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
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
I mistaken in the poverty of the Primitive Bishops and the parity at least of Presbyterie to Episcopacy I must borrow your Spectacles when I look into any thing of antiquity but sure Sir Smectyâ—â—nuus will not think you modest to charge impudence and falsity on such as deny it they were bold to contradict your opinion in this very poynt asserted by the remonstrant your predecessour and assign several things in which the English Bshops differ from the primitive when you have reconciled them we will find you more but they will be enough for one book of forty sheets 7. This universal custome is not to be despised by any sober Christian yet this Episcopacy is not onely tradition and universal observation for it hath further the stamp and impression of divine order and wisdome Scripture precept and Apostolique pattern all right reason prudence and policie pag. 247. we need not go far to find the precepts canâ—ns commission power and authority of this Episcopal jurisdiction given by Jesus Christ and his Apostles pag. 228. such Bishops rooted in Christ branched in the twelve Apostles and spread in all the Christian world and endowed with honorary supports pag. 220. I like you Dr that you speak out most Episcopal men stand stammering at a divine right as if afraid to say it were to be found in Episcopacy and yet Dr. Gauden can plainly see the stamp and impression not onely of right reason prudence and policy but of divine order and wisdome yea Scripture precept and Apostolique pattern the very canons and commission of Jesus Christ I must confess I am so dark sighted I cannot see it I dare not encline to say or think as Dr. Gauden doth that the Apostles were proper Bishops or such as are our English Bishops because our learned and judicious Whitaker whom I judge no way short of Dr. Gauden declareth it to be the fancie of a crack brain Patres cum Jacobum Episcopum vocant aut etiam Petrum non proprie sumunt Episcopi nomen sed vocant eos episcopos illarum ecclesiarum in quibus aliquando commorati sunt si proprie de episcopo loquuntur absurdum est Apostolos fuisse episcopos nam qui proprie episcopus est is Apostolus non potest esse quia episcopus est unius tantum ecclesiae at Apostoli plurium ecclesiarum fundatores inspectâ—res erant non multum distant ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse proprie episcopum aut reliquos Apostolos I hope Dr. Gauden will not charge Dr. Whittaker with impudence and falshood and I think he strikes at the very root of his supposed Divine impresion and Apostolical practice and precedent to which you refer us for proof but that this may be believed you must needs proceed 8. The testimonies of the Fathers Councils and Historians are so necessary to the Scriptures that without them no man can receive satisfaction concerning the distinct offices of the Church the difference between the community of Christian duties as professors and believers of the common verity and specialty of the office of Preachers pag. 247 248. But Sir is a charge of imperfection in the Scripture the only support of your Prelacy or doth it abide as a mark of its papacy I apprehended the Scriptures profitable for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works which it can never be if we cannot by it receive satisfaction concerning the distinct offices in the Church which are the only means of intercourse between God and the soul or the common Christian duties of professors and beleiving of the common verity or specialty of the off ce of preaching certainly if the word be in this too short the writings of the Fathers Councils and Historians must needs aedisicare in Gehennam guide us like a dark lanthorn into inevitable danger for whence did they know these if not from Scripture this you stumbled on to divert the dispute of the Office name degree order and authority of your Bishop which Mr. Crofton put you upon Sir I am sorry I should be an occasion of your divulging such an error which your Anatomist will readily pick up as piece of blasphemy incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim you would avoid the dispute of the Divine right of your Episcopacy as that which was dangegerous to your See and have laid a foundation for another dispute concerning the perfection of the Scriptures as to the common duty of Christians and special office of Preachers and that on a fancy too For Sir Mr. Crofton would have you know he hath an audience and credence for the Fathers Councils and Historians as venerable witnesses in matter of fact but cannot receive them as judges in matter of right and sole Dictators of duty Mr. Crofton hath read that when Augustine was pinched with a passage out of Cyprian he made answer Sunt certilibri dominici quorum authoritati utrique centimus utrique servimus ibi quaeramus Ecclesiant ibi discutiamus causam nostram Sir whatever you say in an angry mood I wil hope you will joyn with me in an appeal to the Scriptures and then I say ibi quaeramus Episcopum find your Episcopacy there for otherwise if I find its extirpation in the Covenant I 'le stand by it it must be extirpated if King and Kingdome or peace and glory must be preserved from Gods angry extirpation for bona mutabilia are within the verge of mans vow and reach of his hand but you being loosed from the truth tumble you know not whither and therefore you suggest 9. Episcopacy is a matter of Faith essential to the being of the Church an eminent part of Gods Worship which may not be wanting withdrawn from or withstood changed or covenanted against without Schisme and superstition Pag. 195 214 215. Yet you dare not trust it to the tryal of the Scriptures I promise you Sir I dare not admit any thing as an Article of my Creed nor offer to God any thing as an act of his Worship which is not plain and obvious in the Scriptures without the witness and Authority of Fathers Councel or Historian I must adventure the schisme and superstition I hope Dr. Gauden doth not use Schisme and superstition as the old Prelates did the term Puritan and Englands late Tyrants did the term Malignant as words of no signification but onely served to nickname and reproach the opposers of their prophane principles and proceeding and to deter men from the discharge of required duty but to secure your Prelacy you go one step further and suggest yea speak out that 10. Bishops are coordinate and equal with Kings in that commission the word whereby God hath left liberty to his Church or the chief Governours thereof Kings or Bishops to order all things as they shall judge meet Page 205. Episcopacy is unalterable by any lawful humane power Dr. Gauden peremtorily
gradual difference between Englands Prelacie and Romes Papacie this being in specie the same with that and so a formal papatus alterius mundi 9. Under this usurpation Presbyterie sensible of its intrinsecal power did resist and often complain and when it was by force acted by fraud restrained yet made and continued its contests and its paritie in order and authority and hath ever been dogmatically asserted and polemically debated by not only the enemies but friends of the Papacie by Canonists Schoolmen Commentators and open discourses in Councils where the Pope durst never admit a free dispute not so much as in the Councel of Trent and as the Reformation of the Church proceeded Presbyterie not only pleaded but reassumed its own proper power and authority and managed the affairs of the Church as against the Pope so without Bishops and England it self though through the policie which too much attended and acted its reformation it retained an Episcopacie yet did dethrone its spiritual jurisdiction and resolve it into a meer humane and civil constitution acting circa ecclesiam and most plainly avowed the intrinsecal power of Presbyters in the act of the submission of the Clergie and other Statutes disavowing any ecclesiastical or scriptural constitution of Prelacie and baring them from all juridical acts otherwise then by the Kings commission and in his name And all our English Divines have openly asserted and polemically defended the power and authority of the Presbyters in their contests against Papists concurrence with and defence of the reformed Churches and their Presbyterial acts and at length our late learned Primate of Armagh in his grave Reduction affirmed it to be the Presbyters right to rule and govern the Church and propounded an expedient in order to the restitution thereof too long held from them the which being in its natural tendency desperata causa papatus as Voetius hath well termed his defence of the Presbyterated reformed Churches the man of sin doth under a Cassandrian accommodation withstand and endeavour to stifle it in which however he succeed to oppose he shall not prevail Presbyterie being Christs own ordinance and the primitive constitution of the Church and mediate discharge of his pastoral and Episcopal office whilst this is a plain humane constitution conform to the course of the world and contrary to the charge of our great Shepherd Matth. 20.25 The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority over them but it shall not be so among you Sir consider well this Climax I will assure you it is to me so obvious and apparent in Ecclesiastical story that he that will not see must turn Sceptique and must say Non persuaseris etiamsi persuaseris and how much soever Presbyterie be sleighted and represented to the world with the insignificant odious charge of Schism and superstition Christs kingly Office in and over his Church is bottomed in it and the recovery of its full liberty to the exercise of its just authority is not only justice but duty that may that which must be pursued pleaded for unto bonds yea death it self and therefore to match your number I upon these undeniable premises make these conclusions which if you will turn your Rhetorick into Reason and with a calm and composed spirit debate it I will be bound logically and theologically to defend against you Hierarchia Anglicana non est ecclesia nec ad ecclesiae entitatem aut gubernationem necessaria adeo ut ejus extirpatio estimetus schisma Hierarchia Anglicana est nullo modo divina aut ecclesiastica sed mere humana civilis cujus abolitio extirpatio sit licita sub juramento faederanda Englands Hierarchy is not the Church nor necessary to the being or government thereof so as that the extirpation thereof should be accounted schism Englands Hierarchy is neither divine or ecclesiastical but meerly civil and humane whose abolition and extirpation may be lawfully sworn and covenanted Until Sir these be confuted you who blame others do your self build upon a plain petitio pincipii Dr. Gauden being well considered will be found no less erroneous in his Politiques then in his Ecclesiastiques running away with certain general notions as if universally granted and undoubtedly true and agreed upon by all whilst indeed they are openly and generally denied I shall gather them together as the former and leave the Reader to take notice of them as he reads his book they running as a line through his book some of them being obvious in every page where his passion would give him leave to speak like a reasonable creature As that 1. The Hierarchy or Episcopacy is established by the Laws of England which I have in my Analepsis Analepthe denyed and the Covenanters plea hath more fully and judiciously expostulated and contradicted in Cap. 6. pag. 22 23 24. I do aver that the English Laws finding Episcopacy conversant about the Church doth restrain its exorbitancies and direct its administrations but neither Canon nor common law doth establish it and in terminis declare and authorize it to be the Government of the Church of England 2. No Oath may be fully sworn which shall bind to an endeavour to extirpate what is established by law and therefore although sworn by the legislative authority and command or by the sharers in the legislation it is ipso facto void and yet endeavour of alteration is to every man sui juris no way inconsistent with that passive obedience which we owe to laws in force and all Laws lye vailed and at the legislators feet to take up or refuse and void and an Oath is the most positive authentique repeal of a law vailed and at the least binding the sharers in the legislation and such as shall succeed into their capacity to repeal those laws which establish the thing which they have sworn to extirpate 3. There is no legislative power de facto operating and exerted binding the subject to any action or obedience unless all things concur which may constitute a full and formal statute law and so all Votes Orders and Ordinances Resolves and Judgment of any the Estates of Parliament are of no force power or authority during their session Which all Lawyers acquainted with Englands constitution will deny unless their Oracles of divinity have at the Temple taught them new notions of law which the constant practice of Lords and Commons and subjection and obedience of those whom they represent doth ordinarily contradict 4. That Lords nor Commons severally nor both conjunct can impose on themselves or others whom they represent any Oath without the knowledge consent and command of the King and if they do it is ipso facto void therefore you suggest that the protestation which is apparently sworn by Parliament and Kingdome without the King to be precarious whilst there is nothing of petition in it but much of legislation and that manifest by the subjects obedience even to your
Champions the Authors of the Oxford reasons and therefore must be proved 5. That the Parliament putting an Oath upon themselves as the collective body of the Nation doth not transmit an obligation to the Nation us and our posterities who shall any way succeed into that national capacity as if Parliaments were not the Princes yea more the body of the people doing in their names and by their consent what ever they do and if they do it by an act of permanent nature binding posterity in all ages that can dispose their succession into that capacity of this see more in my fastning of St. Peters Fetters Sect 6. 6. That tumults stirs and the timorous withdrawings of some doth nul and void a Parliament established by a positive law and without any positive visible and real force securing their doors to the barring of the entrance of any the Members to the discharge of their duties and easie way to dissolve Parliaments and blow them up without Gunpowder 7. That the Parliament can Act Vote Determine and execute nothing under the Kings withdrawing from them into any part of his own Country Who may yet do all things in his infancy or whilst in a Forreign Country as if the place of his retirement or reason of his absencâ— did add or abstract to the Authority of Parliament 8. That the two houses alone nor King alone no nor King with them have any legislative power to decree or execute what is unrighteousnes against God or man So that the legislation is founded in the piety and justice of the decree And rebellion against authority is acquitted by the iniquity of the command An authoritative aholishing of any subordinate order or society of men is injustice to the persons and possessions of the present Occupants And so England is bound to pennance for the abolishing Monks Nuns and Abbeys and that no King or Parliament have a power or can justly extirpate and abolish out of the Nation any trade calling or order of men any way useful to the Common-wealth Tinkers and Pedlers and men of the like order will certainly cleave close to this conservator of their liberty 9. That no King can lawfully swear to the diminution of his own prerogative and power or honorable estate which all people in the world must and will contradict 10. The solemn League and Covenant binding to an endeavour to extirpate prelacy is irreconcileable to the duty we owe to God and man First to the Kings Supremacy Second to the Church and Countrys peace and honour Third to the glory of God in the Government of the Church Fourth to the reformation of reformed Religion Fifth to the conscience and care of avoiding Sacriledge Schisme and Faction Sixth to the justice we ow to all godly honest and deserving men especially Ministers cujus contrarium verum est Sir whilst you take these for granted which are contrary to right reason natural policy Ecclesiastical story yea and truth it self you may easily raise your Fabrick swell your book and run on in a magisterial redaâ—gution prelatical determination and raging reviling opprobrious rebuke but Sir you must remember a man that is first in his own cause seemeth righteous but his Neighbour cometh after and findeth him out Prov. 18.17 We shall leave the Doctor to a view of these Rafters proportioned to his foundation and promiscuously scatterd up and down his book And more particularly observe the strength of his argumentation in his reply to what was excepted against in his Analysis and specially as it relateth to Mr. Crofton leaving Anonymous to himself who herein will finde full work for his anatomizing genius The first onset of Dr. Gauden in this his vindication of his Analysis made upon Mr. Crofton his Analepsis is in page 147 and thus enters viz. Which was the thing Dr. Gauden had to prove as Christ did the resurrection not out of the letter only but the Analogie and equity of that Scripture from the force of which M. Crofton cannot extricate himself by his more soberendeavours Under this charge I must enquire what it was he had to prove and I find nothing in this sentence dictating what it should be save only the relative which from which his rhetorick or rather his indigested heap of words hath removed the antecedent at such a distance that I cannot easily find it I looked into the Paragraph fore-going to find out the thing spoken of as that which according to the grammatical construction should make the Antecedent to the Relative and there I find this general conclusion viz. Such Vows and Covenants so much to the scandal of Religion reproach of Reformation gratifying dangerous factions disgrace of this and all reformed Churches dishonor to Jesus Christ his Apostles and chief Successors the Bishops so injurious to many worthy men to the whole Church and Nation of England either ought not to be taken by Christian King and People or if by force fraud or fear and facility they aâ—e so taken or rather imposed and mistaken yet they muâ—t never be kept in any such sence bue either repented of and dissolved or else the words must be resolved and reduced to such a sence as is good and lawful Id quod erat demonstrandum To leave his Libeller to take up his petitio principii as to our Covenant not such in point of matter or form nor so imposed or mistaken as he suggesteth and taketh for granted and to demand his Id quod erat demonstrandum This sentence must be the antecedent to his relative which for so it is connexed which was the thing Dr. Gauden had to prove out of that Scripture But what is the Scripture out of which he must prove this conclusion I find no Scripture nigh hand that can be the proof produced running some seven pages back through a wilde wilderness of words I find in pag. 140. a quarrel begun about Numb 30. and other Scripture is not urged this was the Scripture which was produced in his Analysis though with a misquoted verse and must be vindicated in this book so that this only must be the Scripture predicated to prove his which before noted and then indeed Mr. Croftons more serious endeavours cannot extricate him from the entanglements of the Doctors wilde fancy for the Text neither the letter nor analogy doth afford any such conclusion All Mr. Croftons brains cannot beat such a sense into the words they are so far out The Text in the letter of it is a special direction concerning the vow of a daughter or wife vowing without the knowledge of the Father or Husband In the Analogie of it of the Inferior swearing without the knowledge of the Superiour and directeth an establishment or irritation of the vow not any sencing or interpretation id quod erat demonstrandum And how Dr. Gauden can make it grammatically speak or logically conclude Such a Vow so scandalous to religion gratifying to faction dishonourable to Christ disgraceful to England
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
up seaven of the chief Violators of the Vow will your Worship please once a day to take a turn in poor Mr. Croftons walk and deliver your soul from this pittiful passion if you can however you fancy that fraud and force make void an Oath your Brother Bishop Sanderson all Protestant Divines and Civilians yea Popish Cafuists will dictate to you other things and little Mr. Crofton desireth to fear an Oath and to tremble at every tendency to a breach of faith with a jealous God but judicious Dr. Gauden can find a difference in the case of the Gibeonites from the case supposed by Mr. Crofton and makes it a specialty to that people and that in these particulers First The League with the Gibeonites was onely civil and secular not Religious Secondly Made by the chief councel and authority of the Nation Thirdly It was of things within their power as civil and secular Fourthly No injury to honest men Fifthly Though unadvised in prudence and policy of War yet it was confirmed by God to punish unadvisedness to preserve leagues obtained by honest fraud God had mercy for the Gibeonites as less sinners and more disposed to fear and repent A most profound comment but Sir was the Covenant with the Gibeonites wholy civil and secular within their power were they not the Hittites by Gods express command to be destroyed observe well the Catalogue Deut 7.1 2. Exâ—d 23.32 your predecessour Dr. Hall saith the sentence of Death was passed against all the Cananites and that Joshuas heart was clear from any intention to make a league with the Canaanites and enters a caution against it So Sir this was a League against the Laws of Israel given by God something more then civil confederacy with the Canaanites was inhibited for the safety of their Religion lest they should be seduced by them but Sir where the matter is religious will the case alter or the Oath be any more void then where it is civil the validity or religion of the matter whilst either it may be just and lawful according as the occasion of the Covenant doth direct 2. In that the Covenant was made by the chief Councel and authority of the Nation it doth not relieve the fraud whoever they were they were cozened by a peopâ—e who appeared to them what they were not Mr. Cr. will not fear to affirm the Solemn League and Covenant was sworn by the chief Councel and authority of England though not compleat But the question is of the fraud by which any are deceived into an oath 3. Was the oath of the Gibeonites no way to the injury of honest men you will not stand to it was it no injury to Israel to lose four Cities out of their inheritance given them by the Lord Was it no injury to be engaged in war and to hazard their lives for a company of Trepanners and cheaters who should have faln by their sword and D. Gaudens interpretative spirit would have left to fall by the sword of another was it no injury to have such a temptation to Idolatry which God had charged to be removed and such tormenting affliction Canaanites as pricks in their eyes and thorn-in their side If it were no injury to Israel what was the well-meant zeal of Saul on which his resumed reason did perjuriously destroy the Gibeonites 4. But say you it was confirmed by God how Sir not by any post-fact or immediate signification of his pleasure nor by the special dispensation of the High Priest but meerly by the power and vertue of the oath fraudulently obtained buâ— admitttng God did confirm it an oath obtained by bone fraud and surprisal as you phrase it if any can be honest is established as permanently binding and the breach of it is punishable by God hath not then Mr. Crofton cause to fear or must his fear be super superstition or not â—ather Dr. Gaudens observation be super-ignorant and super-arogant in reputing the hypothesis illustrating the very pinch of the Question against the very utmost supposed strength of opposition the least issue of weakness and exhausted spirits yet this is as ingenuous as the next note is honest Pag. 352. Mr. Croftons Oratory reason and civility failes his zeal whilst he makes such a reflection on his honorable Covenanting Masters comparing them to Colliers whilst they acted like Kings Where Sir did Mr. Cr. make this reflection had he not asserted and established their authority though to detect the weakness of your argument he imagineth what you fancy to make against the binding power of an Oath and your self is constrained to see the weakness thereof but verbosity must be venting though with falshood yet this is as honest as the next is sound that not the honour and authority but reason and religion in a Parliament must be weighed as if there were nothing in such an assembly but what is common to men if your prelacy may be thus measured it will soon be found a vanity But Sir I must tell you the man can be afraid God will be angry for not keeping Oaths unlawfully made and also for keeping and making unlawful Oaths or lawful Oaths by unlawful means but he cannot admit the say so of a Runagado as an evidence against the Covenant but affirmes it will be broken before your strain of Rhetorick can make extirpation to signifie reformation of your Episcopacy the first being so plain in the words and unavoidable sence of the Covenant that it needs no Presbyterian stretch as you scurrilously taunt or strappado more then it will endure the Antiphrastical strain of an apostate Presbyter and English Prelate But stay Sir you crow before the Victory Mr. Crofton was so far from shewing his wit and art in this defence as you falsely say by presently withdrawing that he who out of his sally port appeared to you like a little Mark and picolhomo did so little fear your first Granado that he followed you to your trenches and encountered your main body encamped in the Oxford reasons and yet keeps the field within reach of your Gunshot not fearing to have his brains beaten out by Dr. Gauden his reason if God restraines the Prelates high commission batteries against the truth which they can neither bear nor contradict let me tell our Champion notwithstanding his renewed assault he must go down to the Romish Phylystines to sharpen his prelatical Pikes before his battering rams can make impression on the Covenant and enter the garrison of Presbyterial reformation impregnably guarded by Mr. Crofton his Woolsacks which the Doctors skill cannot remove Having as he thought reinforced his battering Rame he proceeds to what he calleth his gulph between the Covenant and its legality and sanctity the tumultuating terrours of those times in which it was contrived conceived and brought forth or impâ—sed as if sanctity and legality could not exist in tumultuous days pag. 177. And he tells you in this mud Mr. Crofton was afraid to
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