Chapter 67

to harden their hearts to come against them in battle, and so to overrule the matter, by a secret and inscrutable providence, that the Israelites might lawfully and should certainly destroy them and show them no mercy. Even as that same God who, by one word, showed unto Abraham what was his duty, bidding him offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2, by another word signified unto him what he had decreed to be done, forbidding him to lay his hand upon the lad, or to do anything unto him, ver. 12. But this, I know, will be very unsavoury language to many Arminianised conformitants.

The other law of war which Junius, upon Deut. xx., observeth, prescribed to the Israelites how they should deal with them who refused their peace. And here only was the difference made betwixt the cities which were very far off and the cities of the Canaanites, Deut. xx. 15, 16; but the first law was common, as hath been proven.

Joseph Hall seemeth to deny that the oath of the princes of Israel had any power to bind, but upon another ground than Dr Forbesse took to himself. “It would seem very questionable (saith Hall(1280)) whether Joshua needed to hold himself bound to this oath; for fraudulent conventions oblige not; and Israel had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity.”

_Ans._ I marvel how it could enter in his mind to think this matter questionable, since the violation of that oath was afterwards punished with three years’ famine, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2. Yet let us hearken to his reasons. One of them is forged; for the princes of Israel who sware unto them put in no caveat at all. The text saith only in the general, that they sware unto them, Josh. ix. 15. As touching his other reason, it is answered by Calvin,(1281) _Juris jurandi religio_, saith he, _eousque sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu à pactis discedemus, etiam in quibus fuimus decepti_. Which, that it may be made more plain unto us, let us, with the Casuists, distinguish a twofold error in swearing.(1282) For if the error be about the very substance of the thing (as when a man contracts marriage with one particular person, taking her to be another person) the oath bindeth not; but if the error be only about some extrinsical or accidental circumstance (such as was the error of the Israelites’ taking the Gibeonites to dwell afar off when they dwelt at hand), the oath ceaseth not to bind.

_Sect._ 6. This much being said for the binding power of that oath of the church of Scotland, let us now consider what shifts our opposites use to elude our argument which we draw from the same; where, first, there occurreth to us one ground which the Bishop of Edinburgh doth everywhere beat upon in the trace of this argument, taken out of the 21st article of the Confession of Faith, wherein we find these words: “Not that we think that any policy and an order in ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places; for as ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but temporal, so may and ought they to be changed when they foster rather superstition than that they edify the kirk using the same: ‘whereupon the Bishop concludeth,(1283) that none who sware the aforesaid article could, without breach of this oath, swear that the ceremony of sitting at the receiving of the sacrament could be appointed for all ages, times, and places.’ ”

_Ans._ None of us denieth that article: we all stand to it. For that which it pronounceth of ceremonies must be understood of alterable circumstances, unto which the name of ceremonies is but generally and improperly applied, as we have showed elsewhere;(1284) neither can we, for professing ourselves bound by an oath ever to retain sitting at the receiving of the sacrament in this national church of Scotland, be therefore thought to transgress the said article.

For, 1. The article speaketh of ceremonies devised by men, whereof sitting at the sacrament is none, being warranted (as hath been showed) by Christ’s own example, and not by man’s device.

2. The article speaketh of such ceremonies as rather foster superstition than edify the church using the same; whereas it is well known that sitting at the communion did never yet foster superstition in this church; so that the Bishop did very unadvisedly reckon sitting at the communion among those ceremonies whereof the article speaketh.

_Sect._ 7. But the Bishop hath a further aim, and attempteth no less than both to put the blot of perjury off himself and his fellows, and likewise to rub it upon us, telling us,(1285) “That no man did by the oath oblige himself to obey and defend that part of discipline which concerneth these alterable things all the days of his life, but only that discipline which is unchangeable and commanded in the word. Yea (saith he), we further affirm, that every man who sware to the discipline of the church in general, by virtue of the oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and defend the constitution of the church that was in force at the time of making his oath, but also to obey and defend whatsoever the church thereafter hath ordained, or shall ordain, &c., whether thereby the former constitution be established or altered,” &c. The same answer doth Dr Forbesse also return us.(1286)

_Ans._ 1. Here is a manifest contradiction; for the Bishop saith that every man did, by this oath, oblige himself only to obey and defend that discipline which is unchangeable and commanded in the word. And yet again he seemeth to import (that which Dr Forbesse plainly avoucheth(1287)), that every man obliged himself by the same oath to obey and defend all that the church should afterwards ordain, though thereby the former constitutions be altered. The Bishop doth, therefore, apparently contradict himself; or, at the best, he contradicteth his fellow-pleader for the ceremonies.

2. That ancient discipline and policy of this church which is contrary to the articles of Perth, and whereunto we are bound by the oath, was well grounded upon God’s word, and therefore should not have been ranked among other alterable things.

3. Whereas the Bishop is of opinion that a man may, by his oath, tie himself to things which a church shall afterwards ordain, he may consider, that such an oath were unlawful, because not sworn in judgment, Jer. iv. 2. Now this judgment which is required as one of the inseparable companions of a lawful oath, is not _executio justitiae_, but _judicium discretionis_, as Thomas teacheth;(1288) whom Bullinger and Zanchius(1289) do herein follow. But there is no judgment of discretion in his oath who swears to that he knows not what, even to that which may fall out as readily wrong as right.

4. Whereas the Bishop and the Doctor allege that every man who sware to the discipline of this church standeth obliged to obey all that the church ordained afterward, they greatly deceive themselves.

For, 1. The discipline spoken of in the promissory part of the oath must be the same which was spoken of in the assertory part. Now that which is mentioned in the assertory part cannot be imagined to be any other but that which was then presently used in this church at the time of giving the oath; for an assertory oath(1290) is either of that which is past or of that which is present: and the assertory part of the oath whereof we speak was not of any discipline past and away, therefore of that which was present. Moreover, Thomas(1291) doth rightly put this difference betwixt an assertory and a promissory oath, that the matter of a promissory oath is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. _Materia autem juramenti assertorii, quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in quandam necessitatem jam transiit, et immutabilis facta est._ Since, then, the discipline spoken of in the assertory part was no other than that which was used in this church when the oath was sworn; and since the promissory part is illative upon, and relative unto the matter of the assertory part; therefore we conclude the discipline spoken of in the promissory part could be no other than that which was then presently used in this church at the swearing of the oath.

2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that oath is said to have been professed openly by the King’s Majesty, and the whole body of this realm, before the swearing of the same, why should we not likewise understand the discipline mentioned in the oath to be that which was practised in this realm before the swearing of the same?

3. This is further proved by the word _continuing_. We are sworn to continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this church; but how can men be said to continue in the obedience of any other discipline than that which they have already begun to obey? This the Bishop seems to have perceived, for he speaks only of defending and obeying, but not of continuing to obey, which is the word of the oath, and which proveth the discipline there spoken of and sworn to to be no other than that which was practised in the church when the oath was sworn. 4. Whilst we hold that he who sweareth to the present discipline of a church, is not by virtue of this oath obliged to obey all which that church shall ordain afterward, both the school and the canon law do speak for us. The school teacheth, that _canonicus qui jurat se servaturum statuta edita in aliquo collegio, non tenetur ex juramenta ad servandum futura_;(1292) the canon law judgeth, that _qui jurat servare statuta edita, &c., non tenetur ex juramento ad novitur edita._(1293)

_Sect._ 8. But we are more fully to consider that ground whereby the Bishop thinketh to purge himself, and those of his sect, of the breach of the oath. He still allegeth,(1294) that the points of discipline for which we contend are not contained in the matter of the oath. Now, as touching the discipline of this church which is spoken of in the oath, he questioneth what is meant by it.(1295)

_Ans._ 1. Put the case, it were doubtful and questionable what is meant by the word discipline in the oath; yet _pars tutior_ were to be chosen. The Bishop nor no man among us can certainly know, that the discipline meant and spoken of in the oath by those that swear it, comprehendeth not under it those points of discipline which we now contend, and which this church had in use at the swearing of the oath. Shall we, then, put the breach of the oath in a fair hazard? God forbid; for, as Joseph Hall(1296) noteth from the example of Joshua and the princes, men may not trust to shifts for the eluding of an oath. Surely the fear of God’s name should make us tremble at an oath, and to be far from adventuring upon any such shifts.

2. The Bishop doth but needlessly question what is meant by the discipline whereof the oath speaketh; for howsoever in ecclesiastical use it signify oftentimes that policy which standeth in the censuring of manners, yet in the oath it must be taken in the largest sense, namely, for the whole policy of the church; for, 1. The whole policy of this church did at that time go under the name of discipline;(1297) and those two books wherein this policy is contained were called The Books of Discipline. And, without all doubt, they who sware the oath meant by _discipline_ that whole policy of the church which is contained in those books. Howbeit (as the preface of them showeth) discipline doth also comprehend other ecclesiastical ordinances and constitutions which are not inserted in them. 2. Doctrine and discipline, in the oath, do comprehend all that to which the church required, and we promised, to perform obedience; therefore the whole policy of the church was meant by _discipline_, forasmuch as it was not comprehended under doctrine.

_Sect._ 9. The Bishop(1298) objecteth three limitations, whereby he thinketh to seclude from the matter of the oath that policy and discipline which we plead for.

First, he saith, that the matter of the oath is the doctrine and discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, and that this limitation excludeth all ecclesiastical constitutions which are not expressly or by a necessary consequence contained in the written word.

2. That the matter of the oath is the doctrine and discipline which is received, believed and defended, by many notable churches, &c., and that this limitation excludeth all these things wherein the church of Scotland hath not the consent of many notable churches, &c.

3. That the doctrine and discipline which is the matter of the oath, is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, &c., and that in this confession of faith, established by parliament, there is no mention made of the articles controverted, &c.

_Ans._ I might here show how he confoundeth the preaching of the evangel with the written word; likewise how falsely he affirmeth, that the points of discipline for which we plead, are neither warranted by the Scripture nor by the consent of many notable churches. But to the point: These words of the oath, “We believe, &c., that this is the only true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel, and received, believed and defended, by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King’s Majesty, and three Estates, &c., as more particularly expressed in the Confession of our Faith, &c.,” are altogether perverted by the Bishop; for there is no discipline spoken of in these words, but afterward. Why, then, talks he of a discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, having the consent of many notable churches, and expressed in the Confession of Faith? And if the Bishop will have any discipline to be meant of in these words, he must comprehend it under the Christian faith and religion, which bringeth salvation unto man. But this he cannot do with so much as the least show of reason. Thus put we an end to the argument taken from the oath of God, wishing every man amongst us, out of the fear of God’s glorious and fearful name, duly to regard and ponder the same.