Sectio Quinta.
James Dodson
Fifth Prop. The Ambiguities and Contradictions in the words of the Solemn League and Covenant, are imagined, not real.
SO Sacred is the nature of an Oath, and so strict the obligation thereof, that I freely confess simplicity of expression, and
[Page 127]
sincerity of intention, should continually attend it; and ambiguous or contradictory terms do destroy the very nature thereof, deceive men, and blaspheme God, in making him the Witness of a fallacy; yet these ambiguities and contradictions must be real, and in the very words of the Covenant, not in the fancy or imagination of such as in prejudice do decline the Oath, nor in the intention of him that sweareth, not willing to be bound; for if the words be clear and plain in their proper signification, or vulgar acceptation, the apprehension of the confederates, or the due drift and scope of the Oath, the Oath obligeth, and must be carefully observed, as Dr. Sanderson [De juram. prom. 6. Sect. 22. 1. p. 173, 195.], Grotius, and many others in this case do teach.
Some there are who charge the Solemn League and Covenant with ambiguities and contradiction in its terms, and therefore have declined to swear it; these (having had a care to their passion and prejudice) I cannot but commend, confessing that whilst they but seem such to their imagination, they might well be a remora to their act of swearing, and spur unto the study of the Oath to be sworn; but others plead them as an Argument to make void the Oath; and such had need to see that there is no possibility of understanding the terms in a sound sense, and making them to agree among themselves, lest they be found Seducents unto perjury: Forasmuch as the last have recourse unto the first, let us consider what seemed to the one, and are since alleged by the other, to be ambiguous and contradictory, that the one may be justified, and the other acquitted if found real, or both condemned if found imagined.
The ambiguities that are urged are these:
1. Ambiguity. Oxford Reasons. Sect. 6. p. 17. League illegal p. 27.
1. Those words in the first Article of the Covenant, the common enemies, the Masters and Scholars of Oxford do charge with ambiguity, but assign no cause or reason for the same, and Dr. Featley his Ghost following their exception, enquireth, whether by common enemies are meant the world, the flesh, or the devil, enemies to all true Religion; or Papists, and Independents, enemies to the Discipline of the Scotch Church.
Unto this exception, Sir, I answer:
The words common enemies, are words in their own nature and signification plain and clear to be understood; nor do I know them to be darkened by any variety of acceptation; they are indeed relative terms to be specified, or particularly assigned by their objects, things, or persons, so that the Kingdom of England, or professors of true
[Page 128]
Religion, being annexed to common enemies, as objects of that enmity, doth make its sense plain and obvious to every capacity: If then common enemies had been mentioned in the Covenant without an object assigned, it might have been an individuum vagum [a vague individual], and so ambiguous as not to be understood: But they are not left so general; for they are limited with this possessive, our: The words run thus, The preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against OUR COMMON enemies: This Relative OUR, doth limit and explain COMMON ENEMIES; and if they will consider the antecedent, which can be no other than the Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, and Commons of all sorts, &c. living under one King, being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes, &c. and then described by these and the like qualities, and in special, by one that is fully exegetical to these terms in the preface of the Covenant, and discharge all imaginable ambiguity in them, (viz.) Calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, and conspiracies, attempts, and practises of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, but especially in these three Kingdoms, ever since the reformation; they will find, that an ordinary Grammarian would easily read this Riddle, and tell them, common enemies, limited by this possessive OUR, must mean the enemies of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as living under one King, in the profession of one reformed religion; wherein some had made a progress to be preserved, others were in pursuit of a greater degree of reformation; but all opposed by the plots, conspiracies, &c. of known enemies to true religion, especially the professors thereof in these three Kingdoms: Now whilst this enmity was not seen by the Masters and Scholars of Oxford, it is no wonder if they imagined an ambiguity in these words, Common Enemies; and Dr. Featley his Ghost might hereby have assured himself, that both the flesh, the world, and the devil, are enemies to all true religion, and so to reformation, and Papists professed enemies to the reformed Religion, were here intended; and Independents (though scarcely then known by that name) by their enmity to the discipline and government of Scotland parts of the true reformed Religion, might be accidentally accounted into the number of the Common Enemies, so far as the qualifications before mentioned in reference to the antecedent objects of this common enmity, will include them: And so Sir, the words can be of no very dark or doubtful construction to the one, or to the other, there being no real ambiguity in them.
[Page 129]
The Second Ambiguity charged on the Covenant.
The next words charged with Ambiguity, are in the same Article the best Reformed Churches, concerning which the Masters and Scholars of Oxford enquire which they be? but (by their leave,) that is not necessary to be resolved in or before the taking of the Covenant; yet the words are of a plain and clear construction, making this sense obvious to the meanest capacity, in endeavouring the Reformation of the Church of England, the Word of God shall be our Rule; and (forasmuch as many Churches are reformed, some more and better, some worse and less) the best Reformed Churches shall be our Pattern; so that the Covenant asserts not which are the best Reformed Churches, but binds the Covenanter to the observation of whatever Church shall appear, and be found the best Reformed, as the example to which he shall endeavour England’s may be conformed.
The Third Ambiguity charged on the Covenant. League illegal pag. 27.
The next words imagined to be so ambiguous as to impede the swearing the Covenant in judgement, are in the second Article, and profoundly stated by Dr. Featlie’s Ghost, who enquires, what is meant by Church-government, by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, &c. as if it were not so particularly specified, that every ordinary capacity may run and read it; if he know any thing of the late Hierarchy in this Church: Dr. Gauden hath appeared no less willing to suppose and suggest the same Ambiguities in his Analysis, to which I have before answered in my Analepsis; and he that hath but half an eye cannot but see, that the very and whole frame of Government, by Arch Deacons, Prebends, Chapters Deans, Bishops, and Arch-bishops, (whereby all Government which belongs to Presbyters in Common, was engrossed; by a few pretended Ministers to Cathedral Churches; and a Superiority of Office and Order above Presbyters, not ordained by God, or consented to by themselves, was exercised) is utterly to be abolished, the which is so clearly expressed, that it can admit of no evasive Salvoes.
The Fourth Ambiguity charged on the Covenant.
The next Ambiguity is imagined by the Masters and Scholars of Oxford, to be in the fourth Article, in the word Malignants; and they enquire who are to be accounted Malignants, as if it were left in its latitude, to be understood by every man’s private fancy, whilst it is expressly limited and explained in the Article it self; such as have been, or shall be Malignants, by hindering Reformation of Religion, dividing the King from his people, or one Kingdom from
[Page 130]
from another: so that the Malignity predicated, is described and specified by the formality of it: but those learned men know not how far the hindering Reformation of Religion may be extended. To which I say, it matters not unto the discovery of a Malignant, for they will not deny both these to admit majus and minus; if Reformation be hindered, it is Malignity, which is in degree more or less, according to the measure of that obstruction which is made.
Again, they know not what are meant by the Supreme Judicatories of both Kingdoms; sure they will not pretend to ignorance in the signification; they know well what a Judicatory is, and wherein Supreme, almost every Englishman knoweth the sense of these Roman terms. I believe their doubt was, which be the Supreme Judicatories; and the words can be construed no otherwise, then to mean, those to which the other Courts of Judgement are subject, and from which there is no appeal; if they please to ask Lawyers, I presume, they will tell them, it is the Parliament: yet this is not necessary to be known, to the expounding of the words of the Covenant.
Oxford Reasons, sect. 6. page 17, 18.
These are, Sir, the ambiguous terms; which in the judgment of these learned men are of a dark and doubtful construction, whether really and in themselves, let rational men judge; others they do stick at, but profess the wise men have made thereof dubious gloss in it; they well know false glosses, male interpretations, and a strained sense may by wicked men be put on the plainest text; yet it doth not lose its genuine and proper signification; especially in an Oath; wherein some men are willing to wrest it with rigour, beyond its scope: others, to writhe themselves out of its just obligation. I shall be free to tell them, that no Rules of right Reason, will justify the rigorous sense put on the third Article, in the Case of the King, by Mr. Challoner, though in a Speech in Parliament; nor the lax Sense, put on the second Article, in the Case of Prelacy, by Dr. John Gauden, though unto the Loosing of St. Peter’s bonds: nor will the words of the Covenant warrant the one or the other. But such ambiguities are made according to men’s wills, minds, fancies and lusts, not found in the words, which are clear and plain to every common capacity.
Oxford-Reasons, sect. 6. p. 16.
These supposed Ambiguities are not more visible to have been imagined, without any real ground in the words of the Covenant, then the
[Page 131]
the suggested contradictions in it self; the learned men of Oxford do charge the Covenant to be an Oath, in which one part is contradictory to another; but with Reverence may I tell them, one part is confined to their breasts, or to such to whom they shew it; for it goeth not abroad with the Covenant; as will appear in the very naming of their supposed suggested contradictions, which are these.
1. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.
1. To preserve, as it is, without change, and yet to reform and alter, and not to preserve one and the same Reformed Religion.
In what Articles of the Covenant this contradiction lieth, they do not tell us, nor can I see it; the Reformed Religion in Scotland is to be preserved, and Reformation of Religion in England endeavoured: Are these opposites and contraries? were there not Doctrines, Worship, Discipline, and Government in England, which were no part of the Reformed Religion? and cannot these be altered and abolished, whilst that is preserved? where then is the contradiction?
2. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.
2. Absolutely, and without exception to preserve, and yet upon supposition to extirpate the self-same thing (viz.) the present Religion of the Church of Scotland.
I want, Sir, their eyes to read this contradiction; the first part, to preserve, is legible in the Covenant: but, to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland, I read not; Oh, but they tell us, it is on a supposition; but I suppose, that supposition must be expressed in plain terms in the Covenant, to make a contradictory part thereof.
The Extirpation covenanted relates to Popery, Prelacy, Errour, Heresy, Schism, &c. which of those can we suppose the present Religion of Scotland to be? they will bring good Compurgators for every of them; I know the Universities did suppose [Reason, sect. 3. p. 4.], there were some things in the Church of Scotland, which to their thinking did tend to schism and superstition: yet they dare not charge it; do but suppose it; and that not to be, but tend toward superstition and schism: and they do not affirm them neither to be the Religion of Scotland: such supposed extirpation may suppose a contradiction, justly deserving to be charged to be a suppositum non supponendum [the thing supposed, not the thing to be supposed].
3. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.
Their next Contradiction is as clear a supposition as this: to re-
[Page 132]
form Church-Government in England and Ireland, according to the Word of God, and yet to extirpate that we are persuaded is according to the Word of God: here it is visible, the contradiction is between the Covenant and their persuasion; not one part against another part of it self; how well-grounded their persuasion is, we have before enquired; I shall therefore only tell them, it is not fair play to beg the question, and on their own persuasion, to arraign the Covenant, as an Oath contradictory to it self, yet.
4. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.
The next is of the very same nature, to extirpate heresy, schisms, and profaneness, and yet to extirpate the Government, we conceive, the want of which is the chief cause of all evils, and the restoring and continuance of which, the proper and effectual remedy. Sure Sir, this conceit never sprung from the Book of Sports, or Bishop Pierce his Somersetshire Septuagint on Revels and Church-ales, which are more clearly contradictory then the Covenant.
5. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.
Their last is of the same nature; and a supposition in their own breast, to preserve the Liberties of the people; and yet submit to the imposition of this Covenant not established by Law: yet imposed by just and sufficient Authority: but in what words of the Covenant lieth this contradiction? I hope it is no loss of the Liberty of the Kingdom, to swear, that we will preserve the Liberties thereof, whoever requires us so to do? for the swearing of an absolute duty, is but a poor acknowledgment of Authority.
We must, Sir, see more dark and doubtful expressions, and plain and clear contradictory terms in the Solemn League and Covenant, before we can judge it really ambiguous or contradictory; or conceive men’s clamours to spring from any thing more, then their own passionate fancies, and prejudicate opinions, whose lusts lead them to wish it were such, as they cannot charge it to be.