Sectio quarta.
James Dodson
[Page 108]
Proposition 4. The Form and Manner of making the Solemn League and Covenant, was good and allowable.
IN the Consideration of this Position, I intend not to consider the Form constituting it an Oath, which is evident, and known to all, to have been a Solemn Calling to God to witness, and avenge the violation or neglect thereof; in respect of which its obligation is established, against whatever defects and miscarriages did attend the agitation thereof; from which nevertheless I would desire it (as much may) be acquitted; for it is pity so good matter should be blemished by the circumstances which attended it.
Nor shall I insist on an Historical Narration of the public Assemblies, in which it was taken; the Solemnity thereof in respect of the quality of persons; the Parliament, both Lords and Commons; the Commissioners of Scotland, the Assembly of Divines, making the first Assembly that entered into it; nor the Order by Solemn Humiliation and Prayer, and serious Instruction and Exhortation which attended it; nor the universal alacrity, joy and content of the most serious in England and Scotland, which accompanied this first Act of making the Covenant; nor the after particular Solemnities, both for number, quality, and disposition of persons, and religious composed order, in which it was taken in the City of London, the several Countries and Congregations of England, then which I may boldly say, no public Act ever passed by and among the people of England, more solemnly, or more religiously; which though it be now darkened and despised, doth set a lustre on this Covenant to abide under the greatest contempt and reproach cast upon it; and will most strongly bind in the presence of God and men.
But my intentions are to defend those actions as good, I do not say necessary and allowable, which were, and might be done without any sin, or any debilitation of the Covenant against which I find the Exceptions of the Enemies to the Covenant most
[Page 109]
strongly bent; that thereby they might represent it vile, if not render it void; and these are either,
1. The order of the words.
2. Nature of the thing.
3. Authority which enjoined it.
4. Or the action and gesture of the body used in the swearing of this Covenant.
All which I humbly conceive will be found such, as might well suit so solemn an Act, as is a National Covenant; yet I find some late opposition thereunto, and in special, by the Oxford Reasons, and the League illegal; I shall briefly try their strength.
1. The order of words vindicated against Dr. Featlies League illegal Pag. 14.
1. Sir, As to the order of the words, I find Dr. Featlies ghost in the League illegal, like some hellish fury, representing the Dr. to have been a man so haughtily devoted to the punctilio’s of order and honour, as not to brook, or keep his hands from tearing a List, Catalogue or Register wherein they who were below him, should be ranked above, and named before him; in sense whereof he thus breaths against the Covenant; Not to take advantage of the preposterous order in setting down the parts of this Covenant, wherein he that runneth, may read a double Solecism; for in it the Church of Scotland precedeth the Church of England; and the Liberty of the Subject is set before the Royal Prerogative, and Imperial Dignity of the Prince.
Sir, admit we this; Is it not an high crime? and bespeaks it not a sober serious spirit in Dr. Featley, a Member of the Assembly of Divines (who by a motion might have had this order inverted, as easily as he obtained to have Prelacy specified in the second Article of the Covenant after it was past) to pick a quarrel in the order of the words? although we deny not [Pag. ibid.], That such a sacred and venerable evidence of fidelity is the Covenant, that matter, manner, phrase and order ought to have (as I presume they were) been maturely advised; yea, I wish line and period, word and syllable (which might be the Printers Errata) had been so scanned, that a captious Momus might not find a Colon or Comma, at which he might boggle and please his humour; yet it is but a poor advantage from the punctilio’s of order and honour to
[Page 110]
to argue against matters of moment, duties and exercises of Religion; and by misplaced words to make an Oath or Solemn League Illegal; I, but do I not run too fast? he tells us he will not take the advantage; an honest man is indeed as good as his word; but I cannot trust him; for his ninth Argument [Pag. 28.], This Covenant is derogatory to the Honour of the Church and Kingdom of England, is thus proved; The Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England. I like not that man’s grace, that with the same breath will remit and retort an indiscretion; yet Sir I cannot but enquire whether the preferring of the pompous gay-cloath’d Church of England before the poor Church of Scotland, look not like a species of that impious partiality, condemned by the Apostle James, Chap. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Can we think this Dr. had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons, or was acted by such a spirit of contradiction? No, this language was spoken after he was dead.
2. But these Solecisms are not to me so obvious; I stand still, and cannot read them; though I read the Covenant with all observation and regard; yet I confess I find the Church of Scotland set before the Church of England; and the liberty of the Subject, before the Prerogative of the King; but they are propounded with Relation to different Acts; the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved; of England to be Reformed; I hope it is no Solecism to put the factum [the thing done] before the fieri [that which can be done]; and to swear the preservation of good acquired, before an endeavour to obtain the same, or better; or to prefix the pattern, to what is to be thereunto conformed; when this Authour’s second thoughts had observed this salvo [saving thing] to his suggested Solecism,* he grudges that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England; for which he had little Reason, if venerable Beda speak true, in that he reports, That that Nation did at first communicate the Science of divine knowledge, without grudge or envy unto the people of England. I hope it is no Solecism to propound them as a pattern of Reformation, who have first obtained it; and from whom Christianity it self was at first to us transmitted.
The second supposed Solecism, is no more visible than this first; for if the liberty of the people be the end and excellency of the Prerogative of the King, as all wise Statists and Politici-
_____
* Pag. 29. *Mira divinæ factum constat dispensatione pietatis, quod gens illa quæ noverat scientiam divinæ cognitionis, libenter & sine invidia populis Anglorum communicare curavit [It is evident that, by a wonderful dispensation of divine goodness, that nation which had known the knowledge of divine understanding took care willingly and without envy to communicate it to the peoples of the English]. Bed. Eccles. Gen. Angl. l. 5. c. 23.
[Page 111]
ans do affirm; he sure will admit to be the first in intention and endeavour, although the last in execution and enjoyment; and the rather, for that it is so directed and dictated by the Maxim of His late glorious Majesty, declared at the passing of the Petition of Right, The Peoples liberty strengthens the King’s Prerogative, and the King’s Prerogative is to defend the peoples liberty. I am sure more serious and public Statesmen then he or I shall ever make, have judged it a Solecism in Parliaments, to support the Kings Prerogative by supply of moneys, before the oppressions and burdens of the people have been relieved, and their liberties secured; and I believe I could prove that this is not the first Covenant made in England, preferring the People’s liberty before the King’s Prerogative, without which the King may Tyrannize over slaves, not Rule over Free-men; which last is, and will be His greatest honour.
2. The nature and name of the Covenant vindicated. Oxford Reasons. Sect. 2. pag. 3.
The second thing in respect of which the Covenant is blemished and reproached as to the manner of making it, relates unto the nature thereof; and the name is the notation of its nature, and it is called a Solemn League and Covenant, against which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do except, stumbling at the name Covenant; they were learned men, and must a little stand on the propriety of words; they therefore except against this denomination, because imposed with a penalty, which imposition say they, is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant, which being a contract, implieth a voluntary mutual consent of the contractors, whereunto men are to be induced by persuasions, not compelled by power; pactum est duorum pluriumve in idem placitum consensus [A pact is the consent of two or more persons unto the same agreement].
To this Sir I grant, that a Covenant in the strict acceptation of it, must be an agreement by mutual consent; yet I must enquire of these learned men whether the Magisterial imposing of absolute duty, or actions otherwise indifferent, by Superiours upon their Inferiours, and that under a penalty, may not be called a Covenant? What think they of that injunction to Mankind in Adam, Of the Tree of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death; we read not of any stipulation in Adam: And Divines tell us it was neither necessary nor proper, he being bound to accept the conditions his
[Page 112]
Creatour would put upon him; I am sure this is generally judged a Covenant, and that we commonly call the Covenant of Works.
Again, In the Primitive Times of the Church, adult persons did answer certain questions propounded, as credis? credo; abrenuncias? abrenuncio [Do you believe? I believe. Do you renounce? I renounce.]; to which the Apostle Peter is thought to refer his συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν [the appeal/pledge/answer of a good conscience toward God]? which Beza [1 Pet. 3. 21. in loc.] renders, Stipulatio bonæ conscientiæ apud Deum [the stipulation of a good conscience before God]; and from this order Tertullian concludes, Anima non lavatione sed responsione sancitur [The soul is sanctified not by washing, but by the answer/response]. Do these learned men (as the Anabaptists) think the Covenant of Grace is not passed between God, and the Infants of believing Parents in their Baptism, who are not capable of such consent and stipulation, but were dedicated by the Authority and Interest of the Parent; and are accepted by the extent of the Covenant? or is Confirmation an essential part of the Sacrament, and necessary supplement of Baptism? I find a like case in Scripture called a Covenant, Gen. 17.13. My Covenant shall be in your flesh; the stipulation of Godfathers and Godmothers will not relieve the case, unless they be deputed by the Infants, though they were (which doth not appear) commissioned by the Lord; so that some Covenants are imposed, and pass without mutual consent.
2. May not an agreement between two different Nations, passed by the mutual consent of the Princes, or Body Politick, be for further security sake, imposed by the Authority of each Nation on the individual Subjects thereof, and that under a penalty? which may be a good persuasion against their peevishness and pertinacy, who by their private interest may obstruct the more general and public good; and yet be properly denominated a Covenant; as suppose between England and Spain, which the Merchants of both are bound to keep; and I see no cause why they may not be compelled to swear; I hope the case will not differ between Scotland and England, who are distinct Nations, though under the same King; it is Sir no hard matter to make this the case of the Covenant.
3. The Authority imposing the Covenant vindicated.
But these learned men do except against the Authority enjoining the Covenant, which is the third particular, in the manner of making the Covenant, supposed to be miscarried; and herein Dr. Featlie’s Ghost doth follow them, but so very weakly, and with
[Page 113]
such palpable contradiction, that I shall not spend time and paper in observing the same; but specially take notice of what is urged by the Oxford Reasons from which he borroweth his strength.
Here Sir I shall desire it may be noted, that I do not affirm the authority to be full and complete, but to have been lawful and sufficient to impose an Oath, and thereby bind the people (wherein notwithstanding they should have been defective and fallacious, yet this will not discharge the obligation laid, as I have in my Analepsis, pag. 13. and before in this Tract [pag. 20, 21.] observed) against it, therefore as such I shall endeavour to weigh the Exceptions.
Oxford Reasons. Sect. 2. pag. 3.
The first whereof is, That this imposing of this Oath was contrary to the liberty of the Subject, expressed in the Petition of Right, to which liberty the imposition of a new Oath, other than is established by Act of Parliament, is thereby declared contrary.
Unto this Sir I say, I cannot but observe what strength of prejudice acted these learned men in making to themselves these Doubts and Reasons against the Covenant; which leads them almost throughout their Book to infer generals from specials; as I have before noted in other Arguments, so in this; the words themselves do quote out of the Petition of Right, are these, Whereas many of them have had an Oath administered unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, they do humbly pray that no man hereafter be compelled to take such an Oath; according to which words, it appears to be some special Oath that was complained of, and unto which the relative doth refer; the which, if they would please to observe, the connexion of the words will be found to have been a particular and specifical Oath; the words in the Plaint [Petition of Right.] run thus, By means whereof your People have been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain moneys unto Your Majesty, and of them, upon their refusal so to do, have had an Oath administered unto them, not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; so that it appears to have been an Oath of discovery of their Estate, upon refusal to lend moneys, or some Oath ex officio, unto
[Page 114]
self-accusation, beyond the Statute of the 25th. Henry the third, which is in this point complained of, as violated; and the prayer of that Petition doth no less specify this Oath by the Relative SUCH, which referreth unto the quality of the Oath complained against; so doth also the concatenation of the prayer, which proportionally to the Plaint, is, That no man be compelled to make gift or loan, &c. or be called to make answer, or take such Oath; so that this was an Oath to make answer unto the damage of a man’s own Estate, Life or Liberty, which is repugnant to Nature, and herein aggravated, as not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; a more full description whereof, these Gentlemen might have received in the Statute 17. Caroli, concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical. Now Sir, from this special to argue against all Oaths that pass not by Act of Parliament, is a plain non sequitur [does not follow], and unfit inference; the Companies in London, or it may be some Colleges in Oxford, are constituted by the Kings Charter or Patent, and the Master and Wardens of the one, or President and Fellows of the other, give an Oath to all that become Members thereof, and expect to participate in their privileges; will these learned men say, that these Oaths not imposed or prescribed by Act of Parliament, were contrary to the Petition of Right, which never complained of, or prayed against such Oaths? I do not think these men would have had us to think that the Oath ex Cathedra, enjoined in the Canons of 1640. was against the Petition of Right, which certainly would bespeak the Bishops something prejudicial to the Civil State, and yet it was never passed by Act of Parliament. Moreover, these learned men subscribed, and swear to the Protestation of May, 1641. they did not sure then think that submitting to swear that Oath, they did violate, or betray the Liberties of the People, expressed in the Petition of Right; they should do well to tell us by what Act (I do not say Authority) of Parliament it was established? I humbly conceive that there is a vast difference between an Oath of exaction, self-discovery, or accusation, which is wicked in its nature, and more wicked, when without warrant from the Law; and an Oath for establishment of public and general good, imposed by the Authority, though not established by Act of Parliament; it is not the simple taking an Oath without consent of Parliament; but the taking such
[Page 115]
an Oath, as may impeach the persons, or endanger the Estates of the Subject, which was the People’s grievances; nor is it the formality of an Act, but the full consent of the People in Parliament, makes an Oath lawful, and preserveth their liberties in the imposing of it.
But these Masters and Scholars of Oxford fear, by owning this Covenant, they should own a power in the imposers thereof, then for ought that appeareth to them, hath been challenged in former times, or can consist with their former Protestation (if rightly understood) in sundry the most material Branches of it. [Ibid.]
Unto this Sir I must say, that I know not what did appear to them to have been the power of the imposers, and challenged in former times; only unto me, and many others, it did appear not to be the mere natural power of the People preposterously, and in a tumultuous manner assembled, who yet do appear to have a power to impose on themselves an Oath; and to whom I find Sovereignty it self (to speak it with due Reverence) in some measure subjected, and its obligation superseded; if not made void, clearly barred from execution; if but by the impossibility put thereon, as it was in the case of Jonathans Rescue; which I shall only report in the words of Bishop Hall [Contempl. p. 1038.], Saul hath sworn Jonathans death, the people contrarily swear his preservation, his Kingdom was not so absolute (yet more absolute than England’s) that he could run away with so unmerciful a injustice; their Oath, which savoured of disobedience, prevailed against his Oath, which savoured of too much cruelty; and so long as his heart was not false to his Oath, he could not be sorry Jonathan should live: I do not in any case justify the preposterous and tumultuous Assemblings and Assumptions of the People, whereby they lay on themselves Bonds which must not be broken, and cannot well without much difficulty be kept; yet I cannot but observe many times thereby, the Vox Populi, is Vox Dei; as in the very change of the Government of Israel, on which Dr. Hall Notes [Pag. 10. 24.], It was God’s ancient purpose to raise up a King to his People, how doth he take occasion to do it by the unruly desires of Israel; but (blessed be God) this was not the case of the Covenant; the imposers did not assemble on their own heads, and by vio-
[Page 116]
lence and disorder assume unto themselves an unusual power.
The power imposing this Covenant, was a Parliament, the Collective Body of the Kingdom; Duly Summoned, Regularly Elected and Returned; Rightly Constituted, and Readily Embraced by King and Kingdom, and animated with more than ordinary Parliamentary power, by the Bill for their continuance against all Casualties, so as not to be Prorogued, Adjourned, or Dissolved, without their own consent: And can any True-born English-man (in any measure acquainted with the constitution of this Kingdom, or the Authority of the High Court of Parliament) deny these to be a just and lawful Authority to resolve, order, and enjoin, yea, and execute their Resolves, Orders and Injunctions, during the being of their power; though not to establish Laws to be executed, when they were dissolved and gone.
Sir, I cannot without sad thoughts, remember the unhappy difference between His late Majesty, and the late long Parliament; which occasioned the unhappy opposition of the People’s Liberty, and the King’s Prerogative; as I cannot but wish they had been acted so conjunctly, that they might have seem’d to vulgar apprehension to have been but one; so I cannot but judge it prudence that a period be put to the dispute thereof, upon the now Happy Re-union of His most Sacred Majesty, and these too long distracted Kingdoms; I am clearly of opinion with Aristotle [Polit. lib. 5. cap. 10, 11.], that Prince of Politicians, That Regal Government is best established, where the Princes and People do participate of it; and that Theopompus the Spartan, in transmitting some of his Prerogative to his Ephori Princes, might well maintain the increase of his Dominion, whilst he made it longer by making it less: I think therefore that the wisest men, and best Subjects, will rather think, then assert, a Prerogative in the King above His Parliament; and I for my part should be content to find in the Parliament a sufficient power to impose an Oath on the Subject, without the King’s consent, rather than to assert their Superiority unto Him, in all points and particulars: And when Sir I consider the power, even over and against their King in the Princes, and the Collective Body of the People Recorded in Scripture, as in making War, Josh. 22. Judg. 20. Changing the Government. 1 Sam. 8.
[Page 117]
Choosing and establishing, not only their first, but succeeding Kings, though immediately appointed, and sometimes anointed by God, as in the case of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam, and others, in removing from the King Favourites and Counselors; as David was against the mind of Achish the King, dismissed by the Princes of the Philistines, 1 Sam. 29. in restraining the Kings purpose of destruction, confirmed by an Oath once and again, as in the case of Jonathan; or of protection, as in the case of Jeremiah the Prophet, concerning whom Zedekiah the King said, He is in your hands, the King is not he that can do any thing against you, Jer. 38. 5. In these and the like cases, Josephus [Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 18.] tells us, the King might not do any thing without, or against the sentence of the Senate or Congregation. Methinks a divine defence may be well made for the power of the Parliament in this case acted and admitted; though without, and against the consent of the King.
And when I consider what is Dogmatically asserted by Politicians, and no mean Lawyers, in reference to the power of general Councils and Conventions of Kingdoms in general, as of England’s Parliaments in particular, as in the Council of Basil against the Pope, the whole Realm hath more Authority than the King [Foxe, Acts and Monuments. p. 616.]. The same asserted by Marius Salamonius [De principatu, lib. 1. p. 17, 18.], who by many Arguments doth defend it, he was a Roman Lawyer and Philosopher; Hollingshead and Vowel [Vol. 1. cap. 11. p. 173.] in their Description of England, declare concerning the Parliament, That this Court hath the most high and absolute power of the Realm; and that not only without, but against the King, by it offenders are punished, and corrupt Religion reformed or disannulled, and that whatever the people of Rome might do centuriatis comitiis, or tributitiis [whether voting by centuries or by tribes]; which I am sure was to impose an Oath, the same is, and may be done by Parliament; unto which may be added what is spoken to the same effect, and almost in the same words, by Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary of State to King Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, and a Dr. of the Law, in his Common-wealth of England; and Horne, an Eminent Lawyer in Edward the first his Reign, in his Mirrour of Justice, cap. 1. p. 7, 8, 9. and Fortescue, Lord Chancellor to Henry the sixth, in his Book de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 9. and Bracton, quoted by these learned men, who certainly affirms more than they can approve, Rex
[Page 118]
habet Superiorem Deum, item legem, per quam factus est Rex, item curiam suam (viz.) Comites & Barones, &c. Et ideo si Rex fuerit sine fræno debent ei frænum imponere [The king has a superior: God; likewise the law, by which he was made king; likewise his own court, namely, the earls and barons, etc. And therefore, if the king should be without a bridle, they ought to put a bridle upon him]; and above all the Sovereign Powers of Parliaments judiciously defended in our very case, by that profound Lawyer, Mr. William Prynne, approved no less Loyal to, and Zealous for the King’s Prerogative, than Loving to the Peoples Liberties. I see not how we can avoid this Conclusion, That the Votes, Orders, and Ordinances of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, even without or against the Kings personal command, is to be obeyed and observed.
Lastly, when I observe the Transactions of Parliament in the times of Vortiger, Sigebert, Offa, Beornrede, Edwin, and Edgar, and other Saxon Kings, Deo dictante & annuente populo [God dictating/directing, and the people consenting]; the power of Parliaments in the times of King John, King Henry the third, Richard the second, and other Kings of England refusing to assemble at the King’s Call, assembling without the King’s Writ, establishing Laws, correcting Vice and Misdemeanours, executing Justice, and entering into Oaths and Covenants, without and against the King’s consent; and when I observe in all Parliaments a power of regulating the King’s Court and Council; of restraining, limiting, and enlarging the King’s power of Jurisdiction and Prerogative; nay, of making void, or valid a title unto the Succession to the Crown, as in the times of Henry the eighth, in case of his many marriages; and that during the Session of Parliament, all Laws are under covert at their feet, to be by them established or destroyed, and are by any Vote or Order superseded, before a formal Repeal; and that in all Ages, and on all sides it is confessed, and cannot be denied that the authority of Parliament is exercised in all Votes, Orders & Ordinances of the two Houses, unto the decision of present controversies, upon Appeal from other Courts of Judicatory, wherein they can, and may authorize Examinations on Oath, and make a final judgement, unto the ease and relief of the Subject, not otherwise relievable; unto the enforcement of any Act to be at present done and executed for the good of the Kingdom; or any particular persons or society thereof, without so much as desiring the King’s consent and concurrence; and if this power should be denied, what could the frequency of Parliaments, provided for by the old Law of King Alfred, and after by the Statutes of 4. Ed. 3. 4,
[Page 119]
36. Ed. 4. 10. twice, or at least once every year, on this very ground, that the people might receive right by holy judgment (such was the judgment of Parliament deemed) and that the mischiefs and grievances which daily happen, might be redressed if need be; on which account Proclamation was wont to be made in the open Palace, before the breaking up of Parliament, Whether there be any that have delivered a Petition to the Parliament, and not received answer thereunto? And this power removed, what will avail the Triennial Parliaments conceded by His late Majesty, or of what benefit was the continuation of this late long Parliament, against all Casualties whatsoever that might fall out to dissolve them? Can it be rationally imagined, that their being should be continued and secured, to sit within those Walls in Council and Debate, without any power to order or execute the Emergent Affairs of the Nation? These things well considered, I say, I see not how the imposing an Oath can be an assuming, or the people swearing, an acknowledging of a greater power than hath in former times been challenged. If these Gentlemen will consult our own Histories in the cases before touched, they will find a power much greater, not only challenged, but assumed and exercised; the which the season, and present state of affairs do forbid me to recite, in hopes that there will be no need to rip up our wounds newly healed; and these generals may I hope sufficiently justify the sufficiency of that authority which brought us into Covenant.
But these learned men suggest an inconsistency of this power with their former Protestation in sundry material Branches: Methinks Sir, they should have specified those Branches, and the rather, because material and many: The Protestation contains not many Branches; and those few seem to be fully conform to this Covenant in all the particulars; and wherein they have supposed a contrariety, we have before evidenced only a dissonancy at the most; and that Ratione [with respect to], not Re [the thing in itself], in the manner of expression, not the thing sworn; they then protested to preserve the power and privileges of Parliament, and should not Covenant any more, nay, scarce so much in this Oath, for they herein promise to preserve the Rights and Privileges, which is something softer than power; and I wonder they that then saw a power to be preserv’d, could not now see a right: I will only enquire whether they thought the
[Page 120]
Parliament had a power to impose that Oath, and not a right to impose this? There was no Act of Parliament, nor Assent of the King to that; I observe the King in His Messages to the Houses doth note it to be their own Protestation, as if He had no Hand in it, nor consent unto it; and if by power they should mean natural strength, not political authority, it hath been urged by many as their grievance, and by these Gentlemen themselves in the foregoing Exceptions, that they had too much of that: It is the unhappiness of a scrupulous conscience to run it self on contradiction in actions, as well as assertions; to swear as lawfully called at one time, but not to dare to swear an Oath containing the same matter, though called by the same authority another time.
But that which was the greatest doubt with these learned men, was, the King by His Proclamation [Pag. ibid. & 4.], Octob. 9. 19. Caroli, had expressly forbidden the entering into this Covenant, it being in His power to make void the same.
That such an Interdict had been published by His late Majesty, we cannot deny; but not as Dr. Featley his ghost supposeth [League illegal. p. 16.], on pain of Treason; for no Proclamation of the Kings of England did claim the formality of a Law, so far as to fasten Treason on the non-observance of what is thereby enjoined.
2. I am not satisfied how regularly His Majesty did issue forth the said Proclamation; which is not usually done, but by the advice of His Council, who are vailed by the Session of Parliament; and all Proclamations then usually run by the Advice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled; and if at any time the Lords and Commons, or either of them during their Sessions, give out Orders, not only relating to the Estate they represent, but to any others, the Subjects of this Realm; it hath not been usual for the King, by the Authority of His Proclamation, to thwart, oppose, and void them; and in a case of this nature, a good observer may find, the Parliament have judged the King’s opposing, or taking notice of any thing by them debated or ordered, before it is regularly propounded to Him by themselves, to have been a breach of priviledge, and so to have been acknowledged, and as such retracted by His late Majesty; the little pleasure I have in the story, forbids instances, hoping general hints may answer the learned and sober.
[Page 121]
3. Nor am I convinced that it was in His power by the equity of the Law, Numb. 32. (they mean 30. 2.) to annul and make void the Covenant; for admitting the equity of that Law by Analogy to reach us, I hope no adult child shall on observation of irregularities in the Government of a Family, be barred from vowing in his place and calling, to his power and capacity sincerely, really, and constantly to endeavour the Reformation thereof; viz. Quenquam qui gaudet usu rationis ita plene sub alterius potestate esse quin ut sit quantum ad aliqua saltem sui juris [that anyone who enjoys the use of reason should be so fully under another’s power, but that he is, at least in some things, of his own right], is Dr. Sanderson’s Rule; though the effect may, yet the lawful endeavour cannot be out of the child’s reach; if the child or wife swear nothing but positive duty, or what is within their power, and so limit their vow; I hope the Superiours interdiction, will savour more of passionate mistake, than strength to avoid the vow.
Yet I must confess I am not clear, that the equity of that Law will reach our case; I was ever willing to yield His Majesty the Reverence due to a Political Parent; but in this case of conscience wherein he is abstracted from, and opposed unto the Parliament, I find a defect which makes me fear the simile will not square; and though I can own Him as a Parent to be by Him corrected and disposed, yet methinks the Paternal power is placed in others, at least conjunct with Him (viz.) the Parliament; I am sure Legislation is Paternal power, and Execution more proper to the other Parent; and that the Lords and Commons have a share, if not the greatest share, in Legislation, no true English-man, nay, no ordinary Politician, can or will deny; when I observe the King sworn to Rule according to the Laws, quas populus elegerit [whom the people have chosen], which the people shall choose, and the Writ for their Election to require that they be furnished, and have plenam & sufficientem potestatem, pro se & communitate, &c. ad faciendum & consentiendum his quæ tunc & ibidem de communi consilio dicti Regni nostri contigerint ordinari ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi, &c. dicta negotia infecta non remaneant [full and sufficient power, for themselves and for the community, etc., to do and to consent to those things which then and there, by the common counsel of our said kingdom, shall happen to be ordained; so that, through defect of such power, etc., the said business may not remain unfinished]. Paternal Authority, power to consent and make Laws in the great Affairs of the Kingdom, as the Family; and when I observe Politicians and Lawyers, even English-men, generally to conclude the forma informans [the informing form], form animating the Law to be the consent or choice of the People; whence Marius Salamonius, that
[Page 122]
that great Lawyer, defining the Law [De principatu. lib. 1. p. 35, 36. Justin. Cod. 1 tit. 17. Lex. 8.], saith, it is, Expressa Civium Conventio [the express agreement of the citizens]; and makes this the Reason of their obligation, Ligantur populus legibus suis, quasi pactis conventis, quæ vera sunt leges [The people are bound by their own laws, as by agreed compacts, which are true laws]; whence Theodosius the Emperour, writing to the Senate of Rome, doth declare consensus universorum [the consent of all], to be the formality of those Laws that he would establish; to which our Hollingshead, and Sir Thomas Smith before mentioned, doth fully assent and concur, as likewise Fortescue, who makes the King to be as the Minister in Marriage, who may establish and declare it; but the consent of parties gives it being; and the common Dialect of our own statutes being, the Assent of the Lords and Commons, and Authority of Parliament, with no less frequency then the Assent of the King; and that the contriving, debating, fully forming, by frequent readings, serious consideration, and full Disputes, is the peculiar work of the two Houses; whilst a Ministerial Declaration (though in a Dialect, and Form of Majesty) is the proper and only work of a King; though I deny not a Parental power and Prerogative to the King; I cannot but judge it more than probable, that the proper Paternal power is in the Parliament, or at the least in the three Estates; and then Sir we are under this unhappy question, whether to obey father or mother, when they falling out, command different, nay, contrary things; this I confess is not more the distraction, then the confusion of the Family; yet certainly in such an unhappy chance, prudent and rational children, must, and will cleave to the principal legislative party, who hath a confessed authority and power to extend or restrain, augment or diminish the Prerogative and Ministerial power of the other, bound to act according to their appointments.
Sir, Dr. Gauden’s Appeal to the Oxford Reasons, hath led me to this Discourse, and unwilling distinction; but my prayer is, and henceforward shall be, that England may honour father and mother, and know no difference; for the Case is now altered, and this Argument is of no force; as I thought I had sufficiently hinted in my last; for His late Majesty forbade the Act, but never assumed an Authority to void the Obligation; and His most Sacred Majesty by His own Subjection to it, Declaration for it, and Oath to endeavour the Establishment thereof, hath (as is before noted) made it valid, and I hope such as call Him Father
[Page 123]
will weigh the equity of this Law, Numb. 30. 2. and not only acknowledge their brethren bound by it, but themselves become subject to the same bond, which had before a lawful and sufficient, but now hath a complete and perfect authority.
4. The gesture in making the Covenant, vindicated.
4. The fourth and last particular in the manner of making the Solemn League and Covenant, is, The action or gesture of the body used in the swearing thereof to declare the assent of the mind; by which profane spirits do endeavour to reproach it, for that it was not sworn after the ordinary manner used among us, by laying the hand on the Bible, but by lifting up the hand towards heaven. Amongst those who have of late appeared against the Covenant, I find none speaking against this gesture, save only Dr. Featlie’s Ghost [League illegal. p. 21.], who (like it self, more scurrilously than seriously) pretends to Answer one Text of Scripture, which he supposeth to be the only one for defence of this gesture, Rev. 10. 15. The Angel lifted up his hand and sware, &c. Unto which he saith, That might be a fit gesture for an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world, which yet may not be thought so fit a gesture for men entering into an holy League for the preservation of two Kingdoms; If they can, as the Angel, stand upon the earth and the sea at the same time: let them imitate the Angels in lifting up their hands when they make their Covenant; Howsoever, I think it a fitter gesture, in taking this Oath, than after the usual manner to lay the hand on the Bible; for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that Book; and the lifting up of the hand, very well expresseth the purport of the Covenant, which is a lifting up their hands against the Lords Anointed and his Church.
The very transcription of this is a sufficient confutation; Who can read it, and not run and read a most malicious heart venting it self by a most weak head! Sounds not this Argument like Dr. Featley? Sure his Executor thought his name enough to make acceptable the dullest notions could drop from his own brain.
I shall desire it may be considered.
1. No particular gesture is necessary and appointed of God to be used by men in making Oaths and Covenants; and there-
[Page 124]
fore men have chosen what gesture of the body to them seemed good to declare the assent of the mind; as Abraham and Jacob, the putting the hand under the hollow of the thigh; Our Country ordinarily useth the laying the hand on the Bible, and kissing the Book; but other Countries, the holding up of the right hand. May not the Magistrate, prescribing an Oath prescribe what gesture seems him good? They must needs be eager bent, who will fight with a shadow.
2. Is the lifting up of the hand a gesture peculiar to an Angel? only used in menacing, and when he stands on sea and land at the same time? Did this man never read nor hear it used in other places of Scripture? and on other occasions? or was it the vehemency or verity of the threatening, and doom denounced, which was witnessed by it? What thinks he of Abraham, in Gen. 14. 22. I have lift up my hand to God, I will not take any thing that is thine? He was no Angel, nor threatening any judgement, nor did he stand on sea and land at the same time: Or, what thinks he of Ezek. 20. 5. I lifted up my hand unto the seed of the House of Jacob? God was not an Angel; nor then menacing any fatal doom, but promising the greatest blessings which Israel could enjoy. If he had pleased to consult any Expositors on these or the like Texts, he should find, that the lifting up of the hand, was the usual gesture in swearing any Oaths and Covenants. He would make the World believe, the Covenanters were in an hard strait to find an instance of this gesture in Scripture; and therefore they fly to the Angel in the Revelation.
3. Hath the Solemn League and Covenant no ground or foundation in Scripture? Suppose the matter of it be no more than he here suggesteth, (viz.) The preservation of two Nations; hath this no ground in Scripture? Did he never read therein of two Nations joined in one Covenant, for the good one of another? But further, hath the preservation of the true Reformed Religion and reformation, according to the Word of God, no foundation in Scripture? are there no Historical Relations of Covenants of this matter? hath the preservation of the Kings Honour and Happiness, no ground or foundation in Scripture? hath unity and uniformity in Religion, no ground in Scripture? and are not these the matter of the Covenant? Can any thing but hor-
[Page 125]
horrid impudence, say, It was not fit for them to lay their hands on the Bible, for this Covenant hath no ground or foundation in that Book? This Authour might have well forborne this charge, who himself concedes, that punctilio in the manner of making this Covenant, which many and himself would deny to have ground in Scripture, (viz.) the making it without the Kings consent; For he grants [League illegal. p. 20.], that a Covenant to remove a scandal, and fulfill the express command of God, may be made not only without, but against the consent of the Prince. If this Covenant fall not under one of these, nay both these qualifications, I have lost my reason.
4. With what face can this fury say the purport of this Covenant was the lifting up of their hands against the Lord’s Anointed and his Church; whilst its professed inscription, is, A Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the honour and happiness of the King: Answerable whereunto are the grounds inducing to make it: Having before our eyes the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty and His Posterity; and accordingly promiseth the preservation and reformation of Religion according to the Word of God, and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s Person and Authority; that the world may bear witness with our consciences, that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty’s just Power and Greatness: Whatever may have been the practices of some wicked men, who sware this Covenant, it is as clear as the Sun, That the lifting up of the hand for the good of the Church, honour and safety of the Lords Anointed, was the purport of the Covenant it self: And the violent rejection of the Covenant, as an Almanack out of date before the horrid violence done unto His late Majesty, is a manifest testimony of it; together with the protest of the covenanted Secluded Members of Parliament, and of the Ministers of London, against those perjurious proceedings: As likewise, the public testimonies of the Ministers of the Gospel to the Solemn League and Covenant, of almost all the Counties in England, do declare it: and the divulsion and captivity of Scotland, the Sequestrations, Imprisonments, and death of many in England; and contests with all zeal, faithfulness, and constancy, against all difficulties and dan-
[Page 126]
gers, unto the very effecting of the Happy Return of His most Sacred Majesty, and that in conscience of this very Covenant, do loudly sound it through the world, if the same malice do not deafen the ear in hearing the comment, that darkened the eye in reading the Text.
Now Sir, I must tell him, the lifting up of the hand might be a most proper gesture to the taking of this Covenant, not only as a gesture usual in swearing, and expedient, because expeditious in an Oath universally sworn by whole Assemblies, but as a sign of special suit and earnest supplication for divine grace and assistance, Lam. 2. 19. Of Solemn adoration and worship of God; praising his goodness that had inclined the heart of the governours of his people, to bring them into such a Covenant; Neh. 8. 6. Or of joy and alacrity in so Sacred a Bond unto such absolute duties tending to the honour of God, happiness of the King, and safety of true Religion, Psalm. 119. 48. And in these respects it is a gesture no less suitable to men than Angels; and the standing on earth, not sea and earth at the same time, performing a duty, and promising things required in Scripture, and praying mercies and blessings, not menacing a fatal doom: Yet I will not deny that it imprecated God’s direful judgements to fall on the heads of such as should violate this Solemn League and Covenant; which our eyes have seen accomplished on such as slighted its obligation in the Civil part thereof: And I cannot but tremble, to think what must needs attend such as not only slight, but set against, and violently break through these holy bonds in that part which immediately concerneth God and true religion; whilst we see the very manner of making this Covenant is no less justifiable, than the matter therein sworn; and being seriously considered, will not avail to reproach, much less to discharge the Solemn League and Covenant.