The Levites Scourge, Section 18
SECT. XVIII. The sum of D. F. his apologie, reduced into two unanswerable Dilemma's.
BEfore I put forth the horns of the Dilemma's, I will lay down certain Lemma's, or assertions of undeniable veritie.
First, after D. F. had delivered his mind concerning the Scottish Covenant, (which he thought he might doe safely in a free Assemblie) and many days before he wrote any Letter to the Primate of Armagh, it was spoken openly at Westminster, that the Doctor should be voted out of the Assemblie, as L.M. and M. H. disclosed to D. F.
Secondly, that D. F. sent not to A. Warner to conveigh a Letter of his to the Primate of Armagh, but A. Warner was sent to the Doctor, who, by probable and plausible suggestions, drew this Letter unsealed from the Doctor, which he no sooner received, but he shewed the close Committee.
Thirdly, that when the Doctor wrote this Letter to Armagh, the Bishop was an elect Member of the Assemblie by the house of Commons, and both he and Doctor Pr…d…aux ▪ and Doctor Ward, and Doctor Brounerigg, and Doctor Oldisworth and Doctor Harris, and others well affected to the Discipline and Liturgie of the Church of England, were daily expected at the Synod, and some of them excused their necessarie absence▪ for a time from the Assemblie, by Letters to the Prolocu…or, whereof one was presented by Doctor Featley himself, and Doctor Gouge.
Fourthly, that when the Doctor wrote his Letter to the Primate of Armagh, there was no declaration or ordinance of either of the houses of Parliament, forbidding correspondencie by Letters to Oxford, without leave of the houses, or warrant from the Lord Generall; for the Doctors Letter was written about the middle of September, 1643. and the ordinance prohibiting any under pain of Sequestration, to hold intelligence with Oxford, bears date Octob. 22. 1643. a full monethmonth after; so that the writing of the fore-named Letter, at that time, was not so much as malum quia prohibitum; neither could the Doctor be censured for it as a crime, because, as the Apostle teacheth us, where there is no law, there is no transgression.
5. Fifthly, that there was never any thing objected against the Doctor since the …tting of the Parliament, or the Assemblie, save the seven Articles prefer'd against him by the Brownists, of which he was cleared, acquitted, and discharged in a full house after a long debate, Iuly 13. and his Letter to the Primate of Ireland, which was written before the ordinance of Parliament made it criminall to write any letters to Oxford without speciall leave.
Now Civicus, call to thee Britanicus, and Scoticus, and Coelicus; together with Patriark W. and Independent N. and set all your wits upon the renters, to render some colourable answer to these two insoluble dilemma's.
First, either the vote of the house of Commons is an undoubted oracle of truth and justice, and a concludent and definitive sentence in poynt of law, or not. If it be so, then is D. F. cleare from all aspersions cast upon him. For in a full house, Iuly 12. he was acquitted of all the articles objected against him, as appeareth in the record under the hand of H. Elsing, exemplified in the vindication of D. F. p. 21. If it be not so, but as some heretofore have conceived, only as the inquest of the Grand Jurie, and a preparatorie to the full information of the cause upon oath, and finally sentencing it in the house of Peers; then the vote passed agains… the Doctor in the house of Commons alone, without any farther proceeding in the house of Lords, is of no force or validitie in law, and consequently D. F. is still Rector both of Lambeth and Acton, and M. W. and M. N. are no better then intruders and usurpers of another mans …ight and possession. If the Allegations brought by the Brownists against the Doctor were true, how came he to be acquitted Iuly 12? if they were false, how came he to condemned by the vote of the same house Sept. 29? And why were those articles from which he was cleared, commanded to be read in Lambeth Church, and made the ground of the sentence of sequestration against him, as if he had been guiltie of them?
Secondly, either-the unsealed letter, written to the Primate of Ireland, contained in it some disclosing of secrets of state▪ or imputations upon the Parliament, or some other criminall matter liable to just censure, or not.
If the former, 1. Why was the originall Letter sent by order of the close Committee to Oxford ▪ If it gave any intelligence, they who sent it were the intelligencers, not the Doctor: his letter intercepted at London could tell no …ales at Oxford.
2. Why was not the originall under the Doctors owne hand shewed him to convince him? Or at least an authenticall copi…, attested by the hand of a notarie or some sworn witnesse, proving the accord thereof with the originall?
3. Why were not the pretended offensive particulars put to the Doctor, when he was convented before the Committee, and his punctuall answer required thereunto?
4. Why was not the messenger or some other witnesse produced, to prove that the pretended offensive particulars were in the letter signed with the Doctors own hand?
5. Why all this while is the letter suppressed, and not published to this day to cleare the justice of the proceedings against the Doctor? If it were a legall evidence against him, as it is urged in the sentence; why could the Doctor by no means gain a copie of it▪ that he might interpret his own meaning, and that his answer as well as the objections against him might be upon record?
Lastly, why was no cause expressed in the Warrant, for committing him to Prison?
If the latter, i. e. if the letter be so far from containing in it any matter subject to exception that it rather deserved approbation, as expressing much loyaltie to his Majestie, zeal of the true orthodox religion, and a reverend regard and respect to the Assemblie of Divines, with a desire to continue still among them with his Majesties leave.
In the Vote Sept. 29. against the Dr. (all the other articles are waved) see the record supr.1. Why then is this letter made the only ground of all the proceedings against the Doctor?
2. Why for writing this letter unsealed, not to a stranger, but to a member of the Assemblie, was he voted out of both his Benefices, all his estate both personall and reall sequestred, his …ooks (in which lay his chiefest treasure) taken from him, his familie turned out of house and home, his servants and friends examined upon oath, concerning any plate, money, rents, or arrerages, bills or bonds belonging to him, and all that could be found seized upon?
3. Why is he suspended from the exercise of his Ecclesiasticall function?
4. Why hath he been so long detained in prison, and there put to a great charge without any allowance at all out of his sequestred estate worth above 400 pound per annum?
5. Why is such a severe hand kept over him, that in the space of eight moneths and more, he can by no means obtain a most humble and conscionable petition to be rendered in his behalf to the house?
Thou, whosoever readest these things, and hast with Philip of Macedon, reserved one eare for the defendant, consider of all things impartially: & si quam opinionem animo conceperis▪ si eam ratio conv…llit, si ratio labefactabit, si verita… extorquebit, ne repugnes; Cic. pro Cl…as.…amque animo aut libenti aut aequo remittas. Est eni… haec norma & forma judiciorum aequorum, ut culpa sine invidiâ plectatur, & invidia sine culpâ ponatur: whatsoever prejudicate opinion thou mayst have taken of the Doctor, if reason convince it, if reason overthrow it, if truth it self pluck it from thee, give over thy hold: for this is the rule and pattern of all righteous judgements, that guilt be censured without envie or spleen, and envie and spleen without guilt be abandoned.