Croftons Appearance Before the Prelate-Justice of Peace, Text

Croftons Appearance Before the Prelate-Justice of Peace · Text

p. 1BERITH 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, p. 2drive 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, onelyonly 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 p. 3confutation, 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.

Parturiunt montes, naſcetur tandem ridiculus mus.

As Mountains great, travels a man of worth,

At length a Mouſe (ſwoln like a Toad,) creeps forth.

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 onelyonly 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 p. 4Baal 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,) p. 5Indicted 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 onelyonly 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, p. 6which 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 7Or 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, p. 8and 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 p. 9pinch 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 p. 10little 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 p. 11which 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 onelyonly 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 foreign you are in your Aenigmatical extrication of your own made intricacies, and rhetorical labyrinths: Before I preſume to determine your meaning, I muſt enquire p. 12what 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 p. 13that 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 onelyonly 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 p. 14cavil 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; p. 15but 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 16Sir, 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; onelyonly 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 p. 17not 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 p. 18you, 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 p. 19Cathedral 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 foreign, 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 p. 20Eccleſiae 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.

p. 216. 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 onelyonly 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, p. 22power 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 onelyonly 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 p. 23in 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.

p. 249. 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 onelyonly 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, p. 25Salmaſius 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 p. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 27courſe 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 p. 28Prelacie 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 p. 29mediate 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 p. 30away 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 p. 31them 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 p. 32them, 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 p. 33Mr. 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 p. 34the 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, p. 35running 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 onelyonly 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 p. 46kept; 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 p. 37ſadly, 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 p. 38whether 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 p. 39authority. 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 p. 40in 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, p. 41but 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 p. 42right, 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.

p. 43Wherein 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. p. 44Which 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, p. 45what 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.

p. 46[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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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 onelyonly expiated by hanging up ſeaven of the chief Violators of the Vow; will your Worſhip p. 47pleaſe 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 onelyonly 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 p. 48the 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 p. 49fancy 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 p. 50proceeds 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 p. 51againſt 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. 180but 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 p. 52then 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 p. 53or 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 p. 52want (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, p. 53to 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 p. 56and 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 onelyonly 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 p. 57Epiſcopacy, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 ONELYONLY 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 p. 58beginning 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 p. 59between 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 p. 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 onelyonly 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, p. 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 onelyonly 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? onelyonly 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 p. 62forth 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 p. 63he can, onelyonly 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 p. 64againſt 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 p. 63of 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 p. 63on 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 p. 64of 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 p. 66it 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…4for 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 p. 67heard 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, p. 67as 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 onelyonly 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 p. 68weakly 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 onelyonly 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.

FINIS.