BERITH ANTI-BAAL. OR, Zachary Croftons appearance, BEFORE The Prelate Justice of Peace. PRETENDING To bind the Covenant and all Covenanters to their good behaviours.
WHen Dr. John Gauden first appeared in the World with his Analysis to the sinful loosing of St. Peters bonds, under a plausible pretence of counselling a Christian friend, in a matter of great concernment, and resolving the conscience, in the point of the solemn League and Covenant, and its opposition to Episcopacy; Mr. Crofton considering the good observation of Gregory the great, Lib. Mor. 22. cap. 2 [...]. made of the course of Heretiques, sub specie eonsulendi agunt negotium seducendi, that they pretending to play the Casuistes, to resolve conscience, and to advise in matters of Religion, [Page 2] drive on the design of seducing souls, and subverting the truth, and Salvation. Thought it no less then his duty to consider the same very seriously, and to try it by the rule of Scripture and right reason; and finding in that book (what ever was the Authors intention) too great a tendency to enervate all sacred bonds, Invalidate, yea annihilate the solemn League and Covenant, and thereby supplant the peace, and happiness of our restored King and Kingdom, he apprehended it his duty, as a Minister of Jesus Christ, and his Church, (though the meanest and least to be regarded) to intimate to the worshipful person concerned, and (by him) those to whom that book should come, Sir [...].B. the dissatisfaction, and delusive danger, he found in that book; and therefore he did on July 8. 1660. send after it an Analepsis, or St. Peters bonds abide, detecting the impiety thereof, in subverting the Covenant, by a pretended interpretation thereof, nay enervating the sacred obligation and power of all Oaths, by the principles therein suggested; and its excee [...]ing imbecillity, as to the satisfaction of conscience, unto which it professed. This done, Mr. Crofton composed himself in s [...]lence, and submission, waiting for the reply of the reverend Author of the Analysis, but received none, onely more then one, though one (a stranger to Mr. Crofton,) more especially told him, Dr. Gauden thanked Mr. Crofton for his civility, and yeilded to his reason; yet at length (how ingaged I know not) he appeared to repeat the same things, and almost words, in an Epistle to an Anonymous book, called, Doubts and scruples, but repaired to the Oxford reasons, as his fort against the Covenant, in which, (with other books of the same nature,) Mr. Crofton though (good, (once for all) to consider what was said, or could be said against the Covenant, and to answer them by several Antitheses, which he did in his Analepsis Anelepthe, or the fastning of St. Peters fetters, and so thought his work on that subject to have been done, being established, and enforced by the learned, pious, and judicious Covenanters plea against absolvers, both which must receive a Logical, and clear theological [Page 3] confutation, ad grecas calendas, and therefore did apply himself to his ordinary Ministry; and his little spare time to such other things, as might be profitable to Gods Church, and prevent the backsliding of our covenanted reformation, but
Heark, What is this, is cryed? Dr. Gaudens Reply to Mr. Croftons answer, I must sure see that: Hem, quid video, what is this, I see? a book with a fair bulck, nigh forty sheets of Paper, to vindicate Dr. Gaudens Analysis, (why not Loosing of St. Peters bonds, is he beaten out of that Title, and ashamed to use or own it any longer) contained in three▪ answered in five sheets of Paper, ten at the most, (if you take in the Anatomy of his nonsence and blasphemy) long looked for comes at last; it sure, will answer expectation? No, it intends no such thing; after its ten moneths travel, it will profess no more, then to vindicate his Analysis.
Howsoever, Mr. Crofton, nay the Covenant is concerned in it, it must be taken up and considered, what Title is that it beareth? Anti Baal-Berith; Sure the Printer hath abused him by a transmutation, the Reverend Doctor cannot be so mad, as to account the Solemn League and Covenant, a Baal-Berith; a Covenant for Baal, which he himself swar, and onely labours to interpret, and in the positive part of it doth bind unto a reformation of Religion according to the word of God, which kills, and example of the reformed Churches, who have cast out Baal, and his Communion Table, set Altarwise, Altar (I should say) not according to humane inventions, Papal impositions, or prelatical prescriptions, which advance, and maintain Baal, (if not against) competitour with the Lord, and in the negative part of it, bindes to the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresie, schisme, and prophaness, under some of which, certainly [Page 4] Baal must be couched at the least; if not visible in Popery, visibly supported by Prelacy, must not the man be out of his wits, who shall call this Covenant a Baal-Berith? If the Doctor did direct this title, and in this book do pursue it, it is pitty but D. B. or some Anatomist should discover his nonsence and blasphemy now made as plain, as the Nose on his Face; but I will have more charity.
The utmost this book pretends to, is to bind the Covenant and Covenanters to their good behaviours, (not abandon, or abolish it, as a Baal-Berith) and to this, they are ready to submit, when summoned by a just authority, for they are, and ever have been (qua tales) as Covenanters of a good behaviour, neither bound nor presuming to endeavour beyond their places and callings, though their reality, constancy, and sincerity therein, by Preaching, or Writing (the works of Ministerial calling) doth not a little vex and displease some Idle Lordly Bishops, and make them complain of the Covenanters misbehaviour in disturbing them on their Velvet couches, or not comming before their Lordships with such cap and knee, and may it like your Grace, as they look for: but
Who is this that will bind the Covenant and Covenanters to their good behaviour? It is done by the Author of the Analysis: who, Dr. Gauden? I confess he is made a Bishop, but is he yet made a Justice of peace? or do these coincidere by his consecration? I have heard indeed he was entertained into his Diocess, and City of Exeter, like one of his Majesties Lieutenants at War, and passed through rancks and files of men of War, not Citizens in their Civil Garb; well, be it so; but methinks, our Bishops should not yet cry out, Ecce duo gladia, but if it be his Majesties pleasure, I shall submit, and Mr. Crofton is ready to appear, and to give such Security as his Worship shall demand; For he must tell him this is not the first time, Mr. Crofton hat [...] been (on the score of the Covenant) called upon to be bound to his good behaviour; I remember on the tryal of a Minister (at the quarter Sessions held at Namptwich, in the County of Chester,) [Page 5] Indicted for opposing the Engagement, to be true and faithful to the Common-wealth, without King or House of Lords, Mr. Crofton (at the desire of his brethren who thought it their duty to stand by their suffering brother) did urge in his behalf, that the Engagement did interfere with the Solemn League and Covenant; unto whom the Atturney for the Common-wealth made no other reply, save, Suckling will you speak, Suckling what will you speak? to which Mr. Crofton (then young as well as little) made this short return, have you not read that out of the mouthes of babes and sucklings, God will ordain strength to confound his foes; on which, the enraged Atturney prayed the good behaviour, which fiery Justice Gerrard enforced against Mr. Crofton, who desired the judgment of the Bench before he would find surety; and they declared, Mr. Crofton had onely as a Minister urged the Covenant, and a place of Script [...]re against the Atturney, which was proper to him as a Minister, and could be no misbehaviour; and so he was discharged. I hope I shall have no less Justice, from a Convocation of Prelate Justices, then those who were civil, and under an Usurper.
But let us pass from the Title, and look into the body of the book, and here I must remem [...]er, Robora parentum, refe [...]unt liberi, the growth of the Children sheweth the strength of the Parent. And the bulk of this book, must bespeak no little strength in the Author, but wherein lies his strength? In the passions of his soul, in the Pride of his spirit, Prophaness of heart, and natural fluencie of words, but in neither Rhetorick, nor reason, humane or divine, natural or Theological.
Whosoevever in his right mind readeth but this book, will find it such a rudis indigestaque moles, a me [...]r chaos of confusion, and intricate labyrinth of words (not in themselves but) rudely scattered, and flung out, without any due dependance or coherence, as in the Turkish Alchoran, and worse then in the Rabbins Talmud; the whole method of it (though a pretended reply to a methodical exception, [Page 6] which might have directed him to order) is so indigested and full of confusion and disorder; nothing defined or distinguished; Episcopacy, (the subject of the debate) no way described, or explained; so that every common capacity reading it, runs into a wilderness of words, by want of relation and connexion, leaving his understanding at a loss, as to scope or drift, gazing as on unknown pictures, had not a marginal note (related most an end to words more then matter) like the bungling workman in the Painters art, written this is a Lion, this a Bear, and that a Wolf.
Lest the reverend Author should think I do him wrong, I must make bold to give a tast thereof, leaving his abusive Anatomist to bundle up his Nonsence and blaspemy, which what ever it did in his Analysis, I am sure lyeth scattered in every page of this book; If the Justices assigning a bastard born, pag. 150. to be kept, because, quod fieri non debuit factum valet, which men of any braines refer to moral, not natural entities; or Mr. Crofton saith Episcopacy must not be restored though it be good, if not proved to be necessary, but he that vows to take away my horse, must not say, he will not change his vow; until it appear my horse is not onely good but necessary for me, pag. [...]9 [...]. may be taken for Nonsence, which certainly for its profoundness of reason would make an understanding horse to break his bridle. Or, if it may be any way accounted blasphemy, to denominate that a Baal-berith, which is, a Solemn League and Covenant, for the glory of God, advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, the honour and happiness of the King and his posterity, made on sence of the plots, conspiracies, attempts and practices of the Enemies of God, and true Religion, and expresly binding to a reformation of Religion, according to Gods word, and example of the best reformed Churches; open, vowed Enemies to Baal; and to an extirpation, of whatsoever is contrary to found Doctrine, and the power of godliness, all which, admitting it extended to one particular thing which ought not to have been removed, (yet tended at the most but to the bene esse of Religion) in which respect, it at most could be rendred but imprudent, or unjust in that point, and not a Baal-Berith.
Or if the reviling, with most opprobrious terms, as factious, seditious, rebellious, perfidious pack (which I leave the Anatomist to gather up and present unto the world) the most lawful, rightly called and constituted Assembly of the Lords and Commons, Princes and principal Rulers of the people, by his late and present Majesty often, and openly owned as a Parliament, and invested, during their being, with the fullest Authority of the Nation; and thereby despising Dominions, and speaking evil of Dignities, may be accounted blasphemy:
Or if false and impudent accusations of the Covenant and Covenanters to have plotted, contrived, occasioned, and effected the Kings barbarous murder, from which all sober men (in their right wits) must acquit it, and them, as violated and oppressed, trodden down and ruined, to make way for that accursed act by men (on whom God hath avenged the quarrel of the Covenant) may be accounted blasphemy:
Or if railing and despightful speaking, in the height of rage and fury, in the most base, Billingsgate, obscene, scurrillous, opprobrious and disgraceful terms that anger could dictate, or envy could devise, which breaketh through his own professed integrity, pag. 7. and those holy charms by which he pretends to restrain his revenge, & flyeth out beyond the gravity of a Minister, authority of a Bishop, sobriety of a Christian, or modesty (much more honesty) of a man, unto the height of effeminate scolding and uncivil ribaldry, with which he hath stuffed more then twenty sheets of his Book, may be accounted blasphemy.
I must indeed confess in the heat of his anger he hath treated me with as much civility as could be expected from a Bishop to a Presbyter, judged rigid, and consist with so much railing at another with the same breath; often professing to know and keep a difference between me and his other Antagonist, acknowledging Mr. Croftons civility, reason, honesty, ingenuity, and the like; yet not without some drops of his sarcastical pen; as little Mr. Crofton, so great a Dictator, Presbyterian pertness and petulancy, hold, odious, and fallacious, [Page 8] and the like, which are very little spots in his feasts of love, and plain errata, and slips of passion in comparison of that series and serious mood of scolding with the other, whom he hath coupled with Mr. Crofton in his vindication, yet is enough to guide Mr. Crofton, what to look for, and observe that it is with Bishop Gauden, as Rivet noteth of Bishop Mountague, Non potest vir ille, sine convitiis, quenquam a quo dissentit vel in levissimis nominare; This man can scarce name without reproach any man from whom he differs in the least thing and sleightest matter; But it may be this is the expression of Prelatical state and pomp; but the Lord deliver me from rendring railing for railing: I do not delight to rake in this puddle; And therefore with one note more I pass him over, and that is,
His levity and pride in proclaiming his own worth and dignity, as if far from his neighbors, or that they would not, or indeed could not commend him, soaring aloft in his ambitious self-apprehensions into an equality with the cheif Fathers of the Church, begining his Epistle to the Reader with An having had the honor and happiness, after the example of the great Athanasius, the industrious St. Austin, our own Arch-Bishop Whitgift, Mr. Rich. Hooker, to encounter the enemies of this Church, King and Kingdoms with success: When alass he never yet came nigh the last and least of them in a conflict; If little Mr. Crofton could have answered God and his conscience for so vain an expence of time, he had hampered your Hieraspistes, & strained your sighs and tears, no less then he hath done your Analysis, and yet could not for shame have crowed of any valiant act, in vanquishing the shadow of a Disputant; and in pag 8. He must make the world to take notice of his high honor, in attendance on better persons and better imployments, getting the Bishoprick of Exeter unto himself, which hindered his Reply for so long a time, Sir, We will excuse you if your friends do not with blame to you say You are come too soon: Yet they, as we, must beleive, if your say so be enough, that your affirmations are beyond any rational or conscientious Reply, pag. 151. because indeed they never reach reaso [...], or [Page 9] pinch conscience: But your Lordship is pleased to tell us, that you have condescended to consider our exceptions, Sir I thought it had been a Casuists duty to consider all objections, and a Ministers to endeavour all satisfaction, but I must remember you were on your Episcopal Sea, when little Mr. Croftons Analepsis was laid at your feet, to be taken up, or kicked away; but enough of this, it is more fit for your Anonymous Anatomist, then for a man of modesty, who shall keep himself distinct, as you have differenced him, and shall therefore desire to weigh, what your Worship hath against his Analepsis.
Mr. Crofton is in this elaborate tract dealt with a part, but the little man is so light, that he is tossed up and down the Wilderness, that seeking, he cannot without tyring, find himself, in these indeed tedious, and intangled (as your self calls them) animad versions; he did according to his little reason, unravel your last snarled skain, and resolved it into a regular method, which methinks Sir might have kept your fluency within some bounds, and have curbed your wild excursions; he shewed you the Rocks against which your resolution dashed, and digested your discourse into argumentation as well as he could, and dare say, you appeared better to the Reader in Mr. Croftons Analepsis, then in your own Analysis, why kept you not to this? I promise you if this be Rhetorick, I shall not love it, till it keep to rule, be plain, pure, perspicuous and methodical (without which it is but natural fluency of words, and volubility of tongue) and not fordid, tedious, obscure, flat, wild, rabid, raging, empty and barely wordy, without sentence, confused and immethodical, as is yours, unto the very heigth of exorbitancy: take notice of it, if I be (as God forbid I should be) Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and an appeal be made to the Archp. against your writings, I will adjudge you, instead of your Marginal digitations to your Reader, to place over every Paragraph, the figure by which you frame your sentence, and mood by which you form your argument; for now you have vindicated your Analysis, I must send to you to pray an Analysis of your vindication; my reason it is too [Page 10] little to make it; I must be fain to guess your meaning by your mumping.
The Doctors great design in his Analysis, professed to reconcile the Covenant and Episcopacy, but how unhappily he lost it, and miscarried in it, was modestly declared by little Mr. Crofton, (whom I apprehend this great Doctor scorns to admit as a Dictator, so as to take notice of, or amend his errors;) on which his conscience cannot but tell him, all his Casuistical endeavou [...]s have been, and must needs be shipwrackt, without all possibility of satisfaction to conscience, how ever it may catch the fancy of his prelatical proselytes, who are pleased with a sound against the Covenant, and consider not the certainty of it, and are ready jurare in verba Episcopi, be they never so groundless; the say so of a grave Prelate, is a sufficient reason of their faith.
The inadvertency of his expressions both for their fury, and falshood, against Presbytery, the Parliament, and all those whose consciences cannot correspond with his propounded Prelacy, as well as against his particular Antagonists, is so far from being abated, that it is more vigorously acted, and made so accumulative, that his book runs over with foams of rage, filling (as I said before) more the twenty sheets of paper with such furious and foolish objurgatio [...]s, ridiculous reflexions, and scurrilous chiding, that he that enters this book, and passeth but the Threshold, must needs say, this man is in no temper to resolve a doubt, or satisfie a conscience, he is in the heat of a scolding passion, and so lay it aside, as unfit to be read: really had angry Mr. Crofton been his Chaplain, he must have become an index expurgatorius to his book, and presumed to dictate more sobriety and meekness, before it had seen the world; for that the wrath of man, cannot work the righteousness of God, men cannot but judge this book an hot contest, and violent plea for his prelatical honour and revenues, in which beginning to be warm, he groweth as hot as a Toast, and fearing to lose them, falls into a fretting chafe against the Covenant, and Covenanters, which promise them little security, and therefore runs his rage against sacriledge, and buying Bishops Lands, (from [Page 11] which it is well known Mr. Crofton is free, nor indeed doth he charge him) rather then for his Episcopal office in Christs Church, the conscience of which would have made him sensible, a Bishop must be no brawler, but patient.
In this angry mood, we cannot expect him to be very clear o [...] certain in the ratio formalis objecti, the object of the obligation scrupled, and disputed; the want of which hath been noted to him by the different acceptation of the term Bishop, and Episcopacy; the which Mr. Crofton did not onely explain, but propose unto him a doublesence thereof, affirming the one to be Scriptural, primitive, and Catholique, the other to be Papal, Novel and tyrannical, and on the variety of his words, prayed a positive determination which of them he owned, and would reconcile to the Covenant; but his greatness would not condescend to make a choice of either, according to Mr. Croftons proposal, but that we may know he scornfully takes notice that Mr. Crofton had observed his uncertain proposal of the object, in ambiguous words, he affords us a parenthesis, in the threshold of his book, which runs thus.
The way of Episcopal order and authority (that is lest Mr. Crofton should again mistake my meaning, the presidency of one chief Prebyter or Bishop among many, and above all lesser Bishops or Presbyters in his Diocess, according to the ancient custome, and laws E [...]clesiastical and civil) I thank you Sir, for this grave cast of your eye, did Mr. Crofton mistake you without cause; or clamour it to your damage? or did he not take the paines to pick up your words, and put them together, and tell you that some of them speld one thing, and some another distinct from that, and modestly desire which you would own, and stand by.
Sir, the spirit and men of your Diocess, are said to be near a kin to the Welchmen, and they must have leave to tell their tale twice, and for ought I see you must tell yours thrice, for I am as likely to mistake you as I was before, such an Heraclitus [...] you are in your Aenigmatical extrication of your own made intricacies, and rhetorical labyrinths: Before I presume to determine your meaning, I must enquire [Page 12] what you mean by Presidency? whether you intend not to extend it, beyond the gradus of a Moderator, unto the power and efficacy of a President of a Colledge at the least? what you mean by above all less and subordinate Bishops? whether Officio & honore Cathedrae, or Ordinis authoritate, which your Episcopal order & authority doth suggest; though the title Bishop given by you to Presbyters doth seem to mitigate it. What do you mean by antient custom? only that which hath long use, and can plead prescription, and which may have run long, and yet leave us a space, in which we may 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 [Page 13] 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 Ʋsurpation 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 [...]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 [...]gomac [...]ie, or [Page 14] 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; [Page 15] 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 [Page 17] 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 Coven [...]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 groundwork.
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 [Page 18] 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 [...]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 aspect and appearance will be found (by any man conversant in Scripture, and acquainted with the estate and affairs of the Church) notorious falshoods.
1. Presbytery hath no divine appointment, was not commanded by God, never used in the ancient Church, hath nothing in it piously, morally or po [...]itically good or necessary. Epist. to the Reader. How Sir? can you read of the Elders of Ephesus, and the Presbyterie that ordained Timothy, and say Presbytery was not commanded by God? Can you read in the Fathers, of the Presbyterie advancing by their own power a primus Presbyter, in the antient canons of the essentialitie of the Presbyteries concurrence, in all acts of Discipline of the Fathers Epistles to, and concerning Presbyteries, and yet say Presbytery was never used in the Church? Can you consider Presbytery is a Colledge of Gospel Ministers, gove [...]ning communi consilio by j [...]ynt advice, and yet conclude there is in Presbyterie nothing piously, morally, or politically good? Will not every childe in his double Psalter tell you, In the multitude of Councellors there is safety? and every Schoolboy teach you plus vident oculi, quam oculus? and yet are you so blind as to see no moral, political good in Presbyterie? but this is but one Doctors opinion; the meanest Clerk in your [Page 19] Cathedral would tell you, your Grace was at a loss when you thus concluded. Nor do you hit the next.
2. Presbytery was not conjoyned to Episcopacy (if you mean in its first constitution, and the order of it, which was without and before Bishops, afterwards made by its power, you begin well) nor hath any power or authority unto the governing of the Church, is no way necessary to a Bishop, otherwise then by advice, when called and required, and that to be taken or refused at the Bishops pleasure, pag. 289. I pray Sir, help the Papists and untie that knot, whether Peter received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, as a Presbyter or Bishop, ordinary Minister, or Apostle, or prince of the Apostles. It is pity John Chrysostom had not you for his Advocate, when he was charged as with a crime for ordaining without his Presbyters: I hope the correction of the ancient Canons being committed to you, you will purge out those that confine the Bishop to his chair, to declare and execute the decrees of the Presbyterie, and make void the ordinations and censures made without the Presbyterie, forget them of the Council of Carthage. And Sir, there is one passage or two in Scripture worth your notice; Let him tell the Church, sufficient to such an one is [...], the punishment inflicted by many: You know Sir they are words that imply plurality, dignity and authority. I pray Sir, when your pen is in your hand, draw a line through these words, in the form of ordering Priests, minister the Discipline of the Church; to what end should they promise faithful diligence to that which they have nothing to do withal, and concerneth them not. But to the third.
3. To endeavour to advance Presbytery to exercise in the rule and government of the Church, is Schisme and Superstition, pag. 214, 215. How, is Church Government an Article of Christian faith, and an essential act of Divine Worship? Oxford Reasons Sect. 3. your friends at Oxford were of another mind, when they charged the Scots supposed say so, to look like Schisme and Superstition: What fools were Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustin, and Gregory the great, and other Fathers to Father John Gauden; they left us this ground of Schisme and Superstition, Ʋnitas [Page 20] Ecclesiae catholicae non consistit in uniformitate disciplinae, sed in unitate fidei: but our Bishop standeth on their shoulders, and can see further then little Mr. Crofton, who yet hopes to see as far, as little Zacheus in his Sicamore Tree, advancing Presbytery as Gods institution, and to keep the unty of the spirit in the b [...]nd of peace.
4. Bishops are the sole and chief cisterns, conservators, conduit, and derivators of all holy orders, discipline and Government, the principal Pillars and Fathers of the Church. pag. 221, 248.
I hope Sir, you will then make your succession as clear as the sun: I would make a journey to Exeter, to have the intricacies thereof well unravelled, what became of the Churches, when in Alexandria & per totum Aegyptum, the Presbyters did ordain; and think you, that Denmark demolished the Church, when Christian their third King did by publick edict, beat down your Pillars? your charity is more to the reformed Churches, then to condemn or censure them as no Churches, pag. 196. but yet you will cut off their pipes, cisterns, conduits, and make them come fetch Waters at your Wells; your charity is very rational.
5. Episcopal presidency, and authority, is a Soveraign power, and spiritual jurisdiction in ordination, confirmation, censures, rebuking, silencing, excommunication, absolution, and other exercise of Ecclesiastical power; without, above, and against Presbyters and people. pag. 215, 229. Well said D. Gauden, I like a man that can speak out, Mr. Crofton shall know your meaning anon; but your jurisdiction is so spiritual, that to him your Sovereign power is invisible; it is probable you may make him feel it, though he cannot see it, but I am confident it must be in his body, not in his soul; make good this description by Scriptures, Fathers, Divine principles, or good Authors Popish, or Protestant, and if you make not a full formal Pope, I will burn the Covenant, renounce my reason, and believe as your Church believes; for all that I have met with, give Presbyters an interest (if not the greatest share) with, and without the Bishops, in every of these acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
[Page 21]6. The Episcopacy which England had, or the English Hierarchy for its difference from Presbytery, in place, honour, office, authority, use, and honourable support, is of universal tradition, and observati [...]n, in all ages and places, eminent in the judgment and practice of antiquity, and the Church, from Christ and his Apostles until now of late, in use and authority in the Church, as the Lords day, and infant baptisme; which to deny is impudence, and falsity, against the very letter, and practice of the new Testament, and judgment of all antiquity. Pag. 198, 220▪ 228, 248. How Sir, the practice and letter of the new Testament, and yet but a tradition, you sure will say more of it, you do well to paralel it to the Lords day, and infant Baptisme, for they will be evidently grounded on the practise, and letter of the new Testament; and so be found more then a tradition: but Sir, will you stand by it, that Episcopacy was an universal observation in all ages, and eminent in all places till of late? I pray Sir, enquire when it came into Scotland; and how basely it was driven out of Denmark, they are places in the Christian World: again was Englands Hierarchy distinct from Presbyters, in place, office, authority, honour, use, and honorable support, of universal tradition, and practice? how am 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, Smecty [...]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, can [...]ns, commission, [Page 22] 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, & inspect [...]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 [Page 23] 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 utri (que) centimus utri (que) 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.
[Page 24]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 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, [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] (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 [Page 27] 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; [...]nd many judicious men see nothing but a gradual difference between Englands [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 absenc [...], did add or abstract to the Authority of Parliament.
8. That the two houses alone, nor King alone, no nor King with [Page 32] 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 reda [...]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 [Page 33] 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 a [...]e so taken, or rather imposed and mistaken, yet they mu [...]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 [Page 34] 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, 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, [Page 35] 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 Moonlight 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 [Page 46] 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 n [...]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 spirit [...]? 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 p [...]e [...]ect. 3. Sect. 1 [...]. 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 [Page 37] 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, a [...] absolute dominion over himself; yet they deny not but men may vow and must keep their vows to the latitude of that Dominion, God ha [...], given them over themselves or others, and this is the rule our [...] 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 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 vow [...]d superseded by the declared pleasure of the superiour and that [Page 38] 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 d [...]scharge; ut t [...]llendo t [...]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. [...]45, 14 [...]. 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 coordinato [...] and sharers in the Legislation of England, and so a constant lawfull [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 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, [Page 41] 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 Cove [...]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 Ju [...]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 [Page 42] 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 were no way secured by what he declared from Bredah; but what he swear in any place, qua Rex Britanniae doth bind his soul in every place: Mr. Cr. out of Grotious hath affirmed in his Analepsis Analepthe, Sect. 6. [Page 44] Which by alll these cavils, I discern Dr. Gauden hath not read, I shall commend that book with these notions to his second thoughts, he will find his supposed legistative Justice, and the like of Episcopacy contra [...]icted; and the authority prescribing and imposing the Solemn League and Covenant vindicated from all his trivial exceptions; but our Doctor proceeds to enforce his battery, and tells you.
Pag, [...]51.Mr. Croftons next defence against Dr. Gaudens battery is not a Wool sack, but a brown Paper, a Cobweb, pleading, quod fieri non debuit factum valet; yet this Cobweb is a sufficient net for his flye with which he endeavours to pull it down, and most profoundly tells us; this may not be pleaded in moral cases, I pray you Sir, in what then? you cry true to it, but it is in some state policies, and civil necessities, or legal formalities, and accutely amplisieth it: As Bastards though they should not have been begotten, yet must not when begotten and been be murthered, but must be kept: Would not our Doctor deem it a barking at the bright Moon-light of this reason, I should enquire whether the begetting of Bastards be a state policy, a civil necessity, or legal formality, to keep the Bishops Courts in employment, that he hath no other instance of them, or chooseth this as the chief? again doth the natural entity of the Child consist in, and depend upon the plea of quod fieri non debuit, factum valet? certainly many of his well bred well brooding Christians would gladly obliterate and not plead this rule, if the being of their brats of sin and shame could cease by it; this Sir is good sport for your Anatomist. Mr. Crofton must tell you that he ever conceived it to relate to, and must be praedicated of moral entities, constituted by, and existing out of some essential acts irregularly applyed; as in creation of relation, office, or dignity a Novice should not he made a Bishop, but when consecration hath passed on him, his defect in reason or religion will not divest him of his dignity, for fieri non debuet factum valet: I ever judged natural beings, as Bastards, cannot but exist in the world, without the help of a moral rule, by the necessity of nature; in reference to our case, [Page 45] what is material, unlawful, cannot be by this rule releived, because it corrects not, supplys not the natural defect or irregularity of any matter; but where the matter is good, and the general form invocation of God, is retained, but erroneously or ignorantly managed, as when an Oath is made by an Idol God, by the Heaven or Earth or other Elements, as the Heathen, who ought not, do commonly swear; now such is the moral nature, or reason of an Oath, an intended invocation of the divine nature that it obligeth, and the errour or mistaken special mode of swearing, will not make void the Oath; and hence it comes to be different questions, an juramentum hoc vel illud sit licitum? and an hoc vel illud obligat? I would Dr. Gauden would own Dr. Saunderson as his dictator in the nature of an Oath; he should not then so much need the dictates of little Mr. Crofton, who having urged this rule in his Analepsis, hath improved and enforced it, beyond the power of this battering Dr. to pierce and break thorough, in his Analepsis Analepthe, Sect. 2. where he will in the case of the Covenant find fieri non debuit, factum valet, explained and established, to teach him and others, that Gods name prophaned by rash irregular swearing, must not be blasphemed by false swearing; an unadvised Oath, must not be amended by open perjury, or repaired by rejection, Mr. Crofton doth not believe a baptisme by, or ordination of a woman to be valid, because there is a defect in the forma constituens, which is of the esse of the ordinance, the woman not being subjectum capax of conferring the one, or receiving the other, hut how ever had he as a Bishop pleaded, Presbyters ordained by Presbyters (though a Bishop might have been more orderly, their ordination is valid; he had hit on a right instance though by an error, and many ptophane prelatical priests, which ought not to have been admitted, and ought to have been deposed from the Ministry, Mr. Crofton can own as Ministers; though rude, yet in Moses chair, quod fieri non debuit factum valet. Mr. Cr. Wool-sacks being thus pulled down, you shall hear the Dr. shout out his victorious entry on Mr. Cr. arguments in Pag. 151.
[Mr. Crofton discovers his weakness, and exhausted spirits (well he may in contesting with so acute a disputant) by bringing in a tumultuary rable, that should pretend to be a Parliament, and impose a vow or Covenant on the people, against the immunities of Church and State, King and People, which we like Gugeons stulta facilitate swallow simply like baits, and feeling the hook of fraud, faction, injustice, the poor man by a terrible [...], super superstition is affraid of a three years Famine, in case he and other honest men should dare to resume their reason and liberty, and keep themselves to rules and actions of justice, which the laws of God, and men prescribe; from which these pittiful trepanners, and impostors sought to seduce them, and oblige them to the contrary unawars.
If this be a [...], super superstition, to tremble at Gods word, and fearful judgments there recorded, let it be Mr. Croftons portion; yet I must tell you, the divinity of Bishop Hall (your predecessour) hath provoked it: your rising Episcopacy would strike you into a pannique fear, if Gods judgments should break out, and not be pacified, but by the sacrifice of some that strive to advance it; pardon the comparison, the closer it comes, the clearer the conviction; whilst you enjoy your braveries, poor Mr. Crofton walketh in the Scriptures, and there he finds ‘ Israel by a pack of trepanners and impostors the Gibeonites, by the baits of old cloaths, mouldy bread, and clouted shooes seduced into a Covenant against the Laws, and immunities of their Church and State, their King and people, Joshua and the people had stulta facillitate, like Gudgeons simply swallowed it; within three days they feel the hook of their fraud and falshood; the people resume their reason, and quarrel with their Princes for not keeping to rules and actions of justice, but they in a [...], super superstition, fear to break their Oath, and carefully keep it, some hundreds of years, until Saul affected with reason, and the liberty of Israel, in a well meant zeal breaks the Oath with the Gibeonites, which breach God avengeth with a three years famine, whose wrath was onely expiated by hanging up seaven of the chief Violators of the Vow;’ will your Worship [Page 47] 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. Ex [...]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 peop [...]e who appeared to them what they were not; Mr. Cr. will not fear to affirm [Page 48] 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; bu [...] 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 [...]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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 imp [...]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 stick, and therefore he nimbly skips over it. Oh Doctor, its 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, A [...]a [...]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 autho [...]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; pa [...]. 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 [Page 51] 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 [...]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 [Page 52] 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 i [...] 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 52] 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, [Page 53] 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 d [...]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 exti [...]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 poli [...]cal, but moral [Page 56] 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 ag [...]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 expurgation of the other, commending the Physitian; but the Reader cannot without high content (unto open laughter) observe the apt similies which boyled out of our Doctors codled brain, who must not be angry if Mr. Crofton adhaere to his conclusion, who is ready to meet the Doctor unto a fair dispute about his Episcopacy; and hopes until he have thereby convinced him, he will restrain his rods of Iron, Pag. 201. and severity of power which he imprecates; and give us leave to live in Old England, without the logick of their high commission; for he shall find little Mr. Crofton who cannot be vanquished by a flood of words, will easily fall under the power of reason; though he with plainness out of conscience, have declared his judgement, not as the Doctor fancyeth on a presumption of his Majesties indulgence, whose judgment expressed and declared for [Page 57] Episcopacy, may be a reason for submission negative, by non resistance, not of conviction, or sinful suspension, or silencing of his judgment in his place, as with the modesty and moderation, so the confidence of a Minister, for I fear God: but to proceed
The Doctor tells us, having strapped the sweetness of Mr. Crofton (after which for its reason and sobriety, truth and seriousness, give me leave to say Dr. Gauden needs not be ashamed to lick his lips) he proceeds to his ninth reflection; the Covenant of Israel, the ten Commandements; to which Mr. Crofton took exceptions in his Analepsis pag. 20. and tells us, that Mr. Crofton runs a calmer, but not clearer stream then the Libeller (and so the Doctor sets up his own shadow to fight withal) and desires a demonstration to prove, Pag. 257. that one compleat and grand Covenant given of God to the Jews, was the onely rule and dictate of what matter they should Covenant; to which he insultingly answers, as indeed to a frivolous question, he may as well look for a demonstration to prove there is but one God, one true Religion, and one Sun in the firnament, judiciously fought Doctor, must you not be hum'd; is Mr. Crofton so little, you cannot see or distinguish him from your Umbra? I pray you where doth Mr. Crofton desire this in his Analepsis, which onely you encounter? he did determine and agree to this, your grave eyes are dim, and Episcopal spectacles made at Rome dusty, otherwise you would have read true English. Mr. Crofton his desire to the Doctor was, to demonstrate that the law of Moses, Analep. p. 20. or Covenant in Horeb, was NOT ONELY the RULE and DICTATE of what MATTER (can you see it Sir) they should Covenant, but the EXPRESSE COVENANT, or did consist in the EXACT RECITAL and REPETITION of the law or ten Commandements, so as that they never VARIED or ALTERED (Sir I would help your eye sight) the same. Do not these words much agree with that you have falsely fathered on Mr. Crofton, his desire? is this the praxis of your profound notion, by which you would save the credit of your liturgy from [Page 58] beginning its Rubrick with a lye, defending the sameness of the words, by a supposed soundness of the sense? But what say you yet to Mr. Crofton his demand? were the Jews tied to those words on no occasion to vary them? that these did rule and limit their matter is agreed; but you dare not affirm they were tied to the order and number of words; yet on this score you quarrel with the Covenant, and by a childish fancy, cast the words into 666, as if that number was as fatal to every thing, as it is to Papal, Prelatical Hierarchy; and will needs suppose, to live according to the word of God, and laws of the land, to be a sufficient form for all Oaths or Covenants on any occasion? but who made Dr. Gauden the Dictator of the words, which should be the same in all Covenants? these are not the words of Moses, or Covenant in Horeb. I may sir, come into your Diocess, and need your license; and I will covenant with you to live according to the word of God and laws of the land: I hope you will require no other canonical oath, or subscription. Sir, declare this, and stand to it, and you shall be the best Bishop, and have your Diocesses stored with the best Ministers in England.
The Doctor having thus solidly defended his profound notion of the one Covenant in the Old Testament, he proceeds to establish his one baptismal covenant in the New: the man professeth much to unity, and fondly dreams of nothing but unites, even of words and humane expressions, as if tens, or hundreds, or thousands in a covenant were utterly Antiarithmetical and Antichristian, against the rule of Nature and Scripture.
Herein having sufficiently scolded his Anatomist, he courts Mr. Crofton with such justice and civility as [...]he can afford, which is comparatively very much, and tells us,
Mr. Cr. instead of proving the Covenant to be ratified by any precept in the New Testament, or examples of any Christians in succeeding ages; flieth to justifie it, by the dictates and discoveries of the Old Testament, by politick arts befitting any people, or Church National. But the Doctor should have been so just and civil, as to have observed Mr. Croftons distinctions [Page 59] between the matter and circumstances of the Covenant; how he concluded in his Analepsis, that the ‘New Testament directeth us as Christians, but in Acts that pertain to us as a Kingdom, or Church national, it leaveth us to the dictates of Nature, and the discoveries of the Old Testament.’ Although the Doctor hath unjustly couched the one, he doth not, he dares not contradict the other; but inferreth truly on the same grounds, that so much by him and others decried (oath he intends) with &c. in it, which excluded Popery, and confirmed the already legal, and settled Episcopacy of the Church of England, had been as lawful and sacred as this Covenant; and in some respect more allowable, because it disseised no man of his free-hold or Estate. But sure the Doctor runs too fast, and now reckons without his host, and by an after reckoning will find his mistake, in these three things.
First, The Episcopacy of the Church of England was legal, and already settled, which we have before charged as his error; and by a petitio principii he all along builds upon it; but must go to the Temple, and beg some help of the Lawyers to prove Id quod erat demonstrandum.
Secondly, Admitting the dictates of Nature, and discoveries of the Old Testament to direct the circumstances of an Oath; that the Oath with &c. in it, will be found as lawful and sacred as the Covenant, is a meer non sequitur: For the dictates of nature do authorize any person to vow in his place, calling, and capacity to endeavour the extirpation of what he conceiveth or experienceth evil; but that Oath bindeth against the giving consent to alter, what on after conviction may appear, not only al [...]erable at the pleasure of the superiour, to whom our consent must be subject; but in it self hu [...]tful, yea sinful; and so the subserviency of the will to the understanding is superseded by an Oath. Again, the dictates of nature, and discoveries of the Old Testament do direct the matter of an oath to be expressed with all certainty and clearness; and the Covenant doth accordingly express all the particulars covenanted; but this oath is so far from certainty of the matter sworn, that it binds the conscience to an [Page 60] & caetera of infinite extension, and boreth a passage into a mans conscience for whatsoever shall be fathered upon, and said to be intended in the & caetera; which might be at least Moneks and Abbeys, no less legal and established then this Episcopacy. Again, the dictates of Nature, and discoveries of the Old Testament do direct, the National tie of an oath to be stamped by the collective body of the Nation, as was the Covenant, but not the Oath & caetera, which was by a picked, pack'd Convocation, without any authority, Ecclesiastical or civil, to impose or prescribe an Oath upon the Subjects: Nay, if we give the Doctor his fancy, and suppose the Prelates Justices of the Peace, they run into a premunire, who bind the Subject to the good behaviour by an oath not directed by Law.
Thirdly, That the Oath of the & caetera disseised no honest man of his freehold or estate: I must understand him in his consequences of it, as he doth the Covenant; and then I must enquire what it means, that the Minister, or beneficed, dignified person, refusing this Oath, after one moneths consideration shall be suspended ab officio, after two moneths consideration, a beneficio, after three months consideration shall be deprived of all promotion, and execution of his function: Sure the Doctor is as well studied in the Canons of 1640. as the Covenant 1643. Is not a Benefice the Ministers freehold and estate, as much as the Bishoprick is the Bishops? or are the suspension a beneficio, yea deprivation no disseisure of the same? and suspension, ab officio, no injustice and impiety? Sir, Your second thoughts will sure sink your parallel, and consequence; and your reply will be found more light and shufling then Mr. Croftons Queries, which answer themselves by way of expostulation, Pag. 14 [...]. proving against Dr. Gaudens assertion, that the New Testament is not the onely rule which must direct the Nationalty, or other circumstances of a Covenant determinable by the light of nature: As to the question you pretend not answered, it is but now started, and is not in your Analysis, [What erigents in religion did ever put any Church or Christian Subjects upon such a way of publick covenanting, [Page 61] &c. Yet by your leave Sir, Mr. Crofton did say something which may answer it: Find you a Church or Christian people, and erigents of Religion, so capacitated for nature, number, quality, and just authority, Analepsis p. 22. and Mr. Crofton will finde such a Covenant? untill then observe Mr. Croftons Query, Must we enquire onely what hath been done in the Christian Churches, to do that and no more, without regarding what may be done; the condition of the Church so requiring. And study Mr. Crofton his Analepsis Anelephthe, sect. 3.
The Doctor hath not more shufled about Mr. Crose [...]f answering expostulation, then he poorly shifts off his vindication and rescue of the Covenant from the odium of the Ligue de Saint in France, which he (as writing after his friends John Russels copy) in his margin, with a notorious falshood calls Mr. Croftons patte [...]n, and in the Text upbraidingly crieth out, Mr. Crofton not like an Eagle, but a meaner bird, stoops to feed on that long ago dead and noysom carkass, the holy League in France, as a very exemplary parellel for his holy Covenant. Doctor, are not you ashamed to father the Brats of your own fancy on Mr: Crofton. This parellel is your own bastard, and quod fieri non debuit, factum valet; you begot it you must keep it: Did not you in your Analysis labour to make the Covenant odious by this example? Doth Mr. Crofton own or allow this League de Saint? Nay doth he not condemn it? onely stave off the odious reflection designed by an envious Renegado and Apostate.
I pray Sir, read Mr. Croftons words again, and see whether Mr. Crofton feed on this as a pattern, on only a fence against your assault made by it: May not the League de Saint, and Oath & caetera in England, (there is your parallel Dr.) though SINFƲL IN THE MATTER (Sir rub your Romish spectacles) be good spurs and directions in Christian policy? may not the same means (as abstracted from the matter) be used to corroborate true Religion and Reformation? why may not Popish policy teach Protestants to combine by Covenant? Reverend Sir, read my ridle, Out of the eater came [Page 62] forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. Sir was not Mr. Crofton herein like an Eagle on the horns of an Hart, scattering that dust in your eyes, that caused you to throw your self into the praecipice of false accusation? or appear, not you, like the envious and cruel Vulture, killed by the oyl of Roses, which sprang and grew out of the dung of a noysom dead carkass. O man be honest though a Prelate.
p. 242, 243.The Doctor tells us, Mr. Crofton stranges at Dr. Gauden, not finding the like lineaments in the Covenant, as in the baptismal Covenant, you are again mistaken Doctor, for Mr. Cr. stranged at the transport of so grave and serious a Divine, to oppose the baptismal Covenant to this, Mr. Crofton did easily admit they were disparata, but not opposita contraria: this was Dr. Gaudens work to demonstrate, if you will believe him; he tells us the inconsistency is plain, and fully explained by Dr. Gauden, where or how? why, if it obligeth to injustice, oppression, sedition, sacriledge, schisme, and Iliades of miserable innovations, at this rate it will appear but ifs or ands, are no proofs or demonstrations; if they were I would soon prove your Prelacy a Papacy, and store your Table with Episcopal plenties and dainties, for if the Elements fall, we shall catch Larks; this way of disputing is apparently Jesuitical, Machiavilian and barbarous, so far from baptismal, that it is plainly irrational; what good, duty, Justice, morality, or Religion may not be ruined, if a mans fancyed if, be reason enough against it, if the Bishoprick of Exeter be unjustly held by Dr. Gauden from Mr. Crofton, or Bath and Wells from D. B. it is unjust and sacrilegious, and they are both bound to abandon their places, and avoid their Seats, and to restore them, how like you the Argument? is it not very Logical and Cogent? Sir draw up a positive charge, and prove it, Mr. Crofton will stand to it, that he will renounce the Covenant, in the mean time let me desire the Doctor, to take a view of the parallel between this and the baptismal vow or covenant, proposed by Mr. Cr. in his Analepsis Analephthe Sect. 3. pag. 35. and avoid it if [Page 63] he can, onely take notice it is the honesty of the Covenant, not all Covenanters, that Mr. Crofton pleads with confidence, he confesseth many cups may be found in his brethrens sacks, but not in any Article of the Covenant, and Dr. Gaudens multiplyed reiterated Ifs, do make me confident of Benjamins innocency, and apt to think things unknown are thrust upon them; but not from so pious a principle, and to so charitable an end, as Joseph acted from and aimed at: but truely Doctor, it is a Sophistical evasion to confound things and persons in a dispute, but this the learned Doctor doth decline as to the name, office, degree, order and Authority of a Bishop in Scripture, Sir do you not now appear a greater dictatour then little Mr. Crofton, Pag. 249. who rationally urged his exception, and is no way affraid or unwilling in this case to try a turn with Dr. John Gauden on the questions before propounded, who yet will hold to his ingenuous agnition, which so much pleaseth you, viz. that the Covenant is not levelled against any real excellency in the Bishops (which is all that Mr. Crofton agnifed, Analep. Pag. 25. though you according to your usual falshood do add, authority, estate and honour,) which Mr. Cr. noted to be unwarrantable, neither to be assumed by them, nor attributed to them, and Sir I must tell you, ruine and extirpation of the frame of the English Hierarchy, doth no way interfere with the preservation and esteem of any real excellency in Bishops but that Mr. Crofton may be ready and bound (if in a capacity) to vail that pompous worldly State, and wicked superiority, which Church Governours had obtained; a note or instance of which he gave in Lawn sleeves, no more puerile or scurrilous, nor unbeseeming a Scholar, or Gentleman, then the baseness and contemptible inferiority of Presbyters, was by you marked out, in a black coat, to which that was opposed, is below the sobriety of a man, the humility of a Primus Presbyter, and reverence of a Christian to the poorest meanest Minister of Christ; and speaks your prelatical Pride, much more then your Rochet and Chymer sets out your pomp, which my baptisme binds against; and will engage the Boanergesses of God to thunder out terrour [Page 64] against Covenant breaking? which you account a weak Womanish flash, Pag. 249, 251. yet will not be quenched by your first demonstrations, or this reply, by your judicious self, proclaimed rational, and conscientious, though to all men beside, proud, prophane, ridiculous, weak, and wicked, whilst Mr. Crofton seeketh not to strain the [...]ovenant beyond its own just and ingenuous resolution, Pag 251. sence, operation, influence and obligation, consenting to, and rejoycing in, its limitation to the Word of God, and dutys of our places and callings, by which Mr. Crofton is resolved he will be judged, and is in himself assured, that King and Kingdome accordingly keeping their Covenant, the controverted Episcopacy will be at an end, and the commission of our present Prelate Justices expired and useless; covenanters by their good behaviour, proving the solemn League and Covenant to be, as indeed it is Berith Anti-Baall, which Dr. Gauden blasphemously denominateth Baal Berith, and Mr. Crofton is nor shall no way be shye of retrospection how or by whom, to what or in what sence it binds, and the rationality of its obligation, all which he hath seriously considered in an opposition to the Oxford Reasons, to which the Doctor so often retireth, as he may see in my Analepsis Anelephthe, pag. 265.
We have seen the Doctors strength in the defence of his indirect answer, and consideration of the Covenant, which being done, he proceeds to reinforce his direct answer, and Goliah like, being encouraged by the stature of little Mr. Crofton, not taking notice of his stone and sling, he triumphantly enters, and tauntingly crieth, Mr. Croftons fear (good man) is lest Dr. Gaudens down right blows, may quite break in sunder, Pag. 273, 274. whatever may be of sacred bond in the Covenant; the Reader that well regardeth the strength of his book, cannot but with Laughter say, there was great cause of fear, but the best is, it was but a fear, and so on past, for in the next assault Mr. Crofton is victor.
Mr. Croftons note, that the paucity of the Covenanters doth not discharge its obligation, is true; had not Mr. Crofton much cause of fear and trouble? I but in making Dr. Gauden one [Page 63] of the number, Mr. Crofton reckoned without his host; when that appears, Mr. Crofton will cry true; but the Doctor doth not, dare not deny he sware it: which if he should, Mr. Crofton can tell who heard him preanh upon the Covenant, acd saw him in the Pulpit at Bocking lift up his hand, and swear it: He doth indeed, like a shifting runnegado, labour to darken the act which retorts on his conscience, in his now estate, and tell us, he never took an oath, but those appointed by Law; he might reckon the Covenant to be of this nature, for the Authority of Parliament is by the Petition of Right the legal appointment of an Oath: He tells us a large story how he did sense the Covenant, and with what nonsense he did approve it, understanding Extirpation to signifie Reformation, and so by general salvoes and restrictions, he cheated others and himself, which Mr. Crofton hath detected in his Review of Reordination, pag. 35. but may as soon acquit his soul from the bond, as make the words of the Covenant bear his sence; let him [...]now equivocation in an Oath, is no way short of Ananias and Saphira's lie unto the Holy Ghost; it is much patience that the punishment hath not yet proclaimed it; The Lord grant it may lead unto repentance. He proceeds
Mr. Crofton is apt to think the Covenant national (not as in a Presbyterian illegal & caetera sence, which the Doctor adds, but will not alter the case, the sence being no way considerable to the Nationalty of it, but in any sence) signifies as little as other mens thoughts to the contrary. But good Sir, weigh the Reasons brought by Mr. Crofton, and his answer to what you have objected as to the troubles of the Houses, absence of some members, or the like, in Analepsis Anelepthe; sect. 6. which had you read, would have saved, or encreased your labour in your Reply. Mr. Crofton must not shufle that into this book, and therefore shall make bold to tell you, His sacred Majesty and the Kingdom must submit to the plain and literal sence thereof, though it seem as sowre grapes, unless we will by Gods wrath set our own and childrens teeth [Page 63] on edge; for the capacity of the Covenanters doth extend the obligation. But
The Doctor judgeth an oath extorted by fear to a mans private damage doth binde; Pag 279. sure he means a proper damage; for I cannot think he will in cool blood deny the Parents oath to the damage of the family; or progenitors in a corporation, to the damage of successors; or Governours to the damage of the people or Subjects to binde, because these are sui juris; and then he yeilds as much as I desire, to shut out, yea thrust out and pluck up his Episcopacy, and in this point we shall agree. But now he shufles to defend his strange notions of morality; Of which
The first is, Mr. Crofton carps at the Doctors owning the bonds of God, which are moral, to have in them sufficient and indispensable obligations of the soul to all duty. Pag. [...]8 [...]. By your leave Doctor this is false: Mr. Croftons wonder was at the Doctors Antithesis of the words of a Covenant, to Reason, Justice, Truth, Religion, Duty: which he never denied to tye as well as Oaths, but not as much, muchless more; as your iron adamantine bonds of Reason, moralitie, &c. opposed to the cords and withs of Oaths, did suggest in your Analysis; but now indeed you confess that Oaths do harden and soder these moral chains unto a greater toughness; which was the thing Mr. Cr. asserted in his Analepsis: I confess retraction of error is the best vindication; but you should be ingenuous, and do it without shufling, and suggesting a falshood against your Antagonist: But Mr. Cr. will grant to you, that new Covenants cannot absolve or abrogate old lawful Oaths; but what it may do to laws I must dispute, when done by Legislators, I affirm it to be the fullest repeal: But if I admit it, it will not secure your Bishops Lands, Honor, Office, or Authority, until you have proved your Episcopacy to be established by law, which may be done by an act of the next Parliament, if the long Parliament be not in being, as hath been affirmed; though it is out of Mr. Cr. way to determine; and he is well advised by the Doctor to let wise men manage affairs, as is but reason; for no doubt wisemen will hear and weigh the doubts of the meanest men, the stating [Page 64] of which, proud Prelates think to be pragmatique.
But Sir, Mr. Cr. thinks whatever Jepthas vow was, it was literally fulfilled; Pag. 281, and I hope Dr. Gauden will not assert a Popish commutation of an Oath; and the Popish Casuists conclude, Non posse promissum commutari in evidenter pejus; an oath may not be changed for the worse: And Sir, if he vowed (which I will not conclude) his daughters life, I think her virgin liberty to be less and worse. And Dr. Saunderson determineth Vinculum juramenti non posse remitti vel solvi ex parte per commutationem, sine consensu partium omnium: The exchange must be by consent of all parties concerned: But the Scripture mentioneth not Gods consent, nor Jeptha's exchange; what he vowed that he performed: For ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum.
His second suggestion was, That a Covenant cannot bind a man by the power of his own imagination, Analysis, p. 15. To this Mr. Crofton excepted in his Analepsis, pag. 19. and he replys It is true, that imagination or meer presumption, cannot binde, contrary to what in Reason, Justice, Law and Religion you owe to another. But Doctor, Pag. 282, [...] have you not again run from your own second suggestion? How long will you shufle? your suggestion was of any Covenant, your reply of Covenants to the wrong of others; and therefore you add, the measure of an erroneous conscience may bind to things of our own injury; but not otherwise; your suggestion opposed a mans own imagination to others interpretation; your reply opposeth our own to others wrong; where shall we hold you? can Jesuitism it self be more subtile and sophistical? I pray come to the question, doth an erroneous conscience binde, and doth it universally bind? I have sworn, and do imagine it is no wrong to my neighbour; though I ought to be the better informed by right reason, and rules of justice; yet whilst in my error, must I conscienciously wrong my neighbour, or captivate my conscience by Dr. G. say so? you profess Sir to be best in a particular case; I pray you resolve [Page 66] it clearly and plainly. You boast of this second suggestion, as having as much strength as I confess your next hath; when indeed you have made it the same; and instead of defending the second, you have spoken the third in a second book; profound disputing! I will admit this strength, and yet your inferred safety of your Episcopacy (which I stand by is no wrong to remove) is a plain non sequitur; grounded on your common petitio prinipii; for I must enquire what is the right of Episcopacy? may not the power that founded Prelacy extirpate it? Is it not sui juris? May not Episcopacy be abolished without wrong, as well particular Bishopricks be given to lay persons for two, three, four, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years together, and the See kept vacant? tell us was the Church so long injured? May not English authority abolish Prelacy, with as little wrong as Denmark did? I know my horse and sadle, wife and children, Pag. 183. house and lands; but yet I know not the pretended right of Episcopacy; and conceive there is some difference between personal and political right: When God stirreth up the Kings heart to con [...]ider, and raiseth up an English Parliament to take notice of, they will know their right in and over Episcopacy, and make Bishops know they are their servants, horse and saddle, to be disposed at their pleasure, without complaint of wrong. Mr. Cr. shall freely trust them to it, and God to give them thereunto hearts of wisdom, conscience and courage.
The Doctors assertion more then his judgement, leads him to an exclamation, Mr. Croftons next paragraph is a factious quaerie, not worth any sober mans Reply. It is well Sir, it is not seditious; pag. 2 [...]4 for many Deputy Lieutenants are become so far the Bishops slaves and Constables, as to resolve the peace and order of the Kingdom into owning the Bishops, and make the contrary sedition? But Sir, what is the Query? I presume it toucheth the Prelates copy-hold; you cry so of faction, whether the Statute of 17. Caroli hath not cut short their horns? And you tell us of a Councellor who resolved in the negative. Mr. Cr. knows him not, but hath [Page 67] heard of a Convention of Prelates, who on advice with Councel discerned the affirmative, and received the silence of the learned in the Law to their enquiry; you may if you please take silence for consent: I am prone to think Dr. Gauden knows this story to be true, and that the Councellor who concluded for Episcopal Jurisdiction, did determine it could not be executed without the Kings commission, barred by the Statute of 17 Caroli primi. But this was fit for the Doctor to tell.
The Doctors next fling is at Mr. Croftons fear of National perjury; before considered, pag. 185. and on good grounds will convince men it is not causeless: Mr. Cr. would be glad to see how the Nation will escape it; but he will meet Dr. Gauden on any ground, with his Majesties leave to maintain the Solemn League and Covenant, is a full and formal and National obligation. This past
He findes himself grieved that Mr. Cr. chargeth Episcopacy to have brought reformation to a palpable retrogradation; but like a subtil Sophister, he coucheth Mr. Croftons demonstrative instances of the returned Liturgy, most conform to the Romish Mass book; Inclosed-in-Altars, or railed Communion-Tables, Crosses, Surplices, Popish Oblations, and other superstitious Rites; to say nothing of prophaned Sabbaths by bishops [...]arding; suppressing pious, painful Preachers thrust out, and prophane, drunken deboist, canonical, Common-prayer-book men forced in, wheresoever a Bishops power can reach; all which are read in such legible characters that all can run and read them: It may be this is the Reformation desired by our Prelates and amongst others by Dr. G. If so I have done them wrong, they do not retrograde it, but drive it on, like Phaeton to the apparent hazard of Charls his wain. If you say this is rude Rhetorick, remember it is plain English: As for bringing horses to Church, it is as much Mr. Croftons reformation, as Bishops Pallaces and holiness of Church, Chancels, or other places, which it is known he hath equally opposed, and loveth no less then pulling down crosses and setting up weathercock Covenanters, [Page 67] as Bishops or Priests in the Church; let what will stand on the steeple, these will turn with every wind.
His next fret is, at Mr. Crofton? wiping his nose on the Bishops lawn sleeves; as mannerly Sir, as with his nailes at Exeter to tear them, for Linnen is fit for that use, especially when black becomes despicable by it; you now profess love and esteem for Presbyters; but when you taught the people to know them but as their equals and inferiours, because in black coats, Analysis, pag. 17. you exposed them to contempt.
His last work is to explain himself, concerning the good, against which, his Analysis urged, no Oath could bind, the man is become a Bishop, it is below him to learn, at least to let the world see, that a little despicable Presbyter is to him an instructor, who never affected to be a dictatour, and therefore in an angry stile he must correct his errour, and tell us When Dr. Gauden affirmed an Oath cannot bind against what is in nature good, he meant, so far onely as that good may be morally necessary for him and his: But Sir that we may yet know your meaning, I should enquire what you mean by morally necessary, when Mr. Crofton tells you, Episcopacy must not be restored against the Covenant, though good, unless found necessary you put the case of your good horse necessary for you; and truely Sir, I cannot see any more moral necessity in your horse, then your Episcopal fines of Gold and silver, and other things that may be barred by an Oath, you are the most unhappy Master of words, that I have met with, to darken your meaning by declaring what you mean. Sir I do say all good, not good by the necessity of nature, or divine precept, but at mans choice to take or refuse, in order to the bene esse of him or his, may be concluded by an Oath, and charity commands me to think, this is that you would say you meant (though you shot far wide) in your Analysis, if your many words, and whirling tongue would let your mind regularly dictate its expressions.
We have seen the strength of Dr. Gaudens Argumentation, which truely I cannot commend; though I think an errour [Page 68] weakly vented, is very sinfully defended; whilst the exceptions against him, do by his own expression appear cogent, he should meekly yield to the conviction, and bear the shame, which strugling to avoid, he hath added folly, vanity, sophistry, and false quotations and suggestions; the effects of a stubborn mind, unwilling to give God Glory, and fallen under the curse of calling good evil, and evil good; and more immediately subjected himself to Gods wrath, by hardning his neck against reproof, and labouring not onely to vindicate and defend his own apostacy, but by his wordy influence to incourage the prophane; and as far as in him lyeth, plunge both King and Kingdome, under the guilt of perjury, or breach of Covenant, the quarrel of which, the God of jealousie hath avenged, as to the civil part, and will undoubtedly avenge as to the religious part, against the violent rejections, or fraudulent evasions of the sons of men.