Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	humane_a	law_n	obligation_n	1,134	5	9.8189	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85826	The Covenanters plea against absolvers. Or, A modest discourse, shewing why those who in England & Scotland took the Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their consciences discharged from the obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the Oxford men; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others. In which also several cases relating to promisory oathes, and to the said Covenant in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, reason, and the joynt suffrages of casuists. Contrary to the indigested notions of some late writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson. Written by Theophilus Timorcus a well-wisher to students in casuistical divinity.	Timorcus, Theophilus.; Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654, attributed name.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656, attributed name.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing G314; Thomason E1053_13; ESTC R202125	85,431	115

Oath that he will never bear the Office of Mayoralty in that City this man is chosen by the Freemen What shall he do Not hold saith Dr. Sanderson but pay his money his Oath will bind here against the active part of the Law So that if there were 40. penal Lawes which might seem to establish the Hierarchy against which the Covenant is directed the Covenant will bind us against them all thus far viz to suffer the penalty annexed for not owning them rather than to own and acknowledge them But yet further § 35. 4. Let us examine the reason why an Oath should not bind against Law There can be no other pretended but the dominion which God hath reserved to Superiors over their Inferiors So that if this which we call Law be not clearly an establishment of our Superiors to whom legistative power belongs which meer usage and custom is not arguing no more than permission of Superiors or if the Law be an exercise of dominion in things ubi non habent dominium where Gods Word allows them no such dominion an Oath will certainly bind against such pretended Lawes Hence Azorius well notes that boni mores sunt varii i.e. Azor. mor. qu. l. 11. cap. 6. good manners or customs are various some commanded by the written Law of God some by the written Canon Law some by the Civil Law And saith he that maxim that Juramentum contra bonos more 's non obligat An Oath against good manners customs lawes doth not oblige is to be understood if it be contra bonos more 's juris naturalis vel divini Scripti vel Canonici secus autem est si juramentum sit contra bonos more 's jure civili institutos i. e. against good Lawes or manners commanded by the divine Law of God written or by the Canon Law but 't is otherwise if those good manners be only commanded by Civil Lawes Sanches l. 3. cap. 9. Suarez l. 2. de jur cap. 21. Layman tract mor. l. 4. cap. 6. To the same purpose determine Sanchis Layman and many other Casuists The reason why they add the Canon-Law is because they believe their Church cannot erre so that an Oath against their Church Canons is to them equivalent with an Oath against the Law of God § 36. 5. Yet it must be granted that Oaths in some cases against Civil Lawes may be void but it is far from being granted to be an universal Truth Abbas Sylvester Azorius Molina Lessius Layman Sanches Suarez all agree that an Oath will bind against any civil Law if the Law doth obligare ad paenam non ad culpam necessariò i. e. oblige not necessarily to sin in case of refusal but to punishment which is what we said before nay the most of them add further that it will bind against them ubi materia legibus opposita sine peccato sieri potest i.e. where the matter of it can without sin be performed being not contra jus naturale aut divinum 6. Bartolus Bartolus de fide jussor the great Lawyer gives several Rules in the case 1. He saies an Oath taken against the Civil Lawes of a Nation made chiefly for a publick good will not oblige which Rule yet Azorius doth not think proved by Covarruvias or Imolas the friends of Bartolus in the case 2. An Oath taken to confirm a Bargain which Bargain is contrary to the Law will saith he bind till the Church absolves As if one swears to pay an Usurer more than the Law alloweth the Usurer to take or to pay a Thief a Summe of Money to redeem his life supposing a Law to make such a Contract void yet the Oath would bind Sayri claevis regia l. 11. ca. 13. Upon this case Gregor Sayrus determines That supposing a Law that all contracts for the payment of money won by play shall be void yet if one have sworn to pay his Fellow-gamester he is bound to pay it He quotes with him in this opinion Navarrus Bannez Salon Lopez Med na c. A third Rule he gives is this 3. If the Oath be only contrariant to a civil Law made only for the advantage of him that sweareth the Oath will bind against the Law We dare not justifie all these Rules But we will put a case or two to our Brethren who are so free of their pardons and absolutions in this case All know that it is against the Law of England that a woman under Covert Baron should dispose of her estate which she hath in Joynture Suppose now her husband proves a Bankrupt or be imprisoned for debt or suppose the woman her self wants money and she to furnish her self or deliver her husband borrowes a sum of money swearing to him of whom she borrows it that if God lets her live to enjoy her Joynture some Deed which she makes against Law for the security of the Creditor shall be made good though against Law Shall not her Oath bind her The Law of England expresly forbids giving above 6lb per cent for Interest Suppose one swears in his necessity to give 8lb per cent Will not this Oath bind think we in short Azorius determines bluntly Quando contractus est solum jure civili interdictus jurejurando confirmatur That an Oath will bind to fulfil a contract only forbidden by a civil Law § 37. We are not altogether satisfied in the Popish Casuists reasons for this determination we judge this question cannot be well resolved without the resolution of another very weighty question viz. How far humane Lawes bind the Conscience We do believe that all such humane Lawes as do necessarily tend to preserve the Government and tranquility of a civil state because they are confirmed by the Law of nature and the divine Law revealed do apertly bind the Conscience so that an Oath taken against them is forthwith void But for Lawes not plain and certain and express nor having such necessary tendency to the being of a civil state nor being so conformable to the Law of Nature or written Law of God whether they lay such an hold on the Conscience as to make void an Oath we think deserves our Absolvers second thoughts possibly the taking of such Oaths might be at first inadvised and unlawful but being taken that they are voided by second thoughts that the matter of them was against Law we cannot but a little doubt and believe our Brethren have few Casuists or other Divines of their minds in the case § 38. Nor yet is this our case where the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament to whom though not solely the legislative power belongs do themselves take and require others to take an Oath to endeavour the extirpation of a Form of Government which they apprehended inconvenient which it is true was established by the usage of a long tract of time but no positive Law was existent directing it as the Government of the Church in England though

THE COVENANTERS PLEA AGAINST Absolvers Or a MODEST DISCOURSE SHEWING Why those who in England Scotland took The Solemn League and Covenant cannot judge their Consciences discharged from the Obligation of it by any thing heretofore said by the OXFORD MEN or lately by Dr Featly Dr. Gauden or any others In which also several Cases relating to PROMISORY OATHES and to the said COVENANT in special are spoken to and determined by Scripture Reason and the joynt Suffrages of Casuists Contrary to the indigested Notions of some late Writers yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. SANDERSON Written out by THEOPHIIUS TIMORCUS a Well-wisher to Students in Casuistical Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menander LONDON Printed for T. B. and are to be Sold in Westminster Hall and Pauls Church-yard 1661. The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes c. Chap. 14. upon the Covenant As things now stand good men shall least offend God or me by keeping their Covenant by good and lawful means since I have the Charity to think that the chief End of the Covenant in such mens Intentions was to preserve Religion in Purity and the Kingdom in Peace To the Honourable The COMMONS Assembled in the PARLIAMENT of England More especially Such as serve for the Western Parts and for the several Burroughs in Cornwall Honourable Senators § 1. THE Name of a God hath ever been esteemed so sacred the Reverence of Oathes so great and the sin of Perjury so infamous even amongst those who knew not God but knew by nature the things contained in his Law that if any man speaks at an advantage to his brother he may promise himself the highest improvements of it who pleads that the holy Name of the Lord may not be profaned that the highest security for mens saith may not be violated and that the guilt of Perjury may not be incurred § 2. This Noble Senators is the argument of the following sheets and we think our selves happy that we shall speak for our God and for our own souls before you touching all the things whereof we are accused and touching a most sacred Oath which we have taken with the highest Solemnities that ever attended any publick action especially because we know that many of your souls are bound in the same Bond with us and that our selves were brought into it by that Authority which God hath now devolved into your hands and that you are expert in all customs and questions which relate to the English Lawes and Liberties and we know also that you believe the Scriptures We beseech you therefore to hear us patiently § 3. We fear the great and living God who hath said You shall not swear by my Name falsly neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God Having therefore at the Command of Lords and Commons Assembled in-Parliament Anno 1643 1644. lift up our hands unto God and sworn that we would endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy that is the Government of the Church by Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Officers depending upon that Hierarchy we cannot go back either by endeavouring to build what we have destroyed or by any positive owning of any such Ecclesiastical Authority though we acknowledge our selves obliged by all sacred Bands to be actively obedient both to the King as Supream and likewise to the Parliament in all things where he who is higher than the Highest hath not by his Command superseded such our Allegiance and where the salvation of our immortal souls is not hazarded And which God forbid if any thing of that nature should by any mistake be commanded by you we humbly acknowledge it our duty without any thoughts of rebelling against you to exercise our Faith and Patience in suffering what shall be imposed upon us committing the cause of our souls to him who judgeth righteously § 4. For our Consciences in this thing most noble Senators are we this day called in question and judged for what we do in obedience as we humbly conceive to the holy Law of God For this Conscience sake in reference to our Oath are we accused by our Brethren § 5. Out of the Conscience of that Oath it was that many of your selves have suffered and done many things both in opposition to the late usurpations of Government and for the restoring of his most Sacred Majesty you have not also wanted Companions in your Sufferings from our inferior Orbe where many have been found who that they might keep their souls clear from so high a guilt as that of Perjury have not only been content to deny themselves advantages of preferment but to suffer the loss of Life Livelihood Liberty to be Exiles in a strange Land and to forsake whatsoever hath been dear to them § 6. We are now told Right Honourable that all your and our Sufferings upon this account were in vain for the Oath of God which we so reverence was ab initio null and void That the matter of it was sinful and unlawful seditious schismatical That the power imposing it was unlawful the design of it Rebellion and Faction that it was a forced Oath c. § 7. We know and are assured that this cannot be the sense of your Honours concerning it For whose were the Votes and Ordinances by which our souls were engaged in that Sacred Bond Certainly by the men whose these were our Consciences are with child with this Oath and we have so reverent thoughts of your Honours charity that you will so far contribute to our safe delivery that we shall not die for want of that help which you can give us § 8. Yet because not only our private Honour but the Honour also of the English Parliament and Nation are as we humbly conceive deeply concerned in our vindication as to this Point we have thought it our duty to lay at your Honours feet a just Apology for our selves and for the Oath which at the command of some of your Honours we have taken together with our PLEA in vindication of the Parliament of England from that Irreligion which some have charged upon them in imposing an Oath contrary to the Law of God that Ignorance which others charge them with for commanding an Oath contrary to the Lawes of the Nation yea from that want of common sense which others impute to them in the contrivement of an Oath so full of contradictions both to former Oaths and within it self that forsooth it must needs be felo de se and die if not by the wounds of former Obligations yet by the ill-favoured hands of its own nonsence or self contradiction § 9. As to our concernment most noble Patriots upon whom the ends of the time of Reformation are come we are not so much concerned now to enquire whether the imposing and taking of that Covenant at first were lawfull yea or no Our Question is Whether we having taken it are not now

Conscience sake and therefore humbly beg that you would weigh our Answers to the slighty and Atheological Pleas of those who pretend to prove the Covenant void and not obligatory What they say appears to us to be against Scripture Reason and the judgment of all sober Casuists and we believe will so appear to you § 19. The Princes of the greatest Congregation of England Right Honourable i. e. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament were those who sware and who engaged us to swear If our Adversaries may be believed the design of the Oath was to engage the Scots in the Parliaments quarrel His Majesty then living as we said before had more charitable thoughts sure it is that it was a mutual stipulation between the Scots and us Casuists say that my Oath doth not bind my Heir which is true in some cases but they as generally agree the real obligation of an Oath as to the person to whom we swear for their advantages We are sure the Jews which were punished with three years Famine in Saul's time were none of those who had personally sworn to the Gibeonites in the time of Joshuah yet God revengeth their Breach of their Fathers Oath upon them It may be worthy of your Honours consideration whether the Obligation contracted by Oath by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament 1643 1644. do not bind the Noble Lords with your selves who this day make up those Honourable Assemblies though personally you never were engaged in it § 20. However we know and believe that your Honours will be so jealous for the Glorious Name of God so tender of the Souls of the People in these Nations engaged in that Sacred Bond and so afraid of the wrath of God revealed in his Word and by his Providence against those who have made others Sufferers for righteousnesse sake and so careful for the Honour of the Nation that you will not by any Act of yours contribute to any of these ends which will all be the certain consequents of the violation of that Sacred Oath § 21. For as it cannot be imagined but that your Honours Authority establishing any thing contrary to that Oath will be a temptation to many to break that sacred Bond so it can as little be thought but that there will be many thousands in England who will believe that nothing can discharge their Consciences from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon them and therefore will be obliged to go chearfully into the Prisons which shall be provided for them and to suffer any thing rather than to sin against the Lord by such a presumptuous transgression § 22. Besides this we most humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the things endeavoured to be restored have upon former experience proved or may probably be judged like to prove of such advantage either to the civil or religious interests of England as may be fit to be laid in the Ballance with the laying aside so many hundreds if not thousands of Godly Ministers and the sufferings and undoing of so many peaceable and godly people as will be laid a side and made sufferers by the restoring of things in the Church to their formes state after an Oath taken to the contrary § 23. Many of your Honours we know have not yet forgotten how many hard things were suffered in former times by many Godly people in this Nation because in Conscience they could not submit to these things how many of the Kings Subjects were to the weakning of the Nation driven into Forreign Lands to the undoing of themselves and their Families how by this means divers Mysteries of Trades of manufacture in which the wealth of this Nation much lay were communicated to other People all which things formerly were judged worthy of Parliamentary Consideration § 24. We humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the same persons in most places of England be not again endeavouring to be possessed if they be not already invested with the same power and whether after twenty years suffering it be probably to be conceived that they are less full of rage Let enquiry be made at Oxford Cambridge Peterborough c. than formerly And if any hath so much Charity as to think that their sufferings have taught them more moderation we desire your Honours would enquire what specimens they have any where already given of it This we humbly move to your Honours that you may represent it to his Majesty whose Royal Grandfather was such a Zealous Defender of the free Grace of God against Arminians and who himself hath declared such a Zeal against vitious prophane and debauched persons that we cannot but believe him not truly informed either concerning the Principles or conversations of divers persons to whom advantages are given against their Brethren § 25. We are not Right Honourable against the use of an unimposed Lyturgy nor against Primitive Episcopacy we can submit to both we do not think the Covenant was intended against either of these But we are against the divine Right of Archbishops Bishops c. We believe that in the Primitive Church there might be Episcopus praeses a Grave Minister President over his Brethren living within a Circuit proportionate to his Ability for inspection and that without him nothing was ordinarily done in Ordination or Jurisdiction But that he alone could do any thing in either we utterly deny We are sure that in the Primitive Church there was no Archbishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons We are against those Forms of Worship contained in the Service-Book ordinary to be had We believe they are not established by the Lawes of the Land as we have heretofore in a Book for that purpose published made evident to your Honours We are sure that we have lifted up our hands to God that we will endeavour a Reformation in that Point We know that they are offensive in an high degree to the generality of godly and sober men that there are many things in those Books not to be justified in Divinity We are not against the 39 Articles which is usually called the Doctrine of the Church of England We are ready to subscribe all of them so far as they concern matters of Doctrine But we are against Arminianism against which not only King James of Glorious Memory gave an open testimony but the Parliament of England hath also heretofore openly declared And in regard the Patrons of those Points take advantage of some doubtful terms in those Articles as patronizing those their Tenets though the Kings and Parliaments of England have heretofore declared their detestation of those Points We could heartily wish a further explanation of them We are against moral and significant Ceremonies such as the Surplice the Cross in Baptism Bowing at the Name of Jesus Cringing to Altars c. We believe that these things are not only scandalous and unprofitable things that perish with the using but also

several Forms of verbal Obligations simple and mixt of a Promise and Oath a Vow a Covenant the distinct nature of each the Covenant proved to be a Compound of all and therefore highly obligatory p. 3. CHAP. III. Containing a Corollary from the Premises concluding the mistake of those who say an Oath adds no special Obligation beyond the Reason and Religion of the matter p. 10. CHAP. IV. The further Obligatory vertue of the Covenant argued from the Solemnities of it arguing the violation deliberate and infamous p. 11. CHAP. V. Rules in general concerning the interpretation of Oaths those applied to the Covenant and the true sence of it evinced from them p. 12. CHAP. VI. The Absolvers pretended Errours in the Covenant examined in part The Covenant as to the matter of it so far as respects Prelacy not contrary to the Word of God the Plea of it contrary to the Laws of the Church or State examined and proved insufficient for the irritation of it p. 19. CHAP. VII The Absolvers Plea from Schism considered The Nature of Schism No guilt of Schism by endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy Their Plea also from the supposed contradiction in the matter of the Covenant to the matter of former Oaths particularly the Coronation-Oath the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy and Canonical Obedience answered and found vain p. 34. CHAP. VIII The Absolvers Plea for the irritation of the Covenant from the supposed contradictions in it self confuted and the Covenant notwithstanding this suggestion proved valid and obligatory p. 42. CHAP. IX Whether the Errour of any mans Conscience that took the Covenant can discharge him from the observance of it p. 45. CHAP. X. The Absolvers Plea against the Covenant as Impeditivum boni false and if true not conclusive according to Casuists p. 48. CHAP. XI The Covenant cleared from any faults as to the efficient causes whether external or internal sufficient to make it void being once taken the Plea from the supposed unlawfulness of the power imposing if true proved insufficient p. 51. CHAP. XII The Absolvers Arguments from the present dissent of the King who then was argued the Case stated and resolved the Rules applied to the present Case the Argument from hence for the irritation of the Covenant proved vain p. 53. CHAP. XIII Where the Absolvers Plea from the force attending the Covenant is considered and proved vain Oaths extorted by fear do oblige in Conscience proved from Scripture Reason the Opinions of Dr. Sanderson Aquinas Azorius and all sober Casuists for their Obligation p. 57. 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 p. 67. 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 p. 69 CHAP. XVI Concerning the Limitations of the Covenant common to all Promissory Oaths or particularly relating to this What endeavour as to the mattter of the Covenant is not required p. 73 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 he saith he hath but resolved to break the Bonds and to cast the Cords behind him p. 75. The Covenanters PLEA AGAINST ABSOLVERS CHAP. I. The ancient and just Reverence of Oathes evinced from the Light of Nature the Revelation of Scripture The contempt of Perjury arguing Atheism worse than that of Pagans § 1. WHen we consider the superlative Religion of those who knew not God for Fidelity which was so sacred amongst the Sabines that they made it an Idol in which superstition the Romans did not only comply with them but assigned her a place in their Capitol next to Jupiter himself teaching their Orator to cry Colunto illa propter quae datur homini ascensus in Coelum Mentem Virtutem Cic. de Leg. Pietatem Fidem Let them worship the Stairs by which men ascend unto heaven Vertue Piety and Fidelity Insomuch that Augustine in his Book de Civitate Dei is put to the charge of a Chapter to dethrone this noble Vertue a little by removing it from the Seat of God When we find so much honesty in Livy as to determine Livii Hist. l. 1. That faith and Oathes were sufficient to rule a City though there were no Laws nor Magistrates and Tully concluding Cicero de Offic lib. 3. that Faith should be kept with the worst of men ne quaeratur latebra perjurio that there might be no Sanctuary for perjury in the world We cannot but fear lest the men of Tyre and Sidon should rise up against this generation and condemn it in which not only the Godly men seem to be ceased Psal 12.1 but the faithfull also seem to be failed from amongst the children of men They speak vanity every man with his neighbour with flattering lips and a double heart do they speak § 2. But when we further read that the Heathens did not only hallow the name of their Idol Fides or Fideus and authorize it to be invoked in swearing but affirm also Quod affirmatè quasi Deo teste promiseris id tenendum est jam enim non ad iram Deorum Sed ad fidem justitiam pertinet That whatsoever men promised to do before God as a witness that they should do not for fear of the Gods anger but out of reverence to Faith and Justice When we remember the pretty stories of Jupiters Fountain of Tyana the waters in Sardinia and Bithynia and the Acadine Well mentioned by Aristotle all which had their several malignant Influences as they fabled upon such odious transgressors as had broken their Faith once sealed by the contestation of an Idol we are ready to cry out sit anima nostracum Philosophis Let our soules portion rather be with those old Philosophers than with those quibus as Baldwin saith nec ara nec fides nec ulla pactio firma est to whom indeed nothing is firm nothing possible to be sealed Hear oh Heavens and be astonished oh Earth Have any people under heaven been so vile prostitutors of the Faith of men or so irreverent to an acknowledged Deity that having sworn by those who were no Gods they would go back and despise their Obligation Yet in these dayes men think it nothing and that in Oaths taken by the dreadful name of the true and living God to mock and play with their Sacred Bands and as Lysander in Plutarch to justifie it as lawful as to cheat Boyes with false Dice And were this done by the unhallowed rabble of men it would not be such an astonishment to us as to see it done by Rabbies in our Israel straining their wits upon the Tainters

of Magna Charta c. upon which they insist when they tell us such pretty stories as these and then we shall shape a more particular answer to that cavil 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 onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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

this time was speaking to the Heads of the Tribes concerning the Children of Israel yet he omits this case as having no special Command from the Lord in it and it will be granted that in many things wherein the Magistrate hath not power over his Subjects the Husband hath power over his wife and the Father over the Child § 6. That the words of this Text are not to be understood in their utmost Latitude is universally acknowledged by Casuists Aq. 22. e. q. 89. art 9 Filiucias tract 25. cap. 9. Azor. mor. inst l. 11. cap. 10. Sanches l. 3. cap 9 11. Ames cas l. 4. cap. 22. qu 11. League illleg p. 10 11. § 1. The matter of the Vow must be such wherein the Law of God hath subjected us to the power of our Superiors Thus Aquinas Sanchez Azorius Filiucius Dr. Ames Dr. Sanderson and indeed all others agree Dr. Featly discoursing against the Covenant saith that to fulfil the express Command of God no man doubteth but that a Covenant may be made not only without but even against the Command of a Prince And indeed the reason is evident because the dominion of the Superior is the reason of the discharge or the suspension of the obligation of such Oaths But saith Dr. Sanderson there is none so much under the power of another but as to some things he is sui juris in his own power and not under his dominion § 2. The Superior when he hears of his Subjects Oaths in such matter must declare openly his dissent For saith the Text if he holds his peace De jur prom prael 4. §. 6. he hath confirmed the Oath To the ratification of an Interiors Oath a praecedaneous express consent is not necessary but a tacit consent is sufficient § 3. The Superior must declare his dissent presently The Text saith in the day that he heard thereof If he hath omitted it but one day saith the Doctor he hath ratified the Oath Qui serò●fe nolle significat putandus est aliquandiu voluisse The dissent must be not only palam but statim § 4. It must be a constant dissent For suppose an Inferior hath sworn an Oath and his Superior hearing of it saith to him presently you shall not do it and the next day or at any time afterwards saith he shall or gives him leave to do it the Inferiors Oath will from that day bind again the reason of this is here Because the Superiours power doth not extend so far as to cancel the obligation of an Oath but only to suspend it De Jur. prom pr. 3. Sect. 10. Dr. Sanderson saith excellently That there is in every Oath a natural and inseparable obliging vertue the operation of which may be hindred but that impediment being removed the Bowl returns to its Byas the Oath binds and this as naturally as water runs in its channel when the dam is thrown down that hinders it or a stone moves to its center when the thing that staied it is removed God himself cannot make a thing that is not to have bin The Oath having been made hath its natural and inseparable vertue the operation of which in some cases indeed the Superiors dissent may hinder but cannot deprive it of its obliging vertue So that though at first he dissents and so stops the Oath from its present working upon the Conscience yet he cannot destroy the nature of it and when his dissent is removed upon second thoughts the Oath obligeth § 5. If once the Superior hath consenied either tacitly or expresly praecedaneously or subsequently he can never by his dissent again either discharge us from the Oath or suspend the Obligation of it Dr. Sand. 16. prael 7. sect 6. In this case saith Dr. Sanderson it is a true Rule Quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet The reason is because Gods Word in this case declares the Oath established for ever Dr. Sanderson saith truly That if the Superior hath either consented to the Oath before the taking of it or at any time after the taking of it he can never afterwards make it void or take away its Obligation An Oath is not a thing to be jested with Ludere cum sacris prophanum est § 6. To apply this to the present case of the Covenant Is it clear that people are under the power of Magistrates so far as to the things of God that the Magistrates may set up what Government in the Church they please and under what Officers they please Or hath not Christ in the Gospel determined the Substantials of Government as to Officers and Rules of Government If the latter be true Dr. Featly saith none doubts but people may covenant without their Superiors to fulfil the Laws of God If there be no Law of God in the case why do our Brethren plead Episcopacy by divine right and not tell the Parliament that they may alter that Form if they please § 7. Secondly We must profess our selves no Lawyers but may it be taken for an undoubted truth That the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament have no power to impose an Oath upon people otherwise good and lawful without the King of Englands consent first had If it be so we freely submit and have nothing to say against it but then it will only follow that it was sinfully imposed and taken not that it doth not oblige If it be not so the want of the Superiors consent is not to be pleaded in the case § 8. Did his Sacred Majesty in the day that he heard thereof presently and openly declare his disallowance of it If not it is ratified for ever We have heard indeed but never saw his Majesties Proclamation against it We are sure that Printed with Dr. Featly's Book relates not to it but to a former Vow and Covenant quite of another nature § 9. However it is certain that his Sacred Majesty if that Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be his which we think none in their wits doubt after it was taken declares That good men should least offend God and him in keeping of it Though inded his Sacred Majesty liked not to impose it upon those of his Subjects who might in Conscience scruple it yet he certainly ratifies the obligation of the Oath in Conscience to those that had taken it He was not willing by making his Peoples Oath void according to Numb 30.25 to bear their iniquity CHAP. XIII Where the Absolvers Plea from the force attending the Covenant is considered and proved vain Oaths extorted by fear do obligè in Conscience proved from Scripture Reason the Opinions of Dr. Sanderson Aquinas Azorius and all sober Casuists for their Obligation § 1. WE are told in the next place that the Covenant was forced and extorted by penalties and that not only from Ministers and Fellowes of Colledges and from the vulgar people but even from his Sacred Majesty and therefore it is null and void

times however forgotten now That every Oath which any man had made and could keep without the hazard of his eternal salvation he was obliged to keep In this Rule also agree Sanchez Suarez Molina c. § 19. Sixthly Because the performance of a Promise ratified by such an Oath is a vertuous action supposing the matter of the promise lawful though it be not necessary yet when we have promised it the performance becomes actus virtutis for no act individuo is indifferent whatever it may be in specie Sanches saith truly that it is not necessary to make an Oath oblige that the matter be necessary it is enough if it be free and indifferent and if no more yet an Oath makes it necessary as to us and a Promise in such a matter saith Cajetan whose Argument this is is a vertuous Act and such must the fulfilling of it be § 20. Seventhly A multiplication of ineffectual causes though it implieth an addition to their number yet it adds nothing to their weight saith Filiucius Here are two causes in the present case which may be pretended why such Oaths should not oblige 1. The Injury 2. The Fear Both these are inoperative and ineffectual singly 1. Fear alone will not nullisie an Oath as we said before an Oath into which a lawful power doth fright his Subjects by penalties is yet obligatory and granted so by all 2. The injury of an usurped power will not do it without fear Casuists agree that Oaths otherwise lawful imposed by unlawful powers if once taken do oblige Now it is against reason that these two ineffectual causes should joyntly do what it is granted that they cannot singly and apart This is Filiucius his Argument § 21. Eightly Justice requires that a condition lawful to be performed by me should be made good to another De Jur. prom prael 4 Sect. 15. when I have obtained the end for which I so engaged Dr. Sanderson speaks like a Divine in this case Every conditional Covenant the condition being fulfilled obligeth Whence both he and others conclude that if any man hath sworn to a Thief that upon consideration that he shall spare his life he will pay to him such or such a sum of money he is bound to pay it § 22. Ninthly saith Dr. Sanderson We ought alwaies to suspect our carnal wisdom and reason as contrary to purity of heart and peace of Conscience But what can be called wisdom of the flesh if this be not to oppose our own reason without any warrant of Scripture to the express and severe Letter of Scripture concerning the Obligation of Oaths § 23. Lastly saith Dr. Sanderson which is also observed by Baldwin in the case The Heathens stand upon Record commended to posterity for the not violating such Oathes Amongst whom is Regulus so highly as we remember commended by Augustine and Pompnius the Tribune honoured by Tully who yet elsewhere seems to be of a different mind to Divines in this Case § 24. Upon these and the like Reasons we with the generality of Divines of all sorts and in all ages conclude against the Sciolists and Novellists in Divinity of this present age That Oaths extorted by fear are if otherwise lawful notwithstanding such frights or pretended force obligatory § 25. In which Conclusion Divines are so highly agreed that they not only determine the Traveller bound to pay the sum of money which he hath sworn to pay to a Thief for the sparing of his life but also That he who is justly imprisoned and in danger yea certain to lose his life if he return to his Keepers hands having sealed his Parol with his Oath that he might have a liberty of breathing in the open Air is bound in Conscience to return Yea the most though Vasquez Corruvias and some others dissent determine him so bound though he be unjustly and unlawfully imprisoned § 26. We shall only add this That if this new Divinity be allowed in the world that Oaths to which one is frighted do not oblige the widest flood-gate imaginable will be set open to Perjury It is but for any Subject to say he was by the penalty annexed frighted into the taking of his Oaths of Allegiance and Obedience to his Superiors and he will be discharged But enough for such a piece of licentious Doctrine not fit to ba mentioned amongst Christians 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