Sectio septima.
James Dodson
[Page 148]
Proposition 7. The Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant is permanent and abiding, never by any human act or power to be absolved or discharged.
SIR, By the permanency of the Obligation of the Covenant, we mean, the continuance of its Bond on the mind and consciences of men; so that the Subjects thereof are, and for ever will be bound to pursue and perform the things and matters therein promised; nor is it in the power of any man, or human authority, to release, acquit, or discharge them from the same; but that when, and howsoever the Solemn League and Covenant is slighted, laid aside, or violated, by any the Subjects thereof, they shall be liable unto the guilt and punishment of perjury in the breach thereof.
This permanency of obligation, and impossibility of discharge doth spring from a double cause.
1. The Nature of an Oath, which is a solemn and serious Appeal to, and invocation of God, as Witness and Avenger of the thing sworn, and sincerity of the Subject swearing; so as in case of dissimulation, falsehood, or non-performance of the thing covenanted, we shall be liable unto the guilt and punishment of perjury, to be inflicted by the God who judgeth righteously.
And 2ly. From the Manner and Form of the Covenant, which is absolute, and without a condition, which might at any time fail, and so cause a Cessation of the Bond of the Covenant thereupon dependent; and is expressly exclusive to all manner of discharge or release, by any human act or power whatsoever, by an express protest, That this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; and by a peculiar provision, That we shall never suffer our selves directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to
[Page 149]
be divided or withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give up our selves to a detestable neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the Glory of God, Good of the Kingdoms, and Honor of the King, but shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein: So that the matter of this Covenant being, as I have before asserted, good and lawful, because just and possible; if there were in the World any power or persons (entrusted with that divine Prerogative) to discharge the Obligation of an Oath; we could not receive it, because it is actually and expressly disclaimed. We Sir, live amongst Protestants who by their very profession do protest against all Papal Dispensations, and Jesuitical Commutations thereupon dependent; and therefore I need not stand to make any defence in this cause against the same, which would be to suggest some Protestant Divines to be so Popishly affected, as to have recourse to Rome, for relief against St. Peter’s Restraint: I presume Sir, England’s Bishops would not be reputed Popish; and other ways to discharge the Obligation of the Covenant, we have none, save the release of Superiours, which always must be in such cases and manner as are peculiar unto them, and proper to their cognizance.
I am not insensible, that some suppose to themselves, and suggest to others a nullity, or non-obliging force of the Covenant, by Reason that His late Majesty (of glorious Memory) did interdict the Act; concerning which it is necessary to be inquired, Whether by the Light of Nature, Law of Nations, or Rule of Scripture, the Prince, the Political Parent, have such full complete Parental Authority over His Kingdom collectively or distributively considered, as by His interdict to make void the Oath they put upon themselves?
(2.) Whether the Parliaments of England, both, or either House, can order, determine, direct, and by Parliamentary Authority, enforce a present execution of those Determinations and Orders directed to the Subject (as we know is, and ordinarily hath been practised) without the consent of the King? And whether the People are not subject to the same, as being Parliamentary Authority, before they formally pass into Laws or Acts, to be established Rules, when their being a Parliament ceaseth? And so whether an Act done, Sedente Parliamento [while Parliament is sitting], at their
[Page 150]
Appointment, and by their present Order, being in its own nature permanent and abiding, never to be discharged (as is the Obligation of an Oath) be not valid, though it never pass into a Formal Act of Parliament, and standing Statute?
(3.) Whether an extraordinary and unusual Proclamation of the King, against the Determinations of both Houses of Parliament, be (according to the constitutions of this Kingdom) a full and formal supersedeas to any Act required to be done by the Authority of the Parliament then sitting?
(4.) Whether His late Majesty in His Proclamation of the 9th. of Octob. 19. Carol. did by His Royal Authority declare void and null the Obligation which should be laid on any of His People against His consent? or by His Parental care only admonish His Subjects of its evil, and the danger He conceived in it, and so warn a forbearance of it? for Parental Admonition, and Authoritative Annulling Inhibition, are distinct Acts; and the last was in this case necessary, because the Collective Body of the Kingdom had sworn this Covenant on the 25th. of September before.
(5.) Whether the King’s after-assent, and Admonition unto a right understanding, and Religious keeping of the Covenant, do not establish it, and makes its Obligation unavoidable? And whether after the interdiction of the Act, His Majesty’s Declaration, That as things now stand, good men shall least offend God and Me, by keeping their Covenant by honest and lawful ways, since I have the Charity to believe, the chief End of the Covenant in such men’s intention, was to preserve Religion in purity, and the Kingdoms in peace; be not a subsequent allowance suitable to the Equity of that Law, in Numb. 30. and sufficient to make the Covenant valid, and an indispensable vow?
(6.) Whether an endeavour in our Places and Calling, be not so far sui Juris, to the Subject, that it may be safely sworn, without the consent of the Sovereign; and shall bind the conscience, notwithstanding His declared dissent thereunto? Lastly, Whether the Approbation of His most Gracious Majesty that now is, unto the Solemn League and Covenant, and the Assent to the Ordinances of Parliament enjoining the same, declared by Solemn Oath and Public Declaration, be not a full, complete, and formal Authority, supplying all supposed defect, and fastening its Obligation by a full Theological, if not formally Political Act of Parliament? And so hath varied the case, and all fancy of the non-obligation of the
[Page 151]
Covenant, occasioned by the unhappy dispute, concerning the Authority conversant about it? When Sir these enquiries are seriously, and on solid Reasons resolved in the Negative, we shall confess there may be some doubt of a discharge of the Obligation of the Covenant; and until then it lieth on our consciences, and must be carefully regarded and performed, least the judgements of God come upon us, and we fall under the guilt of perjury.
Now Sir, the matter of the Covenant being just and possible; the Authority establishing it, full and sufficient; and dispensation from the Obligation of an Oath concluded to be a Popish vanity; what can hinder our Conclusion, that the Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant is permanent, never to be discharged? yet Sir,
Dr. John Gauden, notwithstanding his ill success in loosing St. Peter’s Bonds, hath made an Essay for his full release, though not immediately by himself (who can say no more then what he said at first, and therefore saith it over again in his Epistle to the Doubts and Scruples before noted) yet by his profound allowance, and judicious testimony to the Discourse of Mr. John Russel of Chinksforde in Essex; the which is made authentic and acceptable to the World, as good Casuistical Divinity, and a clear resolution of this Case of Conscience, by this stamp on the Title page, Attested by John Gauden, D. D. So that Sir I should be disrespective to my Antagonist, if I make not a little stay, to consider what is said by his learned Chaplain; though I must confess it is so simple and shatter’d a Discourse, it is not worth reading, much less the least of answer; but I remember my promise at the beginning, That I would weigh what he could allege to void the Covenant, which is his aim, and professed end; and therefore his Title page affirmeth, The Solemn League and Covenant discharged, or St. Peter’s Bonds not only loosed, but annihilated; an honourable design, an high undertaking, an hard enterprise, to release the Conscience from the Bond of an Oath! It is well if the attempt give us not cause to see Fronti nulla fides [the countenance is not to be trusted], and that the Title is stuffed with proud swelling words of vanity; yet he applieth himself to the work with some agility, as if accustomed to evade holy Bonds, and with ease to resolve the most weighty cases of Conscience; I will not say by a nimble pro-
[Page 152]
fanes to break Religious Prisons; and therefore in page 2. of his Book, he states the question, and telleth us:
I shall grant by way of supposition (we will be content with such a grant) all that the most rigid Covenanters can desire of me, excepting one point; I shall suppose the same to be imposed by complete and lawful Authority; to be no ways defective in circumstances; to be clear and free from ambiguity; to be perfect in the form; to be sound and lawful in the matter; to be pious in the end; fair in the manner of imposing; that there was no fraud or violence used; but that all men took it with due deliberation and free consent, by all which means it became a very strong Bond and Obligation upon the consciences of men.
Sir, This is I confess a very fair grant; if notwithstanding all this, he can discharge the Covenant, by my consent he shall never more be brought into durance; But what is that one point he denieth to grant us?
It is this, That the Solemn League and Covenant is such a Bond on the consciences of men, that it cannot be released by any human act or power. And in opposition thereto he affirmeth, That the same specifical power, or an higher then that which imposed this Vow upon us, may release us from the same either tacitly or expressly.
This Sir is easily affirmed with confidence, but so simply and slenderly proved, that the Dr. hath shewed us little of judgment in his attestation to this work, as in his own Analysis; and must needs make men observe his desire of Release is so fervent, as to allow and approve any thing that doth but pretend to discharge the Covenant.
The first on set in order to the proof of what is affirmed, is by a kind of Preface with relation to the Ordinance, enjoining the taking of the Covenant, which he supposeth laid aside, and not enlivened into an Act; and therefore he takes it to be dead in Law, and shall hold himself free from the Bond of the same. But Sir, it will abide a Dispute (against a stouter Politician then I judge Mr. Russel to be) whether His Majesty’s assent testified by public Oath and Declaration, to the Ordinance for taking the
[Page 153]
Covenant, have not enlivened it into an Act.
2. The Ordinance may be dead in Law, and yet the Oath enjoined by it alive in conscience; for the one hath done its work in laying that Obligation which now abideth, worketh, will work, and cannot be hindered; and then nothing but ignorance of the nature of an Oath, can lead a man to argue the Ordinance which brought me under it is dead. Ergo, I hold my self thence-forward free from the Bond of the same. If St. Peter leap out at such Loop-holes, he will be locked under heavy judgements: Is the Prisoner released, because the Warrant is of no more force, then to bring him into Prison, and secure the Jailor for keeping him therein?
Having past this Preface, he proceeds to his Argumentative part, and makes a great pudder [fuss] about the power of Superiours over their Subjects in private, particular and promissory oaths: and with the instance of Abraham and his servant, in the case of taking a wife unto Isaac: wherein, I shall grant unto him, that in all particular promissory Oaths, grounded on condition, it is in the power of confederates, whether Superiours or Equals, to relax the Obligation, by not exacting the performance; only I would tell him he is mistaken in his instance of Abraham and his servant; for the Oath of the servant was not released by any Act of Authority in Abraham; but if it had been released, it had been by an impossibility of effecting the matter; and therefore the servants query on the peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me into this Land, was not a supplicate for an Authoritative Release; but a scrutiny into the Extent of the Oath, how far he was herein bound? which is plain by the query it self, Must I needs bring thy son again into the Land from whence thou camest? On which Pareus [in Gen. 24. 5.] noteth, that this was in the servant, Prudentia singularis ne juraret nisi de possibili [It was singular prudence that he would not swear except concerning what was possible]: and therefore I must tell him, that I do not believe the father or husband, who may establish the Vow of the Wife or Child, can afterward make it void again; and because he may be unwilling to learn of me, I would commend Dr. Sanderson [De juram. Prelect. septima. Sect. sexta p. 223.] to be his Tutour, he will teach him one Lesson which confuteth his whole Argument he would have managed, and the Notion on which he doth bottom it: Superiorem si expresso consensu suo, sive Antecedente, sive subsequente,
[Page 154]
promissionem subditi semel confirmaverit, non posse eandem irritam facere, aut obligationem ejus tollere [If a superior, by his express consent, whether antecedent or subsequent, has once confirmed the promise of a subject, he cannot make that promise void, or remove its obligation].
By this position, concerning particular, private, promissory Oaths, he pretends to pave his way to the grand question in hand, and as by Rules in Military Discipline to make his approach at a reasonable distance, and make good his first ground, on which he stands so sure, that he advanceth not one step higher; but as if at work in Wakefield Pavement,* or hurried about by some Fairy Dance, he traceth to and fro at all uncertainty; but is still found in the same place unto the end of his Book; one while he can find no public Covenants whereto to compare ours, which is of no moment; let him make good his Position by Demonstrative Reason, we will admit our Covenant to become the first public President. Another while he keeps a stir about the nature of the Covenant, which he will needs have to be in the Form of is, a civil and human Creature, subject to infirmity, to be taken away by men, and that as it is an Oath, though the Heathen did ever make Juramentum [the oath sworn] and Religio [the obligation of the oath], to be synonymous in public Contracts, because an Oath was a most eminent Act of Religion; at length he stumbles out his notion and fancy in a Parable; and pursueth that, forgetting Theologia Parabolica non est Argumentativa [Parabolic theology is not argumentative], that Parables prove nothing; but proving it to be versatilis materia, ut huc illuc trahi imo & duci possint [a pliable/turnable matter, so that they can be drawn, yea even led, this way and that], pliable to any wild and quick fancy, he endeavours to bend it to his purpose; but so very dully, that he cannot but lose his end. He tells us that an Oath is a bringing a Trial into God’s Court, wherein the Imposers are the Plaintiffs; the Covenanter, or him who sweareth, is the Defendant; and God is the Judge; the which makes as good Musick, as Asinus ad Lyram [an ass at the lyre]; all that I read, did ever make not the swearing, but the exaction of the performance of an Oath, to be the Suit in God’s Court; and the Oath or Covenant to be the cause and ground on which the Suit is brought; and God as well as man, to be the Plaintiff, and a Party, as well as a Judge in every Oath; by Reason whereof the Oath can never be discharged, because no man can release God’s Right and Interest in an Oath: So Dr. Sanderson [De Juram. Præl. sepr. Sect. 4. pag. 214.] doth expressly teach, In Juramento promissorio non tantum proximo fit obligatio sed & Deo; præsumptio igitur non ferenda esset, si terra & civis assumeret potestatem
_____
* A rude and rough pavement in Cheshire done in the night, as tradition saith by the Devils, who could not leave it till done.
[Page 155]
tollendi obligationem qua homo obligatur Deo [In a promissory oath, obligation is made not only to one’s neighbour, but also to God; therefore the presumption would not be tolerable if the land and the citizen should assume power to remove an obligation by which a man is bound to God]; which quite overthroweth his drift and aim, which is, That if men will not exact the Oath, or be content that it be not performed, God the Witness and Avenger, or Judge of it, is tied up; and he will not expect it, or punish for the neglect of it: but God’s thoughts are not men’s thoughts; he that sweareth, binds his soul unto the Lord, and must perform the thing that cometh out of his mouth.
When his dull Genius had made a dark discovery of this nature of an Oath, he pretends to resolve an Objection, That when the Covenant was administered, the Trial was finished (he means founded; for the Suit was not commenced till performance be exacted) and a Bond was put upon the consciences of men by the immediate hand of God; and therefore we say no human power can take off this Bond.
Unto this he gives a most profound Answer, which thwarts and overthroweth the whole scope of his Book, and makes it appear, he is rolling Sisyphus stone, which still returns upon him, and reneweth his labour; his Answer is, I say so to, what would you have more? nothing, for it is enough; yet we must be directed how to think of him. I would not have you think that I have been studying all this while to attribute a Pope-like power to my Superiours, to dispense with the Bond of an Oath, that is already put upon my conscience. No indeed, I rather think he is studying how to loosen a pair of tyring Irons [i.e., iron fetters].
But hath he no hole to creep out at, and evade his Answer, but thus expressly overthrow his own design? yes! When what was sworn is performed, we are Free-men, unless the Superiour gets us into a new Bond; that is very true; but what doth he infer? This is all that I expect that the higher powers will not renew the Oath and Covenant, and then that business is at an end: But I doubt Sir he reckoned without his Host; Hath he performed what he promised in the Covenant? it was thought to be work for all the days of his life; he is sure a quick Merchant; or is he not rather so bad a Pay-master, that he will not perform any thing, further then he is constrained, by being haled to Prison? like a Bankrupt, he dreams forbearance is an acquittance; and is ready to
[Page 156]
begin a new score of Covenants, if any man be so mad as to trust him; if he can be secured from any new Bond, his conscience will never make him pay the old; he had need to be quickened, or otherwise he is resolved to be discharged: But I believe second thoughts will make him to see, he had need to pay for the old, before he be trusted for new; when he dreams the Trial is ended, the Suit is but beginning; what though the Higher Power never renew the Covenant, will that cancel the Bond given to God? if he agree not with his Adversary quickly, he will be cast into prison; verily he must not come thence, till he have paid the utmost Mite; nor will it make a Plea to the least mitigation of damages, to say, Lord, My Superiours did never require me to renew the Covenant. His Majesty is like to have Loyal Subjects at Chinksford, where they are taught, that their Allegiance being once performed, if the King do not cause them daily to renew the Oath of Allegiance, they are free to turn Rebels and Traitors, for any thing they had sworn before: This is an Essex —— much cheaper, and more easily to be had than a Pope’s Bull; if I be not by the imposer exacted and required to perform, I am ipso facto [by the fact itself], released; he shall never want Clients, that can make such Releases; yet you must note, this he manageth with most earnestness and seriousness, as reaching the very mystery and depth of the Covenant.
But Sir, he hath Salvo’s for his Distinctions, and Reasons for his Assertion; what is pious, good and lawful in the Covenant, doth still bind per vim Præcepti [by the force of the command/precept], but not per vim Juramenti [by the force of the oath]; and if he perform not the contents or intents of the same, he is guilty of disobedience, but not of perjury. What a dull Buzzard am I? How have I spent my time, that never learned this Notion in Divinity before? I had once a Tutour commended to me by Dr. Chappel, and he makes me believe, the soul might at the same time be under a double Bond to the same Act; the single tie of the goodness and lawfulness of the Act, and the Cords of an Oath or Covenant, and that the last was the strictest Bond; he tortured my conscience with the thoughts of a complicated sin, in not doing a duty sworn to be done, and the guilt of both, disobedience and perjury. I must sure leave him, and take unto Mr. Russel, attested by Dr. Gauden, he teacheth a smoother way to Hell;
[Page 157]
for where we are under a Duty, and an Oath to do it, in not doing it, I shall be but damned for the least sin, the disobedience, not the perjury.
2. It was never yet denied, that in a promissory Oath between private persons, he to whom the promise was made, if he will release, he may release; if he had for never directed us to read ever; this had been an intelligent observation; for it hath ever been denied, that any man could release the Oath, Dr. Sanderson denieth it, and Grotius denieth it, and I deny it; and therefore they distinguish between the Relaxation of the matter of the promise, which is to them sui Juris, and the release of the Oath, which is God’s proper interest; I may remit my profit or benefit, and yet not release an Oath; by his leave Sir, I do again deny, That Abraham did release his servant; that which he dreams of to be a Release, was part of the very Indenture of the Covenant or Oath, that the servant might see the matter of it in its Extent; but spare me Sir, what is all this to the purpose? it is to be proved that the Solemn League and Covenant is such a promissory Oath; it was indeed agreed, concluded, and consented unto by two Nations; but yet it is not a reciprocal promise each unto other, that they may at any time relax each to other the whole, or any part of the conditions thereof; but is a joint Oath or Vow to God, by mutual Agreement put on the Kingdoms of England and Scotland; and then to follow his fancy, God, and God only, is the Plaintiff, and no Higher Powers of either Kingdom, but they as Members of the Kingdoms are Defendants; whom God impleads to perform what they are bound to do. His promise was to prove the Covenant to be of the nature of a promissory Oath, which might be released, and this I expected; but I would have him take time enough to do it in, I will expect his Resolution at Doom-day, when the Trial shall be undoubtedly ended, and the Judge will openly declare his Sentence against all who have broken, or shall break the Covenant, though not renewed at the command of the Higher Powers.
This Gentleman tells the World, That Mr. Crofton wonders at Dr. Gauden’s Logic, in arguing the evil of it, from the unblessed effects and consequences of the Covenant: And I think
[Page 158]
Sir he had Reason; for Event was never judged a Rule of Equity; but the unblessed effects reflected on the Covenant, did only accompany it, not spring from it, as its proper brood, and natural issue by it procreated. Shall wicked men’s reluctancy to piety and order, or perfidy and contempt of the Oath of God create evil effects, accidental sequels to the Covenant, and it be condemned? Sir, this man is sure half an Arminian, and thinks God’s command to Adam to have been the cause of mans Fall: Is he not rather half an Heathen, that in all Tumults, Earth-quakes, and Plagues of God upon them, would cry out, Christianos ad Leones [Christians to the lions!], as if they were the cause of all? Let any of them specify that evil in the Covenant, which hath a natural tendency unto these unblessed, or let him speak out, cursed effects; and I will damn it as an accursed thing: But Sir, Mr. Crofton did not so much wonder at the Drs. Logic in this Argument, as at his little Reason or Religion in giving his Attestation to such an Irrational, Atheological, Wild and Wicked Discourse as this is; whilst he fears the Covenanter is righteous over-much; I would advise him to consider whether the next words do not suit his spirit, as proper for his meditation; Be not over-much wicked, neither be thou foolish; why shouldest thou die before thy time? [Eccles. 7. 17.] For Sir, if I can judge, his words are the language of a Fool, and his Arguments the Reasons of wickedness; and such a Release of the Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant, must needs hasten his ruin.