Sectio Secunda.
James Dodson
[Page 15]
Second Propos. The irregularities in the first making the Covenant, will not discharge its obligation now it is made and sworn.
Whilst we consent unto the common conclusion of the Canonists, That Juramentum non est vinculum iniquitatis [An oath is not a bond of iniquity], an Oath must not be the bond of iniquity; and commend to all men their counsel, as indeed a duty, In malis promissis rescinde fidem [In evil promises, break faith], in promise of evil make no conscience to keep, nay make conscience to break your faith, yet we must consider, and warily distinguish between the res juratam [the thing sworn], and actum jurandi [the act of swearing], the act of swearing, and the matter sworn: For in respect of the last of these, the Rule is to be understood, and the obligation to performance doth thereon depend: Such is the reverence of an Oath to all men, Heathen or Christian, that rashness and irregularities in obtaining and actually passing the Oath, would never be admitted as sufficient to discharge its force.
The Rule of the Schoolmen [Tho. Aquin. par. 22æ. quest. 89. Art. 9.] received by all Casuists and Civilians, must here be observed, Juramentum promissorium non potest dispensari secundum se, sed tantum ratione materiæ indebitæ [A promissory oath cannot be dispensed with in itself, but only by reason of undue/unlawful matter]: A promissory Oath cannot be discharged by any reason, but the unlawful matter of it: And hereupon it is agreed on by all Divines, That the ground on which an Oath shall lose its force, must be intrinsical of the body, substance, and matter of the Oath, not extrinsical, and accessory to the Oath: It must be the sinfulness of the thing, and matter sworn; not the Circumstances conversant about the act of swearing, which may be sinful, and must be shunned, but avail not to discharge the Oath when taken: Well doth the Oxford Professor [Sanderson de Juramento.] distinguish, and tell us, They are two several questions to be distinctly resolved according to the condition into which a man is cast: The one is an hoc vel illud juramentum sit licitum [whether this or that oath is lawful], whether the Oath be lawful? And the other an Juramentum hoc vel illud obligat [This or that oath obliges],
[Page 16]
whether the Oath do bind? For that Oath may be unlawfully sworn, which must everlastingly bind when sworn; That sin is to be avoided in entering into a Covenant or Oath, which may be repented of without retractation of the Oath when sworn; The name of God too many times, though it ought not to be, taken in vain by Rash swearing: yet must not be blasphemed by forswearing.
An Oath is an Obligation so Sacred and permanent, that many conditions are required unto a regular acting of it: At first it should be the act of a deliberate, not distempered mind; not the effect of a distressed condition; clearly propounded, and rationally received, not obtained by fraud, nor imposed by force: but where, in any, or all these, and the like, there is a defect, and disorder, or miscarriage, that men with Jephthah rashly swear such a general Oath, as may rob them of the dearest of their delights, when it comes to performance: Or with Zedekiah be besieged by Wars without, and tumults within; to covenant, and confirm by Oath, conditions dishonorable, and burdensome. Or with Joshuah and the Princes of Israel to the Gibeonites, swear beyond their intention, and almost the import of their expressions, there being an apparent fallacy in the foundation, and procuring cause of the contract; yet in these and many the like cases the rule is most certainly to be admitted, Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet [What ought not to have been done, once done, is valid], these things ought not to have been done, but being done, do bind the conscience.
I wonder how men can press this Rule in case of Baptism by Women, or Children, and Lay Persons, in which I humbly conceive it cannot hold, and not regard it in an Oath, whose nature is such as administereth a reason for this Rule, and makes it necessary.
Many instances in story might be given to amplify this position, but, lest I should seem to leave the Road without Reason, I shall only offer the example of the Covenant with the Gibeonites; for the clearness of its demonstration commonly produced by all Casuists in this very case. Grotius [de jure belli & pacis, lib. 2. cap. 13. p. 220.] out of Ambrose noting the surreptitious, fraudulent obtainment thereof, doth note, Decepti erant à Gabaonitis, à regione longinqua se venire fingentibus. Josua tamen pacem quam dederat revocandam non censuit: quia firmata erat sacramenti Religione, ne, dum alienam perfidiam ar-
[Page 17]
guit, suam fidem solveret [They had been deceived by the Gibeonites, who pretended that they had come from a far country. Nevertheless Joshua did not judge that the peace which he had granted ought to be revoked, because it had been confirmed by the sacred obligation of an oath, lest, while charging another’s treachery, he should break his own faith]: The Translation of which I shall offer by a Reverend Bishop [Josh. Hall Bishop of Norwich.], (most acceptable to our Anti-covenanters,) who chargeth this deceit to have been the just effect of their sinful neglect to consult the Oracles of God; and saith the facility of Israel led them into a League and Oath for the safety of the Gibeonites; and now, within three days, they find their Neighbour-hood and deceit; Joshua might have taken advantage of their own words, to dissolve this League, and have said, Ye are come from a far Country, these Cities are near; these are not therefore the people to whom we engaged by our promise or Oath; and Israel had put in a direct Caveat of their vicinity, so that it might seem questionable whether Joshua needed to hold himself bound to this Oath, yet dare not Joshua and the Princes trust to shifts for the eluding of this Oath, but must faithfully perform what they had rashly promised. Joshua’s heart was clear from any intention of a League with a Canaanite; he gave his Oath to these disguised strangers; yet he durst neither Repeal it himself, neither do I hear him sue to Eleazar the High Priest, to dispense with it; but taketh himself tied to the strict words of his Oath, not to his own purpose: his tongue had bound his heart and hands, so as neither might stir; lest, whilst he was curious of fulfilling the Will of God, he should violate the Oath of God.
But Sir, how dissonant to these dictates of this Reverend Father, are those sons of the Church? who strive for a Bishoprick by sinful casting off the Covenant on a pretended inadvertency in swearing it at first; and putting on it a sense agreeable to their purpose, which is repugnant to the plain and express letter of the Covenant in the point of Episcopacy; correcting their infirmity Graviori peccato [with a more grievous sin], with a more grievous impiety; mending rash swearing, by plain perjury; and after a sober admonition and refutation, pertinaciously retain their resolution, by publishing the very same pleas for breach of Covenant, and braving it to the World with a bold asserting [Dr. Gauden’s Epistle to the doubts and scruples about taking the Covenant.], No Sacred Oath or Promise can bind the soul of man from its yet freedom, which is rational, civil, moral, legal and religious; nor can it be bound to execute or fulfill any such, when it is willingly, or by inadvertency, or taking malice, formally engaged by them; but not really to them. With Sir, that his Doctor would attend Doctor Hall’s di-
[Page 18]
vinity with as much diligence, as he seems to me to affect his Dialect.
What a preposterous, unmethodical course, do the Divines of our time take to discharge the obligation of the Covenant, by scandalizing the same with the irregularities which attended the first taking of it. That many miscarriages occasioned by the commotions and turbulency of those martial days, (in which it was digested and propounded to the people,) did accompany the Covenant when tendered, and first taken, I can easily consent: but not so great, as they seem in the multiplying glass, (of passion and prejudice,) by which they are now suggested: much less were they so great, as to discharge the bond of it. I confess the Covenant ought not to have been the effect of Scottish importunity, or English compliances, nor to have been brought forth by the midwifery of tumults, and engaged enraged armies, parties, and factions; nor its convictions and persuasions to have been by sequestrations and imprisonments, as Dr. Gauden in his Analysis suggesteth; but I, on grounds urged in my Analepsis, cannot yield it was; yet grant it, will these things avail to the discharge of its binding force, and make it void? Nothing less.
Nay Sir, should I consent and subscribe unto the verity of the Arguments urged by Dr. Featly [League in the Illegal.] his ghost; and admit, (what I shall hereafter deny,) 1. The supposed Solecism and mistaken order of the words in the Covenant. 2. The supposed end and aim of the Contrivers of the Covenant. 3. The want of authority in the Imposers. 4. The ambiguity and seeming contradictions of many expressions. 5. That many took it not in Truth, Righteousness, and Judgement. 6. That it wants warrant in Scripture, and is only bottomed on the basis of Natural Policy. 7. That it is derogatory to England’s honour. 8. Taken without important cause, and urgent necessity; and so was faulty in these and the like Circumstances, which call for Repentance in Imposers and Takers; yet it must be a Solecism in divinity, to awake this Book, and send abroad these exceptions against the Act of making and swearing the Covenant, in hope that a review of them may make us Repent and be wise, and to confirm men in the Apostates, in their, aversion, pretended, conversion from the Covenant, and draw others from it by the strength of convictions:
[Page 19]
I will grant his Maxim, Deliberandum est diu quod statuendum est semel [That which is to be settled once must be deliberated upon for a long time]: And, (though I believe the determination of the Covenant was on due advice,) yet we will consent unto him to repent and confess these mistakes; But I must tell His Majesty’s Chaplain, That Dr. Sanderson [de juram. prælect. 2a. p. 55.] will not upon all this, give us leave to cast off the Covenant; but constrains our consciences to revive it. Juramentum de re non illicita, fit aliunde illicitum, ex aliquo externo defectu, & propter aliquam indebitam circumstantiam respectu actus jurandi, possit obligare jurantem, adimplendum quod promisit [Whether an oath concerning a thing not unlawful, yet made unlawful from some other source—because of some external defect, or because of some undue circumstance respecting the act of swearing—can bind the swearer to fulfill what he promised]; An Oath lawful in the matter, unlawful in external, undue circumstances in the act of swearing, binds to accomplishment.
This Sir, hath the more influence upon me, because it is Oxford divinity, conceived to be read on the occasion of this Covenant: We confess with Augustine, David juravit temere, sed non implevit majori pietate [David swore rashly, but with greater piety he did not fulfill it], David sware rashly; but with piety repented and retracted, because the matter, self-revenge in Nabal’s ruin was wicked: which is not our case; when the matter of the Covenant appears to be manifest sin, we must retract it; till then we will repent rashness, unadvisedness in the act, but retain its obligation, lest we patch up sin by sin.
Now I deal with His Majesty’s Chaplain; may I Sir, make bold to whisper another notion of Divinity in his ear, he may have occasion and opportunity to use it: Sir, It is this, That a People’s imposing on their Prince, and binding him to terms, and bringing him under an Oath, not only for themselves, but all their fellow Subjects, in all or any the King’s Dominion; (for which Act the Scots are much censured, and could I have advised, should have been more innocent,) favours something of disorder, tumult, irregularity, and vulgar violence; and yet Grotius [de jure belli & pacis. l. 2. c. 14. p. 333.] determines, (the matter being lawful,) it obligeth the Prince so sworn; because God is invocated, and the King was voluntarily subjected. Though he doubt the power of Co-action of a Princes performance by men; yet he affirms the obligation before God: His conclusion is this on the discussion of the Question, Dicimus ergo, ex promisso & contractu regis, quem cum subditis iniit, nasci veram ac propriam obligationem, qua jus det subditis [We say, therefore, that from the promise and contract of the king, which he entered into with his subjects, there arises a true and proper obligation, by which he gives a right to the subjects]. The Promise or Covenant into which the King
[Page 20]
shall enter with His Subjects, doth engender a true and proper obligation, and confer on the Subjects a right whereon to demand performance. I will not justify all past actions, but can scarce refrain from adding to the Litany, From contrary Coronation Oaths, good Lord deliver us.
Lastly, How far wide do they shoot, who direct the private doubts and particular scruples of private persons or societies, against the taking the Solemn League and Covenant, to discharge its obligation? Men Print, and reprint the Oxford Reasons, and make a great noise with them in the world; and yet, they are mere private Reasons, professedly relating to their own refusal of the Covenant; and they never tell us whether they or any of the persons concerned, received satisfaction to their Reasons, after submitted to the taking of the Covenant; nor is it considered the Reasons do profess an Apology, and pray a personal excuse of themselves from the Act, but do not so much as pretend to acquit the bond of the Covenant to such as had taken it; now granting that these Reasons might have that force that the Authors of them could not without sin conform to the Act of taking the Covenant; yet they be of no force at all to weaken or dissolve its bond.*
Let me therefore say Sir, to these who offer to your and my consideration their doubts and scruples against taking the Covenant, and scatter abroad papers of this nature, that they manifest their malice and profane enmity against the Covenant, by subjecting it to vulgar scorn, and laying open their own nakedness, as if it were the nakedness of the Covenant; and run away Railing against the Covenant, as of no force or obligation, as void and null, on a mere Petitio principii, base-begging the Question, and taking it for granted, That what makes the act of swearing sinful, makes the Oath void; and supposing a weight, (which is very little,) in their exceptions, to words, method, form, order of the Covenant, and the imposing it on the people; which might have kept some men from swearing, to be sufficient to discharge all that are sworn. If they will indeed batter the Covenant, they should pierce into the body of it, and prove the matter of it unlawful; and then will I also shake off the Covenant for ever. Till then, I answer in the Negative to my own enquiry in Saint Peter’s bonds abides, pag. 13. to make
_____
* Not to judge the consciences of others, but to clear our selves before God and the world, from all suspicion of obstinacy—Oxford Reasons. Pref. P.1.
[Page 21]
the worst of it, “a tumultuous Assembly come before us with sword and Scepter, say they are a Parliament, and have lawful, constant, and complete Authority; and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us: and silly, inconsiderate we, are not so well-skill’d in Politicks, or acquainted with the Constitutions of our Country, to detect their fallacy; but think all Authority is within those Walls, and obedience must be yielded to what is there commanded; and so we are beguiled into the Oath: nor are we so hardy as to endure their violence, but by fear are forced into the Covenant; is it therefore void? for we have opened our mouths unto the Lord, and cannot go back.”