The Fastening of Saint Peters Fetters, Tract · Section 5
Sectio Quinta. 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 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, De juram. prael. 6. Sect. 22.11. p. 173, 195.and muſt be carefully obſerved, as Dr, Sanderſon, 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 ſworne; 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 ſence, and making them to agree among themſelves, leſt they be found Students unto perjury: Foraſmuch as the laſt have recourſe unto the firſt, let us conſider what ſeemed to the one, and are ſince alledged 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.1. Ambiguity. Oxford Reaſons Sect. 6 p. 17. League Illegal. p. 27.
The ambiguities that are urged are theſe:
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 cleer to be underſtood; nor do I know them to be darkned 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 Religion, being annexed to common enemies, as objects of that enmity, doth make its ſence 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, 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 OƲR COMMON enemies: This Relative OƲR, doth limit and expl…in 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 men 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 practices 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.
2. The next words charged with Ambiguity, The ſecond Ambiguity charged on the Covenant.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 ſence 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 may be conformed.
The next words imagined to be ſo ambiguous as to impede the ſwearing the Covenant in judgement, are in the ſecond Article, The third Ambiguity charged on the Covenant. League Illegal p. 27.and profoundly ſtated by Dr. Featley'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 next Ambiguity is imagined by the Maſters and Scholars of Oxford, to be in the fourth Article, in the word Malignants; The Fourth Ambiguity charged on the Covenant.and they enquire who are to be accounted Malignants, as if it were left in its latitude, to be underſtood by every mans private fancy; whilſt it is expreſſely limited and explained in the Article it ſelf; ſuch as have been, or ſhall be Malignants, by hindring Reformation of Religion, dividing the King from his people, or one Kingdom from another; ſo that the Malignity predicated, is deſcribed and ſpecified by the formality of it; but thoſe learned men know not how farre the hindring 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 hindred, 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 Supream Judicatories of both Kingdoms; ſure they will not pretend to ignorance in the ſignification; they know well what a Judicatory is, and wherein Supream, almoſt every Engliſhman knoweth the ſence of theſe Roman terms. I believe their doubt was, which be the Supream Judicatories; and the words can be conſtrued no otherwiſe, than 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.
Theſe are, Oxford Reaſons ſect. 6. p. 17, 18.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 uſe men have made thereof doth occaſion it; they well know falſe gloſſes, male interpretations, and a ſtrained ſence 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 writh themſelves out of its juſt obligation. I ſhall be free to tell them, that no Rules of right Reaſon, will juſtifie the rigorous ſence put on the third Article, in the Caſe of the King, by Mr. Challoner, though in a speech in Parliament; nor the Laxe ſence, put on the ſecond Article, in the Caſe of Prelacy, by Dr. John Gauden, though unto the Looſing of St. Peters bonds: nor will the words of the Covenant warrant the one or the other. But ſuch ambiguities are made according to mens wills, minds, fancies and luſts, not found in the words, which are clear and plain to every common capacity.
Theſe ſuppoſed ambiguities are not more viſible to have been imagined, without any real ground in the words of the Covenant, than 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; Oxford Reaſons. ſect. 6. p. 16.for it goeth not abroad with the Covenant; as will appear in the very naming of their ſuppoſed ſuggeſted contradictions, which are theſe.
1. To preſerve, as it is, without change, 1. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.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 endeavored: Are theſe oppoſites and contraries? were there not Doctrins, 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. Abſolutely, and without exception to preſerve, 2 Contradiction charged on the Covenant.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, Hereſie, Schiſme, &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 Univerſity did ſuppoſe, *Reaſon. ſect. 4 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.
Their next Contradiction is as clear a ſuppoſition as this: 3. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.to reform Church-Government in England and Ireland, according to the Word of God, and yet to extirpate that we are perſwaded is according to the Word of God: here it is viſible, the contradiction is between the Covenant and their perſwaſion; not one part againſt another part of it ſelf; how well-grounded their perſwaſion is, we have before enquired; I ſhall therefore only tell them, it is not fair play to beg the queſtion, and on their own perſwaſion, to arraign the Covenant, as an Oath contradictory to it ſelf, yet
The next is of the very ſame nature, 4. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.to extirpate hereſie, ſchiſmes, and prophaneneſs, 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 than the Covenant.
The laſt is of the ſame nature: and a ſuppoſition in their own breaſt, 5. Contradiction charged on the Covenant.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 Libertie of the Kingdom, to ſwear, that we will preſerve the Liberties thereof; Who ever 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 mens clamours to ſpring from any thing more, than their own paſſionate fancies, and prejudicate opinions, whoſe luſts lead them to wiſh it were ſuch, as they cannot charge it to be.