twixt the Members and the Head thereof and the King is the Head of all the Tribes 1 Sam. 15. 17. and such an Head Vbi sedes meri imperij est But further this whimsey is repugnant to the true condition of Monarchy for this supposed co-ordination of the Supreme jusâ—ive Power must necessarily infer or suppose a communicability of the Soveraign Power to more then one which notwithstanding in true Monarchy is so properly belonging to and so inseparably setled in the Person of the Soveraign Prince as that it cannot be derived or communicated to any other save only in way of deputation and commission when and how far forth himself pleaseth in the outward exercise and administration of the same Since as Bodin rightly giveth it Necessâ— est ut regnum quantumcunque est ac jura omnia Majestatis in solidum VNI partitione sublatâ tribuantur alioquin non Monarchia sed Polyarchia dicetur De republ lib. 6. cap. 8. And indeed however many Sharers there are in the Supreme Power so many Supreme Governours or Soveraigns respectively and according to the different Interests they have more or lesse there shall be Oh what Chimera's of invention wil men make use of to uphold most groundlesse conceits they have once embraced for strengthning and promoving of their sinful and selfie designs and interests But to leave this Pâ—rpos 6ta There is this sixth Proposition A justifiable Oath must be undertaken in bonum finem for good ends and purposes ends consistent with the welfare of our Neighbour especially of the Church and State we live in A clause say Casuists necessarily supposed though not alwayes expressed in such engagements under this much is comprehended as that a lawfull Oath cannot engage to the doing of any thing repugnant or obstructive to the performance of some greater moral duty one or another so the Learned Grotius de jurâ— belli lib. 2. cap. 13. n. 7. Immo etiam si res quae promittitur non sit illicita sed majus bonum morale impediens sic quoque non valebit jurawentum c. Hence also it it is that we ought by no means to Vow Promise or Swear peremptorly against the doing of any thing which yet the real equity thereof either then or upon occasion farely offered may afterwards justly require and efflagitate at our hands The ground of this comprehensive Proposition briefly is because the greater moral duty is still to be preferred to the lesser as to practice and performance and in affirmative precepts this is acknowledg'dly evident these being such as oblige licet semper non tamen ad semper as Divines universally take it Propos 7ma There is this seventh Proposition No Oath is or can be justifiable or of binding force which is taken against a righteous laudable Oath formerly sworn For one lawful Oath can never make void another much lesse can an unlawful vacat the obligation of a righteous Oath It is a clear case resolv'd by Judicious Casuists that a lawful Oath cannot be contra pactum aliquod licitum prius initum for such super-faetation of dissonant Oaths or Promises doth ever beget a direct nullity in the latter So that he who hath sworn Allegiance to the Soveraign and to maintain Episcopal Government in the Church which we now suppose to be lawful and thereby bound himself to maintain the just Right Power and Authority of his said Soveraign or the forsaid Form of Church-Government he cannot by any second or supervenient Oath be tied to do any thing that may tend to the violation or infringement of his former engagement and if he have so insnar'd himself the obligation is ipso facto void and null But Propos 8va ult There is this eight and last Proposition A man is bound in conscience to reveâ—â— renounce and disclaim that Which he was induced to engage himself by Oath unlawfully to perform For an Oath which is Sacramentum pietatis as it is in the mouths of all cannot be vinculum iniquit at is cannot be a bond of iniquity No man can be by any rash Oath or any Oath whatsomever engaged so as to stand oblidged to do and perform that which is in it self sinful and unlawful to be done but 〈◊〉 bound in couscience to break that snare which was never a real but meerly a supposed Bond. Aquinas saith well 2da 2dae quaest 89. Jurans illicitum peccat jurando peccat servando Over and beyond all these there are I know many other cases in which the person once engaged to act may be disobliged from a necessary performance as when he pomises or swears to perform somewhat impossible and beyond his reach De impossibilibus enim nemo tenetur is the received maxime or when his condition is notably changed from what it was when first he entered the obligation for then some inevitable and remedilesse impediment may obstruct the performance and many such-like useful Cases may be touch'd upon but the Propositions already laid down are the most Catholick or Universal and surest Land-marks by which we may examine the legality and bindingnesse of whatever engagements where they fail All or any of them the supposed Promise or Oath doubtlesse becomes void and frustrate intangle us it may in the Snares and Bonds of sinfulnes as the wise man calls them Prov. 5. 22. but not oblige us to a necessary performance of the thing undertaken not even then when as we freely and voluntarily incur the snare much lesse when it is forced upon us which is much to be adverted in our present disquiry by an over-awing prevailing Faction This loosens and weakens the ty much if superveening thus to other circumstances for Non potest id civium consensu factum censeri quod ereptâ libertate fiat Bodin de rep lib. 2. c. 5. And now if our late Oaths Covenants and Leagues be squar'd according to these irrefragable rules above recorded what bindingnesse or obligation may be found in them will be easie to determine and resolve by their impingence upon
most of the forsaid Propositions All these popular and tumultuary engagements being in their very essence combinations among factious Subjects without and against the known will and consent of Supreme Authority and that not to caâ—â—y on or pursue laudbale and setled Laws but without all paralell to reverse and repeal established and standing Laws against the Royal Will of our Soveraign Law-giver and therefore in the judgement of the most rigid at this day acknowledged to have had much sin in them upon this very Score Much might be said in discovery of the sinfulnesse and unlawfulnesse of these late Covenants and Oaths not only in regard of their efficient Cause as made by Subjects against the will of their Soveraign in such things as necessarily required His consent but further in respect of their subject-matter as being guilty of high injustice to the right of the King both in the matter of combination without Him and of conditional Allegiance to and preservation of Him as also the altering of Religion established by Law without His consent and as engaging to accuse all Malignants not accepting a mans own self and to endeavour that all such may be brought to punishment without hope of mercy or pardon binding also to pull down the established Church-Government before agreement upon another and every man to go before another in the example of Reâ—ormation without either waiting for the Minister to direct or Magistrates Authority to lead the way then these what can be more unjust binding also to impossibilities as to defend and assist ALL that engage into these Oâ—tâ—s and never to offer their opinions to neutrality or indifferency the very taking also of these Oaths was in fact directly contradicent to the formal words thereof for whereas they swear to extirpate Schism and Faction and to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdomes and Authority of the King The very taking and enforcing of these Oaths being a vowed Schism from their mother-Mother-Church a sworn Faction against their more Loyal Neighbours the greatest prejudice to the Liberties of the Kingdoms the taking of these being destructive to all legal Publike Liberties and the highest contempt that could be offered to the Kings Authority as appeareth not only from what is above-said but further in this that some of these Oaths did engage absolutely to preserve the power of Parliaments but the Kings Person and Authority with reservation for this end forsooth that the world may judge of their Loyalty and how they had no intention to diminish his just Power But left this short word by inlarging on these and such like peccancies of these late Covenant-Oaths should swell into a volumne We shall forhear Nor shall we speak of the unparalelled fraud and force practised in imposing these Oaths upon honest and wel-meaning Subjects neither of the grand impostur's whereby factious and self-designing men did speciously usher-in and drive-on their own base carnal interests under the colour of the interests of Jesus Christ in our sadly-experienced late Tragedies And shal briefly draw a corrolary from these above-specified Propositions concerning the Point of Episcopal Government in this Church and the sâ—eming obligation of the Subjects in this Land by their Oaths and Vows against it And it is this 1. That these Oaths in the first place were in the judgement of many of the most Sober and Learned simply sinful and unjust upon the score of their tendency to the extirpation of that form of Church-Government which they conceived to be of Divine Right and Institution so that in order to all these who were then or are yet of perswasion that Episcopacyis jure divino these Oaths cannot be supposed to be any wise in point of conscience binding And sure more may be said for a Divine Right and Institution of an imparity in degrees and even in office among Church-guides and so for Episcopacy then can be for any other Form or Model of Church-Government in the World But Secondly Passing this and supposing only Episcopal Government to have been upon the matter indifferent as I trust the more modest sober and moderate will readily acknowledge then for Subjects to engage by Covenants or Oaths for the utter extirpation thereof without the concurrence of Supreme Authority nay and against the consent and expresse will of the Soveraign Magistrate and the established standing Laws of this Kingdom of which the King alone is the Fountain and Origine Cum ipse sit author juris ut Bracton lib. 3. tra 1. c. 9. And as another eminent in Law saith wele Vita caput autoritas in Principe est omnium quae in republica agi solent How sinful then must needs these Oaths and Engagements have been How contrary to the just Right of the Soveraign Who in Adiaphoris and indifferents is acknowledg'd by all to be Summus Supremus Arbiter and therefore how invalid and insufficient as to obligation upon any who have been insnared by them is obvious to every eye that will not shut it self against convincing light How much also such are concerned heartily to homologat and close with His Majesti's Gracious Resolutions in the present setlement of this long tossed Church is as apparent But Thirdly As to the most rigid who to the admiration of the truely Sober would assert an intrinsecal unlawfulnesse and sinfulnesse in Episcopal Government however so wel regulated I say that even their Oath for the Extirpation of Episcopal Government cannot oblige even as to them being that for private Subjects by themselves to endeavour to establish or prefer any new Law however so just and laudable in it self or to reverse and rescind any standing Law however so unjust and sinful against or without the Soveraign's Will and Royal conseâ—â— is heinously sinful and rebellious and in it self and fine operis plainly Anarchical and eversive of all Government whatsomever and I trust no Oath to act rebellion sin or Anarchy will be supposed by any sober to be binding unlesse it be to a speedy and hearty repentance so that even the Engagements and Oaths of those who are most rigid in this matter were in themselves beyond all contradiction sinful and therefore can in no wayes be obligative even as to those So that upon what ever account else it may be that it pleaseth some men zealously to engage against Episcopacy in its present setlement and re-establishment it cannot be upon the value of their Oath as they would make simple people to believe as if that were an indispensablety stressing their consciences that being in its own nature sinful all combinations without Soveraign consent being such as themselves will now freely acknowledge and therefore they cannot but see themselves in conscience obliged to reverse and mourn for these their sinful Oaths And to deal a little freely so much talking of Oaths and indispensable Oaths with the frequent threats of the danger of perjury which have been so much thundred out to fright wel-meaning and tender Christians cannot
A BRIEF RESOLUTION Of the present Case of the SUBJECTS OF SCOTLAND In order to Episcopal Government by Sacred Authority re-established in this KINGDOME OR Episcopus Scoticanus Redivivus For the satisfaction of the People AVTHORE PHIL-ALETHIO Hos 10. 4. They have spoken words swearing falsely in making a Covenant thus judgement springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field Numb 30. 5 8 12 13 15 16. If the husband or father shall any wise disallow of the vows or oaths of his wife or daughter after that he hath heard them they do become void and neither stand nor bind and the Lord shall forgive her because the husband or father disallowed her Printed in the Year 1661. A BRIEF RESOLUTION Of the present Case of the SUBJECTS OF SCOTLAND In order to Episcopal Government Re-established by Sacred Authority in this KINGDOME CASE Whether the Lieges of Scotland have any real necessity imposed on them by any Oath or Covenant to any just scrupling of closing with Episcopacy to which by Sacred Authority this Kingdom is lately restored WIth what Caution and Warinesse men ought to imbarque themselves in all manner of Engagements needs not much Oil or Labour spent upon the Enquiry Scripture alone is sufficiently able to instruct us sometimes terming it a bond Ezek. 20 37. Sometimes a snare Prov. 6. 2. And verily he who doth unadvisedly engage doth many a time intangle himself in an intrigue of inextricable difficulties out of which he cannot so easily winde himself especially in the matter of Oaths in the time of popular confusions Men then being â—noxious to so many precipices of danger in making Ship-wrack of Conscience through Errour and Mis-prision on the one hand with fear and force on the other We need not much Range abroad in the inquest after witnesses to this truth our own home-bred late popular Covenants and Engagements bearing so much lamentable evidence of it upon them to this very day whileas these are still made use of as the Master-engines of some Polypragmatick-Male-contents for staving of honest and well-meaning People from that duty they owe to God their Mother-Church and our Gracious and undoubted Soveraign by making it their constant and zealous endeavour to invegle the people by presenting these as indispensable Bonds which are indeed but so many snares and so many Flaxen Fetters and Cob-webs which themselves in the most essential Points do break through at pleasure as God-willing shall be made clearly to appear in the sequel of this Discourse and yet amuse the Vulgar who reach not to the depths of things as if these were inviolable and indissoluble sacred wyths wherein they must ly tied neck and heel That therefore we may make appear how far the late Oaths Covenants c. whereby the people of this Land did engage themselves against Episcopal Government in this Church do bind and how far they may be dispensed with as to an after-performance and so whether to be reckoned among Sacred Bonds or sinful Snares I shall howbeit asmuch hath been already said to discover the sinfulnesse and invalidity of these Oaths c. by His late Majesty of Immortal Memory in His Admirable Book and Debates c. and by the Learned Renowned Doctors of Aberdene in their Demands Duplys as may put to silence all those who together with their duty have not forfaulted a Sober Rational mind lay down very briefly some few irrefragable Propositions concerning the bindingnesse of Oaths and Covenants in the general from which I shall draw a resolution of the Case in hand by way of Corrolary and then leave it upon the sober and impartial consideration of all un-prejudged to resolve whether these Covenant-Engagements be the indispensable Oaths of God as some â—o usually phrase it for amusing the simple or not As for these Pâ—nciples and Propositions which I trust may infer a full and satisfactory solution of the present Case I shall studying brevity reduce them all to these eight following Propos jma There is this first Proposition No man may swear or by subtilty or violence induce others to swear unlawfully This is full of evidence none being free to sin or any-wise to engage others to sin but to swear or to induce another by any means to swear unlawfully is beyond all peradventure sinful and therefore c. but we leave this on its own evidence and goe to the next Propos 2da There is this second Proposition That is not a lawfull or justifiable Oath which is not attended with Truth Righteousnesse and Judgement This Proposition is borrowed from the Prophet Jeremiah Jer. 4. 2. Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth in righteousnesse and in judgement Where we find the Holy Ghost laying down three grand qualifications of a lawful Oath viz. 1. That it be in truth which requireth not only that the thing sworn be true but also candor and sincerity in the undertaking without all falsehood and double-mindednesse 2. That it be in righteousnesse which requireth that the thing sworn be just and in it self lawful to be undertaken which is all one with that which Judicious Casuists speak viz. That the Oath be undertaken Super re licitâ Since God is not to be assum'd either for Witnesse or Over-seer of a thing simply unjust as if the matter sworn be unlawful he is who is a God of most pure eyes and cannot behold iniquity And moreover because it binds a man to the doing of a thing which yet the very intrinsecal condition of the matter refuseth a performance of Upon this ground Herod was not bound notwithstanding his promise and oath to deliver the Baptist's head to Herodias her daughter no more were these fourty Conspirators against St. Paul Act. 23. 12 13 c. Neither David by his having sworn and vowed the destruction of churlish Nabal 1 Sam. 25. 22 c. And then 3. that it be in judgement Which requireth that the thing undertaken by Oath be not unmeet and undue to be performed but due and convenient and which is mostly imported that it be deliberately and pensiculately set about These three qualifications are ingredients absolutely necessary for constituting a lawful Oath being that it is intrinsecally sinful to swear either falsly or unjustly or to swear the performance of that which is unmeet and inconvenient to be undertaken as also to engage rashly unadvisedly and without deliberation into any Covenant or Oath whatsomever But Propos 3ia There is this third Proposition A promissary Oath which is undertaken to the certain prejudice of another mans just right cannot be attended with justice This needs not much debate upon its evidence being that Justitia tribuit â—uique snum Justice being a vertue whereby to every man his Due and Own are rendered If therefore any Oath engage to the performance of that which doth clearly prejudge any other in that which is his due and just right it is an unrighteous Oath and because of its injustice is
of it self vacated from being binding or obligatory But Propos 4ta There is this fourth Proposition No prejudice or violence done to the right of any other man can be so highly dangerous and sinful as that prejudice and violence which are done to the just right of the Supream Magistrate and His Soveraign Authority This is undeniably irrefragable for in so far as the Publike Interest is beyond the Private in regard of worth and excellence and as to intemerable preservation so far is the prejudice done to the just right of the Soveraign Magistrate and His Authority incomparably sinful beyond what can be done to the right of any private Subject or Subjects whatsomever But Propos 5ta There is this fifth Proposition The just right of the Soveraign Magistrate and His Authority is egregiously trampled upon and prejudged when private Subjects encroach upon it and do upon suspition or jealousie of disallowed intentions or actions of their Soveraign Princes combine confederate or binde themselves to Allow Enact or Establish any thing much more to reverse or repeal allowed established and standing Laws concerning any matters belonging to Religion upon the we le or ill administration whereof the greatest security or ruine of a State depends without much more against the consent and command of lawful Soveraign Authority This Proposition is clear not only from the Municipal and known Laws of this Kingdom but even from the very Law and light of nature it self for it is obvious to every Tenderer of Soveraignty that it is one of the choisest and most inviolable Jewels of the Crown of a Supream Power to which none are co-ordinate but all subordinate as to every Supream Power as Supream all must needs be viz. That no Popular Combinations Bonds or Leagues should be among Subjects upon what score or pretence how specious soever without much lesse against the consent and command of the Authority foresaid for and if it were fâ—ee for Subjects thus at pleasure to Combine Confederate c. A King in which the Supream Power in a true Monarchy resides were but a bare weak titular King and shaddow only of a Soveraign depending prècario upon the Subjects whom at pleasure they might cast off or destroy nay and of it self it opens a patent door for the eversion and ruine of all Government and Supream Power so that any who will may by a Confederacy rebel upon one pretext or another Hence it 's evident there can be no greater encroachment upon no higher prejudice done unto Soveraign Authority then for Subjects in any-wise to Combine or Bind themselves against the Supream Royal Will and without consent of the Soveraign And if it be so high a prejudice done to the just right of the Soveraign for Subjects in any case to Combine or Confederat without him were it even to the carrying on of standing and known Laws what a heinous injury must it infer upon the Soveraignes just right for Subjects to Combine for the reversing and repealing of established and standing Laws without nay and forcibly against Royal Commands is not this the most superlative and transcendent prejudice which can be done to the just right of the Supream Authority But here now that we may a little more unfold this Proposition it would be noticed that it is deem'd a favourable plea by some for Subjects tho in no case else yet in the Concern of Religion to Combine and Confederate without the allowance or consent of Soveraign Authority for redressing abuses and reforming disorders therein especially when the Supream Magistrate being required thereto doth deny his concurrence and withhold the shoulder But such men they are not aware that in this they joyne issue with Phanatick Anabaptists and the bloodiest of the Popes devotionaries who with them in this resemble Sampson's Foxes being linkt together by the Tails though their Heads look different wayes and with them cry up the lawfulnesse of carrying on a Reformation in Religion by outward force and violence so much contrary to the wayes and Word of God Joh. 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this world c. If it were my servants would fight Where blessed Christ Jesus doth plainly insinuate that His Kingdom being spiritual cannot must not be advanced with temporal armes for the weapons of the Christians warfare are not Carnal but Spiritual 2 Cor. 10. 4. There is no command from Christ to kill and slay the common enemies of our Religion but contrariwise to pray for our persecuters and not to resist evil Matth. 5. 44. See also other Scriptures such as Zech. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 6. 2. and 2 Tim. 2. 25 c. Nay and this course it is against the very nature of Religion it self for faith which is the Soul of Religion is an inward act of the soul which all the force in the world can neither plant nor extirpate â—am suddenda non cogenda est Conformable to this was the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Pious Sober Primitive Church which had learned better what belong'd to Authority then to resist the Ordinance of God even in a Heathen Caesar whose Religion enjoyn'd them not to kill but to be killed for it Nor was this for want of ability but of Authority As we read in the most Ancient Apologists for the Christian Faith such as Arnob. Lactant. Cyprian cont Demetr Tertull. in apol ad Scap. Just in Tryph. August in Psalm 144. Ambros in luc 22. 38. Athan. epist ad solit vitam agentes c. Then further Popular Reformation or Covenanting for Reformation of Religion without concurrence of the Supream Magistrate hath no warrantable president but rather to the contrary in Sacred Writ See those Scriptures at convenience Deut. 29. 2 10 11 12 c. Josh 24. 25. 2 King 23. 23. 2 Chron. 15. 8 12. and cap. 29. 3 10. and cap. 34. 31 32. Ezra 10. 3 4 5. In all which and in many the like you have ever the Chief Magistrates Moses Joshua Hezekiah Josiah c. concurring or rather going before the People as their place requir'd in the several Reformations therein mentionate but no where the people Covenanting upon a Reformation of Religion even in times of the worst of Kings without concurrence of the Supream Magistrate Arise for the matter belongs to thee saith the whole Assembly of Elders there met to Ezra the prime Ruler in that cited place Ezra 10. 4. To shun the force of which Argument and for a sinful impairing the Supreme Power of the Soveraign some have â—ancied a supposed co-ordination of power I shall not once name these whose impudence hath imboldned them to assert a monstrous Subordination of the Soveraign to the People betwixt our King and His People in their representative Meetings This indeed is the Arch-pillar upon which some of no small Note have laid the stresse of their Cause for the supportment of the lawfulnesse of Popular-reformings without the Supreme and Royal Consent But surely this as it