authority and power which is given him by Law and is necessary for his high calling Is a man bound to take what the Law alloweth him and that whether he will or no if so if our prelate can beg the recognisances forfeited by licensed victuallers allowed by the law to the King it will make his Bishoprick a fat one But how do these cases clear the conclusion to be proved out of Numb 30 there is nothing relating to the Oath of the superiours but the asserting of their prerogative and absolute dominion over their inferiours to irritate or establish their vows what ever the Libeller did Mr. Grofton in his Analepsis allowed the Dr. this Text in its latitude and referred him to be judged by it and now granteth that the inferiour in things not sui juris may have the action vowâ—d superseded by the declared pleasure of the superiour and that whether it be son or servant but in our case he then affirmed 1. The Parliament sitting had over us a Legislative power to which we owed subjection they were in their capacity the Nation collective and sui juris and to be obeyed during their Session by those whom they represented their power in this Covenant was no less legislative then in the Protestation of May 1641. 2. The King who then was hearing of it did prohibit the Act but never did declare it null and void and Dr. Saunderson concludes the superiours dissent must be exprest in a full formal dâ—scharge ut tâ—llendo tâ—llat renuendo renuat is required to rescinde the oath But our late King advised to keep the Oath his present Majesty sware it sware his consent to it and to the Ordinances enjoyning it and conjured his Subjects to the keeping of it Both these Mr. Crofton suggested in his Analepsis and cleared more fully in his Analepsis Anelepthe which the Doctor should have considered before he had declaimed from the force of this Screpture Mr. Cr. doth not cannot extricate himself by his more serious endeavours whilst Mr. Cr. hath traversed his ground and turned the mouth of his cannon against himself and will offer again to joyn issues with a man acted by reason to establish the Covenant by the force equity analogie of this Scripture or otherwise to let it fall But he must not be worded out of Gods warrant But the judicious Doctor opposing p. â—45 14â— counteth Mr. Croftons observations pitiful shifts and not potent solutions and small twigs at which poor Mr. Crofton as a drowning man did catch yea weeds which sink him being of no deep reach nor any skill in swimming You are very right Doctor for Mr Crofton God be thanked could never yet swim with the stream or reach preferment with a profligated conscience But let us see these twigs and weeds he taketh notice of and observe whether the Doctors wits be not run a woolgathering in charging them with weakness Analepsis pag. 12. The first was The two Houses of Parliament are coordinatoâ— and sharers in the Legislation of England and so a constant lawfull authority To this the Doctor replieth He gently observeth a legislative power at least coordinate in the Parliament More modest man he this being out of his sphear otherwise then as a Subject and Casuist yet you might have pleased to observe he hath more strongly asserted and enforced it to the fastning of St. Peters fetters Sect. 4. But the Doctor enquires Can they legally exercise it without and against the Kings consent being not in his nonago nor out of his wits that they may do it without the Kings consent none do or can deny it common practice with the peoples constant obedience doth plainly manifest it as also the Protestation of May 1641. never doubted as to the validity of authority which you say was precarious but Resolves of the House declares to have been authoritative Votes Resolves Orders and Ordinances of one or both Houses do proclaim it and the priviledges of Parliament That the King take no notice of what is debated or voted ordered or acted by them until it be by themselves formally presented to his Majesty And the very nature of coordinate power if the Dr. understand it with their actings in case of his absence by minority or otherwise doth determine it As to the exercise against the Kings consent I shall conclude nothing but commend Mr. Prians Sovereign power of Parliaments to your serious study yet this much matters not in our case for a Parliament duly summoned and rightly constituted hath his Majesties consent to exercise that legislation placed in them so long as they shall continue in that capacity I think no English man will deny this And the legislative power of their Votes Debates Resolves Orders or Ordinances were never gainsaid by his Majesty though the peoples act of swearing the Covenant upon an unhappy difference and misapprehension was by an unusual way inhibited But the Doctor further profoundly demands Are they legislative in fact where there is no law made as none was for the Covenant was there legislation in actu secundo in exercise or act as to commend a writer for a book never writ or an architect for an house never built Where are now your wits good Master of words Is there is no writing or architecture in actu secundo in act and exercise until the whole book be writ or house built I fancied the writing of every page and framing of every board or squaring of every beam and laying every brick to be somthing more then scribendi or aedificandi potentia and if any more how far is it short of actus secundus Is there no Legislation without a full and formal Statute law What do you make of Votes Resolves Orders Ordinances of either or both Houses suspending superseding the Laws and Courts of Judicature directing and disposing the Subjects enquire at the Temple whether these be legislation in actu secundo Let your old friends a little laugh to see the Prelate-Justice his profound notions of legislation But the Doctors enforcement of these premises of legislation in potentia and actu is very considerable At best the two Houses nor King nor both together have any legislative power to decree or execute what is unrighteous against God or man Suppose they have not have they therefore no legislation in actu secundo act and exercise else what is this to the purpose But stay Sir What is that you say King and Parliament have no legislative power to decree or execute what is unrighteous against God or man I must deny this have you never read of wickedness established by a law Had Queen Mary and her Parliament who cast out the true and returnned the false Religion no legislative power by which they did it Doth the injustice of the matter nullifie the authority of the Law and Legislators is impiety enjoyned by a just authority to be actually disobeyed and relisted will not this prostitute legislation to every private
determineth that Parliaments Kings Lords and Commons have no prudent moral religious and lawful authority to change the antient universal and excellent government by Bishops for Christian Kings and their Parliaments are obliged to the Laws of God and rules of Christian piety and policy too of which the whole Church in its primitive example and constant custome is the best interpreter No legislative power is empowred by Gods law to bring in heresie error or schisme into the Church or take away the essentials of sound Doctrine and Christian Communion ever owned and maintained in the Church of Christ pag. 196. well said Doctor aut Caesar aut Nullus No Bishop no King must now be a Scripture maxime and article of faith if Smectymnuus his stirr up to the papacy be not now held Salmasius his Apparatus ad papatum asserted and Beza his Episcopi papam pepererunt verified by the Bishop of Exeter I am much mistaken but Sir have you not stretched too far and stept into a premunire little Mr. Crofton should fear to be made less by the head as guilty of Treason sedition at the least should he thus confront King and Parliaments in what all their Statutes declare to be their own creature and constitution changeable at their pleasure even from the statutes of Carlile and 25. of Edward the 3. Declaring against the Pope that holy Church was founded in prelacy by their own donation power and authority Where is Sir the Kings Prerogative over all persons in all causes Ecclesiastical What is become of your Oath of Supremacy can you make this peremptory determination as your self calls it consist with it any more then with your Covenant hath a gracious King lately advanced you to debase nay dethrone him and his Parliament too I know no better confutation of this errour then the hundred eighteen thousand eight hundred and forty pounds payd by the Bishops to Henry 8. to redeem the premunire into which this perswasion had betrayed them with the Petition and Statute of the submission of the Clergy which in my apprehension runs direct counter to Dr. Gaudens peremptory conclusion It hath been observed to be the fatal chance of the Deputies of Ireland to lose their heads and the Bishops of England to run themselves into a Premunire which when his Majestie affected with their bold encroachment doth exact will make them feel and it may be deal with them as did the King of Denmark provoked by the same peremptorie determinations These Sir are your errors in matters Ecclesiastical which you must give little Mr. Crofton leave to tell you are more obvious notorius and abominable heresies then was that charged upon Aerius though an undeniable uniuersal truth by Epiphanius nor doth he fear to be contradicted by any sober or judicious Prelate resolved to keep Episcopacy one peep short of Papacy unto which I shall make bold to oppose these few conclusions of undoubted verity and universally confessed by all Antiquitie which that little Mr. Crofton may not appear too great a dictatour let Dr. Gauden owning sacred or Ecclesiastick story deny it if he can 1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Shepheard and Bishop of our souls the great good chief and onely one to whom all must be gathered by whom all must be ruled that will be saved and from whom all must be authorized that will feed his flock 2. The Lord Jesus executeth this pastoral charge and Episcopal function by the Ministry of men successively sent and commissioned by his immediate authority and in his name without which they may not Minister to or be received by his flock 3. That the mission and commission of Jesus Christ is directed and given to two onely officers in his Church Bishops or Elders and Deacons the one to look after the bodies outward necessities and condition of his sheep to serve Tables the other to manage all the pastoral charge and Episcopal office as it immediately concerneth the soul of his people 4. That all Ministers are equally invested with and do intrinsecally possess authority from Christ for administration of all acts of feeding or ruling the flock of Christ without any difference of order place charge name office or dignity and therefore are joyned in the same general commission called by the same name Bishop or Presbyter chosen by the same characters conseerated after the same order charged with the same duty feeding or overseeing and challenge the same dignity esteem obedience and double honour from and among the sheep 4. That for some time in the pure and primitive time and estate of the Church the Presbyters did by and among themselves govern the Church communi consilio without any over them as Episcopus episcoporum or Pastor pastorum as having from Christ a different order and function yea without any gradual priority or preheminence of any particular Presbyter above the rest 6. That in process of time the Presbyters neglecting the course and care of Christian mortification by which they ought to have subdued their ambition and passions and so silenced their schism did by the working of the man of sin and permission of God devise a politique way or remedy thereof and advancing among themselves a Primus Presbyter ad schismatis remedium who was after dignified with the title Bishop and was by Canons honoris causa placed in Cities who was before in any poor village This giveth just ground for Smectymnuus note that Episcopacy above Presbytery was an humane invention on Diabolical occasion 7. That all jurisdiction and ruling power was yet acknowledged to abide originally intrinsecally and properly in the Presbyterie whose creature the Bishop was to act pronounce and execute their decrees and therefore when Bishops began to encroach and invade the Presbyters libertie and authoritie to usurp and ingross their power and function and make them subject and servile to them Canons were made to limit confine and subject the Bishop maintain and preserve the Presbyters power in Ordination Excommunication and Absolution not to be done without the Presbyters So that Presbyterie was ever known in the Church as Christs and his Apostles institution and Bishops apart and in preheminence to them the Churches Canonical constitution and Presbyters creation to the formality of whose advancement consensus clericorum was essential 8. That by this political preferment of a primus Presbyter the man of sin did work and exist in the Church engrossing the power of the Presbyterie and advancing himself above them he assumed by degrees a Principality to which he made the Presbyters sworn vassals by which became the subject of Princes indulgence and benevolence until capable of universal influence and extention through the Christian world he assumed an universal Papacie which he executed by subordinate Bishops heads of Diocesses and Provinces contracted universalities throughout the Church thus Beza well notes Episcopi papam pepererunt and Salmasius discovers the apparatus ad papatum â—nd many judicious men see nothing but a
fancy and furnish all Rebellion with Apology I am not bound for the thing decreed is unrighteous and neither King nor Parliament nor both had legislative power to decree and cannot therefore execute it for execution is subsequent to legislation I must not be punished where I am not bound to obey Doctor whose wits are now a woolgathering to run away from the Covenant by stating a doctrine of Sedition yea Rebellion Mr. Crofton should more soberly have said The King and Parliament have legislation to all acts of humane Society but must be careful they do not decree unrighteousness establish iniquity by a Law You have indeed very powerfully opposed Mr. Cr. his first observation beating down all legislation in actu secundo yea and in some cases which will fall too often and must be judged by every private man all potentia legem ferendi What say you to the second M. Croftons second notion saith the Doctor his second nothing observed as his safety is that a thing may bind in conscience which doth not bind in law or in the Judicature of man This M. Crofton did say and will stick to against the raging billows of your proudest words But what saith the Doctor to this notion True is it true and yet M. Croftons nothing True and yet a pitiful evasion a small twig a sinking weed Sure Sir the true of so big a bladder will keep little M. Crofton swiming above water How doth D. Gauden avoid the strength of what he confesseth to be true hath he well weighed it is an Oath that bindeth in conscience though not in law or humane judicatu how is it that he having cryed true turneth off with a but nothing can bind in conscience against the Laws of man in cases of equity justice and right Suppose Mr. Crofton cry True to Dr. G. what hath he gained Mr. Cr. did not affirm that any thing of that nature did bind conscience but that the Coveâ—â—nt not charged on any by a Statute Law yet bindeth the conscience of all personally or politically subjected to it And Dr. G. runs away with his petitio principii that Englands Episcopacy is established by Law and cannot according to Juâ—tice Equity and Common right be extirpated which M. Cr. hath denied and doth deny and when it is proved will further examine how far an oath bindes in conscience against it But as yet Dr. G. offers nothing to prove it but his Worships say so which will not be beleived Only M. Cr. must say that my oath may bind me against what according to equity and right the Law must adjudge me as in cases of contracts bargains or alienation of Land or goods where I have sworn or vowed a release of which the Law according to common justice equity and right can take no cognizance but must restore I am bound from requiring or by law receiving the restitution or performance It is hard that Dr. G. should lose the power of conscience by preaching equity and right among the Lawyers Mr. Croftons third Observation of the Kings oath making a supply to the supposed defect of authority binding the Covenant is entred upon with a drop of his sarcastical pen for Mr. Cr. bold and odious no less then fallacious if you will make a right Shemaiah add seditious and treasonable too urging by a Presbyterian pertness the present taking of the Covenant in Scotland I pray you sir though this be bold wherein is it fallacious that his Majesty sware the Covenant is not nor can be denied the form of his Royal Coronation his Royal Declaration from Dumferling and the History of King Charls the Second have made it known through the world that it cannot be hidden Though had not Dr. G. blurred paper to bring perjury upon King and Kingdom it had not been here pleaded by Mr. Crofton But Sir Wherein is an argumentative urging the Kings taking the Covenant so odious a piece of Presbyterian pertness Shall not every Disputant have liberty with freedom to express what will enforce his argument Is not the meanest Subject interested in the Kings oath and capacitated humbly to demand performance Do not Royal acts fall under the consideration of Casuists resolving conscience Are not Kings objects of ministerial admonition how bold soever it may seem none but a proud Pashur and shameless Semaiah could count it odious in Jeremiah to say to the King Keep the oath and thou shalt be delivered from that distress which may too late engage his Majesty to send to his faithful Monitor to pray for him Is not Mr. Cr. capacitated in all these respects to consider his Majesties oath even when he is abstracted from his Presbyterian pertness Sir I must tell you it is more odious in you to make his Majesties Legislative authority depend on the piety of his decrees then for Mr. Crofton to urge his Royal Oath as a bar to the Nations perjury Wherein lyeth the odium of an argumentative urging the King taking of the Covenant it was but modestly mentioned in the Analepsis though more fully and forcibly to the fastning of St. Peters Fetters It is every way visible Mr. Cr. doth neither justifie nor commend the insolent imposing of it but doth expresly condemn that although the maturity of his years here mentioned by this Doctor maketh it the more obliging as having the full exercise of his judicium rationale which if it were any way restrained by the distress of his affairs will not release him because it was chosen as his best course and juramentum metu extortum is agreed to bind the conscience and as a moral rule reacheth Kings as well yea as much as other men though therein he is more obnoxious to temptations and needs to have the case more clearly resolved if his Majesty delight not to hear of it as Dr. G. scandalously reporteth more is the pitty Mr. Cr. hath in Loyalty to his Majesty pressed it and perswaded others to press it on the same principles in his Analepsis Analepthe Sect 1. convincing and affirming his Ministers and Chaplains ought as his Monitors to mind him of it and affect him with it though I fear flattering prelates will rather expose him to hear of it in Gods wrath and by his Enemies reproach for the breach thereof then hazard their dignity by discharge of the duty they owe to God and his Royal soul That the Kings taking the Covenant can make any thing in it lawful which by the rules of religion and civil justice is unlawful Mr. Cr. did not affirme or urge it to that purpose but that it maketh up the supposed defect of authority in the first taking the Covenant is that which Mr. Cr. said nor doth D. G. deny it his consent unto the ordinance for taking the Covenant expressed by Oath gives it at least to conscience the formality of a Law That what his Majesty did in Scotland must not extend to England is a most false maxime according to which we
Levit. 26. but no longer for then his end is effected Repentance doth engage divine return for he hath promised that when ever he speaks against a Nation to pluck it up or root it out if that Nation repent he will repent Jer. 18.8 He ever meets relenting Ephraim with Repentance for inflicted judgements his method is to give Repentance and Remission of sins Jer. 31.18 The greatest good intended for Israel is contracted into the promise of repentance the Sun doth not more certainly follow the morning Star then the return of Gods presence doth attend repentance Nay Sir in this case repentance is an actuall re-enjoyment of blessing not only a quality disposing to it but an act putting into the possession of it as your Armies late repentance for their back-sliding put your Members actually into the House to rule and govern and their counter repentance put you out again so the repentance of your pretended Parliament and the People of England puts lawfull Governours into their proper places and fixeth Authority in its right Center which sin un hingeth and expelleth You may observe Israels Repentance was an actual and ardent Contest to bring home the King Repentance breaks open the Bar of Sedition and Rebellion which shutteth out lawful authority will but God give Repentance the Restitution of Englands Government will be very feasable and speedy For this Repentance consists in two parts 1. To abide for rightfull Governours however expelled and at present excluded and not to be for any other Magistrate by any act of Allegiance or acknowledgement of Loyalty strike not hands with consent not to any self-created Governours by Pride Perfidy and Rebellion slipping into a Chair of State play not the wanton with any self-advancing Absalom be not seduced by every seditious Sheba If proud men have power and profaneness to catch a Scepter and stamp Authority upon themselves let men maintain their Chastity deny their Allegiance court them not as rightfull Governours Mens giddy unconstancy is the blood that nourisheth Rebellion resolved chastity is the rebuke of adulterous attempts if with Mephibosheth men cannot follow their exil'd David let them abide in their widdowhood and retain their Loyalty untill he return According to Nature and Scripture a people may better be without any Prince then strike hands with a Usurper for in that is sorrow but in this is sin I should Sir wish that fond and blind affection may not engage any to commit lewdness with any the Members of Englands late Husbands body let not any the Members of our Collective Body now beheaded and bemangled cheat us with the claim of Allegiance by pretence of Relation and cry of a Long Parliament but rather let these Members be dispersed throughout the Tribes of Israel as evidences of that unheard of violence and unparallell'd cruelty which hath been acted on our Espoused Lord. Englands Subscription of sinful Engagements and shamefull Addresses to unlawful Powers hath been the breach of her chastity let us abide for lawful Government when we can doe no more evidence our integrity and assert our duty and relation when we cannot enjoy our right The second Act of Repentance to be done Second part of Repentance is to return unto the Lord and to David their King Return to God is the formall act of true Repentance Sin and Repentance have the same object though some sin is more immediately against God yet all sin is a transgression of his Law The same God that said Thou shalt have none other Gods before my face said also Thou shalt honour thy Father and thy Mother and Thou shalt not commit adultery Israels Rejection of Samuel was a Rejection of the Lord as light as men make of Civil Right and Order it is Gods direction in the second Table of his Law The complaint of the Penitent for any sin is unto God Against thee thee only have I sinned seeking to the Lord will spur a seeking unto David their King sence of God offended engageth a return from all sin not only from last but first acts of violence done unto Authority not only the interruptions made on you in 1653. but those chiefly made by you in 1648. and that with fulness of Resolution to back-slide no more a return to God will awe the conscience and obviate all the difficulties and discouragements of Repentance danger sinfully created by rebellion shall not deter repentance because it is a return to God ready to forgive let me say to England as God to Israel Jer. 4.1 If thou wilt return return unto the Lord who enjoyned your duty whose Law hath been violated by your impiety unto the Lord to whom you sware in the day of your distresse who is a God of jealousie and will avenge the quarrel of the Covenant sad is the Repentance which is but an exchange of sin or of sins object a bewailing of one rebellious act but maintaining and proceeding in a series of Rebellion violence and sedition Sir whatever Souldiers doe Saints must not thus return Israels return to God must be with a return to David their King by David is generally understood the Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ nor doe I deny it only Sir I wish it may be noted the Messiah is called David for Relation and Succession sake because the same seed and rightful Successour of David as the Pharaohs of Egypt and Caesars of Rome he is their King not only as the Messiah but by a lineall discent from and lawful succession to the Crown of Israel so that a return to David their King is mentioned with an allusion unto their Apostacy from and Rebellion against the House of David which must be repented in their return for they must embrace the Lord Jesus not only as the Messiah but also as their naturall Prince and lawfull Sovereign and therefore Calvin cryeth out Aliter vere ex animo Deum quaerere non potuit quin se etiam subjiceret Legitimo imperio cui astrictus erat they could no way seek the Lord in truth but by becoming Subject to their lawfull Soveraign Englands repentance must be according to this they must seek the Lord through Christ by subjection to their lawfull Government and Governours from which they have revolted the formality of Repentance from Rebellion is a return to Loyalty Sir Restitution is an essentiall act of Repentance the only restitution made for repented of Rebellion is a re-establishment of Authority and a return to Loyalty becoming subject for conscience sake Israel repenting the Rebellion into which they run after self-advancing Absalom 2 Sam. 19. they fell to strife among themselves about fetching home their King Nay Shimei's Character of repentance is this Thy servant doth know that I have sinned therefore behold I am come down the first of all the House of Joseph to meet my Lord the King if God will doe England good he will give them hearts to give God the things that are Gods
see and say this was not from the beginning You do indeed profess to the first six hundred years but I dare say the last three hundred of them are those you would chiefly cleave to And what do you mean by Ecclesiastical Laws where are these recorded and by what authority were they composed When you have given me a plain clear and distinct resolution to these if I mistake your meaning let me be blamed till then blame me not I love not the Rhetorick which contrary to its end proposeth objects with that obscurity that they cannot be with certainty determined and that under a profession to clear and convince the conscience Yet Sir to do you right When I observe you page 114. eat your own words and offer as if your Brethren Prelates had brought you now into Cassanders School and charged you to make an Apology for your over-friendly proposal to Presbyterians which you pursue by telling us All Presbyterians do hug Bishop Ushers Reduction of Episcopacy which in your Analysis you assured us did reduce Episcopacy to an efficacious conjunction with Presbytery and on which Mr. Cr. concluded that sence which you say he seemed in a sober mood to own An Episcopacy consistent with the Covenant pag. 191. but now say will reduce Bishops to primitive poverty the estate which attended and enforced their piety and therefore tell us That humble learned and pious Lord Primate propounded that reduction not in order to binde the hands of or limit Bishops in England and Scotand but as a condescention and expedient at present to disarm and binde the hands of Presbyters and people Sir who told you that this was the politick stratagem of that pious Bishop did not Bishop Wren Sure I am he came not down from heaven to authorize you in your Book to call him hypocrite and to tell all the world he had in Machiavillian policy by his grave and judicious authority affirmed That it was apparent out of the Word of God and practice of the primitive times that Presbyters had an intrinsecal power unto all Jurisdiction and order in the Church and by after Vsurpation were thrust out and therefore he proposed an expedient prudendentially to restore them to their just authority but never intended it to be believed as a truth or ever be put in practice as a duty but to only be jingled in the ears of crying children Are you not ashamed to cast such a blot on the precious name of him who I know was by some Cassandrian Prelates judged Puritan whilst alive Do you measure every man by your own temporizing principles and think they are onely in a good mood till they have opportunity to be bad and base do not you blush to offer this reduction in one book and call it in in another But whilst I see you thus play fast and loose I know how to trust to you and am holpen the better to understand what you mean by Episcopal Government and when I observe the soveraign power by which Mr. Crofton you say and that truly is not willing to be ruled pag. 216. Coordination with Kings as cheif Governours by Divine appointment pag. 205. Honourable fatherhood and government p. 203. The legal constitution by the Laws of England to which our Episcopacy doth pretend the continued practice and exercise of it in this Nation the superiority above and authority apart and distinct from Presbyters whose advice may be good and useful but not necessary as that which would make every Presbyter suffragan Bishop and the Bishop without his Presbyters a meer â—â—pher All which I finde predicated up and down your tedious discourse of that Episcopacy you would advance and which you say is not so obscure as Mr. Crofton would pretend but in express terms you tell us is That Church polity honour order and government which our Bishops had and now have and that we must not by an equivocal and levelling fence confound Bishops and Presbyters by a silly â—â—gomacâ—ie or cavil of names distinguished by a real rational difference of place honor office authority and use in the Church of Christ which you say no learned man can doubt of or deny but sure you mean affirm when I consider these things I must confess I should mistake you and do my self wrong by suspending yea stifling my judgement if I should not see clearly the Episcopacy which you pretend to reconcile to the Covenant is no other then that very frame and fabrick of government which Smectymnuus tells us was of humane invention and diabolical occasion by which the man of sin was made manifest and did advance himself in the Temple of God innovated by Austin the Monck so exercised that it appeared papatum alterius mundi which my Analepsis told you I was jealous you meant in your Analysis I have Sir with tiring difficultie discovered the ratio formalis objecti which you profess to reconcile to the Covenant and make consistent with it and in my eyes it doth seem to be the very same with that which in terminis was covenanted to be extirpated viz. Prelacy that is to say the government by Archbishops Bishops their Commissaries Chancellors Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons c. depending on that Hierarchy But let us see how you answer the third part of Mr. Croftons Analepsis and acquit your self from the imbecillity of argumentation charged on you And sir you seem to me to take a very preposterous and strange course to commend the strength of your reason by a tedious and long confused discourse of rage enmitie and opposition at the Covenant or by a general hypothesis that it must bind to what is good pious just lawful and not against reason religion justice pietie morallitie duty to God and man whereas you ought to remember that generalia non pungunt these may be all admitted and Episcopacy never the nearer reconciled to the Covenant whereas you ought to have given us a grammatical construction logical resolution genuine interpretation of that Article which seemeth cross to your Episcopacy and by a clear acceptation and vulgar apprehension or general scope of its words make it appear that the words will without straining admit such a sence and signification but it may be the simplicitie which becomes an oath of the terms extirpation or reformation being incompetible except in a fools fancie might strike you off this But them you should Sir have given a point blank charge against that Article which clasheth with your Hierarchy as binding to injury injustice immorality irreligion against the duty we owe to God and man and pursued that closely by clear and convincing demonstrations then had the Bishop shewed himself a workman who needed not to be ashamed but let little Mr. Crofton be never so great a Dictator he must finde è quovis ligno non fit Mercurius every tongue well hung cannot be well tuned nor will natural fluencie be easily kept to rules of art or under the command of
reason I must be content to take you as I find you and follow you as well as I can in your own confusion And Sir I find the fabrick of your discourse founded on some seeming principles which you account undoubted and eternal then raysed by some Hypotheses or conjectural fancies framed in your own brain and so your strength is at length directed against that opposition to your prelatical structure you undertook to clear by your Analysis this is the onely order into which Mr Crofton can reduce you and according to which he shall now consider you First Sir your foundation is first offered to view in pa. 8 and must be considered and you poynt to it by moral and immutable grounds in the Margin and in the Text tell us your Analysis was fixed on these undoubted and eternal principles of Justice and true Religion 1. No man can lawfully covenant swear vow or engage himself contrary to that duty he ows to God the King the Church the Laws and good of his Country or contrary to that particular Justice and charity which he oweth to himself or other men 2. If any man be surprised or hampered in such Covenanting words or vowing formes he must find out such a sence of his words as may consist with true Religion Justice and known Laws c. 3. If this cannot fairely be done he must presently retract his Covenant c. Sir before I can digest your Notions and fundamental axioms as undoubted and eternal moral and immutable I must demand proof for part of the first and then the next fall in and follow think you Sir a man may in no case swear to endeavour in his place or calling to remove what is established by Law if so you must prove it I do not believe you for the laws which were good may become hurtful will not you Bishops swear and pursue it to have the statute 17. Caroli repealed if you say no I shall not believe you nor will you be easily made to believe it is unlawful and yet I dare boldly affirm it is contrary to your duty Again is every Oath unlawful which is against the particular charity and Justice a man oweth to himself I cannot believe it a Marchant may find it to be much for his gain that he Trade to a place which is to be excluded by League between two Nations he is required to swear may he stand off and say Charity begins at home my particular charity doth carry me to Trade thither to my own enriching I may not lawfully swear against it Preach this Doctrine and the people will love you better then your Prince my own particular justice doth bind to exact the utmost mite of the Covenants forfeiture or damages which I recover against a man may I not lawfully mitigate it and on sence of the mans poverty and my own credit as not revengeful and cruel may I not swear I will not take one mite or but one half you are Sir no Chapman for me that will not give me leave to cut a thong out of my own hide As to your second if a man have so sworn and be surprised or hampered by Covenanting words he must seek to find a just sence if you mean of the words according to their natural signification and others vulgar acceptation as well as the matter he would performe I shall not much quarrel with you onely tell you the fencing of an Oath when sworn is a Tickle slippery stone to place in a foundation it is a snare to devoure holy things and after vows to make enquiry But Sir for your third not finding such a sence he must fly off and retract his Oath I can in no cause consent until you have cleared it that the Oath of the Gibeonites was not against the duty they owed to God their Laws and Country their own charity and justice or that Jeptha's vow was not against his own particular charity and justice you have some whimsies concerning these we shall weigh them in their proper places I am sure these were both surprised and whatever you fancie the one did I am sure the other did not go about to sence it as they might much more clearly and rationally then you do the Covenâ—nt If Sir these be your political axioms I am sure the Heathen would soon tell you You are like to bring an old house on the head of humane Societie and lay them open to all kind of persidie what now must we expect the fabrick and superstructure to be raised and fixed on so false and slippery a foundation is like to prove a falsis nil nifi falsa sequuntur such as is the Thesis such must be Hypothesis the following matterials be of the same nature and bear a Symerie to the ground-work And Sir when I gather up your rafters promiscuously scattered to the raising of your Hierarchical Anti-covenant structure I find them to be a hydra of ecclesiastical heresie and political error by which your Prelacie seems to work like the man of sin from whom it was derived the papacie of which it cannot be denied to be a species though alterius mundi with all deceiveableness unto all unrighteousness the which you must give me leave to pile up and lay together that your self and such on whom you pretend influence may discern them Yet Sir I have more charity then to count you an Heretick I judge them to be the exuberancie of your inconsiderate loquacity the excrescencie of an unregarded tongue darkening knowledge by words without wisdom for in a multitude of words there cannot want much sin However by a bold and base petitio principii you build upon them I hope when you see them naked you will retract them and run away from your own structure lest it tumble on your own head to your ruine as well as shame Concerning Episcopacy the Object and Ratio formalis of the debate I have observed your unwillingness to be mistaken and therefore have done my diligence to understand you and do think I have taken you right and as your present state doth declare to all the world and whilst I say the Solemn League and Covenant doth bind in the plain literal and obvious sence to the extirpation thereof you do determine it cannot so do rationally justly honestly piously morally religiously with an heap of such words but if it so binde us it is void but instead of those clear constant and pregnant beams of right reason and true Religion which you promised in your Analysis and I demanded in my Analepsis you us present with the foggie fancies of your own brain and run away with them â—y your fluid and gliding tongue or discourse as if granted as your moral and immutable principles indispensably and undeniably true whilst every knowing man will tell you nothing but a flood of vanity can drive you to imagine them so to be Particularly you conclude as without contradiction these Ten things which in their
stick and therefore he nimbly skips over it Oh Doctor it s an advantage to be light and little know you not its an eminent piece of dexterity in a Souldier to pursue an enemy beaten from his battering Ram into and over those gulfes to which for want of strength or courage he retireth hoping to escape and it is an Irish mans excellency to tread Bogs without sinking yet Sir Mr. Crofton skipped not so soon over your Gulph but he took a turn with you in it and told you the tumults were not so great and loud but that Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Aâ—aâ—ep p. 14. commissioners of the Kirk and Kingdome of Scotland assembly of Divines did solemnly seek divine direction seriously debate and determine the Covenant and to this you make no reply but tell your Libeller a tale of a tub and story of mad Hugh Peters in 1641. two years before the Covenant Here Sir Mr Crofton by his little reason leapt so nimbly and light so strongly on you that in this point you cry quarter and confess the authoâ—ity due meaning and matter of the Covenant is more to be considered then the tumults and arms and how suspicious soever it may render it what is just and good is not null because tainted with tumults paâ— 179. this is that which Mr. Crofton urged and inforced by the instance of Zedekiah whose perjury was odious having sworn the best termes the straights of his condition would allow him as your self yields and was all in which Mr. Crofton made the parallel So that Sir in this gulph you are become my Prisoner but perceiving you are not willing to be held but think you have a Weapon yet to weild viz. the injustice of the matter I will give you fair quarter and still liberty to fight and therefore will let you go on your promise that you will not provoke by vain brags and like the Athenians fight against Alexander verbis tantum but presently joyn issue and try your strength and skill at your Quarter Staff the unjust matter of the Covenant at which if you prevail not you must yeild your conscience to it or be Gods Prisoner of wrath for ever Let not Dr. Gauden fight with an Irish man in a bog for he will turn his tune and make you hear him cry the next time honest Mr. Crofton is more valorous and answereth against the novelty and partiality of the Covenant that it is neither new nor partial pag. 180 but Mr. Crofton must say Dr. Gauden is wilfully blind to enquire the sence in which Mr. Crofton saith it is not new and partial whilst he might read plainly in the Analepsis the matter is not new or partial and Mr. Crofton saith that formes and circumstances are as changable new and partial as time at whose command they are but supposing the matter to have been new to England if good Mr Crofton did say and stands to it it binds and the novelty bars not the obligation nor can or dare Dr. Gauden deny it though he can easily say Mr. Croftons observations are a palpable Sophistry and playing at bo-peep which were these two The supposed contrariety of the Law is of no force to such as conclude a power in the Parliament to put a period to those laws and an oath against them upon the people Secondly Analep p. 12 An oath sworn by the Legislators and body of the people is the most full discharge of all contrary laws Both these Mr. Cr. and all rational men do beleive but that Mr. Cr. must confess the Laws did establish the Hierarchy is the sophistical groundless inference of him who knoweth Mr. Crofton doth deny it and therefore urged his reasons against a supposed contrariety but give a â—â—relate an inch he will take an ell suppositions are sufficient supports to a man of fancy who all along his discourse playeth at bo-peep begging what must never be granted whilst his nose is between his eyes Thus he supposes the two Houses into a non entity as to their supream legislative power by the temper they were then in and the absence of the King though they were animated by an express Statute Law which some upon grounds and by reasons beyond the reach of Dr. Gauden or little Mr. Crofton to resolve have openly averred to continue them yet in being And thus he profoundly supposeth a Parliament swearing qua Parliament in the fullest formality and professions of their national capacity was a personal covenanting and this he supposeth for fear their act should pag. 181. as Mr. Crofton affirmeth it doth engage all the Nation and their posterity so long as it shall be a Nation as Adam did all mankind And all this he supposeth to make us suppose extirpation signifieth erection of the Prelatical Hierarchy But stay the Doctor hath a request What is the matter I must desire Mr. Crofton to bate me an ace the repeated stroak at the Royal assent by which he again lasheth the King as did the Monks of Canterbury King Henry the Third is not a grain of allowance to the English Covenanters I perceive his Majesties Oath troubleth him as it well may for it iâ— a rivet will never be loosened yet he might have seen some difference between the mention of it and the lashing of the Monks of Canterbury for that theirs was a formal penance by and in defence of Episcopal Jurisdiction this is at most a Ministerial admonition and Casuistical consideration the smiting desired by David as that which would not break his head nay would be a kindness and excellent oyl better then the Archiepiscopal unction But I cannot bate him one ace of it it doth add many grains to the Covenant though current before However his Royal assent was given in Scotland post factum pactum Mr. Crofton doth affirm it hath made the Covenant National as far as the King is capable of a national capacity and the Ordinance requiring it hath in foro conscientiae the formality of a Law This Mr. Crofton hath affirmed in his Analepsis Anelapthe Sect. 6. and shall affirm whenever a Parliament shall put the question to him and if his Brethren shall not do it it will be for want of due consideration or courage Sure our Doctor will not make all foreinsecal acts and post-facts void and of no efficacy if he do we must determine a nullity on the late Parliament and take heed of a treaty out of our own land But all men know Dr. G. is singularly well skilled in politicks He proceeds in page 182 and 183 and tells us Mr. Crofton goes as boldly to look on the next Gorgon or Medusa's head by which the Doctor sets forth the horrour of the Covenant which in his Analysis was the unblest consequences which attended it and so exclaims against the Covenant or rather acclaims the happy days they had before it and expect when it is sunk To which Mr. Crofton shall say no
more but sure those happy days were not real but seeming for the Covenant doth naturally make for what is truly good And as for Mr. Croftons boldness he shall say no more but the righteous are as bold as a lion it is not snakes or worms of a dead head which can frighten him But Mr. Crofton his defence and rescue of the Covenant from the odium of these horrible effects as to a proper and natural causality is a plain Gorgon to Dr. Gauden striking him dead by the very aspect thereof For as one planet struck he mumbles out an heap of words hardly to be understood How far the covenanting planet or spirit had its influence on these I will not dispute Which amounts to thus much I will not answer Mr. Croftons enquiry are these effects the proper brood and natural issue of the Covenant For if I do I must confess I fathered them very wrongfully Sir you do well to shew your skill in an acclamatory and calumniatory flourish and presently withdraw with an I will not dispute His next defence is against Mr. Croftons wish he had been at his elbow when he mentioned the bafflings of the Covenant pag. 184 186 180. wherein he acknowledgeth the truth of all Mr. Crofton in his Analepsis had urged to demonstrate the odious falshood of the Kings shiprack on the Covenant though he most unworthily reproacheth the poor Scots with the want not of fidelity and good will but of success Gods only gift And instead of vindicating his Analysis against Mr. Croftons Analepsis noteth The vote of non-addresses was passed by the covenanters but he doth not nor dare not say by vertue of the Covenant nay himself calls the promoters thereof the Cromwellian Faction and quotes Sir Henry Vane as if all the world knew not these to be perjured Anti-covenanters And himself is constrained to profess Dr. Gauden is not so illogical and atheological as to infer a nulling of all things and all must be nulled if any on that ground by the apostacy and perversness of some And so subscribes to Mr. Croftons conclusion and argument What he suggesteth of the rational baflings of the Covenant by the Oxford reasons Mr. Crofton hath fully considered and cut him out work enough to contradict his Analepsis Anelepthe His suaso's to loyalty are as needless to a sincere covenanter as those of subjection to Episcopacy and content with its restitution are groundless The Doctors opposing contrary Oaths to the Covenant concerneth not Mr. Crofton who yet hath considered them in his Analepsis Analepthe sect 3. pag. 97 98 99. and therefore Mr. Crofton shall only enquire what principle of morality or justice maketh the Hierarchy a royal and successive duty to our Kings Is this duty immediately imposed by God or prescribed by the laws of the land any more then that an Ecclesiastical person shall put on the Crown Lands late unction in forma crucis or the offering the Regalia upon the Altar or was not this the voluntary assumpsit of the English Kings will not a previous oath bar such a voluntary assumpsit countermand custom and at least suspend an execution of laws which bear any aspect to such an action When the Doctor hath cleared these there will be a better support to Episcopacy then they can yet receive What the Doctor discourseth about the divine civil and moral authority of Episcopacy in page 191 192 193 194 is a petitio principii and noted before in his collected errors to be proved before the Covenant or its obligation can be strained by them His eighth difficulty he tells us seems to press heavy on the Analeptist which was but a bare seem so and that in his own account who dreams of an Almighty power in his words without reason It being an empty swada and insinuating plea without any force by the uncertainty of its object as Mr. Crofton in his Analepsis page 19. hath observed perswading to a sence which the words of the Covenant will no way afford in respect of which he tells us Mr. Cr. after some shuffling and confusion which let the Reader judge definitively resolves that the Covenant expresly bindes against the very form and fabrick of the late Hierarchy in England established by law is by him added and fancied for it was never believed nor asserted by Mr. Crofton and not against its abuses excesses and defects only This Mr. Crofton did conclude as definitively as became a Disputant or Casuist yet not as if he had been in the bosom of the first composers of the Covenant but as the grammatical construction logical resolution vulgar acceptation and genuine interpretation of the words which D. Gauden doth not dare to be tried by yet this must convince and guide the very Composers themselves if never so willing to shift off the Covenant do assure him and from this conclusion he shall not easily recede nor doth the Doctor urge any thing that may drive him from it for to his good Mr. Crofton if the excesses abuses and defects of our former Episcopal constitution be reformed what can remain but the good Mr. Crofton dâ—th affirm that the same being a civil humane frame alterable at mens will if covenanted against cannot be retained but corruptio unius must be generatio alterius the frame must be extiâ—pated unless it be found necessary not ratione subjecti as you profoundly say you must have your horse before the detainers know it is necessary for you but necessitate praecepti because of Gods positive will and institution therefore you must specifie what is in your Hierarchie that is not only a good notional entitive national and poliâ—â—cal but moral and Ecclesiastical having in it something more Christian Apostolical perfect and divine then any other government and prove it for your words are too many to be beleived though Mr. Crofton can easily believe many of you will witness your couches mannors states honours revenues to be as necessary to you though primitive Bishops went without them as is your horse sooner then you will specifie that goodness which must and onely can expunge extirpation out of the Covenant and Mr. Crofton must tell the Doctor reformation of the Hierarchy was not Covenanted but extirpation and his Dictionary will teach him to know what it means yea and let his profound reason know that every plebeian fancy can differ between the fabrick of mans body built by God and nature and not within humane power except in case of justice to demolish and a political frame reared by humane art invention and industry at his pleasure to be thrown down agâ—in and therefore he is not more scurrilous then foolish in demanding whether if Mr. Cr. diseases be cured it be not enough to justifie his Physitian unless his body be taken in peeces codled and pur-boyld for that there is not more of difference between an humane body and an Episcopal frame then is between the faederated extirpation of the one and Physical
must not be sworn if sworn not kept if kept senced and interpreted I am certain all the Doctors in Oxford cannot discern it If Christ had thus proved the Resurrection the Saducees would never have been silenced and we must have been at a sad loss for the great Article of the resurrection of the body that ground of our Christian hope Will Dr. Gauden please to frame his argument a pari for little Mr. Croftons rescue he conceives it must run thus Numb 30. Directeth that the Oath or vow of a Daughter Wife or other inferiour made without the knowledge of Father Husband or Superiour should be at the pleasure of the Superiour confirmed or made void Ergo no scandalous disgraceful dishonourable Oath may be taken if taken must not be kept if kept it must be well interpreted by what rules must we measure this argument the Anticedent is particular the consequent is general it must needs be a syllogisme currens quatuor pedibus running as fast as B followeth A C followeth B and so one followeth another and all follow A immediately the frame such upon which the conclusion followeth the connexed termes as naturally as the Jesuites at the conference at Ratisbone Qui negat articulum fidei est haereticus sed hoereticus est qui negat Tobiam habuisse canem Ergo sequitur articulum esse fidei quod Tobias canem habuerit The barking Cur at the Moon-light of Dr. Gaudens logique is seen as plain as the sun continually disturbing his reason I find the Dr. in a Wilderness of words and wood of invention tossing the words of this Scripture telling us one while they are meant of lawful vows another while the Oath is made through weakness another while to the damage of the superiour and so stretching them as the onely square and rule for all Oaths but yet can stumble on no ready way due proportion or fit parallel whereby to resolve them but at lenth preposterously breaks through them with an invective against the nameless Libeller which concludes with a dolosus versatur in generalibus which none is more guilty of then Dr. G. and concludeth that may be just by some general maximes or customes of common law which yet is very unjust when brought to the rules of Chancerie as D. B. well knows in Hipslies case pag. 145. The Dr. hath sure made a good proficiency in his Temple Studies but I must enquire what Chancery can comment on the maximes of the common Law I know the just and proper strict rigour of them may be mitigated must not be denied otherwise then as to execution what Chancellour must do it on Gods Law or hath a Commission to interpret an Oath beyond what its genuine sence alloweth or to restrain the performance of it unto God Dr. Gauden doth assume not to say presume to do it and we well know Bishops have been Lord Chauncellours of England Though we deny his Authority let us a little consider his equity for the strictness of an Oath is an heavy burden and many times bindeth a man to loss and grief and he proceeds by some special cases which he suppose thought not to be made or kept let us take a glance of them that our minds may be cleared in the sence of Numb 30. His first case is If Parents vow not to give a Child in Marriage or not till such a time or not to give him such a portion but to devote him to single life poverty banishment or base employmennt it is sinful and injurious may nâ—t be made or kept in this case he must give me leave to dissent from him untill he have stated the case more perticularly as to the reason and ends of such a vow and until he have proved the Child as to all these things is not to the parent sui juris to be disposed of debased or advanced although I should neither advise nor commend so harsh and heady an exercise of parental power and prerogative yet if pinched with the question I durst not determine the negative The Parent finds the Child Proud Stubborn Disobedient Perverse voweth to cut him short in his portion may he not do this in Justice and in his just displeasure perform it may not the Parent send the stuborn Child to Barbadoes by slavery to subdue his spiritâ— may not the Parent vow he will not give in Marriage to such a person as he judged unfit for his child or is not the Parents consent in his own power the danger of a single life are not proper effects of the Parents not giving in Marriage and Dr. Saunderson distinguisheth between the thing sworn De juram pâ—eâ—ect 3. Sect. 1â— which is causa propria and occasio or causa per accidens of sin and concludeth that an Oath made concerning the last is not unlawful I should wish Parents to be very wary of making such vows and Dr. Gauden as wary of discharging them though rashly made that may be sinfully sworn by a Parent which must be sorrowfully performed if the parent have unadvisedly devoted the child to want the law may rather take Alimony for him then the parent perjuriously give it I hope Abraham shall not be charged with injury to them in sending away Hagar and his son Ishmael Gods encouragement could not acquit the sin and what a parent may do he may swear to do without injury And methinks the case of the Israelites should resolve this case fully they had I admit rashly sworn they would not give their daughters to Benjamen the effect reflects their Oath very sadly and reduceth them into a strait yet they fear to break it and upon Counsel from God find out a way to save it and make some supply unto the defect which falling short they devise some think indeed sinfully a second stratagem rather then break their Oath what ever others may say upon this case I cannot but observe Children are fully sui juris to the Parent an hurtful oath is to the child no injury strictly to be so accounted an Oath concerning them when rashly made must be strictly observed and kept the light of nature and law of Scripture doth in my apprehension in this dissolve our Chancellours injunction The next case is of the like nature in reference to Servants and Subjects for supposing their Masters and Princes to have as Prelates suppose of every King merum imperium though they may swear rashly sinfully in reference to God yet not injuriously as to the slave or Subject Although Gomarrus and others note that man hath not from God aâ— absolute dominion over himself yet they deny not but men may vow and must keep their vows to the latitude of that Dominion God haâ— given them over themselves or others and this is the rule ourâ— Bishops Chancery should interpret and relieve against for this will conclude against him that a King may swear or having sworn must performe a diminution of his own just Soveraignty and that